ML20246E535

Affidavit of SM Pollard.* Supports View That Operation of Plant Not in Public Interest & Not Justified by New England Electricity Needs,Per Util Application for Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.1.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20246E535
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/21/1989
From:	P0Llard S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20246E416	List: ML20246E411 ML20246E502 ML20246E525 ML20246E535
References
OL, NUDOCS 8908290170
Download: ML20246E535 (13)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ -

T

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before-the

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

')

In the Mattere of. ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL c ) 5 0-4 4 4 -OL

- PUBLIC: SERVICE COMPANY OF ) (Emergency Planning NEW: HAMPSHIRE.- et _al.- ) Issues)

)

- (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

, AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON M. POLLARD I, Sharon M. Pollard, h. reby depose and say as follows:

1.' I am the Secret ary of the Executive Office of Energy Resources'for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hold'a cabinet-level position in the - Administration of Gove enor Michael S . Duk ak i s .

2. On August 16, 1989, I received and read the

- application for exemption f rom the requirement of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.1, that an onsite emergency planning exercise be conducted within one year before the issuance of a f ull-power operating license for Seabrook Unit 1 made by the joint owners Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) et al. I also received and read the affidavit of Edward A. Brown, president and Chief Executive Officer of the New Hampshire Yankee Division of PSNH which was attachment p A of the application.

8908290270 890321 PDR ADOCK 05000443 c _ __ _' O r .

nu _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ .

PDR

L *'

l j-j.

3. In paragraphs 14,15,16, and~ 18 of Mr. Brown's affidavit, he asserts that. New England has experienced " severe short' ages of electrical power during both the summer. and winter peak demand periods," and suggests that operating Seabrook would be a reliable way to solve this problem. Mr. Brown's affidavit paints. an- incorrectly bleak picture of the current electric supply situation and. ignores key f acts about!New Engl and's need for electricity.

4. While . New Engl and is current ly in a tight energy supply situation, the region has not experienced severe shortages or blackouts due to New England-wide capacity deficiencies. According.to the director of power planning for the New England Power Pool (NEP00L), there were only isolated, localized problems ' due to malf unctions in the distribution system during the record heat wave of 1988. In fact, NEPOOL has demonstrated this year that with proper capacity planning and maintenance scheduling, the region can' accommodate its current demand for electricity without Se ab rook . Because of improved pl anning , the region was able to manage its new summer peak without using any emergency operating procedures, and has had excess capacity to sell to neighboring grids. ,

5. Mr. Brown correctly st ates th at New Engl and's electrical energy consumption increased 5.3% and 5.2% in 1987 and 1988 respectively. But he neglects to report that power usage is up just 0.9 percent in 1989, according to NEP00L.

Because the economy in the region is slowing down, and utilities and customers are installing energy efficiency measures, the demand for energy 'is growing at a considerably 1

slower pace.

6. Contrary to.Mr. Brown's assertion, the electricity 1 capacity situation is likely to change for the.better soon due-1 to increased conservation investments, and the growing i

" i availability of independent cogeneration - and small power I facilities. l

7. Six' of the Massachusetts utilities (and utilities in -l I

, other New England st ates) are currently working collaboratively j 1

with the -Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy Resources, l

the Massachusetts Attorney General, and environmental groups to f I

design and implement energy efficiency programs for all j customer classes. Those measures can be implemented within a j i

six-month to two year time frame at one-third the cost of' l l

traditional power supply options. In its 1987 report entitled  ;

i

" Power' to Spare," the New England Energy Policy Council fo und ,

i that,. at full efficiency, New England could be using less electri:ity and generating capacity than it is using today even with"the level and pace of economic growth predicted by the region's utilities by the year 2005. A report prepared for the Boston Edison Company by a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government concluded that Boston Edison alone could save 1000 megawatts by the year 2000.

8. With respect to cogeneration, developers bid projects totalling 11,763 megawatts in response to 8 utility l

l requests for proposals in 1987 and 1988, demonstrating the tremendous amount of energy ready to be developed in the region. On August 15, 1989, Boston Edison Company received proposals for 48 projects representing a total of more than 2800 megawatts of generating capacity, in response to its solicitation for 200 megawatts.

i.

- ___ __ _ L

i

9. Mr. Brown suggests that operating Seabrook would be-good for customers ' and businesses in the region.

The $5.6 billion current price tag for the reactor clearly makes it the most expensive energy option in New England. Its steep cost te consumers would most likely result'in businesses leaving the region. According to the New Hampshire Business and Industry Council 's s urvey, a substantial number of businesses said they would produce their own power if the plant came on line, and many said that they would leave the st ate. It is also important to. note that NEP00L's data shows that the region will need a higher reserve margin with Seabrook operating than if it does not operate.

10.. planning for appropriate contingencies and proper maintenance scheduling are the key to an adequate supply of energy for the New England region. Operating Seabrook unless each of the NRC. requirements are f ully met, is not in the public interest, and is most certainly not justified by New England's electricity supply needs.

I declare under penalty of 'ury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/

l

~

e Sharon M. F ollard Executed on August 21, 1989.

3661C L _:_ __-- - _ _-=

<#y

4. r j.

i l

l-i y.

, n. ,

3

'- u T g Y

,r.' .

, q.s . .. . - ../.. ~

5 9

m i er S

,4 , -

'.I,'st ,.,.

3

'> gi 19 T: 4

• ))_

1

,- el #

.pge w: :(, -p:s, + r s .

a *

. , . a ,

. EXHIBIT-M. j;M, {,rL,P..

q-.

m r 4

, e

• n

- /, f a, .y'4. - 91 ; ,,

,- g--'1

',p.

'.-gf; ;- .p+ A

.r.

S'i'

+

4

. (.4f,g ,

i, p y f'p' .'

s

• 7 ( #5y , ,,

r-og i9 .

-.y<. <, Q: .r y 'N' .-pp4 9 pg gi '7.g s v

4..m.',

s J , p--e. , t..h 4

a 1A,'4,yN%

v 4

,+pp.

,7, ..'.r, i b

3 'T'= , Q s 14, .,,,.$.

• P w.y])$0'l *

, *.! t s t ' '"

+. ..x: . .*n

.,;% , ,~ ~ . r ., .. . , sn

$.y ;; i s '

t . -

+

,  ;?Q ^

1. ( ,, g;g g' ' -

. . ,. e 4

o . .

b

- e ,

4_ -

y , 3

+ r ,g ,1' + *

4. + .. ,

.s,.k. , ya. ,$ '

+ . .,- -V4 B p t' -}M.e. . .,!1 - ,i,..r'.S -

- ,#y a x--

...y 4 ,p ; yy 3

-W ,j.

', (7 * <

,y c' , ,;,r 1

< 4

~

W;. - r,,- w. i i '-

~w

• e r'-+w N<*. .-

I'..s

,(*a' ' ,-, ,;../.b,E' l.O x e w.$' '~{s,.y u,.

g .j*gt'k 8

=._'b }LM ' '

--#'i.,l s,

'_.jg'A',).- 4 %'- :.'.,y

- '-_-+

,7,-

g p

• 1

',O L

,m.. v_ > YS

..v - ., s ,. .5x q d*rlA J u ~,

? c_.w. ..,- $, %.p. , ,l' ',g y ,.%.. * . .

, g4;g;,p.scg',.',.

, f :ll -

' y3 pmyt,; N, .

4,,, e - M.,*.;..,

, d

_.,.e.

M. '(f. 3

- n.W 'B f.

,+ ~~g, . .... ; n; e ,, s

, ~ > > .

, tt, fq, j ' n,, 's a

' ,y[ s 's.., .

9,',94M,. s > , l3~k' r g;,, g,

.,k?shff- ,

.h Q( ..I,_f m:._.:'m,,

-[lEy h,, ':h'Yh:. ~ V'f,, , ~ 9, .e a::

n , h; -

2

, .- ' [< v

1_, .'].?.. *Jf F . AL f;,m0*

,t*

. fm;. l",',#

q: s jo',

,Q % * ,rs l.4s sq ' ,- ' . , . ,hy i

+,.

- 1r s

- #. - ._4 ~g s V

n Ql j,WQv84/4 ' ~&'<h v&' k v  ;:p%g

,_?. .

- j% ' ;; +;;R G >

.. 3. .

?

, ,y r < u 3

~ i? ,, c&q*

fy;, Q

• e , e ,

,*; y ,

s a

y m;.;;; 3ng;p;;T.1 ,y.

. ~.n -

' , , ' ',,s~-j 'v-.,+ ._.k+,t.

1. g. # , , >,r_ , G ,J v . : e> ' st.' ,

-,g. f - y 1

b g > 4 "44.1 ' - . q,4' p +- .h Na . . ,4 s.

,, N, b#;} -.y 4

,. . . . wh '-,.'m,a,-,

s w '

, .,3,-

,f (A * . *

'n(rN .

"f

g. ,.

' ,g' MS N,-['.'.p . Y "' i ..

k- , , ., , .

• /C M $

'N :0[ , " '

U! , 9 * , j gw n

a , ,u

. s 4

s y y, t u.. .,, : t -

qte,

.s 74,:. , r .  :

1 . 4.

- r r

A 't5 * 'y

' _e %..' %o tmery, f sL ,.s- < - , <

r

, 'l ,'p.+

'^;y + ,a ' .

e ., . ,.

pg. L p h, -% '+h.,'.

&,,' L

(

y .. & 4 , f- 4 sy -[ '., ;, g'Mr' ,, 7g .,

'_ 4 , . og .-rPg.

' ' '+ , , '

t ' - : y N

't', '

. , p,. c 4 ' . ,

s V ', w', / .c.;,

.e-.

._a'g k ta 4k ,_ A r b 6

" *  ?

, ,s 4

+ 1

'y 9.*q , g y

1. ), e .,.. g 1 g .4 ..'l*4..

) ).yq- .c *6,f, , l f'*-(

0 j ' . Men ' {

1 oshf .

• w, A

I P

I i

N

. j V \

x

, k ,

Q a, '.;J v

? 8 1.. ,

..w.-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS-FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, )

et al., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. ) Nos. 89-1306

) 88-1821 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY, ) 88-1919 COMMISSION and the UNITED ) 88-1817 STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondents. )

)

DECLARATION OF SHARON M. POLLARD I, Sharon M. Pollard, hereby declare under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 51'746 as follows:

1. 1 am the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy Resources for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hold a cabinet-level position in the Administration of Governor Michael S. Dukakis.

2. On May 22, 1989 I received and read the Declaration of Jr,mes D. Watkins, Secretary of Energy, filed in this case.

The Declaration is quite similar to testimony given on April 1 9 by W. Henson Moore, the Deputy Secretary of Energy thc U. S . Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources concerning electricity supply and demand in the Northeast region.

3. Because, as I understand it, this Court will

-shortly rule on the Petitioners' Emergency Stay Motion

I concerning low power testing at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, I have not had the opportunity to address specifically each point raised by Secretary Watkins. However, the attached letter from me to Deputy Secretary Moore summarizes the responses of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the issues raised by both the Secretary and his Deputy.

4.

They are simply incorrect in arguing that " energy security, economic and environmental corrections" weigh against delay in Seabrook being issued a license. Least-cost integrated planning, energy efficiency measures and load management will result 32 reliable, cost-effective and safe energy for New England, without the real environmental, safety and economic costs of operation of Seabrook.

I declare under penalty of per ry that the foregoing is true and correct.

e ,

ouaron M. Po11 arf ~

Executed on May 23, 1989

(

t

=

.h

-1 so he $cmmomcrathkIr/- [ ackuxf6 59' z

. 2 .

$recutive &}lce$ef neryy $ncarces

/00 Wam/rWye $ reel Soom /5CO WCHAEL 5 DUKA80E' ##!#* #N#I S#

oonmNon

$NARON M. POLLASO saca Tame 16171 727-4732 May 15, 1989 Honorable W. Henson Moore Deputy Sec re tary U.S. Department of Energy i

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Deputy Secretary Moore,

I want ed to take this opportunity to respond to and clarify some of the issues you mentioned in your April 13, 1989 t e s t imo ny before the U.S.

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' concerning electricity supply and demand in the Northeast region.

In your real to advocate for the commercial operation of the Seabrook nuclear plant, you made some arsertions that were simply false, a nd ignored other facts about New England 's need for electricity.

The most egregious " misstatement" in your teseisony occurs on page four where you refer to "... rolling blackouts which year..."

were experienced repeatedly in New England this past This assertion is false, and paints an incorrectly bleak picture of the current electric supply situation.

Contrary to your assertion, New England did not experi "ralling blac kouts" during the summer of 1988.

Accord director of power planning for the New England P o we r - FOOL), there were only isolated, localized blacko to asifunctious in the distribution systes, not due te.

states Is ad-wide capac ity deficiencies, as your gests .

Whils we did not experience any rolling blackouts last y ee a r , we de share your concern about the region's energy supply situation. That concern led the New England Governors' Conference, Inc. (NEGC) to study the issue and prepare a report on its findfags in late 1986. The study assessed New England's electricity supply situation under base and contingency scenarios and concluded that supplies would be tight for the

D -

1 near future, serica of actions but couldwere be adequate for the l o n g- t e rm if a taken regulators and state policy ma immediately ke rs. by utilities, g

The Massachusetts Executive Of fice of Energy Resources (E0ER) has beenofworking recommendations since early 1987 to implement the that report.

effort Specifically, E0ER ha s led the sta t e 'stoDepart establish me nt of "least cost integrated planning" at the clarify and streamline Public Utilities (DPU), which would j Massachusetts electric and prioritize those utiliti regulation in i the most resource options that are economically and environmentally sound.

One of those options measures, which can be implemented includes energy ef ficiency year time supply f ra me options. ac one-third the cost within a six month of traditional to two powe r the New England Energy In its 1987 repbrt entitled " Power to Spare,"

ef ficiency, New England couldPolicy Couacil found that, at full be using less electricity and generating and pace capacity of economic than growth predictedtoday even with the level it is using by the year 2005. Similarly, by the region's utilities Edison Company by a professor at a report prepared for the Boston School of Government Harvard University's Kennedy save 1000 megawatts by concluded the year that 2000.Boston Edison alone could i

potential, E0ER is working with the a

To fully realize this c olla bo ra ti ve effort to design and implement utilities in New England in reduce and be tter ma programs to that these measures, nage elec tricity demand.

along with additional natural E0ER believes resources, gas power supplies, further use of cogeneration, small and independent generation will lead acdusthe towacreation rd a more of new electric utility reliable ene rgy f u ture.

Within the least-cost planning framework, nuclear powe r plants light.

such as Seabrook are The $5.6 billion currentseenprice in a different end revealing clearly makes it the most tag for toe reactor England. Its steep cost expensive energy option in New in businesses leavfug thetoregioc. consumers would most likely result Hampshire number Puainssa and of yesinesses saidIndustry ther would Ceuecil's sutveyAccording to the New the pla produce their own po we r i f

, a substertial state,- en on line, and many said that they would leave the that t on slanwillimportar,t need a to acte that NEP00L's data s ho ws a f.f it does nothigher reserve marFin with Seabrook op e ra ti aware, o operate. As I es sure you are tate's conce rn a bout the plancing, in addition to the adequacy of evacuation kept Seabrook from being cost and re li a bili t y issues, ha ve Commonwealth h of Ma s sac hu se t ts.whole-heartedly supported by the In conclusion, I would reitera t e. cha t New England is experiencing a tight short-term energy supply situation. But by working ag g re s si ve ly with utilities to realize our

_ _ , _ _ - - - ~ ~ - - _--

_,---n conservation and load management potential, and with a. sound least-cost in t eg ra t ed p3anning process, E0ER feels that we can develop enough reliable, cost effective and safe energy to maintaines competitive economy for New England, without exposing citizens of Ma s s ac hu se t t s to the risk, both economic and otherwise, of an operating Seabrook nuclear power plant.

Despite our respective positions on Seabrook--a matter which will ultimately be decided in the Federal Courts-- it would se r ve us, a nd the ra t ep ay e r s of New England we ll if we agroed to disagree on Seabrook and to move ahead cooperatively on alt ernatives whic h we need whether or not Seabrook ever operates.

I ha ve enclosed a copy of our State Annual Torecast of Energy Resources and a copy of the New England Gove rnors' Conference report for your information and wo uld be happy to provide any other information, about the state's effort in energy planning if you desire.

SAncerely, c --

snaron M. Pollar

• g .

Q SecretaryhfEnergy?esources

'\

Enclosures SMP/rs cc: Socratary James D. Wa t ki n s , U. S . Dep a r t me nt of Energy U.d ,5 enate Committee en Erargy and Natu ra l Retsou rec t med Govern ors Conf erence, Inc.

N ad Energy Directors Ne aae Power Po si 3448C -

___-_____a

t 1 zen.

}Tg UM:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 89 AUS 22 R2:02 crn ,

DOCn !< . , 1,,

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL P'k"

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning Issues)

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) August 21, 1989

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen A. Jonas, hereby certify that on August 21, 1989, I made service of the within RESPONSE OF MASS AG TO APPLICANTS' APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF 10 C.F.R.

PART 50, APPENDIX E, SECTION IV.F.1., by First Class Mail, and by Federal Express as indicated by [*] and by hand delivery as indicated by (**] to:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107 W. Knapp St.

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 East. West Towers Suilding 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Richard F. Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Pethesda, MD 20814 Docketing and Service ** Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Washington, DC 20555 Or.e International Place Boston, MA 02110

I( ,

L5l ,

! l i

L

• Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Richard Donovan i

• Gregory Berry, Esq. FEMA Region 10 L

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission 130 228th Street, S.W.

, Office of.the. General Counsel Federal Regional Center 130 11555-Rockville Pike, 15th Floor Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Rockville,.MD 20852 H.; Joseph Flynn, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555

. Agency-500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Robert A. Backus, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, DC 20555 4 P.O. Box.516 Manchester, NH 03106 .

) ,

Jane Doughty Dianne Curran, Esq. ~

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Harmon, Curran & Towsley I Five Market Street Suite 430

.Portsmouth, NH 03801 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009 Barbara St. Andre', Esq. Judith Mizner, Esq. f

~Kopelman & Paige, P.C. 79 State Street 77 Franklin Street Second Floor

' Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA 01950 Charles P. Graham, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi 33 Low Street 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 ,)

l Ashod N. Amirian, Esq. Senator Gordon J.. Humphrey )

-145 South Main Street U.S. Senate  !

P.O. Box 38 Washine on, DC 20510 Bradford, MA 01835 (Attni Tom Burack) 1 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey John P. Arnold, Attorney General ]

One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Office of the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 25 Capitol Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Concord, NH 03301 .

Phillip Ahrens, Esq. William S. Lord ,

Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of the Attorney General Town Hall - Friend Street Augusta, ME 04333 Amesbury, MA 01913 l 1 ,

.-.= _-

Fe\:

's G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Alan S. Rosenthal Appeal Board Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway East West Towers Building Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing *Kenneth M. Carr Appeal Board Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East' West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 208140555

• Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

• James R. Curtiss, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 5500 Friendship Boulevard Apartment 1923N Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Peter Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Dr. Jerry Harbour U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC D 20555 4

Respectfully submitted, JAME3 M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL j

A i hen A. nas _

1 Deputy Attorney General Chief, Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 Dated: August 21, 1989