ML19319B300
| ML19319B300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1977 |
| From: | Douglas M, Goldberg R, Hjelmfelt D CLEVELAND, OH, GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & HJELMFELT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001150739 | |
| Download: ML19319B300 (40) | |
Text
y I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board k
In the Matter of
)
f The Toledo Edison Company and Docket Nos. _50-346A. '
~'
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
50-500A Company
.i 50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station *,)
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF CITY OF CLEVELAND IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICA1!TS' RENEWED MOTION j
FOR AN ORDER STAYING LICENSE CONDITIONS
/
Reuben Goldberg David C. Hjelmfelt Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt, P. C.
l 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Malcom Douglas Acting Law Director Robert D. Hart First Assistant Director of Law City Hall, Room 213 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 I
1.
Attorneys for City of Cleveland, Ohio
..pl March 2,1977 v\\
8001150737 j
g
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED COURT CASES Page Alabama Power Company v. Federal Power Commis sion, 511 F. 2d 3 83 (1974)..................
10 Conway v. FPC, 425 US 957, 96 S Ct.1999 (1976).......
17 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States
' 410 US 3 6 6, 3 5 L Ed 2d 3 5 9 (19 7 3 )...................
10, 18 Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commis sion, 19 3 F. 2d 230 (19 52)............
10, 17, 18 Scripps-Howard Radio. Inc. v. F. C. C.
316 U. S. 4, 8 6 L Ed 12 2 9 (194 2 ).....................
20, 21 Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. FPC 2 9 5 F. 2 d 9 21 ( 19 5 8 )...............................
2, 16, 19 COMMISSION CASES t
Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1)
A LAB 2 7 9........................................
9, 12, 18 i
i Northern Indian Public Service Co.
(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear Unit 1)
A L AB 19 2........................................
2 f
4 O
e k
I
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P EGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
Docket Nos.
50- 34 6A The Cleveland Electric Hluminating
)
50-500A Company
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
)
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
The Cleveland Electric Hluminating
)
Docket Nos.
50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF CITY OF CLEVELAND IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER STAYING LICENSE CONDITIONS On February 14, 1977, applicants filed their renewed motion for an order staying license conditions. In its order of January 17,1977, this t
Appeal Board referred Applicants' initial request for P.
stay to the Licensing Board and provided that the motion might be renewed if the requested stay were denied. Upon renewal of the motion, the Appeal Board said that it would " determine the matter on the basis of the papers considered by the Licensing Board, together with the reasons given by that Board for declining itself to grant stay relief" (fn. omitted). Further provision was made for
l l
l 1 i
filing of additional comments by any party. Pursuant to the Appeal Board's order, City of Cleveland (City) makes these comments in opposition to Ap plicants' renewed motion.
I APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR GRANTING A STAY l
There is no dispute among the parties as to the law to be applied--
all agree that the test set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n. v.
FPC, 259 F. 2d 921 (1958) should be applied to decide this mction. These criteria were adopted by the Appeal Board in Northern Indiana Public Ser-vice Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear Unit 1), ALAB-192, 7 AEC 420.
In addition to the issues rased by Virginia Petroleum Jobbers the Appeal Board in its Order of February 15, 1977, directed the parties to address "the question of the explicit or inherent authority of this Board to condition the grant or denial of a stay upon some undertaking, such as the posting of a bond. " There is one additional issue; whether a license can be issued without license conditions so long as the initial decision has not been reversed.
City will not undertake in this pleading to repeat arguments made in its filing with the Licensing Board on January 26, 1977, but will discues new matters and discuss arguments made by Applicants and the other parties.
i t
l l
.. A.
Applicants Will Not Suffer Irreparable Injury In their renewed motion Applicants devote comparatively few pages to a discussion of their claim of irreparable injury. This is not surprising in light of statements made by Ohio Edison Company (Ohio Edison) and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) to the Securities Exchange Commission in January and February of this year.
Ohio Edison filed a Form S-7 registration statement with a preliminary prospectus dated January 28, 1977. 1_/
In its preliminary prospectus Ohio Edison makes no mention of irreparable injury from imposition of the license conditions but says at page 27:
The decision of the Licensing Board is to be appealed and a stay of the licensing conditions imposed has been requested pending resolution of the appeal. Al-though the Company and Pennsylvania cannot predict the ultimate resolution of this matter, they do not believe a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws would be created or maintained by their activi-ties under licenses not subject to the conditions that would be imposed under the Licensing Board's de-cision. If the conditions presently suggested are ultimately included in the affected licenses, they could have a materially adverse but presently un-determinable effect on the future business operations of the Company and Pennsylvania.
CEI's Form 8-K _2/ signed on behalf of the Company February 7, 7,1977, and filed with the SEC states:
JJ Relevant pages are attached as Appendix A.
- 2/ Attached hereto as Appendix B.
Counsel for City have been unable to locate any recent SEC filings by Duquesne, Pennsylvania Power, and Toledo Edison.
~.
. On January 14, 1977, all CAPCO companies
. appealed the findings to the NRC Appeals [ sic]
Board and requested a stay in the enforcement of the licensing [ sic] board's[ sic] requirements pending the appeal. The Appeals sic Boa rd remanded the request for a stay to the Licens-ing Board. On February 3,1977, the Licensing Board denied the request. The Company be-lieves that the CAPCO companies will appeal the denial to the Appeals [ sic] Board. Based upon the opinion of counsel, the Company be-lieves the final resolution of these matters should not have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition or operations.
Isn't it odd that although CEI told the NRC on January 14,1977, that imposition of the license conditions would cause irreparable ha: m.on Feb-rurary 7,1977, CEI was unable to state with certainty that the appeal would be taken from the denial of the stay. Apparently CEI did not believe the effect of the license conditions would have sufficient impact upon its opera-tions to make mention of it in its Form 8-K.
The stock market, like CEI, anticipates no irreparable damage as a result of the license conditions. 3/
To the same effect, Applicants argued (Renewed Motion pp. 3-4) that the licente conditions mandate "a wholesale restructuring of the elec-tric utility industry. " Mr. White, the President of Ohio Edison, has testi-fled that such a restructuring of the industry would have serious consequen-ces for Ohio Edison investors (R. 9812). Neither Ohio Edison nor CEI 3_/ Appendix C.
l
. have seen fit to die cuss the " restructuring of the electric utility industry" in their filings with the SEC. Nor have they stated in their SEC filirgs that the license conditions would require them to become common carriers of electric energy (Renewed Motion p. 4).
Perhaps this is because Appli-cants do not really believe that license condition three would cause them to be commen carriers. Mr. White testified (R. 9809-9810):
Q.
Suppose Ohio Edison were asked to agree to a transmission schedule providing that Ohio Edison would provide transmission services l
upon request with a reasonable notice for specific times, from and to specific points, if Ohio."dison had transfer capacity available and that in planning future transmission addi-tions, Ohio Edison would include capacity for any specifically identified transactions.
Would Ohio Edison have the same problem with that?
A.
I would have some problem still with that, Mr. Hjelmfelt. Although that would impose a degree of obligation less obviously than a common carrier kind of obligation.
At page 17 of their Renewed Motion, Applicants argue that irreparable injury will result from replanning their electric systems to accommoda',
increased demands. Where these new demands will come from we are not
+
told. Since Applicants already produce and sell either at wholesale or re-tail over 95% of all electric power sold in the CCCT, the result of the license conditions will not be greater demand but a reallocation of existing production facilities and mark et shares 4_/ (Slip Op. pp. 32-33). Applicants 1
~
l 4_/ Unless of course Applicants have engaged in monopoly pricing which has l
in the past depressed demand.
fail to provide any specifics to support this allegation. Indeed Applicants argued in their post-trial brief that, but for CEI, none of Applicants have ever received a request for access to the nuclear units (City's filing of January 26 p. 7).
Nowhere are we told what revisions in "long-range system plans to meet future electric needs" must be made "as soon as the license conditions take effect" (Renewed Motion p.19). In fact, on January 19, 1977, some 13 days after the Licensing Board's decisior.. ae Wall Street Journal reported that Applicants had announced "they will stretch out the s
construction of five electric generating units by one or two years each."5/
It was reported that "the companies said the delays reflect revised fore-casts of electricity use and difficulty of raising funds for the projects. "
Even if the license conditions did create an increase in demand for power, it might result in no more than returning the CAPCO units to their original I
s chedule.
Applicants argue without citation of authority that the cost of steps taken in the direction of implementing license cor d2tions which may be eliminated upon appeal is a cost which can never be recouped (Renewed Motion pp.16-17). Applicants' argument fail: tc, consider nor.nal rate-making procedures which provide for consideration of all legitimate operating ex-penses. Thus Applicants can include such cost with other operating expenses
- 5) Appendix D.
when they seek rate relief and thereby recoup these costs. Moreover, capital costs will either be included in rate base or charged to the other party to any agreement.
Applicants' principal argument regarding irreparable injury appears L
to be "that the license conditions, as now framed, require a disruptive re-structuring of relationships with other electric entities" (Renewed Motion
- p. 16). Nowhere are we told what precise " restructuring" will occur.
Certainly it may be anticipated that some restructuring of relationships will be the result of license conditions in any antitrust proceeding. Unles s the Appeal Board is to rule that license conditions will be stayed in all anti-t trust proceedings, some more particularized showing must be required.
Certainly the requirement cf access to nuclear units cannot be the subject of Applicants' complaint for they claim to have made an offer of access (though to whom the offer was made, other than City, was never demonstrated),
i Nor can mere wheeling alone be the gravamen of Applicants' complaint, for they claim to have offered limited wheeling arrangements to entities in the CCCT. What is " troublesome" to Applicants is that the license conditions remove the anti-competitive hookers from the relationships offered by Appli-Thus under the license conditions Applicants could place no anti-ca ms.
competitive restrictions upon access to nuclear plants or the use of transfer capacity on Applicants' transmission lines.
l l
t l
. 1 B.
Applicants Have Not Made A Strong Showing Of Likelihood To Prevail On The Merits Of The Appeal In their Renewed Motion Applicants do nothing to provide the specifics of their contention that they are likely to prevail on the merits. In this regard the Renewed Motion suffers the same disability that is found in their initial motion. What is added in the Renewed Motion is the argument (Renewed Motior. pp. 5-16) that initial decision is faulty because the Licensing Board failed "to r concile the competing philosophies of the regulatory and anti-trast regimes in terms of a careful assessment of the public interest. " Ap-plicants make little effort to demonstrate how the alleged error invalidates the Licensing Board's decision.
Applicants' argument is faulty. In fact the Licensing Board did con-sider the effect of regulation and public interest in its application of the anti-trust laws. The Licensing Board considered the role of coordination and its effect upon competition (Ff. 17) as well as the absence of an effective regula-tory control over power pools (Ff. 184, 186). The effects of state regulation in Pennsylvania on competition between Duquesne and municipal systems was
/
considered (Slip Op. in. pp. 92-93, in. p.187). Elmilarly the Licensing Board censidered the argument that state law precluded Duquesne from making i
l l
sales at wholesale (Ff. 87).
The Licensing Board considered the effect of regulation by the State of Ohio with respect to territorial agreements between electric utilities (Ff. 109,110, 164, 166) and the effect of territorial agreements on the public
_9 l
interest (Ff.112). The interplay between price squeeze allegations and regulation was considered by the Licensing Board (Ff. 155, 157).
i The Licensing Board also considered the congressional policy of i
assuring access to nuclear facilities to more than a few dominant entities (Slip Op. in. p. 204). Moreover, the Licensing Board considered Applicants' arguments with respect to the operational imperatives of a i
power pool in conjunction with Applicants' efforts to avoid federal regula-s tion to the maximum extent possible (Slip Op. fn. p. 207).
(
Pennsylvania law prohibiting discriminatory tariff provisions was considered by the Licensing Board in connection with competition among bulk power suppliers (Slip Op. in. p. 226). At pages 230-237 of its decision the Licensing Board discusses generally Applicants' argument regarding the interplay of regulation and the antitrust laws.
Applicants cite cases which state generally the proposition that an effort must be made to reconcile regulatory laws with the antitrust laws.
Many of the cases cited by Applicants, notably those involving the Federal Power Commission, concern the scope to be given to the antitrust laws by an agency making determinations of "public interest" or " convenience and ne c es sity. " Those cases can have n'o direct applicability to the function of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under $105(c). Kansa s Gas and Electric Company And Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Generating j
Station Unit 1) ALAB 279 Moreover, in several cf the cases cited by Appli-cants the court did apply the antitrust laws.
i In Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission 193 F. 2d 230 (1952) (Renewed Motion in. p. 6) the Court said at page 236:
i The antitrust laws have been the rneans of assuring that such initiative [to freely ini-tiate rates] remains unchecked by conspira-cies or other inegal arrangements with which the regulatory commission is powerless to deal. (fn. omitted).
xxxx We construe the Fourth Circuit's decision as having done no more than declare illegal
(
under the antitrust laws certain restrainte exercised by Baltimore Company upon Penn Water--such as requiring its approval be-I fore it could take on new customers, or ex-pand generating facilities. Those restraints j
had been privately agreed upon by the parties and submitted to the Commission as an ac-complished fact.
It was said in Alabama Power Company v. Federal Power Commission.
511 F. 2d 383 (1974) (Renewed Motion p. 6) at 393:
That the general policy of promoting com-petition in the market is an important com-ponent of regulation in the public interest is both longsettled...and of current vitality.
In Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 US 366, 35 L Ed 2d 359 (1973) (Renewed Motion p. 8 - dissent only) the court dealt with several s
practices in the electric utility industry to wh'ich the, antitrust laws were I
applicable saying at page 374:
It is clear then, that Congress rejected a pervasive regulatory scheme for controlling l
the interstate distribution of power in favor of l
voluntary commercial relationships. When these relationships are governed in the first l
l m.,..
J l
, 1 instance by business judgment and not regu-latory coercion, courts must be cesitant to conclude that Congress intended to override the fundamental policies embodied in the antitrust laws.
and at 377:
The record makes abundantly clea-. that Otter Tail used its monopoly power in the cities in its service area to foreclose com-petition or gain a competitive advantage, or to destroy a competitor, all in violation of 5
the antitrust laws....
The District Cour' determined that Otter Tail has "a strategic dominance in the transmission of power in most of its ser-vice area" and that it used this dominance to foreclose potential entrants into the re-tail area from obtaining electric power from outside sources of supply. 331 F Supp, at 60.
Use of monopoly power "to destroy threatened competition" is a violation of the " attempt to monopolize" clause of 6 2 of the Sherman Act. Lorain Journal v. United States, 342 US 143,154, 96 L Ed 162, 72 S Ct 181; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.,
273 US 359, 375, 71 L Ed 684, 47 S Ct 400.
So are agreements not to compete, with the aim of preserving or extending a monopoly.
Schine Chain Theatres v. United States, 334 US 110,119, 92 L Ed 1245, 68 S Ct 947. In Associated Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 89 L Ed 2013, 65 S Ct.1416, a cooperative news association had bylaws that permitted member newspapers to bar competitors from joining the association. We held that that practice violated the Sherman Act, even though the transgressor "had not yet achieved a complete monopoly. " Id., at 13, 89 L Ed 2013.
and at 378:
Otter Tail relies on its wheeling contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation and with coop-1 l
I f
eratives which it says relieve it of any duty to wheel power to municipalities served at retail by Otter Tail at the time the contracts were made. The District Court held that these restrictive provisions were "in reality territorial allocation schemes," 331 F Supp, at 63, and were per se violations of the Sherman Act, citing Northern Pacific R.
Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 2 L Ed 2d 545, 78 S Ct 514. Like covenants were there held to " deny defendant's competitors access to the fenced-off market on the same t' rms as the defendant. " Id., at 12, 2 L Ed e
2d 545. We recently re-emphasized the vice under the Sherman Act of territorial restric-tions among potential competitors. United States v. Topco Associates, 405 US 596, 608, 31 L Ed 2d 515, 92.c Ct 1126.
The Appeal Board itself stated in Wolf Creek, supra at Slip Op. pp.
27-28:
It is far too late in the day to dispute that it runs counter to basic antitrust precepts to exercise monopoly power--however lawfully acquired initially--to foreclose competition or to gain competitive advantage, or to use i
dominance over a facility controlling market access to exclude competition and preserve a monopoly position. Electric utility com-panies are no more free than others to engage in those practices; their unjustified refusale to wheel power to or to interconnect with smaller entities in the field have regularly been called to account as violative of anti-trust policies. It was a key purpose of the prelicense review to '... nip in the bud any incipient antitrust situation. ' (in. omitted).
The Licensing Board did censider Applicants' arguments regarding the interplay of regulation and the antitrust laws and its resolution of the
. matter is fully supported by the decisions of the courts and the Commission.
Applicants have failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on ap-peal on the merits.
C.
ISSUANCE OF A STAY WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY HARM OTHER PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE PROCEEDING Applicants argue that a stay of the license conditions will not harm other parties because Davis-Besse Unit I will not be commercially operable until July 1977, and no power will be available from the Perry units or Davis-(
Besse Units 2 and 3 for several years (Renewed Motion p. 3),
f Fir st, since it is inconceivable that a decision will be reached in this case by July, Davis-Besse Unit I will have an impact on the parties interested in these proceedings. Second, while it is true that no power will flow from the other units for several years, it is important that license conditions attach to those units now. Only Toledo Edison and CEI are Applicants in Davis-Besse Unit 1.
Thus if license conditions are not now attached to all uniti. Ohio Edison, Penn Power, and Duquesne will be free to continue their anti-competitive practices. At the same time, under the CAPCO agreements all of the Applicants will be sharing in the fruits.?f Davis-Beese Unit I which
, was planned and constructed under th-CAPCO one-system concept (NRC Staff Exhibit 155, CAPCO Group Memorandum of Understanding 3ections 2 and 3).
Any inference that power from Davis-Besse Unit I will affect only entities in the CEI and Toledo Edison service areas is mistaken. CEI and Toledo l
j Edison are the only CAPCO members having an " ownership" share in Davis-
Besse only because that is the manner in which Applicants chose to clothe that transaction.
A stay of the license conditions would substantially harm the City.
City is currently in severe economic distress as a result of the anti-competitive activities of CEI. While being denied access to other sources of bulk power supply, and while being denied the ability to obtain mainte.
nance power to rejuvinate its own generating plant. City has been forced to purchase expensive emergency power from CEI. CEI clairas that the finan-I cially distressed City electric system owes CEI in excess of $18 million for purchased power. Althcugh City does not agree that it owes that amount, CEI is currently attempting to force City to pay the alleged debt in actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 75-2081 and in the United States District Court For the Northern District of Ohio Ea stern Division, Civil Action No. C75-560. For the City to be in a position to pay any portion of that debt, should it be forced to do so, it rnust first have access to alternate bulk power supplies which will lower its power costs and permit it to earn a profit on its retail transactions. Failure to pay upon order of a court could have disastrous consequences not only for the electric system but for the entire municipal government of Cleveland.
The record in this proceeding makes it clear that in order to reraain or to become a viable competitor Cleveland must have both access to nuclear power and third party wheeling (Tr. 2708-11: NRC Staff Exhibit 207).
i l
l l
l I
i
_ Small municipal systems without access to coordinated operations and development cannot install nuclear generating units (DJ 450 p. 25: NCR f
205 p. 8: Tr. 2618: C 161 p. 22 DJ 576 pp.123-24: Tr. 3,120: Tr. 2952).
The impact of commercial operation of Davis-Besse Unit 1 on such systems can be devastating. Development of nuclear generation makes self-generation by small municipal systems increasingly inefficient by comparison (DJ 557).
The President of Ohio Edison testified that the failure to utilize the best i
technology, i. e. nuclear generation and power pooling, could result in failure of Ohio Edison as a company (White Tr. 9815). If so large a company as Ohio Edison must have access to nuclear generation a_ fortiori small systems must have the protection of these license conditions.
CEI has itself recogni.ed the competitive advantages it has as a re-sult of coordination which it ha's unlawfully denied City (DJ 566 pp.151,152, C 154. C 155, C 158, C 13,14, C 15). Without the effectiveness of these li-cense conditions, CEI will maintain its unlawful advantages. The present interconnection agreement between CEI and City, which would remain in effect if license conditions are stayed, requires City to carry a reserve e
margin of 70 percent which places an unusual and unjustifiable burden on City (NRC 205 pp. 50-52). The interconnection agreement makes it possible for CEI to supply emergency power to City without first seeking lower cost alternatives through CEI's interconnections with others (DJ 450, pp. 45-46).
If the license conditions are stayed, City will be precluded from.btaining
low cost hydropower from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY). CEI has stated that (NRC 70):
Economic studies indicate an arrangement to transmit PASNY power would provide the mtmicipal system electric energy at a cost which would be injurious to the Illuminating Company's position.
PASNY power could have been purchased and delivered in Cleveland at a cost less than that of City's own generatien (DJ 8).
City is not the only party which would suffer substantial harm as a i
result of a stay of the license conditions. The initial decision reveals on page after page the harm to other parties in the CCCT resulting from the r
anti-competitive activities of the Applicants. Applicants have failed to meet their burden of proving that a stay will not cause substantial harm to other
}
pa rties.
1 D.
IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST i
TO STAY THE LICENSE CONDITIONS In both their initial motion and their renewed motion. Applicants gloss over the fourth criteria established by Virginia Petroleum Jobbers. Nowhere do Applicants offer evidence or argument which would support a finding that a stay of license conditions is in the public interest. Throughout their picadings Applicants fail to recognize that there exists a public interest which is not coterminous with their own private interests.
Mr. Slemmer, Applicants' expert witness on power pooling practices, t
{
i
(
- testifled that small public utilities should not be denied opportunities to engage in power pooling (Tr. 9053). If the license conditions are not im-posed, one result will be a denial of access to coordination by small elec-trie utilities. Coordination permits utilities si any size to obtain economies of scale (Slemmer Tr. 9107-08). Certainly it is in the public interest to i
permit small public utilities to obtain access to the mst economical means I
of production of electricity. Dr. Hughes testified that the Federal Power i
Commission has urged both investor-owned utilities and municipally-owned electric utilities to engage in coordination (Tr. 4089-90).
Mr. Rudolph,
(
President of CEI, has recognized that power pooling is necessary to provide i
reliable service (C.121 p. 8). Certainly reliable service is in the public interest and to the extent that the license conditiens increase reliability of electric service, it is in the public interest to implement them now.
The Licensing Board held (Slip Op. 204) that denials of accest, to nuclear facilities by individuct applicants were inconsistent with the antitrust s
laws and the congressional policy of assuring access to nuclear facilities to more than a few dominant entities, It can not be in the public interest to continue this situation.
It can not be said that it is in the public interest to permit:
l l
Applicants to impose a price squeeze, Conway v. FPC. 425 l
U. S. ' 957, 9 6 S Ct.1999 (1976):
Applicants to restrain other entities from taking on new cus-s tomers, Pennsylvania Water & Power Cc. v. Federal Power Com-
~
-18 mission 193 F. 2d 230 (1952):
Applicants to engage in territorial allocations, Otter Tail Power Co. v.
United States 410 US 366, 35 L Ed 2d 359 f
(1973):
Applicants to condition grant of an interconnection upon price fixing, Pennsylvania Water 8r Power Co. v.
t Federal Power Commission, supra:
i Applicants to refuse to wbeel power, Otter Tail Power i
(
Q. v. United States, supra;
(
Applicants to use their monopoly power to foreclose i
competition, destroy competitors or gain competitive advan-tage, Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, supra:
Applicants to use their strate;,1c dominance in the s
transmis 91on of power to foreclose access to os s. f.e sources f
(
of power supply, Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, supra:
Applicants to continue to bar competitors from joining i
i CAPCO and participating in nuclear plants Otter Tail Power
[
Q. v. United States, supra:
s Applicants to refuse to interconnect on fair terms with 1
l smauer utilities, Wolf Creek, t upra; and to permit 4
Applicants to use their dominance to exclude competi-tors and preserve a monopoly position, Wolf Creek, supra.
I
_ - _____. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ Grant of a stay of licenae conditions in this case is contrary to pub-lic interest.
Applicants have failed to prove their entitlement to a stay of license conditions under the criteria of Virginia Petroleum Jobbers. In fact they have failed to meet the requirements of any of the four criteria.
II
(
NO LICENSE CAN ISSUE WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS ORDERED BY THE LICENSING BOARD In its Memorandum and Order of February 14, 1977, denying Appli-cants' motion for a stay of licensing conditions, the Licensing Board agreed with the contention of the Department of Justice that the license conditions are a predicate to the very issuance of the licenses (Order p. 2).
In their renewal motion Applicants do not take issue with that finding and do not argue otherwise. Applicants do take issue with a subsidiary holding i
of the Licensing Board that a stay of license conditions will not maintain the status quo. That is a different rnatter. City agrees with the holding i
that no license can issue without license conditions.
The Licensing Board is authorized under the Atomic Energy Act "to 4
issue or continue a license as applied for, to refuse to issue a license or amend it,'and to issue a license with such conditions as it deems appro-priate. "i/ The Licensing Board has agreed with the Department of Justice's k/ 42 US CA $ 2135 (6)
-2 0-characterization of its initial decision as a "no conditions - no license" order. That order is fully it. keeping with the Commissions statutory authority. In that posture a stay of license cor.ditions leaves the decision in the "no license" mode. Granting a license without conditions would be tantamount to a sum:nar y reversal of the initial decision.
The Supreme Court said in Scripps-Howard Radio. Inc., v. F. C. C.
316 US 4,14, 86 L Ed 1229.1236 (1942):
Of course, no court can grant an applicant an authorization whic1. the Commission has re-I fused. No order that the Court of Appeals could make would enable an applicant to go on the air I
when the Commission has denied him a license l
to do so. A stay of an order denying an applica-tion would in the nature of things stay nothing.
It could not operate as an affirmative authoriza-tion of that which the Commission has refused to authorize.
No license without conditions has been authorized hence a stay could 1
not operate as an affirmative authorization.
i III l
NO STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED i
WITHOUT CONDITIONS WHICH WILL HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF CLEVELAND City believes that it has demonstrated in parts I a:,d II, s_uj y_, that Applicants' request for a stay should be denied. However, the Appeal Board has specifically directed the parties to address "the question of the explicit or inherent authority of this Board to condition the grant or denial of a stay upon some undertaking, such as the posting of a bond. "
l
1 l
i City has found no explicit authority for the conditioning of the grant l
of a stay by an Appeal Board upon some undertaking such as the posting of i
a bond.
f Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides for stay by an appellate court of an order of an administrative agency states "The court may condition relief under this rule upon the filing of a bond or other appropriate security. " It appears that at least in so far as appellate courts are conferned the authority to grant a stay is inherent and equitable i
I in nature. It was said in Scripps-Howa rd Radio v. F. C. C., supra, at pages i
9 and 10:
No court can make time stand still. The circumstances surrounding a controversy may change irrevocably during the pendency of an appeal, despite anything a court can do. But within these limits it is reasonable that an appellate court should be able to prevent ir-reparable injury to the parties or to the public l
resulting from the premature enforcement of a determination which may Lter be found to i
have been wrong. It has always been held, therefore, that, as part of its traditional equipment for the administration of justice, a federal court can stay the enforcement of a judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.
In view of the fact that the purpose of a stay is to maintain the status quo pending appeal, the power to place conditions upon the grant of a stay l
would seem to be an inherent part of the power to grant a stay.
In this case the status quo is a dynamic situation unlike the static l
situation found, for example, in a simple case for money damages. The l
l effects of Applicants' enti-competitive practices continue to be felt and daily alter the situation in ways which can not be undone by mon-y damages alone. For this reason, should a stay be granted, conditions should be imposed which would preclade the applicants from causing changes in the status quo. One such condition should be that during the pendency of the stay, CEI be precluded from bringing, continuing, or participating in any action at law or equity to force the City to pay amounts clai,med due by CEI as of the date of grant of a stay.
i Wherefore City prays that Applicants' request for a stay of license conditions pendente lite be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
(
l I
Reuben Goldberg David C. Hjelmfelt Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt, P. C.
j 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
I Wa shington, D. C.
20006 Telephone (202) 659-2333 Malcom Douglas Acting Law Director Robert D. Hart First Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland City Hall, Room 213 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 694-7.717 Adorneys for l
City of Cleveland, Ohio l
i March 2,1977 j
., j
]
App 2ndix A 1c" Registration No.
j SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
~
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549 1
1 Form S-7 I
REGISTRATION STATEMENT i
under J
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 i
Ohio Eciison Company (Exact name of regutrant as specified in charter) 3 Ohio 34 04377S6 (State or cther iunsdiction of (l.h.S. Employer incorporation ut org.;ni:,.1 tion)
Identification No.)
i 76 South Ein Stree Akron, Ohio 4430S i
L iAddress of princi executive ottices)
Registrant's telephone number, including area cede: (216) 3315100 1
l D. D. VOWLES, Secretary i
76 South hf ain Street q
Akron, Ohio 4430S (Name and address of agent for service) l j
The Commission is requested to mail signed copics of all orders, notices and communications tot y
I j
J. H. BYINCTON, JR.
RICIIARD M. DICKE Winrunor, STutsoN. PUTNAh! & EOBERTS SDIPSoN TIuctER & B.UmITT 40 Wall Street One Battery Park Plaza
.)
New York, N. Y.10005 New York, N. Y.10004 d
G. G. KING
.j Ca.ncar hfANAGEMENT CoNsUIJrAM3 s.
60 Pine Street
]
New York, N. Y.10003 Approximate date of commenccment of proposed sale to the public:
d As soon after the eHective date of this Registration Statement as ararket conditions appear favorable.
CALCUL ATION OF REGISTR ATION FEE 1
Proposed Amount Proposed maximum Amount of Titic of each class of beint maximum aggregate rcghtration 3
securitics being registered regutcred efering price ofering price fce f
2 Common Stock, par value $9 per
$20'
.J share.....................
5,000,000 shs.
pc, unit
$100,000,000
$20,0W i
l
- Closing sale price on January 13.1977, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in its repor Composite Transactions.
d
'Ihe registrant hereby amends this registratinn statement on such date or dates as may be beces.
sary to delay its ciTective date until the registrant shall lift a further amendret which sprcili.
cally states that this registration statement shall thereafter become ciTective in accordams with 4
Section S(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the registration statement shall become eficctive on such date as the Conunission, acting pursuant to sdl Section S(.3), may determine.
s
.y x
- =
g d
jpr Ez i
f ', p, t<dge, rneritorious defenses are availabic to the Company in this action and based jn.
- g. Cornpany should prevail.
On August 8,1975, two class. action complaints were filed against the Company in the Court of comrnon Pleas, Mahoning County, Ohio, one of which allegedly was filed on behalf of the plaii. tiff
/
and a!! residential costomers of the Company, and the other allegedly on behalf of the plaintiff and a!! commercial and industrial customens of the Company. Each alleged that fuel adjustment clauses are illegal under Ohio law and that the Company's use of such a clause was therefore illegal. Each requested treble damages in the amount of $150,000,000, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and expenses. On July 22,1976, these complaints were dismissed by the Court. An optical from the dismirn1 was filed on August 17, 1976. Although the outcome of any specific litigation is ahvays uncertain, the Company's trial counsel, Messrs. Harrington, Ilm1cy & Smith, are of the opinion that, under the present state of fcets of which they have knowledge, meritorious defenses are available to the Company in these actions and, based thereon, the Company should prevail.
Regulation The Company, with respect to its electric nod steam heating business, is subject to broad regub-tion byThe Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and in certain respects by the various municipalities in which it serves; Pennsylvania, with respect to its electric business, is subicet to broad regnia' ion by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the Company is sub;ect in certain respect; to regulation by that Commission in connection wit'i property ir.terests in Pennsylvania; both are subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and, with respect to their interstate electric operations, to regulation, including regolation of their accounting policies and practices, by the Federal Power Commission.
The construction and the operation of Beaver Valley Units Nos. I and 2, Perry Units Nos. I and 2, Davis.Besse Units Nos. 2 and 3 and Erie Units Nos. I and 2 are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC including the issue by it, after hearings, of constnittion permits and operating licenses.
NRC's procedures with respect to applications for construction permits and operating licenses afford opportunities for interested parties to request public hearin,s on health, safety, environmental and antitrust issues. In this connection, the NRC may require substantial changes in proposed operation or the installation of additional equipment to meet safety or environmental standards with consegnent delay and added costs; however,in view of the afiirmative health, safety and environmental mea <mes incorpor:ted in the design of these nucicar units, the Company and Pennsyhania believe that a favor-able showing can be made on any such issue raised in the licensing proceedings.
The construction permit for Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 has been issued and a full power operating license for Beaver Va'!cy Unit No. I wts issued on July 1,1976. Applications for construction permits for Perry Units Nos. I and 2 and Davis.Besse Units Nos. 2 and 3 have been filed, and, as discussed below, a decision has been rendered in connection with consolidated antiinist hearings rehting to these units which began in December 1975 before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the NRC. In the case of the Davis.Resse and Eric units, work cannot commenee until the State of Ohio issues a certifi-cate of eiwironmental compatibility and need, applications for which have been filed. An application for a construction permit for Erie Units Nos. I and 2 has been filed and partially doeleted with the NBC. Applications for operating licenses for all units will be filed prior to completion of comtruction.
After appropriate hearings, the NllC issued limited work authorizations to commenee construction of non.nuelcar portions of Perry Units Nos. I and 2 and Davis.Besse Units Nos. 2 and 3. An application for a second limited work authorization for Penry Units Nos. I and 2 which wonh1 allow additional safety related and limited nuclear construction has been issued by the NRC. All constrnetion work to
-- =S a :
.. ; -- 2.hW._.,._ _1___m. -( M_,_Z J_.
.9=--
^
e per(onned at the Snancial risk of the utilities owning the units should a definitive construction permit not be granted.
- Ihe Department of Ju tice recommended that antitrust hearings be held with respect to the licensing of the Perry units and Davis Besse Units Nos. 2 and 3 to determine whether, as a!!c the StaiI cf NRC, the Department of Justice and the City of Cleveland, operation of these units under licenses would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust law of Ohio hitervened in the Perry proceedings, and the City of Cleveland intervened in both proceed ings. On July 30, 1975, the Perry and Davis.Besse proceedings were consolidated. The consolidated hearings commenced on Denmber 8,1975 and, on January 6,1977, a decision was issued by the Licensing Board. In that decision, the Lkeming Board concluded that the issuance of licenses for the nuc! car units involved without appropriate lieme conditions would lead both to the creatio a and to the maintenance of a situation incomistent with the antitrust laws and imposed licensing cunditions requiring that access to power from the nuclear units be provided in a manner which would make such power available and allow it to be used without restraint and with the availability of necessary bulk power service alternatives. Pur3uant to the Licensing Board's decision, aficcted licenses would be subject to conditiom which would, among other things, require (i) maintenance, emergency and economy power and reserve sharing to be made available to, (ii) interconnections to be made with, and (iii) wheeling to be provided for, electric generation and/or distribution systems (or municipalities cooperatives with the right to engage in such functiom) if such entity so requests and would permit such entities to become members of the CAPCO group (subject to certain prerequisites with res to size), or to acquire a share of the capacity of the Davis.Desse and Peny units or of any other futur nuelcar units, if they so desire. The decision of the Licensing Iloard h to be appealed, and of the liernsing conditions imposed has been requested pending the resolution of the app the Company and Pennsylvania cannot predict the ultimate resolution of this matter, they do believe a sitnation inconsistent with the antitmst laws would be created or maintained by activities under licenses not subicet to the conditions that would be imposed under the Lice Board's decision.
If the conditions pre >en y suggested are ultimately included in the allected d
licenses, they could have a materially adverse but presently undeterminable effect on the fut ness operations of the Company and Pennsylvania.
[
In July 1976, in proceedings not directly involving any of the CAPCO companics, the U. S.
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1) set aside a portion of an NBC rule re environmental cor.siderations of the uranium fuel cycle and (2) remanded to the NIlC ord construction permits for one nuclear plant and an operating liceme for another such plant. The orders were remanded for reconsideratior. by the NRC of, among other things, waste disposal and other unaddressed fuel cycle issws and for clarification of report: on the plants issued by the At Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. On October 13,1976, the NRC issued a staff analysis of the environmental impact of fuel reprocessing ~and waste disposal, which ana concluded that such impact with respect to individual nuclear plants h "small". At the same time, the NEC proposed an interim rule which, if adopted, would amend NBC licensing proceeding to take into account new information on the emironmentalingact of fuel reprocessing and waste dispo pending the completion of a final rule. The NRC has stated that permits and licenses will be issued poditionally pending adoption of theInterim and final rules. The Company c.umot predict what action may ultimately be taken by the NRC in this matter, but, assuming the use of nuclear power in its
-present form is not to be permanently abandoned, such action could delay the construction schedules of the CAPCO nuclear units under construction and the operation of Beaver Valley Unit No.1.
On Augmt 21,1976, a local Pennsyhania group calling itself the' Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Iled a petition with the NilC claiming in eficet that the constmetion and operation of I
Beaver Valky Units Nos. I and 2 should be halted because of faulty cost /henefit analyses which did not give proper consideration to such matters as energy conservation, spent fuel processing, radioactive
.g,
+
Appsndix B Q, _(
r p, L C j g
ic FEB -s m77 i
SECURITIIS AND EXCHANGE COMESSION
}
l
- gggg,kSECT@c,d' WASHINGTON, D. C.
20549 CC Fom 8-K I
l Cwst Report r..,
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) or the I
~ Securities Exchange Act of 1934
~ ~ ~
I i
For the month of January 1977 l
l The Cleveland Electric T11=4nating Company l
55 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio Mu3 1
8 9
Item No. 3
_ Litigation 1.
Deferred Fuel Costs On December 15, 1976, The Public Utilities Co= mission of Ohio (the "PUC0") ordered the Company to discontinue its practice of deferred fuel cost accounting for its electric utility.
The $103 9 million per year increase in electric rates granted the Company by the PUC0 on August 25, 1976, effective for electric 1
service rendered on and after October 1,1976, prc<ided for the recovery of these deferred fuel costs. The balance of $9,625,690 as of September 30, 1976 is being amortized over an 18 month period effective October 1, 1976. The Company's Steam Heating Utility deferred fuel cost accounting practice was not affected by tne PUC0 order and at year-end 1976, this deferral was
$2,313,10h. In April 1974, the KC0 approved a reduction in the lag between when fuel costs are incurred and subsequently
' recovered by the " Fuel Adjustment Plder" in the Compny's elec-tric rate sched21es. This action resulted in $2,793,120 of fue' 1
costs being deferred pending future recovery.
The IUC0 has in-dicated that disposition of this matter could be reviewed in the Company's next fuel clause audit hearing. The Company believes that it will be allowed to recover these deferred costs.
(Note 8-K, October 1975.)
2.
Nuclear Regulatory Co : mission - Licensing Conditions On January 6, 1977, the Antitrust Licensing Beard of the Nucletr p._
Regulatory Coe=ission (NRC) issued its findings in the matter of l
an antitrust review associated with the licensing of units at the i
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Statica and the Perry Nuclear Power Pirut.
The findings were adverse and sustai.ned most of the allegations made by the City of Cleveland, the ERC staff and the Justice Depart-ment during the hearings. Allegations were that the Central Area Power Coordination Group ("CAPC0") was monopolizing the exchange, sale at wholessJ.e and retail distribution of power by denying to electric entities the benefits of the CAPCO power pool and by re-fusing to trans=it to them the power it wishes to obtai from other sources. The members of CAPCO are Toledo Edison, Ohi fr$uesne Light Compny, Pennsylvania Power Company and the Co, ny.
Because of its findings, the NRC has designed licensing conditions which in-cliide the require =ents that the CAPCO companies (1) engage in
" wheeling" power for electric entities from other sources over its transmission lines; (2) make avail 41e a membership in CAPCO to any electric entity or entities which has a syste=, or aggregate system, capability, of 10 megawatts or greater, but that no such member shall have a voting right in CAPCO until its capability at least equals that of the smallest member of CAPC0; and (3) make available
~
asemem.-- o __
to an electric entity by means of an ownership share, unit partici-pation or contractual pre-purchase, as elected by the entity, access to any nuclear unit for which any one or more of the CATCO companies may apply for a license during the next 25 years, in-cluding the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear units.
On January 14, 1977, all CAPCO companies appealed the findings to the NRC Appeals Board and requested a stay in the enforcement of the licensing board's requirements pending the appeal. The Appeals Board re-manded the request for a stay to the Licensing Board. On February 3, 1977, the Licensing Board denied the request. The Company be-lieves that the CAPCO companies will appeal the denial to the Appeals Board. Based upon the opinion of ec nsel, the Company be-lieves the final resolution of these matters should not have a material adverse effect upon the Co=pany's financial condition or operations. The Co=pany believes an operating license for Unit No.1 of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station will be granted soon by the NRC with the conditions attached sub. ject to the out-
' cme of the appeal. This generating unit, owned, as tenemts in common, by the Co=pany (51 38% ownership interest) and The Tcledo Edison Company, has been under construction.since May 1970. The Co=pany also believes that the NRC will issue construction permits with the conditions attached. subject to the outcome of the appeal for Units 1 and 2 of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and Units 2 and 3 of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The Cn=pany has a 24.47% ownership interests, as tenants in co==on, in each of these units with the other CAICO companies owning the re=aining interestn.
The preceedings are pending.
- - em l
=
l l
l
' l l
.5 l
l
SIGFJLTURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchar.ge Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized.
THE CLEVE'AND ELEC1'RIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY (Registrant)
By:
A. R. Felmer A. R. Fel=er, Secretary Date: February 7, 1977 i
l i
1 i
1 _
Appsndix C THE WAl.l. WREET JOURNAll Monday. Feh. 14, 1977 M
Dividends Wanted -
Investors Play It Safe;'
Growth Stocks Spptter As Stodg' Issues Soar.
y Money Mariagers Disturbed By Pension-Act Proviso;.
' Utilities Gain Popularity Is Inflation Winding Down?.
By Bot?rraD Nrso' ext Ja. -
. staff Repecter of Tie s wau.'stm as,Joommas.
An unlikely old slogna is the new watch-word on Wa!! Street. It's " Safety first," and it's enough to set yesteryear's guns 11ngers spinning in their graves..
Who would have thought, for example, that a stodgy ut!!!!y like Cevelas.d Electric
!!1uminating Co. would beccame a dasaling stock. market succeh? But (f. the past year, stald old CEI common has jumped about 30% tn price, to 833 a share, while many more glamorous issues have been lucky to tread water.
"The thing that makes us more attrac.,
,tive is dlvidends,".anys Karl Rudolph, chair-man and chief executive officer. CEI has raised its dividend every year for the past to years. The payout now stands at 32.e4 a share, for an 8% return. "There's a disen,
chantment with the stock market's perfor.
mance," Mr. Randolph says, "and a greater emphkats on dividend yleid and dividend.
,,,wt,.
i, Jndeed there is. The new darlings of pro l)
I feasional, money ma'nagers and individual'
' investors' allka are"a stald old group of.
i
, stocks ence shunned by 3,ractica!17 everyone]
i
,but. widows and orphiau. They are bank,t
,ut!!!ty, ' insurance. company ' and Inoustrial.
mn' stocks that offer scant potential for big.
DI D
j stock market gains but pay substantial dirl.
dands.....,,
.,4
. -f,,,.., g...
w(
)
" Striking Tread *....... ; *.."
~
P i
i
, "I would any it's the rriost striktag trend O[
la in, vesting money la the last se.veral years" says Donald Hahn, director d ta ;;
f vestment research at Becker Sr'.ur'tles '
O U
Orp., Ch3 cage.
- ~. *,
'f*'
T/
, "the emphasis is ce 'a compspy's hal f ance sheet and its ability to pay a, higher,.
divideiul" ' agrees Hugh Covington, yleel president at K!dder, Peabody,& 04 New[
York. **1his has come to the forefront in the last 18' months, and the ' emphasis is increas.',
lag." Te.'*'.*!M !,' h.*O it. J '?( 8:P ~-
. sagt.ys. eld stocks are in,vosue Yar m==,
t 9 - '
.. J
' Appsndix D Wall St&r Josen]
^ Ta.nstwf 17.i 777 1
'~~h c
hio Edison,4 Utilities \\
g Delay Building Plan i
i To Reduce Spending t.g'\\
~
i' my a wall SrnestJorma6 sta// A reer AKRON-- hio Edison Co. and the four other utilities in the Central Area Power Co-t ordination group saJd they will stretch out the construction of five electMc generating units by cne or two years eacA Re move w111 result in a reduction of the group's planned capita 2 expend'tures by $550 mil-lion, to a total of about fl.6 bUbon between 1977 and 1981, the ut:11 ties said.
Other members of the group are Ceve-land Electrie D3uminating Co., Duquesne IJght Co., Feetrylvania Power Co. Ard To-ledo Edison Co.
The co r. par.fes safd the delays reflect re-vised forecaata of efectridty use anct the dit-fleulty of raising funds for the projects. ne sptnding reductions wt!! be divided among t!.e arr.panies accord:ng to their omwrship shares.
The delayed generating units had been scheduled to come into service between 1979 8
and 1984. A $576 mfHlon coal-fired generator at Shipping Port, Pa., was delayed one year, 8
and two nuclear units at Purt Clnton and I
two at Berlin Heights, both in Ohio, were de-t-
layed two years each, the comparJes said.
=
D*90 W$E o10.3.lu#
a O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
Docket Nos. 50-346A The Clevehnd Electric H1uminating )
50-500A Company
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station )
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
The Cleveland Electric Hluminating )
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A I
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing " Answer of City of Cleveland in Opposition to Applicants' Renewed Motion for an Order Staying License Conditions" has been made on the followir_g parties listed on the attachment hereto, this 2nd day of March,1977, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid.
David C. Nj[1mfelt[
l Attachment
ATTACHMENT Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh and Jacobs Environmental Law Section 815 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
361 East Broad Street, 8th Goor Washington, D. C.
20006 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board John M. Frysiak, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Wa shington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regisatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard S. Salzman Jerome E. Sharfman Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 3320 Estelle Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Washington, D. C.
20555 Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairmr.n Howard K. Shapar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Daniel M. Head, Esq., Member Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Public Proceedings Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Abraham Braitman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Frank R. C1okey, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director Special Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Towne House Apartments, Room 219 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Edward A. Matto, Esq.
Roy P. Le ssy, Jr., E sq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the General Counsel Chief, Antitrust Section R e gulation 30 East Broad Street, 15th floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Washington, D. C.
20555 l
?
l
=
. ATTACHMENT (continued) l David McNeill Olds, Esq.
Melvin G. Berger, E sq.
William S. Lerach, Esq.
Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay David A. Leckie, Esq.
Post Office Box 2009 Janet R. Urban, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Terrence H. Benbow, Esq.
Post Office Box 7513 Steven B. Peri, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20 M4 Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 40 Wall Street Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
New York, New York 10005 Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
Antitrust Section Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 30 East Broad Street, 15th floor 1800 Union Commerce Building Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Russell J. Spetrino, Esq.
Leslie Henry, Esq.
l Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
Michael M. Briley, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company Roger P. Klee, Esq.
47 North Main Street Fuller, Henry, Hodge ' Snyder Akron, Ohio 44308 Post Office Box 2088 Toledo, Ohio 43604 John Lansdale, Jr., Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown James R. Edgerly, Esq.
I 21 Dupont Circle, N. W.
Secretary and General Counsel Washington, D. C.
20036 Pennsylvania Power Company f
One East Washington Street Richard A. Miller, Esq.
New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103 i
Vice President and General Counsel The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Post Office Box 5000 Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Post Office Box 5000 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
ClevelarA, Ohio 44101 Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Robert E. Zahler, Esq.
Thomas J. Muns ch, Jr., Esq.
Jay H. Berstein, Esq.
General Attorney Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Duquesne Light Company 1800 M Street, N. W.
435 Sixth Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Docketin' and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel g
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- ATTACHMENT (continued)
Joseph A. Rieser, Esq.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
i Washington, D. C.
20036 John C. Engle, President AMP-0, Inc.
- 20 High Street Hamilton, Ohio 45012 Michael R. Gallagher, Esq.
630 Bulkley Building 1501 Euclid Cleveland, Ohio 44115 f
f i
6 h
~
l l
l i
l l
I l
l
-