ML20214T091
| ML20214T091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1986 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T086 | List: |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 8609300198 | |
| Download: ML20214T091 (2) | |
Text
.-
7590-01 o'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-455A BYRON STATIONg UNIT 2 NOTICE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES AND TIME FOR FILING REQUESTS FOR REEVALUATION .
N 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 significant (antitrust) changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the construction permit review of Unit 2 of the Byron 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 i
an examination of the events since the issuance of the Byron l construction permits to Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), the staffs of the Planning and Resource Analysis Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, hereafter referred to as ' staff' have jointly concluded, after l consultation .with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred since the construction permit review are not ofthenaturetorequireasecondantitrustreviewattheopel rating license (OL) stage of the application.
8609300198 860923 PDR M ADOCK 05000455 PDR l
O 7590-01 I
1 "In reaching this conclusion, the staff considered the structure of,the -electric utility industry in Illinois, as well as evfnts e
relevant to the Byron construction permit review'and subsequent antitrust reviews of additional nuclear units owned by Commonwealth Edison Company.
In addition, the staff has considered comments from interested parties in the state of Illinois and CECO concerning CEC 0's business relations with its customers and competitors.
~
"The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
' Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) has undergone an antitrust review for each of its four nuclear plant applications. In 1976, staff reviewed CECO's CP application for the Carroll County plant and the significant change review associated with the LaSalle OL application.
The significant change evaluations associated with the 1983 Byron No. 1, OL application, and the 1984 Braidwood No. 1, OL application are the most recent staff reviews. The Byron No. 1, i
OL review concluded that no significant changes had occurred in the applicant's activities except that the City of Winnetka had petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the review of a FERC opinion. Since that review, the FERC has approved the settlement agreement between Winnetka and CECO, resolving all outstanding disputes. The Braidwood significant change review, covering changes in CECO's activities since the Byron No. 1, OL review, found no changes in the applicant!s l
1
7590-01 activitiesorproposedactivitieswhichcouldbecons}'klered e-significant from an antitrust standpoint and, therefore, did not recommend a formal antitrust review.
' Staff has not identified any significant negative competitive activities by CECO since the Byron No. 1 construction permit ,
review that would warrant remedy by the NRC. Consequently, -
staff recommends that a no significant change determination be made pursuant to the application for an operating license for Unit 2 of the IIyron Station. '
" Based upon the staff's 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 in connection with the construction permit."
Signed on September 16, 1986, by Harold R. Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
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 Commission, Washington s D.C.
20555 within 30 days of the initial publication of this notice in the
7590-01 Federal Register. Requestsforreevaluationofthenosignificaft 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 significance that have occurred since that date, or information that could not reasonably have been submitted prior to that date. .
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
criainsi enemmetg JesseFumshse Jesse L. Funches, Director Planning and Program Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.