|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML17209B260 | | | number = ML17209B260 |
| | issue date = 06/12/1981 | | | issue date = 06/12/1981 |
| | title = Motion Requesting Aslb Defer Consideration of Fl Cities 810527 Motion to Establish Procedures & Not Require Util to Answer on Motion Merits Until Further Aslb Order.Nothing Useful Can Be Accomplished by Motion.W/Certificate of Svc | | | title = Motion Requesting ASLB Defer Consideration of Fl Cities 810527 Motion to Establish Procedures & Not Require Util to Answer on Motion Merits Until Further ASLB Order.Nothing Useful Can Be Accomplished by Motion.W/Certificate of Svc |
| | author name = Bouknight J | | | author name = Bouknight J |
| | author affiliation = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL | | | author affiliation = FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:FPL:6/12/81 JUN 18 1981~yzgz~~gtaMTORX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6'FQRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of))FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY)Docket No-.~50-389A (St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))June 12, TF81 MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR | | {{#Wiki_filter:FPL:6/12/81 JUN 18 1981~ |
| | yzgz ~~ gtaMTORX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6'FQRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD |
| | /PL In the Matter of ) |
| | ) |
| | FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No-.~50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) o~ |
| | ) June 12, TF81 +<<> |
| | 0(go4 MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR |
|
| |
|
| ==SUMMARY== | | ==SUMMARY== |
| DISPOSITION | | DISPOSITION On May 27, 1981, the Cities filed a "Motion to Establish Procedures, for a Declaration that- a Situation Inconsistent, with the Antitrust Laws Presently Exists and for Related Relief.", During the course of a conference call on June 11, 1981, the Cities advised the Board that they intend their plead-ing as a motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749. In these circumstances and for the reasons given below, FPL respectfully requests that the Board defer consideration of the Cities'otion and not require FPL to answer it on the merits until further order of the Board. The requested deferral could take the form either. of denial of the motion as premature, without prejudice to its refiling after discovery has progressed further, or of an order permitting FPL to defer filing of its response until ordered to do so by the Board. FPL requests this relief for two basic reasons. |
| /PL+<<>o~0(go4 On May 27, 1981, the Cities filed a"Motion to Establish Procedures, for a Declaration that-a Situation Inconsistent, with the Antitrust Laws Presently Exists and for Related Relief.", During the course of a conference call on June 11, 1981, the Cities advised the Board that they intend their plead-ing as a motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749.In these circumstances and for the reasons given below, FPL respectfully requests that the Board defer consideration of the Cities'otion and not require FPL to answer it on the merits until further order of the Board.The requested deferral could take the form either.of denial of the motion as premature, without prejudice to its refiling after discovery has progressed further, or of an order permitting FPL to defer filing of its response until ordered to do so by the Board.FPL requests this relief for two basic reasons.First, discovery has not yet progressed to the point 1e where FPL should be required to respond to a motion which, on its face, seeks disposition of all issues in the case other than relief.Cities have not yet responded to the interrogatories directed to them in this case.In the litigation pending in the U.S.District Court in Miami, FPL has had document discovery of most of the Cities, but not of the City of Lake Helen or the Florida Municipal Utilities Association (FMUA), which are parties to this proceeding but not to the Miami case.Some depositions have been taken in the Miami case, but depositions of the Cities are far from being completed; of course, no depositions have been taken of Lake Helen, FMUA or any expert witness who the Cities may designate when they file responses to interrogatories in this case.Second, it is unlikely that anything useful can be accomplished by consideration of the motion in its present form, particularly at a time when issues have not been more clearly defined.There may be instances in which consideration of a motion for summary disposition'at an early stage of discovery can be appropriate and helpful, particularly where the motion is addressed to one or more sharply defined issues which involve the application of law to facts which are genuinely not subject to dispute.The Cities motion is not such a pleading.It is vague and discursive and relies on a list of"Material Facts Not Genuinely in Dispute" which consists of sweeping, highly argumentative generalizations.
| | First, discovery has not yet progressed to the point 1e |
| | |
| | where FPL should be required to respond to a motion which, on its face, seeks disposition of all issues in the case other than relief. Cities have not yet responded to the interrogatories directed to them in this case. In the litigation pending in the U.S. District Court in Miami, FPL has had document discovery of most of the Cities, but not of the City of Lake Helen or the Florida Municipal Utilities Association (FMUA), which are parties to this proceeding but not to the Miami case. Some depositions have been taken in the Miami case, but depositions of the Cities are far from being completed; of course, no depositions have been taken of Lake Helen, FMUA or any expert witness who the Cities may designate when they file responses to interrogatories in this case. |
| | Second, it is unlikely that anything useful can be accomplished by consideration of the motion in its present form, particularly at a time when issues have not been more clearly defined. There may be instances in which consideration of a motion for summary disposition'at an early stage of discovery can be appropriate and helpful, particularly where the motion is addressed to one or more sharply defined issues which involve the application of law to facts which are genuinely not subject to dispute. The Cities motion is not such a pleading. It is vague and discursive and relies on a list of "Material Facts Not Genuinely in Dispute" which consists of sweeping, highly argumentative generalizations. |
| These generalizations, in turn, are grounded on assumptions-- | | These generalizations, in turn, are grounded on assumptions-- |
| which FPL believes are unfounded-that the Cities will succeed in persuading the Board of their theories of markets, market*/power and competition.- | | which FPL believes are unfounded that the Cities will succeed |
| The Cities'otion is more in the nature of a prematurely filed trial brief than a motion for summary disposition, although it lacks the specificity which would be expected in a trial brief.Nothing would be accomplished at this time by FPL's taking the considerable time and effort"necessary to respond to.this lengthy motion or the Board's devoting its time to,wading through the evid-=**/entiary materials" placed before it by the Cities.-Item 1 in the list of undisputed"facts" proferred by the Cities is illustrative. | | |
| It includes the following: "FPL has an effective monopoly control over[nuclear facilities in Peninsular Florida], which it has used to advantage it-.self in competition." That statement appears to rest on the assumptions that (1)nuclear generation is the relevant product market, (2)"Peninsular Florida" is the relevant geographic market, (3)FPL has monopoly power in the alleged market, and (4)FPL is engaged in some kind of undefined competition with Cities in some unspecified market.FPL contests each of these propositions. | | in persuading the Board of their theories of markets, market |
| Moreover, the charge that FPL"has used[such monopoly control]to advantage it-self in competition" obviously has no place in the"short and concise statement of material facts" required by 10 CFR 52.749;The Cities have placed essentially the same factual pre-sentation that appears in their Motion before the U.S.District Court in Miami in papers filed in response to a motion by FPL for summary judgment of Tallahassee's claim that it is en-titled under the antitrust laws to access to FPL's nuclear plants.Florida Cities'nswer to Motion of FPL for Summary Judgment of Tallahassee's Nuclear Access Claim (No.79-5101-Civ-JLK, May 15, 1981).The purpose of the Cities're-sentation to the Court is to convince the Court that genuine issues of material fact must be tried and that, therefore, FPL's motion for summary judgment should be denied;the Cities apparently did not consider their presentation sufficiently strong to justify their filing of a cross motion for summary judgment in the Miami case.Thus, we have the peculiar situation of the Cities'aving filed essentially the same presentation in two forums, claiming in one forum that it demonstrates the absence of any material factual issues and in the other that it demonstrates just the opposite.The decision of the District Court on the motion could be of considerable assistance to this Board, and the Court's findings as to what factual propositions are and are not genuinely in issue could be very helpful.That is another reason for deferring'consideration of the Cities'otion here. | | */ |
| FPL submits that it is not useful for the parties at this stage to argue the merits of their cases in an unfocused manner.A far better use of the parties'ime and resources would be an effort to define with some specificity the matters that remain in issue in the wake of the settlement license conditions which were attached to the construction permit pursuant to the Board's Order of April 24, 1981.The first step in this process is for the'Cities, as directed by the Board in the June ll, 1981, conference call, to submit a clear and unambiguous statement of the issues as they perceive them together with a specific state-ment of the additional relief which they seek.At the same time discovery can move forward, so that it will be possible to resolve expeditiously the issues so defined either upon motions for summary disposition or after a focused hearing.WHEREFORE, FPL respectfully moves that the Cities motion for summary disposition be denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling at a future date, or that FPL be permitted to defer filing of its response to the Cities'otion until the Board issues a further order calling for a response.R spectfu ly submitted, A.Bouknight, Jr.L wenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20006 Herbert Dym Covington&Burling 888 16th Street, N.W.Washington, D;C.20006 DATED: June 12, 1981 Attorneys for Florida Power 6 Light Company UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of))FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY)(St.Lucie Plant, Unit No.2))Docket No.50-389A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR SUN~DRY DISPOSITION" was served by hand delivery*or by deposit, in the U.S.Nail, first class, postage prepaid this 12th day of June, 1981.*Ivan W.Smith, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*Robert M.Lazo, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Michael A.Duggan, Esquire College of Business Administration University of Texas Austin;Texas 78712 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust&Indemnity Group U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Thomas Gurney, Sr., Esquire 203 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Robert E.Bathen Fred Saffer R.W.Beck&Associates P.O.Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803*Robert A.Jablon, Esquire Alan J.Roth, Esquire 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20037 William C.Wise, Esquire Suite 500 1200 18th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C.20036 William H.Chandler, Esquire Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Gray&Stripling Post Office Drawer 0 Gainesville, Florida 32602 h 0~*Janet Urban, Esquire P.O.Box 14141 Washington, D.C.20044 Donald A.Kaplan, Esquire Robert Fabrikant, Esquire Antitrust Division U.S.Department of Justice Washington, D.C.20530 Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Fredric D.Chanania, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Charles R.P.Brown, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams 301 South 6th Street P.O.Box 1418 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450*Benjamin H.Vogler U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Ann P.Hodgdon, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*George R.Kucik, Esquire Narc Gary, Esquire Ellen E.Sward, Esquire Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin 6 Kahn 1815 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C.20006 Richard S.Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 J.A.Bo nag t, Jr.Xjowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20036 (202)862-8400 DATED: June 12, 1981}} | | power and competition. The Cities'otion is more in the nature of a prematurely filed trial brief than a motion for summary disposition, although it lacks the specificity which would be expected in a trial brief. Nothing would be accomplished at this time by FPL's taking the considerable time and effort "necessary to respond to.this lengthy motion or the Board's devoting its time to,wading through the evid- = |
| | entiary materials" placed before it by the Cities. **/ |
| | Item 1 in the list of undisputed "facts" proferred by the Cities is illustrative. It includes the following: "FPL has an effective monopoly control over [nuclear facilities in Peninsular Florida], which it has used to advantage it-. |
| | self in competition." That statement appears to rest on the assumptions that (1) nuclear generation is the relevant product market, (2) "Peninsular Florida" is the relevant geographic market, (3) FPL has monopoly power in the alleged market, and (4) FPL is engaged in some kind of undefined competition with Cities in some unspecified market. FPL contests each of these propositions. Moreover, the charge that FPL "has used [such monopoly control] to advantage it-self in competition" obviously has no place in the "short and concise statement of material facts" required by 10 CFR 52.749; The Cities have placed essentially the same factual pre-sentation that appears in their Motion before the U.S. District Court in Miami in papers filed in response to a motion by FPL for summary judgment of Tallahassee's claim that titled under the antitrust laws to access to FPL's it is en-nuclear plants. Florida Cities'nswer to Motion of FPL for Summary Judgment of Tallahassee's Nuclear Access Claim (No. 79-5101-Civ-JLK, May 15, 1981). The purpose of the Cities're-sentation to the Court is to convince the Court that genuine issues of material fact must be tried and that, therefore, FPL's motion for summary judgment should be denied; the Cities apparently did not consider their presentation sufficiently strong to justify their filing of a cross motion for summary judgment in the Miami case. Thus, we have the peculiar situation of the Cities'aving filed essentially the same presentation in two forums, claiming in one forum that absence of any material factual issues and it in demonstrates the the other that it demonstrates just the opposite. |
| | Court on the motion could be of considerable The decision of the District assistance to this Board, and the Court's findings as to what factual propositions are and are not genuinely in issue could be very helpful. That is another reason for deferring 'consideration of the Cities'otion here. |
| | |
| | FPL submits that it is not useful for the parties at this stage to argue the merits of their cases in an unfocused manner. |
| | A far better use of the parties'ime and resources would be an effort to define with some specificity the matters that remain in issue in the wake of the settlement license conditions which were attached to the construction permit pursuant to the Board's Order of April 24, 1981. The first step in this process is for the 'Cities, as directed by the Board in the June ll, 1981, conference call, to submit a clear and unambiguous statement of the issues as they perceive them together with a specific state-ment of the additional relief which they seek. At the same time discovery can move forward, so that it will be possible to resolve expeditiously the issues so defined either upon motions for summary disposition or after a focused hearing. |
| | WHEREFORE, FPL respectfully moves that the Cities motion for summary disposition be denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling at a future date, or that FPL be permitted to defer filing of its response to the Cities'otion until the Board issues a further order calling for a response. |
| | R spectfu ly submitted, A. Bouknight, Jr. |
| | L wenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. |
| | Washington, D.C. 20006 Herbert Dym Covington & Burling 888 16th Street, N.W. |
| | Washington, D;C. 20006 Attorneys for Florida Power 6 Light Company DATED: June 12, 1981 |
| | |
| | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) |
| | ) |
| | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) ) |
| | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER |
| | & LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR SUN~DRY DISPOSITION" was served by hand delivery* or by deposit, in the U.S. Nail, first class, postage prepaid this 12th day of June, 1981. |
| | *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 Robert E. Bathen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Fred Saffer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R.W. Beck & Associates Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803 Michael A. Duggan, Esquire College of Business Administration |
| | * Robert A. Jablon, Esquire University of Texas Alan J. Roth, Esquire Austin; Texas 78712 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. |
| | Washington, D.C. 20037 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary William C. Wise, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 18th Street, N.W. |
| | Washington, D.C. 20036 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group William H. Chandler, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Washington, D.C. 20555 Gray & Stripling Post Office Drawer 0 Thomas Gurney, Sr., Esquire Gainesville, Florida 32602 203 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 |
| | |
| | h 0 ~ |
| | * Janet Urban, Esquire *Benjamin H. Vogler P.O. Box 14141 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20044 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Robert Fabrikant, Esquire Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Antitrust Division Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Department of Justice Director Washington, D.C. 20530 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Fredric D. Chanania, Esquire |
| | * George R. Kucik, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Narc Gary, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellen E. Sward, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin 6 Kahn Charles R.P. Brown, Esquire 1815 H Street, N.W. |
| | Brown, Paxton and Williams Washington, D.C. 20006 301 South 6th Street P.O. Box 1418 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 J.A. Bo nag t, Jr. |
| | Xjowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. |
| | Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 DATED: June 12, 1981}} |
|
|---|
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
FPL:6/12/81 JUN 18 1981~
yzgz ~~ gtaMTORX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6'FQRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/PL In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No-.~50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) o~
) June 12, TF81 +<<>
0(go4 MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION On May 27, 1981, the Cities filed a "Motion to Establish Procedures, for a Declaration that- a Situation Inconsistent, with the Antitrust Laws Presently Exists and for Related Relief.", During the course of a conference call on June 11, 1981, the Cities advised the Board that they intend their plead-ing as a motion for summary disposition filed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749. In these circumstances and for the reasons given below, FPL respectfully requests that the Board defer consideration of the Cities'otion and not require FPL to answer it on the merits until further order of the Board. The requested deferral could take the form either. of denial of the motion as premature, without prejudice to its refiling after discovery has progressed further, or of an order permitting FPL to defer filing of its response until ordered to do so by the Board. FPL requests this relief for two basic reasons.
First, discovery has not yet progressed to the point 1e
where FPL should be required to respond to a motion which, on its face, seeks disposition of all issues in the case other than relief. Cities have not yet responded to the interrogatories directed to them in this case. In the litigation pending in the U.S. District Court in Miami, FPL has had document discovery of most of the Cities, but not of the City of Lake Helen or the Florida Municipal Utilities Association (FMUA), which are parties to this proceeding but not to the Miami case. Some depositions have been taken in the Miami case, but depositions of the Cities are far from being completed; of course, no depositions have been taken of Lake Helen, FMUA or any expert witness who the Cities may designate when they file responses to interrogatories in this case.
Second, it is unlikely that anything useful can be accomplished by consideration of the motion in its present form, particularly at a time when issues have not been more clearly defined. There may be instances in which consideration of a motion for summary disposition'at an early stage of discovery can be appropriate and helpful, particularly where the motion is addressed to one or more sharply defined issues which involve the application of law to facts which are genuinely not subject to dispute. The Cities motion is not such a pleading. It is vague and discursive and relies on a list of "Material Facts Not Genuinely in Dispute" which consists of sweeping, highly argumentative generalizations.
These generalizations, in turn, are grounded on assumptions--
which FPL believes are unfounded that the Cities will succeed
in persuading the Board of their theories of markets, market
power and competition. The Cities'otion is more in the nature of a prematurely filed trial brief than a motion for summary disposition, although it lacks the specificity which would be expected in a trial brief. Nothing would be accomplished at this time by FPL's taking the considerable time and effort "necessary to respond to.this lengthy motion or the Board's devoting its time to,wading through the evid- =
entiary materials" placed before it by the Cities. **/
Item 1 in the list of undisputed "facts" proferred by the Cities is illustrative. It includes the following: "FPL has an effective monopoly control over [nuclear facilities in Peninsular Florida], which it has used to advantage it-.
self in competition." That statement appears to rest on the assumptions that (1) nuclear generation is the relevant product market, (2) "Peninsular Florida" is the relevant geographic market, (3) FPL has monopoly power in the alleged market, and (4) FPL is engaged in some kind of undefined competition with Cities in some unspecified market. FPL contests each of these propositions. Moreover, the charge that FPL "has used [such monopoly control] to advantage it-self in competition" obviously has no place in the "short and concise statement of material facts" required by 10 CFR 52.749; The Cities have placed essentially the same factual pre-sentation that appears in their Motion before the U.S. District Court in Miami in papers filed in response to a motion by FPL for summary judgment of Tallahassee's claim that titled under the antitrust laws to access to FPL's it is en-nuclear plants. Florida Cities'nswer to Motion of FPL for Summary Judgment of Tallahassee's Nuclear Access Claim (No. 79-5101-Civ-JLK, May 15, 1981). The purpose of the Cities're-sentation to the Court is to convince the Court that genuine issues of material fact must be tried and that, therefore, FPL's motion for summary judgment should be denied; the Cities apparently did not consider their presentation sufficiently strong to justify their filing of a cross motion for summary judgment in the Miami case. Thus, we have the peculiar situation of the Cities'aving filed essentially the same presentation in two forums, claiming in one forum that absence of any material factual issues and it in demonstrates the the other that it demonstrates just the opposite.
Court on the motion could be of considerable The decision of the District assistance to this Board, and the Court's findings as to what factual propositions are and are not genuinely in issue could be very helpful. That is another reason for deferring 'consideration of the Cities'otion here.
FPL submits that it is not useful for the parties at this stage to argue the merits of their cases in an unfocused manner.
A far better use of the parties'ime and resources would be an effort to define with some specificity the matters that remain in issue in the wake of the settlement license conditions which were attached to the construction permit pursuant to the Board's Order of April 24, 1981. The first step in this process is for the 'Cities, as directed by the Board in the June ll, 1981, conference call, to submit a clear and unambiguous statement of the issues as they perceive them together with a specific state-ment of the additional relief which they seek. At the same time discovery can move forward, so that it will be possible to resolve expeditiously the issues so defined either upon motions for summary disposition or after a focused hearing.
WHEREFORE, FPL respectfully moves that the Cities motion for summary disposition be denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling at a future date, or that FPL be permitted to defer filing of its response to the Cities'otion until the Board issues a further order calling for a response.
R spectfu ly submitted, A. Bouknight, Jr.
L wenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Herbert Dym Covington & Burling 888 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D;C. 20006 Attorneys for Florida Power 6 Light Company DATED: June 12, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "MOTION OF FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY FOR DEFERRAL OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR SUN~DRY DISPOSITION" was served by hand delivery* or by deposit, in the U.S. Nail, first class, postage prepaid this 12th day of June, 1981.
- 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 Robert E. Bathen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Fred Saffer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R.W. Beck & Associates Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803 Michael A. Duggan, Esquire College of Business Administration
- Robert A. Jablon, Esquire University of Texas Alan J. Roth, Esquire Austin; Texas 78712 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary William C. Wise, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Antitrust & Indemnity Group William H. Chandler, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Washington, D.C. 20555 Gray & Stripling Post Office Drawer 0 Thomas Gurney, Sr., Esquire Gainesville, Florida 32602 203 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
h 0 ~
- Janet Urban, Esquire *Benjamin H. Vogler P.O. Box 14141 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20044 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald A. Kaplan, Esquire Robert Fabrikant, Esquire Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Antitrust Division Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Department of Justice Director Washington, D.C. 20530 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Lee Scott Dewey, Esquire Fredric D. Chanania, Esquire
- George R. Kucik, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Narc Gary, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellen E. Sward, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin 6 Kahn Charles R.P. Brown, Esquire 1815 H Street, N.W.
Brown, Paxton and Williams Washington, D.C. 20006 301 South 6th Street P.O. Box 1418 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 J.A. Bo nag t, Jr.
Xjowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 DATED: June 12, 1981
