ML20206M444
| ML20206M444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Funches J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M414 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8608210216 | |
| Download: ML20206M444 (4) | |
Text
.. . . .. . - _ _ -
7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-456A C0m0M EKETTTDTKO1 R UMPANY NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIME FOR FILING REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of__the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a 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 proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the construction permit review of Unit 1 of the Braidwood 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 activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review. The Commission has delegated the authority to make the 'significant change' determination to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Based upon an examination of the events since the issuance of the Braidwood construction permits to Commonwealth Edison Company-(CECO), the staffs of the Planning and Resource Analysis j
Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereafter referred to as ' staff' have jointly concluded, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the construction permit review are not of the nature
~ to require a second antitrust review at the operating license (OL) stage of the application.
gRoe210216 860a11 -
M ADOCK 050004S6 PDR
- , - . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - - . - . . _ _ . - , _ _ - . __ _ ~ . _ _ - - - - - - - . -
a -
"In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility in Illinois, as well as events relevant to the Braidwood construction permit review and subsequent antitrust reviews of additional nuclear units owned by Commonwealth Edison Company. In addition, the staff has considered comments from interested parties in the state of Illinois and CECO concerning CEC 0's business relations with its customers and competitors.~
"The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
'Since the construction permit antitrust review of the Braidwood units in 1974 there have been subsequent reviews of the applicant's activities including antitrust reviews in 1976 for the Carroll County construction permit application and the LaSalle operating license l- application, and in 1983 for the Byron, Unit 1 operating license application. The Byron, Unit 1 review concluded that no significant changes had occurred in the applicant's activities up to that time, but noted that the City of Winnetka had petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals-for the District of Columbia for review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) opinion. Since that review the applicant and Winnetka have filed an agreement with FERC which, if approved by the Commission, l would resolve all outstanding disputes between CECO and Winnetka.
i
.. ~'
'Since the Byron, Unit 1 0L review, the changes in the company's activities have involved changes in rates and rate structure, both at the retail and wholesale level, which are the result of an order of the Illinois Commerce Commission and a settlement agreement filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Further, the applicant has contacted several electric utility companies and has offered to share participation in the Braidwood nuclear units. Based on the NRC staff review, the applicant has not unreasonably restrained these utilities from further participation in the Braidwood units.'
" Based upon the staff's analysis, it is my finding that there have been no significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities since the completion of the previous antitrust review in connection with the construction permit."
Signed on August 8, 1986, by Harold R. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
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 Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 within l
l
,~
.g.
30' days of the initial publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Requests for reevaluation of the no significant changes determination shall be ,
accepted after the date when the' Director's finding becomes final,-but before the issuance of the OL, only if they contain new information, such as information about facts or events of antitrust significance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been-submitted prior to that date.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Docket File No. 50-456A PRAB R/F PRAB S/F.
JFunches LSolander
'WLambe ,
BVogler, OGC JStevens,'PM PDR NRC PDR OFC PRA 5 PRAB:PPAS .D :
K:WLamb(:an : .5 a der :JFunches : : : :
E 8/jl /86 :8/h/86 *8/// /86 OFFICAL RECORD COPY