ML17209B260: 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:FPL:6/12/81JUN181981~yzgz~~gtaMTORXUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION6'FQRETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANY)DocketNo-.~50-389A(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))June12,TF81MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATIONOFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION/PL+<<>o~0(go4OnMay27,1981,theCitiesfileda"MotiontoEstablishProcedures,foraDeclarationthat-aSituationInconsistent,withtheAntitrustLawsPresentlyExistsandforRelatedRelief.",DuringthecourseofaconferencecallonJune11,1981,theCitiesadvisedtheBoardthattheyintendtheirplead-ingasamotionforsummarydispositionfiledpursuantto10CFR52.749.Inthesecircumstancesandforthereasonsgivenbelow,FPLrespectfullyrequeststhattheBoarddeferconsiderationoftheCities'otionandnotrequireFPLtoansweritonthemeritsuntilfurtherorderoftheBoard.Therequesteddeferralcouldtaketheformeither.ofdenialofthemotionaspremature,withoutprejudicetoitsrefilingafterdiscoveryhasprogressedfurther,orofanorderpermittingFPLtodeferfilingofitsresponseuntilorderedtodosobytheBoard.FPLrequeststhisrelieffortwobasicreasons.First,discoveryhasnotyetprogressedtothepoint1e whereFPLshouldberequiredtorespondtoamotionwhich,onitsface,seeksdispositionofallissuesinthecaseotherthanrelief.Citieshavenotyetrespondedtotheinterrogatoriesdirectedtotheminthiscase.InthelitigationpendingintheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiami,FPLhashaddocumentdiscoveryofmostoftheCities,butnotoftheCityofLakeHelenortheFloridaMunicipalUtilitiesAssociation(FMUA),whicharepartiestothisproceedingbutnottotheMiamicase.SomedepositionshavebeentakenintheMiamicase,butdepositionsoftheCitiesarefarfrombeingcompleted;ofcourse,nodepositionshavebeentakenofLakeHelen,FMUAoranyexpertwitnesswhotheCitiesmaydesignatewhentheyfileresponsestointerrogatoriesinthiscase.Second,itisunlikelythatanythingusefulcanbeaccomplishedbyconsiderationofthemotioninitspresentform,particularlyatatimewhenissueshavenotbeenmoreclearlydefined.Theremaybeinstancesinwhichconsiderationofamotionforsummarydisposition'atanearlystageofdiscoverycanbeappropriateandhelpful,particularlywherethemotionisaddressedtooneormoresharplydefinedissueswhichinvolvetheapplicationoflawtofactswhicharegenuinelynotsubjecttodispute.TheCitiesmotionisnotsuchapleading.Itisvagueanddiscursiveandreliesonalistof"MaterialFactsNotGenuinelyinDispute"whichconsistsofsweeping,highlyargumentativegeneralizations.Thesegeneralizations,inturn,aregroundedonassumptions--whichFPLbelievesareunfounded-thattheCitieswillsucceed inpersuadingtheBoardoftheirtheoriesofmarkets,market*/powerandcompetition.-TheCities'otionismoreinthenatureofaprematurelyfiledtrialbriefthanamotionforsummarydisposition,althoughitlacksthespecificitywhichwouldbeexpectedinatrialbrief.NothingwouldbeaccomplishedatthistimebyFPL'stakingtheconsiderabletimeandeffort"necessarytorespondto.thislengthymotionortheBoard'sdevotingitstimeto,wadingthroughtheevid-=**/entiarymaterials"placedbeforeitbytheCities.-Item1inthelistofundisputed"facts"proferredbytheCitiesisillustrative.Itincludesthefollowing:"FPLhasaneffectivemonopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilitiesinPeninsularFlorida],whichithasusedtoadvantageit-.selfincompetition."Thatstatementappearstorestontheassumptionsthat(1)nucleargenerationistherelevantproductmarket,(2)"PeninsularFlorida"istherelevantgeographicmarket,(3)FPLhasmonopolypowerintheallegedmarket,and(4)FPLisengagedinsomekindofundefinedcompetitionwithCitiesinsomeunspecifiedmarket.FPLcontestseachofthesepropositions.Moreover,thechargethatFPL"hasused[suchmonopolycontrol]toadvantageit-selfincompetition"obviouslyhasnoplaceinthe"shortandconcisestatementofmaterialfacts"requiredby10CFR52.749;TheCitieshaveplacedessentiallythesamefactualpre-sentationthatappearsintheirMotionbeforetheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiamiinpapersfiledinresponsetoamotionbyFPLforsummaryjudgmentofTallahassee'sclaimthatitisen-titledundertheantitrustlawstoaccesstoFPL'snuclearplants.FloridaCities'nswertoMotionofFPLforSummaryJudgmentofTallahassee'sNuclearAccessClaim(No.79-5101-Civ-JLK,May15,1981).ThepurposeoftheCities're-sentationtotheCourtistoconvincetheCourtthatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactmustbetriedandthat,therefore,FPL'smotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbedenied;theCitiesapparentlydidnotconsidertheirpresentationsufficientlystrongtojustifytheirfilingofacrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentintheMiamicase.Thus,wehavethepeculiarsituationoftheCities'avingfiledessentiallythesamepresentationintwoforums,claiminginoneforumthatitdemonstratestheabsenceofanymaterialfactualissuesandintheotherthatitdemonstratesjusttheopposite.ThedecisionoftheDistrictCourtonthemotioncouldbeofconsiderableassistancetothisBoard,andtheCourt'sfindingsastowhatfactualpropositionsareandarenotgenuinelyinissuecouldbeveryhelpful.Thatisanotherreasonfordeferring'considerationoftheCities'otionhere.
{{#Wiki_filter:FPL:6/12/81 JUN181981~yzgz~~gtaMTORXUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION 6'FQRETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANY)DocketNo-.~50-389A (St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))June12,TF81MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION
FPLsubmitsthatitisnotusefulforthepartiesatthisstagetoarguethemeritsoftheircasesinanunfocusedmanner.Afarbetteruseoftheparties'imeandresourceswouldbeanefforttodefinewithsomespecificitythemattersthatremaininissueinthewakeofthesettlementlicenseconditionswhichwereattachedtotheconstructionpermitpursuanttotheBoard'sOrderofApril24,1981.Thefirststepinthisprocessisforthe'Cities,asdirectedbytheBoardintheJunell,1981,conferencecall,tosubmitaclearandunambiguousstatementoftheissuesastheyperceivethemtogetherwithaspecificstate-mentoftheadditionalreliefwhichtheyseek.Atthesametimediscoverycanmoveforward,sothatitwillbepossibletoresolveexpeditiouslytheissuessodefinedeitheruponmotionsforsummarydispositionorafterafocusedhearing.WHEREFORE,FPLrespectfullymovesthattheCitiesmotionforsummarydispositionbedeniedaspremature,withoutprejudicetorefilingatafuturedate,orthatFPLbepermittedtodeferfilingofitsresponsetotheCities'otionuntiltheBoardissuesafurtherordercallingforaresponse.Rspectfulysubmitted,A.Bouknight,Jr.Lwenstein,Newman,Reis6Axelrad1025ConnecticutAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006HerbertDymCovington&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington,D;C.20006DATED:June12,1981AttorneysforFloridaPower6LightCompany UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANY)(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389ACERTIFICATEOFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesof"MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATIONOFMOTIONFORSUN~DRYDISPOSITION"wasservedbyhanddelivery*orbydeposit,intheU.S.Nail,firstclass,postageprepaidthis12thdayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofTexasAustin;Texas78712DocketingandServiceStationOfficeoftheSecretaryU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman,ChiefAntitrust&IndemnityGroupU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555RobertE.BathenFredSafferR.W.Beck&AssociatesP.O.Box6817Orlando,Florida32803*RobertA.Jablon,EsquireAlanJ.Roth,Esquire2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20037WilliamC.Wise,EsquireSuite500120018thStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler,EsquireChandler,O'Neal,Avera,Gray&StriplingPostOfficeDrawer0Gainesville,Florida32602 h0~*JanetUrban,EsquireP.O.Box14141Washington,D.C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant,EsquireAntitrustDivisionU.S.DepartmentofJusticeWashington,D.C.20530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricD.Chanania,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,PaxtonandWilliams301South6thStreetP.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450*BenjaminH.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555AnnP.Hodgdon,EsquireOfficeoftheExecutiveLegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555*GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireNarcGary,EsquireEllenE.Sward,EsquireArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin6Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensingAppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555J.A.Bonagt,Jr.Xjowenstein,Newman,Reis6Axelrad025ConnecticutAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20036(202)862-8400DATED:June12,1981}}
/PL+<<>o~0(go4OnMay27,1981,theCitiesfileda"MotiontoEstablish Procedures, foraDeclaration that-aSituation Inconsistent, withtheAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandforRelatedRelief.",
Duringthecourseofaconference callonJune11,1981,theCitiesadvisedtheBoardthattheyintendtheirplead-ingasamotionforsummarydisposition filedpursuantto10CFR52.749.Inthesecircumstances andforthereasonsgivenbelow,FPLrespectfully requeststhattheBoarddeferconsideration oftheCities'otion andnotrequireFPLtoansweritonthemeritsuntilfurtherorderoftheBoard.Therequested deferralcouldtaketheformeither.ofdenialofthemotionaspremature, withoutprejudice toitsrefilingafterdiscovery hasprogressed further,orofanorderpermitting FPLtodeferfilingofitsresponseuntilorderedtodosobytheBoard.FPLrequeststhisrelieffortwobasicreasons.First,discovery hasnotyetprogressed tothepoint1e whereFPLshouldberequiredtorespondtoamotionwhich,onitsface,seeksdisposition ofallissuesinthecaseotherthanrelief.Citieshavenotyetresponded totheinterrogatories directedtotheminthiscase.Inthelitigation pendingintheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiami,FPLhashaddocumentdiscovery ofmostoftheCities,butnotoftheCityofLakeHelenortheFloridaMunicipal Utilities Association (FMUA),whicharepartiestothisproceeding butnottotheMiamicase.Somedepositions havebeentakenintheMiamicase,butdepositions oftheCitiesarefarfrombeingcompleted; ofcourse,nodepositions havebeentakenofLakeHelen,FMUAoranyexpertwitnesswhotheCitiesmaydesignate whentheyfileresponses tointerrogatories inthiscase.Second,itisunlikelythatanythingusefulcanbeaccomplished byconsideration ofthemotioninitspresentform,particularly atatimewhenissueshavenotbeenmoreclearlydefined.Theremaybeinstances inwhichconsideration ofamotionforsummarydisposition'at anearlystageofdiscovery canbeappropriate andhelpful,particularly wherethemotionisaddressed tooneormoresharplydefinedissueswhichinvolvetheapplication oflawtofactswhicharegenuinely notsubjecttodispute.TheCitiesmotionisnotsuchapleading.
Itisvagueanddiscursive andreliesonalistof"Material FactsNotGenuinely inDispute"whichconsistsofsweeping, highlyargumentative generalizations.
Thesegeneralizations, inturn,aregroundedonassumptions--
whichFPLbelievesareunfounded
-thattheCitieswillsucceed inpersuading theBoardoftheirtheoriesofmarkets,market*/powerandcompetition.-
TheCities'otion ismoreinthenatureofaprematurely filedtrialbriefthanamotionforsummarydisposition, althoughitlacksthespecificity whichwouldbeexpectedinatrialbrief.Nothingwouldbeaccomplished atthistimebyFPL'stakingtheconsiderable timeandeffort"necessary torespondto.thislengthymotionortheBoard'sdevotingitstimeto,wading throughtheevid-=**/entiarymaterials" placedbeforeitbytheCities.-Item1inthelistofundisputed "facts"proferred bytheCitiesisillustrative.
Itincludesthefollowing:
"FPLhasaneffective monopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida],
whichithasusedtoadvantage it-.selfincompetition."
Thatstatement appearstorestontheassumptions that(1)nucleargeneration istherelevantproductmarket,(2)"Peninsular Florida"istherelevantgeographic market,(3)FPLhasmonopolypowerintheallegedmarket,and(4)FPLisengagedinsomekindofundefined competition withCitiesinsomeunspecified market.FPLcontestseachofthesepropositions.
: Moreover, thechargethatFPL"hasused[suchmonopolycontrol]toadvantage it-selfincompetition" obviously hasnoplaceinthe"shortandconcisestatement ofmaterialfacts"requiredby10CFR52.749;TheCitieshaveplacedessentially thesamefactualpre-sentation thatappearsintheirMotionbeforetheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiamiinpapersfiledinresponsetoamotionbyFPLforsummaryjudgmentofTallahassee's claimthatitisen-titledundertheantitrust lawstoaccesstoFPL'snuclearplants.FloridaCities'nswer toMotionofFPLforSummaryJudgmentofTallahassee's NuclearAccessClaim(No.79-5101-Civ-JLK,May15,1981).ThepurposeoftheCities're-sentation totheCourtistoconvincetheCourtthatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactmustbetriedandthat,therefore, FPL'smotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbedenied;theCitiesapparently didnotconsidertheirpresentation sufficiently strongtojustifytheirfilingofacrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentintheMiamicase.Thus,wehavethepeculiarsituation oftheCities'aving filedessentially thesamepresentation intwoforums,claiminginoneforumthatitdemonstrates theabsenceofanymaterialfactualissuesandintheotherthatitdemonstrates justtheopposite.
ThedecisionoftheDistrictCourtonthemotioncouldbeofconsiderable assistance tothisBoard,andtheCourt'sfindingsastowhatfactualpropositions areandarenotgenuinely inissuecouldbeveryhelpful.Thatisanotherreasonfordeferring
'consideration oftheCities'otion here.
FPLsubmitsthatitisnotusefulforthepartiesatthisstagetoarguethemeritsoftheircasesinanunfocused manner.Afarbetteruseoftheparties'ime andresources wouldbeanefforttodefinewithsomespecificity themattersthatremaininissueinthewakeofthesettlement licenseconditions whichwereattachedtotheconstruction permitpursuanttotheBoard'sOrderofApril24,1981.Thefirststepinthisprocessisforthe'Cities,asdirectedbytheBoardintheJunell,1981,conference call,tosubmitaclearandunambiguous statement oftheissuesastheyperceivethemtogetherwithaspecificstate-mentoftheadditional reliefwhichtheyseek.Atthesametimediscovery canmoveforward,sothatitwillbepossibletoresolveexpeditiously theissuessodefinedeitheruponmotionsforsummarydisposition orafterafocusedhearing.WHEREFORE, FPLrespectfully movesthattheCitiesmotionforsummarydisposition bedeniedaspremature, withoutprejudice torefilingatafuturedate,orthatFPLbepermitted todeferfilingofitsresponsetotheCities'otion untiltheBoardissuesafurtherordercallingforaresponse.
Rspectfulysubmitted, A.Bouknight, Jr.Lwenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006HerbertDymCovington
&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D;C.20006DATED:June12,1981Attorneys forFloridaPower6LightCompany UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANY)(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389ACERTIFICATE OFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesof"MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUN~DRYDISPOSITION" wasservedbyhanddelivery*
orbydeposit,intheU.S.Nail,firstclass,postageprepaidthis12thdayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin;Texas78712Docketing andServiceStationOfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust
&Indemnity GroupU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RobertE.BathenFredSafferR.W.Beck&Associates P.O.Box6817Orlando,Florida32803*RobertA.Jablon,EsquireAlanJ.Roth,Esquire2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037WilliamC.Wise,EsquireSuite500120018thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling PostOfficeDrawer0Gainesville, Florida32602 h0~*JanetUrban,EsquireP.O.Box14141Washington, D.C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionU.S.Department ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricD.Chanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,PaxtonandWilliams301South6thStreetP.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450*Benjamin H.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555AnnP.Hodgdon,EsquireOfficeoftheExecutive LegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireNarcGary,EsquireEllenE.Sward,EsquireArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin6Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bonagt,Jr.Xjowenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036(202)862-8400DATED:June12,1981}}

Revision as of 16:58, 29 June 2018

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
ML17209B260
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/12/1981
From: BOUKNIGHT J A
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8106190262
Download: ML17209B260 (6)
v • d • e


Text

FPL:6/12/81 JUN181981~yzgz~~gtaMTORXUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION 6'FQRETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANY)DocketNo-.~50-389A (St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))June12,TF81MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER6LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUMMARYDISPOSITION

/PL+<<>o~0(go4OnMay27,1981,theCitiesfileda"MotiontoEstablish Procedures, foraDeclaration that-aSituation Inconsistent, withtheAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandforRelatedRelief.",

Duringthecourseofaconference callonJune11,1981,theCitiesadvisedtheBoardthattheyintendtheirplead-ingasamotionforsummarydisposition filedpursuantto10CFR52.749.Inthesecircumstances andforthereasonsgivenbelow,FPLrespectfully requeststhattheBoarddeferconsideration oftheCities'otion andnotrequireFPLtoansweritonthemeritsuntilfurtherorderoftheBoard.Therequested deferralcouldtaketheformeither.ofdenialofthemotionaspremature, withoutprejudice toitsrefilingafterdiscovery hasprogressed further,orofanorderpermitting FPLtodeferfilingofitsresponseuntilorderedtodosobytheBoard.FPLrequeststhisrelieffortwobasicreasons.First,discovery hasnotyetprogressed tothepoint1e whereFPLshouldberequiredtorespondtoamotionwhich,onitsface,seeksdisposition ofallissuesinthecaseotherthanrelief.Citieshavenotyetresponded totheinterrogatories directedtotheminthiscase.Inthelitigation pendingintheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiami,FPLhashaddocumentdiscovery ofmostoftheCities,butnotoftheCityofLakeHelenortheFloridaMunicipal Utilities Association (FMUA),whicharepartiestothisproceeding butnottotheMiamicase.Somedepositions havebeentakenintheMiamicase,butdepositions oftheCitiesarefarfrombeingcompleted; ofcourse,nodepositions havebeentakenofLakeHelen,FMUAoranyexpertwitnesswhotheCitiesmaydesignate whentheyfileresponses tointerrogatories inthiscase.Second,itisunlikelythatanythingusefulcanbeaccomplished byconsideration ofthemotioninitspresentform,particularly atatimewhenissueshavenotbeenmoreclearlydefined.Theremaybeinstances inwhichconsideration ofamotionforsummarydisposition'at anearlystageofdiscovery canbeappropriate andhelpful,particularly wherethemotionisaddressed tooneormoresharplydefinedissueswhichinvolvetheapplication oflawtofactswhicharegenuinely notsubjecttodispute.TheCitiesmotionisnotsuchapleading.

Itisvagueanddiscursive andreliesonalistof"Material FactsNotGenuinely inDispute"whichconsistsofsweeping, highlyargumentative generalizations.

Thesegeneralizations, inturn,aregroundedonassumptions--

whichFPLbelievesareunfounded

-thattheCitieswillsucceed inpersuading theBoardoftheirtheoriesofmarkets,market*/powerandcompetition.-

TheCities'otion ismoreinthenatureofaprematurely filedtrialbriefthanamotionforsummarydisposition, althoughitlacksthespecificity whichwouldbeexpectedinatrialbrief.Nothingwouldbeaccomplished atthistimebyFPL'stakingtheconsiderable timeandeffort"necessary torespondto.thislengthymotionortheBoard'sdevotingitstimeto,wading throughtheevid-=**/entiarymaterials" placedbeforeitbytheCities.-Item1inthelistofundisputed "facts"proferred bytheCitiesisillustrative.

Itincludesthefollowing:

"FPLhasaneffective monopolycontrolover[nuclearfacilities inPeninsular Florida],

whichithasusedtoadvantage it-.selfincompetition."

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

Moreover, thechargethatFPL"hasused[suchmonopolycontrol]toadvantage it-selfincompetition" obviously hasnoplaceinthe"shortandconcisestatement ofmaterialfacts"requiredby10CFR52.749;TheCitieshaveplacedessentially thesamefactualpre-sentation thatappearsintheirMotionbeforetheU.S.DistrictCourtinMiamiinpapersfiledinresponsetoamotionbyFPLforsummaryjudgmentofTallahassee's claimthatitisen-titledundertheantitrust lawstoaccesstoFPL'snuclearplants.FloridaCities'nswer toMotionofFPLforSummaryJudgmentofTallahassee's NuclearAccessClaim(No.79-5101-Civ-JLK,May15,1981).ThepurposeoftheCities're-sentation totheCourtistoconvincetheCourtthatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactmustbetriedandthat,therefore, FPL'smotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbedenied;theCitiesapparently didnotconsidertheirpresentation sufficiently strongtojustifytheirfilingofacrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentintheMiamicase.Thus,wehavethepeculiarsituation oftheCities'aving filedessentially thesamepresentation intwoforums,claiminginoneforumthatitdemonstrates theabsenceofanymaterialfactualissuesandintheotherthatitdemonstrates justtheopposite.

ThedecisionoftheDistrictCourtonthemotioncouldbeofconsiderable assistance tothisBoard,andtheCourt'sfindingsastowhatfactualpropositions areandarenotgenuinely inissuecouldbeveryhelpful.Thatisanotherreasonfordeferring

'consideration oftheCities'otion here.

FPLsubmitsthatitisnotusefulforthepartiesatthisstagetoarguethemeritsoftheircasesinanunfocused manner.Afarbetteruseoftheparties'ime andresources wouldbeanefforttodefinewithsomespecificity themattersthatremaininissueinthewakeofthesettlement licenseconditions whichwereattachedtotheconstruction permitpursuanttotheBoard'sOrderofApril24,1981.Thefirststepinthisprocessisforthe'Cities,asdirectedbytheBoardintheJunell,1981,conference call,tosubmitaclearandunambiguous statement oftheissuesastheyperceivethemtogetherwithaspecificstate-mentoftheadditional reliefwhichtheyseek.Atthesametimediscovery canmoveforward,sothatitwillbepossibletoresolveexpeditiously theissuessodefinedeitheruponmotionsforsummarydisposition orafterafocusedhearing.WHEREFORE, FPLrespectfully movesthattheCitiesmotionforsummarydisposition bedeniedaspremature, withoutprejudice torefilingatafuturedate,orthatFPLbepermitted todeferfilingofitsresponsetotheCities'otion untiltheBoardissuesafurtherordercallingforaresponse.

Rspectfulysubmitted, A.Bouknight, Jr.Lwenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006HerbertDymCovington

&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D;C.20006DATED:June12,1981Attorneys forFloridaPower6LightCompany UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANY)(St.LuciePlant,UnitNo.2))DocketNo.50-389ACERTIFICATE OFSERVICEIherebycertifythatcopiesof"MOTIONOFFLORIDAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANYFORDEFERRALOFCONSIDERATION OFMOTIONFORSUN~DRYDISPOSITION" wasservedbyhanddelivery*

orbydeposit,intheU.S.Nail,firstclass,postageprepaidthis12thdayofJune,1981.*IvanW.Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin;Texas78712Docketing andServiceStationOfficeoftheSecretary U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555JeromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust

&Indemnity GroupU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802AtomicSafetyandLicensing BoardU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RobertE.BathenFredSafferR.W.Beck&Associates P.O.Box6817Orlando,Florida32803*RobertA.Jablon,EsquireAlanJ.Roth,Esquire2600VirginiaAvenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20037WilliamC.Wise,EsquireSuite500120018thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling PostOfficeDrawer0Gainesville, Florida32602 h0~*JanetUrban,EsquireP.O.Box14141Washington, D.C.20044DonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionU.S.Department ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricD.Chanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,PaxtonandWilliams301South6thStreetP.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450*Benjamin H.VoglerU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555AnnP.Hodgdon,EsquireOfficeoftheExecutive LegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555*GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireNarcGary,EsquireEllenE.Sward,EsquireArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin6Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafetyandLicensing AppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bonagt,Jr.Xjowenstein, Newman,Reis6Axelrad025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036(202)862-8400DATED:June12,1981

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17209B260&oldid=750034"