ML20247F442
| ML20247F442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1989 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F430 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8905300083 | |
| Download: ML20247F442 (5) | |
Text
_-- . _ _ .
7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-353A PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC 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 signific?nt (antitrust) changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous antitrust operating license review of Unit 1 of the Limerick Generating 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 Limerick Generating ,
l Station Unit 1 (Limerick 1) operating license to the Philadelphia Electric Company, the staffs of the Policy Development and Technical Support Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of 1
the General Coun:;el, hereafter referred to as " staff", have jointly concluded, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the ]
l changes that have occurred since the Limerick 1 antitrust operating license review are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
8905300083 890515 r PDR ADOCK 05000353 i M PDC i J
i In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in eastern Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland pooling area, the events relevant to the Limerick 1 operating license review and the. events that have occurred subsequent to the Limerick I operating license review.
The conclusion of the staff analysis is as follows:
Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for relicensing antitrust reviews of commercial power reactors at the construction permit and operating license stages of the licensing process. The antitrust operating. license review is not intended as a de novo review but is focused only on those activities of the
. licensee (s)thathaveoccurredsincethecompletionofthe construction permit review.
This concept of reviewing only significant changes in the licensee's activities at the operating license stage l has been applied by the staff to reviews of multiunit plant applications. For those plants with multiple reactor licenses, the staff conducts separate antitrust reviews for i
each reactor when the reactors are licensed on a delayed or staggered schedule, i.e., when the reactors are scheduled i to be licensed eighteen months or more apart.
As indicated supra, the antitrust operating license review of Limerick I was completed in July of 1984 and the reactor was licensed in August of 1985. Unit 2 of the Limerick Generating Station (Limerick 2) is scheduled to be licensed in August of 1989 and in light of the five years since the completion of the previous review of the licensee and four years since Limerick I was licensed, the staff initiated a separate antitrust review of Limerick 2 -- with the focus of the review on any significant changes in the licensee's activities since the completion of the previous review in 1984 The changes in the licensee's activities identified by the staff since the previous antitrust review have largely been associated with the normal business operations of a fully integrated and multi-interconnected utility system such as the licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo). PECo has been actively involved with other interconnected power systems in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (P-J-M) power pool and adjacent areas in an effort to improve the reli-ability and efficient operation of its power system. PECo has approached and has been approached by several P-J-M members and adjacent systems pursuant to the possibility of initiating various capacity and energy transactions associated with the commercial operation of Limerick 2. Though not all j
l l .
I of these negotiations have proven to be fruitful to all of the parties concerned, the staff has no reason to believe that any undue (anticompetitive) pressure was exerted by PEco in any of these negotiations.
A dispute between PEco and one of its wholesale customers, theBoroughofLansdale, Pennsylvania (BoroughorLansdale),
that developed as a result of the oil embargo of the 1970's, culminated in 1985 when Lansdale severed its ties with PECo.
The staff reviewed the history associated with this dispute and determined that there was no basis to conclude that PEco's actions, which precipitated Lansdale's changing power suppliers, were inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
Staff believes that PECo's activities since the Limerick 1 antitrust operating license review, considered in conjunction with the overall P-J-M pooling environment, do not represent "significant changes" in the licensee's activities since the previous antitrust review and recommends that no affirmative significant change determination be made pursuant to the i
operating license for Limerick 2.
Based upon the staff 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. !
I
..~.
.;J
)
Signed on May.12, 1989, by Thomas E. Murley, 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 the Office'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 within 30 days of.the initial. publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Requests for reevaluation of the no significant change determination shall be accepted,after the date when the Director's finding becomes final, but before.
I 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 info'rmation that could not reasonably have been submitted-prior to that-date.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed by Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Policy Development and Technical Support Branch l- Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff I. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution i : Docket: File'(50-353A)my JRutberg WLambe 1
?NRC~PDR/LPDR RClark PTSB Rdg DNash l- 'PMAS Rdg (FRN)
PTSB: MAS WLambe/1t PT DNash PMAS .
f-mar f / 5/89/ ff { /89 67/g r...
[ . .