ML19329C548
| ML19329C548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1971 |
| From: | Wallig P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002180071 | |
| Download: ML19329C548 (2) | |
Text
. _
. -. -.._m----
e
. _ z_ m
~
t l
/
g "?
CCCKET i; UMBER i
ER00. & UIP., EEC. YO'We A l
o n o :, c. E i i 3 g
umc 4'R '
c'h ', 3 *r JUL2 01971
- D UttITED STATES OF AMERICA i
, nn e ***
'S ATOM.IC EliERGY COMMISSICil r
.1 l
2-a.r.,.ua
/
ti.
d)
T., ;, ;
Q, g(1n
~
BEFORE THE COMMISSI0f:
u y
l In the Matter of
'7 THE TOLEDO EDISCri COMPAtlY and
)
. I
~ ~ '
i THE CLEVELAt1D ELECTRIC ILLUMIttATIllG
)
Occket tio. 50-346A COMPAtiY g,y j
(Davis-Besse Nu' clear Power Station)
)
l AtiSWER OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO PETITICtl TO IrlTERVEliE 0F THE CITY OF CLEVELA10 Atl0 TO MOTI0tt FOR EXTEt!SI0il 7
]
0F TIME BY THE APPLICAllTS
]
On July 6,1971, the City of Cleveland, Ohio, (petitioner) filed a 1
" petition to intervene" and a request that the Atomic Energy Comission l
(Commission) hold a hearing on the antitrust considerations of the I
application for a construction permit for the Davis-Besse fluclear Pcwer Station by The Toledo Edison Ccmpany and The Cleveland Electric Illumina-ting Company (applicants).
i I
By a letter dated July 9,1971, the Attorney General, pursuant to sec-l tion 105c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, advised the Commission that an antitrust hearing would not be required on this application. The letter of advice stated that the petitioner and one of the applicants were presently in negotiations which could settle the differences between the petitioner and that applicant.
l Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.102 of the Commission's " Rules of Practice," the Attorney General's advice will be, published in the Federal Register.
The I
i R 0 02180 0 7 / _
p47:
t i
2-published notice will provide that persons whose interests may be affected will have 30 days to petition to intervene and requeat a hearing on the antitrust aspects of the application.
Accordingly, the AEC regulatory staff reccmmends that consideration of the City of Clevel'and's petition be held in abeyance until the time in which petitions to intervene may be filed, as will be specitiud in tne notice to be published in the Federal Register, has ended and that dur-ing this time the petitioner could be allowed to amend its petiticn, if it so desires, to reflect its comments on the advice of the Attorney General and/cr the results of its r.egotiations with the applicants.
.ne regulatory staff also recommends that the applicants and we be granted 15 days after the time in which to file petitions to intervene has ended in which to answer this petition and any amendment thereto.
For the above reasons, the regulatory staff has no objection to the motion of the applicants dated July 13, 1971, requesting additional time in which to answer the petiticn.
Respectfully submitted, i
Paul W. Wallig v'
Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda,ffaryland, this 19th day of July 1971.
t
.o..