|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20217G9961999-10-14014 October 1999 SER Accepting First 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Requests for Relief for Plant,Units 1 & ML20212A7441999-09-10010 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Alternatives Contained in Relief Request 12R-07 Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety ML20210U8111999-08-0404 August 1999 SER Granting Licensee Relief Requests VR-1,VR-3 & Portion of VR-2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii).Relief Request VR-4 Does Not Require Explicit NRC Approval Because Relief Applies to Valves Not Required by 10CFR50.55a ML20210K9861999-07-30030 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee 60-day Response to GL 96-05, Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Movs ML20207B6481999-05-25025 May 1999 SER Accepting Revised SGTR Analysis for Byron & Braidwood Stations.Revised Analysis Was Submitted to Support SG Replacement at Unit 1 of Each Station ML20205C5101999-03-21021 March 1999 Revised Safety Evaluation Supporting Improved TS Amends Issued by NRC on 981222 to FOLs NPF-37,NPF-66,NPF-72 & NPF-77.Revised Pages Include Editorial Corrections ML20155B6711998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Requests for Relief Associated with Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program Plan ML20154D4401998-10-0202 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Authorizing Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program Request for Relief 12R-30 for Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20238F3281998-08-31031 August 1998 SER Approving Second 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Program Request for Relief 12R-14 for Braidwood Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20217K6331998-04-20020 April 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Methodology & Criteria Used in Generating Flaw Evaluation Charts for RPV of Braidwood IAW Section XI of ASME Code ML20216F4921998-03-11011 March 1998 Correction to Safety Evaluation Re Revised SG Tube Rapture Analysis ML20197B7531998-03-0404 March 1998 SER Accepting License Request for Relief from Immediate Implementation of Amended Requirements of 10CFR50.55a for Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20199G2591998-01-28028 January 1998 Safety Evaluation Rept Accepting Revised SG Tube Rupture Analysis ML20199H0031998-01-21021 January 1998 SER Accepting Pressure Temp Limits Rept & Methodology for Relocation of Reactor Coolant Sys pressure-temp Limit Curves & Low Temp Overpressure Protection Sys Limits for Byron Station,Units 1 & 2 & Braidwood Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20199C1401998-01-16016 January 1998 SER Accepting Request to Integrate Reactor Vessel Weld Metal Surveillance Program for Byron,Units 1 & 2 & Braidwood,Units 1 & 2 Per 10CFR50 ML20197G0041997-12-11011 December 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting First 10-yr Interval Insp Program Plan,Rev 4 & Associated Requests for Relief for Plant ML20198R3061997-10-27027 October 1997 Staff Evaluation Rept Concluding That Licensee IPE Complete Wrt Info Requested by GL 88-20 & Process Meets Intent of Subj GL ML20217C1681997-09-22022 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Request for Relief from ASME Code,Section Iii,Div 2 for Repair of Damaged Concrete Reinforcement Steel NUREG-1335, Staff Evaluation Rept Concluding That Licensee IPE Complete Wrt Info Requested by GL 88-20 & Associated Guidance, NUREG-13351997-08-28028 August 1997 Staff Evaluation Rept Concluding That Licensee IPE Complete Wrt Info Requested by GL 88-20 & Associated Guidance, NUREG-1335 ML20141L9321997-05-29029 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Use of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Ix,Code Cases 2142-1 & 2143-1 for Reactor Coolant Sys for Plants ML20141B5551997-05-13013 May 1997 SE Accepting First 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan Request for Relief NR-29 for Braidwood Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20140H8871997-05-0808 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Request for Relief from ASME Code Repair Requirements for ASME Code Class 3 Piping Ceco ML20129F9101996-10-25025 October 1996 Safety Evaluation Accepting Request to Apply LBB Analyses to Eliminate Large Primary Loop Pipe Rupture from Structural Design Basis for Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20059E2871993-12-30030 December 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 57,57,45,45,93,77,152 & 140 to Licenses NPF-37,NPF-66,NPF-72,NPF-77,NPF-11,NPF-18, DPR-39 & DPR-48 Respectively ML20058L9961990-08-0606 August 1990 Safety Evaluation Denying Licensee Response to Station Blackout Rule.Staff Recommends That Licensee Reevaluate Areas of Concern Identified in SER ML20247D1471989-07-18018 July 1989 SER Supporting Util Proposed Implementation of ATWS Design, Per 10CFR50.62 Requirements ML20155F1591988-10-0606 October 1988 Safety Evaluation Re Mixed Greases W/Greater than 5% Unqualified Contaminant in Limitorque Valve Operators. Insufficient Info Presented to Draw Conclusions ML20236L2001987-10-30030 October 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 11 to Licenses NPF-37 & NPF-66,respectively & Amend 1 to License NPF-72 ML20210R2061987-02-0606 February 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 850517,0802,0823,1211 & 860429 Submittals Re Environ Effects of High Energy Line Breaks in Auxiliary Steam or Steam Generator Blowdown Sys. Design of Blowdown Sys Acceptable ML20210T2571987-02-0606 February 1987 SER Re Util 850802 Submittal Describing Design Details of Steam Generator Blowdown & Auxiliary Steam Sys to Detect & Isolate High Energy Line Breaks.Sys Design Acceptable, However,Two Deviations from IEEE-STD-297 Criteria Apparent ML20209C3571987-01-23023 January 1987 SER Supporting Facility Design,Per Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 4.5.2, Reactor Trip Sys Reliability,On-Line Testing ML20207Q2211987-01-16016 January 1987 SER Accepting Util 861117 Submittal on Utilization of Charcoal Absorber Matl in Safety & nonsafety-grade Air Filtration Units ML20211J7141986-11-0505 November 1986 Reevaluation & Affirmation of No Significant Change Finding Pursuant to Braidwood Station Unit 1 OL Antitrust Review ML20215D7341986-10-0101 October 1986 Safety Evaluation Re Util 860623 Request That One Startup Test Be Modified & Five Startup Tests Be Eliminated.Mod to Rod Drop Measurement Test & Elimination of Certain Other Startup Tests Acceptable ML20214N7201986-09-0909 September 1986 Safety Evaluation Conditionally Supporting Rod Swap Technique & Util Nuclear Analysis Methods for Control Rod Worth Measurements ML20206R0521986-06-25025 June 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 840229 & 860421 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Re post-maint Testing (All Other safety-related Components) ML20199K4021986-06-25025 June 1986 Safety Evaluation of Applicant 831105 & 840601 Responses to 830708 Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.1 (Part 1),requiring Identification of Reactor Trip Sys Components as safety- Related.Licensee Program Approved ML20197D5661986-05-0505 May 1986 SER Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.2, Post-Trip Review - Data & Info Capabilities IR 05000456/19840441986-02-25025 February 1986 Supplemental SER Re Electrical Separation Deficiencies Revealed During Const Appraisal Team Insps 50-456/84-44 & 50-457/84-40 ML20154C3641986-02-25025 February 1986 Suppl to Safety Evaluation Supporting Results of Tests Conducted by Wyle Labs Contained in Test Rept 17769-01 to Justify Less Separation Between Class 1E & non-Class 1E Cables than Required by Reg Guide 1.75 ML20209J1091985-11-0505 November 1985 SER Supporting Licensee Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.3 & 3.2.3 Re post-maint Test Requirements That May Degrade Rather than Enhance Safety ML20138A8711985-10-0707 October 1985 Sser Supporting Util 850725 Proposed FSAR Change, Incorporating Nuclear Const Issues Group Rev 2 to Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Plants Into FSAR Table 3.8-2 & Section 3.10.3.2.2 ML20209G6381985-09-17017 September 1985 SER Supporting Util 831105 & 850215 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1 & 3.1.2, Post-Maint Testing Verification... & 4.1 & 4.5.1, Reactor Trip Sys Reliability.... Proposed Programs Meet Requirements ML20129H9071985-07-11011 July 1985 SER Accepting 850605 Submittal Re Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.1 on post-trip Review Program & Procedures ML20128M9391985-05-17017 May 1985 SER Based on Util 831105 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28, Item 1.1 Re post-trip Review Program Description & Procedure 1999-09-10
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217G9961999-10-14014 October 1999 SER Accepting First 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Requests for Relief for Plant,Units 1 & BW990066, Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With1999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With ML20217P6351999-09-29029 September 1999 Non-proprietary Rev 6 to HI-982083, Licensing Rept for Spent Fuel Rack Installation at Byron & Braidwood Nuclear Stations ML20217A1691999-09-22022 September 1999 Part 21 Rept Re Engine Sys,Inc Controllers,Manufactured Between Dec 1997 & May 1999,that May Have Questionable Soldering Workmanship.Caused by Inadequate Personnel Training.Sent Rept to All Nuclear Customers ML20212A7441999-09-10010 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Alternatives Contained in Relief Request 12R-07 Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety BW990056, Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With1999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With ML20210R6421999-08-13013 August 1999 ISI Outage Rept for A2R07 ML20210U8111999-08-0404 August 1999 SER Granting Licensee Relief Requests VR-1,VR-3 & Portion of VR-2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii).Relief Request VR-4 Does Not Require Explicit NRC Approval Because Relief Applies to Valves Not Required by 10CFR50.55a BW990048, Monthly Operating Repts for Jul 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With1999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Jul 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With ML20210K9861999-07-30030 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee 60-day Response to GL 96-05, Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Movs ML20216D3841999-07-12012 July 1999 Revised NFM9900022, Braidwood Unit 2 Cycle 8 COLR in ITS Format & W(Z) Function M990002, Revised NFM9900022, Braidwood Unit 2 Cycle 8 COLR in ITS Format & W(Z) Function1999-07-12012 July 1999 Revised NFM9900022, Braidwood Unit 2 Cycle 8 COLR in ITS Format & W(Z) Function BW990038, Monthly Operating Repts for June 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With1999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With BW990029, Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Braidwood Stations, Units 1 & 2.With1999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Braidwood Stations, Units 1 & 2.With ML20209H7481999-05-31031 May 1999 Revised Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Braidwood Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20207B6481999-05-25025 May 1999 SER Accepting Revised SGTR Analysis for Byron & Braidwood Stations.Revised Analysis Was Submitted to Support SG Replacement at Unit 1 of Each Station ML20195B2591999-05-19019 May 1999 Rev 66a to CE-1-A,consisting of Proposed Changes to QAP for Dnps,Qcs,Znps,Lcs,Byron & Braidwood Stations BW990021, Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With1999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1999 for Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2.With BW990016, Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With1999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20205C5101999-03-21021 March 1999 Revised Safety Evaluation Supporting Improved TS Amends Issued by NRC on 981222 to FOLs NPF-37,NPF-66,NPF-72 & NPF-77.Revised Pages Include Editorial Corrections ML20196A0721999-03-16016 March 1999 Cycle 8 COLR in ITS Format & W(Z) Function ML20207J4371999-03-0808 March 1999 ISI Outage Rept for A1R07 ML20204H9941999-03-0303 March 1999 Non-proprietary Rev 4 to HI-982083, Licensing Rept for Spent Fuel Rack Installation at Byron & Braidwood Nuclear Stations BW990010, Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With1999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20206U9011999-02-15015 February 1999 COLR for Braidwood Unit 2 Cycle 7. Page 1 0f 13 of Incoming Submittal Was Not Included BW990004, Monthly Operating Repts for Jan 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With1999-01-31031 January 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Jan 1999 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20205M7061998-12-31031 December 1998 Unicom Corp 1998 Summary Annual Rept. with BW990001, Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With1998-12-31031 December 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20206B4001998-12-31031 December 1998 Annual & 30-Day Rept of ECCS Evaluation Model Changes & Errors for Byron & Braidwood Stations ML20206U9081998-12-17017 December 1998 Cycle 8 COLR in ITS Format & W(Z) Function BW980076, Monthly Operating Repts for Nov 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With1998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Nov 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20196A4191998-11-19019 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting QA TR CE-1-A,Rev 66 Re Changes in Independent & Onsite Review Organization by Creating NSRB ML20195D3561998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Oct 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20155B6711998-10-26026 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Requests for Relief Associated with Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program Plan ML20207H7671998-10-0505 October 1998 Rv Weld Chemistry & Initial Rt Ndt ML20154D4401998-10-0202 October 1998 Safety Evaluation Authorizing Second 10-yr Interval ISI Program Request for Relief 12R-30 for Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20155C2601998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20195F5911998-09-11011 September 1998 Special Rept:On 980812,addl Unseated Wires Were Discovered. Cause Is Unknown at Present Time.Util Evaluated Number of Unseated/Ineffective Wires & Determined Effect on Containment Structural Integrity.Commitments,Encl ML20196B3711998-09-0808 September 1998 Cycle 8 Operating Limits Rept (Olr) ML20151X6671998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20238F3281998-08-31031 August 1998 SER Approving Second 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Program Request for Relief 12R-14 for Braidwood Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20237E2331998-08-21021 August 1998 Revised Pages of Section 20 of Rev 66 to CE-1-A, QA Topical Rept ML20237A1091998-07-31031 July 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for July 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Unit 1 & 2 ML20236N7001998-06-30030 June 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20198A0151998-06-18018 June 1998 10CFR50.59 Summary Rept 960619 Through 980618, Vols I & Ii,Consisting of Descriptions & SE Summaries for Changes to Procedural UFSAR Changes,Tests & Experiments & FP Rept.Without Fp,Rept ML20249A5451998-05-31031 May 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station Units 1 & 2 ML20247F7711998-05-0808 May 1998 Special Rept:On 980403 & 980503 Seismic Monitoring Sys Was Declared Inoperable.Caused by 5-volt Power Supply & Regulator Card Failure.Imd & Sys Engineering Are Continuing to Identify & Resolve Problems So Sys Can Be Operable ML20247L7591998-04-30030 April 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20217K6331998-04-20020 April 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Methodology & Criteria Used in Generating Flaw Evaluation Charts for RPV of Braidwood IAW Section XI of ASME Code ML20216C6621998-03-31031 March 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1998 for Braidwood Generating Station,Units 1 & 2 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
,
REEVALUATION AND AFFIRMATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FINDING PURSUANT TO THE BRAIDWOOD STATION UNIT 1 OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW By letter dated September 15, 1986, the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA), represented by ' counsel, Mr. Marvin S. Lieberman, requested a reevaluation of my " Finding of No Significant Change" pursuant to the captioned antitrust review which was published in the Federal Register on August 15,1986(51 Fed. Reg.29350). For the reasons set forth below, I have decided not to change my Finding of no significant antitrust changes.
BACKGROUND Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) underwent an antitrust review at the construction pennit (CP) stage for the Braidwood facility by the Atomic Energy Commission staff and the Department of Justice (Department) in accordance with Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Allegations of anticompetitive conduct on the part of CECO arose during the CP review and identified by the Department in its advice letter to the Atomic Energy Connission dated March 4,1974. The Departnient highlighted three principal areas of concern involving CEC 0's activities with smaller
- competing power systems in northern Illinois: (1) the inability of smaller power systems to gain access to the benefits associated with baseload generating facilities--nuclear power in particular; (2) the practice employed by CECO to limit the number of its wholesale customers by imposing restrictive provisions in its wholesale for resale power contracts--the practice identified by the Department as a " wholesale freeze"; and (3) certain pricing practices employed by CEC 0 resulting in a " price squeeze" for CECO's all requirements wholesale for resale customers.
8611110233 861105 PDR ADOCK 05000456 M PDR
. - - -~ . - - . . _ . _ . . . . - . - - . .
- .t.
' After extensive negotiations among CECO, its wholesale for resale customers and the staffs of the Department and the Atomic Energy Comission, these s'
competitive concerns were resolved after CECO agreed to remove certain i restrictive provisions in its wholesale tariff and mitigated the effects of a possible price squeeze for its wholesale for resale customers by offering
, ownership access to its LaSalle nuclear plant. Moreover, the Department indicated in its Byron /Braidwood advice letter that the alleged price squeeze issue could be resolved at the Federal Power Comission (now the Federal .
j f
Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC). In light of these comitments by CECO and the likelihood that the price squeeze issue alone would not appear t
to warrant an antitrust hearing before the Atomic Energy Comission, the Department concluded that an antitrust hearing would not be necessary pursuant j
to CECO's application to coDstruct the Byron and Braidwood nuclear power stations.
BylettErdatedMarch 22, 1979, CECO submitted information pursuant to changes in the licensee's activities that have occurred since the antitrust review at the CP stage--per the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (Comission) Regulatory Guide 9.3. Due to slippage in fuel load dates for both Byron and Braidwood, my staff requested CECO to furnish an updated response to Regulatory Guide 9.3, which was supplied by CEC 0 via letter dated January 14, 1985. CEC 0 furnished l
i i
- In 1977 the Supreme Court ruled that the FERC had jurisdiction and must consider the competitive implications associated with " price squeeze" issues.
i i
1 f
1 i
[ the staff with additional data on June 20, 1985 pursuant to a settlement After reviewing the changes agreement with one of its wholesale customers.
(those with competitive significance) that have occurred since the construction permit review for Byron and Braidwood and the results of antitrust reviews associated with other CECO nuclear plants since the Byron /Braidwood CP review (i.e., the Carroll County construction permit and LaSalle operating license reviews in 1976 and the Byron Unit 1 operating license review in 1983), my staff recomended that no formal operating license Based (OL) antitrust review of CECO's Braidwood Station Unit I was necessary.
upon the staff's analysis, I issued a no.significant change finding* pursuant By letter-to the Braidwood Station Unit 1 OL application on August 8, 1986. .
dated September'15, 1986, the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, through counsel, Mr. Marvin S. Liebeman, requested a reevaluation of my Finding.
t Section 105c, Paragraph (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, directs the Comission not to conduct a full scale antitrust review (similar'to that required at the construction permit stage) "...unless the Comission determines such review is advisable on the ground that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous review by the Attorney General and the Comission under this subsection in connection with the construction pemit for the facility." On September 12, 1979, by memorandum from Chairman Hendrie to William J. Dircks, Director, HMSS, and Harold R. Denton, Director NRR, the Commission delegated its v
." significant change" responsibility to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
i
.l >
DISCUSSION The Comission delegated its authority to make significant change findings to the staff and established a definite set of criteria the staff must follow in making the determination whether or not a significant change has occurred.
~
The change or changes, (1) must have occurred since the previous antitrust
~
review of the licensee (s); (2) are reasonably attributable to the licensee (s);
and (3) have antitrust implications that would likely warrant some form of Comission remedy. It is within this framework established by the Comission that I made my initial " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Change" in August of 1986 and it is within this framework that I have analyzed IMEA's request to reevaluate my Braidwood significant change Finding.
i In its request for reevaluation, IMEA contends that CECO has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities including, (1) the elimination of IMEA a's an actual and potential competitor in the Illinois electric bulk power services m'arket; (2) the unlawful denial of access to CECO's transmission facilities; i
(3) refusals to deal by CEC 0; and (4) the imposition of monopoly rents on wholesale for resale customers. The activities described by IMEA in its request for reevaluation and related documents do not depict anticompetitive i
I
' The Comission delegated its authority to make significent change findings to the staff by memorandum dated September 12,1979(see previous footnote). The Comission included in this delegation of authority specific procedures the staff should follow in conducting its
( significant chan and 13 NRC 862 (ge reviews.1981)),In its Sumerthe decisions (11 NRC Comission 817 (1980) outlined the criteria the staff
{
l must employ in making a finding as to whether or not there have been 1
significant changes (with competitive significance) since the previous antitrust review.
t
! behavior by CEC 0'that would likely warrant a remedy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Consequently, I have found no reason to conclude that there has been a change in CECO'r activities since the CP review that would cause me to amend my " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Change."
The thrust of IMEA's request is that the Commission staff did not consider the
" predatory discriminatory pricing practices" of CECO in its analysis of changes in the licensee's activities and finding of no significant antitrust changes. IMEA's concerns revolve around a series of events relating to competition for wholesale for resale loads between IMEA and CECO over the past few years. Pursuant:to a settlement agreement between CECO and its full requirements wholesale for resale customers reached before the FERC in 1984 (ER83-437-000), CEC 0's wholesale customers were given the option, upon one years notice, of' terminating service from CECO and taking their power requirements over CECO's transmission system from other bulk power suppliers.
It appears that this settlement agreement has provided a competitive stimulus in the Illinois bulk power services market and many of the concerns expressed by IMEA in its request for reevaluation are the result of competition between IMEA and CEC 0 for wholesale power loads, s
Subsequent to the settlement agreement between CECO and its full requirements wholesale customers, two of the wholesale customers, the cities of Geneva and Rock Falls, elected to take their power requirements from a supplier other than CECO. Per the 1984 settlement, CECO filed a full requirements transmission tariff before the FERC to facilitate the transmission of power to the cities. The transmission tariff was challenged by Geneva, Rock Falls and
O
,' IMEA before the FERC as being discriminatory. The FERC agreed with the position taken by CECO's wholesale customars and ordered CEC 0 to file a new wheeling tariff based not upon marginal costs but on average system costs. The just and reasonable wheeling rate is presently under review by the FERC.
During 1985 and 1986, all of CEC 0's full requirements wholesale customers began to explore the feasibility of taking their power and energy requirements
.(through IMEA) from suppliers other than CECO. This interest in alternative power suppliers has heightened competition for wholesale loads between CECO and IMEA. Moreover, the municipal electric systems that were full requirements customers of CECO and also members of the IMEA joint action agency had begun to negotiate power supply contracts on their own, directly with CECO. As a result of this developmert, IMEA claimed that CECO.was refusing to deal with IMEA and denying access tor its transmission facilities. Staff considers CEC 0's activities in this instance (s) to be reactions to increased competition in the Illinois electric bulk power services market. As a result of the discussions between CECO and its wholesale power customers, three of the cities remained full requirements wholesale customers of CECO and two opted to take their power requirements through power secured by IMEA (see discussion above). The contracts negotiated by the three remaining cities included a provision giving the cities access to CEC 0's transmission facilities if the cities decided to tenninate their service from CECO. These newly negotiated contracts, which
- The Illinois cities of Naperville, Batavia and St. Charles.
The contract limits levelized energy cost increases to 3% per year for the next five years. For the second five year period of the 10 year contract, levelized cost increases are to be kept at or below 5%. If costs rise above these projections, and the cities are able to find less costly sources of supply, they have the option to disconnect from CECO and take power over the CECO transmission system.
dre presently under review by the FERC, Docket No. ER86-615, do not appear on their surface to represent an unwillingness to provide' access to transmission or a refusal to deal by CECO.
In regard to IMEA's allegations that CECO is extracting monopoly rents from two of its wholesale power custoriers (Geneva and Rock Falls) and charging predatory and discriminatory prices for its bulk power services, I must ultimately defer resolution of these issues to the Federal Energy ,
Regulatory Comission. Rock Falls and Geneva (Geneva until May 1, 1986 when the city began taking power from Wisconsin Electric Power Co.) are being served by CECO under fully executed and FERC approved tariffs. The fact that CEC 0's rates were higher than their newly negotiated contracts with new suppliers (which does not take effect'until 1987 for Rock Falls) does not indicate any exercise of nonopoly power by CECO. Moreover, CECO has filed transmission tariffs for Geneva and Rock Falls as well as wholesale power tariffs for its full requirements customers before the FERC. The detennination as to whether or net these filed rates are predatory or discriminatory rests with the Federal Energy' Regulatory Comission--not the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. The FERC has acknowledged this responsibility in its June 18, 1986 order pursuant to CEC 0's recent transmission rate filing:
"It should be beyond question that once Edison had elected to file the rate schedules, the Comission [FERC] was empowered to set rates for the service that would be just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential." (Comonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. ER86-76-004, et al., 35 FERC 61,352 (1986).
, The Nuclear Regulatory Connission does not have jurisdiction over tariffs for electric power and energy and consequently, could not remedy any inequities (if found) in such tariffs. I believe the issues raised in IMEA's request for reevaluation would be more appropriately addressed by the FERC, where rate proceedings involving CEC 0, IMEA and its member cities and the issues raised herein, are in progress.
For the reasons stated above, I have decided not to change my " Finding of No Significant Change" pursuant to the antitrust operating license review of the.
Braidwood Station, Unit 1.
l "
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
- - - - - , . . , , , _ - , . , , _ _ - . - _ . _ . _ _ . - - , . . . , , . , , _ , , _ . . . - _ _ _ , . ,- . _ - , - - _ , , - - - - - , - - --