ML17213A504
| ML17213A504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1982 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213A503 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8209290013 | |
| Download: ML17213A504 (3) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMrfISS ION FLORIDA POllER Ec LIGHT COMPANY ORLANDO UTILITY COMMISSION AND FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NOTICE OF FIf'fDING OF NO SIGI'fIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TI E
R'L'ING RE UESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made an initial finding in accord-ance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensees'ctivities or proposed activi-ties have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review of Unit 2 of the St Lucie Plant 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 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 St. Lucie Unit No.
2 construction permit antitrust review, the staffs of the Antitrust and Economic 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 are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
"The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
'Subsequent to the completion in March of 1982 of the construction permit antitrust proceedings, Seminole Electric Cooperative has decided to withdraw its proposed six percent participation in St. Lucie 2.
The reasons given were the current uncertainties of the nuclear industry, the lack of support from the financial community for nuclear projects, and the overall costs of St. Lucie 2.
In addition, Seminole has found an economic alternative to St. Lucie 2 in two-6OOMW coal fired units that it has under construction with delivery of the power from those units to its members using transmission services afforded by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation.
- Thus, the decision by Seminole to withdraw from St. Lucie 2 appears to be a reasonable business decision.
'Orlando's planned participation in St. Lucie 2 has not changed.
In addition, Orlando is planning a 415 t1W coal fired unit in which Florida Municipal Power Agency would
'eceive a 35 percent ownership participation.
Power will be delivered to FHPA members utilizing the transmission 82092900i3 8209i6 PDR ADOCK 05000389 PDR
systems of Orlando, Florida Power and Light Co.
and Florida Power Corporation.
These power supply arrangements are each considered to be pro-competitive.
'Florida Municipal Power Agency will acquire an 8.806 percent ownership interest in St. Lucie 2 on behalf of the nineteen of its twenty six members that chose to participate in the project.
Florida Power and Light Company will provide the necessary transmission service to deliver the power to the participants to which it is connected or to other electric systems for delivery of the power to those participants to which it is not connected.
'Joint action agencies, such as Seminole Electric Cooperative and Florida Municipal Power Agency, coupled with transmission services by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation have made power supply options available to small cooperative and municipal electric systems statewide.
These are positive developments consistent with the antitrust license conditions and settlement provisions of the construction permit antitrust proceedings.
Staff therefore concludes that they do not represent significant changes that would warrant a second antitrust review in connection with the operating license application.'Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 is not required."
1982 by Harold R. Denton, Director of Office of FOR THE NUCLAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Signed on SPP 1 4 1982 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
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 Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 by
~30 da s
Argil Toalston, Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- s. ~
)