[2] PSNH initially planned for building the plant in Newington, but the construction permit was denied after concerns of the proposed site being too close to Pease Air Force Base.

[4] PSNH and the state Public Utilities Commission expected little opposition in constructing Seabrook Station, and even the Union Leader reported, "Management of Public Service does not anticipate difficulties in obtaining the necessary licenses and permits for the Seabrook site because it is not near an air base [as was Newington, its first choice for a site], and condenser cooling water can be discharged directly to deep water in the Atlantic Ocean.

In the fall of 1976, the New England regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency rejected the cooling tunnel discharge system, which would have disallowed operation of the plant, but the decision was appealed and later overturned in 1978.

[5] In 1984, due to continuing financial and regulatory problems, the owners canceled construction of the second reactor unit at 25% completion after $800 million spent.

[2] Construction of Reactor Unit 1 was eventually completed in 1986, but shortly thereafter in 1988, the large debt involved led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's major utility owner PSNH.

The NRC described its own regulatory oversight of Seabrook as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey and Congressman Seth Moulton called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NextEra Energy to release the pandemic plan for Seabrook Station in response to COVID-19.

[15] The letter was submitted in response to the ongoing refueling outage bringing hundreds of workers on site with concerns over safety procedures and plant staffing.

[27] In August 2020, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) formally accepted Seabrook Station's concrete monitoring program for ASR concerns.

[28] However, additional monitoring conditions were imposed by the Board in the plant's license, citing that they are "necessary to provide adequate protection of public health and safety".

"[30] In 2013, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a study showing the positive impact of Seabrook Station on the economy and environment.

[33] According to 2011 projections, if a gas-fired power plant had been built instead of Seabrook Station, then "it would have emitted nearly 94 million metric tons of CO2 over 22 years – nearly equal to all of Arizona's CO2 emissions for the whole of 2009".

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated an investigation into the matter, and determined that this action was a violation involving discrimination against an employee for raising a safety concern.

The heat generated by the friction (galling) between the skirt and the liner bore, coupled with the hot combustion gas blow-by, eventually ignited oil vapor in the crankcase.

[39]The NRC determined that the above event was a White finding (an issue of low to moderate safety significance), which also "involved the failure to take adequate corrective actions to address degraded components associated with one of the two emergency diesel generators (EDG)".

[47] In mid-2020, Seabrook Station experienced two unplanned shutdowns due to a set of control rods unexpectedly inserting into the reactor core.

[51] Shortly thereafter in 1976, the Clamshell Alliance was formed after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Seabrook Station's construction permit.

[citation needed] However, construction of Seabrook Station continued, and many Clamshell Alliance activists became dispirited with reports of "massive burnout and dropout" following the 1977 occupation.

[54] In September 2017, activist Steve Comley Sr. along with his non-profit "We The People" paid for an electronic billboard in Salisbury, Massachusetts, allegedly warning of the absence of an evacuation plan in the event of an accident at Seabrook Station.

Also, we work collaboratively with local, state and federal officials on a regular basis to ensure our plans are comprehensive and effective and continue to refine.

[59] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Seabrook was 1 in 45,455, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.