ML17212A352: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 07/16/1981
| issue date = 07/16/1981
| title = Motion to Add Listed Questions to 810720 Conference Agenda Re Parsons & Whittemore Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl
| title = Motion to Add Listed Questions to 810720 Conference Agenda Re Parsons & Whittemore Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl
| author name = KUCIK G R
| author name = Kucik G
| author affiliation = ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, PARSONS & WHITTEMORE
| author affiliation = ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, PARSONS & WHITTEMORE
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS, PLEADINGS
| document type = LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS, PLEADINGS
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
| revision = 0
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:P &W    7/16/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                ()))
Gffge Of +h
                                                                                ~ac>cting g g ranch In the Matter of FLORXDA POWER    &  LIGHT COMPANY                  Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.      2) c,~
MOTION TO ADD QUESTIONS TO THE JUNE 20, 198 1, CONFERENCE AGEN          illQ QJQggy
                                                                          %~gg  pe~~
                                                                '0 This Board's July 7, 1981, order set      a confer            fQ July 20 on the Parsons & Whittemore (P&W) petition to 1/
intervene.      The order (p. 14) provides that "[a]dditional questions may be added to the agenda by written motion filed no later. than three days before the conference."          We respect-fully request that the following questions be added to the conference agenda:
As  to the "contract" points raised by FPL in its  challenge to Parsons & Whittemore's stand-ing, does FPL contend (a) that Dade County has a present, unconditional obligation to pay Parsons & Whittemore the agreed upon price for the facility; (b) that Parsons &
Whittemore has a present, uncondition'al obliga-tion to transfer title to the EGF to FPL; or (c) that FPL has a present, unconditional obligation to accept title to the EGF if title were tendered to  it  by Parsons & Whittemore?
1/    The  order indicates that have not received the service it was copy.
served on July 8, but After learning of the we order on July 13, we obtained a copy      that afternoon from the NRC  Public Docket    Room.
Si07200237 Bi07ih PDR ADOCK 05000389 N                PDR
: 2. If  the answer to is negative, how question l(a),. (b) or (c) does the conditional nature of the parties 'lleged obligation(s) af fect Parsons & Whittemore's present standing?
These questions      are relevant to FPL's allegations summarized at pages 9-10 of the order, as well as to the Board's observa-tion (at p. 11)  that it if even      we accept FPL's version of the facts, appears likely that RRD has a sufficient interest to be affected by these proceedings.
FPL has  not explained the nature and timing of its claimed "valid legal right to the generating facility and its output" (see Order, p. 10), and P&W has not yet had an opportunity to 2/
respond'o FPL's factual allegations.              In these circumstances, we  believe that answers to the above questions would facilitate I
argument on the standing issue, by illuiainating how FPL and P&W'each view their present obligations .in connection with the facility and how those obligations affect the legal right claimed by FPL. For example,        if FPL claims the right to reject P&W's tender of the EGF, that fact would be important in evaluating whether P&W's present interest in the EGF and the facility is sufficient to warrant protection in this proceeding.
2/        read the Board's order as indicating that P&W will be We allowed to respond      if it so wishes.
P&W be authorized to file a written response We therefore request that no later than fourteen days after the August        17-18,  1981,  conference  involv-ing the summary judgment issues raised by the            Cities-Intervenors.
CONCLUSION P&W's motion to add questions to the June 20, 1981, conference agenda should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, George    . Kucik Ellen. E. Sward I
ARENT ~ FOX ~ K NTNER g PLOTKIN KAHN 1815  H  Street,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.      20006 (202) 857-6000 Counsel  for Petitioners
UNITED STATES OF AMERXCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-389A FLORIDA POWER  &  LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie  Plant, Unit No. 2)
CERTXFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Motion to Add Questions to the June 20, 1981, Conference. Agenda" was served upon. the following persons by hand delivery* or by deposit in the U.S.
Mail, first class, postage prepaid this 16th day of July 1981.
* Peter B. Bloch, Esquire                  Atomic Safety. and Licensing Chairman                                      'oard 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
* Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board        William C. Wise, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission      Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20555                  1200 18th Street, N.W-.
Washington, D.C.      20036 Docketing and Service    Station Office of the Secretary                  William    H. Chandler, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission      Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Washington, D.C. 20555                        Gray  & Stripling Post Office Drawer    0 Jerome Saltzman,    Chief                Gainesville, Florida      32602 Antitrust & Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
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 U.S. Department of Justice                    Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20530              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esquire                Washington, D.C. 20555 Lee Scott: Dewey, Esquire Eredric D. Chanania, Esquire        ~ J. A. Bouknight, Jr.
Counsel for NRC Staff                  Lowenstein, Newman, Reis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission          a Axelrad Washington, D.C. 20555                1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. ?0036 Charles R.P. Brown, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams 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 George R. Kucik, Esquire Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin    6  Kahn 1815 H  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C. 20006}}

Latest revision as of 14:48, 4 February 2020

Motion to Add Listed Questions to 810720 Conference Agenda Re Parsons & Whittemore Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML17212A352
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/16/1981
From: Kucik G
ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, PARSONS & WHITTEMORE
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8107200237
Download: ML17212A352 (5)
v • d • e


Text

P &W 7/16/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ()))

Gffge Of +h

~ac>cting g g ranch In the Matter of FLORXDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-389A (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2) c,~

MOTION TO ADD QUESTIONS TO THE JUNE 20, 198 1, CONFERENCE AGEN illQ QJQggy

%~gg pe~~

'0 This Board's July 7, 1981, order set a confer fQ July 20 on the Parsons & Whittemore (P&W) petition to 1/

intervene. The order (p. 14) provides that "[a]dditional questions may be added to the agenda by written motion filed no later. than three days before the conference." We respect-fully request that the following questions be added to the conference agenda:

As to the "contract" points raised by FPL in its challenge to Parsons & Whittemore's stand-ing, does FPL contend (a) that Dade County has a present, unconditional obligation to pay Parsons & Whittemore the agreed upon price for the facility; (b) that Parsons &

Whittemore has a present, uncondition'al obliga-tion to transfer title to the EGF to FPL; or (c) that FPL has a present, unconditional obligation to accept title to the EGF if title were tendered to it by Parsons & Whittemore?

1/ The order indicates that have not received the service it was copy.

served on July 8, but After learning of the we order on July 13, we obtained a copy that afternoon from the NRC Public Docket Room.

Si07200237 Bi07ih PDR ADOCK 05000389 N PDR

2. If the answer to is negative, how question l(a),. (b) or (c) does the conditional nature of the parties 'lleged obligation(s) af fect Parsons & Whittemore's present standing?

These questions are relevant to FPL's allegations summarized at pages 9-10 of the order, as well as to the Board's observa-tion (at p. 11) that it if even we accept FPL's version of the facts, appears likely that RRD has a sufficient interest to be affected by these proceedings.

FPL has not explained the nature and timing of its claimed "valid legal right to the generating facility and its output" (see Order, p. 10), and P&W has not yet had an opportunity to 2/

respond'o FPL's factual allegations. In these circumstances, we believe that answers to the above questions would facilitate I

argument on the standing issue, by illuiainating how FPL and P&W'each view their present obligations .in connection with the facility and how those obligations affect the legal right claimed by FPL. For example, if FPL claims the right to reject P&W's tender of the EGF, that fact would be important in evaluating whether P&W's present interest in the EGF and the facility is sufficient to warrant protection in this proceeding.

2/ read the Board's order as indicating that P&W will be We allowed to respond if it so wishes.

P&W be authorized to file a written response We therefore request that no later than fourteen days after the August 17-18, 1981, conference involv-ing the summary judgment issues raised by the Cities-Intervenors.

CONCLUSION P&W's motion to add questions to the June 20, 1981, conference agenda should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, George . Kucik Ellen. E. Sward I

ARENT ~ FOX ~ K NTNER g PLOTKIN KAHN 1815 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 857-6000 Counsel for Petitioners

UNITED STATES OF AMERXCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-389A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2)

CERTXFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Motion to Add Questions to the June 20, 1981, Conference. Agenda" was served upon. the following persons by hand delivery* or by deposit in the U.S.

Mail, first class, postage prepaid this 16th day of July 1981.

  • Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Atomic Safety. and Licensing Chairman 'oard 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

  • Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William C. Wise, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 18th Street, N.W-.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary William H. Chandler, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Washington, D.C. 20555 Gray & Stripling Post Office Drawer 0 Jerome Saltzman, Chief Gainesville, Florida 32602 Antitrust & Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

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 U.S. Department of Justice Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20530 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Lee Scott: Dewey, Esquire Eredric D. Chanania, Esquire ~ J. A. Bouknight, Jr.

Counsel for NRC Staff Lowenstein, Newman, Reis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Axelrad Washington, D.C. 20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. ?0036 Charles R.P. Brown, Esquire Brown, Paxton and Williams 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 George R. Kucik, Esquire Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin 6 Kahn 1815 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17212A352&oldid=2437684"