ML20235W168
| ML20235W168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1987 |
| From: | Humphrey G SENATE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235W148 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 OL-1, NUDOCS 8710160031 | |
| Download: ML20235W168 (23) | |
Text
_
- = _ _ - - . --
.. e 4.
, y, l> t NC
. UNITED STATES OF,AMERICAh E h
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMflISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
. _.____ - . _ . __=
)
In the matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAtlY OF ) 50-444-OL NCN HA!!PSHIRE, et al. ) On-site Emergency
) Planning Issues
.(Seabrook Station, Units.1 and'2) ) )
) October 13, 1987
.___________________ __- )
BRIEP'AMICilS' CURIAE OF U.S. SENATOR GORDON J. HUMPHREY IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY U.S. Senator Gordon J. Humphrey hereby submits his amicus cur iae brief, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.715(d), in response to the September 21, 1987 motion by the Applicants for vacation of stay of the Commission's order of January 9, 1987 prohibiting the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from authorizing low power operation at the Seabrook facility.
I. JMTEREST OF AMICUS As a resident and representative of New Hampshire, U.S. q Senator Gordon J. Humphrey and his constituency are directly affected by events at the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
Senator Humphrey has closely followed the licensing ,
1 proceedings. Senator Humphrey's interest in the proceedings {
~
3 B710160031g ADDCK 443 PDR DR U
is based on his desire to ensure protection of the rights and welfare of those citi: enc living in the vicinity of the plant.
II'. RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION The Commission has continued its stay on low power operation since issuing its January.9, 1987 order to review, sua sponte, the Appeal Board's decision in ALAD-853 regarding the lack of emergency plans for the Massachusetts portion of-the emergency planning zone (EPZ). On June 11, the Commission reaffirmed its stay on low power operation and stated: ...there can be no low power operation at Seabrook beyond fuel loading and precriticality testing unless and until the Applicants file a bona fide utility offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts that satisfies the Commission's threshold requirements." (CLI-87-03)
On September 18, 1987, the Applicants submitted an emergency plan entitled "Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities" (SPMC) to the Commission. The Applicants have requested that the Commission lift its stay based on their submission of the SPMC.
When the Commission reversed the Appeal Board's decision (ALAB-853) regarding submission of emergency plans before i
issuance of an operating license, it stated : "...the question before us is not a strictly legal one, but rather a 1
t
l 4
question of regulatory policy which ultimately we alone should decide." (CLI-87-02) Sena' tor Humphrey submits that, i once again, the question before the Commission rests not
~
solely upon legal restrictions contained in the Commission's f
rules.. Rather, the question of lifting the stay on low power operations at Seabrook requires that the Commission review the unique aspects of this case to determine whether " sound f J
policy" favors such action.
In the judgement of Senator Humphrey, a sound policy I
decision requires that the stay on low power operation be continued. Senator Humphrey opposes the Applicants' motion for vacation of stay for the following two-reasons:
{
- l. In light of the current financial status of the lead i Applicant, it is not prudent to increase the overall cost of the Seabrook plant through issuance of a low power operating I license.
The Commission confronts a unique situation as it deliberates on the issuance of a low power operating license 2
for a nuclear power plant 35.6% of which is owned by a company, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH),
which is financially insecure, close to the point of bankruptcy. In its July 22, 1987 Porm 8-k ( At t achiaen t 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, PSNH l ;
stated:
I f
l
_4_
...Given.the uncertainty surrounding the Company, its limited financial 1 flexibility, the amount 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 extremely 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.
In his af fidavit . (Attachment 2) in support of P3NH's Application for Emergency Rates, signed on August 3,1987, Robert J. Harrison, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSNH, stated: ...PSNH's required interest payments will alone exceed its cash from operations, leaving no internal i
cash to meet maturities of the Company's Seabrook and non-Seabrook construction requirements." Mr. Harrison j further stated: "In the event PSNH's financial emergency is I not resolved in timely fashion, PSNH will have no choice but to exercise its right to file for protection from creditors under the laws of the United States."
l In his response of September 3 (Attachment 3) to the j Commission's request for clarification regarding the Company's ability to pay for certain activies at Seabrook, l'
Mr. Harrison estimated that PSNH's share of the incremental costs of low-power operation in excess of the current operating budget of approximately $10 million per month would be approximately $2.3 million.
Senator Humphrey submits that it is unreasonable to
l l
I 4
authorize activities which increase the expense of the operation and management of a nuclear facility when the lead owner of that facility is facing severe financial difficulties. Approximately 69% of PSNH's total assets are 1
invested in Seabrook Station. Although the September 3 response to the Commission's financial inquiry stated:
...PSMH intends to make every available effort to protect that' asset" (Seabrook), in the event that PSNH seeks protection of the Bankruptcy Court, it is not clear who would i be financially responsible for total' costs of low-power operations'and of permanent shutdown and maintenance of the plant after a period of low power operation only.
PSNH is currently in the midst of hearings before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission to consider PSNH's request for a 15% emergency rate hike. The Company's ,
management has recently announced its intention to skip a
$37.5 million interest payment due on October 15. Given PSNH's admission that bankruptcy is imminent if the Company's restructuring plan and request for an emergency rate hike are not successful, it is clearly inadvisable to increase the financial burden on the Company by authorizing issuance of a low-power license.
Under 3 0 CFR 50.47 (a) (4) , the Commission established j i
that "no finding of financial qualification is necessary for l
an electric utility applicant for an operating license" for a l
l
V*
I l
)
nuclear plant. Notwithstanding this regulation, in this j case, it would be irresponsible for the Commission to l authorize issuance of an operating license which will j irradiate portions of a facility to a utility on the verge of :
potential bankruptcy.
- 2. It is not in the interest of the public to authorize issuance of full-power operation given the uncertainty regarding the status of emergency plans for the EPZ.
In its decision in Long Island Lighting company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-12, the Commission stated:
To refuse to authorize low-power operation whenever j there is uncertainty over whether full-power operation I will be authorized would ignore Commission regulations which allow low-power operation when there is reasonable assurance that it will present no undue risk to the ;
public health and safety notwithstanding the pendency of full-power issues.
l In the case of Seabrook, to authorize low-power operation 1
when there is significant uncertainty regarding the adequacy J of emergency planning within the EPZ would ignore both the financial instability of the lead owner and the obstacles i
1 impeding resolution of emergency planning for the facility. '
Hearings to determine the adequacy of the New Hampshire radiological emergency response plan are currently underway
'before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. In its i
pre-filed testimony before the Licensing Board, the Federal I Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stated that, until certain I
l issues regarding deficiencies in the plan, particularly regarding.the transient " day-tripper" beach population, are resolved:
PEMA would not be able to conclude that the New Hampshire State and local plans to protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant are adequate to meet our regulatory standards that such plans " adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency."
Under Section 50.47 of the Commission's rules, findings and determinations by FEMA regarding the adequacy of emergency plans constitute a rebuttable presumption. It does not make sense for the Commission to issue a low power operating license resulting in irradiation of the core and contamination of the primary cooling system while FEMA 1
maintains its negative finding regarding portions of the New l
Hampshire radiological emergency response plans and before the Licensing Board has made a decision regarding the adequacy of the New Hampshire plans.
Utility plans designed to compensate for lack of State and local participation have recently been submitted to the Commission. Several unresolved legal and practical problems inherent in utility emergency plans must be addressed before there will be any assurance that Seabrook will attain a full power operating license.
Although, under the Commission's recent interpretation
I i
)
of its rules, the utility simply has to file " bona fide" emergency plans before the Commission will cone der issuance of a low power operating license, Senator Humphrey submits that a " bona fide" plan is of little use unless it provides assurance that. adequate protective measures can and will be taken. For, there is no value in authorizing low power i
testing upon submission of " bona fide" plans if the plant I cannot subsequently receive a full power operating license.
Thus, until there is reasonable assurance that both New Hampshire and Massachusetts emergency plans can protect the i'
public in the vicinity of the Seabrook plant, and while the lead Applicant is in a financial situation so precarious that .
l the Company claims it may be impossible to avoid bankruptcy j i
proceedings, the Commission should not vacate its stay of
{
low-power operation.
1 Senator Humphrey concludes that these important issues l
.regarding the financial qualification of the lead owner and i
the adequacy of emergency plans should be resolved before the Commission lifts its stay prohibiting the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from authorizing low power operation at Seabrook.
1 i
l C - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _J
_9 I
i Respectfully submitted, i GORD0M J. HUMPHREY, USS l
ordon J."Humphrey / I Pro Se / l 531 Hart Senate Office Building ;
Washington, DC 20510 :
(202) 224-2841 )
1 Dated: District of Columbia 1 October 13, 1987 l l
~1 4
l I
i I
l l
l
t TCRM 6-K 4 _
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 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 I
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Exact name of registrant as spe:1flec in 1ts cnart:r) '
.-63F? '?C ni-10hu NEW HAM? SHIRE (IR5 imployer (State, or otner jurisc1 tion TCommission of incorporation) File NU er) 1:entification No.)
l l
l>
J 03205 i 1003 ELH STREET. MANCHESTER. NEW HAH
- SHIRE (21p Coce)
(Accress of prin:1oai executive offices)
!{
l 603-669-4000 l-Re01strant's 1eleonone Num0e". Inclucin Ares COCT r ATTACilMENT 1 l
l l
}
s . ,
. ~; - ,
Current Recor.t, form F for ; e of Resort: j
- Public Service Company cf New Hamp5nire July C2, 1967 ,
q Sheet 1 <
l 1
Item 5. Otner Materiallv Iecortant 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 $20.5 million of the 558.9 million (14%) rate increase origin' ally 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 538.6 million.
The NHPUC ordered the Company to refund the difference between rates collected under bond since January 1967 and the level of ;
rates approved by the oroer, plus interest on such sums at the rate of 10% through June and 6.5% thereafter. Refunds are to be paid on a customer specifi: basis commen:ing in November. The NHPUC found that the increBSed rates shall be applied on a uniform percentage to the base rates of each customer class. The NHPUC Oetermined that the Company's :st of common couity was 15t (the Company had requested 19%) and fixec an overall rate of return at 14.94%, in aedition, tne NHPUC rejected a se:On: step increase of approximately 535 millicn (7%), wnich the C:mpany nad requested beccme effective January 1, 1985.
On July 20, 1967. the C0moany petitioned the NHPUC for a rehearing of the orcer en the grouncs .tnat the ce:1sion was most unlawful and unreasonable in several respects, the significant being that the decision f ailed to allow a just and reasonable capital structure and failed to cetermine a lawful, just and reasonable cost of common equity capital for tne Company.
Further delays have 00 Urred in the pr0 cess of attempting to CDtain al' governmental approvais re::uired to commente Cperation of the Seacrook Nuclear Power Plant (in shien the Comoany has an r ownership interest of ab:ut 35%). In a p sition filed with tne Nucitar Regulatory Com=ission (NRC) in Cune af 1987, the Fe eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has irsitated tnu t- it wa:
unable to concluce that certain aspe:ts of the radiciogical emergency response plans for the seventeen towns in New Man:Snire which are within a 10 mile radius of the Plant, are adequate t0 cnsure the timely evacuation of the New Hampshire beaches in the event of an emergency at the Plant. This conclusion was contrary to that of the NRC staf f and an incepencent consuhant's report.
The NRC has ceti0ed that a raciol gical energency resconse plan for the six M mitenusetti towns witnin a 10 mile radius of the Plant must be filea oy the Joint Owners prier to io.-Cower testing of tne Plant, a recu,eement ina; na: net teer it::se:
with respect 10 any Orier nutigar :lan* 11 15 ov10us frOm Intse cevelcoments. an: tr r :ne : I s :1:,n: or ine :::: ::
regar:1n 11:ensint :f * *' e 5 ear 006 Clant {nal (ne ca;e c' COeratieb ill Oe fbriner eias!:.
-/
x '.
T _
.s ,.
Da q Of Pe: Ort:
- Current Report, forsLB-K oor .
July C2, 1957 ,
"LPublic Service. Company of,her Hampsnire Sneet 2 ;
a V.
Item 5. Other Materially.Im ortant Events (Conti) ?
As ; a . result of these' adverse developments with respe:t to the Plant and. the NHPUC's rate order described above, and 'in -view of lj H
the difficulties encountered by the Company in placing a planned i
S150 million short-ters financing in' Hay 1987 (when only 5100 million ' cou.id be placed) and the traction of the financial
-markets to the . foregoing, the Company's management and its ['i }l financial advisors have concluded that, absent a change in the l!
t.
Company's circumstances, financings in th: ' amounts projected to ;!
meet the Company's cash needs during the next several years were ' j.
no longer available. Management has also con:1uced that, even if i financing were available in the short term, it would not be in i the best interests of the tempany, its customers, or invetters to proceed witn such a financing program, unless financial plans can :
i
- be developed which would improve . the Company's long term casn '.;
position.- Consequently, on July 16, 1987, the Company with:rew its requests forJ NHPUC permission to raise funcs for Seabrook 3 i;
expenses and. non-Seadreck construction. Earlier this year the i '
Cc cany had filed two petitions with tne NHPU: seeking a: proval to borrow up to 5545 Million in two separate finan:ings. p.-
The Company has instituted stri:t cash conservation measures tnat requirements, ; i.
should allow it' to meet its estimatec casn in:1uding the refuncs cescriDed above, througn the enc of 1957, ,{
The Com any is working jointly with the investment firms of .[
p Herrill Lyn:h Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham LacDert, In:, to Given the uncertainties 8
- develop alternate financial plans. lj surrounding the Company, its limited financial flexibility, the j amount of cebt service which the Company can reasonably expe:t to carry, the political, eccnomic and competitive limits on rate in:reases in New Hampsnire, and tne regulatory approvals that l will be required, it will be extremely dif ficult to cevelee anc l!j
.icolement Prt ,a olen to im5rgve signita:antly :ne CEany's
- 1rcumstances witni n,_,ttle Lir.ite: .:1me f aval isbie. dnouac -en ,
i, a:: equate Ti'ari net' ge cevele ed and pie:ed into ef f ect bef:re tne 'l
end of 1957, it will de difficult, if not impossicie, far :ne C:: pany to avoid pre:eedings unc' r tne Bankrup . y '; ce .
' .[
SIGNATUFsE
- ![
Pursuant to the re=uirements of the Securities Ex::hange A:t of .I-1934, the, registrant has culy caused this report to be signed on its cenalf by the : Undersigned hereunto culy autneri:ec, PUSt.:C SEPNICE CCMDANY Dr NEW MAM2SMIEE l
I L
9aay::,iss: sy si n. 2. sar ,ser
- f. .: . narr~ son Presi:en;
^
,- w-7 ..
- f, N j c v J. \' .
g\,
, s
,3
'Q 3(
, /,
. s
, f: (s, z
1 AFFIDAVIT OF ROBEl:T J. HARRISON l 2' (
i I) rr' gp '
3 '
s 4 . '
p 5 Hj 'name is Robert J. Harrison. My business address is 1000 Elm ,
6 7
. Street, Manchester, New Hampshire. I am President,and Chief Executive
- 9
)
'I 3 , ~8 *)
,9 Dificer of Public Service Compt'n of Nev'Sampshire (PSNH). /J offer thik
, 10 -
- . g
,11,/Affidavitknsupport-ofPSNH' application'forEmergencyRateswhichis
- \ ,
12 / i y x -( ,
l r 13 filed he:evith. 4 a 14 J l 'l "t' '5 b <
{\ l, -k 15 - ,, .j
)
H_ , ,
17 <
18 .'
19 1. . :PSNilkashinsuffitiency. '-
1 '
20 t' .
21 sS '
) ,1' 22 23 As with anv business, PSNH requires cash'to pay its debts and to '
24 - ,s 25 neet its obligations as they mature and become due, t 26 27 PSNH has not paid a dividend to its commoti or preferred p 28 29 stockholders since April 1984. Nevertheless, af ter meetirig costs of i
,- , 30 31 current operations, PSNH's revenues derived from rates do not generate 32 ,
33 sufficient cash to cover all of its costs, including interest on '
34 ,
35 outstandirw. debt, maturities and construction costs. ,
36 37 ? Attachment A to thia Affidavit is a cash requirements schedule for 38 7 >
i 30 the period 1987-89. It aswMp '
that div2cenas on common ano prcierted - ,
40 ( s i
41 stock will not be resumed durin:: that period.
It assumes expenditures at !
42 ,
-3 43 levels hudghted and projected as of the first quarter of 1987. It 44 , .
t 1 45 , forecasts net cas? sources from operations '
for 1he period will tctal $515
-46 ,
47 million. However, total ga ' requirements M the same peridd vill amount 48 y 49 to $1,336 million. Indeed, in each year of the period, P , H's required 50 51 interestpaymentsvillaloneexceeditscashfromoperaticide, leaving no
}
s ,
> g j ! A AT,TAdHMENT ? d l
a t
, 4 3,
,f / ,f' l
- _ - _ _ _. ! L
I L
o 'i; '
l' it 2 ' base increment entresponds very closely to PSNH's investmentin Seabrook 4h 3
/ 4 Unit No. 1 as of May 1, 1979, (just before the anti-CVIP law took effect) l f 5 6 plus its financing costs on that pre-enactment investment in the meantime.
3, 7 8 Such pre-enactment investment plus financing costs through September 30, 1 9' 1987, vill amount to $458.9 million.
10
) 11 12 The requested increase in revenue also assumes a major, long term 13 14 program of cash conservation steps producing budget reductions shown on 15 Attachment G.
16 It is important to understand fully that budget reductions 17 18 of this magnitude vill allow PSNH to provide service only at minimum 19 20 acceptable levels, which is a substantially lover level than our customers 21 22 are accustomed to receiving. No further budget reductions could be made 23 without risk to minimally acceptable service.
24 To maintain service at 25 closer *o present levels, 26 the revenue increase vould have to be greater, at 27 28 approximately dollar for dollar in terms of increase in cash available for 29 30 maintenance of service.
31 32 33 34 35 5.
36 Consequences of failure to resolve emergency.
37 30 39 40 In the event PSNH's financial emergency is not resolved in timely 41 42 fashion, PSNH vill have no choice but to exercise its right to file for .
I 43 44 protection from creditors under the laws of the United States. On l
45 46 October 14, 1987, PSNH faces a required interest payment on its 17 1/2%
47 Debentures due 10/15/04, with a 30-day grace period thereafter. i 48 As is 49 (
shown in the attached cash flow forecast (Attachment H), PSNH vill for all !
4 I
- - - _ _ _ - - - - _ 1
, _7 1
f i
State of New Hampshire
. County of Hillsborough The undersigned, being duly sworn by me k State.of New Hampshire, deposes and says, Notary Public for t as follows:
true and correct information information and belief.
to the be tI solemn avit contains s of my knowledge, FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
I f
b 4u4 ilobert J / Harris 5 F -
President and Chief Executive Officer Sworn and Subscribed before me this ay of August, 1987.3rd d i
f
.My Comission Expires: !
vos.,m
,,,m, ,g a i
,gg j otar.fPublic l
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:
I The current operating budget for Seabrook Station averages'$10 million per month. In conjunction with the performance of low power testing, certain incremental costs beyond the current operating budget will be incurtad. 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
$3,658,000, 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. It is expected that this cost for insurance will increase by approximately $2,785,000 per annum, of which $1,565,000 will be paid upon receipt of the icw power license and $1,220,000 will be paid, in installments, following completion of the testing. PSNH's share of these increased premiums, aggregating approximately $991,000, would be payable at the times indicated above.
Response to NRC Question lb:
See r;:b Station's .:w power testing pr: gram calls for five :: six days of ; intermittent testing at between 1/100th 2: 1% power and 1,'. :h : '. ; p o w e r ici; wed by tw: days of
.r. term ::en: testing at 2% pc.,er and ene-ha.: day of intermittent testing at 3% power. These tests will result in a fuel burn-up of approximately equivalent to 1-1/2 ATTACllMENT 3 l
i effective full power hours and.will occur over a period pf three weeks. '
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 operating budget of $10-11 million per month.
If the unit'was permanently shut down at some point 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 radiological controlled area would then be limited to the Fuel Storage Building and associated auxiliaries. The 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 the site.
'In order to dete'rmine 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 performed a rigorous study of these costs, a review wac performed in late 1986 which indicated that the salvage value of the fuel would l approximately offset the costs of handling and !
transportation of the fuel to a third party resulting in no I net cost to the Joint Owners for the disposal of the fuel. (
1 Following a permanent shutdown of the unit and during i the transitien period when the fuel remains on-site, certain J personnel and program costs would be incurred te ensure the i pr0per storage of the fuel in the on-s:te spent fuel storage -
pool. These direct ceste are estimated te be approximately j I
5700,00C per month wh::h inc_udes costs f:r :perati:ns, maintenance, health phys:cs, env: ronmental moni toring, security.and electric power.
l t
L i
1 In. addition, certain nuclear liability and nuclear property insurance costs, estimated not to exceed $2.5 million per year, can also be. expected to be incurred.
Finally,lEhere are other miscellaneous costs which are not directly/related to maintenance of the facility, including such items as taxes, legal, accounting, and other i
administrative costs, which are not included in the $700,000 monthly estimate provided above. While the amount of these e
costs cannot be precisely estimated, they are not expected to exceed the current level of such expenditures or L approximately $2.2 million per month, which includes $1.8 million for taxes. Therefore, the estimated. total monthly operating cost'for Seabrook Station while the fuel is being stored on site in the fuel storage building is not expected I
to exceed $3.1 million.
As indicated in response to question 1(a), all the above monthly costs are for the entire unit. PSNH's share of those potential 1 costs would be in proportion to its ownership share (i.e., 35.56942%), or $1.1 million per month.
NRO 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 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.
Response to NRC Question 2:
1 The Seabrook Project is currently being funded by several utility companies (the " Joint Owners") which are participants under the Agreement for Joint Ownership, Construction and Operation of New Hampshire Nuclear Units, dated May 1, 1Q73, as amended (the "Joinc Ownership Agreement")-. The Ownership Shares of these utilities are shown in Table 2. Approval for funding is determined by the Joint Owner Executive Committee 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 --
Joint Cwnership Agreement to provide its Ownership Share of the operat ng expenses of the Seabrook Prc]ect. :nvoices are rendered as required and payments are due monthly. Each
' Joint Cwner raises such funds as part of ;ts normal financial sources. The Seabrook Froject maintains a positive cash balance to be available to meet its monthly 1
i 1
P
9.
obligations and to provide additional flexibility should fluctuations in monthly cash requirements occur. This account balance, supplemented by the Joint Owner payments, is.the source for meeting Seabrook Station's cash operating requirements.
NRC Question 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?
Response to NRC Question 3 The initiation of bankruptcy proceedings for PSNH 'would not of itself affect the obligations of PSNH under the Joint Ownership Agreement 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 right to reject or affirm such contracts. However, because of the magnitude of PSNH's investment 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 PSNH, PSNH intends to make every available effort to protect that asset. Even if a bankruptcy proceeding were to intervene, PSNH has no intention of rejecting its contractual obligations under the l Joint Ownership Agreement or abandoning its interest in Seabrook Station. In the event of bankruptcy, PSNH, as 1 debtor in persession, will have accece ta a cash flow from j its continuing utility operations substantially equivalent i 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 PSNH's share of the Seabrook Station low power operating costs (as enumerated above) due I in principal part because PSNH would have been temporarily relie/ed of the obligation to pay interest charges on its outstanding unsecured indebtedness ir. curred pr:cr te the institution of'the proceedings. :f Seabr:-> 3:ation were i subsequently shut down, these resour:es would sim;larly be '
sufficient to cover PSNH's share of the shutdown costs enumerated above. Earthermore, if Seabrook Station were
4:
1 shut down after, completion of low-power testing, it is reasonable to conclude that.because of the' presence of the nuclear fuel and the NRC license conditions with. respect thereto, PSNH's obligation to Seabrook Station could not.be avoided by,it, aus 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 af ter an assumed bankruptcy filing and the ability and
- obligation of PSNH, as debtor in possession, 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.
5-r
- 'o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA teLMgNUTED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION US BfPORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS9g@N0513 Pj '37
.In the Matter of
~% . kTh6Y d PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF DOCKET NOS. .i O "VICb g
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 50-4 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the enclosed documents, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF U.S. SENATOR GORDON J. HUMPHREY IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY and SENATOR GORDON J. HUMPHREY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE IN RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY, have been served on the following by deposit in the. United States mail (or by hand to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.where indicated by an asterisk) on the Gbth day of October,1987.
- Atomic Safety & Licensing
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
)
- Dr. Emmeth Luebke
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing and Service Atomic Saf;ty and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 13-15 Newmarket Road i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Durham, NH 03842 Commission Washington, DC 20555 .
I William S. Lord, Selectman Jane Doughty Town Hall Seacoast Anti-Pollution Friend Street League Amesbury, MA 01913 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 i.
Rep. Roberta Pevear Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Drinkwater Road Assistant Attorney General-Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Department of the Attorney-General Philip Ahrens, Esq. . One.Ashburton Place Assistant Attorney General 19th Floor Office ofLthe Attorney General Boston, MA 02108 State' House Station 6 Stanley W. Knowles Augusta, ME 04333 Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 710 i North Hampton, NH 03826 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq Ropes & Gray Robert A. Backus, Esq 225 Franklin Street Backus, Meyer & Solomon Boston, MA 02110 111 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
-Office 4of the Executive Legal Harmon & Weiss Director 2001 S Street, NW ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission. Washington, DC 20009 1717 H Street' '
washington, DC 20555 -
Michael Santosuosso, Chrmn i Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen !
Board of Selectmen Jewell Street Newbury, MA 01950 RFD 2 ,
South Hampton, NH 03842 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. 4 Office of General Counsel Allen Lampert Federal Emergency Management Civil Defense Director Agency Town of Brentwood <
500 C Street, SW Exeter, NH 03833 M Washington, D.C. 20472 [
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
h George Dana Biobee, Esq. Hampe and McNicholas u Stephen E..Merrill, Esq. 35 Pleasant Street Office of the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 l' State House Annex .
Concord, NH 03301 [
l Robert J. Harrison Robert Carigg, Chairman U President and CEO Board of Selectman )
l Public Service Co. of NH Town Office l l PO Box'330 Atlantic Avenue I Manchester, NH 03105 North Hampton, NH 03862 i
}
k
- s. .
< e Maynard L. Young R.K. Gad III, Esq.
Board of Selectmen- Ropes & Gray 10 Central Road 225 Franklin Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Boston, MA 02110 Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Edward A. Thomas Holmes & Ellis Federal Emergency 47 Winnacunnet Road Management Agency !
Hampton, NH 03842 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) !
Boston, MA 02109 l William Armstrong' Civil Defense Director Sandra Gavutis-10 Pront Street Town of Kensington Exeter, NH 03833 RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 Calvin A. Canney City Manager Charles P. Graham, Esq.
City IIall McKay, Murphy & Graham 126 Daniel Street 100 Main Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Amesbury, MA 01913 Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Silvergate, Gertner, et al PO Box 360 88 Broad Street Maplewood Avenue Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Beverly Hollingworth
- Lando Zech, Chairman ,
209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. NRC '
Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555
- Kenneth Rogers, Commissioner
- Kenneth Carr, Commissioner j U.S. NRC U.S. NRC !
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Thomas Roberts, Commission'er
- Frederick Bernthal, U.S. NRC Commissioner Washington, DC 20555 U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 G6rdon J. 51umphrey, USS / h Pro Se / f a
n l
l )
4 L _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ .