Text

Prehearing Fact Brief of Util.Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML19319B329
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/01/1975
From:	Briley M, Henry L, Klee R; FULLER & HENRY, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	NUDOCS 8001150821
	Download: ML19319B329 (42)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:y Y v."qy <qsypyygy~r;*yp*gggy%%%% 'ptfyg,y't~ ;, ] g g' [ . w g%, c.uip. g w+;vM %A.:g.p.p g.,g} g (;?EvjM y@. x p s.t e:/ > s, pfy!W, 4: \\ a -,e ,y ~ 4".3+2;g+-QlW R-m u.p 4 '2 f,V g4 ~ f.j i_,. x XQU i J1

m.

x ,m: a c, y;r : fy .g.;,;Ml'%A U.;.,shp,Qs.M %v.x;W A, y* W: g g: D W> i %;f %>*h' Q +-M "%gg< ; %"% %g/g,: n;~.p rio:. e h ' ' y 1 6 f,f.4 / ~ W ~f UNETED. STATES:OF' AMERICA Xa;b h y'd mf o.l .,, @ l.l Al 4j e i.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ '.D ^ Mgu + n - .r ix k..n _ $... m g L., s t

p. w,

.y v ~ Before. the. Atomic S~afety and: Licensing Board. Mb -jfh? .N .g ys w w.w' .s .,we .u. yh ;THBw. TOLEDO EDISON (CO.MRANYt ,4 Ini the, Matter of A,MM.5@%$p00M H)@fMM ~ w ~, t SMN/&Mf98$D% $Nh)h cQ;g 4 $d$h 1.3%{ 2 %% WDans-Bessen Nuclp@ae RoweePStatilon*,;M)Fpl@ .# ' 'b" QW THEi CBBVBLANDRBLBCTRICRI;DEUMENAT,ING: Q S J?QONPAN$'ij%(( Q iNi b ?&/h 18h ST e MedMM Egh *~ V 1 ?[>X' ' b.4Uniit 1)Mfgkw ~b5n p df' M 7 6 T y g % ) M 4 2 5.D. My# p" ~ ..,$ x M.M.e. w%: 5 d pM w% N. iN 4S P 'm " @pasp g w.t.x %c. m .a.t m -THF CLEVELANDfHLBCTRICfI3LLUMINATING % -) u+ -w n n -,y. ,..i )'; ~ y, MMMM CDocketiN.W,od. 50:-4.-40AM A. .O COMRANY., ET A_U. P..V +C. 4: A (Perry-Nuclear Power Pl' ant', "pE W2TMe _.g w ~ ~&44WAW S 50 4 # @.D Uni.ts* E andb 2). p., fpdri@ %$$n))M.7 Tp?f?$@Mi[Q$g D f 3. g/ a.,3, p. g ,m.~.. sW y y*, 4.. y. m,,,. M.s v. n y a s S C%dM y THE TOLEDO EDISON' COMPANY:, EE AL.. ' Docket Nos. 50-500A;gh. - T){ [, *"' % (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.,. ); J Unitse 2. and: 3)f.d;;W MQ64W~pM)N'@'Gr W:H% gwyMd'p i. yc.Q & 9%Mhh$k f%:.p % Q.f&n. pp&,Q ,i

@ Q Q;%q %,%g: .gq%. y e p& Q@p. elf;Rf]&:&.ffy'

.g 5 m v w n : p p n*p p c., W M + V % q %.y. f wf Pt .as h 7 .&q w M. [N h h h q.' k M,9 p 4 M S N h.iflk N J w a; 3%. D RREHEARING: FACT BRIEF OF' THE @.Mic s & 'rf: f @. + TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY ~ ' M&Q5 f MM@M .C54M J f @"O LD MMd * '

y. > C, a%M>W< GM+.-y;< 'y:.y:.x -

bb.. ' " Eff Rd? a W$%%n@w.gd;h i$f Q mfm 4 c, M.... uOO ~4 a u, u w p; Q Qw w.w +%~ , M -A;e a T'w&p w gyy.Ww g.m W %:W%JWMM?? W,.w nc ' ~ TQu& ^Li Q WEV: Q pDi ~ ~ m q. %: . gq,p; ~~em +e: sim m n c .y3 u. %, m. J. W M W;k %w. k.%e w y L o - %.,. , ns s s m . $ m'35 @.% % w% g 6WM G pW ? C. + tjeq.~.~ w..' G ),v U-( i gy e W$a i. m$eW~m.ep,MfQ:w 2 M, $w @k;,MICHA i WM.. b N3 v c./ yy -EESLIE. HENRY:

n-e%.

rrk. A n g-v&g a> g .,m 4 fyv.ide q.# BRILEY N +. .' e 4 %<. n 3 e:..M,.g p.w.m, n .w w I -w.p - -.R .P.. KL.EE. A NROBE-- x X 6" 'w e u v 5;-%w4,m.%y.3,M. ng&,.pfp q. w.M.,si,l. .:.,LE.. R5i~ HEN, RY/,..HODGET &. L SNYD..B,.nRb - ~ c .v 90 @ 3 m., W. . a r3005 Madison Avenue

nget m

y .g 4-W Mt #yW M M.,p54 5@&w@W M.%e,_;df r .A % L 33.P4 2$4fd: dol'edo, Ohio. 4,3604 a:M$ '4 9: h $ $ N'J M W F W,? h k Q&h&y ~$ Wf&% .-./ W W-W M6A.M,.s G,.b.,,. wL y. q.:... $ a. A. W : 6.y. n+ N

m. 3 3s4,.

wa 1 r m,

WcR MnMbFe Qgpg.WWq<MCounsel fdr The< Toledo. Edison' C-ny;y

,T S W. M %s

v. -

Gmpw-p n :.M4w.y

m

_ A;,NNEN.p %[h Mhhp. w dsg w um;e .b G sQ n n -; y% f y N< gQ u a 4 Q w g )o r; s N 8 mp c l fh kfM a[, NL h .? I nn v.mn .w? n. .; q& g . m,q m:p$h.p+ %fs 3ffh&h&w.4q*q:@qmp@,f +. y %q;,f ? b 1 ^ ,+ QYgQs .Q,n u k3m J_ f._.2:V h$ nb.MYW k f &w; g 2.b & w. % m,%y y y w,c q $ l N~, h-k ~ ^ X 5 %m ... pg;. m .m w aw c a c O n: w %.uq - 4 a p p <$ W W b..l % i; & m&$ &p $e &n. $h hkb%9 W JP Wd** 4 U n ,L hh$NWkWM&E$ymwwnmw{ q m'p$&%;p y% W f gagegw%w&QQ%QLM@6 x N M h N f @% y@$QRLWML&(N %is,W % Ik

M,MMQw@Rw%

+ YfW w %. %.$ M W;M RW 7 MNW e m ffbb ps. h, wk k M h h M b M n g. m,hb. 4 em 4 + M@,.n n m n r:YbbbNI $NNhhbM8 s m.,.p.n g,,,9'"*n.. gwA e. s mmw y ) "J.M* We m,sp % 9 rgpQ L..,t y -? ^

a o e.,..,, ,.3 ,.is. I,... ~ ,,,,, ed k '..).'s U s. l..'. ..'s e2.. 2...- e.2 d o: J.' u r *. y.. +.~..... e s fp. -. d -.._: "r.*. = ) 5,n p t, Lt.e.<

s

.+,. a. c.w..u..;. s J.. 12 so s. .*s. p y,p.., 3 9.. g...- n, g. e g. ....) ...m .g .w,... n.., 7 f>:......, 7 .g.. .t. ...t,: u o s. . s.s,.s r*.i s

r..?

s .. E,,n, 4. e,. e.. )..a % s e..o 6d oe $ ) r,<..,,, 3.,.s.., . v......, o,. i g. . y o!y... A )

4..s.

.p. a. ...... s. t 5 t' & ;,

j' C -.

r. f.*+7.....,'. .? t. r g.. / i-.~.,i.,..i, (/ 4. . r, .s s. s 2 7 .,i..' J.1,*..,.. s.t.,... t 5 [ t'., e r.-.. ".. . y.s. i. ".,. g...s.~ .v; y...$..n ) .fi {,., f ' n g. s s. f. . y4 ,t i g i s.... s a. 6. - I.N.f...~s f s 1. .g s. ,g ) ,s.,, ei. ,.s .~ s..->

r. r...,.,. _...,

r. r.. .) ...,.e,, s -.c., .,....... i g .: \\, S

s. p...,

v..... c-4.. 2t c r .s 4 r .o,.,s it.. ~.:.3 ... ~... is a. .r. r .s s. ,i2.,....p

2. s s

+'ss.s s > h s. s.' t.;...,.,/. (.s.r%>.*,... ? - 1 r. *I.< p o. s.. : r:. e, p4 :.. s r.,. s. t..,..O .,,f..r..w... .L i. .. u. ...r.s,. g ... s. s..,e,...,.t.. t.<. .n + s. s A.. C.,,,?.#. 8 r .. t .r. ,a .i. s .s .. +

s.., a,: -..f 2.

t 2 .,.,e . Sa .;4 ,J...a g. ,. 43.e ..< ?.., e,q,.+, s.- ( : 5. 4.-....s ( 5 .s ,t s r.. ;. y?. .-Ly .V.,....;..... .rm. s. '.... o.G, .c .a. ~ s.. 3 J. .. y... s ' i i, <.w. (* q r.. y m> 74 p -

c. - s et S19 e'

j ;.

^*e. r_ .,..3 i s ., g 'f 8 l 'a.s ..y, S.,

.= 3.-

. j g

* *., t ; r_.

e t...- ..). j.. ' ~ D PO D ooJ o D IQ~ SJ o a

a e e l]UC' i. YG U R C'.lk. :1. : C.'*1 ).*.l i K' X"!.E !! TNkh.Ch 1,':,T;,: ?r' C[e ",,, $11 $bQ 111)C.; *? !. (. ). * * *, t,.S. g p. L'g).,,^.,!y.f 4.es. .1 5 4.8 .. ) g.V (Jh.s. f,m.,v.p. e, i e...,.{ 6, u.

t... m. e.,2. r.,rs, u a.

u s. ' n e p. p.f.3 .,4. = =.. c. m e .~ :":- Q r=.,.=.= g. e...: g ' ;.J. n Q~a s ?*..,.+., (.v r 2,. s r. .a .a . r' o C..>

1 ps

i. ;

l..... u.,.]..?.,n y a..... ~.;..sy g+{8.}1 .. L 3.,e. f r.,g 1,J,.,., 4-.. t".. s. % C .i..... .e, i t. 4.,4..,.,e.*t }.g./ v v., (,. <

..,.,,.5s7, g,w q,,i c..

.,.s.. ,,3.s ; - 8.- i.. e n-g (.,= t.'r. f.s ",p r. h g,.. *.,, g. 5,. a: M J. 3 L, h,... s. ..a: .,<.,s y c...-.,;.s.. y. p1 s;..> ....c... 1,. h ;- ..,..,.,.',3.. i."._. .. 1 .S e... .3 !- 4 ...y g .j.. - t

a t

'y 4 F s N.=, w.e. r , a

1..'.i.t..!

,t,.,.,...,. i / s x 4 .L ' a

i.. r. r.. a s..x t. y

.s. v s.. 4 [s., e_.,. .e... t p'..,. ,,t n. l.' 4.e. a t... 3 s q-s e. n. ~ s g..,,, +, t..s 1 i,. s

1. e.

c,s .a, + s s.>.. .6 s. i h'.C } ' e 4', '.-:* h.,.. ". O. I

2. >..<

3 r' -

t. u....v.... )

...,.s .3 s (.' r a. s n'@]O D O d JU @D ~ l A .a l

t J,, ;.. ;.. :,

1... }.,1.

}..,s*... p.C. <;*.;. 0 0.A, *.a,.,.. '. 1 <...... %'.

L.$l,...

w\\ r t.i.)..?.,...\\ en. .. r. u. ~s.. .e ee e.*.. *,.

'. '..8..'. s.

g $,*.,..s+.~...oi. s 9e e F.[. s).if., 4.*, e r s

- ;. g..

3. (g,

- k:. M..,

f .f.,.1.,. e .sa y:....,.,. oO. ,o (* a L.. -. .. s. '.. ',9,..:. L.s '} (e,, }..., J.* u.0 7,s. 4,,. ) -.s -s ws

u.,?,1 r,,.

.,.1 s.... p i.,. i

4.,s 3..

..,..g..~... ,.<~r s.~. L u s 9.,r (.-. -. a ~.. s r.. . ;.. 'r )..' . s f **s$,, 's s.,-.. s,...' Go r.. n. s- *.$.. ' *, h r.*. ' *. c, ** t,. f,!.', +, -s .s . ) u tyo.- - (- J. : -. ?. :

c m.,1.

.t.,..,,, g..,., ;.. r.g e., :..... s..,. s.t s. .S 7g ",-e=

4*** ' * -

gi p S* hI '( #"4* .. >. 3.. ' W. s ' 'I Fe p,g f.?

'.1 J. b3 4 *!

f,.* 1 I 4.# .. #. L t A4 sa c., s-a, g y ws** t L# 5 3.*.; g.

p-

.e g. -. .. 4a 4.- e, + eS**e J s. g ,f., g*.*,. ',p. .ts. e tp .4 7, ge* g I* 9 f n e p ( d .~ ~ n. ~ ~ aw /' s ._ t'.'. l q"

- y*

j' q f ...i w

/r.

l'. '. t, 5 p i 1; n - , / 5 r. N. s. g' I 9 - u e ,' *, g.*

=J'%

I j as.m 6 e a.

w U'y

%e *.'a.. f, s . s, . k [*

et %.

6

1. .g

-e,.b 4 e )s .-9g O' .'.Dg, .I A.~ g g .'e f. D D ~ m D A V ( d g6 e.4

e e

+ i.n.. 7.,. y, 4.:r:

p.~

gy*.. . a, e...

. e s... e

.r, h9 6. o g,. g,... s. o g.c,.m. : a,. e. 3. e ..ee e..s :. r., ax o,. (..., .. v.!a s.. s., .. n.. a w. .J.)..%.5 *..,,2..- -...,...) r..r.. l.,. f . a.,.,.. / - a,.m. 3o.,.*,..,,,,......,A.M 9.*,... d. ..t.....n*... ~ -.*)ss' s s.. 7. m% &,w, u.. / :.,. ;.,.; e et A .4 s., ..m. sp. e ) ) ey.'... m. e >*,, t.., .A. t <., n.

f. c... s.,.....,,

.r.. g ) .g .J.s. c, q 7s... a. <.,,,. 3 _,....,. ) . a... w... ,u

p.,. 3. n_,6.

.,.- L,..., .i;t},.. <.,- ..s.,. a s

r. <'. i, e...s,*... 1 ;.,,,,n c'. n.

.s~

e.,,

} ,r,o q._ .>

~~=*.;.~~
~~r s,.,,:: (id. s. .s~~
~~~!,..~~
~~,;/. i v.- t.- ,.. I be 5J,i,./ r is -~~
~~t. 4.~~
~~.IV", r M e,.....- l's . sf. .J y j e )'..s~~
~~L.. e,.o. l~~
~~. y a s. o o.o, J ), y U.s s i e j~~
~~o.. ] p 'g~~
~~-. \\.+. a se os-. h g ra sa4 4, l.' e }.ae g I [I f p p - 9. F .o - e v.. . ~. '. C.$ I d + s e eAf / r'.~~
8
~~.j.~~
~~..,3.~~
p,.i.-- '.;,..... si. +: s ~. L 4 4 ., f. 5 1 ;e a t '. t-a 4 l e !as {,, b o h... e 'e w i. I 9 s. g a g' g e. (. / N s y 4 s q; 1g / 0,1, .. '...w,7 +. . a L 4 ~ .t ee. ..*.e e wee e, 4 t 4 ..3 t * ;, a., i. p .,e g 9 n, i ^ h'...,. s..,... ~ 's. ', e. i,. 1 r;. e 6 s '. ,r. a b',* \\ "4" f (..,., g.., i 6 'J ,y. .h. ao ..]IO
a.
gg (, , k ea% e 4 .a4kk0 vi"g g.. e. s's1e, ,. j %> S&..,g .g,'p th a g I e ,'g pg { q j y,1.,.......i. !...J * ... J..+ * ,a.. . ll.N jn.,A. s .R{R.., ( 0,/V. ' !.! - %1 ( / t ....../.,jX.. CL :'t..Q n.... /,,/./,._.. 3,A,'.. / / '..%4. . :.~:, 8 ,s I. t 4 (, y /' qs } i.- +. u:.t. .e.. h, w. . i. s. j .,,. s s -.s 'a. 2- ..), 9 ,i - b..... .g 9 ,l .'s 5 Y'a O g g 3 e 4,, s. [.. f' } e.f
~~e~"~~
C. D O n 'D ) - i gc....... 3.. r, g. 1 r. g C.s v- .I s. r ~ - 1.-. or - 93 ~ 9 L v O s .k
d* f I () 'f t. 1 '. r-4 r-( t4 01 -i M H '4 M n **t' ., t r. 9 l'% t% up to tn (.% C6 On 4.1 l t'.
~~=b I~~
~~i r4 LU t3 L.:- \\*) \\3 ,I fA (3 6o f 11' 8 i ( !.' f t.,7 et H I tft i O C%~~
~~9.-~~
~~pe { g g ry sq t/s r.: c4 tJ N l'J ('! t I ( f I g .-t ,a r.: rt es t'4 rs C1 e p e a $4 .,4 ff !J ?' ~~ e 1j l2 It ?; 17 f. J (1 C = f. + p~~
)
~~> r: (. ".1 ,J ',.,1 'c n r- .\\~~
~~r..>~~
~~i_. s., s,~~
~~a. s~~
~~'e .s s + 0; r Q .< 1 r; 1 a .l a t: >: t r: t ii, i ..O .n i .f 4 is if i - J.; ! t-- p- .- }~~
~~j c-14i c~~
~~a. 0 .2 'w : .r: e i', t': () ) i l t., e fa .s n,. i.i c. r ,. s. e.- i; .n' '~ i c .o a .,"; e. i is .s t <. s r. ...s. ( r .r, t. .r. a c. O ,(~~
~~3 C:~~
~~~, r u Ih O O .') OM t' J ri n e i.a f:-i Cs~~
~~.-* :4 r-:~~
~~O a: F4 1. . -} s~~
]
~~L.4 !.I l A ! 's L'; o?> 4 is ou u 4 '4 o. ? f' 5 f1 1 U (1 .? 41 0 ;1 i a ,.) O ] O~~
~~s 7~~
~~l'y *: h .1 i;.. ) .; 3 e'] 12, l '.) .f.,h J7~~
~~f. * '.~~
~~2,'~~
~~<<.i rt ,) t, u (.I.~~
~~ti I, ? *-I sO~~
~~.O [ i ? 'o n n n g g a e! di L.' ! O ': I t.'M e~~
~~< -t ei n~~
/
in so tw c.) ci h (1 3 f.'4 :, 1 t
84 4 t C (*el h i' i. e.4 r4 N cJ N r4 r-f 01 N e-4 N e . O.,.I c .e a 1 3 V f (- 0 O rp O O O O 'd
1
~~-1 l~~
~~c' o a e o i-o c-JJ l N Ps ( l l l M I I F c) ? s= b in is ts' 8 *, o C3t N c n M N I t~~
~~J t 'd f~~
~~I f I C, et f* I I a c4 t; Lc o m r-* e.4 D FO I* ! *) C' '. T L +j.s r; C, 4 U .o .i .y, e.s, s s.o. r.;~~
~~r..~~
~~.n. w . 4 .J s.~~
~~s. i.~~
~~L, l s O id d p 2,) .-) r-( h R q s p +i f,i G s. -v a v c' r i i n. lsi g e. ja .. = at t' 9; t ?.?~~
)
~~? m,.i c e s. r }.~~
\\
~~C ?+ C s~~
)
~~.2 Ci ,l*f D~~
~~ry 1.)~~
~~u-4 i 1.'~~
~~. /~~
~~1 i .4j ty ** e U ;. tu };' C s c 'U h+ i G t.*1 'T L i* i r~~
~~f. *,Q; t w S}t i~~
~~i t-rf r. 4 1' s:: ;, r-r: a. s.~, v..! ~ c' O r, *. .- j . o. a. c3 ? t- ,o c 1~~
q

2,
~~<., o i-c.* r- .9 s m; e~~
~~f 9 :.,~~
~~a4 o o .e u .,4 u. .u n c.r. n o ..) v u ee c rn 3 4 w y u N e: a .c,: n .r..a.. a>..; --* _~. v,. c c: ~ -~ ~ e., ,e. u -: v 14 ') C. V O O Q Q C Q N f: O .s s bn p,' rv g4 i;.e p4 [.. l7 <f~~
~~5. t i, s p~~
~~P, g .t:o r, .m0 p n n ai~~
~~.' f 3~~
~~r.3 <3 a ,. s . we g,, 8 .a r: . h 67g (I 7 (( b C I,3 (' fs f8 b# !l~~
~~s g~~
~~7,* N! U~~
t
~~-18 'O UN () it O t* .O ')~~
~~~. '~~
~~at p~~
u
~~.y .4 6 .1 0~~
)

)
~~C. c.; rs i; l),f '4 si 11 .:.s~~
~~t. e r-~~
~~> a e; .u g.1 ,-...i g .c y. 0: e. v, e p ua e, n.a.e e c. c.. u .e c., 4 c.j C ,s., w C. c c.~~
~~-4 i-3 3.~~
~~u.: D* Mj M A D A O <.A., U t. v L _a U O e4 (*'& -~~
~~7 di t.O t' -~~
~~tit CN h2 O, ' t'l r*i e-! t*! a4 t*4 t-l~~
~~j e-I~~
--4 N d O A e gm +~ W
t (' ( I f,) I" I Gl a 1n?
~~-4 es~~
~~(*) O e< t-l (..t r-4 , -t J e-f c: O 'il P L,1 e4 Os os rs N r=f l% ^& . Dj - N i is t' t% N ?% r,1 ( et c.) I I I f7 ou o t~ tu i,~~
~
~~m n r, si' f3 -( i-t 1 i N r-4 f.;l r1 I c-O V.* F; I C c3 r-i 3 I (" 3 { I I r' r? C3 N f 'O e-4 r-1 M M (s e4 ed r-i r-4 sJ ?=. li v (1 f. (* PS O wi ". *. G .J. .1 ( ,-<.C' S! C; 6 (J. ty ./ e.~~
4
~~.s be y t *h - " r~',, ' O K ....)*4 4 Q .J 1.:~~
~~s A~~
~~,.r. 4 e = s-r c iy .tt~~
~~l i~~
~~r. i. e-e e~~
~~) j s-L~~
~~.a s e ' ,s = ~. s he a a gr ,rs i. n e n v;~~
~~s H~~
~~ty a y el, 'J Eis M fj -j n: - f 5 ci T., r e g t ,4 (; c~~
)

t f/4
~~-f e. a. Lv t.. : s i:3 44 E~~
~~t. ! -~~
~~t 0I t' s 1. ,i' r, ( ;~~~
)
~~,I (., e .e.d~~
e
~~= $6 h, .i y 4 "y a$*l p. ,I y. 9 O e-4~~
~-
9
~~S*5 8~~
~~\\ g' f.$ .4 c' .g g t. as = g t. ~~~
e.
~~e*,E' 4~~
~~M,.~~
~~s ,= s;s gp p s ,F8 d I '; (-l h ') ' f e + k = O U ($ !? D '(4 0 f'- W l' W. .' i [4 f,.= kt [- [ 4 *. 4 !n ,g r e a* F1 .t .P., p- .' I .s 't ) .i ! I4.' I (3 C '.: t! Lt N O 5~~
~~5' b~~
3:
s
~~}< r;, 4 e D D~~
~~t. '~~
U 'i (1,,. I /J {.' e O p r ) '. JJ 4.1 .t'. r: Q U} -52 s-*
~~J t'.!~~
~~.7 A,.' .'1 .a .u [5 J.- i -, 91 o o a N -i~~
~~s t,s y i~~
~~~ a e e h 3Il si t-l 24 C *. .O.~~
~~n.... e s-4 is [ ; (4 i~~
O' 0 D i ,1 Od i d O f V 6] AJ i -s.'.l' _2 t+ ca - m., ,c-t e o c3 a o.. u n g o, 2 c.3 13 n n .t 14 ft' LT ear, i. i e i I
U * *: C (f) UJ r-{ N ,-l el
~~4 (N~~
~~(" 1 t, ' .C.td,l f~~
~~. a~~
~~O e~~
(P, ( *> m t*1 kg ( *r O! T* (9 (9 P1 1' - t'. f ** (*) t* AJ l P*. tw f* I P-( r1 N (.h l I I (9 ~* .-t m (' 1.-: e-* e4 e-4 to re.: 4 L4 N W I I I i i f i f I T eA i- ( t1 r7 (*. P's i, ( 's L "i .0 O .r'. i; e4 m O ,C f* (*) 'o t >e Li. C: C :. J t: < . t.1 0 .4 i '. ,e La e 4a f g .,s r-a .U t1 I; t 4 e4 .I rn < t, w i f. ..s 1? i' ':) C d .V. 4: j JJ 'j <, N r.4 r: :4 t> 4 r; J 4., .y a. s 2. y 4i t? 'd ;:
~~'s g..,~~
c'
~~4. 2 i~~
~~i.) '/. l'. {; ta r * * * - (. e-a~~
=
~~p ,f ,e Q ',.- ; L. ' .J ..,.-J 'a,:2 4r n1 s+ ". s~~
~~4. -~~
~~.n {4,..!) d r* t) .,1 il~~
~~a f-r a~~
~~r. r. [ s t e-t i D .9 f .* i f [ e g L'i ?!'- ot U.i~~
~~j L a.~~
~~1 0) -l Q 8r: = e n f: + .f_ [ l d &v N .._ rf 'J (r .1 g.? ,t e._ .g r, nd; g t. 4 un i 'd !! l), .'J j' ~ 'n .-i 's t U vi h. g + + .J tQ e-i ,Q t -: e, en~~
~~D H~~
~~ff /* f i P. e~~
7
~~(* jc .7 y, j' y Q ?~~
~~f..,..~~
i8
f
~~.s r.; w r. J.. g; i r. s,. .w. v-a t. s. OO L'4 14 -3 0.. f.. D L: t. O (' I--8 Uk C* f.s J' c' O M I) id kJ 1; t.. L' 3~~
)
~~d ?) W r,* : .et 0 t*l 14 f I s 'a.f la 4 e '.n b e l-43 ",4 O !) (,' (' t' J' ars ~ 'i i 2 TJ 4i .d : 6; e a 4 '. 'I ..O L.~~
)
~~T' y >J 9 .: s .8. y~~
4
~~~. ;~~
~~+w e. J,' I t.,)~~
~~.Q (.~~
.' gy

*s N
~~4 P,s tit S. t4 4 s gg! D 0 oo OI v _ LJ C ...a. .i st (9~~
?
If) eif f*= P'- r; Yl .J e) fi) . o*n s ') /. I (t (1 (T1 a.* I' ..s {..
Is 4 es se h C e4 ,=< f*4 e8 e' f*) aP 4
~~f e -f e+4 t'. '~~
~~.-4 e .O L. e e. a. v. M 'f7 m (q rI (1 f1 M M M U r1 t-t,- (* ts t-r- rs is t-t, l* I I 6 8 i i I I I 1 tf I e4~~
~~e..~~
~~i.;. C*i M t-1 (1 s'1 ~4' .-4 f. L '3 r. N i-( e4 O IN fI f\\t e3 at f. I 1. 1 f I I i l i t ' 6e VJ (* f* N (* IN f ** l'e O', O f e e Lt 4{ b v C n~~
)
~~.1! !I C ') -t + 4f ..s-: t.? I e ss sa .?.l, r L* e 7* t Q C ? T' s i.1 1-s. it e. O i, ^~~
?
~~^ t _+ ~ s~~
~~-'6 w~~
~~e_ r-j 's t +- t;~~
=

9 L.-
~~8 ,i ). 4,~~
~,
~~(1 ~. y ~ t) !+ 4.s (t s L3 L f* d.: a L-(: 1 e~~
4
~~'; s .: J .s W f p., !t /* O i; O i' - t, fy g i j .! ' l f (* 1 b-if e ~- '-- j D l1' C C f* (*., f,. e, O d-(; e 'lI 7) C ~ f.; 61 ( p', + = e:4 C u.~~
n
~~.. ; Q .e C id (q "3~~
~~J e-t i~~
~~J: L: e4 n ~. 5,~~
~~I t.,'~~
(1
~~.5 O~~
~~Cl -4 H.:~~
r
t.
~~.a v c. p c. 0 0 0 0 O hG L-* O L-: V La is~~
~~- 0~~
'O r e 4 .' f I 'iS /) .t3 s.: 1.4.' r.' !-t rs t -' r.; u o o O i< ' l-I w O O (* D G i. Si t.4 rf;; t.5 :. 4.' J.* O .5 .a .c u gy ,e tL t,'. M .L' .J d .i c t; .,2 5 U! O O El O ': ) O O C, p ( -t f4 C'.3 11 6-1 7 b's d Y U !, J () 4 .4
[;
~~D D D._ pd g-3 .. h a bd , u,. ~ t, to e o ,m c. ._ t ,.I = v .? s" Na M- -r - .y e g;g gy, ,,)~~
~~e4 f.l C~~
' sQ i - - - - ~:. a
1 Q (J 4 l ,I sd e* ei 4 M d * *'- () s,; M I'$ h'h I \\/ f6i (*. e, n w E'd.: M. 41 (1 M-is is 57
r.a

r

?
~~a:" f,' f's f f tw P-(w ( *- ,N J. ~4 /.> I I 'P O 1 ( t i 1 6 el C N N t's (q v;: ',o o O' n n ( ta s.': rs .a e4 i I /:- et t i s a c) s.4 t- ( e.4 et e-t 'O sis i O e ed g s~~
/
ef 3.a m S*
~~e e'~~
~~1 .e-t~~
~~9 0~~
~~9 4 re ,. ave 9,~~
~~r..~~
~~4.er 1; ( C (. i: ? as l ~ f .I $- 4' O (* I n [, A g g y~~
~~.U t~~
-.,e s ': .'a r-t ?. e c., ea.$ c g '4, o . i w ,',t. 'y.* JJ 5' 1 -, :- c ?' = = - t- $, [ f m 1 9 .. + '* t : s- ) 4 4 ke O, e p i 4 I I,, L = .a p O! )* (. 7 s , ~., i s' ,- i t'j. -n s = t. .a 5 s
~~9 h4 O~~
p I g e b 1 f p b2 ) (* s .c e - a r-4 s.=*
a
~~=. 6 , N =y s a gs i) 8f- . ? P s b'? b- [, rt O 'C 5 I. '-I C- - f (s~~
~~e..~~
~~( 4. ~ -i t.. n r !2 ; - r a1 + < r~~
~~w g~~
~~a s i y g T,: s., 9 .e~~
~~. 4-~~
~~'M Zj W 8 f] "j i) O "'- i4 ta n p 3 i O 1.* - 5t 34 p .'Jl .a .a.t () -O a) v' 14 f?j.;s s .A l D) 4 s) e' .n: j 4 s - g 'g-h b R Q ,h. 4 k.I d'.8 g~~
~~-1 s~~
~~S*4 Da'8 4 O ..) g* g~~
~~p. T 6.{~~
~~I l D 4 kA men '.i {'. e e.' N 9 0 + { h% [ 1 I f 4, 1 I.O g s g 8-gb 4,f .%!) ' %, g a* 4 (: 3 (j O, gO I t k 9% e~~
~~ggI L-~~
~~a I~~
~~, 4~~
- Q s:l i) ,4 (v~ e-i e-f e4 t/1 . -f 10 f*' O '* Un\\ ~~ .e. Li tr. t:e u'a f,' I~ P. t~ t. 'A sq 0-P (* .t> I t 1 N I I f f i W (- O t-4 i i i.'- ts <c c; c-{ .s a n -t s. e+ f I I i i 1 L 2 Cr o ss cs tv ei v <? m r-4 e e S. . As 4 d4, O
~~d U~~
?v 5,, rl ;., P F, CJ,Q s. s.-. - ~.. 1 w = rJ I ,~ f e g. 4 s .e e e, .s .sj TT 1 35 3 t'*
~~r. &~~
~~r_. 1 b,. h' .e,- L. ' C. 6 + .. j ,a n e, s, 5* W p-4 t '? .e.' '3 s s~~
~~e. -~~
~~(, As l'. f< j- ~ f.; ~ t I L. I"~~
~~j 4~~
~~L; s< m 4 4 5 4-If s ' t.- t' -y p -.u 5 I is %/ ,e {* g 4 3't F ;, L- .s .s D e, ll O I.) + H 1; S i-.s e, /.S C -. (' /4 r s g~~
~~.~=.s.~~
~~C . %g ,se em + r >V t.', .n 4 y ~ L' ~.., n,. i-a :7 M r* [- - D. i.. (-:. ~. P~~
~~- 4 s.~~
~~n.. A' A D D oo g O } 6 'u C t. o.,- Ir m 3,~ (5 E. h e-O 's 14 4 14 V "" (V fjO 1;. ;, s~~
~~1 f1 1:~~
.0
~~.t c' .Cu(il s y ; J a p ~ M 1: D O t .18 M >J r ,D. -) iJ f' O >S 1, s- ?. 2 .a s- .we tg '{4 r,t (.,.e e i ..- ' f i 1 0' 1 g l 'T til "7 h r* res e.? s.4 6. , (- f~~
~~'t 40 49 Q~~
~~tfj t) (= {s ts {~~
~~i 1~~
1
UNITED STATES < OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) Docket Nos. 50-346A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) 50-500A COMPANY ) 50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear ' Power Station, ) Units ~ 1, 2, and 3) ) ) THE CIIVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) ) CERTIFICAT8 OF fiERVICE I hereby certify tha' copies of the foregoing " Tentative . List of Documentary E):hibits of The Toledo Edison Company" and " Tenth-tive Witness List of The Toledo. Edison Company" were served upon each of the-persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand delivering a copy to those persons in the Washington, D.C. area and by mailing a copy,' postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 1st day of December, -1975. j' I. y,- I,; I ?- /f/<A c-i .I Robert E. Zahler/ D D) o a .5L 1 IIC 4 $4 L. >ln-y s:
UNITED STATES OF AMSRICA
~~NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.~~
[Before the-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) s TIIE. TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and' ) _THE' CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )' Docket No. 50-34GA COMPANY. ) (Davis-Besse NuclearLPower Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) .THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) -COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-441A j Units 1 and 2) ) ) THE TOLEDO' EDISON COMPA'JY ET AL. ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ). Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A C SERVICE LIST t Douglas V. Rigler, Esq. Mr. Chase R.-Stephens Chairman, Atomic Safety and Docketing & Service Section Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulat,ry Commission Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh 1717 H Street, N.W. . and~Jacobs Washingtoa, D.C. 20006 Chanin Building - Suite 206 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20006 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
~~Ivan W.. Smith, Esq.~~
Office of the Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and-Licensing U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board-Panel ~ Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, 1.C./20005 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. Steven M. Charno, Esq. John M.Frys.ak, Esq. Melvin G. Berger, Esq. Atomic Safety and-Licensing Anthony G. Aiuvalasit, Esq. Board Panel Ruth _Greenspan Bell, Esq. U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Janet R. Urban, Esq. - ~- Washington, D.C.~20555 Antitrust-Division. Department of Justice Atomic Safety and' Licensing' - Washington, D.C. 20530 Board ~Panci D"'f7) D .U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory.Commissi.on Us( c - Washington, D.C. 20555~
~~' 9 'l 9~~
~~~ T g 4~~
~~ro k~~
~~d A- ~ a .h i :? ?- -.m~~
~~j v e-y q~~
4 9 e y ,, --g
Reuben GoldberJ, Esq. Russell J. Spetrino, Esq. David C. Hjcimfelt, Esq. Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq. Michael D. Oldak, Esq. Ohio Edison Company Goldberg, Fioldman & Hjelmfelt 47 North Main STrect 1700 Pr.nnsylvania Ave., N.W. Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D. C. 20006 Terence II. Benbow, Esq. Wallaco E. Brand, Esq. A. Edward Grashof, Esq. Pearce & Brand Steven A. Berger, Esq. Suite 1200 Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 40 Wall Street Washington, D. C. 20036 New York, New York 10005 Frank R. Clokey,Esq. Thomas J. Munsch, Esq. Special Assistant General Attorney Attorney General Duquesne Light Company Room 219 435 Sixth Avenue Towne House Apartments Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Harrisburg, PA 17105 David Olds, Esq. Mr. Raymond Kudukis William S. Lorach, Esq. Director of Public Utilitics Reed Smith Shaw & McClay City of Cleveland Union Trust Building 1201 Lakeside Avenue Box 2009 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 James B. Davis, Director Lee A. Rau, Esq. Robert D. Hart, Esq. Joseph A. Ri.cser, Jr., Esq. Department of Law Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 1201 Lakeside Avenue Madison Building - Rm. 404 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 1155 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq. Edward A. Matto, Esq. The Cleveland Electric Richard M. Firestone, Esq. Illuminating Ccmpany Karen II. Adkins, Esq. ^ 55 Public Squarc Antitrust Section Cleveland, Ohio 44101 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 John Lansdale, Esq. Cox, Langford & Brown Christopher R. Schraff, Esq. 21 Dupont Circle, N.W. Assistant Attorney Gencral Washington, D. C. 20036 Environmental Law Section 361 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor Leslie Henry, Esq. Columbes, Ohio 43215 Michael M. Briley, Esq. Roger P. Klee, Esq. James R. Edgerly, Esq. Fu ')r, Henry, llodge & Snyder Secretary and Concral Counsel P. O. Box 2008 Pennsylvania Power Company Toledo, Ohio 43603 One East Nashington Strcot New Castle, Pg E G3 o o SJ yTM g& A L da n.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Introduction. 1 B. The Growth and Development of The Toledo Edison Company is the Result of Natural Economic Forces. 2 1. Early history 2 2. Decision to join CAPCO. 3 C. Requests to Join CAPCO. 5 D. Toledo Edison's Contractual Obligations 7 1. Rate policy 7 2. Buckeye agreement 8 3. Wholesale contracts 10 E. Alleged Territorial Allocation. 11 F. Acquisition of Municipal Power Systems. 13 G. Dealings with Municipal Power Systems 15 1. Napoleon. 15 2. Waterville. 18 3. Bryan 20 4. Bowling Green 21 H. Conclusion. 22 l l l 6
December 1, 1975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-441A Units 1 and 2) ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A PREHEARING FACT BRIEF OF THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY A. Introduction The Toledo Edison Company (" Toledo Edison") is sub-mitting this separate prehearing fact brief to present a short statement dealing with: (1) the growth and development of Toledo Edison; and (2) the specific charges of anticompetitive conduct alleged against Toledo Edison by the Department of Justice (" Department" ), the NRC Staff (" Staff"), and the City of Cleveland (" Cleveland"). With respect. to the legal issues involved in this proceeding and the allegations directed against . the Central' Area Power Coordination Group ("CAPCO") generally, Toledo Edison fully supports and hereby incorporates the posi-tions taken in the "Prehearing Brief for the Applicants."
I 2-f \\ 1 B. The Growth and Development of the Toledo Edison Company is the Result of Natural Economic Forces. 1. Early History Around 1890, a Toledo lawyer, Albion E. Lang, and two Chicago financiers, Norman B. Ream and William E. Hale, joined together to give impetus to the new and emergent elec- ,trical business. Even at this early date the inefficiencies resulting from the multiplicity of separate transit and electrical systems in and around Toledo were well recognized. Thus, in 1896 these gentlemen were able to acquire, for the purpose of consolidation, an electric company and severcl horsecar lines. The new company was called the Toledo Consol-idated Street Railway Company (" Consolidated"). With the additional pcwer produced by the newly constructed Water Street electric station, the electrification of Consolidated's car lines commenced. At that time, a three-wire system of electric distribution, licensed by Thomas Edison, was utilized. The license from Thomas Edison carried with it permission to use the inventor's name in the licensee's corporate title, and made possible the use of the name Toledo Edison in later years. By the turn of the century, the development of the interurban industry had produced a profound effect on Toledo-area utilities. In 1901 one of the large interurban syndicates, ~ the Lake Shore Electric Railway connecting Cleveland with Toledo, Detroit, and intermediate points, acquired Lang's system and organized the Toledo Railways and Light Company (" Rail-Light"). In 1907, Rail-Light absorbed a gas and electric company; how-ever, the gas properties were subsequently disposed. Thereafter, in 1912 the Cities Service Company owned by Henry L. Doherty acquired Rail-Light. i By 1921, the electric business had grown so large that the Rail-Light management decided to separate its trans-portation and electric operations. The Community Traction Com-pany was organized to operate the streetcar business, and the name of Rail-Light, which retained the electric business, was changed to "The Toledo Edison Company." In the years that followed, the growth of Toledo Edison reflected the decline of the interurban industry, for as interurban lines were abandoned, Toledo Edison acquired their electric distribution properties within the Toledo area. Al-though several small municipal electric systems, as well as some privately-owned electric companies, became a part of Toledo Edison, its general service area has not changed appreciably since 1938. The growth that has occurred in the succeeding years is primarily attributable to an increase in customer de-mand as opposed to an increase in geographical service area. 2. Decision to join CAPCO In November 1964, when the original CAPCO arrangement was executed, Toledo Edison believed that the arrangement was
-4_ responsive to its particular needs. As then constituted, CAPCO was a loosely-knit voluntary coordination arrangement the pri-mary purpose of which, as set forth in Article I, was to "* *
~~seek and realize all benefits practicable to be effected through coordination in the operation and development of their respective generating and transmission systems."~~
(Buckeye Power Delivery Agreement at 3). The great Northeast power failure of November 9, 1965, resulted in a dramatic increase in public concern over system reliability. In response to this, American Electric Power (" AEP"), a dominant force in the original CAPCO arrangement, insisted that CAPCO address itself solely to the assurance of reliability. This resulted in the organization of the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement ("ECAR") in 1967, which was devoted solely to reliability and which included all the original CAPCO members, and others. However, the signatories to the present CAPCO agree-ment were still in need of a coordinating group to achieve econo-mies of scale as well ac reliability, whereas the other members of the original CAPCO group had already formed such groups; these included AEP, the Allegheny-system, the Michigan pool, the Indiana pool, and the CCD pool. Accordingly, a new CAPCO group was formed (consisting of Applicants who retained the old CAPCO name). They entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which provided for the construction of large jointly-owned generating units l l (which they could not separately afford) and necessary transmission l f facilities. The goal was to provide adequate rcserves to insure reliability and to achieve economies of scale. C. Requests to Join CAPCO One of the allegations directed against Toledo Edison is that it refused the Borough of Pitcairn's request for member-ship in the CAPCO pool, thereby denying Pitcairn access to the benefits of coordinated operation and development. The facts surrounding this situation have, however, been completely distorted. Contemporaneously with its request for membership in CAPCO, Pitcairn, with a load of only a few megawatts, was attempting to get supplemental power from the Duquesne Light Company ("Duquesne"). As part of its strategy, Pitcairn's counsel wrote a form letter to the chief execut "ea of each CAPCO company requesting membership. In response, Toledo Edison advised that it was of the opinion that it would be wholly impracticable for an operation the size of Pitcairn to participate in CAPCO. Thereafter, on February 29, 1968, Pitcairn's counsel, Mr. McCabe, wrote a letter to Mr. John K. Davis, former President of Toledo Edison, in which he stated: I have discussed the matter of the Borough of Pitcairn membership in the CAPCO power pool with the Duquesne Light Company on a preliminary basis, and feel that the most beneficial ap-proach would be to complete my dis-cussions with them before imposing upon your time.. [ emphasis added] ~
6-After what were apparently unsuccessful negotiations with Duquesne, Mr. McCabe, contrary to his stated intention, did not contact Toledo Edison to pursue the matter further, but instead commenced an antitrust action against Duquense in federal court. Subse-quently, he filed with the Federal Power Commission ("FPC") an application pursuant to Section 202(b), 16 U.S.C. S824a(b), and t'he matter was finally resolved. Accordingly, it is clear that Toledo Edison never, by implication or otherwise, refused member-ship in CAPCO to Pitcairn; Toledo Edison simply did not have an opportunity to discuss the matter with Pitcairn. Toledo Edison would like to remind this Licensing Board that Applicants' proposed license conditions, e.lready on file with the Board (and attached to the "Prehearing Brief for the Applicants" as Exhibit A), provide a broad range of benefits to those electric entities who chose to take advantage of them. To date, Toledo Edison has not received a singla request from any municipal electric system, or for that matte) from anyone, requesting participation in, or access to, the nuclear power units being licensed in this proceeding. In light of Toledo Edison's willingness to provide eccess to nuclear power, and the failure of any electric entity to see' such access, it is indeed anomalous that our adversaries in this proceeding rest their allegations of exclusionary conduct on half-hearted requ 3ts, like that by Pitcairn.
~7-D. Toledo Edison's Contractual Obligations Some of the contractual obligations of Toledo Edison have been challenged in this proceeding as anticompetitive. It is only by means of the various contracts Toledo Edison enters into that it is able to carry on the business of a public utility. In all cases the challenged contracts have been filed with and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency. As the "Prehearing Brief for the Applicants" makes quite clear, from a purely legal standpoint, such contracts cannot be found to be inconsistent with the antitrust laws without first making sure that the regu-latory policies underlying those contractual obligations are afforded full weight. Furthermore, as a. factual matter, Toledo Edison will demonstrate at the hearing that the allegations are without support. 1. Rate Policy The Department claims that by designing the rates it charges to municipal wholesale customers to be equal to or less than the rates applicable to large industrial customers, Toledo Edison has eliminated the ability of its municipal customers to compete for industrial loads. Toledo Edison acknowledges that it han generally attempted to equalize the rates in question, but only because such a policy is lawful, reasonable, and has no anticompetitive purpose or effect. As Toledo Edison will demonstrate, its currently approved rates for municipal and industrial customers are not the same, but, in fact, the industrial rates are sub-stantially higher. Moreover, Toledo Edison will show that even if the rates in question were equalized, the competitive position of its municipal customers vis-a-vis Toledo Edison would not be damaged. Its municipal customers have in the past, are presently, e and assuredly will continue in the future to actively and success-fully compete for industrial loads. The charge completely ignores the fact that all of Toledo Edison's wholesale or retail rates must be approved by either the FPC or the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, which bodies are charged with the responsibili.:y for insuring that its rates are reasonable and just. Whatever difference there is among rates charged to different classes of :ustomers has its genesis in the different costs to provide the particular class of service. 2. Buckeye Agreement It is also charged that Toledo Edison, all other investor-owned utilities in the State of Ohio (except the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company which had no electric cooperatives within its general service area and Ohio Edison Company which gives effect to the objectives of the contract indirectly), and Buckeye Power, Inc. ("Duckeye"), are parties to an agreement which is it-self anticompetitive in nature, or has been enforced in a manner inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
. The purpose of this agreement was to enable Buckeye, which is an organization owned by all of Ohio's distributing cooperatives, to build a large generating unit and provide for transmission of this power to its member cooperatives by wheel-ing the power over the lines of the investor-owned companies, thus saving the great cost of a separate transmission system. The antitrust question presented herein arises from a provision in the agreement requiring observance of the Ohio antipirating statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 4905.261. This section prohibits a utility from serving a customer presently being served by another, unless and until such customer first disconnects from the former for a period af ninety consecutive day's prior to taking service from another utility, including a cooperative. The reasons for the inclusion of this provision in the agreement were well founded, since not only was this required by state law, but, moreover, the utilities providing wheeling ser-vices were entitled to some assurance that an agreement for the benefit of the cooperatives would not be turned into an instrument for taking the municipal customers of the private companies. Toledo Edison denies that the challenged provisions [ are either unlawful or anticompetitive. In this regard, it should be noted that when the Power Delivery Agreement was submitted to j the FPC, an objection was made to the antipirating clause by cer-l tain public power interests; whereupon it was submitted for clearance under the antitrust business review procedure provided for by the e
- Department of Justice. On December 19, 1967, the Department approved the antipirating clause in a letter to Richard M. Dicke, counsel for the Ohio Power Company (" Ohio Power"), on the basis that, as used in Ohio Revised Code Section 4905.261, the term " consumer" applied to any customer whether served at wholesale or retail. Although the Department reserved the right to "re-consider" the issue, if subsequently there was a differing judicial interpretation, Toleco Edison knows of no such determination. Indeed, the only relevant judicial pronouncement, although not exactly on point, holds that the term " consumer" includes an operator of a shopping center when he resells electric power to his tenants. Shopping Centers v. P.U.C.O., 3 Ohio St. 2d 1, 208 N.E. 2d 923 ',1965). In addition, Toledo Edison will demon-strate at the hearing that it has never enforced this agreement in any manner inconsistent with the antitrust laws. 3. Wholesale Contracts 1 Both the Staff and the Department allege that Toledo Edison is a party to certain wholesale contracts which are anti-competitive in nature. Toledo Edison acknowledges that certain bilateral agreements contain voluntarily accepted provisions which could, if rigidly adhered to, limit the municipality and l Toledo Edison itself, from distributing power under certain cir-cumstances. However, Toledo Edison will demonstrate that neither party has rigidly enforced those provisions. As a result, those provisions have not in fact damaged the competitive position of i any municipality, and hence have not produced any anticompetitive effects. l Moreover, as an outgrowth of a recently concluded FPC case, Docket No. E-7929, there are now in effect two general rate tariffs which do not contain such provisions. As of this date, these tariffs already apply to Toledo Edison's principal munici-pal customers (Bowling Green, Bryan, Montpelier, Napoleon, Pem-berville and Woodville) and will take the place of the remaining municipal contracts as they expire -- the latest terminating on December 28, 1976. Thus, even should this Licensing Board find that some of the contracts were suspect, which Toledo Edison believes is not the case, the issue has already been litigated before the FPC and the new FPC tariffs already provide the neces-sary remedy. E. Alleged Territorial Allocation The Department and the Staff both allege that Toledo Edison is a party to an understanding or agreement with the Con-sumers Power Company whereby each has agreed not to serve poten-tial customers in the general service area of the other. The Department, in addition, claims that the agreement or understand-ing has prevented the Southeastern Michigan Electric Cooperative (" Southeastern") from obtaining power at wholesale from Toledo Edison. Toledo Edison denies that it was, or is, a party to any such understanding or agreement. This allegation is merely an
_ attempt to resurrect an issue which was raised, and lost, in the consumers proceeding (Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329A and 50-330A). While Toledo Edison was not a party to the Consumers proceeding, under the long-recognized doctrine of Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal. 2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 (1942), Toledo Edison may make defensive use of the decision in Consumers to collaterally estop the government 1 -- in the present proceeding the Department of Justice and the NRC Staff -- from relitigating the issue before this Licensing Board. Moreover, Toledo Edison is convinced, based upon the barren discovery efforts of the opposition and the testimony i elicited during the course of numerous depositions, that the sole basis for these charges is the field reports of two Rural Elec-trification Administration representatives purporting to describe the events of a meeting which took place in February, 1966. As the deposition interrogation made clear, there is na merit what-soever to those reports. While Toledo Edison acknowledges that it has on several i occasions declined to serve that portion of Southeastern's system which is located in Michigan, those decisions were entirely uni-lateral applications of Toledo Edison's. business judgment. At first, Toledo Edison had n0t acknowledged FPC jurisdiction and accordingly would not sell across a state line. Later, after it conceded FPC jurisdiction, Toledo Edison considered that the small quantity of power involved simply did not justify ente.ngling itself with small distributors in a foreign jurisdiction -- something with which it had no prior operating experience. At the present time, however, Toledo Edison has agreed in principle to make this sale. The negotiations surrounding this decision will be more fully explained at the forthcoming hearing. It should also be noted that if Southeastern or the government had a complaint about Toledo Edison's decision not to serve this small customer, they had a clear remedy under Sec-tion 202(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. S824a(b) (authority of the FPC to order interconnection). The amount and type of interstate wholesale service to be provided by a utility is squarely within the jurisdiction of the FPC. Consistent with the position advanced in the "Prehearing Brief of the Applicants" the Licensing Board should be especially careful to reconcile the regulatory policies of the FPC with the policies underlying the antitrust laws prior to finaing an antitrust inconsistency from this inaction on the part of Toledo Edison. This is certainly not a situation where Toledo Edison's decision not to provide service would have antitrust aspects since dominance or a trans-mission bottleneck, the foundation of the Department's claim as to a duty to sell, was absent, since power was and is available not only from Tqledo Edison, but also from Consumers Power and Detroit Edison. F. Acquisition of Municipal Power Systems While frcm time to time, Toledo Edison has found itself
in the position of being able to bid on municipal systems which, in the determination of the municipalities involved, were no longer desirable to operate, Toledo Edison rejects the implica-tion that these acquisitions were in furtherance of any monopo-listic or otherwise anticompetitive scheme or design. Toledo Edison has never acted in a manner which was calculated to place any municipality in the position where it had no option but to sell its system. In fact, Toledo Edison will show that it only analyzes the economic and technological feasibility of purchasing a municipal system after it has first received an official request to do so by the municipality's governing body or by interested citizens. Then, if a Toledo Edison purchase proposal is sub-mitted, it is the electorate, who under Ohio law ultimately de-cides if their system should be sold or retained. Such acquisitions therefore come within the protection afforded under the doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). Since sales are pursuant to invitations for bids which must come from the municipality, it is obvious that Toledo Edison is powerless to make the decisions to sell. Yet, under such cir-cumstances, a failure of Toledo Edison to bid would defeat the desires of the municipality. The individual municipalities, facing a rundown, outmoded and inefficient system, with competing uses for their limited funds, have in many instances decided to use the sale of their system as an appropriate vehicle for ob-taining more' reliable service and procuring funds necessary to
-- proceed with other needed projects such as sewage treatment plants, and the like. How the purchase of a municipal system under these circumstances can be in violation of even the spirit of the antitrust laws is difficult to discern. The purchase of a failing municipal electric business by Toledo Edison, when requested to do so by the business itself, and with ratification by public vote, contravenes neither the spirit nor the letter of the antitrust laws. G. Dealings with Municipal Power Systems 1. Napoleon The Department makes various charges against Toledo Edison relating to its dealings with the City of Napoleon, Ohio (" Napoleon"). Those charges are apparently based on an affidavit of Mr. William Lewis, an engineering consultant for Napoleon. Toledo Edison is of the opinion that the Department's reliance upon the Lewis affidavit is an attempt to limit and misdirect the focus of the Licensing Board's attention to individual and isolated matters. This affidavit is not only an incorrect focal point, from which Toledo Edis'..'s conduct can only be misconstrued but, moreover, it is not an accurate portrayal of the events described [ therein. (a) Alleged refusal to construct joint facilities It is claimed that Toledo Edison twice refused to consider joint ownership of large-scale generating facilities l with Napoleon. But as Toledo Edison will demonstrate at the hearing, it has been willing to explore the feasibility of such arrangements under its general policy of considering any pro-posal that might benefit its customers and shareholders. More-over, whether the charge is true or not, it would be necessary for this Licensing Board to substantially expand present antitrust authority to arrive at the conclus' ion that a privately-owned public utility is required to enter into business with another utility simply because it may have received such a request. We know of no decision so holding and any such requirement might well con-stitute an unconstitutional taking of property without due process. Finally, to the extent that the charge relates to the joint con-struction of non-nuclear, large-scale generating facilities, there is no nexus between the allegation and the Licensing Board's responsibility to review " activities under the [ nuclear] license." (b) Alleged refusal to engage in coordinated operations The Department charges that on at least three separate occasions between September, 1971, and March, 1972, Toledo Edison refused to ongage in coordinated operations with Napoleon, and in addition, that Toledo Edison's " dominance of transmission l l facilities", has prevented Napoleon from engaging in coordinated activities. l This charge is evidently based on the Lewis affi-davit, and is a complete misconstruction of what he said. The question was whether Toledo Edison would continue to operate in
i parallel if Napoleon took power from Buckeye. The senior Toledo representative at the meetings responded, according to Mr. Lewis, that it was a matter for further consideration. In fact, as Toledo Edison will demonstrate at the forthcoming hearing, it was willing to operate in parallel when requested to do so by the appropriate party. Thus, Toledo Edison's stipulated dominance has no bearing in the context of this charge and is merely irrelevant material aimed at coloring the Licensing Board's decision. If this reference to coordination is intended to mean something other than what the Lewis affidavit charges, then Toledo Edison now submits that Napoleon had nothing to offer by way of coordination. In the first place, unless Toledo Edison could re-ceive, as well as supply power, no "true" coordination can take place, since bilateral assistance is an essential element of any such arrangement. Second, since Napoleon had insufficient capa-city to take care of its own customers' needs, a coordination agreement was simply not feasible. Third, Toledo Edison knows of no antitrust principle thich would require it to accede to such requests. And finally, these types of transactions are within the jurisdiction of the FPC and must, as has been pointed out earlier, be reviewed in that regulatory context. (c) Alleged refusal to wheel power The Department claims that on several occasions between September, 1971, and March, 1972, Toledo Edison refused to wheel l l
. power from Ohio Power's transmission facilities to Napoleon, except upon anticompetitive terms. Such a claim demonstrates a complete misunderstanding cf the Buckeye Agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, Buckeye power cannot be distributed directly to any municipality; rather power which is generated at Buckeye's Cardinal plant is distributed solely to its member cooperatives via the transmission network of Ohio Power and other intermediate utilities. The m' ember cooperatives then distribute this power to their customers, including the municipalities. At the hearing, the facts will shcw that the distribution cooperative of Buckeye in the area, Tricounty, would not even have served Napoleon until Napoleon complied with the Ohio antipirating statute, R.C. 54905.261. Moreover, when Tricounty properly re-quested a new delivery point from which it would distribute Buckeye power to Napoleon, Toledo Edison acknowledged its contractual obli-gation and proceeded to make arrangements necessary to meet that request. As with the previous two allegations reliance on the Lewis affidavit is erroneous and without merit. 2. Waterville The Department alleges that Toledo Edison refused to sell wholesale power to the City of Waterville, Ohio ("Waterville"), and that the refusal was designed to, and did, eliminate Waterville as an independent producer of electric power. l l
- Tolado Edison's corporate policy is to provide service to anyone. '2he evidence to be introduced at the hearing will show that in the context of the circumstances surrounding the negotiations with Waterville, the actions taken by Toledo Edison are entirely consistent with the requirements of the antitrust laws. To the extent that this one instance t.gnt be construed to be inconsistent with the antitrust laws or the policies under-lying them, it was a unique and singular occurrence contrary to Toledo Edison policy. Furthermore, Toledo Edison does not believe that there is any legal principle which would compel it or any other public utility to sell wholesale power to every conceivable customer or in every conceivable situation. Toledo Edison denies that there was any casual connection between Toledo Edison's statements on wholesaling power and the fact that the Waterville Municipal Electric System went out of business. The municipality's inquiry about wholesale power was only an alternative to the purchase of additional machinery and there is no evidence that the system would have continued in business even with wholesale service. Toledo Edison will provide testimony to show that Waterville elected to get out of the business 4 of producing and distributing electricity primarily because its system was inefficient, outmoded, rundown, and mismanaged, and could not continue without the investment of substantial sums of money for upgrading and repairs -- an investment that Waterville was unwilling to make. Furthermore, the ultimate decision was a s reflection of the will of the majority of its citizens who cast a., .-n-.
~~their votes in a public election to authorite the system's sale 3.~~
Bryan The Department claims that Toledo Edison blocked Bryan, Ohio (" Bryan") from obtaining low cost power from the North Western Electric Cooperative, Inc. (" North Western") by refusing to allow its transmission lines to be used except on anticompet-itive terms. However, there is simply not even a scintilla of evidence to support this claim. Unlike Napoleon, neither Bryan nor North Western ever requested Toledo Edison to wheel Buckeye power. It is true that Bryan has discussed the possibility of obtaining Buckeye power. In a file memorandum written by Charlie Jack, a representative of Buckeye, and dated February 2, 1970, it is stated: After considerable discussion of various arrangements that might be mutually advantageous, it became apparent that Mr. Eppard's [the former manager of the Bryan Munic-ipal Electric System] true desire is to purchase a percentage of Bryan's future power needs from I Buckeye through North Western Co-op. However, irrespective of Mr. Eppard's "true desires", the most i important factor underlying this meeting was set forth in the concluding paragraph of this memorandum which stated: Mr. Cummins [the Executive Manager of Buckeye Power, Inc.] summarized the posi-tion of Buckeye with regard to service to the City of Bryan by saying that he felt we should continue to " keep in touch," l l l l
- _ _ - - -. advise each other of new developments, and try to explore various arrange-ments that appear to be mutually advantageous. However, he said, it gaears little can be done until the City's contract with Toledo Edison expires. [ emphasis added] As described above, Bryan was not then in a position to act upon Mr. Eppard's desires, since its wholesale contract with Toledo Edison would not expire until 1973. But by 1973, Mr. Eppard had been dismissed from his post; and his successor, Robert Rataiczak, has to date given Toledo Edison no reason to believe that he intends to act upon his predecessor's " desires". l Assuredly, if and when North Western, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Buckeye Agreement, requests a delivery point from which to serve Bryan, Toledo Edison will, as it must, perform its contractual obligations. 1 4. Bowling Green One of the charges made by the Staff is that Toledo Edison refused to wheel power to Bowling Green, Ohio.
~~However, i~~
the Staff did not specify when or under what circumstances this refusal allegedly took place. This is a new charge interjected into this proceeding by the Staff's September 5 filing. As such, Toledo Edison has conducted no discovery in this regard.
~~However, based upon information currently available, Toledo Edison does not believe that any such request was ever made.~~
l 4 m.
___ H. Conclusion As this prehearing fact brief demonstrates, and as the testimony at the forthcoming hearing will show, Toledo Edison has never engaged in conduct inconsistent with the anti- ~ trust laws. Thus, there is no basis for imposing omnibus license conditions, like those suggested by our adversaries, cui the construction permits and operating license sought by Toledo Edison, l especially if those license conditions are merely a rehash of the " standard" conditions without concern for the specific circum-stances of this consolidated proceeding. Moreover, Toledo Edison's offer of access, contained in the Applicants' proposed license conditions, makes available to any electric entity so requesting, all the benefits of coordinated operation and development that conceivably could be required by a Section 105c antitrust review. Respectfully submitted, FULLER, HENRY, HODGE & SNYDER e m,. $Y. a A. Leslie Henry Michael M. Briley Roger P. Klee 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Counsel for The Toledo Edison Company Dated: December 1, 1975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-441A Units 1 and 2) ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Prehearing Fact Brief Of The Toledo Edison Company" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand delivering a copy to those persons in the Washington, D.C. area and by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 1st day of December, 1975. ,/ Robert E./Zahler N = at v +m
~~c---~~
w$m T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-440's (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-441A Units 1 and 2) ) ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A SERVICE LIST Douglas V. Rigler, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens Chairman, Atomic Safety and Docketing & Service Section Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh 1717 H Street, N.W. and Jacobs Washington, D.C. 20006 Chanin Building - Suite 206 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20006 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Directos Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20005 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. Steven M. Charno, Esq. John M.Frysiak, Esq. Melvin G. Berger, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Anthony G. Aiuvalas-. Esq. Board Panel Ruth Greenspan Bell, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Janet R. Urban, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20530 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l l
Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Russell J. Spetrino, Esq. David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq. Michael D. Oldak, Esq. Ohio Edison Company Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt 47 North Main Street 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D. C. 20006 Terence H. Benbow, Esq. Wallace E. Brand, Esq. A. Edward Grashof, Esq. Pearce & Brand Steven A. Berger, Esq. l Suite 1200 Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 40 Wall Street a Washington, D. C. 20036 New York, New York 10005 Frank R. Clokey,Esq. Thomas J. Munsch, Esq. Special Assistant General Attorney Attorney General Duquesne Light Company Room 219 435 Sixth Avenue Towne House Apartments Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Harrisburg, PA 17105 David Olds, Esq. Mr. Raymond Kudukis William S. Lerach, Esq. Director of Public Utilities Reed Smith Shaw & McClay City of Cleveland Union Trust Building 1201 Lakeside Avenue Box 2009 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 James B. Davis, Director Lee A. Rau, Esq. Robert D. Hart, Esq. Joseph A. Rieser, Jr., Esq. Department of Law Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 1201 Lakeside Avenue Madison Building - Rm. 404 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 1155 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq. Edward A. Matto, Esq. 'The Cleveland Electric Richard M. Firestone, Esq. Illuminating Company Karen H. Adkins, Esq. 55 Public Square Antitrust Section eleveland, Ohio ^4101 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 John Lansdale, Esq. Cox, Langford & Brown Christopher R. Schraff, Esq. 21 Dupont Circle, N.W. Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20036 Environmental Law Section 361 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor Leslie Henry, Esq. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Michael M. Briley, Esq. Roger P. Klee, Esq. James R. Edgerly, Esq. Fuller, Henry,.Hodge & Snyder Secretary and General Counsel P. O. Box 2088 Pennsylvania Power Compani l Toledo, Ohio 43603 One East Washington Street l New Castle, PA 16103 l.. l _..}}

ML19319B329

Text

Navigation menu

Search