ML17209B244

Notice of Appeal of Aslb 810603 Order Denying Parsons & Whittemore,Inc & Resources Recovery,Inc Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Brief Supporting Appeal & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17209B244
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/15/1981
From:	KUCIK G R, SWARD E E ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, PARSONS & WHITTEMORE
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106170227
Download: ML17209B244 (15)

Text

0UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COLL~:ISSION B""OREH"ATOMICS.."ETYANDL'ENSINGFPPEALBO.'D@/zgej.)))DocketNo.50-NOTICEOFAPPEALInthei~fatterofFLORIDAPONER&LIGHTCOMPANY(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)gap/ppJgjynPursuantto10C.F.R.52.714a,petitioners P"Nhittemore, Inc.andResources Recovery(DadeCounty),Inc.appealfromtheJune3,1981orderoftheAtomicSafetyandLicensing Boarddenyingtheirpetitionforleavetointervene andrequestforhearinginthecaptioned proceeding.

TheorderwasdocketedandservedonJune4.Insupportofthisappeal,petitioners attachabriefasrequiredby10C.F.R.52.714a(a).Respectfully submitted, George.Kuciqq>qg>act>5,Mt:aclN<~

Q~~LgtiQR 4~6'ElenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin6Kahn1815HStreet,N.tf.Washington, D.C.20006Telephone:

(202)857-6000CounselforPetitioners June15,1981~~66yPgyral

~'IIIL,.$LUlLILIIgIL>~g~flIg('L.LL'

~t0~UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLXCENSING APPEALBOARDXntheMatterofFLORXDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANY(St.LuciePlant,Unit.No.2))))DocketNo.50-389OL))BRIEFOFPARSONS6WHXTTEMORE, XNC.ANDRESOURCES RECOVERY(DADECOUNTY),INC.INSUPPORTOFTHEIRAPPEALFROMDENXALOFTHEIRXNTERVENTION PETXTIONANDREQUESTFORHEARINGParsonssWhittemore,.

Inc.(PGW)andResources Recovery(DadeCounty),Inc.(RRD)petitione'd-for leavetointervene inthisproceeding forissuanceofalicensetooperateFloridaPower6Light,Company's St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2.Thepeti'tion wasdeniedonJune3,1981on...thegroundthatpetitioners soughttoraiseonlyantitrust issuesbeforeaLicensing Boardthatwasconstituted to,1/'onsider onl'yhealth,safetyandenvironmental issues.Pursuantto10C.F.R.52'.714a, petitioners haveappealedfrom1thisorderofdenial.TheFederalRegisternoticeunderwhichpeti'tioners soughttointervene didnot,byitsterms,limitthejusticiable 1/TheLicensing Board'sJune3orderdenyingintervention wasservedonpetitioners thenextday,June4.

issuestohealth,safetyandenvironmental matters.Moreover, theBoard'sorderfocusedonlyontheantitrust aspectsofpetitioners'leading, ignoringpetitioners'xpressed concernwithprotection oftheirrightsunderthePublicUtilityRegulatory PoliciesActof1978(PURPA)(Petition, pp.4-6)..Thoserightshavebeenadversely affectedbyasettlement agreement.

enteredintointhecompanion construction licenseproceeding, DocketNo.50-389A,involving St.LucieNo.2.Ourpetitiontointervene inthatproceeding ispresently pending'.

ThatpetitionraisesthesamePURPAandantitrust issuesthatpetitioners seektoraiseinthisoperating licenseproceeding.

Petitioners havenoticedtheinstantappealtoprotecttheirrighttobeheardbytheNRContheimportant issuesthattheyhaveraised.ShouldtheNRCdeclinetohearandaddressthe'meritsofpetitioners'ontentions ineitherproceeding, wewouldcontendthattheNRChadviolateditsstatutory obligations aswellasthedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.

Thatissue,however,isnotripefordecisionatthistime,sincetheconstruction licensing intervention pleadinghasnotyetbeenJdecided.Werespectfully submit,inthesecircumstances, thatitwouldbeappropriate forthisAppealBoardtodocketpetitioners'ppeal butdeferactionuponituntilaftertheLicensing Boarddecisionintheconstruction licensing proceeding.

Thatdecisionmightmakeitunnecessary forpetitioners topursuethisappeal.Thepolicyagainstpiecemeal litigation, inanyevent,commendstheideathattheAppealBoardshouldnotruleupontheinstantappealwithouthavingthebenefitoftheLicensing Board'sdecisioninthepehdingcompanion

.matter.Wewillundertake tonotifytheAppealBoardofthatdecisionpromptlyafteritisrendered, andtoapprisetheBoardofour.vi'ewsastoitseffectontheinstantappeal.BACKGROUND Petitioners ownandoperateasolidwasteprocessing plantinDadeCounty,Florida..Theplantconvertssolidwasteintorefuse-derived fuel,andburnsittoproduce.steam,which.isthenconverted,.into electricenergy.,Thisfacility.'is completeandreadytobegin.generating electricity from.waste.OnMarch9,,1981,anoticeofreceiptofanapplication forafacilityoperating licenseforFPGL.'sSt.LucieUnitNo.2,nuclearfacilitywaspublished intheFederalRegister, 46Fed.Reg.15831-32.

ThenoticestatedthattheCommission

'ouldconsider'issuingalicense"whichwouldauthorize

[FPGL]topossess,useandoperatetheSt.LuciePlant,Unit.2inaccordance withtheprovis'ions ofth'e['construction]

license[Emphasis added.]Thenoticefurther.statedthattheCommission wouldhavetofind,priortoissuinganoperating

~license,thattheapplication "complies withtherequirements

~t'~I~~oftheAtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended,andtheCommission's regulations in10C.F.R.Chapterl."Following itsdescription oftheproceeding, theNoticeinvited"anypersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbythisproceeding

[to]fileapetition'or leavetoint'ervene."

OnApril7',1981,petitioners filedatimelypetitionforleavetointervene andrequestforalimitedantitrust hearing,allegingthatissuanceoftheoperating license(1)wouldcreateormaintainasituation inconsistent withtheantitrust, lawsinviolation oftheAtomicEnergyAct,42U.S.C.52135,and(2)wouldadversely affecttheirrightsunderthePublicUtilityRegulatory PoliciesActof1978(PURPA).Petitioners weremostlyconcerned withSectionXofasettlement agreement 2/negotiated intheSt.LucieUnit2,construction licenseproceeding.

TheConstruction Licensing BoardissuedanorderonApril24,1981,makingthesettlement agreement immediately effective withoutprejudice totheNRC'sright"toimposedifferent oradditional conditions afterahearing"(Memorandum andOrder,p.1andp.3atfn'.2).TheNRCStaffresponded topetitioners'ntervention pleadings onApril22,1981,asserting thattheBoardlackedjurisdiction toentertain the'petition becauseitsoughtto/2/Thatagreement, forex'ample, obligated FPGLtotransmitelectricity onbehalfofsmallpowerproducers withinthemeaningofPURPA,suchas.petitioners, butallowedFPGLtocondition thetrans-missioninanunfairanddiscriminatory manner.

~~

raiseonlyantitrust issues.TheStaffarguedtheBoardwasconstituted tohearhealth,safetyandenvironmental issuesonlyandcouldnotconsiderantitrust claims.FPGLrespon'ded tothePetitiononMay6,asserting thesamejurisdictional defenseand'raising otherissuesnotrelevanttothisappeal.Petitioners thenmovedforleavetoanswertheopposition pleadings ofFPSLandtheNRCStaff.Permission toanswerwasdeniedonMay22,withtheBoardrulingthat"ithassufficient information toconsiderthepetition..."(Order,p.2).Thereafter, onJune3,theBoarddeniedthepetition, adoptingthejurisdictional argumentthatpetitioners hadbeendeniedanopportunity toanswer.Forthereasonsexplained below,petitioners respectfully requestthat.theLicensing Board.'sJune'orderbereversedandsetI'sideand,thatthismatterberemandedtotheBoardwithinstructions tograntthepetitionforleavetointervene andrequestforhearing.ARGUMENTA.THECOMMISSXON'S FEDERALREGXSTERNOTXCEOFTHE'OPERATXNG..LICENSE PROCEEDXNG..DXD.

NOT.EXCLUDEANTXTRUST, ISSUES'ROM THEAMBITOFTHEPROCEEDING TheLicensing Boardhasruledthatthenotice'unde'rwhich.petitioners seektointervene relatedexclusively tohealth,safetyandenvironmental issues.Thatruling,wecontend,iserroneous.

TheMarch9noticeunderwhichpetitioner soughttointervene doesnotexcludeantitrust issues.Rather,theoperative intervention languageisall-encompassing, invitingparticipation by"anersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbthisroceedin[Emphasis added.]Thenotice,moreover, doesnotexpressly statetnattheproceeding islimitedtoconsideration ofhealth,safetyandenvironmental issues.Here,too,thesubstantive issueframedbythenoticeisall-encompassing:

whetherafacilityoperating licenseshouldbeissued.Antitrust issuesmustnecessary.ly beconsidered bytheBoardindecidingwhethersuchalicenseshallissueandunderwhatcircumstances andconditions.

52l35(c).-3/'ee42U.S.C.Antitrust.

considerations areofparticular relevance inthismatter,becausetheFederalRegisternoticespecifically statedthattheultimateissueiswhether@PEALshouldbeallowedtooperatetheSt.LuciePlant"inaccordance withtherovisions n'censeOnerovisionoftheofthe[constructs.o

]lz.pconstruction license,currently ineffectunderthe".:Board's April24order,isthatFPGLtransmitelectricity forneighboring entitiesandqualifying PURPA'acilities.

.Theexplicitpurposeofthiscondition, istomitigatenegativeantitrust implications (seetheApril24Orderat,e.cC.,pp.3fn.2).Thus,antitrust issuesmustberelevantintheoperating licenseproceeding.

3/TheCommission's Regulatory Guide9.3statesCommission policyonwhatinformation willbeconsidered inmakingthis:statutory reviewofantitrust implications attheoperating'l~icense stage.

J1

~~SBeyondthis,thenotice'sneglecttomentionantitrust issuesisaviolation oftheCommission

'Statement ofGeneralPolicyandProcedure, l0C.F.R.,Part2,App.A.SectionXofthatAppendixrequiresthattheCommission's noticeofreceiptofapplication (foroperating licensesaswellastheirconstruction counterparts) establish aprocedure forraisingantitrust issues.Specifically, SectionXprovidesthatthenotice-willstatethatpersonswhowishtohavetheirviewsontheantitrust aspectsoftheapplication presented totheAttorneyGeneralforconsideration shallsubmitsuchviewstotheCommission withinsixty.(60)days.[Emphasis added.]Nosuchstatement appearsintheMarch9notice;nordoesthenoticestatethatnoopportunity toraiseantitrust issueswillbeafforded, orthatsuchanopportunity willbeaffordedatalaterdate.Antitrust issuesare.simplyignoredbythenotice.Furthermore, SectionX(e)oftheStatement.

ofGeneralPolicy.andProcedure statesthatantitrust hearingswill"generally" beheldseparately fromhearingsonradiological healthandsafetyandcommondefenseandsecurity; therefore, separation ofissuesisnotanabsoluterequirement.

Xnsum,theoperative FederalRegisternotice,coupledwiththeNRC'spreexisting policystatements, indicated thatantitrust issuesweretobeopenforconsideration inthisproceeding.

TftheCommission didnotintendthisresult,itsnoticewasdefective.

~~B.THEORDERBELOWIMPROPERLY FAILEDTOADDRESSPETITIONERS'ECOND GROUNDFOR'INTERVENTION--

THEADVERSEEFFECTONTHEIR"PURPA'IGHTS

'etitioners soughttointervene notonlyonantitrust groundsbuttoprotecttheir.rightsunderPURPAas,well.PURPAinsuresthatsmallpower-producing facilities shallhaveamarketfortheirelectricity byrequiring thatutilities, suchasFPGL,purchasethatelectrici'ty attheutilities'voided costs.Andthe,settlement agreement intheconstruction licenseproceeding specifically dealswith,PURPA facilities, inSectionX.TheLicensing Boarderredbydenyingthepetitiontointervene withoutmentioning thisaspectof'petitioners'nterest 4gintheproceeding.=

Itmustbeemphasized thatpetitioners'eed toprotecttheirPURPArightsbeforetheNRCstemsnotfromanythingthat1Ipetitioners havedoneorfailedtodo.Intervention isnecessary atthistimebecauseoftheearlierdecisionofFPGL,theNRCStaffandtheDepartment',of JusticetocoverPURPAfacilities inthesettlement agreement, withoutFederalRegisternoticeandanopportunity forinterested personstobeheard.TheLicensing Board'scontinued

'failureto,allowpetitioners to.beheard,4/TherightsofPURPAfacilities underthesettlement arelessextensive thantherightsoffacilities whichhavenotqualified underPURPA.Thatisonereasonwhypetitioners'ights

'areadversely affectedbytheSectionXconditions ofthesettlement agreement whichbecameeffective onApril24.

~~intheircapacityas.aqualifying PURPAfacilityiserroneous asamatteroflaw.CONCLUSIONPetitioners'ppeal shouldbegrantedandtheJune3,1981,orderofAtomicSafetyandLicensing Boardshouldbereversedandsetaside.Themattershouldberemanded'totheBoardwithinstructions tograntpetitioners'pril 7,1981,petitiontointervene andrequestforhearing.Respectfully submitted, GeorgeR.KucikEenE.SwarArent,Fox,,Kintner,Plotkin6Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington',

D.C.20006Telephone:'(202) 857-,6000 CounselforPetitioners

~June15,1981 UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMXSSXON BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLXCENSING APPEALBOARDXntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER6LXGHTCOMPANY)DocketNo.50-389OL)(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))pgppArgilL.Toalston, ActingChiefUtilityFinanceBranchU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555XvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Iherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoing NoticeofAppealandBriefofParsons6Whittemore, Xnc.andResources Recovery(DadeCounty),Inc.inSupportofAppealfromDenialofTheirIntervention Petitionwereserveduponthefollowing personsviafirstclassmailorbyhand*ostaereaid,this/5thdayofJune,1981.RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.'uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Elizabeth S.Bowers,ChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555PeterG.Crane,EsquireOfficeoftheGeneralCounselU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Dr.PeterA.MorrisAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelC.Farrar,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.B.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Dr.OscarH.ParisAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*Docketing andServiceSectionOfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust 6Indemnity GroupU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 AtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RichardS.Saltzman, EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Mr.HaroldDentonDirectorofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.'Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamC.Wise,EsquireSuite500120018thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray6Stripling PostOfficeDrawer0Gainesville, Florida32602JanetUrban,EsquireU.S.Department ofJusticeP.O.Box14141Washington, D.C.20044JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricD.Chanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555AnnP.Hodgdon,EsquireOfficeoftheExecutive LegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802RobertE.BathenFredSafferR.W.Beck6Associates P.O.Box6817Orlando,Florida32803DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionU.S.Department ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,PaxtonandWilliams301South6thStreetP.0.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450HelenSheaWells93ElMarDriveJensenBeach,Florida33457*J.A.Bouknight, Jr.,Esquire.DouglasG.Green,EsquireLowenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad.1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036'eorge Spiegel,EsquireRobert.Jablon,EsquireAlanJ.Roth,EsquireDanielGuttman,EsquireSpiegel&McDiarmid 2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037*HerbertDym,EsquireCovington sBurling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006AtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555OneofCounselforPetitioers