ML20155C662

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

ML20155C662
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/07/1988
From:	Bauser M FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20155C642	List: ML20155C637 ML20155C662
References
OLA, NUDOCS 8806140283
Download: ML20155C662 (2)

Text

/ l June 7, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-335-OLA

)

) (Spent Fuel Pool Expansion)

(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )

)

)

LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.730 Florida Power and Light Company ("FPL" or "Licensee") hereby moves for oral argument in connection with its appeal of the April 20, 1988 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order granting a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene. In support of this motion, Licensee states as follows:

1. The holding of oral argument is within the Appeal Board's discretion. E.g., 10 C.F R. Part 2, App. A, section IX(e).

2. On May 9, 1988 FPL filed "Licensee's Notice of Appeal from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Granting a Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene and Supporting Brief."

l i

8806140283 880607 PDR ADOCK 05000335 i G PDR

3. On May 24, 1988 the "Response of NRC Staff to Licensee's Appeal from Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Granting Petition to Intervene, Request for Hearing and Contentions" was filed. By Order dated May 25, 1988, Petitioner Campbell Rich was granted an extension of time until June 7, 1988 to file his brief in opposition to Licensee's appeal of the April 20, 1988 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order.

4. Licensee is of the view that the essence of its appeal is straightforward. Oral argument may be helpful, however, in crystallizing fundamental issues. This is particularly true in view of the fact that they appear to have been addressed only infrequently in prior NRC adjudicatory proceedings.

5. Oral argument is also appropriate in view of the fundamental significance of the matter at issue.

For the foregoing reasons, this Motion for oral Argument should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 7, 1988

)?LIJ Am Har'old F. Reis Michael A. Bauser i Co-Counsel: ,

John T. Butler Newman &-Holtzinger, P.C. j 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 ,

Steel Hector & Davis Washington, D.C. 20036 i 4000 Southeast Financial l Center Telephone: (202) 955-6600  !

Miami, Florida 33131-2398 l

Counsel for:

Telephone: (305) 577-2939 Florida Power & Light Company l

_ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __.