ML20149E515

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments Filed on Behalf of Western Reserve Alliance & Senior Citizens Coalition Re Request to Suspend Plant Antitrust License Conditions.Requests to Be Put on Mailing List to Receive Notices & Other Info Re Plant
ML20149E515
Person / Time
Site: Perry FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/03/1988
From: Meissner J
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND, SENIOR CITIZENS ALLIANCE, CLEVELAND, OH, WESTERN RESERVE ALLIANCE
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
A, NUDOCS 8802110085
Download: ML20149E515 (4)


Text

r i ,

the !698! 8ld society of cleveland C. LYO N EL JON E., DIRECTO R n"#"..".'!T.T"" "' '

WT'.'"f: %"""'

February 3, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Chief, Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Reference:

Docket Number 50-440A Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. et a1; Request to Suspend the Perry Nuckear Power Plant Antitrust License Conditions

Dear people:

Enclosed are comeats which we are filing on behalf of our clients, Western Reserve Alliance and the Senior Citizens Coalition.

Please file these comments.

Secondly, please include us on the mailing list for this Decket in the future. We would like to receive all notices as well as Jny other materials that are filed by anyone.

Thirdly, are there any steps that we must take in order to assure that we and our clients receive notification of any further actions in this Docket?

Thank you for your time and attention.

e e 'ncerelyI LEGAL ASSISTANT: , .

J (,pffj 4 Carol Eisenstat ose F. eissner Att e . Law Lega Cou sel for Western Res rye Alliance and Senior Citi ens Coalition 8802110005 080203 0 DR ADOCK 050 I l

~

.9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In Re: Cleveland Electric Illuminating )

Co., et al; . Request to Suspend ) Docket No. 50-440A the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Antitrsu License Conditions COMMENTS J

Now Cones the Western Reserve Alliance and the Senior Citizens Coalition who, through their attorney Joseph P. Meissner, file the following comments.

l. Both organizations have members who receive electricity from the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. Both also have rembers who receive electricity from companies other than CEI.

1

2. Both organizations and their members have been involved

! in various cases and other regulatory matters which have involved the Ohio Edison Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, particularly on issues related to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

3. Both organizations are aware of the request by the Ohio

s . , .

g ..

x s

+

. +

' '~

., p .

Edison Company to suspend the Perry NucNar Power Plant AntitrustJ l

,, v License Conditions. Both organizations are opposed to any such's f'* ,

m , -

7 changes on the following grounds. 7 ,' /.

4. Ohio Edison has known about these conditions for quite~some time, ever since these were first imposed. It would seem that the company should have made this filing quite some time ago.. Thus, if r .> .

.for no other reason, the filing should be rejected because of its lateness. -

5. Paradoxically, the request by Ohio Edison seems prematuro.

The Perry Nuclear Power Plant has only been in conimercial 0;ieration for a few months. It seems quite' sudden for the company to $e filing its request based upon information that seems speculative since the actual costs for Perry for its first year of operation are still in the future. '

6. For the past several years, the U.S. economy has been moving in' the direction of more competition and the free market model.

Our government has stated that the conditiohr ,s capitalism are needed ,

to insure sustained and substantial econom'c . ogress in this country.

Of course, the area of, utility regulation can only approximate the free market. But it would seem that granting Ohio Edison's request would be a step backward in terms of our government's current economic policies. Certainly, if this request is granted, there is the possibility that Ohio Edison will be less stimulated to behave in an economic and competitive manner. Competition id intended to benefit the companies of a given industry; the customers of 'those - -

9 d

A

ca. .

y.. -

companies, and the American ' economy as a whole. Until Ohio Edison can show that the granting of its request will benefit the company itself, the customers of the company, the customers of other utility .

companies that might be affected by the suspension of the present conditions, and the general economy of this Ohio area, the Commission should turn down Ohio Edison's request.

7. This is an extremely crucial issue, not only for Ohio Edison, but also for other utility companies and for the Ohio economic area. If the Commission is considering granting Ohio Edison's request, then the Western Reserve Alliance and the Senior Citizens Coalition request that full public hearings be held in this case.

Such' hearings should be held at times and places that would be convenient to all involved, including the public. Furthermore, adequate notice should be provided for the public.

R ectfully submitted, s LEGAL ASSISTANT:

J0 EPH P. MEVaSNER Carol Eisenstat A torney at Law leveland Legal Aid ociety 1223 West 6th Stree Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Tele: 1-216-687-1900 Legal Counsel for:

Western Reserve Alliance and Senior Citi ens Coalition

/

.,. --