ML17212A278

Brief,In Form of Pleading,Of Florida Cities in Support of Appeal from 810603 Denial of Intervention Petition & Request for Consolidation & for Other Relief.Addl Antitrust License Conditions Are in Order.W/Certificate of Svc

ML17212A278
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/02/1981
From:	JABLON R A FLORIDA CITIES (FLORIDA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107070284
Download: ML17212A278 (15)

Text

FloridaCities:7/P/81i~<~BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION'BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerRLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)DocketNo.50-389-OLDate:7/2/814BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEIRAPPEALFROMDENIALOFTHEIRINTERVENTIONPETITIONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATIONANDFOROTHERRELIEFCPri.QsUSMCduLa>s8)~gfficeqfM@ti~4Sepg~StanchRobertA.Jablon,EsquireAttorneyfortheGainesvilleRegionalUtilities,theLakeWorthUtilitiesAuthority,theUtilitiesCommissionofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilitiesCommission,andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead,KeyWest.,Kissimmee,Mount,Dora,Newberry,St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee,Florida.July2,1981LawofficesofSpiegel6McDiarmid2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20037(202)333-4500ST07670284Hi0702.PDRADOCK05000389GPD VI41v"i<('t<'<ilySl"l' EachCityisrequestingantitrustreliefinFloridaPowerSLihtCo.(St.LuciePlant,UnitiVo.2),NRCDocketNo.50-389Aconstructionpermitproceeding,eitherthroughitsowninterventionorthatofintervenorFloridamunicipalUtilitiesAssociation,amembershiporganization.FloridaCitiesnowrequestantitrustreviewinconnectionwiththeoperatinglicense.IntheirApril7operatinglicenseinterventionpetition,theCitiesmadeplaintheirbeliefthattheycouldraiseallissuesandobtainallreliefintheconstructionpermitantitrustproceedingsthattheycouldinanoperatinglicenseproceeding.Theyfiledtheiroperatinglicenseinterventionpetitiononlytoprotectagainstanyassertionthat,iftheyhadfailedt~doso,theywouldinsomewaybeentitledtoreducedsubstantiveorproceduralrelief.Thus,theirpetitiontointervenestates(pp.1-3):Insofarastheconditionsappliedtotheconstructionpermitshouldatleastencompassthelifeoftheunit,thereliefobtainedintheconstructionpermitproceedingsmayobviatetheneedforsimilarproceedingsinconnectionwiththeoperatinglicense.Inanycase,insofarasCitiesarepartiestothisdocket,theypresumethattheyarepartiestofurtherproceedingsrelatingtotheoperatinglicenseapplications.Insum,FloridaCitiesintervenesolelyasaprotectivematter.TheyhavebeengrantedinterventionintheSt.LucieUnit2constructionpermitproceeding: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.Sincetheirallegationandthereliefsoughtundertheconstructionpermitandoperatinglicenseareparallel,aseparateproceedingshouldbeunnecessary.SeeHoustonLihtin&PowerComan(SouthTexasProject,UnitLihtComan(BeaverValleypowerStation,UnztNo.2,ALAB-208,7AHC959(1974).However,intheeventthatacontentioncouldbemadethattheywaiverightsbyfailngtointerveneseparatelyintheoperatinglicenseproceeding,theyfilethisPetitionandrequestappropriaterelief.(PetitiontoIntervene,pp.1-3,footnotesomitted)AlthoughitisuncertainwhetherFPLwouldagreethatallrightsavailabletoFloridaCitiesundertheoperatinglicenseproceedingwillbeavailableinthecontextoftheconstructionpermitantitrustreview,inthe"AnswerofFloridaPower&LightCompanytotheFloridaCities'etitionto,InterveneandRequestforConsolidation",datedMay26,1981,FPLstates:"ItisanestablishedprincipleofNRCpracticethatantitrustconditionsattachedtoaconstructionpermitremainineffectaftertheissuanceofanoperatinglicense.Ineverycaseinwhichantitrustlicenseconditionshavebeenattachedtoa"constructionpermit,theNRChasextendedthoselicenseconditionsupontheissuanceofanoperatinglicenseforthetim'espanofthelicense.TheCitiesallegenobasisforsuspectingthattheCommissionwouldnotdothesamehere.Accordingly,theCities'etitionismootbyitsownterms.TheirinterventionispredicateduponthedefenseofanestablishedtenetofNRCpracticewhichFPLdoesnotcontest.Onthisbasisalone,theCities'etitionshouldbedenied."(FPLAnswer,pp.4-5)~OnJune3,theAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardissuedanOrderRelativetoPetitionstoInterveneConcerninAntitrustMatters,denyingFloridaCitiesintervention.TheOrderalsodeniedinterventiontoParsons&Whittemore,Inc.("P&W")

anditssubsidiary,ResourcesRecovery(DadeCounty),Inc.("RRD").TheOrderwasbasedsolelyupontheBoard'sbeliefthatithasnojurisdictiontoruleonantitrustmatters.TheBoardstates(Order,p.4):"Wedonotreachthemeritsofthepetitionssincewehavedeterminedthatwelackthejurisdictiontoconsiderthepetitionsinthisproceeding.Bothpetitionsaredenied."1/I~THEBOARDHASAUTHORITYTORULEONFLORIDACITIESPETITIONTOINTERVENE.FloridaCities'etitiontointerveneinconnectionwiththeoperatinglicensemettheCommission'standards.Section\105(c),42U.S.C.$2135(c)oftheAtomicEnergyActplainlycontemplatestheopportunityforoperatinglicenseantitrustreview.TheFederalReceist'ernotice"concerninginterventionsinvitedallpotentiallyaffectedpartiestoseekavailable-statutoryrelief.For'heBoardtoholdthatithasnoauthoritytoreviewFloridaCities'nterventionpetitiononthemeritswithoutstatingwhodoeswasanexerciseof"proceduralgymnastics"suchaswascondemnedinCitiesofStatesvillev.AEC,441F.2d962,976,n.ll(D.C.Cir.enbanc,1969).TheBoardcitesMarbleHill2/asdeterminingthatithasnoantitrustjurisdiction.MarbleHilldiscusseswhethera1TheaboveOrderwasnotservedonFloridaCities.FloridaCitiesdidreceiveacopyoftheOrderonJune22,1981andfiledaNoticeofAppealonJune23,1981.LeavetoappealwasgrantedbyOrderofthisBoarddatedJune26,1981.2/IntheMatterofPublicServiceComanofIndiana,Inc./MarbleHillNuclearGeneratingStation,Units1and2ALAB-316,3NRC167(1976).

licensingboardshouldhearantitrustandsafetyissuesatthesametimewhereseparateopportunityforantitrusthearingshadbeennoticed;thecasedoesnotprovideabasisfordeterminingthattheBoardcouldnothavegrantedFloridaCities'nterventionpetition.Ingrantingintervention,theBoardcouldhavealsodeterminedthatsafetyandantitrustissuesshouldbedecidedseparatelyandreferreditsorderprovidingforsuchseparationtotheCommission.1/Infact,FloridaCities'nterventionpetitionspecificallyrequestedconsolidationofantitrustissueswiththeSt.LucieUnit2constructionpermithearing.Inanyevent,'loridaCities'nterventionpetitionshouldberuleduponbaseduponitsmerits.2/As-isdiscussedbelow,however,FloridaCitieswouldnotobjecttoaffirmanceoftheLicensingBoardongroundsofprematurityormootness.InitsAnswertoFloridaCitiesPetitiontoIntervene,FPLhassuggestedthatFloridaCitiesinterventionpetitionispremature(pp.8-13).FloridaCitieshaveanobviousinterest1ZnMarbleHill,~sura,atp.171theAppealBoardnotesthatalicensingboard,whereauthorized,maycombineantitrustandotherissues.Here,theinitialdelegationstotheBoardappearedtocoverallissuesrelatingtotheoperatinglicense.46F.R.15831.Indeed,partieswereinvitedtostatetheirinterestandrighttoreliefintheproceedingwithoutlimitation.10CFR-)2.714oftheregulationsreferredtointhenoticecoversinterventioninallNRCproceedings,includingantitrust.Chapter1underwhichthelicensewouldbeissuedrequiresafindingthatthefacilitywillbeoperatedinconfor-mitywiththetotalprovisionsoftheAct.E.g.,10CFR$50.57.2/Parsons8WhittemorehasbriefedtheissueoftheBoard'sauthoritymoreextensively.Inordertoavoidneedlessduplication,FloridaCitiesadoptP&W'sargumentonthispointwithoutrebriefing.

BEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGUIATORYCOMMISSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETY6LICENSINGAPPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerSLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389-OL))Date:7/2/81BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEIRAPPEALFROMDENIALOFTHEIRINTERVENTIONPETITIONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATIONANDFOROTHERRELIEFFloridaCities1/appealfromtheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard'sOrderofJune3,1981(AppendixA)inwhichthatBoarddeniedtheminterventionintheFloridaPower6LihtCo.(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)operatinglicenseproceeding.ByFederalReceisterNoticeofMarch9,1981,2/theNuclearRegulatoryCommission("NRC")noticedtheapplicationofFloridaPowerGLightComany("FPL")foralicensetooperatetheSt.LucieNuclearPlant,UnitNo.2("St.Lucie2").Thenoticestatedthat"anypersonwhoseinterestmaybeaffectedbythisproceedingmayfileapetitionforleavetointervene."Id.OnApril7,1981,agroupofCities("FloridaCities"),appellantshere,fileda"PetitiontoInterveneandRequestforConsolidation".2/1AppellantsaretheGainesvilleRegionalUtilities,theLake7lorthUtilitiesAuthority,theUtilitiesCommissionofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilitiesCommission,andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead,KeyWest,Kissimmee,MountDora,Newberry,St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee,Florida.ExceptfortheCityElectricSystemoftheCityofKeyNest,whichwasinadvertentlyomittedfromthatpetition,eachoftheseCitieshadpetitionedtointerveneinthe.operatinglicenseoroceeding.2/46F.R.15831.

inresolutionofantitrustmattersbeforeoperationoftheSt.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2,especiallysincemanyoftheirmemberswillbepartowners.However,FloridaCitiesalsohaveaninterestthattheoperationofSt.Lucie2notaddtoFPL'seconomicpowerunlessconditionsareorderedthatprotectthemagainstbeingvictimsofantitrustabuse.Cf.HoustonLihtin&,PowerComan(SouthTexasProject,UnitNos.1and2),ALAB-381,5NRC582(1977),advancingthetimeofoperatinglicenseantitrustreview-.ShouldtheAppealBoarddeterminethatadditionalproceduralstepsmustbetakenbeforepetitionsrequestingoperatinglicenseantitrustreviewareappropriateorthatsuchpetitionscannotbeheardbeforecompletionofconstructionpermitantitrustreview,thenFloridaCitiessimplyrequestthatsuchrulingbemadesothattheycannotlaterbedeemedtohavewaivedrights.Ineithercase,proceduresmustbeadoptedthatpermitearlyresolutionofantitrustmatters.IftheAppealBoarddoesnothaveauthoritytoruleonthisissue,FloridaCitiesrequestreferraloftheirpetitionasmaybeappropriate.B.Mootness.In.thejudgment.ofcounsel,theLicensingBoardestablishedtoruleinDocketNo.50-389Aonantitrustmattershasauthoritytograntantitrustreliefunderthesamestandardsandproceduresthatwouldapplyinanoperatinglicenseantitrustproceeding.l/Astheyhavestated,FloridaCitieshavesought1AsFPLhasrecognized(p.3,~sura),constructionpermitlicenseconditionsareroutinelyappliedtooperatinglicenses.SeeArkansasPower&LihtComan,ALAB-94,6NRC25(1973);Indiana6MichianElectricCo.andIndiana6MichianPowerCo.,LBP-73-3,6NRC801972 interventionintheoperatinglicenseproceedingtoforestallthepossibilitythattheycouldbeentitledtolessantitrustrelief,hadtheyfailedtodoso.However,shouldthisBoardaffirmthatunderthecircumstancesofthiscase,whereaconstructionpermitantitrustreviewisongoing,nothingwouldbeaddedbyoperatinglicenseantitrustreview,thenFloridaCitiesantitrustinterven-tionpetitionismootandtheywouldnotobjecttodismissalonthosegrounds.1/CONCLUSIONFloridaCitiesdonotaddressthemeritsoftheirentitlementtorelief.However,theyfeelconstrainedtostressthatadditionalantitrustlicenseconditionsareplainlyinorder.Indeed,sinceFloridaCitiesfirstappliedforantitrustreliefinconnectionwiththeconstructionpermit2/theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFifthCircuithasspecifically1foundthatFPLviolatedtheShermanActbyconspiringtodividewholesalesalesterritorywithFloridaPowerCorporation:WeholdthattheevidencecompelsafindingthatFPLwaspartofaconspiracywithFloridaPowerCorporation(FloridaPower)todividethewholesalepowermarketinFlorida."GainesvilleUtilitiesDet.v.FloridaPower6LihtComan,573F.2d292(1978),cert.denied,439U.S.966.InOpinionNos.571Thepartiescouldsostipulate.2/"JointPetitionofFloridaCitiesforLeavetoInterveneOutofTime;PetitiontoIntervene;andRequestforHearing",FloridaPowerSLihtComan(St.LuciePlant,UnitNos.1and2;TurkeyPointPlant,UnitNos.3and4),Docket.Nos.50-335A,and50-389A,etal.(August6,1976);"JointPetitionofFloridaCitiesforLeavetoInterveneandRequestforConferenceandHearing",FloridaPoweraLihtCo.(SouthDadePlant),DocketNo.P-636-A(April14,1976).

and57-A,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(formerlytheFederalPowerCommission)extensivelyreviewedandspecificallyfoundtnattheCompanyhadengagedin"anticompetitiveconduct"and,indeed,foundthatFPL'sproposedrestrictivewholesalepowerprovisionsinthatdocket,whichwouldhavelimitedthesaleofwholesalepowerandcoordination,werethemselves"antioompetitive".Re:FloridaPoweraLiht~Coman,32PUR4th313,339,340(1979).(AppendixB)Whatevertheirvirtues,recentlyagreedtosettlementlicenseconditionsinDocketNo.50-389AbetweenFPLandtheGovernmentalpartiesarelimitedtoentitiesinandnearFPL'sretailservicearea,therebyper-petuatingtheterritorialdivisionfoundillegalinGainesville,~sura.(AppendixC)AsrecentlyasMay12,1981,MarshallMcDonald,ChiefExecutiveOfficerof.FloridaPowerSLightCompany,disclaimedtakingcorrectivestepstoassureantitrustcompliance(DepositiontestimonyinGainesvilleReionalUtilities,et.al.v.FloridaPowerRLihtComan,DocketiVo.79-5101-CIV-JLK,pp..98-104,quotationatp.100):"I'mnotawarethatwehaveeverbeenguiltyofinfringinganyantitrust,laws....Inmyopinion,theviewsoftheFifthCircuitwereincorrect."(AppendixD)Thus,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatCommissionscrutinyisnecessarytopreventnucleargeneratedelectricitybeingusedbyFPL"tocreateormaintainasituationinconsistentwiththeantitrustlaws"absentappropriatelicenseconditions.WHEREFORE,FloridaCitiesrespectfullyrequest:1.ThattheAppealBoardreversetheLicensingBoardand(a)orderthatFloridaCitiesPetitiontoInterveneand RequestforConsolidationbegrantedor(b)remandforarulingonthemeritsbytheLicensingBoard;2.Alternatively,thattheLicensingBoardbeaffirmedonthespecificgrounds(a)thatantitrustinterventionpetitionsareprematureor(b)thattheissueismootbecause,absentawaiver,theoperatinglicensecannotbeissueduntilcompletionoftheantitrustreviewintheconstructionpermitproceeding,andbecause,unlesswaived,FloridaCitiesmayraiseallissuesandobtainallreliefintheconstructionpermitproceedingthattheycouldobtainintheoperatinglicenseproceeding;3.Alternatively,iftheAppealBoardrulesthatitlacksjurisdiction,itshouldforwardCitiespetitionandthispleadingtotheappropriateofficialsoftheNuclearRegulatoryCommissionforaruling.Respectfullysubmitted,RobertA.JablonAttorneyfortheGainesvilleRegionalUtilities,theLakeWorthUtilitiesAuthority,theUtilitiesCommissionofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilitiesCommission,andtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,Homestead,KeyWest,Kissimmee,MountDora,Newberry,St.Cloud,Starke,andTallahassee,Florida.July2,1981LawofficesofSpiegel&McDiarmid2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20037(202)333-4500 FloridaCities:7/2/SlBEFORETHEUNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOARDInTheMatterOfFloridaPowerRLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389-OL))Date:7/2/81BRIEFOFFLORIDACITIESINSUPPORTOFTHEXRAPPEALFROMDENXALOFTHEIRXNTERVENTIONPETITXONANDREQUESTFORCONSOLIDATXONANDFOROTHERRELIEFINDEXOFAPPENDXCESAPPENDIXA"OrderRelativetoPetitionstoInterveneConcerningAntitrustMatters"issuedbytheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardJune4,1981APPENDIXBFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionOpinionNos,57and57-AdatedAugust3,1979andOctober4,1979APPENDIXCSt.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2ProposedLicenseConditions\APPENDIXDExcerptsfromMay12,1981DepositionofMarshallMcDonald,FloridaPowerSLightCompany,inGainesvilleReionalUtilities,etal.v.FloridaPower&LihtComan,DocketNo.79-5101-CIV-JLK APPENDIXA"OrderRelativetoPetitionstoInterveneConcerningAntitrustMatters"issuedbytheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardJune4,1981