ML19282B936
| ML19282B936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Saltzman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903190067 | |
| Download: ML19282B936 (1) | |
Text
p-
[8
'k UNITED STATES
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON C
h WASHlfJGTON, D. C. 20555
-bh FEB 2 81979 Docket Nos. 50-592A 50-593A 4.
Arizona Public Service Company ATTN: Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President-Construction Projects P. O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Gentlemen:
With reference to the construction permit application for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5, the Attorney General has furnished the Commission additional antitrust advice pursuant to section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
A copy of the Attorney General's letter dated February 22, 1979, is enclosed for your information.
We are also transmitting to the Office of the Federal Register a copy of the Attorney General's advice for publication.
It should be noted that pursuant to section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, a petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing on the antitrust aspects of the application may be filed by any person whose interest may be affected within thirty (30) days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register.
Sincerely, WEROME SMize,y Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Attorney General's Letter cc: Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
790319oOG7
r.
Oi IUniteb 4>tates Department of 3Tugtite WASIIINGTON, D.C. 20530 AS$85f ANT ATTOHNE Y GENf RAL ANTIFRUST De VISION 22 FEB 1979 Howard K.
Shapar Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
Re:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5, Arizona Public Service Company, NRC Docket Nos. 50-592A and 50-593A
Dear Mr. Shapar:
You have recuested our advice pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in regard to a revision of the above-cited application which would expand the ownership of the units to include Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (San Diego), City of Anaheim (Anaheim), City of Glendale (Glendale), City of Riverside
( Rive r s id e ), City of Pasadena (Pasadena), City of Burbank (Burbank), and the Nevada Power Company (NPC).
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 4 and 5 are two additional units planned for con-struction at the same site as. Units 1, 2 and 3 currently being built pursuant to construction permits issued by tne Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission") in NRC Docke t Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, re-spec t ively. 1/
The Department of Justice rendered anti-trust advice to the Commission by letter of September 13, 1/
The Department rendered antitrust advice to the Commission by letter of April 8, 1975 with respect to the proposed participation in PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 by Arizona Publ'c Service Company and El Paso Electric Company, and by letter of April 6, 1976 with respect to the participation of Southern California Edison Co. in Units 1, 2 and 3.
.. ~,,
1978, with respect to the initial applications of Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company regarding thei parti-ticipation in PVNGS Units 4 and 5.
The proposed revision will result in the eight additional participants owning the following percentage of the two units:
LADWP 11.7%
San Diego 5.2%
Anaheim 1.5%
Glendale 1.0%
Riverside 1.0%
Pasadena 1.0%
Burbank 1.0%
NPC 2.2%
LADWP has been the subject of antitrust review on two previous occasions.
In connection with LADWP's par-ticipation in the San Joaquin Nuclear Project we advised by letter of November 24, 1975, that no antitrust hearing was necessary, and more recently we advised by letter of July 17, 1978, that no antitrust hearing would be required in connection with LADWP's participation in Sundesert Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
San Diego has also been the subject of two previous antitrust reviews.
We advised the Commission by letter of July 12, 197], that a hearing was necessary in connec-tion with Southern California Edison's participation in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, but concluded, with respect to San Diego's participation, that an antitrust hearing was not warranted.
On May 12, 1976, we rendered antitrust advice in connection with San Diego's application to build the Sundesert Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
We again advised that a hearing was not necessary.
Anaheim, Glendale, Riverside and Pasadena filed applications to participate in both the San Joaquin and Sundesert plants, and the Commission was advised by let-ters of November 24, 1975, and September 2, 1977, that no antitrust hearings were necessary in connection with the participation by those cities in the San Joaquin and Sundesert plants, r espect ively.
We also advised the Commission by letter of July 17, 1978, that no antitrust hearing would be required in connection with the City of Burbank's planned participation in the Sundesert Nuclear Plant.
Our review of the information submitted for antitrust review purposes as well as other information available to the Department provides no basis at this time to conclude that the participation in PVNGS Units 4 and 5 by the above seven entities would warrant any change in our prior advice.
The eighth applicant, the Nevada Power Company (NPC) has not heretofore been the subject of an antitrust review under section 105c.
NPC is the largest electric utility in southern Nevada and in 1977 served approximately 136,000 customers ~(including the city of Las Vegas), with a peak load of approximately 1000 MWs.
NPC's 2.2 percent interest in the PVNGS Units 4 and 5, approximately 55 MW, represents about 4 percent of its 1978 generating capacity (approxi-mately 1200 MWs).
There is one municipally owned distribution system, two power districts, one REA cooperative, and one investor-owned distribution system in southern Nevada serving in areas adjacent to NPC 's f acilities, none of which have any generation in the area. 2/
The investor-owned system pur-chases power from NPC.
The public systems purchase power generated at Federal hydroelectric projects on the Colorado River from the U.S. Bureau of' Reclamation and the Nevada Division of Colorado River Rcsources.
The NPC performs central dispatching service for all of the utilities in the area, and thus, is in a position to control the ability of these other utilities to obtain power from sources outside of the area.
It appears, how-ever, that all the utilities are engaged in the planning of jointly owned generating plants.
Moreover, our inves-tigation uncovered no evidence that NPC has acted to fore-close or hinder the development of alternative sources of power or has otherwise placed the smaller utilities at a competitive disadvantage.
Accordingly, it is the Depart-ment's view that NPC's ownership of 2.2 percent of PVNGS 2/
The investor-owned system ( C-P Nat io nal, formerly California-Pacific Utilities Co.) does own some generation in northern Nevada.
%m units 4 and 5 will not create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and that an anti-trust hearing on NPC's application is not necessary.
Sincerely yours,
\\ \\
\\
t
/
[
! ALLtu lt16 Ass'i t nt 5t o ne Ge ral Antitrust Division
.