ML20235W187
| ML20235W187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1987 |
| From: | Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4578 OL-1, NUDOCS 8710160040 | |
| Download: ML20235W187 (107) | |
Text
y,_.
l(y.
~
Lj77 y
.gr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "9
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION hh
)
October 8, 1987
-In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,
)
)
On-Site Emergency (Seabrook~ Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning & Technical
-.)
Issues
-INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENERS' APPLICATIONS FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER AUTHORIZING
.QEEBATION.UE TO EIYE EEBCENT QE BATER EQWEB NOW COME the Town of Hampton, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereinafter
" Interveners"), and move f or leave to file a second supplement to Interveners' applications f or a stay of the licensing board order l
authorizing Applicants to operate the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant up to five percent of rated power.1 In support of this motion, Inter-venors state:
l
~
1 See (1) NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION FOR A STAY OF A LOW POWER OPERATION PENDING FULL POWER DECISION OR APPELLATE i
- REVIEW, filed May 14, 1987; (2) SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S J
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE STAY OF THE PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF APPEALS THEREOF, filed May 14,1987; and (3) l TOWN OF HAMPTON MOTION FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF LICENSE TO CONDUCT LOW POWER OPERATION, filed May 22, 1987.
f 8710160040 871008 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g
PDR SHA!NES (= McE ACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 25 MMtEWOOD AVENUE P O BOX B60 PORTSMOUTH. N H. 03806
1.
On July 31,-1987, Interveners filed with the Commission i
INTERV ENORS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENERS' APPLICATIONS FOR A STAY OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER AUTHORIZING OPERATION UP TO FIVE PERCENT OF RATED POWER which requested, inter. alia, that the Commission continue the stay of low power operation unless and until Applicants demonstrate financial qualification to operate and to decommission Seabrook Station.
2.
'On September 21, 1987, Applicants filed APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY.
Applicants' motion requests the Commission "to vacate the stay entered in its order of' January 9,1987, prohibiting the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f rom authorizing low power operations at the Seabrook f acility."
Motion at p.
9.
3.
Under date of September 24, 1987, the Commission established i
a schedule to file an answer on or bef ore October 9,1987 to APPLI-CANTS' MOTION FOR VACATION OF STAY.
4.
Although the Commission's order of September 24, 1987 apparently focuses on issues other than Applicants' financial qualification to operate and decommission Seabrook Station, Inter-2 venors wish to present the enclosed submission at this time with See, INTERVENERS' 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 EXENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISISON SEABROOK STATION and INTERVENERS' CORRECTION OF ERRATA AND SUBSTITUTION OF CORRECTED PAGE 14 TO " INTERVENERS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.33 (f) AND 50.57 (a)(4)
TO THE EXENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL 2
SHAINES 6: McEACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE - P Q. EIOx 360 PORTSMOUTH, N H 03a05
i i.
i respect 'to' the financial qualification. issue to: ensure the Commission is in timely: receipt of these materials for ruling "when necessary."
1 r
Egg,-Commission Order p. 2.
Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF'HAMPTON By Its Attorneys
)
SHAINES & McEACHERN Professional Corporatio By _____
Paul McEachern D
s k_,1987 By_
_22.;__
- l. ____ __
Dated: October Matthew T. Brock-TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, and SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By Authorized Representative (Footnote Continued)
. QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISISON SEABROOK STATION."
Copies of these documents were served September 24 and 25, 1987, respectively, on all parties listed on the Certificate of Service 4
attached hereto, with the exception of the Commissioners.
)
l 3
SHAINES & McEACHERN PROFESSIONAL AS$0CIATION 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUC P O.130X B60 PORTSMOUTPL N H 03801
- 7. 4 -
- n-s s.
UNITED STATES. NUCLEAR RDGULATORY COMMISSION-BEFORE THE ; ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPE AL BOARD
)
LIn the Matter ~of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL '
)
50-444-OL-1
' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
On-Site Emergency NEW HAMPSHIRE, et a1
)
Planning & Technical
)
Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1. and 2)
)
i
)
INTERVENERS ' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPE AL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE R EGULATIONS 50.33 (f) AND 50.57 (a) (4) l TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION
.TQ OPERATE AHQ,TQ DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION Paul McEachern Ma tth ew T. Brock j
SHAINES & McE ACH ERN Prof essiunal Association 25 Maplewood Avenue P.
O,. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 (603) 446-3110 Septembe r 24, 1987 l
1 i
1 1
}
l 4
- e s.
i- ;
F
?
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
p T AB L E O F ' AU TH O R IT I E S.............................................. 11 j
i i
PR O C E DU R AL SU M MAR Y................................................. 1 -
l L EG AL S T AN D AR D..................................................... 2 PU RPOS E OF FIN ANCI AL ' QUALIFICATION REGULATIONS..................... 3 W OL F E B O AR D ' DE C IS 1 U N............................................... 7 i
P R O C E DU R AL I S S U ES.................................................. 8 i
l i
l I
a l
l~
i
ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
[
t Administrative Decisions i
i p rolina Power 1 Licht comoany (Shearon Har ris P-lant),
LBP-85-5, 21 NRC 410, 443 Note 16 (1985)............................
3 Lona Island Lichtino h 4Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-8 4-9, 19 NRC 13 23, 13 27 ( 19 8 4 )........................ 9 Metropolitan Edison Comoany 4Three Mile -Island N-oelear Station, Unit H, CLI-83-25,18 NRC 3 27, 33 2 (1983)................
11 i
Pacific fag.g i Electric h 4 Diablo Canyon Plant,
j Units 1 and H, AL AB-6 53, 16 NR C 5 5, 7 2 ( 19 81 )...................... 3 l
Portland General Electric Company 4 Pebble Sordnas Nuclear Plant, Un-its 1 and E, CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 ( 19 7 6 )................. 11
'f Public service Comoany g Egg Hampsh-ire (Seabrook Station, Uni ts 1 and R, AL AB-86 0, 2 5 N RC 6 3, 6 5 (19 8 7 )............. 3 Public service Comoany g Egg Hamoshire 4Seabrook a
station, Un-its 1 And R, CLI-77-13, l
5 NRC 1303, 1321 (1977)............................................
11' j
Pub-lic Service comoany d Egg Hampshire iseabrook station, Units 1 and R, ALAB Memorandum August 4, 19 87............ 12 l
Public Service Company d Egg Hemoshire 4 Seabrook station, Units 1 and h, ALAP-349, 4 NRC 235 ( 197 6 )................ 12 Statutes 10 CFR 2.758................................................'........
3 l
10CFR2.738(b).....................................................3 NH R S A 16 2 - F : 19..................................................... 6 4
NH R S A 3 7 8 : 3 0 - a..................................................... 6 l
l l
)
l i.
_ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _
cf", %., {(!,} .
< ff" _ \\,,
^ :
's.
yjg ya v
',, y, m
/ ;,
,l > 'r '
-r
[ J,/
3 w
.I
- 0.]'
_)
l^ \\\\,'
t',
4{
5 i
- 71)ig -
' Misce M aneous -
<J.
..4
'49 Fed. Reg. 3 5 7 5 0. '. ( 9 /12 / 8 4 )....'.............'........................ W '
r.
-,,g a
49iFed. Reg. 35/51"(9/12/sB4)'...............................'..........5s*:/
y ;,x-j1
- - Bla ck ' s L aw - Di cti o,na ry,'.: 5 th E.. ( 197 9 )............................... 5
', f,. <
~
-l:jl ' f_/pf.
4;r
. !..'.'J'*
s
,'t'
- i
' r..
,;J
. Y{' f
' sh
., f :_ " *l, '(
. /, -l -
-)
t i
- y
'g f'
k,,'
i i k
f k
\\
't J
u F
f l
1
- f
+
\\ 1 1
i
(
'l
(
l I
]hg gi
'7gpo
- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~'
J' Rf;;
yp.
h \\ y'.
)g l
ti hN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j'D
'q ATOMIC SAFETY AND: LICENSING APPEAL BOARD (I'1
,4 V'
v-In the Matter'of
)
September 24, 1987
)
s PtJ3LIC SERVICE' COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et a1
)
50-444-OL-1 J
)
On-Site Emergency. Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
& Technical Issues v
)
)
3,INTERV ENORS ' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING g
PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.33 ( f) AND 50. 57 (a) (4) _
TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS
- ,k, TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION
@l 'f <" f
-IQ OPERATE AB12 IQ DECOMMISSION _N SEABROOK STATION j'
PROCEDURAL
SUMMARY
Under date of July 22, 1987, Applicants' lead owner, Public I
Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH "), filed with the Securities and_ Er. change Commission a FORM 8-K indicating PSIG is on the brink of I
ban.ruptcy.
Exhibit,A, attached.
\\ On July 31, 19d/, and based upon the FORM 8-K filing, the Town of Hampton, New England Coalition onJNuclear Pollution, and Seacoast
' Anti-Pollutien League (hereinaf ter "In ':e rve no rs "), pursuant to 10 CFR,
2.758, filtd' vith the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Wolf e !
l Boar (M)
IN T ERV ENORS ' PETITION TO W AIV E REGULATIONS 50.3 3 (f) AND l
l-t l
i o
, p f
L l'i, 3 l
q
~ y, y
J
)..
. j, x
~'
l
^'
,'s t.
1.s un 50.57(4) TO THE EXTENT. NECESSARY TO REQUIRE. APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANO1AL. QUALIFICATIONS TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION S E AB ROC L
- (JExhibit B, attached,j STATION.
g.
~
The' Applicants and NRC Staff opposed Interveners' petition.1 d
On August 20, 19 87,. the -Wolf e Board denied Interveners' petition.
, )-
f-
' Exhibit D',. attached.
On August 27, 1967,) InteYenors appealed the Wolfe. Board decision i
to this Board, Pursuan,Ulto IO CFR 2.7 5 8, Intervgnors request this 3
Board to reverse the-decision of ;the Wolfe Board and to certify
' Interveners' petition directly,to the Commission.
./
j.
b LEGAL STANDARD
',I i
i Pursuabt to 10 CFR 2.7 5 8(b), a party may petition the Licensing Board thai application of a commission rule be waived or an exception 9
3 a
made, vbere:I i
i n
i
.I 1
["'.
f, Althoughs f ormally opposed, the. NRC Staf f, j by letter dated Auguft
,j 17, 19879 requested PSNH to discle/ge certain l'inancial informatiorA,
upon sthe concerns expressed in Interveners',made this request based attached.
The Staff creparently ExhibitjC, petition. "Nonetheless, the Staf f is transmitting a letter. to the Applicants requesting'inf or-mation7ac 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 availabi2 'ty of funds to cover such costs in l
'the. event that PSNL is unable to p / its share of the costs."
- Egg, NRC STAFF'S P.ESPONEE TO INTERVENERS' PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.3 3 (f) AND 50.47 (4 h. TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OFERATE AND TO DECOM MISSION l S EABROOK STATION, p.11, n.12.
I e)\\
e
}
f i
l' sw AiNes a uc c4cMERN *==cesse.oe.4 sevx ano= a*o=~rve a
4.
3 g
('
o h
..;. 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 regulati~on was adopted.
Pursuant to 2.758, the' Licensing Board is given limited authority only to deEermine;whether petitioner has made a p_r.ima f acie showing of 4
4 i
2 b
zspecial circumstances for wa ver.
Upon a prima f acie showing,.the Licensing Board must certify the issue of waiver for decision to the Commission.
-PURPOSE QE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION REGULATIONS To obtain a waiver. or exception under 2.758, Interveners must-
' demonstrate ' that, in this case, application of the-regulation s
generically exempting regulated utilities from financial qualification a
review ' would not serve the purposes for which that rule was adopted.
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 which "must. be legally suf ficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved."
Pacific Gas i Electric h (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1
'and 21, AL AB-6 53, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981).
See slso, Publig Serving Comoany 21 Egw Ilampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 21, AL AB-86 0, 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 Carolina Essn i Licht Company (Shearon Harris Planti. LBP-85-5,21 NRC 41Q 443 Note 16 l (1985)
{ requiring a " substantial" showing to establish a prima facie j case.).
1 3
smu r s a uc c4 c re ns.
m...
~..
.se
.-e.~,..
Q i
i i
-(.
The Commission. believes that the record o f -- this' rulemaking demonstrates generically that the rate prosess-azzures that Lunds nanded for sats i
operation Hill DR - IDada Ava il abla 12 reculated. glectric utilities.
Since 2btainine gngh assuranen was the snia obiective of thg financial. qualification
- Inig, 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)
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 f or these f acilities to be operated, maintained and decommissioned safely.
The Commission thereby clearly articulated the purpose of the financial qualification regulation and the purpose f or generically exempting regulated utilities from financial review.
Equally clearly, the Commission detailed those "special circumstances" that w ar rant a waiver of the generic exemption and require review of'a utility's financial qualifications.
An exception to or waiver from the rule precluding consideration of financial qualification in an operating license proceeding will be made if, pursuant to I
1 0. f.f E 2.7 5 8, special circumstances gra i
ahnun.
For example, such an exception I
to permit financial qualification review f or an operating license applicant might l
l 4
4
]
l s e m es. = c4 c c m. m.. _,.......,..
f.
1 be appropriate ' where a threshold showina la made thatt in a pa r t ic ul a r caset the i
local public utility C2mmission will not all2E the total gnat 21 operating the facility in hg recovered throuch rates.
4 9 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/84).
(Emphasis i
-supplied)
\\
Waiver of the financial qualification rule is therefore appropriate where the rate process does not' " assn.te" 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 the financial qualification r eq uir em ent because'the rate process Aasn.tg.d that funds needed for saf e 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 electric utility to recover, to a sufficient 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 demonstrate that, in this case, the New i
3 4 9 Fed. Reg. 3 57 50 ( 9/12/ 84 ), supa; Egg also, Black's Law Dic-tionary, 5th Ed. (1979); " Assure" defined as "To make cetain and put j i
beyond doubt."
f 1
5 SM a lN E S & MO E A C HE RN. o orge..e.. a ancic.av.o. -ce g.s
,j'i.c l
L Hampshire PUC will not, or cannot, "gagurg" that' the total cost of operating Seabrook. Station, including -low power and decommissioning costs, 'will be. recovered through rates.
This Interveners have done.
It is incontrovertible that New Hampshire law ' bars Applicants
'f r om r ecov e ring the. costs to operate at. low pow er,4 ~ and to decom' mission 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 an costs necessary for safe
-4 NH RSA 37 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 gnsts of const rustian WDIX in procress, includino, but not limited 11. Any costs associated with constructing, ownina, maintaining gI financine construction work 1D p r o a r e s s shall ngt hg ingludgd in a u t i l i t v ' s Iata b a s e DOI ha allowed as an exoense igI rate makinct purposes until, and not before, said construction proiect is actually providinc service is consumers."
(Emphasis supplied).
Low power operation does not generate any net electric power.-
Bridenbaugh Affidavit para.
4, 15.
RS A 37 8:30-a therefore bars Applicants. f rom recovering costs to operate or decommission Seabrook Station if the facility never' operates beyond low power.
l 5
Pursuant to NH RSA 162-F:19, decommissioning costs will be paid from a fund established in the office of the State Treasurer.
Revenues f or 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 f ull month of service f rom the f acility."
NH RSA {
16 -F :19 (II).
Since Seabrook Station has not, and may never, commence i full power operation, no such fund has been established to pay !
decommissioning costs.
l l
1 6
$H AINES & MC E ACHERN. esortse.ca.a. associam a"n==rvs
operation, including low power and' decommissioning costs, can be
" assured" through the'~ rate process.
.There ' can be no " assurance" that
.New Hampshire law will permit recovery of these costs precisely
'because.there is no assurance that Seabrook Sta' tion 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
- The Wolf e Board denied Interveners' petition primarily on grounds
.that the special circumstances asserted in the petition are " wholly speculative."7 As stated by the Board:
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 j
the f acility in a saf e condition.
Sec-
- ond, even if PSNH does file in bank-
- ruptcy, there is no suggestion that other Applic ant-membe r s of the consor-I tium are financially incapable of oper-ating and saf ely maintaining the f acil-6 4 9 Fed. Reg. 3 57 50 ( 9/12/ 84), quoted at p.
4, supra.
7 l
Exhibit D,
- p. 10.
l l
7 SH AIN E S & Mc E A CHE RN. emoes so.c 4 assoc,4.io= 4 oe=res
- }'T. ;..
l ity.-
Mor eove r, it is.a. matter of specu-lation as to whether a bankruptcy trust-ee would be appointed and whether he would discontinue efforts to-secure a f ull power operating license.
- Further, I
no reason.has been presented suggesting.
that any successor to PSNH (be it.a reorganized company, or an acquiring
- company, or a trustee in bank ruptcy)-
would not persevere in efforts to secure i
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 qual'ification rule.
It is not,
'1ntervenors sugge'st, Interveners' burden to guaraDing the course of
. future' events that PSNH will in fact file for bankruptcy or that Seabrook Station will never operate at f ull 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 low power operation and ' decommissioning.
New Hampshire law, and PSNH's dire financial condition, preclude this assurance.
The finan-cial qualification rule,. theref ore, 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 I
costs may be recovered "if full power operation is commenced." l I
Exhibit D,
- p. 11.
Under present circumstances, it is at least as ;
l f
likely that Seabrook Station will never operate at full power, as to L
I 8
s e sesauccacsces.
m.. ~...x m
.m e..
., /;..
l l
L argue the contrary.
Speculation on the likelihood of full power I
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 Wolfe Board's holding that, to obain a waiver, 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 low power operation.8 This holding is not supported by the history of the financial qualification regulation, by the facts of this case, or by the requirements of 2.758.9 8
Sga, Interveners' petition, Exhibit B, pp.
4-5, with Af fidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh attached, estimating decommissioning and f uel storage costs, f ollowing low power operation, to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
i 9
The Commission has previously ruled that speculation over the f
outcome of " full power issues," such as emergency planning, does not warrant delay of low power operation.
Lang Island Lishuns Cn (Shoreham Nuclear Power S t a t ion), CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 13 23, 13 27 (1984). '
Int e rv eno r s' petition, however, concerns the unique financial and :
environmental problems f ollowing los power operation.
Accordingly, it i
is essential for these lag anggI. igangs to be resolved prior to t operation at any level of power.
i l
9 S H A tN ES & Mc E AC H E #N -==es t wo-a assoo4 *ca. a m e%r e
4.',,.'ll'
' Additionally, the Wolfe Board would require Interveners to demon-strate' that' the ' remaining Appl.icant m' embers of the consortium 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 theiripetition which is the' very information' which Interveners seek to compe1~.. Applicants to produce, if the petition is-granted.
Necessari-
~
ly, Intevenors cannot fully assess the financial health of PSNH'or the financial strengths 1or commitments of.the other applicant members unless and until the' petition is granted and that information.is compelle'd to be disclosed.10 10- ' Even assuming the financial ability of other applicant members to
{
assist -PSNE, no applicant members are apparently legally obligated to provide this assistance.
S e e E x h i b i t E, Haspo n s e in ERC ou e s tian 2.,
I
- p. 3.. It is also significant that PSNH has declined to disclose to I 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 j i
critical issue raises legitimate concerns whether these funding sour- (
l
)
l ces are adequate and underscores the inadequacy of the Staf f's in-formal financial review.
10 s Ais c s a uc c Acwc es...cn..
....we...-c.~,..
~~~ q.o...
7 i
The Wolf e Board theref ore would play Russian Roulette with the public health and leave'the issue of Applicants' financial health to chance.
Procedural' Issues The Wolf e Board, sua sconte, cites two alleged procedural errors
-in 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 "TH a prior ruling of' the Wolf e Board which purportedly held that could not participate in the instant case involving on-site emergency planning and saf ety issues."
Exhibit D, p. 2.
The Wolf e Board never issued: such a ruling.11 Il The Wolfe Board confuses the issue of " standing" with that of res judicata.
Under Commission precedent, a party has " standing" in a licensing proceeding where (a) the action sought in a proceeding may cause that; party " injury in f act" and (b) the injury is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Met-rocolitan Edison Companv iTJtrag Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 11, CLI-83-2 5,.18 NRC 3 27, 332 (1983), ci tin g Po r tland GanarA1 El ec t r is Campany (Pebble Sprinos Nuclear Plant, U n i t s 1 and 21, C L I-7 6 - 27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
In addition to its rights conferred under 10 CFR i
2.715 ( c ), the Town of Hampton is located less than two miles from f
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 i!
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 f rom presenting its petition.
Generally, that doctrine precludes relitigation of issues, but, while relevant, has :
not even been f ully adopted in NRC administrative proceedings. Public j
S e r v i c e Cam 2Any of New Ham 9shira ige a b r o o k S t a t i on U n i ts 1 and 21, CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 13 03, 1321 (1977).
In any event, res judicata cannot l properly be applied here against the Town of Hampton.
Infra.
i i
11 s~ 4 m es a = c a e s c %.
m..,o.
...x,...
.-o..,m
..?,
l
+
r By its terms, the Wolf e Board's prior referenced order was lim-
.ited to consideration of 'three contentions then pending before the -
' Board.
. None involved ' financial qualification.12 TB 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 NH contentions.
Accordingly, TH's motion is denied, and it may not participate.
Wolf e Board MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, July 25, 19 86, p. 6 (Exhibit F, attached).
The Wolf e Board's July 25, 1986 order, theref ore, 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-venors' petition, was submitted to the SEC on July 22, 1987.
Since the foundation of Interveners' petition did not arise until well af ter
.the Wolf e Board order denying the Town of Hampton participation to-suppl ement the record on limited issues, res judicata cannot bar the Town from now u segenting the issue of financial qualification review.
Public Service bompany d Egy Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit s 1 And 21, AL AB-3 4 9, 4 NRC 23 5 (197 6).
12 Eng, In the Matter d Public Service companv d Eas Hampshire, et
& ( S e a b r o ok 11A11.Qn U n i t s 1 And 1, AL 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 i
decision in which it decided all of the issues then before it (none of L
which involved financial qualifications)."
12 l
$M AINES & MCE ACHERN
==carneic=% assoc,avo. anon rvs
i a
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 f ailed 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 Hampton filed appearances with the off-site ASLB, on February 19, 1986.
Copies of those appearances were f orwarded at that time to the Chairman of the Wolf e Board.
These filings comport with Commission regulations 10 CFR 2.713(b);
Exhibit G,
a ttached.13 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 unf air.
i 13 l
1 1
(
l j
ss A is cs a uc c ac c as. -....
...w...
.-~,..
J Additionally, the f act that' Town of Hampton counsel signed, in i
the petition, as " authorized representative" for SAPL and NECNP_is I
based upon the' authority provided by those parties to Town.of Hampton.
j counsel by telephone.
Interveners state that this process is consis-tent with Commission regulations and represents the norm regarding The Wolfe Board therefore joint filings by Interveners in this case.
and ther eby grasps at alleged technicalities to support its decision, 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 l As s oci ion By' Paul McEachern
\\
~
Dated:- September 1987 By_
Matthew T. Brock i
14 l
s s Ain e s a uc c A c s t n ~.
...,,o.,
c
... ' s'.
t
(,,.
p,;.
(:
'TORM B-K-
... ~
9
' SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20549 CL'RRENT REPORT i
Pursuant.'to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
-Date.of Report:
July 22, 1987 i
1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMP5 HIRE 1flec in its :narter)
'(Exact name of registrant as spe:
1-6392 C2-C13105D NEW HAM 35 HIRE.
(IR5 Empicyer j
(commission (State, or otner jurisc1:ticn-File Nuncer)
Icentifi:E ; inn NO,)
]
of in:crporation)
I v
C3105 1000 ELM STREET. MANCHE57ED., NEW HAMD5 HIRE (21P CO e) i (Accress of prin:1pai execu;1ve offices)
'l l
Re:istrant's leie none Nue:e*
Inclu:in: Ares Cc:e 603-669-40C0 EXHIBIT A l
____m_._______._
W,.
C1 3.of Report:
CurrentRepert,,fors.6bfor July; 22, 1957
?"
Public. Service Conpany cf her Hampshire Sheet 1 j
~
f:
t
.h
- l l
~
..~
. Item'5.
'Other Materially Imoortant Events 1
L7 the New Hampshire 'Public Utilities Commission 1
On JuneL 29,1987,in. a 2-1 de:ision; on the Company's. outstanding -
L rate
- request, that the-Company. was. entitled to. recover
. j'
.(NHPUC) found, approximately $20.5 million of. the 358.9 million -(14%). rate in ' Hay, 1986..
The Company had
. increase origirrally-requested acknowledged curing the course _of the proceedings th reduce its, claimed increase to approximate 1y'538.6 mi11 ion.
The NHPUCj ordered the Company.to. refund the dif f erence between.
and the level of rates collected under. bond since January 1957on such sums at the rates approved.by the order, 'plus interest Refunds are to be rate of. 10% through June and 6.5% thereafter.
The basis commencing in November.
paid on a customer specifi:
NHPUC - found that. the increased 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 com=cn equity was 15%
and fixed an overall rate _ of requested 19%)
(the Company had In addition, the. NHPUC rejected a second step return at 14.94%.
increase of approximately 535 million (7%), wnich the Company had requested become effe:tive January 1, 1988.
On July 20, 1987, the Company' petitioned the NHPUC for 'a rehearing of the order on the grounds that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable in several respects,- the most and significant being that the decision f ailed ' to allow a justr just and reasonable cost of common equity capital for the Company.
in the process of attempting to Further celays have.cc:urred obtain al' governmental approvals required to commente cperation of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (in which the Company has an In a position filed with the ownership interest of about 35%).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in June of 1957, tne Fe:eral Emergency Management Agency (FIMA) has indicated tnat it was
-unable to concluce that certain aspects' of the r adioicgical -
emergency resconse plans for the seventeen towns in New Ham:snire are acequate to wnich are within a 10 mile radius of tne Plant, ensure the' timely evacuation of the New Ham snire beaches in the This 00n:1usion was centrary event of an emergency at the Plant.
to that of tne HRC staff and an ince:encent consuhant's report.
The NRC has cc: teed tnat a radiological emergency res cnse plan for the six Massa:nuse::s towns within a 10 mile radius of tne Plant must be filed Dy the Joint Owners prior to io -Oower testing of the Plant, a re virement that had not been im : sed witn.res:::t to any prict nutiear plant.
It is covicus 'f rem tnese ceveicoments, an: from tne politici:ino or tne crecess regarding 13:ensing Of the Seacrook Plant, ina; ne cate of cperation will ce furtner celayed.
l
,i J.
l u.-
s Dat Of Re: Ort:
Current l Report. Form B-K ar l
- .)Publi Service Company of Aew Hamsshire July 22,'1957 l
Sneet 2 tI OtherMateriallyImoortantEvents_(Conth,>
e Item 5.
l As a, result ' of_ these adverse L developments with respe:t to tha
- j!!
J of' Plant.and the.NHPUC's' rate order described above, and in view l-the difficulties encountered by the Company in placing a plannec
$150 million short-term finan:ing in May.1987 (when only. 5100 i
million cou.id be pla:ed) and the reaction _ of. the financial
'[ 8 the foregoing, the Company's management. and its i.
l markets. to finan:ial advisors have concluded 'that, absent a change in the (I
j g.
Company's circumstances, finan:ings in the amounts proje:ted to meet the Company's cash needs during the next several years were
[
no longer available.
Management has also concluced that, even if
=
in the snort term, it would not be in financing were 'available the best interests of the to:pany, its customers..or investors.to praesed with su:h a financing program, unless financial plans can be developed' which would improve the Company's long term cash Consequently, on July 16, 1987 the Company witherew p
position.
for Seacrook its' requests for. NHPUC permission to raise funds Earlier this year tne
- i expenses and non-Seabrook eenstruction.
8 [
Company had filed two petitions with the NHPUC seeking approval j
to borrow up to I545 Hillion in two separate finan:ings.
.r The Company.has instituted strict cash conservation measures tnat.
!L-should allow it :to. meet its estimated cash requirements, including tne refunos described above, through the end of 1957.
The Cc=pany is. working jointly with the investment firms of
'Herri11 Lyn:h Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert, In:. to 2
~
financial plans.
Given the uncertainties surrounding - the Company, its limited financial flexibility, the l
develop _ alternate a=ount of cebt service vni:h the Company can reasonably exas:t to carry, the political,- e:0nomic and : mpetitive limits cn rate Hampsnire, and tne regulatory aporovais that j
increases in New i
vill be repuired, it will me extremely difficult to cevel=o and h
implement ett.a olen to im3rgve sion1ricantly :ne C053any's circumstances within.the 1.dr.itec.:1ce.'ayaitEoie.
Snou : ~an 3;
' acequa:E~~9 Tan not' ce ceveie::ed and pla:ed into ef f e:t cefcre tne i
end of 1957, it vill be difficult, if n t i=::ssible, fr the 7
)
~
t:mpany'to avoid prc:eedin;s uncer tne Bankrup::y C::e.
~.
]
l
. f ;. j 1
SIGNATUF.E Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Ex nsnge Art of
.l j
t to be si:ned en i.s cenalf I
.19N,.tne registrant has culy caused this r.=: r j
oy the undersigned nereu,;c culy autn:ri:ed, 4
FUBLI SERY :E COH?ANY OF NEW HAMP5 MIRE July 22, 1957 By s/ R. J. Har-is n R.
4.
f16 I T 't s On Presi en*,
=
., a
\\
UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
Be. fore Administrative Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman
~Emmeth A.
Luebke Jerry Barbour
)
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
)
& 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 Now come the Town of Hampton, New England Coalition on
-Nuclear Pollution, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (hereinaf ter
" Interveners"), pursuant to 10 CFR 52.758, and, based upon the-Af fidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, petition the Co=ission to waive regulations 50.33 (f) and 50.57(4) to the extent necessary to require Applicants to demonstrate, prior to low power operation, l
that Applicants are financially qualified to pay the costs to operate, for the period of the license, and to deco =dssion, the f
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
In support of this petition, Interveners state:
i EXHIBIT B sunr_s s. ucraces ortssem assoc.re 25 MA#tEwo0D AVENUE p 0. BCX 360 DO8tTSMM. N M. 03801 l
1
r i
1.
Under date of July 22, 1987, Applicants' lead owner, 1'
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 j
conservation measures that should allow l
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 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 imolement such a plan to improve significantly the Company's circumstances witnin the limited time available.
Should an adecuate clan ce developed and placed into effect not bef ore the end of 19 87, it will oe difficult, if not impossible, for the Comoany to avoid proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code.
See Exnibit A attacned.
(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, to demonstrate that prior to receipt of an operating license, these applicants possess, or have reasonable assurance of Obtaining, for the the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs, down period of the license, plus the costs to permanently shut the facility and maintain it in a safe condition.
- 50. 3 3 (f) (2),
(3) and (4).
2 5HAINES (s McE ACMEttN. MO87S$toNA. ASSOCATION 25 MAPLEwOCD AVE.NUE. P O BOK 56C 808tT5MOLTM N M 03801
?
c l
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 s upplied. )
therefore, The purpose of the financial qualification rule, 4.
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 decc=missioned safely.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded, generically, that it was not " warranted" to subject publicly regulated utilities to financial qualification review when that function was effectually being performed already by state PUCs.
1 "No sound basis has been shown for the allegation that assured of funding through the rate-publicly-owned utilities are notThe NRC's analysis of the NARUC survey, discussed making process.
infra, bas shown that all State public utility commissions have sufficient ratemaking authority to ensure sufficient utility revenues to meet the cost of NRC safety requirements.
Similarly, it has been rate-setting shown that publicly-owned utilities have independent including authority which is used to cover the costs of operation, those of meeting NRC safety requirements."
49 Fed. Reg. 35750 (9/12/84 )
3 l
swses <. we Aceu. eso. u.5secirn
+.
In their present financial distress,- Applicants for e
5.
Seabrook Station present special circumstances that contravene this generic determination, and undermine the Commission's purpose 2
that al facilities have adequate revenues to ensure safety.
l These special cir'cumstances include:
1 Under New Hampshire law, Applicants are barred from a.
and recovering the costs to decommission Seabrook Station unless, 3
Accordingly, until,-that facility commences full power operation.
4 l
if Applicants are permitted to proceed to low power operation, without proof of financial qualification, Applicants will irradiate the facility, generate high level nuclear waste, yet may lack the tens of millions of dollars necessary "to permanently shut down The Commission specifically declined to base the financial 2
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 49 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/84).
this premise for the current rule."
Pursuant to NH RSA 162-F:19, decommissioning costs will be paid 3
Revenues from a fund established in the office of the State Treasurer.
for the decommissioning fund are obtained through charges against those charges may only be assessed, and payments to customers, but "in the billing month which reflects the the fund shall commence, NH RSA 16 2-F :19 ( :).
full month of service from the facility."
first Since Seabrook Station has not, and may never, commence full power operation, no such fund has been established to pay decommissioning 1
I costs.
4 ssiwes,. wcice. maortss,e 45 43s00,,=
29 MAptKwCCD AVENug, o o pox m, see?SMCiB* N n 03aos 1
y
i i
t I
h..
)
I the facility and maintain it in a safe condition" if a full power 4
license is later. denied.
See 5 50. 33 (f) ('2).
Similarly, the costs incurred in operating the plant at low power would not be 5 i
recoverable if Seabrook never proceeds to full power operation.
i The cost of decontaminating, decommissioning, and disposal of 4
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 S20 to $30 million.
Reactor component removal, handling, and disposal would require additional
^
See Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, 114, Exhibit B, expenditures.
From the recent FORM 8-K filing by Applicants' attached hereto.
it i.s reasonable to assume Applicants do not lead owner, supra, have adequate funds to pay decommissioning costs following low power operation.
5 "Public Utility Rate Base; Exclusions.
NH RSA 378:30-a.
Public utility rates or charges shall not in any manner be based At no time' shall i
on the cost of construction work in progress.
any rates or charges be based upon any costs associated with j
construction work if said construction work is not ecmpleted.
l including, but not All costs of construction work in progress, l
limited to, any costs associated wien constructing, 1
maintaining or financinc construction worn in progress
- owning, ce included in a utility's rate case nor ce allowed shall not
=-d not oefore, said as an expense for rate mar.inc purposes un- >
construe:lon pro,ec: is actually providinc service to censumers.
J l
(Empnasis supplied).
Low power operation does not generate any net electric power.
Bridenbaugh Affidavi: S4, 15.
RSA 378:30-a therefore bars Applicants from recovering costs to operate or decommission Seabrook Station if the facility never operates beyond l
low power.
5 SMAINE.$ in McEACME5tN. potos'E55chAL ASSOCIAN 25 MAMJWOCO AVENUE. 8 C SQX 960 PO8tTSMC7% N.M 93e01 l
- r, h
- b. ~The;1ikely bankruptcy of Applicants' lead owner is
[I f
without precedent.
Clearly the pending bankruptcy of such.a 1
. publicly regulated utility presents an extreme circumstance not f
addressed by the Commission at the time.it approved the financial 6
! qualification 1 exemption.
On the present record, it would be I
i
~
l
-grossly, irresponsible for Applicants.to proceed.to operate Seabrook, even at. low power, without clear evidence of their financial means to. operate, and~to decommission,. safely.
In addition to the financial uncertainties presented, c.
the' direction of Applicants' management may be radically altered if PSNH is superceded by a bankruptcy trustee.
Whether the trustee may decline to pursue a full power license in the face of 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 their lead owner may soon forfeit its management rights over Seabrook Station, 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.
f f
l 6
$MAINES (m McEACMEttN patort$$JONA6 A$MCATON j
29 MAPLEwCCO AVENUE P Q SOK 360 PO4?SMOUTM, N M. Q$801
Commission therefore should move to address this contingency, and require evidence of financial qualification, before bankruptcy occurs.
Even as the Commission exempted publicly regulated 5.
the Commission utilties from financial qualification requirements, was careful to preserve its right to require proof, in special l
circumstances, that a particular utility applicant is financially l
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 Commission to determine whether an application should be granted or denied or whether a license should be modified or revoked.
An exception to c:
waiver from the rule precluding con-sideration of financial qualification in an operating license proceeding will ne made if, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758, specici circumstances are shown.
For example, such an exception to financial qualification review permit for an ooeratinc license applicant be acprocriate wnere a threshold mign:
snowing is made that, in a carticular the local public utility commission
- case, will not allow the Octal cost of opera:Ing.
l tne facility to me recovered through rates.
49 Fed. Reg. 35751 (9/12/64).
(Empnasis supplied).
i I
The special circumstances contemplated by the Cc==ission 6.
are now squarely presented.
If Seabrook Station never operates at full power, Applicants cannet recoup the tens of millions of dollars necessary to promptly and safely decommission the facility, 7
$MAINES Es McEACHDN. matOFE55 ONA M50CaTON 25 MAPbEWOOD AVENUC p 0. BOX Sec - DO8t?5McL% N m. 05801
c 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 hacards, 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 seq (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 healtn and safety problems.
The licensee as responsible for completing decommissioning in a manner that protects health and safety.
_I_d. 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 itself thereby provides significant evidence that Applicants should be required to demonstrate financial qualification before proceeding to operate Seabrook Station.
7 Applicants additionally should be required to demonstrate or have reasonable assurance of cbtaining, that Applicants possess, the funds necessary to cover estimated operating costs f or the period of the license.
See 550. 33 (f) (2).
Even in the unlikely a full power license is granted, it remains doubtful tha event PSNH will receive sufficiently promp rate increases to avcid bankruptcy.
The Commission, therefore, should require proef cf financial qualification to meet operating costs to reduce the anticipated financial and management disruptions of a bankruptcy proceeding.
l 8
SMAINES da McEAOdERN DecrESSONai. ASSOCAN 25 MapJwCCO AVENL1C p C BC A MO POR?SMobh NE CHC 1
I.[
', +
>.a 1-CONCLUSION-Interveners therefore respectfully request'that Applicants'
, exception from financial qualification be' waived.for purposes of this proceeding, and'that Applicants, prior to low power operation,.be required to demonstrate 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 l
Professional Associati By~
faul McEachern N
A.
Dated:
July; 8/
1987 By }
L Matthew T.
Brock TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW ENGLAht COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, and SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE D-O-
~
By
. Au hor:.::ed Representat:.ve 9
1
.- _. m _ _ _. _,_
25 MAPJWOCQ AvgNUC. P O BC A MC DORTSMOUTM. N M lWh31
y s.
- ; ;.~ ' +
n
.~
,,a
?,;
FORM 6-K' SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20549-i-
CURRENT REPORT.
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
.Date of Report:
July 22, 1987
+
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OT NEW HAM? SHIRE
- (ixact name of.. registrant as spe
- 1tiec in its :narter)
I 1-63?2 C2-CIE1050' NEW HAK? SHIRE (I:5 incloyer (C:mmission (state, or otner juris:T:tien File'NU::er) 1:entifi:Eti:n NO.).
of in:orporation) 1 I
T l
I i
i 03105 l
1 ma.g e_ i, w. 37p.re.i
- g. gna u..r t.;;. ;.. N3y H aussu..t. e r.
(21D LO;e) 1 (Accress of prin:1oal execu 1ve ofr1:es!
1 6 3-669-20C0 q
7strant's Telenn ne Nutte". In:1ucine u es C e l
Re:
I
- V*7 O
- m aa a-.
v.
/a C
2 of Re:: ort:
Current Recort, Fora 6-for July 22, 1957 pud 110. Service Company Of Neg Hampsnire Sheet 1,
+f,s
/'s.'
i Item 5.
Other Matee(a11v Iecortant Events.
?
t the New Hamoshire Public Utilities Commission On June 29, 1987,in a 2-1 decision 'on, the Company's outstanding (NHPUC) found, rate
- recuest, that the Company, l.as entitled to recover approximately DC.5 million of the 558.9 million (14%)
rate increase originally requested in May, 1955.
The to:pany rad acknowledged during the course of the proceedings' tnat the ef f ect
,i of the iPx Reform Act of 1986 Jand other minor adjustments would reduce its claimed increase to 'approximately 538.6 nillion.
ordered the Company to refund the difference between rates Collected unoer bond since January 1957 and the level of The NKPUC rates approved by the oroer, plus intere'n on such sums at the Refunds are to ce rate of 10% through June and 6.5% im rcalter.
paid on a customer specift: basis ecmmen:ing in November.
The NHPUC found that the increased rates shall be applied on a The uniform percentage to the case rates of each customer : Tass.
NHPUC determined that the Company's ecst of ec= mon equity was 155;
'a (the Company had reQues :.ed 19%) and fixed an overall rate of In addition, the, NHPUC rejected a second step return at 14.94%.
increase of approximately $35 millien (7%), wnich the Company had requested become effective January'1, 1988.
On July 20,
- 1957, the C ropy. petitioned the NKPUC for a
rehearing of tne order on the grejands that the oe:ision was unlawful and u, unreasonable in several
- respects, the most significant be&g tnat tne decision f ailed to allow a just and reasonable capital.stre:tule and failed to etermine a lawful, just and reason ale cast of ::==on e::uity capital for tne Company.
1 2
Further celays have :::urred in the process of atte: sting to
{
c0tain al' governmental a::;rovals re::uired to : mmence
- eration
{
of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Slant (fr wni:n the C ::any nas an i
ownershic interest cf about 25%).
In a
- sition file:: with the in 2une Of 1957 One Fe eral Nuclear Regulat::ry ::::ission (NRC)
Emergency Management Agency (rEMA) ns indicated tna t i t was unacle to ron:1uce that certain as::e:ts of tne r adici::gi cal e:ergency res::ense plans f or tne seventeen towns in New Ham:snire wnien are within a 10 mile radius of the Plant, are ace:uate to ensure tne timely evacuation of tne New ' Ham snire cea:nes in the event of an emergency at the Plant.
This :n:1usion was : ntrary to tnat of~tne NR: staf f and an ince encent censuhant's repert.
Tne NRC nas ce: ice: inst.1 rariti gical emergency res::::nse pian for the six Massa:nusetts tws witnin a 10 mile ra::ius ::f tne Plant =ust be fi le:: cy ine
.h ir: Owners ::ri e r :: i o.-::o w e r testin; Of :ne Plant. a recuirseent that ha:: n:: ::een 3 ::se:
witn r e:::e:"
t any cri r nuclea" Diant.
I '.
'5
- vi::Us ' f rc:
these ::eVel::: cents.' an: fr0n 9! 0:liti i in: ::f :ne e r:::ED r e;a r::i ng 11:ensin; cf :ne Seatreox Piani, ina
- ne : 3 *. e of
- e r a ti n m ill re IUr '.ne r ::el ave l
L
j s b
- *[3,;
Dat of P.e: Ort:
LCurrent Report, Fora B-Ks. Or
" LPublic Service Company of New Hamosnire.
July 22, 1957 j
Sneet 2
- r' o
P Item 5, Other haterially Imoortant Events (Cont.)
I 1
I As a result of these adverse cevelci:ments with respect to the Plant. and the.NHPUC's rate creer described aoove, and in view of ld the difficulties encountered by the Comoany in placing a planned ih 5
~
- 5150 mi1 Mens short-term financing in May 1987 (when only 5100 l -l t
M111eri could be pla :d) and the reaction of the financial
[;
j I
rsrW73 ; to the: foregoing, the Company's management and its
(,
financial advisors have -concluced that, absent a change in the l
{
t
{
Company's./ci rcumstances t financings in the amounts projected to mest the Company's cash needs during the next several years were l
l-n:~ longer available.
Management has also con:1uced that, eve, if it would not be in finar;;ing were available. in the short term,
- p the"best interests of the tempany, its customers, or investors to
- preend with such a financing program, unless financial plans can
, be developed which would improve the Company's long term cash o
. position.
Consequently, on July 16, 1987, the Company withorew l!
its requests for NHPUC permission to raise funds for Seabrook expenses and non-Seabrook construction.
Earlier this year tne i l' Company had filed two petitions with the NHPUC seeking approval to borrow up to,5545 Million in two separate financings, y:
i The Company has instituted strict cash conse/vation measures tnat
,/,
f should allow it to meet its estimated cash reovirements, i i'
</
/"h in:1uding the refunos described above, through the end of 1987.
The Company is working jointly with the investment firms of Herri11 Lynch Capital Markets and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc, to develcp alternate financial plans.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the Company, its limited finan:ial flexibility, tne ll i
amount of debt service which the Company can reasonably expect to carry, the political, e:cnomic and competitive li=its on rate increases in New Hampsnire, and the regulatory approvals that j
i will be required, it will be extremely difficult te revelos and b
imolement e"~^
- olan to M rove sicm r 1:antly tne C:maanv's snou o an
- 1rcumstantes vi tni_nL_iDr.- Li mix.ec_.2 w2 _a y a.1,,gpu.e.
"acequauvan not ce neveloped and cle:ed into ef fect before tne i.
end of 1957, it Wi4 de difficult, if n:t 1 :::ssiale, fcr tne
'~
C:mpany to avoid pt::eetings un:er tne Bankru; :y C::e.
<s t,
, f,'
5;CNATUF.I i,
Pursuant,to the rbh.lirr.cments of the Securities Ex: hance A:t of
.l-
, 31934, the registrant has cuiy )uzet inis re::::rt to se signed on its cenalf 7 by the undersigned,nereunto Ou h tutn:ri:ed,
/:
f Pus:.:: stw::: cesnsy or n w sas=5x::.t
\\
l
)VIy 22, 19E7 by
$/
E.. 2.
H6**'s "
A.
- s. Mer, son Pres 1:en*.
r#
,l U_---__--_
3 4
e i
o
.c y
e i ;<
p I
l y
l e
,. f g
I s
/
I ATTIDAVIT OF DAI.T G.
BRIDENBAUGH 5
m.
s; I
1.
My name is'DalciG. Bridenbaugh.
I am President of 1
i i:
MHB Technical < Associates ("MHB"), a techpical' consulting )
e i
s
.s firm specializing in nuclear pnue: plant safety, licensi.ng,
[. i -
L
. t, 9
and regulatory matters, locatedat1723 Hamilton $t}cnue, I i s
Suite K, San Jose, Celifornia 9512.5.
I receiveCl a Bachelor; of Scdence degree in mechanical engineering f: cam South
. Dakota School of Mines'and Technology in 1953 and an a rp
, licenser, professional nuclear engineer.
I have =cre than 30 t
years experience in the engineering field, primarily in power p hnt e.nalysis, construction, maintenance, and
- r operations.
Since 1976, I have been e= ployed.by MHB and
)'
have acted as a consultant to dcmesti and fcreign goverr.nent agencies and other groups en nuclan power. plan:
saf ety and l$censi.ng natters.
Between 1960 and 1976, I was e=pleved by -he Nuclear Enerm( pivisien.of General Electric i
ecc.pa.ny ("Gl'") in varicus =z.nage-ial capa::ities relating to the sale, se vice, and pr duc-i=proverent cf nuclear power reactero = manufactured by tha cc=pa.ny.
Be: Ween 1955 and i
1966, I was e= ployed in vtrioun 4.ngineering capacities
/
/
w.:7!*.ing wi-h cas and sted: turbines fcr GI.
Included in ny
/
duties at GI was supervision of s artup ':en.ing
- ? ccuipmenc 1
I I
1 l
l 1
- v. e... t -.
0_
., L-
[ :'
l-i, I
in fifteen to twenty fossil and nuclear power plants.
t also-was responsible for various nuclear fuel projects t.
ranging from the' remote disasse=bly of irradiated fuel to I
the supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants.
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 il.
My experience with the Seabrook plant began in 2.
September 1983 when my firm was retained by the Massachusetts Attorney General to evaluate the prudence of expenditure; by Fitchburg Gas and Electric C==pany en Seabrook Unit 2.
Since that initial P.ssignment I have evaluated various phases of the Seabrook project in five dif f erent engagements.
In =y werk as censultant en the Seabrook plant, I have perfc =ed diverse assignments, focusing primarily en techni=al reviews and analysis cf saf ety and cost issues.
I have visited the plant en several occasiens and have participated in a nu=ber cf interviews and/cr depcsitiens of key Seabrook =anagement persennel.
i
o l
The purpose of this Affidavit is to explain the 3.
technical reason,s why low power testing to 5 percent power at seabrook is of no value if subsequent power operation at er 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 3% level while no significant electrical power would be produced.
These changes would limit the options available fcr the q
plant and plant site in the event that full power operation is not subsequently authorized.
FIOUINCE OF ""ISTING MD POWEP O?IR2."' TON Ivery nuclear plant needs to have fuel loaded an:1 4.
syste=s tested befcre it is pe=itted to operate at power levels sufficient to :=n the turbine and generate ele: ri
- ower.
The tv...ical test ser.: ten:t is _o pe 'e= n n-nu: lear ero-=ower tests first, then pr==eed to ":e :-powe-" nuclea-tes s and subsequently to low-power nn lea Ope ati n with no eler rical produ :icn.
Electrical produ=-ion is usually a.s achieves a powe-- level of defcrred until the test t.r==.
Pe=issien := proceed to a higher power level is in 10-15%.
general predicated en fulfillment of the tes: Obje::ives a
.c:
- .1 1
. ~-
+
. i. ;'
r b,,
(
l't t
I the lower levels.
When the testing is c==pleted satisf actorily a' the lower levels and ether requirements are satisfied, the plant is then per=itted 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 ce=mercial operation.
The minimum length of time in which this process can be At Seabroc);, the test cc=pleted is about three months.
is program as specified in the Final Safety inalysis Rep =:-
scheduled f=r four months.
All other iac crs being equal, the initial cperating phase.at a new nuclear unit can be most efficiently perf=rmed if a s=octh transitien is made fr=m fuel loading to low power cperatien and cn to the power testing above 5%.
If a sig d'i= ant delay between the it is==st burdensene 20r that de?ay i s %g steps==
_u,
~
The reasen to take pin =e after power =peration has begun.
f or this is because the power tes pr:gr_m is designed so as a lower to be able to pr==eed fr== the ::=pleted tests at If autherized power level to tests at he next power step.
lengthy deleys are in r:duced, i: then be: nes necessa_f to calibrati:ns
=entin activities su=h as ins = ment
< repeat
_4_
1
_ y
,. l
. t.
~
1 I'
and:. heat balance calculations to assure safe and s=ooth transition to the next authorized level.
A delay prior to
~
initial nuclear operation does not bring about the need for 1
duplication of these operations.
4 5.
In the case of Seabrook Unit 1, the loading of fuel
'into the reactor.has now been ec=pleted and the' Company has
.co=pleted the tests intended to be per ormed prior to f
nuclear operation of the unit.
This work was authorized by a
the granting of a ":ero" power license by the Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission ("NRC") on October 17, 1986, and fuel
~ t loading was begun on October 22, 19'86.
Willia: 3.
Derrickson's 1/
September 26, 1986 presentation to the NRC's. Advisory Cc--4ttee of Reacter Safeguards ("ACRS")
indicated that the scheduled time for c==pletion of the non-nuclear tests fallowing fuel loading was 4 to 6 weeks:
Our request is to be able to load fuel and do the h:: testing with the :: lant'syste= at cperating te=pera u e and pressu e.
We have seve al tests'to :.n, fr== tests fr==
the =riginal het functi=n tes s.
- his whole effer: fr== the day we receive the license to c==pletion cf the het functi=nal tests will 1/
P.r. Derrickson is a Senier Vice-President c' o"M i-Service of New Ha=pshire and has prir,ary resp nsibility f=r the Seabrook prcject. I l
_._----_.___________j
'e
- -.+
4' take'about a =enth or six weeks.
( A:'RS Transcript, pp. 14-15)
'6..
In the case of Seabrook, the operating license has The been recuested in not one,;but three separate phases.
first phase which consists of fuel loading and hot
-functional tests (but no criticality and no irradiation of the duel)- has now ' been. c==pleted.
The second phase, now under review, would per=it low power testing and subse7.sent The heatups-involving operation at up to 5% of full power.
, third phase, if.autherized, vill perr.it operation between 5%
and 100% power.
The NRC action to pernit low power cperation at 7.
-seabrook at this time is a deviation from cc==n past practica.
The traditional licensing pra=tice was in tne
- t. as to grant an eperatin$ license as a result of a single
- licensing a= icn.
In th=se cases, duel loading and low power test a ivities were. hen perf ersed and intep ated
(
~
vith ascension to f'.t.11 power.
Sher _ly after the Three F.ile Island a==ident, the hr be an to issue licames in a - wo-step (Iow power-full power) pr==ess.
This two-step pr= cess was implemen:cd to help ease the licensing review back1c; unich resulted fr : the licensing hiatus f=11cwing the 1579 a :idant.
nitially, this two-step, recess w ked l-I M
U--.---_.--_-_______-___-________________
.-. 4 y
j~
3..,~
1
-e*
l 1
l i
)
1 I
4 reasonably well.
Plants that were granted a. low power license generally co=pleted the fuel leading and low power
]
I testing by the time the full power license was issued, with l
1 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)
Diablo Canyon 1, where a three year delay was experienced between the' initial low power license (September 1981) and full power approval (Nove=ber
'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.
2/
Of. the 15 plants licensed f or low power operation between March 1979 and June 1984 which also received a full power license during that period, the average cine between the low power and full power licenses was less than 5==nths.
The average time fren initial criticality to award of the full power license was only 1/2 nenth (ex=luding Grand Gulf which was delayed for approximately two years because of i= properly drafted Technical Specifica:icns).
See A :achment #2, pertiens of letter fren h*RC Chair:an Palladino to Congressman Edward Markey, June 15, 1984.
m,.._ _
L V.3..
a
. o;.,
o-
[ :.. s l
5 l of low-These delays-illustrate clearly that NRO approva power' operation gives no assurance that timely auth=rization This would appear'to be
~
- ofLpower-operatien.is ferthec=ing.
particularly relevant'fcrlSeabrook which is heavily engaged in the-resolution ~of ec= plex emergency plannin'g issues.
t TEREVDSIBLE CHANGES'TN ETA UF OUO RESULTING TROM-LOW: PO'EP OPEPJ.TTON Bef cre a react =r. "goes critical"' as it does f cr 1:
B.-
the first time ~during low power. testing, neither the nu= lear are irradiated;cr fuel-ncr'the-reacter er its cc ponents, contaminated by radiation.
(The n-anium c=ntained in the but this material l
. duel is cf course natu-Elly radioactive, 1s at a va y low level and is fully c=ntained within the
' fuel reds.)
1,ow power testing, however, necessarily causes irreversible =hanges to a nuclear reare =r and its sup_:= ting sys:c s.
i.
There is necessarily significant irradiati:n cf S.
the nuclear fuel as a result of low power testing.
This ir adiati=n results in the b 4'd-up =f quan_ities cf fissics produ= s within the fuel which re=uires that the fuel subsequently be handled, transp:- cd, and treated as
-3
g.. -__
g irradiated fuel.
Once these fission products have been produced, they cannet be re=cved from the fuel by any usual
):
a 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 ce=ponents will be==me contaminated with
'These activated corrosion products and/or fission products.
i include the reacter pressure vessel and internals, the steam incere nuclear generators, the control rods, instrumentation,'and other reacter c==penents, equipment, and piping. 'Once contaminated by substantial quantities of radioactive fissien products, special care would be required in handling these items.
The irreversible changes to the plant resulting i
10.
dres power cperati=n as described above makes a significan:
=hange in the way in whi=h the Seabrook plant =ust be
==nsidered.
20i=r to power =pe'azien, the plant equipment and cc penents a e radiati:n f ee (vich the ex:ep i:n cf nuclear fuel and some sensers), and there is no l'
'tatica as to what futu e opti=n fer -he plant and the plan site may be sele: ed.
is pessible in -his==nditien -hat the plant eculd be aband:ned, ecve:- ed to n=n-nuclear use, er
=perated as a nuclea unit as planned.
Once radica :ive, t
.p 1
~
^
7
... n i
3:
Both the plant and plant site the. options are reduced.
itted to a nuclear facility.
.become nearly irreversibly ec=
This is: because 5:uch cf the plant equipment will. be made (de-facto) a radioactive and because the: site itself becomes long-term radioative waste storage facility since there is no approved storage fa=ility available to receive the irradiated nuclear fuel.
Because of the unavoidable irradiation and 11.
the conduct of low power contamination described above, testing-of' necessity requires some werker exposure to potentially harmful radiation during the course of the The testing-as well as after the testing is c==pleted.
be large and unless e=crs are amount cd exposure may no:
exceed allowable li=its.
- However, made, pr=bably venld not
)
it is an additional unavoidable i= pact whi=h results frc:
low power testing.
The ne=essity cf perf==ing the i
associated haalth physi =s pr:re :ics reqvi ements fur-ter
===plicates =aintenance and cperati=n steps and nakes plan:
security a==re critical and time : ns-
,g d==
icn.
In its non-iradiated==nditi n, the duel loaded 12.
salvage) into the See.breck ecre pr:bably has a recove-f ( :
fra icn =f -he value that is likely equal to er a maj:
-1C-1 1
.h' s,c
- .,s
)
h1 a
original phrchase value of that fuel.
This fuel, if.not sirradiated,'likely.could be sold to other nuclear plants to use as is, or, if'necessary, to'be're=onfigured for a different reactor.
(For example, some bundles might repaire manual disasse=bly and red rearrangement or reconfiguration
.j i
I of' the pellets-for the ncessary pattern of enrichment.)
once the fuel in'substantially irradiated and there is a significant build-up of' fission. products as would o==ur during'the proposed 5% power operation, it makes fuel reconfiguration, and therefore most opp =rtunities for reuse of the fuel,==re ec= plicated and costly and therefore far i
less likely'to be i=plemented.
Based on present day nu=let-fuel costs, the value of the Seabrook fuel is approxi=ately I
550-80 =il. lion.
Salvage value approximately equal to this arount could be realized fr=n the fuel in its presen:
i
==nditi=n. _ghile it is techni= ally possible that.iradiated cf the same fuel could be :: ansf ered to a dif'erent rea= ::
l l
desir.n and s bse=.re 1v..:tsed, there v=uld be sig.ifi=ans
\\
menalties ass = iated vi h such an a:-icn.
2: v:uld be i
ne= essa:f no slu.p the fuel in shielded casks which ray er may not be readily available.
The fuel itself v=uld n : be cf epti=ur design fer equilibriu= cperati n.
Su=h a transfer has, to =y knowledge, never been done in U.S.
power '
=
H r
c
.. *^
-3.
4 q
l
}
reactors and:would probably require. lengthy review by the 1m0 and/or other regulatory bodies.
Consequently, I
-l l
if used for
. conclude that the'fue'l has little or-no va ue testing'up'to 5% power.
-1
- 13. - The proposed 5% power operation would also' result l
=in the: loss of. potential salvage value fcr other.p ant cc=ponents that would be substantially irradiated er contaminated-(i.e., steam generaters, reactor c==ponents-such as control rods and other internals, coolant pu=ps and I
seals, valves, p.Iping and instrumentation sensors).
estimate t,he salvage value:of these===penents to be at l
')
least $20-30 million.
These-Oc=penants are virtually l
i l
identical in all' Westinghouse Pressurized Water React:rs,
.nany are periodically repla=ed, and others are useful f r
"'hus, a replacement'in the. event cf===penent failures.
i resale -*-kat f er the= sh=uld e '4 c: "-'ess _ hey a e ir adiated.
".s an interviev==ndu= ed in c njun :icn vi h a Ve =0n pr ceeding - (Ver==nt Pt.bli: Se-vice Sca-d, Decket of PS2E stated 51.32)', Willian 3. Derickson, Vice-President i
his esti= ate' =f the salvage value =f the cancelled Seabrook Unit 2. to be appr ximately 525 million.
(See A :achsen
- 3, J
]
Never.ber 12, 19 5 6 inte:-view, Willia: 3 Denickson, p.
M.)
It is likely, however, that if these same ::=penents vece 1
\\
1 i
1 !
.,[
n, g.
irradiated and/or contaminated by power operation, they
.would have littlecer.no or per aps negative salvage value.
h Additional costs resulting from a decision to 14.
l perform low power testing are the costs of deconta=inating,
.decon=issioning, and disposal of the fuel and portions of the reacter system following a low power testing period in
- he the event that"a full power license is not obtained.
cost of necessary renoval/ disposal / decontamination effcrts
~
l could be tens of millions of dollars, depending en the Such effo_ s also car y specific disposal requirenants.
with them the potential f=r additional worker radiati=n l
In addition, the irradiated fuel will need to be 1
exposure.
a l
treated as high level radioa= ive =aterial and v=uld likely I
)
ultimately be disposed of as spent fuel.
Because of -he fuel =ust be inngthy time periods during which spent 1
3 isolated d c= the envi =nment, Federal law has assigned the
- espensibibley f =r its ul 4 are dispositi:n to the U.S..
'Depa_ ment of Energy (DOI).
2/
DOE v4'1 perf:rm the 2/
Guidelines f =r the re===sendatien cf nuclea-vaste 960 =n sitas were ena= ed in 10 CFR Cnapter
- , Pa :
Nove-he-30, 1984.
These guidelines do n=
specify l
" -4me tha-
'4
" 'evel vaste sus:
l preciselv the le-be safeguarded fr:n the envir:nnent.
The : idelines e
e L
de, however, give an indicati:n of the ti=e pericis l
I re ired bv including numercus statements of "Oualifying" and "Faverable" Conditions su n as:
I f
I r ___ --_.
..... g.. -...
- e:
'w
.{
v w
'.Ik' 44:
, j :-
4 ultimate disposal of high level waste, but=is also regaired ii
. doi
_to-. recover the' full cost of disposal from the ut l ty.
blished expecte'd costs for the receipt and ultimate
.has pu These expected costs-are disposa11of irradiated fuel..
currently being colle=ted at a rate of S.001/ kwhr of generation for fuel exposed now to be disposed of by DOI in Fuel typically operates.at a design exposure of n-
- the future..
For such fuel, this collection rate is
'2 0, 0 0 0. M*J D (t)/ ton.
- epaivalent to approximately $150,000 per ton.
DOI has not l
established a' rate fer fuel exposed to the lower level o;
Favorable Conditions.
(1) Site =enditions-
'(b) such that"the pre-waste-e= placement ground-water travel time along any path of likely radionu=lide travel fr=m the disturbed sene to the a=:essible environment would be==re'than 10,000 years.
The natcre and rates =f hyd 01=gi: prc esses
-(2) operating within the geclogic setting during he Quaterna y Period votid, if c=ntinued into the affa cr wculd faverably affe t he Iuture, =ct ability =f the ge=1 ;i: reposit:ry to isolate the vaste during the ner: 100,000 yet s.
(Part 960 - General Guida'd nes F=r the Re===sendati:n =f sites Ier Nu= lea
~daste Repositories, 10 CFF., Chapter :: )
Citati=n =f the above =nideline is not_ intended to i= ply that.the Seabr:ck Site will be repaired to st:re the r adiated fuel f=r he nex-10,000 to 100,000 d ~' 4 " -
' :ne
-years.
It does however, give an irreversible effe::s involved in he decisi:n being l
censidered.
i I 1
- 7.,
t
-a i
l t?,
i t ;..
i en a
J.
l 5
,e-i-r' 1
p i
associated:with'the'54 power test. operation, but there is no reason to expect that the cost per ton could'be negotiated l
k-to much below DCI's published rates as DOE is required by law to obtain' full cost recovecy.
Accordingly, the L
potential cost.for disposal by DOE of the 90 tons at l
seabrook could be as much as $13,,,000,000, not counting s
transportation or possible. cost increases.
In addition, no j
disposal facility lis planned or expected until after the 1
It would l
year 2000,:atrienst 15 vears in the future.
therefore be necessary to store and. safe. guard the s, pent fuel on; site until that % e.-
Assuming an operations and an j
security staff of'at-least 10-15 people for this chore, I
annual cost of $500,000 to S1,000,000 is not unreasonable and;is probably.lov.
The cost =f spent fuel disposal alone
'thus bec: mas a'S20 to 30 mil. lien cbligatien.
Reacter c==ponents removal, handling and disposal wculd be additionally required.
i f
I
- s.... s
. w...,,. : : : :..- r b., m.
=-
=..e
%.n.
=
??oDUCID BY _.au POWE? ' ISTING A?_. CI-w ! GRID 3Y " G ADV~?5? 'JD TT. EMET 32.- CUANGIF TN Tv-STATJF 000 15.
The essential pu pese of a low power license is to test reacter syste=s which = anne be cff ectively tested in noncritical c:nditiens.
It is necessary to = endue: such
u; -
,/
- r p.
testing prier to operating the plant at higher power levels (i.e., greater'than 5%. power).
At 5% power, the reacter wouldLbarely produce 'enough steam to spin the turbine and-synchronize the-generator.- Taking into account the. station
.~ auxiliary power needs, it is likely that there would-be no-net electric power supplied to the' grid asa result of the
. testing,'and there would be no displaced' oil er fuel cost i
savings.
Instead, power from the grid would be required to
-run the plant during the tests.
Thus, none of the benefits for
! assumed in'the NRC's Environmental I= pact Statement Seabrook would be achieved by' low power testing; however,
~
as noted, lov power operation would result in envir nmental i= pacts, such as. plant c=ntanination with radioactive material, the'likely less =f the resale value =f the fuel and-other cc p:nents =n=e they be=eme i-adiated, the cost of de==nta ination, de==--4ssioning and disposal, verker exposn a, and last but ne: least, the p :en ial : " ment
- {
cf the site to lengthy adica=.ive waste st: rage use.
16.-
3e=anse low power testing standing al:ne produces no.na.: benefits'but does have serious adverse effe::s, it is
=y epinien that _here is no reas n to ::ndu=- icw power testing just fer its sake alene.
Rather, low power testi.ng can be rati:nally justified :nly in circu= stances where I
i-t I' f k.
._--__.__m___
p
(
. w..,
i there.is no substantial doubt that'the plant subsequently i
- 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 contamination, potential worker exposure) which cannot be
. avoided.-
In my technical' opinion, the optimum time for performing low-power testing of any nuclear reactor is shortly _'before full-power operational approval is reliably anticipated to be obtained.
l i!
DALI G. BRIDENSAUG5
[
Subscribed and swer' to before me en this.F/ ~' day of 292__./,1987.
[. 1 7 7.. =. m
- w. ?; ~ 0 g
u
'f.
- -l.g*}
M YT::?. L 0;.:,y
)
L
=.r r :..i:. cr.:.:r.--: n:.. ;
- ,m ru a. :::,w
/j/ mew J
y e....
u '-
u........., y g....
s -w nn,
.=:::
/
g oT.ARY.PU3LIC g
$; v[/ 7
..y Cc==ission e):pires:
6 w
i I
7-I j
f q _c M
/
f i..a PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF DALE G. BRIT _k3AUGH DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH' HHB' Technical Associates
' i
'1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite'X-San; Jose, California 95125-l(408).266-2716 i
EXPERIENCE:
i-1976 - PRESENT-President - FEB Technical Associates, San Jose, California
' Co-founder' and. partner of technical-consulting firm.
Spe:ialists _ in energy consulting to governmental and other groups interested in evalue--
'1 tion of nuclear plant-safety and licensing.
Consultant in this capacity 1
to-state agencies' in. California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, l
Pennsylvania. Oklahoma and Minnesota and to the Norwegian Nuclear Power '
i
' Committee, Swedish'Huclear Inspectorate, and various other organizations and environmental groups.
.Perf orned ~ 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 -contributed to the Department of Energy LWR Safety Improvement Program for Sandia Labo-l ratories.
Served as expert witness in NRC and ' state utility commission -
hearings.
i
-1976 - (FEBRUARY - AUGUST) 1 Consultant. Pro.iert Survival, Palo Alto, California Volunteer work on Ru: lear Sate:uares Initiative campaiens in..Cali cenia, l
Oregon, Wasnington, Arizona, and Coloraco.
Numerous presentations on j
3 nu: lear power and alternative energy options to civic, government, and
' college groups.
Also resour:e person for publi: service presentations on radio and television.
I 1
1973 --1576 Manacer. Performan:e Evaluation and Imorevement. General Electric C:m-cany - autisar inerav Division. 5an Jose, ;allrornia l
Managed seventeen technical and seven clerical personnel with resocnsi-bility f or estaolisnment and manacement of systems to monitor and mea-sure Boiling Water Rea: or ecuioment and system coerational performance.
i In:ecrated General Ele::ric resources in customer plan: modifics: ions, J
t I
/*~ '..i Q
h l
~.
coordinated corre: tion of causes of for:ed cutages and of efforts to in-l prove reliability and performance of SWR systems.
Also responsible for development of Division Master Performance Improvement Plan as well as l
'for numerous Staff see:ial assignments on long-range studies.
Was on special assignment for the management of two different ad ho proje:ts I
formed to resolve unique. te:hnical problems.
1972 - 1973 Manaoer. Product Se'rvi c e, General Ele:tric Comoanv Nuclear Enerov Division. 5an Jose. Cal 1fornia 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 contract warranties. Also in charge of refueling and service planning, performan:e analysis, and service com:unication 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-Manaoer. Product Service. General Electric Comoany Nuclear Enercy Division. San Jose, Callrornia Managed sixteen technical and six clerical personnel with the responsi-bility for all customer contact, planning and execution of work repuired after the customer acceptance of department-supplied plants and/or equipment. This included quotation, sale and delivery of soare and re-newal parts.
Sales volume of parts in:reased from 51,000,000 in 1953 to over S3,000,000 in 1972.
1965 - 1963 i
Manacer. Comol aint and Wa rranty Service. General El ectric Comoany t<uciear inercy Division. San Jose California
(
Managed grous of six persons with the res:ensibility for cus :mer :en-l Ta::s, planning and exe:Ution of work recuired after cus::mer a::e::an:e j
of department-supplied plants and/or equipment--both domesti and over-seas.
1953 - 1956 1
~ield Encineerine Suoerviser. General Ele::ric Cc=ceny, Installation and service in:1neerin: Decer men. Los Anceies. Cai: crr.1 Supervised a::roximately eignt field representatives witn reso nsibility j
for General Eie:tric steam and ::as tur:ine installation and maintenan:e I
work in 50utnern Calif:-nia, Arhona, and Scutnern Nevaca.
During inis ceriod was resconsiple for One installation of eignt different central station stem: turcine-generator uni s, plus menn maintenance a::ivity.
Work intiuced :us:cmer conta:, prezara:icn f cu::ations, and contra::
negotiations.
.9' o
1956
.1953 Field Encineer, General Electric Comoany, Installation and Service En: 1-neerinc Department, Cn1:aco, Illinois Supervised installation and maintenance of steam turbines of all sizes.
Supervised crews of from ten to more than one hundred men, depending on l
the job.
Worked primarily with large utilities bu'. had significant work with steel, petroleum and other process industrie s.
Had four years of experience at construction, startup, trouble-shocting and refueling of the first large-scale commercial nuclear power unit.
)
1955 - 1956 Encineerine Trainine
- Procram, General Electric
- Company, Erie, Pennsylvania, and 5:nenec:acy, kew fort Training assignments in plant f acilities design and in steam turbine testing at two General Electric factory locations.
1953 - 1955 i
i United States Army - Ordnance School Aberdeen, Maryland Instructor - Heavy Artillery Repair.
Taught classroom and shop disas-sembly' of artillery pieces.
1953 Encineerine Trainine Procram, General Electric Comoany, Evendale, Ohio Training assignment with Aircraft Gas Turbine Department.
1 EDUCAT:GN & AFFILIATIONS:
ESFE - 1953, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid.Ci:y, South Dak::a, Upper 1/4 of class.
Professional Nuclear Engineer - California.
Certificate No. 0973.
1 Member - American Nuclear So:iety Various C :cany Training Courses during career including Professional l
Business Management, Keoner Tregoe Decision Making, Effe::ive Presenta-tion, and numerous technical seminars.
HCNORS & AWARDS:
l Sigma Tau - Honorary Engineering Fraternity.
l Generai Managers Award, General Eie::ri: Company.
4,,'
r*
f..
8 e
1 1
l u,.;
J i
PERSONAL. DATA': <
l Born =Nove ber/20, 1931, Miller,. South D'akota-1 JMarried,ithree children 16' 2" F190 lbs., health ~ - excellent Honorable ~ discharge from United States Army
. Hobbies:. Skiing, hiking, work with boy Scout Groups PUBLICATIONS:& TESTIMONY:
-1.
-Operatina and ' Maintenance Exoerience,' presented-at Twelf th Annual Semi-l
.nar :f or Ele:trico utility ixecutives - Pebble Beach, California, 0::ober 1972, published in General Electric NEDC-10697, December:'1972.
2.
M.> d ntenance and-- in-Service Insoe: tion, presented at -IAEA Symposium on -
Tx~perience From Operating anc Fueling of - Nuclear Power P1 ants, Bridenbaugh, Lloyd & Turner, Vienna, Austria, October,1973.
3.
0ceratino ' and Maintenance 'Excerience, presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for : Electric U: ity : Executives, Pebble Beach, California, November 1973, published-in. General Electric NEDO-20222, January 1974.
4.
--Imoro' vine Plant Availability,. presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for Electric utility ixecutives, Pebble Beach, California, November 1973,
-published-in.~ General Ele:trie-NEDG-20222, January, 1974.
5.-
Aeolication of-Plant Outace Exoerience to Imorove Plant Performance,
-Bricencaugn anc Burosall, American Power Conf erence, Cnicago, Illinois,
, April 114, 1974.
6.-
Nuclear Valve Testina Cuts Cost, Time, Electrical World, October 15, 3
[
197.
i 7.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubbarc, and G. C. Minor before the United States Congress, Joint Committee on Atomi: Energy, February
.l 18, 197 6,.Wasnington, D.C. (Published by the Union of Concerned 5:ien-1 tists, ~Ca=:-idge, Massachusetts.)
3.
Testimony cf D. G Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor to the California State Assecoly Cc=ittee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy, l
t j
4i Mar:h 8, 1976.
t
- 9..
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California Energy comission, entitled, Initiation of Catastrechi: A::icents a Diable Canven, Hear-ings on Emergency Pianning, Avlia bea:n, California, hove =cer ',1576.
l 10.
Te'stimony by D. G. Ericenbaugn bef:re ne U. 5. Hu: lear Regulatory Com-
. mi ssion, subje:::
Diacio Canyon Nuclear Fi a r.: Performance, A:i:
Safety and Licensing boar; nearings, De:emoer, 15M.
11.
Testimony by D. G. Ericencaugn before the California Ener;y C = mission, l
L su:je:::
Interim Soet: :uei 5:cra:e Consicera: ions, Mar:n IC, 1577.
_ f..
as
j-u; e s.
(..
l l
12.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service Commission Siting Board Hearings concerning the Jamesport Nu: lear Power Station, subject: Effe:t of Tecnnical and Safety Deficien:ies on Nu: lear Plant Cost and Re11asii1:v. April,1977.
13.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California State Energy Com-mission, subject:
Decommissioning of Pressurized Water Reactors, Sun-desert Nuclear. Plant, nearings, 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 :ne hatural Resources Defense Council, July 15, 1977.
15.
The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors:
A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety 5:uoy WAsn-Moo, Kencall, nuocare, t11nor & Brioenoaugn, et. al., for :ne union of concerned Scientists, August, 1977.
15.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Vermont State Board of Health, subject:
Doeration of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and Its Imoa:t on PuM i Heal:n anc Safety, D:tooer 6, 1977.
17.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Atomi: Safety and Licensing Board, subject:
Deficiencies in i
Safety Evaluation of Non-Seismi Issues. Lack of a Definitive Fino1no of Safey, Diaolo Canyon hu: lear Units, D:tooer 18, 1977 Avila sea:n, Cai-1 to rni a.,
18.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh before the Norwegian Commission on Nu: lear Power, subje:t:
Reactor Safety / Risk, D:tober 25, 1977.
19.
Swedish Rea: tor Safety Study:
Barseback Risk Assessment, MMB Technical Asso:1stes, ve nua ry, 1975.
(Puolisne oy :ne 5we:1sn Department of I
Incustry as Document DsI 1978:1)
I
{
i 20.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh before the Louisiana State Legislature Committee on Natural Resources, su:je:::
Nu: lear Power Pian: Deficien-cies Imca::ine on Safety & Reliability, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,,?eoruary s, 0,.; 3 / C.
21.
Scent Fuel Discosal Costs, report orecared by D. G. Bridenbaugh for ne Natural kesour:es Derense Coun:11 (NRDC:
Augus: 31, 1975.
1 22.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bricenbaugh, G.
C. Minor, and R. E. Hubbard before ne Atomi: Safety and Li:ensing Board, in the ma ter of :ne 31ack Fox Nu: lear Power Station Constre:: ion Permi: Hearings, Septemoer 25, 1975, Tulsa, Oklanoma.
23.
Testimony f D.
G.
Ericenoaugh and R.
E.
Hubtard before :ne Louisiana Publi: Service Commission, Nu:iea-Olant and Lower Generation Cos s, Novemoer 19, 197S, Ba on Rouce, accisiana.
1 1
i 5
.s
,e.
v i
L 24.
Testimony by D.
G.
Bridenbaugh before the City Council and Ele:tri:
Utility Cc= mission of Austin, Texas Desien Construction, and Ooeratina Exoerience of Nuclear Generatino Fact ? 1 ties, Decemoer 5,1976, Aus:1n, Texas.
25.
Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Utilities, !=cact of Unresolved Safety Issues.
General Deficiencies, and Three Miie 1siano-in1:1atec Modifications on Power Genera: Ton Cost at :ne Procoseo P1) rim-2 t<uclear Piant, June a, 1979.
I 26.
Imorovina the Safety of LWR Power Plants, MH3 Te:hnical Asso:iates, l
preparea f or U.S.
Dept. of Energy, Sancia Laboratories, September 23, 1979.
27.
BWR Pioe and flo::le Cracks, MHB Technical Associates, for the Swedish tauclear Power inspe : orate (SKI), October,1979.
28.
Uncertainty in Nuclear Risk Assessment Methodology.
MHB Technical Asso-clates, for tne Swealsn Itu: Iear 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 a::ident, subject:
Ooerator Trainina and Human Factors Encineerine, for tne Cali-fornia, Energy Commission, Feoruary 11, 1980.
30.
Italian Reactor Safety Study:
Caorso Risk Assessment, MMB Te:nnical Asso:1ates, for f riencs of tne Ear:n, italy, Maren,1960.
31.
Decontamination of Kryoton-25 from Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, H.
- KencaII, R.
Poiiare, anc D.
G. bricenoaugn, et al, ine union of Con-cerned Scientists, delivered to the Governor of Pennsylvania, May 15, 1980.
22.
Testimony by D. G.
Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Publi: Adve a:e's Office, Divi:icn Of Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Saler-1 Refuelin: Outace, Augus; 1950.
23.
Minnes ta Nuclear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study, MH3 Te:hni:a1 Associ-ates, Tor Minnesota Poi tutica Con:roi Agency, 5eptemoer,1930.
34.
Position Statement, Procesed Rulemakine on the 5:crace and Disocsai Of Nu: lear Was e, Join: Cr:23-i _nemen: c; Pes 1: ion of :ne hew ingian:
Coail:1on :n Nu:iear Pollution and :ne Natural Resour:es Defense C en-il, Septemoer, ISSO.
25.
ies:1=ony oy D.
G.
Briaenbaugh and G.
C.
Minor, cefore :ne New Y0rk State Public Service 00. mission, in :ne ma :er of Len; 1sland Lign: :: -
cany Temocrary Ra e Case, creoared f or :ne Snorenam Occonen s Coaliti:n, Se::emoer 22, 1950, Snerenam Nuclear Diar.: Constru:: ion Sene:uie.
-3
[ -.,.
o.
e-36.
Supplemental Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Board of Public utilities, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Publi:
Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Analysis of 1979 Salem-1 Refuelino i
Octace, De: ember, 1980.
l
- 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 tne Publi: Advo: ate,. Division of Rate Counsel, Oyster Creek 1980 Refuelino Outace Investigation,JFebruary 1981.
38.
Economic Assessment:
Ownershio Interest in Palo Verde Nuclear Station,.
HnB iecnnical Asso:Tates, f or :ne City of i<1versloe, 5eptemoer 11, 1951.
f l
39.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Commission of l
Ohio, in the Matter of the Regulation of the Electric Fuel Comconent l
Contained Within the Rate Schedules of the Toledo Edison Company and l
Related Matters, subject:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1930-S1 Outace Review, November, 1981.
~40.
Supplemental. 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 Com-pany and Related Matters, subject:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station i
l l
1980-81 Outace Review, November 1931.-
l 41.
Systems Interaction and Sinole Failure Criterion, Phase 2 Recort, MHS leennical Asso 1ates for tne Swealsn Nuclear Power inspec. orate (SKI),
January, 1952.
42.
Testimony of D. G.
Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on 'oehalf of Governor y
i Edmund G.
Brown Jr.,
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, l
regarding Contention 10. Pressurizer Heaters, January 11, 1952.
43.
Testimony of D.
G.
Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Governor Ecmund G.
Brown Jr.,
bef o re the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, regarding Centention 12, Ble:k and Pile Doerated Relief Valves, January 11, 1952.
.t4.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Decar: ment f Public Utilities, en behalf of the Massachusetts A :orney 1
General, Piierim Nu: lear Power Station. 1931-82 Outa e investi:ation, l
Ma rch 11, 1951.
i 45.
Testimony cf D. G. Bridenbaugn oefere the Pennsylvania Publi: U ility i
Ccmmissicn, en benalf of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Adve: ate, Bt. aver Valiev Outace, Mar:h,1952.
l 45.
Interim testimony of D. G. Britenbaugn and G. C. Minor oef ore ne A.cri:
Safety and Licensing Board, en cenalf of Suffolk County, in ne ma :er l
of Long Island Lign:ing Comoany, Shorenam Nuclear Power Stati n, Uni: 1, retardine Suffolk County Centention 11. Dassive Me:nani:a1 Vaive faii-ures, Acri;.;, 1952.
t 7
34-47.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before tne Ato:i: Safety and Licensing Board, on behalf of Suffolk County, in :ne 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.
43.
Testimony. of D. G. Bridenbaugh and R. B. Hubbard, in the Matter of Jer-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. Cleanco and Modification Procrams, Pay,1952.
49.
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 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 Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 28(a)(vi) and 50C Contention 7A(6),
i Reduction of SRv Cnallences, June 14, 1982.
51.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Illinois Commerce Commission, 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 Perrv Nuclear Generatino Unit No.1, 0::ober 7, 1952.
53.
Issues Affe: tine the Viability and A::ectability of Nuclear Powe-Usace in :ne Unitec States, precareo Dy MdB ie:nnical Asso 1ates for Congress of :ne Unitec 5:stes, Office of Te:hnology Assessment for use in con-junction with Worksnup on Te:hnoiogical and Regulatory Changes in Nuclear Power, December S & 9,1982.
54.
Testimony f D. G. Bridentaupn on behalf Of Re:kford League f W: Den Voters, before tne Atomi: Safety and Licensing Boarc, in :ne matter of C :::nwealth Edison C =sany, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, regarding Contention 22. Steam Generators, Mar:n 1, 1952.
55.
Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bricenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Publi: Utility Commission, on benalf of tne Office of Consumer A:vocate, Re:ardinc ne Cost of Constructive One Sus:uenanna Steam Electri: 5:n-tion. Uni:., ke: ?ennsyivania Power anc c1gn:, April 20, 1951.
55.
Surrebuttal Testimony Of D. G. Britenoau;n before One Pennsylvania Pu?-
lic Utility Commission, on cenalf cf :ne Cffi:e of Consumer A:vo:::e, Re:ardin: :ne Ces: of Cons:ru::in: :ne Sus:uenanna 5: ear Ele::-i: 5:a-tien. un :., ka: Pennsylvania Power an: uign:, A rii 20, 1952.
l l
l
e i
Service Gas &
Testim:ny of D. G. Bridenbaugh In. the Patter. of Publi: E 57.
of New Jersey Depar: men; or tne ruolic Acvocate, Division of Rate Coun-l sel, October 13, 1953.
Affidavit of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Patter of Jersey Central Power and Light, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, 38.
Division of Ra.te Counsel, TMI Fault Investigation November 23,19S3.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Ele:tric
& Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Divi-59.
sion of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investigation. Salet-1 Outaces, De: ember 1, 1953.
Rebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service
& Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advo-60.
cate, utvision of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investigation. S a l e m-1 Outaces, Electc January 13, 1984.
Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugn, L. M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C.
Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC Case 61.
No. 27563, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company Proceeding to Investigate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facility --
10, 1984.
Phase II, on behalf of County of Suffolk, February 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.
Ovster Creek 1953-84 cate, Division of Rate Counsel, Base Rate Case, 23, 1954.
Outace and O&M and Caoital Expenditures, May Hubbard, Before Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard E.
Illinois Power Company, Clin on 53.
the Illi nci,s Commer:e Commission, Nuclear 5:stion, 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.
Cnristensen, G. Dennis Eley, Dale G. Brioenbaugh and Ri: nard E. Hubcard
'l 64.
Regarding Suffolk Coun:y's Emergen:y Diesei Genera::r Contentions, Before ne Atomic Safety and Li:ensing Board, Long 1siand Lignting C: r 31, 1934.
pany, Sh:reham Hu: lear Plan, NF.C Decket No. 50-322-OL, July Direct Testimony of Daie G. Britenbaugh, Pegarding Pea:h 50:: m Units 2 and 3 - Inver:ios:icn of Ou: aces Due to inter ranular Stress C:rresie 55.
Cra: king, Before' the Pennsylva'nia Publi: Utility C :=ission, Pniittel-onia Eie::ri:
Co.,
D;;ke: N:. P-FACE 54DE, on nehalf of Pennsylvania Office Of Consumer A:ve:a e, Septemaer 1934.
SUrrebu :ai Testimony of Dale G. Ericenbaugn, Lynn M. Danielson, Ri: nard Ser-and Gregory C. Min:r, Sefore :ne New York State Puoli:
55.
vice Occmission, PSC Case No. 27553, Sn renam Nuclear 5:ation, L;n; E. Hubcard, Yort 5:ste Islanc Lign:ing Company, on Senalf of Suffolk County and liew l
Consumer Pr :a::icn i; arc, 0;;; er 4, 1954.
I t
l 1
I f
(
c - _.
c.cc
, Q., 9 ;
3~
..y a
jg p
i-i a
L
'n
,,1
. Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh,;Lynn M. Danielson and! Gregory 67.
L-C. Minor on Senalf of Massa:husetts. Attorney General, DPU 3'-145, Before the. Massa:husetts Department of Publi: Utilit,ies, regardir.; tne pruden:y of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas-and Electri: Light Comp'any on Seacrook Unit 2, November 23, 1984, S4 pgs.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Ri:hard B. Hubbard and Lynn Y.,
68.
Price on Behalf of Massa:husetts Attorney General..DPU 84-152, Before the Massachusetts De'partment of Publi: Utilities, regarding the investi-gation by the Department of the Cost and Schedule of Seaborok Unit 1, December 12, 1984.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bride.nbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory 69.
C. Minor on Behalf of Maine Publ1:. Utilities Commission Staff regarding l
- Seabrook Unit 2, Do:ket No. 54-11;14ecember 21,;1934.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenb' ugh and Jregory C. Minor Regardkg a
70.
Suf folk County's Emergen:y Diesel Generator Load Contention, Dc:ket No.
5D-322-DL, January 25, 1985.
xne Matter of the Motion of;,
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridanbaugh', ir@'New Jersey Department of tnit 71.
Servi:e Ele:tri
& Gas, Tin behalf of 1.
Publi:
J Publi:' Advocate, Division -of Rate Counsel.. Motion To Increase Tne Level of the - Levelized Enerty Adiustment C1ause, Do Ket - 40. ER 5501H6. and
)
~~~
-Do:Ket No. 537-620., April 24,1985.
t.
72.
Direct'. Testimony. of Dale G.
Bridenbaugh on h half of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. of Massa:husetts, 3n the Matter of Boston Edison Company DPU 55-13, A Hearing to Determire.Whether Fuel. and Pur-chased Power Costs Associated with the Outage at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Wni:h Began on Decemoer 10,0.953 ' and Endad on Decenser 30, 1954 Were Reasonably and Prudently Incurrud.
May 12, 1985.
73.
Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on be. half of tne Residential Ratepayer Consortium, in the Matter of the Application of Consumers 1
Power Cocoany for a Power Supply Cost Reconciliation pro:eeding for :ne 12-month period ended De:e=cer 13,133, regarding Palisaces Dutage P.e-view, Case No. U-7755-R, August 25, IE5.
74.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bridegaugh, Lyr.n M. Danielson, and Grego y g
C. Minor on behalf of the Department of ?u:di: Servi:e, State of Ve =on:
Publi: Servi:e Board Docke No. 5030, Central Ve ant Publi: Servi:e Corporation, Nove:cer 11, 1955.
75.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Ericenba'..gh on behalf Of New Jersey Decart-ment of the Publi: Advoca:e, in :ne na::e-of C?il for an in:rease in l
rates, Base Ra:e Case, Dyster Creek D&M and Capital Expenditures, Novencer 25, 1955.
75.
Dire:: Testimony of Daie 3. Bridenbaugh on renalf of New Jersey Decart-ment of :ne Puoli: Aavo:ste, in :ne matter of J:P!L, TMI-Rester: - LEAC, Re: TMI-Re star: Commercial Doeration Stan:ar::s & Relia:il;;y 0- cervi:e, January II, 1955.
o~
209.f 4
,y, f
pt ya g < ' ' 4 4, n, a Qn.DJ q
f 1 ? e 7 7 ".
Direct Testi=cny of Dale G.
Bridenbaugh, Gregory C.
Minor, Lynn K.
i~ Pri:e, and Steven C. pdib on oehalf of State of Conne:ticut Department of tne Publi: UtilityiControi Prose:utorial Division and Division of I
Consumer Counsel regarding the prucence cf expenditures on Millstone Unit 3, February 18, 1985.
78.
Direct Testimony of Dale l 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, 1986.
79.
Dire:t Testirony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo Construction Prudence for Millsteno Unit 3 March 19, 1955.
/
8D.
Direct Testimony' of Dale.G. Bridenb.sugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massa:nusetts Attorney General regarding WMECo's Commer:ial Dperating Date.s and Deferred Capital Additions on Millstone Unit 2, March 19,
/
3.900.
i
)
81.
Rebuttal Testimony. of Chia G. Bripwaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attornly General regarding New England Power Company's Seabrook 2 Rebuttal, ApM1 2,1986.
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 21,1986.
a i
a 33.
Dire:t Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Peter M. Straus: en behalf of New Jersey Depar: ment of the Publi: Advo:ne, Division of' Rate Coun-sel, regarding Base Pt:g. Case: In-Service Criteria for Hope Creek, Hope Creek D&M and De:0::asssicning Cos:s, and Cperating Plant D&M Cos:s, May 19 ASS 5,107 pp.
,1 84.
.birect Testirony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf Of New Jersey De: art-ment of tne iubli: Advo:ne, Division of Rne Counsel, regar:ing Base g 7 Rate Case: Hepa Creek C: mer:ial Doerating Date and Criteria, none Creek J
C&M Cos:s, 0 ernin; Life, Ca-ital Additi:ns, and De::mmissi:ning ~.:s:s, 3
May 27,1935, E5 pp.
E5 Dire:: Testi:Dny cf Dale G. Bridenonugh, Ri: nard E. Hubbard, and Lynn K.
3 Prize on ceralf of State of Illinois Dffice of :ne A::orney Generai and Dffi:e of Puoli: Counsel, regarding Evalunion cf Clinton Cosn, C::te:
Nc. S'-D055, July 9, 1955.
55.
Dire:: Tes itony of Dale G. Bricencaugn and Gregory C. Min:r en bentif cf One Vermont Departmen; of Puoli: Jervi:e, re:artin: Tariff Filin: :f Central Verm:nt Puoli: Service Corpornion Recue'stin: 'a 12: In:rease in Rnes, D :ke No. 5132, August 25, ".755.
~
57.
Dire:: Testi:Dny ef ? ale G. Bri:encat.cn and Ri:hard 5. Hu:Dard on penai#
of :ne Pennsyivanu Offi:e of 00nsume-A:ve:ne, regar: 1ng ;ennsyivanu Publi: Utiluy Com-'s s i o n vs. Du:vesne Lign: ; :cany an:
ennsyivanu Power Comoany, ?c:Ke: Nos. E-550375 and R-550257, Se n e: Der II, 1955.
m__ - _. - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
e.
y, r<
- S.
x... ;
t v.
.4 s.
....4--.
g,.
Wyacneb.%
i..
.,. -. _ UNtTED sirrts
... AR REGOCATORY COMMIS310N
~
.~~~~.
- ?".7. 7 S.
- J l 1 g.
w n@ tWTON,,0. C. 205&5
(., u'... g.. it..,
o 1
f
. g.
Y. s:t Q'
~~
-
- Tr.
,,n., r'
. t n,, -.
9+ - v
- e y1,.,
e
-sH 2
June,q,o o.
e:..*
CMA(28s4AN '
i;~
.1 i
i Y
J The Henerable ' Edward J. ~ Mar. key, Chair.an.
' Sub::mittee en Oversight _and Investigations
.Cemittee' on Interier and Insular Aff airs United States House of Representatives
. Washington, D.C..
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
Your-letter of Mar:h 30,19B4 re:uested an explanation of the risks l
associated with. low power operation at c:= rcial nuclear power rea:::rs.
In addition, you raised five specifi: questions which we have responced to -
in Attachment i to.t.h._is.. letter.
With regard to the risks asse:iated with icw power coeratien, Attachment 2
~
As is a: C mission paper. developed by the staff a~ddressing this issue.
indicated;by this pacer, the overall conclusion that the staff =ust ras:h f=r fuel loading and low pown :ss:ing up :: 5 per:ent pwer, is tnet tnere f:r the limited is no undue r,isk to the health and saf ety of the publi:
In pra::i:e, the staff has deveicoed analyses that emerati:ns actWri:ed.
~
indicate thatthe risks of 5 per:ent power :;eration can be expe::ed to be
~ - - -
ap:re:iably less 'than the risks of 100 per:ent power cperati:n.
Ca..&..'. si:ner Gilinsky did n:: p dti:i: ate in thz p-2;arati:n f this reoly.
We.t ust that Onis inf: :.ati:n is resp:nsive to y:ur ::$.:e-ns.
W j
GllD-,W., -- /
/n~ [
./
~/
n y-U hun:i: J. p:iiadino At:a:.+ nts:
As stated i.
4 i
Rep. R:n P.trieme
[
1
4 r
w..
n
--s o
. ~
O l-e/ e.I'#es:t rs licensad sin:e O.e a:: Went at h ee, %
C C " *'~' ' O N :" *'
Islan'd, please provide the following ( A) the date of issuan;e Tal of the low power license; (5) the date :( ini:
(C) the cate of 5 percent ;ctier cperetion; (D)-
criticality; the date c'f issusn e of the full ;:wer license; (:-) th8 date that power' levels of 25 ercent or hig7er were first at*.ained; (F) the cate that cower levets of 90 "r:ent DT bicher were first a ttained; (G)(*5e :,ie1s granted by toe L...
to'the low power li:ensce and, H) exem;;iens grante. by,.r.c HR0 to tne full power licensec.
i m.,. S....nzs.
He inte preted
~ data re uested is provided in the attached Table 5.1.
Y$e,E$ce:f 5 percent : wcr c:eration to be the date that this Tha c o 5I cd.
1;/Ahasbeenused.g.
i!,N.
1 f
..-e.
W
(.. '
p e#
- -~
u__.m____
2,
- ?..
- Oe.
f
.g e.
'f, w
l
- ,, ar.
t
.,, a_j 1
n r :. -.
=_ -
?..
=:-. t> -
t.:... - -
_. _...,i.
~.
.., i
.g%
- .,,s
.I..
', s, m.
..r
-..=.;',.. l 4.
a'
.n. -
c m._ '.
- a._
,. e. % % :% c::!
v.. <.,:.. -l
. ::. r- : _% ::..
- =y n.s.s.
<.c, z.
2.:-.
.e c
- w :
% -. c:..
.:.r.- % -
6 e
-~w v.:. - rs.s,
4
. s _. _=
.. =, i.
a i
t s
n.
i
.i s,.
v:
J,,.
- = -.
,, ~i. 6 I,
.. s..
i t.e.g*.; s..: :.::, ~.
.. i-
=y
- w<. w::.
. = 6:
% c.
r i-c.
- v =..
n C::"
3_--
' a.:: #.%%. %. %_ _.e...
~
.c.. :
t:
- u. -
W.; E:-b -7.tl it:a.
,t s.
i.
I e
.s.,._,.
1 l
l.
u p.
s
~i.
=
m..
E.
\\
e u e:
.m..
L e. -
i I, I e
r 3,.e 4
i I
~
. y..
. e
..,. e..
,~.
=.
+.t.._.
.c
.. =. s:..
z,_
t.....
.. w y
_..=
e-a
- w
- -.: -r...
- -.e..%.
6,..:.
..6._
e%
=
- a. -
...: ::. --::.L ; :..=.
I....!,
i..
_e
- 1..i..
e
=.
i p
i l
1
.s
~
.o l
s
~ - -
e.
.s 4
- \\. %.
e D...,, i t...,,.,,,..'""
'e.,
b.
,,.7.. C J t.
=t
%=...,%.*%.
.%=%.%,,,..
=%
t.N? %
ar.
y
=.=.".l"%%==*.=.'"**,.-==..
==*N"
.a P.-*".3...,,,,La,..
lll:
% a.
- y
. ',. ",,,,..6,j g
,1.
.%=.% %..% % *
=
~.
.% %.*.. *.=* * %.%. %..- %.%.
- =
5.:
. g
' t, a
. e a y
l 1,. I i.
e..
l..
..!e 4
l ;.
j
. l.
. ~;,
'a i
- ... w.,,.r
~
,g D
- g s a g
=
a
. 3 I
g
=
. ' =.
.g**6***'"""-
-2.
e V** 4.* J'N. .
r
- 7..
%..,,.. 2 * % %. ? M.,. * :..
- " := *: +N.,
~ * * *'
.s....
.?.-...
.--.m,.,,.
a
- , -==. % % *.. %
=a-
==.4. s e.
e
- 4. r%L 4,. J ;,.,
7%
i e
i
>=
I c
I e
i i,.
a 4
I j
- *i ' *: =. ~%.. :...=
E. Q:.
- e. 'r m. :'.".: '. a, %:'. O.. r..*:.:.-:
E~
r..
. l C------
=.....
=%
% w s: *;
' %.t N ;.:;. -* %
.. u.
."Q.,,.
v % *
- av,- *
% L.
%...b..
%l.
c,
, ;;{
..t
%%=%%
.#m -"" i e=" 7% **
""'"e f..E.* '. N M 8'- 8." *.* " -" 6 * #
i
-=
i -l i
i Iii i i i i
%g ; l m:
==
7 N.,
t i i
es. t u
.,,.,4 f
g.,
g,,,,
,s
?.-
N.,,.
.%. e a
=.
L
,,,,*\\.
>=
.= =
Q, p.. y. *;.,
-e.,,,,,
M.
,..." M,w..,
-g*W
.M.-.-m g
- ~.,;,....,.~.=..y,,.,-
r-.=
e w
i s*.-
kJ
, =
.=..vm...*.
s.
'..,a.s.... -~;
w m.
e s
.e b
..e l
l i
i
(
i
c-
.l
- m o
[,.* ?
,..j !,
' b'~
'1-
)
t.
.t
=!
s.
S*. n"." ? O?. y e. v.a*= -
- w..
e f
Y W D w.e.
.c.,4 7d e. w L..n.)
-.e.~ v _
D wnt 8'
q.
~l.*,
.g, x
e
- r..
a.4 e..s
- 7. 4 9.J.
O.s
, - u.
r.
4 C.... El.V e_~_~.. P.. o9 4 S e_
4 e nwo ke sln.
2_.2 C.-,, c. a n a cn R n, u e s-. e... - A
- s...,_ P e_-
e.
w -
e_, s e,.n a.,_ s r
4! To Oake 'Iff e : J t:n e 2, 19 8 6..
y
,, =
m. = =
=m a
= = = = =
- ** ? *w"." r*.M. 4..
M *l""."l*.*:.*.* /""."/. D" w ei^ Kt
- *T. m. '.3..
- **"*'* *5df."". T"W Wu w
w h.
s.
c i
l 1
.e..__..__- or.,.._
l yo_..
u...s ~ _e '. :... a_
- v..r m. 'y. a,
u,,_ _ c.1 c :__,_ zu_in. a _s.,n j
a I
l
- ,, _.,n y, y.,g =_,._e_._,
.. pi e S d.Ey, N Ov e- 'D e="
..;, _;;c ri s,
..m m n.. v /
- c...
I 3
1 i
t-1 1
'l.
l o
I 9
.i i
r
...9 a. _ ?
i e."* ?. "."" 7."..r. *%
_O*",u.7."..*_.*.*.?**,
."l:. * O f".** ". "";.
sv w..
w s.
e p. _ - _
,~..m.,,.
.l. : w.".. : ?.
_~_e L.: :. w
.w 7.4..,; _ :. a.. T
- ~..
e f
4
-:I e n.
f.l:
t.!,.-
'}
o1.
no tw w.
_X
.t
.w.
-w
_:._=.-._.-.
! __ x._. c,
... =...
L
p---
~ --___
~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - _ - - _ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~., _ _ _ - - _ _
-~--
-~
,i
~-
6". '
e
}
i.
I h
~.3 ~ s 6
,s'."-,.-
1 1
M.H.3. Technical Associates I
and Gre; cry C. Mincr, Vice PresidentAssociate C= sultant 2
Judith R. Lieberman,
Suite K 3
17 23. Har.il:=n Av enue, i
Calif c=ia 95125 i
San Jose /
4 l
5 i Cahil'., Gord:n & Reindel f
J en e s, Isquire) l (by Th: mas R.
80 Pine Stree:
8 New Ycrk, New Y rk 10005; 6
1 fc Public Service Cc=pany cf New Ha=prhire.
7
) Downs, Rachlin & MartinMullikin, Esquire) 8 (by Elizabeth B.
100 Derse: Street, Suite 1 9
P.O. 30x 190 05402-0190; En lin gten, Ver== =
S e 4. e C.,~.. 4 10 Cc.
a1Ve
-.e..u.a 9
e,.
,1 cf Public Se-rice Special C:unsel)
Depart =cn (by CE-istcpher Hicciche, 2
120 Sta:e S: ee 05602 M=:p elier, Ver==:
13 Esqnire)
(by An:irew Weiss =En, l Swiiler & Serlin1000 Th: as J efders= S:reet, W
14 D. C. 2 00 07 ;
Washing :n, 15 e...v.,.. S. n.
, e-t u.. 3-y
.-o I
~. :
..,,.: e,,
3 g
' Willia = S. Derricksen g,,
.v. v.. - )
D I
1
./.4t 4
N'-
- 6. :
.o.
a-q.
.s
.~}
p a
4 m
F
[.
[
o i
- 1
~;
P-R 0 'C I I D I N G S i,
.c.
t g
't-i I.
-.m,...n.
-y.
3 ~-
oc
- 1..
.v...s O P..
- u. v..v..,
4 i
1 L
-5' Q:
- N.is is nc a depositi=n.
I guess I' should' star:-
t t
. by say.,
.'.a.... Jus..'--
~.~.e "su='
o-..~
.2 c
'S.
. g 7.
~ 5 e s e.jp e ' c
~ n g s, I w.e ll 7... ~. ~ ".". e
.)'s a ' '.
e 8
.am G e., v.i nc c
M.u..m.
- m. o...y u.
- 4. s e
.9 Judy Liebe man, also of M.U. 3.; Chris Micciche cf
.10 the Departmen: of Public S ervic es in v e--.cn t.
11 l
Land we are here, Mr. Derricksca, to ask you t.
e
,2-i.
s
. q.a es. 4. s ab c,.,
w..
J e -,.
a
.e t.a. s.. c c - - -
c.
t
- v u
=ve.s nad"_1e es. a4 s
c.#.
are-. =.
.d a a va."-
~3 w
a
, },.
' y g s.,.
%. a.- a e
a.cy.
e i
D y -.,t. =
,4 Ke o3..s
-osa-
.a s.
.y..
w-
. y
.c i
n m e y,...
- . s
- e. @. -
.J. g -.4. =-* y J
.b.
.9C y,w.. - A b
..,4 y
w
=.
e 4...
.,a.s
,,_3 g --c',--
~ ~ " '
1
-%2
- }
3 -ede.
2C"..A.. %.a =.* a. _. y w
---~
r -;
w.
'1
~~'- '=
' e.a
. =_'-=-.
l~..~.-'i~..~
1S
.- - - - - -. =. o~..
c-. -
- l-.0 y 4
~b.
- h. a
- e J *. 4
- c. =..q ew
.J..p
- e..b J e
V..e.=~= 'v,. m e.
.. ~
r-w-
.r. ---
~~
l 90 1
V.
- W o. JJA
-" '!. a J J.p t-.e 4
.b.e.v a, c..
4..
- 1.....c.
1
- c..
9 gA
- 4,.b.. ~ ~
e m, p,
- p..b
- J -
Oe-
--*a 1
...e
.s
)
l sc " s
..a.
ee4e---
P e
. ur.. - =
.O e-s m.a
=--".-*c
-c
~~
r.
7 t
l
.2-
.. =.
.v e,
c-.
w.-
=,
t I
l i
1 I
p....
L-
]
a.
.- 5
=
4.
3
/
,..J
.. E *. f....
En C
,C.
ew w s p,. G w
s...
.,.,. 1
.....c.
. e i
~
- )
s ~ e =. ' _' a ~. '. =. s L.~.e u n'/, ~.~...' q u e ' '/ c _'., ope.. ~.
c e
l 3
c==nec i::n s cut he: e.
You would have to cesign a
.e.,...... c 1 s. c e.,.
y c=n..
c u.41,4 4 n g L-
..., A a
.w..
.. c..
. u...a _,. y e,_ g -
.a... o :_ _:,.. a. c o
..c...y
,., e,,1 e ex.., a_
m 6
. o Co...
...:.._..r.
.ze....
e s,.,., e,.
. c.
.. a
.~....
7 e..._c c-,,..:._...,.,.,/.o e a._., e...
. a. _,,,.._. / p,c.*s m._,
w B
b e.d.2 w ',"_ _' l.
"..w. =.v '. =. ~. =_ c -, c e.-
.. 4 i.. e '.
ub a_s,
c_. d s
e.
.c.
h'. a.. :
w,s.e.
.o.
CC3 u.. n A'.
- u. e a.
- s
...h C.
a o
- c. v e. o 1., m.'A.
w.
- 9. 0 Cw..e 1c.s w.e a.-o.
...e y_
c3e b e..:.s.
C
.# g...~.'.' E.*",e.~..~,~ ~.~ a~
4 g. a-ase w 99
- c.. w 92
.p3.Gwg c.,
c.3 i w o.
y.1 1
-o
.g c,4..=.1. e c.
4
.w
.Ag 43
.w s e c - 8.' s.
g c..
.g Sam. v. s. pg wc.
n-
._y 3.e.
C _.s.
- b. c.,
A _ i o.
g
.$. s _, 9,,_ _, i., -,i.. 2
. m.
, e.
". gy
.O
. g y.
".1.j
.3 c
.b.=.
'g a.
b=.,g
.C
,. e.
g g
5 y
w=
w
_\\ o. a.
o A. a ',.= n i* a d
.e'
- y. c
.e.
a
.,.'*f g m.a g
aa
~'...
i.e ny.
- n..
wy
'D w
b.
. "p G J.
- b. a
.=.,.y s =
g.
- k.. """" ** } '
.4 yg
.p.
w C.
s r-e.
...u.,..
se_
.e u.
.a
.e
.e.. e.
-a
.w e
.,e,
. s a
..c...
d 9O 3e.
p*ga.g e...
L.
... ".)
c.
y
...../ we
..C
..,s e.
~ n.
^..a G.
.n
.e
.=
I
.e. _
.y b
......... w,., _
..e..
- e. 7. :..
.,.,. '. =.....-
a,
....a..
..i... :
e.:.
..i c..e.
....R.
q.
', m e
t
~
4 rn-
_g b
s
.w s.
1 74
.. p..e..,
- w*
- tbe se".4_-I,
- '.e
- .*.*.h e y'
g y.b.e.. g
- g g.y gg
.a
.sn..
s e t cn a.. d... s.s
.,.t.
.c a-.
e.a c..
en 1
-3 testing and tube' plugging.. We may be e.ble to do
.-4 ser.ething like that. 7 den ' t knew.
We will work 3
i 5
en 1~.
v4
.u..a. a.s.u.e....
ut..,
c.4, s,
. u.a.
s
.e.
6
'w..at we will.de.
1 i
7.
O Have you =cde any es:i=Ete of sa.1vage values?
j
. 8 A'
I think the g,uys did.
I think they e.re icok.ing at
,- - ' " s. c.-
._4.. " s.
".'.'.c.
4 s '. -
9-
. s,. o.. 4,, 4.
3 c. y
_3 f.
eu..=....k.a.v..". ".,'..
w.. v.. *.' d s a. '. '.
k k
10 s -. c.o.
zn w' '.. -
-. a,
, b.w:
a'
- _ s - a 1,.
35-C ~.~ c~. d.. ",' * * # "w h A'_' ".-b ' a
- 7.#..' '. ' s 1,
y.ygan,
- w. c..*.
vi..
f
..........3g.,..
- g. g,. gyg. e.,
.e. 3 w e. c.-. ~ ~.. 3, e. J..,
' 13
.c.
- .g g 8".*."."".~$.
O e
O
',s'*.,.-*.*..T.
9 y O.
Opm c e.
. - b *.) e
.,.7.J. _*. 3
-p..
- b. o I
},8y.
- 9 c.
..== g, c m. 4 4.
p..
, 4 D"" ~
9
.vr
.a.. p...J.
m
.J I g
.. !.. o J =. a.
g.e.
J
- f y
., w e
- ..a3...
e%,. b.
y w-.. 7o y..
b.
. = =..
),-
- 9. /
../.
t
- 9. ;,
4
. J.,
.J
.?..
3 e.
. 4,. }.....
l
- h
.s.
.0
( 1.'.". =.. e.. -.., a
- ..* *.: 0 c..-..,
. '.. =.
1 l
l
(
1
- w., s.,, 4.
.e.,
.a... a...,,,..., g r<
i l
t 1
I l
. =
.r. J 4
I l
t 4
4 l
I.[4
.'s :
.O. e A
4-
__8 s*/
l F
75.
1 C:R
. C a, 1
/
2 s. e..
. u.m.e.. -.....
s a r..
. m r..
e--
64.
e
.r.. _.
v 3
..s E i a e..~s,, s _, _.3..,13.,
4 e.,. :.... e e.
,4. s s.4
..r._3
.m...
4 Reper:er, do.hereby certify the foregoing to'be
.5 a
e --e.v'
-ha.
.d. a... ew c '. F..*.. r' ".. =.
'u.
..r.
". S w-",,,
6'
. held P.: the '$ew Har.pshire Yanhee Gencral Cf fice 7
Building, Seabrook, 21ew Er.r.pshire, en W edn e sday~,
.- S d
1;ov eri er
".2, 1936.
hMcm.%p.441:At!
/
9 10 11 Marie.nne Kusa-Ry11, CER, EFE
.4
.A 4
.s 9
4 -
- 9. *J" es. 4
- 9.@
I
- 1.S, s
t 4
I 3
?
4V l
ise
3e v.
. pa asou f
UNITED STATES
'!(
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N g,
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 206S6 l
-$~'
~j
= -. --
~
. o.-xn,.
a s%...../
t August 17, 1987
)
Docket No.: 50-443 Mr. Robert J. Harris.on President 0 Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire-Post Office Eox 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03I05 Dear. Mr. Harrison l
SUBJECT:
RECENT Fl!.INGS BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (P 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 reportad 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 permanent shut.down of the facility and maintenance in a safe condition following this low !;ower operation. It would be appreciated if you would provide the information requested in the enclosure by September 8,1987.
i Sincerely, 1
Bruce A.
oger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II l
i
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page 1
4 EXHIBIT C
- f y, q
1 t
REOUEST 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'. I at low power only (up to five percent power); and (b.) the total cost to pennanently shut down the facility after low power operation.only and to maintain it in a safe condition. Also provide an i
i estimate of the ' cost to store or dispose of the irradiated fuel assuming l
low power operation only. Describe in detail the assumptions underlying the estimates.
Include assumptions as to power level,- duration of ~ opera-tion, method of fuel disposal or storage and method of permanent shutdown
)
1 and safe maintenance.
I i
2.
Please provide a detailed statement of the source of funds for covering l
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 i
i 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 1
its share of Seabrook's low power operating costs and the costs of pennanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition? If PSNH were unable to pay its share of costs, what are the l.
sources and likelihood of availability of funds to cover the PSNH's l
share? Please describe in detail.
o 1
,q a.,. :
r, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY.,CDMMISSION 1
~
ATOMICSAFETYANDLIChNSINGBOARD*S7 E 21 A9 :25 n...
,~-
.f
~
' Before Administrative Judges:
.y.,
j Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman 00P.i -
- Emeth k. Luebke d.;#;y
.,.... ~.,,.
- 1. Jerry Harbour
. :.' e f<... y.
mc 3RYED AUG 211387 y,,
..7....,.
- ~,.'
m..:.y.
n, u. _..
Docket Hos. 50-443-OL-1 i
~ '..., ' " "
~
~' '. In the' Matter of "
50-44?-OL-1
]
i
'..,PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
')
(On-SiteEmergency. Planning, and Safety Issues)
OFNEWHAMPSHIRE,elal.
)
(ASLBP Ho. 82-471-02-OL)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) l August 20, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DenyingPetitionToWaiveRegulations)
-~
....,y,-.--
y....
{
MEMORANDUM i
1 I
, Background j
~~
0n' July 31, 1987, a petition was filed to waive regulations i
1 5550.33(f)"and 50.57(a)(4) to the extent necessary to require Applicants to demonstrate financial qualification to operate and to decommission 7
Seabrook Siation. Two attorneys for the Town of Hampton (TH) signed the 1
4 petition and one cf the attorneys for TH signed as the authori:ed l
representative of New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and Seacoast Ant'i-Pollution League (SAPL).
In a Memorandum issued August 4, 1987, the Appeal Board noted that, on March 25, 1957, this Licensing EXHIBIT D l
l
e 2
Board had rendered a partial initial deciAion deciding all on-site 1
emergency planning and safety issues then before it,2 but that none of thoseissueshadinvolvedfinancp1 qualifications. Observing that i
appeals had been tak'en and were currently under submission. the Appeal
'"(i' Board stated that, despite this conside.ation, 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.
t Staff filed its opposing response on August 17, 1987.
II. Discussion
~
We deny.the peti. tion to waive regulations because, at the
~
threshold, we find that TH has no standing to seek such.a waiver and that neither NECHP nor SAPL are properly represented before this Board.
In[urMemorandumand_OrderofJuly 25, 1986,3 we ruled that TH could not participate in the instant case involving on site emergency olanning i
and safety issues, which included Applicants' recuest of June 17, 1986 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.P.. !i 50.57(c) and
' 50.47(d), this Board decided another issue before it and autnori::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 NR0 132.
v.
.n for authorization.to operate Seabrook, Unit I up to and ' including Si of The: instant petition arises out of and is specifically
" rated power.
TH did not appeal that i directed to Applicants' request for low power.
Further, TH s attorney, who signed the petition' as th'e
~
ruling.
authorized representative for"NECNP and' SAPL', failed to comply w 52.713 of the Comission's' Rules'. of Practice' in ignoring both the
~
~
requirement _ that he file a written notice of apearance and the
~
requirement that he. state the bases of his. authority to act on behalf o d SAPL are
. these two. parties. However, assuming arguendo that NECNP an
-properly represented, as discussed below, we have proceeded to con NECNP's.and SAPL's petition for waiver.
NECNP's and SAPL's petition seeks a waiver, under'10 C.F.R. 52.758,4 of'10 C.F.R. 5550.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4)5 to the extent 10 C.F.R. '92.758 provides in pertinent part:
.l' A party to an adjudicatory proceeding involving (b) initial licensing subject to this suboart may petition that' the application of a specified Comtission rule or regulation or any provision thereof, of the typedescribed i or an exception made for the particular proceeding.
The sole ground for petition for waiver or exception shall'be' that special circumstances with respec-to the subject matter of the particular proceeding are such that application of the rule or regulation (or provision :nereof) would not serve the purposes for i
The wnich the rule or regulation was acop;ed.
petition sna11 be accompanied by an affidavit that ioentifies the specific aspect or aspects of the(Footnoce Continued)
\\
9 l
i g
6,
,4, 3.;
- necessary to Tequire the Applicants to dednstrate. prior to low power i
- operation, that they are financially, qualified to' operate and.
decomi'ssion the' facility. The' two petitioners attached to the petition
- ...t...,
i
" - - - ~ ~.
an' affi, davit of. Mr..' Dale J.' Bridenbaugh,j President of MHB Technical l
J i
L
. Associates,, a technical consulting finn specializing in nuclear power a
L plant safety. licensing;and regulatory matters.6 Mr. Bridenbaugh-h l'
l (Footnote Continued) 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.
i.
rules or regulation was adopted, end 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.
. (c) _If, ~ on-the basis of the petition, affidavit and any response thereto provided for in 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 Comission rule or regulation or provision.thereof to a particular
~
. aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the J
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 directed to the matter will br per=itted, and the presiding officer may not further consider the matter.
j 5
10 C.F.R. !!50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4), in substar.ce, exemot electric utility applicants for licenses to operate utilization f acilities from tne requirement to furnish information demonstrating financial qualifications, and no finding cf financial qualification is necessa ry.
6 The-Bridenbaugh affidavit dated March 31, 1957, had been attacned previously to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' application of (Footne:eContinued) i i
l' l
{
__n_.
.,[*-
=,
'4
, attested that, in his opinion,' there is no reason to conduct low power
. testing just fdr its sake alone because, s anding alone, low power-t
[.ite'sSingfproduces no net benefits and has several adverse effects, i.e.,
(1) environmental. impacts'(such'asplantcontaminationwithradioactive
+.: ;. c
~
- .". material),-(2) the likely_ loss of the resale value of the fuel and other
.r:'
~
components once they become irradiated, (3) the cost of decontamination,
- ..- n : -..
deconNissioning and disposal, (4) worker exposure', and (5) the potential 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
- electricity), will be availabie 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 B-K submitted on July 22, 1987 by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire to the Securities and Exenange Comission. Sheet 2 of that report reflects the following:
(Footnote Continued)Aoril.6,1957 for a stay of the Licensing Board Order (L3
_) authorizing issuance of operating license to conduct 25 NRC low-power operation.
In ALAB-855, 25 NRC (May S 1957), the as c:ner motions for Appeal Board denied the Mass. motion as we1I stay, after discussing, inter alia, the points raised in the ine Acceal Board's reasoninc in rejecting Bricenbaugh afficavit.
the mat:a.:s raised in the Bricencaugh afficavit is ecually dispositive nere anc we will not ciscuss :nese matters again.
_---__---a..__--,--,--a
6-
)
,. c~
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 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 amount of debt service which the Company can reasonably expect to carry, the political, economic and coz:Detitive limits on-rate increases in New Hampshire, and the regulatory approvals l
, that will be required, it will be extremely difficult to deve opa Should an circumstances within the limited time available.
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, prior to low power operation, Applicants should be required to demonstrate that they possess, or have reasonable assurance of obtaining, the funds necessary to cover estimated costs for the period of the license, plus the costs to permanently shut dcwn the f acility 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 1
l set forth in tne Bridenbaugh afficavit would fellow.
In the Statement of Consideration attached to the current rule, the Co=:nission stated that the sole objective of the financial qualification l
rule making.' process was to demonstrate generically that the rate process i
assures that funds needed for safe operation would be made available to i i
-*'"4a-
.Having been so assured, tne Cocm ss on regulated elet-concluded tnat, other than in exceptional cases, no case-by-case i
c-
~
),.d f?
litigation of-the financial qualification of such applicants was 1
'- F warranted.-~49 Fed. Reg. 35747,35750(1984). The Comission proceeded j
l t
.to give an example:of the special circumstances that rutt. be shown a
r
?
l pursuant to 10 C.F.h. 12.758'- i.e., such an exception to permit t
fiAancial qualification review for an operating license applicant might 1
j be appropriate where a. threshold showing is made that, in a particular
+
I case, the local public utility comission will no't allow the total cost
~
49 Fed. Reg.
of operating the facility to be recovered through rates.
35747, 35751 (1984).
Clearly the purpose of the rule was to exempt or>erating licgnse 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 conteplate or state that I
an operating license Applicant's financial distress and possible bankruptcy were special circumstances which could result in an exception or waiver under 10 C.F.R. 12.758. 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 degree, all or a portien :f the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation.
1 l
Footnotes 3 and 5 of the petition reflect that, pursuant to New Hampshire statutes, (a) revenues for a decommissioning cost fund will be obtained through charges against customers which shall be assessed and l
paid in the billing month which reflects the first full mon h of service of :ne f acility, and (b) all costs of construction work in progress
---w------..--_-
o
)
should not be included in a utility's rate base nor be allowed as an J
... expense for rate making purposes until the project is actually providing services to th.e consumers.
. The petitioners do not argue that, if full omr operation.is comenced, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Co:re.ission will not authorice adequate funding for safe, operation through the ratemaking process, will not pennit charges against customers for payment into the decommissioning cost fund,7 and will not alinw 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 sp.ecial 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 acooted regulations governing the safe shutcown and Des:-coerative maintenance of a facility (see, e.c., 10 C.F.F 5i50.52, 20.103, i
i Part 70, and Part 73), Corr.Msi- -=~'"Ms to not now. recti.re a demonstration.of fianc.ial qualifications to oe:cmiteien a facility.
In this regard, the Comission has promulgated a proposed rule change to address the costs and other aspects of l
oeco missioninc. See Pmoosed Rule, "Decocr:issioninc Criteria for Nuclear Facilities 750 Fed. Reg. 5500 (Feb.11,19E!).
a Petitioners barrenly speculate tna:, even in the unlikely ever:
a full oower license i.s ;rv.c% it remains "cou::',d" tu* PSN'd wi]1 rece1ve suf'iciently promo: rate increases to av:1c pankruptcy (Peti:'1on, n. 7 at 8; emanasts acoed).-
~w 9.-
Despite'the fact that'the petition is. fatally deficient, we proceed
~~
j to consider _ the petitioners' arguments (1) that' Applicants' lead owner (PSNH) "is on.the brink of bankruptcy" (Petition.at 2); (2) that."jf a
.I full power license is later denied", the Applicants will be unable to
,g..
a recover' their costs through ratemaking proceedings, and PSNH's potential
.. a -.....
b
~^
.)
' bankruptcy therefore p, resents," uncertainties" as to whether the j
Applicants will have the ability to operate the facility at low power, l
8 shut it down pennanently and maintain it in a safe condition (M., at 46;.emphasisadded);.(3)thattheApplicants"mayv,lackthetensof
]
1 millions of dollars necessary 'to permanently shut down the facility and l
i maintain it in a safe condition,' if a full power license is later l-
' denied"(M.,at4-5;emphasisadded);(4)that"thedirection~of Applicants management may be radically altered jf PSNH is superseded by i
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., emp,hasis added); and- (6) that such a trustee "may refuse to expend additional manies" on Seabrook, and "(a] Bankruptcy l
Ccurt, rather than the Applicants, may ultimately determine if additional monies will be spent on Seabrook Station" (M.; emphasis added).9-In passing, we note petitioners' assertion that financial problems o
such as : nose facing PSNH are without precedent (Petition, at p.
5). This is incorrect.
See Lone Island Lichtine Comoany (Shorenam Huclear Power Station, Un1: 1), LN 30, 20 NR; 42: (1984).
ha_
n o
~
- n Thus, in substance the petitioners uke that under these.special circu*nstances,it woul'd be grossly irresponsible for the Applicants to be
'pennitted to proceed to operate Seabrook, even at low power, without clear evidence of their financial means to operate, and to decommission, l
safely (Petition, at 6, 8). Even assuming for the sake of argument that special circumstances have been shown, they are wholly speculative in nature and, therefore, the petitioners have failed to make a prima facie
~
showing that the application of the two regulations to a particular aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding would not serve the purposes for which they were adopted and that application of In the these regulations should be waived or an exception granted.
f first place, it is pure speculation that PSNH will " file in bankruptcy or that it will be unable to secure funds necessary to operate at low power and to pennanenily shutdown and maintain the facility in a safe condition. Second, even if PSNH does file in. bankruptcy, there_is no suggestion that other Aoplicant-members of the consor%ium are financially incapable of operating and safely _ maintainiaa the facility.
Moreover, it is a matter of speculation as co whether a bankruptcy trustee would be appointed.and wnether he would discontinue efforts to secure a full power operating license.
Further, no reason has been l
presented sugge' sting that any successor to PSNH (be it a reorganized company, or an accuiring ecmpany, or a trustee in bankruptcy) would no:
persevere in efforts to secure a full power operating _ license and to put i
the plant into ecmercial operation, and thereby recover the large investment through its inclusion in the race base.
Finally, as obser/ed m______._
g.
e
.j
-q.' a e;' u..
4 1
,ew, =
- 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 Hamoshire PUC will-authori:e
- cess, adequate funding for safe _ operation through the rate making p will permit charges against customers for payment into the decommissioning cost fund, and will allow costs of.Ch'IP 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 LICE!GING BOARD OO m
Sneicond.Wyj.e,Gnalrr.an ADMINISTRATIM JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th cay of August,1987.
\\
wa
--.-_---a_--_____
- - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - ~
Robert J. Homson 3r t
Naown and cw becuw. cec.
, o/'*-
1 u
j.
.:.?.. '
hTN-87104 8*
Pubk:: Soryke of New Lig tus September 3, 1987
.e*
O,
.se,'-.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Document Control Desk i
'l
References:
a) Facility Operating License NFF-56 Docket No. 50-443 b). USNRC Letter dated August 17, 1987 "Recent Filings by Public Service Cc-.r'any of New Hampshire Before the Securities and Exchange Comission" B. A. Boger to R. J. Barrison I
Recuest for Financial Info =.ation Re:
Gentlemen:
In Reference (b), the NRC recuested clarification as to the ability Public Service Cc=cany of New Ha== shire (FSNHT to provide financial cfcoverage for certain activities at Seanrook Station.
4.,,.
4s
.. s,a.c.,
s 1s 4...
- 4. n c -......
.h.
et. se.,
v.e.,ea participation in Seabrook Station and to successfully O n.
ec=mence cperation.
T::vard that end, PSK:i remains fi c.ly cc=itted to financial and othe:a-ise, to t
prcviding its share of all necessary support, ensure safe low power testi l
j conditien fellowing that testing.
v i.a..,,
e
.... ~...,
,2.,.. a s.,
2 2,..a., s
., s..... :.,.. : _ r..
..., 4 3
..n
..e... :
- 2..
.e......, 5 a : :: 4..a...4.
5
..gy.
,.. a
...a.....,..a g.a.y.
....-. ~....
.......... 8a..u.'...e..e.
A..'
..n.
y
....s
- 7 ;.,~.,
.e...nre,
.'...a.-
e,,,.,.., 1 n.
.a e.
5.,
1.
r.
,. 4. 3. 9 s.m. e...a g....
3.3.,., 1 mm.a.
.%... 3..:.. 4..
i...
1 4.
.e..
y.
....., 4
....e..
ee
.a.;
.4
.e..
- . a.....m.e
.6
.r e..s :
...a 4
.O
..e.,.,.
s.-
.i
,S.
...e.,
...w.
..y.
7.....
4 n
...e. 7 g.,, (.oga.a
- m..
.a........
4.,.a
'L'.~..'*-
w... q....gg
.;.a"..~ e.a.'.. a..N".=*'*
w.
a
.a ica-
.og
.a..e. 3.a.
.a 7..... r.e. J me...
Ag 4.5
-, die bs
=..,
EXHIBIT E
}
1 j
~M,,.
.w.,,, :..:.
- .:,,. X.n.
, v.w.,~.w,.,y o.,., ya, v.,, w :, I s:,,,,,,,.,.,,. ne 16e,,- ) 60 -,..,
w a m ~- :.
e..... w w,
i-w-....
1 3
[,'
i re i-i f
Juo8CWd*
- Pope 2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.y September 3, 1987 cc::nission (NHPUC) for an emeroency rate relief increase of approxbtely
$71,000,000 annually.
'Ihe NHFtX has set hearings on that petition for october 5-9, 1987,..the earliest dates possible after coc:pliance with its regulatory procedures. Second, pursuant to a PS!E request sub:'.itted with the petition, the NHPUC on August 11, 1987, transferred a question of law to the Ba=oshire Supreme Court, cencerning the application of ta Statute New RSA 378:30-a, the so-called anti-Ch7F law, to the Company's investment in the seabrook Station under the extreme financial circumstances currently being experienced by PSNH.
On Septe=ber 2, 1987, that Court issued an order directing the NHPUC to make, on an expedited basis, certain findings of fact regarding the C e y's cash requirements to meet its interest payments, debt
~
maturities, and customer service expansien needs for the remainder of 1987.
The Court indicated that upon receipt of the !EFUC findings it would move pro =ptly to consider the constitutional issues of applicability of the anti-CWIP law to PSNH.
Third, PSNH has instituted a procram of. cash conservation which is designed to substantially reduce iEs 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 E.xchance Commission and with the tEPUC 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 costly due to the lengthy Seabrook Station licensing delays.
Further, the permanent shutdg srenario described in your letter'is censidered ta be a'b';po detical situatien that vill never occur, irrespective of PSNE's fiM ~ 4m'.e" 'us.,
Detailed responses to your questions, which are set forth in tne attachment
-o this letter, have been prepared to the best of our ability based on the assa:ptiens indicated.
If you need any further infor=ation er clarification, please centact me.
Sincerely, Rccer:
. Harrisen R. H: D Ar arn.
AS*_5 Se rvi re '_i s-i l
I
v v,
a 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 l
percent power); and (b) the total cost to permanently ahut down the facilityafter 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 assumpt' ions as to power level, duration of operation, method of fuel disposal or storage and method of permanent shutdown and safe maintenance.
Resconse to NRC Question la:
The current. operating budget for Seabrook Station averages 510 million per month.
In conjunction with the performance of fow power testing,-certain incremental costs beyond the current operating budget will be incurred.
These which cover all required manpower, material and
- costs, electrical power for preparatory work, heatup and actual performance of low power testing, are estimated to be 53_,658,0QO, which will be incurred over a three month
_ peri o d.
A further breakdown is included in Table 1.
PSNE's shate of this cost is 35.56942%, as defined in the Joiht Owners' Agreement, or approximately $1,301,000.
In addition to the above costs, there will be increased costs incurred fer ::emiums on insurance coverage for seabrook' 3:ation associated with the receipt of the low' It power license and upon ec=pletion of low power testing.
is expected that this cost for insurance will increase by approximately $2,785,000 per annum, of which $1,565,000 vill be paid upon receipt cf the low power licepse and 51,220,000 will be paid, in installments, following ccmpletien cf the testing.
PSNE's share of these increased premiums, acgrecating approximately,y S991,000, would be payable at the j
times indicated' above.'
l Restense to NRC Ouestien 15.
Seabr:ck 5:stion's low power testing pr:gran calls
- 0r five :: six days :f inter =:::en: testan; at between 1/'_ Oth Of 1% p:wer and 1/"_0th Of 1% power fe;;0wed y twe days Of intermi :en: testing a: 2% pcwer and ene-half day f
l intermittent: test;ng at 3% power.
These tests w 1. resu;;
- "-1/2 in a fuel burn-up cf approx :ately equ;valen
.o
)
9 effective full power hours and will occur over a period o' three weeks.
.hi the unit would Upon completion of the testing program, be cooled down and' maintained in a cold shutdown (Mode 5)
- Depending on the licensing status at that time,.
condition.
certain systems could be placed in a lay-up condition to The costs afford maximum protection of plant equipment.
~~ associated with these efforts are included in the normal
~
operstTng budget of $10-II mi111on 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 decay heat removal systems and associated
- systems, 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 The have been. reduced below required control limits.
radiological controlled area would then be limited to the The Fuel Storage Building and associated auxiliaries.
. 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 uniti the Joint owners would seek to sell or l
transfer ownership of the fuel to others such that the. fuel could be removed frem the site.
It is estimated that it would take 2-3 years before the fuel could be re--"ad f. rom
- ne s'ite.
In order to deterhine the actual salvage value of the a market analysis fuel after the low power testing program, would have to be undertaken at tha: time together with a
)
study of special costs for handling and shipp ng the fuel.
Although the Jcint owners have not perferned a.r ---mus
]
d study cf these costs, a review.was performed in late 1986 which :.ndicated ha: the salvage value ef the 1:utl would approximately off set the costs of handling and transportation of the fuel to a thini car:y resulting in no cost to the NW owners f er the disposal of the fuel.
net Following.a permanent shutdown of the unit and during the transt : n' period when :ne fuel remains en-site, certain persennel and progran ::s s would be incurred to ensure the in the C n = s '. e sten frei s Cri:e pr:yer s :72~"
P o e.1, 'Ihese dire:: : s:S rre estinE e: :: he Eppi:Xini~ely T700,000 per :: nth wh :h in ;udes : s:s fer Opera:::ns, l
maintenance, health phys es, envir:nmenta; men : ring, j
i I
se:urity and ele :::: power.
2-1
!L z-
- s s
?<
i s
In addition, certain nuclear liability and nucledr property insurance costs, estimate'd not to exceed $2.5 can also be expected to be incurred.
l millior per year, i
are other miscellaneous costs which are not FinalTyT.phere directlyf,related to maintenance of the facility, including such items as taxes, legal, accounting, and other l
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
,'i to exceed the currert J evel of such amenditures or a= proximately $2.2 million.per month, which includes $1.8 d
~ l_.
Therefore, the estimated total _ monthly
~
million for taxes.
operating cost for Seabrook Station while the fuel is being storec'en side in the fuel storage )CIIding'Is' not expected l
to exceed S3.1,millien As indicated in response to question 1(a), all the above monthly costs are for the entire unit.
PSNH's share of those potential costs would be in proportion. o its ownership share (i.e., 35.56942%), or $1.1 million_per l
month.
NRC Ouestion 2:
source of J
Please provide a detailed statement of the 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 o.' low power operation only.
Identify each of the sources as to when it Indicate the will be available and estimated dollar amount.
I assurt; :.1ons ::15er. Lying the projection of each source o#
c.,n s.
a Rescense te NRC Questien 2:
The Seabrook Proj ect is currently being funded by several utility companies (the " Joint owners") which are fer Joint ownershin, participants under the Agreement 1cn of New Eampshire Nuclear Units, Construction and Opera dated May 1, 1973, as amended (the "J in: Ownership i
Agreement").
The Ownership Ehares of these utilities are shown in Table 2.
Approval for funding is determined by the Jeint Owner Executive "--
d-ee or the Jcint Owners forth in collectively in accordance with the procedures set the Joint Ownership Agreement.
Once a funding level has j
been estahl;;hed, each J in Owner is Obligated under the 00;nt Ownershio A_creement to provide ;' s Ovnersni 6 hare Of
- ine ::erE; r.E e::penses Of the Searr ek Pre;e::.
I.-v ::es
are renOered E5 requireO ind PEyments are OUe 7:nthly.
Each s
,01r; Of its ner:El
- : 10.0 Owne: T E'1 3 e s such fundM E5 010Ene;hi 50',*rce s.
The 5eEO-M: L *0- C ~.
- -=1.* * *#.s 2 posit 1Ve,01sh balannS 00 De EVEllable I: Seet its m:nthly
- 3
v
,am.
L, L
- obligations and t'o provide additiopal flexibility should l
fluctuations in monthly cash requirements occur.
~~his l
' account A lance, supplemented by the, Joint owner payments, is the. source for/ meeting. Seabrook Station's cash operating a
- r. requirements.
e
.y a
NRC Question"3:yf',
i In the event that PuMic Service Cc=pany of New
.po Hampshire (PSNE) were to enter ba:Otruptcy proceedings how MM'i
.would this affect PSNE's ability to pay its share of Seabrook's low power operating costs and the costs of permanently shutting the f acility down and maintaining it in a safe condition?
If PSNE were unable to pay its share of costs, what are the sources and likelihood of availability of funds to cover the PSNE's share?
Please describe in detail?
Rescense to NRC Ouestien 3 The initiation of bankruptcy proceedings for PSNE would not o f it self 2 f'f e r
.the. ch l i.ga-i ons _nf. S EE unde r the_
Joidt ownership Aq;eenen-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 centained in executcry contracts a' debtor with bankruptcy court approval has a richt. to reiect' or a!!trm such centracts.
However, because
'of tse magnitude' of PSNE's investment in Seabrook Station (approximately 69% of its : tal assets) and the potential si gnificant level of revenues to be derived from the sale cf Seabrook Statien electricity by PSNE, PSNH intends to make
)
g everv availtble effort to protect that anset.
Even :: a bannruptcy proceecing were to intervene, ?SNE has no intentien of rejecting its contractual obligations under the Joint Ownership Agreement er abandoning its interest in Seabrook Station.
In the event of bankruptcy, PSNH, as deb cr in possession, will have access te a cash flow frem its continuing utility eperatiens md:stantially equivalent to that currently generated by these operations and =ust be assumed to have access to external borrowings for administration expenses.
These ec=bined resources would be
=:re than sufficient to meet.* P s s.hana of the Seabrook S stien low tower operating costs (as enumerated above) due lh prin:ipal'part'recause TE;E w uld have been temporarily re
'="a"
~e chlagar n :: pay interes: char es en ::s outstanding unSe:ured LOdestedness in:urred prier :: the l
institu~L:n f the pre:eedings.
~f Seabre:N 3:1 ict Were subsequently shut dowr these :escur:es w:u_d s.; 1.ariv be m
suffi::ent :: : ver ?SSE's share of the shutdown ::s:s enum*.ratec aceve.
Furthermore, if Searreek Sta ;:n were I
l 4-l l
a
_____ ____ __l shut down after co=pletion of low-power testing, it is 1
i reasonable to conclude that because of the presence of the nuclear fuel and the NRO license conditions with respect thereto, PS)E's obligation to Seabrook Station could not be avoided:by it, a.s a debtor in possession (Midlantic National l
Bank v.~New Jersev Deet. of Environmental Resources, 474' I
U.S. 494 (1986)) and that the cost of meeting those obligations would be an adv. ministration expense (In re Sterns,.68 B.R. 774 (D. Me, 1987)).
.=
Given the nature of the on-going utility operations of PSla after an assumed bankruptcy filing and the ability and ebligation of PSNE, as debtor in possession, to fulfill its commitments to the Seabrook Project and its present intention to do so, PSNH cNuaot hypothesize any plausible situation in which those obligations would remain inpaid.
l 3-l
x,'.
L' Enelnsure to NyN-87104 TABLE'1 f
- .c.
NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE SEABROOK STATION - UNIT 1
(
INCREMENTAL COST.C FOR LOW POWER OPERATION
- J Act'gity Mobilization &
Low Power Total i
Cost Area Heacup Preparation H'estup Testing-(3y Cost Area) 4 Manpower 1,000,550 572,000 667,600 2,240,150 Material 1 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 f or Seabrook Station averages S10 million per month.
- Electrical power service to Seabrook Station during the test progra:
vill all be purchased frem PS.3.
u,_._______
,f Enclosure to NYN-87104 TABLE 2 4
i
^
l Owner Ownershio Share 1.
L Public Service Company of Nev l
Hampshire 35.56952%
The United Illuminating Company 17.50000 EUA Power-Cc'poration 12.13240 r
Massachusetts Municipal 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 L'ight and Power Department 0.07737 100.00000%
Q'*c 7.
CD:KETi3' C
~~
USNR; w
$ ~6 13PF1 :37 SC-21
%o
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION,,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING BOARD j
.Before Administrative Judges:
7 Sheldon 'J. Wolfe, Chair: nan Emmeth A. Luebke JerryHarbour BERVED JUL' 'MN
)
Docket Nos. 50 443-OL-1 In-the Matter of
)
50-444-OL ')
PL'BLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(On-Site Emergency Plan'ning' 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
and Safety Issues)
)
)
(ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
(SeabrookLStation,' Units 1and2)
)
)
iluly 25, 1986 P
l MEMORANDUM AND-ORDER (Rulings on-Applicants' riotion of June 17, 1986, on TH's Motion of June 23,-1986, and on Hearing Matters) i 2
Memorandum I.
Back round
' During the hearing held in August 1953, the then presiding Board 1
. heard evidence upon, among others, three contentions which reia:Ed to onsite emergency planning and safety issues.,0n Aucust 2?; 1953, the i
1 NECNP Centention I.B.2 asserted tha: Ao:licants had nct satisfied the requirements of GDC 4 that all ecuipment important to safety be environmentally qualified because Applicants had failed :c specify the time duration over which the ecuipment was cualified.
L l
Similar Contentions NECNP III.1 and NH-20 asserted, in substance, i-(Footnote Continued) 4 i
t EXHIBIT I' L.
.,f Board closed the record and, in an Order of Sectember 15, 19E2, dire::ed 4
that all parties file, proposed findings. The Applicants, the NRC 5:aff' I
and the Intervenor, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP),
The filedproposedfindingIwithrespecttoNECNPContention1.3.2.
Applicants, the Staff, and NECNP filed proposed findings with respect to J
Contentions NECNP III.1 and NH-20, and the State of New Hampthire filed.
l proposed findings with respect to NH-20. Applicants' reply findings were ultimately filed on November 23, 1983.
The present Board was appointed on September 9, 1985 to preside }
In an Order of !
over all safety and onsite emergency planning issues.
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 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 submit ed by the Applicants in final form and tha; the Staff had not :cmoleted its reviews cf other submissions, our Order of November 4, 1955 (unpublished) stated as f ollows :
We have reviewed the re:crd ar.d have cor & ced that the re:ctd neecs to be reopened for the limited purocse of (Pootnote Continued) tnat the emergency plans did nc: ::ntain an adecuate emergen:y classification s:neme as recuired by 10 C.F.P.. !5C.'7 and A:cerd'x E, and by NUP.EG-0554
- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - - - - ~ -
,.. Ju
- ., y t
V/,
3-
~
It is not cur intentionJand we _will.~ not s uppl emen'* 'i nn.
permit the retrying of issues heard before thel closing of-the record:en August.23, 1983.. After a prehearing, conference, and.af ter discovery, if any, a. supplementary
- hearina will-be ordered to take evidence on the abnve-identified matters pertaining tn Contentions NECNP I.B.2,.
NECNP III~.1 and NH.20,' which involve significant nealth
_i
. and~ safety issues, and which were not. prev'ausly ripe for
. hearing.
2 If NH Contention 10 is not inforully resolved, evidence
~ ill be taken on that contention as well during the' w
j, supplementary hearing.
Thereafter, in the~ Order of January 8, 1986 (unpublished), the -
Staff w$s requested to furnish reports upon the status of its revisions to 'certain' documents identified in the Order of November 4,1985.
A Ultimately, on June 4,1986, the Staff appended to its fifth monthly i
s status report copies of Section 13.3 and Section 18. which will appear in Supplement 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER 4) when published.-
Section 13.3 reflects the Staff's completed review of the Seabrook
~
emergency classif'ication' and action level schemes (the focus of NECNP Section 18 reflects Contention:III.1 and New Hampshire Contention 20).
the Staff's review of the Seabrook control room design (the focus of NH Contention 10).' On June 11, 1986, the Staff submitted copies ci-9 During crehearing proceedings in 19S2, the Board had pemi;ted the w
Seacoas: Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) :o participate as e join:
.l
'intervenor.with respec to NH-10.
See. Memorandum and Order of l
In :ne Septer:ber 13,19E2, LSP-S2-75,16 NRC 1029,1053.
f among other :nings, the Memorancum and Order of July'21, 1936, Board granted New Hampshire's mction Oc withcraw its Contention 10, and ruled that said contention was converted to and replaced by SAPL Supplemental Contention 6, which would reflect the icentical (Foc:noteContinued)
4 e
l 3
Section 3.11, which will appear in SSER 5, when published.
Section 3.11 1
reflects the Staff's completed review of the Applicants' environmental qualification of electrical equipment (the focus of NECNP Contention
\\
1.B.2);
6 On June 17, 1986, Applicants filed a motion requesting that the 3
Board,take the following actions:
1.
To incorporate into the hearing record as evidence therein Section 13.3 of SSER No. 4 and the environmental qualification I
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 J
thereto, SAPL and Mass AG to state whether they desire any cross-examination with respe:;; 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 reouested 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 authori:ing oceration of Seabrook Uni:
Nc. 1 up to and including 5t of rated power.
II.
Discussion of Submissions Opoosing, In Part, The Acolicants ' Mo:icn of June 17. 1985 1.
The Town of Hamp;cn (TH)
On June 23, 1985, in a submission, in the fem of a motion, TH partially excepted to the Applicants' mction of June 17, 1935 pparently (Foc ne:e Continued) worcing and basis c
- omer Con;ention UH-10.
See L5P-05-:2, :'
NRC _.
o d parties and because Applicants' motion sought to prevent intereste
' motion) from fully participants-(other than those named in Applicants l
participating in'this, proceeding.
se of July o
and the NRC Staff objected in a respon on June 27, 1986, f
in requesting
]
11, 1986.
We consider TH's exceptions only to the extent that, l
d ced on its own a hearing and permission to participate, they are a van As Applicants point out, the 3
behalf and to protect its own interests.
indicate with 20, 1982 had directed TH to Board's Order of December hich it desired to reasonable specificity the subject matters on wApplicant participate but that TH did not comply.
ite emergency I
TH failed to file proposed findings with respect to the ons The Staff points out that TH does no note planning and safety issues.
and vaguely allude to the i
than assert a general desire to have a hear ngficiencies in the i
j Chernobyl acciden't - i.e., TH fails to specify the de i
i NECNP Contentions i
relevant sections of SSER's 4 and 5 that relate to l
Finally, we note that at no time during i
/
1.3.2 and III.1 and to NH-20.
entative of TH even
\\
the Aucust 1953 evidentiary hearing did a repres l
te Clearly s2.715(c) of our Rules of Practice coes not man appear.
l i
lity does l
TH's status as a 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) interested munic pa i ioants in this not make it a spokesman fer etner parties or cart : Sound 3
Nuclear Power 7 0fect, Units. anc 1), ACA5-555, 1(Aliens Crel See Puce:
4 preceedinc.
(1979); Houston Lich:ine and Power Comoany,,, ALA5-544, 9 12 63l Generatihg Station, uni:
i, I
i j
I f-
, I that an interested municipality must file proposed findings.
- However, TH's f ailure to file proposed findings of f act, its f ailure to comply with the Groer of December 20, 1982, its failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing upon onsite 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 Denuine interest in participating in this case wherein the record has been reopened for the limited purpose of supplementing the evidence
~
t pertaining to the aforementioned NECNP and NH contentions.
Accordingly, j
TH's motion is denied, and it may not participate.
2.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL)
)
1 1
In,a, response of June 27, 1986, SAPL does not oppose Applicants' motion of June 17, provided all parties to this proceeding are alloved to participate in the hearing with respect to the issues allegedly 1
l I
resolved by Secti'on 13.3 of SSER 4 and by Section 3.11 of SSER S, and provided that the Board's partial initial decision will not authori:e operation of Seabrook Unit No.1 up to 5'; of rated power.
As reflected in the cases cited in footncte 2, above, an intervenor's s:::us 'as a party does not make it the spokesman for other parties and participants.
Thus, we consider only whether SA?L has a rient to participate in the hearing.
Furtner, we reje:: SAPL's se: nd condition sin:e '.0 C.F.R.
52.753(a) precludes a Licensing Ecard from considering attacks or challenges to the Cc mission's rules or regulations and since SAF'.. in any event, has not complie: with !2.755 proce:ures fer petitioning :ne:
--'------______m
-s.,
.g
,, ~,.
1
-7' I
i
.y.
the application'of $550.47(d) and'50.57(c) be waived or an: exception.be I::
made in this proceeding.-
.However,.in,its response SAPL, unlike TH, specifies what it deems 4
to be deficiencies in 5'ections 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 haring.5 :We 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 Conterdion 6 (seeMemorandumandOrderof~ July 21,1986). Thus,' although SAPL did 1,
not file proposed findings of fact after the closing of the record with regard to' Contentions'NECNP I.S.2, NECNP.III.1, and NH-20, we conclude that SAPL has shown.a genuine interest in participating in the reopened hearing'and may participate therein.
3.1 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.
O We are not told and we do not decide at this time whether the alleged deficiencies are within the scope of Contentions NECNP l
I.B.2, NECNP III.1, NH-20 and SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 (f ormerly - NH-10).
See especially footnote 3 of the Memorandum and Order of July 21, 1986.
_g.
\\
operating license for operation not in excess of 5% rated power.
Standing alone, the objection (like SAPL's) is denied as being a challenge to the, Commission's regulations which is barred by 52.758(a1.
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. %2.758.
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 52.758(b) and moreover has raised issues that have been previously rejected by the Commi.:.Gion.
Thus, the petition is being denied since Mass, has not made a prima facie showing tha't the application of f50.47(d) in this proceeding would not serve the purpose for which the regulation was adopted and that the application of the regulation should be waived or an exception granted.
No purpose would be served by delaying the issuance of the instant Memorandum and Orcer until after the formal issuance of our determination with respec: to the Mass. !2.758 petition.
Accordingly, we deny the objection to the granting of Applicants' motion.
Mass.
attended the August 1953 evidentiary hearings and, as an interested State, it may continue to participate in the reopened hearing.
j[. :..,
r 31. -
N.)
.g.
- 4.. : New England Coalition 'On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP)
OnL0uly 2,.1986, NECMP' filed an opposition to Applicants ' motion Efor issuance of. partial' initial decision authorizing low power-operation. Therein, NECNP' concedes that it challenges the Commission's interpretation:of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.57(c).and challenges 10 C.F.R. 550.47(d).
It argues that 650.57(c) "may only be interpreted to require
'the completion'of all hearings. relevant to full power operation before i
'any'. license. including' a license authorizing low power operation, is
.fssued."- With ' respect.to '950.47(d), it argues that it is neither necessary nor appropriate' to request a waiver pursuant'to 52.758 because 550.47(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 a
1:
consideration of such matters because it has'neither the jurisdiction nor authority.either to consider challenges to the Commission's i
' interpretation of its own regulations or to consider challenges to a
. Commission regulation on the ground that it is centrary to 'the Atomic Energy Act.6-NECNP does not otherwice 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).
6' 10 C.F.R. 52.758(a); see Potomac Electric Power Concany (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating 5ta:1on, Units 1 anc Z), ALAS-215, 8 AEC 79,'89 (1974).
i
- - - -. - _ _ -. -. _ -. - -. _ ~ - _.. _.
,l i
- 10 1
Since.NECNP participated in the 1983 hearing, cross-examined and filed proposed findings of fact with respect to Contention I.B.2 and specifies 1
what it deems to be deficient in the Applicants' reports and in Section l
3.11 of SSER 5,7 its request is granted.
f 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,ce issuance of an operating license for operation of Seabrook Unit I up to and including 5% of rated power.
3.
With respect to hearing matters:
a.
During the reopened hearing, the Scard will receive supplementary evidence upon NECNP Contention I.B.?
and upon NECi!P III.1 and NH-20.
The Scard will also 7
We are not told and we co not decide at this time whether the alleged deficiencies are within the scope cf NECMP Contention 1.3.2, see especially foc ncte 3 cf the Femorancum and Order of July 21, 1986.
i l
~r~r-..i, 1
4-
- f'
'11 -
Q
)
receive evidence.upon SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 l
l'
.{
_ formerly NH-10).
(
i i
L b.
Since the Sta'ff has advised in a letter of. July 23, 1
/
1986,-that copies of SSER 4 were served on June 11, 1
1
.1986 and that it expected.that SSER 5 would be published'and served within the next two weeks,1the Staff should offer these two documents into evidence as exhibits in~ order to. comply with 10 C.F.R. 2.743(g).
c.
SAPL,LNECNP, the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and, of course, the 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. HECNP, however, indicates that it wishes to participate only with 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 "H-10),
may participate with respect to this contentien.
d.
Discovery shall begin immediately.
With respect to written interrogatories and requests for prcduction of documents, August 8, 19S6 is the final due date for the serving thereof by express mail. Answers
. to interrogatories : hall 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, f.
The reopened hearing will be held in a four-day j
session sometime between September 29 and October 10.
4 As soon as hearing room accommodations are st-an Order will be issued specifying the date, time n.
i location of the hearing, g.
At the beginning of the reopened hearing, the parties (including any s2.7^.5(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 52.715(c) entity) will not be permitted to cross-exanine if it fails to submit a cross-examination plan.
These l
plans must set forth the cross-examination questions to be asked, and explain what is being attem::ted to be i
l established through asking a discrete question or l
pursuing a series of cuestions.
Each plan will be l
incorporated into the record upon completion cf a party's l
l 1
cross-examination.
1 l
l l
I.
- 7. -
l h.
In ligh+. 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 LICErlSING BOARD MN. S lb d Snelcon J. WoWe, ChaiYman ADMINISTRATIVE]UDGE Af #7%[
Jerry Hartrour lMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Y 0. f W
Emme:n A. LuebKe ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at "ethesda, tiaryland this E5th day of July, 1986.
I i
i 1
- i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission In the matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 50-444-OL OF NEW BAMPSHIRE (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.
Paul McEachern Name:
Address:
.25 Maplewood Avenue
'P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone No.
(603) 436-3110 First Circuit Court of Appeals Admissions:
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
/
4J
(
Paul McEachern Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth NH 03801 EXHIBIT G
.)
F. --.ff
- e.:
l' ~ _..;
~
. ~.
f
]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l In'the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY-Docket Nos.. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
-: (Seabrook Station,. Units. I and II)
NOTTCE OP APPEAPANCE
-In accordance with 10 CFR.Section 2.713 (b), the undersigned
. attorney. files this Notice'of Appearance.
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.
United 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 y 11\\
&~
Matthew T. Brock Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue P. O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- s 1
l M TIFICt.TE OF SEFVICE I, Matthew T. Brock, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on the 21st day of Februarv 1986, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Administrative Judge 'Belen 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 Department of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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, NE 03105 Diane Curran, Esquire Anne Verge, Chairperson Harmon & Weiss Board of Selectmen 1725 I Street, N.W.
Town Hall Suite 506 South Hampton, NE 03S27 Dashington, DC 20006
o*". *b i
Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Patrick J. McKeon The Town of-Bampton. Falls Selectmen's' Office Drinkwater Road 10 Central Road Hampton' Falls, NH Rye, NB 03870 l
Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney The Town of'Kensin'gton City Manager RFD 1 City Hall East Kingston, NB 03827-125 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Bumphrey 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 Gordon J. Bumphrey.
Mr. Richard E. Sullivan U.S. Senate Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Ball (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Town Manager's Office Mr. Thomas Powers Town Hall Town Manager Town of Exeter Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913
~
Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn Brentwood Board of Selectmen Assistant General Counsel RFD Dalten Road l
Office of General Counsel Brentwood, NE 03833 l
Federal Emergency Management Agency Gary W. Holmes, Esquire 500 C Street, S.W.
Holmes & Ells Washington, DC 20472 47 Winnacunnet Road j
Eampton, NE 03841 l
Richard A. Bampe, Esquire Stephen E.
Merrill, Esquire Bampe & McNicholas Attorney General Office of the Attorney 35-Pleasant Street Concord, NE 03301 General 25 Capitol Street George Dana Bisbee Concord, NE 03301-6397 l
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 5 Capitol Street Concord, NE 03301-6397 l-L
\\ C. [
MN Matthew T. Brock i
2
o-g o-e i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
September 25, 1987 In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
On-Site Emergency
)
Planning &
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and )
)
Technical Issues
)
INTERVENERS' CORRECTION OF ERRATA AND SUBSTITUTION OF CORRECTED PAGE 14 TO 3
" INTERVENERS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM 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 TQ OPERATE ANIl TQ DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION" The brief submitted by Interveners Town of Hampton, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League on September 24, 1987 inadvertently omitted a signature line on page 14.
Interveners hereby submit a corrected and signed page 14 of Interveners' brief.
Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON By Its Attorneys SHAINES & McEACHERN Profes ional Ass ion b
By Paul McEachern J
%\\
By \\
h / \\
C' %
Dated:
September 25, 1987 Matthew T. Briick p,-
2B MAPLEWOOD AVEM?E P O BOX 360 PORTSMOL7TH NN 0B801
g.
I p'.d
',k vp fu,
{:-
n
)
c TOWN OF'BAMPTON, NEW ENGLAND
' COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, and SEACOAST.' ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE i
N.
l-
. Dated:
September'25, 1987 By N
t 1
_ Authorized Representative l
l i
2 5HAINES E McEACHERN. PROFES$10NAL ASSOC 6ATON 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE a P O BOX D60 PORT 5 MOUTH. N M. 06801 l
a
i f'l y
a l
Additionally, the f act that Town of Hampton counsel-signed, in the petition, as " authorized representative' f or SAPL and NECNP is l
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
-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 i
merits of Interveners' petition..
For-reasons stated, the decision of the Wolfe Board should be reversed and Interveners' petition certified directly to the Commission.
Respectfully submitted, I
TOWN OF HAMPTON, By Its Attorneys, SHAINES & McEACHERN Professional Association By Paul McEachern b
%N i
l Dated:
September 1, 1987 By I
Matthew T. Brock N
TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION and SEACOAST l -
ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE N..
m b
Dated:
September b 1987 By m
Authorized Representative 14 l
SHAINES Es McEACHERN a PROFESSIONAL ASSOC 6ATioN 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P O. BOX 360 PORTSMOUTM. N N 03801 l
L l
Y ~
.m
' [e ; "' V o ;
p 00CKE TED T
USMC CERTIFICATE QE SEBYICE g4g I, Matthew T. Brock, one of t.he attorneys f or the Town 'of' Haispton herein, hereby certify that on October 8, 1987, I mad pe f oregoing document, INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR LEAVE T D
SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENERS' APPLICATIONS FOR A STAY-OF LICE BOARD ORDER' AUTHORIZING OPERATION UP TO FIVE PERCENT OF RATED POWER by depositing copies thereof.in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid f or delivery (or, where indicated, by Express Mail, prepaid) addressed to:
- Ivan Smith, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
.(Off-Site)
(Off-site & On-Site)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
East West Towers' Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East. West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Judge Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board Panel
~(Off-Site)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
. East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- Philip Ahrens, Esq.
- Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General George H. Lewald, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Kathryn A. Selleck, Esq.
(
State House Ropes & Gray Station 6 225 Frankin Street Augusta, ME 04333 Boston, MA 02110'
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
- Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Office of the Exec. Legal Dir.
Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Allan R. Fierce, Esq.
Tenth Floor Department of the Atty. General 7735 Old Georgetown Road One Ashburton Place Bethesda, MD 20814 Boston, MA 02108 j
I l
1 l
SHAl.JCS 6. McEACHERN < PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATION 25 MAPLIEWOOD AVENUE P. O BOX 960 PORTSMOUTH. N.H 03801 L________
I
,4
.JIl42)3
,>=8' l
i Bf:69 Q-T30 TF l
l p! il
/. '. t.- ?.,
- s' l +;f
f*
i i
j
'f' i
- Diane Curran, Esq.
- George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Andrea C. Perster, Esq.
Stephen E. Merrill, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 State House Annex l
Washington, DC 20009-1125 Concord, NH 03301 i
- Edward A. Thomas Robert A. Backus, Esq.
l Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency Backus, Meyer & Solomon t
442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 111 Lowell Street Boston, MA 02109 Manchester, NH 03105 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Jane Doughty Board of Selectmen Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 13-15 Newmarket Road 5 Market Street Durham, NH 03824 Portsmouth, NH 03801 William S. Lord, Selectman Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Town Hall Drinkwater Road Friend Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Amesbury, MA 01913 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.
Washington, DC 20472 Stanley W. Knowles Richard E. Sullivan Board of Selectmen Mayor P.O. Box 710 City Hall North Hampton, NH 03862 Newburyport, MA 01950 J.P. Nadeau, Selectman Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Selectmen's Office Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road Town of Salisbury Rye, NH 03870 Salisbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Serstor Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 0301 (Attn:
Tom Burack)
(Attn:
Herb Boynton)
William Armstrong Allen Lampert Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director 10 Front Street Town of Brentwood Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter, NH 03833 2
SHAINES & McE ACHERN EmOFE$$40NAL AS$0C6ATON F9 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P O Box B60 PORTSMOUTM. N M C5401
pl D s-E p
F Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
L Hampe and McNicholas Holmes and Ellis 35 Pleasant Street.
47 Winnacunnet Road Concord,1NH 03301 Hampton, NH 03842 Charles P.
Grah am, Esq.
Calvin A. Canney, City Manager McKay,' Murphy & Graham City Hall 100' Main Street 126 Daniel Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis Brentwood Board of Selectmen
-Town of Kensington RFD Daltcn Road RFD 1, Box 1154 Brentwood, NH 03833 East Kensington, NH 03827 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mr. Thomas H. Powers, III Board of Selectmen Town Manager.
Town Office Town of Exeter Atlantic Avenue 10 Front Sreet j
No. Hampton, NH 03862 Exeter, NH 03833 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Mr. Peter Mathews Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Fine, Mayor Good & Mizner City Hall 88 Broad Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing l
Appeal Board Appeal Board j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
i East West Towers Building East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway l
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 1
- Howard A. Wilber
- Sheldon J. Wolfe,. Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Board (On-Site)
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
East West Towers Building East West Towers Building Third Floor Mailroom 4350 Eat West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesa, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- Thomas M. Roberts i
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 3
I SHAINES En McC ACHERN. PRO 45$10NAL ASSOOATION 25 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P O BOK B60. PORTSMOWH. N H 0480t i
~ _. - -. ~ -
. c i
l f* Frederick M. Bernthal
- Kenneth M. Carr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
j Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i
- Kenneth C. Rogers
- Emmeth A. Luebke i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Board (On-Site)
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1 East West Towers Buiding 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Ql i
~s Eatthew T. Brock
- UPS Next Day Air
- Copies of attached documents, INTERVENERS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50. 33 (f)
AND 50. 47 (a) (4) TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICNTS TO DEMON-STRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION SEABROOK 1
STATION and INTERVENERS' CORRECTION OF ERRATA AND SUBSTITUTION OF l
CORRECTED PAGE 14 TO " INTERVENERS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO WAIVE REGULATIONS 50.33 (f) AND 50.57 (a) (4) TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DEMON-STRATE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE AND TO DECOMMISSION SEABROOK STATION," were served on September 24 and 25, 1987, l
I respectively on all parties with the exception of the Commissioners.
i 4
SH AINES f McE ACHERN. PHorESSION AL A55COATION P5 MAPLE wCK1D AVENUE P O E10x 360 PORT f, MOUTH N H D3act m ~-
a