ML17208B007
| ML17208B007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1980 |
| From: | Jablon R, Roth A FLORIDA CITIES (FLORIDA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATE, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17208B008 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8009220222 | |
| Download: ML17208B007 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES GF AMERICA UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Florida Power
& Light Company (St.
Lucie Unit No. 2)
")
.)
Docket No. 50-389A
)
COMMENTS OF FLORIDA CITIES
'EL'ATING TO ADVICE LETTER CONCERNING FP&L-ORLANDO SETTLEMENT These comments are filed. on behalf of Florida Cities 1/,
who are each intervenors in this docket.
By Federal Register Notice published August ll, 1980 (45 F.R.
53285),
the Commission noticed a proposed ownership transfer in St.
Lucie Unit No.
2 of 6.089518 from Florida Power
& Light Company ("FP&L") to the Orlando Utilities Commission
("Orlando" ).
Like Florida Cities, Orlando's an intervenor in this docket.
Orlando has reached a settlement satisfactory to it.
Florida Power
& Light Company and Orlando desire to implement the settlement.
Florida Cities do not object to approval of the 1
Florida Cities include the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority of the City of Fort Pierce, Lake Worth Utilities Authority, New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission, Sebring Utilities Commission and the Cities of Alachua, Bartow, Fort Meade, Gainesville, Key Wes t, Lake Helen, Mount Dora, dewberry, St. Cloud, and Tallahassee, Florida and the Florida-Municipal Utilities Association
("FMUA").
The Fort Pierce Utilities Authority has reached a settlement in principle with FP&L and therefore takes no position with regard to this particular pleading.
settlement or to the contemplated transfer of St.
Lucie 2
capacity.
On July 7,
- 1980, Florida Cities filed "Comments of Florida Cities Concerning Notice of Withdrawal of Intervention By Orlando C
Utilities" in this docket.
They stated that the effect of the transfer would be anticompetitive 'and discriminatory unless they we re to rece ive rights to entitlements similar to those agreed to by FPGL for Orlando under reasonable terms and conditions.
As they note
- below, however, additional license conditions would be necessary to cure any "situation inconsistent".
To avoid any potential future misunderstanding, they reiterate their position that it would be anticompetitive for them not to receive meaning-ful entitlements similar to those allowed Orlando.
These matters are in issue in this docket and need not be heard separately.
1/
For convenience, Florida Cities'uly 7 comments are attached and incorpora ted.
While Florida Cities do not object to the transfer since there has been a settlement satisfactory to the parties, they note that the settlement has not been presented to the NRC for
- approval, as such.
As applied to the Cities, there is no basis for finding that the settlement cures the "situation inconsistent" raised. in this docket.
- Indeed, Florida Cities are I
prepared to show by= evidence and argument both that the grant of 1/
While the Board may,desire to await further reporting on Government-FP&L settlement ef forts before establishing procedures to resolve this issue, Florida Cities seek a
show cause pro-ceeding in Docket No.. 50-389A as to why they are not entitled to equivalent rights to address this important issue
3 an unconditioned license to FPGL
- "will create or maintain a
situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws".and that the terms of the settlement agreed to with Orlando, as they understand
- tnem, would not be sufficient to cure such "situation inconsistent"
. Re spe ctful 1 y subm itted, Robert, A.. Jablon Alan-J.
Roth Attorneys-for Florida Cities By:
September 10, 1980 Law Offices of:
Spiegel
& NcDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.
W.
Washing ton, D.
C.
20037 (202) 333-4500
I