|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212J1581999-09-30030 September 1999 Order Approving Transfer of License & Conforming Agreement. Orders That License Transfer Approved,Subj to Listed Conditions ML20205D4901999-02-22022 February 1999 Transcript of 990222 Informal Public Hearing on 10CFR2.206 Petition in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-105.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198L1911998-12-21021 December 1998 Submits Comments Re Proposed Rule to Revise 10CFR50.59, Changes,Tests & Experiments ML20198L1361998-12-15015 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint of NPP ML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20155F4561998-08-26026 August 1998 Demand for Info Re False Info Allegedly Provided by Wh Clark to Two NRC Licensees.Nrc Considering Whether Individual Should Be Prohibited from Working in NRC-licensed Activities for Period of 5 Yrs ML20236V5261998-07-20020 July 1998 Computer Access & Operating Agreement Between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & NRC PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal1998-05-21021 May 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal ML20216B5111998-04-0909 April 1998 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty.Denies Request for Remission of Violation C,Ea 97-430 & Orders Licensee to Pay Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000 within Next 30 Days PY-CEI-NRR-2269, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective1998-04-0303 April 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.NRC Should Demonstrate That Not Only Is Code Process Flawed,But That Proposed Change Justified from Cost Versus Safety Protective ML20217J2161998-03-27027 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal ML20217F5361998-03-25025 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1071, Std Format & Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept ML20217J0661998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Dqe, Inc & Allegheny Power System,Inc ML20216G3821998-03-11011 March 1998 Order Approving Application Re Merger Agreement Between Duquesne Light Co & Allegheny Power Systems,Inc ML20199J4651998-01-22022 January 1998 Comment Opposing Draft RG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in Npps. RG Unnecessary Based on Use of EPRI Guideline & Excellent Past History of Commercial Grade Items at DBNPS ML20198P9311997-11-0707 November 1997 Comments of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc.NRC Should Require Allegheny Power Sys,Inc to Affirm That Capco Antitrust License Conditions Will Be Followed ML20148M6421997-06-17017 June 1997 Comment on Proposed NRC Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1 Re Control Rod Insertion Problems.Nrc Should Review Info Provided in Licensee 970130 Submittal & Remove Statements of Applicability to B&W Reactors from Suppl Before Final Form ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20133B6941996-12-18018 December 1996 Submits Ordinance 850-96 Re Approval of Merger of Centerior & Oh Edison Into Firstenergy ML20135F4731996-12-0606 December 1996 Memorandum & Order CLI-96-13.* Commission Reverses & Vacates ASLB LBP-95-17 Which Granted Motion for Summary Disposition Submitted by Ocre & Hiatt.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961206 ML20132A8461996-12-0202 December 1996 Resolution 20-1996 Supporting Merger of Ohio Edison & Centerior Corp Under New Holding Company Called Firstenergy ML20134M6191996-10-28028 October 1996 Proclamation of Support by City of Sandusky,Oh Re Merger of Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corp ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20108B7571996-04-26026 April 1996 Licensee Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* Recommends That Commission Reverse Board Memorandum & Order Issued 951004.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List PY-CEI-NRR-2034, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl1996-03-11011 March 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Licensed Radioactive Matl ML20097G5731996-02-13013 February 1996 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide ML20097B8911996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement or in Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20096E9781996-01-0808 January 1996 Comment on Proposed Suppl to GL 83-11, Licensee Qualification for Performing Safety Analyses in Support of Licensing Actions ML20096E2471996-01-0303 January 1996 Comment on PRM 50-64 Re Stockpiling Ki for Use as Thyroid Protectant in Event of Nuclear Accident.Supports Distribution of Ki to Public ML20094N1951995-11-17017 November 1995 Oh Edison Application for License Transfer in Connection W/ Sale & Related Transactions ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20087J3611995-08-14014 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy ML20086M8241995-06-29029 June 1995 Comment on Proposed Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style ML20083M8701995-05-10010 May 1995 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactor ML20081C8841995-03-0303 March 1995 Comment Re NRC Proposed Generic Communication Suppl 5 to GL 88-20, IPEEE for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities. Util Ack NRC Efforts to Reduce Scope of GL 88-20,but Believes That Proposed Changes Still Overly Restrictive ML20077M5831995-01-0404 January 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20072K3611994-08-16016 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Plans for Storage of Sf at Davis Besse NPP ML20072K4411994-08-14014 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Dry Storage of Nuclear Waste at Facility in Toledo,Oh ML20072K5261994-08-12012 August 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Addition of Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage Sys to List of Approved Sf Storage Casks ML20072B1581994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR72 on List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks:Addition ML20029D8221994-04-19019 April 1994 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Codes & Stds for Nuclear Power Plants;Subsection IWE & Subsection Iwl ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20064N6341994-03-21021 March 1994 Affidavit of RW Schrauder in Support of Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.W/Certificate of Svc 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198D9711998-11-0909 November 1998 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 Requesting That Facility Be Immediately Shut Down & OL Be Suspended or Modified Until Such Time That Facility Design & Licensing Bases Properly Updated to Permit Operation with Failed Fuel Assemblies ML20112J8281996-06-18018 June 1996 Licensee Reply Brief on Review of Licensing Board Decision LBP-95-17.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20112D8721996-05-29029 May 1996 Intervenor Brief in Support of Commission Affirmation of LBP-95-17.* Commission Should Affirm Licensing Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097B8721996-01-23023 January 1996 Petition of City of Cleveland,Oh for Expedited Issuance of Nov,Enforcement of License Conditions & Imposition of Appropriate Fines,Per 10CFR2.201,2.202,2.205 & 2.206 ML20101B5841996-01-23023 January 1996 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Partial Summary Judgement Or,In Alternative,For Severance of Issue & Expedited Hearing Procedures.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094M5941995-11-15015 November 1995 Intervenors Answer to Licensees Petition for Review.* Intervenor Conclude That Commission Should Not Review Board Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J9141995-11-0707 November 1995 Petition for Review.* Submits That Commission Review of Board Decision Appropriate Under 10CFR2.786. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20093N9491995-10-23023 October 1995 Licensee Request for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.* Requests That Commission Grant Extension Until 951107 of Deadline for Filing Petition for Review. W/Certificate of Svc ML20065L3571994-04-0505 April 1994 Intervenors Answer to NRC Staff Response to Intervenors Motion for Summary Disposition & Licensees Cross Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges Board to Deny Licensee Cross Motion.W/Certificate of Svc ML20064N6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Licensee Cross Motion for Summary Disposition & Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Motion for Summary Disposition.* Moves for Decision in Licensee Favor on Ocre Contention ML20063L4621994-02-0707 February 1994 Motion for Summary Disposition.* Intervenors Request That Board Grant Summary Disposition Favorably & Issue Declaratory Relief by Finding Challenged Portion of Amend 45 to Be in Violation of Aea.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058P4451993-12-13013 December 1993 Licensee Answer to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B0701993-10-12012 October 1993 Motion to Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue.* Requests That Licensing Board Defer Consideration of Remanded Issue Pending Outcome of Commission Review of 2.206 Process.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20126D5171992-12-23023 December 1992 City of Brook Park Answer to Petitions for Review.* Opposes Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Based on Fact That ASLB Decision in proceeding,LBP-92-32,adequately Addressed Issues Raised in Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5461992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Commission Should Deny City of Cleveland Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5781992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of American Municipal Power-OH,Inc in Opposition to Petitions for Review of Oh Edison Co & Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co/Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D5801992-12-23023 December 1992 NRC Staff Answer in Response to Petitions for Review Filed by Oh Edison Co,Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co,Toledo Edison Co & City of Cleveland.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20126F6501992-12-23023 December 1992 Answer of City of Cleveland,Oh,Intervenor,In Opposition to Petitions for Review of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* Petitioners Petitions for Review Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126D4761992-12-22022 December 1992 Alabama Electric Cooperative Answer to Applicants Petitions for Review.* Applicants 921208 Petitions for Review Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5751992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review LBP-92-32, 921118 Board Decision in Proceeding.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underpinning of Statute.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126A5871992-12-0808 December 1992 Petition for Review.* Requests That NRC Review ASLB 921118 decision,LBP-92-32.Board Erroneously Interpreted Section 105(c) of AEA by Ignoring Fundamental Underplanning of Statute.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A7651992-11-18018 November 1992 Limited Petition for Review of City of Cleveland,Oh of 921118 Decision of Aslb.* City of Cleveland Petition for Review Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4671992-11-16016 November 1992 Licensee Response to Lake County Commissioners 10CFR2.206 Petition.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116E7941992-09-29029 September 1992 Petition for Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Const of Low Level Radwaste at Perry Plant.* Requests Public Hearing Be Held Prior to Const of Storage Site & Const Should Be Suspended Until NRC or Util Produces EIS on Risks ML20101N5131992-07-0808 July 1992 City of Cleveland Opposition to Applicant Request That Licensing Board Disregard Certain Arguments of City of Cleveland Counsel in Oral Argument.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20101N6401992-07-0707 July 1992 Reply by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Applicant Request That Board Disregard Factual Issues.* Applicant Requests Board Disregard Irrelevant Assertions by All Parties.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101K2101992-06-29029 June 1992 Applicants Request That Licensing Board Disregard Factual Issues Discussed During Oral Argument.* Foregoing Issues Represent Factual Issues Which Board Should Disregard in Disposition of Phase One of Case.W/Certificate of Svc ML20098D5181992-05-26026 May 1992 Reply of City of Cleveland,Oh to Arguments of Applicants & NRC Staff W/Respect to Issues of Law of Case,Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel & Laches.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090F4261992-03-31031 March 1992 Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor,City of Cleveland,Oh & Answer in Opposition to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* City of Cleveland,Oh & Applicant Motions Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094K3791992-03-18018 March 1992 Applicants Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule.* Applicants Request That Motion to Amend Summary Disposition Schedule Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094J2891992-03-0909 March 1992 Response of DOJ to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.* Urges ASLB to Resolve Bedrock Legal Issue in Negative & Concludes That Commission Possess Legal Authority to Retain License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091N1241992-01-24024 January 1992 Applicants Answer to Cleveland Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Applicants Have No Objection to Request for Opportunity to Submit Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087E7821992-01-16016 January 1992 Motion to Amend Schedule for Summary Disposition Motions.* Cleveland Requests That Motion Be Granted & 911114 Order Establishing Schedule for Motions for Summary Disposition Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086U5371992-01-0606 January 1992 Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Requests That Board Grant Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition Due to Lack of NRC Authority to Retain Antitrust License Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J4821991-12-31031 December 1991 Reply Brief of City of Cleveland,Oh in Support of Notice of Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order Granting Request for Hearing.* Appeal Should Be Granted,Ref to Board Revoked & Applications Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9231991-12-27027 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply & Reply to Applicants Answer to City Motion for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q3001991-12-24024 December 1991 Applicant Answer to Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision. * W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H7161991-12-19019 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Commission Revocation of Referral to ASLB & for Adoption of 910424 Decision as Commission Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N4601991-12-17017 December 1991 Licensees Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc & SL Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Determines That Intervenor Failed to Demonstrate Interest in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20086J4741991-12-0909 December 1991 Motion of City of Cleveland,Oh for Leave to File Reply Brief.* Motion to File Reply Should Be Granted for Listed Reasons ML20086G4001991-11-26026 November 1991 Ohio Edison Co Motion for Reconsideration.* Util Respectfully Requests That NRC Vacate CLI-91-15 & Direct Forthwith Answer to Licensee Motion to Compel.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079Q0301991-11-0606 November 1991 Oec Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Respond to Interrogatories.* Util Moves Board to Compel NRC to Respond Completely,Explicitly & Properly to Licensee Interrogatories.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B5841991-09-0606 September 1991 Licensee Answer to Oh Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc & SL Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Has Shown No Interest in Proceeding.W/Notice of Appearance,Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20076D0481991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric & Toledo Edison to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio for Leave to Intervene.* Utils Believe That 910703 Petition Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1611991-07-18018 July 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc (AMP-Ohio) for Leave to Intervene.* Util Does Not Object to Admission of AMP-Ohio as Intervenor on Basis of Status as Beneficiary.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081K8961991-06-20020 June 1991 Alabama Electric Cooperative Reply to Oppositions Filed to Petition to Intervene.* Informs of Util Intention to Assure Vindication of Proper Legal Principle.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2211991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland, Oh to Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20079D2391991-06-17017 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio,To Hearing W/Respect to Denial of Applications to Suspend Antitrust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene.* ML20079D2151991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Ohio Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc Petition for Leave to Interveve Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1998-11-09
[Table view] |
Text
_
f
/5017 PCCMEILD i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MEC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 32 JLN 29 PS :31 BEFCRE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
OHIO EDISON COHPANY ) Docket No. 50-440-A
) 50-346-A (Party Nuclear ?over Plant, Unit 1, )
-Facility Operating License ) (Suspension of No. NPF-38) ) Antitrust Conditions)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 91-644-01-A THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1, Facility Operating )
License No. NPF-58) )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1, Facility Operating License )
No. NPF-3) )
)
APPLICANTS' REQUEST THAT THE LICENSING BOARD DISREGARD FACTUAL ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING THE ORAL ARGLHENT l
Cn June 10, 1992 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board") convened an oral argument regarding the pending motions for summary disposition on the stipulated bedrock legal issue and the affirmative defense issues raised by the City of Cleveland.1#
1/ Previously, all parties and the Board agreed that the first phase of this proceeding would address only the disposition of the following legal issues:
i rootnote continued on next page.
- 9207020141 920629 PDR ADOCK 05000346 M PDR (yb 0
t 1
At the conclusion of the June _10, 1992 oral argument, and'subse-quently in its June 12, 1992. Memorandum and order, the Board pro-vided all parties with "an opportunity to identify any signifi-cant factual assertions made by counsel during the argument that should not be considered by the Board in the context of resolving the ' bedrock' legal issue." June 12, 1992 Order at 1; see also Transcript at 437-46. Accordingly, Applicants submit this request.
The Board's Memorandum and Order properly redirects focus to
,a metion for summary disposi-the posture of the present case -
tion. All of the parties have agreed that the bedrock legal issue and Cleveland's affirmative defense claims are ripe for Footnote continued from previous page.
i 1. Is the Commission without authority as a mat-
, ter of law under Section 105 of the Atomic l Energy Act to retain antitrust license condi- f tions contained in an operating license if it finds that the actual ost of electricity from the licensed nuclear power plant is higher than the cost of electricity from i
alternative sources, all as appropriately measured and compared?
i
- Are the Applicants' requests for suspension l of the antitrust license conditions barred by l res judicata, or collateral estoppel, or i laches, or the-law of the case?
l See Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, j Unit 1) CLI-91-15, 34 N.R.C. 269 (Nov. 20, 1991),
! amended by Order (Nov. 21, 1991).
- - - -.-. - - _- . -- =- . . . . . .- .- , .- - -.
t i
resolution. This necessarily means that there are no disputed issues of fact needed for resolution of Phase One of this case.
Notwithstanding the posture of the case, factual issues have been raised that are irrelevant for resolution of the pending motion for summary disposition of the cost' issue "as a matter of lav,"
although some of these factual matters may be appropriate for resolution-in the subsequent phase of the proceeding concecning the actual cost of Perry and Davis-Besse power and their -
alternatives. !
-At ordingly, the followina fc' ml issues raised at the oral argumer.t should be disregarded by !..e Board in resolving Phase One of this proceeding:
2/
.' The determination by certain parties, particularly AMP-0, to divert the case from the pending legal issues to extraneous issues of fact was similarly evident in the briefs. See, e.g., Brief of American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. in Oppo-sition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition, March 9, 1992, at 3 n.4, 5, 18-22, 30 n.19; but see Applicants' Reply to Opposi-tion Cross-Motion for' Summary Disposition and Responses to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition, May 7, 1992, at-71-80. While Applicants felt-obliged to challenge some of these misstatements of fact in their Reply Brief, they did so after first reaffirming their position that these diver-sionary allegations were irrelevant to the proper resolution of Phase One of this case. Id. at 71. ,
- -.. z--. ,
r -
p
-. g .. _ _ _ . _ _._ . _ . - _. _ _ _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _.. _
- 1. Actual Cost of Nuclear Power and i__ts Alternatives Several times at the oral argument, the parties addressed the actual or projected cost of nuclear power and the appropriate i
components of cost. These f actual matters will become relevant if the Applicants' motion for summary disposition is granted and an evidentiary hearing takes place on the cost issue. But the actual cost of nuclear power is not relevant to the legal deter-mination of whether a high cost nuclear plant can " create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust' laws," the
, bedrock legal issue here.
Accordingly, the Board should disregard the following: *
(i) discussion between-the Board and Mr. Murphy concerning which costs should be measured (Transcript at 322 in. 21 to 324 in.
13); (ii) Mr. Straus' extended commentary, including quotations from various tources, of the Applicants' alleged extra record statements concerning the future costs of nuclear power and its alternatives (Transcript at 388 In. 4 :n 391 In. 12); (iii) dis-cussion between Ms. - Charnof f and the c, .cd concerning - the rela-tive cost of Ohio Edison's nuclear power (Transcript at 409 In.
-11 to 410 in, 3); and (iv) Mr. Straus' assertions about the com-ponents of-transmission costs (Transcript at 423 In. 1 to 424 In.
10).
,4-...--+. .v.-v ,, -.-%, ,-.--.-,--,,,v-,-,r.m.,- -,-,-wwe r-,--wy. . , - - -, &-~. ,,-,v.-. ,% ,,.-.-_..,3---,-o.., .,.-w,-se , - g- --- - - -
t
- ~
q.
- 2. Existing Relationships between --'
Applicants and the Opposition At the oralt argunent, the parties addressed factual issues '
concerning the existing commercial relationships among the par-ties. These relationships are not relevant i n determining the bedrock legal issue, since they do not bear.on-the Commission's authority under Section 105(c) of.the Act to continue to impose license conditions when a nuclear power plant i s high cost. The Board should therefore disregard: (i) Mr. Goldberg's alleged l
-" factual" description of transmission access around Cleveland (Transcript at 374 In. 18-to 376 in. 9); (ii) Ms. Charnoff's and '
Mr. Straus' discussion of AMP-O's purchases from Ohio Edison and, ,
particularly, Mr. Straus' allegation that Ohio Edison has refused to offer AMP-O the opportunity to buy short-term power (Tran-script at 418 in. 20 to 420 in. 15); and (iii) Mr. Straus' state-ments concerning AMP-O's efforts to amend the Ohio constitution (Transcript at 392 in, 11 to 393 in. 11).
Similarly, the parties addressed various aspects of the wheeling and other license conditions currently imposed on the Applicants, Wheeling, and its burden, may be-relevant as one indicia that the antitrust conditions have some practical impact and that the bedrock legal issue presents an actual case or con-troversy. But speculation by the parties concerning the impact 4
, w. -
,e-+y-yw,,, - ~ , . . ,,,m,,~s.-,,en,-n,,%.,._-, --_,,_.~m_.r.ry,,-%,,.,....,,---,,._,-.y.,._,r.,,,,,,,,,,m., . -, . , , . - . ,
I E
of_ removal of the conditions and the adverse impact on Applicants ;
of their continued imposition are issues of fact which are not i relevant to deternining the Commission's authority, as l
a matter of law, to continue to inpose the license conditions. Accord- '
ingly, the Board should disregard: (i) the discussion between Mr.
Murphy and the-Board.regarding the economic burden of the wheel-ing requirements upon the Applicants (Transcript at 313 in. 8 to 316 In. 8); (ii) the discussion between Ms. Charnoff and the Board addressing the inclusion of embedded costs in wheeling fees (Transcript at 411 in. 20 to 412 In. 4); and (iii) Mr. Straut' comments describing the alleged components of wheeling fees (Transcript at 423 in. 6 to in. 24).
- 3. Administrative Costs The Board should disregard the comments by Mr. Hom-concern-ing any administrative costs NRC might incur in reviewing the relative cost of nuclear power and its alternatives (Transcript
- at 429 In. 21 to 432 In. 10). These-factual speculations are not relevant-to resolving the legal question of whether NRC is with-out authority, as a matter of law, to impose antitrust license conditions on-a relatively high-cost nuclear facility.
4 a
In summary, the foregoing issues all represent factual issues which the Board should disregard . its disposition of Phase One of this case.
Respectfully submitted, k 4 James P. Murphy Gerald Charnoff /* fr Colleen Conry Deborah B. Charnoff Mark A. Singley
- SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
Washington, D.C. 20044 TROWBRIDGE (202) 626-6600 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 Counsel for The Cleveland (202) 663-8000 Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison Company Counsel for Ohio Edison Company Dated: June 29, 1992
) t e l ;i l'
) UNITED STATES OF AMEAICA J >w l-NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCHAISSION
'92 JJ: 29 P5 01 BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i ,,
)
In the Matter of )
)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-440-A
, ) 50-346-A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, )
Facility Operating License )
No. NPF-58) ) (Suspension of -
' ) Antitrust Conditions)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 91-644-01-A THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY )
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, )
Facility Operating License )
No. NTl-58) )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1, Facility Operating License )
No. NPF-3) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of June, 1992, a copy of the foregoitig Applicants' Request that the Licensing Board Dis- "
regard Factual Issues Discussed During tua Oral Argument was B
served by hsnd delivery to those pa:'..es indicated by asterisk
(*) below and by Federal Etctess to all other parties:
Samuel J. Chilk g Secretary of the Cot.aission U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Co nnission
'1555 Rockville Pike
.kville, Maryland 20852
- t' 3rles Bechhcafer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coraission 4350 Tss: West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesca, Maryland 20814
i G. Paul Bollverk, 111 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1920 South Creek Boulevard Spruce Creek Fly-In Daytona Beach, Florida 32124
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Steven R. Hom, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
Janet Urban, Esq.
Transportation, Energy and Agriculture Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice Judictary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
6 June W. Weiner, Esq.,
Chief Assistant Director of Law William M. Ondrey Gruber, Esq.,
Assistant Director of Law William T. Zigli, Esq.
Assistant Director of Lav City Hall, Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Channing D. S t ro . .te r , J r . , Esq .
Goldberg, Fieldman & Letham, P.C.
1100 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
- D. Biard MacGuineas, Esq.
Volpe, Boskey and Lyons 918 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Philip N. Overholt Office of Nuclear Plant Performance Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of E'ergy, NE-4.
19901 Germantown Road, Room E-478 Germantown, Maryland 20585 Kenneth L. Hegemann, P.E.
President American Municipal Pover-Ohio, :nc.
601 Dempsey Road P.O. Box 539 Westerville, Ohio 43081
Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington. D.C, 20005-4798 Anthony J. Alexander, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel Ohio Edison Company 75 South Main Street 19th Floor Akron,LOhio 44308 l
l l
l
i Gregg D. Ottinger, Esq.
John P. Coyle, Esq. -
Duncan & Allen Suite 300 1575 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1173 David A. Lambros, Esq.
Lav Director City of Brook Park '
6161 Engic Road Brook Park, Ohio 44142
[M '
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
/ (/
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000
._ . _ . - . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ , . . _ . _ . _ - . . _ . . _ _ ~ . . _ _ . . - - - . . _ _ _