ML18018B082

Letter Responding to Request for Advice in Regard to the Revised Application to Construct Unit 2 and Advising That No Antitrust Hearing by the NRC Will Be Required

ML18018B082
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	07/26/1978
From:	Sims J US Dept of Justice, Antitrust Div
To:	Shapar H NRC Office of the Executive Legal Director (OELD)
References
Download: ML18018B082 (8)

Text

REGULATORY -INFORNATION DlSTRIBUTION SYSTEN (RIDS >

DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING NATERIAL 50-410 REC:

SHAPAR H K NRC ORG:

SINS J US DEPT OF JUSTICE DOCDATE: 07/26/78 DATE RCVD: 08/01/78 DOCTYPE:

LFTTER NOTARIZED:

NO COPIES RECEIVED

SUBJECT:

LTR 1

ENCL 0

RESPONSE

TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADVICE PURSUANT TO ECTION 105 OF THE ATONIC ENERGY ACT.

AS AMENDED.

RE REVISED APPL BY APPLICANT"S AS LISTED... ADVISING THAT NO ANTITRU T HEARlNG BY NRC WILL BE REQUIRED WITll RESPECT TO APPL.

PLANT NAME: NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 REVIEWER INITIAL:

XJN DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL:~

+++++++++++++++>+ DISTRIBUTION OF Tl-IIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS ANTITRUST INFORNATION (DISTRIBUTION CODE Z999)

FOR ACTION:

ASST DIR VASSALLO+~~LTR ONLY(1)

BR CHIEF LWRN4 BC<<LTR ONLY<1)

PROJ KANE+4~LTR ONLY(1)

LIC ASST LWRQ4 LA>>LTR ONLY(i)

INTERNAL:

EXTERNAL:

REG FI E+ LTR ONLY(1)

R ONLY<i)

RUTBERG++LTR ONLY(3>

LPDR S OSWEGO'Y<+LTR ONLY<1)

TERA~~LTR ONLY(i>

NSIC++LTR ONLY< 1)

ASLB+4LTR ONLY(2)

ACRS CAT B>+LTR ONLY(0)

NRC PDR++LTR ONLY(i>

SALTZNAN4+LTR ONLY< 1)

DISTRIBUTION:

LTR 16 ENCL 0 CONTROL NBR:

782140079 SI ZE:

3P THE END

k l'

A t

G 7

I SmtA Statt5 Qeymtmmt nf pustio.

WASHINGTON,DO.)fSSlIImppm

'44IIIIIP gf I (IPy ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GSNSRAI. I ANTITRUSTOIVISION-,.!.

I, l

II t,

Sv Howard K.'hapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D'.C.

" 20555 Re:

Nine Mi3;e Point Nuclear NRC Docket No. 50-410A JUL 26 t878.'I 1

CA Station, Unit 2 I'

~ ) 4>>

~I&

~g IS

Dear Mr. Shapar:

You have requested our advice pursuant to Section 105 of the. Atomic Energy Act, as

amended, in regard to the revised application by Niagara Mowhawk Power Corpor-

ation, Long Island Lighting Company, New York State Electric

& Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas

& Electric Corporation and Central Hudson Gas

& Electric Corpora-tion to construct the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.

2.

In 1972 the Department of Justice reviewed the original application for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 submitted by Niagara Mowhawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mowhawk).

On December 19,

1972, we informed your predecessor Commission that the activities proposed under that application would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

On September 22, 1975, Niagara Mowhawk entered into a Basic Agreement with Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), New York State Electric

& Gas Corpora-tion (New York State),

Rochester Gas

& Electric Corpor-ation (RG&E) and Central Hudson Gas

& Electric Corporation (Central Hudson),

to build, own and operate the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit,2 on a joint basis.

Each participant's share of the expenses and energy output is as follows:

Niagara Mowhawk LILCO New York State RG&E Central Hudson 41%

18%

18%

14%

9$

V 4

J k'

,r

'I

.l I

LA n

)l

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 is pro-posed to be built on a site on the southeast shore of Lake Ontario, in Oswego County, New York.

This loca-tion is presently the site of Niagara Mowhawk's existing nuclear generating facility, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

The latest cost estimates (not including allowances for funds used during construction) for the completion of the facility are as follows:

Total nuclear production plant costs

$1,018,335,000 Transmission, distribution and general plant costs 7,559,000 Nuclear fuel inventory costs for first core 71,474,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

$1,097,368,000 This facility will be capable of generating 1100MW of power and is scheduled to be in service in November, 1982.

Each of the new applicants has been the subject of prior antitrust advice letters written by the Depart-ment.

On April 22,

1976, we rendered antitrust advice on an application by Central Hudson to participate in the Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. l.

On January 7, 1975, we rendered antitrust advice on an application by LILCO to construct the Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

RGaE was the subject of antitrust advice letters of December 27,

1974, and April 22, 1976 on an application to construct the Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1.

Most

recently, on January 26,

1978, we rendered antitrust advice concerning New York State with respect to its applications to participate in the Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

We also rendered antitrust advice on December 27,

1974, on New York State's application to construct the Somerset Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.

In each of the above-referenced antitrust advice letters we advised of our conclusion that the activities under the licenses applied for would not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

Since the last antitrust advice letters were written for each of the new applicants only LILCO has had a change in its operations which merit notation.

4

~

r k

I 4

In April, 1978, the Greenport New York Municipal Electric System, which until that time had been iso-

lated, interconnected with LILCO.

The Greenport system has a peak of about 3MW.

In addition, Greenport, as well as Freeport and Rockville Centre, the only two other comparatively small municipal utilities in LILCO's service

area, have obtained commitments from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) to supply their bulk power needs.

LILCO, as well as other investor-owned utilities in the State of New York, have agreed to transmit that power from the PASNY transmission system to the three municipal systems.

After examination of the current applications and review of the relevant data, we have concluded that no intervening circumstances have appeared to warrant a

reversal of the advice given with respect to each of the new applicants in the above-cited antitrust letters.

We express no opinion,

however, concerning the legality under the antitrust laws of the manner in which, or any.arrangements.

pursuant to which, the plants will be operated, should they differ from or extend beyond those matters specifically disclosed in the application.

Accordingly, from the information available to us at the present time we conclude that no antitrust hearing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be required with respect to this application.

Sincerely yours, oe Sims Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

~-

i i

'P t

h