ML17209A535
| ML17209A535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1981 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | FLORIDA CITIES (FLORIDA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATE, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8101140915 | |
| Download: ML17209A535 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AEtERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chaixman Michael A. Duggan Robert M. Lazo g r WiXHED 1~
uSiRR i
>>~> -8 ~98 (ui at WS~p SL'&gpss g Qpjca Branc<
G In the'Matter of FIDRIDA POWER K; LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant,,...Unit No. 2)
Jg~
9
'Pg@
Docket No. 50-389A
)
)
)
)
)
)
January 7,
1981 OK)ER-(Schedulin Prehearin Conference)
The Atomic'Safety and Licensing Board. will conduct a/~
Q<o prehearing conference in this antitrust proceeding beginning n
at 1:00 P.M. on February 2,
1981 in the NRC Commission Hearing
- Room, 5th Floor, East/West Towers Building, 4350 East/Vest Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 2003:4, to con'-
sider the Joint Motion (filed September 12, 1980) of the Department of Justice, NRC Staff, and Applicant to Approve and Authorize Implementation of Settlement Agreement.
The board, will receive advice from the parties on the following:
l.
Whether the proposed license conditions would have a material'adverse impact upon the intervening Florida cities.
s>'t
2.
Whether the proposed license conditions contain anticompetitive, discriminatory, or unfair pro-visions which would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
- 3. 'f, in the view of the Florida Cities, the proposed license conditions (including Applicant's December 3,
1980 commitments) do not relieve the alleged situa-tion inconsistent with the antitrust laws, what procedures are appropriate to adjudicate remaining issuesV All parties or their counsel are directed to attend.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE JUDG
2.
whether the proposed license conditions contain'nticompetitive, discriminatory, or unfair pro-visions which would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
- 3. If, in the view of the Florida Cities, the proposed license conditions (including Applicant's December 3,
1980 commitments) do not relieve the alleged situa-tion inconsistent with the antitrust laws, what procedures are appropriate to adjudicate remaining issuesV All parties or their counsel are directed to attend.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE JUDG