ML19332F964

Intervenors Application for Stay of LBP-89-32.* Commission Should Stay LBP-89-32 Until Appellate Review Completed on All Issues Pending in Proceeding.Sm Pollard Unexecuted Affidavit & Supporting Info Encl

ML19332F964
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	Brock M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19332F965	List: ML19332F964 ML19332F970
References
CON-#489-9568 ALAB-922, ALAB-924, LBP-89-32, OL, NUDOCS 8912190381
Download: ML19332F964 (22)

Text

._ .

,, bf0I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION ,:.  ;

l Before the Commission:

Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman 'E9 CC -4 El V3 Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner James R. Curtiss, Commissioner 1

)

In the Matter of- ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL i

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

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) t L ) l L

-(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 1, 1989 j 1

)

l L

I INTERVENORS' APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF LBP-89-32 l-COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL Stephen A. Jonas Deputy Attorney General Chief, Public Protection Bureau Matthew T. Brock ,

Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dated: December 1, 1989 8912190381 891201 4 PDR ADOCK 05000443 J <

O PDRP

p

                   , J-von UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission:

Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner James R. Curtiss, Commissioner ,

                                                     )

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

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

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

                                                     )

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 1, 1989

                                                     )

INTERVENORS' APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF LBP-89-32 Pu'.*suant to 10 C.F.R. 52.788 and the Commission's Order of 1+ Nover.ber 16, the Mass AG, SAPL, NECNP, and. Town of Hampton hereby apply for a stay of LBP-89-32, the Licensing Board's PID authorizing issuance l of a full' power operating license for Seabrook Station. LBP-89-32 913.10. As discussed hereafter, the Seabrook Licensing Board, in-its march to licensing, has repeatedly disregarded the mandates of superior boards within this agency, elemental principles of stare decisis, and Intervenor hearing rights to a fundamentally fair hearing. l 1 Local Standard l

     .           Intervenors herein make a compelling showing as to each factor requisite for a stay:      likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balancing
            -of harms, and public interest.       Vircinia Petroleum Jobbers Assoc. v. FPC, 259 F2d 921 (DC Cir. 1958).      The standard is flexible, and permits issuance of a stay where, for example, the Applicant for a stay has demonstrated a higher probability of likelihood of success, thereby allowing for a lesser showing of irreparable harm.            Id at 925.

y . . . . - 's. I.- Likelihood of Success on the Merits1 / A. Certified Ouestion.. In ALAB-922, the Appeal Board concluded that the. proper interpretation and application of the reasonable assurance standard was uncertain, and required guidance from the Commission on this core emergency planning issue.- ALAB-922, sl. op. at 2 '4 . Undaunted, the Licensing Board declared that emergency plans for Seabrook provide the requisite " reasonable assurance", and authorized , issuance of a license. The Board thereby disregarded the uncertainty of controlling law, and declined to await commission views to resolve the. uncertainty. Independent of this irrationality, warranting reversal, the Licensing Board violated the Appeal Board directive that Commission guidance was essential to clarify the emergency planning standard and that this guidance must be provided orier to evaluating the adequacy of the Seabrook emergency plan. Egg ALAB-922 sl. op. 15-16 n. 37, and 24. The Licensing Board,-therefore, lacked jurisdiction to independently

       . rule, without1the requisite guidance, that Seabrook emergency plans met the reasonable assurance standard.           See Motion to Revoke.

l B. ALAB-924. On November 7, 1989, the Appeal Board identified four primary defects in the NHRERP, reversed the Licensing Board's approval of the plan on these four issues, and rer:4nded for further proceedings and , 1/ Since the commission is already considering certain additional documents, Mass AG adopts and incorporates the following as further support for his stay application, including likelihood of success on the merits.

1. Intervenors' December 1 Supplemental Motion and Memorandum

(" Motion to Revoke")

2. Mass AG's Brief on the Certified Question (Oct. 27, 1989)

3. Intervenors' Petition for Review of ALAB-924 (Nov. 21, 1989)

4. Intervenors' Answer In Opposition To Applicants' Petition For Review of ALAB-924 (November 22, 1989)

                                                                                              };

1

             ' corrective action. ALA B-924 . Only 48 hours later, the Licensing Board disregarded the mandate of ALAB-924, and authorized licensing, without conducting any of the mandated proceedings to address these planning-defects. The Licensing Board had no jurisdiction to act in disregard of the mandate of ALAB-924. Egg Motion to Revoke. The Licensing Board also denied Int'rvenors a        a hearing orior to licensing on certain remanded materia 1' issues in violation of the Atomic Energy Act.2/ Id., UCS      v.

HEC, 735 F2d 1437 (DC Cir. 1984). , C. LOAs and ETEs. In ALAB-924, the Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board's approval of the NHRERP concerning LOAs for teachers and special' facility ETEs.2/ By proposed findings then pending before the Licensing Board,A/ the Mass AG had identified these same defects in the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) . Under elemental principles of stare decisis, and in conformance with the directive of a superior board, the Licensing Board was required to give effect to ALAB-924 in ruling.on these identical issues presented in the SPMC. Yet the Licensing Board again ignored ALAB-924, and approved the SPMC without consideration of the need for teacher LOAs E / or without requiring accurate special facility ETEs "on an individual basis".5/ The l 2/ See Motion to Revoke. This issue-is offered here in support of a stay. request only if the Commission denies the alternative relief

        . requested in the Motion to Revoke.

2/ Ege ALAB-924 at 9-11(LOAs) ; at 24-27 (ETEs). A/ Mass AG August 14, 1989 Proposed Findings 9.1.136 (481) Egg also 568.1.66B (350), 8.1.70 (353-354), 8.1.85.A (360); (LOAs); 958.1.63 D-F (348-349) (ETEs). 5/- LBP-89-32 658.73,8.76. cf ALAB-924 at 9-11. 5/ LBP-89-32 552.95-2.104; cf ALAB-924 at 24-27 and n.71. 3. 4, c Licensing' Beard therefore authorized licensing, in part, upon the precise J 1egal grounds rejected as inadequate only.two days previously by the Appeal Board. D. Low Power Testina. As set forth in the attached Minor /Sholly affidavit, Applicants' failures during low power testing underscore a pattern of incompetence in the operation and management of Seabrook Station. Presently, Applicants are barred from resuming operation without Staff consent, CAL 89-11, and further operator testing is required, which evidences the gravity with which NRC views these failures. The ACRS also states that a reasonable assurance finding must await " satisfactory resolution" of these low power issues. (9/13/89 letter to Commission). The Licensing Board, however, denied all of Intervenors' low power contentions challenging these shortcomings,,with portions rejected solely.for failure to meet the reopen the record standard. 10 C.F.R. 52.734; Memorandum and Order at 24 (10/12/89). In addition to patent legal error, application of that standard in these circumstances to bar Intervenor hearing rights on material licensing issues is prohibited by the Court of Appeals and gives rise to a presumption of agency bad faith. Mothers For Peace-v. NRC, 751 F.2nd 1287, 1317 (DC Cir 1984). E. Monitorina. Mass AG filed contentions to challenge the SPMC's l l . twenty percent planning basis relied upon to determine the population 1' anticipated to arrive for monitoring at Massachusetts' reception L centers. MAG Ex-18 Basis B; MAG Contention 65. l l On groundslof res iudicata, the Licensing Board refused to permit litigation on this issue in the SPMC hearings, since the Board purportedly had already approved the twenty percent planning basis in its l-l NHRERP decision. LBP-88-32; T. 15332-15340. In ALAB-924, however, the

                                                     -4  -

l-

4 Appeal Board ruled that the validity of the twenty percent planning basis had n2t been litigated or decided in the New Hampshire proceeding. A LAB-9 2 4 , p. 38-41. Since the twenty percent issue had never been litigated, necessarily the Licensing Board's res iudicata ruling, to prohibit consideration to the 20% issue in the SPMC hearings, was plainly erroneous. Although Mass AG timely moved for reconsideration,2/ the Licensing Board again ignored the Appeal Board, and Intervenor hearing rights, and issued LBP-89-32 without even addressing its erroneous rga iudicata ruling. F. Public Alert and Notification. In ALAB-900, the Appeal Board ruled that the "public alert and notification system is unquestionably a major element of emergency planning", ALAB-924, 28 NRC at 294, and cited the regulation that " exercises shall ... test the oublic notification system". 10 C.F.R. Part So, IV.F. App. E. The Licensing Board, however, has repeatedly denied Intervenor contentions challenging the failure to adequately test this system by exercise, and the recent loss of EBS capacity in the Massachusetts EPZ.E! The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) for the Massachusetts EPZ involves maintaining continual 24 hour staffing during plant operation, deployment of specially equipped mobile siren trucks, and coordination of the VANS in an overall ORO response. To date, however, this complex VANS process and equipment remain untested by an Exercise. FEMA itself has found the VANS

        " inadequate" until " installation of the entire VANS". App. Ex. 43c pp.

26-27. That installation has not been demonstrated. The Licensing Board 2/ Egg Request of Intervenors for Pre-hearing Conference in Response to ALAB-924 at 4-6 (Nov. 9, 1989). This pleading was telefaxed to the Licensing Board on November 9, four days before LDP-89-32 was docketed. H/ Memorandum and Order (12/15/88) at 16-18. See LBP-89-32 at 569 n.87, Memorandum Supplement at 40.

5 0- . nevertheless refused to permit a hearing on these material licensing , issues prior to license-issuance. This violates Intervenor hearing rights under the AEA. Egg USC v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Of equal significance, by failing to provide reasons for denying a prelicense hearing on these contentions, see Supplemental Memorandum at 40, yet requiring Intervenors to proceed with a stay application on these issues, Mass AG is denied due process of law. G. School Personnel. In ALAB-900, the Appeal Board ruled: There is no dispute that the potential evacuation of schools within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) is a major element of offsite emergency planning. Egg FEMA Objectives, No. 19. Egg also 10 C.F.R.'550.47 (b) (10) . A sufficient number of school and related personnel must therefore participate in a full participation exercise so as to permit verification of their integrated capability to respond to the accident scenario. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, SIV.F.1 n.4 . . . Indeed, FEMA; strongly recommended that in the future all schools (presumably L in the 10-mile plume EPZ) be included in offsite exercises. ALAB-900 at 297. At Seabrook, Intervenors challenged the scope of,the 1988 Exercise for failure to include adequate participation and evaluation of New Hampshire EPZ schools and school personnel.E/ The evidence was uncontroverted that public schools were not in session during the exercise,.that no more than 3 of 113 public, private, and daycare schools " participated" in the Exercise, that the "participauion" at the three schools consisted of a single telephone call from-the state to an unidentified individual withcut

       , apparent emergency responsibil-ities, and that FEMA did not observe or evaluate school personnel during the Exercise.        Id., MAG Ex. 106.1E/

2/ See MAG Proposed Findings 12.1.45.A to 12.1.50.CC (pp. 557-572)(8/14/89) 10/ This is particularly troubling in view of the Appeal Board's concern, expressed in ALAB-924, that the Licensing Board did not adequately consider the need for LOAs with New Hampshire EPZ teachers to demonstrate adequate available personnel to implement school plans.

                                                                                              -)

i ., l In an incoherent opinion, LBP-89-32 at 541-549,the Licensing Board nevertheless ruled that the Exercise for New Hampshire schools satisfied the mandate of ALAB-900 that "a sufficient number of school and related personnel must therefore participate". ALAB-900 28 NRC at 297. That ruling is irrational on its face and is further evidence of the Board's predilection to ignore controlling law in favor of licensing. II. THE INTERVENORS WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED IF THE PLANT IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF APPEALS. A. The Denial of The Intervenors Administrative Due Process Itself Constitutes Irreoarable Harm. This stay application as well as the simultaneously filed immediate effectiveness review comments and the response to LBP-89-33 detail the numerous l procedural abuses in the. licensing proceedings. Those abuses constitute violations of the Intervenors' administrative due process rights which are so fundamental as to themselves constitute irreparable harm. Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC, 306 F.2d 260, 267 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Egg Fitzoerald v. Hamoton, 467 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1972). B. The Lack Of Competence of Plant operators Substantially Increases The Risk Of A Serious Accident And Irreparable Injury To The Surroundina Populations. Seabrook operators have utterly failed to demonstrate the requisite competence and experience to safely operate the plant. In the June, 1988 exercise, the plant operators exhibited serious weaknesses in five

  . critical areas causing the Staff initially to express alarm at their
      " questionable engineering judgment."       NRC Staff Inspection No. 50-443, 8809. In June, 1989, the conduct of control room operators and supervisors was so poor as to cause the Staff to issue a Confirmatory Action Letter suspending low-power operation and fining the Applicants
      $50,000. Minor /Sholly Affidavit TS 11-12.       On September 15, 1989, the Staff informed the Applicants that it would conduct an unprecedented
                                        -7  -

operator proficiency evaluation on December 11, 1989. Id. 1 13. Without a consistent demonstration by the Applicants that operator proficiency is satisfactory, full-power operation poses a substantially increased risk of an accident with irreparable consequences to the surrounding popula- , tion. Id. 11 16-17.11/ That risk is compounded by the inadequacies in emergency planning that are the subject of ongoing appeals. C. The Irretrievable Commitment of. Resources In The Form of Plant Contamination And The Uncertainty Whether Plant' Decommissioning Can Be Financed Constitute Irrecarable Harm. Licensing decisions which result in " substantial further commitment of resources" so skew any later environmental review process that the Courts have found irreparable harm sufficient to stay the effect of those decisions. NRDC v. NRC. 539 F.2d 824, 844-845 (2d Cir. 1976), vacated add remanded 2D other arounds (mootness), 434 U.S. 1030 (1978); Izaak Walton Leaaue of America v. Schlesinggr, 337 F. Supp. 287, 295 (D.C.C. , 1971). Egg New York v. Klecoe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1312 (1976). .The situation in NEPA cases is strikingly similar to that here. Once plant operation begins, if on appeal the licensing action is I reversed and remanded, the extraordinary additional costs and financial waste that would result from a shutdown plant will prevent any fair hearing on remanded issues that could result in such a shutdown, even if those issues, as here, are safety significant.

       ,       That problem is compounded by the lack of any mechanism available at present to assure funding of premature decommissioning of the plant.       As a result of a decision of the Nuclear Decommissioning Finance Committee
         .11/   Under the case law, the harm sufficient to make the case for a stay need not be certain to justify injunctive relief.       E.o., Phillies v.

l Crown Central Petroleum Coro., 602 F.2d 616, 630 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. I denied, 444 U.S. 1074 (1980); Celotex Coro, v. 011. Chemical and Atomic l Workers Int'l Union. AFL-CIO, 516 F.2d 242, 247 (3d Cir. 1975). 7 . - . . of.the New Hampshire PUC dated January 6, 1989, the Applicants must meet State decommissioning requirements by the funding.of a Decommissioning Financing Fund in an increasing amount each year. Esa Funding Schedule attached hereto. The NRC has no information that decommissioning funding is available until the report is submitted on July 26, 1990 and even then may. find the report unacceptable. 10 c.F.R. 5 5 50. 33 (k) (2) , 50.75. Should premature decommissioning occur only 43 million (out of a total decommissioning cost assumption of $242 million) would be available in the first year from the state funding source and very likely no money from the NRC funding source. Particularly given the precarious state of the Applicants' finances, the uncertainty of decommissioning funding constitutes not only itself irreparable harm but would exert more pressure on the Commission'to skew any temand proceedings on safety issues. III. THE APPLICANTS WILL NOT BE IRREPARABLY' HARMED BY A STAY. The Applicants undoubtedly wil.1 argue that the financial costs of I further delay in operation constitute irreparable harm to them.. In fact, f it does not. The Commission does not recognize these costs as irreparable-harm. Many of the Joint Owners have long passed Seabrook costs through to ratepayers. For PSNH, although the delay costs cannot presently be recovered from ratepayers, if operation is ultimately

    ,    permitted those costs may'be passed through to ratepayers.

IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS A STAY. With respect to the public interest the fact that public health and safety issues remain unresolved clearly favors a stay. The other cognizable public interest -- the purported need for Seabrook's power -- also weighs against the Applicants. As demonstrated by the attached affidavit of the former Massachusetts Secretary of Energy, Seabrook is

t

  .=

simply not-needed to meet energy demand in New England. Energy demand has slowed considerably because the economy in the region in general has slowed. Pollard Aff. 1 5. Conservation programs, capacity planning,

           . proper maintenance scheduling and the growth in cogeneration related supply all combine to make Seabrook an unneeded, and because of its                                          ,

l

           ; enormous price tag, an unwanted energy source.

CONCLUSION The Commission should stay LBP-89-32 until intra-agency appellate review is ccupleted on all issues-pending in this proceeding. If this stay _is denied, .Intervenors request a stay pending the Commission's decision on the Motion to Revoke- and a further stay, pending judicial

           - review, if the Motion ~to Revoke is denied.

o COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS l, i AMES M. SRANNON RNEY GENE

                                                                 \                            m .

Stephen A. Jona'i' Chief, Public Protection Bureau Matthew T. Brock Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston,- Massachusetts (617) 727-2200 DATE: December 1, 1989 l' i l

                                                                                                                                                                               ^

6:

                                                                                                                                                                  ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 +
                                                                                                                                                                    . E1HIBIT.         1 william M. Mercer-Mendenger-Hansen Asset Manning, incorporated                                                                                                                                             ,

TIEW tlA14PSHI RE YAHKt:E DECOMtit SSIONING Fut#0 - FUNOING SCHEDULE

                                                      **** TAXABtF ndNER.51****

HO:ITitLY COMOt.ATIVE FUND BALANCE YEAR CJt1TR 100T ION EAICIIllGS TARGET COST AT YEAR END - AT YEAR END 1 J03188. 117965. 3780221.- 2 311316. 467461. 7938465. 224563759. 3 330091. 10T1360. 12501460. 233546310. i

4 741295- 3 95 r.262 - t 750510 4-242988162.

! 5 357027. 3142618. ?57403689-6 371308. 22978581. 262707836. 7 4454855. 26956513. 273216150. i 3s6160. 6551599 15477090. 8 40_ L60 7- .8835363- 42580229- 284144796. .' 9 417671. 11551624. 79551058.7-10 434378 50308537. 3f17331011. 11 451753. 14733037.. 54707483. 319624251. 1? 4o9823-18415103. 67325583.: 332409221. -

L3 4 8 861t, .

72n86230- 7.7.714599- %570559n- . i 14 503161. 219 3 fvoo. 93429727. 359533814. 15 J3el40104. 1090298's7.- 373915166. 52d437. 39296252. - 112577765. t6 s 4 9 u 2 fs- _ 4621J366- 126140400. 398871773. L7 5716L2. 54002736. 404426644 i 140739106. 13 594471,. 6267985o. 156599 % 9. 420613710.  ! 19 618255. 72314857. 173653991. 437427858. . an /42935- 454924972. 829826.10~ 21 192037576- 4.73121971-663705. 94763340.- 22 695453. 211842701. 492046850. 23 107742720.. 213167575. 511728724. 721271. 122012341. 255116447.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     +

24 752207- 1 476790121- 7808DD604-532197873. 25 Tu22 Ju. 154820493. 553445_7Aa-26 813581. 307338498. 575625220. 27 173575274 335856259. 598650228. 846125. 194053707. 366488184. ~

   > 11                       ei 7 9 9 t o -                      2.163a3134-                                                            622596238.       '

! 29 9151 'sa. 240699510. 199.L77247. A+.75a10087  ! 30 951775. 434675o44. 6734J0090.  ! i 267147939.- 472545375. 700336094. ~ 3L 989846. 295983269 513158859. U ln>9440- 't ? 7170711- 726349538.  ! 33 10F0618. 556ft99581 - 757483511 t 34 360486513.. 603362795. 787782860.  ! 1113 ,42. 397518661. 653356251. 819294175. m 35 1157980. 437167631. 706900981. . x 4 ~4 6 - 1204299- 480047190- 764232130-852065942.- * ^! 37 1252471. 526345237. 596148579. ". i 38 1302570 325599832. 921594522. t 576424711. 39 1354073. 630424543. 891270146. 959458303, s t j 40 961526052. 996796635. e 140 d3611- ^ 3Dh6DA 74- 1 n 16(a6.85DI-

                                                                                                                                    ~ 1016668501-                                                                                         "

1 i

                                          =                                                           m                  r                         L---     ---
                                                                                                                                                                    -.-,_, , ,   _       -,__3,.-_. _

i E

                                                                                                               ^                                                 EXHIBIT 1-A-              "

wmm u. Merce, a:

                                                                                        ...r.ansen Asset riaansas, incorpermed                                                                             '

i NEW IIAMPSHIR YggE ggSSIONINGFUND - _.****;IAX-EXEMPT _DWNEfti **** Mut1Till.Y CtatULATIVE YEAR CONTRIDUT1DN FUND RALANCE TARGET COST 6ARl!INGS AT YEAR END . A T YEAR EMD 1- 41163. 1H536. 512492. 2 42810 73607. 376472Y1. 1081357. i 3 4

                                     .44522.                                          169410.                    1711363.           39153120.
                                      .4 a.1:33 -                                     m 07A-                   7 4.Q1447 -          40719245.                                                            '

5 48155. 500295. 4234A014-6 50031. 145147. 3175720. 44041935. 4021545.- 7 n 52004 1050109 4951519. 45803612. 9 s4lbu- 1441107- 6972529- 47635757 - 10 56334. 1864551. 7091986. 49341187._- 58518 . 2187372. 51522835. 11 60931. 2997060. 9517861. 53533748. 17 ^ T3 69- 9658724, 55727096. 13 '1701706- 11123797-65903. 4519047 57356182-1272297L 14 63539 60274429 15 5431519 1446(3917.' 712:31. 6476101. 10367071. 62685406.. i6 17 741J7- 7655377- .L 3435.735-65L92323. 77098 8980596. 678t10536. 1 18 80181. 20686124 70512557 19 10464750. 23132435. i 70 833J9. . 12121551. 25789920. - 73333059..  ! l 21 8672~e- 119h5891-- 23674957- 76266382. ! 22 90193. 16013756. .314051J6 79317037. . l 23 93801. 182d2356. 35199345. 42499716. - 74 97553. 2079023:1. 38877863.- 85789307. 25 1n1435- '15513.7.4- 42.662.400- 89220879. i 26 105513. - 26605259 47176504 92769 < ! 109734 29957027. 96501715 303 27 114123. 3J637572.' 51945078. 100361355.  ;

          ?8                        1 18 06 ti-                                  17673hJL                    56695101.           104375809                                                               ~

29 123436. 42094140. 62335461. 106530942.  ! 30 128J 73. 46929947. 69257153. 112892876. ' 31 IJ350d. 52214406. 74633437 117408591. - i 32 1368146. 519933'4. 81519992. 122104934  ! J3 144402. 3 P14MC94. 126949132. E 34 15017d. 642752TO. 96979801. 132068697

• 35 156135. 71131421. 105633152.

114977379. . 137351445. 36 78596422. 37 16 24J3. 667179_02. 12504813).- 148559323.142845502. . 5 i 16119 30. 95547421. e 38 1756B7. 105139364 135904733. 154501695. i 39 182715. 115554521. 147605425. 160681763. 7 I 40 1991123 . t?6894974. 160212600.- 167109034. > 17.1l323_95. 173793395. i

                                                                                                                                                           . = ~
                                                                                                                                          .~         y   ,  m,.-        ._.

                 ' William M. Mercer      '" ...-Hansen Asset Plannmg, IncpM                                                                                                                                - E.IMI BI T 1-B
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~~-                          -
                                   ~-

fiEW HAMP5,lIIRE YAIsKEE DEcuartISSION1HG FUND

; runorNG sCnEcutE f.*_* * . Tn TA l . F tINILf * *

• YEAR MONTHLY C 1:4TRIBUTION CUMULATIVE FUND BALANCE T AXABLE T AX-EXEMPT EARHINGS TAMGET COST -

AT YEAR ENO AT YEAR END 1 305188. 41163. 136501. ~~ ~ 4292713.

                                                                                                                                                                                         -~

2 3173 9d. 42010. 262'2105~90. 3 330091. 49522. 541148. 9019822. 272699430. ! 4 343293- 1240790. 14214823. 283607407, 5 46303- 7764333- 193135.45-357027 43152. 3642913. 794951703-o 371300. 50:19 1. 5410002. 26154301.. 304749771. l 7 386160. 529d4. 7601618. 3297895d. 319019762. U 401607- 54168- 40425609 331780553. 9 417671. 56334. 10256475. 48552758- 345051774 10 43437.I. 5858J. 13416175. 57400523. 358853846 11 451753. 60931. 17125409. 67325344 373207999 I 12 4698 7 L 63369- 21432163. 77484307. 388136319. 13 488616. 763 a1.9hS. .88338387 403661772-14 65'803. 32043027 -101152700. 500161. 68539. 38*71703. 419808243. 15 526407. 71281. 114496774 436600572. 16- 549625. 74132. 45722553. 128944840. 454064596. 17 571612. 77098.

                                                                                           '43869T43.                                                          1.44576135. 472227.180.

18 594416. 80181. 62983332. 161475232. 491116267 19 618255. 83389. 73144596. 179732384. 510760917. 20 642985. 8443638:1 199443901. 531191354 21 86/24. 16948507- 210712533. ' 660705. 9C193. f10777998 552439008 22 695453. 93001. 126025076. 243647897. 574536568. l 23 723271. 97553. 142802519 268366920. 597518031. I 23 752292 101453 16 294994310. 621418752.

25 702290. 105513. Th52. 323663Pi4. 646175503.

26 0135d1. 109/34. 10 4 5752. 354T1500$. 672126523. 27 046125. 114123. 201532305. 387701.137 699011583. 2B B79974. 227691279. 423383245. 726972047.- 29 915168. 118h84. 254056.90.9. 461732708. 123*36. 282793650. 756050929 t 30 9517TS. 12B>73. 314077686. 502932797. 784292966. Q 31 989846. 133908. 547178812, 817744685. m 32 1029449. 138:14 3 . 348097u75. 594578851. 850454472. ~ ' 3n50

• 33 101bu tu. 144402. 425 L.5.4 0 4.0,61723.345654675. 484472691. "

34 1113442. 150178. 468650082. 700342596. 91~9851557 . 35 1157900 156185. 515764053. 758994403. 956645620. 36 1204299., 162e23, 566765172, 821878360. 994911444. ! 37 38 1252471. 13 C25 70 168930. 621932658. 889280263. 96'1504565. 1034707902. 1076096217.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  'f 39                         175687.                                              681564575.                                                             10388755 T1.

40 1354u73. 182115. 745979064. 1119140066.  ; 110.@ 60. 19_0023. 112173u 712. 1163995669. , 8155_11k+3 1210461896. 1210t_61834.  : j t

                                    .I i

! s  !

                                                 ,                                                                    ,                     .,.          , __        ,      .      -        -   ~~       -- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -       - - - - - - ~ ~ - - '

7. -' . Wimsm M. MIecte Meidingi..Hansen Assel Platains, lact'pmled EXHIBIT 1 - C, EXHIBli II l ASSUHPTION5

1. . Decommissioning Costs (1987 $): $242,428,800*~

l (As'sume funding will comence in 1988 and ' inflation from 1987 to 1988 will be 4%)

• Source: The Deconnissioning Study for the Seabrook-Station - Unit One, February 1987 Thomas S.

Laguardia, P.E. .

2. Inflation (40-year average) Expected 4%

High 55 Low 3%

3. - Investment Return L

The investment return is defined as the total return which measures the income earned plus market gains or losses, both realized and unrealized. The return forecast is net of administrative expense. An investment forecast may be expressed as a nominal return or a real return. The real return is the return iii excess of inflation, whereas the nominal' return includes inflation and corresponds to the rate actually earned. Expected Fixed Income Returns Taxable Tax-Exempt Nominal Return 7.0% 6.0% Inflation 4.0% 4.0% l Real Return 3.0% 2.0% It is assumed that taxable corporation owners will allocate their portion of the Fund to tax-exempt investments and tax-exempt owners to taxable . investments. Expected return for the Total Deconnissioning Fund is

• 6.1435761% compounded annually, based on the knowledge that 85.64239% of the ownership is taxable. There is a 70% level of confidence that the return will remain within a range of 4.09% and 8.19% over a 20-year period.

 .o                                      ,

x i UNITED STATES =0F AMERICA l

    ^

before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-

                                                                                                    \
                                                                    )                               '
                                                                    )

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

          '                                                        )                    50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'0F                 )      (Emergency Pl anning NEW HAMPSHIRE,. e_t _al.              )      Issues)
                                                                  .)                                  .
                        -(Seabrook St ation, Uni ts 1 and 2)       )
                                                                   )
                                                                   )

AFFIDAVIT-0F SHARON M. POLLARD > t I, Sharon M. Pollard, hereby depose and say as follows: 1; I am the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy j,, Resources for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hold a cabinet-level position in the Administration of Governor-p Michael S. Duk ak i s .

2. On August 16, 1989, I received and read the application for exemption from 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 I 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 Exec utive Of ficer of .

the New Hampshire Yankee Divisio'n of PSNH which was att achment A.of the application.

4 k; .,

3. In paragraphs 14,15,16, and 18 of Mr. Brown's 4

af fidavi t, he asserts that New England has experience ~d " severe short ages of- electrical power during both the summer and winter peak . demand periods," and suggests that operating Sesbrook 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 i Engl and 's need f or elect rici ty.

4. While New England is currently in. a tight energy-s upply si t uation , the region has not experienced severe U short ages or blackouts due to New England-wide capacity deficiencies. According to the director of power planning for l

the New Eng l and . Power Pool (NEPOOL), there were only isolated, locali:ed problems due to malf unctions in the distribution system during the record heat wave of 1988. In fact, NEP00L has demonstrated this year that with proper capacity planning and- mainten ance scheduling, the region can accommodate its c urren t demand -f or electricity without Seabrook. Because of improved planning, 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 states that New England's electrical energy consumption increased 5.3% and 5.2% in 1987 and 1988 respectively. But he neglects to report th at power us ag e i s up j us t 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 slower pace.

                                       ,                                                  i L . ..

1 j

6. Contrary to Mr. Brown's assertion, the electricity capacity situation is likely to change for the better soon due 1 te increased conservation investments, and the growing availability of independent -cogeneration and small power y' '

facilities.

7. Six of the Massachusetts utilities (and utilities in

            ' other New England st ates) are currently working collaboratively with- the Massachusetts Executive Of fice of Energy Resources, the Mass &chusetts Attorney General, and environmental groups to design and implement energy ef ficiency programs for all c us t omer - c l as se s. Those measures c an be implemented within a six-month to two year time frame at one-third the cost of traditional power supply options.            In its 1987 report entitled
             " Power to Spare " the New England Energy Policy Council found             '

that, at full efficiency, New England could be using less electricity and generating capacity than it is using.today even with the level and pace of economic growth predicted by the r e g io n 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 reauests 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.

F

9. Mr. Brown suggests; that operating Seabrook would be

                                                                                                                       -t 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 to consumers would most likely result in businesses leaving the region. According to the New Hampshire Business and Industry , Co un c i l 's . s urve y, a substantial number of businesses said they would produce their own power if the plant came on line, and many said th at they would leave the st ate. It-is also important to note that NEP00L's data shows that the region will need a higher reser'v e margin with' Seabrook operating than if it does not oper at e.

10. P l ann i n g for appropriate contingencies and proper maintenance scheduling are the key to an adeouate 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 L Eng l and's electrici ty s upply needs. l l' L V I declare under penalty of 'ury that the foregoing is

                                                     /

true and correct. - l l f'/

                                                                    ,    J                                      -

Sharon M. Pollard

                                                                    \

Exec uted on August 21, 1980 3661C _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}