ML17212A226: 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)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter: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.
{{#Wiki_filter:FloridaCities:6/22/Sl6UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION RETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BTPCOIntheMatterofFloridaPowerSLightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))Cp)DocketNo.)Dated:6/2FLORIDACITIES'NSWER INOPPOSITION TOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION
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.
~+0~PDP'g))ea) g,l'o~lsh<
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.
FPL,bymotionfiledonJune12,1981,seekstodeferconsideration ofCities'Motion toEstablish Procedures, foraDeclaration ThataSituation Inconsistent, WiththeAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandforRelatedRelief."ThisCommission hasauthority tograntsummaryjudgment, orpartialsummaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.52.749'PLattemptstojustifydeferralofconsideration ofCities'otion forsummarydisposition of.thecriticalissuesinthisdocketonthebasisofrepresentations initspleadings thata)ithasnothadsufficient opportunity todiscoverthefactsandb)theissuesinthiscasehavenotbeenclearlyenoughdefinedsothatconsideration ofthemotionwouldbeuseful.,FPL'smotionmust.bedenied.Asdiscussed below,theclaimsFPLmakesinitspleadings arenotfactually supported andareinsufficient asamatteroflawtojustifydeferring responsetoCitiesmotion.Indeed,afterfiveyearsoflitigation, itisclearthatfurtherdiscovery isnotneededtorespondtoCities'106340' y
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.
motion;thattheissuesaredefined;andthatconsideration ofCities'otion nowisdesirable tomovethisproceeding toamorejustandrapidconclusion, aresultclaimedtobedesiredbyallpartiestothisdocket.IntheirMay27,1981MotiontoEstablish Procedures, FloridaCitiessetforthundisputed factsshowingthata"situation inconsistent withtheantitrust laws"exists.ThesefactsshowthatFPLhasrefusedtodealwithsomeCitiesinFloridaPowerCorporation's territory inviolation ofSections1and2oftheShermanAct,andthatFPL'smoregeneralrefusalstodealwithallCitiesareinconsistent withthestandards ofOtterTailandMidland.OtterTailPowerCo.v.UnitedStates,410U.S.366(1973);Consumers PowerComan(MidlandUnits1and2),ALAB-452, 6NRC892(1977).Moreover, Citiesshowthatthe-settlement betweenFloridaPower5:Light,theDepartment ofJusticeandtheNuclearRegulatory Commission onitsfacepermitsFPLtocontinuethispatternofdiscrimination andillegalrefusalstodeal.InsupportoftheirMotion,Cities'elied onrecentfindingsbytheFifthCircuitinGaineville Utilities Det.v.FloridaPoweraLihtComan,973F.2d292,cert.denied,439U.S.966(1978)andtheFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission,'lorida Power8LihtComan,OpinionNo.57,57-A,32PUR4th313,August3,1979,andOctober4,1979,whichfoundthatFPLhadengagedinanticompetitive conductandwhicharebindinghere 3estoppel; 1/Citiesfurthersupported theirmotionwithexcerptsfromsworndeposition testimony, deposition
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}}
: exhibits, pleadings submitted byFPL,andotherdocuments 2/discovered fromFPLwhichconstitute admissions onvariousissuesinvolvedinthisdocket.3/FPSLmaybelieveitselfabletopresentfactualorlegalcontentions showingwhysummarydisposition isinappropriate.
However,defensesmustbestatedandnotassumed.1/FloridaCitieshaveexplained intheirMotionofMay27,1981,atpages12-14thelegalbasisforcollateral estoppelhere.2/Thesedocuments areofthesorttheFifthCircuitintheGainesville casefounddispositive asamatteroflawinholdingthatFPLhadviolatedtheantitrust laws.Gainesville Utilities
~Det.v.FloridaPoweraLihtCo.,~sura,573F.2dat--.3/FPLarguesthattheCitieshaveadmittedthatthefilingisnotsufficient toestablish thatgenuineissuesoffactdonotexistbecauseCitiesfiledsimilarmaterialwiththeDistrictCourtinMiamiinresponsetoFPL'sMotionforsummaryjudgmentonCities'uclear claims.Twopoints:First,FPLneglectstomentionthatCitiesspecifically reservedtherighttoseeksummaryjudgmentontheirnuclearclaimsatalaterdate.Second,FPLseemstoforgetthatthestandards forfindingaviolation oftheShermanActanda"situation inconsistent withtheantitrust laws"differ;.hence themannerofpresentation ofamotionforsummarydisposition maywelldifferfromforumtoforum.FPLfurthersuggeststhatitisappropriate forthisBoardtodeferconsideration ofCities'otion untiltheDistrictCourtrulesonFPL'smotion.FPLtheremovedforsummaryjudgmentontheallegedgroundsofFPLnuclearinnovation andtheallegedtardiness ofTallahassee's demandforaccesstoFPL'snuclearunits.Astonuclearinnovation (notyetraisedbyFPLbeforetheNRC):FPLshowsnoreasonfortheNRCtodefer.Astotheallegedtardiness ofTallahassee:
TheNRChasalreadygrantedthatCityandothersintervention inthisproceeding; theyarenotoutoftimehere.
Itiswellsettledlawthatwhereasummaryjudgment.
motionisfiled,ageneraldenialwillnotsuffice.Opposingpartiesareobligated topresentsupportdemonstrating thatagenuineissueoffactexists;"apartyopposingthemotionmaynotrestuponthemereallegations ordenialsofhisanswer."10C.F.R.$2.749.ThisCommission hasnotedthattheopposingparty'factsmustbe"material, substantial, notfancifulormerelysuspicious."
GulfStatesUtilitComan(RiverBendStationUnits1and2),1NRC246,248;onecannot,avoidsummaryjudgmentonthemerehopethatattrialmovant'sevidencemaybediscredited, idat48.Seealso,PowerAuthoritof.theStateofNewYork,9NRC339(1979);SouthCarolinaElectricSGasCo.9NRC471,477(1979).Indeed,courtshavespecifically heldthatapartymaynotavoidproperlyanswering amotionforsummaryjudgmentbymakinggeneralassertions astoaneedforfurtherdi.scovery; insteadifapartyseeksdeferral:
theopposingpartyshouldpresenthisaffidavit showing'thattheknowledge orcontrolofthefactsisexclusively orlargelywiththemovingpartyanddescribehisattemptstoobtainthosefacts.Themereavermentofexclusive knowledge orcontrolofthefactsbythemovingpartyisnotadequate:
theopposingpartymustshowtothebestofhisabilitywhatfactsarewithinthemovant'sexclusive knowledge orcontrol;whatstepshavebeen'aken toobtainthedesiredinformation pursuanttothediscovery procedures undertheRules;andthatheisdesirousoftakingadvantage ofthesediscovery procedures.
6Moore'sFederalPractice%56.24at1432.1/IfFPLwishesacontinuance toconductdiscovery, itisthusFPL'sburdentodemonstrate whatpurpose,ifany,discovery wouldaccomplish, giventheevidenceprofferred, WillmarPoultCo.v.MortonNorwichProducts, Inc.520F.2d289,297(8thCir.1975).ThisFPLhasnotdone.Thefactsherepresentaparticularly strongcaseforrequiring asubstantive factualresponsefromFPL,ratherthancategorically deferring consideration ofsummarydisposition.
FPLclaimsthatitdoesnotunderstand theissuesandthatCitieshavefailedtopresentaconcisestatement offactsnotgenuinely indispute.ButFPLinitsownpleadingdemonstrates thattheissueshavebeenproperlydrawn.TheCompanystates:"Item1inthelistofundisputed "facts"profferred bytheCitiesisillustrative.
Itincludesthefollowing:
"FPLhasaneffective monopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida]whichithasusedtoadvantage itselfincompetition."
Thatstatement appearstorestontheassumptions that(1)nucleargeneration istherelevantproductmarket,(2)"Peninsular Florida"istherelevantgeographic market,(3)FPLhasmonopolypowerintheallegedmarket,and(4)FPLisengagedinsomekindofundefined competition withCitiesinsomeunspecified market.FPLcontestseachofthesepropositions.
MotionofFPL,p.3,n.*.1/Ofcourse,Moore'sisinterpreting Rule56(f)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.
However,thisCommission hasspecifically heldthattheprinciples governing summaryjudgmentinFederalpracticeareappropriate foruseindetermining motionsfor'summaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.$2.749.PublicServiceComanofNewHamshire,etal.(Seabrook Station,Units1and2,7AEC877,878.
ThisisinapparentresponsetoItem1ofAttachment 1toFloridaCities'otion toEstablish Procedures
("MaterialFactsNotGenuinely InDispute"),whereFloridaCitiesstate:."1.FPLcontrolsthreeoutofthefouroperating nuclearplantsinPeninsular Floridaandis,constructing itsfourth.FPLhasaneffective mon-opolycontroloversuchfacilities there,whichithasusedtoadvantage itselfincompetition.
Exceptasprovidedundersettlement licenseconditions inthiscase,FPLrefusestograntFloridaCitiesaccesstothesefacilities."
InCities'iew, andasstatedintheirmotionforsummarydisposition, therecanbenogenuinefactualdisputethatthereisabulkpowermarketinpeninsular Florida,thatFPLhasamonopolyofnuclearpowerthere(owningthree.offour,soontobefouroutoffiveplantsthere),thatnuclearpowerisanimportant productinthatmarket,andthatFPLhasrefusedtodealinnuclearpowerwithCitiesnot,inornearitsretailterritory.
Therefore Citiescanwellwonder:IsFPLdenyingcontroloveritsnuclearunits'PDoesittrulyseektocontestthesepoints?FloridaCitieshavedocumented thatFPLitselfhasuseofitsmonopolycontrolofnuclearfacilities toadvantage itselfincompetition, itshouldpresentfactswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromitsownfiles.IfFPLhasabasisforarguingthatitisnotincompetition withCitiesorhasnotusedsuchfacilities forcompetitive advantage, itshouldpresent' factswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromFPL'sownfiles.AshasbeensetforthinFloridaCities'otion toEstablish Procedures, atthetimeFloridaPowerSLightwasplanningitsnucleargeneration, theFederalPowerCommission specifically foundthatitwaspartofa"Floridapool",FloridaPower6LihtComan,37FPC544,551-552(1967),reversed, 430F.2d1377(5thCir.1970),reversedaffirmintheCommission, FloridaPowerRLihtCo.v.FPC,404U.S.453(1972).Suchcoordination isdemonstrated byCompanyfilings,documents anddeposition testimony.
InOpinionNo.57,theFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission foundtheobvious:thatFPLhasmonopolypoweroveralargeretailservicearea.FloridaPowerRLihtComanOpinionNo.57,~sura,32PUR4that323-325.IfFPLdeniestheexistence ofacoordination marketinPeninsular Floridaoritsextensive retailservicemonopolyineasternandsouthernFlorida,itisnottoomuchtoaskthatitsetforththefactualbasisforsuchdenial.Andclearly,asamatteroflaw,ifFPLcontendsthatdiscovery oftheCitiesisnecessary tounearthmaterialwhichFPLrequiresinordertorespondtotheCities'otion, andwhichisinCities'xclusive control,itshouldberequiredtofileanappropriate pleadingbeforethisCommission hearsamotionforcontinuance.
Afteryearsofgeneraldocumentary discovery, numerousdepositions andexperience withitsownoperations, FPLshouldnotbeheardtomakeabareunsupported claimtorequiremorediscovery ofCitiesinordertorebutfactsfromFPL'sfilesconcerning itsownmarketareas, ownership ofnuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida,oritsownactionsincompetition.
CompareMotionofFPL,p.3,fn.*.Resolution ofthesecriticalissuescanquicklyleadtoresolution ofthiscase.Ontheotherhand,if,asitsmotionseemstosuggest,,
FPLbelievessomefactualcontentions arenolongerrelevanttothisproceeding inthewakeofthesettlement licenseconditions whichwereattachedtotheconstruction permitpursuanttotheBoardsOrderofApril24,1981,itspositiononthismotionisatoddswithitseffortstore-opendisco~cry inthisdocket.1/lfFPLtrulybelievessomefactsarenolongeratissue,thenFPLnolongerneedstorequestdocuments responsive toashotgunrequestformaterials fromtheyear1950topresent,andfurtherdicoveryandcasepresentation canbesimplified..
Ifitagreeswiththefacts,butdisagrees withthelegalimplications, thoseissuesareripefordecision.
Inanyevent,FPLshouldnotbeentitledtoavoid,afterfiveyearsoflitigation, statingwhat'tspositionis.Onefinalnoteisinorder.FPLclaimsaneedtoknowthespecificadditional reliefsoughtbytheCities,whileFPLresists~anadditional relief.-Therequestisdisengenuous.
AstheCompanywellknows,FloridaCitieshavecommunicated toFPLinsettlement discussions, correspondence andotherwise, their1/FPLhasmovedtore-opendiscovery inthisdocket.Byseparatepleadingsubmitt'ed totheCommission onthisdate,CitiesrespondtoFPL'sdiscovery motion.
positions andthereliefthattheyseek.Indeed,itmustbeapparentthatthemajorissuedividingFPLandtheCities(apartfromthequestionwhetherasituation inconsistent withtheantitrust lawsexistsatall),istheextentofFPL'sobligation, ifany,toprovidenuclearaccesstocertainexcludedsystems.IftheBoard,weretoholdthatFPLhassuchanobligation, this0casewouldbesubstantially advancedtowardconclusion.
Similarly,
.iftheCommission weretoholdthatFPLhasanobligation todealwithcitiesinwholesale powerservicesandthelike,disputesaboutlicenseconditions relatingtosuchwholesale powercouldprobablybespeedilyresolved.
Respectfully submitted, RobertA.JablonAttorneyforFloridaCitiesJune22,1981 UNITEDSTATESOFAMERXCANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMXSSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSXNG BOARDIntheMatterofFloridaPower8LightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))))DocketNo.50-389A)CERTIFICATE OFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoing FLORIDACITIES'NSWER ZNOPPOSITION TOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION havebeenservedonthefollowing byhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this22nddayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafety8Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafety5Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.G.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Docketing 8ServiceSectionOfficeoftheSecretary NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust 6Indemnity GroupNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetySLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight, Jr.Lowenstein, Newman,Reis8Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036HerbertDym,Esquire'ovington 5Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling P.O.Drawer0Gainesville, Florida32602BenjaminH.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 JanetUrban,EsquireDepartment ofJusticeP.O.Box14141Washington, D.-C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionDepartment ofJusticeWashington, D.C.'0530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton'EWilliams301South6thStreetPEO.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006RobertA.blonAttorneyforFloridaCities a}}

Revision as of 16:57, 29 June 2018

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 NextEra Energy icon.png
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)
v • d • e


Text

FloridaCities:6/22/Sl6UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION RETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BTPCOIntheMatterofFloridaPowerSLightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))Cp)DocketNo.)Dated:6/2FLORIDACITIES'NSWER INOPPOSITION TOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION

~+0~PDP'g))ea) g,l'o~lsh<

FPL,bymotionfiledonJune12,1981,seekstodeferconsideration ofCities'Motion toEstablish Procedures, foraDeclaration ThataSituation Inconsistent, WiththeAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandforRelatedRelief."ThisCommission hasauthority tograntsummaryjudgment, orpartialsummaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.52.749'PLattemptstojustifydeferralofconsideration ofCities'otion forsummarydisposition of.thecriticalissuesinthisdocketonthebasisofrepresentations initspleadings thata)ithasnothadsufficient opportunity todiscoverthefactsandb)theissuesinthiscasehavenotbeenclearlyenoughdefinedsothatconsideration ofthemotionwouldbeuseful.,FPL'smotionmust.bedenied.Asdiscussed below,theclaimsFPLmakesinitspleadings arenotfactually supported andareinsufficient asamatteroflawtojustifydeferring responsetoCitiesmotion.Indeed,afterfiveyearsoflitigation, itisclearthatfurtherdiscovery isnotneededtorespondtoCities'106340' y

motion;thattheissuesaredefined;andthatconsideration ofCities'otion nowisdesirable tomovethisproceeding toamorejustandrapidconclusion, aresultclaimedtobedesiredbyallpartiestothisdocket.IntheirMay27,1981MotiontoEstablish Procedures, FloridaCitiessetforthundisputed factsshowingthata"situation inconsistent withtheantitrust laws"exists.ThesefactsshowthatFPLhasrefusedtodealwithsomeCitiesinFloridaPowerCorporation's territory inviolation ofSections1and2oftheShermanAct,andthatFPL'smoregeneralrefusalstodealwithallCitiesareinconsistent withthestandards ofOtterTailandMidland.OtterTailPowerCo.v.UnitedStates,410U.S.366(1973);Consumers PowerComan(MidlandUnits1and2),ALAB-452, 6NRC892(1977).Moreover, Citiesshowthatthe-settlement betweenFloridaPower5:Light,theDepartment ofJusticeandtheNuclearRegulatory Commission onitsfacepermitsFPLtocontinuethispatternofdiscrimination andillegalrefusalstodeal.InsupportoftheirMotion,Cities'elied onrecentfindingsbytheFifthCircuitinGaineville Utilities Det.v.FloridaPoweraLihtComan,973F.2d292,cert.denied,439U.S.966(1978)andtheFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission,'lorida Power8LihtComan,OpinionNo.57,57-A,32PUR4th313,August3,1979,andOctober4,1979,whichfoundthatFPLhadengagedinanticompetitive conductandwhicharebindinghere 3estoppel; 1/Citiesfurthersupported theirmotionwithexcerptsfromsworndeposition testimony, deposition

exhibits, pleadings submitted byFPL,andotherdocuments 2/discovered fromFPLwhichconstitute admissions onvariousissuesinvolvedinthisdocket.3/FPSLmaybelieveitselfabletopresentfactualorlegalcontentions showingwhysummarydisposition isinappropriate.

However,defensesmustbestatedandnotassumed.1/FloridaCitieshaveexplained intheirMotionofMay27,1981,atpages12-14thelegalbasisforcollateral estoppelhere.2/Thesedocuments areofthesorttheFifthCircuitintheGainesville casefounddispositive asamatteroflawinholdingthatFPLhadviolatedtheantitrust laws.Gainesville Utilities

~Det.v.FloridaPoweraLihtCo.,~sura,573F.2dat--.3/FPLarguesthattheCitieshaveadmittedthatthefilingisnotsufficient toestablish thatgenuineissuesoffactdonotexistbecauseCitiesfiledsimilarmaterialwiththeDistrictCourtinMiamiinresponsetoFPL'sMotionforsummaryjudgmentonCities'uclear claims.Twopoints:First,FPLneglectstomentionthatCitiesspecifically reservedtherighttoseeksummaryjudgmentontheirnuclearclaimsatalaterdate.Second,FPLseemstoforgetthatthestandards forfindingaviolation oftheShermanActanda"situation inconsistent withtheantitrust laws"differ;.hence themannerofpresentation ofamotionforsummarydisposition maywelldifferfromforumtoforum.FPLfurthersuggeststhatitisappropriate forthisBoardtodeferconsideration ofCities'otion untiltheDistrictCourtrulesonFPL'smotion.FPLtheremovedforsummaryjudgmentontheallegedgroundsofFPLnuclearinnovation andtheallegedtardiness ofTallahassee's demandforaccesstoFPL'snuclearunits.Astonuclearinnovation (notyetraisedbyFPLbeforetheNRC):FPLshowsnoreasonfortheNRCtodefer.Astotheallegedtardiness ofTallahassee:

TheNRChasalreadygrantedthatCityandothersintervention inthisproceeding; theyarenotoutoftimehere.

Itiswellsettledlawthatwhereasummaryjudgment.

motionisfiled,ageneraldenialwillnotsuffice.Opposingpartiesareobligated topresentsupportdemonstrating thatagenuineissueoffactexists;"apartyopposingthemotionmaynotrestuponthemereallegations ordenialsofhisanswer."10C.F.R.$2.749.ThisCommission hasnotedthattheopposingparty'factsmustbe"material, substantial, notfancifulormerelysuspicious."

GulfStatesUtilitComan(RiverBendStationUnits1and2),1NRC246,248;onecannot,avoidsummaryjudgmentonthemerehopethatattrialmovant'sevidencemaybediscredited, idat48.Seealso,PowerAuthoritof.theStateofNewYork,9NRC339(1979);SouthCarolinaElectricSGasCo.9NRC471,477(1979).Indeed,courtshavespecifically heldthatapartymaynotavoidproperlyanswering amotionforsummaryjudgmentbymakinggeneralassertions astoaneedforfurtherdi.scovery; insteadifapartyseeksdeferral:

theopposingpartyshouldpresenthisaffidavit showing'thattheknowledge orcontrolofthefactsisexclusively orlargelywiththemovingpartyanddescribehisattemptstoobtainthosefacts.Themereavermentofexclusive knowledge orcontrolofthefactsbythemovingpartyisnotadequate:

theopposingpartymustshowtothebestofhisabilitywhatfactsarewithinthemovant'sexclusive knowledge orcontrol;whatstepshavebeen'aken toobtainthedesiredinformation pursuanttothediscovery procedures undertheRules;andthatheisdesirousoftakingadvantage ofthesediscovery procedures.

6Moore'sFederalPractice%56.24at1432.1/IfFPLwishesacontinuance toconductdiscovery, itisthusFPL'sburdentodemonstrate whatpurpose,ifany,discovery wouldaccomplish, giventheevidenceprofferred, WillmarPoultCo.v.MortonNorwichProducts, Inc.520F.2d289,297(8thCir.1975).ThisFPLhasnotdone.Thefactsherepresentaparticularly strongcaseforrequiring asubstantive factualresponsefromFPL,ratherthancategorically deferring consideration ofsummarydisposition.

FPLclaimsthatitdoesnotunderstand theissuesandthatCitieshavefailedtopresentaconcisestatement offactsnotgenuinely indispute.ButFPLinitsownpleadingdemonstrates thattheissueshavebeenproperlydrawn.TheCompanystates:"Item1inthelistofundisputed "facts"profferred bytheCitiesisillustrative.

Itincludesthefollowing:

"FPLhasaneffective monopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida]whichithasusedtoadvantage itselfincompetition."

Thatstatement appearstorestontheassumptions that(1)nucleargeneration istherelevantproductmarket,(2)"Peninsular Florida"istherelevantgeographic market,(3)FPLhasmonopolypowerintheallegedmarket,and(4)FPLisengagedinsomekindofundefined competition withCitiesinsomeunspecified market.FPLcontestseachofthesepropositions.

MotionofFPL,p.3,n.*.1/Ofcourse,Moore'sisinterpreting Rule56(f)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.

However,thisCommission hasspecifically heldthattheprinciples governing summaryjudgmentinFederalpracticeareappropriate foruseindetermining motionsfor'summaryjudgmentunder10C.F.R.$2.749.PublicServiceComanofNewHamshire,etal.(Seabrook Station,Units1and2,7AEC877,878.

ThisisinapparentresponsetoItem1ofAttachment 1toFloridaCities'otion toEstablish Procedures

("MaterialFactsNotGenuinely InDispute"),whereFloridaCitiesstate:."1.FPLcontrolsthreeoutofthefouroperating nuclearplantsinPeninsular Floridaandis,constructing itsfourth.FPLhasaneffective mon-opolycontroloversuchfacilities there,whichithasusedtoadvantage itselfincompetition.

Exceptasprovidedundersettlement licenseconditions inthiscase,FPLrefusestograntFloridaCitiesaccesstothesefacilities."

InCities'iew, andasstatedintheirmotionforsummarydisposition, therecanbenogenuinefactualdisputethatthereisabulkpowermarketinpeninsular Florida,thatFPLhasamonopolyofnuclearpowerthere(owningthree.offour,soontobefouroutoffiveplantsthere),thatnuclearpowerisanimportant productinthatmarket,andthatFPLhasrefusedtodealinnuclearpowerwithCitiesnot,inornearitsretailterritory.

Therefore Citiescanwellwonder:IsFPLdenyingcontroloveritsnuclearunits'PDoesittrulyseektocontestthesepoints?FloridaCitieshavedocumented thatFPLitselfhasuseofitsmonopolycontrolofnuclearfacilities toadvantage itselfincompetition, itshouldpresentfactswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromitsownfiles.IfFPLhasabasisforarguingthatitisnotincompetition withCitiesorhasnotusedsuchfacilities forcompetitive advantage, itshouldpresent' factswhichappeartorefutetheevidencefromFPL'sownfiles.AshasbeensetforthinFloridaCities'otion toEstablish Procedures, atthetimeFloridaPowerSLightwasplanningitsnucleargeneration, theFederalPowerCommission specifically foundthatitwaspartofa"Floridapool",FloridaPower6LihtComan,37FPC544,551-552(1967),reversed, 430F.2d1377(5thCir.1970),reversedaffirmintheCommission, FloridaPowerRLihtCo.v.FPC,404U.S.453(1972).Suchcoordination isdemonstrated byCompanyfilings,documents anddeposition testimony.

InOpinionNo.57,theFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission foundtheobvious:thatFPLhasmonopolypoweroveralargeretailservicearea.FloridaPowerRLihtComanOpinionNo.57,~sura,32PUR4that323-325.IfFPLdeniestheexistence ofacoordination marketinPeninsular Floridaoritsextensive retailservicemonopolyineasternandsouthernFlorida,itisnottoomuchtoaskthatitsetforththefactualbasisforsuchdenial.Andclearly,asamatteroflaw,ifFPLcontendsthatdiscovery oftheCitiesisnecessary tounearthmaterialwhichFPLrequiresinordertorespondtotheCities'otion, andwhichisinCities'xclusive control,itshouldberequiredtofileanappropriate pleadingbeforethisCommission hearsamotionforcontinuance.

Afteryearsofgeneraldocumentary discovery, numerousdepositions andexperience withitsownoperations, FPLshouldnotbeheardtomakeabareunsupported claimtorequiremorediscovery ofCitiesinordertorebutfactsfromFPL'sfilesconcerning itsownmarketareas, ownership ofnuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida,oritsownactionsincompetition.

CompareMotionofFPL,p.3,fn.*.Resolution ofthesecriticalissuescanquicklyleadtoresolution ofthiscase.Ontheotherhand,if,asitsmotionseemstosuggest,,

FPLbelievessomefactualcontentions arenolongerrelevanttothisproceeding inthewakeofthesettlement licenseconditions whichwereattachedtotheconstruction permitpursuanttotheBoardsOrderofApril24,1981,itspositiononthismotionisatoddswithitseffortstore-opendisco~cry inthisdocket.1/lfFPLtrulybelievessomefactsarenolongeratissue,thenFPLnolongerneedstorequestdocuments responsive toashotgunrequestformaterials fromtheyear1950topresent,andfurtherdicoveryandcasepresentation canbesimplified..

Ifitagreeswiththefacts,butdisagrees withthelegalimplications, thoseissuesareripefordecision.

Inanyevent,FPLshouldnotbeentitledtoavoid,afterfiveyearsoflitigation, statingwhat'tspositionis.Onefinalnoteisinorder.FPLclaimsaneedtoknowthespecificadditional reliefsoughtbytheCities,whileFPLresists~anadditional relief.-Therequestisdisengenuous.

AstheCompanywellknows,FloridaCitieshavecommunicated toFPLinsettlement discussions, correspondence andotherwise, their1/FPLhasmovedtore-opendiscovery inthisdocket.Byseparatepleadingsubmitt'ed totheCommission onthisdate,CitiesrespondtoFPL'sdiscovery motion.

positions andthereliefthattheyseek.Indeed,itmustbeapparentthatthemajorissuedividingFPLandtheCities(apartfromthequestionwhetherasituation inconsistent withtheantitrust lawsexistsatall),istheextentofFPL'sobligation, ifany,toprovidenuclearaccesstocertainexcludedsystems.IftheBoard,weretoholdthatFPLhassuchanobligation, this0casewouldbesubstantially advancedtowardconclusion.

Similarly,

.iftheCommission weretoholdthatFPLhasanobligation todealwithcitiesinwholesale powerservicesandthelike,disputesaboutlicenseconditions relatingtosuchwholesale powercouldprobablybespeedilyresolved.

Respectfully submitted, RobertA.JablonAttorneyforFloridaCitiesJune22,1981 UNITEDSTATESOFAMERXCANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMXSSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSXNG BOARDIntheMatterofFloridaPower8LightLightCompany(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2)))))DocketNo.50-389A)CERTIFICATE OFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesoftheforegoing FLORIDACITIES'NSWER ZNOPPOSITION TOFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHT'SMOTIONFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION havebeenservedonthefollowing byhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this22nddayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafety8Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafety5Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.G.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Docketing 8ServiceSectionOfficeoftheSecretary NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust 6Indemnity GroupNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetySLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight, Jr.Lowenstein, Newman,Reis8Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036HerbertDym,Esquire'ovington 5Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling P.O.Drawer0Gainesville, Florida32602BenjaminH.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 JanetUrban,EsquireDepartment ofJusticeP.O.Box14141Washington, D.-C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionDepartment ofJusticeWashington, D.C.'0530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton'EWilliams301South6thStreetPEO.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006RobertA.blonAttorneyforFloridaCities a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17212A226&oldid=750015"