ML20212E784

Ack Receipt of Notice from Fr for 970722,from Vol 62,pages 39285-39286.Notice Indicates That Staff Has Completed EA & Made Finding of No Significant Impact Re Inability of Great Bay Power Corp to Obtain Surety Bond

ML20212E784
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/28/1997
From:	Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20212E774	List: ML20212E767 ML20212E776 ML20212E784 ML20212E789
References
NUDOCS 9711040060
Download: ML20212E784 (6)

Text

B ACKUs, MEYER, SOLOMON, Rooo & 3 RANCH AT 10RNE Y S AT L AW 116 LowtLL STRtti a t sc3 aouin t o JON *EvtR' p g g o,,,,

'to massacwusti ts man CTEVEN A SOLOMON M ANCHEST ER, NH 03:o5 0516

++to ma.ur ein JENNIF ER ROOD.,

or couwst L (non ces fir poggg, a gac,yg D ARIN HOOD-T UCME R July 28, 1997 Honorable Shirley Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dear Chairman Jackson I have today been furnished with a notice from the Federal Register for July 22, 1997, from Volume 62, pages 39285-39286.

l The notice indicates that the staff has completed its environmental assessment and made a finding of no significant impact in regard to the inability of a Seabrook owner, Great Bay Power Corporation, to obtain a surety bond for financing its share of the decommissioning costs associated with the Seabrook Nucicar Power Plant.

As you may know, Great Bay Power is a twelve percent (12%) owner of the Seabrook facility, and is the successor to EUA Power Inc.,

one of the four Seabrook owners which has gone through bankruptcy reorganization.

Great Bay Power, unlike the other Seabrook joint owners, has no franchise service area, and hence no captive customer base.

Because of this circumstance, the staff had concluded, in the course of reviewing a corporate reorganization, that Great Bay Power did not appear to be an electric utility as defined by 10 CFR 50.2.

Having found that Great Bay Power did not qualify as an electric utility, the question then arose of whether there was sufficient financial assurance that Great Bay could moet its decommissioning obligations under NRC regulations.

As you know, the NRC has since 1984 presumed that regulated utilities, because they obtain revenues on the basis of cost based rate regulation, have assured financial capability which unregulated companies lack.

Although it made the finding that Great Bay Power was not an electric utility, since it did not have regulated rates, nor a monopoly service area, the NRC staff allowed Great Bay a six month exemption to obtain an a surety bond, or other financial guarantce, so that it could fulfill its decommissioning obligations under 10 CFR 50.75 (e) (2).

9711040060 971020 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR I

The six month exemption period has now expired and it is obvious Great Bay Power has been unable to obtain a bond, or provide any other assurance of financial capability.

In this circumstance, one would have expected that the NRC staff, as a safety regulator whose paramount concern is protecting the public health and safety, would have undertaken the necessary steps to assure compliance with the regulations.

(One solution would be to require joint and several liability on the part of the Seabrook owners for decommissioning costs).

Instead, the staff has abandoned its required role, and, once again, provided financial succor to an owner of a licensed facility.

The staff's abdication of its responsibility is blatant.

In its "no significant impact finding" it states: "the proposed action (a proposed five year exemption from the decommissioning funding requirements) is needed in light of Great Bay's difficulty in obtaining assurety method to comply with 10 CFR 50.75."

This is not only an abject abandonment of the staff's proper role, it is also insulting.

For years, during the Seabrook litigation, my clients were sole.nnly assured by the Commission that it would discharge its obligations to protect the public health and safety without any regard for the financial consnquances to its applicants or licensees.

Various Commissioners repeated this solemn vow before Congressional committees, and in adjudicatory decisions.

See Power Reactor Develooment Co. v.

International Union of Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 81 S.Ct. 1529, 6 L.Ed.2d. 924 (1961).

Now, when one of the Seabrook owners has trouble meeting a financial requirement, financial difficulty is cited as the basis for waiving compliance with the regulations.

This is intolerable.

Adding insult to injury, the staff then goes on to suggest that the five year waiver from the requirement for decommissioning funding assurance presents no environmental risks, stating:

"The environmental impacts of the proposed action (a five year exemption) and the alternative action (requiring compliance with the regulation) are identical."

This is errant nonsense.

Demanding compliance with the regulation would require Great Bay Power to demonstrate its financial capability to provide decommissioning funding, during the five year exemption period.

Should the Seabrook plant be shut down due to NRC action, an accident, or economic pressure resulting from restructuring of the electric utility industry, there will be inadequate funding in place for thorough and safe decommissioning.

This in no way can be claimed to be equivalent to having some assurance of funding on hand.

Compliance with the regulation would provide at least some of this assurance.

S Finally, the staff insults the intelligence of the public by suggesting that the exemption does not increase " routine radiological plant effluent and it would not increase occupationcl radiological exposure."

This truism is, of course, entirely beside the point.

The purpose of the financial assurance requirement has nothing to do with routine radiological releases, or worker exposure.

It has overything to do with protecting the public from inadequate decommissioning by a financially strapped nuclear plant owner.

(of course, Great Bay Power is not the only financially strapped owner of Seabrook.

The Commission will be aware of the financial woes of Northeast Utilities, the plant's largest owner through its NAC subsidiary).

The staff's reported finding of no significant impact is an insult, irrational, and demonstrates, alas, once again that the staff considers the NRC's main mission is protecting the interests of its reactors owners, and not protecting the puulic health and safety.

I hope you will personally review this matter and promptly I

reverse the staff's position.

Very truly yours, i

ort A.

Backus RAD /jc cci Governor Jeanne Shaheen Congressman Ed Markey Congressman Joe Kennedy George Iverson SAPL Other Commissioners Douglas Patch, Chairman, NHPUC enc:

Federal Register Notice

~ wwe 94swne,etesmoval NepJIrwebgues t lsocess spo.go%. 1982286384+0+MW4Se MM.[

treoern Registcri July 22,1997 (Yoluice 62, Number 140)]

(Notices)

!Page 39285'392e61 rreen the rederal negisteA ou11ce via Gro Access (wais access.gpo. gov]

j (DOCIDefr223yS7 851 4

f WDCLEAR REGULATORY CC40(153 ION (Docket No. 50-443]

s North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, et'a1. (Seabrook Station, Unit No.1); Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U48. Wes& ear negulatory ceamission (the Consaission) is i

Considering modification of an easeption for Facility Operating License j

t'o NPF.86 inaned to North Atlantie Energy Service corporation (the licensee or North Atlantic) for operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit No.1 (seabrook). located in Rockingham County, New Harpshire. North Atlantic is authorized to act as agent for the eleiren ownan nf the facility.

Environmental Assessinent Identification of the Proposed Action This Environsmental. Assoassment addresses t.he potential environmental l

lasues related to the proposed extension of the temporary exemption issued on January 22, 1997, from certain requirements of 10 CYR 50.75 (n) (2). Specifically, the proposed extension would allow crest say Power Corporation (Great Bay) until July 22, 2002, subject to certain conditions to obtain a surety bond or other allowable decossaissioning funding assurance mechanism for non-electric utilities. Great Bay holds en undivided 12.1324 percent ownership interest in seabrook.

The Need for the, Proposed Action On May. 8,1996, North Atiantic submitted to the NRC a request on behalf of Great Bay for'Cossaission consent to the indirect transfer of, 7

control of Great Bay's interest in the seabrook opetet. lug Lluense i

through formation of a holding company. Additional information relating to this request was submitted on October it,1996, and' December 9, 1996. 'rha request wais approved on Januasy 22 1997, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, and Great Bay subsequently became a wholly owned subsidiary of BayCorp Moldings, Ltd.

. During the review of the corporate restructuring,.the staff noted that Great Bay markets most of its share of electricity from 5eabrook on the spot wholesale market and concluded that Great Bay does not meet the NRC's definition of electric utility under 10 CTR $0.2.

Notwithstanding the requirements et 10 ctX 50.75(e) (2), Great say aces

-not have a funding or-a guarantee mechanism in place to cover the unfunded balance of its projected share of Seabrook decossaissioning

costa, on January 22, 11,97, the staff' approved Great Bay's proposed indirect transfer of control of Great Bay's interest in Seabrook, and in a related action, the staf f issued a temporary exemption f rom complisace with the provisions 10 CFR $0.75(e)(2) pertaining to the 1,

additional surety arrangements for deconesissioning funding assurance for non-electric utility licensees for 6 months. The exemp"lon was intended to. afford Great Bay a reasonable' opportunity to implement a e

, sw-e

~

e,~-

w

<w

-,r.-

~ - - -

e-n w

m e

r--ve-w e-,.

-~ <

Asemed Mpmushguest.smeseaepe.seweg _testass3t6+0+0tW4ee er,pretteve 1,,

c'uitablo docesamissigning funding as:urance method requised of a con-clectric utility.

. On February 21, 1997, Great say requested reconsideration of the

- starr's finding that orest say does not meet the NRC definition of

electrie utility, and on June 4 and 16, 1997, Great say submitted supplesmental-infomation related to Great Ray Cinancisi matters to cupport their sequest. Also included in the June 4, 199h suanittal, j

was a request that the Nnc consider an extension to the temporary enesytien as an alternative to oogleting reconsideration, at this time, tho' issue of whether. Great May is an electaio utili4y under &

M, M,. Y,

NRC definition.

The proposed action is,needed in-light of Great Bay's difficulty _in obtaining a-sur~ety~mesnes to osaply M/'/ftw -

~ ~ ~ -

N.

p/th

(!Page 39296))

i 7- -

tith _10 JrgLs4Js

'?---r--w al 'tne carouestances surrounding the ONP/N;/

issue ~of ersat Bay's. electric _ utility status, its current and projected financial senditime, the underlying purpose of the requirement for L

additional' dessuuntastening funding assuranee arrangeseats ion. wa-

-il-ciectric utilities, and'the availability of such arrangements, the I\\

staff is.considering conditionally eat'ending the temporary exemption issued on January 22.~1997.cfor en additional period af 5 y n es, until i,

July 22( 2002.

(Environmental lupacts of the Proposed Action The Ceaunission has: evaluated the. environmental impact of the

, proposed action amid has determined that' the probability or consequences -

(

L'1

()p4 cci aseidents:would met be inssessed by the watwasion of the temporary.

onesytion, and that post-accident radiological releases would not be g

greater than previously determined. Fuc h t, the Commaission has w

a 4

f

' %,U '

' wminst that the estematen would net' af teet.coutine. radielegical

~

. plant effluents and would not increase 9ccupational radiological cuposura.- Accordingly, the comunission concludes that there are no,

d

',V; * (

4 l

significant radiological. environmental 1.gacts associated with the propcsed action.

i. (,p t, a

with regard'to' potential nonradiological impacts,.the estension of

.p I

the temporary esemption would not affect nongediological plant yk p(

' \\,)%( -

Cffluents and would have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comunission eencludes ~ that there are ne signifinant nonr'adiological

.cavironmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

.,i.

Alterna,tive to the Proposed Action ~

since the Comunission eeneluded that the're are no significant icavironmental-effects that would result from the proposed action, any

.. citernative wit'h equal or greater environmental, ing, acts 'need not be

{

cvaluated.

The principal alternative would be to not extend the expiration h

date of the. temporary esemption and,- thereby, require that Great Bay.

h, provide the required additional assurance for decessaissioning funding.

i)O mot,extenaing the enseption would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The envirorumental impac)e of the proposed action

[' -

Lanst the alternative action are identical.

- p/5 1.

)

u4

j

,,. 0

~

~ Alternative Use of Resources gi This-action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental-statament for the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, dated March 1983.

LAgencies.and Persons contacted e

a

6CAAnrIertWe w

~htip.fttnneugsieFeoWgpspwrcgleaza62e+MWhsm m.m a

In accordance with its stated policy, on July 14, 1997, the NRC staff consulted with the New Hampebite state official, Mr. George Iverson of the New Hampshire Emergency Management Agency regarding the environmental inpact of the proposed action. On July 14, 1997, the NRCi staff consulted with the Massachusetts state official, Mr. James Muukushuld of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. The state cf ficials had no conuments.

Mntting of Wn Mignificant Ispect Based upon the environmental assessment, the Cowenission concludes that the propo..ed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the consnission has determined not to prepare an environmental inpact statement for the proposed action.

ror further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 12tters submitted by Great Bay through it.s counsel, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, dated February 21, 1997, June 4, 1997, and June 16, 1997, which are availabin for pablic inspection at t.he cossaission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L street, WW.,

C:shington, DC, end at the local public document room located at Exeter Public Library, rounders Park Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of July 1997.

For the wucimar Regulatory Commissi'on.

Albert W. De Agatio, Senior Project Manager, troject Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor tr:jects--I/II orrice of nuclear neactor Regulation.

[rn Doc. 97-19199 Filed.1-21-97s 6:45 aml BILLING CODE 7590-01-P 9

9

+

t t

4