ML20054K517

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Demonstrates That Util Effectively Withdrew License Application Prior to 780323 in Response to NRC to Delmarva Power & Light Co.No Fee Should Be Charged
ML20054K517
Person / Time
Site: 05000548
Issue date: 06/25/1982
From: Voigt H
LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE, OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To: Miller W
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20054K518 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0180, RTR-NUREG-0434, RTR-NUREG-180, RTR-NUREG-434 NUDOCS 8207020274
Download: ML20054K517 (3)
v • d • e


Text

r L EBO EU F, L AM B, LElBY & M AC R AE

......E.......m....0,t...O.EO.,0...,0.

1333 Ntw H AMPSHWE AVEN uc, N. W.

i4 0 e ono.., WAS HIN GTo N, D . C. 20 0 36 er stantLtv sov at ht m YOma,N v.sOOOS LONDON wen SDS,ENGL AND de A- AS9 stOO #O2 457-7S00 TELEPHONE 00 *493 P33s itLtmi 440274 f t L.COPit R- 307 497 7543 83 CENtmAL trat ti 500 stanNS evato No totTON, wa 02:0. 838 Soutu Main SIF -4%I 638 9 S ALT L An t Cl?V.UT 84606 eO. 3ss...,.

333 F Avt?f tveLLE stattr MALL PO Bos F40 est Prov0t AvtNut

..m o . a c 8'* o June 25, 1982 *Outa* Oar.Cv Oa4=o

....33..r.. mO3-as...,.3 RECElVED BY LFMD Mr. William O. Miller, Chief __ f ,

Licence Fee Management Branch D:t"a k Office of Administration -/ l,' ]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ln ' 'p ,/*3

. ,O2 f.'. .

C'h'. '. '. *

  • v: .,-.is. ...

/

Re: Docket No. 50-548 ,

'h. .'

'q' '

Dear Mr. Miller:

ie Omaha Public Power District ("OPPD") is one of the petitioners in New England Power C_o,._e_t al. v. NRC. (1st Cir. No. 81-1839) and as such received a copy of your May 7, 1982, letter to Delmarva Power & Light Company. In that letter you stated that if a utility could demonstrate that "it notified that NRC prior to March 23, 1978, of its decision to withdraw its application and terminate the proceeding and if all work by the NRC on the application therefore ceased prior to March 23, 1978, then the NRC will not bill the utility for its review of the withdrawn application."

The purpose of this letter is to supply the NRC with documentation that demonstrates that OPPD effectively withdrew its licensing application prior to March 23, 1978, and that al1 work by NRC on the application was completed prior tc that date. Accordingly, OPPD requests that the NRC withdrau the August 21, 1981, invoice which OPPD received from the office of Controller of the Commission for

$619,959.

OPPD filed its construction permit application for

% Fort Calhoun, Unit 2 (" Unit 2") on August 1, 1975. By letter dated February 3, 1977, OPPD notified the Atomic M@g bafety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") that it had cancelled all construction contracts for Unit 2 . OPPD withdrew its prior request for a hearing and explained that at a later date it would instruct the ASLB with regard to further work on the application. OPPD did not formally withdraw its G207020274 020625 PDR ADOCK 05000548 G PDR

.. - - -_ -_ ._ .=_

2 application at that time, for it was contemplating continuing the application for the purpose of obtaining an early site review. But it is very clear that OPPD gave notice in February 1977 that it did not want any additional work done with respect to the issuance of a construction permit.

By letter dated June 17, 1977, OPPD informed the ASLB that it in fact wanted the Regulatory Staff to continue work on a Final Environmental Statement ("FES"). It also requested that the ASLB " hold in abeyance" the scheduling of any public hearings on the environmental and site suitability issues until a lawsuit involving OPPD and Nebraska Public Power District ("NPPD") was resolved. There is no indication that OPPD required or desired any other staff work to be done on its application.

1 In March 1978, the NRC issued its FES for Unit 2.

In transmitting this letter to the ASLB, NRC counsel, Mr.

Joseph R. Gray, Esq., noted that the NRC wondered what to do next because "the referenced proceeding has been in a suspended status since February 1977 when the Applicant cancelled Unit 2." Mr. Gray's letter demonstrates beyond any doubt, that as of February 1977, the NRC staff was on actual notice that no further work was to be done on Unit 2's application, other than preparing the FES. The letter also shows that after completion of the FES, the staff did not plan to do any further work until inrtructed to do so by OPPD.

On March 17, 1978, the NRC wrote to OPPD and asked for further instructions. In a series of phone calls OPPD informed the NRC that the FES was all that it wanted. By letters dated April 19, 1978 and May 5, 1978, OPPD confirmed in writing that no more staff work was needed. OPPD explained further, however, that it was not going to terminate the application until the NPPD litigation was terminated. The suspended application then remained undisturbed until November 13, 1980, when OPPD formally requested withdrawal of its construction permit application.

As the OPPD/**RC correspondence makes clear, the NRC was notified in February 1977 that OPPD was terminating all plans for construction of Unit 2. The NRC correspondence shows that Regulatory Staff intended to complete work on the FES and then await further instructions with regard to handling the rest of the application. It is apparent, therefore, that OPPD's June 17, 1977,, letter effectively changed its application into a request for an early site review.

Prior to 1978, the NRC did not charge fees for early site reviews. Furthermore, in promulgating its 1978 regulations it stated that "the Commission will exempt from

payment of fees. . . special projects, e.g., early site reviews. . . provided such complete and acceptible applications were filed prior to the effective date (March 23, 1978] of this notice." 43 Fed. Reg. at 7214-15. Not only had OPPD made its requot for an early site review prior to this date, but the actual work was completed and the FES issued by March 13, 1978. If any additional early site review work was done after this date, and there is no claim or evidence of such, it was donc pursuant to the June 17, 1977, request, and therefore exempt from charges under the NRC's early site review policy referenced above. Moreover, if any construction permit application review work was done after receipt of the February 3, 1977, letter, it was done in disre.Jard of OPPD's instructions.

In light of this history, OPPD requests that you withdraw the $619,959 assessment of fees. For your convenience I have enclosed copies of the above-referenced correspondence. I would be happy to meet and discuss this matter with you. If you require any additional information please let me know.

Sincerely, ,

f /

cc: Peter G. Cranc, Esq.

Mr. Kenneth J. Morris

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20054K517&oldid=3640023"