ML20136G031

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Accepting Changes Proposed by Licensee
ML20136G031
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/25/1993
From:
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136C539 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9703170171
Download: ML20136G031 (11)
v • d • e


Text

-, ~.

s, 4y c

En::losure 1

^

14-j; SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE RADIATION PROTECTION BRANCH OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE. UNITS 1 AND 2 i

N DOCKET NOS. 50-335 Af0 50-389 1.0 Introduction By letter datcJ January 22, 1993, Ficrida Power & Light Company (the licensee), submitted proposed changes to St. Lucie Units I and 2 Technical 1,

Specification (TS) to implement the guidance in Generic Letter (GL) 89-01,

" Implementation of Programmatic Controls for Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications in the Administrative. Controls Section of the Technical Specifications and the Relocation of Procedural Details of RETS to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual or to the Process Control Program." In accordance with l

GL 89-01, the licensee marked and explained TS changes (see enclosure 2) that are not consistent with the guidance contained in GL 89-01. The deviations 3

are reviewed in this safety evaluation.

)

4:

2.0 Evaluation i

A review of all 40 deviations listed by the licensee was performed. The l.

deviations from the guidance in GL 89-01 stem from the language and ii requirements in their current TS. The licensee's current TS remain applicable

,b and do not need to be changed to reflect the guidance in GL 89-01.

l 9

Based on the review, the changes proposed by the licensee are acceptable.

1-

}j

'1 ll

i l

1 i

I l

9703170171 970301 i

PDR FOIA BINDER 96-485 PDR

Et closure 2 DEVIATION DOCUMENT FOR ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2 ODCM This deviation document is provided to assist in the review process since the ODCM submittal attempts to use the standard TS wording of NUREG-1301 l

wherever possible. It explains the deviations from NUREG-1301 wording based on site specific design and instances where the current Plant Technical Specifications have additienal or more restrictive requirements than those given in NUREG-1301. The St. Lucie ODCM submittal copy has margin i'

notes keyed to these explanations.

1

..._____._.-._.~.___.___._..__m I

1 1'

a St.L NUREG i

Dev.

ODCM 1301 1

f#1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION 5

1 9

5 Naming CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST as title i

instead of 1301's name of ANALOG CHANNEL

[

OPERATIONAL TEST.

The definition is identical.

This is needed for human factors.

i This will keep us from having a Common Effluent

& Accident Channel with two different names for j

a functional test.

2 9

5 CHANNEL CALTBRATION definition uses the j

current Plant TS wordina, not 1301's.

Our's i

is about equivalent & even includes CHANNEL

~

i FUNCTIONAL TEST.

Same human factors concern as the item immediately above.

I1 I

3 14 12 TABLE 1.1 FREQUENCY 4/M* is our current TS.

29 39 We are not changing the frequency to that of 35 46 NUREG 1301.

37 48 i

i 4

14 12

    • - To clarify when P is required. Our current TS wordina.

l 5

15 13 1301 TABLE 1.2 " OPERATIONAL MODES" is not in ia submittal.

Effluents Monitors OPERABLE status l*

are not affected by MODE changes.

Therefore, the Table is not needed.

6 15 15 1301 3/4 CONTROLS & SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS l

" APPLICABILITY" for 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 4.0.3, j

4.0.4, and 4.0.2.b are-not-included in i

submittal. See item immediately above for same reasons.

The Surveillance Frequency maximum i

allowable extension in all other STS is 25% per interval only and not 25% per 3 consecutive i

intervals.

4 4

A i

}

2 i

4 4

- ~..

4 Il l9 I'

St.L NUREG j

Dev.

ODCM 1301 l

f#1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION 7

16 15 1301's Action: "The provisions of Controls j

21 24 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 are not applicable" is HQT 28 38 included in any Control Statement in the ODCM.

i 32 42 See above two items for reasons.

33 43

~

34 45 ll 38 49 5

39 50 i

40 51 j

42 55 l

49 57 l'

57 68 l

59 70 l

8 17 18 The ODCM Inst. Table (s) SDig include those i

19 21 Monitors that are Design Base Applicable to 22 25 St. Lucia.

Refer to the gama 1301 Table No.

25 32 to see which exclusions were made for the l

Table of interest.

Instruments same as our l

current nlant TS.

I 9

17 18 MINIMUM CHANNELS OPERABLE in this Table is l

18 20 N.A.

due to Design Base Applicability.

By j

22 28 NOT having a 1301 instrument to measure Flow 23 29 Rate, the ACTION requirement specified in the i

24 31 ODCM submittal is different than 1301's, and

~

uniquely spells out what the plant must do to insure release conditions are controlled conservatively. The wordina of this ACTION Statement in this Table is our current j'

TS Wordina.

t 10 18 20 1301 specifies 1.E-07 micro-Curie /al detection limit.

Current Plant TS is 2.0E-07.

{

I 11 20 23 1301 has Notes (1) thru (4) and the ODCM omits j

the 1301 Note (2), which is N.A. since all our

~

liquid affluent monitors fall under NOTE l's j

type.

l 12 20 23 1301 suggest purchasing calibration sources j

27 37 from vendors who participate in NIST cross check programs etc.

We will keen the i

current Plant TS Note for this table which reauires vendors who are traceable to NIST.

3 i

4 0

i 3

2 4

I-e

4 i

St.L NUREG Dev.

ODCM 1301 i

3 f #1 PAGE PACE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION 13 22 26 1301 APPLICABILITY is "*".

By Design, PSL's i

24 30 Air Ejectors may be, and are normally aligned, s

27 32 to the Plant Vent (s) where the Plant Vent i

Monitor provides the required monitoring i

function at all times.

The ODCM APPLICABILITY of "**" takes credit for this capability.

See TABLE NOTATION for the actual statement.

14 22 26 1301 items b. thru e. N.A. to St. Lucia since 25 33 air ejector is only a Noble Gas Monitor.

15 24 30 1301 has a-Notation "**", but it does NOT apply on 1301's Table 3.3-13 list of Instrumentation.

16 24 30 1301 Notation "* - At all times" vs the ODCM 27 32 submittal's

"* - At all times while making releases via this pathway" to take credit for being able to administrative 1y tag out some ventilation system fans, etc.

17 29 39 1301 has SAMPLING FREQUENCY as Continuous vs ODCM Daily.

Design Base of St. Lucia does not provide for continuous collection of a composite sample.

1301 has Note (6). We use the current niant TS.

18 29 39 1301 has SAMPLING FREQUENCY "M" Grab Sample vs ODCM Daily Grab Sample for dissolved and entrained gases 3s ner current niant TS.

1301 has MINIMUM ANALYSIS FREQUENCY of "M" (for Monthly) vs CCCM 4/M from the composite as Der the current clant TS.

19 32 42 1301 in the ACTION Statement " Control 6.9.2" 33 43 vs ODCM " Plant TS 6.9.2" where TS 6.9.2 deals 38 49 with Special Reports.

We prefer TS to be the 39 50 recognized document.

40 51 42 55 48 56 4

~

c-

,s

-.---.~......--.-.-..-

4 l

s, St.L NUREG j

Dev.

ODCM 1301 l

f#1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION i

20 32 42 1301 Drinking Water Artilysis, etc. is not in i

the current niant TS or ODCM due to St. Lucia not being a fresh water site.

Therefors, i

Footnote "*" was omitted from ODCM..

1j' 21 35 46 1301 " Type of Activity Analysis" specifies Principal Gamma Emitters.

The ODCM says

" Noble Gas P.G.E" as our current niant TS l

Note "a" for this table "exclusivalv" list 1

certain Nuclide LLD's for gaseous samples.

j Our Design Bases is that the Plant Vent j,

Particulate and Charcoal Continuous Sanpling l'

device is a common collection point for all j<

Waste Gas Storage Tank and containment Purge release pathways, hence we meet the NRC's requirement to perform all analysis required by 1301's Table 4.11-2.

p s

j 22 35 46 1301's Note (3) is Note (6) in the ODCM.

j i.e., extra samples required within one hour 1

of a > 15 4 Reactor Power Change

.... as per current clant TS wordina.

23 35 46 1301's Note (4) is not included in ODCM. It is

}

24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> frequency Tritium Sample when the l

refueling canal is flooded.

This is not in current Plant TS.

Tritium Levels have not been observed above 1.E-06 uCi/cc for years under any Operational Mode.

We sample 4/M at a sensitivity of 4.E-08 uCi/cc, well below the required LLD of 1.E-06 etc.

24 35 46 1301 "4. All Release Types as listed in 1, 2, i

and 3 above" vs ODCM's "in 3. above".

This is explained by Deviation # ( 21 ), where Waste Gas Storage Tanks & Containment are covered by Plant Vent Continuous Collection.

25 35 46 1301's wording is confusing on this line, but the ODCM is usina the current Plant TS wordina under respective column topics.

This is the continuous analyses for Noble Gases by a monitor etc.

i 5

\\

i a

j

i I

d l

St.L NUREG Dev.

ODCM 1301 l

f#1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION 26 40 51 1301's 3.11.2.4. states "c.

0.3 mram to any organ of a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC".

l ODCM uses "c.

0.3 mram to any organ." as our current Plant TS is worded.

"at or beyond the site boundary" is inclusive of all,. including l

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

i l

26a 40 51 The GASEOUS RADWASTE TREATMENT Control Statement 3.11.2.4 Surveillance Statement 4.11.2.4.1 The Deviation briefly stated ist a'

There is an Editorial Difference, concerning the physical description for the location (s) of where the Limit (s) apply for the St. Lucie

.i Site, between the Current Tech Spec and NUREG-1301.

What the Current Tech Spec states: Page 3/4 11-13

..when the projected gaseous affluent air doses due to gaseous effluent releases IISE the site to UNRESTRICTED AREASfsee Fiaure 5.1-1), when averaged over 31 days, would exceed:"

What the ODCM Submittal states:

Page 40

"..when the projected doses in 31 days due to gaseous affluent releases, from each unit, to areas at and bevond the SITE

)

BOUNDARY (see Fiaure 5.1-1), would exceed:".

Exclanations:

The ODCM wording is as per page (51) of NUREG-1301 "ODCM Guidance:

Standard Radiological Effluent controls for Pressurized Water Reactors".

The Plant Staff feels that NUREG-1301's guidance in specifying "to areas at and bevond the SITE BOUNDARYfsee Fleure 5.1-1)" is correct for this St. Lucie Plant ODCM Control.

To further support this position, (continued) 6

- ~ - - - -

S i

i St.L NUREG i,

Dev.

ODCM 1301 ii f #1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION The GASEOUS RADWASTE TREATMENT Limits for t

operability are tied to LCOs 3.11.2.2

" DOSE NOBLE GASES" and 3.11.2.3 " DOSE - IODINE -131, IODINE-133, TRITIUM, AND RADIONUCLIDES IN

[

PARTICULATE FORM" where each of the LCO's use "to areas at and bevond the SITE BOUNDARY". fsee Fiaure 5.1-11" as their controlling location for applicability.

Logically, related LCOs should

[

also have the same point of applicability.

a

==

Conclusion:==

S The Plant Staff feels that the wording differences ostween current TS and NUREG-1301 are editorial in nature and that the intent of the Tech Spec GASEOUS l;

RADWASTE TREATMENT LCO is not diminished by using i'

the wording of NUREG-1301 in the ODCM Submittal.

h Surveillance 4.11.2.4.1 was not discussed since it

[

must follow the wording of the control Statement.

41 h

27 48 56 1301 ACTION b.

h Our GDCM uses "With the confirmed

  • level..."

y This is our current TS wordina.

n d

28 50 58 1301 specifies 40 Monitoring Locations and the

]

ODCM submittal states only 27 Locations.

1-Seven of 16 Sectors are over water; Locations y

are based on 1, 5, and 10 mile Rings, each Sector over land, proximity to residences and e

[

accessibility. This is our current TS wordina.

V g

29 50 59 1301 specifies composite and the ODCM i

submittal states Grab Samples Weekly / Monthly.

The effluent flow (Circ Water) by parameters of h

the ocean are fairly constant, a grab sample g

would suf fice. This is our current TS wordina.

d 30 50 60 1301 Table 3.12-1 Item 3d is ODCM Item 3b.

1301 requires one location, ODCM uses two h

locations. This is our current TS wordina.

ODCM uses 1 for indicator and 1 for a control.

Same situation for ODCM Table 3.12-1 Item 4a.

1ji for Crustacea and Fish.

i 2-7 4

1

_.__m..._

l l

8 1

St.L NUREG i

Dev.

ODCM 1301 fd1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION l

31 50 60 1301 Table 3.12-1 Item 4a: Milk Samples:

l ODCM does not address as no suitable milk animal within 5 km, no sizable milk animal herd from 5 to 8 km.

Our current TS wordina.

~

32 50 61 1301 Table 3.12-1 4b/0DCM da 1 & 2; 1301 specifies " Edible Portion", ODCM does j

not.

Although for fish the edible portion is about 50% of the weight, the organs are i-excellent indicators of contamination.

For the crustacea sampled the same logic is i

applied { organs as indicators}. Our current TS l

wordina.

s' l

33 50 61 1301 Table 3.12-1 4c: Food Products irrigated i

by effluent affected waters; the current TS

!l wording or ODCM do not address as St. Lucia 4;

Effluent is discharged to the Ocean which is j~

not used for irrigation.

i 34 50 61 1301 Table 3.12-1 4c/ODCM 4b 1:

1301 l

specifies "3 kinds" of broad leaf vegetation (BLV), Current Plant TS and ODCM have no 3

i

" kinds" specified.

l~

Other than decorative foliage, the area close to the plant (the island) is limited on the variety of BLV although the sampling program ll permits a variety of BLV to be sampled.

Basically, mangrove is the only plant common to

j!

the plant area.

l 35 53 64 ODCM Table 3.12-2 "Reportina Levels for Radioactivity Concentrations in Environmental Sannles" uses the current Plant Tech Spec

((

Reportina Level Values. There are no differences in 1301 and the current Plant TS, l

its just how the limit is listed relative to t-Drinking Water being present or not. Using the lt current TS wording avoids giving the N

appearance that a limit has been changed in i

the ODCM submittal process.

Drinking Water j

is D21 applicable to the St. Lucia Site.

i d

8 4

l i

i

,h.

) i ii l

St.L NUREG Dev.

ODCil 1301 j,

f#1 PAGE PAGE DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATION 4

36 54 65 ODCM Table 4.12-1 " Detection Canabilities.."

l uses current Plant TS Ltns nrescribed for

)

Tritium and I-131 and their resnactive i

footnotes "*" and "**".

There are no j,

differences in 1301 and the current. Plant l 'i its just how the limit is listed relative

{j Drinking Water being present or not.

Using i

the current TS wording avoids giving the I

appearance that a limit has been changed in the ODCM submittal process.

l l

37 57 68 1301's 3.12.2 includes wording for: "if i

elevateu releases then...etc.

This was not included in ODCM since by Design Bases we i

do not have any elevated release points by j

definition.

l 38 57 68 1301 3/4.12.2 LAND USE CENSUS, the footnote of l

1301 page 68 includes "of at least three kinds 4

of vegetation."

The ODCM does not specify three kinds, but uses current Plant TS.

See Deviation 34 above for explanation.

l 39 59 70 ODCM in 3.12.3 has an "*" on " Commission" for the ODCM footnote, and 4.12.3 explains the j

description of the Interlaboratory Comparison Program not being included in the ODCM as long 1

i as the Environmental Protection Agency is the l!

ILC Program of record.

j' The EPA program is a well known NRC approved ii program and the requirement for a description of the EPA program should not be needed.

i We, the State of Florida (HRS), participate in the EPA ILC Program. The ODCM uses the current i }'

l Elant TS wordina.

40 65 75 ODCN in BASES for 3/4 11.2.1 DOSE RATE, does not i

include the NUREG 1301 sentence " Examples of I

calculations for such MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, with appropriate occupancy factors, shall be I

given in the ODCN" because current Plant TS Semiannual Report reauires us to do actual i

j visitor assessment for each annual reportina interval.

j j

j 4'

9 i

I J

J i

k i

p %q a

I*,

UNITED STATES

'?

-y j

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M6-0001

%*****/

September 1, 1993 l

Docket No. 50-389 (10 CFR $2.206)

Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005-4798

Dear Mr. Jablon:

This is to acknowledge receipt of " Petition of Florida Municipal Power Agency for Declaration and Enforcement of Antitrust Licensing Conditions and to Impose Requirements by Order" (Petition) filed by you on behalf of Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) on July 2, 1993, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The Petition has been referred to my office a

for consideration pursuant to 10 CFR $2.206.

l The Petition requests that the NRC:

1) declare that Florida j

Power and Light Company (FPL or Licensee) is obligated to provide j

network transmission among geographically separated sections of FMPA without imposing multiple charges for transmission among 1

multiple delivery points; 2) issue a Notice of Violation of that obligation; 3) impose a requirement by order directing FPL to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a rate schedule that provides for transmission in a manner that complies with the antitrust conditions; 4) take such other action as may be proper, including proposed imposition of civil monetary penalties; and 5) publish notice of the Petition including when j

the NRC expects to decide whether to take action in response to the Petition.

Specifically, the Petition alleges that the antitrust license conditions for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, require FPL to provide transmission of power over its network among the various sections of FMPA on a network basis, that is, without imposing multiple charges for transmission among multiple FMPA receipt and delivery points.

The Petition alleges that FPL has refused to provide such network transmission and is, thereby, in violation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, license conditions.

The Petition also advises the NRC that proceedings are pending before the Federal District Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which present issues overlapping with those presented in the Petition.

The Petition states that FMPA filed a lawsuit in Florida state court on December 11, 1991, asserting FMPA's right to network transmission under contract law '

and Florida's antitrust statute and that FPL removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 080083 k

BC E MM COPYWW y & s ee.

N, Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

2 where the case is docketed as Florida Municipal Power Agency v.

Florida Power and Light Co., Case No. 92-35-Civ-Orl-3A22, and scheduled for trial to begin in September 1993.

The Petition further states that FPL submitted a tariff filing to the FERC on March 19, 1993, FERC Docket No. ER93-465-000, to which FMPA has filed a protest alleging that FPL's failure to file for network transmission service is anticompetitive and inconsistent with-FPL's obligations under the St. Lucia Plant, Unit No. 2, license conditions.

In accordance with 10 CFR S2.206, the NRC staff will review the Petition, and I will issue a formal decision with regard to the specific issues raised in the Petition in the reasonably near future.

Additionally, because this Petition concerns antitrust license conditions, copies of the Petition and the Endgral Reaister notice of receipt will be sent to the Licensee and the Attorney General for information.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the office of the Federal Reaister.

Sincerely, 4 ::2:-f Thomas E. Murley, Directo Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

Enclosure:

Federal Reaister Notice i

in Septcmber 1, 1993

.~.

Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

2 4

where the case is docketed as Florida Municipal Power Agency v.

j Florida Power and Light Co., Case No. 92-35-Civ-Orl-3A22, and scheduled for trial to begin in September 1993.

The Petition further states that FPL submitted a tariff filing to the FRRC on March 19, 1993, FERC Docket No. ER93-465-000, to which FMPA has filed a protest alleging that FPL's failure to file for network transmission service is anticompetitive and inconsistent with FPL's obligations under the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, license conditions.

In accordance with 10 CFR $2.206, the NRC staff will review the Petition, and I will issue a formal decision with regard to the specific issues raised in the Petition in the reasonably near i

I future.

Additionally, because this Petition concerns antitrust license conditions, copies of the Petition and the Federal Reaister, notice of receipt will be sent to the Licensee and the Attorney General for information.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal 1

Reaister.

Sincerely, Original signedb$

ThomasE.Murlef Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Federal Reaister Notice DISTRIBUTION:

(LTR)

?

CENTRAL FILEc

?

PDFES/ILPB RF WLAMBE j

RWOOD GGRANT AGODY JRUTBERG JGOLDBERG FMIRAGLIA TMURLEY GT/0009102 4k

%l10 PDFES:ILPB*

PDFES:ILPB*

PMAS D*

OGC WLAMBE RWOOD T

OD UTB 08/25/93 08/25/93

/93

/

93

/30/

OGC M 47rJGOLDBERG D)'

RR 0

F IIA EY 9 / / /93 p/

/93 q/ 'Id93

Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

2 for trial to begin in September 1993.

The Petitiop further states that FPL submitted a tariff filing to the FERC on' March 19, 1993, FERC Docket No. ER93-465-000, to which FMPA has filed a protest alleging that FPL's failure to file for net ork transmission service is anticompetitive and inconsistent wit FPL's obligations under the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, licens conditions.

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206, the NR staff will review the Petitio, and I will issue a formal decis on with regard to the specifi issues raised in the Petition n the reasonably near future.

Additionally, because this Pat tion concerns antitrust license nditions, copies of the Petiti and the Federal Recister notice of eceipt will be sent to the icensee and the Attorney General for information.

I have enclose for your informatio a copy of the notice that is being filed f publication wit the Office of the Federal Reaister.

Si

ercly, homas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Federal Reaister Notice DISTRIBUTION:

[LTR]

CENTRAL FILE PDFES/ILPB RF WLAMBE RWOO~u GGRANT AGODY JRUTBERG JGOLDBERG FMIRAGLIA TMURLEY GT/0009102

{

P

'P PB ILPB:PMAS D: MAS OGC BE GGRANT AGO Y JRUTBERG l

f/2,r/93

/2.5/93

/

/93

/

93

/

/93 OGC DD:NRR D:NRR JGOLDBERG FMIRAGLIA TMURLEY

/

/93

/

/93

/

/93 i

. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ -.. _ _.. _ _ -... ~.. _ _ _ _.~.

4 i d.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

]

Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2

}-

RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 i

4 i

4 Notice is hereby given that on July 2,1993, Robert J. Jablon, l

Esq.,

on behalf of Florida Municipal Power Agency ("FMPA" or 1

l

" Petitioner") submitted a Petition dated July 2, 1993, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

l 5 2.206 regarding the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, of the Florida

)

Power & Light Company ("FPL" or " Licensee"). The Petition has been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for preparation of a response.

'The Petitioner requests that the NRC 1) declare that FPL is obligated to provide network transmission among geographically separated sections of FMPA without imposing multiple charges for transmission among multiple delivery points; 2) issue a Notice of Violation of that obligation; 3) impose a requirement by order directing FPL to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a rate schedule that provides for transmission in a manner that complies with the antitrust conditions; 4) take such other action as may be proper, including proposed imposition of civil monetary penalties; and 5) publish notice of the Petition including when the j

NRC expects to decide whether to take action in response to the j

Petition.

l

/4 y

o e

2 Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that the antitrust license conditions for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, require FPL to provide transmission of power over its network among the various I

sections of FMPA on a network. basis, that is, without imposing multiple charges for transmission among multiple FMPA receipt and delivery points.

Petitioner alleges that FPL has refused to provide such network transmission and is, thereby, in violation of i

the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, license conditions.

i i

The Petitioner advises the NRC that proceedings are pending before the Federal District Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), which present issues overlapping with those j

i presented in the Petition.

The Petitioner states that FMPA filed a lawsuit in Florida state court on December 13, 1991, asserting FMPA's right to network transmission under contract law and Florida's antitrust statute and that FPL removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the case is docketed as Florida Municinal Power Aaency v.

Florida Power and Liaht Co.,

Case No. 92-35-Civ-Orl-3A22, and scheduled I

I for trial to begin in September 1993.

The Petitioner further i

states that FPL submitted a tariff filing to the FERC on March 19, 1993, FERC Docket No. ER93-465-000, to which FMPA has filed a l

protest alleging that FPL's failure to file for network transmission service is anticompetitive and inconsistent with FPL's obligations under the St.

Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, license conditions.

i

lJ

~

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206, appropriate action with regard to the specific issues raised in the Petition will be taken within a reasonable time.

1 In accordance with NRC practice regarding petitions under 10 C.F.R.

S 2.206 concerning antitrust license conditions, copies of the Petition and this Federal Reaister Notice will be sent to i

i the Licensee and the Attorney General for information.

A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L

Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2, located at Indian River Community College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450.

day of Sept.

1993.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st FOR THE NUCLEAR REGU TORY COMMISSION b

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136G031&oldid=4217431"