ML17209B255
| ML17209B255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1981 |
| From: | Jablon R FLORIDA CITIES (FLORIDA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106190118 | |
| Download: ML17209B255 (6) | |
Text
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
%cketeg USNgg
~UN 3 6 ]gg]
"'>0<@ >q
)eke(;p g ~W In the Matter of Florida Power S Light Company
)
-389-L
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2)
)
Date:
July 16, 198'-",g$
MOTION OF FLORIDA CITIES FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND
2 S Jggf~
k l
~.s, t,~
Pkklgg~
klan'Q74I y By petition of April 7, 1981, Florida Cities have requested intervention in antitrust proceedings'elated to FP operating license and consolidation of such proceedings, with construction permit antitrust review.
FPL states in an answer dated May 26, 1981, that Cities'etition to intervene is mocnR "It is an established principle of NRC prac-tice that antitrust conditions attached to a construction permit remain in effect after the issuance of an operating license.
In every case in which antitrust license conditions have been attached to a construction permit, the NRC has extended those license conditions upon the issuance of an operating license for the time span of the license.
The Cities allege no basis for suspecting that the Commission would not do the same here.
Accordingly, the Cities'etition is moot by its own terms.
Their intervention is predicated upon the defense of an established tenet of NRC practice which FPL does not contest.
On this basis
- alone, the Cities'etition should be denied."
(Answer, pp. 4-5)
Additionally, FPL argues that "antitrust contentions are i
beyond the scope of this proceeding".
In a parallel argument the Company states:
8106yg 0ll~
6
1 I
W
"No Antitrust Review has been Ordered in Connection with the St. Lucie Unit No.
2 Operating License Review."
and that:
"An Operating License Antitrust Review Cannot be Initiated by the Filing of a Petition."
Finally, the Company argues at length and with slight restraint the merits of its position.
FPL appears to argue, but does not quite state, that Florida Cities'ights to relief under an operating license proceeding and construction permit proceeding would be the same.
If Florida Cities'etition is to be denied on grounds that if the petition is dismissed, they lose no rights, then there is no need for response.
Further, if FPL arguments are accepted that this Board has no authority to rule one way or the other on antitrust matters or that the Petition is premature, Florida Cities would similarly not seek to respond, although they would then respectfully request that their Petition be forwarded within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to whoever has the authority to rule and that appropriate procedures be instituted.
In all
- events, they request consolidation with the construction permit proceedings to avoid wasteful duplication of litigation time and effort.
However, if the Board is prepared to rule on the. merits, in view of the content and nature of FPL's arguments on the
- merits, they seek a right to respond no later than July 15, 1981.
They note that the July 15th date is requested after consultation
with counsel for Florida Power G Light Company, who does not object to such date, assuming that a response would be appropriate.
CONCLUSION (1)
The Board should rule that the issue is moot
- because, absent a waiver, the operating license cannot be issued until completion of the antitrust review in the construction permit proceeding
- and, unless waived, Florida Cities may raise all issues and obtain all relief in the construction permit proceeding that they could obtain in, the operating license proceeding; if the issue is thus ruled moot, the Board may dismiss the Cities'etition; (2) If not ruled moot, the Board should rule that it has jurisdiction over the Cities'ntitrust contentions in this proceeding and grant Cities'eave to respond in accordance with this motion; (3) If the Board rules that it lacks jurisdiction, it should forward Cities'etition and this pleading to the appropriate officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Commission Staff for a ruling.
Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Jablon Attorney for Florida Cities June 16, l98l Law offices of Spiegel 6 McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA~
LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI~~,
Florida Power 6 Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)
Docket Nos.
50-389-OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing were served by hand delivery (*) or by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid this 16th day of June, 1981.
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Chairman Atomic Energy and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
- Robert, M. Lazo, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Michael A. Duggan, Esquire College of Business Administration University of Texas
- Austin, Texas 78712 William D. Paton, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Elizabeth S.
- Bowers, Chairman Atomic Safety.
and Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
- Docketing 8 Service Section Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Jerome
- Saltzman, Chief Antitrust
& Indemnity Group Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Joseph
- Rutberg, Esquire Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Fredric D. Chanania, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Thomas Gurney, Sr.,
Esquire 203 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida, 32802 William C. Wise, Esquire 1200 18th Street Suite 500 Washington, D.
C.
20036 William H. Chandler, Esquire
- Chandler, O'Neal,
- Avera, Gray S Stripling Post Office Drawer 0
Gainesville, Florida 32602
Janet
- Urban, Esquire P.
O.
Box 14141 Washngton, D.
C.
20044 Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Robert Fabrikant, Esquire Antitrust, Division Department of Justice Washington, D.
C.
20530 Charles R.
P.
Brown, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams 301 South 6th Street P. 0.
Box 1418 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 George R. Kucik, Esquire Mare Gary, Esquire Ellen Sward, Esquire Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin Kahn 1815 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 J.
A. Bouknight, Jr., Esquire Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Herbert Dym, Esquire Covington
& Burling 888 16th Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 Ben Vogler, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ann P.
- Hodgdon, Esquire Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Robert A. J ion Attorney for Florida Cities Law offices of:
Spiegel
& McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037