ML20204F451
| ML20204F451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1999 |
| From: | Newell G SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204F455 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR432, RULE-PRM-50-64 64FR432-00008, 64FR432-8, NUDOCS 9903250296 | |
| Download: ML20204F451 (21) | |
Text
l g
i SPIEGEL & McDI ARMID l
croRot spleost (t eis.16e7>
00CKETEC
.A1TN.....ARo 05 NEW M AVENUE, NW gglpg de[v]sH;llHwARz RostRT c. MeolARk o RO8tRT A. JA6LON WASHINGTON, Dc 20005 4708 JAMES N. HORWOOD
.,Asto o.NosscM TONYLlN I[NCas TELEPHONE (202) 879-4000
""0"I" FRANCl3 DANIEL l. DAVIDSON FACSIMILE (202) 393 2866
,99 WR 23 P 2 59 o, couN..L THOM AS C. TRAUGER EMAll SPIEGELOSPIEGELMCD.COM Les c. wHita J0MN J. COR$tTT l
CYNTHIA 8. 3000R AD SANDR A J, STR$8EL l
G ARY J. NEWELL DIRECT DIAL (202) 879 4011 M ARG ARET A. Mc00LDRICK sc0TTH.STRAUS$
P. DANiet eRvNER EMAll NEWELLGOSPIEGELMCD.COM BEN FINKELSTEIN k)._
Popuc afrains pengefes
.M. f T//."
ADJJ
.'."."U.".^..'".?*."
g"al," 3'l March 22,1999 l
DOCKET NUMBER O..._5_0-fo'l Via Hand Delivery PETmGliiM. 2 OWR'IBZ) l Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff RE:
Atlantic City Electric Company, Austin Energy, Central Maine Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc., Docket No. PRM-50-64
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Enclosed for filing are Comments of the Publicly Owned Systems in response to the Petition for Rulemaking in the above-captioned docket.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions concerning these comments.
Ve ly your-y 82: Ed 22 Gy gewell Xttorney for Publicly Owned Systems
- '"' # ' U GJN:c Enclosure g
l 60013
$32 96 990322 p
50-64 l
PDR y (O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Atlantic City Electric Company, Austin Energy, Central Maine Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Docket No. PRM-50-64 Company, South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc.
COMMENTS OF PUBLICLY OWNED SYSTEMS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING The American Public Power Association, ElectriCities of North Carolina, Inc.,
Florida Municipal Power Agency, New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, the City of Anahein.,(.' difomia, and the Town of Lyndonville, Vermont (hereinafter, " Publicly Owned Systems") hereby submit their comments in response to the Petition for Rulemaking filed in the above-captioned docket.
The Petition for Rulemaking was filed by Atlantic City Electric Company, Austin Energy, Central Maine Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, South Mis-sissippi Electric Power Association, and Washington Electric Cooperative, Inc. (herein-after," Petitioners"). The Petitioners are all nonoperatingjoint owners of nuclear plants who express concerns about the issuance of a policy statement' in which the Nuclear
' " Final Policy Statement on the Restructuring and Economic Deregu'ation of the Electric Utility Industry" (hereinafter, " Policy Statement"),62 Fed. Reg. 44071 (1997).
1 i
Regulatory Commission ("NRC," "the Commission") claims the authority to impose joint and several liability on nuclear plant co-owners in certain circumstances. The Petitioners argue that the Commission's statements create uncertainty about co-owners' potential liability that adversely affects the ability ofjoint owners to raise capital and may stifle the sale of nuclear plant ownership interests. The Petitioners request that the issue ofjoint and several liability be resolved by amending certain of the Commission's regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 50 to state that the NRC will look first to the party licensed to operate the facility, but in any event will respect the allocation of financial responsibility that is contained injoint ownership contracts. The Commission issued notice of the Petition for Rulemaking on January 29,1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 432), and requested coraments.
Communications concerning this docket should be addressed to the following counsel for Publicly Owned Systems:
Gary J. Newell Spiegel & McDiarmid Suite 1100 1350 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-4798 Telephone: (202) 879-4000 Facsimile: (202)393-2866 E-mail: newellg@spiegelmed.com l
I.
PUBLICLY OWNED SYSTEMS' INTEREST IN THIS DOCKET The American Public Power Association ("APPA") is the national service organization representing the interests of the nation's approximately 2,000 municipal and other state and local governmem owned utilities throughout the United States.
1 l
l
Approximately 1,870 of these systems are cities and municipal governments that currently own and control the day-to-day operations of their electric utility systems.
APPA members include state public power agencies and serve many of the nation's largest cities. Collectively, APPA members serve 15 percent of all kilowatt-hour sales to ultimate customers in the United States. A number of APPA's members are nonoperating minority owners of nuclear plant interests.
Each of the other Publicly Owned Systems is a nonoperating joint owner of one or more commercial nuclear generating stations licensed by the NRC. The specific ownership interests of these Publicly Owned Systems are described in Appendix A. In most instances, the Publicly Owned Sys' ems own minority interests in the relevant plant or plants. In all instances, 'flejoint ownership agreements, to which the Publicly Owned Systems are parties, allocate financial responsibility for plant costs in accordance with each owner's percentage interest in the plant. Thus, the Publicly Owned Systems would be directly affected by any Conunission policy (or action taken in furtherance of a policy) that purports to override contractual allocations of financial responsibility and to impose joint and several liability for plant costs, especially when such joint and several liability has been expressly excluded from the contract oris not addressed in the contract.
3
II.
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING A.
Co-Owner Cost Responsibility Is Clearly Established by Existing Arrangements, Which Have Been Reviewed and Accepted by the Commission Over the Course ofDecades.
The Commission's comments in the Policy Statement concemingjoint and several liability are unfortunate on several counts. First and foremost, these comments directly undercut the nuclear power industry's long-standing reliance on contractual allocations of financial responsibility, which have served as the cornerstone for numerous joint ownership arrangements under which nuclear plants have been constructed and operated for the benefit of electricity ratepe~ers.
As the Petitioners correctly observe, the imposition ofjoint and several liability would overturn the reasonable and legitimate expectations of many entities and institu-tions with direct interests in nuclearjoint ownership arrangements. These entities and institutions include the co-owners themselves (who entered into joint ownership arrange-ments based on their acceptance of specified levels of financial responsibility); investors (who provided the funds for purchases ofjoint ownership interests in reliance on the terms expressed in the underlying contracts); and state regulatory commissions (which authorized the co-owners' purchases of ownership interests on the basis of the contractual cost allocations). Each of these entities and institutions would see their long-standing legitimate expectations about the financial responsibility of co-owners completely overthrown by the imposition ofjoint and several liability for nuclear plant costs.
It is important to recognize that these long-standing industry expectations were not formulated in isolation from the NRC's knowledge or, indeed, without its
involvement. In fact, these expectations were in large measure actively fostered by the l
Commission's own consideration and approval of numerous joint ownership i
arrangements.
To be specific, the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 set forth detailed requirements for the submission ofinformation that would allow the Commission to evaluate the financial qualifications of applicants for nuclear plant construction permits and operating licenses. In particular,10 CFR { 50.33(f) and Appendix C to Part 50 l.
require applicants to submit "information sufficient to demonstrate to the Conunission the financial qualification of the applicant to carry out, in accordance with regulations in this chapter, the activities for which the permit or license is sought."
In conducting its evaluation of applicants' financial qualifications, the Commis-i sion has reviewed each applicant's financial capability in relation to the specific owner-ship share owned or proposed to be acquired by the applicant. Thus, in the case of an entity that sought to acquire a minority interest in a plant, the Commission has considered whether that entity has the financial capability to fund the portion of plant costs which corresponds to the interest being acquired.2 A case in point illustrates this long-standing practice.
' The Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ruled in 1978 that co-owners of a plant must be co-applicants for any permit or license. Public Service Co. ofIndiana, ALAB-459,7 NRC 179 (1978). 'Thus, an entity seeking to acquire a share of a plant must provide the financial qualifications information called for by 10 CFR f 50.33(f) and Appendix C, but, as noted, its qualifications have been evaluated in relation to the share being acquired.
I
. 4 In July,1981, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3
("NCMPA #3")' executed contracts with Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L")
- pursuant to which NCMPA #3 would purchase specified minority interests in certain then-operating and then-under-construction generating facilities on the CP&L system.
i The facilities in which ownership interests were to be acquired included units at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. In Septem-ber 1981, CP&L filed a proposed amendment to the operating license for Brunswick Units 1 and 2 to add NCMPA #3 as a co-owner of those units. A similar contemporane-ous filing was made to amend the construction permit and operating license application for the units at the Harris Plant. CP&L's applications specified that NCMPA #3 would acquire an 18.7% interest in each of the Brunswick Units and a 16.5% interest in each of the Harris Units. CP&L's application also provided responses to questions from the Commission's staff concerning the financial qualifications of NCMPA #3. Certain of those questions were specifically directed toward NCMPA #3's capability to meet the portion of plant costs that corresponded to the ownership share being acquired.4 The responses provided by CP&L and NCMPA #3 set forth the bases for their contention that
' Subsequent to the events described in text, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency #3 changed its name to Nonh Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency.
' For example,in connection with both the Brunswick and Harris amendments, the Commission Staff submitted questions to the applicants for information about the financial qualifications of the municipal applicant (NCMPA #3). Staff's Question No.12 stated: " Describe the applicant's plan for financing its share of the cost of eventual shut-down of the facility and maintenance in a safe shut down condition."
(emphasis added)
[L l
l NCMPA #3 was capable of meeting the financial obligations associated with the specific l
l percentage interest in ecch plant that was being acquired by NCMPA #3.
The NRC granted the applications for amendment of the Brunswick licenses and the Harris Plant permit on November 2 and 3,1981, respectively. In granting the requested amendments, the Commission exoressly tied its findines concernine the financial capability of the acauirine carty to the specific ownershio interests orocosed to be acauired. Thus, the Commission's Director of Licensing stated as follows in approving the amendment of the Brunswick license:
i We have determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.33(f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50, [NCMPA #3] is financially qualified to acquire, operate and safely decommission the facility to the extent of an 18.7 nercent undivided ownershio interest. (emphasis added)
The formal amendments to the operating licenses for the two Brunswick Units similarly state as an express finding of the Commission that NCMPA #3 "is financially qualified to acquire, operate, and safely decommission the facility to the extent of an 18.7 percent undivided ownership interest." Similar language is included in the amendment of the Harris Plant construction permit, as to which the Director of Licensing made the following statement in approving the amendment:
We have reviewed your application, along with thu supporting information, and have concluded that North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 is financially qualified to participate in the ownership of the Shearon Harris facility to the extent of fal 16.5% undivided ownershio interest. (emphasis added)
,sw-
. Based on these approvals,8 NCMPA #3 closed on its purchase of ownership shares in the Brunswick and Harris plants in April,1982.
i The aforementioned approvals were, in each case, premised on analyses of NCMPA #3's financial qualifications prepared by the Commission's staff. Those anal'y-ses - a " Safety Evaluation Report" in the case of the Harris Plant amendment, and an
" Analysis of Financial Qualifications" in the case of the Brunswick Station amendment --
expressly addressed NCMPA #3's financial capabilities strictly in relation to the soecific share of olant ownershio oronosed to be acauired.6 There is absolutely no mention in these analyses of the financial qualifications of NCMPA #3 in relation to any potential
- imposition of" joint and several liability," nor is there any suggestion in any of the Commission's regulations or orders that NCMPA #3 (or any other co-owner) might someday be required to bear more than its ownership-related share of plant costs.
The NRC's analysis of the application to add NCMPA #3 as a co-licensee of the Brunswick and Harris plants -- and, specifically, the NRC's analysis of NCMPA #3's 1
5 Copies of the orders granting th-se approvals are provided in Appendix B to these Comments.
- Thus, for example, the " Safety Evaluation Report" prepared ir.:onnection with the Commission's consideration of the Harris Plant permit amendment addressed ( at pp. 2-3) NCMPA #3's ability to raise capital for the funds due at closing and the total cost of purchase for the 16.5% share of the Harris Plant oroposed to be acauired by NCMPA #3. The Report made a determination (at pp. 3-4) that "[NCMPA
- 3's] plan to fund its proposed ownership interest in the facility from proceeds derived from the issuance i
ofits revenue bonds constitutes a reasonable financing plan...," and that" issuance of the requested amendments transferring ownership percentages from CP&L to [NCMPA #3] will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public." Similarly, the Analysis of Financial Qualifications prepared by the Office of State Programs in connection with the Commission's consideration of the Brunswick license amendment observed (at pp. 6-7) that NCMPA #3 "will pay its oroportionate share of all costs associated with the cancellation, retirement or decommissioning of the facility," and that the joint ownership contract " requires
[NCMPA #3] to bear its share of the costs of cancellation or decommissioning of any Unit which is retired or decommissioned after tim date of Commercial Operation of such Unit."(emphasis added)
financial qualifications in relation to the ownership share proposed to be acquired -- is typical of howjoint ownership arrangements historically have been addressed by the l
Commission. Thus, the Commission's assertion that the Policy Statement " expressed no change in prior NRC practice or policy,"7 is inexplicable and insupportable. Joint and several liability represents a total departure from the Commission practice that was in effect prior to the issuance of the Policy Statement. Such a radical policy shift must be i
supported by substantial evidence and a thorough explanation of the agency's reasoning -- as well as by an analysis of the impact of the change on parties who I
reasonably relied on the prior policy -- but these essential elements have yet to be offered by the Commission.
B.
Ifthe Commission Wishes to Consider a Change in Its Established Policy Concerning Co-Owner Cost Responsibility, It Must Do So in a Context That Takes Into Consideration f
Parties' Reliance on the Past Policy and the Impacts ofAny l
Proposed Change in the Policy.
For the reasons stated above, Publicly Owned Systems maintain that the financial responsibilities of nuclear plant co-owners should remain fixed by their existing contractual arrangements, which have had the Commission's express endorsement for decades. During this time, regulatory approvals have been obtained, contracts with purchasers of output have been signed and billions of dollars of financing have been raised from the investing public in express reliance on contractual allocations of financial
' Sec letter dated February 20,1998 from NRC Secretary Hoyle to Gary Newell, rejecting a request for reconsideration of the Policy Statement that had been filed by the Publicly Owned Systems group.
. responsibility. Even ifit were assumed, arguendo, that the Commission has the legal authority to adopt a policy ofjoint and several liability -- a point which Publicly Owned Systems by no means concede, and, in fact, vigorously contest - the NRC clearly lacks the discretion to apply that new policy to joint ownership arrangements which were developed in reliance on the prior policy. See Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, j
488 U.S. 204 (1988).8 As a result, existingjoint ownership arrangements would need to
' The application ofjoint and several liability to the allocation of financial responsibilities underjoint ownership arrangements developed under the prior policy would constitute a retroactive application of the new rule because, among other things, the rule would impose new substantive obligations and attach new financial liabilities in respect to transactions already past. However, as the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Georgetown Hospital:
It is axiomatic that an administrative agency's power to promulgate j
legislative regulations is limited to the authority delegated by Congress.
. [A] statutory grant oflegislative rulemaking power will not, as a general matter, be understood to encompass the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express tenns. (citation omitted). Even where some substantialjustification for retroactive rulemaking is presented, courts should be reluctant to find such authority absent an express statutory grr.nt.
488 U.S. at 208. No such authority to engage in retroactive rulemaking is provided by the Atomic Energy Act, however (see 42 U.S.C. I 2201(p)). Furthermore, even if the NRC were to argue that a rule on joint and several liability merely interprets the existing statutory law, that interpretation clearly diverges from the policy formerly applied by the Commission. In any case, such an argument would be unavailing because the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the prohibition against retroactive rules set forth in Georgetown Hospital applies to interpretive rules as well as to legislative rules:
[T]he conclusion that the rules at issue here are interpretive does not in itselflegitimate their application to prior transactions. We agree with the government's implicit concession that interpretive rules, no less than legislative rules, are subject to Georgetown Hospital 's ban on retroactivity. The Administrative Procedure Act's definition of a
" rule" "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy..",5 U.S.C. Q 551(4) -- draws no distinction between rules that " interpret" law and rules that " prescribe" law: both must be of" future effect". Cf Georgetown Hospital,488 U.S. at 216-23,109 S.Ct. at 476-79 (Scalia, J., concurring).
(
Health Ins. Assn. ofAmerica v. Shalala,23 F.3d 412,423 (D.C. Cir. I994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. I147
{ Footnote continued on following page]
i l
l
i a
l l
l be " grandfathered" and exempted from any new policy affecting the allocation of financial responsibilities.
In any event, if the Conunission wishes to return to the settled issue of co-owmer cost responsibility -- in response to the Petitioners' request, or otherwise -- it should do so only with full recognition and consideration of(i) the past reliance on contracts in delin-eating the extent of each owner's liability, and (ii) the impacts of a change in policy on specific parties who made substantial commitments in reliance on the prior practice. To be specific, the Commission's conclusions aboutjoint and several liability must be developed from an evidentiary record that provides a full understanding of the impacts of such a policy on parties who have relied on contractual allocations of cost, which would include, at a minimum, the following:
Minority owners of nuclear plants,' many of which are relatively small consumer-owned utilities (cities, towns and cooperatives) that lack the
" deep pockets" to carry the financial obligations of other owners (as well as their own), and whose other legitimate public activities would be placed in great jeopardy if they were exposed to open-ended liability for nuclear plant costs; (1995). In any event, since a joint and several liability rule would constitute a " prescription" of a " practice bearing on," among other things, " financial structures," such a rule is applicable only "for the future" under the Administrative Procedure Act (in particular,5 U.S.C. 6 551(4)).
' Although the Commission indicates in the Policy Statement that the owners of de minimis shares would not be forced to bear the burden ofjoint and several liability, there is no insight given as to the threshold beyond which an owner is no longer considered de minimis.
l
o 1
l State mgulatory authorities, who approved joint ownership commit-e-
l L
ments by entities subject to theirjurisdiction based on the belief that the associated burden on ultimate consumers would be capped by the L
contractual allocation of costs; and Members of the investing public, who purchased bonds issued by e
minority owners based on legitimate representations as to each own-er's share ofplant costs, and who could well face the prospect of a default by an owner that is later forced to bear costs that were allocated by contract to other plant owners.
In short, if the Commission wishes to reconsider its past policy of respecting contractual cost-sharing provisions, that reconsideration must include the gathering and evaluation of evidence concerning the actual impacts on affected parties that would result from overtuming the existing practice. Consideration of the question entirely in the abstract would necessarily force the NRC to rely on sheer speculation as to the impacts on these parties of a change in its policies. In order for the NRC to make informedjudg-ments about a change in the allocation of cost responsibilities in nuclearjoint ownership arrangements, it is necessary for the Commission to gather and evaluate evidence about the real-world impacts on actual parties of that change.
In stating that the Commission should refrain from considering the issue of co-owner cost responsibility as a purely abstract question, Publicly Owned Systems should not be viewed as conceding in any way that the Commission actually possesses the legal authority to modify or override an existing contractual allocation of cost i
l
4.
responsibilities. To the contrary, as noted above, such an action would violate the proscription against retroactive rulemaking, Georgetown Hospital, supra, unless existing arrangements were exempted from the new policy. Furthermore, as we have previously pointed out to the Commission, the Policy Statement raises substantial legal issues and concerns as to, at a minimum, the following: (1) whether, in light of numerous existing joint ownership arrangements premised onpro rata sharing of costs, the imposition of joint and several liability violates constitutional prohibitions against the impainnent of contract, abrogates constitutional rights of due process, and/or constitutes an unconstitutional "taking" of property; (2) whether the imposition ofjoint and several liability is within the Comraission's statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act; and (3)'whether, in light of the Commission's past acceptance ofpro rata sharing arrangements and the substantial commitments made in reliance on that practice, the imposition ofjoint and several liability is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
Regardless of whether the NRC's legal authority to override existing cost allocations is better tested in a rulemaking context or in the context of an actual attempt by the
' 'Commi.,sion to exercise that purported authority," it would be a mistake in either context
- " " Publicly Owned Systems' Request for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Delay l
Effectiveness of a Ponion of the Final Policy Statement in Order to Receive Additional Public Comment,"
filed with the Commission on October 14,1997.
" The right of parties to contest the Commission's legal authority to impose joint and several liability in an actual case was fully preserved by the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissing for lack of ripeness the petition for review filed in American Public Power Assn., et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the UnitedStates ofAmerica, Case No. 98-1219 (order issued August 3,1998).
i I
to address the question without fully considering the impacts on actual parties of any attempted exercise of that authority.
In the meantime, the Commission could do much to allay the concerns raised by 1
the Petitioners by reaffirming the NRC's intent to respect contract provisions, and by indicating that it will provide for a full hearing should it again consider a change in its policies in the future. Were the Commission to provide these assurances, the Petitioners' request could be dismissed as unnecessary.
Respectfully submitted, l
b.
l Frances E. Francis
=
9 M
Gary.f Ndvell Attorneys for Publicly Owned Systems l
Law Offices of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid Suite 1100 1350 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-4798 (202) 879-4000 r
l l
l March 22,1999 Doc #: 108031 I
l
,,"f-5 i
e 4,
u 4
f i
h
's,
' i s
1
.j Y
't
. 'M i
l I
l l
Appendix A
I
~
APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF NUCLEAR OWNERSIIIP INTERESTS HELD BY THE PUBLICLY OWNED SYSTEMS American Public Power Association ("APPA") is the national service organization representing the interests of the nation's approximately 2,000 municipal and other state and local government-owned utilities throughout the United States. APPA members serve some of the nation's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, Seattle, Phoenix (Salt River Proje'ct), Jacksonville, Austin, San Antonio, Nashville, Mem his, Cleveland, Omaha and Orlando. Several state public power agencies, such as g
New York Power Authority, South Carolina Public Service Authority, and Lower Colorado River Authority in Texas, provide electric power to many communities within their states. However, the majority of APPA's members are located in small and medium-sized cities in every state except Hawaii. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to one of every seven electric consumers in the United States.
Some APPA members directly own undivided interests in nuclear generating plants, while other APPA members are full or partial requirements customers of electric utility companies that own or participate in nuclear generating plants.
Electricities of North Carolina,Inc. is a Joint Municipal Assistance Agency under the General Statutes of North Carolina. ElectriCities is the management services provider for North Carolina's two municipaljoint action agencies: North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No.1 (NCMPA #1) and North Carolina Eastern Municipal l
I
Power Agency (NCEMPA). NCMPA #1 is tha owner of a 75% undivided ownership interest in Unit No. 2 at the Catawba Nuclear Station, a two-unit nuclear generating station operated by Duke Power Company. Through the contractual cost sharing provisions ofitsjoint ownership contracts with Duke, NCMPA #1 bears 37.5% of the total costs of the Catawba Nuclear Station. NCEMPA is the owner of 18.33% undivided ownership interests in Units 1 and 2 at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, and a 16.17%
undivided ownership interest in Unit No. I at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The Brunswick and Harris stations are operated by Carolina Power & Light Company, which also owns the remaining portions of the enumerated units.
Florida Municipal Power Agency ("FMPA") is a political subdivision of the State of Florida engaged in the development of bulk power supply for its municipal electric system members. FMPA is the owner of an 8.806% undivided ownership interest in Unit No. 2 at the St. Lucie nuclear power station, a two-unit electric generating facility located near Fort Pierce, Florida and operated by Florida Power & Light Company. In addition, certain of FMPA's members have entitlements to output from the Crystal River No. 3 nuclear generating unit, operated by Florida Power Corporation.
New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("NHEC") is a consumer-owned l
electric cooperative that provides service in parts of nine New Hampshire counties.
1 NHEC is the owner of an approximately 2.17% undivided ownership interest in Unit l
No. I at the Seabrook Nuclear Station, which is operated by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities).
I l
J l
1 l
2
)
l j
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company ("MMWEC") is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts engaged in the development of bulk power supply for its municipal electric system members. MMWEC is ajoint owner of Millstone Unit No. 3 (a nuclear electric generating unit located at the three-unit i
Millstone station operated by Northeast Utilities and located near Waterford, l
Connecticut) and Unit No. I at the Seabrook nuclear power station (a single-unit
)
generating station operated by Public Service Company of New Hampshire and located in j
l Seabrook, New Hampshire). MMWEC'; share of Millstone 3 capability is 55.2 megawatts, and its share of Seabrook I capability is 133.3 megawatts.
i The City of Anaheim, California (" Anaheim") owns and operates a municipal electric utility system and provides retail electric service to residential, commercial and industrial customers in and around the City. Anaheim is the owner of 3.16% undivided i
interests in Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is operated by Southern California Edison Company.
The Town of Lyndonville, Vermont ("Lyndonville") operates a municipal electric utility system serving customers in and around its municipal boundaries.
Lyndonville owns a 1.085% ownership share of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, located near Vernon, Vermont.
3
.3 I
w k '{
+
t
.~ L ',y':y' N J,,;:
.;4'j g
s l
l l
l l
Appendix B-1 1
y l
f i
I h
I A
l 1
l
C
~
yh jo,,
UNITED STATES y
g
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
.R WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
-t
- 8
- ,...../
November 2,1981 Docket Nos. 50-325 50-324-4 Mr. J. A.-Jones Senior Executive Vice President Carolina ~ Power & Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 42 and 65 to Facility Operating Licenses flos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 (the facility). The amendments consist of changes to the Licenses in response to your submittals of September 3, 1981 ;,nd October 19, 1981.
These changes reflect the addition of North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 (Power Agency) as a co-owner of the facility.
We have determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.33(f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50, Power Agency is financially qualified to acquire, tperate, and safely decommission the facility to the extent of an 18.7 percent undiv.ided ownership interest.
Carolina Power & Light Company shall retain exclusive responsibility for the operation and maintenance and the construction of capital additions to the facility.
We have determined that the amencments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, negative declaration or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
We have further concluded that the amendments do not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Comission safety review of the facility. They do not involve a significant increase in.the probability or consequences of an accident, do not involve a significant decrease in a safety. margin.and, therefore, do not involve a significant hazards consideration. We have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action.
g (l) AW
i l
l Mr.' J. A. Jones 2
Copies of the Analysis of Financial Qualifications and the Notice of Issuance are also enclosed.
i Sincerely,
~.')
Thomas A. I polito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing Enc'osures:
1.
Amendment No. 42 to DPR-71 2.
Amendment No. 65 to DPR-62 3.
Analysis of Financial Qualifications 4.
Notice cc: w/ enclosures See next page J
l l
J
m Mr. J. A. Jones Carolina Power & Light Company ge:
Richard E. Jones., " Esquire Carolina. Power & Light Company
~
336 Fayettevi11e Street Raleigh, North' Caroliria' 27602~
~
~
~
Georg'e F. TrowErid'ge, Esquire ' '
~
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N'.
W.
kashington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Charles R. Dietz Plant Manager
~
~
P.-0. Box 458 c-Southport, North Carolina 28461
~
Mr. Franky Thomas, Chairman Board of Comissioners P. O. Box 249 Eclivia, North Carolina 28422
.x Mrs. Chrys Baggett State Clea'ringhouse Budget & fianagement 116 '.:est Jones Street Ralei.gh, North Carolina 27603 So'thport - Brunswick County Library 10~- W. MO:re Street Sc=h crt, North Caroiir.a 28461 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I'! Office Regional Radiation Representative 345 Courtland Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Resident Inspector
- ~
Uc S. Nuclear Regulatory' Cotmission P. O. Box 1057 c
Southport, North ' Carolina 28461 t
e e
O 8
f t
.p.m s
A UNITED STATES f
g.
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
y
- E
. WASHINGTC N, D. C. 20555 4,
,o CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-325 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 1
.AMEODMEETTOFACILITYOPERATINGLICENSE Amen' ment No. 42 d
License No.-DPR-71
.l..The Nuclear Regulatory. Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A*
.The application for amendment by Carolina Power 5 Light C'ompany
~
dated September 3,1981 as supplemented October 19, 1981 complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and reg'ula-tions set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in ponformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conductsd without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E:
Nor.th Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 is financially qualified to acquire, operate, and safely decommission the facility to the extent of an 18.7 percent undivided ownership interest.
~
F.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51
'r
. of the Comiss, ion's regulations:;and all applic.able requirements
'hav'e bden satisfied.
.g l
2.
Accordingly, paragraph 2.A of Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 is hereby amended to read as follows:
/
This. license applies to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1,.
a boiling water reactor and associated equipment (the facility),
owned by the Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina
\\
4
' 9pf
l
[
2 l
Municipal Power Agency Number 3 and operated by Carolina Power l
& Light Company. The facility is located on the Cape Fear River, near Southport in Brunswick County, North Carolina, and is l
described in the " Final Safety Anal-Is Report" as supplemented and amended (Amendments 1 through '. and the " Environmental Report" as supplemented and amended 3.
This license amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
FOR THE' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
+
Thomas 'A.' Ippolito, Chi af
.0perating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing Date of Issuance: November 2,1981 s
e i
0 e
9 e
e O
e S
i e
d e
e s i.
'o, UNITED STATES E'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{-
,I-WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k*.
p' CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-324 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 ~
r
.. AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 65 License No. DPR-62'
.l.- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
The application for amendment. by Carolina Power & Light Company A*
dated September 3,1981 as supplemented October 19, 1981 complies with the standards and requirements of *.he Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's. rules and regula-tions set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The -facility will operate in c"onformity with-the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety-of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D.
The issuane,e of this amendment will not.be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and ' safety 'of the public; and E.
North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 is financially qualified to acquire, operate, and safely decommission the facility to the extent of an 18.7 percent undivided ownership interest.
F.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of tlie Consnissi6n't ' regulations ahd all ' applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, paragraph 2.A of Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 is hereby amended to read as follows:
This license applies to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, l' nit 2, a boiling water reactor and associated equipment (the facility),
owned by the Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carc
l.
e
'N l
I Municipal Power Agency Number 3 and operated by Carolina Power
& Light. Company.
The. facility is located on the Cape Fear River, near Southport in Brunswick County, North Carolina, and is described in the " Final Safety Analysis Report" as supplemented and amended (Amendments 1 through 29) and the " Environmental Report" as supplemented and amended -(Supplements 1 through 7).
3.
.This license amendment is effective as of the dite of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas W. Ippolito, Chief Operati.ng Reactors Branch. #2 Division of Licensing Date of Issuance: November 2,1981 4
9 s
e 9
e e,
4
=
4 e
a a
M W
sA44 s
d o,,
UNITED STATES 7 e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g.
- ; e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 k"CM/-
t ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-71 AND L
AMEN 0 MENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2
' DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND'50-324 Financial' Qualifications of the Transferee The NRC regulittions relating to the detennination of an applicant's financial qualifications are in Section 50.33(f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50.
These regulations state that there must be reasonable l
assurance that an applicant can obtain the necessary funds to cover the estimated construction costs of a proposed nuclear plant and its related'-
fuel cycle costs.
Ultimate y. this means that an applicant must demonstrate a reasonable financing plan in light of relevant circumstances.
This.
- standard of reasonable assurance, however, must be viewed in light of the period of time from the purchase of ownership interest to the date of conrnercial oper'ation.
In the case of Brunswick Steam' Electric Plant, Unit.Nos. I and 2 (the facility), the two units are completed in con-struction and are presently owned and operated by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L).
Consequently, we must make certain basic assumptions in our financial analysis' about future conditions for ana' lysis of the financing of partial ownersh'ip, operation, and ultimate decommissioning by the proposed transferee.
Our analysis of the proposed transferee's financial qualifications requires that 'we vaTidly assume that there will
~
(
\\.
~
be rational regulatory policies with respect to the setting of rates for the recovery of operation and decomissioning expenses and.that viable capital markets will exist. The fonner assumption impl,ies that rates will be set to at least cover,the costs of service, including the costs
~
of capital necessary for purcha'se of North Carolina Power Agency Number 3's.(The Power Agency). proposed 18.7 percent' undivided ownership interest in.the acility. The latter assumption implies that capital will be.
available to The Power Agency at some price to allow acquisition of partial ownership interest in the facility.
Given these fundamental assumptions, our evaluation is then focused on the reasonableness of the proposed transferee's finan~cial plans, in light of relevant ci'rcumstances, to participate in its proposed share of the estimated operating and decomissioning costs of the facilityi The following analysis summarizes our review of the information submitted by CP&L and addresses the financial qualifications of The Power Agency to finance their proposed proportionate share of the costs associated with the ownership, operation, and decommissioning of the facility.
_ Cost Estimates and Amount of Ownership Interests Proposed for Transfer The,most recent cost information for the proposed 18.7 percent partial ownership transfers of the facility are stated in the financial information
' submittid under' CP&L's September 3, 1981 license' amendment request.
This
~
cost is $244.3 million.
1 I
i.
The timing of payments to meet the aboye. costs for acquisition of The Power Agency's 18.7 percent proposed ownership interest assumes that 33 percent of the closing wi.11 occur on January 1, 1982, 36 percent will
I J
\\
j
\\,
occur on July 1,1982, and the final 31 percent will be consumated,on December 1,1982.
Estimated Operating Costs of Facility For the purpose of estimating the facility's operating cost, the year 1981 was adopted by CP&L as the first year of comercial operation.
Estimates of the total annual cost of operating ~the facility for each of
'the first five years are presented below. All operating cost estimates are based on a combined peak net electrical capacity of 1580 megawatts.
Operating costs include all costs associated with operation and maintenance including nuclear fuel burnup and capital costs.
Brunswick 1 and 2 Year Estimated Annual Operating C6sts
/
(Dollars in Millions) 1981
$ 145.9 1982
$ 217.3 1983
$ 179.6 1984
$ 150.2 1985 5 155.4 Estimated Costs to Decomission the Facility CP&L has proposed that upon the expiration of the facility's useful life, it will entomb it in a safe storage mode for a period of 30 years after which it will be completely dismantled. CP&L estimated that costs i
necessary to decomission the facility would be $125.4 million for Unit
+
No.1 and $167.9 million for-Unit No. 2 under the entombment / deferred dismantlement mode'for the entire facility.
These costs are estimated on a present value basis 'in 1980 dollars and are estimated to total
$293.3 million for the entire facility.
The estimated costs to decommission
^
Unit No.1 are expected to be less than Unit No. 2 r... e Unit No. 2 will be entombed first and decommissioning of the common systems for both units will be' performed in conjunction wi:h Unit No. 2.
in addition, the monitoring and surveillance equipment for this common facility will be installed with the Unit No. 2 effort.
Therefore, the entombment of Unit No. 1.will require less equipment and effort since the common
.A systems for entombment will have already been installed with the. Unit No. 2 effort.
Under contract with the NRC, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory operated by,Battelle Memorial Institute issued its report " Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decomi.ssioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station" -NUREG/CR-0672 (June 1980)'. /In this report the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimated the costs of decomissioning a large (1155 MWe) boiling water reactor power station under various types of decommissioning methods.
For the immediate dismantlement method of decommissioning, PNL estimated that total costs'would be $66.67 million in 1978 dollars for a one unit facility, or $133.34 million for two units.
As CP&L's estimate allows for a higher contingency factor, it is more conservative to adopt it herein in determining CP&L's ability to finance such amounts.
Description of Business of Proposed Co-Owner The Power Agency is a public body corporate and politic and an. instrumentality of the State of North Carolina, incorporated under North Carolina statutes in December 1976. The Power Agency was created to plan, develop, construct, an'd operate generation and transmission facilities.
The
w "N,
Power Agency has been granted all of the powers necessary or convenient l
~
l io carry out such purposes.
In this respect, The Power Agency has
~
proposed to enter into contracts with thirty-six political subdivision participants'(Participants), un, der which The Power Agency ii; to b'e the' sole'and exclusive bulk power supplier for each such Participant in
~
excess of any allotment of federal power from Southeastern Power Administration or of.the output of any resource such-political subdivision may develop and install pursuant to provisions of the Supplemental Power Sales Agreement in effect between Power Agency and Participant.
Each Participant is obligated to take or pay for its entitlement share of power from any owned project, such as the facility.
The terms of said' contracts are for the life of the project or. so lon,g as any of Power Agency's bonds-issued to finance the project are outstanding, but not exceeding 50 years.
Source of Funds to Power Agency to Acquire Partial Ownership Interest in the Facility, Operate It Upon Completion, and Ultimately Decommission It Like other facilities that it has acquired or will acquire, The Power Agency's ownership interest acquisition in the project will be financed through, issuance of ta,x exempt revenue bonds.
Under the Power Coordination Agreement and the Operating and Fuel l
Agreement between Power Agency and CP&L, The Power Agency covenants to
~
~
set rates adequate to cover all its cos'ts.
N'o regulatory _ approvals are l
3 3
h
required by Power Agency in setting rates to its Participants.
The Participants, as municipalities of the State of North Carolina, have authority to establish their own retail ' rates for service to their
~
customers..The State of North Carolina covenants and agrees that so
~
long as any bonds of Power Agency aie outstanding and unpaid, the State will not limit or alter the rights of any Participant or of Power Agency, to establish, maintain, revise, charge and collect electric rates to
+
fulfill the terms of any agreement for the project.
The obligations of each Participant to make payments to Power Agency under the Project Power Sales Agreement will be an expense of its Electric System, and the Participant will not be required to make payments to Power Agency except from-fevenues of its Electric System.
Each Participant will covenant in the Project Power Sales Agreement that it will fix and charge rates for electric service supplied from its Electric System sufficient to meet all of its obligations under the Project Power Sales Agreenient and to pay any and all other amounts payable from such* revenues including cost of operation and of any general obligation bonds issued by the Participant to finance its electric. system.
j Pursuant to the Project Agreements between CPat. and Power Agency, The t
Power Agency will pay its proportionate share of all costs associated with the cancellation, retirement or decommissioning of the facility.
The Purchase, Construction and Ownership Agreement requires The Power s
Agency to bear its share of the costs of cancellation or decomissioning of any Unit which is retired or.decomissioned after the date of Comercial Operation of such Unit. These comitments entend for whatever period of time is necessary to comp.lete the cancellation, retirement or decomissioning process so the+. no further expenditure of funds is required.
The Power Agency will include in its Monthly Project Power Costs to be
~
charged to its Participants pursuant to the Initial Project Power Sales' Agreements amounts sufficient to enable Power Agency to meet its comitment to bear its share of the costs of cancella' tion, retiremerit or cecomissioning
~~
Each Partfcipant agrees in th'e Initial Project Power of the facility. -
Sales Agreement to pay its Part'icipant's share of such Monthly Project
~
Power Costs.
Such costs are defined,as including all costs incurred by Power Agency resulting from the retirement or decommissioning of the initial Project, and ths providing of reserves for such purposes.
The Initial Project Power Sales Agreement imposes an unconditional "take or pay" comitment, thereby obligating each Participant to pay its Participant's Share of Monthly Project Power Costs whether or not the Joint Facilities are completed, operable, operating, or retired or decommissioned and j
notwithstanding the suspension, interruption, interference, reduction 1
or curtailment of the output of the Joint Facilities, or the power and energy contracted.for,. in whole or in part, for any reason whatsoever.
The Power Agency will establish a reserve for such costs in the' Decomissioning Fund established pursuant,to the Bond Resolution proposed to be adopted by Power Agency's Board of Comissioners for-the facility.
~
Financial Dualifications Conclusion In accordance with the reguh tions c~ited'herein an applicant must
~
demonstrate that it has' reasonable as.surance. of obtaining the necessary funds to cover-the estimated costs of the activities contemplated under
~
~
the license. Baseduponhepreceding analyses of its proposed" financing
~~
plans., we conclude that the North Carolina Power Agency Number 3 has reasonable financing plans in light of relevant' circumstances to acqu'ir'd, -
operate, a'nd p'ermanentli shutdo'wn..-if necessary, and maintain the 2
fac'ility in a safe con'ditio'n to the extent of its 18.7 percent owners' hip
~
~
interest.
Accordingly, we conclucie' that the ' North' Carolina Power Agency Number 3' has financing plans that provide a reasonable assurance that funds ca,n be obtained to finance its proposed respective undivided ownership interest shares in the facility.
As a result, we have determined that The Power Agency is financially qualified to participate in facility to the extent of its 18.7 percent proposed ownership interest.
This conclusion is based upon our, determination that The Power Agency's proposed plan to fund its 18.7 percent ownership interest in the facility from proceeds derived from the issuance of its revenue bonds constitutes a reasonable financing plan in light of relevan't circumstances.
Furthermore, we have determined that Power Agency has reasonable assurance under 10 CFR 50.33(f) of obtaining the necessary funds to cove'r the estimated operating costs of the facility.
In this respect, the Power Agency has demonstrated that it has available resources sufficient to
~
~
(~
}
cover estimated costs for each of the first five years of operation plus the estimated costs of permanent shut down and maintenance of the facility inasafe.conditionasrequiredby10CFRPart50,AppendixC(I)(B).
As a cobsequence of this, we find that The Power Agency is financially qualified to acquire, operate, and safely decommission the facility to
{
the extent of'a 18.7 percent undivided ownership intcrest. In summary,,
ouF conclusion is based upon the status as a public utility, its unilateral ability to establish rates with its Participants, the requirement that it recover operating and decommissioning expenses and the legal requirements present in the various agreements between CP&L, The Power Agency, and Participants tio the' Power dgency.1
~
s 0
e e
1 9
g 4
l S'.
i
=
e e
J-l
m.
v t
4
..f.
4
- i t
i l
l Appendix B-2
l pa rtouq 4
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.** /
November.3, 1981 Docket Nos.:
!D-400/401 and 50-402/403 Mr. J. A. Jones Vice Chairman Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Jones:
Subject:
Issuance of Amendments to Construction Permits for Shearon Harris i
Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 Your letter, dated September 3,1981 transmitted an application for amendments to the Construction Pemits for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, to add North Carolina Municipal Powr Agency Number.3 (Power Agency) as a co-owner and to transfer a 16.5% undivided ownership interest in the Shearon Harris facility from Carolina Powr and Light Company to the Power Agency.
In support of your application, a number of exhibits were submitted by letter, also dated September 3,1981.
We have reviewed your application, along with the supporting infomation, and have concluded that North Carolina Municipal Powr Agency Number 3 is financially qualified to participate in the ownership of the Shearon Harris facility to the extent of 16.5% undivided ownership interest. Further, we conclude that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, does not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, and is not inimical to the common defense and security.
The bases for these conclusions are set forth in the enclosed safety evaluation.
We have also concluded that the amendments involve actions which are in-
~'
significant from the standpoint of environmental impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), an enviromental impact statement or negative declaration and an environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendnents.
- f&lON f
f
, Amendment No. I to CPPR-158, Amendment No.1 to CPPR-159, Amendment N CPPR-160, Amendment No 1 to CPPR-161, and a related notice which has b
. I to forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication are en-.
closed.
Sincerely.
f. 3 "'.-
..i i> Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. I to CPPR-158 2.
Amendment No. I to CPPR-159 3.
Amendment No. I to CPPR-160 4.
Amendment No. 1 To CPPR-161 5.
Safety Evaluation 6.
Federal Register Notice
F r
SHEARON HARRIS Mr. J. A. Jones Board of County Comissioners of Vice Chairman Chatham County Carolina Powr alight Company P. O. Box 111 Post Office Box 1551 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Chairman George F. Tmwbridge, Esq.
Board of County Commissioners of Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Wake County Trowbridge P. O. Box 550 1800 M Street, N. W.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D. C.
20036 Attorney General Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Department of Justice' Associate General Counsel Justice Building Carolina Powr & Light Company Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i
411 Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
115 W. Morgan Street 4
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon Attorney Associate General State of North, Carolina P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 George Maxwell Resident Inspector / Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Route 2, Box 99 Raeford, North Carolina 28371 Charles D. Barham, Jr.
Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Office of Intergovernmental Relations l
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capital Street, H.E.
Washington, D.C.
20426 Chairman North Carolina Utilities Commission 430 North Salisbury Street Dobbs Building
.Raleigh, North Carolina 27602'
E l
p uog%' j l
{
i 4
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
8' E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k.....,o 8
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NUMBER 3 DOCKET NO. 50-400 4
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 l
AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Amendment No. 1 Construction Permit No. CPPR-158 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) having found that:
A.
The application for amendment contained in a letter dated September 3, 1981, and supplemented by a second letter dated September 3,1981, for the purpose of adding North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3, as a co-owner of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I:
B.
North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 is qualified to finance its proposed 16.5 percent undivided ownership interest in the facility.
C.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and D.
Issuance of this amendment will not result in any environmental impacts not previously considered.
2.
Accordingly, Construction Permit No. CPPR-158 is amended to reflect a change in ownership shares as follows:
A.
Revise paragraph 1.B as follows:
B.
The Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 (the applicants) have described the proposed design of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (the facility), including, but not limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design and have identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public; I
l
()i1**l:?co &P
>,nn
l 2-l B.
Revise paragraph 1. F as follows:
F.
The Carolina Power & Light Company is technically qualified to design and construct the proposed facility; C.
All other references to " app 1tcant" shall read " applicants" and shall include North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3.
D.
Add the following at the end of paragraph 2:
Whereas the Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3, as co-owners, will share in the ownership of the facility, the Carolina Power & Light Company shall retsin exclusive responsibility for the design and construction of the facility.
3.
This amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
FOK THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
)
.7 <*b.,e..
<... /.
Darrell G. Eisenhut,' Director Division of Licensing Date of Issuance:
November 3, 1981 e
I
r p.um\\
f UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 S, -
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NUMBER 3
. DOCKET NO. 50-401 SHEARON. HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT N0. 2 AMEN 0 MENT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
. Amendment No. 1 Construction Permit No. CPPR-159 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) having found that:
A.
The application for amendment contained in a letter dated September 3, 1981, and supplemented by a second letter dated September 3,1981, for the purpose of adding North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3, as a co-owner of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I:
B.
North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 is qualified to finance its proposed 16.5 percent undivided ownership interest in the facility.
C.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common' defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and D.
Issuance of this amendment will not result in any environmental impacts not previously considered.
2.
Accordingly, Construction Permit No. CPPR-159 is amended to reflect a change in ownership shares as follows:
A.
Revise paragraph 1.B as follows:
B.
The Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 (the applicants) have described the proposed design of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2 (t.1e facility), including, but not limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design and have identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public; l
.