ML20055H824

Responds to Re NRC 891214 License Amend Granting Transfer of Operational Control of Plants.Nrc Will Not Initiate Antitrust Review to Consider Imposing Addl License Conditions

ML20055H824
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear, Waterford
Issue date:	07/27/1990
From:	Dudley R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Wilson Z AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
A, NUDOCS 9007300144
Download: ML20055H824 (3)

Text

, . , _ _ _ - ._ - - -

w. -

i I jfo ntoi,

' ' A4 V , f, . ' _ UNITED STATES

[

'_ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

n ,; WA SHINGTON, D. C. 20555

-July 27, 1990~

-Q4. . o /

Docket Nos.- 50-416, 50-417 50-382, and 50-368 L

1 L Zachary David _ Wilson, P. A.

321 Maple St.-

North'Little Rock, Arkansas 72114

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMS ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

, This letter is a reply to your January 25, 1990, correspondence on behalf of the Farmers Electric Cooperative Corporation and the Cities of Benton, Conway,

"- North Little Rock, Osceola, Prescott, and West Memphis, Arkansas regarding the NRC's December _14, 1989, license amendments granting the transfer of operational control of Grand Gulf, Units 1 and 2, Waterford, Unit 3, and Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) to Entergy Operations, Inc, l.

On November 30, 1989, you had previously recuested that the license amendments ,

is granting this transfer should ae conditionec upon electric utilities in '

/ Arkansas being offered the same electrical services that are offered to electric utilities in Mississippi and Louisiana under the Grand Gulf and-Waterford license conditions. We responded in a Safety Evaluation (SE) H

-published with our Federa_1 Register Notice of December 27, 1989, (54 FR 53200-03) that the holding of an antitrust hearing which would_ consider the imposition of these additional license conditions was not warranted. a Your January 25, 1990, correspondence requests reconsideration of our

-December 27, 1989, determination. You base this request on your belief that

-utilities in Mississippi and Louisiana will have a competitive advantage in '

L attracting new customers over Arkansas utilities who do not have access to l 1 -services provided by NRC license conditions. However, the argument which you- y l'

now make would not change our earlier decision not to initiate an antitrust

' review. The fact that municipalities and electric cooperatives in some areas

'of the' country are beneficiaries of NRC license conditions does not establish that all municipalities and electric cooperatives outside these areas should l receive the.same' benefits; such logic would result in license conditions L ~ automatically being imposed on all utilities with nuclear facilities. There must be just cause for imposition of license conditions on a nuclear facility, i.e., evidence of activities by a licensee (s) that would create or maintain a ,

, situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. In this case, a need for i license conditions has not been established since you have not alleged nor

. furnished'anyproof,thatArkansasPowerandLighthasrefusedtoprovide E

9007300144 900727 PDR fiDOCK 05000368 M PDC s -s > w

]

,+ go

l -t

[+' 8_'

3 e kr. Zachary David Wilson '

these services in the past, or if requested, would refuse to provide them-in the future. -Moreover,-since-Entergy Operations Inc. is the subject of this amendment thero.is no basis for using this amendment to impose license conditions on Arkansas Power and Light. i In addition,-there is no indication that there have been significant changed' l

circumstances in your clients' competitive areas since the NRC's last antitrust L

review. Generally, antitrust reviews are only available at the NRC for the issuance of construction permits and operating licenses and when new owners are added to a license. ' As we explained in the SE, without significant changed -

circumstances relating to the requested amendment, no antitrust hearing is allowed (see South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear L 3i.a_ tion,UnitT),CLI-80-28,11flRCB17,B20,835(1980)).- The fact that

~

-Entergy Operations, Inc. will now operate these nuclear units does not constitute a significant change since the electric power f rom these units will still be marketed _by the already licensed utilities themselves and the competitive situation remains essentially the same.1 You have'also commented that 10 CFR 50.91 does not impose a burden of proof on L those who are providing comments i.o proposed license amendments. While you are correct that there is no burden of_ proof, as such, those who provide comments are expected to furnish sufficient information for the NRC staff to determine whether it would be-appropriate to pursue the matter.

l We trust this answers your inquiries. Although the staff does not believe that

-you have established a basis.for initiating an antitrust review before the NRC j in connection with.the amendment authorizing transfer of operating control of ANO-2, to the extent that you believe that violations of the antitrust laws-have occurred, you, of course, may have other options available.

Sincerely,

~ r s ,

Richard F. Dudley, Acting Director Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nucleal Reactor Regulation l

l l

l- 1 l

l^

1 1

? .. (

{

• h .< Mr. Zachary David Wilsor 2 these services in the past, or if requested, would refuse to provide them in the t'uture. Moreover, since Entergy Operations, Inc. is the subject of this nendment there is no basis for using this amendment to impcse license conditions on Arkansas Power and Light.

< In addition, there is no indication that there have been significant changed circumstances in'your clients' competitive areas since the NRC's last antitntst review. Generally, antitrut.t reviews are only available at the NRC for the issuance of construction perraits and operating licenses and when new owners are added to a license. as we explained in the SE, withcut significant changed circumstances re hting to the requesteu amendment, no antitrust hearing is allowed (see $3ett. Carolina Eicctric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1)., CLI.8640,11 NRC717, 82035 (1980)). The fact that Entergy Operations, Inc. will now operate these nuclear units does not constitute a significant change since the electric power from these units will still be marketed by the already licen4*d utilities themselves and the competitive situation remains essentially the same.

You have also commented that 10 CFR 50.91 does not impose a burden of proof on those who are providing comments to proposed license amendments. While you are correct that there is no burden of proof as such, those who provide commentsareexpectedtofurnishsufficientInformationfortheNRCstaffto deterwine whether it would be appropriate to pursue the matter.

We trust this answers your inquiries. Although the staff does not believe that you have established a casis for initiating an antitrust review before the KRC in connection with the amendment authorizing transfer of oserating control of ANO.2, to the extent that you believe that violations of tie antitrust laws have occurred, you, of course, may have other options available, pagese4Mee84W8 Richard F. Dudley, Acting Director

• Project Directorate IV.1 Divisien of Reactor Projects . 111 IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBilTION 95t55TTTO NRC PDR Local PDR PD41 Reading G. Holahan MS 13E4 F. Hebdon P. Noonan C. Posiusny L. Dewey, OGC T. Westerman J. Rutberg, OGC L. ChatJ1er, OGC PD4 Plant File L. Kintner D. Wigginton T. Alexion OSee previous concurrences:

OFC :PD4-1/LA* :PD4-1/PM* :0GC' :0GC* :0GC* :PE5W NAME :PNoonan :CPoslusny:tj :LDewey :JRutberg :LChandler :RFDudley DATE :06/12/90 :06/13/90 :06/15/90- 206/18/90 :07/19/90 :07F)/90 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: ARKANSAS 02 /

x