ML17209B217

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:58, 29 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Parsons & Whittemore Brief Opposing Util Application for Issuance of Subponeas.Subponeas Should Be Issued.Info Sought Directly Relevant & Necessary for Resolution of Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML17209B217
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/05/1981
From: GREEN D G
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8106120314
Download: ML17209B217 (12)


Text

FPL'.6/5/81))FLORIDA'OWER

&LIGHTCOMPANY)(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDb~~6$0$~~0Q-IDocketNo.-389-"hDated:June5,1981RESPONSEOFFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANYTOBRIEFOFPARSONS&WHITTEMORE INOPPOSITION T~'ggIQAPPLICATION FORISSUANCE'OF'SUBPOENA'S

-~~88I~Parsons&Whittemore, Inc.anditssubsidiaries

['],latePetitioners tointervene inthisproceeding, havefiledapleadingstyledasa"BriefinOpposition toAppli-cationforIssuanceofSubpoenas."

ThoughP&W'spleadingissomewhatlengthy,FPLrequestsleavetofilethisbrief*/response.-

Ingeneral,P&Wcontendsthattheinformation

'soughtbythesubpoenas isnotrelevant, thatitisavailable toFPLthroughotheravenuesandthat,inanyevent,theBoardlacksauthority toissuesubpoenas priortoP&W'shavingbeenadmittedasaparty.FPLconfinesitselfheretothreepoints.l.Theinformation soughtisdirectlyrelevanttoissueswhichmustberesolvedbeforeP&W'sPetitioncanbegranted.ThePetitionispredicated ontheassertion thatP&Whasalegalrighttoownandcontrolbothasolidwasteprocessing facilityinDadeCounty,Florida,andanelectricgenerator

"/TheNRCrulesmakenoprovision fora"Brief"opposinganapplication forasubpoena.

Thoughstyledassucha"Brief,"P&W'spleadingisinsubstance a"MotiontoQuash,"towhichFPLordinarily wouldhave10daystorespondunderNRCpractice.

10C.F.R.g2.720(f),

g2.730(c).

FPLrespect-fullyrequeststhattheBoardacceptthisbriefexpedited

response, bothinaccordance withtheprovisions citedabove,andinordertofacilitate theBoard'sdecision.

$081061P-03tI'5o/,

J,N)'$IN'JNFI'IlV,dddIINrd whichwillproduceelectricity fromsteamraisedbythe*/solidwastefacility.

-(Petition, App.Aat5).ThelatePetitionfailedtodisclosetotheBoardthatFPL'sexpressed reasonforrefusingtoprovidetheservicesrequested byp&Wwastheexistence ofatleastonecontractwhichgivesFPLthelegalrighttoown,operateandproduceelectricity fromthatelectricgenerator.

ItisFPL'spositionthatP&Whasnolegalrightstothe**/electricgenerator inquestion,

-andthattheassertions initslatePetitionaredemonstrably unfounded.

Thisishardlya"technical" pointasP&Wwouldhaveit.Initspleadingresponding tothePetitionfiledbyP&WintheSt.Lucie2operating licenseproceeding, FPLwasabletoprovidetotheoperating licenseBoardacontractbetweenFPLandDadeCounty,Florida(P&Wisobligated bycontracttoconstruct thewastedisposalfacilityforDadeCounty)underwhichDadeCountyiscommitted tovestinFPLtheownership oftheelectrical generator, whichFPLthereafter willoperate.Thecontractwas"/Theassertion thatP&Wnow"owns"thefacilityandthatthatshouldendtheinquiryisdisingenuous.

Themostcasualstudentofthelawofrealpropertyappreciates thattheconceptof"ownership" isnotthatsimple.IfP&Wholdssomekindoflegaltitletothefacilityatthistime(andFPLhasnodirectknowledge ofwhetheritdoesornot),itmatterswhetherP&Wretainsthattitlebybreaching itscontractual obligations toothersandwhetherthattitleissubjecttodefeasance bythevalidrightsofothers."*/Nor,itwouldappearfromothercontracts P&Womittedtomention,doesP&Whaveanylegalrighttothesolidwastetreatment facility.

oneofseveralP&WomittedtomentioninitslatePetition.

Thesubpoenas atissueherewererequested uponthesurfacing ofanothercontractwhoseexistence P&Wfailedtodisclose, theso-called "Assumption Agreement."

UnderthisAgreement P&Whasapparently assumedtheobligations ofDadeCountytoFPLandhasitselfconfirmed thatFPLhasthelegalrightstothegenerating facility.

Theinformation soughtregarding P&W'scontractual obli-gationsissquarelyrelevantinatleastthreerespects.

First,itevidently defeatsanyallegedlegalrightonP&W'sparttocontrol,ownership, oroperation oftheelectrical generation facilities inquestion.

Second,ifthedisputebetweenP&WandFPLresultsfromFPL'sassertion ofitslegitimate contractual positionandnotfromanywrongfulantitrust conductdirectedatParsons&Whittemore, noantitrust issuecancrediblybeasserted.

Third,thefactsunderlying P&N'scontractual obligations bearonP&W'sclaimthatitsextraordinary lateness'infilingshouldbeexcused.Inmanyrespects, theconsiderations whichalicensing boardisrequiredtoweighinrulingonalatepetitionareequitable innature.IfitisshownthatapersonhasfiledapetitionwiththisCommission merelyasaployinitseffortstoescapeitscontractual obligations, andifthatiscompounded byafailurefullytodisclosetheactualcommercial situation initsfilingwiththeBoard,thosecon-siderations shouldweighheavilyagainstexcusinglatenessonthepartofthePetitioner.

ItistruethattheBoardcoulddenythePetitionwithoutreachingthesequestions, onthegrounds,interalia,oflatenessforwhichnogoodcausehasbeenallegedandthatitfailstoallegeeitherasituation inconsistent withtheantitrust lawsoranynexusbetweenanysuchsituation andactivities underthelicenseforSt.LucieUnitNo.2.FPLintendstofile,withinthenextweek,apartialresponseto*/thePetitionurgingthattheBoarddoso.~Inthemeanwhile, thereisnoequitable orlegalreasonforwithholding subpoenas whichmerelycompelthePetitioner todisclosethefactswhichunderlieassertions onwhichitspetitionisinescapably grounded.

2.Theassertion thatFPLcangainaccesstotheevidencewhichitseeksbyothermeansisnotentirelyaccurate, butisimmaterial inanyevent.FPLismakingeffortstoobtainthecontracts ofwhichitisaware,butthereisnoreasonwhyFPLshouldberequiredtogropeinthedark.Apetitioner seekingintervention beforethisCommission hasanobligation tocomeforwardwiththefactsthatestablish velnonthebasisonwhichheassertsheshouldbepermitted toparticipate andthis,ofcourse,isparticularly truevis-a-vistheextraordinarily latefilinghere.Yetfromtheoutset,P&Nhasengagedinasequenceofmaneuvers strivingtoavoidairingofthefactsunderlying itsPetition.

"/FPLhasrefrained fromdoingsotodatebecauseofitsreluctance tomakeseriousallegations withoutmorecertainknowledge ofthefacts.FPLbelievesthatitwillbeabletoobtainatleastsomeofthecontractual documents betweenPaNandDadeCountyfromtheCountywithinthenextweek.

ItbeganbyomittingfromitsPetitionanymentionofthecontractual relationships whichbearonthefactualassertions onwhichthePetitionispredicated.

Next,following FPL'sapplication forsubpoenas, P&WmovedtheBoardforanextension oftimeinorderto"coordinate" withcounselhandlingotherP&Wlitigation andassertedly "todo4/thefactualandlegalresearch" necessary tomeettheissue.-Now,afterreceiving thisextension, P&Whascomeforwardwithapleadingthatrevealsnothingaboutthefactsandinsteadcontainsrefractory arguments andrepeatsthesameassertions.

Theexistence oftheAssumption Agreement, whichwasassertedbyFPLasanimportant basisforseekingthesubpoenas, isnotevenmentioned byP&WinitsBrief,muchlessbroughtbeforetheBoard.Apparently havingascertained thefacts,P&Whasconcluded itslatePetitionwouldnotbeadvancedbyhavingthembroughtforward.Thequestionatissuehereisasub-stantialone,andshouldnotbeforcedagainstawallofnon-**/dxsclosure.-

"/MotionofParsons&Whittemore, Inc.andResources Recovery(DadeCounty),Inc.Extension ofTimetoRespondtoFloridaPower&LightCompany's Application forIssuanceofSubpoenas (datedMay13,1981)at2-3.Obviously, FPLdoesnotknowallofthe"critical facts"concerning P&W'scontractual relationships.

(Briefat7).FPLhasmanagedtolearnenoughabouttheserelationships todemonstrate thatP&W'sassertions cannotbetakenat,facevalue.Thisishardlygroundforsuppressing furtherinquiry.

3.NorcanPSW'sresistance todisclosure ofthefactsbeexcusedonthebasisofitsassertion thatFPL'sapplication is"procedurally defective."

PGlrh'srelianceonRule2.740(b)(1) ismisplaced.

Inthefirstinstance, Rule2.740isbyitstermsageneralprovision whichgoestodiscovery onthemerits.FPLdoesnothereseek"discovery" asdefinedwithinRule2.740;itseekssubpoenas, forwhichanypartymayapplyunderRule*/2.720;-ageneralprovision oftheNRC'sregulations whichisentirelyseparatefromtheprovisions governing discovery amongparties,whichappearunderseparateheadingat10C.F.R.52.740,etseq.Secondly, theargumentthat"discovery" isinappropriate untilafterthefirstspecialprehearing conference (10C.F.R.52.751a)makesnosensehere.That,conference hasbeenheldoverfouryearsago.Moreover, FPLbelievesthattheLicensing Board'smandatetoruleuponpetitions tointervene inaccordance withthefactorssetforthintheregulations plainlyencompasses theinherentauthority topermitsuchdiscovery asisnecessary toevaluatethosefactors;ifnot,theBoardwouldbepowerless todenydemonstrably groundless petitions.

"Standing tointer-vene,unlikethefactualmeritsofcontentions, mayappropriately bethesubjectofanevidentiary inquirybeforeintervention is"/Rule2.720implements thesubpoenaauthority vouchsafed totheCommission inSection161ofthe'AtomicEnergyAct.42U.S.C.52201.Underg2.720theauthority toissueasubpoenaisdelegated to"thedesignated presiding officer."

granted."

Consumers PowerComan(MidlandPlant,Units1and2),LBP-78-27, 8NRC275,277n.1(1978).-*/Conclusion ThebasicquestionbeforetheBoardiswhetherthesub-poenassoughtbyFPLseekinformation whichmayassisttheBoardinrulinguponP&W'slatePetition.

Theanswer'othis**/questionquiteobviously isintheaffirmative.

-ForthisP&W'sassertion thatissuanceofthesubpoenas shouldbedeniedbecausetheywouldcause"delay,"isinexplicable, tosaytheleast,givenP&W'ssevenyears'ate filinganditsrecentrequestforanextension oftimeinordertoopposethesubpoenas.

Absentthatrequestthesubpoenas couldhavebeenexecutedbynow.Promptexecution ofthesubpoenas nowwouldnotdelaythisproceeding inanyrespect.FPLrespectfully proposesthattheBoardorderthesubpoenas tobereturnedwithin10daysfromthedateoftheirissuance.

Notonly'couldthesubpoenas beexecutedpromptly, theyplainlyarenotundulyburdensome.

InitsfirstsentenceP&Wtermsthesubpoenas "massive."

InthebodyofitspleadingitisevidentthatwhatP&Wfinds"massive" isFPL'sdefinition oftheword"document."

ThatFPL,likemostprudentapplicants forsubpoenas, defined"docu-ment"carefully inafashionunambiguously encompassing allpaperwritingsishardlyameritorious groundforcomplaint.

Thesubstantive subpoenas consistofmerelytwoparagraphs andseekstrictlythosedocuments relatedtotheP&Wcontractual arrangements inquestion.

UnlikeP&W,wedonotunderstand theBoard'sApril24,1981Ordertobeinanyrespecta'"clearsignal"thatitwouldgrantP&W'sPetition.

(Briefat2-3).TheBoardsimplystatedthat"theadequacyofthesettlement" wasnotbeforeitatthatjunctureandwould"beopentolitigation."

Order,datedApril24,1981at3n.1.P&W'slatepetitionmustbejudgedbythestandards pre-scribedintheCommission's regulations anddecisions whichapplytheseregulations.

FPLbelievesthatitisclearbeyondreasonable disputethatthelatePetitiondoesnotandcannotmeetthesestandards andthatwhentheBoardaddresses theissueitwillindeedsofind.

reason,FPLrequeststhattheBoardgrantitsapplication andissuethesubpoenas, returnable within10days.Respectfully submitted, By.Bouknight, Jr.ouglasG.GreenLowenstein, Newman,Reis&Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036HerbertDymCovington

&Burling888Sixteenth Street,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006Attorneys forFloridaPower&LightCompany UNITEDSTATESOFA?%RICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterofFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANYDocketNo.50-389A(St.LucieNuclearPowerPlantUnitNo.2)CERTIFICATE OFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesof"Response ofFloridaPower&LightCompanyToBriefOfParsons&Whittemore InOpposition ToApplication ForIssuanceOfSubpoenas" wasservedbyhanddelivery*

orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaidthis5thdayofJune,1981.IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Docketing andServiceStationOfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust

&Indemnity GroupU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555AtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JosephRutberg,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.-Beck

&Associates P.O.Box6817Orlando,Florida32803 1

GeorgeSpiegel,EsquireRobertJablon,EsquireDanielGuttman,EsquireSpiegel6McDiarmid 2600UirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037WilliamC.Wise,EsquireSuite500120018thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling PostOfficeDrawer0Gainesville, Florida32602JanetUrban,EsquireU.S.Department ofJusticeP.O.Box14141Washington, D.C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionAU.S.Department ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,PaxtonandWilliams301South6thStreetP.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.Sward,EsquireArent,Fox,Kintner.,

PlotkinKahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006BenjaminH.Vogler,EsquireU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555laG.GrenLowenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036(202)862-8400