ML20070T900

Submits Concerns Re NRC Delay in Reviewing 870918 Application for Amend to License NPF-48,suspending Antitrust License Conditions

ML20070T900
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/26/1991
From:	Rogers J OHIO EDISON CO.
To:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19325A919	List: ML20070T900
References
NUDOCS 9104050229
Download: ML20070T900 (2)

Text

. _. _ ~

> -. ~

n.

~ ~ -. - - -

,.~.

~ -

-.~.-

,. -. ~.

.. ~. - - --

i= (:

~ ~ _

C:.OHICEDISON

• • • }[*flQ))

76 South Mwn St 13

1. o un

- Jusun 7 Ropew h P5M February 26, 1991 Tederal Exoregg Chairman Kenneth M. Carr U.-S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission-

- One' White Flint North l'1555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

-Rei Application-of'. Ohio Edison Company to Suspend Antitrust-License Conditions-(Perry Nuclear Ppwer Plant, Unit 1). NRC Docket No. 50-440A_

Dear Chairman Carrt b

I woul.d like to call to your attention the fact that-the WRC staff has~ yet ;to issue. an initial decision on a license

' amendment: application filed'by Ohio Edison Company nearly three

. and a half years ago..

On ' ' S eptember 18, 1987, Ohio Edison filed with the

-NRC 's : Of fice of Nuclear--Reactor _ Regulation: an application to antnd1the operating license of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

That. application requested the suspension o_f _ the license 's antitrust : conditions insofar as ~they apply to L OE, since the circunstances -)ustifying? - the - license conditions - had changed 4

radically =from the4: time the conditionsE were' imposed.-

On Dect.%ber 22,: 1987, the-NRC: staff published ' notice in the Federal ~ Register of ' the receipt of the'. applicationi-- stating.

thatla; copy hadobeen forwarded-to the Department of Justice for

-review and comment.

~On: June 22, 1988, Ohio Edison transferred the matter to-the:

federal courts due

.to - apparent' congressional-

'intorference - with the agency's decision-making: process.. ;(On March ' 29, 1988,.. Senator. Howard ' M.

Metzenbaum: of Ohio had 2

proposed' legislation-that ;would, have made it -illegal - for the-JNRC'ito grant our application.).

Ohio Edison's-application before the. NRC was therefore ' held. in abeyance--until April 2 7-,

-1989,-.whenlthe' United. States Court of Appeals'for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed"the case on the grounds that the-admin!.astrative.. process had not -yet reached

.a conclusion.

Alm mtftwo years have-elapsed since the matter was-remanded'to the NRCsand, as yet, there has been'no NRC response to the toendment request.

l l

N h/0y0F0)24 rd

i i

Chairman K@nneth M. Carr February 26, 1991 In part, the two year delay has been occasioned by the Department of Justice, which delayed rendering its advice to the NRC regarding our application until June 13, 1990.

We were subsequently told that we would receive the NRC staff's responce to our application by September 1990.

To date, we han yet to hear from the NRC.

The NRC's delay in responding to our license amendment request is not only a matter of serious concern to Ohio Edison, but also could potentially affect the electric utility industry as a whole.

If any now nuclear power plants are to be constructed in this country, utilities should be able to expect at least two things: (1) that the NRC staff responds to license-related requests promptly, so that utilities have adequate time to plan for plant construction and integration into existing systems, and (2) that the NRC recognizes when changed circumstances necessitato corresponding changes in licensing parameters.

Unnecessary extended procedural delays prevent utilities from planning for the future with any reasonable degree of certainty.

I hope you will look into this matter and take appropriate steps to resolve our application.

Sincerely, 0

, \\ an h~

a

(_.

(,j JTR/ab l

1 P

- - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ' - -