A three-judge panel heard testimony Thursday, July 7 regarding the contention by opponents of the Calvert Cliffs 3 project that the new unit proposed for the Lusby facility would be foreign-owned.

The hearing, conducted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel, was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Rockville headquarters.

The application, submitted to the NRC nearly four years ago by UniStar Nuclear Energy, is for construction of a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The unit would be a European-style, state-of-the-art reactor. Building the new reactor would be the largest construction project in Maryland history.

Originally, UniStar was jointly owned by Constellation Energy Group (CEG), the owners and operators of Calvert Cliffs, and Electricite de France (EDF), whose majority owner is the government of France. Last fall, CEG withdrew from UniStar. Under the Atomic Energy Act, entities with 50 percent or more foreign ownership are prohibited from owning and operating nuclear reactors.

“This project runs afoul of the regulations,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), one of the organizations seeking to block the project. “This project is owned by a foreign entity.”

Mariotte noted another foreign company, Areva, will be building the new reactor.

The ASLB’s administrative judge, Ronald R. Spritzer, surprisingly took issue with the contention that UniStar is a foreign company. “We only get to the French entity several steps into the process,” said Spritzer. “The immediate company appears to be owned by an American corporation.”

Mariotte countered that UniStar has changed leadership since the Calvert Cliffs 3 application was filed. “The structure of UniStar has changed several times during the course of these proceedings,” said Mariotte. “This project is owned and dominated by the French government. They [NRC] docketed an application they shouldn’t have docketed.”

“We believe there is time for UniStar to change the ownership issue and revise the application,” said David Repka, an attorney representing UniStar at the hearing. Citing previous cases, the attorney called UniStar’s request to hold the application in abeyance “fully consistent with the licensing process.&