ML20205R636

Affidavit of J Doughty.* Discusses Applicant Plan in Response to NRC Order CLI-88-07

ML20205R636
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/02/1988
From:	Doughty J SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:
Shared Package
ML20205R572	List: ML20205R566 ML20205R636
References
CLI-88-07, CLI-88-7, OL-1, NUDOCS 8811100083
Download: ML20205R636 (4)

Text

'

i AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOUGHTY I, Jane Doughty, being on oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am the Field Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), a non-profit environmental organization at 5 Market Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.

2. I have reviewed the Applicants' October 1988 submission to the Commission entitled "The Plan in Response *.o NRC Order CLI-88-07", hereinaf ter called "The Plan", and the accompanying letter dated October 20, 1988, NYN-88142 from Edward A. Brown.

3. My review of The Plan indicates that the cost of shipping the spent fuel from Seabrook Station, reprocessing that fuel, and providing for the ultimate disposal of the reprocessing wastes have not been included in the $21,069,500 decommissioning cost estimate, which the Applicants have said resulted from the use of "highly conservative assumptions."

4. My review of The Plan further indicates that Applicants' have not addressed legal questions involving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and thus have provided no assurance that the proposed shipment of the spent fuel to La Hague, France for reprocessirig is consistent with the said Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.

5. Because The Plan does not address the costs of the shipping and reprocessing of the spent fuel, and the disposal re the resultant reprocessing wastes, and further does not address g{$ P G

I legal questions attendant upon this proposed action, The Plan does not reasonably assure that the Seabrook nuclear power plant site will be decommissioned as defined at 53 Egd. Egg. 24019, i.e. "to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of tha '

property for unrestricted use and termination of the license."

6. Additionally, Applicants have not assured that they are l

financially qualified to cover both the nonradioactive termination .

costs for the facility, which they estimate in NYN-88142 to be in 2

the range of $320 to $390 million in 1988 dollars, along with the

_ i decommissioning costs. According to NYN-88142, half of the t

$21,069,500 is to be transferred from the Project account ,

1 l presently controlled by the Disbursing Agent and the other half

• would be new monies paid in by the Joint Owners. However, a New Hantpshire Yankee response to an NRC staff information request, NYN-88115 dated August 31, 1988 shows that project funding in 1988 was less than the amount of billings. The deficiency is presumed to have been covered by pre-existing project balances and

> therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that project baiances may be needed for purposes other than meeting decommissioning ,

Costs.

7. Payment of funds into a decommissioning account will not necessarily be construed as in the ordinary course of business by [

i the U. S. Bankruptcy Court, which currently has jurisdiction over l l

Public Service Company of New Hampshire and its New Hampshire l i 1 Yankee Division. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that ,

2 ,

~

PSNH will have the authorization to make payments into the Account.

8. Another joint owner, the Mas.eachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC), has been in default on its project payments since June 1, 1988. PSNH has no binding legal commitment from MMWEC that it will make its EL2 rata share payment into the decommissioning fund.

9. Yet another joint owner, the Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. has also been in default on its project payments since January 1986 and there is no guarantee that _

VEG&T will make its payment into the decommissioning fund.

10. Still another joint owner, EUA Power has been reported to be having financial difficulties and it has no operating revenues from which funds can be obtained. If EUA Power's decommissioning costs exceed the amounts presently on deposit with the State Street Bank & Trust, there is no assurance they can finance additional sums to make the necessary payments.

11. In conclusion, given the lack of adequate consideration of the costs of disposing of the spent fuel after low power operation, the lack of adequate consideration of the legal ramifications of the proposed method for disposing of the spent fuel, the lack of consideration of the coste of disposing of reprocessing wastes from the spent fuel, the lack of consideration of means for funding decommissioning costs along with other project termination costs, and the financial uncertainties surrounding certain of the Joint Owner utilities, there is not a 3

b .

reasonable level of ascurance that The Plan is adequate to deal with the full costs of the actions necessary to decommission Seabrook Unit 1 following low power operation which is not succeeded by full power operation.

SIGNED under the pains and penalties of perjury this vlTc day of 7mX , 1988.

%%[h-JANE DOUGHTY () O STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ,

COUNTY OF H7.LLSBOROUGH ///147 Personally appeared the above-named Jane Doughty, and acknowledged the foregoing statements by her are true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

Before me, f

l?/ 1 W C fr I)/ , 5 /r Notary Pub 1ic/JustTc N he-Peace arRNE C. WEtNSTF!H, Notary PVSta q cmyniadon Egites November it 129 4