Search results

transactions. Information for antitrust review purposes is not required as Quad Cities is a " grand fathered" plant, for antitrust review purposes, pursuant to

with its Antitrust' Review of Operating License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," and NUREG-1574, " Standard Review Plan on Antitrust Reviews," also

substantive antitrust review authority to conduct a post-licens-ing antitrust review on Applicants' application for suspension of the antitrust license conditions

denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983). This is the only judicial review on the merits of an NRC antitrust review. 2/Id. at 1368. 2/Id. at 1367. 5 exist thereafter.1/

were addressed and remedied during the antitrust construction permit review...." Staff Finding, p. 31. l antitrust hearing in light of these facts would

imposition of antitrust conditions, the recent Seabrook antitrust review would have been-totally unnecessary. .a . the NRC assesses antitrust issues and considers

tubject to the newly L instituted antitrust review requirements 12/ and whether there l l should be a second antitrust review at the operating license j stage

inconsistent with the antitrust laws. An antitrust review at the operating license stage is not required unless the AEC determines such review is advisable on

situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."8 The Licensing Board has ignored the " particularized regime" of antitrust review established by Section 105(c)

Plant. The Comission's antitrust review responsibility applies only to the Diablo l Canyon Nuclear Power Plant per the antitrust license conditions agreed

Station ("CPSES"), Unita 1 and 2', over which the Commission exercises antitrust review responsibilities according to Section 105 of the Atomic Energy: Act

importance of the antitrust review duties of the Commission as " peripheral authority" (OE at 8; CEI and TE at 7). However, antitrust concerns were of importance

could be considered significant from an antitrust standpoint and, therefore, did not recommend a formal antitrust review. ' Staff has not identified any significant

previous antitrust review of' the licensee, the Commission indicated that " alleged changes" occurring sub' sequent to the previous antitrust review which

the determining factor in going forward with the antitrust ( review in either case.8/ Antitrust review was initiated because of the serious potential impact

situation inconsis-tent with the antitrust laws."1S/ The Licensing Board has ignored the " particularized regime" of antitrust review estab-lished by Section 105(c)

Justice ("DOJ"), will all review antitrust aspects of the Applicants' proposed merger. Thus, performing an antitrust review oflicense transfers would be

Commission antitrust review of applications for certain activities. The only types of applications the provision explicitly subjects to antitrust review are those

purposes of antitrust review. There is no other distinction between the two classes of nuclear power plants for purposes of antitrust review. The staff

an OL antitrust review to establish how "the activities under the i license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws."