Similar Documents at Perry |
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARPY-CEI-NRR-2438, Informs That DBNPS & Pnpp Staffs Have Modified or Withdrawn Several of Positions Proposed within Re Request for Approval of Qap.Revised Positions Encl1999-10-14014 October 1999 Informs That DBNPS & Pnpp Staffs Have Modified or Withdrawn Several of Positions Proposed within Re Request for Approval of Qap.Revised Positions Encl ML20217F3901999-10-14014 October 1999 Discusses Request That Proprietary Document NEDE-32907P,DRF A22-0084-53, Safety Analysis Rept for Perry NPP 5% Power Uprate, Class III Dtd Sept 1999 Be Withheld.Determined Document Proprietary & Will Be Withheld ML20217G9201999-10-14014 October 1999 Discusses Utils Request for Approval of Quality Assurance Program Changes PY-CEI-NRR-2435, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/99-13.Corrective Actions:Ts SRs with Incorrect Descriptions Were Annotated to Ensure That CR Operators Are Aware That ACs Are Effect1999-10-13013 October 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/99-13.Corrective Actions:Ts SRs with Incorrect Descriptions Were Annotated to Ensure That CR Operators Are Aware That ACs Are Effect ML20212K9271999-09-30030 September 1999 Refers to 990927 Meeting Conducted at Perry Nuclear Power Plant to Discuss Initiatives in Risk Area & to Establish Dialog Between SRAs & PSA Staff ML20212J1451999-09-30030 September 1999 Forwards Order,In Response to 990505 Application PY-CEI/NRR- 2394L.Order Approves Conforming License Amend Which Will Be Issued & Made Effective When Transfer Completed ML20217E7111999-09-30030 September 1999 Documents Telcon Conducted on 990929 Between M Underwood of Oh EPA & D Tizzan of Pnpp,Re Request to Operate Pnpp Sws,As Is,Until Resolution Can Be Obtained ML20212G4161999-09-24024 September 1999 Informs of Completion of Licensing Action for Generic Ltr 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants, for Perry Nuclear Power Plant ML20212G5811999-09-23023 September 1999 Informs That Licenses for Ta Lentz,License SOP-31449,PJ Arthur,License SOP-30921-1 & Dp Mott,License SOP-31500 Are Considered to Have Expired,Iaw 10CFR50.74(a),10CFR55.5 & 10CFR55.55 PY-CEI-NRR-2432, Forwards NRC Form 536, Operator Licensing Exam Data, in Response to Administrative Ltr 99-03, Preparation & Scheduling of Operator Licensing Exams1999-09-21021 September 1999 Forwards NRC Form 536, Operator Licensing Exam Data, in Response to Administrative Ltr 99-03, Preparation & Scheduling of Operator Licensing Exams PY-CEI-NRR-2428, Submits Resolution to Seventh Question Proposed within NRC 980615 RAI Relating to Cooling Water Sys That Serve Containment Air Coolers & Assessment,Post Accident,Of Potential Water Hammer & two-phase Flow Conditions1999-09-16016 September 1999 Submits Resolution to Seventh Question Proposed within NRC 980615 RAI Relating to Cooling Water Sys That Serve Containment Air Coolers & Assessment,Post Accident,Of Potential Water Hammer & two-phase Flow Conditions ML20212D0151999-09-14014 September 1999 Requests Cancellation of NPDES Permit 3II00036.Permit Has Been Incorporated in Permit 3IB00016*ED.Discharge Point Sources & Associated Fees Currently Covered Under Permit 3IB00016*ED ML20212A8371999-09-13013 September 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/99-13 on 990712-30 & Notice of Violation.Insp Included Evaluation of Engineering Support, Design Change & Modification Activities,Internal Assessment Activities & Corrective Actions ML20217A8971999-09-0909 September 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/99-09 on 990709-0825.One Violation of NRC Requirements Occurred & Being Treated as NCV, Consistent with App C of Enforcement Policy PY-CEI-NRR-2431, Forwards Revised Emergency Plan for Perry NPP, IAW 10CFR50.54(q).Changes Constitute Revs,Temporary Changes or Reissued Pages1999-09-0909 September 1999 Forwards Revised Emergency Plan for Perry NPP, IAW 10CFR50.54(q).Changes Constitute Revs,Temporary Changes or Reissued Pages ML20211Q6911999-09-0606 September 1999 Informs That NRC Tentatively Scheduled Initial Licensing Exam for Perry Operator License Applicants During Wks of 010108 & 15.Validation of Exam Will Occur at Station During Wk of 001218 IR 05000440/19990011999-08-31031 August 1999 Requests That Page Number 4, P2 Status of EP Facilities, Equipment & Resources, of Insp Rept 50-440/99-01 Be Replaced with Encl Rev PY-CEI-NRR-2425, Forwards Copy of Oh EPA Approval for Use of Nalco 7348 & Nalco 7468 at Pnpp,Iaw License NPF-58,App B,Epp,Section 3.21999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Copy of Oh EPA Approval for Use of Nalco 7348 & Nalco 7468 at Pnpp,Iaw License NPF-58,App B,Epp,Section 3.2 PY-CEI-NRR-2411, Informs That Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co Has Developed Corporate QA Program Manual for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,As Discussed on 990318 Between Util & Nrc.Revised USAR Pages,Encl1999-08-19019 August 1999 Informs That Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co Has Developed Corporate QA Program Manual for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,As Discussed on 990318 Between Util & Nrc.Revised USAR Pages,Encl ML20210Q8421999-08-13013 August 1999 First Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records Listed in App a Being Released in Entirety & Records Listed in App B Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exempt 5) ML20210R7861999-08-12012 August 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/99-12 on 990712-16.No Violations Noted.New Emergency Preparedness Program Staff & Mgt Personnel Were Professional & Proactive ML20210S3961999-08-11011 August 1999 Requests That Ten Listed Individuals Be Registered to Take 991006 BWR Gfes of Written Operating Licensing Exam.Two Listed Personnel Will Have Access to Exams Before Exams Are Administered PY-CEI-NRR-2423, Provides Final Response to NRC GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Remediation of Meteorological Monitoring Sys Has Been Completed & Ppnp Facility Is Now Y2K Ready1999-08-10010 August 1999 Provides Final Response to NRC GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Remediation of Meteorological Monitoring Sys Has Been Completed & Ppnp Facility Is Now Y2K Ready PY-CEI-NRR-2421, Forwards Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept,Iaw 10CFR26.71(d) for Pnpp Covering Period of 990101-9906301999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept,Iaw 10CFR26.71(d) for Pnpp Covering Period of 990101-990630 ML20210Q7981999-08-10010 August 1999 Informs That Intention to Utilize Sulfuric Acid in Pnpp Circulating Water Sys to Lower Ph Is Anticipated to Be Completed in Nov ML20210Q5831999-08-10010 August 1999 Requests Permission to Chemically Treat CWS for Algae Due to Cooling Water Basin Becoming Infected with Algae of Various Types PY-CEI-NRR-2422, Forwards Addl Info Re ASME Section IX Relief Request (IR-023) for Inservice Examination Program at Pnpp,Submitted on 9808261999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards Addl Info Re ASME Section IX Relief Request (IR-023) for Inservice Examination Program at Pnpp,Submitted on 980826 ML20210K6331999-08-0404 August 1999 Submits Response to Requests for Addl Info to GL 92-01,Rev 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity, for Perry Nuclear Plant,Unit 1 PY-CEI-NRR-2417, Forwards NP0059-007, Pnpp - Unit 1 ISI Summary Rept Results for Outage 7 (1999) First Period,Second Interval, IAW ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1989 Edition,Article IWA-60001999-08-0202 August 1999 Forwards NP0059-007, Pnpp - Unit 1 ISI Summary Rept Results for Outage 7 (1999) First Period,Second Interval, IAW ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1989 Edition,Article IWA-6000 ML20210G8411999-07-28028 July 1999 Informs That Based on Determination That Rev 14 Changes to Various Portions of Perry Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan Does Not Decrease Effectiveness of Licensee Emergency Plan & Meets Standard of 10CFR50.47(b),no NRC Approval Required ML20210E0661999-07-22022 July 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/99-08 on 990518-0708.No Violations Noted.Overall Conduct of Activities at Perry Facility, Conservative & Professional with Continuing Focus on Safety PY-CEI-NRR-2419, Forwards Four Copies of Rev 27 to Pnpp Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Changes Have Been Determined Not to Decrease Effectiveness of Security Plan.Rev Withheld1999-07-21021 July 1999 Forwards Four Copies of Rev 27 to Pnpp Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Changes Have Been Determined Not to Decrease Effectiveness of Security Plan.Rev Withheld PY-CEI-NRR-2415, Submits Estimate of Number of Licensing Submittal for FY00 & 01,for Pnpp,Per Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates1999-07-19019 July 1999 Submits Estimate of Number of Licensing Submittal for FY00 & 01,for Pnpp,Per Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates ML20210A6441999-07-15015 July 1999 Advises That Listed Operator Licenses for Company Personnel Have Expired,As of 990715,per 10CFR50.74(a) & 10CFR55.5. Individuals Listed Have Assumed Responsibilities at Pnpp That Do Not Require Operator Licenses ML20209E5951999-07-0909 July 1999 Ltr Contract:Task Order 46, Perry Engineering & Technical Support (E&Ts) Insp, Under Contract NRC-03-98-021 ML20209D5931999-07-0101 July 1999 Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Investigation Rept 3-98-005 Issued on 990510.Corrective Actions Will Be Examined During Future Inspections ML20211A3881999-06-30030 June 1999 Supplements Re NRC Incomprehensible Enforcement Inactions.Understands That NRC Claiming Hands Tied in Matter Re Discrimination Violation at Perry Npp.Requests That NRC Take Listed Two Actions PY-CEI-NRR-2410, Submits Response to NRC Request for Info Re GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Attachment 1 Provides Y2K Readiness Disclosure for Plant1999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Response to NRC Request for Info Re GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Attachment 1 Provides Y2K Readiness Disclosure for Plant PY-CEI-NRR-2413, Advises That Jk Wood Will Replace Lw Myers as Pnpp,Vice President - Nuclear,Effective 9907061999-06-29029 June 1999 Advises That Jk Wood Will Replace Lw Myers as Pnpp,Vice President - Nuclear,Effective 990706 PY-CEI-NRR-2403, Submits Response to RAI Re GL 96-05 Program at Plant1999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Response to RAI Re GL 96-05 Program at Plant ML20196H9641999-06-29029 June 1999 Confirms 990615 Telcon Request with J Lieberman for Addl Time to Respond to Enforcement Action 99-012.FirstEnergy Has 60 Days to Respond to EA PY-CEI-NRR-2412, Forwards Perry Nuclear Plant Simulator Four Yr Test Rept & NRC Form 474, Simulation Facility Certification, Which Describes Tests Conducted from June 1995-19991999-06-28028 June 1999 Forwards Perry Nuclear Plant Simulator Four Yr Test Rept & NRC Form 474, Simulation Facility Certification, Which Describes Tests Conducted from June 1995-1999 ML20211A3991999-06-28028 June 1999 Submits Concerns Re Proposed Changes to Enforcement Policy. Believes That NRC Existing Regulations & Policies Provide Adequate Controls & That NRC Not Administering Consistent Enforcement Policies in Response to Discriminatory Actions ML20196A6601999-06-16016 June 1999 Forwards Master Decommissioning Trust Agreements Revised After 1990 for Ohio Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & Pennsylvania Power Co Re Bvnps,Units 1 & 2,DBNPS,Unit 1 & Perry Unit 1 PY-CEI-NRR-2405, Informs NRC That Pnpp Staff Has Implemented Formal Industry Position on Severe Accident Mgt1999-06-14014 June 1999 Informs NRC That Pnpp Staff Has Implemented Formal Industry Position on Severe Accident Mgt ML20195H9051999-06-10010 June 1999 Forwards Two License Renewal Applications Consisting of NRC Form 398 & NRC Form 396 for Bk Carrier,License OP-30997 & Jt Steward,License OP-30564-1 ML20212H5841999-06-10010 June 1999 Responds to NRC Notice of Level III Violation Received by K Wierman.Corrective Actions:K Wierman Has Been Dismissed from Position at Perry NPP PY-CEI-NRR-2408, Forwards Rev 4 to Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Program Plan, Incorporating Changes to Program to Implement Second Ten Yr Insp Interval1999-06-10010 June 1999 Forwards Rev 4 to Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Program Plan, Incorporating Changes to Program to Implement Second Ten Yr Insp Interval ML20195G6741999-06-10010 June 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/99-03 on 990407-0517.Two Violations of NRC Requirements Occurred & Being Treated as non-cited Violations,Consistent with App C of Enforcement Policy PY-CEI-NRR-2407, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Investigations Rept 3-98-005.Corrective Actions:Initiated Internal Investigation Into Matter to Discover Party Responsible for Falsification of Training Records1999-06-0909 June 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Investigations Rept 3-98-005.Corrective Actions:Initiated Internal Investigation Into Matter to Discover Party Responsible for Falsification of Training Records 1999-09-09
[Table view] Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARPY-CEI-NRR-2438, Informs That DBNPS & Pnpp Staffs Have Modified or Withdrawn Several of Positions Proposed within Re Request for Approval of Qap.Revised Positions Encl1999-10-14014 October 1999 Informs That DBNPS & Pnpp Staffs Have Modified or Withdrawn Several of Positions Proposed within Re Request for Approval of Qap.Revised Positions Encl PY-CEI-NRR-2435, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/99-13.Corrective Actions:Ts SRs with Incorrect Descriptions Were Annotated to Ensure That CR Operators Are Aware That ACs Are Effect1999-10-13013 October 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/99-13.Corrective Actions:Ts SRs with Incorrect Descriptions Were Annotated to Ensure That CR Operators Are Aware That ACs Are Effect ML20212G5811999-09-23023 September 1999 Informs That Licenses for Ta Lentz,License SOP-31449,PJ Arthur,License SOP-30921-1 & Dp Mott,License SOP-31500 Are Considered to Have Expired,Iaw 10CFR50.74(a),10CFR55.5 & 10CFR55.55 PY-CEI-NRR-2432, Forwards NRC Form 536, Operator Licensing Exam Data, in Response to Administrative Ltr 99-03, Preparation & Scheduling of Operator Licensing Exams1999-09-21021 September 1999 Forwards NRC Form 536, Operator Licensing Exam Data, in Response to Administrative Ltr 99-03, Preparation & Scheduling of Operator Licensing Exams PY-CEI-NRR-2428, Submits Resolution to Seventh Question Proposed within NRC 980615 RAI Relating to Cooling Water Sys That Serve Containment Air Coolers & Assessment,Post Accident,Of Potential Water Hammer & two-phase Flow Conditions1999-09-16016 September 1999 Submits Resolution to Seventh Question Proposed within NRC 980615 RAI Relating to Cooling Water Sys That Serve Containment Air Coolers & Assessment,Post Accident,Of Potential Water Hammer & two-phase Flow Conditions ML20212D0151999-09-14014 September 1999 Requests Cancellation of NPDES Permit 3II00036.Permit Has Been Incorporated in Permit 3IB00016*ED.Discharge Point Sources & Associated Fees Currently Covered Under Permit 3IB00016*ED PY-CEI-NRR-2431, Forwards Revised Emergency Plan for Perry NPP, IAW 10CFR50.54(q).Changes Constitute Revs,Temporary Changes or Reissued Pages1999-09-0909 September 1999 Forwards Revised Emergency Plan for Perry NPP, IAW 10CFR50.54(q).Changes Constitute Revs,Temporary Changes or Reissued Pages PY-CEI-NRR-2425, Forwards Copy of Oh EPA Approval for Use of Nalco 7348 & Nalco 7468 at Pnpp,Iaw License NPF-58,App B,Epp,Section 3.21999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Copy of Oh EPA Approval for Use of Nalco 7348 & Nalco 7468 at Pnpp,Iaw License NPF-58,App B,Epp,Section 3.2 PY-CEI-NRR-2411, Informs That Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co Has Developed Corporate QA Program Manual for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,As Discussed on 990318 Between Util & Nrc.Revised USAR Pages,Encl1999-08-19019 August 1999 Informs That Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co Has Developed Corporate QA Program Manual for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,As Discussed on 990318 Between Util & Nrc.Revised USAR Pages,Encl ML20210S3961999-08-11011 August 1999 Requests That Ten Listed Individuals Be Registered to Take 991006 BWR Gfes of Written Operating Licensing Exam.Two Listed Personnel Will Have Access to Exams Before Exams Are Administered PY-CEI-NRR-2421, Forwards Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept,Iaw 10CFR26.71(d) for Pnpp Covering Period of 990101-9906301999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept,Iaw 10CFR26.71(d) for Pnpp Covering Period of 990101-990630 PY-CEI-NRR-2423, Provides Final Response to NRC GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Remediation of Meteorological Monitoring Sys Has Been Completed & Ppnp Facility Is Now Y2K Ready1999-08-10010 August 1999 Provides Final Response to NRC GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Remediation of Meteorological Monitoring Sys Has Been Completed & Ppnp Facility Is Now Y2K Ready PY-CEI-NRR-2422, Forwards Addl Info Re ASME Section IX Relief Request (IR-023) for Inservice Examination Program at Pnpp,Submitted on 9808261999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards Addl Info Re ASME Section IX Relief Request (IR-023) for Inservice Examination Program at Pnpp,Submitted on 980826 PY-CEI-NRR-2417, Forwards NP0059-007, Pnpp - Unit 1 ISI Summary Rept Results for Outage 7 (1999) First Period,Second Interval, IAW ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1989 Edition,Article IWA-60001999-08-0202 August 1999 Forwards NP0059-007, Pnpp - Unit 1 ISI Summary Rept Results for Outage 7 (1999) First Period,Second Interval, IAW ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1989 Edition,Article IWA-6000 PY-CEI-NRR-2419, Forwards Four Copies of Rev 27 to Pnpp Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Changes Have Been Determined Not to Decrease Effectiveness of Security Plan.Rev Withheld1999-07-21021 July 1999 Forwards Four Copies of Rev 27 to Pnpp Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Changes Have Been Determined Not to Decrease Effectiveness of Security Plan.Rev Withheld PY-CEI-NRR-2415, Submits Estimate of Number of Licensing Submittal for FY00 & 01,for Pnpp,Per Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates1999-07-19019 July 1999 Submits Estimate of Number of Licensing Submittal for FY00 & 01,for Pnpp,Per Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates ML20210A6441999-07-15015 July 1999 Advises That Listed Operator Licenses for Company Personnel Have Expired,As of 990715,per 10CFR50.74(a) & 10CFR55.5. Individuals Listed Have Assumed Responsibilities at Pnpp That Do Not Require Operator Licenses ML20211A3881999-06-30030 June 1999 Supplements Re NRC Incomprehensible Enforcement Inactions.Understands That NRC Claiming Hands Tied in Matter Re Discrimination Violation at Perry Npp.Requests That NRC Take Listed Two Actions PY-CEI-NRR-2403, Submits Response to RAI Re GL 96-05 Program at Plant1999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Response to RAI Re GL 96-05 Program at Plant PY-CEI-NRR-2413, Advises That Jk Wood Will Replace Lw Myers as Pnpp,Vice President - Nuclear,Effective 9907061999-06-29029 June 1999 Advises That Jk Wood Will Replace Lw Myers as Pnpp,Vice President - Nuclear,Effective 990706 PY-CEI-NRR-2410, Submits Response to NRC Request for Info Re GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Attachment 1 Provides Y2K Readiness Disclosure for Plant1999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Response to NRC Request for Info Re GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Npps. Attachment 1 Provides Y2K Readiness Disclosure for Plant ML20211A3991999-06-28028 June 1999 Submits Concerns Re Proposed Changes to Enforcement Policy. Believes That NRC Existing Regulations & Policies Provide Adequate Controls & That NRC Not Administering Consistent Enforcement Policies in Response to Discriminatory Actions PY-CEI-NRR-2412, Forwards Perry Nuclear Plant Simulator Four Yr Test Rept & NRC Form 474, Simulation Facility Certification, Which Describes Tests Conducted from June 1995-19991999-06-28028 June 1999 Forwards Perry Nuclear Plant Simulator Four Yr Test Rept & NRC Form 474, Simulation Facility Certification, Which Describes Tests Conducted from June 1995-1999 ML20196A6601999-06-16016 June 1999 Forwards Master Decommissioning Trust Agreements Revised After 1990 for Ohio Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & Pennsylvania Power Co Re Bvnps,Units 1 & 2,DBNPS,Unit 1 & Perry Unit 1 PY-CEI-NRR-2405, Informs NRC That Pnpp Staff Has Implemented Formal Industry Position on Severe Accident Mgt1999-06-14014 June 1999 Informs NRC That Pnpp Staff Has Implemented Formal Industry Position on Severe Accident Mgt ML20212H5841999-06-10010 June 1999 Responds to NRC Notice of Level III Violation Received by K Wierman.Corrective Actions:K Wierman Has Been Dismissed from Position at Perry NPP ML20195H9051999-06-10010 June 1999 Forwards Two License Renewal Applications Consisting of NRC Form 398 & NRC Form 396 for Bk Carrier,License OP-30997 & Jt Steward,License OP-30564-1 PY-CEI-NRR-2408, Forwards Rev 4 to Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Program Plan, Incorporating Changes to Program to Implement Second Ten Yr Insp Interval1999-06-10010 June 1999 Forwards Rev 4 to Pump & Valve Inservice Testing Program Plan, Incorporating Changes to Program to Implement Second Ten Yr Insp Interval PY-CEI-NRR-2407, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Investigations Rept 3-98-005.Corrective Actions:Initiated Internal Investigation Into Matter to Discover Party Responsible for Falsification of Training Records1999-06-0909 June 1999 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Investigations Rept 3-98-005.Corrective Actions:Initiated Internal Investigation Into Matter to Discover Party Responsible for Falsification of Training Records PY-CEI-NRR-2404, Submits Rept of Reduction in PCT Greater than 50 F Due to Implementation of Ge,Safr/Gestr LOCA Methodology for Fuel Cycle 8.Methodology Replaces Original LOCA Methodology1999-06-0707 June 1999 Submits Rept of Reduction in PCT Greater than 50 F Due to Implementation of Ge,Safr/Gestr LOCA Methodology for Fuel Cycle 8.Methodology Replaces Original LOCA Methodology ML20195E4561999-05-25025 May 1999 Submits Petition Per Other Actions Provision of 10CFR2.206,requesting That Radiation Protection Manager at Perry NPP Be Banned by NRC from Participation in Licensed Activities at & for Any NPP for at Least Five Yrs PY-CEI-NRR-2401, Forwards Changes to ERDS Data Point Library & Communication Survey for Perry Nuclear Power Plant.Changes Are Identified by Margin Rev Bars1999-05-20020 May 1999 Forwards Changes to ERDS Data Point Library & Communication Survey for Perry Nuclear Power Plant.Changes Are Identified by Margin Rev Bars PY-CEI-NRR-2402, Notifies of Completion of Plant Core Shroud Insp in Accordance with GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in Bwrs,1999-05-18018 May 1999 Notifies of Completion of Plant Core Shroud Insp in Accordance with GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in Bwrs, PY-CEI-NRR-2394, Forwards Application for Order & Conforming License Amend for Transfer of Interest in OL NPF-58 for Pnpp.Authorization of Ceic to Possess Dl 13.74% Undivided Ownership in Pnpp, Requested1999-05-0505 May 1999 Forwards Application for Order & Conforming License Amend for Transfer of Interest in OL NPF-58 for Pnpp.Authorization of Ceic to Possess Dl 13.74% Undivided Ownership in Pnpp, Requested PY-CEI-NRR-2397, Forwards Revised COLR Cycle 8, & Rev 1 to J11-03371SRLR, Supplemental Reload Licensing Rept for Pnpp,Unit 1 Reload 7,Cycle 8, IAW TS Section 5.6.51999-04-30030 April 1999 Forwards Revised COLR Cycle 8, & Rev 1 to J11-03371SRLR, Supplemental Reload Licensing Rept for Pnpp,Unit 1 Reload 7,Cycle 8, IAW TS Section 5.6.5 PY-CEI-NRR-2396, Provides post-examination Results of Weld Overlay Repair for FW Nozzle to safe-end Weld at Pnpp.Info Supplements Licensee 990325 & 0401 Ltrs Submitted to NRC That Requested Approval of Repair Plan for 1B13-N1C-KB FW Nozzle to safe-en1999-04-28028 April 1999 Provides post-examination Results of Weld Overlay Repair for FW Nozzle to safe-end Weld at Pnpp.Info Supplements Licensee 990325 & 0401 Ltrs Submitted to NRC That Requested Approval of Repair Plan for 1B13-N1C-KB FW Nozzle to safe-end Weld 05000440/LER-1999-002, Forwards LER 99-002-00, LCO 3.0.3 Entered Due to TS Bases Statement Interpretation. Action Occurred After RHR Pump Failed to Start.Plant at No Time Was in Condition Where Required Decay Heat Removal System Were Not Available1999-04-26026 April 1999 Forwards LER 99-002-00, LCO 3.0.3 Entered Due to TS Bases Statement Interpretation. Action Occurred After RHR Pump Failed to Start.Plant at No Time Was in Condition Where Required Decay Heat Removal System Were Not Available PY-CEI-NRR-2388, Forwards Annual Environ & Effluent Release Rept for Pnnp Unit 1 for 1998. Pnpp Had No Liquid Effluent Discharges in 1998 & All Other Release Points Were Well Below Applicable Limits1999-04-22022 April 1999 Forwards Annual Environ & Effluent Release Rept for Pnnp Unit 1 for 1998. Pnpp Had No Liquid Effluent Discharges in 1998 & All Other Release Points Were Well Below Applicable Limits PY-CEI-NRR-2371, Provides Suppl Response to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/98-18.Corrective Actions:Two Condition Rept Investigations Were Performed to Evaluate Issues Re Fire Protection Program & Addl Training Was Conducted1999-04-21021 April 1999 Provides Suppl Response to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-440/98-18.Corrective Actions:Two Condition Rept Investigations Were Performed to Evaluate Issues Re Fire Protection Program & Addl Training Was Conducted PY-CEI-NRR-2382, Forwards 1998 Annual Rept for Firstenergy Corp, for Perry Nuclear Power Plant & Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.Form 10-K Annual Rept to Us Securities & Exchange Commission for FY98 Also Encl1999-04-21021 April 1999 Forwards 1998 Annual Rept for Firstenergy Corp, for Perry Nuclear Power Plant & Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.Form 10-K Annual Rept to Us Securities & Exchange Commission for FY98 Also Encl PY-CEI-NRR-2392, Forwards Diskette Containing Pnpp Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Doses in Format Requested by Reg Guide 8.7.Without Diskette1999-04-19019 April 1999 Forwards Diskette Containing Pnpp Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Doses in Format Requested by Reg Guide 8.7.Without Diskette PY-CEI-NRR-2387, Documents Telcon Held Between NRC Staff & Members of Perry Nuclear Power Plant Staff on 990406,re Safety Evaluation for License Amend 1051999-04-14014 April 1999 Documents Telcon Held Between NRC Staff & Members of Perry Nuclear Power Plant Staff on 990406,re Safety Evaluation for License Amend 105 PY-CEI-NRR-2386, Forwards Copy of Application Submitted to FERC Proposing Transfer of Jurisdictional Transmission Facilities of Firstenergy Corp Operating Companies to American Transmission Sys,Inc.With One Oversize Drawing1999-04-0606 April 1999 Forwards Copy of Application Submitted to FERC Proposing Transfer of Jurisdictional Transmission Facilities of Firstenergy Corp Operating Companies to American Transmission Sys,Inc.With One Oversize Drawing ML20206N3361999-04-0505 April 1999 Informs NRR of Continued Events Re Transfer of Generation Assets Between Duquesne Light Co & Firstenergy.No Negotiated Settlement Between Firstenergy & Local 270 Pertaining to Generation Asset Swap Has Been Reached PY-CEI-NRR-2384, Provides Supplemental Info Re 990325 Request for Approval of Repair Plan for Feedwater Nozzle to safe-end Weld. Clarification Provided on Listed Three Items,Per 990329 Telcon with NRC1999-04-0101 April 1999 Provides Supplemental Info Re 990325 Request for Approval of Repair Plan for Feedwater Nozzle to safe-end Weld. Clarification Provided on Listed Three Items,Per 990329 Telcon with NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2383, Withdraws Inservice Exam Relief Requests IR-036 & IR-041, Submitted in Licensee to Nrc.Relief Request IR-041 Is Being Clarified with Respect to Alternative Proposed1999-04-0101 April 1999 Withdraws Inservice Exam Relief Requests IR-036 & IR-041, Submitted in Licensee to Nrc.Relief Request IR-041 Is Being Clarified with Respect to Alternative Proposed L-99-052, Forwards Info Concerning Dls Decommissioning Planning for Bvps,Units 1 & 2 & Pnpp Unit 1.DL Is Continuing to Utilize External Sinking Funds to Provide Financial Assurance for Nuclear Decommissioning Funding1999-03-30030 March 1999 Forwards Info Concerning Dls Decommissioning Planning for Bvps,Units 1 & 2 & Pnpp Unit 1.DL Is Continuing to Utilize External Sinking Funds to Provide Financial Assurance for Nuclear Decommissioning Funding ML20205H6171999-03-29029 March 1999 Forwards Util Consolidated Financial Statements for Twelve Month Period Ending 981231 & Internal Cash Flow Projection, Including Actual 1998 Data & Projections for 1999 PY-CEI-NRR-2377, Submits Decommissioning Repts for Bvps,Units 1 & 2,Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Station,Unit 1 & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1)1999-03-29029 March 1999 Submits Decommissioning Repts for Bvps,Units 1 & 2,Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Station,Unit 1 & Perry Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1) PY-CEI-NRR-2380, Requests Approval of Attached Repair Plan for Feedwater Nozzle to safe-end Weld N4C-KB.Proposed Weld Overlay Design & Installation Plan Details Included in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 Provides Applicable Preliminary Weld Procedure1999-03-25025 March 1999 Requests Approval of Attached Repair Plan for Feedwater Nozzle to safe-end Weld N4C-KB.Proposed Weld Overlay Design & Installation Plan Details Included in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 Provides Applicable Preliminary Weld Procedure 1999-09-09
[Table view] Category:LEGAL/LAW FIRM TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20059D6451990-08-31031 August 1990 Requests Dismissal of Ohio Edison Co Application to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions in OL & Follow Recommendation of Doj.Alleged Increase in Nuclear Power Costs Heightens Importance of Continued Imposition of Antitrust Conditions ML20059C9951990-08-27027 August 1990 Responds to Util Re Suspension of Antitrust License Conditions ML20059G1001990-07-24024 July 1990 Requests NRC Expeditious Disposition of Matter Re Ohio Edison 870918 Application to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions.Doj Position in Inconsistent W/Prior Analyses & W/Pertinent NRC Case Law.Jd Pace Affidavit Encl ML20151D8121988-07-15015 July 1988 Forwards Opposition of City of Clyde,Oh to Util Application to Suspend Antitrust Conditions at Facilities,Per 880616 53FR22589 & 53FR22590 ML20150D3541988-07-0505 July 1988 Forwards Response of Ohio Edison Co to Comments on Antitrust License Amend Application.Util Requests Commission Hold Present Proceeding on Application in Abeyance Pending Resolution of Court Action Filed on 880622 ML20197G9591988-06-0808 June 1988 Forwards Technical Rept, Analyses of Northeastern Ohio Seismicity & Tectonics, Which Responds to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 880122 Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Inadequate Seismic Design ML20155F2091988-05-27027 May 1988 Requests 30-day Extension Until 880703 to File Response to Cities of Clyde & Cleveland Re Util Antitrust License Amend Application,Due to Length of Comments.Nrc Antitrust Counsel Does Not Object to Granting Extension Based on Discussion ML20155F3831988-05-23023 May 1988 Forwards Tables of Contents & Appendices Inadvertently Omitted from City of Cleveland,Oh 880219 Answer to Util 870918 Application ML20147E8141988-02-29029 February 1988 Forwards American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc Request for 30 Day Extension for Filing Comments ML20235A5361987-09-18018 September 1987 Forwards Application for Amend to License NPF-58,suspending Antitrust Conditions Insofar as Conditions Apply to Ohio Edison Co.Fee Paid ML20212N1301987-03-11011 March 1987 Forwards Final Draft Plant Operating Agreement Mentioned in Application for License Amend & Approval Re Sale & Leaseback Transactions.Agreement Currently Being Executed ML20212F4651987-03-0303 March 1987 Identifies Potential Equity Investors Wishing to Participate Directly or Through Subsidiary in Sale & Leaseback Transactions,Per Util 870123 Application for Amend to License NPF-58.Annual Repts & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20207Q5861987-01-23023 January 1987 Forwards Application for Amend to License NPF-58 Re Sale & Leaseback Transactions W/Ohio Edison Co.Fee Paid ML20206S2701986-09-17017 September 1986 Notifies of Address Change Effective on 860927.Requests Address on Encl List of Dockets Be Changed ML20214L6681986-09-0404 September 1986 Requests Encl Signature Page Be Substituted for Original Signature Page to MR Edelman 860902 Affidavit Attached to Licensee 860902 Response to Ocre Motion for Continuance.Svc List Encl ML20209B0071986-09-0202 September 1986 Advises That Sunflower Alliance Will Not Suppl or Amplify Notice of Reconsideration Filed on 860808.W Clements Directed to Destroy Notice of Appeal ML20212P0071986-08-28028 August 1986 Requests Scheduled 860905 Meeting Re Discussions/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Unit 1 Be Stayed Pending Decision from Us Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit in Ocre Vs NRC ML20214J9641986-08-12012 August 1986 Advises That Licensee Will Await Aslab Decision Before Responding to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 860808 Petition to Reconsider Portions of Aslab 860725 Decision ALAB-841.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20203Q2991986-05-0505 May 1986 Advises That Per Encl Sec 860429 Order,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co Now Subsidiaries of Centerior Energy Corp.Utils Will Continue as Electric Companies & as NRC Licensees & CP Holders ML20210L3931986-04-25025 April 1986 Confirms That Baseline Testing Referred to in Affidavit of Dr Green Completed Prior to Fuel Loading of Unit 1.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20203D7231986-04-16016 April 1986 Informs That Both Seismic Instrumentation & Hydrogen Control Equipment Will Be Accessible at Time of Aslab Visit,Per 860403 Telcon Re Hearing on Ocre Motion to Reopen Proceeding.Personal Info Requested by 860509.Svc List Encl ML20140A7291986-03-18018 March 1986 Forwards ACRS to Palladino Re ACRS Consideration of State of Oh 860131 Earthquake.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20141M9561986-02-25025 February 1986 Requests Denial of Ocre 860203 2.206 Petition to Prevent Fuel Loading or OL Issuance Until Assessment of 860131 Earthquake Complete.Encl Affidavits Confirm That Earthquake Did Not Adversely Affect Plant ML20214C8961986-02-19019 February 1986 Forwards Original Signature Page to Be Substituted in Affidavit of Ta Boss,Attachment 1 of Applicant to Commissioners ML20214C9961986-02-18018 February 1986 Responds to Dl Schlemmer 860204 2.206 Petition Requesting Plant Closure Due to Inadequate Seismic Design & Idcvp to Assess Integrity of Site QA Programs.Petition W/O Basis & Should Be Denied in All Respects ML20137U6861986-02-13013 February 1986 Forwards Amend 5 to Form U-1,recently Filed W/Securities & Exchange Commission,Providing Addl Info Re Proposed Affiliation Between Utils.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151U0301986-02-0505 February 1986 Informs of Intent to Respond to Assertions in Ocre Re Summary of 851218 Meeting Between NRC & Hydrogen Control Owners Group.Motion to Reopen Has Not Been Filed by Ocre.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20137N9701986-01-31031 January 1986 Forwards Amends 3 & 4 to Form U-1,recently Filed W/ Securities & Exchange Commission,To Provide Addl Info Re Proposed Affiliation Between Utils ML20137F1711986-01-14014 January 1986 Forwards 851213 Insp Rept Re 851120 Emergency Preparedness Exercise.Related Correspondence ML20136J0891986-01-0808 January 1986 Forwards Amend 2 to Sec Form U-1,providing Addl Info Re Proposed Affiliation Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co ML20141F5951986-01-0606 January 1986 Forwards Articles Re Turbine Missiles Cited in Memorandum & Order LBP-83-48,per Request.Related Correspondence ML20141F7161986-01-0606 January 1986 Informs of Typo in 851230 Applicant Answer to Ocre Motion to Reopen Record & Submit New Contentions. Steam Binding Should Read Steam Blanketing. W/Svc List ML20151P1341985-12-31031 December 1985 Forwards Original Signature Page to Affidavit of Kw Holtzclaw for Telecopy Attached to Applicant Answer to Ocre Motion to Reopen Record & to Submit New Contentions,Filed on 851230.Svc List Encl ML20138H9201985-12-12012 December 1985 Comments on Applicant Brief in Opposition to Intervenor Appeals from Concluding Partial Initial Decision.Footnote 94 Should Ref Defect W/Crankshaft Oil Hole Plugs as Failure Instead of Simply as Crack.W/Svc List ML20137U2571985-12-0404 December 1985 Forwards Corrected Table of Authorities to Applicant Brief in Opposition to Intervenors Appeals from Concluding Partial Initial Decision ML20205H2241985-11-13013 November 1985 Forwards Amend 1 to Form U-1 Recently Filed W/Securities & Exchange Commission to Provide Addl Info & Exhibits Re Proposed Affiliation Between Utils ML20133H9841985-10-14014 October 1985 Forwards Util to HR Denton Providing Updated Info on Facility Status & Readiness for Fuel Loading & Operation. Unit 1 May Be Ready to Load Fuel as Early as 851108.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20133J2571985-10-11011 October 1985 Forwards Original Signature Page to Gr Leidich Affidavit Attached to Applicant Response to Ocre Motion for Stay Pendente Lite ML20132C7691985-09-24024 September 1985 Forwards Util Re Unit 1 Status & Operational Readiness.Related Correspondence ML20135B7711985-09-0909 September 1985 Forwards News Release by State of Oh,Dept of Health Announcing State Policy on Distribution of Potassium Iodide.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20134G0511985-08-21021 August 1985 Forwards Util Updating Progress on Unit 1 During Jul 1985 for ASLB Info.Related Correspondence ML20134D2601985-08-14014 August 1985 Forwards 850805 Application & 850808 Registration Statement Filed W/Securities & Exchange Commission Re Proposed Affiliation Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co.Utils Will Be Subsidiaries of Holding Firm ML20133E5971985-08-0606 August 1985 Forwards Hydrogen Control Owners Group & Hydrogen Control Owners Group Rept on 1/4-Scale Scoping Test Results. Subj Test Program Part of Final Analysis Required by Hydrogen Rule.Related Correspondence ML20128M2761985-07-22022 July 1985 Forwards Util to NRC Re Progress Update for June 1985.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20129K1411985-07-19019 July 1985 Forwards EC Christiansen & WR Kanda Affidavits Re Placement, Operation & Safety Parameters of Check Valves Used in Lube Oil Generators & 850505 Fire in Reactor Bldg,Respectively ML20128R1171985-07-10010 July 1985 Forwards Recent Press Release Announcing Agreement Between Applicant & Toledo Edison Co to Combine Under Newly Formed Holding Company.Svc List Also Encl.Related Correspondence ML20128A5281985-06-28028 June 1985 Forwards M Edelman to H Denton,Setting Forth Applicant Proposed Schedule for Final Analysis of Plant Hydrogen Control Sys.Completion Expected by End of 1986.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20127B4821985-06-20020 June 1985 Forwards Addendum to Torsiograph Tests of Emergency Diesel Generators,Divs 1 & 2 at Perry Nuclear Power Plant-Unit 1 on Cylinder Imbalance, Prepared by Failure Analysis Assoc. Related Correspondence ML20127A9931985-06-19019 June 1985 Informs That Unit 1 12 Wks Negative Re 850614 Project Master Plan Fuel Load Date.Related Correspondence ML20126C3921985-06-10010 June 1985 Forwards Failure Analysis Assoc Rept FaAA-85-4-1, Torsiograph Tests of Emergency Diesel Generators,Divs 1 & 2 at Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit 1, Discussed During Evidentiary Hearings on Issue 16.Related Correspondence 1990-08-31
[Table view] |
Text
--..
GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & LETHAM, P. C.
iioo rir t s c wvu st a t s t, N. w.
neuets GotDatno wAsws wovoN, 0. c. aoool ARNoLO f it LD64 AN OLE NN W. LETH AM itLtPMoNr CHAN8dievo D. STRotM t h, s m. <eoen 463-e 3oo JotwvA L. MENit R iLc N N ETH M. AL9t at tt LECoPit A August 31, 1990 <eori Aes eao.
DA.'ID C. HJt tmF tLt VIA HAND-DELIVERY Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike l Rockville, Maryland 20852 i Ret Application of Ohio Edison Company to Suspend I Antitrust License Conditions (Perry Nuclear l Power Plant, Unit 1), NRC Docket No. 50-440A l
Dear Dr. Murley:
The City of Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland) presents this response to the July 24, 1990 letter from Gerald Charnoff, coun-sel for the Ohio Edison Company (Ohio cdison), concerning the ap-plication by Ohio Edison in which the utility asks the NRC to suspend the antitrust license conditions in the operating license of Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (Perry). The basic thrust of Ohio Edison's application is that there is no basis for continued imposition of the antitrust conditions because Perry's operating costs are allegedly higher than anticipated. On June 13, 1990, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (Jus-tice) sent an advice letter to the NRC in which Justice found that, even if Perry's operating costs could be shown to be higher than anticipated,-the legal basis for continued imposition of the
- conditions pursuant to section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act
,(AEA), 42 U.S.C. S2135(c) would not be undermined.
As discussed below, Ohio Edison, in its July 24 letter to the NRC attacking Justice's findings, simply rehashes the ar-guments presented in its application. These arguments were re-i viewed by Justice in emphatically rejecting the underlying basis of Ohio Edison's application. In addition, Cleveland has already rebutted each of Ohio Edison's arguments in its respense to Ohio u
001A0 9009070130 DR 900831 ADOCK0500gggO I
O
\
t t
GOL.DBERC. FIELDM AN & LETH AM, P. C.
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 2 Edison's application 1/ as well as in Cleveland's response to both Ohio Edison's answer to Cleveland and a similar application by the Cleveland Illuminating Company (CEI) and Toledo Edison Company (Toledo), co-owners of Perry and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Davis-Besse), for suspension of antitrust conditions.2/ Therefore, in the interest of' brevity, Cleveland will simply summarize its rebuttal and cite the appropriate por- ,
tions of its prior pleadings.
In its letter, Ohio Edison points to (1) " legislative history" of the AEA, (2) " economic reasoning", and (3) "DOJ and NRC Past Practices." As shown below, each of these factors un-dermines Ohio Edison's application.
I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY In finding that there is no basis for suspension of the antitrust license conditions, Justice first pointed to the stan-dard that is clearly set forth in section 105(c). Section 105(c) requires the NRC to determine "whether the activities under the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust Er- Justice noted (p. 2):
This broad standarc r, vests the NRC'with the re-sponsibility to 3tennine, on a case by case basis, whether to,aership ' a particular plant by a particular ut; 3 ; sp M likely to have anticompetitive s -+ tue type the antitrust laws are intenci~ i eway The statute direc : 6 N ,not only to look for-ward to determira -
.nticcapetitive situation could arise, but also to look at the'past to see l if "an anticompetitive climate e.ists and to see i
if the applicant has acted in an anticompetitive manner."
l 1/ " Answer of City of Cleveland, Ohio, In Opposition To Ohio Edison Company's Application For Suspension of Perry Operat-ing License Antitrust Conditions," filed Feb. 19, 1988.
2/ " Comments of City of Cleveland, Ohio, In Opposition To Appli-cation For Suspension Of Operating License Antitrust Condi-tions", filed Sept. 13, 1988. For ease of reference, this application will be referred to as the Centerior application.
Centerior Energy Corporation is a holding company that owns
~
all of the common stock of CEI and Toledo.
t Thomas-E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 3 This language, Justice observed, shows Congress' intcet to re- ,
quire the NRC to examine all of the factort surrounding a pro-posed nuclear plant, not just the articIpated cost of the power, in evaluating whether operation of 5 nuclear generating plant would foster anti-competitive ccoeuct. l Justice went on to note that the Joint Committen Report ,
on the 1970 Amendments to the AEA, which modified section 105(c), j supports this interpretation.3/ -Justice noted (p. 3):
There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended a narrower inter-pretation of the statute than is indicated by its language. The Joint Committee Report, in discuss-ing the language that was enacted, does not sug- l gest that anticompetitive effects must be trace- 1 able to a finding that the nuclear plant will be l low cost. In fact, cost is not mentioned at all, l and the Report does not specify or limit those I situations that could be found to be inconsistent with the antitrust laws. l In its response, Ohio Edison criticizes Justice for focusing on the Joint Committee Report and cites statements by certain witnesses who-testified at the congressional-hearing. In a similar vein, the. affidavit of Dr. Joe D. Pace (attached to Ohio Edison's letter) suggests that the alleged belief that nu-clear power would be low cost must have been the sole factor un-i derlying section 105(c).
l \
Ohio Edison's response wholly ignores. established rules of statutory construction as well as the genesis of section 105(c). Interpretation of a statute must: 4
. . . begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction:that the starting point for inter-I preting a statute is-the language of the statute
! itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative l 3/ " Amending the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended, to Elim-
! inate the Requirement for a Finding of Practical Value, to Provide for Prelicensing Antitrust Review of Production and-Utilization Facilities, and to' Effectuate Certain Other Pur-poses Pertaining to Nuclear Facilities", Report by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. No. 91-1470, 91st Congress, 2nd Session (1970) (" Joint Committee Report"), reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong, & Ad. News 4981.
k
)
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D. '
August 31, 1990 Page 4 l
intention to the contrary, that language must or- I dinarily be regarded as conclusive.4/
Thus in rejecting a similar attempt by another nuclear licensee to constrict the NCR's broad remedial authority pursuant to sec-tion 105(c), the court noted that the " express language" of sec-tion 105(c) "is the-primary source of its-meaning."5/
~
Ohio Edison does not even try to rebut Justice's find--
,ings that the clear language of.section 105(c) indicates that the NRC must look at the totality of circumstances in evaluating the need for antitrust conditions.
In addition, Justice correctly recognized that section 105(c) is a remedial provision and, hence, should be construed broadly. "[W] hen Congress _uses broad generalized language in a remedial statute, and that' language is not contravened by author-ative legislative history," a court has observed, "a court should interpret the provision generously so as to effectuate the broad congressional goals."s/ The court in Alabama Power, 692 F.2d 1362, applied this principle in finding that the NRC has broad authority pursuant to section 105(c) to impose antitrust conditions.
Ohio Edison's criticism of Justice for focusing on'the Joint Committee Report is also at odds with other principles of r statutory construction. The Joint Committee Report is the "best source of legislative history" bearing on the Congressional in--
l tent underlying AEA section 105(c).2/
Moreover, Cleveland, in its response to Ohio Edison's application (pp. 90-94), cited additional portions of the Joint Committee Report that reflect the recognition that the NRC'would have to review the totality of circumstances in order to deter-mine whether operation of a nuclear plant:"would create or main-
, 4/ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.
! 447 U.S. 102, 108, 64 L.Ed.2d 766, 100 S.Ct. 2051 (1980).
}/ Alabama Powar Co. v. NRC (Alabama Power), 692-F.2d 1362, 1367 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983).
1/ Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Carribean, Inc. 754 F.2d 404, 428 (1st Cir. 1985). ,
1 1/ Alabama Power, 692 F.2d at 1367; see Sierra Club v. Clark, 755 F.2d 608, 615 (8th Cir. 1985).
l Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 1 Page 5 l l
l tain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws." Cleve-land showed that Congress recognized that, regardless of whether nuclear power was low cost, a nuclear plant could exacerbate anti-competitive practices by (1) providing the nuclear utility 3 with a large, new supply of power, thereby increasing the utili- .
ty's incentive to continue to engage in anti-co.mpetitive to en-sure a-captive market for the. power, (2) expanding the scope of, and the cost efficiencies engendered by, coordination services controlled by the nuclear utility, thereby increasing the anti-competitive harm caused by a discriminatory denial of access to these services to customers who need the coordination services.to facilitate power purcnases from other suppliers, and (3) expand-ing the scope of the nuclear utility's transmission facilities,.
thereby increasing the utility's control over wheeling services needed to procure power supplies from other suppliers. Cleveland noted (pp. 91-94) the significance of the Joint Committee's deci-sion to include in the report a study that showed the rapid in-crease in the cost of nuclear power. Inclusion of the study un-equivocally indicated that Congress understood that a nuclear plant could " create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws", even if the power was not low cost.
Ohio Edison's scant citations to the Report do not help its position. Ohio Edison concedes (p. 2) that the Joint Commit-tee Report mentions the cost of nuclear power in an " indirect" manner only. The portion of the Report cited by Ohio Edison sim-ply cites early congressional-statements that commercial develop-ment of nuclear power must await technological advances in nu-clear power that ensure that the power can be generated at
" competitive prices."8/ Thus, those statements have nothing at all to do with the meaning of section 105(c).
Apparently recognizing that the Joint Committee Report undermines its position, Ohio Edison focuses instead on a few isolated statements by witnesses at.the congressional hearings on l the 1970 Amendments. At the outset, a statement at congressional l hearings by a person who is not a member of Congress is far less probative of congressional intent than the language of the sta-tute and the committee report.9/ In any event, the testimony at.
the hearings on the 1970 Amendments does not bolster Ohio Edi- '
son's position. As shown in Cleveland's response to Ohio Edi-1/ Joint Committee Report, 1970 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News at 4988.
9/ Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 50 n. 13, 93 L.Ed.2d 216, 107 S.Ct. 353 (1986).
Thomas B. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31,-1990 Page 6 i son's application (pp. 94-98), another indication that section 105(c) requires analysis of the totality of circumstances is that several key supporters of the 1970 Amendments did not focus on the cost of nuclear power. Instead, they focused on the way that a nuclear facility, in view of its large generating capacity, could create or maintain an anti-competitive situation by enhanc-ing the cost efficiencies which can be achieved through coordina-tion services. That would increase the anti-competitive impact of a discriminatory exclusion of access to these services, these witnesses noted, and could justify imposition of antitrust license conditions. Indeed,-as discussed in Cleveland's response (pp. 95-96), two of the' witnesses cited by Ohio Edison--
Ronald W. Donnem, then-Director.of Policy' Planning of Justice's Antitrust Division,'and Walter B. Comegys, then-acting Associate Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division--cited these factors.
In addition, several key supporters of the 1970 Amendments repeatedly referred to the need to ensure that licen-sees which dominated the transmission facilities in a service area provide non-discriminatory access to wheeling services on their transmission facilities, as discussed on pages 97-98 of Cleveland's reply to Ohio Edison's application. Mr. Donnem was one of these witnesses.
In his affidavit, Dr. Pace ignores the genesis of sec-tion 105(c) in arguing (p.-3) that section 105(c) must be based on a belief that nuclear power would be low cost because "[t]he only thing that can possibly' distinguish' nuclear power from, say, coal-fired power is the cost of that power." As. recognized in.
Alabama Power, 692 F.2d at 1368-69, and discussed in Cleveland's opposition to Centerior's application (pp. 28-29), the pro-com-petition mandate in section 105(c) was based on the substantial federal investment in the development of nuclear power coupled with the recognition of the way in which a large nuclear generat-ing plant could enhance a dominant utility's market power. -This mandate was not based on any expectation that nuclear power would be low cost. In enacting.the AEA in 1946, Congress noted that research on the development of nuclear energy would be funded by the federal government (AEA section 2(g), 42 U.S.C. S2012(g)).
The government was concerned that the fruits of this research not be exploited in an anti-competitive manner. Thus, in enacting the AEA, Congress stated that an overriding policy was to
" strengthen free competition" (AEA section 1(b), 42 U.S.C.
2011(b)). At the time, "[t]he generation of useful power from
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 7-atomic energy was a distant goal, a very distant goal."10/ As noted, Congress simply recognized that nuclear power would not be commercially viable until it could be sold at " competitive prices". Consequently, there was no way of knowing whether nuclear power would be cheaper than other types of power.
Moreover, as noted in Cleveland's response to Center- ;
lor's application (pp. 30-32), the 1970 Amendments'also-reflected 1 the recognition by Congress-that federal environmental laws fa-vored construction of nuclear plants, as opposed to coal-fired plants, to reduce the capacity shortages in many parts of the i nation. Congress realized that the generating capacity of a nu-clear plant is far larger than that of other types of generating plants,-such as coal-fired plants. As a result, Congress noted i thet a nuclear plant could increase the incentives for a nuclear !
utility to continue to engage in anti-co.npetitive conduct to l' ensure a market for the nuclear power.
II. NRC PRECEDENT Ohio Edison tells us that NRC precedent supports Ohio l Edison's position that antitrust conditions may only be continued if nuclear power is low cost. Significantly, Ohio Edison can provide only a single sentence of analysis regarding a single NRC decision to try to support this assertion--Consumers Power Co.
(Consumer Power), Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-452, 6 NRC 892 (1977).
Cleveland, in its opposition to Ohio Edison's applica-tion (pp. 106-08), provided an exhaustive analysis of Consumers power and showed that the NRC was concerned about the way opera-tion of the Midland Plant would heighten the applicants' existing.
domination of generation and transmission facilities. The NRC noted that additional power generated by the Midland Plant would exacerbate the applicant's anti-competitive practices in connec-tion with wheeling and coordination services as well as power ,
sales. The NRC recognized that this adverse impact would likely '
occur, regardless of the cost of the power.
Moreover, Ohio Edison chooses to not even mention, much less try to distinguish, the most recent litigated decision re-garding the NRC's section 105(c) authority. In Alabama Power Co.
(Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)'(Farley),_ALAB-l l 10/ S. Rep. No. 1699, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1954 U.S.
Code Cong. & Ad. News 3456, 3458.
l l
i ;
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 8 i
646, 13 NRC 1027 (1981), the NRC Appeal Board cited Midland and found that the coordination services market and retail service markets are distinct markets for purposes of evaluating the need to impose antitrust conditions. The Appea.1 Board in Parley noted l that the applicant had the dominant share of generation and transmission in the relevant service area and used this domina-tion in an anti-competitive manner to control coordination ser-vices and retail markets and discriminate against municipally- l owned electric utilities in its service area. Id. at 1069-70.
The Board recognized that the nuclear plant would in-crease the cost efficiencies achievable through the coordination services market and, hence, increase the anti-competitive impact of the applicant's discriminatory practices. The Board also re-cognized that the new transmission facilities which would ac-company the nuclear plant would exacerbate the applicant's mono-poly power over transmission services. Hence, the Board ordered the applicant to provide non-discriminatory access to transmis-l sion and other coordination services. Id. at 1108-10.
l Moreover, the Board recognized that access to these
! services was not tied to actual purchase of the nuclear power.
l The Board found that one of the intervenors did not compete with l the applicant in the retail market and, therefore, was not enti-l tied to be able to purchase an ownership interest in the plant.
Id. at 1109-10. But the Board found that, because the facility would heighten the applicant's domination of transmission facili-ties, the existing anti-competitive practices of_the applicant regarding access to the facilities might be exacerbated, regard-less of the cost advantages, if any, of nuclear power. Conse-quently, the Board found that MEUA was entitled only to non-dis-criminatory access to transmission services. ,
If (as Ohio Edison asserts) low cost power was the pre-dicate for imposition of antitrust conditions, this condition would not have been imposed.
The Eleventh Circuit in Alabama Power, 692 F.2d 1362, rejected the applicant's petition for review and affirmed the NRC decision. As noted, the court pointed to the broad remedial na- i ture of section 105(c). The court affirmed the NRC's considera-tion of prior anti-competitive conduct of an applicant to deter-mine whether an unconditional license for the nuclear facility-would allow the applicant to " maintain" an anticompetitive situa-tion. Id. at 1367-68. The court also affirmed the NRC's finding that the wholesale, retail and coordination service markets re- I present separate markets which were dominated by the applicant I and that the licenso would exacerbate the anti-competitive situa- l l
i _s p ,
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
- August-31, 1990 Page 9 tion in each market. Id. at 1369. Consequently, the court ap-proved the NRC's imposition of antitrust conditions dealing sep-arately with (1) the ability to purchase an ownership interest in the facility, and (2) access to coordination and wheeling ser-vices. ,
b Thus, the court recognized that the cost attractiveness of nuclear power has nothing at all to do with the NRC's author-L ity to impose antitrust conditions to ensure non-discriminatory l access to an applicant's transmission facilities and coordination ,
services.
Hence, this NRC precedent (as well as the other NRC de-cisions discussed in Cleveland's opposition to Ohio Edison's ap-plication (pp.99-106)) makes it clear that low cost nuclear power is not the predicate for continued imposition of antitrust conditions. Instead, the NRC must review the totality of circum-stances to evaluate whether operation of the nuclear plant "would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust i laws."
Moreover, it is striking that Ohio Edison does not even try to show that the NRC's reasoning in imposing the antitrust l conditions at issue here was based on any assumption that the nuclear power would be low cost. The NRC proceeding addressed the application by Ohio Edison, Centerior, Pennsylvania Power Company (Ohio Edison's wholly-owr.ed subsidiary), and Duquesne Light Company to construct and operate Perry 1-and Perry 2 as well as an application by Centerior to construct and operate the 906 megawatt Davis-Besse 1 facility. The applicants are members of the Central Area Power Coordinating Group (CAPCO) and proposed the facilities as part of a program for the joint development of l power generation and transmission facilities. Ohio Edison cites (pp. 5-6) only the " initial conclusion" by Justice that an anti-trust hearing was not required in connection with Davis-Besse 1.
However, Ohio Edison-fails to mention that Justice subsequently changed its position when the CAPCO members sought permits to build Perry 1 and 2 and Davis-Besse 2 and 3. 39 Fed. Reg. 2029 (Jan. 16, 1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 8395 (Feb. 27, 1975). Justice pointed to the pervasive anti-competitive conduct by the CAPCO members, collectively and individually. Justice noted the CAPCO members' " refusal to admit the municipal systems into the CAPCO l pool. The Applicants' refusals to wheel power, to interconnect and to engage in coordinated operation with smaller utilities",
observed Justice, " raise problems which'should_be considered in the perspective of their monopoly control of the transmission facilities surrounding the smaller systems of their competitors.
Antitrust principles have evolved which place distinct limits
1 i
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
. August 31, 1990 Page 10 upon a supplier's exercise of monopoly power at one level of dis-tribution to adversely affect competition at another level."
Justice realized that operation of the nuclear plant "will gen-erate new opportunities for Applicants to engage in coordinated operation with each other". That would increase the competitive harm caused by the anti-competitive way in which the applicants provided their coordination-services, observed Justice.
As discussed in detail in Cleveland's opposition to Ohio Edison's application (pp. 5-22, 111-15), the NRC, too, noted the pervasive, anti-competitive practices by the CAPCO members, individually and as members of CAPCO. The NRC realized that the additional power generation, coordination services and transmis-sion facilities that would accompany the Perry plant and the i other nuclear plants at issue would heighten the applicants' market power and the opportunity and incentive to continue to act in an anti-competitive manner in connection with power sales and coordination and wheeling services. The NRC recognized that, in view of the applicants' pervasive and coordinated anticompetitive conduct, any new power generation by the applicants would give them an incentive to expand their market power to exclusively serve the increased demands of present customers - and the demands of new customers. The NRC also noted-the substantial transmis-sion facilities that the CAPCO members planned to build in con-junction with the nuclear plants and recognized that the facilities would increase the applicants' control over transmis-sion. 1 The NRC's recognition that the anticipated cost of nu-clear power was not the basis for the imposition of the anti-trust license conditions is reflected in the Appeal Board's deci-sion to reject a Board member's proposal to restrict the scope of the conditions ensuring non-discriminatory access to coordination and wheeling services to customers purchasing nuclear power or ownership interests in the plants. 10 NRC at 290-294. The Appeal Board found that this restriction would allow the appli-cants to continue their anti-competitive conduct in connection with pooling and coordination services and to thereby undermine l the competitive position of utilities which did not buy nuclear power. Id. at 291. That would be inconsistent with the clear
" message" conveyed by section 105 that " Congress did not want-nuclear plants authorized in circumstances that would create or maintain anticompetitive situations without license conditions to address them", noted the Board. Id.
The advice letter issued by Justice in connection with 1 the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station (Zimmer) and cited by Ohio ,
Edison (p. 6) involves circumstances that bear no similarity to l l
s l l
I Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 11 those at issue here. 37 Fed. Reg. 14246 (July 18, 1972). The intervenors in the Zimmer proceeding were municipalities which were seeking imposition of antitrust conditions solely to permit them to purchase a portion of the capacity of the plant from the applicants. Thus, Justice focused solely on'whether denial of these participation rights would maintain an anti-competitive situation. As part of this analysis, Justice considered whether the municipalities already had access to power cheaper than that which the nuclear plant would generate. Significantly, Justice did not cite any anti-competitive conduct by the Zimmer appli-cants.
By contrast, the CAPCO proceeding involved a pervasive pattern of anti-competitive conduct by the applicants. Moreover, the municipalities that intervened in the CAPCO. proceeding did not solely seek the imposition of antitrust conditions that would permit them to purchase capacity from the nuclear plants. The municipalities also sought antitrust conditions that would give them access to the applicants' coordination.and wheeling services needed to purchase power from other suppliers. As noted, the need for these conditions did not require a finding that the nuclear power would be low cost. Instead, these conditions were ,
based on the way the operation of the nuclear plant would expand the pewer generation, coordination services and transmission facilities of the applicants and thereby increase the applicants' incer.tive and opportunity to continue their anti-competitive con-duct.
Ohio Edison notes (p. 5) that Appendix L of 10 C.F.R.
Part 50, section II (11) and (12), asks for information about the cost of the applicants' existing power-supplies. However, Ohio Edison overlooks the fact that Appendix L does not ask for data regarding the anticipated cost of the power to be generated by the nuclear plant at issue. In addition, Appendix L asks for detailed information regarding non-cost factors that bear on .
whether operation of a nuclear plant could exacerbate anti-com- l petitive conduct by the licensee in coordination and wheeling '
services, regardless of whether the nuclear power turns out to be ,
t low cost. For example, Appendix L asks for information about (1) I 1
coordination contracts to which the applicant is a party (section II(14)), (2) the applicant's response to requests to provide co-ordination services (section II(13)), and (3) attempts by the applicant to purchase other utilities (sections II(17), (18) and L (19)).
Thus, NRC precedent, especially the NRC's decision to impose the Perry antitrust conditions, clearly indicates that the imposition of antitrust conditions does not depend on whether the l
l l
L !
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 12 ;
i nuclear power is anticipated to be low cost. As shown, the NRC has repeatedly recognized that the additional power generation, ,
coordination services and transmission facilities that accompany- i a nuclear plant heighten the need to impose antitrust conditions to ensure that the nuclear utility acts in a non-discriminatory i manner in connection with wheeling and coordination services. :
These services have nothing at all to do with the relative cost of nuclear power.
III. ECONOMIC THEORY I In his terse' statement, Dr.-Pace opines that there is no need for continued imposition of. antitrust conditions because the cost of nuclear power is higher-than anticipated.
At the outset, Dr. Pace fails to cite any NRC decision, court decision or even any economic treatise to support his as-sertions. Instead, Dr. Pace provides bald conclusions.
Even putting aside this flaw, Dr. Pace ignores basic l economic principles and the fundamental mandate of section 105(c) i to promote competition. As noted by Cleveland in its opposition to Centerior's application (pp. 37-38), if nuclear power is more expensive than anticipated, the need for antitrust conditions is heightened. The NRC, in imposing the wheeling condition as part of the Perry license conditions, recognized that access to wheel-ing and coordination services is needed'to ensure that the nu-clear utility cannot prevent its customers from procuring the most economical power available. Ensuring access to alternative suppliers of a commodity _is the very essence of competition and is the necessary incentive for economic efficiency. Obviously, a customer is unlikely to need to use wheeling and coordination services if the nuclear utility offers the most economical power.
Thus, inherent in the NRC decision to impose the antitrust condi-tions in the Perry license was the NRC's recognition that the services covered by the conditions are needed when the price of nuclear power is above market levels. The need for this access obviously increases as the nuclear power becomes more expensive compared to other types of power.
In addition, in these circumstances, the competitive injury caused by denial of access to transmission facilities is exacerbated. For example, one measure of damages resulting from a violation of the federal antitrust laws in which the monopolist prevents its customers from purchasing a commodity from alterna-tive suppliers is the extent to which the price charged by the monopolist exceeds the market price of the commodity. Hanover
Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August'31, 1990 Page 13 Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 392 U.S. 481, 491, 20 ,
L.Ed.2d 1231, 88 S.Ct. 2224 (1968); Bell v. Cherokee Aviation i corp., 660 F.2d 1123, 1133 (6th Cir. 1981).
Consequently, the alleged increase in nuclear power costs heightens the importance of the continued imposition of j antitrust conditions in the Perry license.
IV. LEGAL AND POLICY ASPECTS OF REVIEW l OF EXISTING ANTITRUST CONDITIONS ,
i Cleveland, in its opposition to the application of Ohio l Edison (pp. 25-52) and Centerior (pp. 11-14), shows that the NRC lacks the statutory authority to modify antitrust conditions. ,
i Even if the NRC has the legal authority to modify an-titrust conditions, the NRC should not exercise this authority I simply because a licensee may be able to show that the nuclear power was more expensive than anticipated. As Justice noted,
"[a] ' low cost' standard is inherently elusive." (p. 3 n. 6).
Ohio Edison does not challenge this assertion. The elusive na-ture of a low cost standard is heightened in current, volatile natural resources markets. The price of the fuel sources used in generating power are subject to sudden and dramatic swings.
For example, during the week following the August 1990 Iraqi in-vasion of Kuwait, crude oil prices leaped by $8 per barrel, or 47 per-cent.11/
Legislative and regulatory changes also can cause dra-matic changes in the relative attractiveness of various fuel sources. Ohio Edison has noted that the more stringent emission controls proposed in connection with the 1990 amendments of the Clear Air Act would require the installation of expensive pollu-tion control equipment in,its coal-fired generating plants, but not in its nuclear plants.12/ The cumulative emission reductions achieved by nuclear power plants are valued at about $80 billion i nationwide pursuant to the proposed amendments.13/ -That enhances l the competitiveness of nuclear power.
i 11/ Journal of Commerce, Aug. 15, 1990, at SB.
12/ 1989 Annual Report to Shareholders, p. 16. l 13/ Sillin, " Nuclear Generating Companies--Some Heat and Light",
126 Public Utilities Fortnightly 6 (Aug. 2, 1990). ;
s Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 14 Consequently, if a change in the relative cost of nu-clear power is found to justify a modification of antitrust con-ditions,-the NRC would be faced with a continuous barrage of ap-plications to suspend the conditions whenever the relative cost of nuclear power increased, followed by applications to re-impose the conditions whenever the cost declined. These hearings, noted Justice, would be "long and resource intensive" and would impose an intolerable burden on the NRC's resources (p. 3,_n. 6). In addition, as Cleveland noted in its opposition to Centerior's ap-plication (pp. 12-13), the potential for constant review of an-titrust conditions would prevent a municipality from relying on the wheeling and coordination services provided as a result of the conditions to enter long-term power supply contracts with power suppliers _other than the licensee. That would impair the express goal of the AEA to " strengthen free competition", 42 U.S.C. 52011.14/
V. CONCLUSION As shown above, there is no basis for Ohio Edison's criticism of Justice's emphatic finding that the NRC's authority to continue to impose existing antitrust conditions does not de-pend upon'whether the nuclear power at issue is low cost. The l
11/ In its response to Ohio Edison's application, Cleveland cited several grounds for rejecting Ohio Edison's application that were not addressed by Justice. Cleveland showed that rejec-tion of Ohio Edison's application can be justified on the basis of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estop-pel (which preclude relitigation of an issue) and.laches l (which precludes a party from raising an issue after an un-reasonable delay). (Cleveland's response to Ohio Edison, pp.
53-87; Cleveland's response to Centerior, pp. 18-28). Cleve-land also showed that none of the events cited by Edison, including the purported increase in the cost of nuclear power, justifies suspension of the antitrust conditions (Cleveland's response to Ohio Edison, pp.87-117; Cleveland's response to Centerior, pp. 34-42).
l l
1 1
Thomas E. Murley,.Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 15 NRC should follow the recommendation of Justice and summarily dismiss Ohio Edison's application.15/
Very truly yours, Craig S. Miller, Esq.
l Director of Law e June.W. Wiener, Esq.
Chief Assistant. Director of Law -
William M. Ondrey Gruber, Esq.
Assistant Director of Law City Hall, Room 106 ,'
601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Tele hone: (216) 664-2800 4 .8 Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Kenneth M. Albert, Esq.
l Goldberg, Fieldman & Letham, P.C. '
1100 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 1 Telephone (202) 463-8300 Attorneys for CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO August 31, 1990 cc: Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Deputy Assistant General Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Attorney for Ohio Edison Company 1
The Honorable James F. Rill Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 15/ The same reasoning applies with equal force to the applica-tion by Centerior seeking suspension of the antitrust condi-tions applicable to the Davis-Besse and Perry plants. There-fore, that application, too, should be summarily dismissed.
4 Thomas E. Murley, Ph.D.
August 31, 1990 Page 16 Alisoa L. Smith, Esq.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General I'.S. Department of Justice Mark C. Schechter, Esq.
Chief of Transportation, Energy and Agricultural Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Janet Urban, Esq.
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice l
l l
,