ML20206R104
| ML20206R104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1999 |
| From: | Gaukler P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#199-19896 LT, NUDOCS 9901190143 | |
| Download: ML20206R104 (27) | |
Text
. . - . - -.
Jan-13-99 06:27pm From- T-533 P 02/28 .F-712 January Ia. twa 00CKETED ONITED STATES OF AMERICA UbhSC
~ ~~
~
NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORTCOMMISSION~ ~
99 El 14 A 8 :)6 In the Matter of )
)
O{
ADJt2
.F NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE )
CORPORATION and ) Docket No. 50443 -1 T MONTAUP ELECTRIC COMPANY )
) (License No. NPF-86)
(Seabrook Station, Unit No.1) )
)
ANSWER OF LITTLE BAY POWER CORPORATION TO MOTION OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND PETITION FOR
SUMMARY
RELIEF OR,IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A HEARING L INTRODUCTION In a filing dated December 31,1998, New England Power Company ("NEP") moved to intervene in the captioned proceeding and petitioned "either for summary relief or for a hearing."' NEP's petition was presumably submitted in responn to the NRC's " Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Opersting License . . ." in the above docket published in the Federal Register on December 14,1998. That notice reflected the Septem- j l
ber 29,1998 request by Montaup Electric Company ("Montaup"), a minority owner of ap-proximately 2[9% of the Seabrook Station, Unit No.1, and Little Bay Power Corporation
("Little Bay") for authorization to transfer Montaup's ownership and license interests in Seabrook to Little Bay.
' Se_e Motion of New England Power Company for Leave to lmervene, and Petition for Summary Relief or,in the Alternative, for a Heanng, dated December 31,1998 (hereinafter -Petition"). ' Die supporting affidavit of James S. Robinson was not filed and served umil January 4,1999.
~
- i. 9901190143 990113 gon aoocxosooo4j3 y50j i
- . . - - .. ~ . . . - - - . ~ . - . - . ~ . - - - . _ . - . -.---- - . . - - . - - . - . - . _ .
- Jan-13-90 08:28pm- From-- T-533 P.03/19 F-712
~ At the outset, NEP's petition should be denied because NEP has failed to establish its standing, in that the harm NEP asserts it will suffer is wholly cordectural in nature. Funher, as Little Bay demonstrates in this answer, the petition should not be granted because:
- 1. The petition impermissibly attacks Commission rules and regulations
, by advocating stricter requirements than those imposed by its regula-tions. The petition is in reality nothing more than a petition for rule-making, which is not allowed in this proceeding.
- 2. The petition fails to set forth facts or expert opinion in support ofits alleged concems, as required by NRC pleading requirements, its claims being based instead wholly on sycubtion and cordecture.2 II. BACKGROLND i By letter dated September 29,1998, North Atlantic Energy Services Corporation l
l c North Atlantic"), the operator of the Seabrook Station, transmitted Montaup and Linle l
l Bay's License Transfer Apphcation requesting the Commission's consent to the transfer of
- Montaup's interest in the Operating License for Seabrook Station, Unit No. I to Little Bay.3 The transfer is being undertaken by Momanp as part of the divestiture of all ofits generating
! . assets pursuant to the restructuring of the electric utility industry in conformance with l
[ agreements with the regulatory authorities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
i As pan of the agreement to sell its 2.9% ownership interest in Seabrook, Montaup j will transfer to Little Bay its interest in the Seabrook Decommissioning Trust Fund and pre-pay the balance ofits decommissioning obligation into the Seabrook Trust Fund such that the
- i. total amount attributable to its 2.9% ownership interest at the time of closing will be 511,8 f As a result of these deficiencies, the pemion also falls to provide information to show that a genuine dispute exists on a materialissue oflaw or fact relevant to whether the NRC should approve the transfer. Since this de-ficiency is derivative of the two above, we do not discuss this issue separately.
' License Transfer Application Requesting Consem for Transfer of Montaup Electric Company's Interest m Op-i- erating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station, Unit No. I to Liule Bay Power Corporation (September 29,1998)
. - (heremafter"1.icense App").
2
. . - - - - . . - - . . ~ - - - - - - - . _ - . -- - -- .- - ..-_..-.. - - - .
Jan-11-99 08i238 # 7.n3 p 04/18 F-D 2
-9'1
. million. License App. at 10. Assuming a 1.73% annual real rate of retum on this $11.8 mil-lion (which is more conservative than the 2% real rate of return allowed by the NRC in its Final Rule on Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Re-actors), this amount will grow by the year 2026 (the current expiration date of the Seabrook Operating License) to the amount required to decommission Montaup's 2.9% ownership share of Seabrook. Id. at Il-12. Such prepayment of decommissioning obligations is spe-cifically allowed for in the Commission's regulations.10 C.F.R. 4 50.75(e)(1). ,
l To demonstrate reasonable assurance of funds necessary to cover estimated operating 1 I
costs at Scabrook, Little Bay submined estimates for total annual operating costs attributable !
to Montaup's current 2.9% ownership share of Seabrook for the first five years ofits owner-ship and the sources of funds to cover those costs, as called for by 10 CFR { 50.33(f)(2). Li-t i cense App. at 8-9.
l There is no question that the September 29,1998 request for authorization meets the ,
l NRC requirements in 10 CFR { 50.75 and Q 50.33(f)(2) conceming Little Bay's financial qualifications for decommissioning funding and operational costs attributable to its prospec-tive 2.9% ownership interest in Seabrook. Indeed, the NEP Petition concedes as much. See Petition at 2,6.
l Both Montaup and Little Bay entered into this transaction believing it is good for the l
operation and decommissioning of Seabrook as well as the surrounding region. By dedicat-ing a prepaid fund for decommissioning, it provides greater than normal assurance that funds will be available for decommissioning at no risk to ratepayers. Funher, the transaction pro-i motes deregulation and electric utility restructuring, i.e., divestiture of nuclear generating as-
! sets, in furtherance of the restructuring goals of the region. If NEP's proposed retained con-4 i
3
l lan-13-90 GB:28pe From- T-533 P05/80 P-fl2 4
tingent liability by the selling utility is mandated, it could complicate or make less likely
' sales or divestiture of nuclear generating assets by other utilities now undertaking restructur-l
'ing initiatives.
Prefunding of decommissioning obligations has long been regarded as a more strin-gent requirement to assure adequate decommissioning funding than reliance on the rate set-l ting authority of state regulatory bodies to assure that ratepayers over time would generste such funds. Oddly, NEP here argues otherwise socculating that current estimates of decom-missioning costs may be lower than fumre actual costs. The NEP Petition is singularly defi-cient in failing to support such speculation with any factual basis or citation.'
Ill. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS A. General Legal Requirements for Standing 1
! In promulgating Subpart M, the Commission expressly stated that "[t]he new Subpart
. M does not alter the Commission's usual requirement for standmg to intervene in a proceed-i ing that a person show an interest which may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding."3 i When determining standing, harm to a petitioner's interest is not to be presumed. Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site),
ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743 (1973). Rather, "a petitioner must allege a particularized injury that is fairly traseable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable de-
' indeed, jtast recently the NRC issued a revised version of NUREG-1307 (Report on Waste Dispowl Charges, Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low Level Waste Burial Facilities, NUREG 1307 Rev.
8 (December 1998)) which implicitly recognizes that current esumanes of decommissioning costs based on its formula in 10 C.F.R. I 50.75(c) may be substantially overstated by revising the low level waste cost escalator for the formula. Under the revised NUREG, the costs of low level wage disposal assisted with decommis-sioning could be reduced for a plant the size of Seabrook by as much as $200 million. S3NUREG-1307 at 6.
Examples 2 and 3.
8 Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approvat of License Transfers,63 Fed. Reg. 66,721,66,723 24 (1998);
l see also 10 C.F R. ( 2.1306(a)(intervention limited to persons "whose interest [s] may be affected by the Com-3 i mission's action on the application").
4
I
~
Jan-13-99.08:20pe @ros- T-533 P 06/M s-H 2 cision." Ouivira Mining Company (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI 98-11,48 NRC 1,6 (1998). The petitioner's asserted injury must be " distinct and palpable, par-ticular and concrete, as opposed to being conjectural or hypothetical." Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-98-6,47 NRC 116,117 (1998). If a petitioner claims standing on the basis of an asserted future injury, the injury must be "immi-( l nent." Ouivira Mining, CLI-98-11,48 NRC at 6.
l l 8. General Limitations on the Admission ofIssues ;
in addition to demonstrating standing, a petitioner must also submit at least one valid i
" issue" that meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. ( 2.1306(b)(2) in order to be permitted to participate as a party in a licensing proceeding. For a petitioner's issues to be admitted, the I
petitioner must:
(i) Demonscate that such issues are within the scope of the proceeding on the license transfer application, l (ii) Demonstrate that such issues are relevant to the findings the NRC must make to grant the application for license transfer, (iii) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
! opinions which support the petitioner's position on the issues ]
and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to suppott its position on the is-Sues,and (iv) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dis-pute exists with the applicant on a materialissue oflaw or fact.
i 10 C.F.R. # 2.1306(b)(2). The failure of an issue to comply with any one of these require-ments is grounds for dismissing the issue.'
' Se.e Notice of Considetatton of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operaung 1.icense and issuance of Conform-ing Amendment, and Opporiumty for a Heanng; Noch Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, et al.,63 Fed. Reg 68,801,68,802 (1998)(" requests [for a hearmg) must comply with the requirements set fonh in 10 CFR 2.13G6"); 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1306(b)(requirements are mandatory).
i S
L l
_ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . __.___.___________...--.-__.m Jan-13-99 08:29pe Froe. T-531 P 07/28 F-fit The requirements for the admission ofissues under Subpart M are essentially the same as the Subpart G requirements for the admission of contentiorn. Compare 10 C.F.R. }
2.714(b)(2). Both sets of requirements serve to maintain the efficiency of proceedings by 1
elirninating litigation over issues that simply have no bearing on the Commission's ultimate decision under its regulations. As stated by the Appeal Board in Philadelphia Electric Com-gany (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 216,8 AEC 13,20-21 (1974), the purpose of 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714 is to ensure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular proceeding." The same consideration applies with equal or greater force in Subpart M proceedings which was promulgated specifically to increase the efficiency and speed oflicense transfer proceedings. See 63 Fcd. Reg. at 66,722. Therefore, precedent under Subpart G on the admission of contentions should generally apply to Subpart M proceedings regarding the admission ofissues.
Directly relevant to considering NEP's petition are the second requirement of 10 C.F.R. { 2.1306(b)(2), set forth above, as it relates to the general proscription that bars chal-
! lenges in license proceedings to established NRC rules and regulations (discussed first be-I low), and the third criterion requiring a factual basis for the admission ofissues.'
- 1. Issues May Not Challenge Statutory or Regulatory Requirements Commission regulations and precedent establish that issues put forth for consideration may not attack Commission rules or regulations. This requirement is subsumed in 10 C.F.R.
f 2.1306(b)(2)(ii) of Subpart M, which states expressly that a petitioner's issues must be l
l
' As noted earlier, by v'uwe of challengingNRC regulations and failing to provide a factual basis. the NEP pe-l tition also fails to "[p3rovide sufficient mformanon to show that a genuine dupute exists with the applicant on a l
material issue oflaw or fact" as required by 10 c.F.R. ( 2.1306(bX2Xiv). See Florida Power and 1.ight Com-Eg1(Turkey Point Nuclear Generatmg Plant Units 3 and 4).1.BP.90-16,3i NRC 509. $12,521 n.12 (1990)
{
i 6 I
i V
hn-13-99 08:29pe' F r oe- ' T-533 P08/28 F-fl2-I i
1 1
" relevant to the findings the NRC must make to grant the application for license transfer," 10 l
C.F.R. 2.1306(b)(2)(ii)(emphasis added). Subpart G similarly requires that contentions or l
i issues must be " material" to the granting or denial of a license application - that is their l
" resolution . . . would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding." 54 1
Fed. Reg. 33,168,33,172 (1989) (10 C.F.R. Part 2, Statements of Consideration) (emphasis added). This requirement of materiality precludes the litigation of arguments over what NRC requirements or policy ought to be, for such arguments are irrelevant to whether an applica-tion meets the existing requirements for the issuance of the license. See Peach Bottom, l
l ALAB-216,8 AEC at 21, n.33 (quoting Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nu- l clear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-128,6 AEC 399,401 (1973)).'
l Therefore, Commission precedent has long held that a licensing contention which
! collaterally attacks a Commission rule or regulation is not appropriate for litigation and must t
be rejected. Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79,89 (1974). "[A] licensing proceeding . . . is plainly not the proper forum for an attack on applicable statutory requirements or for challenges to the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process." Peach Bottom, ALAB-216,8 AEC at 20. Similarly, " licensing boards should not accept in individual license p.roceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission." Douglas Point, ALAB-218,8 AEC at 85. Accord Duke Power Company
' In fact. Subpart M requires a party seeking a waiver of a rule to follow the express procedures for obtammg one. ,Sej 10 C.FA y 2.1329. Secslon 21329(b) states that "[t}he soje ground for a waiver (of a rule or regula-tion) shall be that, because of spectal circumstances concerning the subject of the hearing, apphcation of a rule
[
or regulation would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted." Such is a high standard See Pnvsie Fu Storane. LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,238 39 (1998)(empha-sisadded).
7
Jan-13-99 08:30pm From- T-533 P.09/28 F-712 l*
i 1
i (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-813,22 NRC 59,85 86 (1985). This pol-icy avoids wastelbl duplication of effort, id., and also avoids regulatory inconsistency.
Thus, a contention which " advocate (s] stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations" is "an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's rules and must be rejected.' Likewise, contentions may not challenge a genetic determination established by Commission rulemaking.'0 As stated recently in this regard by the Commission in conjunc-l tion with the decommissioning of Yankee Rowe:
Despite the NRC's 1988 generic review of the DECON- l SAFSTOR choice, Petitioners seek to revisit that choice case- ;
by-cas.e basing their objections on essentially the same factors l that the Commission weighed when concluding that either SAFSTOR or DECON was a reasonable decommissioning l choice. But Petitioners' approach unreasonably would require the agency continually to relitigare issues that may be estab- I lished fairly and efficiently in a single rulemaking proceeding.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has found (that) agency reli-ance on prior determinations to be perfectly acceptable, even when the statute before it plainly calls for individualized hear-ings and findings."
Yankee Atomic Electric Compan_y. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CL1-96-7,43 NRC 235, 251 (1996) (citations, quotations and foomotes omitted).
- 2. Issues Must Be Supported by SufRelent Faerval Basis Subpan M also requires a petitioner seeking to intervene to:
Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which suppon the petitioner's position on the issues and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together
' Public Service Commy orNew Hampaire (Seabrool, Station. Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649,
! 1656 (1982); accord Private Fuel Storage, LBP 98-7,47 NRC at 179; see also Arizona Public Service Company (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Unlu 1,2, & 3), LBP 91 19,33 NRC 397,410, aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, CL1-91-12,34 NRC 149 (1991).
Pacific Gas ana Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5,30(l993),
f 8
Jan-1349 OI:30pm Fros- T-533 P10/20 F-?I2 1
with references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the is-sues.
10 C.F.R. f 2.1306(bx2)(iii). This requirement is virtually identical to that of section 2.714(bX2)(ii) of Subpan G. 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(b)(2)(ii).
Under these rules, a petitioner may not file vague, unpanicularized contentions or is-sues. Baltimore Gas & Eleenic Company (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI-98 25,48 NRC .,_, _, slip op. at 25 (1998). Nor may it base a contention on mere speculation, see Yankee Atomic Electric Company, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 267, or a bald, conclusory allegation. Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C, supra, note 8 LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 180 l
(citing Connecticut Bankers Ass'n v. Board of Govemors,627 F.2d 245,251 (D.C. Cir.
1980)). Thus, a statement "that simply alleges that some matter ought to be considered" is also not sufficient. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200,246 (1993), review deci., CLI-94-2,39 NRC 91 (1994).
Funhermore, the mere citation of an alleged factual basis for a contention or issue is not sufficient. Rather, a petitioner is obligated "to provide the [ technical) analyses and sup-
)
poning evidence" or other information " showing why its bases support its contention.
- Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6,41 NRC 281,284, vacated in part and remanded on other grounds, CLI-95-10,42 NRC 1, affd in pan, CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111 (1995). Where a petitioner has failed to do so, "the licensing board may not make factual inferences on [the] petitioner's behalf." g, c,,, iting Palo Verde, suora, note 9, CLI-91-12,34 NRC 149. Similarly, expen opinion alleged to provide
' the basis for a contention "is not to (be) accept (ed] uncritically:"
- [A]n expert opinion that merely states a conclusion (e.g., the application is " deficient," " inadequate," or " wrong") without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is J
9 J
- , ,,. ., 4
lan-13-09 98:30pm free- T-533 P. M/28 P- N l
inadequate because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion as it is al-leged to provide a basis for the contention.
Private Fuel Storane, LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 181.
IV. NEP LACKS STANDING TO RAISE ITS CLAIMS l At the outset, NEP's petition must be dismissed for lack of standing in that the harm L NEP claims it will suffer as a result of this license transfer is merely speculative or conjec- !
tural as opposed to being imminent, particular and concrete. S,.E Intemational Uranium, ;
i l CLI-98-6,47 NRC at 117; Ouivira Mining, CLI-98-11,48 NRC at 6. NEP fears that Little l
Bay may be unable to pay plant operating and decommissioning costs. Petition at 4-5. How-ever, NEP has done nothing more than to speculate that conditions in the New England elec- j
(
tric power market make it difficult to project Little Bay's future revenues, sg Petition at 8
! (discussed at Section V.B infra); that decommissioning costs might be higher than now es-l f timated, su Petition at 2,6 (discussed at Section V.A, infra); and that Seabrook might shut i L down early because other nuclear plants in New England have shut down early and because l l
some developers are planning to build new power plants in New England, sg Petition at 2-3, 6-8 (discussed at Sections V.A and B, infra). Contrary to Subpart M's express requirements,
.NEP provides no facts to support such conjecture or to show any imminent harm whatsoever that it may suffer. Spee 10 C.F.R. % 2.1306(b)(3) (petitions must "[s]pecify both the facts pertaining to the petitioner's interest and how the interest may be atiected, with particular reference to the factors in i 2.1308(a)"); accord Nuclear Engineering, ALAB-473,7 NRC at ,
743 ("[t]here must be a concrete demonstration that harm to the petitioner . . . will or could L
- l. tiow from a result unfavorable to it . . . "). NEP has made no such " concrete demonstration" L.
here and thus lacks standing to intervene in this proceeding.
l 4
10
An-l M 9 08:31pm Free- T-533 P12/28 F-M 2 Moreover, NEP's petition is really premised on the argument that NEP will suffer harm even if Little Bay complies with all the appropriate license transfer regulations. See Petition at 2 (recognizing that " decommissioning prefunding and cost and revenue projec-tions are altemative means of satisfying financial qualifications for entities that do not qual-ify as electric utilities' under 10 C.F.R. d at 3,6-7. Thus, NEP does not assert 50.2"); Ld.
that Linie Bay's decommissioning prefunding and revenue projections are insufficient under the Commission's regulations but instead seeks to impose more suingent requirements on Little Bay. See Sections V and VI infra. Failing to even assert that Linie Bay's application is inadequate under the Commission's regulations. NEP certainly has not demonstrazed a le-gally recognized injury sufficient to establish its standing in this proceeding. S_e.e Luian v.
Defenders of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555,560 (1992) (injury in fact must involve the insasion of a legally protected interest").
Funher, the Commission has stated in the notice of opportunity for a hearing that
-(t]he proposed transfer does not involve a change in the rights, obligations, or interests of the other co-owners of the Seabrook Station." 63 Fed. Reg. at 68,802. As set forth in the Se-abrook joint Ownership Agreement, the obligations of the joint owners are "several and not joint," so NEP cannot incur any liability from Little Bay as a result of this transaction." In short, NEP's claim that it will suffer harm from the granting of this license transfer is purely hypothetical at best and does not suffice to establish NEP's standmg in this proceeding.
" S_ee Agreement for Joint Ownerstup, Construction and Operation of New Hampshire Noclear LJnits (May 1, 1973),1 6.1.
I1 l
hn-13-99 08:31pm From- T-533 P 13/20 P-713 V. NEP'SISSUES AND SUPPORTING BASES Fall TO MEET NRC PLEADING REQUIREMENTS L
NEP's petition seeks to raise two issues in accordance with the requirements of to i C.F.R. y 2.1306. These are:
l
- 1. whether ' the proposed level of funding for decommission [ing) is likely to be adequate," and i 2. whether %e proposed licensee, Linie Bay, is likely to have adequate financial resources to ensure the continued safe operation of the Seabrook Fund."
l Petition at 4-5. These issues sought to be raised by NEP must be dismissed for improperly challenging NRC regulatory requirements and for lack of adequate factual basis. These defi-ciencies are discussed in tum below with respect to each of NEP's proposed issues.
A. Alleged Inadequacy of Decommissioning Funding NEP claims that the Commission "is in no position to find that Linie Bay is capable of discharging its responsibility for the decommissioning of Seabrook" in that, according to NEP, decommissioning prefunding is not an adequate means to assure the availability of de-commissioning funding in this case. Petition at 6-7. In support ofits position, NEP offers two arguments: (i) actual decommissioning costs may prove to be greater than the currem estimates of those costs and (ii) the Seabrook unit may cease operations earlier than 2026.
1.d. NEP, however, provides no factual basis in support its position, which, moreover, is an impermissible collateral attack on the NRC's prefunding decommissioning regulations.
- 1. Impermissible Challenge to NRC Regulations NEP's claim that prefunding will be an insufficient means to meet Little Bay's de-commissioning obligations is a direct challenge to the decommissioning funding require-i ments the NRC has imposed on non-rate regulated licensees to ensure adequate funding.
\
! Compare 10 C.F.R. Q 50.75(e)(1)(i) with 10 C.F.R. } 50.75(e)(1)(ii) (extemal sinking fund 12
,. _._.__...-.m___ _ - . _ _ . . _ . - . _ - . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ -
l Jan-11-08 OI:11pe From- T-533 PW33 F-fia l*
available only to licensees with guaranteed income streams). The NRC's decommissioning regulations identify the minimum amount of decommissioning funding required to show rea-sonable assurance that sufficient funds will be available for decommissioning,10 C.F.R. sQ 50.75(bX3) and (c), and expressly provide that prepayment is one of the " acceptable" meth-L ods of providing this funding,10 C.F.R. (@ 50.75(b)(3) and (eX1)(i). Indeed, prefunding has long been recognized by the Commission as a more stringent requirement than setting aside !
monies over time from ratepayers of regulated electric utilities. l As described above, as part of the transfer Montaup will prepay the balance ofits de-l commissioning obligation into the Seabrook Trust Fund such that the amount attributable to its 2.9% ownership at the time of closing will be SI1.8 million, which will grow by the time the Seabrook license expires in 2026 to an amount greater than that required to decommis-sion Montaup's current ownership interest in Seabrook, assuming a 2% real rate of return as allowed under the Commission's new decommissioning funding rules,10 C.F.R. {
50.75(e)(1 Xi). NEP does not take issue with the fact that this prepayment is in accordance L
with the NRC's regulatory provisions providing for the prepayment of decommissioning funds. In fact, NEP specifically acknowledges that NRC regulations provide that -decom-l missioning prefunding" is an alternative means" of satisfying NRC decommission funding.
1 d {,g., Reguissory Analysis on Decommissionmg Fmancial Assurance implementation Requirements for Nu-clear Power Reactors,in SECY-98-164 (July 2.1998), at 34-35; see also Policy Options for Nuclear Power Re-actor Financial Qualifications in Response to Restrucaring of the Electric Utility Industry, SECY-97-253 (Oc-tober 24,1997), at 2-3.
l
" 'Ihc $11.8 million prepayment will grow by the year 2026 to the amount required to decommission Mon-taup's 2.9% owaership share assuming an annual real rate as low as 1.73%. Sg Section !!, s_ugg. Another conservatism built into the prepayment is thas NRC's prefunding requirements would allow the fund to increase through the end of the decommissioning penod.10 C.F.R. ( 50.75(eXIXi), which for Seabrook is antsipated, at l
1- the earliess, to be 2037. See License App. at 12 n.17. Liute Bay and Montaup did not take credit for this 1I year pened of time between scheduled plant shutdown in 2026 and the projected end of decommissioning in determining the amount of pretbnding required. Id.,
p 1
l 13
. . - - ~ - . . . . - . - - - . . _ . . - . - . - . ~ . - - - . , _ _ _ - . . - - ~
'Jan-11-09 08:31ps Froe - T.533 P.15/28 F-fl2 Petition at 2; see also 4 at 6 ("'prefunding' of amicipated decommissioning obligations has been an accepted means by which to satisfy . . . a licensee's financial obligation" for provid-ing reasonable assurance of decommissioning funding). Thus NEP's claim is simply a dis-I
! agreement with current Commission regulations and cannot serve as the basis for an admissi-ble issue in a license transfer hearing. See Section 111, supra.
l Further, the concems raised by NEP with respect to the general adequacy of decom-missioning cost estimates and premature plant shutdown have been expressly addressed by the Commission. The NRC includes a 25% contingency factor in its baseline decommis-sioning cost estimate which underlies its minimum formula amount in 10 C.F.R. ( 50.75(c) in order to account for uncertainty and unforeseen changes in costs." The NRC also requires its licensees to adjust their decommissioning cost estimates annually and to file biennial re-ports with the NRC to show that their plant decommissioning funds are likely to be sufficient at the time of decommissioning. 10 C.F.R. }i 50.75(b) and (f)(1).
In addition, the NRC specifically considered the possibility that power plants might shut down early when it promulgated its new decommissioning funding regulations. 62 Fed.-
Reg. 47,588,47,591-92 (1998)(Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors, Proposed Rule). The Commission rejected a proposed attemative requiring accelerated funding for utility licensees to cover the possibility of early shutdown, but stated that non-rate regulated licensees would, in effect,"have to accelerate' funding by getting 'up front' forms of financial assurance." & at 47,592. The Commission was also aware that some plants had not operated for their full 40-year license tertns but nonetheless
- j. thought its current regulations goveming plant shutdowns,10 C.F.R. ( 50.82,"[ struck) the 1
l " Sq NUREG-1307 at 4, Table 3.1.
t 14
.- .. .. . . . . . . . - . = - . _ , . ~ ~ - - - . _ . _ . . . ~ . . . _ . _ - - . _ _ - . .
- ~
-kn-13-09 98:32pm Froe - T-533 P.16/38 P-712 best balance between level of assurance and cost." Ld. d Thus, under the regulations, the pos-sibility of early shutdown is adequately addressed by non-rate regu!Ated licensees providing up-front decommissioning funding. In fact, the regulations put non-rate regulated licensees, like Little Bay, which have prepaid their decommissioning obligations, in a stronger position regarding potential early shutdown than rate regulated licensees makmg annual deposits into -
an external sinking fund.
In short, the Commission has established prepayment as one of the acceptable meth-ods for providing reasonable assurance of decommissioning funding and, in the course of doing so, has made policy determinations conceming the specific concems raised by NEP in l
l its petition. Therefore, under the long line of precedent discussed in Section Ill, supra, NEP cannot use this license transfer proceeding as a forum to challenge the regulation allowing i prepayment or the related policy determinations. Hence, this issue must be dismissed.
- 2. Lack of Factual Basis under 10 C.F.R. I 2.1306(bM2Xili) l This issue must also be dismissed for lack of factual basis. For a petitioner's chal-lenge to a licensee's decommissioning cost estimate to be admissible, the petitioner must not only provide a factual basis to challenge the adequacy of the estimate, but a sufficient factual basis to claim as well that there is (no] reasonable assurance that the amount will be paid."
L Yankee Atomic Energy Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CL1-96-1,43 NRC 1,9 (1996); see also Yankee Nuclear, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 260. Here, NEP has done neither.
As discussed infra, even if Seabrook were to shut dowti early, decommissioning need not commence at that time and the prepayment for decommissioning Little Bay's gesgsve 2.9% ownership share could conunne to grow to fully cover - wishout any additional paymenu - Little Bay's share of Seabrook's decom:nissbning costs. Such would not be the case for the other heensees which had not prepaid their decommissioning obhga-tions.
l l'
L 15 L
l kn-13-09 G8:38pm hem- T-533 P R /28 s- m First, NEP provides no basis to suppon its allegation that actual decommissioning l
costs may be higher than the current estimates of those costs. NEP merely assens that "it is not now possible accurately to predict the financial requirements associated with . . . decom-missioning of a unit that is licensed to operate until 2026," Petition at 2, and speculates that
"[i]f today's estimate were to prove lower than actual . . the prepayment could prove seri-ously deficient." Petition at 6. Nowhere is there even a shred of factual or expert opinion support for NEP's claim that today's estimate"is too low. Indeed, as noted above, the NRC includes a 25% contingency factor in its baseline decommissioning cost estimate to account for uncertainty and unforeseen changes in costs. NEP presents no facts to suggest that this contingency may be insufficient to cover any changes in the decommissioning costs for Se-abrook.'" Thus, in fact, the prefunding commitment in the Montaup/Little Bay transaction is highly conservative. No facts to the contrary - none - are presented in the NEP petition.
Nor has NEP provided any factual basis to claim a lack of reasonable assurance that Little Bay would not pay any shortfall should the current estimate prove low at some later date. As also discussed above, the NRC requires licensees to adjust their decommissioning cost estimates annually and to file biennial reports with the NRC to show that the plant's decommissioning fund is likely to be sufficient at the time of decommissioning. In this regard, Little Bay has committed that it will annually conduct a 'prefunding true-up' review under which it will review the sufficiency of accumulated funds (the initial $11,800,000 and l subsequent earnings) to cover decommissioning funding requirements for its prospective
Moreover, the proposed decommissioning prefunding level is keyed to the current decommissionmg cost es.
l timate for Seabrook of $489 million based on the NRC's cost formula set fonh in the regulations.10 C.F R. (
50.75(c); E icense L App, at 11 Just last month, however, as noted the NRC issued a revision to NUREG 1307 showing that the cost for low level waste aisposal might be significantly decreasea for a plant the size of Seabrook.
l 16
(
~
kn-13-29 08:22pm From- T-533 P10/20 s-712 I
2.9% ownership interest in Seabrook (assuming a 2% real earnings rate) and will deposit, if necessary, additional funds in the Seabrook Decommissioning Trust as required to maintain the prefunded status ofits decommissioning obligation." License App. at 13 n. 20. In short, NEP's claimed inadequacy of using the current cost estimate as a basis for prepayment is utter speculation that does not begin to approach the Commission's standard for challenging decommissioning funding estimates. See Yankee Nuclear, CL1-96-1,43 NRC at 9; Yankee Nuclear, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 260,267. Hence this issue is patently inadmissible.
NEP's claims that Seabrook might shut down early also lack factual basis. NEP pro-vides speculative analogies with other nuclear plants and speculation regarding future power plant construction to support its claim that Seabrook might shut don early and that New England is somehow to be distinguished from other parts of the country. But NEP presents no specific facts concerning Seabrook to suggest that it will shut down early. NEP states only that four older, smaller, and less economic nuclear units in New England -- each of which also had associated costly regulatory compliance problems - have been shut down, but NEP does not demonstrate in any way (aside from being located in New England) that Seabrook is like any of those plants. Petition at 2-3,6-8." If a petitioner contends that an application is inadequate on the basis of an analogy between the applicant's facility and a proposed benchmark facility, the petitioner must establish that the benchmark is valid to show that the analogy raises a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact with the applicant.
l
' Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8,
" As an aside, five other nuclear units have already applied for license extensions and others are preparing such applicanons. M, eg Calvert Cliffs, CL1-98-25,48 NRC __; Duke Energy Comoration (Oconee Nacicar Sta-tion, Units 1,2, and 3) LBP-98-33,48 NRC __.(1998); Wayne Barber, Nuclear Key to Utility Group's Future, Southern says in Talks on Renewal, inside N.R C , August 31,1998, at 12.
I 17
hn-13-99 88:53pm From- T-H3 P 10/20 Mit i*
32 (1996); Yankee Nuclear, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 267 (petitioner must show " logical rela-tionship" with alleged analogy). NEP has not come close here, in that it has not even made a factual comparison between Seabrook and the shutdown plants. s Hence, this speculative claim must be dismissed. See il l
NEP also states that developers are proposing to build new generating units in New England, but again NEP does not say how the new generating units will force Seabrook to shut down early. Petition at 2-3,6-8. NEP states that developers have " plans" to build 60 new units in New England; that *it must be assumed that much of that capacity is being planned for the load within New England;" and that "[w]hile surely not evety announced project will achieve commercialization, it must also be assumed that a good deal of existing l capacity will be displaced." 11 at 8 (emphasis added). This is again rank speculation lack-ing any factual basis. The economic viability of a power plant in a competitive market de-pends on its revenues compared to its operating costs, relative to those ofits competitors."
l NEP presents p.o data to show that Seabrook would be at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis any new power plants that might be built in New England. See Petition at 2-3,6-8.2o Thus, NEP's claim regarding early shutdown is again entirely speculative, se Yan-l kee Nuclear, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 267, and does not show a lack of reasonable assurance l
that the required amount will be paid. See Yankee Nuclear, CLI-96-1,43 NRC at 9. Moreo-
NEP's amant, Mr. Robinson, states that the fact that four nuclear plants in New England have shut down early mdicates that Seabrook may shut dow n early, without providing any reasoned basis for his conclusion Robinson AfE 116,9. Such is not sufficient to support the admission of an issue. Private Fuel Storage, LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 181. Nor does Mr. Robinson seem to recognize that other nuclear units are not bemg shut I down early but are the subjects oflicense renewals or extensions.
Standard and Poor's Plan's, Electricity Market Deregulation Implications for Nuclear Power, at 20. 22 23 (1998).
" The Affiant's conjecture m this regard, se Robmson Aff M 7. 9, also provides no basis for this issue. See Private Fuel Storage, t.BP-98 7,47 NRC at 181.
I
! l8 i
Jan-13-H 08:33ps stos- ?-533 P.20/30 F-712 I
ver, es en if Seabrook were to shut down early, decommissioning need not commence at that time,2' and the decommissioning fund could continue to grow and be available for any de-commissioning that takes place after 2026. In this regard, the NRC regulations expressly al-low the credit for projected eamings using a 2% annual real rate of rerum "through the pro-jected decommissioning period." 10 C.F.R. s 50.75(e)(1)(i). Hence, NEP's claim that Little Bay might not meet its decommissioning funding obligations - despite its full compliaree with NRC reguladons -- is based on utter speculation and must be dismissed.
B. Alleged landequacy of Financial Quali5 cations for Operations NEP claims that the Commission is in no position to find thar "Little Bay is likely to have the financial capability to meet ongoing capital and expense obligations associated with the ownership share of Seabrook that Montaup would transfer to it." Petition at 7. In the September 29,1998 application Little Bay set forth the expenses associated with its prospec-tive 2.9% ownership interest in Seabrook for the first five years ofits ownership and further identified the sources of revenues that would be used to cover these costs. License App. at 8-
- 9. This showing was made in accordance with the express provision of 10 C.F.R.
y 50.33(f)(2) which requires a non " electric utility" license applicant to demonstrate that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs. Specifically:
The applicant shall submit estimates for total annual operating costs for each of the first five years of operation of the facility.
The applicant shall also indicate the source (s) of funds to cover these costs.
10 C.F.R. I 50.33(tX2).
Decommissioning mu>t be completed withm 60 yean of permanent shutdown, b, by 2059 if Seabrook were to shut down today.10 C.F.R.150.82(aX3).
19
, _ . - . . . . . . - _ - . - _ ~ _ _ - - . _ _ . - - . - - - . - . - - - -
Jari-13-06 CI:33pa - Fron- 7 533 P21/2 s-fl2 Again, NEP readily acknowledges that cost and revenile projections" such as those provided by Little Bay in the Application "are altemative means of satisfying financial quali-fication for entities that do not qualify as electric utilities" under 10 C.F.R.150.2. Petition at 2; see also id~ at 7. But despite its acceptability under NRC regulations, NEP goes on to l
! claim that such a showing is not suf5cient here. E at 7-8. Derefore, like NEP's proposed issue on decommissioning funding,'this issue must also be dismissed as an impermissible
! collateral attack on Commission regulations for advocating stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations.22 Specifically, the regulations as reflected above, provide for non-electric utility applicants to establish financial qualitications by five year cost and revenue projections, such as those provided by Little Bay here. This interpretation of the regulation is confirmed by the NRC's recently approved Standard Review Plan.23 ft is further confirmed by NRC
" Morcos er, the entire tenor of NEP's petition, that Little Bay is not financially qualified because it is not backed by state rate settmg authorities, challenges the very premise undertying the restructuring of the electric utiliry mdastry, which presumes the eventual demise of traditional cost-of-service raremakmg, and its accep-tance could essentially preclude nuclear plams from such restructuring. The Commission has, however, deter-mined afwr thoroughly considering the unpact of restructunng on its financial qualification requirements that "its regulatory framework is generally sufficient, at this time, to address restructurings and reorganizations that will likely arise as a result of electric utility deregulanon." Sg Final Policy Statement on the Resmicturing and Economic Deregulation of the Electric Unliry industry,62 Fed. Reg. 44,071,44,076 (1997). ,
" In an SRM dated December 9,1998, the Commission appmved issuance of the " Standard Review Plan on Power Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance." jg-Staff Requirements
- SECY 98-153 -- Update of Issues Relmed to Nuclear Power Reactor Financial Qualifications in Response to Restructuring of the Electric Utility Industry," December 9,1998. Although not yet released in final form, the Draft SRP expre> sly provides for the submission of five-year cost-revenue projections which constitute one of
. several acceptable methods by which non electne utility applicants can demonstrase financial qualifications un-der 10 C.F.R. I 50.33(fX2). je j Draft SRP at 9-10, ansched to SECY 98-153," Update ofissues Related to Nuclear Power Reactor Financial Qualificanons m Response to Restructuring of the Elecmc Untity industry,"
June 29,1998. The December 9,1998 SRM did not make any substantive change to these provisions of the Draft SRP.
Interestingly, the Commission's approval of the SRP with its focus on five-year cost-revenue projections for
. non-electric utilities comes as a ume when N EP claims "[r]etail access is . . . a reality," which NEP suggests should >omehow affect how the Commission reviews the financial qualifications of non-electnc utility appli-l I cants. See Petition at 7. Clearly, the " reality'* ofletail access - which in any event does not directly affect Ln-tle Bay / Great Bay who operate in the wholesale, not the retail, market - did not change the Commission's view on how its financial qualification requirements should be applied to non-electric utility applicants.
20
- Jan-13-99 08:34ps Froe- T-533 P.22/28 F-712 I
precedent, specifically with respect to Great Bay. In evaluating whether Great Bay has shown sufficient fmancial qualifications for operations in connection with the recent formation of BayCorp, the NRC reasoned and concluded as follov.s:
Great Bay is required to meet the existing financial qualifica-tions review requirements of 10 CFR 50.33(f)(2). This section requires that the applicant shall submit estimates for the first five years of operation of the facility. The applicant shall also indicate the source (s) of funds to cover these costs." Seabrook has an established operating history and associated costs that are now a maner of record. Based on a review of Great Bay's current financial statements submitted with its May 8,19%,
subminal, and supplemental projections submitted on October 18,1996, the staff has concluded that Great Bay has complied with the essential requaemem of the existing standard, which is to demonstrate reasonable assurance of obtaining its share of Seabrook operating costs. Great Bay has projected operating income and cash flow based on what appear to be trasonable projections of the spot market price of and demand for power from Seabrook for the foreseeable future . . . . Thus, Great Bay has demonstrated that it possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs for the priod of the license as required by 10 CFR 50.33(f)(2).2 Thus. NRC regulations, guidelines and practice all point to the fact that cost and revenue projections such as those provided by Little Bay are sufficient to establish financial
- - qualifications for operations. Indeed, Little Bay's ongoing financial costs will be less than Great Bay's (which the NRC has previously determined is financially qualified under 10 C.F.R. { 50.33(f)(2) based on analogous cost-revenue projections) in that Little Bay will l
have prefunded its decommissioning costs. By seeking to require a greater showing here, i
" Nonh Atlantic Energy Services Corporation and Great Bay Power Corporation (Seabrook Stanon, Unit No.
1), Docket No. 50-443, Exempnon Order at 3-4 (January 22,1997),62 Fed. Reg. 5,492,5,493 (1997); see also l
North Atlantic Energy Services Corporation and Great Bay Power Corporanon (Seabrook Station, Unit No.1),
l Docket No. 50-443, f temption Order at 5 (July 23,1997),62 Fed. Res. 40,549,40,550 (1997). The NRC con-sidered me financial qualifications of Great Bay because it initially determined for the fust time m evaluating l
3- the application for establishing a holding company that Great Bay was not an electric utility.
i 21 t
I l- .
. .. . . . . . . _ . m m.. _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
hn-13-it 08:34pm Fros- T.533 P23/28 F-712 NEP is collaterally attacking NRC regulations, contrary to the long lines of NRC precedent discussed in Section III above. Accordingly, this proposed issue must be dismissed.
Moreover, NEP again provides nothing more than pure speculation to support its claim ofinadequacy in the financial showing provided by Little Bay in the Application. NEP claims that the competitive simation in New England makes "any revenue projections . . dif-ficult and, depending on assumptions and analyses, very uncertain even for the first live years and quite speculative thereafter." Petition at 8. NEP, however, provides no facts or expert opinion to support its claim. NEP refers to 60 new units under consideration for the ,
New England area but it provides no facts or information to show that these potential new units would adversely affect the capability of Little Bay to recover its costs of generating Se-abrook power through the sale of that power. Sy Petition at 7-8. For example, NEP pro-vides e fact or expert opinion to show to what extent such units will be constructed and, to the extent constructed, whether they would displace electrical generation by Seabrook. In-deed, the FERC opinion cited by NEP states that:
[I]t is unlikely that all of these generation projects will be con-structed and, if constructed, it is likely that many will displace more expensive resources in serving existing load.
New England Power Pool,85 FERC 1161,141,61,551 (1998)
NEP does not claim - much less provide any supporting facts or expert opinion - that L Seabrook is one of the "more expensive resources" that conceivably could be displaced by such new generation.- NEP provides no information concerning Seabrook costs of generating power (of which it is certainly aware) or how Seabrook's costs compare to the costs of other existing New England generating resources (on which it certamly has information) or to the estimated costs of the new generation sources under consideration (on which it presumably i~
22 l
l
Jan-13-99 08:34pm From- T-533 P 24/28 P-712 has at least some representative infonnation). In fact, as NEP well knows, the cost of gener-ating power at Seabrook compares very favorably with the operating costs of generating electricity from other sources of energy, such as coal, oil and natund gas, and indeed other nuclear units.
In short, NEP's claimed inadequacy of the cost. revenue projections provided by Linie Bay with its Application is totally devoid of supporting facts or expert opinion. Thus, the petition is deficient, and must be dismissed based on the precedent discussed above holding that such speculative and conclusory allegations cannot support a contention. See Yankee Nuclear, CLI-%7,43 NRC at 267; Private Fum! Storage, LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 180-81.25 VI. NEP'S REQUEST FOR
SUMMARY
RELIEF MUST BE DEN 1ED la lieu of acting on its request for a hearing - for which, as shown above, there is no basis -NEP asks for summary relief which in its view would obviate any need for a hearing.
The relief that it requests is for the Commission to approve the license transfer 'only on the condition that Montaup agree to remain contingently responsible for required safety and de-commissioning expenditures in the event of default by Linie Bay." Petition at 10. There is no basis for the granting of such relief and the Commission should deny it outright.
NEP suggests no legal or regulatory basis for its request, and there is none. In effect, NEP is looking for an ironclad guarantee of Little Bay's funding ofits prospective financial obligations for the Seabrook plant. However, as recognized by the Commission in Yankee Nuclear, CLI-%7,43 NRC at 262, the NRC regulation requiring reasonable assurance of
" Again, the mere citation of an alleged factual basis in the perinon and the supponing affidavit (the reference j to 60 new units under consideration) does not suffice. The petitionef must provide information and analyses to show why its bases support its contention. Georgia Tech,1.BP-95-6,41 NRC at 284; Private Fuel Storage,
! LBP-98-7,47 NRC at 181.
23 t
. - - - . - - . - . . . - . - - . - . - . . - . _ _ . ~ . . _ . . . _ . _ _. . - . . - . . . -
- Jan-13-99 09:35pm Froe- T-533 P 25/28 F-712 decommissioning funds "does not contemplate" an " ironclad" or " absolute guarantee of such funds."2' Rather, the regulation was intended only to require ' reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning.'" & (emphasis in original). Similarly, the showing required for es-tablishing financial qualifications under 10 C.F.R. Q 50.33(f) is one of reasonable assur-ance," not -' absolute certainty" or assurance "beyond doubt."27 Thus, NEP's requested relief is an attempt to challenge through this license transfer proceeding NRC policy and require-ments concerning financial qualifications and decommissioning funding. Such is not permis-sible under longstanding NRC case precedent. Peach Bottom, ALAB-216,8 AEC at 21 n.33; McGuire, ALAB-128,6 AEC at 401.
Moreover, the Commission's granting of such relief could greatly disrupt the sale of nuclear power plants as part of the ongoing restmeturing of the electric utility industry. NEP claims that "[t]o date, restructuring has proceeded, even where the divestiture of generation has been an essential component, upon the assumption that the (transferring]' electric utility will continue to meet its responsibilities as a nuclear licensee." Petition at 9. However, that is clearly not the case in the two largest divestitures of nuclear generation identitled to date.
TMI-1 and Pilgrim.' In both those cases, the existing electric utility licensee would retain no liability for nuclear costs upon completion of the transfer. Moreover, the transferees in both instances would be not be electric utilities.
The imposition of comingent liability on the current owners of nuclear plants could complicate and make less likely both ongoing transactions as well as future sales and dives-2* In point of fact, prepay ment as would occur in Coryanction with the proposed transfer would provide greater assurance than rehance on funare payments, even if made by a rate regulated electric utility,45 discuSled entiter.
" 10 C F.R. { 50 33(f)(1) and (2); Public Sers tce Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and
! 2), A1.AB 895,28 NRC 7,18 (1988)(quoting Coalition for the Environment v. NRC,795 F.2d 168.175 (D C.
l Cir.1986))
24
T-533 P 2U28 F-D 2 Jan-13-99.88:35pm From-titures of nuclear plants. It would saddle former owners with potentialliability over which they have little or no control, and discourage the sale and transfer of nuclear units.
In short, NEP's proposed summary relief should be rejected for being be A contrary to Commission regulation and bad policy.
CONCLUSION I
In consideration of the foregoing, Linie Bay respectfully requests the Commission to i
deny NEP's petition for leave to intervene and for a hearing in that NEP (1) lacks standing and (2) has failed to submit a valid issue in accordance with the pleading requirements of 10 ;
C.F.R. s 2.1306(b)(2).
Respectfully submitted, d _
Gerald Chamoff Paul A.Gaukler
! D. Sean Barnett SHAW PITfMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 January 13,1999 Counsel for Little Bay Power Corporarion i
i 4
25 i
l
- un-13-se 08:35ps Fro . T-533 P27/2s F-712 DOCsF.TED UfdEy 13,1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,9 yg g4 gg.16 .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
' AE
)
In the Matter of )
North Atlantic Euergy Service ) Docker No. 50-443 Corporation, et aL, ) (License No.NPF-86)
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit No.1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cernfy that on the 13th day of January 1999 copies of the Answer of Little Bay Power Corporation to Motion of New Fag 1==A Power Company for Leave to Intervene, and Petition for Summary Relief or, in the Altemative, for a Hearing were served by facsimile and U.S. Mail on 6e following: .
Secretary f&Consion Office ofGeneral Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atta: Rulemakings and A4udications Waaia-mn,DC 20555 W=aiagen, DC 20555 4 001 (original and two copies)
Edward Berlin, Esq. John F. Sherman, Esq.
SwidlerBerlin Sherreff Friedman Associate General Counsel 3000 K Street, NW, Ste. 300 New England Power Company Wa=hiay&. DC 20007 25 Research Dnve Westborough,MA 01582 Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq.
William J.Quinlan, Esq. W'mston & Strawn Northeast Utilities Service Company 1400 L Street,NW Washington,DC 20005 107 Seldon Street Berlin,CT 06037
' " :Jan-13-se 08:sspe m e- T-533 P1848 FN l-i s.
l l
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
' Barton Z. Cowan, Esq. I Eckert Seaman
- Cherin & Mellott, LLC Ropes & Gray r
! 600 Grant Street,44th Floor One International Place Boston, MA 02110 2634 )
Pittsburgh,PA 15219 J Kevin A. Kirby ji Vice President, Power Supply '
EasternUtillities Associates 750 West Center Street I l P.O. Box 543 West Bridgewsc, MA 02379 3
/ l (By U.S. Mail Only)
( i [I[
Pad A.Gaukler k
I I
l l
t