|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARL-99-201, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments1999-09-0707 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments ML20206H4441999-05-0303 May 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules ML20205J0461999-04-0101 April 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Draft Std Review Plan on Foreign Ownership,Control & Domination.Util Supports Approach Set Forth in SRP Toward Reviewing Whether Applicant for NRC License Owned by Foreign Corp.Endorses NEI Comments ML20205B3771999-03-16016 March 1999 Comment Opposing PRM 50-64 Re Liability of Joint Owners of Npps.Util Endorses Comments of NEI & Urges Commission to Deny Petition for Rulemaking ML17355A2511999-03-0909 March 1999 Comment Supporting Amend to Policy & Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Re Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors.Util Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Revs L-98-306, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP1998-12-10010 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP L-98-272, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses1998-10-28028 October 1998 Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses L-98-252, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule1998-10-0606 October 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule L-98-248, Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement1998-10-0505 October 1998 Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement ML17229A7551998-05-29029 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Communication Re Augmented Insp of Pressurized Water Reactor Class 1 High Pressure Safety Injection Piping ML20217P6691998-04-0202 April 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Standards,Amended Requirements ML17354A8741998-03-27027 March 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication,Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal (M97978) ML20216C1991998-03-0303 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps.Util Endorses Nuclear Energy Inst Comments.Comments Submitted on Behalf of Plant ML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998 Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices L-97-269, Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements1997-10-21021 October 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements L-97-265, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors1997-10-14014 October 1997 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73, Frequency of Reviews & Audits for Emergency Prepardness Programs Safeguards Contingency Plan & Security Programs for Np Reactors ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997 Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997 Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997 Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997 Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997 Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns ML20137R4681996-12-10010 December 1996 Transcript of 961210 Proceeding in Atlanta,Ga Re Predecisional EC Re Facility Activities.Pp 1-151.Supporting Documentation Encl L-96-137, Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment1996-06-0606 June 1996 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment IR 05000335/19960031996-03-0808 March 1996 Transcript of 960308 Hearing in Atlanta,Ga Re NRC Insp Repts 50-335/96-03 & 50-389/96-03.Pp 1-101.Supporting Documentation Encl ML17228B3551995-12-0404 December 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Boraflex Degradation in SFP Storage Racks. L-95-270, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs1995-10-15015 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommission of NPPs ML17228B2841995-09-12012 September 1995 Comment Supporting Rg DG-1043,Rev 2 to Rg 1.49, NPP Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Exams. ML17228B2221995-07-13013 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication 10CFR50.54 Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval L-95-199, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial1995-07-10010 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial ML17353A2471995-06-27027 June 1995 Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style. ML17228B2101995-06-27027 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL Relocation of Pressure Temp Limit Curves & Low Temp Overpressure Protection Sys Limits. ML20134N0421995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/J Kunkel on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40 ML20134N0621995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/A De Soiza on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-40.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20134N0281995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/Eo Poarch on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-78 ML20134N0331995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/D Jacobs on 960118 in Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-50 ML20134N0301995-01-18018 January 1995 Partially Deleted Transcript of Interview W/H Fagley on 950118 at Jensen Beach,Fl.Pp 1-63 ML17228A9851995-01-17017 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposal to Issue GL Providing Guidance for Determining When analog-to-digital Replacement Can Be Performed Under Requirements of 10CFR50.59 L-94-325, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations1994-12-29029 December 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Fracture Toughness Requirements for LWR Pressure Vessels.Endorses NEI Comments & Recommendations L-94-329, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination1994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy Statement Rev, Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement,Discrimination L-94-304, Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat1994-12-0202 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of Nuclear Power Plant Security Requirements for Internal Threat ML17228A8751994-10-0303 October 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants ML20072S5221994-08-25025 August 1994 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking 9-2 Re Request for NRC to Revise Regulations of 10CFR9 to Provide Public Access to Info Held by Licensees But Not Submitted to NRC L-94-206, Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved1994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Change to Rule 10CFR26, Consideration of Changes to Fitness for Duty Requirements. Util Wants Current Scope of Drug Testing in 10CFR26 to Be Retained & Current Trustworthiness Programs to Be Improved ML20072B3251994-08-0101 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Change Consideration of fitness-for-duty Requirements L-94-150, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially1994-06-17017 June 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-60 Re Amend to 10CFR50.54 by Changing Frequency W/Which Licensees Conduct Independent Reviews of Emergency Preparedness Program from Annually to Biennially ML17228A3121993-09-24024 September 1993 Answer of Florida Municipal Power Agency to FPL Response in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action. W/Vols I & II of Apps ML17228A2981993-08-27027 August 1993 Response of Florida Power & Light Co in Opposition to Petition for Enforcement Action. ML17309A7141993-07-0202 July 1993 Petition of Florida Municipal Power Agency for Declaration & Enforcement...Antitrust Licensing Conditions & to Impose Requirements by Order. W/Vols I & II of Apps to Petition ML20045F2091993-06-24024 June 1993 Comment on Proposal Re Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning NRC-licensed Facilities.Supports Proposed Criteria ML17349A8161993-04-22022 April 1993 Comment Endorsing NUMARC Comments Re Proposed Generic Communication, Availability & Adequacy of Design Bases Info. 1999-09-07
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998 Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997 Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997 Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997 Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997 Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997 Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns ML20082G8931991-08-0202 August 1991 Licensee Opposition to Petition for Hearing & Leave to Intervene.* Hearing Re Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Re Facility.Petition Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J3891989-06-16016 June 1989 Intervenor Appeal of Initial Decision (Authorizing Spent Fuel Pool Reracking).* Appeals Board Decision Re Issues Surrounding Use of Boraflex in high-density Storage Racks.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20236C3361989-03-0707 March 1989 NRC Staff Motion for Extension to File Proposed Finding.* Proposed Findings Will Be Served on Parties & Board on 890320.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236A3651989-03-0707 March 1989 NRC Staff Motion for Extension to File Proposed Finding.* Proposed Findings Will Be Served on Parties & Board on 890320.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890310.Granted for Board on 890309 ML20235V2091989-02-25025 February 1989 Licensee Motion for Transcript Corrections.* Util Hereby Moves Board to Accept Attached Proposed Transcript Corrections for Hearing in Proceeding Held on 890124-26. W/Certificate of Svc ML20206J6501988-11-16016 November 1988 NRC Staff Motion on Behalf of Parties for Mod of Schedules.* Requests Direct Written Testimony of Witnesses Presently Scheduled to Be Filed on or Before 881122 Now Be Filed on or Before 881220.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q0261988-09-23023 September 1988 Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 6.* ML20154Q0131988-09-23023 September 1988 Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 3.* ML20154Q0301988-09-23023 September 1988 Intervenor Response to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention 7.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196A7641988-06-17017 June 1988 Response of NRC Staff to Motion of Petitioner for Time Extension.* NRC Not Opposed to Reasonable Time Grant of 30 Days for All Deadlines.Extension Helpful to Petitioner in Preparing Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155F7881988-06-10010 June 1988 Licensee Opposition to Intervenor Motion for Amend of Hearing Schedule.* Intervenor Request to Modify Hearing Schedule by Extending Each Deadline by 90 Days Unwarranted & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20155C6621988-06-0707 June 1988 Licensee Motion for Oral Argument.* Requests Oral Argument Be Granted in Support of Util 880509 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 880420 Memorandum & Order Granting Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene ML20151W6191988-06-0303 June 1988 Petitioner Response to Licensee Appeal from Board Memorandum & Order Granting Petition to Intervene,Request for Hearing & Contentions.* Appeal Should Be Denied ML20151W6081988-06-0303 June 1988 Motion for Amend of Hearing Schedule.* Requests 90-day Extension for Hearing Schedule Deadlines Based on Intervenor full-time Job & Other Work Activities That Severely Interfere W/Meeting Schedule ML20197E0761988-05-23023 May 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Extension of Time Equal to Time Extended to Petitioner.* Extension Until 880607 to Respond to Licensee Appeal Requested,Per 10CFR2.714a.Licensee & Petitioner Do Not Oppose Request.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154H8221988-05-20020 May 1988 Request for Postponement of Deadline for Submission of Brief for Addl 14 Days.* ML20150C9951988-03-14014 March 1988 Licensee Opposition to Petitioner Request for 92-day Postponement of Prehearing Conference.* C Rich Had Reasonable Amount of Time to Prepare for Prehearing Conference.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20150C5781988-03-0909 March 1988 Request for Postponent of Hearing & Oral Argument for Addl 90 Days.* Petitioner Requests Extension to Prepare for Scheduled Hearing ML20195J1201988-01-0202 January 1988 Request for Extension of Time in Which to File Request for Hearing & Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Extension Until 880212 Requested Due to Lack of Access to Relevant Documents During Nonbusiness Hours.Served on 880120 ML20236N7951987-11-0909 November 1987 NRC Staff Response to Ltr Hearing Request by C Rich.* Intervention Should Be Denied Unless Rich & Other Petitioners Amend Request to Cure Defects W/At Least One Admissible Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236L7941987-11-0404 November 1987 Licensee Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing.* Opposes C Rich 870930 Request for Public Hearing Re Proposed Amend to License to Increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity. W/Notices of Appearance of Counsel & Certificate of Svc ML20207N6691987-01-0909 January 1987 Licensee Response to Supplemental Request for Hearing.* Responds to J Pakavitch 861106 Request for Hearing.Request Deficient as Petition to Intervene & Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212D6031986-12-16016 December 1986 Response of the NRC Staff to the Ltr of Eric Beutens.* Beutens Ltr Supporting J Paskovitch 861202 Request for Public Hearing Fails to State Requisite Interest & Untimely Filed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211N0541986-12-10010 December 1986 Request for Hearing Re Commission Fulfillment of Purpose for Being,Concerning Spent Fuel Transfer Amend.Related Correspondence ML20214X2741986-12-0808 December 1986 Response Opposing J Paskavitch Request for Hearing Re Util Proposed Amend to License NPF-16,transferring Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool to Unit 2.Request Does Not Supply Min Info & Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214Q7321986-12-0101 December 1986 Response Opposing J Paskavitch Request for Hearing Re Spent Fuel Transfer from Unit 1 to Unit 2.Notices of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041F6671982-03-10010 March 1982 Withdrawal of 780828 Request That Commission Institute Section 105a Proceeding Against Util.Fl Cities Has Settled All Differences W/Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20041F0421982-03-10010 March 1982 Joint Motion to Withdraw Fl Cities Intervention,Dismiss & Terminate Proceedings & Vacate ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order.Settlement Moots Dispute Between Fl Cities & Util. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20040C0581982-01-19019 January 1982 Motion to Extend Time Until 820126 for Parties to Reply to Objections to ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order.Fl Cities Objections Were Not Received Until 820115 Due to Severe Weather.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039G5481982-01-14014 January 1982 Motion to Incorporate by Ref Re Bathen 760414 Affidavit & 760804 Supplemental Affidavit.Affidavits Referenced in Re Bathen 820114 Affidavit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20040A4151982-01-13013 January 1982 Amicus Curiae Brief & Proposed License Conditions,Filed Per ASLB 810805 & 1211 Memoranda & Orders.Util Should Not Be Allowed to Deny Competitors Access to Transmission Svcs Essential to Operation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039G1221982-01-0808 January 1982 Motion for Order Extending Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 811211 Memorandum & Order Until 10 Days After Svc of ASLB Order Ruling on Parties' Objections to Memorandum & Order ML20039E5911982-01-0505 January 1982 Lodging of Fl PSC 811230 Order Requiring Interconnection W/Petitioners' Facility ML20039E2351982-01-0505 January 1982 Rejoinder to Fl Cities 811217 Answer to Util 811202 Motion to Lodge Recent Decision.No Legal or Logical Basis Exists for Commission to Institute Proceedings Under 105a of Atomic Energy Act ML20039D0131981-12-29029 December 1981 Response Opposing Util 811222 Motion to Modify Procedural Schedule.Effect of Proposal Would Be to Delay Preparation & Presentation of Outline of Parties' Cases & Subj Fl Cities to Unnecessary Discovery Burdens.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069B0471981-12-22022 December 1981 Motion for Extension of Time to File Exceptions to ASLB 811211 Order Finding That Licensing Plan Would Create Situation Inconsistent W/Antitrust Laws.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069B0501981-12-22022 December 1981 Motion for Mod of Procedural Schedule Adopted in ASLB 811211 Order.Trial Briefs Should Not Have to Be Filed Until After Serious Consideration Given & Ruling Issued on Parties' Objections.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20039B1321981-12-17017 December 1981 Answer to Util 811202 Motion to Lodge Us Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Decision,Fpl Vs Ferc.No Objection to Lodging Decision But Opposes Util Erroneous Interpretation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20038B3411981-12-0404 December 1981 Motion to Lodge Encl Decision in La Power & Light Co, 17FERC63020.Decision Relevant to Util Business Judgment Defense.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010J5731981-09-29029 September 1981 Motion for Leave to File Reply by 811019,to Intervenor Parsons & Whittemore Objections to ASLB 810805 Memorandum & Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010J5831981-09-25025 September 1981 Corrected Version of Objections to ASLB 810805 Memorandum & Order ML20010H8341981-09-25025 September 1981 Objections to ASLB 810805 Order Denying Petition to Intervene & to Underlying Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Ferc Remedy Incomplete for Listed Reasons.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20010J5771981-09-25025 September 1981 Corrected Pages to Petitioners' 810925 Objections to ASLB Order ML20010F6561981-09-0808 September 1981 Motion for Extension of Time Until 810916 to File Response to Fl Cities 810827 Motion to Establish Procedures.Extension Needed Due to Filings Required in Antitrust Case & to Evaluate Effects of Settlement.Certificate of Svc Encl 1998-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
RKGULATOR NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION TEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR;8107220142'OC DATE; 81/07/17
~ NOTARIZED;'O DOCKEiT' FACIL>>-50-389 St< Lucie'PlantE Unit 2P, Flor ida Power 05000389 AUTHOR. AFF ILIATION 8ight'o;.'UTH>>e NAME" GRKENpD G ~ ~ Florida Power 8 Light Co, GREENED' ~ LowensteinENewmaniReisEAxqlrad 8 Toll RECI P ~ NAMKJ RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Atom>>ic Safety arid Licensing Appeal Panel-SUBJECT Briefiin forming, of pleadingEin opposition to FL~.Cities brief in supPort of appeal from denial. of intervention 810603 order should be upheld, Certificate'f Svc- encl<
ASLB DISTRISUTION CODE:
T>>ITLEl 0803S'OPIES F i ings (Not- Or i g by NRC) 1 "RECEIVED:LtTR 'NCL SIZE>: ~
NOTES::
RECIPIENT COPIES RKC IP IENT'D" ID CODE'/NAMEi LTTR ENCL CODE/NAME< ENCL<
ACTIONS: L>>ICt BR N3>> BC LiIC>> BR iwt3 LA 1= 1 ~
NERSKSgV ~ ir NSIC'OPIES'tt'TR~
INTERNAL%3 ASL'AP 5. 5 ASLB 1 lr I8K< 2'. 2 NRC PDR 1 1>>
OELDEBLANTON 1 1 0 1>>
PUSLIC AFFAIRS 1 1 G ILEi 1 1-EXTERNAL~0 LPDR 1 1 NTIS 1 JUI 28 1SBl TOTAL NUMBER<<OF COPIES'EQUIRED:: LTTR 19 ENCL< 19
lh
~ l n h h lh f ~ \
4 1
'h f I f g y '" f<<
fgf f f4" llf Ihf rh'h I 4 I F c,
't II $ g t<
~4 I4 hh' 4(f" 1 f
4
~g)Q co UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~=("'r.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION " ~L
~O ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD .':
In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) )
9 BRIEF OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LXGHT COMPANY IN OPPOSITION e JUL g 1~981~ 11'gg&ION TO BRIEF OF FLORIDA CITIES y~$ a
+~LYMPH ggNh ~ I I(~
Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2. 714a (a), Florida Power & L3.
r Company (FPL) hereby submits its brief in opposition to the "Brief of Florida Cities in Support of Their Appeal from Denial of Their Xntervention Petition and Request for 1/
Consolidation and for Other Relief" (Cities Brief).
Many of the facts involved in this proceeding are set forth in the Licensing Board's June 3, 1981 "Order Relative to Petitions to intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters" and in the brief which FPL submitted on June 25, 1981, in opposition to Parsons a Whittemore's appeal from that order.
To the extent feasible we attempt to avoid repetition here.
1/ At p. 1, n. 1, Cities Brief enumerates the appellant entities, including Key West,, which it somewhat casually notes "was inadvertently omitted" from the petition to intervene. FPL does not concede that the omission can be cured merely by including the omitted entity among an enumeration of appellants. ~(p C
(
8107220142 810717 PDR ADOCK 05000389 II( 0 PDR
I N
f I.I 1 l I
Florida Cities filed their "Petition to Intervene and Request for Consolidation" (Intervention Petition) in this operating license proceeding "~onl insofar as they [the 2/
proceedings] may relate to antitrust concerns." More t
specifically, Florida Cities are parties to a pending construc-tion permit antitrust proceeding, Florida Power 6 Light Company
{St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2), NRC Docket No. 50-389A.
They filed their petition in the operating license proceeding for the sole purpose of protecting themselves against any assertion that, if they had failed to do so, "they would be in some way entitled to reduced substantive or procedural relief (Cities Brief, p. 2; see also Intervention Petition, pp. 2-3) in the .construction permit antitrust proceeding. {Intervention Petition, p. 22). They requested that that proceeding and the operating license proceeding be consolidated and "such further relief as may be appropriate." In its "Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene Concerning Antitrust Matters," dated June 3, 1981, at p. 4, the Licensing Board denied the Cities'etition as well as that of Parsons &
Whittemore, holding "we lack the jurisdiction to consider 3/
the petitions in this proceeding."
2/ . Response by Florida Cities to NRC Staff Answer, May 7, 1981, p. 2 (underscoring in original).
3/ The Intervention Petition was heavily weighted with allegations of antitrust misbehavior by FPL, and FPL's Answer to the Intervention Petition contained responsive material. "Answer of Florida Power 6 Light Co. to the Florida Cities'etition to Intervene and Request for
[Footnote continued]
Hereinafter, we first address the question whether the Licensing Board erred in its ruling; and, second, the propriety of certain "alternative" action which Cities'rief suggests that the Appeal Board take.
I. The Licensing Board Was Correct in Holding That The It Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider Petition to Intervene.
The Licensing Board based its determination that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the intervention petitions upon Public Servicin Com an of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) (ALAB 316, 3 NRC 167 (1976)). Cities contend that:
Marble Hill discusses whether a licensing board should hear antitrust and safety issues at the same time where separate opportunity for antitrust hearings had been noticed; the case does not provide a basis for determining that the Board could not have granted Florida petition. Cities'ntervention Cities Brief, pp. 4-5. The plain language of Marble Hill is to the contrary. The express holding of the Appeal Board was that:
In sum, for the Licensing Board to have admitted the Association's antitrust contentions in this proceeding would not only have exceeded its jurisdiction, but would have been inconsistent with the rea-sons that originally led Congress to allow 3/ [Footnote continued from previous page]
Consolidation," May 26, 1981 (FPL's Answer). Some of the allegations are repeated in Cities Brief here.
However, since the Licensing Board expressly decided the matter on jurisdictional grounds and did "not reach the merits of the petitions . . ." we do not repeat that material here.
creat'on of separate boards for the resolution of antitrust issues.
3 NRC at 173.
Nor is the conclusion altered by the fact that what is here sought is an operating license antitrust proceeding rather than a construction permit antitrust proceeding.
To the contrary, an operating license antitrust proceeding may be instituted only after the Commission has made a preliminary determination which it has neither made in this proceeding nor delegated to the Licensing Board to make.
Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 5 2135(c)(2))
makes it clear that antitrust procedures'shall not apply to operating license proceedings "unless the Commission determines such review is advisable on the ground that significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to . . ." the construction permit antitrust, review. The Commission has not made such a "significant changes" determination here. Neither has the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations to whom the Commission has delegated the authority to make the "significant changes" determination with respect to reactors. 10 CFR 5 2.102(d);
South Carolina Electrical and Gas Com an , et al., CLI-80-28, ll NRC 817, 821, n. 8. Such a determination could not be made since the construction permit antitrust proceeding--
begun at..the Cities'equest in a petition filed thirty-one months late -- is still pending and the antitrust review has
therefore not yet been completed. South Carolina Electric and Gas Com any, ll NRC at 823. Absent a finding of sig-nificant changes, Section 105c(2) precludes the consideration of antitrust issues at the operating license stage. Ibid; Houston Li htin and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), CLI-77-13, 5 NRC 1303, 1312 (1977); 10 CFR 5 2.102(d)(2). Consequently, it would be manifestly inconsistent with Section 105c(2) to conclude that the Licensing Board, nevertheless, had authority to initiate antitrust proceedings.
Since the Licensing Board had no jurisdiction to institute an antitrust proceeding, it, follows that it had no jurisdiction to consolidate such a proceeding with the existing construction permit antitrust proceeding. Whether the introduction of antitrust issues results from permitting the Cities to inter-vene in this proceeding or consolidating this proceeding with the construction permit antitrust review is immaterial.
In either instance, the effect would be to review antitrust issues in conjunction with an application for an operating license without first making the significant changes determination required by Section 105c(2). The Cities' petition simply ignores this clear statutory requirement.
Consolidation would also render meaningless the distinc-tion 9n the statute between the scope of construction permit and operating license antitrust reviews. Section 105c(2)
provides that any antitrust review conducted at the operating license stage shall be limited in scope to significant changes that have occurred in the licensee's activities or proposed activities since the completion of the construction permit, antitrust review. South Carolina Electric and Gas Com an ll NRC at 823; South Texas, 5 NRC at 1312. Consolidating the two proceedings would eliminate any distinction between the scope of the construction permit and operating license reviews contrary to the clear intent of the statute.
II. No Alternative Relief Is A ro riate.
In view of the foregoing, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Appeal Board to grant Florida Cities'irst requested form of relief and order that the Petition for Intervention and Request for Consolidation be granted or that the matter be remanded for a ruling by the Licensing Board on the merits of Cities'ntitrust claims. (Cities'rief, pp. 8-9).
Apparently in recognition of the likelihood these preferred forms of relief may be denied, Cities requests one of three other alternative forms of relief. These are dis-cussed below.
First, Cities suggest "that the Licensing Board be affirmed on the specific grounds (a) that antitrust intervention petitions.. are premature ... ." (Cities'rief, p. 9) . In this connection, Cities refer to pages 8-13 of FPL's Answer which
makes the argument, in substance repeated in Part I of this brief, that an operating license antitrust proceeding cannot be held because the "significant changes" determination required by Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act has not been made. (Cities Brief, pp. 5-6). Cities stated that:
Should the Appeal Board determine that additional procedural steps must be taken before petitions requesting operating license antitrust review are appropriate or that such petitions cannot be heard before completion of construction permit antitrust review, then Florida Cities simply request that such ruling be made so that they cannot later be deemed to have waived rights.
Cities Brief, p. 6. We read the foregoing as constituting agreement with the'rgument made in Point I, above, and do not take issue with Cities'equest. However, we cannot see what bearing such a ruling would have on the question whether Cities have in the past waived or hereafter may waive 4/
unspecified rights.
Second, Cities suggest that the Appeal Board might affirm the Licensing Board on the specific grounds . . . (b) 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 because, 4/ In addition, Cities appear to request this Board to refer the petition elsewhere within the NRC in order to permit the adoption of procedures "that permit early resolution of antitrust matters." (Cities'rief,
- p. 5). We discuss that suggestion, infra, at page 9.
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.
Cities Brief, p. 9.
Phrased differently, Cities are stating that they would not object to affirmance of the Licensing Board on grounds of "mootness" if they can obtain declaratory relief from the Appeal Board with respect to two matters which, we submit, are 5/
inappropriate subjects for such relief in this forum. The question whether the operating license may hereafter issue even if the construc-tion permit antitrust proceedings (Docket No. 50-389A) have not been completed is'ne which has recently arisen in those proceedings and raises, among other things, the question 6/
whether the grant of Cities'ate intervention depended upon their express assurance that the grant would not delay 7/
operation as well as construction of St. Lucie Unit No. 2.
Without a record on the question, this Board would have no basis for ruling upon the question. Similarly, without now 5/ We do not question the authority of licensing and appeal boards to grant declaratory relief in appropriate cir-cumstances. Kansas Gas and Electric Com an , et al.
(Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
CLI-77-1, 5 NRC 1, 4 {1977).
6/ Florida Power 6 Li ht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Una.t No. 2), LBP-77-23, 5 NRC 789, 800-01 (1977) affirmed ALAB-420, 6 NRC 9, 13, 23 (1977), affirmed, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939, 943 {1978).
7/ Motion of Florida Power & Light Company for Declaratory Order, or in the Alternative to Dismiss the Florida Cities From the Proceeding, Docket No. 50-389A, dated July 16, 1981.
knowing what issues may hereafter be raised or relief requested in the construction permit proceeding it would be wholly inappropriate for this Board to rule as requested by Florida Cities. Any such ruling would, moreover, intrude upon the role of the Licensing Board in Docket No. 50-389A.
Third, Cities request that if this Board "rules that it lacks jurisdiction, it should forward Cities'etition and this pleading to the appropriate officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a ruling." {Cities Brief, p. 9).
It is not clear what "ruling" is requested, i.e., whether it, is for the initiation of operating license antitrust proceedings or the alternative forms of relief requested above. The diffuse nature of the request and the potential it has for extending already protracted antitrust proceedings suggest that no such referral or other action by the Appeal Board is appropriate. This is particularly so since, as the Commission has emphasized, authority to institute operating license antitrust proceedings -- the initial relief requested by Cities has been vested in the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, not in the Licensing or Appeal Boards.
III. Conclusion On June 16, 1981, the Licensing Board entered an order dismissing this proceeding because of the dismissal or withdrawal
10 of all petitions to intervene. On June 18, 1981, this Board, noting that an appeal from the dismissal of Parsons Whittemore's intervention petition was pending (Florida Cities had not yet appealed), issued an order stating that the dismissal of the proceeding "shall not be accorded finality until such time as the appeal is determined." For the reasons given above and in its brief in opposition to the appeal of Parsons & Whittemore, FPL submits that the June 3, 1981 Licensing Board order should be upheld, Cities'equests for alternative relief should be denied, and the June 16, 1981 order of the Licensing Board dismissing the operating license proceeding should be accorded finality.
Respectfully submitted, Dou a G. G reen Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Herbert Dym Covington & Burling 888 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Attorneys for Florida Power &
Light Company DATED: July 17, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the h'fatter of )
/ )
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389-OL
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Brief of Florida Power &
Light Company In Opposition to Brief of Florida Cities," dated July 17, 1981, were served upon the following persons by hand delivery* or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 17th day of July, 1981.
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Michael A. Duggan, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing College of Business Appeal Board Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Texas Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78712
- Dr. John H. Buck Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Christine N. Kohl Jerome Saltzman, Chief Atomic Safety and Licensing Antitrust 6 Indemnity Group Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert M. Lazo, Esquire Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washinqton, D.C. 20555
- William D. Paton, Esquire Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Robert Fabri.kant, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530
- Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Charles .R. P. Brown, Esquire Fredric D. Chanania, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams Counsel for NRC Staff 301 South 6th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1418 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire *George Kucik, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Mare Gray, Esquire Director Ellen E. Sward, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &
Washington, D.C. 20555 Kahn 1815 H Street, N.W.
Thomas Gurney, Sr., Esquire Washington, D.C. 20006 203 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Robert E. Bathen Commission Fred Saffer Washington, D.C. 20555 R. W. Beck & Associates P. O. Box 6817 Norman A. Coll, Esquire Orlando, Florida 32803 Steel, Hector & Davis Southeast First National
- George Spiegel, Esquire Bank Building Robert Jablon, Esquire Miami, Florida 33131 Daniel Guttman, Esquire Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 William C. Wise, Esquire Suite 500 1200 18th Street, N.W. 1 . Green Washington, D.C. 20036 enstein, Newman, Reis &
Axelrad William H. Chandler, Esquire 1025 Connectict Avenue, N.W.
Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Washington, D.C. 20036 Gray & Stripling Post Office Drawer 0 (202) 862-8400 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Janet Urban, Esquire U.S. Department. of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Washington, D.C. 20044