ML19319C605
| ML19319C605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1975 |
| From: | Brebbia J, Frysiak J, Rigler D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002191047 | |
| Download: ML19319C605 (6) | |
Text
.
) '9 9, -1
.m
)
4 D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ouum NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lHISSION "C
5 JUL 301975 yS h
ag3 g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
w pjgu.
In the Matter of
)
g g
)
THE TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (PerryNuclearPowerPlant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
and
)
THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket Nos. 50-500A (Davis-Besse Powar Station,
)
50-501A Units 2 and 3)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION The Comission has authorized and directed the pr.viously desig-nated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to determine whether consolida-tion of the Davis-Besse 2 and 3E antitrust proceeding with the previously consolidated Perry 1 and 2U and Davis-Besse 1_/ antitrust 3
E e Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Th Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-500A, 50-501A.
U e Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Th Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440A, 50-441A.
E e Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Th Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-346A.
M 8002191ot/p d
- ~~
2-proceedings is appropriate under 10 C.F.R. 2.716, and, if so deter-mined, to take all necessary action to effectuate consolidation.
I.
Perry 1 and 2; Davis-Besse 1 In a Memorandum and Order dated March 15, 1974, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) ordered the consolidation of the antitrust proceeding identified as "In the Matter of Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Occket No. 50-346A" with the antitrust proceeding identified as "In the Matter of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al., Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-440A, 50-441A".
In a Final Memorandum and Order on Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing, dated April 15, 1974, the Board determined the parties in the Davis-Besse 1 proceeding to be: Toledo Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, the City of Cleveland, the Regulatory Staff of the AEC (now NRC) and the State of Ohio as a participant under 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c). The Board identified the parties in the Perry 1 and 2 proceeding as the Cleveland Electric g
g
IlluminatingCompany,etal.,N City of Cleveland, American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc., Department of Justice, the Regulatory Staff of the AEC and the State of Ohio as a participant under 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c).
The Board formulated Issues and Matters in Controversy in a Pre-hearing Conference Order #2, dated July 25, 1974.
II.
Davis-Besse 2 and 3 In the Davis-Besse 2 and 3 antitrust proceeding, the Board in its Memorandum and Order Granting Petition to Intervene and to Partici-pate in Antitrust Hearing, dated May 6,1975, identified the parties as Toledo Edison Company, et al.,E epartment of Justice, Regulatory D
Staff of the NRC, the City of Cleveland and the State of Ohio as participant under 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c).
In a Prehearing Conference Order No.1, dated May 22, 1975, the Board adopted and admitted issues and matters in controversy as formulated U e Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company is one of five joint Th applicants seeking a construction permit. The others are Toledo Edison Compar,y, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, and Pennsylvania Power Company. Jointly they are referred to as the "Capco" group.
E ee footnote 4, supra.
S
.s
-4_
by the Board in the previously consolidated Davis-Besse 1 and Perry 1 and 2 proceedings (hereinafter referred to as Davis-Besse 1).
III.
The parties are in agreement that the issues in con-troversy in Davis-Besse 2 and 3 are and should be identical to those previously set forth by the Board in the Davis-Besse 1 proceeding. 6/ While favoring consolidation, Applicants expressed a continuing reservation to what they characterized as the broad nature of the issues in controversy as determined by the Board in the Davis-Besse 1 proceedings.
Despite this general reservation, Applicants indicated that they favored consolidation. jp/
Notwithstanding the consensus of the parties that con-solidation is appropriate, the Board independently reviewed the issues in controversy in Davis-Besse 1, the Department of Justice Advice letter of February 14, 1975, the Petition of the City of Cleveland for Leave to Intervene, and there-after determined that the Davis-Besse 1 issues should properly j
apply to the Davis-Besse 2 and 3 proceedings.
In doing so, l
6/ Prehearing Conference of May 14, 1975, Tr. pp. 4-12, 16-18.
jp' Tr. pp. 10, 12, 18; see also Applicants April 18, 1975 1
Reply to the City of Cleveland's Petition for Leave to Inter-l vene, paragraphs 4 and 5.
I l
l
- we have taken into account the fact that the parties in both proceedings are identical and their contentions are substan-tially identical. Jh/ We are satisfied that consolidation will not present any substantial problem arising from addi-tional discovery requests nor result in any appreciable delay in the commencement of the Davis-Besse 1 hearings.
Accordingly, the Board hereby orders that the proceeding identified as "In the Matter of Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-500A, 50-501A", be and is consolidated with the previously con-solidated proceedings identified as "In the Matter or the Toledo Edison Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-346A", and "In the Matter of the Cleveland Electric 8/ On June 30, 1975, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, In the Matter of Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-482A, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision dated June 30, 1975 (ALAB-279), discussed certain standards of specificity to be applied in determining issues in controversy.
This Board has had an opportunity to re-examine the Davis-Besse 1 issues pur-suant to this guidance.
We are satisfied that the delineation of the issues goes far ocyond mere notice pleading, particularly in light of the substantial discovery program in Davis-Besse 1 and the Board's directive to opposition parties to furnish Applicants with comprehensive information relating to the specific matters in controversy.
Thus, we consider Applicants to be well informed as to the nature and scope of these proceedings.
e
e 6-Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440A and 50-441A."
IT IS SO ORDERED, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
m $k?
JphnH. Brebbia, Membe'r J
M. Frysiak, Aember 16V b Doug V. Ri er, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Marylar.d, this 30th day of July, 1975.
i l
l l
!