ML19347F194
| ML19347F194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1981 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F191 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105150439 | |
| Download: ML19347F194 (3) | |
Text
- _ -
- r~s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-361A AND 50-362A THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO "SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES" AND TIME FOR FILING OF REQUEST FOR REEVALUATION The director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made an initial determination in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant changes in the licensees' activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review of San Onofre 2 and 3 by the Attorney General and the Commission that would require an operating license antitrust review of the application.
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 with respect to nuclear reactors to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Based upon examination of the events that have transpired since issuance of the San Onofre 2 and 3 construction permits to the Southern California Edison Company and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, the staffs of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter referred to as the ' staff,' have jointly concluded, after consulting with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the antitrust construction permit review are not sufficiently
'significant' in an antitrust context to require a second antitrust 8105150 d
2 review at the operating license stage of the application'for licenses; i.e., the 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 Southern California, the events relevant to the San Onofre 2 and 3 construction permit antitrust review, and the events that have occurred subsequent to that permit review.
The Summ&ry and Conclusion of the Staff's analysis is as follows:
'During the construction permit review of San Onofre 2 and 3, the Attorney General's first advice letter did not identify any anti-competitive situation attributable to San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E") but specifically referred to actions taken and positions asserted by Southern California Edison Company ("SCE")
as foreclosing its customers from bulk power supply alternatives.
Presumably, in reaching a settlement agreement later with SCE, the Attorney General considered that this problem had been, or would be, resolved by the San Onofre license conditions.
' Based on this operating license review of San Onofre, staff has some concern that the actions and positions taken by SCE with respect to transmission services are still, at least to a limited degree, foreclosing SCE's customers from bulk power supply alter-natives.
This represents a change, at least of some significance, with respect to the situation envisioned at the close of the San Onofre construction permit antitrust review.
This change appears to have been brought about principally by a trend toward development of bulk power supply alternatives outside of the SCE service area and, to a lesser extent, by SCE's interpretation of what was required under its license conditions.
' Staff must decide as to whether these chanjes since the construc-tion permit review are easonably attributable to SCE and have significant antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy at this operating license stage.
In reaching this decision, staff takes note of the Attorney General's advice letters for San Joaquin, Palo Verde 1, 2, 3, and Palo Verde 4 and 5, each of which found no reason to recommend a hearing with respect to SCE. We also note the letters of Riverside and Anaheim which state that the issues are being fully aired and litigated before other agencies including the FERC and District Court.
Since Riverside and Anaheim are the entities that have been principally affected by SCE's transmission policies, staff has concluded in this finding that tnere are no 'significant changes' that would warrant a second antitrust review of SCE or SDG&E with respect to their San Onofre 2 and 3 applications.'
Based on the Staff's analysis, it is my finding that an operating license antitrust review of SCE or SDG&E with respect to the San Onofre Nuclear Units 2 and 3 is not required."
~
3 Copies of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's " Finding" s.1d the staff's completc analysis and appendices are available for inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and in the local public document room at Mission Viejo Branch Library, 24851 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, California.
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 Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555 by (60 days).
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION vt Argil Toalston, Acting Chief Utility Finance Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e
=w-g
..-