ML20080F954

Resubmits 800418 Comments & NRC 800505 Response Re Antitrust Review of Proposed Purchase of Facilities by Cajun Electric

ML20080F954
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	02/03/1984
From:	Irving S IRVING, S.M.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8402130207
Download: ML20080F954 (1)

Text

e b 0 G

ATTORN EY AT LAW 355 N APOLEON ST*EET g

S h e E[ y $ BATON ROUGE, LOUISIAN A 70402 (SC4) 345-8774 February 3, 1984 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: SECTION LEADER Anti-trust & Economic Analysis Section, Site Analysis Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RE: DOCKET NOS. 50-458 & 50-459 GSU Company & Cajun Electric Power Cooperative; Receipt of additional anti-trust information; 49 FR 531 Gentlemen:

With regard to comments on the above matter due February 3, 1984, I am re-submitting my comments of April 18, 1980 and ye NRC response thereto. If the NRC has still not seen the eferenced information and considered the other issu e' ra sed in my letter, I would suggest it most appy pri te to do so.

\ ! /

Sinc rely, j $

- Ste hen 4. Irving Athbrne at Law SMI/ rem 8402130207 840203 DR ADOCK 05000450 PDR

\

Public Law Utilities Group One American Place, Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 dh (504)383-9970 Stephen M. Irving, Director April 19, 1980 -

Mr. L.S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactor Branch No. 4

, Divisi6n of Project Mana ~ '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' genent Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Comments on Antitrust Review -

Riverbend Station No. 1, Docket No. 50-458 - Proposed Purchase by Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,Inc.

Dear Mr. Rubenstein:

.y.

T1Js letter is being submitted as a comment on behalf of the Louisiana Consaer's League,Inc. relative tg the above matter. Before proceeding with'our comments I wish to point out t6"the Commi:alon that the pub-linhed notices of this action were inadequate in that all of those published locally ommitted the st,atement as to the date by which com-ments were due. I have attached copies of. the advertisements in which you will note that the last paragraph of the official notice was ommitted.

This has caus6d a delay in the transmittal of our comments.

Our organ.sation has met with representatives of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and the cooperatives which own and participate in Cajun. All indications to us have been that Cajun is not becomming involved in the River Bend plant because it needs or even wants the project. The interest of Cajun is in concessions from Gulf States Utilities relative to transmission lines which the cooperatives feel are vital to their continued existence. It appears to us, based on statements by cooperative representatives that GSU may have used its control of transmission facilities necessary.for Cajun to deliver power to its members to coerce the cooperative into buying a portion of the River Bend facility.

In addition to the statements made by cooperative representatives we offer as additional evidence in support of our position the fact that Cajun's reserves will be quite adequate without the River Bend purchase and an associat'ed agreement in which GSU agrees to purchase a portion of Cajun's 190 coal unit. When all of these agreements are considered Cajun's: reserves will fall to only 7% in 1984 - dangerously low. This information is taken from data filed with the REA which has not been filed with the NRC (copy attached).

@'p/>3/> An agency of the louisiana Consumers' League, Inc., funded by the Community services Administration

,4 ,

?

Public LawUtilities Group _

b One American Place, Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 (504)382-9970 Stephen M. Irving, Director h PAGE.TWO -

MR. L.S. RUBENSTEIN APRIL 19, 1990

' Finally, providedwe thenote NRC that GSU with hasnotice either, not formally of and /o(or perhaps r the details even of informally) its agree-ments with Cajun to bu~y an interest in Cajun's 1943 coal fired unit and the transmission line agreement (see discussion in attached pros-pectus). Since these agreements were all part of the River Bend package they should be considered in the antitrust review process.

Based upon the above comments, we ask that the Commission request the additional information and hold the necessary hearings to fully in-vestigate the above matters to determine if there are antitrust implica-tions in the method used to obtain the agreement of Cajun to purchase an interest in River Send.

Sincer ', ' -

/

Sy phd .'I ng Director SMI/ro En :losures : Multiple CC: Darl Hood, Div. of Project Management, NRC Lisa Singer, Esq., NRC A. Toalston, h3C Docketing and Service Section, NRC Attorney General - U.S. Dept. of Justice - Antitrust Division i

An agency of the Imuisiana Consumer's' league. Inc., funded by the Community Services Administration

.. v7 .

l g$3 KIfig

/ o UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!?

5.g

,h] C WASHINGTON. D C. 705%

% .;. .[. e/ =3  % RECElVED Docket No. 50-458A pY 081980 Mr. Stephen M. Irving, Director

• M, M.UG public Law Utilities Group One American Place -

Suite 1601 Baton Rouge, LA 70825

Dear Mr. Irving:

This Office has received your April 18 letter regarding possible antitrust problems raised by the proposed participation of Cajun Electric Thepower Office of Cooperative, Inc. (Cajun), in River Bend Station, Unit 1.

the Executive Legal Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissim, with whom this Office jointly conducts the antitrust reviewThe process, Justicehas Depart-contacted the Justice Department about your letter.

ment has confirmed that it has received a copy of your letter.

As you may be aware the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducts two separate antitrust reviews, a construction permit review and an operating The license review, of applicants for nuclear power plant licenses.

construction permit review takes place prior to the issuance of a construc-tion permit for the plant. Upon receipt of antitrust information from the applicant, NRC sends the information to the Justice DepartmentIn andthis requests its advice as to whether to hold an antitrust hearing.

specific case, the Justice Department recommended that a hearing would not be necessary if Gulf States Utilities Company (Gulf States) would agree to the inclusion of certain antitrust conditions in the construction permit. Gulf States did so agree and on March 25, 1977, received a construction permit. This officially terminated the construction permit antitrust review for Gulf States Utilities Company and Gulf States is not subject to additional antitrust review until it applies for an operating license.

Subsequently, Cajun applied to become an owner TheofJustice River Bend Station,is Department Unit 1 and submitted antiturst information.

currently reviewing this and other information and is expected to advise the NRC by May 8, 1980, as to whether NRC should hold a hearing with respect to Cajun's participation.

The operating license review takes place prior to the issuance of an operating license for the plant. As part of this review the NRC must first determine if circumstances have significantly changed since the t ? -

r IIAY U IS60 Mr. Stephen M. Irving construction permit was issued. If such a finding is made, NRC then sends its findings and operating license antitrust information submitted by the applicant (s) to the Justice Department Becauseandthe requests applicant, advice Gulfabout ,

whether to hold an antitrust hearing.

, States, has not yet applied for an operating license .this review has yet to begin. When Gulf States does apply, we will consider your April 18, 1980 comments at that time.

In the meantime, your letter will be under consideration by the Department of Justice with respect to Cajun's' participation. If I may further help you, you may reach me at 301-492-8339.

Sincerely, I<Mp.$YE6 &OL:

Phillip Nicholson Antitrust Economist Antitrust Section Utility Finance Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation u

. - _ - . - . .. . - . . - . . . . . - . . - .