|
|
Line 38: |
Line 38: |
|
| |
|
| I Applicants next contend that Mr. Vogler, Staff Counsel, did not extend 4 | | I Applicants next contend that Mr. Vogler, Staff Counsel, did not extend 4 |
| the City of Cleveland's time for submission to him of the City's letter of | | the City of Cleveland's time for submission to him of the City's letter of April 19, 1973 to Mr. Vogler. Applicants assert that Mr. Vogler had denied the request for an extension of time and that this denial was confirmed by Staff Counsel Mr. Verdisco in a conversation with Mr. Henry, Counsel for Toledo Edison. We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements attributed to Mr. V ardisco. We do know, however, that Mr. Vogler did not deny the City of Cleveland's request for additional time within which to submit its letter. Mr. Vogler advised Mr. Hart of the City's Law Department, when he, by telephone, requested additional time, that he could "take as much time as needed", but that Mr. Vogler could not wait for the City's letter before submitting Staff's recommendations to the Commission. When Mr. |
| ;
| |
| April 19, 1973 to Mr. Vogler. Applicants assert that Mr. Vogler had denied the request for an extension of time and that this denial was confirmed by Staff Counsel Mr. Verdisco in a conversation with Mr. Henry, Counsel for Toledo Edison. We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements attributed to Mr. V ardisco. We do know, however, that Mr. Vogler did not deny the City of Cleveland's request for additional time within which to submit its letter. Mr. Vogler advised Mr. Hart of the City's Law Department, when he, by telephone, requested additional time, that he could "take as much time as needed", but that Mr. Vogler could not wait for the City's letter before submitting Staff's recommendations to the Commission. When Mr. | |
| Goldberg entered the case, Mr. Vogler confirmed this situation to Mr. | | Goldberg entered the case, Mr. Vogler confirmed this situation to Mr. |
| Croldbe rg. All this is, of course, irrelevant to the central issue in the case, but if the tendered Supplemental Answer were to be accepted by the Commission J | | Croldbe rg. All this is, of course, irrelevant to the central issue in the case, but if the tendered Supplemental Answer were to be accepted by the Commission J |
Line 77: |
Line 75: |
| i 1 | | i 1 |
| l | | l |
| ;
| |
| ;
| |
| .i | | .i |
|
| |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20198L1911998-12-21021 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 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 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 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 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 ML20108D9571996-05-0303 May 1996 CEI Response to City of Cleveland 2.206 Petition.Nrc Should Deny Petition ML20097G5731996-02-13013 February 1996 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide 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 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 ML20096E9781996-01-0808 January 1996 Comment on Proposed Suppl to GL 83-11, Licensee Qualification for Performing Safety Analyses in Support of Licensing Actions 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 ML20062M4011993-12-28028 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20046A9561993-07-19019 July 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. ML20056C8951993-07-19019 July 1993 Order Extending Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of LBP-92-32.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 930720 ML20045F8321993-06-22022 June 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Mods to fitness-for-duty Program Requirements.Concurs W/Proposed Rule in Reducing Random Testing Rate of Licensees to 50% & Disagrees W/ Maintaining Random Testing Rate of 100% for Vendors ML20044E2781993-05-13013 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercise from Annual to Biennial ML20044E1561993-04-29029 April 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re Frequency Change of Emergency Planning Exercises ML20127L8781993-01-19019 January 1993 Comment Supporting Comments Submitted by NUMARC Re Draft Reg Guide DG-1020 ML20127A6171993-01-0606 January 1993 Order.* Time within Which Commission May Rule on Petitions for Review of Board Order LBP-92-32,dtd 921118,extended Until 930208.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930106 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 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 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 ML20126A5461992-12-10010 December 1992 Order.* Requests That Answers to Petition for Review Be Filed No Later than 921223.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 921210 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 ML20115E1771992-10-0808 October 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Mgt Directive 8.6,GL 92-05 ML20105C8971992-09-16016 September 1992 Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication Re Generic Ltr Concerning analog-to-digital Replacements Under 10CFR50.59 ML20114A8841992-08-17017 August 1992 Designation of City of Brook Park,Oh of Adopted Portions of Summary Disposition Pleadings.* Brook Park Not Advancing Any Addl Argument or Analysis in Connection W/Designation,Per 920806 Memorandum & Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20099E1821992-07-28028 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 61 Re LLW Shipment Manifest Info & Reporting ML20099A4051992-07-17017 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licensees.Supports Rules ML20101R4831992-07-0808 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Receipt of Byproduct & Special Nuclear Matl 1998-03-27
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101B5841996-01-23023 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ML20079D2161991-06-14014 June 1991 Answer of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co to Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* AEC Has Not Met Burden of Satisfying Regulatory & Common Law Requirements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20077G2551991-05-31031 May 1991 Request for Hearing Re Denial of Application to Amend Perry Operating License to Suspend Antitrust Conditions Insofar as Conditions Apply to Ohio Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20077G2591991-05-31031 May 1991 Request for Hearing Re Denial of Application to Amend Perry & Davis-Besse Operating Licenses to Suspend Antitrust Conditions Insofar as Conditions Apply to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co & Toledo Edison Co.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20077G2741991-05-31031 May 1991 Opposition of City of Cleveland,Ohio to Hearing Re Denial of Applications to Suspend anti-trust License Conditions & Petition to Intervene in Event Hearing Requested & Granted.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20077P6731988-09-13013 September 1988 Comments of City of Cleveland in Opposition to Application for Suspension of OL Antitrust Conditions.Centerior Suspension Application Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20151E2551988-07-15015 July 1988 Opposition of City of Clyde,Oh to Application to Amend Plants OLs to Suspend Antitrust Conditions ML20215D6741987-06-12012 June 1987 Suppl 4 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.Ucs Reply to Responses from NRC & B&W Owners Group.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210C4191987-04-0606 April 1987 Principal Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Petition Should Be Denied ML20205F2911987-03-23023 March 1987 Suppl 3 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Requests That Listed Names Be Added to List in Paragraph 1 of 870210 Petition ML20210C2691987-03-0606 March 1987 Initial Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Request for Immediate Suspension Should Be Summarily Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211F5091987-02-20020 February 1987 Suppl 2 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Lists Names to Be Added to 870210 Petition & Corrects Address for Save Our State from Radwaste ML20210N4861987-02-10010 February 1987 Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W Co.* OLs & CPs for Facilities Should Be Suspended Until Listed NRC Actions Taken ML20211K3101986-11-12012 November 1986 Response to State of Oh 861024 & Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter 861028 10CFR2.206 Petitions Requesting Suspension of Ol.Petitioners Identified No Evidence of Violation of NRC Regulations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211G6821986-10-27027 October 1986 Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter Demanding That NRR Require Util to Show Cause Why OL Should Not Be Suspended or Terminated & That Commission Issue Immediate Restraining Order from 861104 Restart.W/Svc List ML20214T6941986-09-29029 September 1986 Response to Util 860918 Filings Re Facility Onsite Burial of Waste.Licensee Proposed Burial Spot Possess Physical Characteristics Likely to Cause Failure of Disposal Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl 1996-01-23
[Table view] |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5h~B I \
BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the hiatter of )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
)
THE C LEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-346A ILLUMINATING COMPANY )
)
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station )
RESPONSE OF CITY OF C LEVELAND TO MOTION OF APPLICANTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER Applicants have filed a Motion for leave to file a Supplemental Answer.
The City of Cleveland submits that the Motion should be denied. Applicant s '
Supplemental Answer is not addressed to the substance and merits of the City of Cleveland's Supplemental Answer to Staff's Supplementation of its original answer to the City of Cleveland's petition. Instead, the most recent Supple-i mental Answer of the Applicants, that they seek leave to file, is addressed l to matters entirely irrelevant to the important anti-trust review issue.
Applicants first feign confusion on the matter of the identity of the ,
I I
City of Cleveland's counse.' in these proceedings; is it Mr. Ardery or Mr. l i
3 Goldberg, they ask? They know, of course, that it is Mr. Goldberg since, l as Applicants acknowledge, Mr. Ardery " withdrew as counsel for the City by letter dated April 6,1973". [ Applicants' tendered Supplemental Answer, l l
l p- l}
8 0 0 2180 / 75~
M
, . - , - - _ _ . . . - _ . _ . - - . - _ , . - . _ , . _ . , . _ , - - , _ _ . , . -_..,_,I
I Applicants next contend that Mr. Vogler, Staff Counsel, did not extend 4
the City of Cleveland's time for submission to him of the City's letter of April 19, 1973 to Mr. Vogler. Applicants assert that Mr. Vogler had denied the request for an extension of time and that this denial was confirmed by Staff Counsel Mr. Verdisco in a conversation with Mr. Henry, Counsel for Toledo Edison. We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements attributed to Mr. V ardisco. We do know, however, that Mr. Vogler did not deny the City of Cleveland's request for additional time within which to submit its letter. Mr. Vogler advised Mr. Hart of the City's Law Department, when he, by telephone, requested additional time, that he could "take as much time as needed", but that Mr. Vogler could not wait for the City's letter before submitting Staff's recommendations to the Commission. When Mr.
Goldberg entered the case, Mr. Vogler confirmed this situation to Mr.
Croldbe rg. All this is, of course, irrelevant to the central issue in the case, but if the tendered Supplemental Answer were to be accepted by the Commission J
for filing, the record should be set straight.
Finally, Applicants feign confusion with respect to the City of Cleveland's request for relief. But here again there is no confusion. The I
City of Cleveland has clearly stated that it seeks to participate in the Davis-Besse nuclear plant to the extent of 200 MW of its proposed capacity either through ownership participation or purchase of unit power. The City of Cleveland has also stated clearly that in light of the recentiv filed application for the Perry Plant, it would accept 50 MW participation in Davis-Besse provided it could secure participation in the Perry Plant through ownership e --
c-- - - . -, -,r-- -- - -. , y , . , , , - , , -,,e - .- . - - , . -
participation or purchase of unit power of 150 MW. The City of Cleveland has further stated that if there were a bar to ownership participation by reason of a State constitutional provision, ownership participation is avail-able nonetheless through American Municipal Power-Ohio (AMP-0), a non-profit organization (of which the City of Cleveland is a member) that is authorized to act on behalf of its member utilities. There is, therefore, in the words of Applicants "a concrete request from the City of Cleveland" (tendered Supplemental Answer, p. 3) for participation in Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant capacity.
The constant refrain of the Applicants for a specific proposal by the City of Cleveland must be recognized for what it is - a tactic. Applicants thereby would convey the impression that they are prepared to open Davis-Besse to participation to the City of Cleveland's Municipal Electric System, if only a specific proposal therefor were submitted. But, there is never l forthcoming from the Applicants any statement, definitive or otherwise, that the City of Cleveland or other non-CAPCO members are welcome to participate in the nuclear units. Nor is there ever any suggestion by the Applicants of the terms on which participation would be offered although they know full well what is required for effective participation and the terms
! on which such participation is available to the members of CAPCO. What we do find is that Applicants present only a negative face to participation l and raise only objections to participation by the City of Cleveland. Perhaps,
! this is not difficult to understand since, as pointed out in Mr. Goldberg's letter to Mr. Vogler of April 19, 1973, it is Cleveland Electric Illuminating f
1 Company's (CEI) avowed intention to obliterate the City's municipal electric system, with which CEI competes, from the face of the earth. Participation by the City of Cleveland in the nuclear units would not be compatible there-
- with.
Recently, the City of Cleveland requested a meeting with officials of CEI to discuss the City's request for participation in the Perry Plant and membership in CAPCO. CEI's President has advised that the City of Cleveland arrange to meet with Mr. Howley, General Counsel and Vice President of CEI, to discuss these matters. At the same time, the City was put on notice by the President of CEI that "the CAPCO arrangements provide for joint ownership by five private corporations, making up the CAPCO group, of large generating units and transmission lines. Similarly, ownership to the Perry Plant is by the five private corporations, as tenants in common".
! Nonetheless, the City of Cleveland intends to meet with Mr. Howley to pursue the matter of membership in CAPCO and participation in Perry
! while at the same time, as in the Davis-Besse case, presenting its case to this Commission in order that the interests of the City are fully heard and I
protected.
, In preparation for the meeting and the submission of the City's pro-posal to Mr. Howley, he was requested to furnish the City copies of the CAPCO Basic Generating Capacity Agreement and CAPCO Basic Operating Agreement referred to in the September 14, 1967 CAPCO Transmission Facilities Agreement. The City was advised by Mr. Howley on May 3, 1973
_4
, 1
t . s -.
that the agreements "have not been executed at the present time by the CAPCO parties, but are still being negotiated". In the face of the fact that CAPCO has been operating since 1967 without consummation of specific agreements, Applicants' complaint that it has not yet received a specific proposal for participation in Davis-Besse comes with ill grace.
WHEREFORE, for each and all of the reasons aforestated, the Motion of Applicants for Leave to file a Supplemental Answer should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, i
CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO Q
L By k , , b ~ vif A fu n -
Reuben Goldberg Its Attorney
/
- Reuben Goldberg
! 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 2
Washington, DC 20006 I
Tel. : (202) 659-2333 Judge Herbert R. Whiting Robert D. Hart City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Tel. : (216) 694-2000 i Attorneys for City of Cleveland j May 11, 1973 i
i 1
l
.i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-346A 1 ILLUMINATING COMPANY )
)
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station )
Certificate of Service 4
' I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Response of City of Cleveland To Motion Of Applicants For Leave To File Supplemental Answer were served this lith day of May, 1973 upon the following persons by depositing a copy thereof in the Un.: -d States Mail, with first class or air mail postage affixed:
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Antitrust Counsel for Regulatory Staff Antitrust Division U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Department of Justice Washington, DC 20545 Washington, DC 20530 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lesslie Henry, Esq.
Panel Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 300 Madison Avenue i Washington, DC 20545 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
l Managing Attorney, The Cleveland Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Electric Illuminating Company U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 55 Public Square Washington, DC 20545 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 910 - 17th Street, NW ,q Washington, DC 20006 / (,
Reuben Goldberg [
. , . . .. . ,. , _ _ _ . _ - - . , . . _ . . . . _ . . _ . _