ML20098D518
| ML20098D518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1992 |
| From: | Goldberg R, Strother C, David Williams CLEVELAND, OH, GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & LETHAM, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#292-12938 91-644-01-A, 91-644-1-A, A, NUDOCS 9205290078 | |
| Download: ML20098D518 (38) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~~ g; g :; r -
- p. _
(lh ~,
' :4. .
UNITED STATES:OF AMERICA [ y:E es
< NUCLEAR:Ri;GULATORY. COMMISSION
%[ a
- ,W '
's BEFORE" THE ATOMIC 1AFETi AND LIOL3 SING BOgDpg g p 3 ;/g 1 v
;_.. l 't
- .r w y r y
, m.-
# )
, Tn' the: Hatter of ~
)- Docket Nos. 50-440-A
) 50-344-A-
<r OHIO" EDISON. COMPANY- )
y 1 T(Perry Nuclear.PowerfPlant, ) E ;Unitfi,fFacility Operating ) cLicense Ech NPF-58)
-)
) ":
-THE CLEVELAND-ELECTRIC. )
ILLUMINATING COMPANY' ) THE(TGLEDO EDISON COMPANY.. ) _ p [(PoEry:'NuclearlPowerE Plant,1
~
) ASLDP No. 6 4 4 -0,1 -A -
Unit 1,iFacilityl Operating ) Q LicenseiNo. NPF-58)- =)
,-(Davis-Dosee Nuclear. Power ;)
StationF.Unithl,: Facility- .
;)l j
; ,' LOperating Licenso;- No.
- NPF-3) ' )
c;
~ -).
y - g .e. - -
.- t'^ i q
.f'
, . REPLYLOYLCITY OP: CLEVELAND,,. OHIO, sTO-ARGUMENTS /OF APPLICANTS AND'NRC STAFF f lyn
'WITH: RESPECT TO THB-ISSUES CF: LAW OFaTHE CASEr 1 (RES:JUDICATA,LCOLLATERAL-ESTOPPEL AND.LACHES-j[
r <
. m> --a .
1
;Danny.R'.cW1111ams: iReuben Goldberg g'[ Director,of Law Channing:D. Strother, Jr; i s
' Juno W.;WienerJ . .
l David C2 Hjelmf.elt yg : Chief'An'istant s Director _. !D. Victoria Brennan M '< __of LCV- Goldberg, Fieldman & Letham, P.C. '! WilliamiT. 2 1911 1100 Fifteenth Street, N.W. ,
, fAssistant Director of Law Washington,;D.C. 20005 1
-City Hall,cRoomJ106, Telephone _(202) 463-8300 JG01 Lakeside Avenue
-: Cleveland, Ohio ;44115
,g T- ephone -{216) 664-2000
% . Attorneys for City of Cleveland, Ohio May 1992
_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
,;.' y' , . lY ,. '* '*
'l'~, *
, . '!. , . '- Y '}: ., ';l ... L . p f. . jz ; Y , . , . , . ~ _ , ; { .) .y f j - .*Vhb, ,$; . y> \ " y . . l ,
^p ' < G i y;-!:
* *l
; ., ;i < W g ' . . ' .'
. , .. Qi s y Q;q l'Q'R_, Jf.lQ ; f:[;v' . 4:K.'52.NVy: ?n W '&
k . + ' 'e, ' 7 '_ 'h*,'"'. ;
;p , ' *r'..'.4,'.- ' .
.T . 9
- ' f 'l J. 8: .- ' a: e
'/y .
3..gaf ,' : ' i,' ' 1 t .g e'- ...'.*
'.'..*NQ,. . .:.y .:4 '..[ i;._ ; l . .
4 ,. , . . . i. .,
. ~,,.
.'.. { l: .r* *s
.bs'N .'. N 1 :. 1.* \' .' %
t.
. .l y, "? . . f;. .f'
$:"'.:%$; '- , .' f %.y.f'Vy.~ b.:.
) ^ .i:: 3 l; .f .' .
1,@ e; '. .;gj.RL.1.l .
?; '..*N:'.'.;.;[(,Nh '
'.'".: J
' 'Q:l 'y f.o;"? .
* '.. :.% ; f, ' ' : '.'.g.t.. ... ;,
,.'*g s - #. -
' .' e e 1 J..,..'.';. ..-@
-t'.e
.. . b . '
V. %', p.
...- . . , ,* g; ,'i+' ** ,.b,.,
?
. 'k ;) . l..
s.. ! e 'v *..".; * ,..,L ty, , y., - s.. A.,,, . ,, s,* .7; ~ * "' 'i ., ,p* .*%' . ,,' f:.,";.k ;.- ,, . j%. ,. . ,n.! ' . ;'. *,.r~.,$. ,. :f. , '.,
- r. . Y '* ..>w
*.'s. .,y; , . .e ' , /,G ).fA R.&., ..y. .'**;...* ' , .c!c..,.i .,, f <.'
f'-... .... . .: :; . .'M ., * *' . , [ * ; , ? g. .,, . s. " , ; s
. . . . ,r,.c., . .
-.v&, *
-v l.
. .cg..e' . . ?. :. .s 6,9
, . ' :. .,5. . ',.[ **,' W0.
s .. s . e. ..i :- ,-
*[4,,. g . ,. ';' i ; . .- y 'p g .,*
,.'.,I';.. ,
., . -, .. f ; .l: ( ['"b .
-**. # .# .,4 4 */ '*, *[* ,, g 7 ,f' ..[*-* '
, ' ,'y (' ",
' ' 8 *
je . b,,.*, ,
.* 4: ',, &_f. q.; G. g,).?; a.f:, s ;g :; ?;.%;.., : J. 3:%,?,.::
g.Y:l ; * . ; .)g .- l.>,: ,. 9
.7 ;, . .V:.'8,[f, .,. .[Q34 ;\,N .:: ', l f*;~.9:[y' ky' ['tW..f::.f. ,: x ;. y"wpf ^j...r.c .QQJ
. J f.;,Y. yf e;. -
AM)k.
- i. y.h
*, ....i .
- a,?.
. . . .;.i. . l .. ; , q ~g :
.t-
.: f p.
- ' '?
.
- w s' P -n r;:: . ? u. T W 3. 9, c. .m. .y3:.w . %. . . . .v.'..
, <*-{.. . . * . .
t * . .*e... .*...r - . ..* s u.,. .. .-. c.
..e3. s
.:.. . .. ;. t W . :.. . . e. . . .L . / .
..b y '.
M 9 .$
.,3. y, . .;). :&.h ,Y{ [a.*..?*h.
. 4 .%# .
~Y'
. $.. 9*k ;a. ;x,, . '.' . . .h, . . . , . . .., s. a.
.Nk..&.w.h .f .kl.f~.'
- v. : ~ ,, . . -m .$.;.n.!;?s.? .., &.. .
. . v. .,Y; ..:
- NN.f. h ..*h. .l v. ..r. : ..
'.be / .. _ ~ * '
* . , ,' .s:. n. [ )
.,'l'
.$ .; ' . , .. .. . g. . . 8,* */[ .
**g -*
1, . *,. .
. .' . . . . y s . :.
5."',
- c.' .. >
y .3.. .. .= .' k. ... ( ;
.% . m. . v .,.. v= e , r<.
;o
..6 . ..?....~.,
.y . ~ ..qQ- ..a 4 , v. . . .. r .. ..
- e. . - . . :m. *e .,+..
o s r =:..u., %s a ... ... ,:n, ..v...e . ::.::. .m. J. . ... .:c n,~ ... ,. ... ..s...u.. :. i.. u ,L. .. . : : , w. t.., :v . .- . : :. s.
... :.- ..*:,, f.(w.J
. . g,...w...... .; '; . :}M1
. r. / :...,eG.a.r. My .o ; n.,;:.p. %,e p..J .: . .1,..v t ,:;... .~s .s ..m.n . . . ....:.: . . . . ' . :. .s. .r. . ' :
M.
.. ..t . , .
v u z f. .> .a. .a. . . . s .
- [ -
- i. . .
' .'. y . . ,.. .+,' 4-
.,-;g *;. jf,. 'i' . \ ',, .. ; *. j : 9 ';) i :.: V'_ : .
- t 9.. ;_',3:,. .
a, .. 3& .y.; & ,j.: F. +i ., & f',b,.';;> ; 'y.; Vk.'j.g%Q . Q ,e.% y [.:, { ik lb 'f$.k ;[ . , b_ : % . hh;y ..M f,D.[. ['al'- M . I;f QNf. ,,' Nh. h,5.;p M .9 .', qk .h... ,:*./.. .& c &. ;y,.,h Y.'.' ;. f..'O /d. .['.'.[y.y's . , . . *..:(. :: ,
;.T.:. Q[". %
a
. T"..
. : .v '.* f :
*y,1%*' ? 4
.. 3a:*;n'! : ::, V; ',:.% ^: ,". T'6- v.
- . , '.q . . .:. Q.. w',tT: b :.. . - ,~ .
- f. ', . .;j'... 'j, l. : y-
*.R'... .*m, y.; e
, . - ..:. ;e .,:
- .Q y .y-
. -'.., . , . . - ;. 42 .9y . c) .: . , . . .-i; .
'; f.;.; . .' % y:t-. .. . ' q .' Q'
. .. . . \ . s . .; .. :.; q .Q i v 6. ..,.p ..W,; g4,;. 4: f y%. V. A, , ?.,.:': +:w .9 . k. .'?;,M)\., .:ncJ. . %,s.7 r?. n. s l. ..:..
. '.. :, .;5
.'.f..,.,':'. .y G;.;n..f, ?b,;3 ;3.r ,s. n. ..,(:s. e"'_ g. [L
- ,, W.l,)..l 4%
.WV. T. - @. p . ' ;u. . . . '. 6
.x...L.q .% '.$." ! *.*llc.': . ..f;lifW p..; 3}j:Q., J.y.: Q.9*/,., %,. .A . .. j,%d
.. t... . ,.
. .. . 4.. .... . .
Q,I:.Gl' ?; Q ..n ; .;v ,&.
; - .;Q ,
. ..'3. .* i 13 4.: . . h.b.. ;
Q _ ;,* h.b '. f. T .;9 %l Q.pQN;d.. l ,
$ .' :.* . ,:7, '. n W l C. .y l;' '"~~*"*\lf Q:.QM :i'.y,.;&) :'~- Q
.:#:,Q .h.V. ^) f L,. (, .. y ' .j.f
$.1 _
' [.: h['((3f.?;nh, f,, ' kh ' l. .[.[';.y:
- Q * ' W[.y, ,
.h.N, . . ,;
. , ,e2(f.;..*:,Y,
, '. .:'[. .[) [.
,}.)fd ;'[.f ;'
; .".iY. . .l-;* +. . ' .%il', , ,'t, :. > w. XY' ;:
M .p.' . . ' '. g.:.*.+..., .?. a. . ' L 'l. m :#Q:'; ~.*% . *rN. ..y '*;. .' '; _ .:'A.:. .s... . ~.1.'.b '._M. w: 9: .'.?.'b ' Y.(*.;<. .. g. . .3t... 2.;,i ,, ,a. .. *. ..
~ .
s ". 3.. o,;
. - : ,; 4 . w. .e .. . , ,.:. c. . %s.Ub. '&n : m. ' ?. .. .T?..iY, y f., . '.,q .
,a . ..,,.1 -
. n g f,
,.c.
. / ,. ,;.. ', ,*.'.
.~..~ .1, .l; 7..*, l- *4,,j..
- W (;. p.v ;;@.,&.,. .
, ..; '...; , , y - 3 ,j , ,y . e y, ,y s .
4 3 ,,, . : ; 9
. l.{ ',L ::;, i
- 9. y , M. .,:',34, -,'y
.r> . ....v. ' ...:.,.q*,.,.a s.O :
.:e'.c . n .:% .
? t , M. , . 3 +; > > w*. T. : V. ' . .' n ~ . -. .. r " . 2* s...,. ,y u j . . ; (. ...: J.". . p . . i- . ; ; x, r.* fp L 9 '
,e.....-
a v* w - y . .: '4 ... ,*: ..;,..#.,,-
...- w;,. .- , ..
J..
?
,. . p, .'* h ,.* )'./.D ' '
h,*,g " #'" k;.,. * . . .,
*$. , .9 :" , ' ' [ ',,D . S.*b. .. ' -(./ ' N , < . p g'#"ed i i
.i i.' - f f * .t[b,c.* 3 L tP**p y
. . . . " ;* d*v : 9, ,
%,, h.5
. . : Y ,
.# . [ ; C - .e * '-
.. . . ,). . . .
' .. .
- 4 e b' U. . . ) * *
{.Y, : ?. l, j. ' ' ; . AAo h - Y ';& . h [ ';.
. .% .J'.. h.NN. e. :
d '.}N' .~ *;. sh:. . .{lj;;; ':_l.[
.M,'j:
- ; ..f., ;. . : ,
'Ls*Q? i.T 3.~;,.
*...'.) .4 ~,;
.:..h: fQ,r. ' f.R ,:.y;. .:
.'. ?? lr .-g ;) e'Y..~
- . . . Je.' , . [.f.':.phl.".'b c . .. ; , - s ?
p ~'.?;.y.v,;;.b.. p' t . ,1 . & ;.. .s: qg ',. *g. y&f......?;
. . .g e
.e,. .;. . 5 ' . . 'l'fuf).'. W I .l Q . .. ?.Q.Q.:
- ,. y ..;.t.'....; . y; a. ,;b., ... ,
. Q j :'L.Q ...n_.. .. . . r . . s ;_ .; ; . ':- ..
b % .l'h.. ; , &;. . s s,l4l".
. ' . M. , , '.;.: . Ih^ y! ... ' . oF..;.lt ?. %
. - *i
' 4 6 r. ..' j.. %.gl,l Q'.,:g:::: : *' ;s: ^
.i . Yl, ..
.4.,. ..
- . lg. ,-h,,.s p;y 'c.3 ,%l A..,
.. ...s.
. . - ...:po -
. . ' , e- .
, .J. -)g.... A, .f,,...
.e :y. . e
, . . ,t, g'y.,..g.::4,..f..hll',
j
. . . . g ....\.; .,
a r g.;/ ". .
- f. ...,'. : A.
U.s. .$. -
....m
.,j :,,,,.. :. :,'.; ' ..'* :l.
M ;_'y -c" W Q' s.; i;h,, .h. . . . i,'..m** ; . ,.' KW
'.,. h.*.. l.;&, .' ,vll.ht:.- ,f.ii .,,*f. '"\ **
j- . l_1,, . . p~:-
\..w% .- 9:s"; .~g C; :n & ]: :@ % ..' . ; N. - %. . : . V '
y: f : .'-,.y* ; n,. : . . .. g . :..,: yz , s. i .. . - -
. 9 . b,. :,.'
- ?:*s . . '. ' ..:;.', .:.. -;^:# ,l;L 1%r. .' .i' 1. ;, 1 .p; p . ; s
;[};.,"..cf:f..\f.,(...
.s'.
', j, . . :: '
- 5 ,;. :j .;* A}.;
' ; ~' ': 41. ; ;} AQ,.
. r . . ..
.. [
E ' ':<
.' . ! [ * ..
, , ' }k * ;
.f.. .Q .
- .g. -4. , ] Q),
' Q{ y.;
'y :n : %mp ;.4 ;
- .: t. ' s ' .L:. ; a .*.: .?: . 3 . v(:;; , ;y?' ,n..r. . ym..$l. l .y' f' *7,;;;. y*-. . %_ :u . sy.%l Q k n.f: . .:. ..'l.. y;*;2. & .:.[ h _ .' :;.'r.; y. .'2 3' :.A },R 1.: .'::l:
*) ';;i
* ; ^x.
Yr ; k'..:n;
.r. ,, .-..\. .
. . . . . :': f
- . :.' ..;p ,., - '
t kr,,$, . ; ;:' 4 , h .* , .. ,. . .
'Y k_' .
.f.m . ' '.c . . , . ,
. - .: . .,q.- .e y;.
, f.' . ,. ,. .; .; . .,b).) b:)4. ,.,h? k.l.g. q. .f,4 a . ,.Gl g
;y r.7 . . .. >.- a. 1..n+ t.
..t., .
.s - c m .. y . . 4.c. . .*t.,... . . .
.. c:;;. .., ;. . y 7,, . . . ,- s . . r .,,e. .j '. . . .. .t
'u
.'c'g '. ; . p;.- 'yi.lq ;.i@.l @,,y..m p.
- p. {."g:',...* 4.s . ,,.f . ....
- j. %.p.:, q '.4%c 4 . ; &,. ..', ; .9h ' ,[' yw . *.,m. :j k/. .j j.. ..-
3.;; ; ,, . 7., .f,,.y. . . , ) g, h..:l^'3,y. ,. ,: . i. ; f :y .. , ,
. . > . . p,
. c. ....:>. ,~
+
.: , : :.4
. :. N , ,.' ; *. "s . *.L . b . A 'Q
> n: :rb .; ..
T:h. ?:.:;.:.% y[3; s . .. .... g W.c 6.:. .v ..-? u j.g s, . J. . . . .;R} 4. %c... y,' . *!v,. ;j. :W . . ' . *'..x' s.O V. . ,*n" , t.y'.'i :,[( n y%.h. .::.q:M' . . ' ;D ,f L. .; < :. : n . , q.*4(. . .;'s W . g. .G 1. . ': .; .a ; L:
. 4 3 s
. v .,. .
2 s
- i
. . . . , , . . .; f,
.y . . . ,# . .
, ? m ~ g . , .. ; s 9 , . . , s r. ,.,: e.
...y.v a ? . .. c . . . . j . ... n: .. n. n .. ,. . $ ,. ....% ? s. ..;, ...n .. ,. ; '- . r - .
.,a.'.;_'. !; f. l s. .q.: .. . ' . :g . . y ;ft.[.: . ij l.;.. R. '!. . : 'h;h. * ,' if.q }i [:;;.l4 y:.'A, _. ) l- ) .9 :
;, ~ Cl..'.):
. . .,;:l.)nl.......
.\ , . . .
YDf ?, j.: L.yk.g. _ (, {: ..'.Q k'. I:?g.. 7 ..'_ q
..c .
y : 4:? X \',.?.b '{ Y{. 4{.g:(, ,_;Aj.r ).
?,_... 'V.? j. " l: [.
;.1:....,l. :.
Q llY., ?.:j, . . i %. s %.., j !y [ K '<.6 ~.; j : a ::g . ; ., , 4 c ,- -
- .L ; ?:.. L. :,:
- f,.,'.".;&: .m. . 4. . 4..q. u, .
.: +% .R..,,:. - . ws + s, v .. s r $. . , . ... N :;. ; ; ., .w. ,: , ;..: . . .~
. .., , ,. 7 > ,.. ..e. $ r -:.Y D .q y
..k
+. P, 4 '.&.s. p .~ . : .
. . ,. g. j t. a <3 .. - p p*. ;; ,;. . .
.), . . . %. q.%s ..;.. ,a. :t f.4
.,s. ...a . . . .
f.- . ., w: .: ;
~
d;;.:. , , . . . .:. . . . . 4...,:......,.:..;.y...,4-
.; . ,...y. - e ~y 9 a..y. :..;.. .; ,..;j.; . . .. .w . 7-; :.,r.._ . f . .,.,.. . %. . . ;>s,?. z. .p:.. . .
- i . . ;.;;
.ca_......
e .;; q 3. _ < -;; . ;, ~ :,.p. .,c,.. ,s
,I . ., ,.
l- . . :: f.f . . ., *; ., .:, j. .
- ':: . ',k : ,.
. :f. .. ,
; .Y ' y o ..,
.$5. f. . j '...._,..W. f. .l:r
. ' ' . :? , l..xf. '< l".. .$. ;ak . . .f' .? 4 1l .l ll, Q.l.s..'f.; . Ey l.' N,. . . . . e ;7* -
J.l .: *f. t. Q.. ,, j, ..) :.. ..v:; f. $. A.p.:. . '.'.:;i
, e . :
.'$.g\;n.
- 4. .fL. .e , , , .
$ . 2 . 4 .- ' 3" f r I ;Y ( . : .
1..M' . ;C ;g, 4 k. .*V. i'. M ,'. . y 4;?$.>;;Q ' 4,; .t (jf,j.:J' l' ', l . ';.,,y ' ' .*.g ,t'[ t,hN4, ,,.33 c .; ? y" , ' ' :' I i . . O,$y;/.N +:, , ( ;* 4.V Yl: !; 46 : .l'.
;
- M . 'f! .
.j.,7 : ;, ' u; ?.;'{fj ;, ; * '
w
. .,' '3 ? '-{l3 [,g.7 .;j/y,g,#.'. L * . . . 'Y~ ,;, 6 ,R .
q.c3.. s'.e,:: :..'..; .:,". g pl '. : Q y, .2 ;[..' } : \}:p m.' d 4' . .W. [ ' y M :
.Y:v_.6.:' .
- Q y . p < L y.: e . ..] . .'
'. Y.<k:l,f: ;*:j e.;-':., . 47 :
.e f~ ~ . .'..
..,k. f" ?..:. . *. . !%. . %.'t
.' ;. e: '. .
..& T 4.8
. . \q.n ~ . ;'
, .. r v?. ?
. ; -l ;; :~
- i. ! . *. . \
. n3*f.*.4.3: . .: ? .] . Rs', . ? . ' c:t .
. . ?. .
'; , .. '.Q, O
.: ' . L':
'W
.,e.
{ . 7.
. :c. '.4.7
; ' ?.a . .
- lQ{. .,[:',? . f.(.{
- h, j. * ,3_f. :,h..ll'f.l , 'z, I rl;).1 [:h.; . ',y([.yf L y[ . ,...
. . e: . ..,. ..
- c. .: , . . . . ... _
,.e.. ,' . . -
'. _ ;; ' .;.{ f. ,.f, f. ,'r'. o .}}.'.
. ' . ', L}. c.},l }. .,- [.' ,[ < f Q.; } f
...c
.. .4
. , . . . , , g.4 ;s - ,:.
. r :9. ,. s . ; . ; y . y .,, * , s 4 . . , .- _. . ... .
l l v. _3 *. y y . /s .,, ;',c. ;- v. ..q. . c
*l w..,..4-(,*.
,, ..,. . =' . . . .'," , . . . ., ,. .. '.. .'p' y. ..'g,;' g . , .' -..4.- py'
. .,' ,. .- . > . 9.-y(m.s ' W ' *.,.<s't ';.q..".
t , y, ; . . . %. '. . , , . . * , . p. :. . '..e. N '. ' , ' e .
; . }* . . .*,
, * . . g. *, y ?: ' . y . . . . .
..1 ' .,. ' ',, $., b .'< ;) . j 4. . , 0; ,. . - % c '.'.. *.. , f 4. ,
,N. .* ..
I.. . .' ' .'.. s,c . U. ,. ;, i;* ;*y t y '.
.t.g~ ;t t: ,
. . ....g .'..- 3' .c,...,.s. : s, . . '.. .. ;., .
r'.. . '.g . 4*.;.,,
.. . . . . . -. e
- c. ,. ....,,sm..,.
. . ( .p-.
4......4.. .f,... g .. , . . ; .
*. s . % .* ,,,.,t ..-y . - .,f.,... r.- %Y .; *. - -
.,1,J'. G 8 a{#.. , . .. ,; g ., y , g .,'.N .;t.. 3...:, .(.. ... * .] g < s.; , , :, .;'f , g. yg (9', V
- j. .,,5 , . ,- .p *, hj ,.. . % .,, . ;- .s ;,4;,;,j,.7 y, '3 'g }. (. , . ...j'#Q
. ,ij f y. y , ;v . ' *. .,.. .' E [, . . . /.W .6 M .d!k:;.E: 5b, O ".C. S.T%%.
S % M yC.$_E M.S !j'.%.% p.g @..fsM.M :. g 4 nd bsid.w.'MDO@.M,8 u{. mm. ~. ,'
.y.n.g ww;.x.;::.%
y:6. e . .n,- ::x .eyp:4..f.yp w.::;:\.L
. t 9.w.l%.b .e.y a . . : .
X.. 0., '
; y:3!
- q. . x y ..)2..4 ' e. ..: V:.4:g. :.M... ; i,;n.:.mn:
- 2:a.?;t:: W. y..en22~ ?.y . > g y:.;.?, c;;.,.:p; ?; y. :..
a - ag . 3 , e .; , - ... . . . . : .. .
.e.- a
..s..-..y; -
e ..:. ;, , . ...
.k.
. ~e.. n..nne ,n a a. m-h a _nmn _m.x,..n . . ~n . ,.
.]
-wn.a.w cuw..~, w : ..4. n n,~.m. a. w, n . f.
.b w. w[ , . .. - -
W. w@.*
.,.. . g . . %. .
.a%2,M.% . m:,...+
y6#p@mnun.mmyew.yw.w
.4 . w ., v. s. y .BMW63dMWMRWAM. qnws.mn@M;NW
- n. g; a w ., . e;,uy p . ,MMM. .. R .... , ..
4..A.w.c.,,.
. - n. ..
- g. +ca.a,<. .n. ;;. g... ...
$;p,.;w. s.p; M sn %;ha.ty;a. ...w,.g .
),,;/. Q s A W:Fn$.;d W,,.pyy% n ~.:,.., s:
. ,,g;,y..~,.m ; . ,;.gr,;
y- : e ... .
. y,Q .;s .f. e. .
W^W.N dCM NN m, w W. yj[w 9205290078 920531 DR ADOCK 05000336 eoa g gVp' v. q%. q.g. .m ,.,syM. f
- ~.y gd ; % g" ng.'jf. y $..s.g'.1n...,ch, W *. y... s$p a
. n. g..w e
*G::.
. (n.jg.y.y:
v+ N ".'.T..s Q.*.p .n.g.g,
%y. : ". 6.n f..'.hn f p
- .'.rn. . . L.e.w m\.. e ,.. . s.. .
. .. -. a. . . . . .o- . nh. a..o._...
r - . .. .a . r .c..... e
.w . . , . -
~
TABLE OF CONTENIR Pace No. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 2 o I.--LAW OF THE CASE................................. 5
-- II. RES JUDICATA..... ..............................
. 9 III.. ~ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL............................. 11 IV. LACHES.......................................... 11 CONCLUSION............................................- 19 APPENDICES Appendix 1, An Executive Summary of the Results 13f'the Review of Costs of the Perry Nuclear' Power Plat 2t..................................... -A-1 Appendix'2,.CEI Press Release of March 23, 1983, entitled " Perry Budget Rev.ised"................. A-3
. ' Appendix'3, CEI' Press Release of January 23, 1980, entitled "CAPCO NEWS RELEASE"................... A-5 l-
,= 0 W W l-l' l:
TABLE OF AUTi!ORITIES Pace Nox _ Court Decisions: Alabama Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 692 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983)................................. 11 Astoria F.S. & L. Assn. v. Solimino, U.S. , 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991)............................... 2,6 Power Reactor Develop. Co. v. Electrical Union, 367 U S. 396, 6 L.Ed.2d 924 (1961).................. 7 Seacoast Anti-Pollution, Etc. v. NRC, 690 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1982).................................... 7 Commission Decisiens: Alabama Power Company (Farley), 7 AE0 210 (1974), remanded on other grounds, CLI-74, 7 AEC 203 (1974)............................................. 7
-Houston Light and Power Co., (Scuth Texas) 4 NRC 571 (1976), rev'd. on other groands, 5 NRC 582 (1977)... 7 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire-(Seabrook Station, . Units 1 & 2), LBP-89-3, 29 NRC 51 (1989), aff'd.
ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427 (1989)......................... 7 Hiscellaneous: Finding of No Significant Change, 48 Fed. Reg. 52992 (1983)........................................ l'i NuReg-1350, Vol 3. (1991), NRC Information Digest 1991 Edition, K.L. Olive............................ 13
- ii -
-. .. - - . . ~ . - .- . . . . ~.
V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In-the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-440-A
) 50-346-A OHIO EDISON COMPANY )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Unit 1, Facility Operating ) License No.-NPF-58) ) >
)
~ THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC )
ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) THE. TOLEDO-EDISON COMPANY _ )
. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ASLBP No. 91-644-01-A Unit 1, Facility Operating )
License No. NPF-58) ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Station,LUnit 1, Facility )
. Operating License No. NPF-3) )
)
REPLY OF CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, TO ARGUMENTS OF APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES-OF LAW OF THE CASE, RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND LACHES To the Honorable, the Members of
-the' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:
In its February 7, 1992 order, as amended on March 20, 1992, the Board granted the City of Cleveland ("Cleve-land")_the opportunity to reply to any responses by other parties to arguments raised by Cleveland respecting law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel and laches in
, Cleveland's cross-motion for summary disposjtion. Only the
- Applicants ("OE", "CEI" and "TE") and the NRC Staff 1
_ -,e
. ~ -
. .. . . -~ .
(" Staff") have filed responses on these issues.1/ Appli-cants and Staff challenge the applicability of any of these i preclusion doctrines. In this reply, Cleveland addresses their arguments and shows that their arguments are not valid. INTRODUCTION A basic concept of all-preclusion doctrines-- law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel and laches--is that a losing litigant cannot obtain another bite at the litigation apple with respect to issues raised and decided, or that should have been raised by the litigant, by simply bringing a new action, As the Supreme Court stated in Astoria F.S. & L Assn. v. Solimino, U.S. , 115 L.Ed.2d 96, 104 (1991): , (A) sound and obvious principle of judicial policy [is) that a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an ir ue identical in substance to the one he subseq;ently-seeks to raise. To hold otherwise would, as a gener-al matter, impose unjustifiably upon those who have already shouldered their burdens, and drain the resources of an adjudicatory system 1/ Applicants' responses to these issues are included in its reply to Cleveland's and other parties' cross-motions direc-ted to the so-called " bedrock" legal issue. Cleveland does not' address. Applicants' response to Cleveland's arguments related to the " bedrock" legal issue only because the Summary Disposition Schedule, as amended, does not authorize a reply by Cleveland. Cleveland will respond to Applicants' reply to
, Cleveland's cross-motion addressed'to the " bedrock" legal issue at the oral argument to the extent that the time allo-cated Cleveland permits.
n - . . .- - . . I with disputes resisting resolution. See Park-land Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326,
. 58 L.Ed.2d 552, 99 S.Ct. 645 (1979). The prin-ciple holds true when a court has resolved an issue, and should-do so equally when the issue
. has been decided by an administrative agency, be it state or federal, see University of Ten-nessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 798, 92 L.Ed.2d 635, 106 S.Ct. 3220 (1986) which acts in a judicial capacity. (material in brackets and emphasis supplied)
As aptly described by Staff (NRC Staff's Answer to the Motion for Summary Disposition of.Intervenor, City of Cleveland at 5-6 (" Answer")) Cleveland in its motion at 65-66 correctly described the argument made by Applicants in the prior proceeding:
. Applicants took the position that there must be a finding of cost advantages offered by the
-nuclear plants in order for the Licensing
. Board's analysis of a " structural nexus" to be valid.2/
Applicants strain to obfuscate the fact that they advance here the same argument they previously made (see, e.g., Ap-plicants' Reply at 17-18 (" Reply")). The fact is that 2/ Applicants' (Reply at 94, n. 220) attempt to blur the issue they raised below by lengthy quotation of an Appeal Board's general description of Applicants' previous nexus arguments. The quotation indicates-that Applicants argued in the prior stages-that the proposed conditions had no " nexus" (i.e., no
" relevance" and "no connection") to " activities under the license". The quotation, however, does-not reveal the spe-cific arguments previously made by Applicants that are role-vant to the present bedrock issue. Among those nexus argu-ments previously made is the s~aT argument that they make here. Applicants necessarily . e t each nexus argument, jointly and severally. Thus, theyelost the very argument
- . made here. Applicants' quotation of a general description of their previous positions cannot be allowed to obscure that l fact.
l Applicants previously argued that, in order to reach issues
, of-anticompetitive structure and acts, the commission must' first find " cost advantagen offered by the nuclear plants."
(Applicants Appeal Brief, pp. 126-127 and n. 147). In this strenuous effort to obscure the fact that they argued to the Appeal Board that there can be no valid nexus determination unless it is first found that there are cost advantages offered by the nuclear plant, Applicants 1 have argued that their previous argument was different in degree and kind from the argument they now are making (Reply at 97). To support the claim of difference in degree and
. Pind, they point out that they argued to the Appeal Board that even if this necessary finding of cost advantage is made, no antitrust conditions are needed because the munici-pal electric systems will share the cost advantages. De-spite Applicants' claim that " cleveland pejoratively dis-torts Applicants Appeal brief", the fact is that Applicants
. in the Appeal brief (at-126-127) clearly argued-that no -
nexus could be found unless it is first found that there is cost advantage. Applicants relied on their antitrust wit-L ness, Dr. Pace's testimony, that absent a cost advantage for
. nuclear power there can be no nexus--no antitrust conse-l quence (Applicants Appeal Brief at 127, n. 147). That is L.
j- precisely 1 Applicants' argument today, having also submitted- ? <
. an affidavit to that effect from Dr.' Pace in a letter re-sponse to the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") advice letter v
of June 13, 1990 recommending dismissal of the applications. 1 (Letter' dated July 24, 1990 from counsel for Ohio Edison to i Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lations.) I. IAW OF THE CASE Staff (Answer at 2-5)-and Applicants (Reply at 105-
- 08) argue that the doctrine of the " law of the case" cannot-apply here because the Licensing Board has determined that "notwithstanding a similar docket designation, this pro-ceeding is separate and apart from the earlier yommission antitrust proceedings regarding Davis-Besse pnd Perry that resulted in the license conditions now-at issue," quoting 34
- N.R.C. 229, 244 n. 43 (1931). Whether or not this proceed-ing'is " separate and apart from the earlier proceeding" for procedural purposes, it cannot be so considered in applying the " law of-the case" doctrine with respect to Applicants' nexus / low cost contentions or any other substantive issues which had been decided in the prior stage of this action.
For instance, Chairman Miller recognized, and Applicants apparently recognize,2/ that the determination that Appli-1/ Applicants attempt to drift-back and forth on thesissue of
.whether re-litigation by them of anticompetitive structure of the markets and anticompetitive acts by Applicants is pre-cluded. While Applicants have made it clear that the " bed-rock" issue is to be decided on the assumption that Appli-cants' anticompetitive conduct found by the Boards persists . (PHC Tr. at 155; CEI and-TE Joint App., p. 6, n. 8) , on reply (at 27) Applicants boldly claim to the contrary that there i .
(continued...)
, - ~ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _
, ~ . - . -. . .- . . .- _.. ... -
T cants' anticompetitive acts were grounds for the untitrust license conditions "became law of the case" when the previ-ouc . Boards made their rulings. September 19, 1991 Prehear-
+-
ing Conference, Tr. 150-51 (specifically at 151, line 2), colloquy between Chairman Miller and Ms. Charnoff, Ohio Edison's counsel. The judicial policy underlying any preclusive doc-trine is, as already noted above, that losing litigants cannot bring-a separate action to avoid the adverse determi-nation "on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently-seeks to raise." (emphasis supplied) Astoria, supra, 115 L.Ed.2d at 104. Applicants have brought a new proceeding to attempt to re-litigate what was litigated before (or what they should have raised previously). To designate this proceeding as a different proceeding for purposes of the application of " law of the case" would be sii aly to encourage the bringing of multiple proceedings by losing litigants to further their hope that earlier, ad-verse, final determinations could be avoided. This would not be good law nor proper jurisprudence. Applicants allege (Reply at 106) that this Board's view that the applications initiated a separate proceeding is consistent with past NRC determinations, citing Public 2/(... continued)
" emphatically is not [any nasis] for assuming that Applicants would be . . . inclined" to act anticompetitively.
a e
Service Co. of New Hampshirq (Seabrook Station, Units 3 &
. 2), LBP-89-3, 29 NRC 51, 53, n. 6-(1989), aff'd. ALAB-915, 29 N]RC 427 (1989). As Cleveland pointed out in its cross-motion for summary disposition, not all of the NRC's licens-ing boards are of that view even if such a determination of separate proceeding was determinative for purposes of appli-cation of " law of the case". Cleveland cited (at 68-69),
SM31t;)1 Texas (Houston Lichtina and Power,__qb., 4 NRC 571, 575 - (1976), rev'd on'other grounds, 5 NRC 582 (1977), and Farley (41abama Power Co., 7 AEC 210, 215, n. 7 (1974), remanded on other grounds, CLI-74, 7 AEC 203 (1974).
. Contrary to the attempts of Staff (Answer at 3-4) and' Applicants (Reply at 106, n. 249) to dismiss the views of the Licensing Boards in South Texas.and Farley because the decisions were either reversed or remanded on other grounds, the fact is that neither the reversal nor the remand in any degree undermined the holding of the Licensing Boards.that the construction permit and operating stages of the-process are not two separate proceedings. They are two stages of the same "cause of action".
The courts recognize that there is a single proceed-
-ing, albeit one that contains sequential-stages. The courts have interpreted the AEA as establishing:
i a two-stage process for approving the construc-i tion and operation of nuclear power plants: l . first, before construct ^ ion of a plant may be-gin, the Commission must issue a construction permit; second, before the plant may begin
.~ . . , . - e. m -r
operations, the Commission must grant an oper-ating license.- (citations omitted) Seacoast
- ADti-Pollution. Etc. v. NRC, 690 F.2d 1025, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
In Power Reactg.r Develop. Co. v. Electrical Union, 367 U.S. 396, 405, 6 L.Ed.2d 924, 930 (1961), the Supreme Court said: It is clear from the face of this statute (re-ferring to the AEA) that Congress conteuplated a step-by-step procedure. First, an applicant would have to get a construction permit, then he would have to construct his facility, and then he would have to ask the Commission to grant a license to operate the facility. (ma-terial in brackets supplied)
~
Continuing, the Supreme Court reviewed the implementing NRC regulation and found confirmation of its interpretation of the statute in the regulation, stating (367 U.S. at 407, 6 L.Ed at 931): [T]his regulation, obviously, elaborates upon and describes in fuller detail the step-by-step licensing procedure contemplated by SS382_(Li-cense Applications) and 385 (Construction Per-mits) (material in brackets supplied). Staff also seeks to' distinguish the South Tegan case because that case did not involve an amendment of a license (Answer at 4). If that is a valid basis for distinguishing , South Texas, and presumably, Farlov, then, of course, it follows that Applicants' reliance on Public Service of New Hamoshing is of.no precedential value cince that case did not include an amendment.
l II. RES JUDICATA
. As Applicants concede (Reply at 92) the doctrine of Egg judicata precludes re-litigation of a cause of action that was or could have been reised in a prj -
proceeding. Applicants also concede that whether the amendment consti-tutes.a separate or the same proceeding is irrelevant to the application of this doctrine. As they do with respect to law of the case, r Applicants deny that they raised the same argument previous-ly. Cleveland has already shown under the discussion of the "lawLof the case," supra, that the same " cost advantage"
. argument.that Applicants now make was advanced and disposed of in the prior stages of this action. The cause of the instant action, i.e., the cost of Applicants' nuclear power, is ggn Judicata. Applicants recognized that the doctrine of res judicata precludes matters already resolved as well as those which could have been raised and resolved in the prior stage. Applicants therefore argue (Reply.at 98) that they could not have argued the bedrock issue because actual costs were not available in the prior proceeding, only anticipated costs were available.
This argument is absurd. As far as the construction permit *s concerned, if the existence of actual costs were essential at the construction permit stage, there could be
. no issuance-of'h construction permit ~. Obviously, at that stage estimated corts are all that arc available and re-
. . . . - - . ~. - -
quired _for lawful exercise of the NRC's authority, and
. similarly the estimated costs are sufficient for the submis-sion by Applicants of their contentions, including the bedrock issue. Further, actual cost was available to Appli-cants at the operating stage as Cleveland shows, infra 13-
- 16. Although Applicants could have again raised the cost issue atfthe operating license stage, based on the actual cost data available at that time, Applicants took the posi-tion that there had been'no significant changes since the issuance of-the construction permit; that what Applicants now characterize as the " dramatic" (Reply at 100) increase
. "in the cost of generating nuclear power relative to the i- cost of generating non-nuclear-power" after the construction permit issuance was not significant.AI Clearly, Appli-cants wished to avoid an antitrust review at that time.
Staff argues that changed circumstances provide an exception to the application of res iudicata but staff does not show that there are relevant changed circumstances. Staff only argues that " changed factual circumstances maY be present here" (Answer at 7; emphasis supplied) and that the
"'adrock"' issue represents an " undeveloped frontier of law and policy" (Answer at 7; cee also Reply at 100). Staff's .
speculation is insufficient for the exercise of any discre-
. :4/ Applicants take a contrary position now, arguing that this
" dramatic increase . . . constitutes a 'significantly changed circumstance.'" (Reply at 100).
tion. Moreover, as Cleveland shows, infra 12-16, the factu-
. al changed circumstances were known to Applicants and were represented, contrary to Applicants' present contention, as not significant. As for Staff's description of the issue as an " undeveloped frontier of law and policy", the issue is neither the undeveloped frontier of law nor of policy.
Alabama Power Co. v. Nuclear Reculatory._CREmiD112D, 692 F.2d 1362'(11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983). III. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Applicants concede that whether the present proceed-
-ing is a separate or the same proceeding is irrelevant in the application of-collateral estoppel (Reply at 92). What . is important is that the issue was actually litigated and was material-and relevant to the disposition of the outcome of the earlier action (Id.). Cleveland has already shown that the issue was actually litigated, EMEra 2-5. As for its disposition being necessary to the outcome of the earli-er action, the disposition of an issue that challenges the NRC's authority to impose antitrust conditions was obviously necessary to the outcome of the action.
IV. LACHES Applicants argue (Reply at 108-109) that Cleveland has failed to show unreasonable delay.and undue prejudice to
. Cleveland which are necessary elements for the application of the laches doctriae. Applicants purport to support that
~ 12 -
position by observing that the filing of applications in
. September 1987 and May 1988 involved no "unreasonablo do-lay". Applicants state that a full power operating licenso '9' did not issue for Perry Unit i until Fall (November) 1986; that judicial review was not complete until Spring 1987; and that Perry Unit 1 was not placed in commercial operation until November 1987. Thus, Applicants conclude that Ohio Edison's filing of its application in September 1987 and CEI and TEco's filing in May 1.988 did not constituto unreason-able delay. Obviously, those porry datos are not the porti-nont datos.
. The increase in cost that Applicants describe as
" dramatic" did not occur overnight after Spring 1987 when it is allegod judicial review was complete. The crucial fact is that neither Ohio Edison, CPI or TE filed notices of appeal of the Appeal Board's 1979 decision. The only notic-os of appeal were filed by Duquesne Light Company and Penn-sylvania Power on February 29, 1980, but were subsequently
- withdrawn. The dramatic increaso in cost and the events Applicants blamo for the increases occurred well beforo September 1987. Commercial operation was obviously not controlling or material because Ohio Edison filed its appli-cation in September 1987 before commercial operation began in November 1987. Experience with operating costs, contrary
. to Applicants representation (Reply at 77) was not necos-sa ry . - capital costs were known at the operating licenso
(
. - - _ .. - -- - . _ - - - _ . - . - . - . - -_- .- ~ - . . . - . . _ - . . . -
- 13 -
stage at the latest.
. As for Davis-Besse Unit 1, Applicants are silent as to those dates because the CEI and TE joint application 4
filed in May 1988 Wlth respect to that unit was even more ogeoglously and unreasonable delayed. The actual cost of Davis 'cesse Unft 1 was known to CEI and TE substantially in advance of May 1988. The Davis-Desso construction permit was issued in March 1971 f its operating license was issued in April 1977; and it was in commercial operation in July 1978. HMRpo-1350. Vgl. 3 (1991). NRC Information Dicest 1991 Edition. K.L. Olive. The CEI and TE application was
. filed eleven ytors after the issuance of the operating license, and ten years after commercial operatien.
Returning to Perry, contrary to Applica.0,u' asser-tion, it was n o t necessary for Applicants to wait until Perry vont into full production to file its application in order to have evidence of actual cost data. In fact, they filed the application in September 1989, two months beforo commercial operation which began in November 1987. Actual capital costs adntittedly (Reply at 77) were available with completion of the construction phase, i.e., prior to 1984. Staff argues (Answer at 8) that Cleveland has failed to make any showing as to when the costs of nuclear power actually increased beyond the costs of electricity from
, alternativesourcessuchthatApplic$ntssnouldhavere-quested suspension of the antitrust conditions earlier.
.g , . - - - ,
, , , - - - , , - - - - - - - - , ,-m-- . , , - - , , - - - -,, ,-
14 - Staff, hovover, states that "if there had boon an undoniable
. and continuous trend upwards in the cost of nuclear power such that the $bodrock issuo' would have boon ripe for adjudication earlier (wi..ch Clevoland hos not demonstrated) then lachos may warrant noro serious attention". Clevo-land's answer filed in February 1988 in opposition to Ohio 4
Edison's application establishes from Applicants' own re-cords that there was an undeniable and continuous trend . I upwards in the cost of nuclear power such that the "bodrock issuo" would have boon ripe for adjudication earlier, many ; years earlier, than September-1907.
. Appendix B (attached as Appendix 1 to this Hoply) to Clevelands answer to OE's application disclosos that the i o .
total cost of Perry Nuclear Project Plant (PHPP) Units 1 and 2 at Februtcy 1271 was estimated to bo 41.234 billion. At 4 August 1977 the er.timated cost had increased to $2.127 billion. At January 197.9 it stood at $2.552 billion. At ' April 1912 it was $3.890 billion. At October 1981, the unit cost ofLUnit 1 alone plus common facilities stood at $2.150 billion. At May 1111 the estimated cost of Unit 1 plus
-common facilities stood at $2.770 billion. By September
.1984 it was up to $3.945 billion and through December 31,.
1985 it was $4.153 billion, exclusive of CEI's estimated , additional project costs, including AFUDC (allowance for funds used during construction; more simply interest during construction),-which would accumulato at the rate of $2
, - - _ . . - . - _ . . , . _ .. _ . . _ . _ , _ _ _ . - ~ _ - . . - - - . . , _ . , . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . , - - , _ _ , _ . . _ . _ , _ . , ,,_.
million per day "until the plant is in service".
, In Cleveland's February 1988 answer to OE's applica-tion Cleveland further showed that each of the "recent" events alleged by OE which gave rise to the increased costs of the nuclear power could have been raised by OE during the 6 operating license stage since each of the events occurred well before the termination of the operating license pro- -
coeding. These events were now, more stringent environ-mental laws adopted in the 1970s such as the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act of 1969, the clean Air-Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
. Amendments of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
By thu time the operating license stago was underway in the mid 1990s, the project >,' cost of the Perry project had al-ready increased as described above. Another event cited by OE as the reason for the in-creased cost of nuclear power was new technical regulations. Again this could have been and should have been raised at
~
the operating license stage. In a March 23, 1983 press release (Appendix C to Cleveland's February 1988 Answer to
-OE's Application, attached hereto as Appendix 2) CEI, on behalf of the joint Applicants, announced a revision of the estimated cost of Perry Units 1 and 2 from $3.23 billion to
$3.6 billion; a 10 percent increase due to " regulatory
, requirements that affect the final design and construction activities" (Appendix 2, page 1).
[
Another event cited by OE which it alleged in ito
, application for suspension of the license conditions was adverso economio conditions such as inflation, high interest costs and reduced growth rato in the demand for electricity ,
which emerged in the mid 1970s (OE Application at 65; see also Reply at 100-01). All of these factors were considered by the Director of N'aclear Reactor Regulation in his 1983 finding of No Significant Change 'or Perry Unit and were datormined not to warrsnt further antitrust review (Sco Staff Report at 'pp. 28-29). In Jts March 1983 press release referred to above,
, CEI pointed out that interest costs associated with con-struction of the project had increased. In a January 23, 1980 press release (AppendlX D to Cleveland's February 1988 Answer to OE's application for suspension of the antitrust license conditions, attached hereto as Appendix 3), announc~
ing the cancelled construction of Davis-Besso Units 2 and 3 and the 1260 MW Units 1 and 2 of the Erio Nuclear Plant and the delay in construction of Perry Units 1 and 2 and the 833 - MW Beaver Valley Unit 2, among other things,-the decrease in the average growth of electricity demand from 3.3 percent to 2.8 percent, was singled out as the culprit due to a slow-down in industrial growth, the increased availability _of natural gas-in the service area and customer conservation _, efforts (Id, at p. 3). OE could have raised all these events and their
consequences at the operating license stage. It did not.
, Instead, its position was that no significant changes had taken place subsequent to the antitrust review at the con-struction permit stage because OE wanted no additional
' antitrust review. On November 23, 1983, the NRC published a .
notice in the Federal Register (48 Fed. Reg. 52992-93) of the Director of the office of Nuclear Reactor kogulation's initial-finding that no significant antitrust changes had occurred. In a letter to the Dir40te; d*;wa March 6, 1984, CEI's counsel requested that the . 'dtial 54L , of no - significant changes be made the Directut 's final deatermina- ,
, tion. It was so made.
As for comparison to alternative sources of power that the Staff says should be shown, Staff overlooks the fact that, for purposes of this aspect of-the proceeding, it is assumed that the cost of the nuclear power is in excess of alternative sources of power in the relevant market appropriately measured and compared. Thus, the " bedrock" issue now raised could have and . should have been raised at least a decade ago and is now time-barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. Finally, Applicants argue (Reply at 109) that Cleve-land has not established that it suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged delays. In support of this allegation
, Applicants, citing a newspaper artic1'e in a city of Cleve-land newspaper of Aprjl 12, 1992, allege that Cleveland has
- -,.,--...n,
. - ,,,,.,,---.,,---,-.,..-w,- . , , - , - . , , , . .
,,,-r.,-.,-,.-._n,.. ._,.n...,,,,, .n, , --- _._...e
- .. .- --- - - - - - - . - - - - . - . - . - . - . - _ . . . . . . . . - . ~ . -
an agreement which assures cleveland of the continuation of
, the antitrust license conditions "in effect without regard to their imposition by the HRc". cleveland has no such agreement. There is an agrooment between amp-Ohio and CEI and TE but OE is not a party to the agreement and, of ;
course, is not bound by any of its provisions. Counsel for cleveland have secured a copy of the agreement which on the first page is stamped " Confidential." counsel understand that the agreement, executed on October 18, 1985, has not been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as required by part II of the Federal Power Act and'that com-
. mission's regulations. The wheeling provision in the agree-ment-is D2t the same as the wheeling rights cleveland has under the entitrust license conditions. In fact, the whool-ing condition in the agreement includes a restraint on the wheeling rights which, in the opinion of counsel , may vio-late the antitrust laws. That may explain why Applicants did:not submit.the contract and chose, instead, to rely-on an unattached newspaper story.El Equally unreliable is-Applicants' assertion (Reply ;
at 110) that whatever actions Cleveland took in reliance on , the antitrust license conditions were taken with full knowl-
'H/ If as Applicants argue-elimination of the license conditions will not affect Cleveland's rights,to wheeling, etc. even if
, the antitrust-license conditions are eliminated, why have Applicants expended time and expense in a strenuous effort to
. eliminate the license conditions?
l 4 I
"--wm y w , -,,r. .-,.,-i o -,w+e.ve., y u-.c.,ww- -
e--s-, -
,e-,
i edge that the conditions could bo terminated or suspended
, for a variety of reasons. The Board is well aware that Cleveland's position has consistently boon that the condi-tions are not subject to termination, suspension or amend-mont. Further, the conditions thomsolves invited rollance by Cleveland in the form of extensive capital expenditures for interconnection, transmission and distribution facili-ties. ;
CONCLUSION l For each and all of the foregoing reasons in clove-land's cross-motion for summary disposition and in this
~
reply cleveland's motion for summary disposition should be ,
. granted, Applicants' motion should be denied, and the appli-cations should be summarily. denied. The NRC's authority to impose and retain antitrust license conditions is not depen- -
dont on the nucioar power being low cost. The NRC's author-ity to impose and retain antitrust licenso conditions de-
. ponds only on antitrust activitios of the Applicant having a nexus to the licenso. _Furthor, Applicants' applications are n
1 w i O
~
l barrod by the law of the caso, ros judicata, collateral i
,_ . estoppel and lachos.
Respectfully submitted, f, <hn ( % 46,9 A#e a, , Danny R. Williams Roubon Goldberg Director of Iaw Channing D. Strother, Jr. Juno W. Wiener David C. Iljolmfelt Chief Assistant Director B. Victoria Brennan > of. Law
. Goldberg, Fieldman & Lotham, P.C.
William T. Zigli 1100 Fiftoonth Street, N.W. Assistant Director of Law Washington, D.C. 20005 City llall, Room 106 Telephono (202) 463-8300 601 Lakeside Avenuo Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Telephono (216) 664-2000 Fi Attorneys for City of Cleveland, Ohio May 1992 i
- e.
l 1
. g i
!3,.y..
t 4,. (9= 1 6 E e 1 k f f. 8 a F I y b APPEllDIX 1 4 Y e
- I r
h 4 t t I 1 b f t v g.. 4 0
' ' " ' ' N " y e wwy-m,
' - 3,3 .c. . ,
9 , . i
, n.. , ,
t PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO AN EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
OF TI{E RESULTS OF THE REVfEW OF COSTS OF TifE PERRY. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IQU.Clit ROSS & CO./ NIELSEN-WURSTER GROUEl C11APMAN & ASSOCI ATF.S AUGUST.1984 0 i , . ,n e 'Ad .
.g
'
- h.s* kh * $b. :- ;--
A-2 COST AND SCllEDULE IllSTORY Over the duration of PNPP, there have been twelve (12) estimates of project cost and schedule. Total project cost estimates increased from '
$1.234 billion in Februar/1973 for the total project (including Unit 2) to
$4.153 billion * (excluding Unit 2) as of December 31,1985. The commercial
. operation is not anticipated prior to fourtn quarter,1986 for Unit 1. The following table summarizes these estimates:
. PNPP COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES Total Cost) 1%)ect In-Service Numin littimate Duc ($jllllion) Euls lhie (UnitJ) 1 2/73 1.234 Total Project 4/79 2 10/74 1.444 Total Project 4/79 3 6/75 1.547 Total Project 6/80 -
4 8/76 2.023 Total Project 12/81 5 8/77 2.127 Total Project 12/81 6 2/78 12/81
, 7 1/79 2.552 Total Project 5/83 8 4/80 3.890 Total Project 5/84 9 10/81 2.150 Unit 1 & common 5/84 10 5/83 2.770 Unit 1 & common 5/85 11 4/84 3.470 Unit 1 & common , 12/S5 12 9/84 3.945 . Unit.1 & common 12/85 13 12/85 4.153' Unit 1 & common This figure represents the expenditures incurred through December 31, 1985. CEI estimates additional project costs. including AFUDC, to accumulate at the rate of $2 million per day until the plant is in-service
" The February 1978 definitive estimate of $2.125 billion prepared by gal was never officially adopted by CE!.
l , l l l- 7 JL
J A , a _.J% #-A=4.N 4-La D --+-aa u w =--S A a e A Rw at.a# 4.4 As#sk.Aa.-4AA.+*-4. _--* es a h m 4 4 h Ar h am 4 4 4.45 4- .eM M_ M n hA Jo. ia "- '"*si4AA b - il . i == 4LO eame A =- AAM m.a r (
'I 1
s s ir i s e i 8-f f s i APPENDIX 2 9 e e a p 5 b t i,
.. 4 V
e
*, _o y - r-- <--e v e .y + wgc,-~ r ww w -v"Tevv~+v-w-me-pt-y--g-S'M--g++etW 7*?1rww-- W
.e A-3
. s. . . ..
l'_,;. .< .; ....-_
\ . , ,, o ws.
\
.m a
N .L ' w ! _i c 3 : .L .
..: =
s , s N
\ ' , ,s < ;,...
x .x s, . d\ ___' \__.$\ _ / .Na EII>.5Zi. m sms,
. i \ w x E 2), 1933, 8 e.n. )., .
(s 622 9503, ext. 2231 PJ:F.E 23GI:I T.EU:SD ne Clevelesa nectric TW--4natinr.; Co:peny Flant JYoject. today er.nounce i f the Perry Gesert.tdr4 in the estintted cost of co plet on o $3,6 billion, t.n increase En;t mert:y; r.n6 constra: tion are nw e rtir.ated to cost of $370 ::'111on :*ron ecrlier estitates. d tien Gro.:7) Txtry is e joint pmject of CJJC0 (Centre.1 Area Pover Coor int b idiery, Pennsylve.nic Unich incl.:les CO, Unio Edison t.no its vbolly-o. red su s
.Perver, Toledo Idison cr.d Daquesne Light. d rete.ted In e.ddition to the construction budget, CD says inte.w.. en d,1 estir.nted cost of $5.2 costs of fundt ney edd e,t lees $1.6 billion, for t to billion.
Se pre.".,ous total, estfrated i,n 1930, ps $4 billics, load fuel Ie.st veet, CC ennounced a delcy of up to one late
, year in pitas to 19?h.
Unit 1, with that activity now predicted to take place in at Tur:/ trentunt of interest ne $1,6 tillion interest is beced on exicti.r4 i Co=nission of Ohio (?IO) chtr6es es previded unGer Ohio 3ny and Pub 1Ac Utilit es iskiest m
. 18.ngs, Prepoced lecic1Atton in the Ohio Legisitture could increase charges on Irrry by as runh ass th00 2sm en, f the Terry Itoject 15 CD rays the revised schedule and increesed cost o .ts that a t
the result of impicmentatioc of regulatory requirmaAll nuc de n-;g er.d cor.stru: tion activi tie s, tax 5:tedeler end W4GL have ker. gree .ly effected by the ce conditions manity r.~.cr t regulerly M rer es.-d.
kNb$ 4 It3Liti t3 hCC'd *t I';i' ti#'*
- ne ca.1 loc 6 date for Unit 2, late 1937:
MM M . T.:r.mver, as v:rt progresses or Mt 1, the Mt 2 s:'a@ dl M ne five 20 cc:pa _ies em deciceted to ire.:-ir4; tttt Perry is e te/c, dire the tvin rdat>1e facility. eccording to CEI, dich is in chz.rge of W11 1205 esevatt Eenertton. e ec respoMit& peMenWe cry o,w 31,n$ of the p.m ject e.nd vill Itceivt Chio Edison end its 7t=rylvt=1a Imr nttidic y of the eleetricity generated.
?
cvn 35 2Vg; coledo Idism,19 91$, end pgume Lisht, 23 7h . ne five ea:per.ies cerve so:e 7 emco people in en 13d'Etri'a cresce:t serass na-thern eso ceztrs1 CT:.io sz6 vectern Tv=sy1Mt. f a d t e
, - . .,a&.d_ A ai _- 4,3s. 4i M. 456 1 & %,hJ-4-WW4 .r&-44 & W+ -- M ah 3 4 W 4 b M N AMm&c 4AL,ut _M Aem 3 m a h .3 4 e. J.zis S _4 s;t4 4 4_1 AJ 4 hi,44 s .p,Mm M sg.6mM__ h A_ SA da me d*4ahM sa.e b
- 5.
t $ t P k
- r 3
1 P APPENDIX 3 , f. 0 0 t b r 4, 7 1 A 4._ (f f l h l' I (
< ~, . -r_+. -. . ; ._; . _ ,,,_ ;, ,_..,.. .,,, , , , , _ , _ , , - . . . . - - , . . . - _ . . . - . . _ _ . . . , . . _ . _ _ . . , ,,_., .,_,, _,, ., .. .,
yq r
, t A-5 .
s 4 1-5
? ? :' I dcli b."o. ation ?ep.msent The Cleveland Dectric Blurinatin!- Cc ;er.y 622 03CC . Ext. 27 4 F. O. Sc): 5C00, Cleveland, Ohio U.101 C .- 62 3-10% ,( 21. - t o: .- ,3..,. 3 707s F.I'2'.0 ! '.:2.T.'5 3tY , A .1.-
J/JfJA3Y 23,'1950 t f' CAP;0 NTWS RI..IASI Tne Co .;2nies in the Centrel Area Power Coordinatir.c Group (CMOO) todsy ennoun ed the tercinntion of plans to build four additional nuclear units presently in the design star.e. The estiteted cost to build those units vus $7.3 billion. V.ovever, :enstru: tion vill continue under en extended sebedule on tv0 nucleer units r.etr :lorth . terry, Ohio, and enother at Shipp'nc;crt, Pennsylvania.
". e rer.ain convinced e "ter cor.sidering all of the options, test nucle a.-
po er is e sefe, econoricel and enviro:tmental.ly superior cethod of ger.ereting ele:tri:it?' seid the statenen; issued by Robert l'. Ginn, President of the Clevelend Electric Illu .inating Co:peny, Justin T. F.ocers, President of Ohio
# idison, J:'n F.1:illis: son, Cheire.an of Toledo Idison, and John P. Arthu.r, Chairmen el 1;e,uesne Lie,ht Co:peny. " Accord.i ngly, ye are c ocplet ir.c t'r_re e nucle t r u:._ 'r dy well elong in const. uction. "
.::orling to the CAKO chief executives, the e stirated date s Ier to ple ing the three CMCO nuclear units ncrs under constru:*. ion have been e:ct ended between 12 end 36 nonths. Unit 1 at the Perry Nuclear Fe-er ?lant near North Ferry, Ocio hes be n rescheduled fro: .Q / 1983 to P.sy 193h; Urdt 2 et the Feever Vel. ley Faser S t a ti on e t Er.i ppi ng7 ort , Tennsylvanic from !iny 195L to May l?r5; and Urdt 2 at the Ferry Ilsnt fro: :*.ay 1955 to Msy 198S. Const ruction of these units range tro: 30 to 52 par cen'. co plete. The new target dates reflect e core realistic time Trace for the corstruction end li censing of nuclea r 'plert s .
~
(wr-)
l 4 A-6 I
! 'o .i t t e: pi t i r. i , 'lnt po;;. '. i : t '. e.. re % ctory u. erteinties
, . .i . . i n; t. . cire co,s w : f oo ol nucle:,7 pitric ha: in;anci:!cd follo.-ir.w-
'i.e e-.i.en; 2. .'n-c e : .ile I r is r.d. ::u:le:r con.t *vetion c:hedule:! Turthe r it.
the Juture c:rries greater uncertainty of event 221 cost. In spite of our
. on fi -tiov. . eC: rri nc nuclet.r ;ry..ct, this uncertainty has :onpened the C/JCO "ony niet to ter.inete t.:ose nucle: - unitt not yet under actual construction in Order to red 1:e the lutt re ecsts to car custoners and shareowners," they said.
"T.nste
~
ecisions are not vithout rish," the joint sta.tencnt said. "recision
.t dt $3.r; 4 /i'il :.'le:t a dequa :y of riectri:01 supply in the T,;ture. The cosp .ies 2re c:r.:cened etcut the relic *cility of electric serdce to their custo:sers in the 0.i.'.-l'.G
- r - 7:rti u.le rl:/ by the l??3's . Tnese con:ern: cre beinc continue
- 1y
. tdire:s-i as ee:h :en.u rf moni . ors the Croeth ir e' stooe: dem nd in relation to
- p :it;r," - he e nc .:uti re s con ;inued.
. t The C.I'O Companie s ' tienn for CC'!, !f,l each of the Units 2 end 3 at the
;;o.is-Iesne Jiuelee r Pmrer ::te ; ion near Port Clinton, end the 1260 'f~' ee th of
- he I.-le 1:u:le:r Plent Uaits 1 cad 2 at e site r.odh o.' herl.in HeiChts, nu yrcsenti:* 1r .he cc ic.n st: ;e, were termineted.
". ne .'JJ'.'C Compe nie s-.Ge cela nd Elect.-i- IU r.inatinC , Duque sne Light ,
Ohio Idi on, Penns; 1/a tie Focer, e r ? 'ioledu Edison--r e r /c sone 2.5 tillion
- usto;ers in en industri:1 crescent in northern eni cent.al Ohio and vestern Pennsyl.391c. Tne re eised projected re .e of gren<th in custoner derend for tiect.-icity :or the C/JCO Cocpanies in the 1930's is in the range of two to four yr ce nt each year.
The statenent also ertnounced another decision reached by cembers of the
. ?MCD C oup. '!h e '".e 'rel a nd "le ct ri e D usi no'. i ng Cor;w ny (CEI) viu incrc ue its o nerchin '.h'tre in the Fer<j Plant, now vc11 alary: in o r.r t ru c t i o n . CEl, (more)
.o
.w- ,
A-7 ) . ,. e
' t s oca.r s-i; of Fe r y I e et.1.111 'cuild e nd oper::e the f.e t, vill in-rea se Onio Edison omrship of es:h unit 1121 be ,
ent ? b/ cc mcavst.s per unit. a s ret.:e:S by 60 m;,eustts , CII "ill incretse its o'Tiersh.p in each of the two 1205 IG 7erry Units (31.115), Ohio Edison (and Penn Po#*? } "111
? en : .'e> :t.: (c' .L7',) to 373 .?.: The re vil.1 be ,
reduce their utmership from 5.5 f f,: (L1.6%) to L2$ id (35.2b5), ) j 5), or in the Toledo no ebense in the ~uquesne 1.ight otmership of 165 IU (13 7L i Idiron o.mership of 2h0 l*: (19 91?;) in each unit. I Seaver Valley liucient Unit 2, 7ne percenteges or osmership in the 833 !E:
# nsylnnia, is es .Wm: W,O.W.
t under a.onstruction at Shinincpor , .en 19.91G.
.i. , g. . .s n e $ 4 .+., . ...
'.3 7L5;, Ohio Idison L1.8S$, and Toledo Edison The constro: tion schedule and percentages of oenership of the 625 IM
~ -ru:e :'. nstield Unit 3, also at F Shi pingport, Pennsylvania, a coti. fired C h unit to be co .pleted later this year, are un:henced.
":. e II.12 dnating Conpeny's decisior. to increate our o'.nership shar to N C3T reflects CII's belief ir, end :on-1::er.t the re rrr 'N-le tr Poi e r Plant , '
"This prehsse of en edditions1160 meCeratts of the Perry pover," seid Oinn. 3 ##
us 'he cepa:Aty ue need to meet our custvoers e7-ted de;"" 5 T1 tnt cive: electri-l'; .hroc.sho.it the decede o' the W S." 85 *###'U' ant i :iPe' e $ ihe I.lu ,instinc Co:p:ny said its re dsed forecast ^5 o.' 2.E$ e yeer for the ne.:t ten years-l im:reese in demenG for ele:tri:ity *n.
" e c e st ! r4 c :.
age, in hcem'ner of 1976, the Co:I*nY "d5
- r. :r .ti; st cr.e ye s t e e
The decrea se in the gro ,h re e .s e .'.ritu e n rece T'uhl Crot th rat e o[ 3 3N. ed essliabili'Y DI " " '
.loedoen in indust rial Gro,-th, ybe increas
- ei n1_ .t o :
.. ~ by cu5t #5'
..s
, ~. L e r d O f STP', EDd COMII
- g r. L 1,*. t ' a
. e
.. , .i t n .9
% .a ...e! ..
j u,. } . .
.n.m _,
. . A-8 t
. t. -
" sy . .'.?r, ce e:g.* c: t o 4: te t. pe:r de .ur' o f :. ,7 9 e rwe t *.s , ' C i r.n s e . ,
o.' i nt Je rry Pier.t , ou* Ceneretir.E :a;4 :ity ; - '.'i t n c 2.- p_ c r s e o f e n i n : r e e sa .1 s he.r e
e tire co.!ident thst thit i n:re t t e d
. c',U he :;pt r:it'.el; f *A* .cr. re tt:. by 1)?0, ..
i f,
' generatin, reN-1;y vill pro ide ade uate supplies of electri.:ity in our service cree tbroa;h 19^ A " I i
J.cfo:: An; to 7ne 111u .insting Co yny, eli o ?
- he decisions cede have etased t.one f.o; nve- A re rision in ti.-
-onstruction bu4?t, The y-ef.ous constru: tion tuf.cet let the
.*i"e ye::*t 197') t o 1.*O3 ver 01,7 bil. lion, Prior to the decisions being
-*r:e tna 'rith en additionti one yeer's in.~1stion, the 1980 to 1901. constru: tier.
Ter:tination of the Cour future nucleer huf. e : *r.: c':tiar ted. to he :71.)b ti1* f on. o.' the three others results in s u .1 :: f M e.:.er.si:n o ' t he construction sehe& des clI rens';ra: tics b d7,et for 1?$0 through 1904 esti:utted to t>e socevhat less than
. et
' 31,7 billion. Yh t- company piens to de*. nil its 1960-196h constru: tion progra s Icht J.o t e .
- d The Illu-insting Co:.pany also seid it did rgot expect to ley off ny :ons*.re:-
tion vor :crs
- arrently bui'4'.r.- the Terry Su: leer power Plent.
The e:Mnsion o,' the construction schehic rill perait the Co:peny to
- i constru-t : he pisnt without a prior enticipeted in . case in the nu:ber of vorhers I
end el the t r.ne; time reduce enticipeted overtime, l' t Tne blunineting Co . par.y reported thet it had in /estec epproxire.tely $ CI'i~5 r.illion in preli :.inery work. Tor the four nucleer units thst were terr.inated- ...' .<a. '* '~ ~. O* '" Althoueb the amoMt Tor e.Mitienel chstge cey be ::.sde by contrec. tors. d no . d e n e e cennot' no be estirated, the Co ,pany belie tes their resolution shoul ' C # *'
.% cris1 tecerst impact.
The compeny piens to esh the Public Utilitif 5 nu-Ler o. F M-o ' Or.io /or euthority to ocort i ze t he se cos,*,5 over a suitabic of W : w ce l
- e px3 .ets, none Until tha se e noots co n be re: sonably e st irt.ated en, ,+he J
.ill be re itetci in cernirc:. or rates.
. . : %- a 1
;!M,4!K
- s.* ; 4 M .
l ,
A-9
~
l t In e finn 1 f.or.,ent CEI Tre s i der.t Cir.n t.e i d , "The IMd n s* i ric Cc .; s ny i t (ist;;oir.tec that the foer rit.r.ned nucler.r unitt r:u s t b e t e. ._i ns t e l . Ms.e.er, a ue t elie"e this action to be pru?.en. .nd in the best interests or ogy easto.ers end sharcomers while .e.sinteinin6 our cor.ritt:ent to nucle 6r ;ouct tM oc our
".e rcer f. hare o.' r.e. plants al. ready ven e.long in construction. 1.'he n t he un ce rt a i n*.i e are resolved, ve eqect ouelear power to be e intle alternative in our futu-e plent ccnstruct ton progrt:: "
x t, O e 4 we 1 4 e
y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ILARD
* )
In the Matter of ) Docket Hos. 50-440-A
) 50-346-A OHIO EDISON COMPANY )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Unit 1, Facility Operating ) License No. NPF-58) )
)
Tile CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) i ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY ) (Perry Muclear Power Plant., ) ASLBP No. 91-644-01-A Unit 1,. Facility Operating ) Licence No. NPF-58) )
-(Davis-Basse Nuclear Power ) :
Station, Unit 1, Facility ) Operating License No. NPF-3) ) I e CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing REPLY OF CITY'OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, TO ARGUMENTS OF APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF
.WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES.0F LAW OF THE CASE, RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND LACHES has been served upon the parties or their attorneys on the attached Service List, this 26th day of May,'1992, by hand delivery to those persons located in Wash-ington, D.C. and Maryland and by Federal Express to persons located in other states.
(kA> kH Reuben ~ Gol'Oberg / 4 e l
. ....m_~ . .__ _. _ __- . _ _ ___._ . -._ _ . .
i- 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MM N#' Ill' - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t 92 NW 26 'D3 :49 BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD , J'( ;k . : a v., r
$- J F.t idiI t '
,pl
' E t. l, t i <
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-440-A
) 50-346-A OHIO EDISON COMPANY )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Unit 1, Facility Operating ) ; License No. NPF-58) ) '
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) ILLUMINATING COMPANY )
. Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ASLDP No. 91-644-01-A Unit 1, Facility Operating ) License No. NPF-58) ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ) Station, Unit 1, Facility. ) Operating License No. NPF-3) )
. )
SERVICE LIST Joseph Rutberg, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Office of the General Counsel Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission One White Flint No, Rm. D19 4350 East-West Highway , 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville,.MD - 20852 Anthony J. Alexander, Esq. Janet Urban, Esq. Vice President and General U.S. Department of Justice Counsel Antitrust Division Ohio Edison Company Transportation, Energy and 76 South-Main Street Agriculture Section Akron, OH 44308 7 Room 9816 JCB 555 4th Street, N.W. Gerald Charnoff, Esq. . Washington, D.C. 20001 Deborah B. Charnoff, Esq. Margaret S. Spencer, Esq. David R. Straus, Esq.- Shaw, Pittman, Potts.& Spiegel & McDiarmid Trowbridge 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. 2300 N Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20037 Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 9 w , - . - -, --n- ,,,---,--n- .- - - , , . ,. - . = . . , , s
James P. Murphy, Esq. D. Biard MacGuineas, Esq. Colleen A. Conry, Esq. Volpe, Bookey and Lyons Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 918 16th Street, N.W. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 602 Post Office Box 407 Washington, D.C. 20006
-t Washington, D.C. 20044-0407 Mr. Philip N. Overholt Kenneth L. liegemann, P.E. Office of Nuclear Plant President Performance American Municipal Power-Ohio, Office of Nuclear Energy Inc. U.S. Departinent of Energy, 601 Dempsey Road NE-44 P.O. Box 549 Washington, D.C. 20585 Westerville, 011. 43081 Steven R. Ilom, Esq.
Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel G. Paul Bollwerk, III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board _ One White Flint No, Rm. 15D10 U.S. . Nuclear. Regulatory 11555 Rockville Pike
-Commission, Rm. E402A Rockville, MD 20852 4350 East-West liighway Bethesda, MD 20814 John Bentine, Esq. ,
Chester, lioffman, Wilcox & ' Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Saxbe
- Office of the General Counsel 17 S. Iligh Street
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Columbus, Oli 43215 Commission One White Flint No, Rm. 1 5112 0 11555-Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Administrative Judge Charles Bechhoefer Atomic ~ Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rm._E413 4350 East-West liighway-Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Jw-ge Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board 1920 South Creek-Blvd.
Spruce Creek Fly-In Datona Beach, FL 32124 4 v
,,. ._- . , , . . . _ _ _ - . . , , , , . . . _ . . _ - , _ - _ _ _ -. , , , , - . _ _ . , _ _ _ , _ . . , _ _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ . .}}