ML20206P205
| ML20206P205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1986 |
| From: | Funches J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206P179 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8608270123 | |
| Download: ML20206P205 (4) | |
Text
.
7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET h0. 50-456A '
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ~
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 r2 view 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 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.
8608270123 860826 PDR ADOCK 05000456 M PDR
I "In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the l electricutilityinIllinois,aswellaseventsrelevantto't'iieBraidwood 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 CECO'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 Ccunty 1
construction permit application and the LaSalle operating license 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 Ccenission, would resolve all outstanding disputes between CECO and Winnetka.
_ -, ' ~
. . - 3~-
I
'Since the Byron, Unit 1 OL review, the changes in the compaay's
-+ l 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
~
IllinoisCommerceCommissionandasettlementagreemeltfiledwiththe 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 s'ince the completion of the previous antitrust review in connection with the construction permit."
Signed en August 8,1986, by Harold R. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regalation. .
Any person whose interest may be affected by th.is 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 t 9 l
l I
l
30 days of the initial publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Recuests for reevaluation of the no significant changes determinatTon shall be accepted efter the date when the Director's finding becomes final, but before 4
the issuance of the OL, only if they contain new infors.ation, s'Uch 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.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
.A
- J se L. Funches, Dire'ctor Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
e 9
4 1
i i
d
~
.n - - - -
- - - - - , - - - , . - . , . . - - - . _ , r,- . , . --, ., -- .. , , - - -, .- - - w~