ML20235U361
| ML20235U361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1989 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235U356 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8903090168 | |
| Download: ML20235U361 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ . __ - _ _ _ _ _-__- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-425A GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIllE FOR FILING REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, thatnosignificant(antitrust)changesinthelicensees'activitiesor proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous antitrust operating license review of Unit 1 of Plant Vogtle by the Attorney General and the Commission. The finding is as follows:
"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 permit review. The Comission 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 1 operating license to Georgia Power Company, ej al., l the staffs of the Policy Development and Technical Support Branch, j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereafter referred to as " staff," have jointly concluded, after consultation I with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the Plant Vogtle Unit I antitrust operating license review are rnot of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
l
$po9o26ss90223 g nDOCK 0500o473 PDC i
J _a =.w_r_ ._.m-.m_u,-tm., _ .,_. m ..# w+.r-- - - - - . _
2 "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 pre-licensing antitrust reviews of commercial power reactors at the construction permit and operating license stages of the licensing process.
The antitrust operating license review is not intended as a de enovo 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 % nit 1 of I Plant Vogtle was completed in Novenber of 1986 and the reactor was licensed in March of 1987. Unit 2 of Plant Yogtle is scheduled to be licensed in I
I I~
3 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.
"The changes in the ligensees' activities since the previous antitrust review have been largely the result of policies and agreements that were intitiated 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 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 thr.oughout 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.
l l
"The staff's review of changes in the licensees' activities since 1986 indicates that the procompetitive effects identified during the Votgle 1 OL review are continuing. Various energy exchange agreements imong i industry players have been entered into and activated, thereby stimulating more efficient operations among a wide variety of industry players throughout
4 the southeastern portion of the country. Georgia Power Company is providing power and energy transactions to various power systems in 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 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 tne 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."
Signed on February 28, 1989 by Thomas E. Murley, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. e l i + - k- < l
5 Although the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, does not address a specific period for public comments pursuant to reevaluation of the Director's Finding, the Comission has adopted rules that normally allow for a 30 day coment period. The staff has determined that in the instant proceeding an exemption from the coment period from 30 days to 15 days should be granted to avoid delay in the issuance of the operating license for Plant Vogtle Unit 2. Moreover, the staff has determined that this exemp-tion will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety nor adversely affect any potential interested party's ability to provide coments to the Comission. Any person whose interest may be affected by this finding, may file, with full particulars, a request for reevaluation with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555 within 15 days of the initial publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests for a reevaluation of the no significant changes determi-nation shall be accepted after the date when the Director's finding becomes final, but before the issuance of the 01., only if they contain new information, such as information about facts or events of antitrust significance that have r.
~
l . 6 occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Policy Development, and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution Docket File No. 50-425A PTSB Rdg WLambe DNash BVogler, OGC JHopkins, PM
.NRC PDR LPDR (GAPC)
PTSB:PMAS (h PTS PMAS OGC 4 C- S WLambe/1t BVogler a 7,/J9/89 p DNa@/89 12./a1/89 k@ =--_ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ -}}