ML070510031
| ML070510031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/15/2007 |
| From: | Martin J NRC/OGC |
| To: | |
| Martin JC, NRC/OGC, 301-415-1569 | |
| References | |
| 50-387-LR, 50-388-LR, ASLBP 07-851-01-LR | |
| Download: ML070510031 (9) | |
Text
February 15, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PPL SUSQUEHANNA, LLC ) Docket Nos. 50-387-LR
) 50-388-LR (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station )
Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 07-851-01-LR NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEINS MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION INTRODUCTION On February 5, 2007, Eric Joseph Epstein (Petitioner) filed a Motion to Compel PPL Susquehanna, LLC to: (1) Apply for a Direct License Transfer (Or Incorporate Modifications from an NRC Approved Transfer Into the Relicensing Application) Prior to the Issuance of a Relicensing Application for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station; and, (2) Request and Receive a Schedular Exemption to Proceed With a Premature Relicensing Application for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. (Motion to Compel). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) hereby files its response. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioners Motion to Compel should be denied.
BACKGROUND By letter dated September 13, 2006, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL or Applicant) submitted an application for renewal of Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for
the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) Units 1 & 2 for an additional 20 years. 1 The current operating licenses expire on July 27, 2022 and March 23, 2024, respectively.
On November 2, 2006, NRC published a notice of acceptance and docketing and opportunity for hearing regarding the License Renewal Application (LRA), 2 and on December 21, 2006, NRC published a correction to the notice, extending the comment period for public scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement to January 2, 2007. 3 On January 2, 2007, Eric Joseph Epstein filed a Petition to Intervene, asserting individual standing, and representational and organizational standing on behalf of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA), and proffering five proposed contentions (Petition to Intervene). 4 On January 18, 2007, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) was established to preside over this proceeding. On January 29, 2007, the NRC Staff and PPL filed their Responses to Mr. Epstein and TMIAs Petition to Intervene. 5 Mr. Epstein 1
See Letter from Britt T. McKinney, PPL Susquehanna, LLC to U.S. NRC, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Application for Renewed Operating Licenses Numbers NPF-14 and NPF-22 PLA-6110, September 13, 2006. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML062620157, ML062630225, ML062630235.
2 Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for an Additional 20-Year Period PPL Susquehanna LLC., Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, 71 Fed. Reg. 64,566 (November 2, 2006).
3 PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Notice of Correction to the Public Scoping Comment Period for the Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2, 71 Fed. Reg. 76,706 (December 26, 2006). The deadline for filing a request for hearing/petition to intervene was stated correctly as January 2, 2007 in the first notice.
4 Eric Joseph Epsteins Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Presentation of Contentions with Supporting Factual Data (January 2, 2007) (ML070170485).
5 NRC Staff Response to Eric Joseph Epsteins Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions (January 29, 2007). ADAMS No. ML07030052. PPL (continued. . .)
filed a Reply on February 5, 2007, 6 in addition to his Motion to Compel.
The Staffs response to Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel is set forth below.
DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Unless the presiding officer otherwise orders, the proponent of an order has the burden of proof. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., Inc. (Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) CLI-77-2, 5 NRC 13, 14-15 (1977). All parties are obligated to ensure that their filings before the Board are supported by appropriate and accurate references to legal authority and factual basis, including, as appropriate, citations to the record. 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(d). Mr. Epstein has not met these standards; therefore, his Motion to Compel should be denied. 7 II. Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel Should be Denied Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel should be denied because: (1) the NRC previously approved the transfer of the SSES operating licenses to PPL; (2) there is no requirement that an applicant be an electric utility; and, (3) PPLs license renewal application is timely.
(. . .continued)
Susquehannas Answer to Eric Epsteins Petition for Leave to Intervene (January 29, 2007)
(ML070360282).
6 Eric Joseph Epsteins Response to PPL Susquehannas Answer to Eric Joseph Epsteins Petition to Intervene and Eric Joseph Epsteins Response to the NRC Staffs Response to Eric Joseph Epsteins Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing and Contentions RE: PPL Susquehanna LLC Application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Stations Renewed Operating Licenses NPF-14 and NPF-22 Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA-6110 and 50-388 (February 5, 2006).
7 Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel should also be denied because he failed to consult the other parties in this proceeding as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b).
Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel must be denied because its factual basis is flawed. Mr. Epstein has a duty to ensure that his filings before this Board are supported by appropriate and accurate references to legal authority and factual basis. 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323(d). Mr. Epstein begins his argument by stating that PPLs description of itself is incorrect because it describes a new company that did not apply or receive received
[sic] a direct or indirect license transfer from the predecessor licensee, PPL Electric.
Motion to Compel at 6. Mr. Epstein further argues that PPL Susquehanna must first apply and receive a direct license transfer from PPL Electric and adopt that language into a relicensing application. Id. at 7 (internal formatting omitted).
Mr. Epsteins factual basis is incorrect. The transfer of the SSES operating licenses to PPL was granted by the NRC in 2000. See PP&L, Inc. Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2); Order Approving Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments, 65 Fed. Reg. 37,418 (June 14, 2000). 8 The NRC found that PPL met all of the requirements of Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act 9 and 10 C.F.R. § 50.80 when approving the transfer. Id. Further, consistent with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1315(b), all of the conforming license amendments required for this transfer were approved. Id. Consequently, PPL now holds the operating licenses for the SSES.
Section 1.1 of PPLs LRA provides general information regarding the overall 8
While its application for a license transfer was pending, PPL underwent further corporate restructuring. PPL Energy Supply, LLC was added as an intermediary, indirect parent of PPL Susquehanna. This corporate restructuring was approved by the Commission in 2001.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Restructuring, 66 Fed. Reg. 30492 (June 6, 2001).
9 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2243 (2000) (AEA).
corporate structure of PPL and a general description of its business. Section 1.1.1, Name of Applicant, provides in part that PPL Susquehanna, LLC, the current licensee and renewal applicant, is a subsidiary of PPL Generation, LLC. This description clearly shows that PPL Susquehanna, LLC, the same company that received the license transfer, is both the current licensee and renewal applicant. This is also consistent with the language Mr. Epstein quoted from a Pennsylvania proceeding, where PPLs attorneys stated that the SSES facility was transferred to PPL Susquehanna, LLC.
Motion to Compel at 7. The relief Mr. Epstein is requesting has already occurred; therefore, his Motion to Compel is moot and should be denied.
Mr. Epstein also claims that this Board must determine whether PPL is still an electric utility under 10 C.F.R. § 50.2, and whether PPL will continue to be an electric utility after December 31, 2009. Motion to Compel at 8, 10. However, there is no requirement that a license renewal applicant be an electric utility. For example, section 50.33(f) delineates what financial information is required in an initial application for a non-electric utility applicant. The financial requirements for non-electric utilities are heightened, but a non-electric utility may still receive an operating license. 10 C.F.R.
§ 50.33(f). 10 Further, there is no regulation that limits license renewals to electric utilities. In fact, the term electric utility is never used in Part 54, and Mr. Epstein never specifies why this definition is relevant to PPLs LRA. Consequently, whether PPL 10 When reviewing PPLs License Transfer Application, the NRC Staff in fact found that PPL Susquehanna, LLC was no longer an electric utility under 10 CFR § 50.2; however, the Staff found that PPL Susquehanna, LLC met the financial qualifications requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.33(f) and was qualified to hold the license. See Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed Transfer of Licenses to the Extent Held by PP&L, Inc., to PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Section 2.0, Financial Qualifications Analysis (June 6, 2000)
(ML003720494).
qualifies as an electric utility under 10 C.F.R. § 50.2, is immaterial to this license renewal proceeding.
Finally, Mr. Epstein argues that because PPL has not received a direct license transfer from the NRC, it must complete the license transfer then receive a scheduler exemption before filing a new license renewal application. Motion to Compel at 8. As discussed above, the SSES operating license has already been transferred to PPL pursuant to an NRC order. Consequently, PPLs application is timely if it meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 54.17. A license renewal application may not be submitted more than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license currently in effect.
10 C.F.R. § 54.17(c). A license transfer does not result in a new license. See Kansas Gas and Electric Co (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1) CLI-99-19, 49 NRC 441, 454-55, n.8 (1999) (Such a construction is at odds with reality, since no new license will be issued to effectuate a Commission-approved transfer.). Instead, when the Commission approves a license transfer, a license amendment is issued to reflect the new licensee. Id. Consequently, PPL merely stepped into the shoes of the previous holder of the license. The current operating licenses for SSES Units 1 and 2 expire on July 27, 2022 and March 23, 2024 respectively. PPLs LRA is dated September 13, 2006, which is within 20 years of the expiration of SSES operating licenses; therefore, PPLs application is timely and a scheduler exemption is unnecessary.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Mr. Epsteins Motion to Compel is not supported by any legal or factual basis and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Jody C. Martin Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 15th day of February, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PPL SUSQUEHANNA, LLC ) Docket Nos. 50-387-LR
) 50-388-LR (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station )
Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 07-851-01-LR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the ANRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEINS MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION@ in the captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or by deposit in the U.S. Postal Service (as indicated by an asterisk) this 15th day of February, 2007:
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge ATTN: Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov AMY@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Adjudication Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3F23 OCAAMail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Marcia Carpentier, Esq.
klathrop@independence.net Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. William W. Sager Mail Stop: T-3F23 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3F23 MXC7@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 wsager@tamu.edu
Eric Joseph Epstein*
4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 ericeepstein@comcast.net David R. Lewis, Esq.*
Pillsbury, Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com
/RA/
Jody C. Martin Counsel for NRC Staff