ML17297B884

Notice of Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes & Time for Filing of Requests for re-evaluation

ML17297B884
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	01/28/1983
From:	Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17297B883	List: ML17297B882 ML17297B884
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8302080083
Download: ML17297B884 (6)

Text

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQHf4ISSIOH DOCKET HOS.

50>>528A 529A ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COflPANY ET. AL.

NOTICE OF FIHOIHG QF HO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHAfNES AHD TINE FOR FILING OF REOUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made an fflftfal finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensees'ctivities or pro-posed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit reviews of'alo Verde Units 1 and 2 by the Attorney General and the Cotrmfssfon.

The finding is as follows:

"Section 105c(2) of the Atenic 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 with respect to nuclear reactors to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

"Partfcfpatfng in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, are Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Im-provement and Power District, Public Service Company of Hew tfexico, El Paso E'lectrfc Company, Southern Calffornfa Edison

Company, Los Angeles Departnent of Rater and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority, collectively referred to as "licensees".

Based upon examina-tion of events since issuance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station construction permit to the licensees, the staffs of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter r referred to as the "staff", have jointly concluded, after consulting with-the Department of tustfce, that the changes that have occurred since the antftrust construction permit reviews are not "significant" in an antitrust; context to requi~e a second formal antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application for licenses.

Staff has concluded that those changes which have occurred either are not reasonably attributable to the licensees or do not have antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy.

In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in the south-western United States, the events relevant to the Palo Verde construction permit antitrust reviews and the events that have occurred subsequent to those permit reviews.

"The Conclusion of, the staff's analysis fs as follows:

'The staff has applied the Commission's "significant change" criteria fn examining the antitrust implications of the activities and proposed activities of all of the applicants OFFICE P

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ 4 ~ ~ ~ o f4APIBil55effJ 8302080083 830203 PDR ADOCK 05000528 N

PDR

.'.s..px.av.iam~.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~JI ~I ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I

~ ~ ~

~

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

anstructian.

I em'.t..anti tr e uen o t vaC "1%vf@Lss.i

~

~

~ ~ 0

~

~ 0

~ 0 ~I

~ 0 ~Oil NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFlClAL RECORD COPY USQ PO: 1981-338.M0

E f

y V

h'-, 4, I

~.

4

~

hp

'I

~

h ~

"y 'I yhl ~,

jtv

/ 'I I

y;,. ~

D

)hh

//

jl, ~

/ ~

"h

/V/

ll

~ V y-ll, p

<<l

<<v

/

L 4

~ v d 4

I ~ 4 g/

//

/[a Vp hl 4

~

yyyh,

/ 4 4

hl

~'

%2&

'Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and Salt River Project Agricultural and Improvement District (SRP),

two of the four remaining original applicants for the Palo Verde construction permit.,

had agreed to the inclusion of a wheeling license condition in the construction permit so as to mitigate potential anticompetitfve problems arising from contracts with smaller utilities.

In the period since the construction permit review, both APS and SRP have provided, in staff's view, wheeling services consistent with the intent of the license condition.

Further, APS and SRP have continued to provide other types of bulk power services to smaller utilities not dissimilar to those offered prior to the completion of the construction permit review.

Public Service Company of Hew hIexfco (PSNtt) and El Paso Electric Company (EPE), the other two remainfng original Palo Verde applicants, were not subjected to any license conditions at the construction permit stage.

Nonetheless, PSNH and EPE have continued to offer and provide to smaller utilities wholesale power service, wheeling service and various other coordina-tion services on a scale comparable to, and perhaps even larger

than, that undertaken prior to the construction permit review.

'Subsequent to the filing of the original CP application, Southern California Edison Company (SCE),

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern Calffornia Public Power Authority (SCPPA) became participants and the tt-S-R Public Power Agency became a tentative participant fn Palo Verde.

The construction permit review of SCE, completed fn 1976, did not reveal a need to impose license conditions on SCE's participation in Palo Verde.

Still later, in 1981, an examfnaf;fon by staff of SCE's activities since the issuance of'he San Onofre 2 and 3 construction permits resulted fn a staff finding that no "significant changes" in SCE's activities had occurred with respect to the San Onofre 2 and 3 operating license application.

In the brief time period since the issuance of the San Onofre 2 and 3 operating license finding, the staff h'as not obtained any information that would suggest a contrary finding~of "significant change" with respect to the Palo Verde 1 and 2 ope'rati'ng l,icense.

LADtlP and SCPPA became owners of Palo Verde in 1981.

The'construction permit review of'ADWP and SCPPA which terminated on; April 8, 1982, disclosed no antitrust problems and tf-S-R recently wi't)'drew its partic-ipation as a result of voter decisions.

In the extremely brief period of time since the completion of the construction 'peymfg!revfews of LADllP and SCPPA the staff has not become aware of any a'(tual or potential antitrust problems.

0 II, OFFICEN SURNAME/

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 000 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 000 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 000 ~

DATEP NRC FORM 318 n0-80) NRCM 0240

~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

OFFlC!AL RECORD COPY

~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 000 ~ 00 ~ Otts F 0'SGA: 1981~990

W J% l II

~

'Based on the foregoing analysis, the staff has concluded that the changes in the applicant's activities since the completion of the Palo Verde construction permit antitrust reviews do not have any antitrust implications and, thus, do not require a further, formal antitrust review at the operating license stage with respect to Palo Verde 1 and 2.'Based on the staff's analysis, ft fs my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of the licensees with respect to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, fs not required."

Signed on January 28, 3.983, by Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Any person whose interest may be affected pursuant to this initial determination may file with full particulars a request for reevaluation with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mashfngton, D.

C.

20555 by (30 days).

Requests for a re-evaluation of the no significant changes determination shall be accepted after the date when the Dfrector's finding becomes final but before the issuance of the OL only if they contain new information, such 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 CONIISSION gfsjh, LTonhton Argi'I L. Toalston, Chief Antitrust 8 Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION AEAB rdg AEAB subj PNicholson AToalston JRutberg DMuller BVogler MLicitra Central Files NSIC TERA PDR LPDR OfFICE)

SURNAME)

DATEP AEAB.......,...

P.NiCAOlaO.O;.

14//8)........,

ip.@~a. s.tao..

g/3 J83.....

.... QNvl..er.

A/9/83 NRC FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

~

1

~ 0