ML20058K459
| ML20058K459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1993 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bevill T, Jeanne Johnston, Lehman R, Lieberman J, Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9312150237 | |
| Download: ML20058K459 (5) | |
Text
,/'
V ~ ' <,
ll f()
j?
f.k
?+.
f.
UNITED STATES o
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s, gg g
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20655-0001
,r us
- ...+
November 16, 1993 The Honorable Joseph T.
Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 RE:
Ohio Edison Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1665 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 1, 1993), Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co.
v.
NRC, No. 93-1672 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 4, 19 9'J ), and City of Cleveland v. NRC, No. 93-1673 (D.C.
Cir., filed on October 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company initiated NRC proceedings seeking to suspend certain antitrust conditions in the operating licenses for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants.
The NRC Staff denied relief, and last November the Licensing Board issued a 72-page opinion approving the Staff decision.
The Board ruled, in essence, that " cost comparisons" between nuclear power and other forms of power are not enough to justify loosening antitrust conditions.
The Commission denied review this past summer.
The three companies have brought this lawsuit challenging the Commission decision.
Another lawsuit arising out of the same antitrust proceeding, brought by the City of Cleveland, challenges a year-old Commission decision (CLI-92-11) holding that the NRC has jurisdiction to convene a Licensing Board to consider relaxation of antitrust conditions.
The City initially filed suit last year, shortly after the Commission issued its jurisdictional ruling, but the court of appeals has held that lawsuit in abeyance pending resolution of what the Commission called the
" bedrock" merita issue.
The C y's latest lawsuit brings the same jurisdictional attack.
It likely will be consolidated with the three other pending cases.
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely, i
lc}Q,
-Q.N 9312150237 931116 onn ordes, Jr.
PDR ADOCK 05000346 Solicitor U
PDR cc:
The Honorable Alan K.
Simpson fs
f "c u
J.
.t UNITED STATES
[
~ !
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2065MXD1 j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)W h, ~
,ef November 16, 1993 The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 RE:
Ohio Edison Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1665 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 1, 1993), Cleveland Electric Illuminatino i
Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1672 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 4, i
1993), and City of Cleveland v. NRC, No. 93-1673 (D.C.
]
Cir., filed on October 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company initiated NRC proceedings seeking to j
suspend certain antitrust conditions in the operating licenses for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants.
The NRC Staff denied relief, and last November the Licensing Board issued a 72-page opinion approving the Staff decision.
The Board ruled, in essence, that " cost comparisons" between nuclear power and other forms of power are not enough to justify loosening antitrust conditions.
The Commission denied review this past j
summer.
The three companies have brought this lawsuit challenging the Commission decision, l
Another lawsuit arising out of the same antitrust proceeding, brought by the City of Cleveland, challenges a year-old Commission decision (CLI-92-11) holding that the NRC has jurisdiction to convene a Licensing. Board to conbidcI relaxation j
of antitrust conditions.
The City initially filed suit last j
year, shortly after the commission issued its jurisdictional ruling, but the court of appeals has held that lawsuit in i
abeyance n=9dina resolution of what the Commission called the
" bedrock" 6 issue.
1 C' '
i The a latest lawsuit brings the same jurisdictional attack.
ffs ikely will be consolidated with the three other pending cases _
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely, r,
(
2[
\\
- vGQ J
n, F. Cordes, Jr.
I olicitor I
cc:
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
ce nEc j
t UNITED STATES f.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E6-0001
%......C November 16, 1993 The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 RE:
Ohio Edison Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1665 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 1, 1993), Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co.
v.
NRC, No. 93-1672 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 4, 1992), and City of Cleveland v. NRC, No. 93-1673 (D.C.
Cir., filed on October 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company l
and Toledo Edison Company initiated NRC proceedings seeking to suspend certain antitrust conditions in the operating licenses for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants.
The NRC Staff denied relief, and last November the Licensing Board issued a 72-page opinion approving the Staff decision.
The Board ruled, in essence, that " cost comparisons" between nuclear power and other forms of power are not enough to justify loosening antitrust conditions.
The Commission denied review this past summer.
The three companies have brought this lawsuit challenging the Commission decision.
Another lawsuit arising out of the same antitrust proceeding, brought by the City of Cleveland, challenges a year-old Commission decision (CLI-92-11) holding that the NRC has jurisdiction to convene a Licensing Board to consider relaxation of antitrust conditions.
The City initially filed suit last year, shortly after the Commission issued its jurisdictional ruling, but the court of appeals has held that lawsuit in abeyance p9nding resolution of what the Commission called the
" bedrock" g its issue.
The
's latest lawsuit brings the same jurisdictional attack.
Iikely will be consolidated with the three other pending cases.
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely,
'~h p-ykf'
- 2 i
Ohn F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor f
p cc:
The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich l
p ara fY
' ?+
UNITED STATES
(
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i"
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655-0001 o$
- ...+
November 16, 1993 The Honorable J.
Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United. States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 RE:
Ohio Edison Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1665 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 1, 1993), Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1672 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 4, 1993), and City of Cleveland v.
NRC, No. 93-1673 (D.C.
Cir., filed on October 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company initiated NRC proceedings seeking to suspend certain antitrust conditions in the operating licenses for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants.
The NRC Staff denied relief, and last November the Licensing Board issued a 72-page opinion approving the Staff decision.
The Board ruled, in essence, that " cost comparisons" between nuclear power and other forms of power are not enough to justify loosening antitrust conditions.
The Commission denied review this past summer.
The three companies have brought this lawsuit challenging the Commission decision.
Another lawsuit arising out of the same antitrust proceeding, brought by the city of Cleveland, challenges a year-old Commission decision (CLI-92-11) holding that the NRC has jurisdiction to convene a Licensing Board to consider relaxation of antitrust conditions.
The City initially filed suit last j
year, shortly after the Commission issued its jurisdictional ruling, but the court of appeals has held that lawsuit in abeyance pending resolution of what the Commission called the
" bedrock" merits issue.
N The City's latest lawsuit brings the same jurisdictional attack.
It likely will be consolidated with the three other pending cases.
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely, h
,pfh chn F. Cordes, Jr.
J olicitor j
i cc:
The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield
f$s" *n UNITED STATES s
t
[
j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566-0001
,%, ss,cf November 16, 1993 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development j
Committee on Appropriations j
United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 i
l RE:
Ohio Edison Co. v. NRC, No. 93-1665 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 1, 1993), Cleveland Electric Illuminatinc Co. v. NRQ, No. 93-1672 (D.C. Cir., filed on October 4, i
1993), and City of Cleveland v.
NRC, io. 93-1673 (D.C.
Cir., fil:3d on October 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Ohio Edison Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company initiated NRC proceedings seeking to suspend certain antitrust conditions in the operating licenses for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants.
The NRC Staff denied relief, and last November the Licensing Board issu6d a 72-page opinion approving the Staff decision.
The Board ruled, in essence, that " cost comparisons" between nuclear power and other forms of power are not enough to justify loosening antitrust conditions.
The Commission denied review this past summer.
The three companies have brought this lawsuit challenging the Commission decision.
Another lawsuit arising out of the same antitrust proceeding, brought by the City of Cleveland, challenges a year-old Commission decision (CLI-92-11) holding that the NRC has jurisdiction to convene a Licens!ng Board to consider relaxation of antitrust conditions.
The City initially filed suit last year, shortly after the commission issued its jurisdictional ruling, but the court of appeals has held that lawsuit in abeyance pending resolution of what the Commission called the
" bedrock" marits issue.
The Cdty'*s latest lawsuit brings the same jurisdictional l
attack.
It likely will be consolidated with the three other j
pending cases.
j i
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely,
N f?h
/<' hn F.
Cordes, Jr.
J J1licitor cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers
4 CONGRESSIONAL CORRISPONDENCE SYSTEX DOCUMINT PREPARATION CHECKLIST Ihis checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Q3/As) sent for.
ing into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION DOCUMZNT (S) 5.
< r
///
/72l'- I si AS
Y On,n i cn ' hju i i I Correspondsaseo Esad=== (Qs/Aak a.
TTPE or-m 3.
DoCUxzRT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
\\ / Non-Sensitive 4.
CCNGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subcommittaa i
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document nana (b)
Scan.
(c)
At'Eachments (d)
Raksy (a)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATZE i
(a)
J !
2 Data OCK sont. document to CCS (b)
Data CCS. receivess docummat
)
(c)
Data returned to OCA for additional information OMD 13 Dat resubmitted br-oCA to CCs (d)
(a)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date oCA notified that document is in CC8 8.
COMMENTS
'