ML20031G401
| ML20031G401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1981 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PARSONS & WHITTEMORE, RESOURCES RECOVERY (DADE COUNTY), INC. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8110220373 | |
| Download: ML20031G401 (3) | |
Text
- ::
W n
ECWWER NS "
j:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCT
.S @@ l, :
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
c epy s. %,,,,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[
3%
us Before Administrative Judges:
([
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
~ <;p t ie Michael A. Duggan Robert M. Lazo Ivan W. Smith, Alternate SERVdC OCT 21981
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
) Docket No. 50-389A
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
) October 2, 19
)
g7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kys
- q "fifp 'b h
CONCERNING S
PARSONS AND WHITTEMORE, INC.'S OBJECTIONS
,U OCT2 3 19815 "
TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF AUGUST 5, 1981 \\
Jf t
u,
...,,mm cmm q,
s/
-Y/ bdd,lTNrh!
h On consideration of the Objections filed by Parsons & Whit Inc., and Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc. ("RRD") on September 25, 1981, the Board affirms its August E,1981 Memorandun and Order, except as indicated below.
The Board is persuaded that were RRD to become a party there would be no proced' ural bar to its challenging the settlement agreement approved in j
this case. Hence', the first paragraph cn p. 8 of our memorandum decision should be considered to be deleted.
We also have decided to clarify twn portions of our memorandum.
First, it is our understanding that if RRD. obtains title to the disputed small power production facilities as a result of the pending arbitration, then Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) would have no choice but to honor RRD's gok 8110220373 811002 y
L t1 1 PDR ADOCK 05000389 7
1 0
.=
Objections (Intervention): 2 PURPA rights. Were this to occur, RRD's entire problem could be cleared up, as we stated on p. 7 of our opinion.
Second, on page 16 of our opinion we deal with whether or not RRD has shown good cause for late filing. For the purpose of that discussion, we assume that the settlement agreement did not create a cause of action but that RRD must rely on an underlying cause of action, if any. Consequently, it is important to determine the first date at which RRD should have known of the availability of that cause of action and whether there is good cause for waiting until the present time to raise an antitrust claim. We concluded that the pivotal date was when RRD first learned it had contractual problems which would require it to sell power to and demand power from FPL; and we found that RRD.hould have known of its potential cause of action against FPL at the time it reached a contractual impass with Dade County.
It was RRD's burden to show good cause for late filing. Hence, it had to show us the date on wnich it first leurneo of a need which could lead to the current cause of action. RRD did not even allege what that date was, despite hints dropped to it by the Board in its July 7 Order.
It also was unable at the conference to contradict FPL's statement that in February 1980 RRD informed Dade that it would not operate the electrical generating facility.
Indeed, Counsel for RRD admitted that "we were saying, that the shortf all was so great that we simply wouldn't be able t,o operate and we would walk away from it." Memorandum and Order at 16.
RRD knew that the details of its contract dispute with FPL were in sharp issue in this proceeding. We cannot accept its view that it did not have an adequate opportunity to set forth its own version of the timing of that dispute.
Objections (Intervention): 3 We are convinced that the remainder of our Memorandum and Order does not require any further clarification.
0RDER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 2nd day of October 1981 ORDERED (1) The Objections of Parsons & Whittemore Inc. and Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc., filed on September 28, 1981, are denied except to the extent indicated below.
2 (2) The first full paragraph on page 8 of our Memorandum and Decision of August 5,1981, shali be considered deleted and the remainder of that Memorandum and Order shall be interpreted in light of this Memorandum and Order.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF JUDGE MICHAEL A. DUGGAN I
AND l
GE'R0 ERT M. LAZO i
A.
Petdr B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE October 2, 1981 Bethesda, Maryland l
l
..