ML20235F245
| ML20235F245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1987 |
| From: | Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4445 OL-1, NUDOCS 8709290007 | |
| Download: ML20235F245 (100) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.. N etCKETED USNPC 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI$f SEP 25 P1 :51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD s
grq w p vr.rft;n secdf.iv -ifWi
.. S i P v :f.!
EKA In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 h
)
50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
On-Site Emergency NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
Planning & Technical
)
Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
1 i
INTERVENERS ' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF-MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.33 (f) AND 50.57 (a) ( 4)
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION E OPERATE AND E DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION l
Paul McEachern Ma tth ew T. Brock SHAINES & McEACHERN Professional Association 25 Maplewood Avenue P. O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 (603) 4.56-3110 September 24, 1987 8709290007 870924 PDR ADOCK 0500 3
o o
}S0)
4 l
TABLE OF CONTENTS T AB L E O F AU TH O R IT I E S.............................................. 11 -
.I P R O C E DU R AL SU MMAR Y................................................. 1 L EG AL S T AN D AR D..................................................... 2 PU RPOS E OF FIN ANCI AL QUALIFICATION REGULATIONS..................... 3 W OL F E BO AR D DE C IS 1 U N............................................... 7 P R O C E DU R AL IS S U ES.................................................. 8 1
t
1 i
1 11 4
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES j
Administrative Deqisions Carolina Power 1 Licht Company (Shearon Harris Plant),
LB P-8 5-5, 21 NRC 410, 443 Note 16 ( 19 8 5 )............................ 3 Long Island Lichtina Eg fShoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1423, 1327 ( 19 8 4 )........................ 9 1
Metropol-itan Edison comoany 1Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit LL, CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 3 27, 3 3 2 (19 8 3)................ 11 Pacifiq Hag i Electric Eg 4Diablo Canyon Pl-ant, Uni t s 1 and 11, AL AB-6 53, 16 N R C 5 5, 7 2 (19 81)...................... 3 Portland Genera-1 Electric Comcany (Pebble Sprinas Neelear Plant, Units 1 And 21, CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 ( 197 6 )................. 11 1
Public Service Company gf Egg Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 21, ALAB-860, 25 NRC 63, 65 (1987).............
3 Public Service Company gf Egg Hampshire 1seabrook station. Units 1 And 21, CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 1303, 1321 (1977)............................................
11 Public Service Company gf Egg Hamoshire fSeabrook Station. Units 1 and 11, ALAB Memorandum August 4, 1987............
12 Publ-ic Service Company 21 Egg HgEpshire (Seabrook Sta tion. Uni ts 1 And LL, AL AB-3 49, 4 NRC 23 5 (197 6)................ 12 Statute,s 10 CFR 2.758...........
............................................ 3 10CPR2.738(b).....................................................3
)
i NH RSA 162-F: 19.....................................................
6 NH R S A 3 7 8 : 3 0 - a..................................................... 6 I
1 1
iii h ellaneous
- 49. Fed. Reg. 3 57.50 (9/12/84).........................................,4 49 Fed. Reg..-3 5 / 51 ( 9/12/ 8 4 )........................ e................ 5 Black's. Law ' Dictionary, 5th E.
( 197 9 )............................... 5' l
I
, e
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
\\
I I
)
In the Matter of
)
September 24, 1987
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
50-444-OL-1
)
On-Site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
& Technical Issues
)
)
INTERV ENORS ' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.3 3 (f) AND 50.57 (a) (4)
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION IQ OPERATE AND IQ DECOMMISSION SEABROOK Sl'ATION PROCEDURAL
SUMMARY
Under date of July 22, 1987, Applicants' lead owner, Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH"),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a FORM 8-K indicating PSNH is on the brink of bankruptcy.
Exhibit A, attached.
On July 31, 1987, and based upon the FORM 8-K filing, the Town of Hampton, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereinafter "In te rve no r s"), pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758, filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Wolf e Boa r d")
INTERV ENORS ' PETITION TO W AIV E REGULATIONS 50.3 3 (f) AND j
ss aisc s a uc c4esens. <,.. o.. ooc,..
.r.o...,
1
....~,.......o.m.m.,-,~.m.o.
I-
' tr 50.57(4) TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE - APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION.
Exhibit B, attached.
The Applicants and NRC Staff opposed Interveners' petition.1 On August 20, 19 87,- the Wolf e Board denied Interveners' petition.
Exhibit D, attached.
.On August 27, 1987, Intevenors appealed the Wolfe Board decision l
1 to this Board.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.7 5 8, Interveners request this Bo.ard to reverse the decision of the Wolfe Board and to certify Interveners' petition directly to the Commission.
LECAL STANDARD Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758(b), a party may petition the Licensing Board that application of a commission rule be waived, or an exception 1
made, where:
l 1
Although formally opposed, the NRC Staff, by letter dated August 17, 1987, requested PSNH to disclose certain financial information.
Exhibit C, attached.
The Staff apparently made this request based upon the concerns expressed in Interveners' petition. "Nonetheless, the Staf f is transmitting a letter to the Applicants requesting infor-1 mation as to the projected costs of low power operation and subsequent permanent shutdown and maintenance of the f acility, as well as the sources and likelihood of availability of funds to cover such costs in the event that PSNH is unable to pay its share of the costs."
- Egg,
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO INTE RV ENORS ' PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.3 3 ( f) AND 50.47(4) TO TH E EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICAN5;S TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCI AL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOM M1SSION l
SEABROOK STATION, p.11, n.12.
l' i
2
,H AINES & McE ACHERN==crasso a6 assenaanoas arvosa rvs 1
is ata*LEwCOO avsesva.
- O SOa 3 0 *0msacjvu een oseot
________.____._.__m____
'l 4
g
... special circumstances with respect to the subject. matter of the particular proceeding are such that. application of
{
the rule or regulation.(or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes p
for which the rule or regulation was adopted.
1 l
1 Pu rsuant. to ' 2.7 5 8, the Licensing Board is given limited authority-1 1
only to determine whethe r petitione r has made a prima fAsig showing of-special circumstances for waiver.2 Upon a prima facie showing, the Licensing Board must certify the.
issue of. waiver for decision to the Commission.
PURPOSE QE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION REGULATIONS l
To obtain a waiver or exception under 2.758, Interveners must demonstrate that, in this case, application of the regulation generically exempting regulated utilities from financial qualification 1
review would not serve the purposes for which that rule was adopted.
1 The purpose of the financial qualification rule is clear.
2 Commission rules do not define " prima f acie showing."
While not
]
uniform, case law has construed that standard to require evidence 4
which "must be legally suf ficient to establish a f act or case unless i
disproved."
Pacific Ega 1 Electric h (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 And 21,.ALAB-6 53, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981).
See also, Enh11s Egry.ing
)
_Camoany Of EAM Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 And 21, ALAB-860, i
25 NRC 63, 65 (1987); id, " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicants' Petition with Respect to Emergency Planning Zone in Excess of One Mile)" dated April 12, 1987, slip op. at 3-4; Cf _CAI211DA E2HAI 1 Licht CamRAng (Shearon Harris Plant), LBP-85-5, 21. NRC 41Q 4 43 Note 16 (1985)
(requi r ing a " substantial" showing to establish a prima f acie case.)
3 J
l SMAINES & Mc EACHERN - moonsseas associanoa ano==avs
"""~'~ '*"""~~"~~~""'
l
I The Commission believes that the record of this rulemaking demonstrates l
generically that the Iate DInsass j
assures that funds nandad fDI safA I
DDRIatiDn Mill DE Eadg avai1ablg to reaulated gigstric nti1itigh S.ingg 1
sblaining sush assnIanna was the soln l
objective nf the financial qualification
- Inig, the Commission concludes that, j
other than in exceptional cases, no j
case-by-case litigation of the financial qualification of such applicants is 1
warranted.
49 Fed. Reg. 35750 (9/12/ 84)
(Emphasis j
supplied)
)
\\
The purpose of the financial qualification rule, therefore, is to ensure safe operation.
For publicly regulated utilities, however, the Commission created an exemption based on the generic determination that state PUCs, through rate making, would provide adequate revenues for these f acilities to be operated, maintained and decommissioned safely.
(
The Commission thereby clearly articulated the purpose of the l
l financial qualification regulation and the purpose f or generically exempting regulated utilities from financial review.
Equally clearly, the Commission detailed those "special circumstances" that warrant a waiver of the generic exemption and require review of a utility's financial qualifications.
i l
An exception to or waiver from the rule
{
precluding consideration of "inancial qualification in an operatica license proceeding will be made if, pu'rsuant to j
1 0. C f B 2.7 5 8, special circumstances AIg j
shsEn.
For example, such an exception
{
to permit financial qualification review for an operating license applicant might 4
j i
SH AINES & McE ACHERN..=orssoo.46 associat.cn.rtoa=rvs
....~._...~..._.e._..,
be appropriate Ehere a threshold showins -
in DAdB khAhx 'LD A DALLknu1AL CAssu. thA local publiq utility gnEmission will not Alknx the total snst of sanIAtkns the f acility 1Q bg recovered throuch rates.
4 9 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/84).
(Emphasis supplied)
Waiver of the financial qualification rule is therefore appropriate where the rate process does not " Assure" 3 the funds necessary for safe operation.
The Wolf e Board apparently concurs in Intevenors' view of the purpose of the financial qualification regulations and of those special circumstances that necessitate a waiver.
Clearly the purpose of the rule was to exempt operating license applicants f rom i
the financial qualification requir ement because'the rate process assurad that funds needed for safe operation would be available... The. Commission's example reflects that it deems a
special circumstance to be one where there is a
-threshold showing that a public utility commission will not allow an elect. ric utility to recover to a suffic_ent degree, all or a portion of the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation.
Exhibit D,
- p. 7.
(Emphasis supplied).
To warrant a waiver of the financial qualification rule, there fore, Interveners need only demor. strate that, in this case, the New 3
4 9 Fed. Reg. 3 57 50 ( 9/12/ 84), supra; Egg also, Black's Law Dic-tionary, 5th Ed (197 9); " Assure" defined as "To make cetain and put beyond doubt."
5 i
SHAtNES & MCEACHERN paonsososea6 e*sociation afvoawrve as maeurwooo avs sus -eo aos s.o aonesasoum w ossoe g;
l 9
l Hampshire PUC will not, or cannot, "AaauIg" that the total cost of operating Seabrook Station, including low power and decommissioning costs, will be recovered through rates.
This Interveners have done.
l It is incontrovertible that New Hampshire law bars Applicants from recovering the costs to operate at low power,4 and to decommission Seabrook Station,5 if that f acility never commences full power operation.
It cannot be disputed, theref ore, that at least with respect to
. low power operation, New Hampshire law contravenes and undermines the Commission's generic determination that All costs necessary for safe j
l 4
NH RSA 3 7 8:30-a.
"Public Utility Rate Base; Exclusions.
Public utility rates or charges shall not in any manner be based on the cost of construction work in progress.
At no time shall any rates or charges be based upon any costs associated with construction work if said construction work is not completed.
All gosts of CanatInstion WQIk in procress, includino, but nnt limited h Ang costs associated with constructing, DWn h Maintaining gI financino construction ggIk in DroQIA22 Shall DAt hg inc1udad in A utility's IA12 DAEA DDI D2 pilowgd as an expense f21 rate makina purposes until, and n21 before, said construction proiect is actually providina service 12 conLungIs."
(Emphasis supplied).
Low power operation does not generate any net electric power.
Bridenbaugh Affidavit para.
4, 15.
RS A 3 7 8: 3 0 -a therefore bars Applicants from recovering cocts to operate or decommission Seabrook Station if the facility nevet operates beyond low power.
5 Pursuant to NH RSA 16 2-F:19, decommissioning costs will be paid from a fund established in the office of the State Treasurer.
Revenues for the decommissioning f und are obtained through charges against customers, but those charges may only be assessed, and payments to the f und shall commence, "in the billing month which reflects the first full month of service f rom the f acility."
NH RSA 16-F :19 (II).
Since Seabrook Station has not, and may never, commence fu2. power operation, no such fund has been established to pay decommissioning costs.
I l
6 SH AINES & MSE ACHERN enorassiona6 assocratio., a"causes as mam.s. coo ava=ve e o som s.o. conteasovn.== ose,-a
operation, including low power and decommissioning costs, can be
" assured" through the rate process.
There can be no " assurance" that New Hampshire '. a w will permit recovery of these costs' precisely because there is no assurance that Seabrook Station will ever operate at full power.
Since this " assurance" was the " sole objective" of the financial qualification rule,6 Interveners have squarely demonstrated the special circumstances and the " exceptional case" contemplated by the Commission that justifies financial qualification review.
WOLFE BOARD DECISION j
The Wolfe Board denied Interveners' petition primarily on grounds that the special circumstances asserte'd in the petition are " wholly speculative."7 As stated by the Board:
j In the first place, it is pure specula-
. tion that PSNH will file in bankruptcy or that it will be unable to secure funds necessary to operate at low power and to permanently shutdown and maintain the f acility in a saf e condition.
Sec-
- ond, even if PSNH does file in bank-
- ruptcy, there is no suggestion that other Applicant-members of 'the consor-tium are financially incapable of oper-ating and safely maintaining the f acil-6-
49 Fed. Reg. 3 5750 ( 9/12/ 84), quoted at p.
4, supra.
l 1
7 Exhibit D,
- p. 10.
l I
SH AINES & McEACHERN *==crassoems assocaroe arvon=svo as maetsermo avs=ve -
- o soa ws poevsasoum we os.o,
4 ity.
Mo r eove r, it is a matter of specu-i lation as to whether a bankruptcy trust-ee would be appointed and whether he would discontinuetefforts to secure a full power operating license.
- Further, no reason has been presented suggesting that any successor to PSNH (be it a reorganized company, or an acquiring j
- company, or a trustee in bankruptcy) would not persevere in efforts to secure a full power operating license and to put the plant into commercial operation, and thereby recover the large investment through its inclusion in the rate base.
Exhibit D,
- p. 10.
The Wolfe Board thereby misperceives Interveners' burden of proof to obtain a waiver of the financial qualification rule.
It is not, Interveners suggest, Interveners' burden to SMAIADigg the course of future events that PSNH will in fact file for bankruptcy or that 1
Seabrook Station will never operate at full power.
Based upon the Commission's explicit statement of purpose of the financial qualifi-cation rule, Interveners need only demonstrate that the rate process cannot " assure" meeting all costs -of operation, including the costs of f
1
~ 10w power operation and decommissioning.
New Hampshire law, and i
PSNH's dire financial condition, preclude this assurance.
The finan-i cial qualification rule, therefore, should be waived.
It is indeed ironic that the Wolf e Board berates Interveners' petition as " wholly speculative" when the Wolf e Board, itself, bla-tantly engages in its own brand of " pure speculation" that operating costs may be recovered "11 full power operation is commenced."
Exhibit D,
- p. 11.
Under present circumstances, it is at least as likely that Seabrook Station will never operate at full power, as to 1'
l i
8 l
b
- M@I$$MA4A8M 80 '@
AINMfM
_1-.
i a-~~~~~=-"~~~*
-a-
t; argue-the contrary.
Speculation on the likelihood of full power
-operation,_however, is not at issue.
Presently, low power operation and decommissioning costs cannot be " assured."
That lack of assurance warrants a waiver of the financial qualification rule.
To adopt the Wolf e Board's holding that, to obain a waiver,.
l Interveners must demonstrate conclusively that PSNH will file bank-l ruptcy, or cuarantee that a' full power license will never issue, is to speculate with the public health and to gamble on the availability of funds necessary to promptly and safely dispose of the high level nuclear waste generated by, ow power operation. 8 This holding is not supported by the history of th financial qualification regulation, by the. facts of this case, or by the requirements of 2.758.9 8
S22, Interveners' petition, Exhibit B, pp. 4-5, with Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh attached, estimating decommissioning and fuel storage costs, f ollowing low power operation, no be in the tens of millions of dollars.
9 The Commission has previously ruled that speculation over the outcome of " full aggar issues," such as emergency planning, does not warrant delay of low power operation.
Lons Island Lishtins Cm.
(Shoreham Nuclear Egggr Station). CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 13 23, 13 27 (1984).
Interveners' petition, however, concerns the unique financial and environmental problems following low power operation.
Accordingly, it is essential for these inn anwar issues to be resolved prior to l operation at any level of power.
l 9
SH AINES & McE ACHERN
==orssee3. assocaarom artomates as mass.com avs%4 eo non seo.montsnowww na oseoi
Additionally, the Wolfe Board would require Interveners to demon-strate that the remaining Applicant members of the conscrtium are financially incapable of operating and safely maintaining the f acili-ty, irrespective of the dire financial straits of PSNH.
The Wolfe Board thereby would require Interveners to present proof in support of their petition which is the very information which Interveners seek to compel Applicants to produce, if the petition is granted.
Necessari-ly, Intevenors cannot fully assess the financial health of PSNH or the financial strengths or commitments of the other applicant members unless and until the petition is granted and that information is compelled to be disclosed.10 10 Even assuming the financial ability of other applicant members to assist PSNH, no applicant members are apparently legally obligated to provide this assistance.
See Exhibit E, BaaPSHER 19 HEC Qu22119D 1,
- p. 3.
It is also significant that PSNH has declined to disclose to the Staff, although expressly requested, the " estimated dollar amount" of the funding sources to cover low power operating and decom-missioning costs.
PSNH would only respond that the "Seabrook Project maintains a positive cash balance."
PSNH's lack of candor on this critical issue raises legitimate concerns whether these funding sour-ces are adequate and underscores the inadequacy of the Staf f's in-formal financial review.
10 j
1 j
ss Amts a mcc Aescas - -...~......-oe~...
3 h
_.._.___.____.________=______1_.o i
as mane. coo avc=us. e o som seo. coersmovm aen ossoi J
The Wolf e Board theref ore would play Russian Roulette with the public health and leave the issue of Applicants' financial health to chance.
Procedyigl Issues The Wolfe Board, sua agnate, cites two alleged procedural errors i t.
Interveners' petition.
Neither provides grounds to support the Board's denital of the petition.
First, the Wolfe Board concluded that the Town of Hampton lacks
" standing" to bring the subject petition since the Town did not appeal a prior ruling of the Wolf e Board which purportedly held that "TH could not participate in the instant case involving on-site emergency planning and saf ety issues."
Exhibi t D, p. 2.
The Wolf e Board never issued such a ruling.11 11 The Wolfe Board confuses the issue of " standing" with that of res judicata.
Under Commission precedent, a party has " standing" in n licensing proceeding where (a) the action sought in a proceeding may cause that party "inj u ry in f act" and (b) the injury is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Mat-repolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nucleel Station, Unit 1)_,
CLI-83 -2 5, 18 NRC 3 27, 3 3 2 (19 83), citing EnItland GangIal ElastIls CDEBADE 12Abh12 SDIin93 HMCl2AI 21Anta. Unita 1 And 21, CLI-7 6-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
In addition to its rights conferred under 10 CFR 2.715 ( c ), the Town of Hampton is located less than two miles from Seabrook Station, and therefore stands in immediate proximity to the high level nuclear waste that will be generated if low power operation commences.
Under any reasonable interpretation of established case law, the Town of Hampton has " standing" to bring the subject petition.
The Wolfe Board rather appears to rely, improperly, on res judicata as precluding the Town from presenting its petition.
Generally, that doctrine precludes relitigation of issues, but, while relevant, has not even been fully adopted in NRC administrative proceedings. Public SEnisA CQmpany of HRE HamBahiIA iSaahIODA Statign Unita 1 and 21, CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 13 03, 1321 (1977).
In any event, res judicata cannot properly be applied here against the Town of Hampton.
Infra.
i q
{
__- l --
j j
' " " " - " " ' ~ * - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * - '
I 4
By its terms, the Wolf e Board's prior ref erenced order was lim-ited to consideration of three contentions then pending before the Board.
.None involved financial qualification.12 TH has no genuine interest in participating in this case wherein the record has been reopened far the limited purpose of supplementing the evidence pertaining to the aforementioned NECNP and NH contentions.
Accordingly, TH's motion is denied, and it may not participate.
Wolf e Board MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, July 25, 1986, p. 6 (Exhibit F, attached).
The Wolf e Board's July 25, 1986 order, therefore, was expressly limited in scope, and did not concern financial qualification issues.
Additionally, PSNH's FORM 8-K filing, which forms the basis for Inter-veaors' petition, was submitted to the SEC on July 22, 1987.
Since i
the foundation of Interveners' petition did not arise until well af ter the Wolf e Board order denying the Town of Hampton participation to supplement the record on limited issues, res judicata cannot bar the Town f rom now presenting the issue of financial qualification review.
l
)
Public servic.e company of Hex Hampshire (seabrook stationt Units 1 and 21, AL AB-3 4 9, 4 NRC 23 5 (197 6).
l 1
12 See, in the Matter nf Public service company of Hex Hampshire, at AL.1SaahI22h Stalian Units 1 and 1, A L AB M e m o r a n d u m, Au g u s t 4, 1987 "On March 25, 1987 that Licensing Board rendered a partial initial decision in which it decided all of the issues then before it (none of which involved financial qualifications)."
I l
l l
12 i
SH AINES & McE ACHERN.==crassions aswx.a non arvone.g s n -- -------
i
"-~ - ~ "=-"a~~~--"-
t Second,.the Wolfe Board claims that counsel for the Town of Hampton,.who signed the petition as the authorized representative for NECNP.and SAPL, f ailed to comply with Section 2.713 of the Commis-sion's Rules of Practice "in ignoring both the requirement that he file a written notice of appearance and the, requirement that he state the bases of his authority to act on behalf of those two parties."
Exhibit D, p.3.
It is indeed disingenuous for the Wolfe Board, in the same memorandum, to cite to a prior order where it ruled on the merits of a Town of Hampton motion, and now claim that the Town, and the counsel that filed'that motion, have somehow failed to provide proper notice of appearance to the Board.
Further, the Town of Hampton was admitted as an interested party in this proceeding by Licensing Board Order of December 20, 1982.
Present counsel for the Town of Hamptor filed appearances with the off-site ASLB, on February 19, 1986.
Copies of those appearances were forwarded at that time to the Chairman of the Wolfe Board.
These filings comport with Commission regulations 10 CFR 2.713(b);
Exhibit G,
attached.13 i
13 Even assuming some technical flaw in appearance filing, the Wolfe Board acquiesced in the appearance of the Town of Hampton and its counsel, by ruling on the merits of the Town's prior motion. The Wolfe Board's present citation to alleged technical flaws, to sustain its decision, is both arbitrary and fundamentally unfair.
13 SM AINES & MCE ACHERN - ensseo.46 associaro. atton avs as.. ts. coo avs=us - e o som seo aoatemouw== osso' k_______
Additionally, the f act that Town of Hampton counsel signed, in the petition, as " authorized representative" for SAPL and NECNP is based upon the authority provided by those parties to Town of Hampton counsel by telephone.
Interveners state that this process is consis-tent with Commission regulations and represents the norm regarding i
joint filings by Interveners in this case.
The Wolfe Board therefore grasps at alleged technicalities to support its decision, and thereby indicates less than complete confidence in its own ruling on the merits of Interveners petition.
For reasons stated, the decision of the Wolf e Board should be reversed and Interveners' petition certified directly to the Commission.
Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON, By Its Attorneys, SHAINES & McEACHERN Professi 1 Associ ion By' Paul McEachern il D
By \\
~
k Dated:
September 1987 Matthew T. Brock l
i I
i 14 ss Aists a uc c AcHcRN - *=artse.oma6 associateo anon =rve j
....n-....-....,.n...-,-=...
L. ; -? :.,
.TCRM 6-K.
'c SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D. C.'20549' CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of.the
' Securities Exchange Act of 1934 s
Date of Report:
July 22, 1987 1
1 4
i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 1flec in its cnarter)
'(Exact name of registrant as spe:
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1-6392 02-0131050 (State, or otner jurisdiction (Commission (IRS Employer of incorporation)
N ie Nu Der)
Identification No.)
03105 1000 ELM STREET. MANCHESTER, NEW HAM = SHIRE (21p AoOe)
(Accress Di prin:1pBI executive off1Ces) l Recistrant's TEleonone Numter. Inclucin: Area COCE 603-669-4000 l'
EXHIBIT A E--________-____
g ' *,CurrentReport,ForO67 C.
3 of Report:
.; for July C2, 1957-Public. Service CD:pany cf heo Hampshire Sheet 1 l
7 l
Item 5.
Other Materially Imoortant Events 1987, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission On June 29, (NHPUC) found, in a 2-3 decision on the Company's outstanding rate
- request, that the Company was entitled to recover approximately $20.5 million of the $58.9 million (14%)
rate increase origins 11y requested in May, 1986.
The Company had acknowledged during the course of the proceedings that the effect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and other minor adjustments would reduce its claimed increase to approximately $38.6 million.
The NHPUC ordered the Company to refund the difference between since January 1967 and the level of rates collected under bond rates approved by the order, plus interest on such sums at the Refunds are to be rate of 10% through June and 6.5% thereafter.
The paid on a customer specific basis commencing in November.
NHPUC found that the increaseti rates shall be applied on a The uniform percentage to the base rates of each customer class.
NHPUC determined that the Company's cost of common equity was 15%
(the Company had requested 19%) and fixed an overall rate of In addition, the. NHPUC rejected a second step return at 14.94%.
increase of approximately $35 million (7%), wnich the Co'.pany had requested become effective January 1, 1988.
On July 20, 1967, the Company petitioned the NHPUC for a
rehearing of the order on the grounds that the decision was and unreasonable in several
- respects, the most unlawful significant being that the decision f ailed to allow a just and reasonable capital stru:ture and f ailed to determine a lawful, just and reasonable cost of common equity capital for the Company.
Further delays have c Curred in the process of attempting to obtain al' governmental approvals required to commente operation of the Seaortok Nuclear Power Piant (in which the Cccoany has an ownership interest of abcut 35%).
In a position filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission (HRC) in June of 1957, the Feceral Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) has indicated that-it was unable to conclude that certain aspe:ts of the radiological emergency resconse plans for the seventeen towns in New Ham:snire l
which are within a 10 mile radius of the Plant, are adecuate to l
ensure the timely evacuation of the New Hampsnire beaches in tne event of an emergency at the Plant.
This con:1usion was centrary to that of the NRC staff and an incepencent censultant's report.
The NRC has ceticed that a radiolcgi:31 emer;ency res cnse plan for the six Massa:nusetts towns witnin a 10 mile radius of the Plant must be filed oy the Joint Owners prior to io.-cower I
testing of the Plant, a requirement that had not oeen it :se :
witn respect to any prior nuclear plant.
It it covious 'f rc tnese oeveicements, and from tne politici-ing of :ne precess recarding licensing of the 5eacrook Plant, ina; tne cate Of cperation will be furtner ceiayec.
l 4
5 Dat Of Re: Ort:
e
}
Current Report, Toro 6-K a r July C2, 1957
- Public Service Company of he:r Hampsnire Sneet 2
/
I Other Materially Immortant Events (Cont Item 5.
result of these adverse developments with respe:t to the of As a Plant and the NHPUC's rate order described acove, and in view
- H the difficulties en:cuntered by the Company in placing a planned l}
S150 :nillion short-term finan:ing in May 1987 (when only $100 million cou.1d be placed) and the reaction of the financial (j
to the foregoing, the Company's management and its
, i.
markets financial advisors have concluded that, absent a change in the
[t p
Company's circumstances, financings in the amounts projected to
- i g
meet the Company's cash needs during the next several years were no longer available.
Management has also con:1uced that, even if 1
it would not be in financing were available in the short term, i
the best interests of the Company, its customers, or investors to proceed with such a financing program, unless financial plans can z
be developed which would improve tne Company's long term cash Consequently, on July 16, 1987, the Company withorew Seatrook
- l.
- position, its requests for NHPUC permission to raise funcs for expenses and non-Sezbrook construction.
Earlier this year the i;
5 ;
Company had filed two petitions with the NHPUC seeking approval to borrow up to 5545 Hillion in two separate finan:ings.
]
The Ccmpany has instituted strict cash conservation measures tnat ii:
allow' it to aert its estimated cash re::ui rements,
should
~
including the refunus described above, through the end of 1957.
The Company is working jointly with the investment firms of Herri11 Lynch Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. to develop alternate financial plans.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the Company, its limited financial flexibility, tne l[
.1 amount of dcDt service which the Company can reasonably expect to carry, the political, economic and competitive limits on rate increases in New Hampsnire, and tne regulatory approvals that i
will be recuired, it will be extremely difficult to cevelee and l;;
imolement snan_.a olen to im5rgve significantly tne CoE3iny's etreumstances within_.the Limdted.:1n; f avai s so r e, snouic 'an
~
'T: equate'7Tari not' De ceveloped and pia:ed into ef fect bef re tne
?.
end of 1957, it will te difficult, if not imp Isible, for the C::.pany to avoid pre eedings uncer the Bankrupt:y C:::.
[
,f[
EICNATUFi 3
Pursuant to the requirements of the Se:urities Exenange Act of
.l-1934, the registrant has culy caused this recort to be signed On its cenalf by the undersigned hereunto culy autnori:ed.
PUBLIC SERV::E COMPANY OF NEW HAM? SHIRE July 22, 1957 Sy s/ R.
- 2. Har isen R.
marr'sen P r es 10e n',
i
i s.-
~. '
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Be. fore Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 Public Service Company of
)
50-444-OL-1 Hew Hampshire, et al.
)
On-Site Emergency' Planning I
)
& Technical Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
INTERVENERS' PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50. 33 (f) AND 50. 57 (4)
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION l
Now come the Town of Hampton, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereinafter
" Interveners"), pursuant to 10 CFR 52.758, and, based upon the Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, petition the Commission to waive regulations 50.33(f) and 50.57 (4) to the extent necessary
)
to require Applicants to demonstrate, prior to low power operation, that Applicants are financially qualified to pay the costs to operate, for the period of the license, and to decommission, the l
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
In support of this petition,
/
i f
Interveners state:
EXHIBIT B SMAINE$ in McEACHERN #840PT.55CNA6 a.%50Ca*lON 29 MAPtJtwo00 %TNUE p C BOK 360 PCR*SMotTTM. N M 05a01 I
1.
Under'date of July 22, 1987, Applicants' icad owner, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a FORM 8-K, which in relevant part provided:
The Company has instituted strict cash conservation measures that should allow it to meet its estimated cash requirements, including the refunds described above, through the end of 1987.
The Company is working jointly with the investment firms of Merrill Lynch Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. to develop alternate financial plans.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the Company, its limited financial flexibility, the amount of debt service which the Company can reasonably expect to carry, the 3
political, economic and competitive limits on rate increases in New Hampshire, and the regulatory approvals that will be required, it will be extremely difficult to develop and implement such a plan to improve significantly the Company 's circumstances within the limited time available.
Should an adecuate plan not be developed and placed into effect before the end of 1987, it will be di??icult,
^
if not impossible, for the Company to avoid proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.
See Exhibit A attached.
(Emphasis supplied).
By its own admission, Applicants' lead owner is on the brink of bankruptcy.
2.
10 CFR 550. 33 (f) and 50. 57 (4) require certain applicants, l
l prior to receipt of an operating license, to demonstrate that f
1 these applicants possess, or have reasonable assurance of obtaining, the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs, for the period of the license, plus the costs to permanently shut down the facility and maintain it in a safe condition.
- 50. 33 (f) (2),
1 (3) and (4).
1 2
SMAINES in McEACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCATION 29 MaptK*CCD AVENUE p C Box MO port 5 Mot.fTR N M C5act
.y 3.
By rulemaking on September 12, 1984, the Commission exempted publicly regulated utilities, including Seabrook Station from demonstrating these financial qualifications prior
- owners, to receipt of an operating license.
As sole grounds for this exemption, the Commission stated:
The Commission believes that the record of this rulemaking demonstrates generically that the rate process assures that funds needed for safe operation will be made available to regulated electric utilities.
Since obtaining such assurance was the sole objective of the financial quali-fication rule, the Commission concludes that, other than in exceptional cases, no case-by-case litigation of the financial qualification of such applicants is warranted.
49 Fed. Reg. 35750 (9/12/84 ).
(Emphasis supplied.)
4.
The purpose of the financial qualification rule, therefore, was to ensure safe operation.
For publicly regulated utilities, however, the Commission created an exemption based on the generic determination that state PUCs, through ratemaking, would provide adequate revenues for these facilities to be operated, maintained, 1
and decommissioned safely.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded, i
generically, that it was not " warranted" to subject publicly i
regulated utilities to financial qualification review when that function was effectually being performed already by state PUCs.
i 1
"No sound basis has been shown for.
the allegation that i
publicly-owned utilities are not assured of funding through the rate-l making process.
The NRC's analysis of the NARUC survey, discussed infra, has shown that all State public utility ecmmissions have sufficient ratemaking authority to ensure sufficient utility revenues to meet the cost of NRC safety requirements.
Similarly, it has been shown that publicly-owned utilities have independent rate-setting authority which is used to cover the costs of operation, including those of meeting NRC safety requirements."
49 Fed. Reg. 35750 (9/12/S4) 3 SHAINES (m McEACHERN. DROFE55CNAL ASSOCAtlON 25 MAPLEwCCC AVENUC - p C BOR 300 positSMOUTR N M 03a01
i 5.
In their present financial distress, Applicants for Seabrook Station present special circumstances that contravene this generic determination, and undermine the Commission's purpose 2
that all facilities have adequate revenues to ensure safety.
These special cir'cumstances include:
Under New Hampshire law, Applicants are barred from a.
recovering the costs to decommission Seabrook Station unless, and 3
until, that facility commences full power operation.
Accordingly, i
if Applicants are permitted to proceed to low power operation, without proof of financial qualification, Applicants will irradiate I
the facility, generate high level nuclear waste, yet may lack the tens of millions of dollars necessary "to permanently shut down i
I 2
The Commission specifically declined to base the financial qualification exemption for publicly regulated utilities upon allegations that there is not a sufficient relation between financial health and safe operation, noting it "is not relying on this premise for the current rule."
49 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/84).
3 Pursuant to NH RSA 162-F:19, decommissioning costs will be paid Revenues from a fund established in the office of the State Treasurer.
for the decommissioning fund are obtained through charges againsr customers, but those charges may only be assessed, and payments to l
"in the billing month which reflects the the fund shall commence, first full month of service from the facility."
NH RSA 162-F :19 (II).
and may never, commence full power Since Seabrook Station has not, no such fund has been established to pay decommissioning operation, costs.
1 4
l SMAINES ( McEACHERN
- p. tore 5510NAh, ASSOCA? TON 29 MAPLKwoOO AVENUE o O DCx Mc DORT5MCN7M, N m C5e01
i 1
the facility and maintain it in a safe condition" if a full power 4
license is later denied.
See 550.33 (f) (2).
Similarly, the costs incurred in operating the plant at low power would not be 5 recoverable if Seabrook never proceeds to full power operation.
e l
4 The ecst of decontaminating, decommissioning, and disposal of fuel and portions of the reactor system following a low power The testing period is estimated to be tens of millions of dollars.
cost of spent fuel disposal alone is $20 to $30 million.
Reactor component removal, handling, and disposal would require additional expenditures.
See Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, t14, Exhibit B, attached hereto.
From the recent FORM 8-K filing by Applicants' it is reasonable to assume Applicants do not lead owner, supra, have adequate funds to pay decommissioning costs following low power operation.
5 NH RSA 378:30-a.
"Public Utility Rate Base; Exclusions.
Public utility rates or charges shall not in any manner be based At no time shall on the cost of construction work in progress.
any rates or charges be based upon any costs associated with construction work if said construction work is not completed.
includinc, but not All costs of construction work in progress, limited to, any costs associated witn constructing, maintaining or financina construction work in progress
- owning, be included in a utility's rate case nor be allowed shall not and not before, said as an expense for rate makinc purposes until, s actually providing service to consumers.
construction proyect i (Emphasis supplied).
Low power operation does not genera.te any net electric power.
3ridenbaugh Affidavit t4, 15.
RSA 378:30-a therefore bars Applicants from recovering costs to operate or decommission Seabrook Station if the facility never operates beycnd low power.
5 5HAlNE5 4h McEACHERN PROPE55 pas A550CATm 2S MAPLEwoOO AVENUE 4 P O SOX 160 DORT5 MOUTH NM 08ect
e b.
The likely bankruptcy of Applicants' lead owner is without precedent.
Clearly the pending bankruptcy of such a publicly regulated utility presents an extreme circumstance not addressed by the, commission at the time it approved the financial 6
qualification exemption.
On the present record, it would be grossly irresponsible for Applicants to proceed to operate Seabrook, even at low power, without clear evidence of their firgancial means to operate, and to decommission, safely.
c.
In addition to the financial uncertainties presented, the direction of Applicants' management may be radically altered i
if PSNH is superceded by a bankruptcy trustee.
Whether the l
trustee may decline to pursue a full power license in the face of l
)
insuperable regulatory obstacles remains uncertain.
The Commission, however, should not permit Applicants to proceed to any level of power operation, absent proof of financial qualification, when j
their lead owner may soon forfeit its management rights over l
Seabrook Station.
I d.
If appointed to manage Seabrook Station, a trustee or examiner may refuse to expend additional monies on a wasting asset which continues to drain all available capital from PSNH.
A Bankruptcy Court, rather than Applicants, may ultimately determine if additional monies will be spent on Seabrook Station.
The 6
See 49 Fed. Reg. 35750 (9/12/84), quoted at page 2, supra.
j 6
)
smames r. McEAC)@N McM5510% ASSOCATION 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE # 0 BOX 360 - DORT5MOUTM. N M 03a05
l l
l
=
J Commission therefore should move to address this contingency, and l
require evidence of financial qualification, before bankruptcy occurs.
I
)
5.
Even as the Commission exempted publicly regulated utilties from financial qualification requirements, the Commission was careful to preserve its right to require proof, in special circumstances, that a particular utility applicant is financially qualified.
By this rule, the Commission does not intend to waive or relinquish its residual authority under Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, to require such additional information in individual cases as may be necessary for the Commir-ion to determine whether an application should be granted or denied or whether a license should be modified or revoked.
An exception to or waiver fro,m the rule precluding con-sideration of financial qualification in an operating license proceeding I
will be made if, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758, special circumstances are shown.
For example, such an exception to permit financial qualification review for an operating license applicant micht be appropriate where a threshold showing is made that, in a particular the local public utility commission
- case, will not allow the total cost of opera:Ing-the facility to be recovered through rates.
49 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/84).
TEmphasis supplied).
6.
The special circumstances contemplated by the Commission are now squarely presented.
If Seabrook Station never operates at full power, Applicants cannot recoup the tens of millions of dollars necessary to promptly and safely decommission the facility, 7
l
$HAINES & McEACHERN. MOFESSIONA6 A550CIATON 28 MAMEwo0D AVENut p C pox seo. pon?$wouTH, N M 03aos
and dispose of the high level nuclear waste, following low power operation.
Prior to operation at any level of power, therefore, Applicants should demonstrate independent financial means to 7
meet these decommissioning costs.
See note #3, supra.
7.
Apparently in recognition of the potential hazards, and associated costs, of decommissioning, the Commission itself has proposed financial qualification requirements for the decommissioning of all licensed facilities.
50 Fed. Reg. 5600, et seg (2/11/85).
The objective of the proposed rule on financing the decommissioning of nuclear facilities is to require licensee to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available to ensure that decommissioning can be accomplished in a safe manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems.
The licensee is responsible for completing decommissioning in a manner that protects health and safety.
_Id.
at 5602.
This rule has not yet been finally adopted.
By the proposed rule, however, the Commission has expressed clear concern that all facilities be promptly and safely decommissioned.
The Commission 1
itself thereby provides significant evidence that Applicants should be required to demonstrate financial qualification before proceeding to operate Seabrook Station.
l 7
i d to demonstrate that Ap'licants additionally should be requ re'olicants possess, or have reason Aco the funds necessary to cover estimated operating costs for tn,e period of the license.
See 550.33(f)(2).
Even in the unlikely event a full power license is granted, it remains doubtful that PSNH will receive sufficiently prompt rate increases to avoid bankruptcy.
The Commission, therefore, should require proof of financial qualification to meet operating costs to reduce the anticipated financial and management disruptions of a bankruptcy l
l proceeding.
8 SMAINES se McEACHERN 98tortsstONAL ASSOCA*1QN 25 MAPLEwoOft AVENUE P O DOX 360 POR?5MOUTM NM OSect
4 CONCLUSION Interveners:therefore respectfully request that Applicants' exception-from financial qualification be waived for purposes of-this n.
proceeding, and that' Applicants, prior to low power operation, be required to demo 6 strate financial qualification in accordance with Commission regulations 50.33 (f) (2), - (3) and (4) and 50.57(4).
Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON By.Its Attorneys SHAINES & McEACHERN Professional Associati By faul McEachern Dated:
July 3/
, 1987 By )
b Matthew T. Brock TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, and SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE D
\\ D-By Authorized Representative 9
$HAlNES (s McEACHERN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 29 MAMEWOOD AVENUE. P O ecx Sec. PORT 56H. N M. 05801
s l,,,,,.
i 1
f
)
. FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 1
Washington, D. C. 20549 CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report:
July 22, 1957 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMP5 HIRE 1ftea in 1ts Cnarter)
(Exstt name of registrant as spe:
NEW HAM? SHIRE 2-6372 C2-01E;O50 (State, or otner juris01: tion (Commission (IRS iccioyer of incorporation)
File Nue:er)
I entification No.)
v 1000 ELM STREET. MANCHESTER. NEW HAu:5 HIRE 03205 (21p ;;;ej (Accress of prin:1;ai executive =ffices)
Re:1strant's Tele none Nutter Incluain: Ares C00!
603-669-4000 e v e. : r.
~6s.
w.
n
R...;
Current Report, Form B.,
for.
C 3 of Re: ort; Puolic.5ervice Company cf New Hampshire July T2, 1967 7
Sheet 1 i
l Item 5.
Other Materially Important Events On June 29, 1987, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC) found, in a 2-1 decision on. the Company's outstanding rate
- request, that the Company was entitled to recover approximately 520.5 million of the $58.9 million (14%)
rate increase originally requested in May, 1986.
The Company had acknowledged during the course of the proceedings that the effect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and other minor adjustments would reduce its claimed in:rease to approximately 538.6 million.
The NHPUC orcered the Company to refund the cifference between rates collected unoer bond since January 1987 and the level of rates approved by the orcer, plus interest on such sums at the rate of 10% through June and 6.5% thereafter.
Refunds are to be paid on a customer specif t basis commen:ing in November.
The NHPUC found that the increased rates shall be applied on a uniform percentage to the base rates of each customer class.
The NHPUC determined that the Company's cost of common equity was 15%
(the Company had requested 19%) and fixed an overall rate of return at 14,94%.
In addition, the. NHPUC rejected a second step increase of approximately 535 million (7%), wnich the Company had requested become effective January 1, 1986.
On, July 20, 1967, the Company petitioned the NHPUC for a
rehearing of the creer on the grounds that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable in several
- respects, the most significant being that the decision f ailed to allow a just and i
reasonable capital structure and f ailed to determine a lawful, just and reasonable cost of common equity capital for the Company.
Further delays have :::urred in the process of attempting to obtain al' governmental a:provals required to ecomente operation of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (in which tne Company has an ownership interest of about 25%).
In a position filed witn the Nuclear Repuistory Commission (NRC) in June of 1957, the Fe eral Emergency Manage. ment Agency (PEMA) nas indicated tnat it was unable to conclude that certain asce:ts of the radiological emergency re.sconse plans for the seventeen towns in New Hat:snire wnien are within a 10 mile radius of the Plant, are adepuate to ensure the timely evacuation of the New Ham 0 shire Dea:nes in tne event of an emergency at the Plant.
This conclusion was contrary to that of the NRC staf f Cnd an incecencent 0:nsultant's report The NRC has ceticed that a radiological emergency resConse plan for the six Massa:nusetts towns witnin a 10 mile racius Of *ne Plant must be file: Oy tne Joint Owners prior to io -cower testing of the Plant, a requirement that nad net Oeen im::se:
with resce:t to any crier nutiear clant.
It is covious from tnese eve 10:ments. an: from tne politi:i:inc or tne cr::ess regarding licensing of tne Seacreox Plant, inat tne cate of i
operation will ce furtner ceisye.
I 1
l o_ _.
I ^( y ' -
. Current Report,= Fora 6-KUr Oat of Recert:
.Public, Service Company of hew Hampsnire July 22, 1957 9
Sheet 2 9
l f
Item 5.
Other Materially Imoortant Events (Cont.)
JLf As a.' result.of these adverse deve1coments with respect to the Plant and the NHPUC's rate orcer described above, and in view of N
the difficulties encountered by the Company in placing a planned M
$150 million short-term financing in May 1987 (when only $100 i
million could be placed) and the -reaction of. the financial
(
markets to-the foregoing, the Company's-management and its 3
' financial advisors have concluded that, absent a change in the
{
Company's circumstances, financings in the amounts projected to g.
meet the Company's cash needs during the next several years were l*
no longer available.
Management has also concluded that, even if financing were available in the snnrt term, it would not be in i
the best interests of the Company, its customers, or investors to i-proceed with such a financing program, unless financial plans can be developed ' which would improve the Company's long term cash lI; position.
Consequently, on July 16, 1987, the Company witherew its requests for NHPUC permission to raise funds for Seacrcok expenses and non-Seabrook construction.
Earlier this year the Company had filed' two petitions with the NHPUC seeking approval ii to borrow up to 5545~Million in two separate financings.
p
- i The Company has instituted strict cash conservation measures tnat should allow it.to meet its estimated cash requirements, i t:*
including the refunds described above, through the end of 1957.
The Company is working jointly with the investment firms of Herrill Lynch Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. to develop alternate financial plans.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the Company, its linited financial flexibility, the k
amount of cebt service which the Company can reasonably expect to i
~
carry, the political, economic and competitive limits on rate
-increases in New Hampshire, and the regulatory approvals. that l
i will be required, it will be extremely difficult to ceveico and h
imolement e a clan to Wove-significantly tne temoanv's circumstances within__ tne _1.imix.ec 21rc _avaga_o2e.
snouie an "acequate T an not ce developed and placed into effect before tne f.
end of 1957, it will be difficult, if net impessible, for the
~
i Company to avoid proceedings uncer tne Bankruptcy Ccce.
s
, f,,[
5IGNATUTsE Pursuant to tne requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
.l.
t 1934, the registrant has duly caused chis report to be signed on its cenalf l
by the undersigned hereunto culy autneri:ed.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAM:5 HIRE July 22, 1957 By s / F.. 2. Har*isen R.
J.
Marr,5;n Presicen*,
p
, e.m :
AFFIDAVIT OF DALE G.
BRIDENBAUGH t
k.
1.
My name is' Dale G.
Bridenbaugh.
I am President of MHB Technical Associates ("MHB"), a technical consulting.
- firm specializing in nuclear power plant safety, licensing, and regulatory matters, located'at 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K, San Jose, California 95125.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in 1953 and am a licensed professional nuclear engineer.
I.have more than'30 years experience in the engineering field, primarily in power plant analysis, construction, maintenance, and
-operations. -Since 1976, I have been employed by MHB and have acted as a consultant to domestic and foreign 3
government agencies and other groups on nuclear power plant safety and licensing matters.
Between 1966 and 1976, I was employed by the Nuclear Energy Division of General Electric Cc=pany ("GE") in va:-ious managerial capacities relating to the sale, service, and product improvement of nuclear power reactors manufactured by that ce=pany.
Between 1955 and 1966, I was employed in various engineering capacities working with gas and steam turbines for GE.
Included in =y duties at GE was supervision of startup testing of equipment EXHISIT B
P.
m l
in fifteen to' twenty fossil and nuclear' power plants.
I also was responsible for various nuclear fuel projects ranging from the' remote disasse=bly of irradiated. fuel to the' supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants.
I-have authored-technical papers and articles on the subject-of nuclear power equipment and nuclear power plant safety and have given testimony on those subjects.
Other details of my experience and qualifications are contained in Attachment #1.
j 2.
My experience with the Seabrook plant began in September 1983 when my firm was retained by the Massachusetts Attorney General to evaluate the prudence of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company on Seabrook Unit 2.
Since that initial assignment I have evaluated various phases of the Seabrook project in five different engagements.
In my work as consultant on the Seabrook plant, I have performed diverse assignments, i
(
focusing primarily on technical reviews and analysis of l
safety and cost issues.
I have visited the plant on several occasions and have participated in a number of interviews and/or depositions of key Seabrook =anagement personnel.
' l l
i
o 1.*
)
3.
The purpose of this Affidavit is to explain the technical reasons why low power testing to 5 percent power at Seabrook is of no value if subsequent power operation at or near full power is not authorized.
It will further explain that there are, in fact, several irreversible changes which would result from testing at the 5% level while no significant electrical power would be produced.
These changes would limit the options available for the plant and plant site in the event that full power operation is not subsequently authorized.
SEOUENCE OF TESTING AND POWEP OPER2.TTON 4.
Eve:,( nuclear plant needs to have fuel loaded and systens tested before it is pe=itted to operate at power levels sufficient to tu n the =1-bine and generate elertric power.
The typical test sequence is _o pa-'c= non-nuclear ero-power tests first, then proceed to ":ero-power" nuclear tests and subsequently to low-power nuclea cperation with no electrical production.
I)eutrical production is usually deferred until the test progran achieves a power level of 10-15%.
Penission to proceed to a hicher power level is in general predicated en fulfillment cf the cesc Objectives ac
_3_
. ~-
,4' o
the lower levels.
When the testing is completed satisfactorily.at the lower levels and other requirements are satisfied, the plant is then permitted to' operate at
-higher power levels and ultimately at a level at which
- sufficient steam is generated to allow production of electricity.
Power levels are gradually increased and tests are conducted until full power operation has been achieved and the unit is considered to be in commercial operation.
The minimum length'of time in which this process can be completed is about three months.
At Seabrook, the test is program as specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report scheduled for four months.
All other factors being equal, the initial operating phase at a new nuclear unit can be most efficiently. performed if a smooth transition is made from fuel loading to low power operation and on'to the power testing above 5%.
If a significant delay between the
^
^ iesting steps oc s, it is==st brdensene fcr that delay The reason to take place after power operation has begun.
fer this is because the power test pr gram is designed so as to be able to proceed from the===pleted tests at a lower authericed power level to tests at the ner power step.
If lengthy delays are introduced, it then becomes necessary to i
calibra:icns repeac certain activities such as instrument e=
\\.*
i and heat balance calculations to assure safe and smooth transition to the next authorized level.
A delay prior to initial nuclear operation does not bring about the need for duplication of these operations.
5.
In the case of Seabrook Unit 1, the loading of fuel into the reactor has now been completed and the Company has completed the tests intended to be perforned prior to nuclear operation of the unit.
This work was authorized by the granting of a "zero" power license by the Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission ("liRC") on october 17, 1986, and fuel loading was begun on october 22, 1986.
William B.
Derrickson's 1/
Septe=ber 26, 1986 presentation to the NRC's Advisory Co==ittee of Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS")
indicated that the scheduled time for completion of the non-nuclear tests following fuel loading was 4 to 6 weeks:
our request is to be able to load fuel and do the hot testing with the coolant' system at operating te=perature and pressure.
We have several tests to run, f-en tests fre;;
the original het funct2cn tests.
This whole effort from the day we receive the license te co=pletion of the hot functional tests will 1/
Mr. Derrickson is a Senior Vice-President of Public Service of New Hampshire and has primary responsibility f or the Seabrook proj ect.
l 5-l
.q e
)
- .o p
? g.'
.take about a month or six weeks.
(ACRS Transcript, pp.114-15)
Y
^
6..
In the case'of Seabrook, the operating license has been requested in not one, but three separate phases.
The 4
first phase.which consists of fuel loading and hot-functional' tests (but no t:riticality and no irradiation of the. fuel) has now been completed.
The second phase, now under review, would permit low power testing and subsequent The j
heatups involving operation at up to 5% of full power.
i third phase, if authorized, will permit operation between 5%
and 100% power.
7.
The NRC action to permit low power operation at i
Seabrook at.this time is a deviation fron conson past practice.
The ' traditional licensing practice was in the past to grant an operating license as a result of a single i
licensing action.
In those cases, duel loading and low power test activities were then perferned and integrated with ascension to full power.
Sh=rtly after the Three Mile Island accident, the KRC began to issue licam es in a two,-
step (low power-full power) pro =ess.
This two-step process was i=planented to help ease the licensing review backlog
)
which resulted,fren the licensing hiatus fcilowing the 1979 accident.
Initially, this two-step process worked l
_s.
4
~ _ - _ - - - - - _ _. - - _ _ - - -
e
- n.. -
reasonably well.
Plants that were granted a low power license generally completed the fuel loading and low power testing by the time the full power license was issued, with the low power testing and the full power licensing relatively close together in time.
2/
Since 1984, however, there have been several cases of lengthy delay between the low power license and the approval for operation above 5%.
Examples of these delayed cases include:
1 1)
Diablo Canyon 1, where a three year delay was experienced between the initial low power license (September 1981) and full power approval (November l
1984).
2)
'Shoreham, where a low power license was awarded in July 1985 and full power authorization is yet to be issued.
3)
Perry, which received low power authorization in March 1986, did not receive full power approval until Dece=ber 1986.
1 2/
Of the 15 plants licensed for low power operation between March 1979 and June 1984 which also received a full power license during that period, the average time between the low power and full power licenses was less than 5 months.
The average time from initial criticality to award of the full power license was only 1/2 month (excluding Grand Gulf which was delayed for l
approximately two years because of improperly drafced Technical Specifications).
See Attachment F2, portions Of letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to Congressman Edward Markey, June 15, 1984.
_7
4 1
These delays illustrate clearly that liRC approval of low power operation gives no assurance that timely authorization of power operation is forthecming.
This would appear to be for Seabrook which is heavily engaged particularly relevant in the resolution of conplex energency planning issues.
IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES TN STATUS OUO RESULTING FROM Low POWEP OPERATION Before a reacter "goes critical" as it does for 8.
the first tine during low power testing, neither the nuclear are irradiated or fuel ner the reactor or its c==ponents, contaminated by radiation.
(The uranium contained in the fuel is of ccarse naturally radioactive, but this material is at a very low level and is fully contained within the fuel rods.)
Low power testing, however, necessarily causes irreversible changes to a nuclear reac.:=r and its supper-ing syste=s.
There is necessarily significant irradiation of 9.
the nuclear fuel as a result of low power testing.
This ir:adiation results in the build-up of quanti ies of fissics s
products within the fuel which requires that the fuel subsequently be handled, transper:ed, and treaced as
, i
e 4.
.l u
- 3..
irradiated fuel, once these fission products have been produced, they cannot be re=oved from'the fuel by any usual Thus, the irradiation from low power testing is means.-
' irreversible.
During low power testing some ce=ponents of the Seabrook plant would also be irreversibly irradiated while other components will become contaminated with
'These activated corrosion products and/or fission products.
include the reactor pressure vessel and internals, the steam incere nuclear generators, the control rods, instrumentation,'and other reactor components, equipment, Once contaminated by substantial quantities of and piping.
radioactive fission products, special care would be required in handling these ice =s.
The irreversible changes to the plant resulting 10.
frcm power Operation as described above makes a significant change in the way in which the Seabrook plant must be
==nsidered.
Prier to power cperatien, the plant equipment and cc penents a e radiation free (with the exception of nuclear fuel and sene sensors), and there is no 14 4:ation site as to what furtre optien for the plant and the plant l
may be selected.
It is possible in this conditien that the plant could be abandoned, coverted to ncn-nuclear use, er cperated as a nuclear unit as planned.
Once radioactive, l
_p_
t
'8
- s u
t l
the options are reduced.
Both the plant and plant site i
become nearly irreversibly committed to a nuclear facility.
This is because much of the plant equipment will be made radioactive and because the sice itself becomes (de-facto) a long-term radioative waste storage facility since there is l
no approved storage facility available to receive the i
irradiated nuclear fuel.
i 11.
Because of the unavoidable irradiation and contamination described above, the conduct of low power l
1 testing of necessity requires some worker arposure to l
potentially harmful radiation during the course of the t
testing as well as after the testing is completed.
The amount of exposure =ay not be large and unless errors are made, probably would not exceed allowable limits.
- However, it is an additional unavoidable i= pact which results frem low power testing.
The necessity of perfor=ing the
~~
associated health physics prctectics req-4 ements du-ther complicates maintenance and operation steps and =akes plant security a scre critical and time cens" 4 ng functicn.
In its ncn-iradiated condition, the fuel loaded 12.
into the seabrook core probably has a recovery (or salva=e) value that is likely equal cc or a majer fraccion of che l I
j
l original purchase value of that fuel.
This fuel, if not irradiated, likely could be sold to other nuclear plants to use as is, or, if necessary, to be reconfigure for a different reactor.
(For example, some bundles might require I
manual disarrembly and rod rearrangement or reconfiguration of the pellets for the ncessary pattern of enrichment.)
once the fuel is substantially irradiated and there is a significant build-up of fission products as would occur during the proposed 5% power operation, it makes fuel reconfiguration, and therefore most opportunities for reuse of the fuel, = ore complicated and costly and therefore far less likely to be i=plemented.
Based on present day nuclear fuel costs, the value of the Seabrook fuel is a. approximately S50-80 =illion.
Salvage value approximately equal to this 1
I t=ount could be realiced from the fuel in its present l
1 c=ndition.
While it is technically possible that irradiated
, fuel could be transfe red to a different reactor of the same 1
I I
design and subsequently used, there would be significant penalties associated with such an action.
It vonld be necessary to ship the fuel in shielded casks which may v may not be readily available.
The fuel itself w-"'d - - be of opti=us design for equilibrium operation.
Such a transfer has, co my knowledge, never been done in U.S.
Power l _ _ _ _
reactors and would probably require lengthy review by the ITRC and/or other regulatory bodies.
Consequently, I conclude that the fue'l has little or no value if used for testing up to 5% power.
13.
The proposed 5% power operation would also result l
l in the loss of potential salvage value for other, plant conponents that would be substantially irradiated or I
contaminated (i.e., steam generators, reactor components 1
such as control rods and other internals, coolant pumps and seals, valves, piping and instrumentation sensors).
I estimate the salvage value of these c==ponents to be at least $20-30 million.
These components are virtually identical in all Westinghouse Pressu-ized Water React =rs, many are periodically replaced, and others are useful fer replacement in the event of ec=ponent failures.
Thus, a resale market fer them should exist unless they are ih : adiated.
In an interview conducted in==njuncti:n with a Ver=cnt proceeding (Ver==nt Public Se-vice Board, Docket 5122), Willian 3. Derrickson, Vice-President of PSIE stated his estimate of the salvage value of the can=elled seabrook Unit 2 to be approximately $25 million.
(See Atta:hren 12, November 12, 1986 Interview, Willia: 3.
Derrickson,
- p. 74.)
It is likely, h vever, that if these same conponents were - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _.
l r
L l
i irradiated and/or contaminated by power operation, they i
would have little or no or perhaps negative salvage value, 14.
Additional costs resulting from a decision to perform low power testing are the costs of decontaminating, deco==issioning, and disposal of the fuel and portions of the reactor system following a low power testing period in the event that a full power license is not obtained.
The cost of necesr.ary removal / disposal /deconta=ination efforts I
could be tens of millions of dollars, depending on the specific disposal requirements.
Such efforts also carry with them the potential for additional worker radiation In addition, the irradiated fuel will need to be exposure.
treated as high level radioactive saterial and would likely ultimately be disposed of as spent fuel.
Because of he lengthy time periods during which spent fuel =ust be isolated from the envi-onment, Federal law has assigned the
- espensibility for its ultimate dispositica to the U.S..
Department of Energy (DOE).
2/
DOI will perfer= the 2/
Guidelines for the rece:mendation of nuclear vaste sites va e ena= ed in 10 CFR Chapter III, Part 960 on November 30, 1984.
These cuidelines do net specify precisely the lenpth cf time that high level waste =ust be safeguarded frc= the envirennent.
"'he guidelines do, nowever, give an indication of the time periods required by including numerous statenents of
" Qualifying" and "Faverable" Cenditiens such as:
I i
I~
l 1
. ultimate d sposal of high level vaste, but is also required i
to recover the full cost of disposal frcm the utility.
DOE has published expected costs for the receipt and ulti= ate
~
disposal of irradiated fuel.
These expected costs are currently being collected at a rate of S.001/ kwhr of generation for fuel exposed now to be disposed of by DOE in the future.
Fuel typically operates at a design exposure of 20,000 MWD (t)/ ton.
For such fuel, this collection rate is equivalent to approximately S150,000 per ton.
DOE has not established a rate for fuel exposed to the lower level
'(b)
Favorable Conditiens.
(1) Site conditiens such that the pre-waste-c= placement ground-water travel time along any path of likely radionuclides travel from the disturbed ene to the accessible environment would be==re than 10,000 years.
(2)
The nature and rates of hydrologic processes operating within the geologic setting during the Quaternary Period.would, if =cntinued into the future, not affe : cr would f averably aff e:: the ability of the geologic repesit:ry to is= late the
~
vaste during the next 100,000 years.
(Part 960 - General Guidelines For the Re===mendatien =f Sites Ier Nu= lear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR, Chapter : !)
Citatien Of the above guideline is nct intended to l
i= ply that the Seabrook Site will be required to stere I
the irradiated fuel for the next 10,000 to 100,000 It does however, give an indicati:n cf the years.
irreversible effe::s involved in the decision being considered. !
4 associated with the 5% power test operation, but there is no reason to expect that the ecst per ton could be negotiated to much below DCE's published rates as DOE is required by law to obtain full cost recovery.
Accordingly, the potential cost for disposal by DOE of the 90 tons at Seabrook could be as much as $13,,000,000, not counting transportation or possible cost increases.
In addition, no disposal facility is planned or expected until after the year 2000, st least 15 vears in the future.
It would therefore be necessary to store and safe. guard the s_ pent fuel on site until that time.
Assuming an operations and security staff of at least 10-15 people for this chore, an annual cost of $500,000 to $1,000,000 is not unreasonable and is probably low.
The cost of spent fuel disposal alone thus becomes a S20 to 30 tillion obligation.
Reacter c=sponents re= oval, handling and disposal would be additionally required.
_.:.I Es NO OUro0FE E m ED. AND _.: SINE 7:Ts PODUCED 9Y *j3W DOWE2 NETING A_02 OU""WEIGVID BY '*vE ADi"ED.FE AND TT. EVIO5TEEE GANGEE IN T=
F 7 7.'"*J S 000 15.
The essential purpcse =f a low power license is to reacter ryste=s which cannet be effe: ively tested in test noncritical conditions.
It is necessary to conduct such._______-__-_-_____f
- o..
v l
testing. prior to operating the plant at higher: power levels (i.e.,
greater thrn 5% power).
At 5% power, the reactor would barely produce 'enough steam to spin the. turbine and 1
synchronize the generator.
Taking into. account'the station auxiliary power needs, it is likely that there wculd be. no net electric power supplied to the grid as a result of the testing, and there would be no displaced oil or fuel cost savings.
Instead,Lpower from the grid would be required to.
run the plant during the tests.
Thus, none of the benefits assumed in the NRC's Environmental I= pact Statement for seabrook would be achieved by low power testing; however, as noted, low' power operation would result in environmental i= pacts, such as plant conta=ination with radioactive material, the likely loss of the resale value of the fuel and other ce=ponents once they become irradiated, the cost of decont=~ination,-decc--4 ssioning and disposal, werker exposure, and last but not least, the potential ec==itsent of the site to lengthy radioactive waste st: rage use.
16.
Because low power testing standing alone produces no na.: benefits but does have serious adverse effects, it is
=y opinien that there is no reasen to conduct low power j
testing just f:r its sake alene.
Rather, icw power testing i
i can be rationally justified enly in cir=urstan=es where 1
I ____1___
j
9 there is no substantial doubt that the plant subsequently will operate at higher power levels so that its benefits (i.e., generation of electricity) will be available to offset the adverse effects (fuel irradiation, radioactive 1
l l
contamination, potential worker exposure) which cannot be avoided.
In my technical opinion, the optimum time for performing low-power testing of any nuclear reacter is shortly before full-power operational approval is reliably anticipated to be obtained.
/
f
/<
~
DALE G.
BRIDENSAUGH to before me Subscribed and sworr)fl. /,.1987.
- ^--%
en this.p ~' day of cmcut s n g
g: =,w; IMDl *, L C A
,,y
)
e "I n r..u:. :,u:r, :::::;.
q/ // mu, j
f
- = :. - ::
- .H c::=. a;.
- .;: u. :---
/
.f,,g s,
s
~~
~ " " ' "
',/ NOTARY PUBLIC V.
'r v// /
My Cem=ission expires:
6 - - -- _ - -_ - _-___ _-___ _____ _____ _ ___ _
o i-4 4
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DALE G. BRDENBAUGH DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite'K-San Jose, California '95125 (408) 266-2716
.E.XPERIENCE:
1976 - PRESENT President - MHB Technical Associates, San Jose, California Co-founder and partner of technical consulting firm.
Specialists in energy consulting to governmental and other groups interested in evalua-tion of nuclear plant safety and licensing.
Consultant in this capacity to. state agencies. in California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Minnesota and to the Norwegian Nuclear Power Committee, Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate, and various other organizations and environmental. groups.
Performed extensive safety analysis for Swedish Energy Commission and contributed to the Union of Concerned Scient'ists's Review of WASH-1400.
Consultant to the U.S.
NRC - LWR Safety Improvement Program, performed Cost Analysis of Spent Fuel Disposal -for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and cor.tributed to tne Department of Energy LWR Safety Improvement Program for Sandia Labo-ratories.
Served as expert witness in NRC and state utility commission.
hearings.
1976 - (FEBRUARY - AUGUST)
Consultant. Project Survival, Palo Alto, California Volunteer work on Nuclear Safeguards Initiative campaigns in. California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Colorado.
Numerous presentations on nuclear power and alternative energy options to civic, government, and
' college groups.
Also resource person for public service presentations on radio and television.
19 3 - 1976 Manacer. Performance Evaluation and Improvement. General Electric Com-ituciear Enerov Divisien. 5an Jose. California cany Managed seventeen technical and seven clerical personnel with resconsi-l bility for establishment and management of systems to monitor and men-sure Boiling Water Reactor ecuioment and system coerational performance.
Integrated General Electric resources in customer plant modifications.,
._---_.m_
________m__,._.__,,
h coordinated correction of causes of for:ed cutages and of efforts to im-prove reliability and performance of BWR systems.
Also responsible for development of Division Master Performance Improvement Plan as well as for numerous Staff special assignments on long-range studies.
Was on special assignment for the management of two different ad hoc proje:ts formed to resolve unique technical problems.
1972 - 1973 Manacer, Product Service, General Electric Comoany Nuclear Enerov Divis1on San Jose, Californla Managed group of twenty-one technical and four clerical personnel.
Prime responsibility was to direct interface and liaison personnel involved in corrective actions required under contra:t warranties.
Also in charge of refueling and service planning, performance analysis, and service communication functions supporting all completed comme r:ial nuclear power reactors supplied by General Electric, both domestic and overseas (Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan India, and Switzerland).
1968 - 1972 Manacer, Product Service. General Electric Comoany Nuclear Enercy Division, San Jose, California Managed sixteen technical and six clerical personnel with the responsi-bility for all customer contact, planning and execution of work recuired after the customer acceptance of department-supplied plants and/or equipment.
This included quotation, sale and delivery of spare and re-newal parts.
Sales volume of' parts increased from $1,000,000 in 1968 to over S3,000,000 in 1972.
1966 - 1963 Ma n a ce r, Comolaint and Wa rra nty Service, General Electric Cocoany huciear inerey Division. San Jose, Cailfornia Managed croup of six persons with the responsibility for customer on-Tacts, planning and execution of work required after customer a::e;:an:e of cepart ent-supplied plants and/or equipment--both comestic and over-seas.
1963 - 1966 Field Encineerine Suoervisor, General Electric Comoany. Installation and Service incineerin: Desar: ment, Los An:eies. ;ai1fornia Supervised accroximately eignt field representatives witn responsibility for General Electri: steam and gas turoine installation and maintenance work in Soutnern California, Arizona, and Soutnern Nevaca -
During nis ceriod was responsible for ne installation of ei:nt if:e.w-* central station steam uroine-genert:or units, plus mu:n haintenan:e a::1vity.
Work intiuced customer contact, preparation of cu;;ations, an: :entra::
negotiations. -
e' 4
1956 - 1953 Field Eneineer, General Electric Comoany, Installation and Service Enci-neerino Decartmenc, Cnicaco, Illinois Supervised installation and maintenance of steam turbines of all si:es.
Supervised crews of from ten to more than one hundred men, depending on the job. 'n'orked primarily with large utilities but had significant work with steel, petroleum and other process industries.
Had four years of experience at construction, startup, trouble-shooting and refueling of the first large-scale commercial nuclear power unit.
1955 - 1955 Encineerine Trainina
- Procram, General Electric
- Comoany, Erie, Pennsylvania, ano Senenectacy, New York Training assignments in plant facilities design and in steam turbine testing at two General Electric factory locations.
1953 - 1955 United States Army - Ordnance School, Aberdeen. Maryland Instructor - Heavy Artillery Repair.
Taught classroom and shop disas-sembly' of artillery pieces.
1953 Encineerine Trainina Procram, General E' _ ric Comoany Evendale, Ohio Training acsignment with Aircraft Gas Turbine Department.
EDUCATION & AFFILIATIONS:
BSHE - 1953, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid. City, South Dakota, Upper 1/4 of class.
Professional Nuclear Engineer - California.
Certificate No. 0973.
j l
Member - American Nuclear Society Various Cocoany Training Courses during career including Professional Business Management, Keoner Tregoe Decision Making, Effeccive Presen a-tion, and numerous technical seminars.
l HONORS & AWARDS:
Sigma Tau - Honorary Engineering Fraterni;y.
General Managers Award, General Eleccric Comoany.
3
1 4
L
+
i PERSONAL DATA:
Born November 20, 1931, Miller, South Dakota Married, three children 6'2",190 lbs., health - excellent Honorable discharge from United States Army Hobbies:
Skiing, hiking, work with boy Scout Groups J
PUBLICATIONS & TESTIMONY:
1, Operatine and Maintenance Exoerience, presented at Twelfth Annual Semi-nar for Ele:tric utility Executives, Pebble Beach, California, October 1972, published in General Electric NEDC-10697, December 1972.
2.
Maintenance and In-Service Inspection, presented at IAEA Symposium on Experience From Operating anc Fueling of Nuclear Power
- Plants, Bridenbaugh, Lloyd & Turner, Vienna, Austria, October,1973.
3.
Ooeratine and Maintenance Experience, presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for Electric utility Executives, Pebble Beach, California, November 1973, published in General Electric NEDO-20222, January 1974.
5 Imorovine Plant Availability, presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for 4.
Electric utility Executives, Pebbie Beach, California, November 1973, published in General Electric NEDO-20222, January,1974.
5.
Acolication of Plant Outaae Exoerience to Imorove Plant Pe rf ormance,
Bricenoaugn anc Burosall, American Power Conf erence, Cnicago, Illinols, April 14, 1974.
E.
Nuclear Valve Testina Cuts Cost, Ti me. Electrical World, October 15, 1974.
7.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor bef..*e the United States Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, February 1B,1975, Washington, D.C. (Published by the Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.)
8.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. 3. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor to the California State Assembly Committee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy, March 8, 1975.
9.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California Energy commission, entitled, Initiation of Catastrochi: A :idents at Diablo Canyon, Hear-ings on Emergency Planning, Avlia Bea:n, Cailf ornia, hovemocr 4,1976.
10.
Te'stimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before tne U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mi s sion, subject:
Diaolo Canyon Nuclear Plant Performance, Atomi Safety an: Licensing boar nearings, Decem er, 1516, 11.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh bef ore the Calif ornia Energy Commission, suoject:
Interim Scen Fuel Storace Considerations, Mar:n IC, 1977.
.a.
~.
g 12..
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service Commission Siting Board Hearings concerning the Jamesport tiu: lear Power Station, subject: Effect of Tecnnical and Safety Deficiencies on flu: lear Plant Cost and Re11acility, April,1977.
- 13. -
Testimony by D. G. Br.idenbaugh before the California State Energy Com-mission, subject:
Decommissioning of Pressurized Water Reactors, Sun-desert Nuclear. Plant, hearings, June 9,1977.
14.
~ Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California State Energy Com-mission, subject:
Economic Relationships of Decommissioning, Sundesert Nuclear Plant, for tne Natural Resources Defense Council, July 15, 1977.
15.
The Risks of Huclear Power Reactors:
A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Stuoy WASH-14DO, Keneall, Huocarc, Minor & Br1oencaugn, et. al., f or tne Union of Concerned Scientists, August, 1977.
16.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Vermont State Board of Health, subject:
Doeration of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and Its Imoact on Public Healtn and Saf ety, Octooer 6,1977.
17.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, subject:
Deficiencies in Safety Evaluation of Non-Seismic Issues. Lack of a Definitive Fino1no of Safety, Diaoln Canyon Nuclear Units, Octooer 18, 1977, Avila Beacn, Cal-ifornia.
18.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbliugh before the Norwegian Commission on Nuclear Power, subject:
Reactor Safety / Risk, 0:tober 25,1977.
19.
Swedish Reactor Safety Study:
Barseback ' Risk Assessment, MHB Technical Associates, January, 1978.
(Puolisnec oy tne Swecisn Department of Industry as Document DsI 1978:1) 20.
Testimony by D. G.
Bridenbaugh before the Louisiana State Legislature Co=mittee on Natural Resources, suoje:::
Nuclear Power Plant Deficien-cies !moa:tino en Safety & Reliability, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,.?eoruary 13, 1975.
21.
Soent Fuel Disposal Costs, report prepared by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the hatural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), August 31, 1978.
22.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, G.
C. Minor, and P..
B. Hubbard before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the, matter of the Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit Hearings, Septemoer 25, 1975, Tulsa, Oklanoma.
23.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bricenbaugh and R.
B.
Hubbard oefore the Louisiana Publi: Service Commission, Nuclear Plant and Power Generation Cos s, November 19, 1973, Baton Rouge, Loulslana.
~5-L
C' e.
24.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh before the City Council and Electri Utility Commission of Austin, Texas, Desien, Construction, and Ooeratina Exoerience of Nuclear Generatina Facill:1es, Decemoer 5,1976, Austin, Texas.
25.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Utilities, Imcact of Unresolved Safety Issues, j
General Deficiencies, and Three Mile Islano-initiated Moc1 fica:1ons on Power Genera:1on Cost at :ne Procoseo Pilarlm-2 huclear Plant, June 8, 1
1979.
l 26.
Imorovina the Safety of LWR Power Plants, MHB Te:hnical Associates, prepared f or U.S. Dept. of Energy, Sancia Laboratories, September 28, 1979.
27.
BWR Pioe and No:zle Cracks, MHB Technical Associates, for the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI), October,1979.
28.
Uncertainty in Nuclear Risk Assessment Methodology.
MHB Technical Asso-clates, for tne Swecisn Hu: lear Power inspectorate (SKI), January 1980.
29.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis-trict, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station following TMI-2 accident, subject:
Ooerator Traininc and Human Factors Encineerina, for the Cali-fornia, Energy Commission, Feoruary ll,1980.
30.
Italian Reactor Safety Study:
Caorso Risk Assessment, MHB Technical Associates, for Friencs of tne Ear:n,1:aly, Marcn,1980.
31.
Decontamination of Krycton-83 from Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, H.
- Kencall, R.
Pollarc, and D.
G.
Bricenoaugn, et al, Ine Union of Con-cerned Scientists, delivered to the Governor of Pennsylvania, May 15, 1980.
32.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Scard of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Publi: Advocate's Office, Division of Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Saler-1 Refuelin: Outace, August 1930.
33.
Minnesota Nuclear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study, MHS Technical Associ-ates, for Minnesota Poliu:1on Control Agen:y, Septemoer, 1930.
34.
Position Statement, Procosed Rulemakinc on the Storace and Discosal of Nuclear Waste, Joint Cross-5:a ement of Posi: Ton of :ne hew ingian Coali:1on n Nuclear Pollution and ne Natural Resour:es Defense Coun-Oil, Septetser,1950.
T'stimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh and G.
C.
Minor, before the New York 35.
eState Public Service Commission, in :ne matter of Long Island Light Co>
Dany Temocrary Rate Case, preoared for :ne Snorenam Oooonents Coalition, Seotemoer 22, 1950, Shorenam Nu:1 ear Oian Constru:: ion Senetuie.
5
.~
T t.
35.
Supplemental. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Salerr-1 Refuelino Outace, December, 1980.
37.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor, before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the 4
Public Advocate,. Division of Rate Counsel, Oyster Creek 1980 Refuelina
{
Outace Investigation,' February 1931.
28.
Economic Assessment:
Ownershio Interest in Palo Verde Nuclear Station, HriB lecnnical Associates, for :ne City of Riversloe, Sep;emoer 11, 1981.
39.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, in the Matter of the Regulation of the Electric Fuel Component Contained Within the Rate Schedules of the Toledo Edison Company and Related Matters, subject:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1980-31 Outace Review, November,1981.
40.
Supplemental Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Comission of Ohio, in the matter of the Regulation of the Electric Fuel Component Contained within the Rate Schedules of the Toledo Edison Com-pany and Related Matters, subject:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1980-81 Outace Review, November 1981.
41.
Systems Interaction and Sincie Failure Criterion. Phase 2 Recort, MMB
'iecnnical Associates for tne Swedisn Nuclear Power Inspec; orate ( S KI ),
January, 1982.
42.
Testimony of D. G.
Bridenbaugh and G. C.
Minor on behalf of Governor l
Edmund G.
Brown Jr.,
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, l
l regarding Contention 10, Pressurizer Heaters, January 11, 19S2.
l 43.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Governor Ecmund G.
Brown Jr.,
befo re the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, j
regarding Contention 12, Block and Pilot Operated Relief Valves, January 11, 1952.
44.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Decartment of Public Utilities, on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Pilcrim Nuclear Power Station, 1931-82 Outa:e Investigation, March 11,1932.
45.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, en benalf of the Pet.asylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, Beaver Valiev Dutace, March,1932.
I 46.
Interim testimony of D. G. Bricencaugh and G. C. Minor before the A:cti:
Safety and Licensing Board, on benalf of Suffolk County, in :ne matter of Long Island Lignting Cocoany, Snorenam Nuclear Power Station, Uni: 1, regarcing Suffolk County Contention 11 cassive Me:nanical Valve Fail-ures, Aprii ;3, 1952.
.7.
~.
2~
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before tne Atomic Safety 47.
and Licensing Board, on benalf of Suffolk County, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regard-ing Suffolk County Contention 11. Passive Me:hanical Valve Failures, April 13, 1952.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and R. B. Hubbard, in the Matter of Jer-48.
sey Central Power and Light Company For an Increase in Rates for Ele:-
trical Service, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advo-cate Division of Rate Counsel, Three Mile Island Units 1 & 2. Cleanuo j
and Modification Procrams, May, 1952.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk 49.
County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 22, SRV Test Procram, May 25, 1982.
50.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Long Island Lighting Company, regarding Suffolk County Contention 28(a)(vi) and 50C Contention 7A(6),
Reduction of SRV Cnallences, June 14, 1982.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Illinois Commerce Commission, 51.
on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General's Office, Excetted Lifetimes and Performance of Nuclear Power Plants, June 18, 1982.
52.
Testimony of D. G, Bridenbaugh and R. B. Hubbard on behalf of the Ohio Consumers Counsel, before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, re-garding Construction of Perry Nuclear Generatina Unit No.1, October 7, 1982.
Issues Affectina the Viability and-Acceptability of Nuclear Power Usace 53.
in tne Unitec 5:stes, preparea oy MnB Tecnnical Associates for Congress of tne Unitec 5 ates, Of fice of Technology Assessment for use in con-junction with Workshop on Technological and Regulatory Changes in Nuclear Power, December 8 & 9, 1982.
54.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bridenbaugh on behalf of Rockford League of W: men Voters, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in :ne matter of Comm:nwealth Edison Company, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding Contention 22. Steam Generators, Mar:n 1, 1953.
55.
Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Acvo: ate, Recardine :ne Cost of Constructive tne Sus:uenanna Steam Electri 5:a-tion. Un1:
ke: Pennsylvania Power anc '1gnt, April 20,1952.
j 55.
Surrebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bricennaugn before tne Pennsylvania Pub-li Utility Ccamission, on behalf of tne Office of Consumer A:voca:e, Recarcin: tne Cost Of Constru: ine tne Sus:uenanna Steam Electri: 5:a-
- Ton, un :
2, Re: Pennsylvania Power an:
1gn:, Acri. 20, 1953.
4 L._____________
~
e Service Gas &
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh In the Matter of Publi:
Electric, Base Rate Case, Nuclear Construction' Expenditures, on behalf 57.
of New Jersey i>epartment of tne Puolic Acvocate, D1 vision of Rate Coun-sel, October 13, 1933.
in the Matter of Jersey Central Power Affidavit of D. G. Bridenbaugh, and Light, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, 58.
23, 1933.
Division of Ra.te Counsel, TMI Fault Investigation, November Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Elcetric
& Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Divi-59.
Salem-1 Outaces, December 1, sion of Rate Counsel, LEAC Invettioation.
1983.
Rebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advo-60.
cate, Division of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investigation. Salem-1 Outaces, January 18, 1984.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, L. M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C.
61.
Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC Case No. 27563, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company Proceeding to Investigate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facility --
Phase II, on behalf of County of Suffolk, February 10, 1984.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Jersey Central Power &
Light' Company, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advo-62.
Division of Rate Counsel, Base Rate Case. Ovster Creek 1953-84
- cate, Outace and O&M and Capital Expenditures, May 23, 1984.
Direct Testimuny of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard, Before the Illi nci,s Commerce Commission, Illinois Power Company, Clinton 63.
Nuclear Station, Docket No. 84-0055, available from Illinois Governor's Office of Consumer Services, July 30, 1984.
Joint Direct Testimony of Dr. Robert N. Anderson, Professor Stanley G.
Christensen, G. Dennis Elej, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard 3. Hubbard 64.
Recarding Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Contentions, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Long Island Lighting Com-31, 1934.
pany, Shoreham Nuclear Plant, HRC Docket No. 50-322-OL, July Direct Testimcny of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Regarding Peach Bot.om Units 2 65.
and 3 - investigation of Outages Due to Intergranular Stress Corrosien Cracking, Before the Pennsylvania Publi: Utility Commission, Pnilacei-phia Electric Co., Docket No. V-FACEB4DE, on behalf of Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, Septemaer 1954.
Surrebut ai Testimony of Dale G. Bricenbauch, Lynn M. Danielson, Ri: nard 55.
Ser-B. Hubbard, and Gregory C. Minor, Sefore :ne New York Sta.e Publi:
vice Commission, PSC Case No. 27553, Snorenam Nu: lear 5:a:icn, Long Yort 5:ste I
f Island Lign:ing Company, on benalf of Suffolk County and New Consumer Protection Board, 0:tocer 4, 1954.
.g.
1 u
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory 67.
C. Minor on Behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General, DPU 84-145, Before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, regarding the pruden:y of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company on Seabrook Unit 2, November 23, 1934, 84 pgs.
l Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Richard 3. Hubbard and Lynn K.
l 68.
Price on Behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General, DPU 84-152, Before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, regarding the investi-gation by the Department of the Cost and Schedule of Seaborok Unit 1, December 12, 1984.
69.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory f
C. Minor on Behalf of Maine Public Utilities Commission Staff regarding l
Seabrook Unit 2, Docket No.84-113, Decemoer 21, 1934.
70.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor Regarding Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Load Contention, Docket No.
50-322-OL, January 25, 1985.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of the Motion of 71.
Public Service Electric & Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Motion To Increase The Level of the Levelized Eneray Adjustment Clause, Docket No. ER 5501166 and Docket No. 537-620, April 24,1985.
72.
Direct' Testimony of Dale G.
Bridenbaugh on behalf of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the Matter of Boston Edison Company DPU 85-13, A Hearing to Determine Whether Fuel and Pur-chased Power Costs Associated with the Outage at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Which Began on December 10, 1953 and Ended on December 30, 1954 Were Reasonably and Prudently Incurred.
May 13, 1985.
73.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the Residential Ratepayer Consortium, in the Matter of tne Application of Con sume rs Power Comoany for a Power Supply Cost Reconcilia-ion cro:eeding for tne 12-month period ended December 13, 1954, regarding Palisaces Outage Re-view, Case No. U-7735-R, August 28, 1955.
74.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbauch, Lynn M. Danielson, and Grecory C. Minor on behalf of tne Deoartment of Public Service, State of Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5030, Central Vermont Publi: Service Corporation, Novemoer 11, 1955.
75.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Ericenbaugh on behalf of New Jersey Decart-ment of the Puoli: Advocate, in :ne matter of JCP&L f or an in:rease in rates, Base Rate Case, Oyster Creek C&M anc Capital Expenditures, November 25, 1955.
75.
Dire:t Testim:ny of Dale G. Bridencaugn on behalf of New Jersey De: art-ment of :ne Publi Aavocate, in :ne matter of JCP&L, TMI-Restart - L5 C, Re: TMI-Restart Commercial Coeration Stan:ar:s & Reliability Of Service, January 31, 1955.
-1D-
C 77.
Direct Testimony of Dale G.
Bridenbaugh, Gregory C.
Minor, Lynn K.
Pri:e, and Steven C. Sholly on behalf of State of Connecticut Department of the Public Utility Control Prosecutorial Division and Division of Consumer Counsel regarding the prudence of expenditures on Millstone Unit 3, February 18, 1985.
i
-73.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the prudence of expenditures by New England Power Co. on Seabrook Unit 2, February 21, 1985.
79.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo Construction Prudence for Millstone Unit 3. March 19, :
~5.
80.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo's Commercial Operating i
Dates and Deferred Capital Additions on Millstone Unit 3, Ma rch 19, 1985.
81.
Rebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding New England Power Company's Seabrook.2 Rebuttal, April 2, 1985.
82.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of State of Maine Staff of Public utilities Commission regarding Con-struction Prudence of Millstone Unit 3, April 21, 1985.
83.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Peter M. Strauss on behalf of New Jersey Department of the iublic Advocatr., Division of Rate Coun-sei, regarding Base Rate Case: In-Service Criteria for Hoce Creek, Hope Creek 0&M and Decommissioning Costs, and Operating Plant O&M Costs, May 19,1985,107 pp.
84.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of New Jersey Depart-ment of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, regarding Base Rate Case: Hope Creek Commercial Operating Date and Criteria, Hope Creek O&M r.osts, Operating Life, Capital Additions, and De:ccmissioning Costs, May 27,1935, S5 pp.
85.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Ri:hard B. Hubbard, and Lynn K.
Price on behalf of State of Illinois Office of the Attorney General and Office of Publi: Counsel, regarding Evaluation of Clinton Costs, Oc:ket No. 84-0055, July 9, 1955.
85.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridencaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of tne Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding Tariff Filing of Centrai Vermont Publi: Service Corporation Recuesting a 12% increase in Rates, Dc:ket No. 513:, August 25, 1985.
57.
Dire:: Testimony of Dale G. Sricenbaugh and Ri:hard B. Hubcard on benaif of tne Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Acvocate, regarding pennsylvania Publi: Utility Co mi.i s s i o n v s. Ducuesne Lign: Comoany and Pennsylvania Power Company, Docket Nos. E-55 3'S and R-E50257, Sep;emoer 22, 1985.
L_--_-_______________
i B
....e L..'..
./pn *8 eg%.
,i-
.i- _. _ UNITED STATES i
t EAR REGOCATORY COMMIS5!ON
".?"
$ccg--'"' L'~ ;7..s1
.c g"
i'
- "..'s er ash mcTON. D. c. 2ous t+h
?.y
.70 e
g y; o,.. -
%..v...e June
.gS..
1 sos am 9
cxmum i
The Hencrable ~dward J. Mar. key, Chair:.an Sub::mittee en Oversight and Investigations Comittee on Interior and insular Aff airs United States House of Representatives Wapingten,D.C., 20515 e
Dear Congressman Markey:
Your letter of Mar:h 30, 1984 re uested an explanation of the risks associated with low power operation at comercial nuclear power rea:ter In addition, yeu raised five specifi:
in Attachment 1 to.t.h._is.. letter.
W1th regard to the risks associated with IN power eteration, Attachment 2 As is a Cc=ission paper developed by the staff addressing this issue.
I indicated by this paper, the everall conciusion that the staff must rea:h I
for fuel loading and low powe, testing up to 5 percent power, is that there f:r the limited is no undue r.i.sk to the health and saf ety cf the publi in practi:e, the staff' has deveiered analyses that
- erations aut% rized,
~
indicate that+tne risks of 5 percent power Operation can be expected to be
~
appreciably less 'than the risks of 100 per:ent power cperati:n.
par'ti:izate in the ; e;aration of this reply.
C: rnisniener Gilinsky did n::
We trust that this infer atien is resp:nsive to your ::$:ebs.
Sin:areiy, 7,lV
'~ -
~~
g-V r
y Hun:ic J. p;iladino
)
Atta: Ments:
f As stated ci:
Rep. R:n Parienet
_,..... _ ~
l..
\\.
.e e.
^
\\"..'
l g
j, p
l.
k-s.
~
.u
.. w-t h.
.,4 foe
.97es: tors li:ensed sin:e the a:tident at Three Mi',c Island,'please provide the following (A) the dai.e of issuance CllESTION 5:
of the low power license; (5) the date of initialcriti (E) ne date the date of issusn=e of the full p:wer license:
that power levels of 25 :ercent or higner were first attained; (F) tne date that Dower levels of 90 Oerter.t or hi her were first. attair.ed; (G)(exe:: iens granted by the to'the low pow ~er licensce and, H) exemptiens granted by thc-HRC to the full power licensec.
i.
ASS'4ER.
We interpreted The data re:uested is provided in the atta:hed Table 5.1.
l the cate of 5 percent c:wcr c:eration to be the date that this was exece:cd.
N/Ahasbeenused.g_
ec.
W 9
..es.m..
e t-P*
i
=== **
pa==='"*
E up
- .====%
m n
J.
e
.v
.. #=6
/*
- e.. g'
/t' s
._l t
'l
- ,, =.
1) l e,
, i M.' =.
- 3. !lll.. I. e 1
e f.>. %,.'.s. !!
I.
i t.:.Ps. '
l b,.
=..
,'..,,s.
- - - 1 1.
u-l
". *......e.
=. *
==.,
j
.' t =.*
l g l
.a*
er 8
e.r.
w s.*.* =.: w e %
gg -
E'.,.% c.:.r. L N 2:.0 y
, ::, p,..
2.
- c. *"
M * * %,%%, A.c ac;.g;.
tlll",.
% c.
===.l""'.*N,"*
L' % aC.,"" *:" O.:".% 2 *-
f..
-.. L % %- % b l- % % %2l b, N..*. - N N
-- N:7. W '
6: 7 6.~-., =.
I e
. s e
l
. s
.t i
e
- s..
e a
1 g
I.
e
..so.
.a M.
.. s e 4
.)
1.,
- =,.
...e.
l, t l t
e..
- l g
i.-
t l N ~8 l
' - 3' C.s. =..h y= % - :;
t=: rs,
- r
- T c.
~~.
-.c:
c t**30.
.- l..
.. % %== 4 -.% e.=
o
.v,. m.
- l: =.=.. >.
F.
L.l:t.
.:. *s. T..%k,
=c.
1:== at.
8 ll:%.
- u. -. _
r%-
L C.
-6::.:O N.
-::".T &
c4Llll::.::Li l
l l l 6
.= -
1
. 8 i
1 t
t w
- i."...... s..~..;.. I Il l
-r
[
,\\l n
<.m..
l.
I.. I.
I 6 ' = "'"i 8
i
. e i v.
4 lil a
. e
. w l l g
= _. -
Il.
1.. g!1.:
=
i _.
- -i
.sn.,,,..a.... z W.
...i
.s*r _....
.. =. -.
e:".
N'.:. N %.~.g=
%",,,.k....,..,
- =, =
6
- s
" n." % % ~ r *=r**
.J,
L.,
- =.L. *s O :.**.T M'
'"l-" ".
% % k. *:r **:
a
='
==
L.
3 k%%N C.
F.3'L..
. '" 7 E -- C'.bl"J.:
- %===-..."%
- l=
!..... l..l.I i
1.!
r l s g
f, t.
e s 4 i.
1,
.t i
3 f - *
)
{
t, l -
- e. I
.e.
, i
. i f
. l
- .I i
= *.. -
"s.'.,.l...-
a s
.,,,,.Q s.
4
\\e e.
8 t 1 L.s.=
- ).
- a...=C f,.4
=y...=,
N?s % %. * %
e".
r
..~%,.*l.*.ar*.-,,
mi
%. % "% ' l s
=,L.
as.e LJ 9 L..,
=
% %. - --..~. s.
es
- m. _.,
- .: =-.:.m.sa. e
- == - _ c.: m =.
i
> t,
, l -. i..
-O J!..
I i....
- i..
i e I
t i i
- .- g i ; j i g.j.
- ; { l l l l
..e j
t
,g.
s e
. ~
~ s w'.T. ".
r.: n... : :..
d
.~ E
"" '"'. = = :: 'C m.: ;;
c.:.
t..: r.-.O s.--.. =. -.....
P y,
?.',. ;;::: r
-.:. ::. :l : -
.,.. =--.
N
- t 6
- .,NL%.P.:.e.
-s 1
..e,
.e II l '. kl l '. l.i
(
i 8
. i I '.
I 1
- I 8
C g-l.
?
.g.
l
.- 8
.r.
'O.' T_S. **..* d'.it.u a *l".' "'*...' :"..
=.
b.=. r 3 =0.. *: "" k. ~. ll""':--".
E.:.- (*,
~*
L:.%.:. % L;.%% ;,:c,,,,... *.
"j g.
- - a. s* %s
- N. -,
N==. C'.
. - - - r c k,,
~ -.
l
%%=%
L,,%
f..ll" *. N "; - m *..:l -== * * *
~
f, i.i.::" f"s
(
- =
lt i i e t i i a Ii i
N.
~.
l e 'a'~
N'* 1 ]
- I".
1 1'
l*
a-f's,
l G h
L =-
t N.
5..
l S -,
N.._
l I
7; -
a ! -
.,. 3
,,,,,h.='
> * =.
i
% Q >=
y.%, -
.~
1 2
7. c.,
,=.
,_.=
t.
1 J
- "i
.r.
'C'a....
..r
=..,.,-
k ' '"
..' 5..
p.a, ""/
e..=.
L,-...r....-.*.. ' -
v e.i L
,. s
+ ::.
-_a
+
N I
E=*
e'
.i s.
g*a n* *. r.
Or. y..e..v a u m
.. 4vas a r,auI. e v. C S r.e.\\. c.sL Bon..D e.
.4 b
x t
m.
4e.s
- v. 4 1. 4.. g O c
. r..r.
+ u.
- c.
C e 1 V E...-.
2, 'D.i 1,*.
S E. 4 e
.w
..s
-= 9 no k e,.
.sJ o.
C.,...a 4 cn R e,,, e s. 4.,
a.;
i n
.yw.
l
, po.
e.*
T.c-e.=.se M..
Ra*a..r
.w 3
. To Take Ef f ec-Jt:n e 2, 1986.
1 l
l-...............x 6
- *:=".l.O.T.
.a e
'n e * *
- M.
Q 7
w i
- f
"."
- s s.r.T t.t."" O'b 1%. T is..
L.l
..)
a4 u.,,s r
u.
L sr.
i 1
S c.
o'n S r. 4 m
.w V.. m. 'y. o c.
}g' ey y a~~ e.b.
.o i
C e. 4.. e a,w. 4 *.* 4,.
O e m.e
.aGA
-.... =
ur
~ ~ ~~-
. a..s.'
m y., y a.y, y e ~
- c. %. ; - a.
9
.. e '."". e S ~ a.v.,.Iov e.D E:"
a, o
n
- 9. A. V 4 C:...
a af w.
I t
l i..
i I
i r"".".w*.**J.'*."O.
O a * * %F "
w.
P.r.;.... T-r m
.c ' %.O.*. *.".*.* s' 9 0..".* 0 a r.a r O.
a w
.a
... w
.....m.,..
.r.
.".O :. O. L T.L J r r.'.
LO O. w a s.~,
.~.a. r w r.. L.~.
l l,.. n.
. O V.,/ //
,s, s
L
.X Ot sw l. X C _o e :,
1.,..~.. %; :
a~
w & -.,, j " ;..,
.o
.' L _
---______m_
o.
.a.x*
- .y c.
4 1
,FRSSENT:
2 M.H.B. Technical Associates Gregory C. Mincr, Vice President an d 3
Judith R. Lieberman, Associate Consultant 17 22 Hamil ten Av en u e, Suite K San Jose, Calif c:nia 95125 4
j l
l 5
iCahill, Gcrden & Reindel I
(by Thomas R. J cn e s, Esquire) l 6
80 Pine Stree I
l New York, New Ycrk 10005 ;
7 fc: Public Service Cc=pany of New Hampshire.
8 Downs, Rachlin & Martin (by Elicabeth B. Mullikin, Esquire) 9 100 Derse: Street, Suite 1 P.O. Box 190 10 Burlin gton, Ver=cn t 05402-0190; fcr Central Ver==nt P..blic Service Corpora:icn.
11 Department cf P'.:.blic S ervice (by Christopher Micciche, Special Ccunsel) 12 l
120 State Street Mcntp elier, V er=cn t 05602 i
13 14 Swidler & Berlin (by An d.rew W e 4 e e"
, Esquire) 1000 Thc=as Jeff ersen Street, NW 15 Washin gcen,
D.C. 20007 ;
fcr C.V.P.S.C.
16 s ~t a
'8 "D? X
..o a
~.n t e.~.-i ew wi th:
Direcc
-, 9 de
' Willia
- 3. Derricksen 3
21 (by Mr. Mincr)
A 9
.e i
i i
t
.r-
...A
. f-
~
a f:
l 9.
7 1_
P R O C E E D.I N G S-t 1
t' 2
I I
i 3
EXA!CNAT:ON e
I CV. 'l.rt...
.V_T. 2.* 0 D.
4 i
.s.
l 5'
. Q This is not a. deposition.
I guess I should star:
6 by saying that.
Just f or the usual. pattern of
.t l'
t l
7 these type of things, I will intrcduce =yself.
I 8
am Greg Minor of M.E.3.
To my right is 9.
Judy Lieberman, also of M.E.B.; Chris Micciche cf l
l j.
the Depart =cnt of Public Services in ver=cnt.
10 I
And we are here, Mr. Derrickscn, to ask you 11 l
sc=e questicas about the proj ect; and I understand 12 i
I 13 you have schedule restraints; and I appreciate your 14 being here today.
i 15 I would like to just go back and ste.r:, if you le.
w en, c., ny telling =e your f:..rst associatics wi h I
~^
~ 'i ~
this prej ect cad whether tha: was as a cc='sul ::En:
-17 1
18 tc.Flcrida ?cwer cad Ligh er direct invciv e=en t 19 with the pcsitics at New Ha=pshire Yankee.
20 A
Okay.
We did have an involvemen t a Ficrida Power
..---- s
.; =-
- d. -. 4 -
a-
~
21 and Li-h: Cc..ec.v w'..w.
. a.e. r o
=
22 send sc e pecple up here te previde s==e assis:Ence I
23 Oc Publi c S e,-i c e in 1953, believe, and we did j
)
l 1
1 i
i I
I t
n.,
4 3
e u. 4.,u e ' y c" an d 5 e.. '..
- '. i...s p1c...
s.-"
"w.a-'
\\
~
w i
2 steel is the same way, u.iquely cut, specific 3
ccnnecticas out here.
You would have to design a 4
building 'around that structural steel.
I d en ' :
5 think we are going to find too many pecple excited 6
- o to
. a.k c.t..e.... e seec..
w.
- c....
. ] b e
- c..s e c ~
'. a
. *. v p ' c. ~ a c - a.
7
. e.b. a.=.. c - s, s '.., ' '
e -
w a
a 8
being buil t., "' hey have ccpper nickel tub es, an d I
.o Ccn
~w. u..tnk ha.a_
- s.,.,., h C a a
- .c. z. a.. :.
%.c s. e.
s w
10 Other cc=penents we are going to have to 1cok 11 at cn a case-by-case ' basis.
Origina.1 large =ctors 12 f cr replace = cut, and we will go to ar.d make an 13 at:c=p: to see what we can do in these areas.
- i., C,,.,, a 7
i n.w C s"1 w
..ww.
....,../ -
, a,s b.i.
v.
.G.,
w
.,w-
.o g,, y
- w..=..
we
..y.
.o e
n...-
- 2. 3 c
y
..-.a.
A.
$na 4..:
- y. a.
G.
A.
1 m -
.e mA e.1,
- f e.
sv qQ w =.e =.=
w G. c.. - y e
e* e k p G s.M.
h w
...'., sw3
.cw NN N
f a.N 4
./
O. -..
=
y..h
..o 3g39. s. e u.,
A e 1
.:a 4
9 c*
Q 3
, ca...
c..
.3
.e.,--c--
- 9. 0 aw C.
-e
.l*3.
e c. yb.*...'.-)
e.
- wy v
..o..-.
.We..
v P.
w.. 9. C.
%., e c%.
3w 6
..m
- 9 i*
.w..a.
o.
c-a
- A
.n aea
.w.
,.t.=.
b.
m.
a i i =. 4. e.
y==,.. eia..
99
.... 1 m. e.
s 3.
m..
4 w
..u
..e..*,aw4
- .= g 3
..e..'.
5.g a. 4 *
.b.=.
w.....
".9 g
a..
..r
..cg
.m. n..
as ww.
w.
.=
.e....g....P p
w g
gg y g g
p g
b g g.g a g (*
yg e.e.....pg
....g..e.. g Alb.
a.e.g.....m
.w.
w.
1 I
i
l l
. n i
s B
W e
f 74
..b-e sce ien,. %.. e...b e 1
w.b.e., o.. b. ey a. c.. l. 4.,.
- b. o
.a....
2 sheet sectica and using i: to practice any current 3
testing and tube plugging.
We may be able to dc 4
scr.ething like that.
'I d en ' t know.
We will work
.w...a.
4e
...e
_.._.. s..e g c
.a.s, 5
cn i,.
- v. :.. s.. a.. 4sw a
6 what we will.do.
1
- ave you made any estinate c# salvage values?
d 7
Q
- * *.. ' ' ' *.. e c,".v s d.' A.
~.%...'...h. *. e.v a. e 1 "w ci. '.. 3 8
n'
~.
a
.... u 9
S26
.#'1s 7 s a v ~>. O e '. " s c-
-..d..us.
".'.a-.
- . s.'. -
4 an w'..=... ~. 5 = v
- h. wu. k.
. *... -y
."'d.
s a '. '
d 10 s -..*.
intact, which is a lot.
~
11
,.).
A y a _4
, We c..e C -, c.
- 4...,,. k. 4 n 4.!,
D' 1 e
.u..s., 9 s s o.,.
c-=
c
...o. =
_'3 er.c- ~ ~...".' e _*
.e,. e_*_., s v s. a.., so we 14 with sc c.ecne else's pa :s.
I have been a. cund the w.
. y, c. C".
- e..,._.. a
.t. w, e
.u...,,. c, cy c.
-2 w
4. e. g. ;,;.
_i:. 3
- 1. D
_ _. -.---..j.
.c g wu c
1.7
' ~ '. v 2.. -
" k.=. 'i. v, w-"
v e -v,,
~
,D 4
.J..,
.?.'
nm. :... J....aw...
.w w...
.g w
0 (W.h.=.
"_s a.
. '. s: 0
- c....,. '. =.
^
r a,,,s v"**w... c J..)'
9 a e....W
.W.2. a-
- a. *:
v.c 7
t k
I i
m
.o
~s
+y 75
)
C r.
c.
r i CA.
/
2 S *. c'."..~.' C.? 1 L"..
- 2. <' ".* 2. * '.:. _.
3 I,
Ms.riann e Kusa-Ryll, Registered Pr0f essienti 4
Reperter, do hereby certify the f oregoing to be 5
a
.-.e c pv ^ '..ha.'... a... 4 ev c 3 F
- r'_". -. u.r.t.e ' ~..t* S w- ",,
=
w 6
held at the 5ew Ha.pshire Yankee General Of fice 7
Buil:iin g, Serbrook, liew Es.pshire, en Wednesday, 8
e 1;cv e.b er.12, 1986.
/
..... N.. $. [. M... W.. D.... M...., N.. '~./_,p,
10 Marianne Kusa-Ry11, CSR, 1_9_
2 A
3 1
l l
,-o
, o-
- 0 iO
.w I
I
- 9.,0 I
I
(
l b9 71
g UNITED STATES
[4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?,
c l
wAssmcTow, o. c.20sss
\\**..../
August 17 1987 Docket No.: 50-443 Mr. Robert J. Harris.on President & Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105
Dear Mr. Harrison:
SUBJECT:
RECENT FILINGS BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (PSNH)
BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC)
Recent information in your July 22, 1987 filing (on SEC Fonn 8-K) before the SEC reported potential difficulty in developing and implementing.a financial recovery plan. You reported that without such a plan PSNH may not be able to avoid proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.
The staff seeks clarification with regards to the applicants ability to provide financial coverage for the cost of low power operation of Seabrook and the cost of any pennanent shut down of the facility and maintenance in a safe condition following this low power operation.
It would be appreciated if you would provide the information requested in the enclosure by September 8,1987.
Sincerely,
?
Bruce A.
oger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors l
Division of Reactor Projects I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page l
EXHIBIT C j
i l
l l
RE0 VEST'FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION SEABROOK UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 1.
Please provide detailed estimates of (a.) the total cost to operate Seabrook Unit No'.1 at low power only (up to five percent power); and (b.) the total cost to permanently shut down the facility after low power operation only and to maintain it in a safe condition. Also provide an estimate of the cost to store or dispose of the irradiated fuel assuming low power operation only. Describe in detail the assumptions underlying
. I the estimates.
Include assumptions as to power level, duration of opera-tion, method of fuel disposal or storage and method of permanent shutdown and safe maintenance.
2.
Please provide a detailed statement of the source of funds for covering total costs of low power operation and total costs of permanent shutdown of the facility and maintenance in a safe condition after a period of low power operation only.
Identify each of the sources as to when it will be available and estimated dollar amount.
Indicate the assumptions underlying the projection of each source of funds.
3.
In the event that Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) were to enter bankruptcy proceedings how would this affect PSNH's ability to pay its share of Seabrook's low power operating costs and the costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition? If PSNH were unable to pay its share of costs, what are the sources and likelihood of availability of funds to cover the PSNH's share? Please describe in detail.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY., COMMISSION "O7 E 2l A9 223 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' Before Administrative Judges:
ca.,
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chainnan 00D.i -
i
~~; Emeth A. Luebke
. 4; s.
.m.. Jerry Harbour
>N. - '.,...., : _
,;+..
~..-
3DVED AUG 211387
.. : ~
w..
m,,
='
3 r..
w
.c..,,...
. ~.
... u....
,, )
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1
~.....
. S0-444-OL-1
'.In the' Matter of
S " -
-)
(On-Site Emergency Planning, "PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, e_t, d.
)
and Safety Issues) t (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
August 20, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petition To Waive Regulations)
MEMORANDUM
~
I., Background
~~0n July 31,1987,a petition was filed to waive regulations
~
$550.33(f)'and 50.57(a)(4) to the extent necessary to require Applicants to demonstrate financial qualification to operate and to decommission Seabrook Station. Two attorneys for the Town of Hampton (TH) signed the petition and one of the attorneys for TH signed as the authorized representative of New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL). In a Memorandum issued August 4, l
1987, the Appeal Board noted that, on March 25, 1987, this Licensing EXHIBIT D
~~
y:1 Board had rendered a partial initial decision deciding all on-site emergency planning and safety issues.then before it, but that none of those issues had involved financial qualifications. Observing that appeals had been tak'en and were currently under submission, the Appeal 2f Board stated that, despite this consideration, it appeared that the
^
waiver petition was correctly filed with the Licensing Board, and that there was no necessity to explore any jurisdictional question because it thought it desirable that the Licensing Board entertain the' waiver petition'in the first instance.
The On August 7,1987, Applicants filed an opposing response.
Staff filed its opposing re.sponse on August 17, 1987.
II. Discussion We deny the petition to waive regulations because, at the j
~
threshold, we find that TH has no standing to seek such.a waiver and that neither NECNP ner SAPL are properly represented before this' Board.
In our Memorandum and Order of July 25, 1986,3 we ruled that TH could not participate in the instant case involving on-site emergency olanning and safety issues, which included Applicants' request of June 17, 1986 f
J 1
~
LSP-87-10, 25 NRC 2'
In LBP.-87-10, having resolved the on-site emergency planning and
)
safety issues before it, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il 50.57(c) and 50.47(d), this Board decided another issue before it and authori:ed issuance of a license to operate Seabrook Unit I up to 5" of rated power, subject to certain conditions.
3 LSP-86-24, 24 NRC 132.
L l
l 1
)
.c for authorization to operate Seabrook, Unit i up to and including Si of The instant petition arises out of and is specifically rated power.
directed to Applicants' request for low power. TH did not appeal that ruling.' Further,
's attorney, who signed the petition' as the duthorized represent.ative for NECNP 'and FAPL, failed to comply with
'~
~
12.713 of the Comission's Rules of Prac,tice in ignoring both the requirement that he file a written notice of appearance and the requirement that he state the bases of his authority to act on. behalf of thase two parties. However, assuming'arguendo that NECNP and SAPL are properly represented, as discussed below, we have proceeded to consider NECNP's and SAPL's petition for waiver.
NECNP's and SAPL's petition seeks a waiver, under10 C.F.R. 52.758,4 of 10 C.F.R. Il50.33(f)'and 50.57(a)(4)5 to the extent d
4 10 C.F.R. 52.758 provides in pertinent part:
+
(b) A party to an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing subject to this subpart may petition that the application of a specified Comission rule or regulation or any provision thereof, of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section, be waived,
or an exception made for the particular proceeding.
The sole ground for petition for waiver or exception shall be' that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the rule or regulation (or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for The which the rule or regulation was adopted.
petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit that icentifies the specific aspect or aspects of the (Footnote Continued) m-__m_
,e
..?
4"-
J
- necessary to require the. Applicants to demonstrate, prior to low power operation, that they are financially, qualified to operate and decommission the facility.: The two petitioners attached to the petition
]
s o
~
- )
an affidavit,of Mr..' Dale ;G. Bridenbaugh, President of MHB-Technical?
g Associates,la technical consulting firm specializing in nuclear power plant safety, licensing and regulatory matters.0 Mr. Bridenbaugh
~
(FootnoteContinued)
~
subject matter of the proceeding as to which application of.the rule or regulation (or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for which the rules or regulation was adopted, and shall set'forth with particularity the special circumstances alleged to justify the waiver or exception requested. Any:
other party may file a response.thereto,-by counter-affidavit or otherwise.-
If, on the basis of the petition, affidavit and L
(c) any response thereto provided foriin paragraph (b) of this section, the presiding officer determines that the petitioning party has not made a prima facie showing that the application of the specific Commission-rule or regulation or provision thereof to a particular aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the
. proceeding would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted and that application of the rule or regulation should be waived or an -
exception granted, no evidence may be received on that matter and no discovery, cross-examination or argument l
directed to the matter will be permitted, and the presiding officer may not further consider the matter.
5 10 C.F.R. Il50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4), in substance, exempt electric j
utility applicants for licenses to operate utilization facilities from the' requirement to furnish infonnation demonstrating financial qualifications, and no finding of financial qualification is necessary.
I 6
The Bridenbaugh affidavit dated March 31, 1987, had been attached previously to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' application of (FootnoteContinued)
i
{
j.
j s,a low power
, attested that, in his opinion, there is no reason to conduct testing.just for its sake alone because, standing alone, low power i
5 a-(
a; testing produces no net benefits knd has several adverse effects, i.e.,
(1) environmental impacts (such' as plait contamination with radioactive 7 y. 2. ;.,
.r:
h fuel and other i
g., material), (2) the likely loss of the resale value of t e l
p l
components once they beenme irradiated, (3) the cost of decontamination, q.. - n..
i decommissioning and disposal, (4) worker exposure, and (5) the potent.ial He comitment of the site to lengthy radioactive waste storage use.
attested further that low power testing can be rationally justified only where there is no substantial doubt that the plant subsequently will operate at higher power levels so that its benefits (i.e... generation of i
P electricity) will be availab1e to offset the adverse effects and that
- the optimum time for performing low-power testing is shortly before full-power operational approval is reliably anticipated to be obtained.
SAPL and NECNP also attached to the petition a Form 8-K submitted
{
~
on July 22, 1987 by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire to the Securities and Exchange Comission. Sheet 2 of that report reflects the
~
following:
~
i (Footnote Continued)
April.6,1987 for a stay of the Licensing Board Order (LEP-87-10, 25 NRC
_) authorizing issuance of operating license to conduct In ALAB-865, 25 GC (May 8, 1987), the low-power operation.
Appeal Board denied the Mass, motion as weTT~as otner motions for inter alia, the points raised in the stay, after discussing, iiie~~4cceal Scard's reasonino in rejecting Bridenbaugh affidavit..
the matte.r.s raised in the Bricenbauch affidavit is ecually dispositive here and we will not discuss :nese matters again.
i l
~~~
l
\\
...:J The Company has instituted strict cash conservation measures that should allow it to meet its estimated cash requirements, including the refunds described above, through the end of 1987.
Tne Company is working jointly with the investment finns ~ of Merrill Lynch Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.
to develop alternate financial plans. Given the uncertainties surrounding th'e Company, its limited financial flexibility,
^
the aoount of debt service which the Company can reasonably expect to carry, the political, economic and competitive limits on rate increases in New Hampshire, and the regulatory approvals
, that will be required, it will be extreme.ly difficult to develop and implement such a plan to improve significantly the Company's circumstances within the limited time available. Should an adequate plan not be developed and placed into effect before the end of 1987, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Company to avoid proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.
Drawing down from these two attachments, the two petitioners argue that, prict to low power operation, Applicants should be required to demonstrate that they possess, or have reasonable assurance of obtaining, the funds necassary to cover estimated cost.s for the period of the license, plus the costs to permanently shut dcwn the facility and to maintain it in a safe condition. They urge that, were a low power operating license to be authorized, special circumstances would exist because of the likely bankruptcy of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the lead owner, and that, in that event, the adverse effects set forth in the Bridenbaugh affidavit would follow.
In the Statement of Consideration att. ached to the current rule, the Commission stated that the sole objective of the financial qualification rule makin;. process was to demonstrate generically that the rate process assures that funds needed for safe operation would be made available to regulated eler+rh "**ies
.Having been 'so assured, the Commission concluded that, other than in exceptional cases, no case-by-case
~
_ ^ ~ ~ - _, _ _ _ _
w litigation of the financial qualification of such applicants was F
warranted. 49 Fed. Reg. 35747,35750(1964). The Commission proceeded to give an exatnpit of the special circunistances that mutt. be shown pursuant 'to 10 C.F.k 52.758 - i.e., such an exception to permit financial qualification review for an operating license applicant might P
. be appropriate where a threshold showing is made that, in a particular case, the local public utility comission will not allow the total cost of operating the facility to be recovered through rates. 49 Fed. Reg. 35747,35751(1984).
~
Clearly the purpose of the rule was to exempt operating license applicants from the financial qualification requirement because the rate process assured that funds needed for safe operation would be available.
The Comission did not implicitly or expressly contemplate or state that an operating license Applicant's financial distress and possible bankru'tcy were special circumstances which could result in an exception p
or waiver under 10 C.F.R. 52.758. Rather the Comission's example reflects that it deems a special circumstance to be one where there is a threshold showing that a public utility comission will not allow an electric utility to recover, to a sufficient decree, all or a portion of the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation.
Footnotes 3 and 5 of the petition reflect that, pursuant to New Hampshire statutes, (a) revenues for a deccmissioning cost fund will be obtained through charges against customers which shall be assessed and paid in the billing month which reflects the first full month of service of the f acility, and (b) all costs of construction work in progress
m.
..g should not be included in a utility's rate base nor be allowed as an
... expense for rate making purposes until the project is actually providing services to the consumers.
The petitioners do not argkie that, if full p.pwar operation is l
comenced, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Comission will not authorize adequate funding for safe, operation through the rattmaking process, will not permit charges agahst customers for payment into the decommissioning cost fund,7 and will not allow costs of construction work in progress to be included in the Applicants' rate base.8
- Thus, the petition fails to set forth the sole.qround for waiver -- i.e., that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the rule or regulation (or provision thereof) would,not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted.
7 As the Staff points out, while the Comission has adopted regulations governing the safe shutdown and post-operative maintenance of a facility (see, e.e.,10 C.F.R. 5550.82, 20.105, Part 70, and Part 73), Comaus_icn m"latiens do not now recu.i.re a demonstration.af financial _ qualifications to decominion a facility. In this regard, the Comission has promulgated a proposed rule change to address the costs and other aspects of decommissioning. See Proposed Rule, " Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities", 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (Feb.11,1985).
O Petitioners barrenly speculate that, even in the unlikely ever2 a full cower license is gev3e.d. it remains "doubtfn]" tha: PSNH wd]l rece1ve sufficiently promet rate increases to avoic Dankruptcy (Petition, n. 7 at 8; empnasts acced).-
m_
V
.g.
Despite the fact that the petition is fatally deficient, we proceed
'~
to consider the petitioners' arguments (1)'that Applicants' lead owner lPSNH) "is on.the brink of bankruptcy" (Petition at 2); (2) that "M a
~ full power license is later denied", the Applicants will be unable to recove[theifboststhroughratemakingproceedings,andPSNH'spotential
'~ '^
bankruptcy therefore p, resents "unc5rtainties" as to whether the Applicants will have the ability to operate the facility at' low power, shut it down pennanently and maintain it in a safe condition (M., at 4-6; emphasis added); (3) that the Applicants " g lack the tens of millions of dollars necessary 'to permanently shut down the facility and maintain it in a safe condition,' i_f, a full power license is later denied" (M., at 4-5; emphasis added); (4) that "the direction of Applicants' management may be radically altered M PSNH is superseded by a bankruptcy trustee" (M., at 6; emphasis added); (5) that if a trustee is appointed, it is " uncertain" whether he "may decline to pursue a full power license" (M.=, emphasis added); and (6) that such a trustee "may refuse to expend additional monies" on Seabrook, and "[a] Bankruptcy Court, rather than the Applicants, my ultimately determine if additional monies will be spent on.Seabrook Station" (M.; emphasis added).9 9
In passing, we note petitioners' assertion that financial problems such as those facing PSNH are without precedent (Petition, at p.
l 6). This is incorrect. See Leno Island Lichtino Comoany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LSP-64-30, 20 NRC 42b (1984).
L__________
s.
- .?
Thus, in substance the petitioners urge that under these special be
, circumstances,it woul'd be grossly irresponsible for the Applicants to permitted to proceed to operate Seabrook, even at low power, without clear evidence of their. financial means to operate, and to der. omission, w,
safely (Petition,'at6,8). Even assuming for the sake of arpument that special circumstances have been shown, they are wholly speculative in nature and, therefore, the petitioners have failed to make a prima facie i
showing that the application of the two regulations to a particular aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding would not f
serve the purposer for which they were adopted and that application of these regulations should be waived or an exception granted.
In the first place, it is pure speculati,on that.PSNH will " file in bankruptcy' or that it will be unable to secure funds necessary to. operate at low power and to permanently shutdown and maintain the facility in a safe condition. Second, even if PSNH does file in bankruptcy, there_is no f
suggestion that other Aoplicant-members of the consortium are financially incapable of gperating and safely maintaining the facil.ity.
Moreover, it is a matter of speculation as to whether a bankruptcy trustee would be appointed and whether he would discontinue efforts to
~
secure a full power operat'ag license.
Further, no reason has been
)
presented suggisting that any successor to PSNH (be it a reorganized company, or an acquiring company, or a trustee in bankruptcy) would not l
persevere in efforts to secure a full power operatine license and to put the plant into commercial operation, and thereby recover the large investment through its inclusion in the rate base.
Finally, as observed
)
~. _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. - _ - -. - _.. - -
. :. ~
I t
pege above, although barrenly speculating that it is unlikely that a full power license will be granted, the petitioners apparently do not deny that, if full. power is comenced, the New Hampshire PUC will authori,ze adequate funding for safe operation through the rate making process,
- r..
will permit charges against customers for' payment into the de:omissioning cost fund, and will allow costs o_f CWIP to be included in the rate. base.
ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the petition to waive regulations is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
I FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
TM
~
fneicon J. Wqq.~re, Cntirman ADMINISTRATION JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th c3y of August, 1987.
m h-____.
i e.
'C Robert J. Hornson i
s r-PNesoorir and CM Execunvo Otheer e.
h-"
j
.J g
o-NYN-87104 p!
Pubec sensee of New Hampel*e September 3, 1987 l1 L
N.
, L United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Document Control Desk
References:
a) Tacility Operating License NPT-56 Docket No. 50-443 b). USNRC Letter dated Mo*
17, 1987 "Recent Filings by A blic f,ervice Company of New Hampshire Btfors the Securities and Exchange Comission' B. A. Boger to R. J. Ercrison
-.ecuest fe'r rinancial Information R
Re:
Gentlemen:
In Reference (b), the NRC requested clarification as to the ability of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) to provide financial coverage for certain activities at Seabrook Station'.
At the outset, PSNH reaffirms its intention to continue its participation in Seabrook Station and to successfully co=plete-the licensing process in the most expeditious manner in order to pemit Seabrook Station to commence operation.
Toward that end, PSNH remains firmly committed to financial and otherwise, to providing its share of all necessary support, ensure safe low power testing and to maintain the Seabrook Station in a safe condition following that testing.
Xhile PSNH's most recent Form B-K Report, dated July 22, 193~,
undersected tne severe financial diffin.ilties reing experien:ed cy ?S:5 M
the result of several f acters, including prirarily the ::stly 1 :ensing del 9y for Seabrock Statten, it also Outlined tne affirrati ce financial plans wni:-
?SIE :ntended to pursue to cou.ter these diff :ulties.
Since tnen PStG has continued to work toward the implementatica ef these plans.
First, en Aucust 5, 1957, PSNH filed a petitien wi.h tne New Hangshire Public Util::ies EXHIBIT E 1000 Elm St., P.0, Box 330, Mcnonester, NH 03105 Teleonone (602) 6c7-4000. TWX 71C2207595
n tt
.,noacsardosC NewHongwee 3
United' States Nuclear Regulatory Ccussission y
Septembe'r 3, 1987 commission ~ (NHPUC) for an eneroency rate relief increase of approximately
$71,000,000 annually.
We NHPUC has set hearings on that petition for October. 5-9,,1987,..the earliest dates possible after ccanpliance with its regulatory procedures. Second, pursuant to a PSNH request sulaitted with the petition, the NHPUC on August 11, 1987, transferred a question of law to the.
New 5' 7 *h4re Supreme Court, concerning the application of NH Statute RSA 378:30-a, the so-called anti-CWIP law, to the Company's investment'in the Seabrook. Station under the extreme financial circumstances currently being experienced by PSNH.
On September 2, 1987, that Court -issued an order directing the NHPUC.to make, on.an expedited basis, certain findings of fact regarding the Company's cash requirements to meet its interest payments, debt maturities, and customer service expansion needs for the -remainder of 1987.
The Court indicated that upon receipt of the NHPUC findings it weuld move promptly to consider the constitutional issues of applicability of the anti-CWIP law to PSNH.
Third, PSNH has instituted a' program of. cash conservation which is designed to substantially reduce 1Es capital and operating expenditures, thereby enabling PSNH to extend its current available cash resources.
Fourth, PSNH will, in the near future, formally file.with the Securities and F.xchange Commission and with the NHPUC a detailed program for restructuring certain of is indebtedness.
This program is designed to substantially reduce PSNH's need for external-financing and lessen the burden of interest and maturity payments on its debt, which has become difficult and j
costly due to the. lengthy Seabrook Station licensing delays.
I Further,thepermanentshutdownscenariodescribedinybrletter'is
-l considered to be a hypothetical situation that will never occur, irrespective of PSNH's finanH ml, status., Detailed responses to your questions, which are set forth in the attachment to this letter, have been prepared to the-best of 1
4 our ability based on the assumptions indicated.
If you need any further information or clarification, please contact me.
Sincerely,
- - ~ - " -
/
Robert J. Harrison RJH:tD AtrBCh.
cc: AStB Service List
Enclosure to NYN-87104 NRC Question 1:
Please provide detailed estimates of (a) the total cost to operate Seabrook Unit No. 1 at low power only (up to five percent power); and (b) the total cost to permanently shut down the facility *'after low power operation only and to maintain it in a safe condition.
Also provide an estimate of the cost to store or dispose of the irradiated fuel assuming low power operation only.
Describe in detail the assumptions underlying the estimates.
Include assumptions as to power level, duration of operation, method of fuel disposal or storage and method of permanent shutdown and safe maintenance.
Response to NRC Question la:
The current operating budget for Seabrook Station averages 510 million per month.
In conjunction with he performance of fow power testing, certain incremental costs beyond the current operating budget will be incurred.
These costs, which cover all required manpower, material and electrical power for-preparatory work, heatup and actual performance of low power testing, are estimated to be
$3_,658,0QO, which will be incurred over a three month
. period.
A further breakdown is included in Table 1.
PSNH's share of this cost is 35.56942%, as defined in the Joint Owners' Agreement, or approximately $1,301,000.
In addition to the above costs, there will be increased costs incurred for premiums on insurance coverage for seabrook' Station associated with the receipt of the low-power license and upon completion of low power testing.
'N is expected that this cost for insurance will increase j
approximately $2,785,000 per annum, of which $1,565,000,
_2 be paid upon receipt of the low power license and S1,220,000 will be paid, in installments, following completion of the testing.
PSNE's share of these increased premiums, acgrecating approximate 1y $991,000, would be payable at the times indicated above.
Resconse to NRC Question lb:
Seabr:ok Station's low power testing program calls for five :: six days :f intermittent tes :ng at between _/100th
^
of 1% power and ^/10 h of 1% power fe'_'cwed y
we days of intermittent testing at 2% pcwer and One-half day of intermittent test:ng at 2% power.
These tests will result in a fuel burn-up of approximately equivalent to 1-1/2
effective full power hours and will occur over a period of*
three weeks..
!.h!
.Upon completion of the testing program, the unit would be cooled down and maintained in a cold shutdown (Mode 5) condition.
Depending on the licensing status at that time, certain ' systems could be placed in a lay-up condition to afford maximum protection of plant equipment.
The costs associated with these efforts are included in the normal operat% g budge} of $10- U million per month.
[
'If the unit was permanently shut down at some point f
following low power testing, the fuel would be moved to the spent fuel storage pool.
In addition, the reactor coolant systems, decay heat removal systems and associated auxiliaries would be decontaminated, as necessary, following this short duration of low power testing.
These systems would be cleaned by flushing the systems, hydrolysing, and/or localized chemical cleaning.
This cleaning process would be repeated as necessary until contamination levels
'have been reduced below required control limits.
The j
radiological controlled area would then be limited to the Fuel Storage Building and associated auxiliaries. The i
operating costs during this phase are not expected to exceed the normal budget of $10-11 million per month.
In the unlikely event of a decision to permanently shut down the unit, the Joint Owners would seek to sell or transfer ownership of the fuel to others such that the fuel could be removed from the site.
It is estimated that it would take 2-3 years before the fuel could be removed from tne site.
In order to determine the actual salvage value of the
~
fuel after the low power testing program, a market analysis would have to be undertaken at that time together with a study of special costs for handling and shipping the fuel.
Although the Joint owners have not cerformed a si.gnrous study of these costs, a review was performed in late 1986 which indicated that the salvage value of the fxal would approximately offset the costs of handling and transportation ei the fuel to a third party resulting in no net con ' to the Jcr:t owners for the disposal of the fuel.
Following.a permanent shutdown of tae unit and during the transt:icn'perfod when tne fuel remains en-site, certain persennel and program ::s:s would be incurred to ensure the proper s : rice of the fuel the en-site spent fuel s: Ora:e cool. 'Ihese direct : s:s rre estima:ec :: "oe appr:x::ately 7700,0C0 cer m nth whi:h includes costs for Operations, maintenance, health physics, envarenmental ment:Oring, security and electric power. _.
l 4
fe In addition, certain nuclear 1iability and nuclear property insurance costc, estimated not to exceed $2.5 million per year, can also be e7pected to be incurred.
Finalryg phere are other miscellaneous cents which are not directlyjgelated to maintenance of the facility, including such items as taxes, legal, accounting, and other administrative costs, which are not included in the $700.000 monthly estimate provided above.
While the amount of these
~
costs cannot be precisely estimated, they are not expected to exceed the current J evel of such expenditures or
~.
accroximately $2.2 million.per month, which includes $1.8
~
million for taxes.
Therefore, the estimated total _ monthly operating cost f.or.Seabrook Station while the fuel is being storec en site in the fuel storage yd1Iding'Is not Expected
~
to exceed $3.1,millien As indicated in response to question 1(a), all the above monthly costs are for the catire unit.
PSNH's share of those potential costs would be in proportion.to its ownership share (i.e.,
35.56942%), or $1.1 million_per I
month.
NRC Question 2:
Please provide a detailed statement of the source of funds for covering total costs of low power operation and total costs of permanent shutdown of the facility and-i maintenance in a safe condition after a period of low power operation only.
Identify each of the sources as to when it will be available and estimated dollar amount.
Indicate the assumptions tnTaerlying the projection of each source of l
~f'unds.
Response to NRC Question 2:
The Seabrook Project is currently being funded by several utility companies (the " Joint Owners") which are participants under the Agreement for Joint Ownershio, Construction and Operation of New Hampshire Nuclear Units, dated May 1, 1973, as amended (the " Joint Ownership Agreement").
The Ownership Shares of these utilities are shown in Table 2.
Approval for funding is determined by the Joint Owner Executive Ocmmittee or the Joint Owners collectively in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Joint Ownership Agreement.
Once a funding level has been established, each Joint Owner is Obligated under the 1
Jcin: 04nershin Agreement to provide its Ownersn c Share of l
- ine ::erati_ng expenses Of the Seacrock Proj e::.
- nv:1:es are rencered as require: and payments are due m:nthly.
Each J in: Owner raises such funds as, car: Of its ncrmal
- inanclui seur es.
The Searrr:.k ;
- a.
=1-
='.s a
pcsitive. cash balann to be available 0 meet its m nthly i
3 -
obligations and to provide additional flexibility should fluctuations in monthly cash requirements occur.
This account)alance, supplemented by the, Joint owner payments, is the. source for meeting Seabrook Station's cash operating r, requirements.
NRC Quest' ion 3:
j 1
Hampshire (PSNH) were to enter bankruptcy proceedings how In the ev.ent that Public Service Company of New
~
.would thi s affect PSNH's ability to pay its share of Seabrook's low power operating costs and the costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition?
If PSNH were unable to pay its share of costs, what are the sources and likelihood of availability of funds to cover the PSNH's share?
Please describe in detail?
Response to NRC Question 3 The' initiation of bankruetcy, proceedings for PSNH would not of itself'2f?e the obli.gations _of PJE1E under the Joidt Ownership Aq;eement to pay currently its share of Seabrook's low-power operating costs and to pay ultimately its share of the costs of permanently shutting down the facility'and maintaining it in a' safe condition.
To the extent that such obligations are contained in executory contracts a debtor with bankruptcy court approval has a richt to reiect~or airirm such contracts.
However, because
'of t.ne magnitude'of PSNE'Y nvestment in Seabrook Station (approximately 69% of its total assets) and the potential significant level of revenues to be derived from the sale of Seabrook Station electricity by PSNE, PSNH intends to make prerv available effort to protect tha; anset.
Even ir a bankruptcy proceecing were to intervene, PSNH has no intention of rejecting its contractual obligations under the Joint Ownership Agreement or abandoning its interest in Seabrook Station.
In the event of bankruptcy, PSNE, as debtor in possession, will have access to a cash flow from its continuing utility operations substantially equivalent to that currently generated by those operations and must be assumed to have access to external borrowings for administration expenses.
These combined resources would be more than sufficient to meet oc F s stane of the Seabrook Station low power operating costs ( as enumerated above) due
~
ih principal' part because ~ ENE'would have been tenperarily
/
relieved of the obliga:1cn to pay :nteres: charges en its cu: standing unsecured indebtedness incurred prier :: the institution cf the proceedings.
- f Seatr:ck Station were subse:uently shut dcwn, these resources would.s.:nilariv be sufficien: to cover.PSNH's share of the shutdown ecs:s enumerated acove.
Furthernere, if Seabrook Statien were W
W
1 shut down after ce=pletion of low-power testing, it is reasonable to conclude that because of the. presence of the nuclear fuel and the NP.C license conditions with respect l
thereto, PSNH's obligation to Seabrook Station could not be avoided:by it, as a debtor in possession (Midlantic National Bank v.~New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Resources, 474 U.S.
494 (1986)) and that the cost of meeting those obligations would be an administration expense (In re Sterns, 68 B.R. 774 (D. Me. 1987)).
Given the nature of the on-going utility operations of PSNH after an assumed bankruptcy filing and the ability and obligation of PSNH, as debtor in pcssession, to fulfill its commitments to the Seabrook Project and its present intention to do so, PSNH cannot hypothesize any plausible situation in which those obligations would remain unpaid.
1 l
l l
l l
_3 l
I
{
Enelcourn to Nyy-87104
.-i e
~
TABLE l-f 54 ~
l NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE SEABROOK STATION - UNIT 1 INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR LOW POWER OPERATION
- Activity
+
Mobilization &
Low Power Total 3
Cost Area Heacup Preparation Hestup Testing (By Cost Area) 9 Manpower 1,000,550 572,000 667,600 2,240,150 Material 45,900 69,700 157,800 273,400 Electric 572,100 572,100 1,144,200 Power **
Total (By 1,046,450 '
1,213,800 1,397,500 3,657,750 Activity)
=
- The current budget for Seabrook Station averages $10 million per month.
)
- Electrical power service to Seabrook Station d ring the test program
{
u will all be purchased from PSNH.
i I
1 I
i I
l
zwo------
.-+-y------,.2._._
Enclosurn to NYN-87104 a
TABLE 2 Owner Ownership Share Public Se'vice Company of'New r
Hampshire 35.56942%
The United Illuminating Company 17.50000 EUA Power Co'rporation-12.13240-Massachusetts Muni'cipal Wholesale Electric Company-11.59340 New England Power Company 9.95766 The Connecticut Light and Power Company 4.05985-Canal Electric Company 3.52317 Montaup Electric Company 2.89989 New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.
2.17391 Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc.
0.41259 Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant 0.10034 Hudson T.!ight and Power Department 0.07737 100.00000%
L_-_-_-__-___
DOCRETED C
U5NRC f
86-24 i
74 N C.LSP F 1 :37 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'
.Before Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour lBERVED JUL'6N
)
Docket Nos. 50 443-OL-1 In the Matter of
)
50-444-OL-1
)
~
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(On-Site Emergency Planning'
)
and Safety Issues) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al.
)
)
(ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
l
)
July 25, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
- s. (Rulings on Applicants' Motion of June 17, 1986, on TH's Motion of June 23, 1986, and on Hearing Matters)
Memorandum l
I.
Backaround 1
During the hearing held in August 1983, the then presiding Board heard evidence upon, among others, three contentions which related to onsite emergency planning and safety issues.1,0n August 23 1983, the 3
NICNP Contention I.B.2 asserted that Applicants had not satisfied the requirements of GDC 4 that all equipment important to safety be environmentally qualifie.d because Applicants had failed to specify the time duration over which the equipment was cualified.
Similar Contentions NECNP III.1 and NH-20 asserted, in substance, (Footnote Continued)
EXHIBIT I'
I I
I Board closed the record and, in an Order of September 15, 1983, directe,d TheApplicants,theNRCStafh that all parties file proposed findings.
and the Intervenor, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP),
The filed proposed findings with respect to NECNP Contention I.B.2.
~
Applicants, the Staff, and NECNP filed proposed findings with respect to Contentions NECNP III.1 and NH-20, and the State of New Hampshire filed.
proposed findings with respect to NH-20.
Applicants' reply findings r
were ultimately filed on November 23, 1983.
The present Board was appointed on September 9, 1985 to preside ]
over all safety and onsite emergency planning issues.
In an Order of 't i
October 4, 1985 (unpublished), noting that during the 1983 hearing certain documents relied upon by the parties were to be updated, revised or completed within a short time thereafter, the Board directed that the i
Staff inform it whether certain documents identified in the Order had ;
been submitted by'the Applicants and whether the Staff's evaluations of these submissions had been completed.
Upon being advised by the Staff that one of the documents had not been submitt.ed by the Applicants in ~
final form and that the Staff had not completed its reviews of other submissions, our Order of November 4,1985 (unpublished) stated as follows:
We have reviewed the record and have concluded that the record needs to be reopened for the limited purpose of (Footnote Continued) that the emergency plans did not contain an adecuate emergency classification scheme as recuired by 10 C.F.R.150.47 and A:mercix E, and by NUREG-0554.
1 j.,p.
1 supplementation.
It is not our-intention, Land we _will, not
' permit'the retrying of issues heard before the closing of the record on August. 23,1983. After a prehearing cdnference, and.after discovery, if any, a supplementary hearing will be-ordered to take evidence on the abnve-
' identified matters. pertaining in CoatPntinns NECNP 1.B.2, NECNP III.1 and NH 20,' which involve significant health and safety issues, and which were not previously ripe for hearing.
2 If NH Contention 10 is not informally resolved,. evidence will be taken on that contention as well during the supplementary hearing.
Thereafter, in the Order of January 8,1986 (unpublished), the --
Staff was requested to furnish reports upon the status of its revisions to certain documents identified in the Order of November 4, 1985.
Ultimately, on June 4,1986, the Staff. appended to its fifth monthly 3
?
status report copies of Section 13.3 and Section 18, which will appear
+
in Supplement 4 to the Safety Evaltation Report (SSER 4) when published.
Section 1? ? reflects the Staff's completed review of the Seabrook r
classif'ication and action level schemes (the focus of NECNP emergene:
s Contentsnt III.1andNewHampshireContention20).
Section 18 reflects-the Staff's review of the Seabrook control room design (the focus of NH Contention 10).2 On June 11, 1986, the Staff submitted copies of I
l 2
During prehearing proceedings in 1982, the Soard had pemitted the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) to participate as a joint intervenor with respect to NH-10.
See Memorandum and Order of Septenber 13, 1932 1.BP-S2-75, 16 NRC 1029, 1083.
In the Memorandum and Ordi of July 21, 1986, among other things, the Board granted New Hampshire's motion to withdraw its Contention 10, and ruled that said contention was converted to and replaced by l
SAPL Supplemental Contention 6, which would reflect the identical L
(Footnote Continued) l
~
l
Section 3.11, which will appear in SSER 5, when published.
Section 3.11 reflects the Staff's completed review of the Applicants' environmental qualification of electrical equipment (the focus of NECNP Contention I.B.2).-
On June 17, 1986, Applicants filed a motion requesting that the Board t,ake the following actions:
1.
To incorporate into the hearing record as evidence therein Section 13.3 of SSER No. 4 and the environmental qualification review submitted by the Staff under date of June 11, 1986 as Section 3.11 of SSER Supp. No. 5.
2.
To issue an order directing NECNP (with respect to MECNP Contentions I.B.2 and III.1) and the State of New Hampshire (with respect to NH 20) and, if the Board deems them entitled ther.eto, SAPL and Mass AG to state whether they desire any cross-examination with respegt to the materials incorporated into the record and, if so, to state with particularity the reasons why such cross-examination is necessary to develop a sound record.
3.
In the event further proceedings are requested and allowed, to, schedule and hold the same as soon as possible consistent with the Board members' convenience and availability.
4.
To close the record and thereafter issue a partial initial decision authorizing o;:eration of Seabrook Unit No.1 up to and including 5% of rated power.
II.
Discussion of Submissions Opposing, In Part, The Acolicants' Motion of June 17. 1985 i
1.
The Town of Hampton (TH)
On June 23, 1986, in a submission, in the form of a motion, TH i
1 partially excepted to the Applicants' motion of June 17, 1985 apparently (Footnote Continued) wording and basis of former Centention NH-10.
See LSP-06-02, 24 NRC _.
, j (.
- y...
l because Applicants' motion sought to prevent interested partie
) from fully participants (other than those named in Applicants' motion Applicants filed an opposing response participating in*[this'. proceeding.
l and the NRC Staff objected in a response of Ju y on June 27, 1986, i
11, 1986.
We consider TH's exceptions only to the extent that,. in reque a hearing and permission to participate, they are advanced on its behalf and to protect its own interests.3 As Applicants point had directed TH to indicate with Board's Order of December 20, 1982 d to reasonable specificity the subject matters on which it desire Applicants also point out that participate' but that TH did not comply.
I TH faildd to file proposed findings with respect to the onsite eme The Staff points out that TH does no note planning and safety issues.
llude to the than assert a general desire to have a hearing and vaguely a h
Chernobyl acciden't - i.e., TH fails to specify the deficiencies in CNP Contentions relevant sections of SSER's 4 and 5 that relate to NE Finally, we note that at no time during 1.B.2 and III.1 and to NH-20.
TH even the August 1983 evidentiary hearing did a representative of Clearly s2.715(c) of our Rules of Practice does not mandate appear.
1 TH's status as a 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) interested municipality d in this not make it a spokesman for other parties or participants (Skagit g Pucet Sound Power and Licht Company Nuclear Power Project, Unlis 1 and 2), ALAo-ace,10 NRC 30, oa proceeding.
(1979); Houston Lichtino and Power Comoany1;, ALA5-544, 9 NRC 6 Generating Station, uni:
1 I
i L
~
. that an interested municipality must file proposed findings.
- However, TH's failure to file proposed findings of fact, its f ailure to comply with the Order of December 20, 1982, its failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing upon ensite emergency planning and safety issues, and its current failure to specify the deficiencies in the pertinent sections of the SSERs 4 and 5, compel us to conclude that TH has no genuine interest.in participating in this case wherein the record has been reopened for the limited purpose of supplementing the evidence pertaining to the aforementioned NECNP and MH contentions.
Accordingly, TH's motion is denied, and it may not participate.
2.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL)
In,a response of June 27, 1986, SAPL does not oppose Applicants' motion of June 17, provided all parties to this proceeding are allowed to participate in the hearing with respect to the issues allegedly resolved by Secti*on 13.3 of SSER 4 and by Section 3.11 of SSER 5, and provided that the Board's partial initial decision will not authorize operation of Seabrook Unit No. 1 up to 5*, of rated power.
As reflected in the cases cited in footncte 3, above, an intervenor's status as a
~
party does not make it the spokesman for other parties and participants.
Thus, we consider only whether SAPL has a right to participate in the hearing.
Further, we reject SAPL's second condition since 10 C.F.R. 52.758(a) precludes a Licensing Board from considering attacks ur challenges to the Commission's rules or regulations and since SAPL, in any event, has not complied with 12.758 procedures fer petitioning that
-7*
the' application of.9950.47(d) and 50.57(c) be waived or an exception be made in this proceeding.
However, in its response SAPL, unlike TH, specifies what it deems 4
to be deficiencies in Sections 13.3 and 18 of SSER 4 and Section 3.11
-of SSER.5, and states that it is entitled.to participate via cross-examination in the reopened hearing.5 gg.also take note of the fact that SAPL, unlike TH, did attend the 1983 hearing sessions.
Finally, there can be no question but that SAPL has the right to present evidence upon and to cross-examine upon its Supplemental Contention 6 l
(see Memorandum and Order of July 21,1986). Thus, although SAPL did i
not file proposed findings of fact after the closing of the record with regard to Contentions NECNP I.B.2, NECNP III.1, and NH-20, we conclude that SAPL has shown a genuine interest in participating in the reopened l
-hearing and may participate therein.
3.*
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass.)
In its answer of July 2,.1986, Mass. objects to the Applicants'
]
motion of June 17 only insofar as the motion requests the issuance of an 4
With respect to Section 18 of SSER 4, SAPL incorporates by reference the reasons why it deems the Staff's review was, inadequate, which were set forth in its objection of June 19, 1986 to New Hampshire's motion to withdraw Contention NH-10, 5
We are not told and we do not decide at this time whether the alleged deficiencies are within the scope of Contentions NECNP I.B.2, NECNP III.1, NH-20 and SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 (formerly NH-10).
See especially footnote 3 of the Memorandum and Oroer of July 21, 1986.
)
. operating license for operation not in excess of 5% rated power.
Standing alone, the objection (like SAPL's) is denied as being a l
challenge to the, Commission's regulations which is barred by 52.758(a).
However, Mass. relies upon and incorporates by reference the Petition of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti To Revoke Regulation 50.47(d) Or In The Alternative To Suspend Its Application In The Seabrook Licensing Proceeding, which cites 10 C.F.R. 52.758. We have reviewed the Mass.
Petition, which had also been filed on July 2,1986, and have reviewed the Applicants' response of July 8 and the Staff's response of July 22, 1986. As will be reflected in a Memorandum and Order to be issued as soon as is possible, the Board has determined that Mass., as the petitioning party, has failed to comply with Q2.758(b) and moreover has raised issues that have been previously rejected by the Commission.
Thus, the petition is being denied since Mass. has not made a prima facie showing tha't the application of 550.47(d) in this proceeding would not serve the purpose for which the regulation was adopted and that the application of the regulation shculd be waived or an exception granted.
No purpose would be served by delaying the issuance of the instant Memorandum and Order until after the formal issuance of our determination with respect to the Mass. !2.758 petition.
Accordingly, we deny the objection to the granting of Applicants' motion. tiass,
attended the August 1983 evidentiary hearings and, as an interested State, it may continue to participate in the reopened hearing.
. 4.
New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP)
On July 2,1986, NECNP filed an opposition to Applicants' motion for issuance of partial initial decision authorizing low power operation. Therein, NECNP concedes that it challenges the Commission's interpretation of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c) and challenges 10 C.F.R.
$50.47(d).
It argues that 550.57(c) "may only be interpreted to require the completion of all hearings relevant to full power operation before any license, including a license authorizing low power operation, is issued." With respect to 550.47(d), it argues that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to request a waiver pursuant to 62.758 because 950.47(d) is " contrary to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act."
e The short of it is that this Board is not the proper forum for consideration of such matters because it has neither the jurisdiction nor authority either to consider challenges to the Commission's interpretation of' its own regulations or to consider challenges to a Commission regulation on the ground that it is contrary to the Atomic Energy Act.6 NECNP does not otherwise oppose Applicants' motion.
It requests that it be permitted to participate in the reopened hearing with respect to its Contention I.B.2 (duration of environmental qualification).
10 C.F.R.12.758(a); see Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 anc
), ALAS-218, 8 AEC 79, 89 (1974).
- 10 Since NECNF participated in the 1983 hearing, cross-examined and filed j
1 i
proposed findings of fact with respect to Contention I.B.2 and specifies what it deems to be deficient in the Applicants' reports and in Section 3.11 of SSER 5,7 its request is granted.
ORDER 1.
TH's motion of June 23, 1986 is denied.
2.
Applicant's motion of June 17, 1986 is granted to the extent that, as set forth below in paragraph 3, the Board schedules a hearing.
Other parts of the motion have been granted, as modified below, in the Board's rulings on hearing matters. We grant the final part of the motion (Applicants' requested action 4) but only to the extent that the Board, in its partial initial decision, will decide, inter alia, whether or not to authori,ze issuance of an operating license for operation of Seabrook Unit 1 up to and including 5% of rated power.
3.
With respect to hearing matters:
During the reopened hearing, the Board will receive a.
supplementary evidence upon NECNP Contention I.B.?
and upon NECt!P III.1 and NH-20. The Board will also We are not told and we do not decide at this time whether the alleged deficiencies are within the scope of NECtlP Contention 1.B.2.
See especial'y footnote 3 of the Memorandum and Order of July 21, 1986.
n.
wr..
,h :
. 11 receive evidence upon SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 (formerly. NH-10).
b.
Sin,ce the Staff has advised in a letter of July 23, 1986,.that copies of SSER 4 were served on June 11, 1986 and thet it' expected that SSER 5 would be.
~
published and served within the next two weeks, the Staff should offer these two documents into evidence as exhibits in order to comply with 10 C.F.R. 2.743(g).
c.
SAPL, NECNP, the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and, of course, the r
Applicants and the Staff may participate in this reopened but limited hearing with respect to NECNP I.B.2, NECNP III.1 and NH-20.
NECNP, however, indicates that it wishes to participate only with s
res'pect to NECNP Contention I.B.2.
The above-named parties and State's, as well as any admitted interested municipality, which has expressly shown a genuine, specific interest in the subject matter.
of SAPL's Supplemental Contention 6 (formerly NH-10),
may participate with respect to this contention.
d.
Discovery shall begin immediately. With respect to written interrogatories and requests for production l
of documents, August 8,1986 is the final due date l
for the serving thereof by express mail.
Answers i
gn
=-
=
- to' interrogatories shall be served by. express mail by August 25, 1986 and documents shall.be' produced for inspection and copying by that same date.
Depositions shall be' completed by August 25, 1986.
e.
Written direct testimony shall be served by. express mail by September 12, 1986.
I f.
The reopened hearing will be held in.a four-day i
session'sometime between September.29 and October 10.
As soon as hearing room accommodations are secured, an Order will be issued specifying the date, time and location of the hearing.
g.
At the beginning of the reopened hearing, the parties (including any s2.715(c) entity allowed to participate in 3c,. supra) will submit only to'the Board three copies of'their cross-examination plans. A party (including any 62.715(c) entity) will not be permitted to cross-examine if it fails to submit a cross-examination plan.
These plans must set forth the cross-examination questions to be asked, and explain what is being attempted to be established through asking a discrete question or pursuing a series of questions.
Each plan will be incorporated into the record upon completion of a party's cross examination.
l-i q
e l
a
h.
In light of the rulings on hearing matters, supra, a conference prior to the hearing will not be necessary.
The parties are expected to confer informally and resolve any procedural controversies.
If there are any unresolved procedural controversies, a telephone conference call to the Board may be utilized.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD MM S Od Sheldon J. Wo W3, ChaiYman ADMINISTRATIVE M UDGE Awf JEcdof Jerry Hartrour ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 5
0.
N p
Emmeth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of July, 1986.
1 l
)
l-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
In the matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL i
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 50-444-OL
)j OF NEW HAMPSHIRE j
(Seabrook Station, Units I and II) 1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE In accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.713(b), the undersigned I
attorney files this Notice of Appearance.
Name:
Paul McEachern l
Address:
25 Maplewood Avenue
'P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone No.
(603) 436-3110 Admissions:
First Circuit Court.of Appeals United States District Court, New Hampshire United States Court of Claims Supreme Court of New Hampshire Party Represented Town of Hampton, New Hampshire Dated: February 19, 1986 i
Y 1
{
/ Paul McEachern i
Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Dox 360 Portsmouth NH 03801 l
l 1
l EXHIBIT G J
+.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
- (Seabrook Station, Units I and II)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE In accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.713 (b), the undersigned attorney files this Notice of Appearance.
4 Matthew T. Brock Name:
Address:
25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone No:
(603).
436-3110 Admissions:
Supreme Court of New Hampshire Unitei. States District Court, New Hampshire Supreme. Court of Maine United States District Court, Maine
' Party Represented:
Town of Hampton, New Hampshire Dated: ~ February 19, 1986
't 1 Matthew T. Brock Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue P. O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801
~
CERTIFICATE _pF SERVICE I, Matthew T. Brock, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on the __21st day of February 1986, I made service of the'within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Administrative udge' Helen Hoyt Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and~ Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC,20555 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Thomas J. Dignan, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General Esquire, R.K. Gad, III, Department of Attorney General Esquire, Ropes & Gray State House Station 6 225 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02110 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Robert G. Perlis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Executive Legal Director l
Department of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory J
One Ashburton' Place, 19th Floor Commission Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Diana P. Randall Robert A. Backus, Esq.
70 Collins Street 116 Lowell Street Seabrook, NH 03874 P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03165 Diane Curran, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Harmon & Weiss Board of Selectmen 1725 I Street, N.W.
Town Hall Suite 506 South Hampton, NH 03827 Washington, DC 20006
a 4
Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon The Town of Hampton Falls Selectmen's Office Drinkwater Road 10 Central Road Hampton' Falls, NH Rye,RNH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Ca'95.n A. Canney The' Town of'Kensin'gton City 1 t,ar RFD 1 City h>
u East Kingston, NH 03827 125 Danaul' Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros Chairman of the Board of U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator.Gordoa J. Humphrey Mr. Richard E. Sullivan U.S. Senate Mayor Concord,.NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: ' Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas Powers Town Manager's Office Town Hall Town Manager Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Streel Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH- 03833 H. Joseph Flynn Brentwood Board of Selectmen Assistant General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Office of General Counsel Brentwood, NH 03833 Federal Emergency Management Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Holmes & Ells Washington, DC 20472 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Hampe & McNicholas Attorney General 35 Pleasant Street Office of the Attorney Concord, NH 03301 General 25 Capitol Street George Dana Bisbee.
Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 5 Capitol Street Concord, NB 03301-6397 I
- - ~
Cv N Matthew T. Brock 2
BDLK TED US C CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Matthew T.
Brock, one of the attorneys fo I
pkyplampton i
herein, hereby certify that on September 24, 1987, I Nservice of l
the following document. INTERVENERS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT'OF APPEAL OF j
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.33(f)
(
AND 50. 57 (a) (4) TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO j
DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION. by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail first class postage prepaid for delivery (or, where indicated, by Express Mail, prepaid) addressed to:
- Ivan Smith Esq., Chairman
- Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, J c.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Board Panel East West Towers Building.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
43501 East West Highway East West Towers Euilding Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East West' Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
)'
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20555 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- Docketing and Servic'e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
l l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington,-DC 20555 Mrs. Anne E.
Goodman William S.
Lord, Selectman Board of Selectmen Town Hall 13-15 Newmarket Road Friend Street l
Durham, NH 03842 Amesbury, MA 01913
' Jane Doughty Rep. Roberta C.
Pevear Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Drinkwater Road 5 Market Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Philip Ahrens, Esq.
- Thomas G.
Dignan, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General George H. Lewald, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Kathryn A.
Selleck, Esq.
State House Ropes & Gray Statien 6 225 Franklin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02110 Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
- Sherwin E.
Turk, Esq.
Backus, Meyer &. Solomon Office of the Exec. Legal Dir.
111 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Manchester, NH 03105 Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 SHAINES G McEACHERN. pao,T.51AONAL ASSOCATON 25 MAPLEwoOD AVENUE - P O. Box 360 PORTSMOUTK N H C5801
4 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel Newbury, MA 01950 Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
- George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Washington, DC 20472 Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
- Carol S.
Sneider, Esq.
State House Annex Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
Concord, NH 03301 Allan R.
Fierce, Esq.
Dept. of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Stanley W. Knowles 19th Floor Board of Selectmen Boston, MA 02108 P.O. Box 710 North Hampton, NH 03862
'J.
P.
Nadeau, Selectman Richard E.
Sullivan Selectmen's Office Mayor 10 Central Road City Hall Rye, NH 03870 Newburyport, MA 01950 Alfred V.
Sargent, Chairman Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Board of Selectmen U.S.
Senate Town of Salisbury Washington, DC 20510 Salisbury, MA 01950 (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Allen Lampert Board of Selectmen Civil Defense Director Jewell St.,
RFD 2 Town of Brentwood So. Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Richard A.
Hampe, Esq.
Gary W.
Holmes, Esq.
Hampe and McNicholas Holmes and Ellis 35 Pleasant Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Concord, NH 03301 Hampton, NH 03842 William Armstrong Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Civil Defense Director City Hall 10 Front Street 126 Daniel Street Exeter, NH 03833 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Edward A.
Thomas Sandra Gavutis Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency Town of Kensington 442 J.W.
McCo rmack (POCH)
RFD 1, Box 1154 Boston, MA 02109 East Kensington, NH 03827 Charles P.
Graham, Esq.
- Diane Curran, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham Andrea C.
Ferster, Esq.
100 Main Street Harmon & Weiss Amesbury, MA 01913 Suite 430 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009-1125 SMAINES & McEACHERN. PROFESSIONAL A$50CATON 26 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P O BOX 360 DORT$MOU'TM. N H 33801
- - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'j.
O A -
Robert Carrigg, Chairman Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Board of Selectmen One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Town Office Concord, NH 03301 Atlantic Avenue (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
North Hampton, NH 03862 Mr. Thomas H.
Powers, III Mr. Peter Matthews Town Manager Mayor Town of Exeter City Hall 10 Front Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Exeter, NH 03833 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Brentwood, NH 03833 Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110
- Gary J.
Edles
- Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
East West Towers Building East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Howard A.
Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 I
w n
i C-c_
Matthew T.
Brock
- UPS NEXT DAY AIR l
$HAINES (= AkE ACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCATION 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE. P O ElOX MO - PORTSAOUTH, N M 0380 s m__
mms..m_ _ _ _. _
,