ML19329B992
| ML19329B992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1975 |
| From: | Duncan W AMP, INC., DUNCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG & PALMER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002110777 | |
| Download: ML19329B992 (6) | |
Text
.
t--
cs 0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA egg;o BEFORE Ti!E SEP i 81975 *N
. lh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (q.
cpl;ff;yyy,Q/
hjk/$
-0 Before the Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
).
Docket Nos.C500 1r D THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
50-500A COMPANY
)
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)
)
MOTION OF AMERICAN MUNICIPAL PO'KER-OHIO. INC.
FOR LEAVE TO WITiiDRA'v. PE rlTIO:. TO IN TERVESE COMES NOW Ane'rican Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (hereinafter AMP-Ohio), by and through counsel Na11 ace L. Duncan and Duncan, Brown, Xcinberg fi Palmer, l7'00 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. '.l.,
h'ashington, D.C. and respectfully moves for.1 cave to withdraw its Petition to Intervene filed on February 15, 1974, and to withdraw from further participation in the above-styled proceedings.
In support of its Motion, AMP-Ohio allege's and shows the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as follows:
1.
On February 15, 1974, AMP-0.hio timely filed its Petition to Intervene in these proceedings, alleging, inter alia'.'that the C1cycland Electric Illuminating Company (CE1) had consistently refused _to whcci some thirty (30) megawa,tts of power from the 8002110 77 7.
M
s.
Power Authority of the State of New York (hereinaf ter PASNY) to
' AMP-Ohio's member, the City of Cleveland.~ AMP-Ohio further alleged that CEI's refusal to whcc1 power for AMP-Ohio was part of an etempt by CEI to perpetrate and maintain its existing monopoly and destroy Cleveland's ability to competc through the introduction of an alternative bulk power supply source.
CEI's refusal to whcc1 power to AMP-Ohio further alleged that the City of Cleveland on behalf of AMP-Ohio created and/or i h the antitrust
, maintained.a situation which is inconsistent w t laws and therefore cognizabic under Section 105 of t.he Atomic l
~
Sec. 2135).
AMP-Ohio Energy Act of 1954 as amended (42 U.S.C.
the Commission scrutinize CEI's activities and requested-that examinc'such evidence as may be presented during the pendency of the license application.
the Board issued its " Final Memo-2.
On April 15, 1974, for randum nd Order on Petitions to Interycne and Request admitting AMP-Ohio as an intervenor in these proceed-He ar in g",,
Shortly thercafter, in order to accommodate the applicant ings.
concerning the alleged in its desire to present written argument
" lack of nexus" of AMP-Ohio, the Board stayed its Apri'l 15, 1974, Order until April 23, 1974.
In the interim, the applicant pre-i On April 23, 1974, the-sented.a lengthy brief to the Board.
Board _ dissolved its stay order and _rcinstated its carlier order admitting AMP-dhio as an Intervonor.
3.
On August 15, 1974, the Applicant, CEI, filed a motion the Board sccking the dismissal of for summary disposition with
~
AMP-Ohio from further particip& tion in these proccedings.
e v
,1
s-1 AMP-Ohio filed a response to said motion on October 9, 1974.
In addition, the applicants filed a reply to the earlier memo-randa filed by the other parties in opposition to applicants' 1974.
The Licensing
-motion for summary dismissal on October 21, l
Board denied the applicants' motion on Novenber 4, 1974,. con-stage of the~ proceedings, AMP-Ohio ha'd cluding that, at that demonstrated sufficient nexus to condition its intervention in these proceedings.
The Board 's denial wa.s 'Vithcut prejudice to the Applicants to renew their motion after the close of dis-covery".
4.
On August 18, 1975, the Applicants renewed their Motion for' summary disposition.and'that matter is now pending before the B'o a rd.
5.
Throughout these proc'ecdings, the posi, tion of the City to of C1 cycl.and and AMP-Ohio have been identical w.ith respect CEI's refusal to wheel PASNY~ power for' AMP-Ohio to the City of Cleveland.
AMP-Ohio, in the interest of climinating duplication of effort and pleddings, and'to av.oid burdening the record, has adopted the position and pleadings of the City of Cleveland on numerous occasions, the most recent of whi'ch was September 5, in the " Statement of 1975, when AMP-Onio adopted and concurred the City of Cleveland Informing Applicants of the Nature of the Case to be Presented".
On September 5, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6.
of the Nature of'the Case to bc Staff also filed a Statement Presented ny NRC Staff.
The Statement or NRC St'aff, reccived by the tmdersigned on September 9, 1975, also includes in.its deli-refusals of CHI to whccl neation of issues the past and present 30 mws of PASNY power for' the beneri t of Cleveland and/or
4 of the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Staf f,or the Department Justice.
AMP-Onio has agreed to provide such support and access during the pendency of these proceedings.
.The activitics of CEI complained of by AMP-Ohio in its 9.
-initial Petition to Intervenc and throughout these proceedings have effectively prcrented AMP-Ohio from developing a bulk power supply source for its members and deriving the income which might have been developed thereby.
The.cconomic strangulation perpe-a trated by (EI on the City of Cleveland has also extended to AMP-Ohio and has had the effect'of limiting the economic resources necded by AMP-Ohio to continue its active participation in these 4
~
proceedings.
As the parties have noted..throughout these pro-cocdings, the costs thereof have become exorbitant, particularly to those systems which are denied competitive and economic advan-tage because of the anticompetitive conduct of the Applicant.
In light of the prohibitive costr and the fact that AMP-Ohio's interests in these proceedings are already fully presented by and through the City of Cleveland,.with the concurrence of the Department of J.ustice and the Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion Staf f, AMP-Ohio elects, by leave of the Board, to withdraw its Petition to Intervene and to withdraw from further participation in these proceedings.
WilEREFORE, AMP-Ohio respectfully requests leave to withdraw from the above-captioned proceedings.
Rcspcc) ful1y submi;,ttcd, rf ~qkida L k
Wallace t.. 1)uncan
-Duncan,. Brown, Weinberg 6 Palmer 1700 Pennsylvania Avenne, N. h'.
Washingion, D. C.
20006
~
(
AMP-Ohio and by (a) denying other electric utilitics access to power supply sources and operations beyond the control of CEI and thereby denying other such entitics the ability to whcc1
-(b) with any excess capacity.
The position of the Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Staff is consistent with the delineation of issues on this point with the statement of the City of Clercland.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice i
7.
has also consistently maintained that CEI's refusal to wheel of AMP-Ohio PASNY power to the City of Cleveland for the account e
issue cognizabic under -Section 105(c)(5) of the is a releva,nt Atomic Energy Act of 1975, (4 2 U.S. C.
S'e c. 213 5 (c) (S)).
Inasmuch as the representatives of the City of Cleve-8.
land and AMP-Ohio have worked closely in the development of this it was. unnecessary and issue and.the evidence portaining thereto, would have been a duplication of effort for representatives of AMP-Ohio to have participated in the discovery proceedings, depo-sitions-and other aspects of this case.
Representatives of AMP-Ohio have had full access to the files of,.the City of Cleveland and its represeptatives in these proceedings, and have been informed of
~
the mutual interests of AMP-Ohic a.ll developments which might affect and the City of Cleveland in these proceedings.
The City of Cleveland, Nucicar Regulatory Commission Staff and the Department of Justice have delineated issues beyond those which concern AMP-Ohio while, at the same time, each of these parties has carefully and adequately preserved the AMP-Ohio /
h i
' C1cveland bulk power supply transaction' as an issue in t, ese Thus, AMP-Ohio's furt'her participation in~ these j
proceedings.
its procccdings is superfluous other than t.o provide access to files and make availabic its witnesses to tne City of Cicycland,
a b -
js.
P 6 /
'C\\
9 00c= 1-.a USNRC g) g.
SEP 10137.5 I'.}
~
er..a
. w..,
,,i Y
C ed e._q e.
g CERTIFICATE OF SF.R'llCE f %,,,
% i s ;e -
I hereby certify that I have on this date serveti a copy of the foregoing Storion of American.-!unicipal Power-Ohio, Inc. upon all parties of record to this proceeding via first class, postage prepaid and correctly addressed mail.
/.
i'-
,)
y.
s
-,/
n.
y lace L.
Wal u n e r.r.__.
/
Septe.mber 11, 1975 1
.