ML20059F083
| ML20059F083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401130141 | |
| Download: ML20059F083 (4) | |
Text
..
=. - - - - - _
pa nauq fY I
UNITED STATES t
[ l
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
't WASHINoToN, D.C. 20666-0001 s.... /
+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION SEABROOK STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-443
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter of August 27, 1993, (Ref. 1), North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) proposed an amendment to the license for the Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook). The proposed amendment would change the footnote on page 1 of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 by deleting Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc., (Vermont), as one of the entities for which North Atlantic is authorized to act. This change would reflect the purchase of Vermont's share of the Seabrook Station by North Atlantic Energy Corporation (NAEC) pursuant to a prior settlement of a claim by Vermont against Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH).
NAEC acquired PSNH's interest in the Seabrook Station in accordance with the Plan for Reorganization for PSNH.
2.0 DISCUSSION Vermont is an electric cooperative formed in 1979 for the sole purpose of holding the generation and transmission assets of Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc., a rural electric cooperative formed in 1938 to provide electric service to rural areas of northern and southern Vermont.
Vermont acquired its interest in Seabrook Station in 1984.
In 1990, Vermont filed a claim against PSNH with the United States Bankruptcy Court which was then hearing a petition from PSNH for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Vermont's claim sought redress for damages which were alleged to have been incurred (by Vermont) as a result of PSNH's mismanagement of the construction of Seabrook Station while it had been the managing agent for the Seabrook Station.
In November 1990, the two parties reached a settlement which included an agreement by PSNH or its designee to purchase Vermont's share of the Seabrook Station subject to obtaining the necessary approvals from all regulatory agencies and a discharge of Vermont from all liabilities to be incurred with respect to Seabrook.
In December 1990, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the stipulation that PSNH and Vermont had filed describing the settlement.
Nf P
. i In June 1992, in accordance with the Plan of Reorganization for PSNH that was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, Northeast Utilities (NU) acquired PSNH in merger transactions and, after receipt of NRC approval, NAEC (a newly-formed and wholly-owned subsidiary of NU) acquired PSNH's interest in Seabrook Station. As the successor to PSNH's interest in Seabrook Station, NAEC has been designated to purchase the Vermont interest in Seabrook Station.
The transfer of Vermont's ownership share in Seabrook to NAEC will consummate the settlement entered into by Vermont and PSNH and is the final step in the resolution of PSNH's bankruptcy. As a result of the Bankruptcy Court order, PSNH or its designee is under a legal obligation to effect the acquisition, however, this transfer of ownership rights under License No. NPF-86 is subject to NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.80(a).
North Atlantic has asserted that NAEC and PSNH propose to enter into an agreement with respect to the Vermont interest equivalent in all material respects to the Seabrook Power Contract.
PSNH will, therefore, be unconditionally obligated to buy all of NAEC's share of the capacity and output of NAEC's Seabrook interest including that u qdired by NAEC through the purchase of Vermont's interest.
3.0 EVALUATION The staff, in making its evaluation, has applied the criteria and review areas required by 10 CFR 50.80 " Transfer of Licenses" as appropriate.
3.1 Financial Oualifications NAEC is an electric utility under New Hampshire law whose wholesale rates are established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
For this reason, NAEC is an " electric utility" under 10 CFR 50.2 which need not show financial qualifications (cf.10 CFR 50.33(f),10 CFR 50.40(b), and 10 CFR 50.57(a)(4)). NAEC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (NU),
and its acquisition of Vermont's share of Seabrook in combination with Connecticut Light and Power Company's (CL&P) share will increase the total ownership interest of NU subsidiaries in Seabrook from 39.62927 percent to 40.04186 percent.
North Atlantic has asserted that other than this small increase in ownership, the transfer will not convey to NU any additional rights or authority with respect to the operation of Seabrook, and NU will not gain additional voting rights on the Executive Committee as a result of the increased ownership.
3.2 Manaaement and Technical Oualifications The transfer of ownership interest from Vermont to NAEC does not alter in any manner the management agent status of North Atlantic.
The conclusion reached by the NRC in Amendment 10 to License No. NPF-86, issued May 29, 1992, regarding the acceptability of North Atlantic as the operating organization is still valid.
=
l.
3.3 Foreion Control l
1 NAEC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NU.
NU is a publically-owned domestic corporation whose common stock is freely-traded on the New York Stock Exchange. North Atlantic has asserted that all directors and principal officers of NAEC are citizens of the United States of America.
Therefore, the transfer of Vermont's ownership of Seabrook-will not result in foreign control of Seabrook.
3.4 Antitrust Considerations CL&P, PSNH, and Vermont underwent antitrust review during the Seabrook construction permit stage. Additional antitrust reviews were performed prior to the issuance of the Seabrook operating license in 1986, and again prior to the issuance of Amendment 11 (May 29, 1992) to License No. NPF-86.
Neither of the later reviews revealed any significant changes.
During the construction permit and operating license reviews, the staff determined that the development of the New England Power Pool allowed power systems in New England to gain access to the economies-of-scale associated with large generating resources as well as transmission facilities generally throughout the region.
The staff conducted a review in connection with the transfer of PSNH's ownership in Seabrook to NAEC (Amendment 11) for the purpose of determining whether there were "significant changes" warranting a full antitrust review.
The staff concluded af ter considering a number of factors, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) review of the merger and the FERC conditions attached thereto, that the proposed merger did not constitute "significant changes" since the completion of the operating license review, i
The staff believes, based on these previous antitrust reviews of NAEC and Vermont, that no additional antitrust review is required as a result of the proposed transfer.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Hampshire and i
Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the i
amendment. The State officials had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Reaister on 1
r,,-,
- ~
~---,--a,,
v.w-,
,-w,-,
n.-.e w
e,-,
,w.
- -, ~, -.
mwon-v-
,-ww w
. January 5, 1994 (59 FR 605). Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff has determined that the issuance of the amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Lambe A. De Agazio Date: January 7, 1994 4
i
- -.