ML18227D509
| ML18227D509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1976 |
| From: | Culp R, Mathews J Florida Power & Light Co, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad, Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18227D509 (6) | |
Text
q use"~
tr gQ
)g
~~0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RFi.ADULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOM~C SAFETY AND LICENSXNG BOARD In the Matter of Florida Power 6 Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Units No.
1 and No. 2.
Florida Power 6 Light Company (Turkey Point Plant, Units No.
3 and No.
4)
Docket Nos.
50-335A 50-389A Docket Nos.
50-250 50-251A APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CXTIES'OTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO ANSWERS TO PETITXON TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CITIES'OTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO ANSWERS TG PE'l:ITION TO INTERVENE AND BEQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Florida Cities have moved that the Board grant them leave to file a reply 3.o the Staff's and Applicant's answers to their Late Petition to Intervene.
, pplicant respectfully urges the Board to deny this request.
The Rules of Practice do not allow such a reply to be made.
Cities rely on Section 2.706, but that reliance is misplaced.
That section allows a "party" to reply, but clearly in the context of Section 2.'705, which provides only for answers to a notice of hearing, not to a petition to intervene.
This interpretation of Section 2.706 is supported by both the context in which it appears and the use of the word "party", which applies only to a person that has already been permitted to 1/
intervene.
Section 2.714(c) specifies.the nature of pleadings allowed where intervention is sought, which consist of the petition and an answer.
No mention is made in Section 2.714 of the kind of reply that Cities now seek to make.
- Moreover, no basis is shown for the Board.'s granting the Cities special leave to file a reply in this particular e
instance.
The reasons given in the Cities'otion are that the Cities wish to counter certain characterizations contained in 1
the Applicant's response and that they desire to respond to 1
10 CFR
$2. 714 (g)
certain of Applicant's legal arguments.
The former ob)ective has been accomplished by the filing of the Motion (see pp. 3-4).
The latter request is apparently grounded on the view that Applicant's response raised "technical" legal arguments
+2 not-anticipated by. the Cities.
To the contrary,.'Applicant's legal arguments relate go ~e basic scope of Section 105 of
. the Atomic Energy Act and to the application of Section 2.714 of the Commission's regulations, both of which are basic to the controversy before the Board.
The Cities certainly had a fair opportunity to address these questions in their 86-page Petition.
It is not uncommon for a party, upon reading the responses to one of its pleadings, to devise better and clearer ways to state its owh position.
Hindsight has the advantage over anticipation.
However, the pleading process must end, and some-one must have the'ast word.
Section 2.714(c) specifies the order in which the litigants are to lodge their pleadings.
Further pleading, which is bound to upset the balance in one direction or the other, qhogld not be allowed except for compelling reasons.
Q2 Motion, p.
2
p ~
WHEREFORE, Applicant respe"tf.illy requests. that the Mbtion be denied.
I Respectfully submitted,
~ N Robert H. Culp Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 (202) 833-8371
~C.
r o n E. Mat ews, Jr.
- Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman
& Cobb 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904).354<<0624 Counsel for Florida Power
& Light Company Date:
October 1, 1976 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLFDGt REGULATORY COMMISSION 1P
~gV gg
/~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Zn the Matter of Florida Power
& Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Units No.
1 and No. 2.
Florida Power 6 Light Company (Turkey Point Plant, Units No.
3 and No.
4)
)
).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-335A 50-389A Docket Nos.
50-250A 50-251A CERTXFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the following:
Applicant's Response to Cities'otion for Leave to Reply To Answers to Petition to Intervene and Request for Clarification have been served on the persons shown on the attached list by hand delivery or deposit in the United States Mail, properly stamped and addressed on October 1, 1976.
By Robert H. Culp Counsel for Florida Power 5 Light. Company Date:.
October 1, 1976
D'aniel M Head, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 1
John M. Prysiak, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licens-'.ng
-Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,Washington, D.C.
20555 Xvan.W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
. Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert A. Vablon Daniel Z Guttman 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 David A. Leckie Antitrust Division Department of Justice P.O.
Box 7513 Washington, D.C.,
20044 Lee Scott Dewey Counsel for the Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. C. R. Stephens, Supervisor Docketing and Service Station Office of.the Secretary of the Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (OrigxnaX, and 20 copies)