ML20039H263
| ML20039H263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1981 |
| From: | Skjei S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039H262 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8201200042 | |
| Download: ML20039H263 (2) | |
Text
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-322A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIME FOR FILING OF REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made an initial finding in accordance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensee's activities or pro-posed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 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 acti.<ities 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 events that have transpired since issuance of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station construction permit to the Long Island Lighting 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 'significant' in an antitrust context to require a second formal antitrust review at the operating license stage of the ap-plication for licenses; i.e., the changes which have occurred either are not reasonably attributable to the licensee 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 New York state, the events relevant to the Shoreham construction permit antitrust review, and the events that have occurred subsequent to that permit review.
"The Conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
' Applicant's activities subsequent to the Shoreham CP antitrust review have been evaluated on several occasions.
The staff's review of the operating license application in 1976 found no significant antitrust changes at that time.
Subsequent antitrust 1
l 8201200042 811229 PDR ADOCK 05000322 M
2 reviews of the Long Island Lighting Company with respect to the Jamesport, Nine Mile Point No. 2 and New York State Electric and Gas nuclear plants were conducted by the Attorney General.
Ead of these reviews indicated no actual or potential violation of the antitrust laws on the part of LILCO.
These previous reviews have described changes in the Applicant's activities, occurring since the Shoreham CP antitrust review, which have had either no apparent effect on competition or have enhanced the competitive posture of smaller systems in LILC0's service area.
' Interconnection agreements have been negotiated between Applicant and the Cities of Freeport and Rockville Center.
These agreements call for various coordination services, including LILC0's wheeling of power and energy from the Power Authority of the State of N.Y.
The City of Greenport has entered into a more limited interconnection agreement with the Applicant which calls for wheeling services only.
' Based on the findings of this current review, the October,1976 review, and the Attorney General's advice letters with respect to other nuclear facilities, staff has concluded that the changes in the Applicant's activities since the completion of the Shoreham CP antitrust review do not have any antitrust implications that would likely warrant some Commission remedy.
As a result, these changes do not meet the 'significant change' criteria and therefore do not require a further, formal antitrust review at the operating license stage. The Department of Justice has concurred in this Analysis.'
" Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of the Long Island Lighting Company with respect to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is not required."
Signed on December 17, 1981 by Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Any person whose interest may be affected pursuant to this initial detennination may file with full particulars a request for reevaluation with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 by (60 days).
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y._
- 'b F,,
StephensSkjet, Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Brar.ch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-