ML19329D345

Supports City of Cleveland 780104 & 0203 Requests That NRC Commence Proceedings to Require Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co to Comply W/Outstanding License Conditions

ML19329D345
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	02/28/1978
From:	Shenefield J JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19329D346	List: ML19329D345
References
NUDOCS 8003050926
Download: ML19329D345 (2)

Text

-

e f';  ; .$' n

( ,e -

3

~

lHnittb States 3 Department of .7ustice L' i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 Awsta r ar ronss y cthanat -

^*"'""'a~~

FEB 2 81978 Mr. Edson G. Case Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-346A, 440A, 441A, 500A and 501A, Request by City of Cleveland for Order to Show Cause

Dear Mr. Case:

By letters dated January 4 and February 3, 1978, the City of Cleveland requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission commence proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202 to require the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to comply with the license conditions attached to the operating license for Davis-Besse Huclear Power Station Unit 1 and the construction permits issued for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 and Perry Plant Units 1 and 2. The Department of Justice hereby advises that it supports the City of Cleveland's request.

On January 6, 1977, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") issued its initial decision in the above-cited dockets. The Licensing Board found that issuance of unconditioned licenses for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear power plants would create and maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Accord-ingly, that Board ordered that ten conditions be attached to the Davis-Besse and Perry licenses to alleviate that situation. Since the date of the initial decision, those conditions have attached to the operating license for Davis-Besse Unit 1 and the construction permit for Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2.

On January 27, 1978, the Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Company ("CEI") filed a transmission service tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Ccmmission which 80 0 s0 50fM

@- ,)

'[. ..

y O

purports to implement Condition 3 ordered by the Licensing Board. The City of Cleveland has objected to various terms .

of that tariff, claiming that they are inconsistent with the NRC license conditions. After review of the subject tariff, the Department believes the objections of the City to be correct. For example, the provision which cancels the tariff upon a final decision of the Commission, even if that decision does not overturn Condition 3, would relieve CEI of its obli-gation to wheel despite_the existence of such a requirement in the subject licenses. Furthermore, the tariff provision which obliges CEI to wheel only if it does not interfere with its other CAPCO transmission obligations directly conflicts with Condition 3 which requires CEI to reduce its CAPCO transmis-sions by five percent prior to reducing transmission for non-CAPCO entities.

Accordingly, the Department of Justice supports the City of Cleveland's request that this Commission commence proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.202 to require CEI to comply with the outstanding license conditions.

'ncerely r urs, fD u_ '1 Johd H. Shenefield Assis'hant Attorney General Antitrust Division cc: Counsel of Record Jack M. Schulman

+