ML20091C687
| ML20091C687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1991 |
| From: | Charnoff G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Bollwerk G, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#391-12056 A, NUDOCS 9108070067 | |
| Download: ML20091C687 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
,l /2056 SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE
.....~..._..n-.0....c~..a..o....c~.
1300 N s'at tt N *
,(
- .5mNo tt:N. o c 20c3 5 2cs: $s3 8000 g;gg,,
'91 JU! 29 D : f' 7 July 25,1991 como ca.m.orr. :
,202) ee 3 5032 Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1920 South Creek Boulevard Spruce Creek Fly-In Daytona Beach, Florida 32124 Charles Bechhoefer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pacel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Room E-413 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 G. Paul Bollwerk. !!!
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Room E-522 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Re:
Application of Ohio Edison Company to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1),
NRC Docket No. 50-440A Gentlemen:
On May 31,1991 Ohio Edison submitted its Request for a Hearing, which pro-posed five issues for resolution in this proceeding. To further clarify the matters to be considered in this proceeding and to dif ferentiate the legal issues f rom the ! actual issues, we have refined the proposed issues as set out in the enclosure hereto. These are submitted for your consideration at the prehearing conference.
Sjncerely yours,,.)
t'
/,QjQ( ' (G:n fi
- Gerald'Charnof f l
Enclosure ec:
Service List S:238 mss 5458.H
.h V'
9100070067 910725
_ ej DR A1)DCK 0500 )
O p
.____.______._____________.2 SH Aw, PitTM AN. POTTS & Tnowsmoot
...m..... m oo
..o,.
.m.w e.
Letter to Licensing Board July 25.1991 Enclosure Ohio Edison's Proposed issues A.
LEG AL ISSUES 1.
Assuming arguendo that Perry's actual costs are higher than the costs of non-nuclear power, can the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, as a matter of law, af ford OE a competitive advantage?
2.
If the answer to !ssue (1) is no, can OE's ownership share of Perry, as a matter of law," create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws"(Section 105c(5) of the Atomic Energy Act. as amended) such that NRC is authorized to impose or retain antitrust license conditions?
3.
Assuming arguendo that Perry's actual costs are higher than the costs of non-nuc! ear power, does imposition or retention of the license conditions under Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, as a matter of law, deny OE equal protection and due process under the Fif th Amendment of the United States Constitution?
4.
For the purposes of issues (1) and (3), as a matter of law, should Pert y's actual 30 year levelized costs be compared to the costs of any non-nuc! car plant OE might have built in lieu of the Perry plant? _S.ee 10 C.F.R. Part 50. A pp. L. S511.11, !!.12. If not, what is the appropriate cost comparison for purposes of Issues (1) and (3)?
B.
F ACT ISSUES 5.
Are Perry's actual costs higher than the costs to which they are to be compared?
6.
Did the 1988 legislative proposal by Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum providing that "(t]he Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall not suspend or modif y the application of any antitrust provision contained in the Perry operating license No. NPF-58, as such provision applies to any licensee of the Perry Nuclear Powerplant, Unit 1," the debate thereon in the Senate on March 29,1988, as reflected in the Congressional Record of that date, pp. S 3257-59, and any related communications between the NRC staf f and the legislative branch, compromise the actual or apparent impartiality of the staffs of the NRC and the DOJ in connection with their consideration of OE's application and, if so, should the Licensing Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners give no weight to the recommendations of the NRC and DOJ staffs?
7.
Were the NRC or DOJ staf fs predisposed to deny OE's application. as
- suggested by Senator J. Bennett Johnston's statements in the Congressional Record,134 Cong Rec S 3258,3259 (March 29,1988),
regarding "a strong rumor" that "the NRC has indicated that they have no intention of approving this application." and, if so, should the Licensing Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners give no weight to the recommendations of the NRC and DOJ staffs?
~_
SH AW, PITTM AN. POTTs & Tnownmoct a
........ oc w o.
. 0,,... < a -... oo SERV 1 E LIST Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
David R. Straus. Esq.
Sherwin E. Turk. Esq.
Spiegel 1 McDiarm;d Steven R. Hom. Esq.
1350 New York Avenue. N.W.
Office of the General Counsel Suite 1100 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Washington. D.C. 20555 Mark C. Schechter, Esq., Chief Kenneth L. Hegemann, P.E.
Roger W. Fones, Esq., Assistant Chief President Janet Urban. Esq.
American Municipal Power-Ohio, tr.c.
Transportation, Energy and 601 Dempsey Road Agriculture Section Post Office Box 549 Antitrust Division Westerville. Ohio 43081 Department of Justice 555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 James P. Murpt.f. Esq.
Samuel J. Chilk Squire Sanders & Dempsey Secretary of the CommL% ion 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Of flee Box 407 Wa.shington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20044 Attn: Chief. Docketing and Service Section Craig S. Miller Esq.,
Director of Law June W. Weiner, Esq.,
Chief Assistant Director of Law William M. Ondrey Gruber, Esq.,
Assistant Director of Law City Hall, Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue i
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 l
Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Channing D. Strother, Jr. Esq.
Goldberg, Fieldman & Letham, P.C.
l 1100 Fif teenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 L
D. Blard MacGuineas, Esq.
Volpe, Boskey and Lyons 918 Sixteenth Street, N.W,-
Washington, D.C. 20006 StD 8mes5458.9L l
_..