ML20205B306

Notice of Updated Findings of No Significant Antitrust Changes & Time for Filing Requests for Reevaluation

ML20205B306
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	09/09/1985
From:	Cleary D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20205B297	List: ML20205B292 ML20205B306
References
A, NUDOCS 8509110323
Download: ML20205B306 (7)

Text

_

7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-461A ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY. 50YLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.

AND WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.

NOTICE OF UPDATED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIME FOR FILING REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made a finding in accord-ance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensees' activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the construction permit review of Unit 1 of the Clinton Power Station by the Attorney 6eneral 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 Consnission determines that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred

[ subsequent to the previous construction permit review. The i Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change" detennination to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Based upon an examination of the events since issuance of the Clinton 1 and 2 construction permits to the Illinois Power Company, the staffs of the Antitrust and Economic Analysis Section of the Site Analysis Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l and the Antitrust Section of the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter referred to as " staff," have jointly concluded,  !

l 8509110323 850909 l l PDR ADOCK 05000461 .

M PDR l r

after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the antitrust construction permit review are not of the nature to require a second anti-trust review at the operating license stage of the application.

"In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in central and southern Illinois, the events relevant to the Clinton construction permit review and the events that have occurred subsequent to the construction permit review and the initial no significant change analyses.

"The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:

I

' Staff completed its initial antitrust operating license

- reviewoftheClintonNuclearPowerStation(Clinton)in P

February of 1982. Several changes in the applicants' I

/ activities since the original construction permit (CP) review in 1974 were identified; however, staff concluded that,

" Based upon the successful implementation of CP license conditions and the lack of any detrimental conduct or activity (to the competitive process in l central and southern Illinois) on the part of Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power Cooperative

or Western Illinois Power Cooperative, staff recom-mends that no affirmative significant change deter-mination be made pursuant to the application for an operating license for Unit 1 of the Clinton Nuclear Power Station." (Clinton " Finding of No Significant Antitrust Changes," March 11, 1982, Federal Register,

p. 10655.)

j 'Since the staff completed its initial antitrust operating license review in February of 1982, there have been construc-tion delays necessitating changes in scheduled fuel load dates for the Clinton plant. Fuel loading is now scheduled for January of 1986, approximately four years after the staff

~

completed its initial antitrust review. Staff felt this four P

year period created a " review vacuum" and requested updated

$ information from the applicants pursuant to any changed activity since the initial antitrust operating license review.

'After reviewing the updated Regulatory Guide 9.3 infonnation l and contacting various electric utility representatives in Illinois and other interested parties, staff identified several changes in the applicants' activities (principally those of i

l l

Illinois Power Company) since the initial operating license review. Many of the changes, e.g., new interconnections and partial requirements wholesale power sales, by Illinois Power Company, represented extensions of those changes identified in the original operating license review and have provided additional procompetitive stimuli to the Illinois bulk power industry.

Smaller power systems in Illinois have been able to successfully

' shop" for alternative sources of power and energy. Applicants Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. and Western Illinois Electric Power Cooperative. Inc. have initiated a study to determine whether or not future jointly owned generat-ing facilities would be economically feasible. New transmission agreements have been consummated between Illinois Power and its wholesale power customers that provide these smaller power I

systems with the means to take advantage of ve benefits nor-P mally associated with larger, fully integrated power systems,

/ e.g., access to short tenn economy and diversity power and energy sales and access to transmission for long term block purchases of power and energy from a number of different power suppliers.

Increased coordination between those fully integrated power systems and the smaller, less diversified power systems has led to greater competition in the Illinois bulk power industry. This trend toward greater coordination among industry participants began with the

4 institution of antitrust license conditions at the construction permit review stage.

'The changes that have been identified since the construction per-mit review have by and large provided momentum for greater coordi-nation, and consequently increased competition between all groups of power supply systems in central and southern Illinois. Staff i observed this trend toward increased competition among bulk power suppliers in its initial antitrust operating license analysis.

! This trend has continued since 1982 and consequently staff sees no reason to change its recommendation that "no affirmative f

significant change determination be made persuant to the appli-cation for an operating license for Unit 1 of the Clinton 1

4 Nuclear Power Station."'

t

" Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal

/ operating license antitrust review of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 is not required."

l j Signed on September 4,1985 by Harold R. Denton, Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

.1

+

, _ _,-._...m. ,,.r --, -

..,r

i I

i i

i 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 Comission, Washington, D.C.

20555 for 30 days from the date of the publication of the Federal Register notice. Requests for a reevaluation of the updated 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 sig-

' nificance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Donald P. Cleary, Acting Ch Site Analysis Branch Division of Engineering

_ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation V

I h

2 i

. l 6-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 for 30 days from the date of the publication of the Federal Register notice. Requests for a reevaluation of the updated 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 sig-nificance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Donald P. Cleary, Acting Chief Site Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DFC :D EA ,

DE:5AB :D g  :  :  :  :

NAME : ~ambe:a, :ATo ston :D eary  :  :  :  :

, . _ _ _ . : . ._ . 7. _ _:09/

___  : . . . .[6/85

09/9/85  :  :  :  :

lDATE:09/-S /85 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

- , . . - - . , - . ,-, - , * - . - , ., wy