ML17055B292
| ML17055B292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1986 |
| From: | Funches J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B291 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8602280667 | |
| Download: ML17055B292 (10) | |
Text
NOTICE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 A NIAGARA MO K
TION ET AL CHANGES 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, that no signi ficant (antitrust) changes in the licensees'ctivities or proposed activities.have occurred subsequent to the construction permit review of Unit 2 of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station.
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 Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change" determination to the.
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Based upon an examination of the events since issuance of the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 construction permit to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 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 Birector, 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.
Bb02280667 8602i8 PDR ADOCK 05000410,',,
-2" "In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry, in the state of New York, the events relevant to the Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 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:
'Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP 2) is to be jointly owned by five investor owned utilities in New York as follows:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Long Island Lighting Company 41K 18K New York State Electric and Gas Corporation 18K Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 14K Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation 9X
'The five co-owners of NMP 2 received antitrust reviews by the Department of Justice with respect to their participation in NMP 2 and in various other planned nuclear generating plants during the period from 1972 through 1978.
The Attorney General, in his antitrust advice letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, expressed concern only with respect to Niagara.
One concern was that Niagara might not be willing to wheel power for
the Jamestown municipal electric system if Jamestown decided to purchase at wholesale all of its electric power requirements.
The other concern regarded Niagara's continuing opposition to the efforts of the town of Messena to establish a municipal electric system.
Although the Attorney General did not recommend a
- hearing, he did advise the Commission to monitor the subsequent activities of Niagara with respect to these two issues.
'Subsequently, Jamestown decided to install electrostatic precipitators on its coal fired plants rather than purchase its total power requirements.
Also, Messena has established a
distribution system, and Niagara has agreed to wheel power to Messena.
Thus, the two concerns expressed by the Attorney General have been resolved,
'Staff's review of changes in load forecasts, capacity expansion
- programs, and rate schedules does not suggest any anticompetitive effects.
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation's acquisition of the Peach Lake system did not significantly alter regional market concentration and was a business transaction with no apparent consume.
or regulatory opposition.
'In light of the Cour.'ssion's guidir 9 criteria, none o~ the <he.".-;:
which have been surfaced in th>
review car be considered "stgrificart", and there.ore, sta.f does not recor.. end a fin~.';:rc "sigr.;iicant char ge."'Based on the sta ff '
- analysis, it i s ny firiding tha+
a fcrna 1 operat> ng licerse antitrus'eview of Nine Nile Point, Unit c is not reouirea."
~ Signed or. February 6, 1986 by Harold R. Dentcn, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul ation.
Any person whose interest v,ay be affected by this,inding may file with ful~
particulars a request for reevaluation with the Director of Nuclear Peactrr Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrissinn, Vashington, P.C.
20555 for 30 days fror., the date of the publication of tha Federai
~e<eister notice.
Requests for a reevaluation of the no significart changes detert.ination shall be accepted after the date when the Director's finding hecomes final but before the issuance of the GL orly if the" contain new irfcrmatiora, suc.a
as information about facts or events of antitrust significance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation