ML19354D621
| ML19354D621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354D620 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912280267 | |
| Download: ML19354D621 (6) | |
Text
. - -
AD 8'8 8 ye 4
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e(
e
-(
f WAsmwoToN. D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY Et'All'ATION BY TFE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGtfLATION SUPPORTING AMFNDPENT NO. 9 TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CFPR-119 S,QTEM ENERGY RESCl'PCES. INC.
GRAND GULF N!!CLEAk STATION, UHfT ?
00CKET NO. 5_0-417 r
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter oated August Pl 1989, as supplemented by letters dated September 27 and November 21, 1989, Systr.m Energy Resources. Inc.,
requested an amendnent to Cotistruction Permit flo. CPPR-119 for the Grand Gulf Nucitar Station, Unit 2 (GGNS-2).
Entergy Corporation, fctrerly known as Fiddle South Utilities, Inc., is establishing a new company, Entergy Operations, Inc. (E01), as a system-wide nuclear opetating company. Separate amendments te the operating licenses for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1; L'aterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3; and Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and ?,
implement the authorization to transfer control and perfonnance of licensed activities for these facilities to E01. This amendment to the Construction Pemit 'or Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 2, would cerrr'ete the consolida-tion of Entergy Ccrporation nuclear activities under E0! by implementing the authorization to transfer centrol and performance of licensed activities for CONS-2 from System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI), to E01.
SERI would remain 90% owner and lease holder of GGNS-2 and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) would continue as owner of the remaining 107 FFPI and SMEPA have designated E01 as their agent in licensing matters.
Mississippi Power & Light Compar.y (MPal) would remain on the construction permit settect to the completion of an antitrust review which will address whether NP&L should be removed from the permit as requested by a previous application dated September 2, 1986.
The SERI orger.ization involved with nuclear power activities would transfer substantially irtact to E01 end the same staff currently responsible for GGNS 2 veuld continue those responsibilities as part of E01.
2.0 EWLUATION The staff's review of the application addresses those issues necessary for both the issuance of the construction pemit amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and for approval of transfer of control of licensed activities pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, f.jg22gggy Q $
7 A
1
.p.
_ Technical Qualifications The technical cualifications of E01 to carry out its responsibilities under the construction pemit for CGNS-2, as amended, will meet or exceed the presont technical qualifications of SERI.
SERI will continue to act as the constructor of GGNS-2 perding issuance of the prcposed amendirent of 3
the ccostruction permit. When the amendfrent becomes effective, E01 would assume responsibility for, and control over, the physical construction and any necessary maintenance or support of GGNS-2.
In the proposed E01 organization, the nuclear organization for the construction of GGNS-? will remain the same with the only change being that the senior nuclear officer of SERI (Vice-President, Engineering and Support) will repcrt directly to the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of EDI, Therefore, the technical support for the construction of GGhS-? will be transferred essentially irtact to E01. We find this proposed change acceptable es it meets the appropriate acceptance criteria of Scetion 13.1 of NUREG-0800, the NRC Stardard Review Plan.
Financial Considerations
]
The ownership of the facility end all rights to electric power from the facility will remain with SERI and SMEPA.
In addition, as stated in SERI's submittal dated August 21, ifPP, "The contractual agreement between System Energy and SMEPA, as co-owners, regarding the allecation of all costs for the design, construction, and related fuel cycle of Grand Gulf Unit 2 will not be altered by the issuance of the requested amendirent to the Grand Gulf Unit 2 construction permit." In view of these arrangerrents, the staff concludes that the current owners' responsibility for and ability to construct GGhS-2 remains unchanged from the previu construction permit financial qualifications review and that, therefore, further review of the estimate of construction costs and source for construction funds as provided under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix C. II is not needed.
Furthermore, SERI and EDT have met the requirements of 10 CrP f0.33 (f)(3) that newly-formed entities provide infemation showing *(i) The legal and financial I
relationships it has or proposes to have with its stockholders or owners; (11) Its financial ability to rrect any contractual obligation to the entity which they have incurred or proposed to incur; and (iii) Any other l
infomation considered necessary by the Comission to enable it to determire the applicant's financial qualifications."
The staff nctes, however, that Article V. Section S.1 of the proposed Operating Agreement between SERI and E01, as transmitted b) letter dated September 27, 1989, suggests that SERI, assuming GGNS-2 commences operation, may not agree to pay for operation and cdpital imprevement costs that exceed either:
(1) the annual buoget for the facility to which SERI and E01 are to agree by November of the year prior to the budget year, or (2) the maximum arrounts to be paid within the parameters of the then-current E01 five-year business plan. Notwithstanding, this Article XI. Section 11.5, provides that neither E01 or SERI are pemitted to delay or withhold payment due and owing under the Proposed Operating
3 j
Agreement except that SERI shall have the right to make any contested oayments under protest. The staff understands the provisions contained in Section 5.1 and 11.5 of that proposed Operating Agreement takn together do not contradict SERI's and SMEPA's comitrent to pay for all costs of construction of GGNS-2. The staff further expects that any changes to the proposed Operating Agreement betwcen E01 and SERI will continue with these same understandir,$s.
The staff believes that there will be no financial consequences adversely affectire safety from allowing E01 to assume exclusive responsibility for making safety decistoris. The economic benefits which the licensee i
anticipates from E01's construction of CCNS-2 are not expected to be gained at the expense of public health and safety given SERI's continuing comitr ent to pay the costs, including safety-related costs, of GGNS-2.
Thus, the staff concludes that the financial consequences of the proposed action will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
Antitrust Considerations The license amendment request transferring the operation of Grand Gulf Unit 1 and the construction of Grand Gulf Unit 2 from SERI to E01 is subject to antitrust review pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. Notification cf receipt and a request for coments on antitrust issues pursuant to this amendment, as well as requests for similar transfers involving the Waterford 3 and ANO Unit 2 nuclear units, were published in the Federal Register on Movember 1,1900 (FR Vol. 54, 46168).
Eonsnents were received from a group of wholesale electric customers (Wholesale Customers) of the Arkansas Power & Light Company.
Pursuant to a license amendment reouest dated September 2,1986, Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) and SERI have agreed to be bound by the existing antitrust license conditions currently a part of tb? Grand Gulf licenses until the staff completes its antitrust review of the September 2, 1986 amendment request. Moreover, as a result of the review of the instant amendment recuest conducted by the staff, an additiceal license condition will be acded to the Grand Gulf Unit 1 operating license and the Grand Gulf Unit 2 construction permit.
This new license cendition is similar to the antitrust license condition I
added to Waterford 3 and ANO Unit 2, as a result of similar amendment requests, in that it holds the responsible party (s) accountable and responsible for the actions of their agents to the extent said agent's actions contravene the existing antitrust license conditions.
Wholesale Customers requested the NRC to either extend the existing Mcense conditions imposed on the Grand Gulf facility to the entire multi-state territory served by Entergy Corporation's nuclear plants by imposing similar license conditions on ANO Unit 2 or extending the geographic area applicable to the Grard Gulf license conditions to encompass the entire area served by Entergy Corporation.
Wholesale Custorers have not expressly addressed tFe competitive implications of the addition of E01 as operator of the facility. They also have not l
I
.C.
I provided any other information which would allow antitrust conoitions to be imposed upon ANO Unit 2 or new conditions imposed on Grand Gulf extending the geographic reach of the existing conditions.
Formal
)
antitrust reviews for facilities with operating licenses are only required when there are significant changes in the licensee's activities from the previous antitrust review.
In South Carolina Eltctric and. Gas.Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI 80-28, M RC 817, 820, 835 (1960), the Commission belo, among other things, that significant changed circumstances occur when there are changes i
which would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws; an antitrust review of these changes is warranted only when it would likely be concludeo that the changed situation has r.egativeantitrustimp)lications.(South Texas Units 1&2, CLI 77-135, 5 See also, Houston.Lightfog.and. Power Co.
Customers contend that changed circumstances have resulted from a FERC decision requiring the ccsts of Grand Gulf Unit I to be shared by all of the subsidiaries of Entergy Corp.
However, they have not provided proof, nor furnishea adequate explanation, as to why this accounting change constitutes anticompetitive activity or has adverse antitrust implications.
In addition, Wholesale Customers contend that license conditions are necessary since their existing wholesale contracts do not contain the type of terms and conditions that are incluot'd in contracts resulting from antitrust reviews associated with other nuclear facilities.
This assertion likewise does not constitute a changed circumstance since Wholesale Customers have not established how the absence of these terms in their contracts creates or maintains a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
In its review of the proposed amendment adding E01 to the ANO Unit 2 license, the staff was concerned with what role E01 would play in marketing or brokering of power or energy from each of the Entergy Corporation nuclear units, in an effort to avoid a formal antitrust review, the licensee has agreed to add an antitrust license conditon to its ANO Unit 2 license that will effectively preclude E01 from using power or energy from ANO Unit 2 in a manner that would affect competition in bulk power services throughout AP&L's service area.
Moreover, the same license condition will hold AP&L responsible and accountable for the actions of its agents, including E01, that pertain to marketing or brokering of power or energy from ANO Unit 2.
The staff feels this license condition vill ensure that E0I will do no more than operate ANO Unit 2 and will not be involved in the competitive arena associated with marketing or brokering of power or energy. As a result of these actions, the staff hcs completed its j
antitrust review of this amendment request.
Two antitrust license conditions will be included in the Grand Gulf Unit 2 Construction Permit No. CPPR-119:
l l
i
$
(a) MP&L and SERI sh611 comply with the antitrust conditions celineated f
in Paragraph 3.D.
MP&L is authorized to transfer its rights under CPPR-119 to construct the facility to SERI, provided however, that until further authorization of the Commission, MP&L and SERI shall continue to be responsible for compliance with the obligations 1mposed on the licensees in these antitrust conditions, and provided turther that SERI accepts its rights under CPPR-119 to construct the facility subject to the outcome of the pending separate antitrust review of the antitrust considerations related to the application dated September 2, 1986.
SERI is autherized to transfer its right to construct the facility to E01.
(b) MP&L and SERI are responsible and accountable for the actions of their respective agents to the extent said agent's actions contravene the existing antitrust license conditions.
Restracted.Deta SERI has addressed the limits on restricted data and other defense information and E01 agrecs to the appropriate ccoditions of protection and processes.
The current employees of SERI who are aware of and responsible for safeguarding information will transfer to E01, therefore no reduction in understanding or responsibility is expected.
Security.and.Exclusico. Area Control The employees of SERI responsible for security will become E01 employees and E01 will continue to maintain and implement the security plans as previously found acceptable. Some transition changes may be appropriate to reflect SER1, MP&L, and E01 relationships but these changes should not decrease the effectiveness of the plans.
Control of the exclusion area involving security and non-nuclear interfaces with SERI and MP&L, has been addressed by the licensee and includes consideration for normal and emergency access. Written procedures and agreements are appropriate to assure that NRC approved activities in and control of the exclusion area by E01 is maintained.
Quality. Assurance. Program E01 will assume responsibility for the functions associated with the GGNS-2 quality assurance program.
The organization, function, and structure of the GGNS quality assurance department will net be affected by this license amendment.
3.0 {p g 0NMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32 and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal.Eegister on December 11, 1989 (54 FR 50827).
s 6-Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
4.0, CONCLUSION This amendment is administrative for the purpose of transferring authority to control and perform licensed activities in the construction of GGNS-2 from SERI to E01. No technical or environnental conditions wculd be chdnged by the preposed amendnent. The staff concludes that:
(1) the proposed amendnent to Construction Pennit No.
CPPR-119 does not involve a significant increcse in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, does not involve a significant hazards considerations; (2) there is reasonably assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endan construction and operation in the proposed manner; and (?)gered by such activities will be in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Lambe F. A11enspach R. Wood L. Kintner Dated: December 22, 1989 l