ML20215L487

Urges NRC Not to Approve Comm Ed Request for Amend of Any OL Re Braidwood 1 & 2 & Not to Determine No Significant Hazard Exists W/O First Holding Adjudicatory Hearings on Serious Financial Qualifications Issues

ML20215L487
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	06/23/1987
From:	Cassel D BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20215L489	List: ML20215L487 ML20215L505
References
NUDOCS 8706260069
Download: ML20215L487 (2)

Text

!

BPI sg Business and Professional People for the Public Interest yy 1

(

109 North

Dearborn Street,

Suite 1300 Chicago, Illincis 60602 Telephone: (312) 6415570 j

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 23, 1987 Thomas D. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 j

Re:

Braidwood Units 1 and 2, Application for Amendment j

to Facility Operating License NPF-70 and Appendix A, Technical Specifications, NRC Docket i

Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 1

Dear Mr. Murley:

For the reasons stated in my letters to you of April 29 and June 23, 1987, in docket 50-455 concerning Byron 2, BPI and Bridget Little'Rorem, et al.,

intervenors in this docket, urge the NRC not to approve Edison's request for an amendment of any l

operating license pertaining to Braidwood 1 or 2, and not to determine that no significant hazard exists, without first holding adjudicatory hearings on the serious financial qualifications issues raised by Edison's proposed restructuring of the ownership and other financial arrangements relating to Byron 2 and Braidwood 1 and 2.

1 BPI will be prepared to present the same witnesses in this docket as listed in my June 23 letter in the Byron 2 docket.

To avoid needless duplication, perhaps the hearings on FQ issues should be consolidated.

It appears that Edison's application for Braidwood is i

virtually identical to its application for Byron 2.

Thus the issues in the two cases will, in general, be identical.

There are at least two respects, however, in which the FQ questions relating to Braidwood are even more serious than those relating to Byron 2.

Both points arise under option B of the Edison proposal, one of the two long-term options for what

(

h

(

" a'd* a

n*;;"3' R:"8 "J'""

";L"y.",',.

I"ll"*:,',, gi,; "

"'82ll'

1. • f.i* 727.,

f;""J o.*a.

O*f"#,l";'",,

".0",^w" a",;'s"1.o **/'OSE'ro<

Ei?'S '" "2A*"""

%,.'L*Jl*/ s"fC " 10, "f.'0 ufJNil.!""

R"rCL'lo*' "

$"."J."2C*i.,

E"Ot"c5L ira'","jJani i%"o";

&#f'!!o'o.,

E"'JA*U,,oo "U?f"o, E*"',l"sla'!."La Joaa a "'a~"

8'O'.!J&7"u, "n"?O,"oa""

"O' L**a'!,

".T."; " **'"""'"

E A'"%5" t

r

" IO^,,'."'"

.'ite ".,*f,"*'"'"

oo" *a'**

".aggot',r'

...,,o u'gaa&*/lugo'* g;'st:pa' i

,..,v20 co oo.~

.,1,o c. n.o.

ti.e. e. uoic n, e y.y,e7j,.

l

(

8706260069 870623 i

j ADOCK 050 g 5 DR

l happens after the first 5 years of the Edison proposal.

Under

]

option B, Edison would enter into a long-term power purchase

{

contract for Byron 2.

In contrast, however, during 1992 through 2000 (or 1995 through~2000 if option C is selected), power from

)

Braidwood 2 may be purchased by Edison only if it is (a) needed i

and (b) least cost.

Since the ICC Staff has already projected that Braidwood 2 power will not be needed by, Edison prior to i

d 2000, Braidwood 2's financial situation under option B during 1992-2000 is essentially the same -

i.e.,

lacking any regulatory assurance of cost recovery, and dependent upon market prices - as under option A.

Second, under option B, Braidwood unit 1, unlike Byron 2, i

potentially may not be purchased at all, or, if so, only in 100

)

Megawatt chunks, the amount of which may be reduced in 1997.

The unpurchased amount of Braidwood 1 - potentially the entire unit -

would then be in the same precarious position as Braidwood 2

)

under either option A or B, i.e.,

lacking any regulatory assurance of cost recovery.

In the case of Braidwood 1, that lack of regulatory assurance would remain throughout the unit's life.

In the case of Braidwood 2, the unit could be purchased by Edison (and thus brought back under a regulatory cost-recovery umbrella) in the year 2000, but only if the ICC were then willing to pemit Edison to pay the higher of cost or market price for the unit.

1 In short, the FQ issues for Braidwood are even more serious than those for Byron 2.

i Sincerely, Douglass W.

Cassel, Jr.

One of the Attorneys for BPI and Intervenors Rorem, et al.

cc:

Jan Stevens U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD. 20814 2