ML20136H803

Responds to Inquiry Re Why NRC Instead of FERC Involved in Determining Costs for Sale of Plant.Power Plant Ownership Arrangements,Except for Hydro Plants,Not Under Jurisdiction of Ferc.Disagreement on Cost Requires NRC Intervention

ML20136H803
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/15/1985
From:	Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8508200513
Download: ML20136H803 (2)

Text

. - - - - _

August 15, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: James P. Knight, Acting Director ,

Division of Engineering I l

SUBJECT:

ANTITRUST' l Alabama Power Co.

(Farley Nuclear Units, Nos.1 and 2)

OL Nos. N?F-2, NPF-8 ENFORCEMENT OF FARLEY ANTITRUST LICENSE' CONDITION As requested, we are proceeding, through OELD, to arrange a joint meeting -

among representatives of the Alabama Powee Company (APCo), the Alabama Electric Cooperative (AEC), OELD and NRR, to discuss the Farley antitrust license condition requiring a partial sale of the Farley plant to AEC. We will brief you on the significant issues prior to the meeting.

l j In response to your inquiry as to why the NRC instead of the FERC is involved in determining' the appropriate costs related to the sale of the Farley unit.

I would point out that this is not a question of rates or terms and conditions for transmission services or wholesale power sales for which FERC has prime responsibility. ' Power plant ownership arrangements, except for hydro plants, are normally not under the jurisdiction of FERC.

We are involved because the antitrust' license condition in the operating licenses, formulated and ordered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

~

Board after a full hearing on the merits, and subsequently upheld by the V.S.

Court of Appeals, requires APCo to sell' a portion of the plant under certain prescribed conditions. Therefore, it is our obligation'to interpret and see that the license condition is carried out. Nuclear power plant ownership i arrangements are normally agreed to by the parties without intervention or

( approval by-the NRC or FERC. In this case, however, the parties cannot agree l and the difference between the parties exceeds seventy (70) million dollars.

! If the parties were merely in disagreement on the allocation of the costs on the books, the dispute could be readily resolved. However, this disagreement (or perhaps posturing) pertains to matters based more on engineering concepts and a fairness doctrine than on cost accounting principles.

U 1

00TIJM gs;

o

.o

. I trust the above is responsive to your inquiry regarding the jurisdiction of the FERC. If we can be of further assistance, prior to the briefing.which is now being scheduled, please let me know.

/s James P. Knight,- Acting Director Division of Engineering

(. l DISTRIBUTION ~  ;

NRC-Docket /LPDR/PDR (3)

FF(2)

Murray Christenbury

- Cunningham Rutberg '

Vogler L Lewis Hassell E. Reeves.(438)-

Brad Jones R-II t Chron A.Toalston(242)

DCleary j

- WJohnston 1

. JPKnight i

I L

i I

-1

bf

,Ab) J i, . , / ' & 4A r OFC :DE: A .

D .

ELD  : E- *  :

_ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _p_,f_ _ _ _ _ : D pVE;r: _ . _ _ _-\_

NAME.:AT 1 ton :DC eary :BVogler- :WJohnston ' :JP ght  :  :

F------: -----------:M -- -------:------------:-----------

f _____:_--d DATE :6/7/85 - -------:------------:--

6/24,/85- :6/ 8/85 :6 /2 985~ @ /4F85  :'  :

o g . < .l . .4 -

.o -

.- . . . . - , , , . . . yi7g- 1 i ,

1 '- 1 ur P .m . . . - -- .. - -

)