ML20155F383

Forwards Tables of Contents & Appendices Inadvertently Omitted from City of Cleveland,Oh 880219 Answer to Util 870918 Application

ML20155F383
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	05/23/1988
From:	Albert K GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & LETHAM, P.C.
To:	Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8806160365
Download: ML20155F383 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i .

a. ea r.e .s GOLDBERG, FIELDM AN & LETH AM, P. C.

4 4 0 0 F I F T E E N T M STip F E T, N. W.

KrustN ootestao waswiNotoN, o, c. aooos A%NOLD FIELOM AN OLEN N W. LETM AM T E L E P H O PJ E CH AN NING D. STmCTH ER, J R. 820 a5 443-8300 sos"v"'*"

IttN N ETM M. ALS E RT May 23, 1988 T c tice,, c .

82021 463-8309

.. n ....

DAVID C. HJ ELM F ELT Cecil O. Thomas Chief, Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 12E4 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Re Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al.

Docket Nos. 50-440A, et al.

Dear Mr. Thomas:

On February 19, 1988, the City of Cleveland, Ohio sub-mitted an answer in opposition to the September 18, 1987 applica-tion filed by Ohio Edison Company in which Edison asks the Com-mission to suspend the antitrust license conditions jn the opera-ting 3icense issued in Docket Nos. 50-440A, et al., for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Cleveland recently discovered that the table of contents and table of appendices prepared by it were inadvertently omitted from its answer. Enclosed are the omitted pages.

Very truly yours,

, fv/Lp 1- '(,f Kenneth M. Albert Attorney for City of Cleveland, Ohio KMA/jat cc: all parties (w/ encl.)

'I 8806160365 880523 PDR ADOCK 05000440 I DCD

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PREAMBLE........................................... 2 II. BACKGROUND......................................... 5 A. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCEEDING............. 5

1. The applications........................... 5

2. The Licensing Board decision............... 7

3. The Appeal Board decision.................. 14

a. The Applicants' anticompetitive activities............................. 15

b. The nexus between the proposed nuclear plants and the anticom-petitive situation..................... 18

c. The antitrust license conditions....... 20

d. Subsequent review...................... 21 B. THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING............... 22 III. THE NRC DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT EDISON'S APPLICATION......................... 24 A. THE NRC HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE 1970 AMENDMENTS PRECLUDE IT FROM MODIFYING ANTITRUST CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF AN OPERATING LICENSE............... 25

1. South Texas................................ 26

2. Florida Power.............................. 35

3. South Texas and Florida Power indicate that the NRC does not have the statutory authority to grant the relief sought by Edison.................................. 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page B. NRC PRECEDENT REGARDING ANTITRUST RE-VIEW IN CONNECTION WITH CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF A PLANT'S OPERATIONS OR OWNER-OWNERSHIP IS INAPPLICABLE IIERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

[

C. THE DICTA IN THE APPEAL BOARD DECISION IN THIS PROCEEDING DOES NOT AND CANNOT SUPPORT POST-OPERATING LICENSE ANTITRUST REVIEW..................................... 48 IV. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY EDISON IS BARRED

'O BY RES JUDICATA OR, ALTERNATIVELY, COL-LATERAL ESTOPPEL.................................... 53 A. RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND THEIR APPLICA-BILITY TO NRC PROCEEDINGS.................. 54 B. APPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN NRC PROCBEDINGS............................ 55 C. APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA TO EDISON'S APPLICATION.................... 59

1. Res iudicata is the applic-able preclusion doctrine here.......... 60

2. Res iudicata bars the arguments made by Edison......................... 63

a. Edison already made its arguments here during the construction per- i mit proceeding..................... 63

b. The events cited by Edison could have been raised during the opera-ting licensing proceeding.......... 66

1. Increased cost of nuclear power.......................... 66 A

.w$K_ s;

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Paqo New statutory require-ments....................... 67

- Regulatory changes.......... 68 Adverse economic condi-tions....................... 69

- Overall costs of Perry Unit 1...................... 71 i 11. The reduction of the CAPCO nuclear prograid................ 75

. iii. Termination of the CAPCO pool..................... 77

3. Alternatively, collateral estoppel is applicable and bars Edison's arguments.............................. 79 V. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY EDISON IS BARRED BY LACHES................................ 82 VI. THE EVENTS CITED BY EDISON DO NOT UNDERMINE THE LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF ANTITRUST LICENSE CONDITIONS................................. 87 A. THE 1970 AMENDMENTS WERE BASED ON FACTORS OTHER THAN THE ANTI-CIPATED COST OF NUCLEAR POWER.................. 89 B. NRC PRECEDENT REFLECTS THE NRC'S RECOGNITION THAT FACTORS OTHER THAN THE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BE THE BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF ANTITRUST LICENSE CONDITIONS................ 99 C. THE EVENTS CITED BY EDISON DO NOT UNDERMINE THE CONCERNS UNDER-LYING THE NRC'S DECISION TO IMPOSE THE ANTITRUST LICENSE CONDITIONS................ 110 VII. CONCLUSION.......................................... 117

- lii -

-- .,,.-,----,-o.-.-- --,.,,-w--- ,~--c -- . - _ _ . . . - . - .- - - c- -- - - --, -----m.

TABLE OF APPENDICES A. The Toledo Edison Company, et al (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, et al.), Docket Nos. 50-440A, et al., "Order Modifying Antitrust License Condition No. 3 of Davis-Besse Unit 1, License No. NPF-3 and Perry Units 1 and 2, CPPR-148, CPPR-149" (June 25, 1979)

(cited on p. 50 of this answer)

B. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Investigation Into The Perry Nuclear Power Station, Case No. 85-521-EL-COI, "Comprehensive Assessments of The Perry Nuclear Power Plant", prepared for the Commission by Touche Ross, The Nielson Wurster Group and Chapman & Assoc 1-ates, p. I-7 (Aug. 1986) (cited on p. 67)

C. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. News Release, "Perry Budget Revised" (March 23, 1983) (cited on p.

69)

D. CAPCO News Release (Jan. 23, 1980) (cited on p. 70)

E. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, "In the Matter of the Application of The Clevoland Electric Illuminating Company for Authority to Amend and Increase Certain of Its Filed Schedules Fixing Rates and Charges for Elec-tric Service", Case No. 86-2025-EL-AIR (Dec. 16, 1987)

(cited on p. 73)

F. Prizinsky, "Avon Lake capacity cut as CEI retires gen-erator", Cleveland Business, p. 3 (Jan. 4, 1988) (cited on p. 74)

G. Ohio Edison Co., Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K for 1978, pp. 37-38 (cited on p. 75)

H. Ohio Edison Co., SEC Form 10-K for 1984, p. 11 (cited on p. 75)

I. "Cost Estimate Revised For Cleveland Electric's Perry-1", Nucleonics Week, p. 7 (Sept. 20, 1984) (cited on p.

75)

J. List of delays announced during construction of CAPCO nuclear plants (cited on p. 76) l K. Prehearing Antitrust Review of Nuclear Powerplants, Hearings Before The Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy, Part

' 1, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 310 (testimony of Philip Sporn) (cited on p. 93)

- iv -

TABLE OF APPENDICES (continued)

L. Centerior Energ/ Corp., "Long-Term Forecast Report - -

Electric -- Submitted To The Public Utilities Commis-sion Of Ohio, Forecast And Power Sitting Division (May 15, 1987)" (cited on p. 115)

M. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 1986 Annual Report (Form 1) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), p. 216 (cited on p. 115)

N. Ohio Edison Co., Response to NRC Regulatory Guide 9.3, item C (May 12, 1981) (cited on p. 115)

O. Ohio Edison Co., 1986 Annual Report (Form 1) filed with FERC, p. 422 (cited on p. 115)

P. Ohio Edison Co., 1985 Form 10-K, pp. 4-7 (cited in App.

J)

-v-

{

1

. _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,