ML20196H384

Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon Petition Under 10CFR2.758 for Waiver of or Exception from Public Util Exemption from Requirement of Demonstration of Financial Qualification.* W/Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc

ML20196H384
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/07/1988
From:	Shannon J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#188-5784 OL-1, NUDOCS 8803110013
Download: ML20196H384 (125)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ -

A, l ?Sf

• ^

00LKEtEO U$%C r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N IE i NI $7 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Before Administrative Judges: OhMYifdokYdI[r$['

.. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman BRANCy

'g -

Thomas Moote Howard A. Wilber TT )

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1

) 50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )

NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL., ) (On-Site Emergency

) Planning and Safety j) (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Issues)

MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.758 FOR A WAIVER

^() OF OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION

^D> -

JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Stephen A. Jonas

-()

George B. Dean Assistant Attor neys Gener al Department of The Attorney Genetal One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

() (617) 727-4878 DATED: March 7, 1988 O

1 O

ppg ADO )

G PDR

']f$

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00Lnc tf.c-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U$NFC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Before Administrative Judges: 10 0E "O NI $7 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas Moote  ;, y ,

Howatd A. Wilbet gqc g;6 5[lyp' 00CKETtN BRANCH

)

In the Mattet of ) Docket Mos. 50-443-OL-1

) 50-444-OL-L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )

' ',W H A MP S 3 I P E , ET AL., ) (On-Site Emetgency

) Planning and Safety (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Issues)

)

< MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.758 FOR A WAIVER ,

OF OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE PU9LIC UTILITY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION

) INTRODUCTION Putsuant to an order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("Appeal Board") dated January 29, 1988 and served C/ on Peotuary 1, 1988,1/ James M. Shannon, Attorney General of 1/ In that otdet, the Appeal Board allowed three intervenots in In this proceeding thirty days from the service of the ordet

? which to amend theit original petitions ot to file a new petition seeking waivet of the Commission's financial qualification tule. In addition, the Appeal Board stated:

any other patty seeking a waivet of the Commission's financial qualification tule with tespect to low-powet

' operation based in whole ot in part upon the cuttent fiscal circumstances of the lead applicant must join those intervenots' petition or file its own petition with us within the same time petiod.

Puolic Service Company of New Hampsnite (Seabtook Station, J

Units 1 and 2), Memotandum and Ordet at 3 (January 29, 1983).

tne Connonwealtn of '4assachusetts ("the Attorney General")

hetecy petitions andet Section 2.753(b) of the Connission's tegulations fot a waivet of or an exception from the puolic utility exenption from the Connission's requitenent that a demonstration of financial qualification be made ptiot to the

.j issuance of a connetcial nucleat powet plant opetating license. In particulat, the Attorney General tequests a waivet of ot exception from Sections 2.104(c)(4), 50.33(f), and 50.57(3)(4) of the Conmission's regulations. The waivet is requested to tequite that the Aoplicants establish, priot to low power operation, financial qualification to cover the costs D

of Seabt ook 'Jnit l's operation for the period of the license ,

and the costs to oetmanently shot it down and maintain it in a safe condition should it not receive a full-power license. The ma magnitude of the present and potential future costs associated with low power operation and testing of the Seabrook plant, the constraints on the availaoility of funds to PSN9 in bankruptcy a

to cover those costs and the present inability ot unwillingness of the tennining joint ownets to covet PSNH's share of those ptesent and futute costs demonstrate that it is note likely u

than not that adequate funding for the costs of safe low-power operation, the petnanent shut down of the Seahtook plant and the safe naintenance of the plant will not be available during the pet.dency of the PSMH banktuptcy.

n support of this Petition, the Attorney General states:

s

_/

l i

L,, -2 -

l\

l

)

PUBLIC SER7 ICE COMPANY'S ?!NANCIAL CJ1DirION IS UNPRECEDENTED

) 1. Sn January 23, 1938, PSNH sought protection from its creditots undet Chapter 11 of the United States lanktoptcy Code.

2. Tte nanktuptcy filing oy PS9H is without precedent in 3 tne petiod since the Great Depression. It is the first investot-osned puolic utility to make suon a filing in note than fifty years.

2) 3. As neasured by first nottgage bcad tatings, the financial community's evaluation of the financial secutity of PS19 is and has been considerably lowet than the evaluations of

[) the following other electric utilities at the peak of theit financial difficulties arising fron the consttuction/ operation of the following nuclear powet facilities: General Puolic

[) Utilities (Three Mile Island Nucleat Powet Station); Long Island Lighting Company (Shotehan Nuclear Power Station);

Cincinnati 333 5 Electric Company (!immet Nucleat Power f) Station); Puolic Service Company of Indiana (Matole Hill Nuclear Power Station); and Consunets Power Company o f ichiga n (Midland luclear Powet Station):

[) Utility Lowest Bond Ratings Period

? S .1H Caa 1967 to date General Public Utilities 32 1932-33 l') Consunets Powet Co. of Micnigan 31 1934 Long Island Lighting Co. 333 1984 to date Public Service Co. of Indiana Ba3 1985

% Cincinnati Oas 5 Electtic Co. Baa3 1933 (Appeniix !: Affidavit of Tinothy Newhard, Taoles 1 and 21 m )

O s:ATEME1:S/?INANCIAL CONSITION OF JTHER APPLICA9?3

4. The tespective ownetship shates and propottional share of plant costs of tne various Joint Ownets are as follows:

9 hate 2PA3JJY.

Puolic Service Company of Mew Hampshite 35.56952 United Illuminating ConpanY 17.50000 Eastern Utilities Associates Powet Corp. 12.13240 Massachusetts Municipal L'holesale Electr ic Co. 11.59340 New England Power Co. 9.95766 Connecticut Light & Power Co. 4.05985 3.52317 Canal Electric Co.

J 2.39989 Montaup Electric Co.(Eastern Utilities Associates) .

New Manpshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2.17391

• / e t n o n t Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.41257

,a Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant 0.10034 tiudson Light and Power Depattnent 0.07737 (Appendix I: Affidavit of Timothy Newhard, f5).

5. The Seactook Joint Ownetsnip Agreement does not include provisions concetning the assunption of the cost obligations ot ownetsnip shate of defaulting joint owners. At least one Joint

,)

Ownet has stated it will not assume PS1H's Seabtook obligations at ownetship share. Transcript of December 8, 1937 Otal Atgunent before Appeal Board at 37 (statement of Thomas Dignan, J

counsel to the Joint Ownets); Appendix II: Lettet dated Featuary 5, 1933 from Thomas E. McHugh, Acting General Managet Shannon.

of mmh'EC to "assachusetts Attorney General James M.

)

-4 -

/"

N.,,!

l I

D 1

i

6.  : lone of the Joint Ownets have indicated that they will l assume PS'iH's shate of the costs of operation in the event that

} PsNH is unaole to pay its share of such costs, not have any of the Joint. Ownets, ot any othet entities expressed an intention

]

to buy out PSNH's ownetship shate. M. Appendix IV: Fe b '. u a r y 13, 1933, Response of United Illuminating Corporation to Que s t ion EI.-4 B . in CDPUC Doc. No. 34-06-17 ("To the best of our knowledge, no Sesotook ownets have made any commitment to g

meet payment shott .' alls, if any, which may tesult from PSNH's banktuptcy filing.").

g 7. 'iew England Electtic System ("NEES"), a public utility holding company which is the patent of New England ,

Electtic Powet Co., the entity with the fiftn latgest ownership share of the Seabrook plant (9.95766 petcent), has announced g

that it has begun preliminary discussions with PSNH concetning acquisition of PSNH's operating assets. It has specifically disclaimed any intention to acquite PSNH's ownetship share of g

the Seabtook plant. Appendix III: NEES February 23, 1993 Press Release, n 3. United !11uninating Company, the entity with the a

second largest ownetship shate of the plant (17.5 percent), is a Connecticut investot-owned utility subject to the jutisdiction of the Connecticut Department of Puolic Utility 3

Conttol ("CDPUC"). In tesponse to an intettogatoty propounded l in a mattet pending befote the CDPUC, United Illuminating has 1

.itated tnat it "would not increase its shate of (Seabrook) g D

payments without [C]DPUC apptoval." Appendix IV: February 13, 1933, 3esponse of United Illuminating Cotpotation to Question EL-4 3. in CD?UC Doc. No. 94-06-17.

9. Eastern Utilities Associates Powet Cotpotation ("EUA Powet Cotp."), the entity with the thitd latgest shate of the plant (12.1324 percent), is a single asset company with no assets other than its Seabtook investment and no source of funds othet than secutity issuances, capital contributions, ot tax telated payments from affiliated companies. It was created in 1935 in response to an eatliet financial crisis of the Seabtook ownets and now holds the ownetship shates of five former joint applicants. Appendix 7: Prepared Direct ,

Testimony of Donald G. Pardus, Ptesident of EUA Power Corp.

oefote New Hampshite Public Utilities Conmission in NHPUC Docket No.37-234 at 5-6.

13. On Novemhet 24, 1937, EUA ?owet Corp. proposed to issue securities in the amount of $100 million to fund

)

interest ocligations on its outstanding secutities, intetest on its to be issued securities, and its shate of monthly costs of On January 15, 1433, the Seabtook plant through Januaty, 1989.

J hosevet, EUA Power Corp. tequested leave to 3 mend its proposal to issue an additional $25 million in securities because *its To cash tequirements may be greatet than originally thought."

a I date, tre New Mampshite Puolic Utilities Commission has not EUA Power Corp.

tuled on EUA Power's motion. Appendix VI:

'40 tion To Amend Petition, "HPUC Docket No.37-234.

g

O

11. On Febtuary 4, 1988, the Chaitman of EUA Powet announced tnat the conpany will not be able to meet the g

interest payments due in May of tnis yeat on its outstanding cond3. Appendix "II: 3oston Globe Atticle: "Se abt ook ' oes o Tnteaten Saosidiaty of Mass. Utilit y' (February 5, 1983).

J

12. The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Com7any (MMWEC), the entity with the fourth largest shate of the plant (11.5934 percent), has stated publicly that it is not

)

required to and has no intention of assuming any of PSNH's share of plant costs not will it putchase PSNH's ownetship m shate. Appendix II: Lettet dated February 5, 1988 from Thomas E. McHugh, Acting General Managet of MMWEC, to Massachusetts, Attotney General James M. Shannon,

, 13. Three of the MMUEC participants, teptesenting 12.7562 percent of the total MMWEC ownership interest, have withheld payment to MMWEC of theit share of the costs of the plant:

Wasnington Electric Coopetative (1.9562 percent), Vermont Electtic Cooperative (7.2 percent), and Eastern Maine Electric Coopetative (3.6 percent). Eastern Maine Electric Coopetative itself has filed for protection from its eteditors undet the o

cankruptcy code. Appendix VIII: Boston Globe Atticte: '2d 7t. Utility Stops ?aying For Seabrook" (February 15, 1968).

14. Vetmont Electric Cooperative owns a separate 0.41259 percent ownetship share in the Seabtook plant in addition to its 7.2 percent share of the MMNEC share and it has not made 3

its nonthly payment of the costs of the plant since Febtuary, a

1936.

o

\ ]

D THE INCREMENTAL CURRENT COSTS OF LO;l ?OWER OPERATIo1

15. Low powet opetation of the Seabrook plant will

{)

tesult in an immediate inctease in the costs to the Acolicants ovet tne costs they ptesently beat in operation of the plant undet a :eto-powet license.

e)

16. Cuttent costs will inctease by $3,656,000 for operational, testing and calibration activities during low poset operation, $1,565,000 fot an additional insurance premium r) to be paid upon teceipt of a low power license and $1,220,000 for an additional ptenian to be paid upon completion of low m powet testing. Appendix IX: PSNH Response to NRC Request for V

Financial Information, Response to NRC Question la (Seotember, 3, 1967).

17 Low powet opetation will result in the ittadiation and g

contamination of the teactot fuel and other plant components, including the teactot pressate vessel and intetnals, the stes, genetatots, the conttol rods, incote nucleat insttumentation,

()

and teactor auxiliary systen components, equipnent, and Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, t10).

piping. (Appendix X:

13. Tne ittadiation and contamination of the teactor fuel and othet Seabtook plant components from low power operation will teduce imnedistely and substantially the salvage value of n the plant and its components and thereby result in substantial U

and innediate economic costs to the Applicants:

- s-c)

f

a. Tne loss of all of the apptoximately $50-80 nillion estimated salvage value of tne nuclear fuel

]

ptesently loaded into the Seabtook cote (compate A?pendix !X: PSNH Response to MRC Request fot einancial Infotmation, Response to NRC Question 16:

]

tne salvage value of the fuel would apptoxinately offset the costs of hsndling and ttanspottation of the fuel to a thitd

]) catty resulting in no net cost to the Joint ownets for the disposal of the fuel with Appendix X: Affidavit of Dale G.

S t i d e n'o a u gh , 513:

{)

Based on ptesent day nuclear fuel costs, the

• value of the Seabtook fuel is apptoximately

$50-30 million. Salvage value approximately equal to this amount could be realized from the fuel in its present condition. 'ihile it

'> is technically possible that ittadiated fuel could be transfetted to a diffetent teactot of the same design and subsequently used, tnete would be significant penalties associated with such an action. . . .

m Consequently, I conclude that the fuel has m) little or no value if used for testing up to 5% power;

o. The loss of all of the approximately $25-30 million salvage value of the ittadiated non-fuel g

plant conponents (Appendix X: Affiiavit of Sale G. Stidenbaugh, C14).

19. PSNH's pro tata shate of the incremental costs of

)

low power operation would be apptoximately $2,291,607:

$1,301,000 in inctemental operating, maintenance, and m testing costs plus $990,607 in inctemental insurance J

ptemiun Costs.

-9 -

()

O

20. PSNH's pto tata shate of the apptoximately

$75-113 nillion teduction in the salvage valJe Of Seabtook plant assets will be apptoximately $26.7-39.1 million.

T1r ?3S: L73 POWER ?ESTI E C09TS 0? P ER!! ANENTLY 99JTr:11 3 7. 1 s :;3a ?N AND '! A I N T AI N I N'] IT IN A T F E c):13 : ": y)

21. If low powet testing is conducted, but Seabtook does not receive a full-powet operating license, the Applicants must fund the following operating and maintenance costs fot a cetiod in excess of two yeats:

a. According to the Applicants, cetsonnel and ptogram costs associated with the cleaning and q decontaminating of various plant components and locations sould not exceed the cuttent operating oudget ($10-11 million pet month) (Appendix IX:

'J Response of PSNH to NRC Request for Financial Information, Response to MRC Question lo), but would continue for an undetermined number of months Bridenbaugh, C15);

(Appendix X: Affidavit of Dale G.

o. Post cleaning and decontamination personnel and ptogram costs fot on-site storage of the ittadiated nuclear fuel would be in the tange of apptoximately

$700,000 per month. That cost would continue for a miniman of two to three years until the fuel was 3 disposed of, eithet to a ouyet at to a presently non-existent nigh-level nuclear waste disposal facility. Appendix IX: Response of PSNH to NPC

)

4 Req;est for Tinancial Infotmation, Response to '!RC g Qu e s*_ i o n l o; Appendix X: Affiiavit of Dale G.

3tidencaugh, (15;

c. 'ucleat liability and property insutance costs

-; associated with on-site storage of high level nuclear waste would be in the tange of $2.5 nillion per year.

Appendix !X: Response of PSNH to NRC Request fot i Financial Information, Response to NRC Ouestion Ib;

d. Miscellaneous costs (taxes, legal, accounting and other administrative expenses) telated to the D naintenance of the facility, but not included in the

$700,000 figure noted in c. above, would be in the tange of $2.2 million per month. Id. ,

]) 22. It is highly unlikely that Seabrook Station will evet receive a full-powet operating license. As a tesult of a tenand to the on-site Licensing Board otceted oy the Appeal

~) 30ard, issuance of a low-power license cannot take place until the Applicants develop and implement means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the

]; 'tassachusetts EP: in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 550.47(o)(5).

Puolic Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALA3-333 (February 3, 1983). The Applicants have

) submitted theit own emergency tesponse plan in lieu of plans fron 'ussachusetts State and local govetnments. They must denonstrate undet 10 C.F.R. 550.47(a)(1) that theit plan

] provides "teasonaole assutance that adequate protective m .

L) ~ il

• 0

(

measates can and will be taken" in the event of a radiological emetgency. 7tility plans cannot provide thit level of protection, as demonstrated by the recent finding of the Snoteham Licensing Board in its evaluation of the exercise of LILCO's utility plan. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nucleat Powet Station, Unit 1), L3P-33-2, slip. 00 (Febtuary 1, 1933).

a TME C01SEQUUJCE3 0F ?3NM'S BANKRUPTCY FILING

23. At present, a trustee has not been appointed and PSNM continues to opetate its business, but with the same duties as L,) a ttustee would nave. 11 U.S.C. 51107 A trustee or deotor in possession nas a fiduciary duty to maintain the value of the dectot's estate.

, 24. A ttustee in bankruptcy ot debtor in possession may

)

sell, use, or lease estate property (including cash proceeds from operations) in cattying on the ordinary course of the

c. dectot's business. 11 U.S.C. 51103.

25. Priot notice, a hearing and court approval are required for sales, uses, or leases of estate propetty outside

,, of tne ordinary course of the debtor's business. 11 U.S.".

a 5363(b).

26. Wnether or not a particular use or transaction is y, witnin the atdinary course of a debtor's business is resolved oy application of a standard tnat focuses on the teasonable expectations of the creditors.

J 27 The Official Unsecuted Creditors Committee tecogni:33 and PSNM admits that tne disposition of the Seactook oa _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

O plant is the centtal mattet to be tesolved in the banktuptcy o proceeding. Appendix XI: 'iotion By Official Unsecuted V

Cteditots Connittee To Continue Heating On Request For Rule 2004 Fat (sic) Exanination, 14 (Febtuary 11, 1933); Apoendix

)

XII: Affidavit of Robett J. Hattison, T6 (Februaty 10, 1983).

23. The question of whethet PSN9's continuing ony9ents of the costs of :sto powet operations at Seabtook is "in the

() otdinary coutse" and "in the best interest of the Debtot, the estate, Debtot's eteditors or the effective teorganization of Debtot" nas alteady been taised before the bankruptcy court.

Appendix XIII: Motion For Examination Of Debtor Undet

)

3ankruptcy Rule 2004, 57, Attached Requesta for Documents 'Jos.

6, 3, 10 (February 3, 1933). Discovery on this issue has been

) defetted pursuant to an otal ordet of the bankruptcy court,

29. Ittespective of whether :ero powet operation of the Seabtook plant and the payment of the costs thereof is or is Jc not found to be in the ordinary course of PSNH's business, it is beyond cavil that low power operation and testing represents a suostantial alteration of the status quo. Low-powet

?''i " '"d '**'i"9 *il *"i ""'*'*"'i'l 'ddi'i'"'

O "

will itteversioly impait the salvage value of an asset comptising approximately sixty nine percent of the book value n, of PSNH's estate (Cowans, 2 Bankruptcy Law and Practice U

11.9(1) p. 366 (1937 Ed.) ("Any substantial use that would consume assets or dectease theit value palpaoly should be pJ preceded by cout. permission.")), and, through the creation of nuclear waste, will result in an ooligation to fund enornous

()

O futute costs. Those costs sould be accorded fitst ptiotity in any teotgani:ation ot liquidation of PS4H. Midlantic National Tank v. New Jersey Dept. of Envitonmental Resources, 474 U.S.

434 (1986); In te Sterns, 68 3.R. 774 (7.Me. 1937). Therefote,

{j initiation of low powet opetation of the Seabtook nlant would not be "in the otdinary coutse of" PSNH's business. The availability of funds for any payment by PSNH of the i inctemental costs of low powet opetation would tequite ptiot notice, a heating and approval by the bankrupt court.

30. Low power operation of the Seabtook plant would, m tatough the ittadiation and contamination of the nuclear fuel and plant components, impermissibly pteempt the teorganization oy de facto tesolving the question of the disposition and fatute ase, if any, of the plant. See In te Continental Air 7)

• ines, Inc., 730 F.2d 1223, 1223 (2d Cir. 1983)("if a dector wete aliosed to teoganize the estate in some fundamental J) fashion pursuant to 363(b), creditots' tights . . . might become meaningless."). Therefore and because of the ancettainties of full-powet opetation, it is extremely unlikely

)

that the cankruptcy cou't will authotize PSNH to expend funds on low-power testing prior to the approval of a plan of teorganization.

THE PUBLIC 'JTILITY EXEMPTION FRO'i Tyr O

COMMISSIGN'S FINA1CIAL 2'JALI:ICATION R E -) J I J E M P 4 T 4 3 '. . The Atomic Enetgy Act of 1954 tequires that "each application for a license heteundet . . . (include) such

.s J information as tne Comnission, by tule ot regulation, may 0

)

determine to be necessaty to determine such of the technical and financial qualifications of the applicant . . as the

)

Commission may deem approptiate for the license." 42 U.S.C.

S2232(a). The Commission has implemented that statutory ptovision oy tequiting that an applicant for an operating license:

subnit infotmation that demonstrates the applicant possesses or has teasonable assutance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs for

) the period of the license, plus the estimated costs of petmanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition. 10 C.F.R. S50.33(f)(2).

32. The Commission has stated tnat the "sole objective of 3 the financial qualification tule is to obtain assutance 'that funds needed fot safe operation will ne made available." 49 Fed. Reg. 35747, 35750 (Septembet 12, 1984).

O 33. By tulenaking dated Septembet 12, 1984, the Commission exempted puolicly tegulated utilities, including the Joint Dwnets of the Seabrook plant, fron demonstrating financial O qualification prior to teceipt of an operating license. The Commission stated the effect of and tationale for the exemption:

The tule will, in normal circumstances, teduce the time and effort which the applicants, licensees, the

,0

, sac staff and sac adjudicatory boates devote to reviewing the applicant's ot licensee's financial

! qualifications in comparison to the rule which existed before Match 31, 1982. The tule eliminates staff teview at the operating license stage in cases where the applicant is an electric utility ptesuned to be

,0 aole to finance activities authorized under the license. . . . The tationale for the tule is in effect a genetic determination that tegulated or self-regulating public utilities are financially r lualified to operate nuclear powet plants.

O 43 Fed, aeg. 3s7sl.

O

O i

34. In tnat tulemaking the Connission stated that:

the record of this tulemaking denonsttates genetically

'O that the cate ptocess assutes that funds needed fot safe operation will ce nade available to tegulated electric utilities.

49 Fed. Reg. 35751.

O see Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoteham Nucleat Powet station, Unit 1), L3P-34-30, 20 NRC 426, 432 (1934), ("The purpose of the financial qualifications tegulations, applicable to O electric utilities, is to elininate staff review of the issue in operating license ptoceedings on a case-by-case basis.").

35. Notwithstanding the genetic finding upon which the O public utility exemption was based, the commission recogni,.ee .

that citcunstances "in exceptional cases" may tequite a waivet of or exception from the exenption, fot example, "where a O thteshold showing is made that, in a particulat case, the local public utility commission will not allow the total cost of opetating the facility to be recoveted through tates." 49 Fed.

O neg. 35747.

36. In neither the Septembet, 1934 tulemaking not in any subsequent pronouncement has the Commission addressed the O question of the availability of adequate funds fot safe operation during the pendency of the bankruptcy of a public utility licensee.

O ApptIcArto To psNs or raE commission's 9JaLIc U:ILIrv EXEMPTION FROM THE FINA'lCIAL QUALIFICA: ION RULE WO 'J L D *10T SERVE I1E o 'J R ? OS E OF THE EXEMPTIO'1 37 The putpose of the Conni.ision's public utility C) exemption is to eliminate unnecessary staff and licensee review

()

l-

)

1

! in light of the genetic finding that the tate ptocess sill j assute that sufficient funds are available fot the costs of safe operation, maintenance and permanent shut down of licensed plants.

38. In light of the extraordinary present citcunstances of

• P S !1H , the lead ownet and operator of the Seabrook plant, the genetic finding with respect to the rate ptocess is inaceutate j with tespect to the question of the availability of funds for the safe opetation of Seactook undet a low-power license. New Hampshite law fotoids recovery from ratepayers before connetcial operation of any of the costs associated with the 3

Seabtook plant. NHRSA 378:30-a. See In te Public Service Co.

of Nes Hampshire, N.H. , slip, oj. (Januaty 26, 1988)

(upholding constitutionality of NHRSA 373:30-a). Moreover, the 3

availability of funds to PSNH fot expenditute on low powet opetation and testing is presently within the control of the lg bankruptcy coutt, not the New Hampshire Public Utilities conmission.

39. The purpose of the public utility exenption from the l g Commission's financial qualification tule -- the elimination of 1

l unnecessaty expenditute of Connission and litigant tesources on an issue presumptively resolved on a genetic basis -- would not be served by its applicati n here. A teview of the financial O

l qualifications of the ownets of the Seabrook plant is necessary because tneir particular circunstances ate well beyond the c pe f the conmission's 19a4 genetic finding.

Moreovet, O

substantia 1 uncertainty exists whether the banktuptcy court o

will apptove the expenditute of sufficient funds to conduct y low-powet t.esting safely at Seabtook and to shut down the plant in a safe condition aftet its contamination.

CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Attotney Genetal James '4. Shannon respetfully tequests that the Appeal Boatd:

(1) find that a etima facie case has been made that the application hete of the public utility exemption from the requitenent of a demonstration of financial qualification would not setve the purpose for which the exemption was adopted and that application of the exemption should be waived or an exception granted; .

(2) certify directly to the Commission for a determination whethet the public utility exenption from the requitement of a demonstration of financial qualification should be waived ot an exception gtanted with respect to the licensing of the Seabrook plant; (3) stay the issuance of a license authorizing low power l

opetation and testing pending the resolution by the Commission of the cettified issue and, if the Commission determines that (O

in the circumstances of the Seabrook plant a waiver of ot exception from the public utility exenption from the financial qualification tule should be granted, a determination of financial qualification; and O

~

18 ~

O

9 (4) issue such other orders and grant such other relief as 9 may'be' equitable and necessary to insure the public health and safety.

Respectfully submitted-

[) JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS f4 By: ,/ I ,'M Stephen %. Jonas George B. Dean Assistant Attorneys General One Ashburton Place

() Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-1083 ,

DATED: March 7, 1988 O

O O

O O

O

j APPENDICES D

Affidavit of Timothy Newhard Appendix I:

Appendix II: Letter dated February 5, 1988 from Thomas E.

McHugh, Acting General Manager of MMWEC to Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon D

Appendix III: NEES Pebruary 23, 1988 Press Release Appendix IV: . February 18, 1988, Response of United Illuminating Corporation to Question EL-4 B. in CDPUC Doc. No. 84-06-17 O Prepared Direct Testimony of Donald G. Pardus, Appendix V:

President of EUA Power Corp. before New Hampshire Public Service Commission in NHPSC Docket No.87-234, pp. 5-6

,C) Appendix VI: EUA Power Corp. Motion To Amend Petition, NHPUC Docket No.87-234 .

Appendix VII: Boston Globe Article: "Seabrook Woes Threaten l

l Subsidary Of Mass. Utility" (February 5, 1988)

C) Appendix VIII: Boston Globe Article: '2d Vt. Utility Stops Paying For Seabrook' (February 15, 1988)

Appendix IX: PSNH Response to NRC Request for Financial Information (September 3, 1987)

'() Appendix X: Affidavit of Dale G. Bridenbaugh Appendix XI: Motion By Official Unsecured Creditors Committee To Continue Hearing On Request For Rule 2004 For (sic) Examination (February 11, 1988)

() Appendix XII: Affidavit of Robert J. Harrison Appendix XIII: Motion For Examination Of Debtor Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Appendix XIV: NH RSA 378:30-a O

O lO . .

)

APPENDIX I

[) AFFIDAVIT OF TIMOTHY NEWHARD

[) I, Timothy Newhard, depose and say as follows:

1. I an a financial analyst with the Utilities Division of

[) the Department of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.

2. In 1981, I received a Master's degree in Business Administration with concentrations in finance and economics from the Northeastern University. From 1981 to the present, I

()  ;

have worked for the Department of the Attorney General analy:ing finance, economic, and accounting issues. I have also

() presented before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities expert testimony on the cost of capital for public utilities.

3. Table 1 and Table 2 attached to this affidavit present a

()

history of the bond ratings of investor-owned utilities that have shares in the Seabrook nuclear power station and certain other utilities that have built nuclear power plants. I have

()

compiled this history from available issues of Moody's Bond Record.

O O

O

9

4. Tablos 1 and 2 show the current bond ratings for those issues outstanding as reported in Moody's Bond Record for the end of January 1988 as well as Moody's bond rating at the end of each of the calendar years 1972 through 1987 The tables show ratings for the following companies or their subsidiaries:

Seabrook Investors: j l

Canal Electric Company l Connecticut Light and Power Company q

Eastern Utilities Associates New England Power Company Public Service Company of New Hampshire The United Illuminating Company .

,. Other Nuclear Construction Utilities:

J Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Consumers Power Company (CMS Energy Company)

General Public Utilities u

Gulf State Utilities Long Island Lighting Company Middle South Utilities

,J Public Service Company of Indiana

O 1

O o

O

5. According to the Seabrook Joint nwners Agreement, the gp respective ownership shares and proportional share of plant costs of the Seabrook joint owners are as follows:

1 Canal Electric Company 3.52317 Connecticut Light and Power Company 4.05985 Hudson Light and Power Department 0.07737

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company 11.59340 Montaup Electric Company 2.89989

.~;

New England Power Company 9.95766 New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2.17391

• Public Service Company of New Hampshire 35.56952 Taunton Municipal Lighting 0.10034 3

The United Illuminating Company 17.50000 Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.41259 EUA Power Corporation 12.13240 3

6. The last attachment to my affidavit, Table 3, is a true g and correct copy of Moody's explanation of its bond ratings taken from Moody's Bond Record, j

l l

l

\ .--

\ )

)

O Signed and sealed under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of March 7, 1988.

O i

. i~. .

O Timothy Newhard f

O  !

O  !

O O

O O

O

, . TABLE l' :;

cure._ 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981' 4980 Canal Electric

, .lst A2 A2 A2 A2 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 ,Aa Aa i

ist & Gen. A2 A2 A2 A2 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 'Aa i Aa l ,

Conn. LEP ,

lat Ref. Baal Baal Baal Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa Baa )

EUA Eastern Edison A3 A3 A3 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2' Baa3 Baa Baa L

. Blackstone Baa3 Baa Baa Brockton Baa2 Baa2 A3 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Baa Baa I Fall River. Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Baa Baa New England Power  ;

1st Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Aa3- Aa Aa >

Gen. & Ref. Aa3 Aa3 Aa3 Al Al Al Al ,

A A  :

P.S.N.H. ,

1st Caa Caa al B3 B3- Bal Bal Baa Baa i Gen. Ref. Caa Caa B2 Caa Caa Ba3 Ba3 Ba Ba  :

Deb. C C Caa Caa Caa Ba3 Ba3

Bonds ca Ca B3 ,j  ;

U.I.

Deb. Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 B32 Ba2 Baa3 Baa3 Baa Bea ,

l Cincinnati Baal Baal Baal Baal Baa2 Baa3 Al Aa Aa Consumers .I L 1st Baa3 Baa3 Ba2 Ba3 B1 Bal Baa3 Baa Baa i S.F. Deb. Bal Bal Ba3 B1 B2 Ba2 Bal Ba Ba  ;

l: GPU Jersey 1st Baal Baal Baal Baa2 Bal Ba3 Ba3 Ba Ba  !

L) i Deb Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba2 B1 B1 B 3 [

Metro ist Baal Baal Baa2 Bal Ba2 B2 B2 B B Deb Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba2 Ba3 B3 B3 3 .B  !

Penn 1st A2 A2 A3 Baa2 Bal Ba3 Ba3 Ba Ba l Deb A3 A3 Baal Baa3 Ba2 B1 B1 B B l O GSU i  !

lst Ba3 Ba3 Ba2 Baa2 Baa3 Baa; Baa2 A A I Euro Deb. B1 B1 Ba3 Baa3

, Deb. Baa  :

Lilco U lst Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 Bal Baal A A Gen. Ref. B1 al 31 B1 B1 Ba2 Baa2 Baa Baa  !

Deb. B1 B1 B1 l l

MSU [

Ark Baal Baal Baal Baa2 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa Baa  ;

O Louis Ba32 Baa2 Baa2 Ba2 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa Bas s Miss Baal Baal Baal Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 Baa2 A A  !

N.O. Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Ba2 Baa3 .Baa3 Haa3 A A  !

M.S. Energy Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Ba2 Bal j y PSCI Baa2 Baa2 Bal Ba3 Ba2 Ban 2- A3 A Aa

.ABL 2 E 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 Canal Electric lst As Aa As Aa As Aa Aa Aa 1st & Gen. Aa Aa Aa Aa Conn. L&P lst Ref. A A A A A A Aa Aa EUA Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Baa Baa Eastern Edison Blackstone saa haa Baa Baa Baa Baa A A Brockten Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa A A S Fall River Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa i A New England Power f 1st Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa 's a I Gen. 5 Ref. A A A t

. P.S.N.H.

lst Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa A A l' Gen. Ref. Ba Deb.

g U.I.

Deb. A A A A A A A A Cincinnati ha Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aaa Aaa I

L Consumers 1st A A Baa Saa Baa Baa Aa Aa S.F. Deb. Baa Baa Ba Ba Ba Ba A A GPU Jersey 1st Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa saa Ba; Baa

, , Deb. Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba tie t r o ist Baa A A A A A A A Deb. ba Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Penn 1st Baa A A A A A A A Deb. Ba Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa

, GSU lat A Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa

'duro Deb.

Deb. Baa A A A A A A A f Lilco L 1st A Aa Aa Aa Aa As Aa A 'a Gen. Ref. A A A A A Deb, MSU Ark ist Baa Baa Baa Baa A A A A is .

Deb. Baa Baa J Louis Baa Baa Baa Baa A 'A A A Miss A A A A A A A A N.O. g A A A A A A A A M.S. Energy ,

PSCI Aa Aa Aa As As Aa Aa Aa a

- x - .-. , , ,

s. . .-~.n.~- .. .-

• rh - KEY TO M.joov'S COCPORATE RATINGS O '. ,

VOOQY'.I BOND RATINGS <

N , . . . . . --- m 1 r

s purpost ne aster.Tf ratt t ,ecet es was orgtna'ed by & W.ody N

'1909. 00

' T h 3 rpop if Der 4 RatM is to provide the inves. .rs eit5 a t be's '"M5 ab ch are W (se m Mged to M d *e tvst w y S f :a", m

8'8""C' **" #S 8'd'i" 3 r '84' 3'3., 8 m' ' ,'

~

. sr Vot grad ie uy .w.J.h '.dme investment quest es ct bccas . w,e Interest pa, Peats are proteced of a iarge er e',',.,e a;,"s e ,3,

, p, .,,,,e e ,e.,, a.e . . . .

l ~.- s , . .

and ,,is cat i, seme. me i, e v a, r at s . ,t) a;,7 y c*aNe bch crFes as Can ce v%4urd a e Rstte.g (Jmbo!s: Gradations of ,heer#gs aqM are 6md!Cated by f at?Pg f.Na viaar urceg pcs+on of ssch w C, symbuti. each symbol representieg a grovo n wr cn me cushty cwactenst>cs are ewy tre ye. n v. are er , menois as sno.e eei w. trom trai use n **

' ces em'ess'n Wawusu 0 n4NgMst invettment osaq) to trat denet6eg Bonds *Nch are rated Aa de tx ,ed to ce of hgg Q,,pty e, 41 s ywes greatest ieve% %4 e., ice tf investment Aahtyl t get*er with the Aae ( &,9 Set Wrat weat are (**er(f p P0a*' as FP Ces Ce g IS4 As1.. Mes fv $ 1.,a grace ecads. Dey a.a rose swer tras tae test Macs tecao meg as :t s c.."'. -

. : ', S.For eepiershon of munic$el rateg syme.n. m i,'erticutar yotection we Areay 1 andnot b Baa is !ay s., r m Asa secu a es or fL.ctuat.on of cryect:.e 1am;,utude

'\ + stemnts reay be of greater or trere rmay be ot=er e e~ eats pewt (mugs see page 234. ,

y nme tM lorg urm nsas accear s meamat larger t*an in Aa3 ser. r ? es O j . ;~')bsence of Rating Wbere no retics tas NIasigded'or =*ere a ratieg tias A

1. ;

• 8$6a su; pended or asthdrawn. it may te for r.poes unrMat 4 S .e w aarof t* *

.* * 's Bonds wtuch.are rated A pcssess many favorable investmeat *tPAtes a*d l

' .t%e - ...

Q%Jld no r1teg be 3ssighf. tha reason may be oee are of tothe be cons f* ymbg*4ered as upper ine@um gf ace obl'gati0es f act0rs g vg secgota

1. an appl
to4 ate data to permrt t jur ghent to os formed;if a bond es Caned tact have specula'Ive .!a'ectefistics as well for redemption; or for"other retScris.

8a Chenpr p Ra:Mg: The oua ty of most bonds is not find and s9ady over a pened inne, bu' tervJs to undergo cMageJor this reason cearges in ratiets Bonds which are rate 1 b are judged to Pare 50eculative e'emees*e.r fstar e O (ca'***'''"*'"'w'a'd'""*"'*"$"*' eseaacmren e %ra m re - m e n wi-onncical oayrnents mar be very roerste sad t erecy not mest svegarea A change in raties rnay thus occi,r at any tone in the case of an mdmdual dutieg other good and bed tes eve. fre tutwre Ur:Ctristy of pos ton '. earn tsswe. hcM F3treg Charge snou!d serve noticomthat /totyy's Ctserves sc.me

• i arteration in toe irvestment ns's e nf tN bond oriha the ;;.,vioas rating did eot ternes borids in this Ctass.

j ,

fupy riftect the cuauty of the cond as now seen. NhA becaose of their very 8 g

nature, changes are to be espectel more frequently einoes bonds of lower roters thart amoeg bonds of higher ra*ings, neverthe4ea the user of bond Bonds wMeh are ta'ed B reaeestfy lack cea turWS sf tae des raere iewst.

ratings erwid keep close and constant chnck on til ratiegnotti high and low men,. 43,,,,,nce et nterest and pnnCcal par e w cr et +amteaaece of c -er rategsmey to ba able to note prornottg ary svgns cf criarge a irivestment gern., g n ce. ,:t our any ices pened e m ,nv tm sma .

g

• d status wheCS emay v;Wr. Caa Urmtations to Uses of Ratiag1: Bonds carQer the same rates are not E'onMice are ated Caa are of peior staad *g Ed ines r av de a :W.~ t clatned to es e Msolutry ecuat ovanty. In o ecced sense tPey are see m of Pe'e if be t weet everts of daager a.?" etimt f: cr -::a r W .!

i positor., but since *tre tre a htmted eureber :f rst eg riasses used m grad +g tSoi ssacs c' bere. the riyebots Cannot ref1ect the 6ne shacegs of rus *Ncn Ca utwaily eset theretcre, it secutd te evideet W Pe user of rateegn trat t o 93eds *hich are rated Ca represent eti gers e ce sem e .e a s a c'

• oWs s'etir,aNy rat d are pavy to te pra gly the sar*e in sevestment .P#4 deg'ee hCh :sfies are cMen in jetag or haa : "4' "a'at J .

Qb'auty.

g As rltings are des *gaed esciasevely for the purpose of gr3&cg tWds accordtes

[ to the<r investment Qwaut)es, they should not be used a@ee as a Canis for i Bonds whir.'h a ; etted C s'e 'he beest ra*ad cisu of tycs sad 1 sues so

1. iMYestment ocef ahoes. f or enarmone, they have no YllVe 6n forecasteg Pe d' rec. rated can be rega'3ed as harN estre*e'y ocor Or:sLCts of tee' aPa n.ag a' y t.96 of future treSos of martet pt)(A. 4tlnthet price rnoverce^ts M bonds are reti investment sia-J.eg lefluenCod not orfy 0t the quady cf hwidsel issues Nt also by changes in meeey rates and geeeral octromic treadt, as not as oy the length of reatanty, ,, ,

etc. Dunes its his wi the erst suahty band rea, have w de poce movements, w %., g ,,,e p g % 7 y g 3 , ,,,

,a s.f tcatun f rom a sl'i'is%n 6.n ef t Gr;;rie 0 < J rr "R s,W e 9...

PMle er Wg" ir..d . fleet st&s ter53 os e,nchangeo.

er i e ec cites tN *%

• e:urity rat > s a 3 -(' eN L' 's . ^> - *J .

cato:r rtre,ru v 2 m en , ,",.'

iMe teafter ofR er. A prce has no t>tahe!wh663i* Gr Cri the de'er"mestion of v, et ,

V ret v nien ar e not to ee Coritrued as rece, endauons .im ,eio.a o

<^3 cafes Pat tP r 0,6e ra"*s "i '"e Mati s M sf dae s *eric 'a( Cs'vpf t i

"atJa*w r*essf 'ihe attr$Ctivertess of a given bord may de;as on ds y e d. its , g q e

y g g, g, q gg featurity Cele 04 C'her f actors for which tne '9v*stor reay searCM, as meti as on its q nevestment quakt g the oi'd, thartetenst4 ts wtsch the rstteg refers.

g g p, q g g, gggp ,q covered 3fe Care 3eposits 3M oc"ga' res t2 demer fore (9 erC*aege 3 (a-

$inCe ridegs 'evo% luffgnf,Wa about t*te future, on tikt o90 hand, and smce tces reiying upy %CDort mechaNsaris swCM as letters <t< red I a'e est Aed q

p they are used by revtstort 4.; a rnoans of protectCn on the other, tN et?crt is un!est vspbcatJr rated. Obtf aboes of a bisecm of a 'Jaan are Cens.ce ed 'o 04 retoe when ass (met rs'iregs to loc 4 8t "worst" Octeatta'at:45 in tN "esbe' thad'% 6 4 att IPe Cfit*t'y in *Mich tPe bramdi 4 Loca'od. VMess eCted 8s a9 i

fvture, rather tPan so444y at the past (6',a M an'id tPe s'atJs of the presem, eicept,o.s Mecd,'s rat,eg on a ee ucoy to re:a, sea.er et> gC s ene5 lA M '! Trm' ore. evestors uura ene estes shodia net, cpect to fed in t*em a nme -

te of statistics fators cone. s.nce tN,4. an soornisai of ioet term nie, oniy to erancres 3:cre a comr.es .aten Cery a vxe, s s .m o K,* er ,its Suc% Dranch ochg400rs are rated at my rewar cf t*e tasa $ rat eg C' %8:

includieg the recotytcrt "i many non statisitC1fl f actors. '

• Thoggt rat.egs r'ay he yg a.T 'S? haaklag authontieg to (!assfy toads in , ,\ , ,

re, n-, v.am. o, neue u,5 %s m e en me .e tw " '

r #. " , ' '

CF k tegt. atons m v.ee W Ocy s irtyes'brs $frvice 5 0*'. c. Cer1 as to Jee a #

My Cf f PM *2r C'a r.k levestmeet pu r s,ses is e:t etcatej t y ur i " 8

. ra~,1,a m ,.r. m u e, -o.,g. m m .e - . ..

ho+4 Chntry and eitker Pe 'ssirer s no*e C%"y Or t* e .:. "y .* 'e a9 a'

I body's lattf gs Florese*, the teature oo.aton of Vnedy's (Evestors $eedCe.

leC as to the re'ative irWes'irent classf.fPjan of borv,f s As suCN they s>Nid De isswer tranCR is S.ated are 60! Acorporate$ r'o MVAr s ra' *st 1s s ma.e no reertie wos Panree er. ceares ce est-ci m ,em a in Comacten w,tn ro.m.un and vant.c sentes in vooe, s t:46 un der the V $ Sec.tities Act of 19.12 Cr %ed in Cyf r* ty A le v :"P

• Menua!LRe'er9nce sPCuld bs meGe '4 these sittemeets for infor, Qon tegard- W C *4*8 a00r'CID'e law of requisten. NCr d:9s le'"X dy s reCrestat f

ieg the issuer, Moody's pat. egg are not Con me4tel Credri fangs In no Case is oca,t s. .a ,egry e omew. or a .o.d s,m :mawn a rceu.e e,a*y 9

]

. eetui er rece~eesang to bn in%tewe,s e,prewy so itrea ,n fhe van ,af s i .

m .

\

i%) f a

• • i 1

1 l

APPENDIX II m

. 11114651._ . &,,

[t}hhdNdNNbEiC M

Masuchusens Municipal Wholesale Electric Comp'nv 0FFICE O Stony Brook Energy Center Post Ofhce Box 426 L'udlow, Massac8Sf{S)tS6 PHl2: 06 m ,

(413)S89 0141 589-0801 g; gg[,' ,/. 2 ,.

/ .

O February 5, 1988 O Honorable James M. Shannon Attorney General Coenonwealth of Massachusetts Deparecent of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 3 st , MA. 02108-195 O

Dear Attorney General Shannon;

• The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your February 3, 1988 letter on the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant and provide an interie g response.

Your request, as outlined in your le t'te r , vill be presented to the W EC's Seabrook Participants at a ceeting scheduled to be on February 10, 1988. A copy of your letter has been furnished to each W EC Seabrook Participant.

O I would, at this time, like to advise you that M EC is not required under the Seabrook Joint Ownership agreement, nor is it MMWEC's intent, to ceet any financial obligations or shortfalls of the Seabrook Joint Owners, including Public Service of New Hampshire. Neither is it our intent to purchase any of PSNH's share of ownership in Seabrook.

O Following the MEC Seabrook Participant's meeting on February 10, 1988 it is our desire to meet with you personally in your of fice at a tutually convenient time to provide you a ore coeplete response to your February 3, 1988 letter. We look forward to discussing this issue with you.

'O Sincerely, 7).- J - s4-&

Thomas E. McHugh O Acting General Manager l

TEM /jrj O -

APPENDIX III 'T J) '

3 /

. 0 NewEnglandElectricSystem

, 25 Aesea'ca 0%e D es::c :u;a 'tassacnuse::s 01582 D

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Feb ru a ry 2 3, 1988 CONTACT: Jeff Dennard 617-366-9011 (days) 401-885-6278 (evenings)

D NEES and PSNH hold di scussions D

New England Electric System (NEES) and Public Service Com'pany of New Hampshire (PSNH) announced today th a t they have begun D prelimi na ry di scus sion s abou t the NEES system acquiring PSNH's operating asse ts. The contempl ated pu rchase would not include PSNH's share of the Seabrook nuclear power pl ant. Any transaction O resul ting f rom these di scussions would require various approvals ,

including the bankruptcy court and regulatory agencies, as well as the Boards of Directors of both companies.

D On Janua ry 28, 1988, PSNH filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Samuel Huntington, president and chief executive of ficer of

D NEES, said, "We believe that a consolidation would be in tne best 1

-more-0

.. .....: . : ... s.s.. .......s -. .. s.1i :. .. . s i i s . : . .

. . ., . . e . . . s . . .i,,.

,  ;.* E"#,i,W.','."Asa i J.i' g/.:"!';; 'if.!!,i.-!lt' Ji i;,'.".-/.,Y7 Lti's"6.,3 .?.':1.:.'

l

?ni.'J' 7'lt"d'

':; 0;.V. ' :*d t: ; Y:.;'s:ll::,' .??.' 's!ll1;G:l .i!.;;'h '; i;

. . : . : . . . . r . . - i . . : . . s . ., n : . s . . . n . . :. :... .......- . .:.

O l ong-term interes ts of cu s tomers , empi oyees , investors of tne NEES O system and PSNH, and of New England in general. A na tu ral fit exists between PSNH and NEES due to our geographic closeness and a shared commi tment to provide our customers wi th reliabl e, low-cos t

() electricity. New England Power Company (NEP) and Granite btate Electric Company are two NEES companies that have a long history of serving the peopl e of New Hampshire well . Our transmission lines, O in some cases, traverse PSNH service. territory, and our distribution company abuts PSNH in southeastern and western New Hampshire.

Additionally, the two companies share a common gorder at the O boundary between Mas sachusetts and New Hampshitle."

Robert J. Harrison, president and chief executive of ficer' of PSNH, said today that he "welcomes NEES' interest in PSNH. It O should of fer an opportunity to solve PSNH's financial prob'lems in a way that will also bring stability to New Hampshire's future power supply, which would otherwise f ace continued uncertainty. Despite C) these benefits, it's clear that consummation of any plan will not come overnight. It will take substantial time and ef fort, and will also require the involvement of our creditors, regulators, and other C) parties in interest."

PSNH owns 35.6 percent of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

NEP, NEES' wholesale electric generation and transmission O s u b s i di a ry , owns 10 percent. Construction of Seabrook is compl ete, but a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operating license must be obtained f or operation of the plant. Contested licensing

{) proceedings are pending before the NRC.

-more-O

0: -

~

Huntington said he envisions that any NEES acquisition of 'PS.'lH's Q- non-Seabrook. assets would leave PSNH wi th its existing Seabrook ownership and able to-meet its share of ongoing project costs.

Huntington reaffirmed NEES' support for prompt operation of Seabrook.

O. ###

O O

e +

(O-l I

lo -

l O

O

O

O

• APPENDIX IV e

- United Illuminating 3 ceneral orrice. so Tempt. si p

3 e o aa. i sut r ,, n .. c....., omou o..n i s a=

FEB i R 1988 e

FEB z z r"~3 DEPT. OF PUBUC Ulun CONTRC'.

o v EXECUT!YEe..,-..,v

-- m -- [y/g0n Of an r S="t C: .; ,

February 18, 1988 Depa m t of Public Utility Control one Central Park Plaza A0"' ION BY Ao New Britain, Connecticut 06501 N C0!!1!'S 10 L? ____

Attn: Mr. Robert J. F*.J:phy j,) - gg g - _ ,

i D<ecutive Secretary -

19 ".D _ LL__._ sp_,,,

i Re: Eccket No. 84-06 DrUC Review of Seabrook Unit 1 -

" ~ E-I Establish.nent of Limit on Constructi6h ES i P' "'

Costs Pursuant to Public Act 84-201,c; ~ g3 ~ '.g; ~ _. '-

Sdn 2 CC EO Gentle en:

Enclosed are an original and 28 copies of UI's responses to QJestions EL-1 through EL-8.

O very t:uly yours, THE I.LT IIll'MDL"'DG C2GNTl O

Bf

• V & % der. Stei f Manager' Revenue Reglire:nents

.gs V PdePS: cst: ell-8 Enclosures cc: 84-06-17 Service List O

The United Illuminating Company

.n,n...ior..n.s .,u.. ,,;,,,,,,4,.. ..,0,,,, .n>

0 l

O l

DOCKET NO. 84-06-17 QUESTICH EL-4 O page i of 1 Q-EL-4 A. What, if any, cmtingercy plans are available to address the bankruptcy of one of the joint owners?

i B. Are any joint owners prepared to cover any short-falls in payments for Seabrook 1 resulting frem the PSrE default? '

Explain and give UI's positicn. '

O A-EIr4 A. Starting in Septacber 1987, UI and several other investor-owned utility participants in the Seabrook project took action to engage special bankruptcy counsel in anticipation of a possible bankruptcy filing by PS?E. All O of the investor-owned Seabrook participants other than PS!E (minority participants) have since joined in this offort. ,

The purpose of this effort is to protect the value of the minority partiopants' inv==^w-at in the Seabrook project.

In this context, the effort was initially frv'M upcn takirg steps prior to a bankruptcy filing that were O considered r*,a-y to minimize patential impacts of a filirq if and whe it ocmrred. Sin:e the filing, counsel for the minority participants has been workirg in concert with counsel for PSNH, which has a otroon interest in protecting the value of its Seabrook investment. The minority participants plan to continue to work with PStE in o tnis regard and also intend to participate in all relevant pr

• Lrgs and other matters to the fullest extent permissible and r-cey to protect the value of the Seabrcok investment.

O B. T the best of our knowlaiye, no Seabrook owners have made any comitment to meet payment short-falls, if any, which may result frca PS?E's bankruptcy filirg. UI's publicity announced position is that it expects that PSIE will centinue to meet its obligations to the project or, failirg that, PSNH's cbligations will be met by scos other entity.

9 UI would ocnsider increasing its share of paymen*J to the project only as a last resort to protect the value of its investnent and would not increase its share of payments without DFUC approval.

O O

APPENDIX V g

EUA Power Corporation l

$)~

Docket No.87-234 l PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OT I) DONALD G. PRRDUS O

~

1 o, please state your name and business address?

2 A. My name is Donald G. Pardus and my business 3 address is one Liberty Square, Boston, Massachusetts O 4 o21o7.

5 Q. Mr. Pardus, will you please state your present posi-6 tions with Eastern Utilities Associatas and its sub-O 7 sidiaries?

8 A. I am President and a Trustee of Eastern Utilities Asso-9 ciates ("EUA"). EUA has six subsidiary companies, Mon-(3 10 taup Electric Company ("Montaup"), Blackstone Valley 11 Electric Company ("Blackstone Valley"), Eastern Edison 12 Cc=pany ("Eastern Edison"), EUA Service Corporation 13 ("EUA Service"), EUA Cogenen Corporation ("Cogenex")

() 14 and EUA Power Corporation ("EUA Power"), the applicant 15 herein. I am President and = amber of the Board of 16 Directors of Montaup, EUA Service and EUA Power. I am 17 Vice Chair:an and a member of the Board of Directors of O la slackstone, Eastern Edison and Cogenex.

19 Q. '4ha t is the business of EUA and its subsidiaries?

O O

i b

I l

l l 1

l l l

- PARCUS -

l 1 A.

2 EUA, which has its office in Boston, Massachusetts , . s 3 a holding Helding company Cc=pany Act registered under the Public Utility 4

of 1935. Two of its subsidiaries, P' 5 Blackstone and Eastern Edison are retail electric c -

6 panies whose service areas are in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, respectively.

7 Eastern Edison owns all a of the stock and long-term debt of Montaup, a genera-O 9 tien and transmission company, which supplies electric ity to Blackstone, -

t 10 to Eastern Edison and to three 11 unaffiliated utilities for resale. Montaup owns or has 12 interests in various generating facilities, and owns a O 2.89989%

13 interest in the Seabrook nuclear project EUA

} 14 Service is a direct subsidiary of EUA and renders vari -

15 ous services to EUA and other subsidiaries. Cogenex is 16 involved in the conservation, lead-manage =ent and l

O cogeneration business.

17 These five companies, together with EUA Power,

• 3

. the Petitioner herein, are referred to as the "EUA System."

19 Q.

0 20 Will you describe your education and business back-ground?

O 1

i

)

-2 -

O

O

- PARDUS -

O

() 1 A. Yes. I have appeared as a financial witness 2 before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 3 rate proceedings. I have also appeared before the 4 Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, the O 5 Connecticut Public Utilities Control Authority and the 6 Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission in numerous 7 proceedings involving financing authorizations, as 8 well as testifying previously before this Commission O 9 in DF-85-338;85-351; and 86-150. I have testified on 10 financial matters in rate proceedings for Blackstone 11 Valley before the Rhode Island Public Utilities 12 Com=ission. I have also testified on financial O 13 matters in rate proceedings before the Massachusetts 14 Depart =ent of Public Utilities on behalf of Eastern 15 Edison.

O 16 c. Mr. Pardus, will you please briefly describe EUA 17 Power.

18 A. EUA Power Corporation was organized in February of O 19 1985 as a New Hampshire corporation with broad 20 corporate powers. It has an address of P.O. Box 709, 21 One Eagle Square, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. It is 22 authori:ed by this Commission pursuant to RSA 374:22 Q 23 and 26, to engage in business as a public utility 24 solely for the purpose of participating as a joint 0

5-O

O

- PARCUS -

l()

"O owner in the construction of the Seabr:ok Power pre ect 1

2 and, upon ce=pletion of construction, for the purpcse 3 of selling its share of the output of the plant for 4 resale, which authorizati0n is set forth in this I) Co= mission's Order No. 18,058 in DF 85-338 and DF 85-5 6 351 dated January 15, 1986. On November 25, 1986, EUA 7 Power acquired the ownership interest in the Seabrook 3 Power Pro]ect of Central Maine Power Company, Bangor I) 9 Hydro-Electricco=pany, Maine Public Service Cc=pany, 10 Central ver=ent Public Service company, and Fite'hburg 11 Gas & Electric Company. The original capitalization cf 12 EUA Power was as follows:

O 13 Lonc-Ters Borrowines:

14 Secured Notes 15 Series A-1, 17-1/2%, due

'() $149,450,000 is 11/15/1991 17 Series A-2, 17-1/2%,

13 due 11/'5/1991

_ 30,550,000 Q 13 20 Total Long-Term 21 Borrowings: $180,000,000 0 22 23 Total Oect: $130,000,000 0

s.

O

APPENDIX VI ORR ANo RENO amor e s s.as s s a s soc.. r.ou wa tcos a. M: a~c oNE EAGLE SouApt no%asou 5=o, o o Box 709 osost, w

~C-aast s r tea-. pe , , , , , ,c..

CoNCoRo. NEW M AM A SM' AE o 3 3 02 0 70 9 Camas t s

• Test s.

u. .", 3 g . .,

O- . ~a<

Ytste-ONt 603 224 230 "'

C .. .~

myano u wereg..

1. a = .. . . m , , , 3 . ,'

Davio w wans-ass Jan.csC Mces.s Twoma s N MassaNo T~ou as C *sa r* m -

,' N Cc~a.E L Aamo*sa' s

/

Prvce w wesstav /

J66m esac -te ,,

conoc66 A so-a. stow Ja= tsp eassen 8/ -

Sae. wis6en '

enaoroso w musta= ~ b5 E6taest.eL Hooocs C-* scs A.savessaa O' $ L.

Mas,N wtag January 15, 1988 Tm. cia M LvCas h, /6

/ -

3 g , d( N

'A HAND-DELIVERED -

b i %' \

Mr. Wynn E. Arnold Executive Director O Public Utilities Commission 8 Old Suncook Road - Building 1

• Concord, New Hampshire 03301-5185 l

Re: EUA Power Corporation Docket No.87-234

O

Dear Mr. Arnold:

Enclosed herewith for filing are the original and nine copies of EUA Power Corporation's motion to amend its November 24, 1987 petition.

O revised schedules asCompany will file supplemental testimony and soon as possible.

l Very truly yours,

-)

dl 4

!Q David W. Marshall DWM/nc Enclosures cc: Richard B. Couser, Esquire (w/encs.)

Alan F. Lefkowitz, Esquire (w/encs.)

0 O

O p

,4. , o. m ,

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE / .

BEFORE THE .

h N% .

~

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION p' /

{

s O

EUA POWER CORPORATION DF 87-234 g'

. - [-

./

MOTION TO AMEND PETITION NOW COMES EUA Power Corporation, Petitioner in the above-

O entitled matter ("Petitioner"), and hereby moves to amend its Petition dated November 24, 1987 (the "Petition") by increasing the amount of the financing proposed in said Petition, and in support thereof says the following:

1.

As set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Petition, the O am unt of the financing originally proposed, i.e., $80 million of Series B Notes and $20 Million of additional Class A preferred stock, was selected based upon anticipated cash requirements that in turn were based upon Petitioner's estimate of the date of the commencement of commercial operation of Seabrook Unit 1.

LO cPetitioner mmence Cassumed mmer ial inperation its Petition that Seabrook Unit 1 would in January, 1989 (See Petition, Attachment E).

2.

As a result of Petitioner's latest evaluation of the progress of proceedings for licensing oparation of Seabrook, Petitioner believes it prudent to assume a commercial operation O date for Unit 1 during the third or fourth quarter of 1989. In light of this anticipated delay, Petitioner believes its cash requirements may be greater than originally thought, and that the amount of the proposed financing should thereforu be increased.

3.

Specifically, Petitioner now proposes to issue and sell O at private sale for cash equal to the principal amount thereof, (1) additional Class A 254 cumulative preferred shares, $100 par value, to Eastern Utility Associates, at one time or from time to time, in an aggregate amount up to but not exceeding $25 million; and (ii) Series B Notes secured under and pursuant to the First Mortgage Indenture, as modified by the First Supplemental O Indenture and, if required, a Second Supplemental Indenture to be issued, in an aggregate principal face amount up to but not exceeding $100 million, the total additional capital not to exceed $125 million so as to maintain the equity component of the capitalization of Petitioner at 25% of its debt component, exclusive of any consideration of unappropriated retained earnings.

O

s -

D

4. Petitioner will submit as soon as possible supplemental testimony and revised exhibits to reflect the changes occasioned by the increase in amount of the proposed financing.

3 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays.that this Commission:

A. Allow Petitioner to amend its Petition of November 24, 1987, as aforesaid; B. Make a finding, pursuant to RSA 369:1-4, that (i) the 3 issuance and sale, at one time or from time to time, by petitioner to Eastern Utilities Associates of up to but not more than 250,000 shares of Class A 25% cumulative convertible preferred shares, S100 par value, in an aggregate amount not exceeding $25,000,000, the amount to be sufficient to maintain '

the equity component of its capitalization at 25% of the debt component; and (ii) the issuance and sale to institutional or other accredited private investors of Series B Notes for cash secured by the First Mortgage Indenture, as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture and, if required, a Second Supplemental Indenture to be issued, of up to but not more than the aggregate face principal amount of $100,000,000; and (iii)

O the mortgaging of Petitioner's property to secure the payment of said Series B Notes and issuance, if required, of a Second

[

' Supplemental Indenture in connection therewith; is consistent ,

with the public good, and that the Commission approve and authorize the same, and approve the terms thereof and proposed application of proceeds; and

() C. Grant such other or further relief and make such other or further findings or orders as shall be lawful and necessary or desirable in the premises.

l Respectfully submitted, I) EUA POWER CORPORATION

By Its Attorneys

ORR AND RENO, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION l One Eagle Square, P.O. Box 709 O Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0709 (603) 224-2381

.O

'D, o U/% <

David W. Marshall Dated: January 15, 1988 O

O

APPENDIX VII O

i j

l s

' %t e m %cet reavress.;evs $4 21 L.

NESS *

'Seabrook woes threaten

O t

subsidiary Bv CParies Sten ENN

• of Mass. utility C ote Staff ;7 - -

l

! Pubhc Semet C4 of New Ham; shirt is nc4 the  ?

, ontv owner of the Seabroca nuemat power plant in ,

i teacus finane al tr%bse ,

EL 4 Power Car, a subsa@ary of a Masuchu-setts utility and a 12 percent owner of Seabexm. said yesterttay it dora not havt the mCncy to rnett a Dond 'e

nterest payment dae in May The compens nad it eauld not te able to make j

1 . any mort interest payments unu! Seabroom (ws on

'line and would asa bondholders to accept mort Q-hp

?

G%

}-

'onda instead of cash inte'est.

'% e are laving it on the line ' sad John Eichorn

• 1*

\

.e eta Power a craar-an There s not any chose

% Wad Street analysts specutsted t*at bendholders iV ;r^ta bly would acttpt the oGer. becawne the siterna-1:.e is even oorse I thlnt we are ta;k;nt about the S ' mord - banaruptev ' sad Danel Scotto an ana- ** .

lyit with L F Rotherm.id There inveelors could not '

be more at risk

>Jbite $crvice, Seabroca a largest ownef flied fee I } bar.aruptcy last weea when it was unabae to est:afy l Its credttars it was the first t ene a mayr utility had gone benarupt in 50 port JOHN t!CitORJ8 -

EUA Power is a natuid3rry oiZastein Ututhea As. 'W6'rt lartag it on Od thes*

O ' acciates. a wtJtity that servte parts of southeastern wa.a.chuartis and northern Rhoae :aia'id EuA i>ee.use E.sta,,i vubtie. has . iimtiad e nrwcs ,s Power was set up in 1985 Neiy ao an investment to its suba44:,ary the perent company 's m no finan- . '

tehicle for Seabrool ?>4 cowAny bought up piects c:41 derget und esat>sts af Seabroos once osned by uttatt'en in Vermont Wame and Massac%artta eRh the Pope it could in an intwnew both Erhorn and Donald Parth.s event.4ady sell the po=t* from Stabroca at a :arge E. astern a president. na d Eastarn *tmand put enogt prof't morwy mte EUA Power to a!)ow the subnadl,ary Ic ,

Eastern Utaht es put tr 645 'nithort of ts on tap up .ts reg 4sr Stabcoca payrnents money and ra are ansther 3190 fr#non teraugh me The) u.o they were meetmg etth tondholders trt, O un of unaf tondt that ;ay investors 47 5 perttet an effot's to cerne up w*th a pann investors cmaad live with The pian ecv4 med approvst from re inte e.t The de=i eas ri ep ca the aan mpiten iPai in +asrician sac we sams ~,.. the see gu'.alors >dsary .

by ear:y 1968 Seseroom ocuas be on line and there official horM eowid be plenty of money to My bact msestors EU A Neer bends eert to.d to a group of 'nstaw-5 t Seabroca :s IM wnhctnned and M 's r:et ciear aPen ce f it eti te Unul it is said 0chorn EUA tnonal tr <estors inciuent a number of money man-heer wul not have the money to pay %ndholders March agement 9 hrms Daned in thaton. According to &

the 630 million in annual mterent payments (Pev are 1981 Statement nied with the Secursuet seed EUA. Page 22 O >

O Seabrook woes threaten subsidiary of utility . .

5 EUA firg usted vanaaemusetts Finan- Pave m ef'eet mese an all se Power i*at vss cear from the Cant:nued fram pa.te 21 c:al s staae at si? meon IOtn notharg tre shai the pant esti outset." said EichorTi T*at is and EstParge cgm %ss Cn tc< n co'aparfs vesterday MCMed to tow.av W fWahed TPev art ePy we etrT pSyin( 17 3 gw'*e*kt Pat *am Co ar,$ Vamaq a gets co9 ment on the statwS of tMr bettirts aff (For chips on Sea- mterest e*ern the prime Ps' , ens I F rame al $efs ices Co se n E',4 Ec4.r(s bf3t a Pe na.'$ % 't *out Sea- Q Derceftt I Accertrg to State. tPs bond- brtca tee treur: ties teer are get- Orte bondholder oho as, c'$ to O } P;wer4 Pst r a m -coort s a:ed t.4 ecideas se not *, ave man, cPouve tmg

• ends

-see couad be acePmg more than escoa:er rmain an.nmoes s.a;Ua

,u.w> wen.u m n w , E* u n eer owna e r. T (

• 0f" ! 1 'O f f eMe '* at h e er s t,l aaliofi 4 a l *M n o 2 P r

. et(*e* ' a t M * * *.4r^ 4 trare M Metera a n M' M point He we 'I 9eadcxa sever as Pubhc Semse s 1 th:es t's ctres tre tarent ccepany Ea st - company has a>me sitereauves een t.f 3Pitw$ 's #3er no 3*pga- he said 'hc4 are thtr(t tral t

,t'on 10 San 'X ed Pc h3e't N EUA can tw worsed Nt O

W ' ' e e s ,w 1 A vAai l sitcent Authority today carries 49 hf 671.011) by '

more commuter rad riders latinn has n

g i ano 15 percent more np'd tnnut t w een 1982

~

t , he tw., p

. 40 L L rWrs than in ICK) % hor te ship plummeted in the 1960s and r4 p3 w.n gp.

[htnn hat dents alesson stops Payhs 1960s, the number n(leople en in 1970 to O erforget, f r Seabrook Es.s=ter- 5 '

Asmclated Press EAST MONTFEllER VL - A Passenger vehicle registrations second Vermont electrical utillty Registrotrons in Botton and 4I surrounditi. -

b8[UPday has voted to withhold payments to and along Route 128. ~

' New llampthtre's Seabrook nucle-O March 5,1988 P *er Plant , ,

M0 a.111. to &00 p.in. Trustees of the Washington ston 15G AM Eiectric Cooperative inc. on Satur- i Asma 2.

^runcon 2 i .soo nThe h,ewspaperand day voted unanimously to with. 13edford 2g02 2 noid indefiniteiy ihe en.op s - 5.732 8.225 the SpecialStudentn 893.000 monthly payment for .ceimont 9558 1i3 02 't Sea brook. IIillerlea 7.570 iirete idi i O Or i3 is8 2s2 The nine member bnerd made urookiine 9 the decision at a private meenne. 157109 n'I,he Anat0my of the and arriciain wouid net expiain the burlington 8.629 2i'5^30 2 14.705 l Newspaper" reason for withhniding payments came,ldge 27.808 a,'

34.ru3 for ihe troudied piani. which has ca"'o" 7 338 not yet produced electricity. ' .428 i:

s* Chelsea 7.G77 9.013 It Washington Electric Concerat- Dedham O Ivejoins the Vermont Electric Co- EM

__I I .6H'l 15.012 le, operative in Johnson and the LeutnCon M_.A_.e - M d Eastern Maine Eketric Conperal- 14.742 19.091 19 1.tucoin NA ive. Maine's only Seabrook Inves- 3.341 .4-

Inr, in'eutting off funds. Eastern Lynn 49.5I?, 6i.U48 (E .

Maine flied for bankrupcty protec- L.ynniteid 5.2'i4 7.153 O

' ME 18.H M 'N M 27 7

Marblehead Th' H V"*a"t municipal Medford 10.018 12,324 13 utthtles inve9ttog in Scabrook -in 22. i so 28.256 .ui y

S' owe. Morrisville.1.ndlow. North. '

g 3,793 ,7 g q field and Lyndonville - are enn- .

ttnuing to make their payments. Needham l i1.071 I l .N2 13!

i Newton O The 45.2 billinn Seahrook p H 69 8 7.961 los plant is cornpleted but has not yet Y g.g been grantee a iicense in operaie.

- .R871 27' 9.__uinc y 2i.u9i 25.65a 27 a primarily because netghboring Ha ndolph 11.037 16.101 Mauachusetts communHten have Heading 17.4s bur trmt r1 tion fee of $20 is used for a challenged emergency evacuation 9.M 2 13.3H 7 I4.4>

pie p nd dein ery of Itti new = papers fur use plana. Hevere luu k in)"urel.varnom A.g part of the 14.2tti 19.435 20 9 Salem IU71 O to+ Fine matenal. a iour of The Sesbrnok's major Investor, the l5.il5 S 'i Globe PubHe Service aa orCo.knfhop. you New Itamp' 11 somerville also rrecive a11.055 notehonk t 1.4 ~W of 14 45

, . Morn sey llhd:faedity and lunch. shire, which sank $2 I bHllon into Stoneham 8.59I 6, t2.3 M i 3..a '

.%oe c

• pace it limite<l 'end a cheek made Seabrook. Last month became the Wa kefield 10164 14.11:1

.ml to lhe lhalnn Glooo tm NIC first major inve9tnr nwned uHilty Wallham 1 5.11 sinet the Great Depression to file 25.102 31.32 1 32.a' i Wor k A pa. The lhiaton Globe. lineton. MA Watertown "I "' '""" D U"" f" for bankruptcy. i 4.7N2 18.15:1_ 19.;t5

'iMilsley s

O ; d num bn meu hours for more mfortna-iion Aint be .urr en stecify w hieh meaeion. WathinEton Ein trle ConIcrat. Weston 12.tvin 15.7 m I 7.le Ive, which hat 7.200 memlers. 5.249 6.N' ai 7.06-Unr nett ecuinn. "The Neu apaper and Westwood 6.13M was scheduled t pay $1.1 rnillion H.254 H,4 4 -

, the Qfled Studert"will be hehl on April 9' wa ca W M yntan & Weymouth 7.3fM 8.s;ll

'I hia 'hte ha l=vn changni from Apnl 2. a ' Wilmington 9.10:

6.951

) on nn vi t n entu hA*", t of n ha

10. t OS

9 ntn g the addre*plete li t of seNoona by 9 atIng b d Winchester 0,4

• aliow. E'g ghgg ).ggr' Winthrop OMW) h9.207 k(0. ,

Trustees had held off pay-g 6M9 RI'>

9IO N80 H I  % 7 4T.

I n eni, ,ince iwremice w hHe they

.m ,,,,, n n,,,,

,\ re viewed option 9 de9ignnt to case

,y . ,,, , , e nm, ,,, a m h ha nt . ht m a no. w. m == -

qpp th e burden of the Ceabronk frpest- a. ora, uomachwis Hvery rd ud.v t rew N y ment on ratepayers. .

O,

I APPENDIX IX O

eccer* J. .ensec,

"" oN :he be N I

o .

. .... h .G- B n 0!.

O -

h.tec SeMee et New E.ims Sep;e:re: 3, '.037 O

t.,nited Sta es Nuclear Regulatory C.~:x".1ssi n Washing :n, DC 20555 O

Attenti n: Dee.::ent Cent :1 Cesk

References:

a) Tacili*y Cperating 1,icense hPT-56

• k'* *

• 50-443 O

b) USSRC I.etter dated Aucast 17, 1987 *

"Recent Filings by P Ell: Service C :::ar:y Of New Ha ::shl:e Bef :e 2e Securities and T.x:nange C := ssien"

3. A. Sege: to R. J. Har:isen O

Re. .

Re. es.. ... < .. .,4.a . . .... 4a.,. ..s.,...s.4

.. . ... n Gentle:nen:

O In Reference (b), *he NRC regaested clarification as to the abili y

.e

.. o.-.. . * ' .i . Se-vi e C . . c .' New Ha.~ s. ~ .- a. ( Se.a

. .. .o -..v.da.

r '. ' .. aa.

. . . . .= .'

k

verage for certain ac.ivities a- Seanteck Stati:n.

.. ...4.. ..

A.. .w.e CL..se . . , nS?3

. ..a.s.e..

.. s 4.s

.. 4 ... 4.n

.. ...... .. . . . . . . ... .a

.g. .----r'----

4 4.*.. 3 .7 Sea.= eck Sta-4-a -- a.a d -

o --

- ---'a a-----'a--- '-a -- =- s ' -

in s"'de -= r ;0s04 s '::'.'.

- v" -'.- Se &O T 0:

O - :::ess in One :DCst eXC. edi*icus "'a.:.".e: .

X Stati0.-

_t .f ..

44 ..

'."'.'Va ...4

3. e_a , .. ocs4 .. ... 4. .s ... 4. . . s.

. :338e..r.e ."ye .&.

r. 4 . . . .

. . * .*. . .". s e ,

.. g.'.,g ; g . e. 3,11. . .e *. *. s s a .'Y, s'."7, C .- . , .#.'"...*...#.S' 3.*.d.

, . y.eJ4 . . 9 4.g e*.sure s&It 1:V FC*at : t e s *.i".y a.".d

• C . 1.it.'

• ai:1 de Sea. :: k Sta:100 .

. a sade t

1 ...a,.....,

e . a s . ,, . ..g.. . . ...g.. 4. ...f.

..... . . . .y .

'O . . . . .= .v. i.:. - .

.a s. ......

. . . . . . . .. .: . .4 ......

..a

a. ... .... . . . ... ...::-

:. .; 2 .s

.s.....-

, . ...... o

...s

-....a..... .... .. ...a.......

.. ..... .. ..... 2.444....

...s

.: . a....

, . . . .. , . ' :,....., ...e.... . . . , . . .

,.... .... ... ..a..;

... r g.... .. .

....a ..... .... .

' . . . * .: s. .s ..

.. . - . e. ..s..~....

.s.'a.- . . . . ' . . . . ....s ..t...-

.. a.* .s. .. . s. '.....s...s.. ... ..s .5 .

7..... .a..

.. .. .... . .a . 2. 4

. 4. .. . . . ..a.

. . . . . . . ... . . . . ... .~ .. .. ... .. ..

.. .... 3 . .. ....a. . ....4.- .

. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .,,..4 ... .. .... . .

A. . . a- .  : . :. .: . ,

e.. e. . .a.'.. . . .. .. ....... ..... ..

4e. ...> '" s...-. .  :.

....~.. ........a 10 . ..

O ,.,...,,, :

* : . x .S .i ,a y .,.. . . e s. e . s. ,. ,,, , . . :, . . . e e.,,. . . .e ;. v ;, . :c,. ., , ,., , ,., , ,. ,,t........,.:

'aaa:,w.......

w 3.,w:e et aw= mr-care po,.

United States Nuclear Regulato:y C:sunissi:n .... Se; tem::e 3, 1357 O

CO::xnissi:n (SHP'X) f:: an eme::ency rate relief increase of aper:xi=ately '

571,000,000 an:aally. Se NEP'I has set hearings en that pe' .:, icn f::

0 ::ber 5-9, 1987, ,.2e earlies: dates ;cssible after ::cpliance with i:s O regula:Ory precedures. secend, pursuant := a PSNH request sudanitted wi e the petition, the NHP'X :n Augus: 11, 1987, transferred a questien =f lav :: :ne New ua=pshire Supre_9e Ceart, 0:n=erning de application =f NH statute P.sA 378:30-a, c e so-called anti ~4IP law, := the C:=cany's investment in :ne Seabrock Stati:n under me extreme financial cire.:= stances currently being experien:ed by PSSH. Cn Septe=ce 2, 1987, that C urt issued an : der

_O directing de NHP'I := make, en an expedited basis, certain findings of f a:-

regarding me C =pany's cash regairements := meet its inte:es payments, de:-

=ararities, and cust:mer servi:e expansien needs f:: de remainder of 1957.

ne Court indicated :nat up:n receip Of the NHPUC findings it weeld cve p ::=::ly :: :nsider the nstituti:nal issues of applicability of me anti-C'4IP lav :: PSSH. Si:d, PSNH has instituted a : gram of casn O

nse:vati:n sni:h is designed := substantially reduce ifs capital and perating expenditures, there:y enabling PSSH : extend its current available

ash researces. Peu:2 , PSSH vill, in :ne near future, fermally fiie viu

.r.e serarities and P.x: .ange C:: -ission and with the NHPUC a detailed  : cram f:: :es::veturing ce: ain of is indebtedness, nis program is designed ::

substantially : educe PSSH's need for exte=a.1 fi .ancing and lessen de 'ra: den m of interest and =aturity paymenu = its dect, wr.icn has be::me diffical; and

?  ::stly due :: ce leng:::y seatr:ck Stati:n licens:.ng delays.

Purcer, the :e:=anen: shutd::,.:. scer.a ri described in your letter is

nsidered ::t be a eg;;ccen:a1 situa : n ca: v .1 never oc:ur, ::: espe: :ve of PSSH's fim-' =' suras.. Demiled respen.ses .: your gaesti=s, w=:n a:e se: forth in :ne a .ac. ent :: this letter, have ::een prepared : ce res: :f O  ::: a:i.li:7 based en the assu=pri=s indicated.

f y u need any further i..for=a:icn :: :larifi:a i=, p' ease :=u::

me.

Sin:erely, O

y ,

I' ' ,,,i P.::e : k' u = -- s =

0 . . _ . . .

A.3 3 3e:v :e ..s-0 0

~

.O .

Enclosure t o h".N- 3 7 Mt.

O NRC Ouestion 1:

Please previde detailed esti=ates of (a) the :::al ecst to operate Seabrook Uni: No. 1 at low power only (up to five percent power); and (b) the total ecs to permanantly shut O down the facility'*ar: : low power operation enly and :o maintain 1: in a safe condition. Alse provide an esti= ate of the ces: to secre er dispose of the irradiated fuel assu=ing low power operation only. Describe in detail the assu=ptiens underlying the estimates. Include assu=ptiens as to power level, duration of operation, =e:hed of 'uel

.O disposal er s::: age and =e:hed of permanen: shu:devn and safe maintenance.

Restense to NRC Ouestion la:

The curren: operating budget for Seabrook Station

.)( averages 510 =1111en =er month. In cen] unction with the perfer=ance of-few power testing, certain in=remental ecs:s, u.ey..a ._., . .,.. pe.g...., u n. .a ., . y .a ., ., , . . .,a.. . . , , ,

costs, which cover all required =anpower, =aterski and ele :rical power for preparatory work, hea:up and a :ual perfer=ance c' low power testing, are esti=ated to be O s3,653,000, which will be incurred over a hree menth

, e'r : c d . A 'urther breakdevn is included in Table 1.

. e . e. %,.> 6.> , a s > e .e.s ... e a ..

z. .eNm ' s s..a e o. .c ._u as .. .s.<s.n-e the Jc;n: Owners' Agree =ent, er approx =ately 51,301,000.

. . a .a a 4 . ........ .o .we a..e./o

. . ..s.s,

.. . . s.e .. a w<. .s ., w e ... ease a . . . .

=,-

g .s . s .s...... . . . . . . .a. .a... _. .. .. < . . . s e . < . s . a... e . c,/ e . a g e .e... .

Seatrock 3:ation asse:iated with the rece:p: ef the low peWer licensS and upon : =pletien of low power ksting. l-

.s exr,...a. ..

.s

- a. . .s .. . os. '

..-- . .su.a..e . w.'.. .' .. - s a s e " v.

approx::ately $2,785,000 per annus, of which 31,565,000 will

e. . . . . .

...e ..

o..c - S. e '. a w y e w e . ' .' .- *. .. s e a. . d.

a . , ." .' ". , ***

..w

.... a a . . . . . . ... g. - .

.e O .... ue

,.g.a., a

. s. n. . ,

.. . .,. ..,. . .c.,,

.... y g ....,.....

..-r....- .. - . s. e

..s.._.,.

.. .. 2 Ss-

. .c sn s..a w e . s.e s e . ..e

... a s e s. . .. ..-. 4

. ... s ,

agg e:a-ic.; approx =ately $ 991,000, would be payable at the

=es indicated above.

Restense := NRO 'uestien *.b:

O . , . . .

1. 3 =.  !.

.a...... ... . .. , . .. . .. . . .. - 3 . .e. . p.m . . ... ... . . . ....g .......y..i. .... 1 .

.# .. ... a.

.. .f *.."N = 1 "; 3

.. .=..a..a... ~.*.a..=.*. *. a. 5 ". .* .". y 1 *. ...d . .. . . ' . ' = . ' . ' .

• a .#

• ai . . .

.,g ya 3. 14 . . . . . ...'. ./

• 9,

.. . g 7

• a.

J . '. . . 3 4..f

.. a ea. . 1.g . I *.

. . . . 3..........3.*

.. .. .

• a. .t * *. . . = . = .

• 8'

. g ***-a..

7.a . .. s. a. . d.

4. . .~a. g

.. '# S. g ', *#

~' '

.g.............g... . . . . . .. .*3*..*.*.* 1 ** **

• • • • 39 ***

• 3 ** s .*** **5"****

. .

• 6  ?***** - **

• ** * * * *..* .^* , .

. . g .# .- a. *. .* .*. '. *. .* * * .y ** .* .I g 77

. .1.*. &. . *f*

4. *3 . . . g . a. . . . ..

~Q O

O effective full power hours and will oc:ur ever a period of three weeks.

g Upon ce=pletten 6f the testing progra=, the unit would be cooled devn and =aintained in a Ocid shutdevn (Mode 5) condition. Depending on the licensing status at that ::=e, certain systems could be placed in a lay-up eendition to a.. ..

.a .. ax....- .- e. ..o.e . . . . . 4on o.r .,n..

e. . . . eqa ..e r.

... .s.e .os.s associated w;;h these efforts are included in the nor=al cperatIhg budget of $10-T! =illion per =enth.

~

o

f the un1* was per=anently shut devn at s==e poin-fellowing low power testing, the fuel would be =oved to the

. , o ,ce'. ' . . a d d. .d .. ..., .".. e ea .- .-- 'L..

see... <".e'. s..-a . . . . . .. ...

systems, de:ay hea removal systems and associated auxiliaries would be de: ntaminated, as necessary, following n* ". .d s sw. . . . . d ". .- a . d . . .' 'ev p.-we- .es....g.... . . . .s..e s e s v. s . e...s

.s . . , s a ue

.... .ea e.A uy .es.as..s.,

s

. u... . %. e sys.e s, %. .y a.. o .1 a s 4. . , ,

.. . ,C a.i.4 e s .w...e 4.a.' . .' e a. . d .~. ~, .

. .'ds

. . .' e a. . .d . .f... , ~~~ ess a a/-.. . . ..

would be repeated as necessary until contamina:icn levels s.. a V eu. e e n . e a.. ... . e d u e .3 ..d e3 ...s. .... 3 .i. 4.s.

. . ... . . . . . . . .-.. . w. e 2

a.4.,... . .. 4.a.' -

.. ....-.e. .. d a.-ea w . u.d'. --S. e .a.

be .' . ...d . e . d o ". a O .. ..e . g . ...

1

. . g .,e m.4 1.a. . ., g a.a. a s s e * *. a *.e d. aQX.d .' .d a d. e s . ".d b. . e

."..ds e "..ase a.e .~.~.~. expe..e. .o ex ee.,

d

., . -.s.s .d".- ..,

.y e.a...-

.2.e . .. . . . . a.* u ,., a. 3.6 .c 4.v. ..

. .. 4.'..s ..s. . .. .y e . . . . s. . . . . .

.. .w

.e ' ..' d k. e '. 'f e- V e .*. *. .# a d.e..ds.de7. *. o " ey . ... a. . e . *. .'. 'f s .b.". ".

a . %. . s. . e .. .. . 4 .. , w. e w . 4 . ......a...e.3 = . 4.9a. .. s e e x... . ""s e l ..1 O ..a s.st ok...8. 5. 4 P C.e . %.e s. w ..,e .1 .o ..w. .e.s s...h

. . o. .s.a.. .w.e .e.. e .9

..... . < a. . ue as, A

/3. .s ..= .%.e s..e.

.. .as es...a.ed . . . . . . ._%.a . ,4. .

.. ...a . axe . 3

.e.

ea s e...e u ..

.u..e

...e,

. . . .. ....a. u. e . --.--. .. .. ..a. <-.:

. e .

..e s;..e.

.%.e a.. ... .. a . s a .. s. c . s. e

~

.- . .a.e

.. . c a-e.,. e . ~.s

. - .. . e -

1

. . ~, e ,i a .s a e ..

fuel after the lov power ter:ing program, a narke: ana ysis O.

a..e .e u,e t ae . axe. a. . a. a..me . ge u.e. .......< a

..,..a .

s .... . a.,y .. c sp e. e..a. ,

.s.s. .eo . . u a a..., .a .,- aa .. .. .u.e r...., . .. . u. .. . ..e.<.

. s. ~.,...e u a./e ..... o. .a. a _. - . . . . .. s

... u. . . ., .u.

.% u.e ... , s . . .e . . .

study :f these : s:s, a review was performed in latew1956

.. .w ..w .a. a.ed '.a. *.e sa.'".a,e ".a.'uea ..' ".e _'"a*

. ".'d O

a ., ..x .a e../ 1

.. se.. -.u.e .. s.s ... .

u an, < . . . . a a. .

..a

.. .ys.e..a.... .. . . . . . ..  : . u.e .r... e ., .... a.. ..a.A .a . .

..f es..,..a.-

. .., ....i..

. . . . .. 5'.

, , . . s. o s s. e . . .e.w. . .... . . ..s . . .c.. .a.e

,. - . s..sa.

y.

9 a.c

. . a. e s..

. e .' .

.c ...s. .a a o. . ....,

!  : . '.'. .... . ., g

.. . . . . . .e..a

. . . . . s . .. . . a . .u....... .. . . %.... .... . ..

e...* .....s ....... . . . ...

i

. s. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . - .

.O

......... . a. .'..,. ..~.s.s........'.a . ........a.

......e...'

y..... .. .. 7

. - ... e... 3. -. .. .... ...g .

y..y.. ..... . , . . . . ... ... ...

...- +

. .,,, .,.. ..,.5 . ,,.:.1......

.c .. . . . . . . .

• . . .s . .

77... . . x. . g . ,. . . . ,

, ..... . . . .a .... .... .

( . - - . . . . . . ... ..... . . . - . . . . . ...

. . ...... . . . .....s ....s .... .e... . ...n.....

.g.....,..., ., ..

....e p..;. .g.

............g.

l .. . . . . . . . . . . .

3........

......; g a. .

. 7.g.. ...

O O

O

n addition, certain nuclear liability and nuclear croperty insurance ecs:s, est:=ated no to exceed $2.5 millier per year, can also be expected to be incurred.

w rinany/,):hore are e her =1scellaneous costs whi:h are no; directlyjgelated to maintenan=e of the f acility, including such items as saxes, legal, accounting, and other ad=inistrative costs, which are not included in the $700.000 nonthly esti= ate provided above. While the amour.: of these ecs:s cannet be precisely estimated, they are not expe::ed

g to exceed the cur as: J evel of such eroenditures or a==rexi=ately 32.2 million.per =enth, which includes 31.3

=1111on f or taxes. Therefore, the estimated total.=en-hlv operating cost for Seabrook Sta:1cn while the fuel is ceing s: rec en site in the fuel s:Orage y*JI!dinq !s not sxpe::ed to exceed 53.1 milli:.9 O As inet a:ee in respense :o ques: ten 1(a), all the above monthly costs are for the entire unit. PSNH's share of

-hese potential costs would be in proper:1cn to 1:s ownership share (i.e., 35.5e942%), or $1.1 million_per

...w O e...v. m..

m. e s a. .

. . . 2 .

S. '. e a s e e . -". ' .de a

. . .d a. . a.' .' e d. s .a .e...e... . .# _k. e s -. ". .- . e . .'

funds for : vering :::al :ests of low power opera:1:n and

. . . a ., . . s. s . , p e

.. . . .. ae..

w . . a...cwn v., .we s...

ac.43..../ r ,.a.

maintenance in a safe conditi:n after a period of low pcwer O epera:1en enly. Identify each of ths sour:es as to whe: 1:

vill be available and estimated dollar amour.:. Indicate the as sum;u:.i.wr ::me r ' y:.ng the pre; e :im o f e a:h seu :e o f

.c..... . a. s .

Restense 50 NR Ques-icn 2:

O The Seabrook Proje : is :urrently being funded by s e v a. . a '. ...

' ' . ar.'. e s ( ".e " .* . .* .. . . ^.v..e .s..

. s " ) w "..'. -. *. . a .- =.

. a .....r . . . . "a ..s.' ...ae ' .d. / . .u.a

. . r A..ee.,e ,. ... .e ... .. . n....e ..u.. .,

. -.. . s . .-". . . . . .. an . w' *, e . a. . . . a. '. .N ew S a..p s".. . . e Nu. ' .e a . "....' . s ,

dated .v.ay 1, '. 9 7 3 , as a= ended (th* "*cin: Ownership O Agree =es:"). he c ners..ip shares of :hese utili::.es are s.'. .- u ~.. .' .. . a b. ' e 2 .

Are ~~v a .' ... '. .d..' ., .s

'e.a....'..e' " v.

• .=.

n . .u.e . . . . . ....e.s

. .. .. .. .. . ^v..e w .. x e. ... .. . < ./ e .... . . . ... . e e ..

a

. . . . . ... .. .s y e . ./

. . s . g . . .... a. g7. . e . .. ._u. . _ . ... e...

....e.. .,

. se..s..._...... ..

a

._w... .4...

. ._e w p s.. .

. . . . . . . . . . . ...e a .s...a

.<. . . . .s. a s

.w...a..a. ......._s..

. . L. .' e .s. . . . a. , .&.s. ... ...... . . . . ...... .s ..... .. . . . . . . .

. . . .. . s . . . . . .

.e r -

..,........s.

. . . . . .. s* . . .. . . s . .... .e .....

~.- . .. *...g*.*..,...n

• • . ......g.g ..

. . ' .... . . .. a . .. ... #, ' ...g.. *......3

. . ..r... . ... . . . . .......

o ;L..

g.... . .........

. . . . . . g3. ._.....

.. .go...

. . . , ;...... 3 L. . ...

': 1. . : .'.. e : ra:ses s u :.. f ...- 5 as ;t:- :t . s .:r a;

. . . . a . . .- . 2 . s-" .a.s. .'.a.

=..=.-,'- . .  : .r-. .= --> .s a

. .- ... . . . . s .. .. ..'.'.-;

-e . s . . . ". e . . a s . . t .' = - - - .-. .- a. 1 ". t. . .=...' a. .

3 .

O

') ,

. o -e. . v .' d e a ' ' ' . '..- .. a ' .'.ex._.'...y ' '"' s.." au....

e b .' .' ~, a .. ' . . s a..^ - .

fluctuations in =enthly cash reTairements oc:ur. -~ni s account balance, supplemented by the . Join: Owner payments,

,) is the. source for metting Seabrook Stati:n's cash Operating repairedents.

NRO Quest'ien 3: .

In the event that Public Service C =pany of New Hampshire (PSNE) were to enter ba.nk apt:y proceedings how vould 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 =aintaining 1: in a saf e condition? If PSNH were unable to pay its share of costs, what are the sources and likeliheed of availability

, of funds to : ver the ?SNH's share? Please describe in J ae.a... .

Reseense to NRO Ouestien 3

.%. . e s. .. .. .

o c e ed . .i .~, s '. e .

. S. S.".3. v . ". '. d.

.... ., . n. .e .s.s 4.se . .' __._-

a . .' -... . ,..' u" a.

,<r a .k .e.m . .'2 ., .a .f'.

. . ... f. .s_ .see.a,...ae.

a. . .u.e g . . .

Joid: Ownership Aq ee en to pay currently its share of sea rook's low-pever opera:Ing s:s and to pay ultimately .

..s k s..a e c.' ".e . .. s . s ~ w'. - e

, .- . a. . a. . . . .' y "s .. . . . .. , d. o v. . w. e

.a ...., .<=. .<. a sa.e e ..".44.<

.ea 4.,.a.y a a. a.<

. . . . . . ~. o u. e e ,<,a.< .s a.e c...a.4 e. a 4 e x e. ... .. ... ...y e x. ...e . ._u. a . s..o... u. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

s

. . . ...a . . s aa . eb.... . , .. . u. u a .x..y..

. ...../ .....

. . . . a...../al yy.. u.as

. a J rirh: to reie=: or alt 1:n suen centrae:s. However, because

'ed t.ne =ag .itude o f P SNH'lii :.nva s:=ent :.n Seabrook Station

( appr:xinately 69% of its :::al assets) a..d the potential s:7 ift: ant level of revenues to be derived f r:m the sais of Seabrook Station ele :ricity by ?SSH, PSNH intends to =ake eve:v av_ailible effort to prote-- "hA; asse . Even 1: a J, bant. ap: y prneeect ng were to intervene, PSNE has no

.u.s.4 .a.< .s ...ac .u.e

.a. .. .. a. . .. .. .. .. .. . .eje . ..n.

,. s.s . . . ....a....a.

w ..e.u . s s p Av. .. e as e... .. . an a a . . . ,. . .. .s

. ..e..s.

Seabrook S.ation. In the eve.n: ef bank- ap :y, ?SNE, as deuter in possession, will have ac:ess := a : ash flow fr:=

. . s .- . _ . .' . . - , . . .' '. .' . y p e.- a ' .- . s s ". ". s . a.. . . a .' .' v. .s

. ._ . * ..'va.:e.. .

) . o __. a . .. .". . e .", y g e .a n . . ay e. u.. . s e .r

. .ea....s ..._ L~.'. -s.e assuned to have a :ess to external borrowings f::

...e s e .."...*.d . *. s .-" -. . *. s v - ". ' d. . . '.. e a " . ...a a . .'. ..y. e.v.a

. s ... s.s.s.a.<e a. . ... ...eSte;.*s s.

.... .. .S... b.4.. .s w... .t . a.w....

. . . . r(

.c . g . . . ..... 1..v ".Cve- ."ye.a..*..,

w ......a* .a ..

,..a..se

. .s.s (as *"".*..1.*.".

.........a w

..a..e .

lb . *.* *. ) ...

.............f Q .. ' . . . . 's ... . . ' . .g............g.,

..'..,..,a. . . .. , .. y ,

. . . . ..s.. . . .g .,.3'. .3.'

.......a. .. ...... ...

...,.1....

. . . . . . . . . ..3............

... .........S3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. y. .. . . . .

e .e .: .. . . .. .. .. ,. .. ..g....

. . . . .........,3. .. . . . . . .

,...g......'.

- . . . . .. .u ...g.

. g .a . .**.T

. ... '.*..4

. 3* *....3.*.. .g

............ .. . . . . . . ...=.;. ., .r ...

3... 22. .. .....

. .e ,..

. . . .. . . . . 5 .. ...... . . . . . .... ..33

...... . ........., .e  :

......... .c.a.... .g...

. . . . . . .1... . ... 1.... .... . . . . . . - . . . .. ...... . . . . . . . . .

. 4 .

O

6 .

J"~

shut down after ::=pletion cf low-power testing, it is reasonable to conclude that because of the presence o f the nuclear fuel Lnd the NRO license conditions with respe::

, thereto, P5NE's obli'gation to Seabrook Station =0uld not be

" avoided by it, as a deb cr in possession (Midlanti: National Bank v. New Jersey De t. of Enviren= ental Resources, 474  !

U.S. 494 (1986)) and that tne cost of . meeting nnose j ebliga icns would be an administration expense (In re j Sterns, 63 3.R. 774 (D. Me. 1987)). 1 O' Given the nature of the en-going utility operations of PSNH after an assumed bankruptcy filing and the ability and 3 ebligatien of ?SSE, as deb :: in possession, to fulfill its

==. := e nt s t o th e Seabrook Pr:Jeet and its present intention to do so, ?SNH = anne hypo the s t:e any plausible 5;;"" '** i' "hi*h *h*** **1* i*"" "*"ld ****i" "#'F*i#'

O J

O D

O 3

0 9

n V

)

O

)

O 3

O

E n e '. s o u r e s e-B'1%

)-

) TA31E 1 NEW MAMPSHIRE YANKIE SEA 3 ROCK STATION - UNIT 1

) INCREMINTAL COSTS FOR '.0V POWER 0?! RATION

• D

) Activity Mobilisation & low Power Total 3 Cost Area Heacup Preparation H'estup Testing (37 Cost Area)

) Manpower L,000,550 572,000 667,600 2,240,150 Material 45,900 69,700 157,800 273,400 h Electri>: -

572,100 572,100 1,144,,200 l Powe.'*

D _

~

l Total (Sy 1,046,450 1,213,800  ;.397,500 3,557,750

) .

Activitv) . .

"*""""*** I O

l l

l b

l

• ne curren: budge: for Seabrook Station averages SD sillion per mon:h.

"Ele ::i:41 power se: rice :o Seabrook S:a:1on during :he :est program O vill all be purchased f cm PSb7.

O O

1 O

O O

O

.O

1

itsa:e :: ' l';- i * . I

() '

l J

. 3. 3 . ,__ 2

. l O Ov'* Ovr*r5hi: Share l l

Public Service C =pany of New  ;

'O Hampshire '

35.56942%

The United Illuminating C =pany 17.500C0 EUA ?:wer Corporation 12.13240 O Massachuse*.:s Municipal Wholesale Ele :rie C =sany 11.59340 New England ?:wer 0 =pany 9.95766 l 0 The cor.n. :1:u: *1;h: and ?:wer Cee.pany 4.05985 Canal Electric Company 3.52317 O Men:aup Ile :::: c:=pany 2.s99s9 New Hampshire Ele :::: C perr.tive, Inc. 2.17391 O vermen: Ele :ric cenaration a.:d Transmission 00cperative, :ne. 0.41259 Taun :n Muni:1 pal * ;hting ?'. ant 0.10034 O H2d8#^ 'iih* ^^d ? "* O'F"#***^* 0 07737

,. . 0 . - ..

e - n e. v. t O .

O O  :

t O

O O

i O

O .

F O

O i t

O O _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ , - _ -

APPENDIX X

? I

) AFFIDAVIT OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH 2

1. My name is Dale G. Bridenbaugh. I am President

) of MHB Technical Associates ("MHB"), a technical consulting

, firm specializing in nuclear power plant safety, licensing,  !

5 i and regulatory matters, located at 1723 Hamilton Avenue,  !

l 6 1

) .,

i Suite K, San Jose, California 95125. I received a Bachelor i of Science degree in mechanical engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in 1953 and am a 9

)

10 licensed professional nuclear engineer. I have more than l

30 years experience in the engineering field, primarily in 11

? 12 power plant analysis, construction, maintenance, and operations. Since 1976, I have been employed by MHB and have acted as a consultant to domestic and foreign' 14 h 15 government agencies and other groups on nuclear power plant i

j safety and licensing matters. Between 1966 and 1976, I was employed by the Nuclear Energy Division of General Electric l,e, 3 company ("GE") in various managerial capacities relating to 3 the sale, service, and product improvement of nuclear power reactors manufactured by that company. Between 1955 and O 1966, I was employed in various engineering capacities working with gas and steam turbines for GE. Included in my O g duties at GE was supervision of startup testing of O equipment in fifteen to twenty fossil and nuclear power

O plants. I also was responsible for various nuclear fuel 3

projects ranging from the remote disassembly of irradiated O

27

O 28 O

_O -

I D .

I fuel to the supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants. I have authored technical papers and articles on 2

) 3 the subject of nuclear power equipment and nuclear power

) 4 plant safety and have given testimony on those subjects, f ther details of my experience and qualifications are I 5

ntained in Atta heent #1.

6 3 - o

2. My direct experience with the See.broSk plan': ,.

i ,

O began in September 1983 when my firm yas getained by the O Massachusetts Attorney General to evaluate the prudence of 10 expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company on 11 Seabrook Unit 2. Including that initial assignment, I have I2 evaluated various phases of the Seabrook project in six

) 13 In my work as consultant'on the different engagements.

II seabrook plant, I have perforued diverse assignments, 15 focusing primarily on technical reviews'and ane. lysis of

)

l IO safety and cost is' sues. I have vialted the plaftt on II several occasions and have participated in a number of

18 interviews and/or depositions of key Seabrook management O 19 personnel.

, 20 g 3. The purpose of this Affidavit is to explain the O technical reasons why low power testing to 5 percent ' power at Seabrook is of no value if subsequent / power operation at D or near full power is not authori::ed. I,t will further O explain that there are, in fact, several irreversible 3

changes which would result from testing at the 5% level O

27 0 28 O O

l

./ \

O y while no significant electrical power would be produced.

These changes would limit the options available for the 2 l plant and plant site in the event that full power operation 3

4 is not subsequently authorized, and would cause additiraal 4 l financial cost with no apparent off-setting bene' fit.

3 6

SEOUEllCE OF TESTING AND POWER OPERATION 8

q

'" 4. Every nuclear plant needs to have fuel loaded and 9

j systemsthstedbeforeit is permitted to operate at power d

levels sufficient to turn the turbine and generate electric O power. The typical. t'est sequence is to perform non-nuclear 12 ,

O zero-power tests first, then proceed to "zero-power" g

nuclear. tests and subsequently to low-power nuclear O operation with no electrical production. Electrical O g production is usually deferred until the test program achieves a power level of 10-15%. Pernission to proceed to i ,s,,

O a higher power level is in general predicated on g fulfillment of the test objectives at the louer levels.

When the testing is completed satisfactorily at the lower O levels and other requirements are satisfied, the plant is then permitted to operate at a power level at which O g sufficient steam is generated to allow production of O electricity. Power levels are increased in steps and tests 24 [

are conducted at the steps until full power operation has cJ g been achieved. Most power ascension programs include a O

27 0 28

.O i

k

i demonstration run at full power for 100 hour0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />s-after which

)

9 the unit is.,iaclared *.o be in commercial operation. Tne minimum length f time in which this process can be 3

completed is about three months. At Seabrook, the test 4

progran us spanified in th0 Final Safety Analysis Report 5 l

' I was scheduled for four mont.hs. A more recent end detailed 6

J Power Ascens;on flow chart da?.ed 1/20/86 shows a 90 day J ,

schedule for Seabrook (furnished by PSNH in response to g 8 j NHPUC Staff Set #1, F.ecptest 4 8, Docket DR 8"'-151) .  !

9  !

O 10 5. All other factors baing equal, the initial II operatity phase at a new nuclear unit can N most 9

22 efficiently performed if a smooth transition is made from o, i 18 '

fuel loading to low power operation and on to the power g testing above Yt. If a significant delay between the 14(

15' testing steps occurs, it is most burdensome for that delay 16 to take place after power operation has begun. The reason 17 f r this is because the power teat program is designed so O

18 as to be able to proceed from the completed tests at a n

K..)

19 lower authorized power level to tests at the next power 29 step, i longthy delays are introduced, it then becomes O

21 necessny to repeat certain activities such as instrument O

22 calibrat ic,ns , water chemistry adjustments, thermal g

23 expansion measurements, radiation surveys, control syste=

M realignments v.d heat balance calculations to assure safe q

25 and snooth transition to the ne):t 4.uthorized level. An 26 additional complicating factor can bo the need to conduct 27 (J 28 O [l, o ,

s'

)

) y surveillance tests that are required at certain frequencies 9

specified by the plant Technical Specifications. If the

] schedule is known ahead of time, such required activities 3

) 4 can be programmed into the Power Ascension program. A delay prior to initial nuclear operation minimizes the need 5

3 f r dupHeation of such operations.

6 D i

/ 6. In the case of Seabrook Unit 1, the loading of i 8 fuel into the reactor has now been completed and the 3

9 Company has completed the tests intended to be performed J

10 prior to nuclear operation of the unit. This work was 3

Il authorized by the granting of a "zero" power license by the i 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") on october 17, 1986, D

13 and fuel loading was begun on october 22, 1986. William B.

14 Derrickson's y September 26, 1986 presentation to the 15 NRC's Advisory Committee of Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS")

? 16 indicated that the scheduled time for completion of the II non-nuclear tests following fuel leading was 4 to 6 weeks:

! 18

,0 our request is to be able to load fuel and 19 do t.he hot testing with the coolant system at operating temperature and pressure.

20 9 We have several tests from the original hot to run, from tests function tests. This 21 lO 22 whole effort from the license to completion day we receive the of the hot functional l

l tests will take about a month or six weeks.

23 (ACRS Transcript, pp. 14-15) 24 0 25 V Mr. Derrickson is a Senior vice-President of Public Service of New Hampshire and has primary i n.6 responsibility for the Seabrook project.

27 O 28 l

O O

l 9

O This estimate is in general agreement with the 1/20/86 P w r Ascension schedule which shows a 34 day period of 2

time between fuel load and initial criticality, which is 3

4 the first time that nuclear operation begins, 5 In the case of Seabrook, the operating license g 7.

6 has now been requested in not one, but three separate i G ,,

' phases. The first phase which consists of fuel loading and 8 hot functional tests (but no criticality and no irradiation q

9 of the fuel) has now been completed. The second phase, now 10 under review, would permit low power testing and subsequent n II heatups involving operation at up to 5% of full power. The a

12 third phase, if authorized, will permit operation between 13 st and loot power.

14 i O 8. The NRC action to permit low power operation at O Seabrook, if granted at this time is a deviation from common past practice. The traditional licensing practice l ,e, o

a was in the past to grant an operating license as a result 18 of a single licensing action. In those cases, fuel loading 0

and low power test activities were then performed and O integrated with ascension to full power. Shortly after the O

Three Mile Island accident, the NRC began to issue licenses g

in a two-step (low power-full power) process. This two-O step process was implemented to help ease the licensing Q'

review backlog which resulted from the licensing hiatus b,

following the 1979 accident. Initially, this two-step C

27 0 28

~6-  !

O O

I e

O process worked reasonably well. Plants that were granted a 3

2 low power license generally completed the fuel loading and

^

3 low power testing by the time the full power license was

1. issued, with the low power testing and the full power 4

5 licensing relatively close together in time. 2/ Since 1984, h wever, there have been several cases of lengthy 6

G 7

delay between the low power license and the approval for '

8 operation above 5%. Examples of these delayed cases

,5 g include:

, l 10

1) Diablo Canyon 1, where a three year delay was l' 33 experienced between the initial low power license j o

(September 1981) and full power approval 12 (November 1984).

O 13 2) Shoreham, where a low power license was awarded in July 1985 and full power authorization is yet to be issued. l 34  ;

rs

3) Perry, which received low power authorization in 15 March 1986, did not receive full power approval D 16 until December 1986.

These delays illustrate clearly that NRC approval of low g

18 power operation gives no assurance that timely O gg authorization of power operation is forthcoming. This 20 0

21 2/ Of the 15 plants licensed for low power operation O 22 between March 1979 and June 1984 which also received a full power license during that period, the average time between the low power and full power licenses was 23 e, less than 5 months. The average time from initial d criticality to award of the full power license was 24 only 1/2 month (excluding Grand Gulf which was delayed O 25 f r approximately two years because of improperly drafted Technical Specifications). See Attachrent =2, 26 portions of letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to o Congressman Edward Markey, June 15, 1984.

J O 28 i O

O

l O  !

O would appear to be particularly relevant for Seabrook which 3

is now heavily engaged in the resolution of complex 2 ,

emergency planning issues.

3 ,

G 4  :

y 5 IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN STATUS 000 RESMING FROM LOW POWER OMRATION 6

I Before a reactor "goes critical" as it.does for  !

9.

0 the first time during low power testing, neither the D

0 nuclear fuel nor the reactor or its components, are J

10 irradiated or contaminated by radiation. (The uranium 11 contained in the fuel is of course naturally radioactive, 12 but this material is at a very low level and is fully .

~')

13 contained within the fuel rods.) Low power testing, 14 however, necessarily causes irreversible changes to the 15 nuclear fuel and to portions of the nuclear reactor.

16

10. There is necessarily irradiation of the nuclear 1.,

fuel as a result of low power testing. This irradiation 18 O re.sults in the build-up of quantities of fission products 39

"* " * #"*1 " '* *** *** * ** * * #"*1 "" **"*"*1Y 20

'd be handled, transported, and treated as irradiated fuel.

O Once these fission products have been produced, they cannot g

be removed from the fuel by any usual means. Thus, the g

irradiation from low power testing is irreversible. In g

O g addition to this, low power testing would result in some Components of the Seabrook plant becoming irreversibly q'

27 C) 28 0

0

O O irradiated while other components will become contaminated 7

n with activated corrosion products and fission products if a

fuel rod leaks or perforations are present. The level of 8 irradiation and/or contamination would depend both on the 4

1 ngth of time and the power level of operation, on the 5

performance of the fuel, and on the purity and chemical

• conditions of the reactor coolant. Potentially affected s n mp nents include portions of the reactor pressure vessel j 8

and internals, the steam generators, the control rods,  ;

g O incore nuclear instrumentation, and reactor auxiliary system components, equipment, and piping. If contaminated 11 q~

by substantial quantities of radioactive fission products, 12 O special care would be required in handling these items, g 14 11. The irreversible changes to the plant resulting 15 from power operation as described above makes a significant J

10 change in the way in which the Seabrook plant must be g 17 considered. Prior to power operation, the plant equipment 18 and components are radiation free (with the exception of O

19 readily removable nuclear fuel and some sensors), and there 20 is no limitation as to what future option for the plant and g

21 the plant site may be selected. It is possible in this n

22 condition that the plant could be abandoned, converted to 23 non-nuclear use, or ultimately operated as a nuclear unit

)

24 as planned. Once radioactive, the options are reduced.

n 25 Both the plant and plant site become nearly irreversibly 26 committed to a nuclear facility. This is because some of O

27 28 l

}

O lO

I-k 2

i

[ the' plant equipment will be made radioactive and because

)

l

! the site itself becomes (de-facto) a long-term radioative 2

b waste storage facility since there is no approved storage 3 _

k 4 facility available to receive the irradiated nuclear fuel.

g 5 12. Because of the unavoidable irradiation and .

i 6 contamination described above, the conduct of low power I 7 testing of necessity requires some worker exposure to 8 potentially harmful radiation during the course of the 9 testing'as well as after the testing is completed.- The D 10 amount of exposure may not be large and unless errors are-

g II made, probably would not exc'aed allowable limits. However, I2 it is an additional unavoidable impact which results from O 13 low power testing. The necessity of performing the g I4 associated health physics protection requirements further 15 complicates maintenance and operation steps and makes plant O

16 security a more critical and time consuming function.

17 O 13. In its non-irradiated condition, the fuel loaded

O into the Seabrook core probably has a recovery (or salvage) g value that is likely equal to or a major fraction of the O original purchase value of that fuel. This fuel, if not

O irradiated, likely could be sold to other nuclear plants to g

use as is, or, if necessary, to be reconfigured for a O different reactor. <ror example, some bundles might

,0 require manual disassembly and rod rearrangement or g

reconfiguration of the pellets for the necessary pattern of O-27 0 28 0

0

i

/

1. y enrichment.) Once the fuel is irradiated and there is a build-up of fission products as would occur during the 2

pr p sed 5% power operation, it makes fuel shipment and 3

9 reconfiguration, and therefore most opportunities for reuse of the fuel, more complicated and costly and therefore far 1 ss likely to be imr anted. Based on present day 6

0 .

nuclear fuel costs, value of the Seabrook fuel is e  ;

approximately $50-80 million. 2/ Galvage value 8 ,

J approximately equal to this amount could be realized from 9

D the fuel in its present condition. While it is technically l 10 i I

possible that irradiated fuel could be transferred to a i 11 U different reactor of the same design and subsequently used, 12 '

O there would be significant penalties associated with such 13 an action. It would be necessary to ship the fuel in U shielded casks which may or may not be readily available.

O The fuel itself would not be of optimum design for equilibrium operation. Such a transfer has, to my l,e O knowledge, never been done in U.S. power reactors and would

'; probably require lengthy review by the NRC and/or other regulatory bodies. Consequently, I conclude that the fuel O has little or no value if used for testing up to 5% power.

,0 My conclusion is supported by recent letter from Mr.

g Harrison, President and CEO of PSNH to the NRC (NYN-87104 O dated September 3, 1987) transmitting the following a" stat' ment:

25 20 2/ See Attachment 3 for derivation of the fuel value. l 0 l 37 1 O 33 DD

O .

O In order to determine the actual salvage

}

value of the fuel after the low power 2

testing program, a market analysis would O have to be undertaken at that time together with a study of special costs for handling 3

and shipping the fuel. Although the Joint n" owners have not performed a rigorous study 4 of these costs, a review was parformed in .

late 1986 which indicated that the salvage i 5 value of the fuel would approximately offset O the costs of handling and transportation of l

6 the fuel to a third party resulting in no  !

0 - net cost to the Joint Owners for the l disposal of the fuel. j 8

O l g 14. The proposed 5% power operation would also result Q in the loss of potential salvage value for other plant 10 33 components that would be substantially irradiated or e ntaminated (i.e., steam generators, reactor components 12 ,

O such as control rods and other internals, coolant pumps and seals, valves, piping and instrumentation sensors). I 74 O estimate the salvage value of these components to be at 15 O

16 least s2o-so million. These components are virtually identical in all Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, 77 O many are periodically replaced, and others are useful for ,

gg O

yg replace =ent in the event of component failures. A resale market for them should exist but it would be severely 20 O limited or negated if they are irradiated. In an interview 21 O conducted in conjunction with a Vermont proceeding (Vermont g public Service Board, Docket 5132), William B. Derrickson, O Vi e-president of PSNH stated his estimate of the salvage 24 O value of the cancelled seabrook unit 2 to be approximately 525 million. (See November 12, 1986 Interview, Willin 9.

26 O

27 0 28 O O

I i

g Derrickson, p. 74.) It is likely, however, that if these same components were irradiated and/or contaminated by x

2 1

" perati n, they would have little or no or perhaps p wer 3

negative salvage value.

4 5 15. Additional costs resulting from a decision to 6 perform low power testing are the costs of decontaminating, l

~ l

' decommissioning, and disposal of the fuel and portions of i 8 the reactor system following a low power testing period in g

9 the event that a full power license is not obtained. The 10 cost of necessary removal / disposal / decontamination efforts II uld be tens f milli ns f d llars, depending n the O

I2 specific disposal requirements. Mr. Harrison's September 13 3, 1987 letter states the belief that the decontamination n

Il following low power operation could be accomplished within u) 15 the "normal budget" of $10-11 million per month. He does 16 not speculate on the number of months that might be II required nor whether the "normal" budget could be reduced 18 quickly if that effort were not necessary. Such efforts 19 also carry with them the potential for additional worker 20 radiation exposure. If PSNH is not successful in selling 21 the irradiated fuel to another user, it will also need to 22 be treated as high level radioactive material and would 23 likely ultimately be disposed of as spent fuel. Because of 24 the lengthy time periods during which spent fuel must be 25 isolated from the environment, Federal law has assigned the 26 responsibility ft" its ultimate disposition to the U.S.

U 2,<,

28 o

i i

D 6 g

Department of Energy (DOE). U DOE will perform the ultimate disposal of high level waste, but is also required 2 '

t re ver tl.e full st f disp sal fr m the utility. DOE 3

has published expected costs for the receipt and ultimate 3 4

i disposal of irradiated fuel. These expected costs are O urrently being collected at a rate of S.001/ kwhr of 6

. generation for fuel exposed now to be disposed of by DOE in t

the future. Fuel typically operates at a design exposure 9

9 u cuidelines for the recomendation of nuclear waste I0 sites were enacted in 10 CFR Chapter III, Part 960 on November 30, 1984. These guidelines do not specify 11 precisely the length of time that high level wasta J must be safeguarded from the environment. The 12 guidelines do, however, give an indication of the. time periods required by including numerous statements of 13 "Qualifying" and "Favorable" Conditions such as:

II (b) Favorable Conditions. (1) Site conditions O. such that the pre-waste-emplacement ground-water 15 travel time along any path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible 16 environment would be more than 10,000 years.

II (2) The nature and rates of hydrologic processes operating within the geologic setting during the O

18 Quaternary Period would, if continued into the future, not affect or would favorably affect the 19 ability of the geologic repository to isolate the waste during the next 100,000 years.

O (Part 960 - General Guidelines For the 21 Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories, 10 CFR, Chapter III)

Citation of the above guideline is not intended to 23 imply that the Seabrook Site will be required to store O the irradiated fuel for the next 10,000 to 100,000 l 24 years. It does however, give an indication of the irreversible effects involved in the decision being 25 considered.

26 0 2e 28 o

_ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -___________________________J

r____ _ _ _ . - - _

7 O

of 20,000 MWD (t)/ ton. For such fuel, this collection rate y

2 is equivalent to approximately $150,000 per ton. DOE has q

n t established a rate for fuel exposed to the lower level 3

associated with the 5% power test operation, but there is 4

n reas n t expe t that the cost per ton could be 5

g mu h below DOE's published rates as DOE is neg tiated t ,

6 7

required by law to obtain fu'il cost recovery and the same I

disposal care would likely be required. Accordingly, the g

g potential cost for disposal by DOE of the 90 tons at {

Seabrook could be as u ch as $13,000,000, not counting 10 g transportation or possible cost increases. In addition, no O disposal facility is planned or expected until after the g

year 2000, at least 15 years in the future. It would 13 therefore be necessary to store and safeguard the spent g

O fuel on site until that time. Mr. Harrison's September 3, 1987 letter gives an estimate for the onsite storage of the g

fuel of approximately $700,000 per month. If this estimate 1.,

O is rre t, the cost of spent fuel storage and disposal 8

becomes nearly a $140 million obligation. Reactor g

components removal, handling and disposal would be O additionally required. I do not believe the mosts would actually be that high, but it is clear they could total g

tens of millions of dollars.

O 24 THERE IS NO PURPOSE SERVED, AND THE BENEFITS 25 PRODUCED BY LOW POWER TESTING ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE ADVERSE AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN THE STATUS OUO O

27 l 28 l O

16. The essential purpose of a low power license is to test reactor systems which cannot be effectively tested 2

O in n n riti al nditi ns. It is necessary to conduct such 3

testing prior to operating the plant at higher power levels 4

(i.e., greater than 5% power) . At 5% power, the reactor l 5

w uld barely produce enough steam to spin the turbine and 6

. synchronize the generator. Taking into account the station :

auxiliary power needs, it is not likely that net electric j 8

O power would be supplied to the grid as a result of the g

testing, and there would be no displaced oil or fuel cost savings. Instead, power from the grid would be required to g

O run the plant during the tests. Mr. Harrison's September 2

3, 1987 letter contains as an enclosure Table 1, showing g

PSNH's estimated incremental costs for low power operati.on.

g O This Table shows a total cost for electric power for the low power testing of $1.144 million. This seems to verify that no positive electrical power will be produced. Thus, i,s O none of the benefits assumed in the NRC's Environmental Impact Statement for Seabrook would be achieved by low power testing; however, as noted, low power operation would O result in environmental impacts, such as plant contamination with radioactive material, the likely loss of the resale value of the fuel and other components once they O become irradiated, the cost of decontamination, decommissioning and disposal, worker exposure, and last but 26 0 27 28 i

l

O 1

not least, the potential commitment of the site to lengthy 2 radioactive waste storage use.

O 3

17. Because low power testing standing alone produces ,

4 no net benefits but does have potential adverse effects, it ,

is my pini n that there is no reason to conduct low power O

0 testing just for its sake alone. Rather, low power testing '

1 can be rationally justified only in circumstances where 8

there is no substantial doubt that the plant subsequently O  ;

9 will operate at higher power levels so that its benefits 10 (i.e., generation of electricity) will be available to 11 ffset the adverse effects (fuel irradiation, radioactive O

contamination, potential worker exposure) which cannot be avoided. In my technical opinion, the optimum time for O

• • "'"' ***~****' *****"' ' "Y ""***** ** ***' **

15 shortly before full-power operational approval is reliably IO anticipated to be obtained.

17 O

19 -

^"

• 8 * *" 8 A""

20 O

21 SubscribedWand sworn lo before me g on this C day of 67ef ,1987.

23 r4Epe orric!AL SEAL O .a--> # . >>__ .

4j u;n"ct YRNAL8^8tv av8vc . cavocar.nr 2f 'p' t

@ NOTARY PUBGC 9%f 4 cLAR4 ccu%rv My Commission expires: IN ~~ '

26 j O 27 28 O

s a su ._ e.. - .> _r s. 1.s----- aa-. .u sr .---swa..e-.. + ., -- .s ,sa-.ax.-- --.as.ax 1zum a x. =.a--asa,--+n.. wen.e s aa s -- s. .

Y s

i i

i I

F ATTACMMENT 1 .j

) i

[

PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH  !

D i e

I i

. 4

[

i I

i D >

i i

t 3 f 1

i i

i G

I i

O  !

b i-l PROFESSIONAL QUAltFICAT10NS OF DALE G BRICENBAUGH i

DALE G. BF.lDENS AUGH I

l MHB Tecnnical Associates

• 1723 Hamilton Avenue.

l Suite K San Jose, Carifomia 95125 g (408)266-2716

! EXPEAIENCE:

1976 PRESENT O President MHB Technical Asseeintes San Jose. Califemia Co-founder and partner of technical consulting firm. Specialists in energy consulting to governmental and other groups interested in evaluation of nuclear plant safety and licensing.

Consultant in this capacity to state egencies in Califomia, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, f Pennsylvania, Oktahoma and Minnesota and to the Norwegian Nuclear Power Commctee.

I Swedish Nuclear inspectorate, and various other organizations and environmental, groucs.

! Performed extensive safety analysis for Swedish Energy Commission and contributed to the Union l of concemed Scientists's Review of WASH 1400, Consultant to the U.S. NRC LWR Safety l Improvement Program, performed Cost Analysis of Spent Fuel Disposal for the Natural Resources l

• Defense Council, and contnbuted to the Deoartment of Energy LWR Safety improvement Pregram

!g for Sandia Laboratones. Served as expert witness in NRC and state utility commission heanngs.

1976-(FEBRUARY AUGUST)

Consu' tant Proieet Survival Palo Alto. CaMemia O Volunteer work on Nuclear Safeguards Initiative campaigns in Califomia, Oregon, Wash.ng:en.

Arizona, and Colorado. Numerous presentations on nuclear power and altemative energy cotions to civic, govemment, and college groups. Also resource person for public service presentations on radio and television.

1973 1976 O Manaaer. Performance Evaluation and lmerovement. General Electrie Comoany Nuetear Emerev Division. San Jose Califemia Managed seventeen technical and seven clerical personnel with responsibility for estiblishment and management of systems to monitor and measure Boiling Water Reactor equipment and Q system operational performance. Integrated General Electne resources in f.ustomer plant moddications, coordinated correction of causes of forced outages and of efforts to improve reliability and performance of BWR systems. Also responsible for deyelopment_of Division Master Performance improvement Plan as weil as for numerous Staff special assignments on long. range studies. Was on species assignment for the management of two different ad hoc projects formed to resolve unique technical problems.

O i.

O

n V

1972 1973 O Mamacer. D'oduct Service General E'ectMe Comeany - Nuclear Enercy DMsion San Jese.

Catte+3 Managed grouo of twenty one technical and four clerical persont'el. Prime responsibilir/ was to c; rect interface and liaison personnel involved in corrective actions required under contract warranties. Also in charge of refueling and service planning, performance analysis, and service O communication functions succorting a:i completed commercial nuclear power reactors sucpiied by General Electric, both domestic and overseas (Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan, India. and S.vitzerland).

1968 1972 O Manace D*cduct Service Gene *al E'ectrie Comcany - Nue' ear Enercy Division San Jese.

Cauernia Managed sixteen technical and six clerical personnel with the responsibility for all custcmer contact, planning and execution of work required after the customer acceptance cf department-supplied otants and/or ecuipment. This included cuotation, sale and delivery of spare and rene^al O parts. Sales volume of parts increased from si coo. coo in 1968 to over s3, coo coo in 1972.

1966 1968 Manacer Cemelaint and Warranty Service General E'eetric Cemeany Nue' ear Enercy DMsen San Jose CaMernia Managed group of soc persons wrth the responsibility for customer contacts, planning and execution of work recuired after customer acceptance of department sucplied plants and/cr equipment-both domestic and overseas.

n 1963 1966 v

me ld Enc;neerinc Sueerviser General Electric Cemeanv. Installation and Service Encret"q Decar neet. Les Anceles. Callfemta Suoervised approximately eight field representattves wrth responsibility for Genera: Electric steam and gas turbine mstallation and maintenance work in Southern California, Arizona, and Southern O Nevada. ouring tnis period was respons;bie for tne instaliation of eignt deferent centrai stat:en steam turbine-generator units, plus muen maintenance activity. Work included customer centact, preparation of quotations, and contract negotiations.

1956 1963 O m ,id Encin,,, a ,n ,,,, Ei,e.,;e comeany_ inst 3,,atien and Service Encineesna Decart-ent Ch'ea ce. It'inors ,

S',;oervised installation and maintenance of steam turbines of all sizes. Supervised crews of from ten to more than one hundred men, depencing on the job. Worked primardy with large utilities but O ha significant w rk wrth steel, petroleum and other process industnes. Had four years of 2-

,0

O experience at construction, startup, trouble shooting and refueling of the first large scale commere:al nuclear power unit.

O 1955 1956 Eneineerina Trainino Prearam General Electrie Comeanv Erie. Dennsvtvania and Sehenecisev.

New Yerk Training assignments in plant facilities design and in steam turbine testing at two General Electric O factorylocations.

1953 1955 Unied States Armv. Ordnance Scheel Aberdeen. MaMand O Instructor Heavy Artillery Repair, Taught classroom and shop disassembiy of arti!!ery pieces.

1953 Encineerina Trainina precram General E!ectrie Comeanv. Evendate Ohio O Training assignment with Aircraft Gas Turbine Department.

EDUCATtON & ArriUATIOM:

BSME 1953. South Daketa School of Mines and Technology, Racid City Souin Cakota, Uccer O if4 of ciass.

Professional Nuclear Engineer Califomia. Certtficate No. 0973.

Member . American Nuclear Society O various Company Training Courses during career including Professional Business Management,  :

Kepner Tregoe Decision Making, Effective Presentation, and numerous tecnnical seminars.  !

WONCAS & AWARDS:

Sigma Tau . Honorary Engineering Fratemity.

O General Managers Award, General Electric Company, PE SONAL DATA:

Bom November 20,1931, Miller, South Dakota O u,77i,o, tnr., eniict n 6'2*.190 lbs., health excellent

~

Honorabie cischargt from United States Army .

Hobbies: Skiing, hiking.

O  !

3 O

r

i f

O t

PUBLICATIONS & TESTIMONY OF DALE G BRIDENBAUGH: .

1.

Oseratine and Maintenance Exoerience. presented at Twelfth Annual Seminar for Electric Utihty '

3- Executrves. Pebble Beach, Cahfomia. October 1972, published in General Electric NEDC 10697, l December 1972. >

i

2. Maintenance and in Service Inseeetion. presented at IAEA Symposium on Experience From  !

Operating and Fueling of Nuclear Power Plants, Bridenbaugh, Uoyd & Turner, Vienna, Austr:a, October,1973. 5 O  !

3. Ocoratins and Maintenance Exeerience. presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for Electric Uthty Executives, Pebble Beach, Cahfomia, Novemcer 1973, published in General Electric NEDO 20222, '

January 1974.

4. Imerovina Plant Avaliability. presented at Thirteenth Annual Seminar for Electne Utility Executives.

O Pebble Beach, Cahfornia, November 1973, published in General Electric NEDO 20222. January, 1974.

k

5. Aeonestien of Plant Outaae Exoerience to Imorove Plant Performance, Bridenbaugh and Burdsa!1, Amencan Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 14,1974. l O 6. Nuefear Valve Testina Cuts Cost Time. Electrical Worid, October 15,1974.  ;

7. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. B. Hubberd, and G. C. Minor before the United States {

Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Feeruary 18,1976, Washington, D.C. (Published ey the Union of Concemed Scientists, Camendge, Massachusetts.)

O 8. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, R. 5. Hubbard, and G. C. Minor to the Califomia State Assemcly -

Comm:ttee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy, March 8,1976.

• r 9.. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbau@ before the Califomia Energy commission, entitled, in;tiation ef '

Catastreenie Accidents at Diabm Canven. Hearings on Emergency Planning, Avila Beacn, [

Calrfomia, November 4,1976.

O  !

10. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Carr. mission, subject: QiM2 4 .

Canven Nuclear Piant Performance. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearings. In the matter of l Pac:fic Gas and Electnc Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ), Docket i Nos. 50 275 OL 50 323 OLDecember,1976. '

(

O i t. Testimony by D. G. eridenbaugh before the Califemia Energy Commission, subject: Intenm Seeat Fuel Storaae Considerations, March 10,1977, l

12. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before tne New York State Public Service Commission Siting Board Hearings concoming the Jamesport Nucleat Power Station, subject: FNeet of Teenn'est and Safefv Deficiencies on Nuclear plant Ces! snd Reliability. in the matter of Long Island Lignting O Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Case Nc. 80003. Aprd,1977.

13. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Califomia State Energy Com,rptssion, subject:

Decommissionins of Pressurized Water Reacters. Sundesert Nuclear Plant Hearings. in the matter of San Diego Gas and Electnc Company (Notice of Intention to File Application for Certification of Site and Related Facdities), Docket No. 76 Nol.2, June 9,1977.

4 O

O 14.

Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the California State Energy Commission, subject:

Econem'c melationshios of Decommissionina, Sundesert Nuclear Plant, for the Natural Resources O Defense Council, in the matter of San Diego Gas and Electnc Company; Notice of Intertion to File Application for Certification of S;te and Related Facilities, Docket No. 76.NCl 2. July 15,1977.

15. The Risks of Nuefaar Power Reactors A Review of the NRC Reacter Safety Study WASW.t.tr)q Kendall, Hubbard, Minor & Bndencaugh, et. al., for the Union of Concemed Scientists, August, 1977.

O

16. Testimony by D, G. Bridenbaugh before the Vermont State Board of Health, subject Oce stien et Verment Yankee Nue! ear Plant and !!s Im;act en Pubfie Health and Safety. October 6,1977.

17.

Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Atomic Safety and Licen3ing Scard, subject: Deficiene;es in Safety Evaluation of Non Seesmie issues Lack ef a O Definit,ve sindine e Safeu. Diab:o canyon Nuclear Units. October 18, 1977, Avda Beach, Ca!-

tfornia.

18. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Norwegian Commission on Nuclear Power, subject:

Peactor Saferv/ Risk. October 26,1977.

O 19.

Swedish meneter Sa<erv Studv sarseenek misk Assessment. MHB Technical Associates,. January, 1978. (Pu0lished by the Swecisn Department of industry as Document Ost 1978:1)

20. Testirrony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Louisiana State Legislature Commrttee on Natural Resources, subject: Nue' ear power plant Der ieiene'es imeaet'ne en Sa'aty & metiabili'v. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 13,1978 21, Scent Fuei Discesai Costs. report prepared by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the Natural Resources P

Defense Council (NROC), August 31,1978.

22. Testimony cf D. G. Bridenbaugh, G. C. Minor, and R. B. Hubbard before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of the Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit O Heanngs, September 25,1978, Tulsa, Oktanoma.

23. Testimony of D. G. Briden'Jaugh and R. B. Hubbard before the Louisiana Public Service Commission, Nuclear Plant and Power Generation Costs. November 16, 1978, Baton Rouge, Lou:siana.

O 24. Testimony by D, G. Bridenbaugh before the City Council and Electric Utility Commission of Austin, Texas, Desien Construction and Ocerat+c Ercer'ence of Nue' ear Generatine Fac'tes, December 5,1978, Austin, Texas.

25. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Public Utilities, imenet of unreselved Saferv issues Generai Dericione,es and Three vire isiand.intated

~O ModMest ens en Power Generation Cost at the Precesed Pilenm.2 Nuefear Plant. June 8,1979.

26. Imerovine the Saferv ef LWR Power P' ants. MHB Technical Associates, prepare (for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Sandia Laboratones, Septemoer 28,1979.

O 5-O

D

27. BWA A:ce and Nezefe Cracks. MHS Technical Associates, for the Swecish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI), Octccer,1979.

) 28. Uncerta etyin Nuclear Aisk Assessment Methodefeev. MHS Technical Associates, for the Swec.sn Nuclear Power inspectorate (SKl), January 1980.

29. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarc. in tne matter of Sacramento Municioal Util.ty District. Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stat.cn following TMI 2 accident, subject: Ocerater 7tainine and Woman Facte*s Eac noenro, for tne CaS

) femia Energy Commission, Cocket No. 50-312 SP, Feeruary 11,1980.

30. ttatian Aeacter Safety Studv Caerso Aisk Assessment. MHB Technical Associates, for Frienes cf tne Earth. Italy, Marcn,1980.

31. Decenta* nation cf Keveten 95 frem Three Mile Isf ard Nue' ear PJrl. H. Kendall, R. Pollard, an: 1 G. Endencaugn, et al, The Union of Concerned Scient;s:s, delivered to the Gosemor cf Pennsylvan:a, May 15,1930.

32. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugn before the New Jersey Scard of Pubiic Utilities, on behalf of Ne v Jersey Public Advocate's Office, Division of Rate Counsel, Prvsis e' 1979 Salem 1 Ae*ueue O u*a e,in the matter f the Petition of Public Service Electric and Gas Company for acproval cf an increase in Electric and Gas rates and for enanges in the tariffs for Electric and Gas seNiqe., P.U.C.

N.J. No. 7, Electric, and P.U.C. N.J. No. 5, Gas Pursuaut to R S 48.2 21, August 1980.

33. Minneseta Nut! ear P' ants Gasecus Emiss;ces Studv. MHB Technical Associates, for Minneseta Poilution Control Agency, Septemcer,1960.

34. Position Statement, Precosed Au'emakine en tna Sterace sad Discesal ef Nue' ear Waste. Jo nt l Cross Statement of Position of tne New Eng and Coahtion on Nuclear Poilution and tne Natural Resources Defe 1se Council, September,1980.

35 Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugn and G. C. Minor, before the New York State Public Service

'g Commission, in the matter of Long Island Ught Company Temporary Rate Case, prepared for tne Shoreham Opponents Coalition, September 22, 1980, Case No. 27774, Shereham Nue! ear D'nat Construction Schedu'e.

l

36. Sucotemental Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New Jersey Beard of Public Util; ties, en behalf of New Jersey Department of the Puolic Advocate, Civision of Rate Counsel A.La vsrs c'

O 3979 saiem-1 Ae*uenne Outace. In the matter of the Petition of Public SeNice E!ectne and Gas l Company fee approval of an increase in Electric and Gas rates and for changes in the tare's fer

! Electric and Gas SeNice, P.U.C. N.J. No. 7, Electnc. and P.U.C. N.J. No. 5. Gas, Pursuant to A_.S.,

48:2 21, Docket No. 794 310, OAL Docket No. PUL-877 79, December,1980.

37. Testimony by D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor, before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilit:es, O on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Q.u!.a:

Creek 1990 Aefuen no Outace investicat;en. in the matter of the Petition of Jersey Central Pcwer and Ught Company for approval cf an increase in the rates for electncal seNice and adjustment clause and factors for suen service, OAL Docket No. PUC 3518-80. BPU Docket Nos. 804 205.

807-488. Feeruary 1981.

O O

0

38. Eeene ~e Assess-ent- Ownarshio Interest in Date Verde Nue'ev Stat'en, MHS Tectn cal Associates, for the C.ty of Riverside, Sectemcer 11,1931.

O 39. Testimony of D. G. eridenbaugn before ine Public utinties Commission of onio, in the Matter ef tne Regulation of tne Electric Fuel ComponeM Contained Within the Rate Schedules of the Tc:eco Edison Company and Rotated Matters, subject: Davis.Besse Nuclear Powar Station 19M 91 Ou' ace Dev'ew. Cara No. 81306 EL EFL November,1981.

40. Supplemental Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. in O

the rnaner of the Regulation cf the Electne Fuel Component Contained within the Rate Schecues of the Toledo Edison Company and Related Matters, subject: Davis.Besse Nuclear power Staten 19?O 81 Ou' ace Aeview. Case No. 81406 EL EFL November 1981.

41. Systems interaction and Sincie Fa nure Criterion Dhase 2 Racert. MHB Technical Associates fer O '"* ***'" ""*'* ' ' *ennspect r te (Ss January,19s2.

42. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor en behalf of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.,

before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, regarding Centention 10 Dressurrer w e get, in the matter of Pactfic Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OL 50-323 OL January 11,1982.

O 43. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Governce Edmund G. Grown Jr.,

before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, regarding Contention 12 Block and pifet Ocarata?

Aenet Valvas. in the matter of Pacific Gas and E!ectric Company (Diaolo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OL 50423 OL January 11,1932.

a4.

O Testim ny cf D. G. seidenbaugn bet te tne Commonwealtn of Massacnusetts. cecartment cf Public Utdties, on benalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Pace" Nue' ear Dewar Sta' ea 1991 92 Ou* ace invastication in the matter of Boston Edison Company, CPU Docket No.1003 5, Maren 11,1952.

45. Testimony cf D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsyivania Public Utility Commission, on behalf cf O the Penns)ivania Office of Consumer Advocate, Seaver Vanev Outace. March,1982.

46. Intenm testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, on behalf of Suffolk County, in the matter of Long Island Ugnting Comcany, Shorenam Nuclear Power Station, Untt 1, regarding Sud elk Ceunty Cententien 11 PassNe Meenanies vane FOlu*es. Docket No. 50 322 OL Apnl 13,1982.

O

47. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, en benalf of Suffolk County, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company, Shorenam Nuclear Power Station, Urut 1, regarding SuMelk Courty Ceatention 11 DassNe Mecaan;eal Valve Dvivres, Decket No. SD 322 OL April 13,1982.

O 48. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and R. S. Hubbard, in the Matter of Jersey Central Power and Ugnt Company For an increase in Rates for Electncal Service, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Three M41a Isised Unu 1 & 2.

C'ennuo and Med ficatien pace aras. OPU Docket Nos. 818 726,818 736, May,1952.

49. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor en behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atom.c O Safety and ucensing soard, in tne maner of Long Island Ughting Company, Shoreham Nuclear 7

'O

O d

Power Station. Unit 1, regarding Su elk Ceunty Contentien 22 S Av Test orec'3m. Docket No 50-322 0L May 25,1982.

O 50. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh and G. C. Minor on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atem c Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Ughting Company. Shorenam Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding SuMolk Ceunty Contentien 28taHva and SOC Cententien 7am Reuetien cf S AV Challences. Docket No. 50 322 OL June 14,1982.

- 51, Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of the lllinois J Attomey General's Office, Ereectad Ufetimes and performance cf Nue'es' onwar otants, in the matter of Commonwealth Edison (Preposed general increase in electne rates), ICC Docket No. 82-0026, 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, regarding Construction e' Derry Nuclear Geaem 9 d Unt Ne 1. in the matter of the acplication of the Cleveland Electric illuminating Company fer authonty to amend and increase certain of its filed schedules fixing rates and charges for electr;c service, Case No. 81 1378 EL A!R, Octocer 7,1982.

53. Issues AFeetina the Viability and Acceet3biltv ef Nuefear Power Usace in the Unitad States.

O prepared by MHS Technical Associates for Congress of the United States. Office of Technofegy Assessment for use in conjunction with Workshop on Technological and Regulatory Changes in Nuclear Power, December 8 & 9,1982.

54 Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Rockford League of Women Voters, before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Commonwealth Edison Company, Syren "g Station Units 1 and 2 regarding Contention 22. Stesm Genemters. Docket Nos. 50 454, 50-455.

Maren 1,1983.

55. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public Utay Commission, on benalf of the Office of Consumer Advocate, Recardino t*e Cost of Constn&c taa Suscuenamns Steam Eieetric Station Un't t. Re: Pennsylvania Power and Ugnt, Docket No. R-8221e9, Maren 18,1983.

O 56 Surrebuttal Testimony of D. G. Sridenbaugh before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, on behalf cf the Office of Consumer Advocate, Recardina the Cost of Construct'nc tra Suscuehan's Stearn Electre Station. Unit 1. Re: Pennspvania Power and Ugnt, Docket No. R 822169 Apn! 23, 1983.

'7 Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh in the Matter of Public Service Gas & Electric, Base Ante Csse.

Nuetear Construction Eveendtures. on behalf of New Jerssy Department of the Puche Aovoet.te, Division of Rate Counsel Docket No. 836420, CAL Docket No. PUO44933-83, October 13,1933.

59. Affidavit of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Jersey Cen'ral Powtr and Ught, on behalf of New

'O Jersey Department f the Public Advocate. Division of Rate Counsel, TMI Fau't invest;catien. DoU Docket No. 836 500, Novemoer 23,1983.

s 59. Testimony cf D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate. Division of Rate Counsel, LEAC Investication Sa'em 1 Ou'sces. DPU Docket No. 83125, December 1,1983.

O

)

60. Rebuttal Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of Public Service Electne & Gas. en tena f of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division cf Rate Counsel, LEaC nvestes' ~

) Sa'ema Ou' aces. CPU Docket No. 83125, January 18,1984.

61. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh. L M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C. Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC Case No. 27563, in the matter cf Long is:anc Ughting Company Proceeding to Investigate the Cost of the Shoreham Nuclear Generating Facity

- Phase ll, on beha:f of County cf Suffolk, February 10,1984.

D

62. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugn, in the Matter of Jersey Central Power & Light Company, on bens.f of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, Base Aate Case.

Ovster Creek 1983 94 Outace and C&M and Caortal Evrend,tures. CAL Docket No. PUL 00797 54 BPU Docket No. 84155, May 23,1984.

) 63. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard, Before the lilinois Comrrerce Commission, Illinois Power Company, Clinton Nuclear Station, on its own motion, an invest! gat:en to consider a plan for moderat:ng the in:tial rate increase associated with placing Illinois Pcwer Company's Clinton Unit No.1 generating station in service, Docket No. 84 0055, available from lilinois Govemor's Office of Consumer Services. July 30,1984.

) 64. Joint Direct Testimony of Dr. Robert N. Anderson, Professor Stanley G. Christensen, G. Dennis Eley, Dale G, Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard Regarding Suffolk County's Emergency D:esel Generator Contentions, Before the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, in the matter of Long Is!and Ugnting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Plant Unrt 1, NRC Docket No. 50 322 OL July 31,1984.

65. Surrebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, Richard B. Hubbard, and 3 Gregory C. Minor, Before the New York State Public Service Commission, PSC Cass No. 27553.

Shoreham Nuclear Station, Long Island Ughting Company, on behalf of Su* folk County and Ne.v York State Consumer Protection Board, in the matter of Lorg Island Ughting Company Procec:ng to Investigate the cost of the Shorenam Nuclear Generating Facility Phase 11, October 4,1934.

66. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gragery C. Minor en Bena.f of C Massachusetts Attomey General. DPU 84145, Before the Massachusetts Department of Pubtc Utilities, regarding the prudency of expendrtures by Fitchburg Gas and Electne Ught Company en Seabrook Unit 2, November 23,1984,84 pgs.

67. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Richard B. Hubbard and Lynn K. Price on Bena.f of Massachusetts Attomey General, DPU 84152, Before the MJssacnusetts Department of Puch:

O Utilities, regarding the investigation by the Department cf the Cost and Senecute of Seaborck Un t 1, December 2,1984.

l 63. 0; rect Testimony of Dals G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory C. Minor on Bena!f cf i Maine Public Utdities Commission Staff regarding Seabrook Unit 2. Docket No. 84113. Decem::er 21,1984.

69. Direct Testirt.ony of Dale G. Brdenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor Regarding Su* folk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Load Contention, Docket No. 50 322 OL January 25,1965.

70. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, in the Matter of the Motion of Public Service Electt:c &

7)

Gas, on behalf of New Jersey Decartment of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, VHn 3-

O Te incresse The level cf the t.evelired Eeercy Ad!ustment C'ause. Occket No. ER 8501166 and Doctet No. 837 620, April 24,1935.

O 71. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the Attomey General cf the Commonwea.tn cf Massachusetts, in the Matter of Boston Edison Company DPU 8518, A Heanng to Determine Whether Fuel and Purchased Power Costs Associated with the Outage at Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station Wh ch Began on December 10,1983 and Enced on December 30,1984 Were Reasonatly and Prudentlyincurred. May 13,1935.

O 72. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the Residential Ratepayer Consortium, in the Maner cf the Application of Consumers Power Company for a Power Sucply Cost Reconc6at:en proceeding for the 12. month period ended December 13, 1964, regarding Palisades Outage Pe-view, Case No. U 7785 R, August 29,1985.

73. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugn, Lynn M. Danielson, and Gregory C. Minct en bena.f of O

the Decartment of Public Service. Stats of Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5030, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, November 11,1985.

74. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of New Jersey Department of the Pubne Advocate in the maner of JCP&L for an increase in ra*es, Base Rate Case. Oyster Creek O&M and O Capaai wenmu, CAQocket NoA2H5, BPU Decket No 850768, Novemeer 25,1985.

75. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh en behalf of New Jersey Decartment of t'ne Public Advocate, in the maner of JCP&L TMI Restart . LEAC, Re: TMI Restart Commercial Operat:en Stancarcs & Reliaod ty of Service, January 31,1986.

76. Direct Testim ny f ale G. Bridenbaugh, Gregory C. Minor, Lynn K. Price, and fleven C. Shony O en eenalf of State cf Connecticut Department of the Public Utility Centrol Prosecutoul Divis:en anc Division of Consumer Counsel in the matter of Connecticut Ught and Power Company Retrescectrve Audit of the Prucence of the Management and Financing of the Construct:en cf Maistene Unrt 3, February 18,1986.

77. Direct Testim ny f Daie G Bridenbaugh and Greg ry C. Minor on tenair of Massaenusens O'

Attomey General regarding the prudence of expenditures by New England Power Co. on Seacrook Un:t 2, Docket Nos. ER 85-646-000, ER 85 647 000, February 21,1986.

78. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on bena!f of Massachusens Attorney General regarding WMECo Construction Prudence for Millstene Urut 3, in the maner of O I""'St'gati n by tne department on it own motion as to the prier:ty of tne rates and charges set forth in schedules filed with the department Dec. 17,1985 by Westem Massacnusetts E!ectric Co.

to become effective Jan.1,1966. Docket No. 85 270, March 19.1956.

79. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf cf Massacnusens Anorney General regarding WMEco's Commercial Operating Dates and Deferred Cap.tal Acc tiens O on Mulstone Unrt 3 Docket No. 85 270, March 19,1986.

80. Rebuttal Testimony cf Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor en behalf of Massachusetts Anorney General regarding New England Power Company's Seatrook 2 Rebunal, Docket Nos ER 85 646 001, ER 85-647 001, Apri 2,1986.

Q 10-O

O st. 0; rect Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor en beha:f of State cf Ma:ne Sta f cf Pubhc Uthties Commission regarcing Construction Prudence of Malstone Un t 3, in the maner et Maine Power Company Proposed increase in Rates, Docket No. 85 212, April 21,1986.

O 82.

Direct Testimony of Dale G. Brideneaugn and reter M Strauss on beha:f of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, DNision of Rate Counsel, regarding Base Rate Case: In-Service Cnteria for Hope Creek, Hope Creek C&M and Decommissioning Costs, and Operat.n; Piant O&M Costs, OAL Docket No. PUL 0231-86, BPU Docket No. ER 85121163, May 19,1955.

107 pp.

O 83. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bradenbaugh on behalf of New Jersey Decartmen of the Pubt:

Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, regarding Base Rate Case: Mcce Creek Ccmmerc.at Operating Date and Cnteria Hepe Creek O&M Costs Operating ufe, Capdal Add.tions, and Decommissioning Costs, in the matter of Atlantic City Electric Company increasing its rates fer eiectne service Phase 11, CAL Docke'. No. PUL 3290 85, BPU Docket No. ER 8504 434, May 27 O 86' 85 SP'

84. D rect Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Richard B. Hubbard, and Lynn K. Price on beha.f of State of Imnois Office of the Anorney General and Office cf Public Counsel, in the matter of Illino:s Commerce Commision on its own motion an investigation to consider a plan for moderating the initial rate increase associated with placing !!!inois Power Company's CI;nton Unit 1 generating O station in service Docket No. 84 0055, July 9,1986.

85. Direct Testimony of Dafe G. Bridenbat.gh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Verment Department of Public Sennce, regarding Tariff FDing of CentralVermont Public Service Ccrocratien Request:ng a 12% Increase in Rates, Docket No. 5132, August 25,1986.

O E6. Direct Testimony of Da!e G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B Hubbard on bena:t of the Pennsylvan a Off ce of Consumer Advocate, regarding Pennsyivania Public Ut:hty Commission vs. Ducuesne Ugnt Company and Pennsylvan:a Power Company, Docket Nes. R-860378 anc R.852267, Septemcer 22,1985.

87. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Richard B. Hubbard on bena:f of The Public Part;es

.g Committee, Public Utikty Commission of Texas, regarding the Eva!uation of Costs of RNer Benc Nuclear Generating Station, in the matter of acclication of Gulf States Util ties for authonty to change rates, Docket Nos. 7195 and 6755, February 23,1987, SS. Direct Test: mony of Dale G. Endenbaugh on behalf of Maryland Pecole's Counsel, in the matter cf the Apclication of the Ba!timore Gas and E!ectric Company to Acjust its Eiectne Fuel Rate Charges, O Pursuant to Section 54F of Article 78 cf the Annotated Code cf Maryland, Case No. 8520-D Apnl 23, 1987.

69 Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on beha:f cf Florida Office of Pub!c Counsel, in regard to Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause wrth Generating Performance incentive Facter (Florida Power Corporation . Crystal Rrver 3), Docket No. 860001 El B, June 12,1987.

O

90. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the Residential Ratepayer Consortium, befcre the Michigan Public Sennee Commission, in the matter cf the Application of Consumers Power Company for a Reconciliation of Power Supply Cost Recovery Costs and Revenues for Calencar Year 1985. PahsadeWNc! ear Power Plant, Case No U-8286.R July 13,1987.

O 11 O

O

91. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridencaugh on behalf of the City of El Paso, before the Puol;c Ut;ty Board, in the matter of the Acphcation of the El Paso Electne Company for a Rate increase in tre C,ty of El Paso Evaluation of Costs of Palo Verde Unas 1 and 2. July 15,1987.

O

92. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of the C,ty cf El Paso, before the Public Ut.!t/

Commission of Texas, in the matter of the Application of the El Paso Electric Company for Auther ty to increase E!ectric Rates, Evaluation of Operational and Decommissioning Costs of Palo Verce Units 1 and 2, Cocket No. 7460, July 29,19'37.

O 93 Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbau;;h and Gregory C. Minor on beha!f of Massachusetts Attemey General, before the Federal Energy Pegulatory Commission, regarcing Canal E!ectric Com:any Prudence Related to Seabrook Unit 2'..'onstruction Openditures. Docket No. ER86 704401. July 31 1987.

94. Direct Testimony of Cale G. Bridenbaugn on behgof Marytt.rd People's Counsel. before tne Puche O sen ice Commission of Maryand, in the mamir of the Application o! Ce!maNa Power & Ugr.t Company for Electne Fuel Rate Adjustment, Pursuant to Section 54F of Araicle 78, of the Annetated Code of Maryland, Case No 8521, Phasa ll, August 10,1987. PROPRIETARY.

O O

O

O lO O

12 O

r 2,

i fj l

. y t

.< n  ;

. ..h: ' ,,~

t, g

. py

' c3 l ,

j of f

(, -

a l L  !

L i

) .--

l -

r ..

ATIACID1%31 1 i

]'t t

.1 ,

1 J l LETTER, NUNZIO J. PALLADINO , NRC. TO i

l' i

THE HONORABLE EDWARD J. MARKEY l ,

jf Q&TED JUNE 15, 1984 l ,,

b 4

+

1-I l

I .\

~

[3 ,

e O

r' V,

p * * ' %g d 4 i" if UNITED STATES

""Tj'~.' /sl%D [~i R RFGUCATORY COMMIS51OS '

$" f h~* e'

, "[.~~I

' i -. '

Frr e cToN.c.c.2cr.as ,

,O s'.s.4' June 15, 1984 ,

CHA IR M A N L

O ,

The Hen:rable Edward '.L iiarhey, Chair-.an Sub::=itt':e on Ovarcight and Investigations C:mittee 1 Interior ar.d Insular Affairs Urited States House of Representatives O Wa,gington,(f.C., 20:15

Dear Cengressm.an Markey:

Ycur letter of March .10, 1984 rc: vested an eclanati0n of the risks O assceiated W low pcwer operation at cerrardal mdear power reacters.

In addition, you raised five :pecific questions whien we have responded to in At:ach ent 1 to .this, letter.

With regard t3 the risks associated with icw p wer c eration, Atta:hment 2 is a Cemission eacer developed by the staff adderrssing this issue. As O indicated by this p3:er, the overall conclusien that '.he staff must rea:5 for fuel leadine 2.nd lew powei testing up :: 5 percer.t power, is that tnere is no undue risk to the health and safety cf the public for the limited c: era tions autWorized. In practice, the staff has develo:ed analyses that iref eate that<the risks of 5 percent power ep: ration can be expected to be a ec a y ess V.an.de MC of W penent power cceraden. "

O C: mis:iener Gilinsky cid n:t participate in the p e;aration of this reply, as trust tha t titis info 6..etien is res; tensive to your cen: errs.

O Sinc.e-ely,

'~'

w;jr'5LYdO /

,- O e

O Hunzio J. P:lladino Atta ch nents:

As stated cc: Rep. Ron Marl, ne. -

lO _ . u.

t - . . . . - - . . . , , _ _ . -...--. -

t lO

- e406 Moo S4 8 40613 --- ' "~ '

P .D..R c . C OMM n m S enNR.C,.C m -m=

l

-u . .

- = = . " - -

1 l

j .

1- .. .._ ..

l C'JIST!ON 5 : F o r- .1 yeseters li:ensed since the a::ident at Three F.i'.c

!sland, please provide the following (A) the date of issuance cf 'the low power license; (B) the date Of initial criticality; (C) the date of 5 percent ;:wer cpe.'etion; (D) -

I the date of issuante of the full ;0-er li:er. set (E) tne date b that p0wer levels of 25 :er:ent or hig9er were first attained; (F) the ca'.e that oewer leve's cf 90 :er:e . or higner were first attaired; (G) exe. :.ic s granted by tne N:~

l to the icw p w~er litersce and, (H) exe. ;tiens grantet by the l

IG,0 to tns full power lictnsec.

0 l

A= i 3 M ! % .

-. e The data recuested is provided in the atta:Md Table 5.1. \!e interpreted l

t .e cite of 5 per:ent c:wcr c:eration to be ths date trat this power level C was exece:cd. Where the plar,t has not achieved tne event listed the symbol tyAhasbeenused.g l ,

y,4 .

1 '

3 '

l i

O l

i I

!O lO

• i I

. g.

O ,.

O

+

f%

J -

.e re .

. .v

. sa. 4*

e /*

W m *. , . = , - - . . *

-J - n. .

i'l . .

,. .= - * - t - ,

V. .m. ^ . , l ' l

-w . l t-

-g<= =., 6. g - .

- l g,, -

=.

.s e- ,

=.

.i c a .b. .s . 6

= =hi

= .l l .., g .

. == - .

e t '

t i l . : . '

a- ,

< ,. w . . . .

= . > . t" C". - *

.% , ,  % w b ==.; aa.*' 8

. 3.l. . 2. e p.' e  % .l:. ,,

N N- e .e: set amr' i.;

-% -.i. J L.*. . O. 4* .* .L.* .% .cl. g ** s-=a %s ,2= % % %

')

g=_-

=%%

'- N . = m *' j

% C bg, .

M%*

; . N .l. = h N* = :l. % - llll*. (*,

=

• *=-. - *

-- i . * . . . .

. . .i .

• t

. .e . . . .e .

' . s . .

a, - *

. . s , , .

=s. . 4 e

. ' . . e . ...

, v-- =* :-== .

• 8

. I .

l I : .

. p .

. . .e .e .

i

-' C g. b.-

. . 1 *g g s # . t .

_= .. - -==.=

Lj.S 'i *j aN e ? -.

l .

vg =. <  % t. :::=%-. . ,;1 NN

% ;- 80 e.: :w:.*: ' ,

T.;-.

. u%

..~b. i.! - *,,;. .*J. * . .dl. .- b .ll= % % -.%

= %  %

=% .% % act M . .. L* .*fr..%. s . - g .m. 'g :%

~-O'

==

. c.

%~w

- 6,l:

b. %

• ,0 N, 3.

- r a.' - - ca g .-%a%%

=%-

. n =,, j w.

602.. ..

l' '

i 8 i !,f . l l w-

.... 9 s. .- ,,,,. .e . . .

l l a ,,

10 . - %. II i , ,

i w

e. . '

- I -.  ; I l

ll

= *

a. . .

. l. . , ,

= .- *. .

l l s  ;

g l l..a.e k i 1 . .

l

=.. . = . . .i . -

l ... .

, .s ]- , . ,

. c. 3 - , .

N N. l

.. f

2. ... . . .,.- It .;

e. .w..

$.8e *.-.. *w =l.

.t ,.

N t.;.% %

.,.=

~. " - e 8' 6,

= N .-  % % .n *- ,

- r;

,n v

L. -  :. .,_A= -%

N N

..e - - %

-- -e . . . =r..

r.6 .;.;N...:

=T

.t.

r.:.:. . I ' i i  ?.-

!. . : Ie

- . . . *% +. - . . .

i l -..

.- - - - '. e ll.! e .

l I t s

. l' l

l - ,. I I,l -

l . I. e . ,

i e

n. lI

, ,1

~ . - - . I : .. -

• i . i. - .-

. a. e

.._ A s . . )

w *. I i

N .- .

'J ~. =l . - * * * - .

N. :t .E- l .- . ---

O) s

% .-.x.: --

l

,L . .- <

h. . *'*t

. . G.s.

- .r.=%.

c c

2.-

N

~ -

,n

.. - , Q %% - b. .,..%, . - = =

-?..ar. .. a..

.s %

S -

-. 24 :- * .6 N.. / T .L =' --: 6 .a %- .

, a . . i e . s . . N j I e e, t p

1

.e I.si ,

l .

. , . ..f

.. .?.

i

. Is e l .I .

e.

i e ,. .

ee

.. .'. . s .*

l , e e . t .:

e i

4 .. O . . .==.=.,. *%"N,.... $. w- w =* . . ..

..% ..2.*. .

O c.:

.% .%. . . % m, . ,

. -...gj.,,....%.......

,)

. ... s

. - g . :;;-- =  % =~ 2.% ;r;==. ~ . ;. *% .v . -., .-

~- -.. .

..%% .. = *

= = .

• N . l

• L-N = .

.e. en =. s

.I > ,

.~ . . -

4

.e l a

!! lI. i! el Il .

i l 4.i l 4

. .m. g

=. .l, 1 I .

I e .

r b

y

9. " O %=.. M"

", =

.e C ("==

I

-. * . t. ' ' -

=

".r **

n.-

'**I

=.

. ~..: ta==. C.N

%., h P.*

%  % c.

.. .m..  %% c' ;.  %..% .w 4.,

...g . . .: *-

%. *=* = - rs 4,, Nw L% .% tl".

e 1.c. N '.:. N .-

.;-,- *;N._ r%

h.'.

4 *:-

[~,. ,

%-=%

k.. L,,. C' =

. C 4 N :; W2 r== - %* *

. :* . N. == w .

Nl.

e s .= 1 I t t i i I '

• • =

hl l f- h! )= ~ ^l-b

."m, i l

• es - C c= c L.,., uR. N* . i h ! I r.

E- = == ,

• -% Nr . ,. ,, 2 wG .

N

=*..

.b.

r.

>=

Q llll .,. >= ,=, - ;; ,.- ..- =..= ..% ==

,.s..,..

p..,

• l=. = ., c., .. . = == y , w - -.

r. .p..=-.pa-p a 4 v -

• un

.=

5 '.,., ==.

L . =-. , .e- ...-.?3..=-..j,,..,i.

%. I

,=. .e : . .

i 6 e . .s L,. a. k .;

s. C%, - .1 . . .. *

• O

I

? -

i s.

STATE O.? VERMONT FUBL'C SERVICE BOARD Q '

l

_______x .

- ~

...o. n _r .. *. a ' .d #. .# c .' '...4 . g C .# .

O . Cen tral Ve: :.cn: Public Service  :

l

' Ccrporatica Requesting A  : Cccket Mc. 5132 12 Percent Increase In Rates  :

Tc Take Effec: Jun e 2, 1986.  :

! l  :

lO i ----------------x -

i

. i t t i

t l

I I

t I

i O .-s. ~.r :m ..  :- d b.-- m.u... h ----c r - . v. B . D .e..;, - CyS .. CJ, t' .

l l

O '

t l

.l I

e o l Seabrook Statien

! New Hampshire Yankee t

l General Cifice Building Seabrcok, New Ha .pshire We:in e s day, Nov emb er 12, 1955

.O l 10 : 07 a.m.

l I

I i

O m4 A .*._rt.f*

_ . ?.

. J. "..S u" U..f.t.T.. ..

C _-. =. ". . .= ..' = D- .c.n' ' C r". '. .=. .:._' .' D r'. "' .= O .*. *. .=. .=.

g p._r- u- g . _e ..e. r.D P C.C . . r .?..c .e. . C.". ~' ' . . .". r

" C n' ". .?. ."4 P.O. Box 571 (603) 779-7470 cr I

iExe:er, N.H. 03533 1-800-527-3311 O

4

-( .{

2

, .O .O_T .C T .* .* ".

) 2 lM.H.B. Technical Associates Gregory C. Mincr, Vice Presiden t and '

3 Judith R. Li eb erman , Associa:e Censultant

," 17 23 Hamilten Avenue, Suite K -

4 San Jose, Calif ornia 9512 5 l

) 5 t

Cahill, Gcrden & Reindel I (by Themas R. Jcnes, Esquire) 6 i 80 Pine Street New York, New Ycrk 10005; 7 f or Public Service Cc pany of New Hampshire.

8 lDewns, Rachlin & Martin (by Elizabeth B . Mullikin, Esquire) 9 100 Dorse: Street, Suite 1 P.O. Bex 190

[? 10 B urlin g ten , Ver=cnt 05402-0190; f or Cen tral Ver=cn t Public Service Corpora:icn.'

22

, , Dep artmen t of Public Service

., *2 (by Chris:cpher Micciche, Special Cc=r.sel)

[) l 120 State Street i *3

.  ! Men:pelier, ver=cn t 05602 i

i l

14 Swidler & Berlin (by Andrew Weissnan, Esquire) 1000 Themas Jef f ersen Street, NW J 15 Was hin g:cn , D.C. 20007; for C.V.P.S.C.

16 17

D l 13 I NDEX 1

l 19 r In:erview with: Direct inv 20 William B. Derrickscn 3 21 (by Mr. Mincr) 22 0

23 l

I e

D '

i 1 3 PROCEEDI NGs r -

2 i

3 r . . . . ,- *M

-s n. - J, n. . .,. OJ.

4 EY MR. !C MOR :

l~ .

i.

5 Q' This is not a depositicn. I guess I shculd star:

6 by saying that. Jus; for the usual pattern of 7

these type of things, I will introduce cyself.  :

O 8 am Greg Minor cf M.H.3. To my righ; is I

9 l

Judy Li eb erman , also of M.H.E.; Chris Micciche of l

10 the Departmen t of Public S ervic es in Ver ca t .

O 11 l And we are here, Mr. Derricksca, to ask you 2

scme questiens about the proj ect; andI understand O *3 you have schedule restraints; an d I appreciate ycur 14 ,' being here today.

15 D. i I would like to just go back and star:, if ycu 15

, would, by telling me your first associatien with 17 this prcj ect and whe:her that was as a censul:an:

'D 13 to Florida Power and Light or direct invcivemen 19 l I

with the pcsitien at New Harpshire Yankee.

20 lA Okay.

We did have an involv emen t at Ficrida Pcwer ts 21 and Light Ccepany with respect to Public Service to 22 send some pecple up here to provide some assistance O 23 to Public Service in 1953, I believe, and we did l

l n

%l

a

.. i>

1 uniguely cut and ben : fcr this pla.:. Structural i

2 st ee) is the same way, u.iquely cut, specific 3

cennec:icas out here.

. You would have to design a w

me., , : 3. ,: .: n ,,. a . , ., c- ...

.m. . . . . . s.......c

,.-... .l s..e.3

.c I ccn..w U 5 think we are going to find too many pecple excited o to co t.. .. .r .. ..: . . .. . . . c .4 e.

.. .t . e s ._ec.c. . . o . .o J

7 reheators, si . ply because not that many plan ts are E

b ei .g buil'.. . They have cepper nickel t ub e s ', an d I 9

d r. ' t think there is much of a market for those.

o 10 C:her compenents we are going to have to. Icok 11 at en -a case-by-case basis. Original large cctors U

12 f er replace .en t , and we will go to and make an 13 acte =pt to see whic we can do in these areas.

14 0.her than that, I d r. ' t know. We haven ' t locked O 15 a: that. We have to get a team tcgether to really

_2 go cut an d c at a 3 cg mcd e.3 , ca.te anc see 2.: We can

.e  : : . .:

- - . . . a .* '."..'.4 u"e s.-^'...'

- . *.'.a.

. Cw" ' . . . y 5 w .~. . ee- 1 a . e .

v

. 3 Q Is it vic. hie to sell the Medel F s:ca: generaters 1

,o

-- c _. c r_ ....,_

. t .-..-.. .. .a r .. t_...,.3.

n U

^0 A ' here are two uses fer them. One wculd be a 21 c cepl et e s t ein g n e re.:or chan ge cu t in a.cther

, 22 facili:y that could use then.

v Another would be a

. 3 1 w- . c'. u..i . ia_s c-a . . ." 4 . . g- t. 2.1 ..i.. , #.~..3'

. . . . .2 t i (. . i..

A Q l

, . 7 Q?' _

74 1 where they arc taking the tde secticn, the td e r

2 sheet sec:ica a::d using it to prac: ice a.y curre .t

,J.

g 3 testing and et6e plugging. We may be able to do 4 - .

4 sc:.ething like that . I don ' t 1:. cw . We wil'1 work p

y a en .4 ..

.. ~ . ' . . = . .' s

• w . . a .._=. .'... -3 c -..d. e . s , t .' . c- . 4s 6 what we will de.

f Q

._.,,,e ,

,7,

.. _. _.:. c ./ e s. ..<. _

. . _. .. . c. s e. 3. . .c,

..., ..a

. l u. . s. .,

O g n

w. . .:..r 4 ..

. c,, ,.2 . . . e d .i d .

. t '. . 3 . P. ~ .'. a.. v a .- a i c .c . .< . 3.

c.

.C. $ 4. 0' ..4.i.l..... .

~

. s c V, .O. 3

~

e"'"s

. C." C .#.". "... . ".'.c". #s

. . .#^*.

.v n 16., s - _- ,s c. . ' - #--

w .'. .*. '. . * .*. .c. v "w . . c .u '.. . '..a.> --"'d.

... , -- . sa'. l 3s 4=,.,..... 3.5... 4 a. .b.4 .e a 1c'..

. nv.,4

.. , W e c.". a. C.*..e..*"..",

a . w +# w.* . ."..".."".ia

. . . * 's

%m) 3 e .c. .. . . . .. . .. .i. g.. _ e.. q, ..

- .e. . aw

...e..., .C C W e c- *. *. C w ~..."r

• w .#. " ",

4

3. .,.  %.4<. -n s ,.,.. c. . ,- . . e e .1 .e m 8 s ec .- .- . .:. .

. P..s.*,. e k...-.s. a.1 a .* w- *~'". _# 'w". b. a.

m .; . -

d . . , C w, . . . _ ,...j, .cC 1 p C.. . A. 1., . w.e

,A .431 t... c... 1 CVe . ....w.

3. o- C...-, -...j. .e O 4 .s3 q . 4..m. o. 4 ... . o.

. e s . .# **

• 7 -~'

. ... .o. . ..*..a--.v...

. . m. .u. _s. . r. 3. C ' ' '.**."*r'.. . - - . .

lO

. . , .c . c . ...4 .. g

.4 .. , 5... D . .....o-s. . . . . .

.O.

0 ( ...

.. n.e ,. e . .

. .. c_. . , a.. ...o

c. . . .. . , t,. .

i 21 inter. iew was adj curned.) ,

l lO t

O

l l

s J .

1

(

-'/s:

1 C - - l

.r. c. . - . rI CA. -

- - - - - - - --- t

, .o. ,

.e . . . . . C. .s ..

... .u....<=.=

.n s - . l l

I, s

Me ria. .r.e Kusa-Ryll, Regis ered professic.c.1 m

s

=..g . c ..-.,a* d o .s. o .--as

- c '-u .. co.-.::y

... g..a. e ., . c. , v .4

. . , ..o .., ,.

)

c . ... . a.

e w- e ,y - e.

w . .a.' n-

= 4.

. . a.-.4ew

.. C:. p. .. . .. _ e. . <. .c . g...,.....,,,,.

. . .c ,

C.

p ~.

. . a 3. A G. *w.k. o .' .' e. w .r.e-- w . .p .e '.. . ..- o v. . .., }. a. a G _- .a .".' l C .# #. 46.^ G

) /

A c-c .=. 'n

..t1.%,.i

..;, w n '.. ,

w..

v

6. a4

.u. .m y . .. 3 . ..'. : - a , C y,aA . ,5-c.,, A

^ .

j ,

w

. a i .... . . , _ ._. , . s .c .: .. .

e ~

n '

. . . . . . <{

v

, . . $. M. .4. .'&. . . , .&. .. .Y. . 's./_,l,a .

.O -

b o y~= . > . . . a u..g

a. . z...,

c.=..,.,.=..=.=.

.o

&q

. e'.

i

. 1 e _*

.9

. .4

.e O

a. 4 9 i.

O 22

. . a, 0

o l I

O

O O

ATTACHMENT 3 SEABROOK FUEL VALUE DERIVATION O

'O

.O

.O O

O O

J-ATTACHMENT 3 O

SEABROOK FUEL VALUE DERIVATION Assumptions:

'3 Uranium content of core: 90 metric tonnes Average thermal output of initial core: 12,000 MWt-days / tonne Thermal efficiency of plant: 31%

Fuel cycle cost increment: $10/MW hr Fuel disposal cost included in fuel cycle cost: $1/MW hr n[ 12,000 MWtD X 90 T X 24 Hr X 0.31 MWs = 8.035 X 10 6 MW hrs T D MWt 8.035 X 10 6 MW hrs X $9.00/MW hr = $72.3 million LO 12,000 MWt days / Tonne could vary substantially up or down.

Round to $50-80 million. ,

Note: Eastern Utilities Associates letter of February 18, 1987 to

'O the Honorable Lawrence R. Alexander estimated the (market) value of the core at $5-23 million. The letter contained no basis for this number. It would appear to be an estimate of l

resale rather than replacement value.

O O

O j

l l

'O l

l lO 1

g APPENDIX XI

.):

UNITED STATES BANKRTUPCY COURT .

I-FOR THE .)LM

}-

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE p[ ('

)

] In re: )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ) Chapter 11 a/k/a ) No. BK-88-043 PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, PSNH, )

NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE, )

D )

DEBTOR )

)

)

] MOTION BY OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE HEARING ON REOUEST FOR RULE 2004 FOR EXAMI. NATION NOW COMES, the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee (the p "Committee"), by its attorneys Er.Q temoore, Deasy & Dwyer P.A.,

and hereby moves that the hearing on the "Motion for Examination of Debtor under Bankruptcy Rule 2004" filed by First Fidelity l

D Bank, National Association (the "Motion"), scheduled for Friday, February 12, 1988 at 10:00 a.m. be continued to a date no earlier than Thursday, February 18, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. In support of this i

lO Motion, the Committee alleges and represents as follows:

1. The Committee was appointed by and held its first meeting with Virginia Greiman, United States Trustee, on

.O Wednesday afternoon, February 10, 1988. At that time, the United States Trustee advised the Committee of hearings currently 1

scheduled before the Court, including the hearing which is the O subject of this Motion.

O

O 2

0 2. Subsequent to this meeting with the United States Trustee, the Committee elected co-chairmen, appointed Deasy &

Dwyer P.A. as counsel pro temoore and scheduled an organizational O meeting for Tuesday, February 16, 1988 at which time the Committee intends inter alia, to interview and select counsel for the Committee, subject to approval of this Court.

O 3. The Motion is an attempt to commence discovery from the debtor regarding its ownership interest in Seabrook Station and its continuing financial obligations with respect to that O ownership interest.

4. Since the debtor's investment in Seabrook Station may represent a majority of the debtor's assets, the conduct of any 0 such investigation, its impact on the debtor in the early stages of this proceeding, as well as its impact on the ability of the Committee to meet its responsibilities under Section 1103(c) of O the Bankruptcy Code, are matters of concern to the Committee.

5. The Committee cannot properly appear and be represented at the hearing scheduled for /ebruary 12, 1988.

!O WHEREFORE, the Committee respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Continue the hearing on the Motion, currently scheduled l

0 for 10:00 a.m. on February 12, 1988, for a reasonable period of time in order to allow the Committee to organize and obtain counsel, so that it may properly appear and be represented at any O such hearing, with such hearing being scheduled no earlier than Thursday, February 18, 1988 at 2:00 p.m.: and 1

10 1

)

3 y B. For such other and further relief as may be equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted, 3 Official Unsecured Creditor's Committee By Its Attorneys,'Er_Q temcore Deasy & Dwyer P.A.

s DATED: February 11, 1988 BM ~

/J/ Michael Deasy, Esquir V ichard C. Gagliuso, Esquire Deasy & Dwyer P.A.

60 Main Street i g' Nashua, New Hampshire 03060 (603) 595-9700 ,

O CERTIFICATE OF SERVI'CE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has-this date been forwarded to the parties on the attached service list. ,

.O

- f

/

DATED: February 11, 1988 Bv / _ _

I 'Miclfael Deasy, E'squi p O [

s 'y

. x r' .

o p+ M O L0191  !

I i

O

1 APPENDIX XII  !

3 l

'JNITED STATES DANKRUPIOY COURT FOR THE I DISTRICT OF NIW MAMPSHIRE 3

)

In re: )

)

PUSLIC SERVICE COMPA.NY Or )

NIW RAMPSHIRE a/k/a PUBLIC ) Chapter il 3 SERVICE or NEW MAMPSHIRE, ) Case No. BK-88-043-JEY PSNN, NEW RAMPSHIRE YANKEE, )

)

Debtor )

)

AZFIDA7IT OP ROEERT J. HinRIsoM ROBERT J. RARRISON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I have been employed by Public Service of New O Ha=pshire, Debtor-in-Possession ("Debtor a), since 1957 and have been its President and Chief Executive of ficer since 1983.

O 2. I =ake this affidavit in opposition to the =otion of First Fidelity Bank, National Association, New Jersey ("rirst Fidelity") to conduct discovery pursuant to Bankruptcy Ru' e O 2004.

3. I an informed and helieve that First ridelity seeks leave to depose me, along with Debtor's Chief Financial officer, Charles E. Bayless, and other of Debtor's of ficers O

and employees generally concerning Debtor's investment in Seabrook Station, Unit 1, an 1100-megawatt nuclear povered electric generating facility in Seabrook, New Hampshiro O

.3 3 .

.  ; : -:- .i I: ;I-? ;;;- :; I;; -::: I' O

.O

("seatro x"; cur schedules simply do not per=it suen examination at this time.

O 4. My efforts and that of those under my direct super /ieten have been devoted since Debtor's chapter 11 filing primarily to organizing Debtor to continue delivering g essential services to our consumers, as well as selecting and consulting with professionals concerning the complex financial and legal issues Debtor f aces in this reorgani-zation proceeding. Taking time out of our hectic schedules

.O to respond to First Fidelity's questions at this time vould severely ir.pede Debtor's reorganization efforts.

5. Over the coming veeks and months, we anticipate focusing our efforts on developing a plan of reorganization that we hope vill be satisfactory to all parties in interest to this proceeding.

O

6.  ! vould anticipate that in the course of this effort I and ethers representing Debtor vill consult with First Fidelity and/or other representatives of secured and un-O secured creditors, as well as equity holders, in our efterts to develop a consensual plan. I would expect that discus-sions with them would include questions concerning Debtor's O investment in seabrook, an issue Debtor recognizes is central to these proceedings.

7. Debtor is the read owner of Seabrook, holding a 0 35.6% share. This investeent is carried at $2.1 billion on

-2 -

O

I -

-  ;; I:: -::: :3.. :-

O

lO Oebtor's books, and repreconto approximately 70% of Sette 's total assets. Debtor's New Hampshire Yankee Divisten has O

D" "****d "i*h *h* #**P "*ihiiitY '*# "h* ""##*"*

saintenance and upkeep of Seabrook. That division espicys approximately 800 full-time workers.

8. The rights and duties of seabrook's joint owners

.O '

with respect to the project are governed by a Joint ovnership Agreement, as amended, which among other things provides for the joint evners to make regular monthly payments for pre-O commercial capital, operational and other expenses for

=aintenance and upkeep of the plant, proportioned to their individual ownership interests. Debtor has been =aking these O regular =onthly payments since construction was completed in October, 1986. Seabrook is awaiting receipt of applicable licenses from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Oc=rissic.-

O to begin operation. cebtor's requiar monthly pay =ents totaled $51.522 million in 1987 and have totaled $11.190

..illion in January and Tebruary, 1988. Debtor has no presen-O plans to stop future sonthly payments. The funds previded en a monthly basis for the joint owners are used to meet payroll, miscellaneous materials and fuel purchases, O emergency planning expenses, taxes (when due), utilities and governmental and regulatory fees. No construction costs are being or are to be funded.

!O 3

O iie .:-  :: :  :* ii *':: 44-!  :'- - I:  :.: :2..

O

)

9. Debtor has already publicly disclosed the exter.: :f the cost of its continuing investment in Seabrook and the possible effect on Debtor. Debtor estimated in Septerber, 1987, for example, that Debtor's pre-operational cash

t expenditures for Seabrook would be S4 million per month.

) is not currently anticipated that future expenditures will vary materially from that amount for the next several conths.

10. Debtor has publicly disclosed its Seabrook-related

) cash requirements and its views on matters related to Seabrook licensing. Debtor's views on these issues are well known to First Fidelity and those it represents. Pursuant to

'3 a trust indenture, dated February 15, 1986, between Debtor and First Fidelity, First Fidelity is trustee for holders of*

Debtor's 13 3/4% Deferred Interest Third Mortgage Bonds, j

l) i Series A, due 1996 ("Third Mortgage Bondn"). Upon l

! information and belief, First Fidelity's actions are being directed by a group led by Consolidated Utilities &

O Communications, Inc. ("CUC"). CUC claims to "control" the largest bloc of Third Mortgage Bonds of Debtor and, in total, to "control" $175 million principal amount of indebtedness of O Debtor,

11. CUC and Fidelity Trust already have made up their minds about how to reorganite Debtor, including how to dispose of Debtor's Seabrook investment. Their agenda is O

reflected in CUC's Reorganitation Plan, transmitted to Debtor

-4 -

lO O

J Tnd each of its directors under cover of an October t, ;33-l e t t e r f rom CUC 's Ch a irm a n . A copy of the letter and

)

Peorganization Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Moreover, it should be noted that Debtor and CUC are currently engaged in litigation in the United States Distriot D Court for the District of New Hampshire commenced by Debtor seeking injunctive relief and damages for CUC's alleged violation of federal securities laws in connection with O solicitation of proxies relating to competing reorganization plans proposed by Debtor and CUC. A preliminary injunction was entered en December 11, 1987 barring CUC f rom continuing 1

3 to solicit proxies without first complying with the requirements of the federal proxy laws. In that litigatlen, CUC is seeking to take my deposition, as well as that of Mr.

O Bayless. It also has sought diecovery of documents.

12. CUC's Reorganization Plan would placo Debtor's Seabrook investment in a separate corporation, to be 8C%

o owned by Debtor's unsecured creditors and 20% by holders of Cebtor's preferred and common shares. The entity holding Debtor's non-Seabrook assets would be owned approximately 90%

O by owners of the Third Mortgage Bonds, and approximately 104 by all Debtor's unsecured creditors combined, a group that includes holders of $700 million principal amount of debentures, in addition to certain unsecured short term and g

trade debt. CUC's plan would eliminate all existing debt 5-O

1 - II: - 1; -

? ;I-! :- -

I:e -::: 'I..

g

"O obligations other than $455 million principal amount se..;: l to, or on a par with, the Third Mortgage Bonds.

13- Th* saadroex pr ject, which dates e 1972, has

O generated massive documentation. I am informed that such, ;f not all, of this documentation appears to be called for by First Fidelity's document request, and that the request seeks g

all documents "relating to the Debtor's financial affairs,"

which literally interpreted could cover financial records dating to the company's founding in 1926. It would require an enormous ef fort by Debtor's employees and attorneys to locate and review the docu.ments apparently within the scope of First ridelity's request. This e f fort would take away O

resources that could otherwise be devoted to Debtor's .

reorganization effort at this time.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this jl*5 O day of rebruary, 1988.

,- )

/ Robei '.< $ Luu 3-u J . VH a'rr i son O President and chief executive officer Public Service company of New Hampshire, Debtor-in-Possession county of Fittsboroush O 5 t at e o f New Mr.ap shir e s s .

S ve rn to be for e me th t e 10th day o f February, 1988.

b . % . 00u,L .

Notary PubliQ My Cocaiss ion expires June 26, 1990 6-O

. '2 .;:. I'  : II.

• is !; iI-I :::- *.; It -::: 23.-

O

O-

-.N,... ..w. . A O

-O O

,0 l

l l

O l

O

,0 0

I I

I I

.O

.: : * ' ..2* .

, $ .s....

91 e e se G6 e =w d Le .* * * * .=

. .=

• === - .

'O

Et ::r - 3 387 hFeemei-u f O

CONSOLIDATED UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

O Oc:ober 6,1987 Rober: J. Harrison President O Public Service Company of New Hampshut 1000 Ehn Scrtet P O. Boa 330 Manchester. New Hampshire 03105 Deu Bob:

O Enc'esed is a copy of the CUC Reorganbation Pim for Public Semce Company of New Hampshire. Since it is oc tt'm belief that it is the only reorgannacon scenario that has any prospect of being consummated .. aside from an uncontrolled Chapter 11 we are also sendtag a copy of the CUC Reorganization Plan to each member of the PSNH Board of Directors for h:s er her study and consideration. This plan has to be the basis for tne negotiation of a consensual plan of recrpnization if the draconian consequences of an

.O uncontrolled chapter 11 proceeding are :o de avoided.

CCC con:rols approumately $175 million pr'.nci;tl smount of PSNH *scured d[bt.

CUC represe .tauves would like to recet with the PSNH Board cf Directers to discoss ce current situauen in PSNH and the CUC Reorgantunca P1;.n. I would apprec:r e ::if yeu

culd make arrangements so that we can aner.d a -e.ecsg of de Scarc :o be he:d mytime

.O d.u ng de nunth of October.

111 phone you early next week.

Sincerely youn.

O Mamn J. Whitman Chairman of the Board MJW min:

O gnets, cc: Hilary P. Clew!and William J. Scharffenberger Geoe(e A. Dorr. Jr. John T. Schiffman John v Duffett Wi!!iam M. Scrutoe Philip 3. Dunlap Edwatd M. Shapiro

'O Frtd 3. Roedel Wilham C. Tallman Philip B Ryan Hugh C. Tuttle O

4e6 W Ao.SC% avENut NCW foAt N4w ?o An 10022

• f tl.(NCNS (912) 31e tSC2 33 :2  :,- -;; * ;; :*':: '

?I-2 .- -

II- :n II..

• O

O CONSOLIDATED UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Cetoeer 6, ;3:

CUC e! ORGAN!!ATIC4 PLAM O

Consolidated Utilities and Cossunications, Inc. ("CUC";

controls soprorisately 8175 stilton principal enount or Puolie Service of New Hampshire ("PSNH") nortgage deot consisting er p3NH Cenersi and Refunding Mortgage Debt ("C & A's") and PSMH Tnted Mortgage Cent ("Third"). In light or PSMH'e dire finenetal streits, 9 as articulated in the New Haapanire Public Utility Cossission ( " P ',' 0 " )

nesetngs neld in Septester and October of 1987, and upon review of PSNH's proposed solution to its probless, as set forth in an S-4 r i '. e e witn the SEC on Septencer 18, 1987, CUC nas adopted the following

=csttionst (a) The tronange offer set fortn in the 3-4 is, for myrted reasons, unworkable and will be vignrously resisted by CUC in every O avallaele focus and (0) sne CUC Reorgantastion Plan ("The Plan") as set forth Delow, provides a permanent solution to tne P5NH pro 0'. ems wnile addressin5 the cread range of concerns of PSMH's many constituencies.

1. Strue_ture of the Plan.

O 1.1. _ Base Rate Freeze. PSMH will enter into an agressent with the PUC providing for no base rate enantes t h r'o u g n D e c e.-b e r 1990. Antes would be adjusted, wnere appropriate.

for fuel adjusteents and purenesed power agreements.

1.2. Seaerook !ne. The Plan calls for the PSNH interest O in Seneroof to me separated reos PsnH into a new cor:oratio, <

("SeaDrook Inc.")

1.3 Senesatte Structure.

O NEW PsNH SEA 3A00K INC.

(a) 1st Mortgages ,

reinstated

! ($18$ aillion) oeet \=, Financing --

,O suu5ss (b) O&A's reinstated f.

Coesitsenty- (s) Unsecured I

(later to be -d Creditors ,

( refinanced) sa00am ,

(8260 million)

Equity  !

(1001)

(a) Third Mortgages (t) Prer/Co=s

() $32Sas  : 4100=m Purchased Equity 1355ss (D) Unsecured Credia 1 tors e 330am

Power "((

l Agreement VALUATION 8800Mg VALUATION : $$C0*

0 Set uAC@ avOvud. New VCau. New voAm t002s a

'ni%4 i3133 310 t t02

'2 3  ::. I? : -G:=? ii !! ii"? ." :.; 2: 0 - :: l3..  :.

O

O CONSOLIDATED UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

O 1,u. Purenssed Power Agreement. .e 3 n g , g *, ; eng.c gng; a long-ters purchased power agreesent witn Seacrook I r. c .

Prices for suen power will initially reflect the 3-year rate freeze until DeceeDer 31, 1990 and tnereafter ce derived free e percentage return on the reduced value of (

seabe ok e market prices for long-ters energy estimated l O today to be approvisately 5-1/2 cents per kilowatt in tne year to end December 31, 1991. l Financing 0011gation/Rignta Offering. The New 1.5 P3NH will ce in a positLon to fund all its necessary and desiracle capital expenditure and to provide financing te C) Seeerook Inc. to the extent required under the agreement witn the joint owners of Seabrook ("Joint Ownera Agreemert")

in order to complete the licenatng and operation of Seaercox Tne financing o0115ations will to =et as soon as posaitle.

in part by access to espital markets and in part by a cosoi-nation of (a) PiAH casn flows (encusbered now by sua sillion O

of and deet (c)service a 8100downmillion from sne Offering Rignts current s230 (the stilion)

"Rightsand Offering").

The Rights offering wnich will ce available to Third Mortgage nolders and unsecured creditors will offer subaceteers a strip of a new issue of Third Mortgage doet in PSNH and a strip of CUC will agree to stand-a new issue of common stock in P3MH.

i sy for the entire $100 sillion.

g 1.5. The New PSMH. Upon consussation of the Plan, the new PSMH emerges with a reasonacle capitalitation (8800 million), a 1.21: 1 doet/ equity ratio, annual operatirg income before income taxes eetween s125 and s150 militon, doet service of $44 million, Seserook obligations of swa O

stilton in 1988 (declining therearter) and approrisately 875 militon annually in non-Seaerook capitsi eroenditures.

As such, PSMH secomes an able cospetitor in the New England utilities market and, importantly, the historic P3NN l

problems are not postponed but ended.

1 seeeeeek Inc. Under the Plan, seserook to

'O 1.1.

ospitalised at 8500 million and nas liscilities 11 sited to future borrowings from PSMM. Once Seaerook comes on line, Sestrook Inc.'s Puronased Power Agreement with Further, PSNH Decomes a valuable and financa01e asset.

Seabrook Inc. is positioned to be flesiele enough to sell

(

a significant A Pti n f its p wer at market prices and 1

0 to diversity as its asnagement say direct. Vita Seabroo<

cetrational, tne nolders of tne Seatreek Inc, cosson stock nce e en opportunity to realite substantial gain end to own the conson stock of a coegany with substantial divider.d paying 30111ty.

O Saa waoison avewus, =tw vona, n.ca veAn toses .

tetth=ow catai st o.iets

'I ! *:- '

O

f

[

CONSOLICATED UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS. INC.

2. _ Objectives of Lne Pian.

2.1 A Permanent Solution. ?$NH nas niStorically

.O desit witn the spiraling Seatrook costs cy ever ;erger are ever more frequent trips to tne capital sarwata, ay; as costs have continued to escalate and the Seeoroow in-service date has continued to slip, esen crisis has spawned only a temporary solution, the current 3-s only postpones the next finanetal crists to 1990 or 1991 in tne

O cost of scenarios. The Plan is designed to afford a one time personant solution.

l 2.2 Reduced Capitalisation. At the neart of the Plan is a reduction in tne PSNH/Sestrook capitalization to levels cossensurate witn economic reality. In essence tie Plai de-leverages PSWH.

()

2.3 Importance of Seaerook. Both PSWH and CUC have acknowledged that under P5NH's S-4 or tne Plan unlese.

Seabrock cases into service the interests of the unsecured creditors together with the preferred and conson share-holders will De wortnless. The Plan te designed to divorce O senerook fres PSNH's finenetal proeless.

2.a. Creation of Two Visele Compentes. The Plan' creates two nesleny companies, New PsMM and seacrook, Inc., each of wnien will ce well-espitalised and have the aDility, by providing competitively priced power, to take advantage

() of the growth opportunities that New Maspantre and New England are projected to present in tne years ahead.

Fairness to All Security Holders. The Plan gives 2.5.

effect to tne principles tnat govern the Federal Bankruptcy Act, sest notably the "Rule of ADsolute Priority *. However, tne Plan contemplates that the reorganization can take

'g place through a voluntary reorganisation ratner than seeking relief through the Federal Sankruptcy Act. The Plan l respects the rank of each class of security and allocates to each that to which it would De entitled in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, except that values are preserved for each class of soeurity holder, even PSuH cosson stock.

()

2.6. Achievenility. Because of its broad base of natural constituencies, tMe Plan, if adopted by Management, can to implemented on an aggressive tisetable wnich would coscort with PSMH's caen flow demands.

2.7. Avoidance of an Orcontrolled Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

I(3 An uncontrolloc and prolonged Casster 11 canuruptcy procacly would devastate the unsecured creditors and unquestionably would devastate the preferred and cotson stockholders. It 3-o ses pasoas avawa. =aw voaa =sa voam icour .

Ts6 sme (si 3 aio. ism

3 3 -s'. - i: : -I: - si ,'* : 14-2 :,;-  ;; 4: -::- :3....- .

O

'3 CONSOLICATEO UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

also would create considersole uncertainties for Stantft: ant constituencies, inC10 din 8 Now Haspshire estepayers gn tn, 3 Joint Ownera. It would also jeopardite the futare of ri e s c e :  : =

2.4. Risk and Reward. The Plan places the risk of f ur t..o r delays in the operatTon of Seabrook on tnose who nave teen re arce4 by nigh interest rates on their financings. namely tne unsecured creditors. The Plan also allocates the eenefits of a fully operational SeeDrook to that grous.

,O Shifting the risks of Seabrook to the Wow Haapahlre ettizenry ey ever-escalating rates dett es the risk / reward peine! ales upon which a free market economy la Ossed in addition to being fundamentally wrong.

l 2.9 No Disruption of Service. The Plan, In contrast to recent PSNK puoltc statements, contesplates no disruption of

() service to any ratepayer.

2.10. Continuation of Non-Seeprook Capital Expenditures.

The Plan providea for tne continued financing of all

~

non-Saaerook capital projects as well as financing for Sea-g trook itself.

3 Isolementation of the Plan. ,

Withdrawal of the 3-4 PSNM should inmedtately 31 withdraw tne S-4 wnian it nas filed with the SEC.

O 3 2. Witnerawal of sne Statutory Cha11 ente. PSWH has appeated to the Supreme Court of Co w Maapshire to declare the State's Anti-CWIP statute unconstitutional. This la=-

suit enould be insediately discontinued as a rate increase is no longer necessary.

Adoption of the Plan. PSNH, its principal

() 33 offtcers and directora, and its financial advisors (Merrtil Lynch and Drexel Buranas) should tenedtately adop*. the Plan as their own and aggressively promote its consummation.

3,4, Sehteitation of Consents. At the asse time as O it is selsetting voluntary exchanges, PSMH will also es11elt consents to the Plan as a reorganization Plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. If the requisite super majorittes are not ottained on the voluntary eronange eut sufficient nummers are raceLved to conftes a Chapter 11 reorganization plan (2/3 in amount tad a O ,,jority gn nu.eer) tn,n tn, ,otynt ry evening, util 3e aDandoned and a Cnapter 11 petition will De (Lied. The consents to the reorganization p'.an are then tamediately (11ed and PSNH will sove toward confirmation and an exit from Chapter 11

-4 -

o we uaoison avswue. wtw von w(m ,can 'oaas . f e6arwowa tam aso.isca l

l

.3 3 '*:- .: 4 -3:

• 11 . * !: ;I-I ;;*,-  ;; I:: .::a ; 2, . , , ; . : .

O

"=  ; .* .

O CONSOLICATED UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS. INC.

4 The Pian and its Ys_rious Ocnstituenetes.

O u.1. New Hampshire Ratepayers. The Plan is squarely witnin tne interest of ratepayers due to (a) the proposed 3-year rate freeze and (e) tne rations 11:stion of tne capita 11:ation of PSMH wnton reduces tne likelinood of sucatantial increases in tne future. The Plan should eliminate furtner defections of aajor customers nr PSMH nas g experienced this pset year.

u.2. Joint Owners. The Plan divorcht the licensing process free tne financial proBless of'P3MM. The interests of tne Joint Owners are further served by PSNH nonoring its obligations under the Joint Ownera Agreement to provtse O ftneneing to Senerook Inc. for all expenses prior to tne achievesent of commercial service, u.3 New Hampsnire Putlie offietsis. By protecting tne interests of the New Hampsnies citizens, and by providing a long tors solution to the PSNH probless, CUC ts hopeful O that the Plan will sonesi seen to elected officials and to the mesters of the PUC. .

W k. Isolation of Muclear Iseues. There is a long history of enallenge by anti-nuclear groups to tne Seserook installation. The separation of P3MH and Seabroot isolates tne focus of such challenges to the

3) plant itself and elisinates the ability of anti-nuelear forces to intervene in rate-saking and other non-Seserook PSNH satters. As suen, the ability of the courts expeditiously to resolve specifte issues related to Seatrook anould be enhanced.

'O 4.5 seeurity Holders. Finally, une Plan presents each class of dent and equity security nolders witn an opportunity to survLve and prospa*.

4.6. The State of Neu Haspshire. 'Icr the past 10 years the State of New Hampsnire nas been Deleaguered By the ever worsening condtston of its artnetcal uttitty. Ingle-

'O sentation of tne Plan ends one chapter and togins another.

4 0

5

.O see w.4esscN avtwut %gw vosa a eve roda icott s

ft @ ometatt) M *At

' .* * -i:

• ii I; i'*I  ;;;" *- 4; . 32 13...

~. :-

ll 3 .: 2 10

d i:

' \

b APPENDIX XIII k

i I

~!  ! i H

)

j)1 '

UNITED STATES BMIKEUPTCY COURT h

/

/ FOR THE ,

t' -

• y *-, * * *,* * * * * * * * * *

• H In re: -

• J

• PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NF.W HAMPSHIRE

• Chapter 11 a/k/a/

• Case No. BK-88-043-JEY PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

• PSNH, NEW HM4PSHIRE

• YANKEE, *

] ' DEBTOR

• Y r

MOTION FOR EXAMINATION OF DEBTOR UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 O i j NOW CCMES, First Fidelity Bank, National Associati'en, i New Jersey ("Movant"), by its attorney 5, WIGGIN & NOURIE, and f f'herebymovesthatanorderbeenteredcompellingtheDebtor, 3 L -

o.

j Public Service Company of New Hampshire, to appear for an i examination by the Movant, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, on

i i! .

the following grounds: r/

C' Tl , ,

,- ' !! 1. On Thursday, January 28, 1988, pbblic Service l

Co=pany of New Hampshire (the "Debtor */ filed a voluntary

() petition 'for relief under[ Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The

/

Debtor is acting as Debtor in Possession of Debtor's estate.

\ Y O.

2. No creditors committee has been . formed in this case as of the date of this Motion and a neating of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 341 has not yet been hold.

t ,

h t i 3. The Debtor has not yet filed complete schedules or

' 7 l

! statements of affair's.

O <

,y ..< - ~

a7 ,

An;;y 'f~' '

O j i

~,

'h

+

4.

The Debtor has announced that it intendo to make a

$3,000,b?O.00 payment (the "Seabrook Payment") on or about Wednesday, February 3, 1988 to Yankee Atomic or other persons or

O' entities in control of, managing, or otherwise operating the

?,

nuclear power plant known as Seabrook Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The Debtor has stated that the aforesaid (s,

5:} ,000,000. 00 pay =c7t is a "maintenance" payment relative to the Debtor's 35.6% ownership interest in Seabrook Station (the l

d i "Soabreck Investment").

n

-i. S. On informatlon and belief, the Debtor has asserted f that the aforesaid Seanrook Payment l's a payment in the ordinary course of Debtor's busin3ss.

n i V y E

6. On infer =ation and belief, the Debtor's investment i

in Seabrook Station is a majer contributing factor to the 4 '

j) Doctor's bankruptcy.

L

7. On information and ballef, the Debtor'n continued I

investment in and payment to or on accennt of the Seabrook Investment and Seabrook Station may net be in the ordinary course ,

i j , of Debtor's business and may not be in the best interest of the

       ;            g-          Debtor, the estate, Debtor's creditors or the effective
 ^y' r                e                                                                                         ,

y reorganization of, Debtor. i

8. The Movant seekn o-examine the Debtor under oath,

() , and to transcribe its testinony by means of stcnographic record l Y -

w. -, - -

y -

O  : l I relative to the proposed Seabrook Payment and continuing payrent: 9  ! due on account of the Seabrook Investment. l 9. The Movant i also wishes to examine all documents in the Debtor's possession or control containing information related i i to the Debtor's financial affairs, specifically but not limited to, the Debtor's continuing investment in seabrook Station, the schedule of future payments on account of the Seabrook Investment, the effect of the Seabrook Payment and future payments on the Debtor's cash flow, Debtor's assets and Debtor's

           ;        ability to conduct its business and ability to reorgani:e; the
   ,       1 j        effect of ncn-payment of the Seabrook Payment and non pay.nent of
          ;         future scheduled payments on the Seabrook Investment; and the
          !         effect of the existing and further investment by the Debtor in j        Seabrook Station.

i

10. On infor=ation and belief, the next scheduled

         .?
  )      i         Seabrook Payment is due from the Debtor within thirty (30) days y         of the February 3 Seabrook Payment.

J

,                            11. On infor=ation and belief, some portion of the Seabrook Payment may be on account of pre-petition expenses and pre-petition claims.
  ')

12. In o_rder to review and examine the details of the Seabrook Payment and the effect of the Seabrook Payment and the Seabrook Investment on Debtor and the Debtor's estate, without O delaying or jeopardi:ing the intended Seabrook Payment prior to a LI

J s 1 l full examination of or determination of its effect on the Debtor, 'J I s i the estate and the reorgani:ation of the Debtor's business, it is in the best interest of the Debtor, the estate and the creditors

      ,                 to exam the Debtor as requested herein as soon as possible.

O, WHEREFORE, First Fidelity Bank, National Association, i New Jersey, your Movant, respectfully requests that this Court ,-) j grant the following relief: i 4 A. Direct the Debtor, including its Chief Executive

Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and such other officers, O! '

I j employees, representatives and agents as have knowledge of'the f i Seabrook Payment and Seabrook Investment, to appear one (1) week 1 g after production of documents before a notary or some other a v j person qualified to administer an oath at the law offices of

    ,         {       Movant's counsel, Wiggin & Nourie, in Manchester, New Hampshire, i         1 j          ;       and to submit to an examination by the Movant's, pursuant to 1         i O'             i       Bankruptcy Rule 2004; B.

i Authorize the Movant to transcribe the Debtor's

 )                    testimony at said examinations by means of stenographic records:

C. Direct the Debtor, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other officers, employees O representatives and agents as have knowledge of the Seabrook Payment and Seabrook Investment, to produce within ten (10) days for examination and copying by the Movant all documents in their O i possession containing information relating to the Debtor's O

) - i i

    ~

i l financial affairs, the Seabrook Payment and the Seabrook 31 Investment, including but not limited to the documents set forth l in the attached schedule of documents to be produced; (( D. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. 1 a 1 g Respectfully submitted, FIRST FIDELITY BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NEW JERSEY i . By its I

                                                             .torneys, i                                       WIGGI'     'NOURIE GV      :

I l Date: k% , 3 '$ b By: /[ / A o$ at 9 y Franklin & Market Streets l P.O. Box 808 l  ; Manchester, NH 03105 i j (603) 669-2211 g $ i I hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion for Examination of Debtor Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 has .is date been forwarded to Debtor's counsel, e Office of t U.S. l 1 Trustee, and the attached Service 't.

                                                       -                               1 e

O U^**:  %

• D'b b By: . [ ,

AMfc

                                                    /r#ff'        res, Esq.

C i O

1

   /3        <

v 1 i a mc: u. . r m"_ r p. ,ne

        }.                                                                  --                   .m   s -    _v.r_i
                                                                                                                  . _ ,   e _ n.               n_ e_ e v, ,e. _,n. , _ __ _

A  ? 1 O, 4 1 Mevant, First Tidelity Bank, National Association, New

      ?

h Jersey, requests that Debter produce the following documents

                          ,     within ten days of the signing of the Bankruptcy Rule 2004 or::e O'                     l'    by this court at the"offices of the undersigned, and perni:

i j Movant and its at crneys or other persons acting on their benal! 1 to inspect and copy said documents. OI ne_ r. 7 _ _ m. . e k , n .- .,_ .e_- _ e. t3 _ . O ,. ., i - 0; - in c=nnection with this request for production cf documen::: A. "De u-a t" shall mer.n any =aterial, whether tvoed, 1 ,i handwritten, printed c: otherwise rec =rded, all tangible things

                                    . _. ..t.

1

                               .a                            .i . a.        n ;c              .an ye r ocesse.                        a c
                                             . . . .  .            . .            . .                                                                                    .. ..       a s                           .a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ..e.,

i

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ... es j          refle::ing telephone c=nversations, and all other date

.I( ,

                               -._,.   .._     a......e
                                                                 '.v.~..'..'..'..'.-a.4..--.
                                                                 .                                 . ._                       ..a.'ce c...a_9ed.

translated, i' necessary, into reasenably usable fern, whe:.er n

'O !

L j Il' l draf: 0: c herwise, whether sent er received er neither, whether

-- - ... . .. y. . o., . yy. , , a. -. .a . .i .s .a -- ye s.a_.,.. . a n ext s.e . .. .e ,

                                                                                                  .                                                                                                                    .su.a_a

_a ... . .- e

                , .i ii
                              .2.....
                                                   ,4
                                                   --.4.a             .i n         he c . .4~,.'.a',                 a c r;" ( ' '
                                                                                                                             .                                                      h e e . _' , .4 . . a '                    '

_s.... . lO 1,. ay e a _ a_ _, , y a..a.

                                                                . a. .y n . ..
                                                                                      , . .; a. e....
                                                                                                   . . t . a .,      .. . . ;- z...c       ..                         u.e.                       a.s _          .>s..a...      . ..-_     . a.
               ,                        _4 _ g .- ., e.a"se                   '. " -. d. e ' _' .. .. .. , , e.'.' ..d
                                . ._4. .                   .              .                    .                                       ..                      a. .V.s ,                                ..  .-.es      -  ade      . .-

I r. attached := such c:py, er c:nervise), as well as all underlying, n e ----4 - '- -* - " O l,

                                                             -- - e t a -- e
                                                                                            -       a e ' a' ad-                          d-a-                 s -ee---
      <        ,i.
      ;        t,                          .

so .. - eg,s . P....4.- Se . ..d.e . ...

                                                                                                                                                       .=.v           ..                         .' Ne". .".*_.."...'.e       .

i i ij a/k/a ?.ili: Servi:e cf New Ha:pshire, FI.' F., New Earps. ire Yankee i i lO i i l i O I i

O l

l

       .a

9.  ;

and each of its of'icers, directors, e=ployees, agents, i  : f 1

                        ,1 a

representatives, su==essers, assigns, pre =ecessors, sues:d ar:es and affiliates, or any c ner person er entity acting on its i G) i

                           ,     behalf.

6 i

c. If any document is withheld frc= production en grounds of

privilege or work product, please identity each such documen: cy l

auther(s) or preparer (s), recipient (s), date, subge:: matter (s), i nature er privilege clained, and paragraph (s) of this request te l 1 which the document corresponds.

0. In the event that any document falling within this request has been destroyed, discarded, er otherwise disp = sed ef,

     ,             i
 ,o i
                   ;             that docu=ent is te be identified as follows: (a) auther(s) er
                   .             preparer (s); (b) addressee (s); (c) indicated or blind : pies; (d) date: (e) subje:: =atter(s); (f) nt:ber of pages: (g) a tt a =..n e nt s
                 !               cr append.ces; (h) all persons to whc= distributed, showr. er S

e U i S 4 explained: (i) date cf destructicn er c her disposition: (-)

                 ,              . . . . .-..      .      d a. s . .- . .- . .' . . . . . c .. . e - d .dsr.
                                                                                                      .       - s .d . 4..- ..- ( >, )   .e.s.-.s(s) a                                   ..w..

t

                                .es._ .. 4.........          ..

44 ..,4 4...

                                                                                             . . . . . . . .  () pc.s .s(s)
                                                                                                                        .       ..         a.      . 4      ...

c. g y destru::icn == ::her disposition: (=) persen(s) destr: .vin: er

                                .a .s  . ...e.4
                                                         ..   .he        4.....e...
                                                                         . .           . . . . anoa      n) .he .a.ag.a

e. w,. . . s )

4. l' i.

                               . e ,-". e s . . .- v           .4 . .* --he de-"       .       e.. c...e.e.
                                                                                                                 .. .-d.s.

n l[ I. Tais request shall be dee=ed 00ntinuin: se as :: reru re . u! l' - fu er a..d supple =e.tal pr:durti:. if defendant, v:.- .es s es ,

              ;                an:/ :: su:n ether pers=ns who are served herewit:                                                             ::ain o

g.aa. . . 4..g.* 4.

                                                                                                     .w.e . ._4.e C.,

1. . . . .. ..e ...s 3G...ee .. .

4 4.4a.3

                                                                                                                                            . 4.,....... .....      .a.

\ . .l '

• E. g ...e .8 w 4 p... ...g-t

                                          --          ..    ..ea_.~..      .           ......

1 .

           - le t

n  ; 1U' . i l 6 l I' 1 ,. l l l , L l A .0 l 1 1

I os 1/ , < g' I 0

    ,q                                                                             .e _r ~_ _ m_ e _ e t

I 4 C) ;

1. All documents evidencing, relating er referring to 4

i i Deb:cr's relationship with Yankee Ate:i: cr other persens er i

                !       entities in control of, =anaging or otherwise operating the

() l nuclear plant known as Seabrook Station. l 2. All documents evidencing, relating or referring to any 1 cbligations by Debtor to make payments relating to Seabrook Station. . O :i 5

3. All documents evidencing, relating or referring to the i

i . ovnership and/or corporate control of Seabrook Station. i i j- 4. All documents evidencing, relating er referring to the O- '

           !,          =anage=ent of Seabre k Statien.                                      Such documents should include,
    ,      .I          but n=: be li=ited to =anagement acree=ents.                              -

1 1

           ,i 8

S. All documents evidencing, relating er referring :: :ne 0;  ; financial state =ents relating := Seabreek S:a:ien and rela ed 1  !

           .           pr: e::s, ===panies and/cr entities.
   )       !

i

6. All documents eviden:ing, re*ating er referring ::

3 s OI i 0*h :r's asser:icn tha: pay =ents rela:ing to Seabrook S:a:i:n are t pay =ents in the crdinary : urse of Deb cr's business.

7. All de: =ents evidencing, relating er referring ::

{ O H n Deb cr's decisi n to invas: in er participate in the Seabre:k

          ;.          .e.,_,__
                        . _ . . . . . . .. e ..... ._ e .

E. All d==uments eviden:ing, relating er referring Oc ne , I . i cffe:: :! the pr:pesed 7etruary 3, 1958 pay =en: er Eny ciner O O I

                     .: ::.:: sed .::.v=en.ts b.v De:::r, cen=arnin, Seabreak Stati:: ::

1 p e .- . . ._ , , ..

                                            -. _. _, s . ._ . a..d. D e - . - . ' s a_ .d .' .' . -
                                                                            .                          .~--..d'.'-.

a . . *:* . ." e .- I business and abili:V :: re:rgani:e. - Ol l O

G < l' f. 9* 0 Al* documents eviden**in* 5 ' - C *$ a. i ng o r r se e r'.' .',-* . '~ ,-", e l J ,l- ceC*- c' non payment yy pen.,_ I

                                                              -         ---   c,. payments or ob*' *Ca 4 onS Ca
                                                                                                           ~

gs F. Seabrook Statien.

    ,'                   ji li i

10. All documents not produced *i.r .esponse the above - ew.,e-. ..

l the evidence, relate o- e,e. 4 l t

                                                                             .n any waY to payments or J                           l    obligations of Debto" concerning Seabrook Station, the                            Sca.w-e.).
    .                      l S.a,..,on
                                  .          .,nvestment and e**ee.
                                                                -     -   c., such payment on debtor's I

financial affairs, e

^l                       l
     ,                   i i

s . I  ! S 4 6 I O t

,r a

1 . i .

                   .I t

l 4 e e i rs1 V l. O r l* rk f'e u I l' s O .\. I i l, 'O

( O APPENDIX XIV m :30 PUBLIC UTILITIES A N NoT AT!o NS

                                          ^' **" ' ' ** " p * * " ' 2                         Purpo 2 O                                        Cited. 3

1. Pu r pose Nblic Sernce Co. of New H a m p s t . re v This sect:on ar a RS A 378 27 were 3,. S ta te i1959) 102 NH % 150 A2d e10 s . c ed to p ro tec t ;tities against confisca- 2. Allowance of recoupment

                                    . r :, rates and % permit rec o u p m e n t of                     g                      ,       g a*y d ' N.en cy in rvturn sa:fered under a rd'r " t3 t*   v New Eng ar.d          when the commission has presenbed         ur.

O F Pp"'rY ne Tele gra ph t,o r1961) 103 NH rent rates by terrporsry order eder RS A

                                    '  ' '                                             375 27 New England Telern. re        =

Te e-i may r+ a s-r. a td y be assumed that the graph Ca S ta t e i1949) 95 N H 515. O r arpose of RS A 374 27 and this section. A;3 114 4 her e* acted :n snl. was to pe rmit a c'rporary order a$cting a reduction in v ites and at tre same time to f areclose Qt in Chiccpye Manqas.nre Q

                                  , s o , s t, tm t z r.a i ,, , mr conri,c,t3on sy        Me hw to M b Ha q in lO                                 ., arar tee.r e t he u tity a minimum below i1953i 98 NH 5. 93 A2d 820. P A :c ders -
   -         r_-.-.-                                                                       ;ce Co. of New Harnpshire v S tr e < 195 9 6  ,
                                ' w*    s a

s ach temporary rates should not go. 102 NH 71. 150 A2d 521. Pe n ra c h uc k l ' ic.g oj f 77 1,.

                  $ _4   D.       a   d a r eht af recourment should the tem-              Water Works v State (19A0i Iv3 N H 49.
   @"                              sc *sry rates atimately be found too low                164 A2d 669 l
             . .' d.4hV ,

6 c [' }k 2 378: 30 Bond. If temporary rates are prescribed under RSA 375: 27 O - w hich are higher than those previously in erfect, the commissio- may re-

    , y

- quire the public utility tc file a bond in such form and with such sureties.

W - , y % d. . ' :f any, as the commission may determine, to secure the repayment to the t < ustomers of the public utility of the dirierence between the amounts collected under such temporar'/ rates and the rates which the commission inds should have been in etYect during the continuance of such temporary 1 lO rate 3. B rrro aY so u rc e. 1951. 203 46 par. 30, eff. Sept. 1 1951 A N NOT ATio N S 1 Purpose of section this section was it. tended to apply in a situation where temporary rates are not O This section protects the pubhe arainst loss. Pu blic Serwee Co of New Hamp_ higher than those prev,ously in etYect. but shire v State 11959) 102 NH 66,150 A2d pe rma n e n t ra te s might well prove lower than current rates State v New En gland alo Talephone & Tele gra p h Co (1961) 103

                                  . A ppbeation of sectica J                                                         NH 394.173 A2d 728.

The commission could properly 6nd that O 378: 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

n progress. At no time shall any rates or charges be based upon any ec,sts associated with construction work if said construction work is not com-p!eted All costs of construction work in progress, including, but not limited to. any costs assoc ated with constructing, owning, ma:ntauung or rinancing O construction work in progress, shall not be included in a utility's rate base nor be allow ed as an expense for rate making purposes until, and not before, said construction project is actually providing service to consumers 704 0

l lO 1 4

                                            .4 I                                                                                           RATES AND CHARGES                                378:31

O Histony Sou rce. 1979,101: 1, es. May 7,1979.

I Cnoss RtrutNets i Hampshire v. Determination of fares, rates and charges generally, see RS A 378: 7.

Determination of permanent rates, see aSA 378: 29.

l O , A2d slo. Determmation of temporary rates, see RSA 378

27.

S th' "'"I Of ANNOTAT!oNs ernutted only resented cur- 1. Cited of New Hampshire (1932) 122 NH 919, l er under RS A Cited in Appeal of Legislative Utility 431 A2d 1321; Appeal of Public Seivice l hone & Tele- Consumers' Council (1980) 120 NH 173 Co. of New Hampshire (1982) 122 NH l 5 NH $15, 68 412 A2d 738: Appeal of Public Service Co. 1062. 454 A2d 435.  ! 37S: 31 Appeals. Procedure to be followed in connection with appeals

turine Co v. shall be in accordance with RSA 541.

u Hampshire

      . Public Sers.                                                                                      Histon?                                           ,

Souree. 1941,148: 3. RL 292: 30. 1951,

      fe nieh                                              203: 46 par. 31, e2. Sept.1.1951.                                                             l l Q s) 103 NH 49                                                                                                                                            l l

AN'NoTAT1oNs . LSA 378:27 1. Cited  ; l Cited in New England Telephone & f ion may re- Telegraph Co. v. State (1962) 104 NH l

                     .                    l   .

i ich SLretles, i 229,183 A2d 237. l

     -ment to the                           7!                                                                                                             !

iO he amounts i.- t I commission M  ! i temporary 10 - a apply in a 4 rates are not j in edeet, but i i i prove lower ' i New England 10 n. (1961) 103 ' 4 i i lity rates or . ,, 'uction work ) on any costs , !O is not com- ) ! t not limited l

!       or financing                                                                                                                                       l l'    t's rate base d not before.

imers, iO

. 0a.  ;

I i i

!                                                                                                                                                             l
'O

00tKETED v5HRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MM -8 %l 67 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA, Before Administrative Judges: QFFI , , ;.[pkf(( Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman v gggggn Thomas Moore O Howard A. Wilber

                                             )

In the Mattet of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 50-444-OL-L

                                             )

O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL., ) (On-Site Emergency

                                             )    Planning and Safety (Seabtook Station, Units 1 and 2)          )    Issues)
                                              )

O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE O I, Stephen A. Jonas, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that on Match 7, 1988, I made service of the within Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Petition O Undet 10 C.F.R. 2.758 For A Waivec Of Or An Exception From The Public Utility Exemption From The Requirement Of A Demonstration Of Financial Qualification, by mailing copies O theteof, postage prepaid, by first class mail: Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberget, Jr. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Boati U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connissi Commission East West Towers Building D East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailtoom Ehitd Floot Mailtoom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 I c> 1 d

O. Dr. Jetty Harbout Shetwin E. Tutk, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Cffice of the Executive tegal U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Directot Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmiss; ') East West Towets' Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road 4350 East West Highway Tenth Floot Thitd Floor Mailtoom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814

                                      -H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.            Stephen E. Mettill O                                       Assistant General Counsel        Attorney General Office of General Counsel        George Dana Bisbee Federal Emetgency Management     Assistant Attorney General Agency                         Office of the Attorney Genersi 500 C Street, S.W.               25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472             Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service            Paul A. Frit: sche, Esq.

U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 EXPRESS MAIL 0 Roberta C. Peveat Ms. Diana P. Randall. State Reptesentative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabtook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 O Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq. Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nucleat Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchestet, NH 03106 O Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S. Nucleat Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03301 Washington, DC 20555 O Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 9 Pottsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Mt. Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street D 3. Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 3

benator Gordon J. Humphrey Mt. Angelo 'tachi t os , Cha it na, U.S. Senate Board of Selectnen Washington, DC 20510 25 Migh Road

       ) Attention:   Tom Burack      Newbury, MA     10950 Senatot Gordon J. Humphrey   Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square, suite 507    Mayot Concord, NH 03301            City Hall Attention. Herb Boynton    Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick          Mt. William Lord Town Manager                 Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter               town Hall 10 Front Street              Friend Street Exetet, NH 03833             Amesbuty, MA 01913 b

Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq. RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Stentwood, NH 03333 47 Minnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03941 Philip Ahtens, Esq. Diane Curtan, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 9atmon & Weiss

• Department of the Attotney 2001 S Street, N.W.

General suite 430 State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333 m) Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. 9ampe, Esq. George 9. Lewald Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225 Franklin Street concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Bevetly Hollingworth Edward A. Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) Boston, MA 02109

 ')                                   Michael Santosuosso, Chaitman William Armstrong Civil Defense Director       Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter               Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street              South Hampton, NH 03327 Exeter, NH 03833
     )

Robert Cattigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairpetsc Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03S24 Notth Hampton, NH 03862

D-Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Stentwood Board Panel [) 20 Franklin Street U.S. Nucleat Regulatoty Commissi< Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chatles P. Graham, Esq. Judith H. Mi: net, Esq. McKay, '4utphy S Graham' Silvergate, Gettnet, Baket, Old Post Office Squate Fine, Good & Mi: net

.()                         100 Main Street                             83 Broad Street Amesbury,-MA          01913                 Boston, MA 02110 Rep. Edwatd J. Markey, Chaitman             Alan S. Rosethal, Chairman U.S. House of Representatives'              Atomic Safety & Lic. Appeal Bd.

Subcommittee on energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissii C) Conservation and Power 4350 East West Highway Room H2-316 East West Towers Building House Office Building Third Floor Mailtoom Annex No. 2 Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, DC 20515 Attention: Linda Cotteia Thomas Moore Atomic Safety & Lic. Appeal Bd. () U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, DC 20555 - Appeal Board U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway '() East West Towers Building Third Floot Mailtoom Bethesda, MD 20814 l O [ Stepfen A.sdonas Assistant Attorney General (617) 727-4878 'O DATED: Match 7, 1988 O O O}}