ML17213A507
| ML17213A507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1982 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213A506 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8209290020 | |
| Download: ML17213A507 (13) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ORLANDO UTILITY COMMISSION AND FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ANTITRUST CHANGES ND TI PE F R'LING RE UESTS R REEVALUATION The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has made an initial finding in accord-ance with Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, that no significant (antitrust) changes in the licensees'ctivities or proposed activi-ties have occurred subsequent to the previous construction permit review of Unit 2 of the St Lucie Plant 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 an examination of the events since the St. Lucie Unit No.
2 construction permit antitrust review, the staffs of the Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Antitrust Section of the Office of the Executive Legal Director, hereafter referred to as "staff," have jointly concluded, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that the changes that have occurred are not of the nature to require a second antitrust review at the operating license stage of the application.
"The conclusion of the staff's analysis is as follows:
'Subsequent to the completion in March of 1982 of the construction permit antitrust proceedings, Seminole Electric Cooperative has decided to withdraw its proposed six percent participation in St. Lucie 2.
The reasons given were the current uncertainties of the nuclear industry, the lack of support from the financial community for nuclear projects, and the overall costs of St. Lucie 2.
In addition, Seminole has found an economic alternative to St. Lucie 2 in two-600MW coal fired units that it has under construction with delivery of the power from those units to its members using transmission services afforded by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation.
- Thus, the decision by Seminole to withdraw from St. Lucie 2 appears to be a reasonable business decision.
'Orlando's planned participation in St. Lucie 2 has not changed.
In addition, Orlando is planning a 415 MW coal fired unit in which Florida Municipal Power Agency would receive a 35 percent ownership participation.
Power will be delivered to FMPA members utilizing the transmission 8209290020*8209i4 PDR ADOCK 05000389, N...,
systems of Orlando, Florida Power and Light Co.
and Florida Power Corporation.
These power supply arrangements are each considered to be pro-competitive.
'Florida Municipal Power Agency will acquire an 8.806 percent ownership interest in St. Lucie 2 on behalf of the nineteen of its twenty six members that chose to participate in, the project.
Florida Power and Light Company will provide the necessary transmission service to deliver the power to the participants to which it is connected or to other electric systems for delivery of the power to those participants to which it is not connected.
'Joint action agencies, such as Seminole Electric Cooperative and Florida Municipal Power Agency, coupled with transmission services by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation have made power supply options available to small cooperative and municipal electric systems statewide.
These are positive developments consistent with the antitrust license conditions and settlement provisions of the construction permit antitrust proceedings.
Staff therefore concludes that they do not represent significant changes that would warrant a second antitrust review in connection with the operating license application.'Based on the staff's analysis, it is my finding that a formal operating license antitrust review of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 is not required."
Signed on SEP
~ ~
1982 by Harold R. Denton, Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
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, llashington, D.C. 20555 by
~30da s
FOR THE NUCLAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Argil Toalston, Chief Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ST.
LUCIE NUCLEAR UNIT NO.
2 Operating License Antitrust Finding of No Significant Change A.
Introduction Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, provides for an antitrust review of an Operating License application if significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred since the construction permit antitrust review.
Author ity to make the significant change determination was delegated to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (for reactors) and to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) (for production facilities) as appropriate.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a Memorandum and Order (CLI-80-28) dated June 30,
- 1980, set forth three criteria upon which 1
to base a "significant change" determination as follows:
( 1)
The change or changes must have occurred since the previous construction permit review; (2)
The change or changes must be attributable to activities or proposed activities of the licensee; and 1
11 NRC 817, 824 (1980).
See also 13 NRC 862 (1981).
(3)
The changed situation must have antitrust implications which would likely warrant a Commission remedy.
The staff, has reviewed the activities and proposed activities of the applicants, Florida Power and Light Company, Orlando Utilities Commission and Florida Municipal Power Agency, that have transpired since March 24, 1982 when the construction permit antitrust proceedings terminated by memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
It is the staff's conclusion that no "significant changes" have occurred subsequent to that time.
B.
~Bk d
Florida Power and Light Co.
(FP8L) submitted antitrust information in connection with its construction permit (CP) application in April of 1973.
Receipt of this information was noticed in the Federal Register and the Attorney General 's advice was requested in May of 1973.
The Attorney General's
- advice, received in November of 1973, while recommending no hearing at that time, conditioned its recommendation on the outcome of negotiations between FP8L and the NRC staff during the following 90 days as to FP8L's final position regarding (1) participation by Homestead, New Smyrna Beach 2
The Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Antitrust Counsel of the Executive Legal Director in consultation with the Department of Justice.
and Seminole Electric Cooperative in St. Lucie 2 and (2) trans-mission services, reserve sharing and other coordination necessary to support such participation.
No petitions to intervene on antitrust matters were received in response to the Federal Register notice of the Attorney General's advice.
Subsequently, the NRC staff and FP8L negotiated license conditions providing for (1) an opportunity for Homestead, New Smyrna Beach and members of Seminole Electric Cooperative to purchase a reasonable ownership share in St. Lucie 2, (2) delivery of each participant's share and (3) emergency and maintenance power support.
In addition, FP&L agreed to notify all non-affiliated utility systems serving adjacent to FP8L of its plans, once formulated, for its next nuclear unit following St. Lucie 2.
Upon acceptance by FP8L and the NRC staff of the negotiated conditions in February of 1974, the St.
Lucie construction permit antitrust proceeding was thought to be completed.
In August of 1976, the Florida 11unicipal Utilities Association (FHUA) and twenty one municipal electric power utilities petitioned for an antitrust hearing and leave to intervene out of time (approximately 31 months late, but before the CP was issued).
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) assigned to review the petition granted the petition by a memorandum and order dated April 5, 1977.
In granting the petition, the ASLB noted that Orlando had been misled
in believing that FPSL's negotiated license condition referring to notification to adjacent utilities of the next nuclear unit after St. Lucie 2 implied that FPSL would allow other utilities to participate in those units.
The ASLB also noted that all parties had agreed that the St. Lucie 2 CP could be issued prior to resolution of the antitrust matters if the late petition were granted, such that granting of the petition would not delay the issuence of the CP.
The St. Lucie 2 construction permit, issued on May 2, 1977, contained the negotiated 1974 antitrust license conditions The letter, trans-mitting the CP to FPSL, stated that the CP as issued was subject to further action resulting from the ongoing antitrust proceeding.
The CP antitrust proceeding continued until March 24, 1982 when a
settlement was reached with the Florida Cities following a previous settlement between FP8L and Orlando in June of 1980 and approval by I
the ASLB of a settlement among FP8L, the Department of Justice and the NRC staff in April of 1981.
The Settlement with Orlando allowed Orlando an ownership participation of 6.38951 percent in St. Lucie 2
along with ancillary services for delivery of the power and backup arrangements.
FP8L's settlement with the Department of Justice and the fiRC staff resulted in a comprehensive set of license condi tions providing for transmission
- services, reserve coordination, emergency power, maintenance
- power, economy energy, wholesale power and an
~ )
~
t ~
2 ownership share of 9.05606 percent in St. Lucie 2 to adjacent municipal electric utilities in addition to that to be provided to Orlando.
FPSL's settlement with the Cities provided for an additional 8 Mll of ownership in St. Lucie 2 to the Florida Municipal power Agency (FMPA), an opportunity to participate in FPSL's next two major coal-fired units, and other specific firm power and transmission services.
C.
Chan es Since The Construction Permit Antitrust Proceedin s
The construction permit antitrust proceedings did not terminate until March 24, 1982.
- Thus, as compared to other nuclear plant operating license reviews in which the CP antitrust review is completed several years before the operating license application, the time period in this instance for changes to have occurred is small.
1.
Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Seminole is a corporation formed to act for its members in conducting studies and negotiating power supply arrangements.
Six, of seven, rural electric cooperative systems served from FP8L's transmission system are members of Seminole.
Seminole
was one of the original entities expressing an interest in participating in St. Lucie 2 and was one of the prospective beneficiaries of the antitrust license conditions negotiated in 1974.
As a result, Seminole did not choose to participate in the antitrust petitions and subsequent antitrust hearing beginning in 1977.
Seminole had been actively negotiating for a 6 percent interest in St. Lucie 2 until very recently.
By letter of June 21, 1982 the Assistant General Manager of Seminole, R. ll. Claussen, informed Mr. Tracy Danese of FP8L that Seminole's Board of Trustees had decided to withdraw from the St. Lucie 2 Project.
The reasons given were the current uncertainties of the nuclear industry, the lack of support from the financial community for nuclear projects, and the overall costs of St. Lucie No.2.
Further inquiry by the NRC Staff disclosed that the favorable economics of two-600 HW coal fired generating units being constructed by Seminole provided an economic alternative.
These generating units will be connected not only to FP&L's transmission system but also to Florida Power Corporation's transmission system.
These connections, coupled with the transmission services and other ancillary arrangements provided by FP8L and Florida Power Corporation, will provide an economic power supply to Seminole's members served from FPKL's system as well as those served from Florida Power Corporation's system.
- Thus, Seminole's withdrawal from the
St., Lucie 2 project appears to be a reasonable business decision having no antitrust implications.
2.
Orlando Utilities Commission The City of Orlando reached a settlement agreement with FPSL in June of 1980 and withdrew from the construction permit antitrust proceedings.
Through the settlement, Orlando obtained a 6.08951 percent ownership interest in St. Lucie 2
and certain ancillary arrangements including delivery of its share of the St. Lucie power over FPSL's transmission system.
The Attorney General, in an advice letter dated July 28,
- 1980, with respect to Orlando's participation in the St. Lucie unit, found no basis for an antitrust hearing.
No requests to intervene on antitrust matters was received in response to the Federal Register notice of the Attorney General's advice.
The St. Lucie Construction Permit was amended to include Orlando as a co-owner in November of 1980.
In addition to participation in St. Lucie 2, Orlando is planning a 415 HW coal-fired unit for late 1986 or early 1987 operation.
Florida Hunicipal Power Agency (SHPA) is negotiating for a 35 percent ownership interest in that unit.
Power would be delivered to FHPA utilizing Orlando's trans-mission system from the Plant to its interconnection points
with FP8L and Florida Power Corporation and thence to the FMPA member systems.
The ownership access to FHPA and power delivery arrangements are considered as pro-competitive changes without any antitrust implications and does not warrant a repeat of the construction permit antitrust review.
3.
Forodia Municipal Power Agency (FHPA)
FMPA was organized in February of 1978 by twenty-six of the thirty-four Florida municipalities owning electric systems to act for its members in planning and acquiring power supplies.
By application dated June 14,
- 1982, FPIIL requested an amendment to its CP to transfer an 8.806 percent ownership entitlement in St. Lucie 2 to FHPA.
Each member of FMPA individually decides whether and to what extent it will participate in an electric project offered by FHPA.
Nineteen members of FMPA have decided to participate in the St. Lucie 2 project.
These nineteen members of FHPA will enter into contracts with FMPA for payment to FHPA in exchange for their power entitlements from St. Lucie 2.
SMPA has in turn entered into a participation agreement with FPSL for payment to FPSL in exchange for its power entitlement.
In addition FP&L has agreed to provide delivery service for FMPA capacity and energy to points of interconnection between FPSL and the project participants to which it is connected or to other electric systems for delivery of power to those participants to which it is not connected.
The above
- changes, providing ownership participation in St.
Lucie 2, and delivery of the associated power to those municipal electric systems that seek such participation is the type of power supply options that were sought during the construction permit antitrust proceedings.
Therefore, they are positive changes and do not represent significant changes that would warrant a repeat operating license antitrust review.
- Further, the wide representation of municipal electric systems in FMPA and their ability to freely choose those projects in which they desire to participate, have positive competitive aspects which do not suggest any negative antitrust concerns arising with respect to FMPA.
D.
Summar and Conclusions Subsequent to the completion in March of 1982 of the construction permit antitrust proceedings, Seminole Electric Cooperative has
10 decided to withdraw its proposed six percent participation in St.
Lucie 2.
The reasons given were the current uncertainties of the nuclear industry, the lack of support from the financial community for nuclear projects, and the overall costs of St.
Lucie 2.
In addition, Seminole has found an economic alternative to St. Lucie 2 in two-500MW coal fired units that it has under construction with delivery of the power from those units to its members using transmission services afforded by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation.
Thus, the decision by Seminole to withdraw from St. Lucie 2 appears to be a reasonable business decision.
Orlando's planned participation in St. Lucie 2 has not changed.
In addition, Orlando is planning a 415 MW coal fired unit in which Florida Municipal Power Agency would receive a
35 percent ownership C
participation.
Power will be delivered to FMPA members utilizing the transmission systems of Orland, Florida Power and,Light and Florida Power Corporation.
These power supply arrangements are each considered to be pro-competitive.
Florida Municipal Power Agency will acquire an 8.806 percent owner-ship interest on behalf of the nineteen of its twenty-six members that chose to participate in the project.
Florida Power and Light Company will provide the necessary transmission service to deliver the power to the participants to which it is connected or to other
11 other electric systems for delivery of the power to those participants to which it is not connected.
Joint action agencies such as Seminole electric Cooperative and Florida Municipal Power Agency coupled with transmission services by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation have made power supply options available to small cooperative and municipal electric systems statewide.
These are positive developments consistent with the antitrust license conditions and settlement provisions of the construction permit antitrust proceedings.
Staff therefore concludes that they do not represent significant changes that would warrant a second antitrust review in connection with the operating license application.