ML20206J698

Forwards Corrected Pages 3 & 10 to NRC Response to Intervenors Motion to Reopen Record & Admit late-filed Decommissioning Contentions,Filed on 881116.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20206J698
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/17/1988
From:	Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#488-7527 OL, NUDOCS 8811290079
Download: ML20206J698 (3)

Text

'

[ 75sk%o,,

+4 UNITED STATES

["

~  ;

'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 .E W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555

...../ November 17, 1988 C:'.v.E 7 E 0 usmc

~d8 N3V 18 P2 :47 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Office of the Secretary pr,n y . , g.

U.S. Nuclear Pegula*.ory Conmission 00ckn N . M,.6, Vashington, DC 20555 SPA M In the Matter of PllBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(SeabrookStation, Units 1and2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning - F U

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The "NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Motions to Reopen Record and Admit Late-Filed Decomissioning Contentions" filed yesterday contains a typographical error in the first line on page 3 and omits the text of footnote 5 on page 10. Attached are corrected copies of these pages for insertion in the Staff's filing. The Staff regrets any inconvenience caused by these mistakes. ,

fnterely, g Gregory ry Counsell rN Staff

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: Service List s

8811290079 001117 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000443 PDR p gob

[

3 10C.F.R.Il50.33(k)(2),50.75(b)and50.75(f). Thus, proper contentions i

have not been submitted and the motions to reopan the record should be denied.,

I BACKGROUND 1

In Public Servic'e Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 i 1

and 2), CLI-8tJ7, 28 NRC (September 22,1988), the Comission ruled that authorization to operate the Seabrook Station at low power should be withheld until such time as App-! cants "provide reasonable assurance that adeouato funds will be available so that safe decomissioning will be reasonably assured in the event that low power operation has occurred and a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1." CLI-88-07, slip op, at 2. The Comission afforded Applicants 30 days to submit "adequate documentation of their plan and appropriate comitments under that plan to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funding for decomissioning will be available in the event a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1." !_d, at 3.

On October 20, 1988, Applicants filed with the Comission and the parties a submission entitled "The Plan In Response To NRC Order CLI-88-07." See letter from Edward A. Brown to NRC Comissioners and Enclosures (October 20, 1988). According to Applicants, the plan l submitted "describ[es] the steps necessary to return Seabrook Unit 1 to unrestricted use" after the facility has operated at low power, "estimate [s] the costs of implementing that Plan," and "provid[es]

reasonable assurance that adequate funding to cover those costs will be available in the event that authorization to proceed beyond 5% power is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1." M.at1. Applicants estinate that it

I .

that adequate funds will be available so that safe decomissioning will be reasonably assured in the event that low power operation has occurred and a full powcr license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1." Jd.

The Comission observed that "Applicants have not yet provided such assurance." Jd. For this reason, the Comission stated that "the first step in resolution of this question of assurance of adequate funding for decomissioning is to request applicants to provide the basis on which a finding of the necessary reasonable assurance, as stated above, might be made." J_d . The plan submitted by Applicants is intended to provide the basis upon which the Comission can conclude that there is reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decomission the facility in the event a full power license is not granted.

Moreover, it is apparent from several of the contentions filed by intervenors that they fail to appreciate fully the importance of this point. For example, each of the intervenors dwells at substantial length on perceived flaws in Applicants' plan. These alleged flaws range from a failure to assess the national and international situation regarding radioactive waste disposal capacity to a failure to document the basis for assuming that the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 can be met to a failure to use supportable assumptions regarding the issuance of the necessary approval by the cognizant agencies of the Government. The comon thraad running through these claims is that l

Applicants' plan is deficient when evaluated in light of the requirements set forth in the Comission's decomissioning regulations. E/ Further, 5/

~

See generally "General Requirements For Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities," 53 Fed. Reg. 24018 (June 27, 1988).

- ____________________ _ _ ______ __________________________