ML17209A991

Petition to Intervene in Ongoing Const Licensing Proceeding & Request for Limited Antitrust Hearing

ML17209A991
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/24/1981
From:	GARY M, KUCIK G R, SWARD E E ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, PARSONS & WHITTEMORE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML17209A992	List: ML17209A991 ML17209A993
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8104280478
Download: ML17209A991 (13)

Text

UNXTEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION00cypp~~~sivgo~~otf$pgZntheMatterofFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANY(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)I).)))))DocketNo.50-389@PETITIONFORLEAVETOINTERVENEANDREQUESTFORHEARING'Parsons&Whittemore,Inc.(P&W)andResourcesRecovery(DadeCounty),Inc.(RRD)petitionforleavetointerveneinthisconstructionlicensingproceedingandrequesttheCommissiontoholdalimitedantitrusthearing.OnApril7,1981,wepetitionedforleavetointerveneandrequestedanantitrusthearinginthecompanionoperatinglicensingproceeding.ThatpetitionrespondedtoanoticeofapplicationfromFloridaPower&LightCompany(FP&L)whichhadbeenpublishedintheIIFederalRegisteronMarch9,1981(46Fed.Reg.15831).OnApril16,1981,FP&LarguedthattheApril7petitionwas"defectiveprocedurally"becausetheoperatinglicensingproceeding"doesnotpertaintotheantitrustaspectsoftheapplication."MotionofFP&LforanExtensionofTimetoAnswer,p.l.a~o428o"L~S+QoW J44" NebelievethattheApril7petitioncomplieswiththelawandwithNRC'sproceduralregulations.Inparticular,itshouldbenotedthatinterventionissoughtnotsolelytorequestanantitrusthearing,butalsotoprotectpetitioners'ightsunderthePublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesActof1978(PURPA),.16U.S.C.5796et~se.Beyondthis,theMarch9,1981,noticedoesnotprecludeanantitrusthearing,andthechangedcircumstancesdescribedinourApril7pleadingmandateone.TheDepartmentofJusticeacknowledgedouressentialpointinSouthCarolinaElectric&GasComan(VirgilC.SummerNuclearStationUnitNo.1),DocketNo.50-395A.There,initsOctober10,1980,r'esponsetotheCommission'srequestforcommentsonthe"significantchanges"criteria,theDepartmentpointedoutthat--"ongoingnegotiationsconcerningaccesstoanuclearpowerplantmayprecludeanalysisofthewholeaccessissueatthetimeofaconstructionpermitreview.Insuchacase,thereshouldbeanopportunitytoconsiderthisissueinanantitrustreviewattheoperatinglicensestage."[Id.at6n.14.]Thatquotationpreciselystatesthepositionthatpetitionersareadvancingintheoperatinglicensingproceeding.

Nevertheless,tocoverallprocedural.,'techni-calities,Petitionersnowrequestpermissiontointer-Iveneintheongoingconstructionlicensingproceeding.Petitioner'sApril7,1981pleadingsareattachedasAppendixAand,incorporatedhereinbyreference.ThisPetitionfocusesuponthereasonsforPetitioner'sdelayedfilingofitsinterventionpapersinthiscon-structionlicensingproceeding.Z.ThePetitionersandTheirZnterestinZntervention'P&WisaNewYorkcorporationengagedinavarietyofactivities,includingtheconstructionandoperationofsolidwasteprocessingfacilities.RRDisaDelawarecorporationandawholly-ownedsubsidiaryofPGW.ZthasrecentlycompletedconstructionofasolidwasteprocessingfacilityinDadeCounty,Florida.TheDadeCountyfacilityisaqualifyingsmallpowerproducerwithinthemeaningofSection201ofPURPA,16U.S.C.$796,andtheimplementingregulations,18CFR,Part292.PURPAisdesignedtoencourageco-generationandsmallpowerproductionofelectricenergy.Towardthatend,PURPAgrantsqualifyingfacilitiestherighttoselltheiroutput'oanelectricutility,tointerconnectwithautility,andtobuyatretai'1fromtheutilityalltheelectricpowerthefacilityneeds.QualifyingfacilitiesunderPURPAareunique.Theycompriseanewclassofentrantsintothemarketforelectricpowergeneration andsale,Congresshassingledthemoutforspecialtreatmenttoadvancethepublicinterestinusingenergythatispxoducedasabyproductofotherindustrialoperationsorthatcouldbeproducedbyotherunconventionalsources.QualifyingPURPAfacilitiesareexpectedtocontributetotheoverallenergyindependenceofthenation.Toachievethatend,theymustbecomecommer-ciallyviable.Inthefieldofelectricgeneration,theircommercialviabilitydependsupontheirabilitytocompetewithentrenchedutilitieslikeFP&L,whichhasmonopolypoweroverthetransmissiongridthatspanssouthernandeasternFlorida.FP&Lrecognizesthelong-termcompetitivethreatposedbyqualifyingPURPAfacilities.Infact,theSettlementAgreementthatpurportstoresolvetheanti-trustproblemsassociatedwiththisnuclearfacilityspecificallyacknowledgestheexistenceofqualifyingPURPAfacilities,anditimpactsupontheiroperation.See,e.cC.,SectionX(a)(5)oftheAgreement.TheAgreementeventreatsPURPAfacilitiesdifferently-thanotherelectricgeneratingfacilitiesinimportantways:e.cC.,toavailthemselvesofthetransmissionprovisionsoftheAgreement,qualifyingPURPAfacilitiesmayhavetowaivetheirPURPArighttopurchaseFP&Lspoweratretail.

Also,theFederalEnergyRegulatory=Commission(FERC)regulationsprovide,18CFR5292.305(b)(1)-;thatuponrequestofaqualifyingfacility,autility"shallprovide:(i)Supplementarypower,(ii)Back-uppower,(iii)Maintenancepowerand(iv)Interruptiblepower."TheFERCregulationsestablishstandardsandproceduresforwaivingthoserequirements.18CFR5292.305(b)(2).Yetwithoutfollowingthosestandardsorprocedures,theSettlementdisregardsFP&L'sdutytoprovide-backupandmaintenancepower,arguablyallowingFP&Lnottodosowhenittransmitselectricityforaqualifyingfacility.TheseillustratethekindsofissuesthathavebeenraisedbyPetitionersingreaterdetailintheirApril7pleadings.Petitionerscontendoverall,thatFP&LhasusedthesettlementprocessaspartofacalculatedefforttodiminishqualifyingfacilitiesbenefitsunderPURPA,therebyweakeningthemcompetitively.Thishasoccurredwithoutpriornoticetotheaffectedqualifyingfacilitiesandwithouttheirparticipationorcomment.Whatismore,nowthatPetitionershavelearnedoftheAgreement,FP&Largues-ongroundsthatitconcedesaretechnical--thatqualifyingfacilitiesshouldbeexcludedfromanyparti-cipationinthesettlementprocessthataffectsthemsoprofoundly.

FPGL'sdeterminationtoconcludetheSettlementAgreementwithoutPetitioner'sparticipationconfirmsourworstfearsabouttheutility'sintendeduseofitsmonopolypowertodenyPetitionersaccessto-thetrans-missiongrid-theaccesstheyneedtocompete.ToensurethattheNRCwillhearbothsidesofthetransmissioncontroversybetweenFPaLandPetitioners,wenowmovetointerveneintheconstructionlicensingproceedingtocomplementourpendingi~kotionintheoperatinglicensingproceeding.ZZ.CriteriaforDelaedZntervent'ionNRChasrecognizedthatdelayed(oruntimely)interventionpetitionsmaydeserveseriousconsideration,andithasissuedregulationstoimplementitspowertoallowinterventionatadvancedstagesofaproceeding.Thefactorsforconsiderationareenumeratedin10CFR52-714(a)(1):(i)Goodcausefornotfilingontime;(ii)Theavailability,ifany,ofothermeanstoprotectthePetitioner'sinterest; (iii)TheextenttowhichPetitioner'sparticipationmayreasonablybeexpectedtoassistindevelopingasoundrecord;(iv)TheextenttowhichPetitioner'sinterestwillberepresentedbyexistingparties;and(v)TheextenttowhichPetitioner'sparticipationwillbroadentheissuesordelaytheproceeding.ThesefactorssupplementthestandardinterventioncriteriaoutlinedinSubsection(d)ofCFR52.714.OurdiscussionofthosecriteriaintheApril7Petitionforleavetointerveneintheoperatinglicensingproceeding(AppendixA),willnotberepeatedhere.TheremainderofthisPetitiondiscusses.thefactorsquotedabove,inorder.A.'Good'auseforunt'imel'il'i'nZtwasonlywhenPetitionersunearthedtheproposedSettlementAgreementthattheyrealizedFPGLwasusingthisproceedingtoundercuttheirrightsasaqualifyingPURPAfacility.Petitionershadnonotice,actualorformal(throughtheFederalRegister),ofthesettlementnegotiations.AlthoughSectionZoftheproposedAgreementdirectlybearsuponPetitioners'ompetitiveinterestsandPURPArights,creatingtheneedtointervene,theAgreementwasonlyrecentlymadepublic.Thepublic"notice",moreover,consistedoffilingacopyoftheAgreementintheNRC'sdocketroom, butdoingsawithoutattendantpublicityortherequisiteformalities.Untilnow,Petitionershavebeeneffectivelydeprivedofanopportunitytoparticipateorcomment.Inthesecircumstances,FP&LcannotbeheardtocomplainthatPetitioners'nterventionisuntimely.Petitioners'elaywascausedbyalackofknowledgeattributabletothesecrecyofthesettlementprocess.Thatis"goodcause"byanyfairandreasonablemeasure.B.AvailabilityofothermeanstoprotectPetitioners'nterestPetitioners'nterestcanbeprotectedonlybyallowingthemtobeheardintheinterrelatedconstructionandoperatinglicensingproceedings.FP&LcontestsPetitioners'ighttoairitsantitrustconcernsattheoperatinglicensestage.IfFP&Lweretoprevailonthatpoint,andiflateinterventionisnotallowedintheconstructionlicensingproceeding,FP&LwillhavesucceededinusingtheNRCtohelpitmaintainandenhanceitsmonopolypowerinthewaysoutlinedinourBriefinsupportoftheApril7Petitioner.ThatsurelymustbeFP&L'sobjective,forthereisnoimaginablepro-competitivereasonforobjectingtoPetitioners'ffortstoprotecttheirrighttocompetewithFP&L.TheCommissionhasamplepowertoimplementitsstatutorymandatetoprotectPetitioners'nterest,atthisstageofthelicensingproceedings.Intervention maybegrantedattheoperatinglicensestage,whichwouldbealogicalchoicesinceitisanewphaseofthelicensingprocess,orintheongoingconstructionlicenseproceeding,whichiswherethesettlementagreementwasnegotiated,orinboth.RegardlessofhowNRCchoosestoformulateitsinterventionorder,however,wecontendthatpetitionershaveastatutoryandconstitutionalrighttobeheardontheissuesdelineatedinAppendixA.Onepossiblesolutionisavariantofthatsuggestedbytheotherintervenorsintheseproceedings:permitpetitionerstointervenelateintheconstructionlicenseproceeding,andthenconsolidatethetwoproceedingsforpurposesofanantitrusthearing.C.DevelopmentofasoundrecordPetitioners-'ightsaredeeplyaffectedbythe!settlementagreement.PURPAfacilitiesareanewanduniquekindofentity,andtheyhavebeenaffordedlessfavorabletreatmentthanotherelectricgeneratorscoveredbythatagreement.Sofarasweareaware,nootherqualifyingPURPAfacilityhasmovedtointerveneineitherproceeding.Therefore,acompleterecordofthepetitioners'nterestsandthoseofsimilarlysituatedfacilitiescannotbemadewithoutpetitioners'articipation.Toignoretheseinterestswouldbeunfairtopetitionersandunsoundasamatterofregulatorypolicy.ThenumberofpURpAfacilitiesissuretoincreaseovertime, 10sincePURPAwasenactedbuttwoyearsago.NRCshouldmovetoprotectthoseinterestsnow,attheoutset,by.rejectingPPGL'sefforttocontrolthecompetitivefutureofPURPAfacilitiesthroughasettlementagreementthatwillbecomefinalwhilepetitionersandtheircounterpartsarejuststartingtheircompetitiveventures.D.ReresentationbyexistingpartiesNopartytotheseproceedingshasthesameinterestaspetitioners,andnopartyhassoughttospeakonbehalfofqualifiedPURPAfacilities(inthecontextoftheissueswehaveraised).Theexistingpartiescannot,adequatelyrepresentpetitioners'nterest.E.BroadeninofissuesordelaofroceedinPetitioners'nterventionwillneitherbroadentheissuesnordelaytheproceeding.TheissuesarealreadybeforetheCommissionbyvirtueofthesettlementagreement,whichtheCommissionmustapproveordisapprove.AhearingontheseissuescouldnotbesignificantlydelayedbyallowingpetitionerstointerveneandmaketheirpositionknownthroughsuchevidenceandpleadingsastheCommissiondeemsappropriate.Indeed,becausewehavedonenomorethanarticulateexistingissueswhichNRCmustdecidewithorwithoutourparticipation,interventionbyaqualifyingPURPAfacilityisessentialtoensureafairandcompleterecord.

11CONCLUSIONThepetitionforleavetointerveneandthepetitioners'equestforanantitrust.hearingshouldbegranted.Respectfullysubmitted,GeorgeR.Kucz.MareGaryEenE.SwardARENTfFOXgKINTNER/PLOTKINKAHN1815HStreet,N.N.washington,D.C.20006(202)857-6000CounselforPetitionersApx'il24,1981 4441*I44.1'4F~,144PL4414.~'L'-,~414