ML17212B587

Requests Exemption from 10CFR50.30 Re Submittal of Antitrust Info in Connection W/Issuance of OL & Addl Consideration of Info Per 10CFR2.101.Also Requests Exemption from Requirement for Formal No Significant Change Determination

ML17212B587
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/05/1982
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-82-184, NUDOCS 8205110151
Download: ML17212B587 (8)

Text

I'4 REGULATOR NFORMAT ION DISTRIBUTION '-

TEM (R IDS)

ACCESSION NBR:8205110151 DOC ~ DA'TE o 82/05/05 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET "FACIL:50 389 St, Lucie PlantE Uniit 2i Flor ida Power 8 Light Cos 05000389 AUTH NAME

~ AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGE R E~ ~ Florida Power L Light Co ~

REC IP NAME

~ RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONEHBR ~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulationi Director

SUBJECT:

Requests exemption from 10CFR50.30 re submittal of antitrust info in connection w/inssuance of OL.8;addi consideration of info per 10CFR2 101.'Also requests exemption from requirement

~

for formal no significant change determinations DISTRIBUTION CODE: BOO IS COPIES 'RECEIVED:L'TR J. ENCL 0. "SIZE:, . ~3 TITLE: PSAR/FSAR AMDTS and Related Correspondence NOTES:

RECIPIENT ~COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CaDE/NAME LTTR ENC L ID 'CODE/NAME L7TR ENC A/D LICENSNG 1 LIC BR 03 BC 1 LIC BR 03 LA NERSESEV ~ 01 1 INTERNAL: ELD 1 IE FILE IE/DEP EPDS 35 1 IE/DEP/EPLB 36 3 MPA 1 NRR/DE/CEB 11 1 NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/GB 28 '2 2 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 2 NRR/DE/MEB 18 1 1 NRR/DE/MTEB l7 1 NRR/DE/QAB 21 1 1 NRR/DE/SAB '20 1 NRR/DE/SEB 25 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEBQO 1 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 1 1 NRR/DHFS/OI B 3Q 1 NRR/DHFS/PTRB20 1 NRR/DS I/AE8 26 1 NRR/DSI/ASB 27 1 NRR/DSI/GPB 10 1 NRR/DSI/CS8 09 1 NRR/DS I/BTSB 12 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 . 1 NRR/DSI/PSB 19 1 NRR/DSI/RAB 22 1 RSB 23 1 NRR/DST/LGB 33 1 REG F ILE 00 1 RGN2 '2 EXTERNAL: ACRS 41 10 1 BNL(AMDTS ONLY)

FEMA REP DIV '39 1 LPDR 03 NRC PDR 02 NSIC 05 NTIS 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED s L'TTR 57 ENCL

1 l

I l

1 C'

n t

%~..A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY May 5, 1982 L-82-184 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 q%

Re: St. Lucie Unit 2, Docket No. 50-389; Request Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.12 from '

Certain Re uirements of 10'CFR 50;30 +%~M~+

Dear Mr,

. Denton:

0)

Under section 105(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 19 2135(c)(2), the NRC must forward to the Attorney General, or is anti-trust advice, a copy of an operating license application if the Commis-sion determines that such review is advisable "on the ground that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous review by the Attorney General and Commission...in connection with the construction permit for the facility." Operating License information for St. Lucie 2, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 50.30(d), was submitted to the Commission on March 24, 1980. At that time, however, information identified in Regulatory Guide 9.3 as being pertinent to a determination concerning whether or not an operating license ("OL") antitrust review would be advisable "on the ground that significant changes...occurred'subse'uent'to'the revious review...at'the'construction'rmit'sta e" emp asis added could not be provl e ue to t e fact t at t e =construction permit ("CP") antitrust review had not yet been completed.

The CP antitrust review, in fact, continued throughout almost the entire period of construction and was only recently completed with the issuance, on March 24, 1982, of a Memorandum and Order by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Although it is now, therefore, possible to assemble and submit the information identified in Regulatory Guide 9.3 as being relevant to the question of whether or not "significant changes...

have occurred subsequent to the previous antitrust review conducted...

at the construction permit stage," it is also clear -- from a practical standpoint -- that no such "significant changes" could have developed in the six weeks since the completion of the CP proceeding. On this basis, and in view of the closeness of the anticipated October 1982 operating license issuance date, Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") requests, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.12, a specific exemption from so much of Section 50.30 of the Commission's regulations as would require: (1) further submittal of antitrust information in connection with the issuance of an operating license for'St:'L'ucie 2; and (2) additional, formal consideration of such information by"the Commission in making the "significant changes" 'Bz>Of determination. In the alternative, because the Commission is already aware of FPL's activities and cognizant of the fact that there are no slgnlflcant changes, and since there ls no statutory requirement for the j 8205110151 820505 PDR *DOCK 0500038m N - PDR PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

Harold R. Denton Page Two Commission to make a formal "no significant changes" determination, FPL requests an exemption from the NRC regulatory requirement for such a determination;.

A brief review of the St. Lucie 2 antitrust proceeding is helpful in understanding the unique chronology and circumstances of",the .case which, in turn, underlie this request. In May of 1973, FPL submitted the anti-t p i pit ppii i i p i i t titd:d~i2 the Commission. In accordance with Section 105 (c) (1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2135 (c) (1), a copy of the application was trans-mitted to the Attorney General requesting his advice on possible antitrust implications. Although the Attorney General did not recommend an antitrust hearing, such a proceeding was commenced in response to a petition filed by a group of Florida cities.

Once commenced, the construction permi t antitrust proceeding stretched over almost the. entire period of plant construction, beyond the submission of OL information, and -- as indicated above -- was only just completed in late March of this year. Included among the participants were the Attorney Generaltand the NRC Staff. As a result of the proceeding, which extended almost 5 years beyond the issuance of the CP, all parties reached settlements.

(See generally Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memoranda and Orders dated April 24, 1981 and March 24, 1982.) Based on related agreements, an owner-ship interest has already been transferred to Orlando and detailed license conditions, developed in conjuction with the Attorney General and NRC Staff and approved by the Licensing Board on April 24, 1981, have been attached.

(See Construction Permit CPRR-144, Amendment 2 (Nov 14, 1980), and Amendment-3 (May 26, 1981). In accordance with these conditions, FPL has contracted to transfer an ownership share in the unit to the Fl'orida Municipal Power Agency ("FMPA"), subject to the Commission's approval. g~

Because of its involvement in the antitrust process the Commission is now in a position,'ithout the need for additional information or evaluation, to make its operating license "significant changes" determination. As a result of the construction permit antitrust proceeding, the Commission is -- and has been on a continuing basis over a number of years -- fully appraised of all information relevant to antitrust matters pertaining to FPL and Orlando, the current construction permit holders. Insofar as FMPA;is concerned, we understand that the Commission will conduct an'dditional review in connec-tion with the application for an amendment to the construction. permit to add FMPA as a permittee.

"/ An application for amendment of the construction permit providing for the transfer of an ownership interest to FMPA will be submitted to the Commission in the near future.

0 II

Harold R . Denton Page Three Owing to these circumstances, the assembling of the specific information itemized in Reg. Guide 9.3, and its formalized consideration by the NRC Staff, would serve no useful purpose. All relevant information is currently",possessed by the Staff, and it is now fully equipped to.proceed to a determination. 'Funther, it is clear that since the CP antitrust proceeding only ended six weeks ago, there could not have been, from a practical standpoint, any "significant changes" since that time.

Based on the foregoing, FPL requests, pursuant to 10 C. F. R. 5 50. 12, a specific exemption from so much of Section 50.30 of the Commission's regulations as would require:

(1) the further submittal of antitrust information in connection with the issuance of an operating license for St. Lucie 2; and (2). the additional consideration of such information under the formal .procedures described in 10 C.F.R. E 2'."-.101'n the alternative, because the Commission is already cognizant of the relevant information and aware of the fact that there are no significant changes, and since there is no statutory requirement for a formal "no significant changes" determination, FPL requests an exemption from the NRC regulatory requirement *for such a determination.

Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology REU/RAK/mm

~ E