ML20210C332
| ML20210C332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Seabrook |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082401831 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-126, FOIA-86-127, FOIA-86-131, FOIA-86-80, TASK-PII, TASK-SE A, SECY-86-072, SECY-86-72, NUDOCS 8603240403 | |
| Download: ML20210C332 (3) | |
Text
.
AftKfCO l
'o,,
s POLICY ISSUE March 3, 1986 SECv-86-22 (Information)
For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINDING OF "N0 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES" PURSUANT TO THE OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW 0F THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of a completed staff action.
Discussion:
Pursuant to procedures set forth by the Commission in delegating authority to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a finding that no significant antitrust changes have occurred in connection with the Seabrook Station, Unit I operating license antitrust review.
Coordination: The finding was concurred in by the Office of the Executive Legal Director.
l l
l Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations ne surf Director s Finding of DISTRIBUTION:
No Stgnificant Change Commissioners OGC OPE OI l
OCA OIA l
Contact:
William Lambe REGION I 492-7707 EDO rh[
/
B603240403 860303 yjic:;nED ORIGINAL gE SECY Cortified By A
2 i
SEABROOK ST TION, UNIT 1 OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy' Act of 1954, as amended, provides for an antitrust review of an application for an operating license if the Commission determines that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent ~ to the previous construction geraitreview.
The Commission has delegated the authority to make the significant change" finding to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. -Based upon an examination of the events since issuance of the Seabrook 1 construction permit to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al., the staffs of the Planning and Resource Analysis Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Antitrust Section of the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter referred to as " staff", have jointly concluded, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the antitrust construction permit review are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
In reachi'ng this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in New England, the events relevant to the Seabrook construction permit reviews and the events that have occurred subsequent to the construction permit reviews.
The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
"Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), on behalf of itself and all other owners (applicants), has applied for an operating license for the Seabrook 1 nuclear unit.
Pursuant to the Commission's "significant chanpe" criteria, the staff has conducted an antitrust analysis of the applicants activities and proposed activities since the Seabrook -
construction permit (CP) aatitrust review was completed in January 1974.
In performing this analysis, the staff has examined (1) activities i
undertaken by the applicants with respect to bulk power services, including coordination, transmission, and wholesale services, (2) antitrust issues raised in two separate federal court proceedings involving New England Power Company (NEPCO) and Connecticut Light and Power Company (CLP), and (3) the New England Power Pool (NEP00L) which governs bulk power interrelationships among nearly all New England utilities.
"In the staff's view, none of the new and/or revised bulk arrange-ments entered into by any of the applicants present any significant consequences of an antitrust nature.
Such arrangements, in fact, appear to promote access to a wide range of alternatives for all New England utilities, regardless of size or type of ownership.
I -. -
,_o'
.. -e a
-7 "The antitrust complaints against NEPCO were mitigated after a settlement among the parties permitted the Town of Norwood to switch wholesale suppliers.
A District Court decision dismissing all antitrust complaints against CLP was affirmed by an Appeals Court on all but two counts.
Those two counts both dealt with price-squeeze and were remanded to the lower court for reconsideration.
Staff notes further that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is required to explicitly consider price-squeeze issues when raised with regard to new rate filings.
Consequently, staff has concluded that the price-squeeze issues do not warrant Commission remedy and therefore do not represent "significant changes" under the Commission's criteria.
" Finally, NEP00L, which was only two years old at the time when the CP antitrust review was performed, appears to have evolved into a framework ensuring access to reliable and economical bulk power supply for-all New England utilities.
Two provisions of the original pool agreement were found to be discriminatory against smaller utilities and have since been removed.
- Further, because Seabrook 1 has been designated as a pool planned unit, access to Seabrook 1 over pool transmission facilities of members is guaranteed for all participants under the term of NEP00L.
"Thus, the changes in the activities of all of the applicants since the completion of the Seabrook 1 construction permit l~
antitrust review do not represent significant changes of an L
antitrust nature &nd, therefore, do not require a further, formal antitrust review at the operating license stage."
Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of Seabrook Station, Unit 1 is not required.
If n
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i