ML19319C548
| ML19319C548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1974 |
| From: | Dewey L, Vogler B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190983 | |
| Download: ML19319C548 (7) | |
Text
_-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC EIKi1GY COM.tISSION D*AAM BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY /dD LICENSliG 00AilD o
In the. Matter of THE TOLECO EDISG" C0iPAilY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
C0"PArr/
)
. (Davis-Besse fluclear Pcwer Station,
)
AEC D'<t. Nos.50-34G A Unit 1)
)
50-440A
)
50-441A THE CLEVELAND ILECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Pcuer Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
STAFF'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICA'!TS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF AUGUST 8, 1974 Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.749 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Staff hereby oppose's apolicants' motion for su=ary disposition in the i
above captioned proceeding, i
In their motion for summary dispcsition, applicants contend that A'aerican Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc.'s (AMP-Chio) nexus argument is factually-
-incorrect and as a result of this failure to allege a proper ne::us AFP-Chio's intervention in this proceeding shculd be withdrawn. E n setting forth its I
-1/ In its petitions to intervene, AMP-Chio had alleged that a refusal by '
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) to wheel 30 megawatts of PASNY power for AMP-Chio on behalf of the City of Cleveland constituted a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws insofar as it relates
~ to the licensing of the Perry nuclear units. To establish a nexus between this refusal by CEI and the activities under the license, Ai/P-Ohio had contended, among other things, that the operation of the Perry nuclear units may impair CEI's ability.to wheel PASNY power due to a possible overload on CEI's transmission lines.
In order to refute this nexus argument by AMP-Ohio, applicants now come fonvard tiithian affidavit by Dalwyn R. Davidson (Vice President - Engineer-cing of CEI) 9thich asserts that the construction of the Perry units will not hinder CEI's ability to wheel 30 megaviatts of PASNY ocwer.
02190*((}
/*7
DTm D
V Y o
'9 I
D f
a B
opposition to AMP-Chio's interventicn. applicants also contend that CEI's allegad refusal to wheel PA5NY power for A"P-Chio is not a proper nattar for the Board to consider in this proceeding.
/
2 Staff agrees that if there is no factual dispute concerning the ability of CEI to wheel 50 megawatts of PASNY pcuer after construction of the Perry nuclear facilities, then the impairment issue raised by A.F-Chio dispositicn. E cwever, the Staff believes H
may be dispcsed of by sumar/
that CEI's alleged refusal to wheel pcuer will remain an issue whether or not A:1P-Ohio's specific nexus argumant is correct.
In this regard, since the interrogatories in applicants' discovery recuests have directed the parties to describe their contenticas and proof for their various nexus arguments, applicants will be supplied this necessary informaticn after d h, cleery is cc:..pl ei.ed.
In the mecatime, henever, ;t would be prcmure to sumarily dispose of the issue raised by AMP-Chio.
--2/ In their August 15, 1974 cover letter to the Boarc applicants contend that, "It is Acplicants' positica that this allegad denial of access now to AMP-Ohio has no connection whatsoever with the future Perry nuclear facilities, or with any activities under the licenses reauested in the captioned dockets, and therefore, it is not a proper matter for the Licensing Board to consider in the present antitrust hearing."
-~3/ Rule 56(c) Fed Rules Civ Proc permits any party to a civil action to move for a summary judgement upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross claim as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
The principles governing summary judgement in Federal practice are appropriate for use in determining motions for summary dispositicn under 10 CFR 2.749. Alabama Power Comcany (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, RAI-74-3, 210, 217 (March 7,1974).
oo D
DJ u wu JL 2-D 9'I A
y_
3 Applicants' Moticn is especially inappropriate at this time in view of the Board's recognition that third party wheeling of neuer from outside the service areas of the applicsnts is a relevant issue in this p roceeding.
Item (5) at page 11 of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order #2 of July 25, 1974 includes as a matter in controversy, "...whether apolic nts have, or could use their ;bility to preclude other electric entities within the CCCT from Obtaining sources of bulk pcwer from other electric entities outside the CCCT." S/
The Staff believes that AMP-Chio has an interest in this proceeding.
By refusing to wheal for AMP-Chio, applicants through the use of their dominant position can effectively restrict a potential competitor.
Applictats' decinance anf. misuse cf its domin:nt ;;siticn, if astchlishad, represents the type of " situation" that may be considered in a Section 105(c) proceeding.
1 s
1
_4/ It is significant that Applicant cites the Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L) case, Dkt. No. 50-382A, in support of its present motion for summary disposition -- hcwever, in the LP&L proceeding, the LP&L Board also adopted third party wheeling as a matter in controversy.
3 e
' l
DOO
}l j
+
.1 o a JU mn 0 '9~Ii
~
"G u
U Conclusion For the above stated reasons, Staff reccmends that the Board deny the applicants' motica for sum.ary dispositicn.
I Resoectfully submitted,,
- 0, t
...f.. '
1 C~i./,
' ;.. s.
i s
, 7 *.'.
y'.
n i
/
/Denjamin ri. Vogier Assistant Antitrust Ccunsel for AEC Regulatory Staff t, j#9 4
. =i r
A, u
w, ;3 _ _.,
o
.: <. 4 j --
he Scott Dewey Counsel ice.2.EC Reculat.ory S!.e Pi Dated at Dethesda, Maryland this loth day cf October 1974.
om DJ o11 D
Ui1ITED STATES OF A:4 ERICA ATO:iIC E!!ERGY CO:':4ISSION D
9, I n
A BEFCRE THE ATC:!IC SA ETY A"D LICEi!SI!G LO. d
~
L Q
- w In the l4atter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDIS il CC::PA'iY and
)
T:iE CLEVELA?iD ELECTRIC ILLU lI!!ATii;G )
AEC Cccket I!o. 50-34GA C0i4PAJtY
)
(Davis-Besse iluclear Pc'.ter Statica) )
)
THE CLEVELil;D ELECTRIC ILLU:4I:!ATI:'G )
)
AEC Dcchet :cs. 50 24CA (Perry fluclear Pc'.ser Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERT! ICE I hereby certify that copies of STAFF'S AHS'jER Iti CPPOSITIn:: TO APPLICAliTS' i'9 TION FOR sui::!ARY DISFOSITIO?: OF AUGUST 9,1972, dated October 10, 1974, in the captioned matter, have been served uoon the folicwing by deposit in the Unitec States mail, first class or air mail, this 10th day of October 1974:
John B. Farmckides, Esq., Chairman Dccheting and Service Secticn Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Office of t.;e Secretary U. S. Atomic Energy Ccmmission U. S. Atcmic Enargy C =missica Washington, D. C. 2C545 Washington, D. C.
205J5 John H. Brebbia, Esq.
Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Steven Charno, Esq.
Alston, fiiller & Gaines Antitrust Divisicn 1776 K Street, N. W.
Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 200C6 Washington, D. C.
20530 Dr. George R. Hall Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Ccmmission 1700 Pennsyivania Avenue,11. U.
Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C.
20006 Atomic Safety and Licensing Frank R. Clckey, Esq.
Board Panel Special Assistant Attorney General U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Room 219, Towne Hcuse Apartments Washington, D. C. 20545 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
]
John Lansdale, Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown 21 Dupont Circle,i!. W.
Washirgton, D.C. 20036
m 3 -
Herbert R. Whiting. Director Daight C. Pettay, Jr.
Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Assistant Attorney Ceneral Capartmant of Law Chief, Antitrust Section 1201 Lakeside Aver"e 30 East Broad Street,15th Flocr Cleveland, Ohio 4-114 Columbus, Ohio 43215 John C. Engle,. President George Chuolis AMP-0, Inc.
Commissicner of Light & Power Municipal Building City of ' Cleveland 20 High Stroet 1201 Lakeside Avenue l
'Hamilten, Ohio 45012 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 i
-George B. Crosby Deborah Powell Highsmith 3
Director of Utilities Assistant Attorney General
. Piqua, Ohio 45350 Antitrust Section 30 East Broad Street,15th Floor Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43215
{
Managing Attornev The Cleveland Electric Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Illuminating Company Assistant Attorney General 55 Public Square Environmental Law Section Cleveland, Chio 44101 361 East Broad Streat, Sth Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Lesiie Hanry, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyisr fir. Raymcr.d Kudukis, Diract:r i
300 Madison Avenue of Public Utilities l
Toledo,-Ohio 43504 City of Cleveland 1201 Lakeside Avenue t
John-R. White, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Executive Vice' President I -
Ohio Edison Comoany.
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
t 47 North Main Street Brad Reynolds, Esq.
Akron, Ohio 44308 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Troubridga i
910-17th Street, N.W.
Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20005 4
General Attorney Duquesne. Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue t
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Wall' ce L. Duncan, Esq.
a
~
Jon T. Brcwn, Esq.
Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer l'
Washington, D. C.
20006:
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, H. W.
O.
f e
l
/
J s
David McNeil Olds NWA 4 @ /d' i
Assistan/H. Vogler Benj amin
./
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay t Antitrust Counser/ /
Union Trust Buildina Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 for AEC Regulatory Staff O
g 9
V W JU nm;9-D I b.h-
<J
_a
i)ISTRICUTIO":
^'
REG Central Filcs (Puci1c Docu;:ent Pcc::j (Lecal Public Docu::unt Rcc:3)
A. Crait:.an, L:CAI (2)
ASLB J. Rutberg (3)
- 2. '!cglar ASLAB (5)
CGC Forcal Files (2)
OSC Rn ding File 03C Cmtn F:le Solicitor, GC H. K. Shacar T. Engelhardt s
D@PO b cu P.
D
' 3 ' I[
l
.3L L
.o
_