ML17212A226

Answer Opposing Util 810612 Motion for Deferral of Consideration of Motion for Summary Disposition.Util Claims Are Not Factually Supported & Insufficient as Matter of Law. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17212A226
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/22/1981
From:	JABLAN R A FLORIDA CITIES (FLORIDA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8106240201
Download: ML17212A226 (12)

Text

FloridaCities:6/22/Sl6UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONRETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBTPCOIntheMatterofFloridaPowerSLightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))Cp)DocketNo.)Dated:6/2FLORIDACITIES'NSWERINOPPOSITIONTOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATIONOFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION~+0~PDP'g))ea)g,l'o~lsh<FPL,bymotionfiledonJune12,1981,seekstodeferconsiderationofCities'MotiontoEstablishProcedures,foraDeclarationThataSituationInconsistent,WiththeAntitrustLawsPresentlyExistsandforRelatedRelief."ThisCommissionhasauthoritytograntsummaryjudgment,orpartialsummaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.52.749'PLattemptstojustifydeferralofconsiderationofCities'otionforsummarydispositionof.thecriticalissuesinthisdocketonthebasisofrepresentationsinitspleadingsthata)ithasnothadsufficientopportunitytodiscoverthefactsandb)theissuesinthiscasehavenotbeenclearlyenoughdefinedsothatconsiderationofthemotionwouldbeuseful.,FPL'smotionmust.bedenied.Asdiscussedbelow,theclaimsFPLmakesinitspleadingsarenotfactuallysupportedandareinsufficientasamatteroflawtojustifydeferringresponsetoCitiesmotion.Indeed,afterfiveyearsoflitigation,itisclearthatfurtherdiscoveryisnotneededtorespondtoCities'106340'y motion;thattheissuesaredefined;andthatconsiderationofCities'otionnowisdesirabletomovethisproceedingtoamorejustandrapidconclusion,aresultclaimedtobedesiredbyallpartiestothisdocket.IntheirMay27,1981MotiontoEstablishProcedures,FloridaCitiessetforthundisputedfactsshowingthata"situationinconsistentwiththeantitrustlaws"exists.ThesefactsshowthatFPLhasrefusedtodealwithsomeCitiesinFloridaPowerCorporation'sterritoryinviolationofSections1and2oftheShermanAct,andthatFPL'smoregeneralrefusalstodealwithallCitiesareinconsistentwiththestandardsofOtterTailandMidland.OtterTailPowerCo.v.UnitedStates,410U.S.366(1973);ConsumersPowerComan(MidlandUnits1and2),ALAB-452,6NRC892(1977).Moreover,Citiesshowthatthe-settlementbetweenFloridaPower5:Light,theDepartmentofJusticeandtheNuclearRegulatoryCommissiononitsfacepermitsFPLtocontinuethispatternofdiscriminationandillegalrefusalstodeal.InsupportoftheirMotion,Cities'eliedonrecentfindingsbytheFifthCircuitinGainevilleUtilitiesDet.v.FloridaPoweraLihtComan,973F.2d292,cert.denied,439U.S.966(1978)andtheFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission,'loridaPower8LihtComan,OpinionNo.57,57-A,32PUR4th313,August3,1979,andOctober4,1979,whichfoundthatFPLhadengagedinanticompetitiveconductandwhicharebindinghere 3estoppel;1/Citiesfurthersupportedtheirmotionwithexcerptsfromsworndepositiontestimony,depositionexhibits,pleadingssubmittedbyFPL,andotherdocuments2/discoveredfromFPLwhichconstituteadmissionsonvariousissuesinvolvedinthisdocket.3/FPSLmaybelieveitselfabletopresentfactualorlegalcontentionsshowingwhysummarydispositionisinappropriate.However,defensesmustbestatedandnotassumed.1/FloridaCitieshaveexplainedintheirMotionofMay27,1981,atpages12-14thelegalbasisforcollateralestoppelhere.2/ThesedocumentsareofthesorttheFifthCircuitintheGainesvillecasefounddispositiveasamatteroflawinholdingthatFPLhadviolatedtheantitrustlaws.GainesvilleUtilities~Det.v.FloridaPoweraLihtCo.,~sura,573F.2dat--.3/FPLarguesthattheCitieshaveadmittedthatthefilingisnotsufficienttoestablishthatgenuineissuesoffactdonotexistbecauseCitiesfiledsimilarmaterialwiththeDistrictCourtinMiamiinresponsetoFPL'sMotionforsummaryjudgmentonCities'uclearclaims.Twopoints:First,FPLneglectstomentionthatCitiesspecificallyreservedtherighttoseeksummaryjudgmentontheirnuclearclaimsatalaterdate.Second,FPLseemstoforgetthatthestandardsforfindingaviolationoftheShermanActanda"situationinconsistentwiththeantitrustlaws"differ;.hencethemannerofpresentationofamotionforsummarydispositionmaywelldifferfromforumtoforum.FPLfurthersuggeststhatitisappropriateforthisBoardtodeferconsiderationofCities'otionuntiltheDistrictCourtrulesonFPL'smotion.FPLtheremovedforsummaryjudgmentontheallegedgroundsofFPLnuclearinnovationandtheallegedtardinessofTallahassee'sdemandforaccesstoFPL'snuclearunits.Astonuclearinnovation(notyetraisedbyFPLbeforetheNRC):FPLshowsnoreasonfortheNRCtodefer.AstotheallegedtardinessofTallahassee:TheNRChasalreadygrantedthatCityandothersinterventioninthisproceeding;theyarenotoutoftimehere.

Itiswellsettledlawthatwhereasummaryjudgment.motionisfiled,ageneraldenialwillnotsuffice.Opposingpartiesareobligatedtopresentsupportdemonstratingthatagenuineissueoffactexists;"apartyopposingthemotionmaynotrestuponthemereallegationsordenialsofhisanswer."10C.F.R.$2.749.ThisCommissionhasnotedthattheopposingparty'factsmustbe"material,substantial,notfancifulormerelysuspicious."GulfStatesUtilitComan(RiverBendStationUnits1and2),1NRC246,248;onecannot,avoidsummaryjudgmentonthemerehopethatattrialmovant'sevidencemaybediscredited,idat48.Seealso,PowerAuthoritof.theStateofNewYork,9NRC339(1979);SouthCarolinaElectricSGasCo.9NRC471,477(1979).Indeed,courtshavespecificallyheldthatapartymaynotavoidproperlyansweringamotionforsummaryjudgmentbymakinggeneralassertionsastoaneedforfurtherdi.scovery;insteadifapartyseeksdeferral:theopposingpartyshouldpresenthisaffidavitshowing'thattheknowledgeorcontrolofthefactsisexclusivelyorlargelywiththemovingpartyanddescribehisattemptstoobtainthosefacts.Themereavermentofexclusiveknowledgeorcontrolofthefactsbythemovingpartyisnotadequate:theopposingpartymustshowtothebestofhisabilitywhatfactsarewithinthemovant'sexclusiveknowledgeorcontrol;whatstepshavebeen'akentoobtainthedesiredinformationpursuanttothediscoveryproceduresundertheRules;andthatheisdesirousoftakingadvantageofthesediscoveryprocedures.

6Moore'sFederalPractice%56.24at1432.1/IfFPLwishesacontinuancetoconductdiscovery,itisthusFPL'sburdentodemonstratewhatpurpose,ifany,discoverywouldaccomplish,giventheevidenceprofferred,WillmarPoultCo.v.MortonNorwichProducts,Inc.520F.2d289,297(8thCir.1975).ThisFPLhasnotdone.ThefactsherepresentaparticularlystrongcaseforrequiringasubstantivefactualresponsefromFPL,ratherthancategoricallydeferringconsiderationofsummarydisposition.FPLclaimsthatitdoesnotunderstandtheissuesandthatCitieshavefailedtopresentaconcisestatementoffactsnotgenuinelyindispute.ButFPLinitsownpleadingdemonstratesthattheissueshavebeenproperlydrawn.TheCompanystates:"Item1inthelistofundisputed"facts"profferredbytheCitiesisillustrative.Itincludesthefollowing:"FPLhasaneffectivemonopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilitiesinPeninsularFlorida]whichithasusedtoadvantageitselfincompetition."Thatstatementappearstorestontheassumptionsthat(1)nucleargenerationistherelevantproductmarket,(2)"PeninsularFlorida"istherelevantgeographicmarket,(3)FPLhasmonopolypowerintheallegedmarket,and(4)FPLisengagedinsomekindofundefinedcompetitionwithCitiesinsomeunspecifiedmarket.FPLcontestseachofthesepropositions.MotionofFPL,p.3,n.*.1/Ofcourse,Moore'sisinterpretingRule56(f)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.However,thisCommissionhasspecificallyheldthattheprinciplesgoverningsummaryjudgmentinFederalpracticeareappropriateforuseindeterminingmotionsfor'summaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.$2.749.PublicServiceComanofNewHamshire,etal.(SeabrookStation,Units1and2,7AEC877,878.

ThisisinapparentresponsetoItem1ofAttachment1toFloridaCities'otiontoEstablishProcedures("MaterialFactsNotGenuinelyInDispute"),whereFloridaCitiesstate:."1.FPLcontrolsthreeoutofthefouroperatingnuclearplantsinPeninsularFloridaandis,constructingitsfourth.FPLhasaneffectivemon-opolycontroloversuchfacilitiesthere,whichithasusedtoadvantageitselfincompetition.Exceptasprovidedundersettlementlicenseconditionsinthiscase,FPLrefusestograntFloridaCitiesaccesstothesefacilities."InCities'iew,andasstatedintheirmotionforsummarydisposition,therecanbenogenuinefactualdisputethatthereisabulkpowermarketinpeninsularFlorida,thatFPLhasamonopolyofnuclearpowerthere(owningthree.offour,soontobefouroutoffiveplantsthere),thatnuclearpowerisanimportantproductinthatmarket,andthatFPLhasrefusedtodealinnuclearpowerwithCitiesnot,inornearitsretailterritory.ThereforeCitiescanwellwonder:IsFPLdenyingcontroloveritsnuclearunits'PDoesittrulyseektocontestthesepoints?FloridaCitieshavedocumentedthatFPLitselfhasuseofitsmonopolycontrolofnuclearfacilitiestoadvantageitselfincompetition,itshouldpresentfactswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromitsownfiles.IfFPLhasabasisforarguingthatitisnotincompetitionwithCitiesorhasnotusedsuchfacilitiesforcompetitiveadvantage,itshouldpresent' factswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromFPL'sownfiles.AshasbeensetforthinFloridaCities'otiontoEstablishProcedures,atthetimeFloridaPowerSLightwasplanningitsnucleargeneration,theFederalPowerCommissionspecificallyfoundthatitwaspartofa"Floridapool",FloridaPower6LihtComan,37FPC544,551-552(1967),reversed,430F.2d1377(5thCir.1970),reversedaffirmintheCommission,FloridaPowerRLihtCo.v.FPC,404U.S.453(1972).SuchcoordinationisdemonstratedbyCompanyfilings,documentsanddepositiontestimony.InOpinionNo.57,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionfoundtheobvious:thatFPLhasmonopolypoweroveralargeretailservicearea.FloridaPowerRLihtComanOpinionNo.57,~sura,32PUR4that323-325.IfFPLdeniestheexistenceofacoordinationmarketinPeninsularFloridaoritsextensiveretailservicemonopolyineasternandsouthernFlorida,itisnottoomuchtoaskthatitsetforththefactualbasisforsuchdenial.Andclearly,asamatteroflaw,ifFPLcontendsthatdiscoveryoftheCitiesisnecessarytounearthmaterialwhichFPLrequiresinordertorespondtotheCities'otion,andwhichisinCities'xclusivecontrol,itshouldberequiredtofileanappropriatepleadingbeforethisCommissionhearsamotionforcontinuance.Afteryearsofgeneraldocumentarydiscovery,numerousdepositionsandexperiencewithitsownoperations,FPLshouldnotbeheardtomakeabareunsupportedclaimtorequiremorediscoveryofCitiesinordertorebutfactsfromFPL'sfilesconcerningitsownmarketareas, ownershipofnuclearfacilitiesinPeninsularFlorida,oritsownactionsincompetition.CompareMotionofFPL,p.3,fn.*.Resolutionofthesecriticalissuescanquicklyleadtoresolutionofthiscase.Ontheotherhand,if,asitsmotionseemstosuggest,,FPLbelievessomefactualcontentionsarenolongerrelevanttothisproceedinginthewakeofthesettlementlicenseconditionswhichwereattachedtotheconstructionpermitpursuanttotheBoardsOrderofApril24,1981,itspositiononthismotionisatoddswithitseffortstore-opendisco~cryinthisdocket.1/lfFPLtrulybelievessomefactsarenolongeratissue,thenFPLnolongerneedstorequestdocumentsresponsivetoashotgunrequestformaterialsfromtheyear1950topresent,andfurtherdicoveryandcasepresentationcanbesimplified..Ifitagreeswiththefacts,butdisagreeswiththelegalimplications,thoseissuesareripefordecision.Inanyevent,FPLshouldnotbeentitledtoavoid,afterfiveyearsoflitigation,statingwhat'tspositionis.Onefinalnoteisinorder.FPLclaimsaneedtoknowthespecificadditionalreliefsoughtbytheCities,whileFPLresists~anadditionalrelief.-Therequestisdisengenuous.AstheCompanywellknows,FloridaCitieshavecommunicatedtoFPLinsettlementdiscussions,correspondenceandotherwise,their1/FPLhasmovedtore-opendiscoveryinthisdocket.Byseparatepleadingsubmitt'edtotheCommissiononthisdate,CitiesrespondtoFPL'sdiscoverymotion.

positionsandthereliefthattheyseek.Indeed,itmustbeapparentthatthemajorissuedividingFPLandtheCities(apartfromthequestionwhetherasituationinconsistentwiththeantitrustlawsexistsatall),istheextentofFPL'sobligation,ifany,toprovidenuclearaccesstocertainexcludedsystems.IftheBoard,weretoholdthatFPLhassuchanobligation,this0casewouldbesubstantiallyadvancedtowardconclusion.Similarly,.iftheCommissionweretoholdthatFPLhasanobligationtodealwithcitiesinwholesalepowerservicesandthelike,disputesaboutlicenseconditionsrelatingtosuchwholesalepowercouldprobablybespeedilyresolved.Respectfullysubmitted,RobertA.JablonAttorneyforFloridaCitiesJune22,1981 UNITEDSTATESOFAMERXCANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMXSSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSXNGBOARDIntheMatterofFloridaPower8LightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))))DocketNo.50-389A)CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoingFLORIDACITIES'NSWERZNOPPOSITIONTOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATIONOFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITIONhavebeenservedonthefollowingbyhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this22nddayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafety8LicensingBoardNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafety5LicensingBoardNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.G.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofTexasAustin,Texas78712Docketing8ServiceSectionOfficeoftheSecretaryNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman,ChiefAntitrust6IndemnityGroupNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetySLicensingBoardU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight,Jr.Lowenstein,Newman,Reis8Axelrad1025ConnecticutAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20036HerbertDym,Esquire'ovington5Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington,D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler,EsquireChandler,O'Neal,Avera,Gray&StriplingP.O.Drawer0Gainesville,Florida32602BenjaminH.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555 JanetUrban,EsquireDepartmentofJusticeP.O.Box14141Washington,D.-C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant,EsquireAntitrustDivisionDepartmentofJusticeWashington,D.C.'0530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton'EWilliams301South6thStreetPEO.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6LicensingBoardPanelNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006RobertA.blonAttorneyforFloridaCities a