|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:FloridaCities:7/P/81 i~<~BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION | | {{#Wiki_filter:Florida Cities:7/P/81 i~<~BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION |
| 'BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerRLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)DocketNo.50-389-OL Date:7/2/814BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEIRAPPEALFROMDENIALOFTHEIRINTERVENTION PETITIONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATION ANDFOROTHERRELIEFCPri.QsUSMCduLa>s8)~gfficeqfM@ti~4Sepg~StanchRobertA.Jablon,EsquireAttorneyfortheGainesville RegionalUtilities, theLakeWorthUtilities Authority, theUtilities Commission ofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilities Commission, andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead, KeyWest.,Kissimmee, Mount,Dora,Newberry, St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee, Florida.July2,1981LawofficesofSpiegel6McDiarmid 2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037(202)333-4500ST07670284 Hi0702.PDRADOCK05000389GPD VI41v"i<('t<'<il ySl"l' EachCityisrequesting antitrust reliefinFloridaPowerSLihtCo.(St.LuciePlant,UnitiVo.2),NRCDocketNo.50-389Aconstruction permitproceeding, eitherthroughitsownintervention orthatofintervenor Floridamunicipal Utilities Association, amembership organization. | | 'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power R Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2)Docket No.50-389-OL Date: 7/2/81 4 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF THEIR INTERVENTION PETITION AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION AND FOR OTHER RELIEF CP ri.Qs USMC duL a>s8)~gffice qf M@ti~4 Sepg~Stanch Robert A.Jablon, Esquire Attorney for the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West., Kissimmee, Mount, Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.July 2, 1981 Law offices of Spiegel 6 McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20037 (202)333-4500 ST07670284 Hi0702.PDR ADOCK 05000389 G PD V I 4 1 v"i<('t<'<il y Sl" l' Each City is requesting antitrust relief in Florida Power S Li ht Co.(St.Lucie Plant, Unit iVo.2), NRC Docket No.50-389A construction permit proceeding, either through its own intervention or that of intervenor Florida municipal Utilities Association, a membership organization. |
| FloridaCitiesnowrequestantitrust reviewinconnection withtheoperating license.IntheirApril7operating licenseintervention
| | Florida Cities now request antitrust review in connection with the operating license.In their April 7 operating license intervention petition, the Cities made plain their belief that they could raise all issues and obtain all relief in the construction permit antitrust proceedings that they could in an operating license proceeding. |
| : petition, theCitiesmadeplaintheirbeliefthattheycouldraiseallissuesandobtainallreliefintheconstruction permitantitrust proceedings thattheycouldinanoperating licenseproceeding.
| | They filed their operating license intervention petition only to protect against any assertion that, if they had failed t~do so, they would in some way be entitled to reduced substantive or procedural relief.Thus, their petition to intervene states (pp.1-3): Insofar as the conditions applied to the construction permit should at least encompass the life of the unit, the relief obtained in the construction permit proceedings may obviate the need for similar proceedings in connection with the operating license.In any case, insofar as Cities are parties to this docket, they presume that they are parties to further proceedings relating to the operating license applications. |
| Theyfiledtheiroperating licenseintervention petitiononlytoprotectagainstanyassertion that,iftheyhadfailedt~doso,theywouldinsomewaybeentitledtoreducedsubstantive orprocedural relief.Thus,theirpetitiontointervene states(pp.1-3):Insofarastheconditions appliedtotheconstruction permitshouldatleastencompass thelifeoftheunit,thereliefobtainedintheconstruction permitproceedings mayobviatetheneedforsimilarproceedings inconnection withtheoperating license.Inanycase,insofarasCitiesarepartiestothisdocket,theypresumethattheyarepartiestofurtherproceedings relatingtotheoperating licenseapplications.
| | In sum, Florida Cities intervene solely as a protective matter.They have been granted intervention in the St.Lucie Unit 2 construction permit proceeding: |
| Insum,FloridaCitiesintervene solelyasaprotective matter.Theyhavebeengrantedintervention intheSt.LucieUnit2construction permitproceeding:
| | Florida Power e Li ht~Com an (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2), LBP-77-23, 5 NRC 789 519773, affirmed, ALAS-420, 6 NRC 8 and 6 NRC 221, affirmed, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939.Assuming that, they prove their case, Florida Cities are entitled to relief under$105 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.52135.Since their allegation and the relief sought under the construction permit and operating license are parallel, a separate proceeding should be unnecessary. |
| FloridaPowereLiht~Coman(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2),LBP-77-23, 5NRC789519773,affirmed, ALAS-420, 6NRC8and6NRC221,affirmed, CLI-78-12, 7NRC939.Assumingthat,theyprovetheircase,FloridaCitiesareentitledtoreliefunder$105oftheAtomicEnergyAct,42 U.S.C.52135.Sincetheirallegation andthereliefsoughtundertheconstruction permitandoperating licenseareparallel, aseparateproceeding shouldbeunnecessary.
| | See Houston Li htin&Power Com an (South Texas Project, Unit Li ht Com an (Beaver Valley power Station, Unzt No.2 , ALAB-208, 7 AHC 959 (1974).However, in the event that a contention could be made that they waive rights by failng to intervene separately in the operating license proceeding, they file this Petition and request appropriate relief.(Petition to Intervene, pp.1-3, footnotes omitted)Although it is uncertain whether FPL would agree that all rights available to Florida Cities under the operating license proceeding will be available in the context of the construction permit antitrust review, in the"Answer of Florida Power&Light Company to the Florida Cities'etition to, Intervene and Request for Consolidation", dated May 26, 1981, FPL states: "It is an established principle of NRC practice that antitrust conditions attached to a construction permit remain in effect after the issuance of an operating license.In every case in which antitrust license conditions have been attached to a"construction permit, the NRC has extended those license conditions upon the issuance of an operating license for the tim'e span of the license.The Cities allege no basis for suspecting that the Commission would not do the same here.Accordingly, the Cities'etition is moot by its own terms.Their intervention is predicated upon the defense of an established tenet of NRC practice which FPL does not contest.On this basis alone, the Cities'etition should be denied." (FPL Answer, pp.4-5)~On June 3, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued an Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concernin Antitrust Matters, denying Florida Cities intervention. |
| SeeHoustonLihtin&PowerComan(SouthTexasProject,UnitLihtComan(BeaverValleypowerStation,UnztNo.2,ALAB-208, 7AHC959(1974).However,intheeventthatacontention couldbemadethattheywaiverightsbyfailngtointervene separately intheoperating licenseproceeding, theyfilethisPetitionandrequestappropriate relief.(Petition toIntervene, pp.1-3,footnotes omitted)Althoughitisuncertain whetherFPLwouldagreethatallrightsavailable toFloridaCitiesundertheoperating licenseproceeding willbeavailable inthecontextoftheconstruction permitantitrust review,inthe"AnswerofFloridaPower&LightCompanytotheFloridaCities'etition to,Intervene andRequestforConsolidation",
| | The Order also denied intervention to Parsons&Whittemore, Inc.("P&W") |
| datedMay26,1981,FPLstates:"Itisanestablished principle ofNRCpracticethatantitrust conditions attachedtoaconstruction permitremainineffectaftertheissuanceofanoperating license.Ineverycaseinwhichantitrust licenseconditions havebeenattachedtoa"construction permit,theNRChasextendedthoselicenseconditions upontheissuanceofanoperating licenseforthetim'espanofthelicense.TheCitiesallegenobasisforsuspecting thattheCommission wouldnotdothesamehere.Accordingly, theCities'etition ismootbyitsownterms.Theirintervention ispredicated uponthedefenseofanestablished tenetofNRCpracticewhichFPLdoesnotcontest.Onthisbasisalone,theCities'etition shouldbedenied."(FPLAnswer,pp.4-5)~OnJune3,theAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardissuedanOrderRelativetoPetitions toIntervene Concernin Antitrust Matters,denyingFloridaCitiesintervention.
| | and its subsidiary, Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc.("RRD").The Order was based solely upon the Board's belief that it has no jurisdiction to rule on antitrust matters.The Board states (Order, p.4): "We do not reach the merits of the petitions since we have determined that we lack the jurisdiction to consider the petitions in this proceeding. |
| TheOrderalsodeniedintervention toParsons&Whittemore, Inc.("P&W")
| | Both petitions are denied." 1/I~THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO RULE ON FLORIDA CITIES PETITION TO INTERVENE. |
| anditssubsidiary, Resources Recovery(DadeCounty),Inc.("RRD").TheOrderwasbasedsolelyupontheBoard'sbeliefthatithasnojurisdiction toruleonantitrust matters.TheBoardstates(Order,p.4):"Wedonotreachthemeritsofthepetitions sincewehavedetermined thatwelackthejurisdiction toconsiderthepetitions inthisproceeding.
| | Florida Cities'etition to intervene in connection with the operating license met the Commission' standards. |
| Bothpetitions aredenied."1/I~THEBOARDHASAUTHORITY TORULEONFLORIDACITIESPETITIONTOINTERVENE.
| | Section\105(c), 42 U.S.C.$2135(c)of the Atomic Energy Act plainly contemplates the opportunity for operating license antitrust review.The Federal Receist'er notice" concerning interventions invited all potentially affected parties to seek available-statutory relief.For'he Board to hold that it has no authority to review Florida Cities'ntervention petition on the merits without stating who does was an exercise of"procedural gymnastics" such as was condemned in Cities of Statesville v.AEC, 441 F.2d 962, 976, n.ll (D.C.Cir.en banc, 1969).The Board cites Marble Hill 2/as determining that it has no antitrust jurisdiction. |
| FloridaCities'etition tointervene inconnection withtheoperating licensemettheCommission' standards.
| | Marble Hill discusses whether a 1 The above Order was not served on Florida Cities.Florida Cities did receive a copy of the Order on June 22, 1981 and filed a Notice of Appeal on June 23, 1981.Leave to appeal was granted by Order of this Board dated June 26, 1981.2/In the Matter of Public Service Com an of Indiana, Inc./Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976). |
| Section\105(c),42U.S.C.$2135(c)oftheAtomicEnergyActplainlycontemplates theopportunity foroperating licenseantitrust review.TheFederalReceist'er notice"concerning interventions invitedallpotentially affectedpartiestoseekavailable-statutory relief.For'heBoardtoholdthatithasnoauthority toreviewFloridaCities'ntervention petitiononthemeritswithoutstatingwhodoeswasanexerciseof"procedural gymnastics" suchaswascondemned inCitiesofStatesville v.AEC,441F.2d962,976,n.ll(D.C.Cir.enbanc,1969).TheBoardcitesMarbleHill2/asdetermining thatithasnoantitrust jurisdiction. | |
| MarbleHilldiscusses whethera1TheaboveOrderwasnotservedonFloridaCities.FloridaCitiesdidreceiveacopyoftheOrderonJune22,1981andfiledaNoticeofAppealonJune23,1981.LeavetoappealwasgrantedbyOrderofthisBoarddatedJune26,1981.2/IntheMatterofPublicServiceComanofIndiana,Inc./MarbleHillNuclearGenerating Station,Units1and2ALAB-316, 3NRC167(1976).
| |
|
| |
|
| licensing boardshouldhearantitrust andsafetyissuesatthesametimewhereseparateopportunity forantitrust hearingshadbeennoticed;thecasedoesnotprovideabasisfordetermining thattheBoardcouldnothavegrantedFloridaCities'ntervention petition. | | licensing board should hear antitrust and safety issues at the same time where separate opportunity for antitrust hearings had been noticed;the case does not provide a basis for determining that the Board could not have granted Florida Cities'ntervention petition.In granting intervention, the Board could have also determined that safety and antitrust issues should be decided separately and referred its order providing for such separation to the Commission. |
| Ingrantingintervention, theBoardcouldhavealsodetermined thatsafetyandantitrust issuesshouldbedecidedseparately andreferreditsorderproviding forsuchseparation totheCommission.
| | 1/In fact, Florida Cities'ntervention petition specifically requested consolidation of antitrust issues with the St.Lucie Unit 2 construction permit hearing.In any event,'lorida Cities'ntervention petition should be ruled upon based upon its merits.2/As-is discussed below, however, Florida Cities would not object to affirmance of the Licensing Board on grounds of prematurity or mootness.In its Answer to Florida Cities Petition to Intervene, FPL has suggested that Florida Cities intervention petition is premature (pp.8-13).Florida Cities have an obvious interest 1 Zn Marble Hill,~su ra, at p.171 the Appeal Board notes that a licensing board, where authorized, may combine antitrust and other issues.Here, the initial delegations to the Board appeared to cover all issues relating to the operating license.46 F.R.15831.Indeed, parties were invited to state their interest and right to relief in the proceeding without limitation. |
| 1/Infact,FloridaCities'ntervention petitionspecifically requested consolidation ofantitrust issueswiththeSt.LucieUnit2construction permithearing.Inanyevent,'lorida Cities'ntervention petitionshouldberuleduponbaseduponitsmerits.2/As-isdiscussed below,however,FloridaCitieswouldnotobjecttoaffirmance oftheLicensing Boardongroundsofprematurity ormootness. | | 10 CFR-)2.714 of the regulations referred to in the notice covers intervention in all NRC proceedings, including antitrust. |
| InitsAnswertoFloridaCitiesPetitiontoIntervene, FPLhassuggested thatFloridaCitiesintervention petitionispremature (pp.8-13).FloridaCitieshaveanobviousinterest1ZnMarbleHill,~sura,atp.171theAppealBoardnotesthatalicensing board,whereauthorized, maycombineantitrust andotherissues.Here,theinitialdelegations totheBoardappearedtocoverallissuesrelatingtotheoperating license.46F.R.15831.Indeed,partieswereinvitedtostatetheirinterestandrighttoreliefintheproceeding withoutlimitation.
| | Chapter 1 under which the license would be issued requires a finding that the facility will be operated in confor-mity with the total provisions of the Act.E.g., 10 CFR$50.57.2/Parsons 8 Whittemore has briefed the issue of the Board's authority more extensively. |
| 10CFR-)2.714 oftheregulations referredtointhenoticecoversintervention inallNRCproceedings, including antitrust.
| | In order to avoid needless duplication, Florida Cities adopt P&W's argument on this point without rebrie f ing. |
| Chapter1underwhichthelicensewouldbeissuedrequiresafindingthatthefacilitywillbeoperatedinconfor-mitywiththetotalprovisions oftheAct.E.g.,10CFR$50.57.2/Parsons8Whittemore hasbriefedtheissueoftheBoard'sauthority moreextensively.
| |
| Inordertoavoidneedlessduplication, FloridaCitiesadoptP&W'sargumentonthispointwithoutrebriefing.
| |
|
| |
|
| BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGUIATORYCOMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETY6LICENSING APPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerSLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389-OL
| | BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 6 LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power S Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))Docket No.50-389-OL))Date: 7/2/81 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF THEIR INTERVENTION PETITION AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION AND FOR OTHER RELIEF Florida Cities 1/appeal from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of June 3, 1981 (Appendix A)in which that Board denied them intervention in the Florida Power 6 Li ht Co.(St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2)operating license proceeding. |
| ))Date:7/2/81BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEIRAPPEALFROMDENIALOFTHEIRINTERVENTION PETITIONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATION ANDFOROTHERRELIEFFloridaCities1/appealfromtheAtomicSafetyandLicensing Board'sOrderofJune3,1981(Appendix A)inwhichthatBoarddeniedthemintervention intheFloridaPower6LihtCo.(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)operating licenseproceeding. | | By Federal Receister Notice of March 9, 1981, 2/the Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
| ByFederalReceister NoticeofMarch9,1981,2/theNuclearRegulatory Commission
| | ("NRC")noticed the application of Florida Power G Light Comany ("FPL")for a license to operate the St.Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No.2 ("St.Lucie 2").The notice stated that"any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene." Id.On April 7, 1981, a group of Cities (" Florida Cities"), appellants here, filed a"Petition to Intervene and Request for Consolidation". |
| ("NRC")noticedtheapplication ofFloridaPowerGLightComany("FPL")foralicensetooperatetheSt.LucieNuclearPlant,UnitNo.2("St.Lucie2").Thenoticestatedthat"anypersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbythisproceeding mayfileapetitionforleavetointervene." | | 2/1 Appellants are the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake 7lorth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West, Kissimmee, Mount Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.Except for the City Electric System of the City of Key Nest, which was inadvertently omitted from that petition, each of these Cities had petitioned to intervene in the.operating license oroceeding. |
| Id.OnApril7,1981,agroupofCities("FloridaCities"),appellants here,fileda"Petition toIntervene andRequestforConsolidation". | | 2/46 F.R.15831. |
| 2/1Appellants aretheGainesville RegionalUtilities, theLake7lorthUtilities Authority, theUtilities Commission ofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilities Commission, andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead, KeyWest,Kissimmee, MountDora,Newberry, St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee, Florida.ExceptfortheCityElectricSystemoftheCityofKeyNest,whichwasinadvertently omittedfromthatpetition, eachoftheseCitieshadpetitioned tointervene inthe.operating licenseoroceeding. | | in resolution of antitrust matters before operation of the St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2, especially since many of their members will be part owners.However, Florida Cities also have an interest that the operation of St.Lucie 2 not add to FPL's economic power unless conditions are ordered that protect them against being victims of antitrust abuse.Cf.Houston Li htin&, Power Com an (South Texas Project, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-381, 5 NRC 582 (1977), advancing the time of operating license antitrust review-.Should the Appeal Board determine that additional procedural steps must be taken before petitions requesting operating license antitrust review are appropriate or that such petitions cannot be heard before completion of construction permit antitrust review, then Florida Cities simply request that such ruling be made so that they cannot later be deemed to have waived rights.In either case, procedures must be adopted that permit early resolution of antitrust matters.If the Appeal Board does not have authority to rule on this issue, Florida Cities request referral of their petition as may be appropriate. |
| 2/46F.R.15831. | | B.Mootness.In.the judgment.of counsel, the Licensing Board established to rule in Docket No.50-389A on antitrust matters has authority to grant antitrust relief under the same standards and procedures that would apply in an operating license antitrust proceeding. |
| inresolution ofantitrust mattersbeforeoperation oftheSt.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2,especially sincemanyoftheirmemberswillbepartowners.However,FloridaCitiesalsohaveaninterestthattheoperation ofSt.Lucie2notaddtoFPL'seconomicpowerunlessconditions areorderedthatprotectthemagainstbeingvictimsofantitrust abuse.Cf.HoustonLihtin&,PowerComan(SouthTexasProject,UnitNos.1and2),ALAB-381, 5NRC582(1977),advancing thetimeofoperating licenseantitrust review-.ShouldtheAppealBoarddetermine thatadditional procedural stepsmustbetakenbeforepetitions requesting operating licenseantitrust reviewareappropriate orthatsuchpetitions cannotbeheardbeforecompletion ofconstruction permitantitrust review,thenFloridaCitiessimplyrequestthatsuchrulingbemadesothattheycannotlaterbedeemedtohavewaivedrights.Ineithercase,procedures mustbeadoptedthatpermitearlyresolution ofantitrust matters.IftheAppealBoarddoesnothaveauthority toruleonthisissue,FloridaCitiesrequestreferraloftheirpetitionasmaybeappropriate.
| | l/As they have stated, Florida Cities have sought 1 As FPL has recognized (p.3,~su ra), construction permit license conditions are routinely applied to operating licenses.See Arkansas Power&Li ht Com an , ALAB-94, 6 NRC 25 (1973);Indiana 6 Michi an Electric Co.and Indiana 6 Michi an Power Co., LBP-73-3, 6 NRC 80 1972 intervention in the operating license proceeding to forestall the possibility that they could be entitled to less antitrust relief, had they failed to do so.However, should this Board affirm that under the circumstances of this case, where a construction permit antitrust review is ongoing, nothing would be added by operating license antitrust review, then Florida Cities antitrust interven-tion petition is moot and they would not object to dismissal on those grounds.1/CONCLUSION Florida Cities do not address the merits of their entitlement to relief.However, they feel constrained to stress that additional antitrust license conditions are plainly in order.Indeed, since Florida Cities first applied for antitrust relief in connection with the construction permit 2/the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has specifically 1 found that FPL violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to divide wholesale sales territory with Florida Power Corporation: |
| B.Mootness. | | We hold that the evidence compels a finding that FPL was part of a conspiracy with Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power)to divide the wholesale power market in Florida." Gainesville Utilities De t.v.Florida Power 6 Li ht Com an , 573 F.2d 292 (1978), cert.denied, 439 U.S.966.In Opinion Nos.57 1 The parties could so stipulate. |
| In.thejudgment. | | 2/"Joint Petition of Florida Cities for Leave to Intervene Out of Time;Petition to Intervene; and Request for Hearing", Florida Power S Li ht Com an (St.Lucie Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2;Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.3 and 4), Docket.Nos.50-335A, and 50-389A, et al.(August 6, 1976);"Joint Petition of Florida Cities for Leave to Intervene and Request for Conference and Hearing", Florida Power a Li ht Co.(South Dade Plant), Docket No.P-636-A (April 14, 1976). |
| ofcounsel,theLicensing Boardestablished toruleinDocketNo.50-389Aonantitrust mattershasauthority tograntantitrust reliefunderthesamestandards andprocedures thatwouldapplyinanoperating licenseantitrust proceeding.
| | and 57-A, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (formerly the Federal Power Commission) extensively reviewed and specifically found tnat the Company had engaged in"anticompetitive conduct" and, indeed, found that FPL's proposed restrictive wholesale power provisions in that docket, which would have limited the sale of wholesale power and coordination, were themselves"antioompetitive".Re: Florida Power a Li ht~Com an, 32 PUR 4th 313, 339, 340 (1979).(Appendix B)Whatever their virtues, recently agreed to settlement license conditions in Docket No.50-389A between FPL and the Governmental parties are limited to entities in and near FPL's retail service area, thereby per-petuating the territorial division found illegal in Gainesville,~su ra.(Appendix C)As recently as May 12, 1981, Marshall McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of.Florida Power S Light Company, disclaimed taking corrective steps to assure antitrust compliance (Deposition testimony in Gainesville Re ional Utilities, et.al.v.Florida Power R Li ht Com an , Docket iVo.79-5101-CIV-JLK, pp..98-104, quotation at p.100): "I'm not aware that we have ever been guilty of infringing any antitrust, laws....In my opinion, the views of the Fifth Circuit were incorrect." (Appendix D)Thus, there is every reason to believe that Commission scrutiny is necessary to prevent nuclear generated electricity being used by FPL"to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws" absent appropriate license conditions. |
| l/Astheyhavestated,FloridaCitieshavesought1AsFPLhasrecognized (p.3,~sura),construction permitlicenseconditions areroutinely appliedtooperating licenses. | | WHEREFORE, Florida Cities respectfully request: 1.That the Appeal Board reverse the Licensing Board and (a)order that Florida Cities Petition to Intervene and Request for Consolidation be granted or (b)remand for a ruling on the merits by the Licensing Board;2.Alternatively, that the Licensing Board be affirmed on the specific grounds (a)that antitrust intervention petitions are premature or (b)that the issue is moot because, absent a waiver, the operating license cannot be issued until completion of the antitrust review in the construction permit proceeding, and because, unless waived, Florida Cities may raise all issues and obtain all relief in the construction permit proceeding that they could obtain in the operating license proceeding; 3.Alternatively, if the Appeal Board rules that it lacks jurisdiction, it should forward Cities petition and this pleading to the appropriate officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a ruling.Respectfully submitted, Robert A.Jablon Attorney for the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West, Kissimmee, Mount Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.July 2, 1981 Law offices of Spiegel&McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20037 (202)333-4500 Florida Cities:7/2/Sl BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power R Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))Docket No.50-389-OL))Date: 7/2/81 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEXR APPEAL FROM DENXAL OF THEIR XNTERVENTION PETITXON AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATXON AND FOR OTHER RELIEF INDEX OF APPENDXCES APPENDIX A"Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters" issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board June 4, 1981 APPENDIX B Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Opinion Nos, 57 and 57-A dated August 3, 1979 and October 4, 1979 APPENDIX C St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2 Proposed License Conditions |
| SeeArkansasPower&LihtComan,ALAB-94,6NRC25(1973);Indiana6MichianElectricCo.andIndiana6MichianPowerCo.,LBP-73-3, 6NRC801972 intervention intheoperating licenseproceeding toforestall thepossibility thattheycouldbeentitledtolessantitrust relief,hadtheyfailedtodoso.However,shouldthisBoardaffirmthatunderthecircumstances ofthiscase,whereaconstruction permitantitrust reviewisongoing,nothingwouldbeaddedbyoperating licenseantitrust review,thenFloridaCitiesantitrust interven-tionpetitionismootandtheywouldnotobjecttodismissal onthosegrounds.1/CONCLUSION FloridaCitiesdonotaddressthemeritsoftheirentitlement torelief.However,theyfeelconstrained tostressthatadditional antitrust licenseconditions areplainlyinorder.Indeed,sinceFloridaCitiesfirstappliedforantitrust reliefinconnection withtheconstruction permit2/theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFifthCircuithasspecifically 1foundthatFPLviolatedtheShermanActbyconspiring todividewholesale salesterritory withFloridaPowerCorporation:
| | \APPENDIX D Excerpts from May 12, 1981 Deposition of Marshall McDonald, Florida Power S Light Company, in Gainesville Re ional Utilities, et al.v.Florida Power&Li ht Com an, Docket No.79-5101-CIV-JLK APPENDIX A"Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters" issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board June 4, 1981}} |
| WeholdthattheevidencecompelsafindingthatFPLwaspartofaconspiracy withFloridaPowerCorporation (FloridaPower)todividethewholesale powermarketinFlorida."
| |
| Gainesville Utilities Det.v.FloridaPower6LihtComan,573F.2d292(1978),cert.denied,439U.S.966.InOpinionNos.571Thepartiescouldsostipulate. | |
| 2/"JointPetitionofFloridaCitiesforLeavetoIntervene OutofTime;PetitiontoIntervene; andRequestforHearing", | |
| FloridaPowerSLihtComan(St.LuciePlant,UnitNos.1and2;TurkeyPointPlant,UnitNos.3and4),Docket.Nos.50-335A,and50-389A,etal.(August6,1976);"JointPetitionofFloridaCitiesforLeavetoIntervene andRequestforConference andHearing",
| |
| FloridaPoweraLihtCo.(SouthDadePlant),DocketNo.P-636-A(April14,1976).
| |
| and57-A,theFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission (formerly theFederalPowerCommission) extensively reviewedandspecifically foundtnattheCompanyhadengagedin"anticompetitive conduct"and,indeed,foundthatFPL'sproposedrestrictive wholesale powerprovisions inthatdocket,whichwouldhavelimitedthesaleofwholesale powerandcoordination, werethemselves "antioompetitive"
| |
| .Re:FloridaPoweraLiht~Coman,32PUR4th313,339,340(1979).(Appendix B)Whatevertheirvirtues,recentlyagreedtosettlement licenseconditions inDocketNo.50-389AbetweenFPLandtheGovernmental partiesarelimitedtoentitiesinandnearFPL'sretailservicearea,therebyper-petuating theterritorial divisionfoundillegalinGainesville, | |
| ~sura.(Appendix C)AsrecentlyasMay12,1981,MarshallMcDonald, ChiefExecutive Officerof.FloridaPowerSLightCompany,disclaimed takingcorrective stepstoassureantitrust compliance (Deposition testimony inGainesville ReionalUtilities, et.al.v.FloridaPowerRLihtComan,DocketiVo.79-5101-CIV-JLK, pp..98-104,quotation atp.100):"I'mnotawarethatwehaveeverbeenguiltyofinfringing anyantitrust, laws....Inmyopinion,theviewsoftheFifthCircuitwereincorrect." | |
| (Appendix D)Thus,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatCommission scrutinyisnecessary topreventnucleargenerated electricity beingusedbyFPL"tocreateormaintainasituation inconsistent withtheantitrust laws"absentappropriate licenseconditions. | |
| WHEREFORE, FloridaCitiesrespectfully request:1.ThattheAppealBoardreversetheLicensing Boardand(a)orderthatFloridaCitiesPetitiontoIntervene and RequestforConsolidation begrantedor(b)remandforarulingonthemeritsbytheLicensing Board;2.Alternatively, thattheLicensing Boardbeaffirmedonthespecificgrounds(a)thatantitrust intervention petitions arepremature or(b)thattheissueismootbecause,absentawaiver,theoperating licensecannotbeissueduntilcompletion oftheantitrust reviewintheconstruction permitproceeding, andbecause,unlesswaived,FloridaCitiesmayraiseallissuesandobtainallreliefintheconstruction permitproceeding thattheycouldobtainintheoperating licenseproceeding; 3.Alternatively, iftheAppealBoardrulesthatitlacksjurisdiction, itshouldforwardCitiespetitionandthispleadingtotheappropriate officials oftheNuclearRegulatory Commission foraruling.Respectfully submitted, RobertA.JablonAttorneyfortheGainesville RegionalUtilities, theLakeWorthUtilities Authority, theUtilities Commission ofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilities Commission, andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead, KeyWest,Kissimmee, MountDora,Newberry, St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee, Florida.July2,1981LawofficesofSpiegel&McDiarmid 2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037(202)333-4500 FloridaCities:7/2/Sl BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerRLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389-OL | |
| ))Date:7/2/81BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEXRAPPEALFROMDENXALOFTHEIRXNTERVENTION PETITXONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATXON ANDFOROTHERRELIEFINDEXOFAPPENDXCES APPENDIXA"OrderRelativetoPetitions toIntervene Concerning Antitrust Matters"issuedbytheAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardJune4,1981APPENDIXBFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission OpinionNos,57and57-AdatedAugust3,1979andOctober4,1979APPENDIXCSt.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2ProposedLicenseConditions | |
| \APPENDIXDExcerptsfromMay12,1981Deposition ofMarshallMcDonald, FloridaPowerSLightCompany,inGainesville ReionalUtilities, etal.v.FloridaPower&LihtComan,DocketNo.79-5101-CIV-JLK APPENDIXA"OrderRelativetoPetitions toIntervene Concerning Antitrust Matters"issuedbytheAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardJune4,1981}} | |
|
|---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARL-99-201, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments1999-09-0707 September 1999
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments
ML20206H4441999-05-0303 May 1999
Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules
ML20205J0461999-04-0101 April 1999
Comment Supporting Proposed Draft Std Review Plan on Foreign Ownership,Control & Domination.Util Supports Approach Set Forth in SRP Toward Reviewing Whether Applicant for NRC License Owned by Foreign Corp.Endorses NEI Comments
ML20205B3771999-03-16016 March 1999
Comment Opposing PRM 50-64 Re Liability of Joint Owners of Npps.Util Endorses Comments of NEI & Urges Commission to Deny Petition for Rulemaking
ML17355A2511999-03-0909 March 1999
Comment Supporting Amend to Policy & Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Re Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors.Util Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Revs
L-98-306, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP1998-12-10010 December 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP
L-98-272, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses1998-10-28028 October 1998
Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses
L-98-252, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule1998-10-0606 October 1998
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule
L-98-248, Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement1998-10-0505 October 1998
Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement
ML17229A7551998-05-29029 May 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Communication Re Augmented Insp of Pressurized Water Reactor Class 1 High Pressure Safety Injection Piping
ML20217P6691998-04-0202 April 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Standards,Amended Requirements
ML17354A8741998-03-27027 March 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication,Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)
ML20216C1991998-03-0303 March 1998
Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps.Util Endorses Nuclear Energy Inst Comments.Comments Submitted on Behalf of Plant
ML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998
Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices
L-97-269, Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements1997-10-21021 October 1997
Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements
L-97-265, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors1997-10-14014 October 1997
Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors
ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997
Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997
Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997
Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access
ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997
Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997
Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns
ML20137R4681996-12-10010 December 1996
Transcript of 961210 Proceeding in Atlanta,Ga Re Predecisional EC Re Facility Activities.Pp 1-151.Supporting Documentation Encl
L-96-137, Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment1996-06-0606 June 1996
Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment
IR 05000335/19960031996-03-0808 March 1996
Transcript of 960308 Hearing in Atlanta,Ga Re NRC Insp Repts 50-335/96-03 & 50-389/96-03.Pp 1-101.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML17228B3551995-12-0404 December 1995
Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Boraflex Degradation in SFP Storage Racks.
L-95-270, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs1995-10-15015 October 1995
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs
ML17228B2841995-09-12012 September 1995
Comment Supporting Rg DG-1043,Rev 2 to Rg 1.49, NPP Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Exams.
ML17228B2221995-07-13013 July 1995
Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication 10CFR50.54 Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval
L-95-199, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial1995-07-10010 July 1995
Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial
ML17353A2471995-06-27027 June 1995
Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style.
ML17228B2101995-06-27027 June 1995
Comment Opposing Proposed GL Relocation of Pressure Temp Limit Curves & Low Temp Overpressure Protection Sys Limits.
ML20134N0421995-01-18018 January 1995
Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/J Kunkel on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40
ML20134N0621995-01-18018 January 1995
Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/A De Soiza on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20134N0281995-01-18018 January 1995
Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/Eo Poarch on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-78
ML20134N0331995-01-18018 January 1995
Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/D Jacobs on 960118 in Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-50
ML20134N0301995-01-18018 January 1995
Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/H Fagley on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-63
ML17228A9851995-01-17017 January 1995
Comment Supporting Proposal to Issue GL Providing Guidance for Determining When analog-to-digital Replacement Can Be Performed Under Requirements of 10CFR50.59
L-94-325, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations1994-12-29029 December 1994
Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations
L-94-329, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination1994-12-22022 December 1994
Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination
L-94-304, Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat1994-12-0202 December 1994
Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat
ML17228A8751994-10-0303 October 1994
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants
ML20072S5221994-08-25025 August 1994
Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking 9-2 Re Request for NRC to Revise Regulations of 10CFR9 to Provide Public Access to Info Held by Licensees But Not Submitted to NRC
L-94-206, Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved1994-08-0909 August 1994
Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved
ML20072B3251994-08-0101 August 1994
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Change Consideration of fitness-for-duty Requirements
L-94-150, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially1994-06-17017 June 1994
Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially
ML17228A3121993-09-24024 September 1993
Answer of Florida Municipal Power Agency to FPL Response in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action. W/Vols I & II of Apps
ML17228A2981993-08-27027 August 1993
Response of Florida Power & Light Co in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action.
ML17309A7141993-07-0202 July 1993
Petition of Florida Municipal Power Agency for Declaration & Enforcement...Antitrust Licensing Conditions & to Impose Requirements by Order. W/Vols I & II of Apps to Petition
ML20045F2091993-06-24024 June 1993
Comment on Proposal Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning NRC-licensed Facilities.Supports Proposed Criteria
ML17349A8161993-04-22022 April 1993
Comment Endorsing NUMARC Comments Re Proposed Generic Communication, Availability & Adequacy of Design Bases Info.
1999-09-07
[Table view]
Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998
Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices
ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997
Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997
Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997
Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access
ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997
Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997
Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns
ML20082G8931991-08-0202 August 1991
Licensee Opposition to Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene.* Hearing Re Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Re Facility.Petition Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20245J3891989-06-16016 June 1989
Intervenor Appeal of Initial Decision (Authorizing Spent Fuel Pool Reracking).* Appeals Board Decision Re Issues Surrounding Use of Boraflex in high-density Storage Racks.W/ Certificate of Svc
ML20236C3361989-03-0707 March 1989
NRC Staff Motion for Extension to File Proposed Finding.* Proposed Findings Will Be Served on Parties & Board on 890320.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20236A3651989-03-0707 March 1989
NRC Staff Motion for Extension to File Proposed Finding.* Proposed Findings Will Be Served on Parties & Board on 890320.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890310.Granted for Board on 890309
ML20235V2091989-02-25025 February 1989
Licensee Motion for Transcript Corrections.* Util Hereby Moves Board to Accept Attached Proposed Transcript Corrections for Hearing in Proceeding Held on 890124-26. W/Certificate of Svc
ML20206J6501988-11-16016 November 1988
NRC Staff Motion on Behalf of Parties for Mod of Schedules.* Requests Direct Written Testimony of Witnesses Presently Scheduled to Be Filed on or Before 881122 Now Be Filed on or Before 881220.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20154Q0261988-09-23023 September 1988
Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 6.*
ML20154Q0131988-09-23023 September 1988
Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 3.*
ML20154Q0301988-09-23023 September 1988
Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 7.* Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20196A7641988-06-17017 June 1988
Response of NRC Staff to Motion of Petitioner for Time Extension.* NRC Not Opposed to Reasonable Time Grant of 30 Days for All Deadlines.Extension Helpful to Petitioner in Preparing Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20155F7881988-06-10010 June 1988
Licensee Opposition to Intervenor Motion for Amend of Hearing Schedule.* Intervenor Request to Modify Hearing Schedule by Extending Each Deadline by 90 Days Unwarranted & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20155C6621988-06-0707 June 1988
Licensee Motion for Oral Argument.* Requests Oral Argument Be Granted in Support of Util 880509 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 880420 Memorandum & Order Granting Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene
ML20151W6191988-06-0303 June 1988
Petitioner Response to Licensee Appeal from Board Memorandum & Order Granting Petition to Intervene,Request for Hearing & Contentions.* Appeal Should Be Denied
ML20151W6081988-06-0303 June 1988
Motion for Amend of Hearing Schedule.* Requests 90-day Extension for Hearing Schedule Deadlines Based on Intervenor full-time Job & Other Work Activities That Severely Interfere W/Meeting Schedule
ML20197E0761988-05-23023 May 1988
Motion of NRC Staff for Extension of Time Equal to Time Extended to Petitioner.* Extension Until 880607 to Respond to Licensee Appeal Requested,Per 10CFR2.714a.Licensee & Petitioner Do Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20154H8221988-05-20020 May 1988
Request for Postponement of Deadline for Submission of Brief for Addl 14 Days.*
ML20150C9951988-03-14014 March 1988
Licensee Opposition to Petitioner Request for 92-day Postponement of Prehearing Conference.* C Rich Had Reasonable Amount of Time to Prepare for Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20150C5781988-03-0909 March 1988
Request for Postponent of Hearing & Oral Argument for Addl 90 Days.* Petitioner Requests Extension to Prepare for Scheduled Hearing
ML20195J1201988-01-0202 January 1988
Request for Extension of Time in Which to File Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Extension Until 880212 Requested Due to Lack of Access to Relevant Documents During Nonbusiness Hours.Served on 880120
ML20236N7951987-11-0909 November 1987
NRC Staff Response to Ltr Hearing Request by C Rich.* Intervention Should Be Denied Unless Rich & Other Petitioners Amend Request to Cure Defects W/At Least One Admissible Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20236L7941987-11-0404 November 1987
Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing.* Opposes C Rich 870930 Request for Public Hearing Re Proposed Amend to License to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity. W/Notices of Appearance of Counsel & Certificate of Svc
ML20207N6691987-01-0909 January 1987
Licensee Response to Supplemental Request for Hearing.* Responds to J Pakavitch 861106 Request for Hearing.Request Deficient as Petition to Intervene & Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20212D6031986-12-16016 December 1986
Response of the NRC Staff to the Ltr of Eric Beutens.* Beutens Ltr Supporting J Paskovitch 861202 Request for Public Hearing Fails to State Requisite Interest & Untimely Filed.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20211N0541986-12-10010 December 1986
Request for Hearing Re Commission Fulfillment of Purpose for Being,Concerning Spent Fuel Transfer Amend.Related Correspondence
ML20214X2741986-12-0808 December 1986
Response Opposing J Paskavitch Request for Hearing Re Util Proposed Amend to License NPF-16,transferring Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool to Unit 2.Request Does Not Supply Min Info & Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20214Q7321986-12-0101 December 1986
Response Opposing J Paskavitch Request for Hearing Re Spent Fuel Transfer from Unit 1 to Unit 2.Notices of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20041F6671982-03-10010 March 1982
Withdrawal of 780828 Request That Commission Institute Section 105a Proceeding Against Util.Fl Cities Has Settled All Differences W/Util.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20041F0421982-03-10010 March 1982
Joint Motion to Withdraw Fl Cities Intervention,Dismiss & Terminate Proceedings & Vacate ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order.Settlement Moots Dispute Between Fl Cities & Util. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20040C0581982-01-19019 January 1982
Motion to Extend Time Until 820126 for Parties to Reply to Objections to ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order.Fl Cities Objections Were Not Received Until 820115 Due to Severe Weather.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20039G5481982-01-14014 January 1982
Motion to Incorporate by Ref Re Bathen 760414 Affidavit & 760804 Supplemental Affidavit.Affidavits Referenced in Re Bathen 820114 Affidavit.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20040A4151982-01-13013 January 1982
Amicus Curiae Brief & Proposed License Conditions,Filed Per ASLB 810805 & 1211 Memoranda & Orders.Util Should Not Be Allowed to Deny Competitors Access to Transmission Svcs Essential to Operation.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20039G1221982-01-0808 January 1982
Motion for Order Extending Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order Until 10 Days After Svc of ASLB Order Ruling on Parties' Objections to Memorandum & Order
ML20039E5911982-01-0505 January 1982
Lodging of Fl PSC 811230 Order Requiring Interconnection W/Petitioners' Facility
ML20039E2351982-01-0505 January 1982
Rejoinder to Fl Cities 811217 Answer to Util 811202 Motion to Lodge Recent Decision.No Legal or Logical Basis Exists for Commission to Institute Proceedings Under 105a of Atomic Energy Act
ML20039D0131981-12-29029 December 1981
Response Opposing Util 811222 Motion to Modify Procedural Schedule.Effect of Proposal Would Be to Delay Preparation & Presentation of Outline of Parties' Cases & Subj Fl Cities to Unnecessary Discovery Burdens.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20069B0471981-12-22022 December 1981
Motion for Extension of Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 811211 Order Finding That Licensing Plan Would Create Situation Inconsistent W/Antitrust Laws.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20069B0501981-12-22022 December 1981
Motion for Mod of Procedural Schedule Adopted in ASLB 811211 Order.Trial Briefs Should Not Have to Be Filed Until After Serious Consideration Given & Ruling Issued on Parties' Objections.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20039B1321981-12-17017 December 1981
Answer to Util 811202 Motion to Lodge Us Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Decision,Fpl Vs Ferc.No Objection to Lodging Decision But Opposes Util Erroneous Interpretation. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20038B3411981-12-0404 December 1981
Motion to Lodge Encl Decision in La Power & Light Co, 17FERC63020.Decision Relevant to Util Business Judgment Defense.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20010J5731981-09-29029 September 1981
Motion for Leave to File Reply by 811019,to Intervenor Parsons & Whittemore Objections to ASLB 810805 Memorandum & Order.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20010J5831981-09-25025 September 1981
Corrected Version of Objections to ASLB 810805 Memorandum & Order
ML20010H8341981-09-25025 September 1981
Objections to ASLB 810805 Order Denying Petition to Intervene & to Underlying Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Ferc Remedy Incomplete for Listed Reasons.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20010J5771981-09-25025 September 1981
Corrected Pages to Petitioners' 810925 Objections to ASLB Order
ML20010F6561981-09-0808 September 1981
Motion for Extension of Time Until 810916 to File Response to Fl Cities 810827 Motion to Establish Procedures.Extension Needed Due to Filings Required in Antitrust Case & to Evaluate Effects of Settlement.Certificate of Svc Encl
1998-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
Florida Cities:7/P/81 i~<~BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power R Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2)Docket No.50-389-OL Date: 7/2/81 4 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF THEIR INTERVENTION PETITION AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION AND FOR OTHER RELIEF CP ri.Qs USMC duL a>s8)~gffice qf M@ti~4 Sepg~Stanch Robert A.Jablon, Esquire Attorney for the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West., Kissimmee, Mount, Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.July 2, 1981 Law offices of Spiegel 6 McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20037 (202)333-4500 ST07670284 Hi0702.PDR ADOCK 05000389 G PD V I 4 1 v"i<('t<'<il y Sl" l' Each City is requesting antitrust relief in Florida Power S Li ht Co.(St.Lucie Plant, Unit iVo.2), NRC Docket No.50-389A construction permit proceeding, either through its own intervention or that of intervenor Florida municipal Utilities Association, a membership organization.
Florida Cities now request antitrust review in connection with the operating license.In their April 7 operating license intervention petition, the Cities made plain their belief that they could raise all issues and obtain all relief in the construction permit antitrust proceedings that they could in an operating license proceeding.
They filed their operating license intervention petition only to protect against any assertion that, if they had failed t~do so, they would in some way be entitled to reduced substantive or procedural relief.Thus, their petition to intervene states (pp.1-3): Insofar as the conditions applied to the construction permit should at least encompass the life of the unit, the relief obtained in the construction permit proceedings may obviate the need for similar proceedings in connection with the operating license.In any case, insofar as Cities are parties to this docket, they presume that they are parties to further proceedings relating to the operating license applications.
In sum, Florida Cities intervene solely as a protective matter.They have been granted intervention in the St.Lucie Unit 2 construction permit proceeding:
Florida Power e Li ht~Com an (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2), LBP-77-23, 5 NRC 789 519773, affirmed, ALAS-420, 6 NRC 8 and 6 NRC 221, affirmed, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939.Assuming that, they prove their case, Florida Cities are entitled to relief under$105 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.52135.Since their allegation and the relief sought under the construction permit and operating license are parallel, a separate proceeding should be unnecessary.
See Houston Li htin&Power Com an (South Texas Project, Unit Li ht Com an (Beaver Valley power Station, Unzt No.2 , ALAB-208, 7 AHC 959 (1974).However, in the event that a contention could be made that they waive rights by failng to intervene separately in the operating license proceeding, they file this Petition and request appropriate relief.(Petition to Intervene, pp.1-3, footnotes omitted)Although it is uncertain whether FPL would agree that all rights available to Florida Cities under the operating license proceeding will be available in the context of the construction permit antitrust review, in the"Answer of Florida Power&Light Company to the Florida Cities'etition to, Intervene and Request for Consolidation", dated May 26, 1981, FPL states: "It is an established principle of NRC practice that antitrust conditions attached to a construction permit remain in effect after the issuance of an operating license.In every case in which antitrust license conditions have been attached to a"construction permit, the NRC has extended those license conditions upon the issuance of an operating license for the tim'e span of the license.The Cities allege no basis for suspecting that the Commission would not do the same here.Accordingly, the Cities'etition is moot by its own terms.Their intervention is predicated upon the defense of an established tenet of NRC practice which FPL does not contest.On this basis alone, the Cities'etition should be denied." (FPL Answer, pp.4-5)~On June 3, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued an Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concernin Antitrust Matters, denying Florida Cities intervention.
The Order also denied intervention to Parsons&Whittemore, Inc.("P&W")
and its subsidiary, Resources Recovery (Dade County), Inc.("RRD").The Order was based solely upon the Board's belief that it has no jurisdiction to rule on antitrust matters.The Board states (Order, p.4): "We do not reach the merits of the petitions since we have determined that we lack the jurisdiction to consider the petitions in this proceeding.
Both petitions are denied." 1/I~THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO RULE ON FLORIDA CITIES PETITION TO INTERVENE.
Florida Cities'etition to intervene in connection with the operating license met the Commission' standards.
Section\105(c), 42 U.S.C.$2135(c)of the Atomic Energy Act plainly contemplates the opportunity for operating license antitrust review.The Federal Receist'er notice" concerning interventions invited all potentially affected parties to seek available-statutory relief.For'he Board to hold that it has no authority to review Florida Cities'ntervention petition on the merits without stating who does was an exercise of"procedural gymnastics" such as was condemned in Cities of Statesville v.AEC, 441 F.2d 962, 976, n.ll (D.C.Cir.en banc, 1969).The Board cites Marble Hill 2/as determining that it has no antitrust jurisdiction.
Marble Hill discusses whether a 1 The above Order was not served on Florida Cities.Florida Cities did receive a copy of the Order on June 22, 1981 and filed a Notice of Appeal on June 23, 1981.Leave to appeal was granted by Order of this Board dated June 26, 1981.2/In the Matter of Public Service Com an of Indiana, Inc./Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976).
licensing board should hear antitrust and safety issues at the same time where separate opportunity for antitrust hearings had been noticed;the case does not provide a basis for determining that the Board could not have granted Florida Cities'ntervention petition.In granting intervention, the Board could have also determined that safety and antitrust issues should be decided separately and referred its order providing for such separation to the Commission.
1/In fact, Florida Cities'ntervention petition specifically requested consolidation of antitrust issues with the St.Lucie Unit 2 construction permit hearing.In any event,'lorida Cities'ntervention petition should be ruled upon based upon its merits.2/As-is discussed below, however, Florida Cities would not object to affirmance of the Licensing Board on grounds of prematurity or mootness.In its Answer to Florida Cities Petition to Intervene, FPL has suggested that Florida Cities intervention petition is premature (pp.8-13).Florida Cities have an obvious interest 1 Zn Marble Hill,~su ra, at p.171 the Appeal Board notes that a licensing board, where authorized, may combine antitrust and other issues.Here, the initial delegations to the Board appeared to cover all issues relating to the operating license.46 F.R.15831.Indeed, parties were invited to state their interest and right to relief in the proceeding without limitation.
10 CFR-)2.714 of the regulations referred to in the notice covers intervention in all NRC proceedings, including antitrust.
Chapter 1 under which the license would be issued requires a finding that the facility will be operated in confor-mity with the total provisions of the Act.E.g., 10 CFR$50.57.2/Parsons 8 Whittemore has briefed the issue of the Board's authority more extensively.
In order to avoid needless duplication, Florida Cities adopt P&W's argument on this point without rebrie f ing.
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 6 LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power S Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))Docket No.50-389-OL))Date: 7/2/81 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF THEIR INTERVENTION PETITION AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION AND FOR OTHER RELIEF Florida Cities 1/appeal from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order of June 3, 1981 (Appendix A)in which that Board denied them intervention in the Florida Power 6 Li ht Co.(St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2)operating license proceeding.
By Federal Receister Notice of March 9, 1981, 2/the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC")noticed the application of Florida Power G Light Comany ("FPL")for a license to operate the St.Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No.2 ("St.Lucie 2").The notice stated that"any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene." Id.On April 7, 1981, a group of Cities (" Florida Cities"), appellants here, filed a"Petition to Intervene and Request for Consolidation".
2/1 Appellants are the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake 7lorth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West, Kissimmee, Mount Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.Except for the City Electric System of the City of Key Nest, which was inadvertently omitted from that petition, each of these Cities had petitioned to intervene in the.operating license oroceeding.
2/46 F.R.15831.
in resolution of antitrust matters before operation of the St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2, especially since many of their members will be part owners.However, Florida Cities also have an interest that the operation of St.Lucie 2 not add to FPL's economic power unless conditions are ordered that protect them against being victims of antitrust abuse.Cf.Houston Li htin&, Power Com an (South Texas Project, Unit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-381, 5 NRC 582 (1977), advancing the time of operating license antitrust review-.Should the Appeal Board determine that additional procedural steps must be taken before petitions requesting operating license antitrust review are appropriate or that such petitions cannot be heard before completion of construction permit antitrust review, then Florida Cities simply request that such ruling be made so that they cannot later be deemed to have waived rights.In either case, procedures must be adopted that permit early resolution of antitrust matters.If the Appeal Board does not have authority to rule on this issue, Florida Cities request referral of their petition as may be appropriate.
B.Mootness.In.the judgment.of counsel, the Licensing Board established to rule in Docket No.50-389A on antitrust matters has authority to grant antitrust relief under the same standards and procedures that would apply in an operating license antitrust proceeding.
l/As they have stated, Florida Cities have sought 1 As FPL has recognized (p.3,~su ra), construction permit license conditions are routinely applied to operating licenses.See Arkansas Power&Li ht Com an , ALAB-94, 6 NRC 25 (1973);Indiana 6 Michi an Electric Co.and Indiana 6 Michi an Power Co., LBP-73-3, 6 NRC 80 1972 intervention in the operating license proceeding to forestall the possibility that they could be entitled to less antitrust relief, had they failed to do so.However, should this Board affirm that under the circumstances of this case, where a construction permit antitrust review is ongoing, nothing would be added by operating license antitrust review, then Florida Cities antitrust interven-tion petition is moot and they would not object to dismissal on those grounds.1/CONCLUSION Florida Cities do not address the merits of their entitlement to relief.However, they feel constrained to stress that additional antitrust license conditions are plainly in order.Indeed, since Florida Cities first applied for antitrust relief in connection with the construction permit 2/the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has specifically 1 found that FPL violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to divide wholesale sales territory with Florida Power Corporation:
We hold that the evidence compels a finding that FPL was part of a conspiracy with Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power)to divide the wholesale power market in Florida." Gainesville Utilities De t.v.Florida Power 6 Li ht Com an , 573 F.2d 292 (1978), cert.denied, 439 U.S.966.In Opinion Nos.57 1 The parties could so stipulate.
2/"Joint Petition of Florida Cities for Leave to Intervene Out of Time;Petition to Intervene; and Request for Hearing", Florida Power S Li ht Com an (St.Lucie Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2;Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.3 and 4), Docket.Nos.50-335A, and 50-389A, et al.(August 6, 1976);"Joint Petition of Florida Cities for Leave to Intervene and Request for Conference and Hearing", Florida Power a Li ht Co.(South Dade Plant), Docket No.P-636-A (April 14, 1976).
and 57-A, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (formerly the Federal Power Commission) extensively reviewed and specifically found tnat the Company had engaged in"anticompetitive conduct" and, indeed, found that FPL's proposed restrictive wholesale power provisions in that docket, which would have limited the sale of wholesale power and coordination, were themselves"antioompetitive".Re: Florida Power a Li ht~Com an, 32 PUR 4th 313, 339, 340 (1979).(Appendix B)Whatever their virtues, recently agreed to settlement license conditions in Docket No.50-389A between FPL and the Governmental parties are limited to entities in and near FPL's retail service area, thereby per-petuating the territorial division found illegal in Gainesville,~su ra.(Appendix C)As recently as May 12, 1981, Marshall McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of.Florida Power S Light Company, disclaimed taking corrective steps to assure antitrust compliance (Deposition testimony in Gainesville Re ional Utilities, et.al.v.Florida Power R Li ht Com an , Docket iVo.79-5101-CIV-JLK, pp..98-104, quotation at p.100): "I'm not aware that we have ever been guilty of infringing any antitrust, laws....In my opinion, the views of the Fifth Circuit were incorrect." (Appendix D)Thus, there is every reason to believe that Commission scrutiny is necessary to prevent nuclear generated electricity being used by FPL"to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws" absent appropriate license conditions.
WHEREFORE, Florida Cities respectfully request: 1.That the Appeal Board reverse the Licensing Board and (a)order that Florida Cities Petition to Intervene and Request for Consolidation be granted or (b)remand for a ruling on the merits by the Licensing Board;2.Alternatively, that the Licensing Board be affirmed on the specific grounds (a)that antitrust intervention petitions are premature or (b)that the issue is moot because, absent a waiver, the operating license cannot be issued until completion of the antitrust review in the construction permit proceeding, and because, unless waived, Florida Cities may raise all issues and obtain all relief in the construction permit proceeding that they could obtain in the operating license proceeding; 3.Alternatively, if the Appeal Board rules that it lacks jurisdiction, it should forward Cities petition and this pleading to the appropriate officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a ruling.Respectfully submitted, Robert A.Jablon Attorney for the Gainesville Regional Utilities, the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, the Sebring Utilities Commission, and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Homestead, Key West, Kissimmee, Mount Dora, Newberry, St.Cloud, Starke, and Tallahassee, Florida.July 2, 1981 Law offices of Spiegel&McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20037 (202)333-4500 Florida Cities:7/2/Sl BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In The Matter Of Florida Power R Light Company (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))Docket No.50-389-OL))Date: 7/2/81 BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEXR APPEAL FROM DENXAL OF THEIR XNTERVENTION PETITXON AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATXON AND FOR OTHER RELIEF INDEX OF APPENDXCES APPENDIX A"Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters" issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board June 4, 1981 APPENDIX B Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Opinion Nos, 57 and 57-A dated August 3, 1979 and October 4, 1979 APPENDIX C St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2 Proposed License Conditions
\APPENDIX D Excerpts from May 12, 1981 Deposition of Marshall McDonald, Florida Power S Light Company, in Gainesville Re ional Utilities, et al.v.Florida Power&Li ht Com an, Docket No.79-5101-CIV-JLK APPENDIX A"Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters" issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board June 4, 1981
