ML20206C489

Forwards Corrected Attachment 1 to Motion of Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon Under 10CFR2.734 to Reopen Record to Consider Evidence Re Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20206C489
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/09/1988
From:	Dean G MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Julian E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#488-7475 OL-1, NUDOCS 8811160302
Download: ML20206C489 (12)

Text

TW75 _

h THE COMMONWEALTH'OF MASSACHUSETTS 4 "

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN W. McCoRMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING f, oNE ASHBURToN PLACE. BOSTON 02106 1698 JAMES M. SHANNoN A ff 0mhtv GENE MAL rFFIci V =- r i;w November 9, 1988 # $igyN Emile.Julian Chief, Public Documents Room

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 and 50-444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1.and 2) (Onsite Emergency ,

Planning and Safety Issles)

Dear Mr. Julian Enclosed for filing please find a corrected Attachment 1 to the !!OTION OF MASSACHUSETTS AT"'ORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734 TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE JOINT APPLICANTS' DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND TO ADMIT THE ATTACUED LATE FILED CONTENTIONS CONCERNING SAID DECOMMISSIONING PLAN which was filed on November 2, 1988. This filing is in response to the request you make in the telephone conversation we had today con-cerning tne omission of the end of the last sentence in the printed version of the Bases for Contention 1.

The words that were omitted from the end of the Bases for Contention ) are as follows: "full power license is not granted after low power operation has occurred."

In the corrected version, I have taken the liberty of correcting three other typographical errors which . have subsequently discovered in my review of the bases for that contention. In the ninth line of the second paragraph in Basis (f), the word "decommission" should read "decommissioning" and the word "cost" should read "costs." In the second line of Basis (i) (5) , the reference should be to "(3) above."

h I

[

11 p

Emilo Julicn N3vcmber 9, 1988 Pcg3 Two Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I am serving this corrected document as per the enclosed Certificate of Service.

3 Sinc ,

,,.' j' ,,_,,. .. ........ .. .,- .._,

(

/ f l '/

e B. ean Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit GBD/BT Enclosures

Novemb r 9, 1988 4

CORPICIED ATTACHMENT 1 MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SIIANNON'S LATE FILED CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE JOINT APPLICANTS' DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE

, SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION

.. s, ,

1

Contention No. 1:

A determination that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to allow cafe and timely decommissioning of the Seabrook Nuclear power Station in the event that low power operation occurs but a full power license is not granted cannot be made from the filing by the Joint Applicants in response to CLI-88-07 2.

Bases for Contention No. 1:

(a) The provisions of the newly promulgated 10 C.F.R. 50.33(k)(1) and 50.75 are applicable to applications for low power operating licenses and the Joint Applicants' application for a low power license for the Seabrook l Nuclear power Station must be donied because it lacks the 1

certification required under 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b).

The rulemaking in which the Commission's decommissioning regulations were adopted expressly provided that the requirement of reasonable assurance of the availability of t funds is applicable to all operating reactors, power and non-power. Egg 53 Fed. Reg. 24018 at 24040. In light of 1

the fact that a specific exemption was made for reactors already permanently shut down (agg id. at 24027) and of the discussion of the reasons for not making a similar exemption for research reactors (see id. at 24039-24040), a necessary implication of the rulemaking is that the requirements for reasonable assurance is applicable to a low power reactor.

i The necessity of conformance by the Joint Applicants with the certification requirenA.tt in 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b) and 4 their failure to so conform is beyond cavil given the [

express finding of the Commission that in light of, among

• other factors, the financial plight of public Service Company of New Hampshire, that an internal reserve approach I

to providing reasonable assurance by public utilities would -

i' "not provide reasonable assurance that decommissioning will be carried out in a manner which protects public health and l safety." Id. at 24031-24034.

l (b) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b) and 50.75(c)(1), electric ,

e utility applicants for operating licenses for pWR type plants of less than 1200 MW power level are required to I

submit decommissioning reports containing "a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be i provided in an amount which may be more but not less than" the amount given by the following formula: $(75 + 0.0088p) x 1,000,000 where p represents the power level in megawatts.

!i 1

1

f 4

Under the Commission's regulations, then, the minimum amount -- i.e. that amount required if the plant's power level is taken to be five (5) percent of its rated capacity

-- of funding for which reasonable assurance must be provided by the Joint Applicants is $75.484 million: $(75

+ 0.0088 x [0.05] x 1100) x 1,000,000) or $(75 + .484) x 1,000,000.

The submission by the Joint Applicants contains only a description of "steps (taken tol provide comparable reasonable assurance,'" not a certification, and even this inadequate provision for "reasonable assurance" is with reference to an amount equal to only $21 million. Tnus the Joint Applicants have not complied with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.75 and their application for a low power operating license should be denied.

(c) There is insufficient documentation and back up material provided in the Joint Applicants' filing in response to CLI-88-07 with which to assess the reasonableness of the decommissioning cost estimate used therein to establish reasonable assurance.

For example, the Joint Applicants' filing contains a decommissioning cost estimate of $21 million. This is substantially less than the estimates upon which the NRC relied in its decoinmissioning rulemaking as well as those prepared for Se0 brook and other plants after 40 years operation. There is not sufficient documentation to determine whether this difference in estimates is a plausible, much less a reasonable, result of the fact that the estimate is predicated on the plant operating only for a short period of time at low levels of power. No comparison can be made with the post-40 year operation estimates prepared for Seabrook or other plants. In light of the fact that much of the physical dismantling work should be the same whether or not the plant operates for a long or a short period of time, or at full or low power, the inability to make evaluative comparisons between the Joint Applicants' seemingly low estimate and other estimates for Seabrook and other plants compels a conclusion that the Joint Applicants' $21 million estimate is unacceptable.

(d) The decommissioning plan and cost estimate are premised upon unreasonable and unsupported assumptions regarding the issuance of approvals by the Commission (e.g., of decommissioning plans), the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (export of special nuclear materials), and the Department of Transportation (shipment of low lovel wast #

11. new canisters).

-2 -

(e) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan in understated because without any explanation for variance from standard practice, the Joint Applicants use a "contingency factor" of seven (7) percent in their-decommissioning cost estimate whereas the industry standard is to use a twenty five (25) percent contingency factor.

(f) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan is i incomplete and, thus, understated because it does not (1) lientify uny low level waste disposal facility where the low level waste from the plant may be disposed of, (2) specif/ the terms and rates under which the low level waste ,

from the plant can be shipped to a low level waste disposal '

facility, (3) provide support for assumed costs of the disposal at a low level waste disposal facility of the low level waste from the plant.

There is no information in the plan filed by the Joint Applicants concerning where the low level waste from the plant will be disposed of nor the source or basis of the estimated costs of disposal which appear in the cost estimates. (plan at p. 8-14) This is unacceptable in light of the fact that there is widespread concern regarding the continued viability of many interstate 6

compacts for the disposal of low level radiological waste and that burial is o large percentage of decommissioning costs (10-20%) and costs of burial have been rising at t rates 3 to 4 times the general rate of inflation.

There is also no information concerning the carrier (s) and the term and rates under which such carrier (s) will carry the low level waste from the plant.

(g) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan is

understated because it incorporates an unsuppotted and unlikely assumption that the spent fuel resulting from low power operation could be shipped abroad within five years

, of commencement of decommissioning and, thus, does not

, fully account for decommissioning activities that must

continue during the reasonably likely period during which the spent fuel is stored onsite. This assumption ignores '

'1 the fact that such a shipment would be unprecedented and contrary to U.S. policy on the distribution of special .

materials. Further, the assumption ignores the fact that  ;

such a shipment would constitute a majoc federal action and "

. the requirement of an environmental impact statement would  ;

affect the schedule, i (h) The duration of low pouer operation in decommissioning plan  ;

and cost estimate used in the Joint Applicants' filing is .

unreasonably short in light of ^he experience at other I l

I t

w< , - -

plants and the past statements of the Joint Applicants offerred-to justify the issuance of a low power operations license in the absence of any meaningful expectation that a t full power operations licence would be issued in the near term.

(i) The so-called "demonstration of their bona fides" undertaken by the Joint Applicants is wholly inadequate.to indicate to the Commission that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available fer .

decoma!ssioning the Seabrook Nuclear power Station. As described in the Joint Applicants' response to CLI-88-07, reasonable assurance has been provided by: i (1) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners to establish a "separate and segregated pre-operation Decommissioning l Account' in the control of the Disbursing Agent or the sole '

purpose of defraying expenditures incurred in implementing the Plan";

(2) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners "to fund that (

account, promptly after issuance of a Commission order i requiring such funding, in the amount of $21,069,500";

(3) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners to "authorize approximately half of such amount to be transferred from the project account presently controlled by the Disbursing Agent";

(4) an unsupported assertion that "the balance presently avcilable in the Project account in respect of each Joint Owner substantially exceeds its share of the required amount (approximately one half of $21,069,500), except in the case of MMWEC, an 11.59340% owner, and Vermont Electric -

Transmission and Generation Cooperative, Inc., a 0.41259%

owner";

(5) an unsupported assertion that the funding other than '

that to be provided by the transfer referenced in (3) above "is reasonably assured because it is de minimis in relation to the Joint Owners operating revenues";

(6) an assertion that "MMWEC has publicly announced that it <

has funds available to meet up to $10 million of its decommissioning obligetions";

(7) an unsuppor'ed assertion that "the $85,000 attributable to the Vt. Coop's share would be paid on its be*alf from  !

the same sources which have been funding its on-going share of costs" i

i h

________.a

(8) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners "directing that the EUA Power share (12.13240%) of such amount be paid out from the fund created under the existing Decommissioning ,

Costs Security Agreement in which $10 million is currently I deposited."

In light of PSNR's pending bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Court's control over PSNH's assets and operations with respect to transactions o'Jtside of the ordinary course of its business ,

as well as MHwEC's continued refusal to make contributions to the operations costs of the Seabrock plant, these references and assertions do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to allow the safe and timely decommission!ng of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station following low power operation in the event that a full power operation license is not granted.

Reference to intentions expressed in votes of some unidentified majority of the Joint Owners to undertake certain actions, collectively and individually, in the future does not provide the reasonable assurance required by the Commission's decommissioning regulations. It does not provide the requisite degree of certainty that funds will be available. Votes are not irrevocable. Votes are not enforceable by the Commission or persons not party to the Joint Ownership Agraement. Votes do not bind the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court with respect to the use of PSNR monles. Votes are nothing more than expressions of present intentions more or less binding upon all the Joint Owners until revoked or rescind.

Reference to a statement in a press release by MMWEC that it has a certain sum of money does not provide any assurance, reasonable or otherwise, that that money will be employed in or devoted to any particular use.

An unsupported assertion that some unidentified source of funds will pay monles on behalf of the Vt. Coop into the "Pre-operation Decommissioning Account" does not provide any assurance that such monies will be available to allow the safe and timely decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full power license is not granted after low power operation has occurred.

6 , ,

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C0C KE r((,

U5hFt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~2 ' MN 10 M1 :08 FFfCL te E m ics y

)  ; 3, ti:v:; L In-the Matter of ) uGCXE** 13'W 'i

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket No.(s)  :

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) 50-443/444-OL ,

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2

) (On-Site EP) 'i

)

)

CERTIFICATE Or SERVICE I, George B. Dean, hereby certify that on November 9, 1988, I made service of the within: CORRECTED ATTACHMENT 1 to the MOTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON UNDER 10 C.F.R.

S 2.347 TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE JOINT APPLICANTS' DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND TO ADMIT THE ATTACHED LATE FILED CONTENTIONS CONCERNING SAID DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, by first class mail, or by Federal Express as indicated by (*] or by Telefax as indicated by (**] to:

• Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

• Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethosda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814

,r L -

M t'

'$ i t.

• Thomas S. Moore-

• Docketing and Service dhi , Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory.

"" Appeal Panel ,

Commission i

U.S. . Nuclear Regulatory 1717 H Street Commission Washington, DC 20555 East West Towers, Building

[

4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MO 20814 Administrative Judge Robert Corigg, Chairman 1- Sheldon Wolfe, Chairman Board of Selectmen L Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office l Board Panel Atlantic Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03862 ,

. Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Adniinistrative Judge Diane Curran, Esquire Emmeth A. Luebke. Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire 4515 Willard Avenue Harmon & Weiss Chevy Chase, MD 20815 2001 S Street, NW / Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merril, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street i 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 l Dethesda, MD 20814 Adjudicatory File i Atomic Safety and Licensing

• Sherwin E. ' Turk, Esquire Board Panel Docket Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Ftilding One White Flint North, 15th F1.

4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Soloman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Roed General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 m _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

t

.K' *-

r i

Paul ACEachern,, Esquire

• Thomas G. Dignan Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Ropes & Gray Shaines & McEachern 225 Franklin Street >

25 Waplewood Avmnue Boston, MA l P.O. Box-360  :

Portsmuuth, NH ~03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager i RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall  :

Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 ,

r Senator Gordon'J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate .Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire  !

(Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street

• Newburyport, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Ilumphrey Mr. Edward Molin i One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: florb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 f Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street

• 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833

• H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Offico of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Ilolmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire ,

llolmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas  ;

47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street  ;

llampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 l

Judi th 11. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire  !

79 State Street, 2nd Floor Murphy and Graham i Newburyport, MA 01950 33 Low Street '

Newburyport, MA 01950 i

• Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman

• Thomas M. Roberts, Commissionet  :

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  !

Commission Commission One White Flint North one White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852

, u.

b

'*Kenneth.M. Carr, VJames R. Curtiss, Commissioner- Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regula;ory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission One' White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockvi11e, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852

• lie n n e t h C . Rogers,

• William C. Perler, Esquire Commissioner General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the General Counsel Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852

• Marjorie Nord11nger, Esquire **Emile Julian Deputy General Counsel Chief, Public Documents Room Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Wh!te Flint North Washington, DC 20555 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 r

,,n~..- .

,,..s* ,

e 87 Dean Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 DATED: November 9, 1988

-- - _. ._-