ML110260389
| ML110260389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2011 |
| From: | Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Milano P, NRR/DORL , 415-1457 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML110260341 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML110260389 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Eric J. Leeds, Director In the Matter of )
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Construction Permit No. CPPR-92
)
(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2) ) Docket No. 50-391 DIRECTORS DECISION REGARDING OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE UNDER SECTION 105c(2) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
- 1. Introduction 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 applicant's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit (CP) review. The Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant change" determination to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
On May 24, 1971, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed its application for construction permits for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2. As required by Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC; predecessor to the Nuclear regulatory Commission (NRC)) requested the advice of the Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as to whether: (1) no antitrust hearing was needed, (2) a hearing was necessary, or (3) no hearing was necessary if the applicant took certain actions or if certain conditions were attached to the CP. In its advice letter dated December 11, 1972, the Assistant Attorney General forwarded a decision recommending that no hearing be held.
In a letter dated December 5, 1989, TVA provided NRC with an Updated Regulatory Guide 9.3 Information Pursuant to the Commissions Operating License Antitrust Review, for WBN Unit 1.
By letter dated September 20, 1991, the NRC staff concluded that there was no new information that would suggest changes to the no significant change finding for WBN Unit 1.
In a letter dated May 13, 2010, as supplemented on July 29, 2010, and February 22, 2011, TVA provided updated antitrust information pursuant to Regulatory Guide 9.3, "Information Needed by the AEC Regulatory Staff in Connection with its Antitrust Review of Operating License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," with respect to WBN Unit 2. The information provided by TVA addressed changes in the antitrust information from that submitted for WBN Unit 1 on December 5, 1989, to the present.
The documents provided by TVA are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1 800 397 4209, or 301 415 4737, or by e mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
II. Discussion Based upon an examination of the events since the previous operating license review of TVA's activities conducted in 1979 in connection with WBN Units 1 and 2, the NRC staff has concluded, after consultation with DOJ, that the changes that have occurred since the construction permit review are not of the nature to require a formal antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
In reaching its conclusion, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in the Tennessee Valley and adjacent areas, the events relevant to the WBN construction permit review, and the previous operating license reviews of WBN.
III. Conclusion The conclusion of the staff analysis is as follows:
A review of TVA activities since 1989 in constructing new generation and transmission capacity including cancellation of planned capacity, showed normal engineering and economic actions for a utility of TVAs class and no apparent anticompetitive efforts. Additionally, TVA appears to be vigorously working to retain its existing customers, including its nominally captive customers, rather than limiting competition for its customers or potential customers. A 1997 Settlement Agreement resolved pending antitrust issues related to requests to purchase power from TVA and exchange power arrangements. Subsequent Congressional hearings in 1999 did not find that TVA was engaging in anticompetitive conduct.
Based upon the examination of the events since 1989, the staff concludes that no significant changes have occurred that would require an antitrust review.
Based on the staff analysis and recommendation, it is my finding that there have been no significant changes in the applicants activities or proposed activities since the completion of the previous antitrust review.
A copy of this Directors Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to review. This decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 30 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March 2011.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation