ML20247P507
| ML20247P507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247P503 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909270190 | |
| Download: ML20247P507 (3) | |
Text
-
7
( *::
, y>r m g
- [2
[I NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
UNIT E D STATES
+
c.
{.(
-f msmetou.o c.nsss y
,/
SAFETY EVALUATION Ei THE OrrlCE OF NUCLEAR kEACTOR FEGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGH1 COMPANY WATERF0kD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOMETNO.50-3}2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sy application cate: F.ay 1, I9EF, Louisiana Power and Light Coinpany (LP&L or the litersee) recuested charges to the license for Vaterford Steam
. Electric Station Unit 3.
The proposed changes wculc acc Licerse Condition 2.B.(C) to allow the sale ano leaseback of an incividual ownership interest in the Waterford Steem Electric Station, Unit No. 3 2.0 DISCUSS 10h AND EVALUATION Finar cial Consideraticris NRC has preuicesly epproved selt/lerseback transactions fcr Palo Verde 1, Ferry '1, betur Valley 2 and Granc Gulf I.
LP&L stetes that the prcpesed transaction. fcr katerforo '.;, is sitrilar in all material respects to the presicbsiy ep;rcvec trersections. The proposeo sale / leaseback, like the previous transactions, is a capital refinar. ting vehicle for the plant's owner, LP&L, wheretsy it may refer c' a substantial amount of h19t cost securities li. rett.ri. t oi '.u se payments ever a perioc cf years. The sele / leaseback is supposed to (1) moderate both LP&L's revenue requirements and rate increases fer LP&L's ultimate customers; and (2) provice sutstantit' tax benefits to it.e investcrs, mainly iri the icre of accelerated cepreciaticr.
It is important to NRC that the investcrs are merely passive providers of cap 1tal, and have no auttority or control over plant operation; that is retained exclusively by the licensee, LP&L.
From a financial standpoint, NRC is concerned mainly about the continuity i
of the source of funds to carry out the licensed activity.
In this case, l
as in the previous transactions, the source of funds remains constant.
It is tre revenue ger.erated by LF&L's sale of electricity. Under rates established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission and the Louisiana Public Service Commission, LP&L's retail and whclesale customers will continue (ef ter tr'e sale /leatback, as before) to provide the funds required for the safe operetle c:4 :
li.w. nt.e era evertual decommissioning cf LM :: f n 2.
3909270190 390918 PDR ADOCK 030003@Z FDL p
3 x
(~
f
~2-In contiusion, the sale / leaseback does not affect the source of funds for carrying out the licensed activity and for complying with NRC requirements.
Accordingly, there are no financial qualifications concerns that impact on NRC's approval of the proposed sale / leaseback transaction.
Antitrust Considerations NRC reviews license amendment applications to determine whether or not l
the amendment wtuld impact any existing antitrust license conditions, or I
change conditions or activities under the license that would create or l
n.aintain inconsistencies with the antitrust laws. From the data submitted by the licensee, LF&L, tbc proposed amendment appears to do neither of these.
License amendments that invcive change in ownership, specifically new owners, are of particular concern to NRC in the context of its antitrust review responsibilities.
It is.impertsnt for NRC to be aware of the identity of owners of the nuclear facility in question so that an assessment can be made regarding the manner in which the facility will be l
used by any new owner in a particular bulk power services market. Owners
.and potential owners that possess the ability to control various aspects of the bulk power services markt, i.e., those with market power, are reviewed by NRC in an effort to ensure that the addition of the nuclear i
facility to their generation and transmission mix will not adversely l
impact the tempetitive process.
Specifically, NRC is charged with preventing-the creation or maintenance of activities that may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
l The NRC concludes that the proposed License Condition 2.B.(6) will ensure that any new equity investor resulting from the proposed sale and leaseback transaction (s) for Waterford 3 will be sufficiently divorced from the operations of the plant that a formal antitrust review will not be required. This contiusitt is based on the fact that any new owner resulting from these transactiers will not hcVe any direct or indirect control over (1) Waterford 3, (2) the power or energy produced by Waterford 2, c (3) tt.t Waterferc 3 licensee.
Lnt has attempted to structure its sele /leeseback proposal in a manr,er that will not change competitive forces at work in the Louisiana bulk power services market. License Condition 2.B.(6) assures that the competitive status cuo will not be affected by any new eciuity investors choosing to purcnasc an ownership interest in Waterford 3.
3.-
LICENSE CONDITION The licensee has proposed a license condition in the May 1, 1989 submittal.
During the tourse cf it e staff's review, char.ges were proposed ano discussed with tne licensee. Our review takes into account the possibility that other lirensoot m bo e,'o r e e cy "a'a t% fi dlity., eltbouch no at:rcul fo-sucD operation is grantec tere.
However, the license condition has been
L p
s>-
l
(-
.. l
(
changed to recognize this possibility in the future without the licensee having to make additional changes. These changes to the license condition have been agreed to by the licensee but do not change the staff's findings in the notice issued on May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21309) or in the notice on antitrust issued on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23723).
4.0 CONTACT WITH.5 TATE OFFICIAL I
The NRC staff made a proposed determination of no significant hazards considera-tion and so advised the Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division, Office of Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana. No comments were received.
In
- addition, no comments were receives on antitrust matters.
5.0' ENVIRONMENTAL 0!(51DERATION The amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procecures or requirements. The Commission has previously 1ssued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards tcnsiaerotion and there has been r.c public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment c.eets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impacts statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection witF the issuance cf this amendment.
l
6.0 CONCLUSION
Based upon its evaluation of the proposed changes to the Waterford 3 Technical I
Specifications, the steff has concluded that:
there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operaticn ir the proposed manner, and such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Corrission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be l
inimicel'tc the comon cefense and security or to the health and safety of the
-public. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable, and are hereby incorporated into the Waterford 3 license, l
i Dated: September 18, 1969
~
Principal Contributors:
W. Lambe J. Petersen D. Wigginton 1
L 1
I o -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _