ML20235L706

Opposes Util Application for Amends to Licenses,Allowing New Ownership & Financing Arrangement.Nshc Should Not Be Made W/O Public Hearings on Serious Financial Qualifications Questions

ML20235L706
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	07/08/1987
From:	Cassel D BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8707160793
Download: ML20235L706 (2)

Text

__-

i

(

D w

BPI h

Business and Professional People for the Public Interest Chicago, Illinois 60602

(

109 North

Dearborn Street,

Suite 1300 Telephone: (312) 641-5570 y

July 8, 1987 l

l Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Re: Proposed amendments to Operating Licenses for Byron 2 and Braidwood, NRC dockets 50-455, 456 and 457

Dear Mr. Murley:

Since my meeting with your Staff on June 29, there have been important developments before the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), which is still considering Edison's proposal to restructure the ownership and financing of Byron 2 and Braidwood.

The final terms of that proposal - and indeed whether it will be approved at all - remain unclear.

On July 2, by a 4-3 vote, the ICC rejected the proposed order from its Hearing Examiners, which would have approved Edison's proposal subject to certain modifications (as discussed in my letters in these dockets of June 23).

The ICC directed the Examiners to present an order dismissing the docket (and thus Edison's proposal) by Monday, July 6.

On July 6, Edison offered a new concession in an effort to keep its proposal alive.

The company agreed to permit construction audits of the three units to be completed, and later to refund to its customers any amounts thereby shown to have been unreasonable, as well as to lower future rates accordingly.

Depending on the outcome of the audits, the resulting rate refunds and reductions could be substantial, thereby further undermining the financial qualifications of the proposed co-licensees for NRC purposes.

l

(

3 l

c-

n=

wn:.r

=m,.

u :r

\\

~~~

N:L i'.*:,M'"a%,

h*:' 2:L

?*:"un's".,,

s"*;",a"?;",'lk"?.

• E O N :"c~

N' A % *"

i E

l EC"#c"$$ n EZ"f.EUJm E"aIv"/'.0"'"" $fUnm'ln*'*'

$13,"t"'st",,

SL'#fcE"E #'

Ja$ N 'AEr I

Ef.'Z"oLS:L*C,,n irl,'",i MA" W:!E.,

M*dT, ion ELO%

• n a "am~a s', = =

=we>===-

::

==-- E,- E. !!!"

i

=::=:r

=;z*

remy,oo conoo.e Mori,a c nm?"~ ":a"cy' o-* -"-

s.~.,

~

roy.nyge;o.

uaman o na e uaany 8707160793 070708 l\\fg i

i PDR ADOCK 05000405

\\j p

PDR

o,..

Thomas E.

Murley page two July 8, 1987 It remains to be seen, however, whether the ICC will accept Edison's proposal even with the latest compromise offer.

Even if the ICC rules that the audits will cure the legal problems which led to the negative vote last week, some Commissioners in today's public meeting made clear that additional issues - including the size of any rate increase and the post-year five options - would still have to be discussed.

Based on its new offer, Edison has asked for further oral argument, which the ICC today scheduled for next Tuesday afternoon, July 14, 1987.

For the reasons given in my prior letters and at the June 29 meeting, supplemented by these new developments, BPI, SAFE and Braidwood Interveners Rorem et al. urge the NRC not to approve Edison's applications for amendments to the operating licenses l

for Byron 2 and Braidwood, and not to determine that no significant hazard exists prior to a public hearing on the serious financial i

qualifications questions raised by Edison's new proposed ownership and financing arrangement for the three units. In any event, no determination of "no significant hazard" could prudently be made before the Edison proposal reaches some final l

form before the ICC, which is now unlikely prior to July 15, 1987 at the earliest.

i Sincerely, l

Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

1 l

cc:

Leonard N. Olshan Jan Stevens