ML20235R798

Forwards Finding of No Significant Changes Re Antitrust Review for Unit 2 License CPPR-109,for Signature.Finding Based on Encl NRC Analysis After Consultation W/Doj

ML20235R798
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/28/1989
From:	Gillespie F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20235R800	List: ML20235R798 ML20235R813 ML20235R833
References
NUDOCS 8903030429
Download: ML20235R798 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 a .

February 28, 1989 Docket No. 50-425A MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Frank P. Gillespie, Director Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST ANALYSIS OF PLANT V0GTLE, UNIT 2 Enclosed for your signature is a finding of no significant changes pursuant to the operating license antitrust review of Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle. This finding is based upon an analysis by the antitrust staffs of PMAS and 0GC (after consultation with the Department of Justice), which concludes that a "no significant change" finding is warranted. The staff analysis is enclosed as background information.

This is an initial finding which will be noticed in the Federal Register, thereby providing the public the opportunity to request a reevaluation of your finding. If there are no requests for reevaluation, the finding will become final and the operating license antitrust review of Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle will have been completed.

Crisinal81soedBT8 Frank P. Gillespie, Director Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated Distribution

~ Docket Files (No. 50-425A) 93 PTSB RDG cdl8 WLambe p ga. DNash 85 JHopkins RpQ

'~

BVogler LPDR f$ NRC PDR '

g[=] (V0GTLETWO) s"I ,

$ct j

$Er DFES:PTSB:PMAS S PMAS OGC P PMAS Wlambe/lt/bj / ffUg4er FGillespie

[8[/

DNaJs;/89 p /89 / /89 89 2 /4 '/89 h yl[7 $ SM I

i,- ,

PLANT V0GTLE, UNIT 2 OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST-REVIEW FINDING OF N0 SIGNIFICANT CHANGE Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for an l 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 permit review. The Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change" determination to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Based upon an examination of the events since the issuance of the Plant Vogtle Unit Policy1 Development operating license to Georgia and Technical PowerBranch, Support Company, Of ficTof Nuclear Reactoret al., the staffs of Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereafter referrod to as

" staff", have jointly concluded, after consultation with~the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the Plant Vogtle Unit 1 antitrust operating license review are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.

In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in Georgia, the events relevant to the Plant Vogtle Unit 1 operating license review, as well as the events that have occurred subsequent to the Plant Vogtle Unit 1 operating license review.

The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows: )

Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides-for relicensing antitrust reviews of commercial power reactors at the construction i permit and operating license stages of the licensing process. The antitrust operating license review is not intended as a de novo review but is focused only on those activities of the licensee (s) thaT have occurred since the completion of the construction permit review.

This concept of reviewing only significant changes in the licensee's activities at the operating license stage has been applied by the staff to reviews of multiunit plant applications. For those plants with multiple reactor licenses, the staff conducts separate antitrust reviews for each reactor when the reactors are licensed on a delayed or staggered schedule, i.e., when the reactors are scheduled to be licensed eighteen months or more apart.

As indicated supra, the antitrust operating license review of Unit I of Plant Vogtle was co mmp e ed in November of 1986 and the reactor was licensed in March l of 1987. Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle is scheduled to be licensed in March of 1989 and in light of the two-year lapse since the previous review of the licensees, the staff initiated a separate antitrust review of Unit 2 -- with the-focus of the review on any significant changes in the licensees' activities since the completion of the previous review in 1986.

i e

l

( O 1

, 2 E

The changes in the licensees' activities since the previous antitrust review have been largely the result of policies and agreements that were initiated as a result of license conditions placed upon the principal licensee, Georgia Power Company, during the antitrust construction permit review. The staff noted in its operating license review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle, that the ,

competitive process in the Georgia electric bulk power industry had improved I markedly. Moreover, the staff attributed this positive change to the successful implementation of the antitrust license conditions imposed by the Commission. It was also noted that power systems throughout Georgia and adjacent states were better able to control their own power supply destinies by taking advantage of new power supply options and alternatives made available by a more competitive bulk power supply system.

The staff's review of changes in the licensees' activities since 1986 indicates that the procompetivite effects identified during the Vogtle 1 OL review are continuing. Various energy exchange agreements among industry players have been entered into and activated, thereby stimulating more efficient operations among a wide variety of industry players throughout the southeastern portion of the

! country. Georgia Power Company is providing power end energy transactions to various power systems S Georgia as well as Florida. The integrated transmission system that emerged from the Commission's antitrust construction permit review of plant Vogtle in the mid-1970's allows for ownership of portions of the Georgia 1 transmission grid by all power systems in the state and this transmission arrangement has been cited by industry observers as a model for joint transmission agreements in other areas of the country.

The staff believes the competitive stimuli introduced during the antitrust construction permit review are continuing to promote competition and enhance the competitive process throughout the Georgia electric bulk power market.

The staff does not believe that there have been any "significant changes" in the licensees' activities since the previous antitrust review and recommends that no affirmative significant change determination be made pursuant to the operating license for Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle.

Based upon the staff's analysis, it is my finding that there have been no "significant changes" in the licensees' activities or proposed activities since the completion of the previous antitrust review.

% sign e mys Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution Docket Files (No. 50-425A)

PTSB RDG WLambe DNash JHopkins NRC PDR O f (V0GTL LOSURE) f '

\ f)

PDFES :PMAS PDF PTSB:PMAS 0 TSB Rt WLambe/lt/bj DNash FG spie d / /89 p /;789 t 89 /89 yg/89 3