ML19329C689

Applicants' Supplemental Answer to Petition of City of Cleveland to Intervene & for Hearing.Recommends Petition Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329C689
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	05/01/1973
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML19329C687	List: ML19329C686 ML19329C689
References
NUDOCS 8002180189
Download: ML19329C689 (5)

Text

..

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A'IOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-346A ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power )

Station) )

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER OF APPLICANTS TO PETITION OF '"HE CITY CF CLEVELA'ID TO INTERVENE AND FOR HEARING This matter now appears to have reached a state of utmost confusion. Although Mr. Ardery withdrew as counsel for the City by letter dated April 6, 1973, he continued to act for the City by letter dated April 9, 1973 arguing as to various matters. Incidentally, this letter was not received by Ohio counsel until about April 20, 1973.

We now have Mr. Goldberg also ace'ng on behalf of the City, submitting a letter to Mr. Vogler, dated April 19, 1973, which requests to be treated as a supplemental answer to the Staff's supplemental answer, and a response to the supplemental answer of Applicants.

At the meeting on March 1, 1973, between all the parties, the City was allowed three weeks within which to state the specifics of the relief it sought with respect to the Davis-Besse facility. It did not comply with that 1

I l

)

8002 leo /?p l

l

requirement, a fact which the City acknowledges, Response to Supplemental Answer of Applicants, p.5. Mr. Vegler, counsel for the Staff, advised Mr. Hauser, counsel for Cleveland Electric Illuminating, that a request for extension of time had been denied. This was subsequently confirmed in a conversation between Mr. Verdisco, also counsel for the Staff, and Mr. Henry, counsel for Toledo Edison. In spite of this, Mr. Goldberg now states, Response, p.6, that the Staff did agree to enlargement of the time for such submission and purports to make such a submission at the end of his letter of April 19, 1973, nearly a month after the time initially required for the submission.

Aside frcm all of these contradictory developments, it is submitted that we still have no statement of a specific request en the part of the City. In Mr. Goldberg's letter, it is suggested that participation be granted either through ownership by the City, or through sale of unit power "together with the transmission services necessary to deliver power to and together with participation with CAPCO members in cocrdinated involvement in planning bulk power supply and transmission", all of which is entirely unrelated to participation in Davis-Besse. Mr. Goldberg then proceeds to say that the City now proposes to request access to 150 mw from the Perry Plant to be constructed in the CEI service area, and if successful the City would amend its request for 200 mw frcm Davis-Besse to 50 mw. He then continues to another alternative by suggesting ownership of

a portion of the plant by AMP-0, an organization which is now apparently r -resented by Mr. Ardery.

To add to the confus en, Mr. Ardery's letter of April 9, 1973, suggests another alternative, that of the City issuing bonds and paying the proceeds to the owners of the plant as a " pre-payment on power".

In addition to all of the above, AMP-0, now represented by Mr. Ardery, has filed a petition to intervene stating that preliminary indications are that it would need 50 to 100 mw from Davis-Besse without specifying on whose behalf the power was desired.

In the light of this welter of proposals, it is respectfully submitted that the matter has not progressed at all beyond the situation described in the Attorney General's letter of June 9, 1971, where he said "without a concrete request, it is too early to ascertain CEI's and TE's reaction to it and this situation can only be a speculative factor affecting our immediate advice".

It is respectfully submitted that because of the absence of any concrete request from the City of Cleveland that the request for intervention should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITT."AN, POTTS & TROW 3RIDG"

/~N /

\..

(s-i

/ (-t r' By e Jay E. Silberg l

~

Dated: May 1, 1973.

. -s -

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

'E TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

Docket No. 50-346A t1E CLEVELAND ELECTRIC )

ILLUMINATING COMPIliY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power )

Sta t, ion) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Supplemental Answer of Applicants to Petition of the City of Cleveland to Intervene and for Ecaring and Motion for Leave to File, were served by deposit in the United States mail upon the following this 1st day of May, 1973:

3enjamin H. V0gler, Esq. (6)

Antitrust Ccunsel for AEC Regulatory Staff U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. (1)

Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Philip P. Ardery, Esq. (1)

Brown, Ardery, Todd & Dudley Kentucky Home Life Building Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Atcmic Safety and Licensing (1)

Board Panel U.S. Atcmic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Mr. Frank W. Karas (21)

Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washing ton , D .C . 20545 Robert D. Hart, Esq. (1)

Assistant Law Director City of Cleveland Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Raymond Kudukis, Director (1)

Warren D. Hinchee, Commissioner City of Cleveland 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Leslie Henry, Esq. (1)

Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snuder 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Donald H. Hauser, Esq. (1)

Managing Attorney The Clevelend Electric Illuminating Ccmpany 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44101 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

/~~

(i 1.

By

!' ' ^

Jay E. S11 berg ,f

, o I

\

Dated: May 1, 1973