ML20235V046
| ML20235V046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1989 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#189-8187 OL, NUDOCS 8903100010 | |
| Download: ML20235V046 (20) | |
Text
-
f/f7 1
2/21/89 l s
- n ki. i!D UN; l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 FEB 28 P4 :32 i BEFORE THE ATOMTC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '[)'C Rilit . t BH uv In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) Off-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 'I NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION FOR A WAIVER OF OR AN EXCEPTION TO THE -l FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION RULES FOR FULL POWER OPERATION INTRODUCTION On February 1, 1989, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758 for a waiver of those portions of 10 C.F.R. 66 2.104(c)(4), 50.33(f), and 50.57(a)(4) which exclude electric ,
1 utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate their -
financial qualification to operate a facility safely at full power.1/
The Massachusetts Attorney General requests a waiver of these regulations l
"to require that the Applicants establish, prior to full power operation, financial qualifications sufficient to cover the cost of Seabrook Unit l's
)
operation for the period of the license." I_d,. at 2. For the reasons stated in this response, the petition does not make the prima facie showing that "special circumstances" exist which " undercut the rationale" of the portions of the rules sought to be waived required under 10 C.F.R. I 1
l
-1/ See Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition For A Waiver Of Or An Txieption To The Financial Qualification Rules For Full Power i
- t. Operation at 1-2 (February 1,1989) (" Attorney General Petition").
L 8903100010 890221 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR
[1(
t
.. j i
1
=-
. 62.758(b), as interpreted bythe Commission in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and . 2), CLI-88-10, i 28 NRC i , slip op. at 28 Inecember 21, 1988). The petition therefore should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND i
In CLI-88-10, the Comission resolved the three . financial qualification questions then pending before it. - One of these questions
-was whether the plan submitted by Applicants' in response to the Commission's September 22, 1988 order2_/ provided an adequate basis upon ;
which the Commission could determine whether there is reasonable assurance that funds. would be available to decommission the Seabrook Station after low power operation in the hypothetical event a full power license is not granted. The second question before the Comission was whether it should grant the Massachusetts Attorney General's petition for waiver of the financial qualification rules which was certified to the Commission by the Appeal Board - in ALAB-895. SI The third question was whether the Commission should review that portion of ALAB-895 which affirmed the Licensing Board's denial of a separate waiver petition filed by interveners SAPL, NECNP, and the Town of Hampton.
The Commission approved Applicants' plan for funding the decommissioning of the Seabrook Station after low power operations subject to certain modifications and conditions, one of which is that before a low l
l 2/ Public Service Company of New Ham) shire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-07, 28 NRC 271 (19 38).
-3/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7 (1988).
__-_-______-_-________-__--__-_-__-_-_________________--___-_-_Y
l .
power license may be issued, Applicants must demonstrate that $72.1 million will be available for decommissioning after low power operations.
CLI-88-10, slip op at 1, 17.
In CLI-88-10, the Commission also denied a petition filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General for a waiver of certain of the Commission's rules in order to litigate Apolicants' financial qualification to operate the Seabrook Station safely during low power operations. M.at2,26-33.
Although the Commission agreed that the bankruptcy petition filed by PSNH together with the New Hampshire " anti-CWIP" statute might be regarded as "special circumstances" under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(b) which " undercut the rationale" of excluding electric utilities from applicants required to show of their financial qualification to operate a facility, the Commission denied interveners' petitions for waiver on the ground that a waiver of the rules in question was not needed "to address a significant safety problem on its merits." M.at29-31. The Commission reached this conclusion as (1) the Applicants have little incentive to " cut corners" regarding plant safety during low power operations (2) the Applicants would not be expected to risk the potential denial of a full power license "merely to save a few hundred thousand or even a few million dollars needed for safe low-power testing;" and (3) the public health and safety
" risks of low-power testing are low." M.at32-33.
In considering whether a waiver was "neeeded to address a significant safety problem," the Connission commented on the purpose of the rule in effect prior to the adoption of the financial qualification rules sought I
to be waived by interveners. M The Commission stated that the only justification for conducting a financial qualification review is "to provide some added assurance that a licensee would not, because of financial difficulties, be under pressure to take some safety shortcuts."
CLI-88-10 at 32. In support of this statement, the Commission quoted from the regulatory preamble accompanying the amendments to the financial qualification rules:
At most, the Atomic Energy Commission, in drafting the rule, must have intuitively concluded that a licensee in financially straightened circumstances would be under more pressure to commit safety violations or take safety " shortcuts" than one in good financial shape. Accordingly, the drafters of the rule sought to achieve some level of assurance, prior to licensing, that licensees would not be forced by financial circumstances to choose between shutting down or taking shortcuts while the license was in effect.
M., quoting 49 Fed. Reg. 35747, 35749 (September 12, 1984). The Commission then stated:
Whatever may be the legitimacy of this safety purpose for full power operation, it stretches reason to suppose that the safety rationale would have any bearing on a limited license for low power testing. Shortcuts in safety at full power conceivably could avoid shutdowns or derating and thereby contribute to greater plant availability and revenue from power sales.
CLI-88-10 at 32 (emphasis added). The Commission therefore denied the petitions for waiver filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General and interveners SAPL, NECNP, and the Town of Hampton. M.
~4/ That rule was promulgated in 1968. See 35 Fed. Reg. 35747, 35/48 (September 12, 1984) ("The original rule requiring financial qualification review, promulgated in 1968, required a finding, prior to operating license issuance that the utility " possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license or for five years, whichever is greater . . . .'").
I
i On February 1, 1989, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed the instant petition which is similar to the ones previously denied by the Commission except that it seeks to litigate Applicants ' financial qualification to operate the facility safely at full, as opposed to low, power.
DISCUSSION A. Standards Governing Waiver Petitions l l
Regulations promulgated by the Commission may not be challenged in an I adjudicatory proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(a). A party, however, may petition for a waiver of or exception from the application of the regulation in question.
See 10 C.F.R. % 2.758(b). As is apparent from the text of section 2.758(b), the application of a duly promulgated regulation will not be waived lightly:
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 which the rule or regulation was adopted.
10 C.F.R. 6 2.758(b); see Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), CLI-72-31, 5 AEC 25, 26 (1972) (waiver petitions should be granted in " unusual or compelling circumstances").
Indeed, adjudicatory tribunals have no warrant to waive or grant an exception to a Commission regulation. Rather, section 2.758(d) provides that if a waiver petition makes a prima facie case that application of the regulation would not serve its intended purpose, the presiding officer is to refer the matter directly to the Conrnission for a determination as to whether a waiver or exception should be granted. 10 C.F.R. Q 2.758(d);
i Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7, 11 (1988). On the other hand, if the petition fails to set forth a prima facie case, the petition must be dismissed.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.758(c).
While section 2.758 itself does not specify the quantum of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case, Commission case law establishes that it "must be legally sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved." Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981). Further, this standard must be applied in conjunction with the provisions of section 2.758(c), which commands the presiding officer to consider not only the waiver petition itself, but also responses, affidavits, and other information submitted in opposition to the petition. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758(c). A waiver petition must be dismissed unless it is sufficient, when considered in light of any response, affidavit, or other information submitted in opposition, to establish that application of the regulation in question would not serve the purpose for which it was adopted.
Not every circumstance is a "special circumstance" as that term is used in 10 C.F.R. 92.758(b). In CLI-88-10, the Commission ruled that "special circumstances" are limited to " facts, not common to a large class of applicants or facilities, that were not considered either explicitly or by necessary implication in the proceeding leading to the rule sought to be waived." CLI-88-10 at 28.
In order for such circumstances to be "such that application of the rule . . . would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted," as is required under section 2.758(b), the Commission has stated "that this means, at a minimum, that the special circumstances must
. be such as to undercut the rationale for the rule sought to be waived."
M. Additionally, a petition for waiver must also " indicate that a waiver is necessery to address, on the merits, a significant safety problem ;
relating to the rule sought to be waived." Id.El To summarize, before a waiver petition may be certified to the Commission, the presiding officer must find that the petition makes out a prima facie showing that (1)"special circumstances" exist which (2) " undercut the rationale" of the rule sought to be waived and (3) a waiver "is needed to address a significant safety problem on the merits."
M. In the circumstances here presented, it is clear the second requirement is not satisfied. The petition for waiver, therefore, should be dismissed. 1 i
- 1. "Special Circumstances" In considering the waiver petitions filed by interveners seeking approval to litigate Applicants' financial qualification to operate the Seabrook Station safely at low power, the Comission found that "the bankruptcy of PSNH does present a special circumstance within the meaning of 6 2.758." CLI-88-10 at 19. The Comission reached a similar 5/ In CLI-88-10, the Commission explained:
The Comission's agenda is crowded with significant regulatory matters, including new rules on nuclear plant maintenance, fitness for duty, and high level waste repository licensing, and safety oversight of the over 100 i t'
nuclear power plants with operating licenses. It would not be consistent with the Commission's statutorily mandated responsibilities to spend time and resources on matters j that are of no substantive regulatory significance.
CLI-88-10 at 28.
].
conclusion regarding the New Hampshire statute (anti-CWIP) which precludes recovery of the costs of construction projects in progress until the project involved is providing service to customers. ,I_d . These circumstances were considered special in nature because they are not common to a large class of applicants or facilities and were not considered in connection with the 1984 financial qualification rulemaking proceeding. M. Since the only material difference between the instant waiver petition and the one proffered by the Attorney General initially is the former challenges Applicants' financial qualification to operate the facility safely at full power while the latter challenged Applicants' financial qualification to operate the facility safely at low power, the Staff agrees that it is necessary to see whether there ara "special circumstances" within the meaning of section 2.758(b) present in this case in relation to full power operation.
- a. PSNH's bankruptcy As the Commission held in CLI-88-10, the bankruptcy of PSNH is a "special circumstance" with che meaning of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758(b) since it is a fact "not common to a large class of applicants or facilities" and was "not considered either explicitly or by necessary implication in the proceeding leading to the rule sought to be waived." CLI-88-10 at 28.
The Staff agrees that under the standard enunciated by the Commission, PSNH's bankruptcy is a "special circumstance" with respect to the full power operating license proceeding. As discussed in Part A-2, however, this circumstance does not undercut the rationale of the rules, i.e.,
10 C.F.R. 66 2.104(c)(4), 50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4), sought to be waived.
i
- b. Anti-CWIP statute i
The Commission reached the same conclusion with respect to the New I
l Hamsphireranti-CWIP statute which prohibits the inclusion in the rate base 1
of any asset that is not providing service to ratepayers. I_d . As the Commission stated, "[w]e do not believe that anti-CWIP statutes present i
generic, as opposed to case specific issues" and "there is no indication in the 1984 financial qualifications rulemaking that anti-CWIP statutes were considered." Id. However, Although the Staff does not dispute that the New Hampshire anti-CWIP statute preventing recovery of construction costs /before full power operation is a "special circumstance" in the situation presented in CLI-88-10, for the reasons discussed in Part A-2 of this response, this circumstance is not relevant to full power operation and does not undercut the rationale of the rules, i.e., 10 C.F.R. 592.104(c)(4), 50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4), in regard to full puwer operation. /
(
4
- c. PSNH's Reorganization Plan On December 27, 1988, PSNH filed a " Plan of Reorganization" with the Bankruptcy Court. See Attornev General Petition. Attachment A. According to the Massachusetts Attorney General, PSNH proposes to reorganize its operations so that jurisdiction over its operations would be vested in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This aspect of PSNH's reorganization plan does not constitute "special circumstances" as that tenn is used in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758(b). Electric utilities whose rates are ,
subject to approval by FERC are not uncommon and the Commission was full i
aware that an electric utility's rates might be regulated by federal as well as state agencies when it adopted the financial qualification !
l I
regulations. See 49 Fed. Reg. at 35749. Nothing is shown to indicate that the rates set by FERC will not provide for the full costs of the safe operationsof Seabrook.
- d. Proposal To Create New Hampshire Energy Authority On January 12, 1989, a bill was introduced in the New Hampshire legislature which creates a public energy authority empowered to take "the properties of financial distressed electric utilities when necessary co protect the public interest." See Attorney General Petition, Attachment C. Under the standard enunciated by the Consission in CLI-88-10, this legislative proposal is not a "special circumstance" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758(b). At the time of the adoption of the 1984 financial qualification rt. l e , the Commission was aware publically owned utilities and that these utilities set rates "to recover costs of operation, including the costs of meeting NRC safety requirements." 49 Fed. Reg. 35750. It defined an " electric utility", to include entities authorized to establish their own rates ir; 10 C.F.R. 99 2.4(s) and 50.2, and so eliminated these publically owned entities from the financial qualification review required of operating license applicants. The possibility that Seabrook might be held by a public entity is not a "special circumstance" under the financial qualification regulations.
- e. NU Offer To Purchase PSNH And Spin Off Seabrook On January 12, 1989, Northeast Utilities ("NU"), the parent company of one of the Seabrook co-owners, proposed to purchase PSNH for $2 billion. {ee_ Attorney General Petition, Attachment D. Under NU's plan, "PSNH's 35.6 percent share of the Seabrook nuclear power plant would be
spun off into a separate company owned by PSNH's existing unsecured creditors and security holders. Any power generated by the Seabrook i
Station would be purchased by NU's New Hampshire subsidiary. Id.
Under the standard laid down by the Comission in CLI-88-10, it is !
unclear whether NU's proposal is a "special circumstance" within the meanirig of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.758(b). Under NU's plan, the largest share of the Seabrook Station would be owned by a company which would have no revenue producing assets or income other than that generated by the facility. There is no assertion in the petition that the rates to be charged by that company would not be subject to either state or federal i regulation. This is significant for as the Commission has observed, were the rates subject to approval by a public authority, those rates must reflect and include the costs of safe operation prudently incurred.
49 Fed. Reg. 13044,13045, and 49 Fed. Reg. 35747, 35748, citing FPC v.
Hope Natural Gas Company, 320 U.S. 591, 605 (1944); Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Company v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 269 U.S. 679 (1923); see Duquesne Light Company v. Barasch, U.S. , 57 U.S.L.W. 4083, 4086 (January 11, 1989). The Massachusetts Attorney General has not carried his burden of making a prima facie showing that the new owners of the Seabrook Station will be unable to recoup the costs of safe operation of the facility. NU's proposal to purchase PSNH and divest its interest in the Seabrook Station cannot be deemed a "special circumstance" as that term is used in section 2.758(b).
Although, none of the proposals cited is sufficient to be deemed a I
"special circumstance" as that term was defined by the Commission in l 1
i l
j
CLI-88-10, it is argued that taken in the aggregate these possibilities render the financial qualification of PSNH uncertain at the present time and that this is a "special circumstance." Attorney General Petition at
- 5. The uncertainty regarding PSNH financial qualification derives from PSNH's bankruptcy, which the Staff already has acknowledged is a special circumstance, and not from any of the proposals which would maintain Seabrook's owners as " electric utilities" under the Commission's financial qualification regulations.
- 2. There Are No Special Circumstances Which Undercut The Rationale Of The Portions Of The Rules To Be Waived In contrast to low power operations, PSNH's bankruptcy, the New Hampshire anti-CWIP statute, and the financial difficulties currently being experienced by other co-owners of the Seabrook Station do not, alone or in combination, undercut the Commission's rationale for excluding ;
)'
electric utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate l
their financial qualification to operate a facility safely at low power.
According to the Commission, the " essential rationale" for 10 C.F.R.
SS 50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4) is that:
case-by-case review of financial qualifications for all electric utilities at the operating license stage is unnecessary due to the ability of such utilities to recover, to a sufficient degree, all or a portion of the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation through the ratemaking process.
CLI-88-10 at 30, quoting 49 Fed. Reg. at 35748.
In CLI-88-10 the Commission found that the bankruptcy of PSNH and the anti-CWIP statute, "in combination, undercut this rationale" with respect to low power operations. Id. at 30 (emphasis added). The anti-CWIP law precluding Applicants from recovering through the ratemaking process "any
portion of the costs of low power testing" combined with PSNH's bankruptcy persuaded the Commission that Applicants may not have the funds necessary to-conduct low power operations. J_d.(emphasisadded).
d Should full power operations be authorized the anti-CWIP statute would not be applicable. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that such time as Applicants receive a full power operating license, they will recoup and earn a return on their Seabrook construction costs and recover their costs of operating the facility. Petition Of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 130 N.H. 265, 539 A.2d 263 (1988). The Massachusetts Attorney General does not argue the contrary. See Attorney General Petition at 5. Thus, the anti-CWIP law does not undercut the rationale of the rules to be waived with respect to full power operations.
It remains to be considered whether PSNH's bankruptcy and the financial difficulties of other co-owners holding relatively minor shares in the Seabrook Station are special circumstances which undercut the rationale of the rules which must be waived to permit litigation of Applicants' financial qualification to operate the Seabrook Station safely at full power. For this to be the case, there must be a showing that PSNH's bankruptcy or the financial difficulties of the other co-owners prevents Applicants from recovering the costs of safe full power operation
I
, of the facility through the ratemaking process. 6_/ The subject petition has not made this showing, i
For esimilar reasons, the petition fails to demonstrate that the
]
" essential rationale" of the rules sought to be waived is undercut by f PSNH's reorganization plan, the legislative proposal to create a state energy authority, or by NU's proposal to purchase PSNH. In the first place, none of these actions has been approved; the bill creating the New Hampshire energy authority has not been enacted into law and NU's proposal has not been accepted by pSNH or approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Speculation as to the outcome of one or more of these proposals is not a productive enterprise since as explained below, none of these
~~6/ When the Commission amended its regulations to exclude electric utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate their financial qualification to operate the facility, it provided that those regulations -- as are all Commission regulations -- might be i subject to a waiver or exception pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.758. -See 49 Fed. Reg. at 35751. The Commission gave an example of the type of showing which must be made before an electric utility applicant would be required to demonstrate its financial qualification:
[A]n exception . . . might be appropriate where a threshold showing is made that, in a particular case, the local public utility commission will not allow the total cost of operating the facility to be recovered through rates.
Id. (emphasis added). Such a showing might be sufficient under 10 CF . R . ! 2.758 because it is the kind of "special circumstances" which tend to indicate that the purpose of the financial qualification exemption for regulated utility operating license applicants -- the assumption that the ratemaking process assures that funds needed for safe operation will be made available -- would not be served if the rule were applied. It should be noted that while the Appeal Board and the Commission have stated that the example given above is not the only way to make the showing required to warrant a waiver, see CLI-88-10 at 27; ALAB-895, supra, 28 NRC at 17, the Attorney General has provided no other type of showing that would meet the test set forth in section 2.758(b).
circumstances undercuts the rationale of the portion of 10 C.F,.R.
i si 2.104(c)(4), 50.33(f), and 50.57(a)(4) for which the Attorney General i seeks a waiver.
I Second and more important, the petition does not demonstrate that were any of the propose.' actions to come to pass, funds will not be available to operate the Seabrook Station in the event a full power license is issued. As noted earlier, a publicly owned utility authorized to set their own rates is considered an " electric utility," see 10 C.F.R 9 50.2, and thus is treated the same as a private utility for financial qualification purposes. Moreover, the bill introduced in the New Hampshire legislature creating the public energy authority provides, inter alia, that "[t]he authority shall establish and maintain in effect at all times rates and charges sufficient in its judgment for the prudent construction, operation, and maintenance of its systems [.]" Attorney General Petition, Attachment C at 21.
Similarly, under the reorganization plan filed by PSNH with the Bankruptcy Court, the rates charged by the company would be subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC, as a public ratemaking body, is to required to set the company's rates at a level which will enable it "to operate successfully, to maintain its financial integrity, to attract capital, and to compensate its investors for the risk assumed [.]" FPC v. Hope, supra, 320 U.S. at 605. Nothing in
. the petition indicates that FERC will set such rates. For this reason, PSNH's reorganization plan is not a special circumstance which " undercuts the rationale" of the regulations sought to be waived. FERC, no less that the New Hampshire PUC, is a " separate regulatory authority" responsible a
for establishing rates charged by an electric utility. See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.2. i The Massachusetts Attorney General's petition also does not show that NU's proposal to purchase PSNH and divest it of its interest in the Seabrook Station is a circumstance which undercuts the rationale of the i
rules to be waived. Nothing in the petition indicates that the rates )
l charged by the new owners of the Seabrook Station will not be subject to approval by either state or federal ratemaking bedies. The petition l
provides no basis for concluding that NU's proposal would have the effect 1 I
of depriving the owners of the Seabrook Station of the funds needed for {
\
safe operation. Thus, the Board should find that the subject petition does not make a prima facie showing that NU's offer to purchase PSNH 3 i
" undercuts the rationale of the rules sought to be waived."
i In view of the foregoing, the Licensing Board should find that the ,
Massachusetts Attorney General's petition does not make a prima facie showing that special circumstances exist in this proceeding which undercut the rationale of the rules which must be waived to litigate Applicants' financial qualification to operate the facility safely at full power.
- 3. A Waiver Is Not Needed To Address A Significant Safety Problem On The Merits In CLI-88-10, the Commission stated even though a waiver petition demonstrates the existence of special circumstances which undercut the rationale of the rule to be waived, a licensing board should not certify the petition to the Comission unless the board determines that a waiver "is necessary to address, on the merits, a significant safety problem related to the rule sought to be waived." CLI-88-10 at 28. Since no prima facie showing of special circumstances has been made which undercut l
, the Comission's rationale in excluding electric utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate their financial qualification to operate the facility involved safely at full power, it is unnecessary to address at length whether a significant safety problem is raised by the special circumstances present in this case. In any event, it is apparent from the discussion in Part A-2 of this response that the petition does not raise a serious question regarding the adequacy of funding to operate the Seabrook Station safely at full power. i CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in this response, the Massachusetts Attorney General's petition for waiver should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, Grego y A n Berry Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of February 1989 I
I l
l l
l l
r: ,
] '
~" , M rum UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 TUb b $.!-}kj "+ '
1 J
l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL. !
i NEW HAMPSHIRE, g d. Off-site Emergency Planning
, Issues
.Seabrook
( Station, Units 1 and 2) )
.i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE T0; MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY !
GENERAL'S PETITION FOR A WAIVER OF OR AN EXCEPTION TO 'THE FINANCIAL-QUALIFICATION RULES FOR FULL POWER OPERATION" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as- indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 21st day of February 1989:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman (2)* Philip Ahrens, Esq.
- Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission State House Station Washington, DC 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Richard F. Cole
- Carol S. Sneider Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, DC 20555 . Boston, MA 02108 Kenneth A. McCollom George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74075 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 James H. Carpenter, Alternate
- Administrative Judge Diane Curran, Esq. !
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Harmon, Curran & Tousley i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2001 S Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Ropo & Gray Backus, Meyer & Solomon One International Plece 116 Lowell Street Boston, MA 02110-2624 Manchester, NH 03106 i
l
l l
L H. J. Flynn, Esq. Judith H. Mizner, Esq. !
l~ Assistant General Counsel 79 State Street i Federal Emergency Management Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington,tDC 20472 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern, Esq. Town Office ,
Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Atlantic Avenue Shaines & McEachern North Hampton, NH 03862 25 Maplewood Avenue . ;
P.O. Box 360 William S. Lord Portsmouth, NH 03801 Board of Selectmen i Town Hall - Friend Street ,
Charles P. Graham, Esq. Amesbury, MA 01913 i McKay,' Murphy & Graham ,
100 Main Street Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman ;
Amesbury, MA 01913 Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Durham, NH 03824 .
I Board of Selectmen RFD #1, Box 1154 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey Kensington, NH 03827 United States Senate ,
531 Hart Senate Office Building Calvin A. Canney Washington, DC 20510 City Hall 126 Daniel Street Richard R. Donovan Portsmouth, NH 03801 Federal Emergency Management ;
Agency R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq. Federal Regional Center Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton 130 228th Street, S.W.
& McGuire Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 79 State Street !
Newburyport MA 01950 Peter J. Matthews, Mayor )
City Hall l Allen Lampert Newburyport, MA 01950 2 Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Michael Santosuosso, Chairman .
20 Franklin Board of Selectmen I Exeter, NH 03833 South Hampton, NH 03827 William Armstrong Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Civil Defense Director Town Counsel for Merrimac Town of Exeter 145 South Main Street 10 Front Street P.O. Box 38 Exeter, NH 03833 Bradford, MA 01835 Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Holmes & Ellis 77 Franklin Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Boston, MA 02110 Hampton, NH 03842
r t
- 3-11 .
.Ms. Suzanne Breiseth J. P. Nadeau-Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen l -Town of Hampton Falls- 10 Central Street Drinkwater Road Rye, NH 03870
, Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert R. Pierce, Esq.* Board Panel (1)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -
i Board Panel Washington, DC -20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Elizabeth Weinhold 3 Godfrey Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Hampton, NH 03842 Appeal Panel (5) .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ,
Edwin J. s Deputy istant General. Counsel Reactor Licensing Branch I
{
i l
)
l
.