ML17209A618

Lists Conditions Requested by Florida Cities Re Ordering of Immediate Implementation of Util/Govt Settlement.Aslb Ruling Requested on Liability Clause,License Condition Section 7(e)(1) & Others

ML17209A618
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/04/1981
From:	Jablon R SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
To:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8102060102
Download: ML17209A618 (6)

Text

psW LAW OFFICES GEORGE SPIEGEI PC SPIEGEL A MCDIARNxD RON M. LANDSMAN ROBERT C. MCOIARMIO BONNIE S. BLAIR SANDRA J. STREBEL 2600 VIRGINIAAVENUE, N.W.

ROBERT HARLEY BEAR ROBERT A. JABLON WASHINGTON, O.C. 20037 THOMAS C. TRAVGER JAMES N. HORWOOO JOHN MICHAELAORAGNA ALAN J. ROTH TELEPHONE I202I 333 4SOO CYNTHIA S. BOGORAO FRANCES E. FRANCIS OANIEL I. OAVIOSON PET~K. MATT~

OAV(tGR. STRAUSS

~'

'D THOMAS N. MCI4tJGH, JR. Q, TELECOPIER (202I 333.2974 GARY J. NEWELL MARC R. POIRIER MARTA A. MANILOI H

I VAN EATON ICHOLS cWM'C5 February 4, 1981 4~ OPGlK'f

) L$

~

>'~',,~Ivan~. FEB -

4198It c Smi;th, Esqui re, Chairman Atomic Safety a Licensing Board Office of the SeCt8t81f Docketing 8 SenrlcB Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8Ianch Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Florida Power a Li ht Com an (St. Lucie Plan, zt No.

), Docket No. 50-389A

Dear Judge Smith:

The purpose of this letter is to set forth the conditions which Florida Cities are requesting to the ordering of "immediate implementation" of the FPs L/Government settlement as you requested during oral argument. and to provide the page references of the "Reply of Florida Cities to Florida Power a Light Company ' Response to Joint Motion" ( January 8, 1981), which we request be considered by the Board. As I stated during oral argument, the Cities have no objection to the Board's referring to the "Answer of Florida Power g Light Company to Cities'eply Concerning Joint Motion"- in its entirety.

I confirm that based upon the responses of counsel for FPGL concerning the right of intervenors to obtain the benefits of additional conditions that may be ordered after subsequent proceedings, Florida Cities no longer believe that a ruling is required on their request for the condition set forth on p. 8 of Florida Cities'anuary 8, 1981 reply, concerning their right to seek different or additional license conditions to those in the settlement agreement license conditions. At the close of oral argument I inadvertently listed that condition as one that still required a ruling. I also confirm that FMPA and Florida Power a Light have reached agreement concerning the time limits for the exercise of participation rights established in License Additionally, based upon their understanding that the Condition'II.

required deposit is refundable in all events, Florida Cities do not press for a ruling concerning this item. Financing of the deposits is not assured and FPGL's cooperation may be needed in some respects, but based upon the understanding that the Cities could seek later ameliorative relief, seek further Board consideration at this time concerning matters if warranted, they,do. not such as escrowing, interest repayment and the like. "

~g>OSOOO IW

'A 1)

I(

l, i

Florida Cities do request Board rulings as to the following proposed condi tions to acceptance of the settlement:

1. Liability clause: Eliminate the language:

II "provided, however, that the provisions proposed by the Company as to i ts 1 i ab i 1 i ty to the o ther participants, and as to the sharing of costs discharging uninsured third party liability, in connection with the design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of St.

Lucie Unit 2 shall be approved by the arbitrator unless he determines that the provision proposed by the Company constitutes an unreasonable proposal which renders meaningless the Company's offer of participation in St. Lucie Unit No. 2."

License Condition Section VII(e)(1).

2. Control provision: Modify License Condition VII(i) as follows (or the equivalent):

"Company may retain complete control and act for the other participants with respect to the design, engineering, construction, operation and main-tenance of St. Lucie Unit No, 2, and make all deci-sions relevant thereto insofar as they deal with the relationship between the Company and the other participants, including (but not limited to) deci-sions regarding adherence to NRC health, safety and environmental regulations, changes in construction schedule, modification or cancellation of the unit and operation at such time and such capacity levels as it deems proper, all without the consent of any participant. In exercising such authority Company shall give due regard to the reasonable interests and needs of other parties and shall act in accor-dance with Generally Accepted Electric Utility Practice, these license condi tions and the par-ticipation agreement. In .the event the interests or needs of the parties conflict and FPL exercises its authority to take actions contrary to those interests or needs, FPL shall take reasonable steps to assure that the reasonable interests and needs of all parties are satisfied or shall appropriately compensate such other parties."

0

3. Reliability Exchange and Sell-back Provisions: Add a provision that participants under these license conditions shall have the same reliability exchange and sell-back opportunities that are offered to other participants in St. Lucie Unit 2.

4. As they have stated at p. 28 of their Reply and p. 12 of their Answer to Joint Motion, Florida Cities need to know that FMPA (or the individual cities) will have adequate backup, but as stated at oral argument, they request no more than a Board ruling that FP&L provide information as to what it will propose, since the Cities have no basis to conclude that FP&L's proposal will be inadequate. The above constitutes the only conditions that Florida Cities seek to approval of the settlement.

The above conditions are specifically discussed at pp. 4-28 of the January 8, 1981 "Reply of Florida Cities to Florida Power

& Light Company's Response to Joint Motion". These pages con-tain specifications of case support and reasons in support'f the conditions not previously referred to. Florida Cities respectfully request that the Board consider those pages, as well as FP&L's reply.

Respectfully submi tted, A MMMM~ pi Robert A. Jablon Attorney for Florida Cities cc: Robert N. Lazo, Esquire, Member, ASLB Michael A. Duggan, Esquire, Member, ASLB All Parties RAJ:bs

4,~