ML20030D053
| ML20030D053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1981 |
| From: | Jablon R, Jablon R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, ELOHOLM, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., FT. PIERCE, FL, HOMESTEAD, FL, STARKE, FL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D051 | List: |
| References | |
| 80-1099, NUDOCS 8108310343 | |
| Download: ML20030D053 (3) | |
Text
I
/ 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
\\
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 3
%g hU3 3 7 gggg,, 2
}
G';;': u; S.:,
No. 80-1099 c
L.
L.; 'u.a, c/
4 i
/
r/
II' t
FT. PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE, g AL.,
PETITIONERS, v..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and THE CITIES OF HOMESTEAD, KISSIMMEE, and STARKE, FLORIDA, INTERVENERS.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN A RELATFD CASE i
This case arose upon a petition for review of an order by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated December 21, 1979 (J.A. 187-188).
The NRC decided not to initiate proceedings under Section 105(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. $2135.
According to l
the NRC's order, the Commission preferred to await a District l
Court decision in the proceeding on remand from Gainesville Utilities Dept. v. Florida Power & Light Company, 573 F.2d 292 l
00108310343 810825' DR ADOCK 05000250 i
(5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 966 (1978).
The NRC believed that the District Court's decision on remand might " help clarify whether the threshhold test triggering application of the statute has in fact been met." (J.A. 188)
On August 3, 1981, subsequent to briefing and oral argument before this panel, Gainesville and Florida Power & Light entered into a settlement agreement.
The agreement called for, among other things, the dismissal with prejudice of the remanded proceeding in question, Gainesville Utilities Dept. et al. v.
Florida Power & Licht Company, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 68-30E-Civ-JWC.
By order dated August 4, 1981 (copy attached), the District Court l
dismissed the remanded proceedings without decision, pursuant to the agreement and stipulation of the parties.1/
The Petitioners (other than Gainesville, which has moved to withdraw) and the City Interveners believe that the case before this Court is not mooted by the dismissal of the remand proceeding in the related District Court case; in their view the I
NRC's serious exaggeration of its discretion constitutes a serious continuing threat to the administration of the Atomic Energy Act in this and in future proceedings.
Further, in 1/
On August 4, 1981 Gainesville filed with this Court of Appeals its " Motion For Leave To Amend Petition For Revi': W
'o withdraw as a petitioner in this review proceeding.
3 Cities' view, the error by the NRC in failing to commence a 105(a) proceeding continues to delay relief to the cities.
However, this Court may want to seek the advice of the parties as to the issue of mootness or, alternatively, may wish to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission whether the District Court's dismissal of the remand proceeding affects the Commission's view concerning the time, if any, for initiation of Commission proceedings under Section 105(a) of the Atomic Energy Act.
In view of the finality of the Gainesville decision, supra, l
Florida cities are filing a renewed motion with the NRC that it institute a Section 105(a) proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, MA/ad r
Robert A. Jab]I6n J. / o_t--
A. M k_.
ATan J. Ror.Q Attorneys for Petitioners and for Interveners Homestead, Kissi mee and Starke, Florida Attachment August 25, 1981 Law offices of:
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20037 i
L