ML19254E418
| ML19254E418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1979 |
| From: | Urban J JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010067 | |
| Download: ML19254E418 (20) | |
Text
-
_
'
, 1M PUBLIC DOCUM"y , ug,,
/> ,
/4' ./* .9 1 6 3, -y 1 UNITED STA*eS OF AMERICA hf f'f,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t, jd,. , ;l
'
- ' Y , t - ,
~/)% / .-
) %]gy'2 '
In the Matter of ) -
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) NRC Dkt. No. 50-346A COMPANY )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) NRC Dkt. Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units )
1& 2) )
)
COMMENTS OF THE DEPAPTMENT OF JUSTICE
'
The United States Department of Justice (" Department")
files these comments in response to the August 6, 1979 request by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") that any interested party file comments concerning whether an appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") by the Cleve-land Electric Iller ;nating Company ("CEI") of an Order of a FERC Administrative Law Judge ("ALC~' modifying a tariff filed
.
filed by CEI will be rerdered moot if the NRC issues an order requiring CEI to file a tariff at FERC similar to the tariff
,
.
which gave rise to the pending appeal at FERC.
For the reasons set forth below, the Department believes that the issuance of an order by the NRC requiring CEI to file a tariff at PERC would not, as a matter of law, render
_
me CEI's present appeal at FERC, and, alternatively, even if mootness did occur as a result of the issuance of such an
,_ 1283 133
--, c u c .:-
)
.
7 911010 DQ
_ _.
.. , . -
.
order by the NRC, the NRC cannot F' precluded from discharg-ing its statutory obligation to issue such an order if it determines that CEI has willfully violated its license conditions.
History of the Proceeding
.
On January 6, 1977, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") issued its Initial Decision in The Toledo Edispn Comoany, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-346A, 50-500A, 50-501A, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comoany, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440A, 50-441A, 5 N.R.C. 133 (1977) (" Perry pro-ceeding").
The Licensing Board found that the issuance of unconditioned licenses for the five nuclear units which were the subject of that proceeding "would both create and maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and the policies underlying those laws." Id . a t 13 3 .
CEI was one of the Applicants for the licenses. Accord-ingly, the Licensing Board ordered that ten conditions attach to the requested licenses. Among those conditions was condition 3, which reads:
- 3. 5pplicants shall engage in wheeling for and at the request of other entities in the CCCT: 1/
i/ Within the context of the NRC proceeding the CCCT re- -
ferred to the Combined CAPCO Companies Territories.
__
1709 v a
-
.
1283 034 J
. . . .
, ,
,
.
- 1) of electric energy from delivery points of Applicants to the entity (ies); and,
- 2) of power generated by or available to the other entity, as a result of its ownership or entitlements in generating facilities, to delivery points of Applicants --
designated by the other entity.
Such wheeling services shall be available with respect to any unused capacity on the transmission lines of Applicants, the use of which will not jeopardize Applicants' system. In the event Applicants must reduce wheeling services to other entities due to lack of capacity, such reduction shall not be effective until reductions of at .
least 5% have been made in transmission capacity allocations to other Applicants in these proceedings and thereafter shall be made in proportion to reuuc-tions imposed upon other Applicants in this proceeding.
Applicants shall make reasonable pro-visions for disclosed transmission re-quirements of other entities in the CCCT in planning future transmissior either
-individually or with the CAPCO grouping.
By " disclosed" is meant the giving of reasonable advance notification of future requirements by entities utilizing wheel-ing services to be made available by Applicants. (Footnote added.)
On January 14, 1977, Applicants moved to stay imposition of the license conditions pending appeal. The motion to
. .
stay was denied by the Licensing Board on February 3, 1977, and by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on March 23, 1977.
On April 22, 1977, the operating license for Davis-
_
Besse Unit 1 was issued with the antitrust conditions attached.
1283 335
.
! . . . .
. , ,
on May 3, 1977, the construction permit for the Perry Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 and 2, was issued with the antitrust conditions attached.
On January 6, 1978, CEI filed a transmission tariff with the FERC. On June 28, 1978, after a request by the
..
City of Cleveland (" City") that was supported by the Depart-ment, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to CEI stating that "at least as of CEI's submittal of the January 27, 1978, transmission schedule to [FERC) a continuing refusal to wheel in accordance with the license conditions began to occur." The Notic of Violation cited five conditions contained in CEI's filed tariff which individually cnd collectively violated license condition 3, and which amount-ed to a refusal to wheel. 2/ On April 27, 1979, a FERC Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision which found that the CEI transmission tariff filed January 27, 1978, violated the Federal Power Act ("FPA") because it 2/ The conditions described by the NRC Staff in Appendix A to the Notice of Violation were: 1) agreeing to provide wheeling services only until the date of the final decision of the NRC in the Perry proceeding; 2) providing that CEI is the sole judge as to whether it has the capacity to make available wheeling services; 3) conditioning the .
wheeling sdrvices in a manaer which allows CEI to preempt unused transmission capacity; 4) requiring that the iinimom wheeling transaction occur for a period of no less tnan 12 months; and 5) proposing wheeling services upon the condi-tion that CEI file separate supplemental wheeling schedules for each wheeling transaction.
~
1283 036
.
.
, ,
,
was " unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory" (Initial Decision at 56). Accordingly, the ALJ ordered CEI to file the revi. sed tariff described in the Initial Decision. The ALJ specifically declined to rule on whether "CEI is in compljance with the NRC license conditions or the anzitrust
_.
laws of this country," because "[t] he NRC and other duly constituted bodies will be the judges of that." (Initial Decision at 6). 3/ On June 25, 1979 the NRC issued an Order Modifying Antitrust License Condition No. 3 of Davis-Besse
-
Unit 1, License No. NPF-3 and Perry Units 1 and 2, CPPR-148,
.. g 3 CPPR-149 (" Order"). The Order amends ceils licenses and
$
construction permits to require CEI to file with FERC the tariff ordered by the FERC ALJ as amended by the NRC.4/
By its terms the Order was to take effect immediately.
On August 2, 1979 CEI wrote to the NRC requesting that the Order be modified so as to beco$.e effective twenty-five days after the final inion,and order of the f
FERC in the proceeding concerning CEI's wheeling tariff.
&
In support of its request CEI argued:
The transmission service tariff in ques-tion is currently the subject of an adminis-
. .
3/ The tariff required by FERC does not bring CEI into compliance with the NRC license conditions because it does not recuire CEI to reduce transmission service to the other applicant companies prior & reducing such service to nort-Applicant entities and and does not require CEI to con-sider disclosed transmission needs of non-Applicant entities in its future planning. -
4/ The NRC amendments are intended to, bring CEI into Compliance with Licensa Condition 3. p l28j ]j/
..
. .
,
trative apeal before FERC in Docket' No.
ER 78-194. If CEI is required to file pre-maturely with FERC an amended tariff pur-suant to the Order here, a number of contested will be mooted by that filing. As a consequence, CEI'will be unfairly deprived of a meaningful oppor' - .,1 to exercise both its appeal rights a' FEt . LM 'ts hearing rights before the N : lear 'tgu. atory Commission prior to the filing of a transmissin service tariff which it -
le~'tmately beJieves to be objectionable in
.eral important respects.
On August 6, 1979 the NRC issued an Order which modified its June 25, 1979 Order by suspending its "immediately effective" as act pending receipt and review of Comments
'by interested
- persons on CEI's mootness cententions, s i
On September 6, 1979 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 1
Appeal Board of the NRC issued its Decision in the Perry proceeding. That Decision affirmed license condition 3 in i ts e n,'t i r e ty .
.
CEI argues that if it files the NRC ordered tariff with I
FERC its appeal of the FERC ALJ's decision will be mooted.
6 Understandably, CEI has failed to furnish the NRC with any support for this demonstrably erroneous proposition.
Pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA 16 U.S.C. S 824d, every rate and charge, and all rules and regulations pertain-ing to such a rate or charge, within the jurisdiction of the FERC must be filed with the FERC. If a filed rate is i
. challenged it may be suspended for a period of not more than
_
l; 1283 ]38 l
. .
five months pending a hearing to determine whether the rate is just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. If a decision has not been reached within the five month period the rate will become effective, subject to refund in the case of rate changes.
"
Once a rate has gone into effect, even if a decision on that rata is pending, a filing ccmpany may file a subsequent rate to take effect on a certain date. 18 C.F.R. S 35.13. 5/
The first rate becomes " locked in" for that period of time between its effective date and the date on which the ,
'se co nd * 'f il ed ~ rate schedule is to take effect. The issue 5 s
for decision in the first proceeding then'becomes whether the first rate schedule is valid for the " locked in" period.
The first proceeding does not become moot simply because i
the subject rate schedule has been superseded. If a third rate schedule is filed, the second rate becomes " locked in" to the period starting with its effective date and terminating i
on the effective date of the third filing. This is known as
'
6
" pa nc'a k ing . " (See, e.g., Southern California Edison Comoany, Docket No. E-8570, Opinion No. 55 (August 1, 1979) at 1-3.
Implicit in the notion of " pancaking" is that the filing of subsequent tariffs has no mootness effect on prior tariffs.
5/ 18 C.F.R. S 35.0 et sea, contain the FERC rules which are applicable to the filing of rate schedules.
-
s 1283 ]39 e
l
. . .
, .
By filing the NRC ordered tariff, CEI would be engaging in " pancaking." The " locked in" period for the original tariff would be the period from its effective date to the effective date of the new tariff. Commission review of the FERC ALJ Decision on the initial tariff would then be _
concerned only with the " locked in" period of the initial
,
tariff.
Indeed, CEI itself appears to have acknowledged that
" pancaking" obviates mootness problems. On July 9, 1979 the City petitioned FERC to reopen the record in the FERC * ,
proceeding concerning CEI's wheeling tarift for the purpose t
of receiving into evidence the NRC's June 25, 1979 Order modifying license condition 3. In opposing the City's petiti n CLI stated:
Finally, CEI submits that City's Petition is superfluous. The order issued by,the NRC Staff Director proposed that CEIl file a revised Tariff (set forth in Appen-dix E to the order) with the Commiss, ion.
In the event that CEI files a revised Tariff, such filing would initiate a new proceeding wherein the issues of law and fact could be fully developed and con-sidered. Thus, there is no reason to de-lay Commission action in the instant pro-ceeding by reopening the record. (Empnasis added).
. .
Answer of the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to Motion to Reopen the Record, FERC Docket No. ER 78 194, at 3 (a copy of which is attached hereto). Thus, CEI seems to recognize
'that the filing of a second tariff does not moot the proceeding
_
f 0 1283 140 i
.
concerning the initial tariff, it simply triggers a "new pro-ceeding" which would not interfere with an ongoing proceed-ing regarding the initial tariff.
Because of the " pancaking" principle, the only legal effect that f' ling the NRC ordered tariff would have at FERC ,,
is to " lock in" the initial tariff. Filing the NRC ordered tariff would have the same effect at FERC as would the filing of any new tariff at FERC by CEI. CEI's argument e
."
'
seems to suggest that even if it wanted to, CEI could not
' file a new tariff without thereby vitiating its initial tariff. The " pancaking" principle renders this argument absurd. A co' rary result would mean that CEI could not file a new tarif f at FERC until all pending proceedings with respect to the initial tariff had terminated. The accep-tance by FERC of " pancaking" eliminates this issue. 6/
- 2. Additional Reasons for Denying CEI's Reauest acceptance by the NRC of CEI's mootness argument would j eopard ize the integrity of the NRC antitrust enf orcement pro-gram. The imposition of antitrust license conditions by the NRC impliedly requires an applicant to file with FERC
.
6/ It bears noting that no traffic has occurred 7 der the initial tarif f filed by CEI and therefore no righ or lia-bilities have arisen under that tariff for or agati.e . CEI which will be mooted if the NRC requires CEI to file a new tar if f at FERC. It goes without saying that, as to future conduct, CEI has no right to have in place a tariff which violates the NRC license conditions. Accordingly, even if the FERC decides not to hear the pending appeal of the -
initial tariff this will not prejudice any existing legal interest of CEI.
1283 141
..
. .
.
_
a tariff w51ch faithfully reflects the NRC's conditions. 7/
The filing of a tariff at FERC by an NRC licensee does not divest the NRC of its responsioility to determine whether that tariff complies with the NRC's license conditions, yet that is the major, albeit unstated, premise of CEI's _
argument.
The nature of the concomitant jurisdiction which the NRC and FERC share in this area reg'aires that each agency ensure that its statutory responsibilities are properly discharged. The filing of such a tariff simply triggers FERC's statutory duty to determine whether the tariff passes muster under the FPA, it does not diminish the NRC's responsi-bility to enforce its antitrust license conditions.
Indeed, even i:: FERC approved a tariff which, while satisfy-ing the FPA, did not comply with the NRC antitrust license conditions, it would remain incumbent upon the NRC to require the applicant to file a new tariff at FERC which satisfied the NRC's conditions. FERC approval of the initial tariff would not abort the licensee's obligations to tne NRC or override the NRC's jurisdiction over the applicant ,or its jurisdiction to. enforce its antitrust license ,
conditions.
CEI's mootness argument suggests that the NRC postpone its statutory responsibilities until the FERC has
.
-
- 7/ The final paragraph of the License Conditions provide that they be implemented in a manner consistent with the Federal Power Act.
- -
1283 342
>
..
.
discharged its statutory duties. This constitutes an erroneous and unnecessary suggestion by CEI because it wrongly implies that there may be an unavoidable conflict cetween the FERC and the NRC with respect to CEI's tariff, and invites the NRC to delay needlessly its effort to bring
..
CEI into compliance with the antitrust license conditions.
The inevitable effect of inaction by the NRC would be to put off even further CEI's compliance with the NRC's license conditions and to reward CEI for its long-standing and deliberate refusal to abide by those conditions.
It is clear that CEI has made no real effort to com-ply with the NRC license conditions. In the 28 months since the issuance of the Initial Decision in Perry, CEI has failed to bring itself into compliance with the antitrust license conditions imposed by the Licensing Board. It was a full twelve months after the issuance of the NRC'r Initial Decision before CEI filed its initial tariff, wnich, although purporting to comply with license condition 3, contained numerous provisions which were in obvious conflict with both the letter and spirit of the license. Even after the NRC
.
issued a Notice of Violation based on this r.ariff, CEI did
~
not voluntarily come into compliance with license condi-tion 3. To bring CEI into compliance, it has become necessary for the NRC to issue an Order modifying CEI's license. Against
.this background CEI loudly complains that if it is forced to file the NRC ordered tariff at FERC it will be deprived of an oppor- -
11 - '
.
J .
. .
.
tunity to exercice its appeal rights before FERC. Even if filing the NRC ordered tariff would moot CEI's FERC appeal, and we believe it would not, CEI's complaint must be reject-ed because it was CEI's refusal to comply with li.:nse condition 3 which forced the NRC to modify CEI's license. -
If CEI had voluntarily complied with license condition 3 it would not now be necessary for the NRC to modify CEI'c license. Thus, in the final analysis, CEI has, by its own actions, invited the very problems which it now asks the NRC to cure. Accordingly, CEI should not be permitted to parlay its habitual recalcitrance into an excuse to gain an additional respite frc.n its duty to comply with the NRC licence conditions CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the L'opartment believes that a filing in FERC of the NRC ordered tariff will not moot CEI's appeal of an Initial Decision concerning a pre-viously filed tariff. Further, we do not believe that CEI should be permitted to benefit from its continuously recalcitrant behavior by being permitted to delay even further its compli-ance with-license condition 3. For these reasons, we urge .
-
2-1283 ]44
.
M 9
)
. .
.
t_he NRC to deny CEI's request for a delay of the effective date of the NRC's June 25, 1979 Order.
Respectfully submitted, Osu.1 h/hhsL --
g0anet a. Urban Attorney Energy Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 1283 ']45 G
.
e O
'
,' * .
S fj UNITED STATE!! OP t.MBRICA BEFORE T!!C FEDEllAL Et!ERCY REGULATodY COMIIISSION The Cleveland Electric) Docket l!o. ,117 8- 1 911 Illuminating Company)
,
AU h,R OF TliB CLEVELAt!D ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING "
COMPtJ1Y TO MOTIOM TO REOPEM THP, HECORD The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI or Company), purnuant to Section 3 33(a)(2) of the Coccais-sion's Rules of Practice and Procedure, files this Annuer in opposition to the Motion to Reopen the Record for the Lirait,cd Purpose of Making an Order of the Iluclear Regulatory Co: amin-sion issued June 25, 1979, and Ita Letter of Tranciaittal a Part of the Record (Petition) filed by the City of Cleveland, Ohio (City) on July 9, 1979 in the above-referenced proceed-ing. In support of its opposition, CEI alleges and stal.ca:
. 1. On July 9, 1979, ft.cy fil ed i to Pet it. ion to reopen the record in the instant prococding for the purpoco of receiving into evidence an order dated June 2S, 1979 and issued by the Director, Of fice of Nuclear Henctor He;,ala t ion ,
Iluclear Regulatory Co:aninsion (HUC) in The Toledo Edinon Co.,
HRC Docket Hoc. 5 0- 3 4 6 A , e t, a l . and the let,t.ee or evun date trannnitting the order.
- 2. Ir. nupport of its Petition, City st,nten 1. hat the record in the instant proceeding contains a Mot. ice of Violation froia the !!HC Staff and that the MitC transmittal letter and order of June 25, 1979 are material and relevant to thic proccoding.
3 CEI nubmits that the URC order of June 25, 1979 and trannnittal lett.cr of even dat.e arc innaateria t and irrelevant to th.is proceed:i ng. llorcover, they add nothing to the record uhich in not already procent in the Mot. ice of Violation, Exhibit 5 11 . In its Brief Opposing Exceptions (pp. 3-6),
the Company discunsed t.he relevance of 1,he HHC proceedinc, to the instant proceeding before th i:. Coma ir, :i on . CMI ntated that. Exhibit 5 in only the allegat. ion of a violation by the NllC Staff, not the prodnet of an adjudication, c.iting Sec-tion 2.201 of t,he NHC 1:cculationo , 10 C.F.R. 52.201 (1978): -
.
1283 946
.
Oh- ,e +
J
- *
. .
.
-
~ ~
hO Section 2.201 !!otice of Violation.--(a)
Before inntit,ut,ing any proceeding to modify,
_
suspend, or revoke a licenne or to take other
. action for all_cgod violat, ion of any provision of the Act or this chapter or the condit,lon0 of the license the Director, Office of Inspec-tion and Enforecuent, uill serve on the licensce a urj.tten notice of violation... (cmphania added). _,
CEI shoued that the material in Exhibit 5, naked allegations of violations,*has no more merit and is entitled to no more connideration 1,han the si:aple allegations of Cit,y and the Comminaion Staff in this proceeding. Furthe: more ,
cince it addressed coupliance uit,h the !!RC licence conditionn inutcad of the justncan and reasonableneau of the Tariff under the Federal Pouer Act, the NRC Staff ilotice of Violati.cn in not, relevantito the inst, ant proceeding. 3 6
5 The order of June 25, 1979 and transmittal letter of even date ucro incued by the !!HC# Staff Director of the Office of Nuclear React,or Regulation. Both the trans-mittal lett.cr and the order indicr.to that. the St,aff Director's action only initiaten an adjudicatory proceedina an a follou-up to the !!otice of Violation. CEI fully intend: to contest the licenuc}nnendment and demand a hearing pornuant to Scotion 2.204 of t.he U hC Hogulat.J on;., 10 C . F . !! . S ? . .'? O li (19'iO . Thua, the UHC order incued June 25, 1979 and the transuittal latver of the came datu are as irrelevant and i: atha t e rial to the instant proceeding an 1,hc carlier Hot. ice of Violat. ion.
Moreover, they are duplicative of the Mot, ice of Violation, adding no neu cvidence uhich would justif'y reopening of 1.he record ,in the instant, proceeding. "The Suprem": Court has held tilat, an agency need not reopen its record cach ti:s neu circumr.tances arice. Otherwise, the adminictrative procenu would never be concunated [nic]." l'ac i fic Alant:a LUC, Coqpany, Docket, Nos. CP75-140, et.,al.
,,
(Order inaned June 22, 19 /9 ; nimeo, p. 2), eit,ing Verc.ont Yan!:ce unclear Pouer Corp. v.
Natural Henourcer. Daronne Co u n c i t ,_im , ~Ii3 S 0 . 5 . 53 (CtViOI)~.- ,
- 6. If the Com:11csion ucre to reopen the record, then CHI requc0t.3 that thin proceeding be reaanded to an Administrat,ive Lau Judge and t h a t. a hearing be hold to consider the relevance and matcri.ality of 1.he !!HC docu-monts 1.o the innuca before t,h in Co:amission . The Company would also acck to argue on brief 1.he legal relevance of the NRC Staff Director's action to the Cons.:innion'a responsibilition under the Federal Pouer Act and the ucight, if any, that. -
should be accorded t,hc HHC document in thia procceding.
i8 1
1283 947
.
. ,
'
' *
' 0 -
8 D'Ngv q
- / . Finally, CHI nuhnitn that C.ity'n Pot,ition in nuperfluoun. The ordcr innued by the !!!(C Staff Director proponen that CHI file a revined Tari ff (act forth in Appendix E to the order) uith t.he Corr:iinnion.
In the event that CEI filen a rovined Tariff, such filing would ir'tinto a new nroceedinir wherein t.no issucs of lau and fact could be fully developed and considered. T r. ;. s , there is no reacon to dr. lay Coi:naincion action in the,inntant proceeding by reopening the record. -
Wile!!EF011E , for the foregoing rencons, The Cleveland Electric Illuminuiting Cor.pany renpoet. fully requents that the Commission duny City's Pctition.
Reapcetfully nubmi.tted,
- i
! / (A /
.. C- By~/ /[IA /N C ' b D .} b /,) -
/, j ,
/lIarry h. YoOi,~:iiQl]} Ifj
(/ Robe rt T . ; ila] 1, III i
'
1(cid & Prient 10 1 '.'all Streat
!!cu York, lleu Yor,: 1000S Douald it. Ilauner h The Clevnland Elmet je 111urainat Lor, Company SS Publi9 square
, C:l e v o l a n d , Ohio 111101 1
Richard llerriman Jarae:. K .ilitchell l1.
,
' John };. SchaargN , Jr.
l!c i d & P r.i e,:1.
1701 K .itreet, !!.U.
' Unch iuCloa , D.C. 20006 Attorneyn for .
, The Cleveland I? t e n t. r i. c Illumi.nating Cotapan:/
July 211, 19'/9 l283 048
_
$
i l
l
.. .
-
.
. ., .
V .E .H.. .I P.. _J. C... .A.. .T .T. .O. .M_
. .
DISTRICT OF COLUMDIA ) nn:
John R. Schaefgen, Jr. being iirnt duly nuorn, deposes and nr.ys thal he in attorney for The Cleveland Electric Illtainating Company ; that he han been duly authorir.ed to execute, veri Cy and f.i .l e with the ..
Pcdcral Energy Regulatory Comminnion t.h e foregoing docu-mont; thah he has read the contentn of name and t ha t the
.utatementn contained therci.n are true and correct I.o hin best infornation, kno.iledge and belief,
.
Y c O [' ' ( Q
-
A
-
L' % k.-. T. .n' tDU y[:.% .
/ John n. 'Schac fger!,UD
-
. . . .
'ar.
,Snbu,uribed and sworn to before
.
L,/
., mc t.h i n 24th day of '
.
-
,': \ -t Uu'ly -~~
4
'
, 1979
.
'
. .
.J, j j' ~
.s
'
o,l(f. t , Q. Ml',0 C.?;*:' u
-
, '
. i aualrthlD.onenhei.n
,
. D 'j%j hig j[?' g'](,
_
~
o
- ? ' .
- Notitry Public
' ! I'l '
'
My i.u: ra:w ..s F.3.;- 'J-
-
-C.E R. Y_ _I_ .F .I_ C_. .A_ T. E..
- .
OP
. . .O .P. n V. .I C_ .1:.
. . . ._
I herchy certify thal T have i.hir. day nen cd tht-foregoing document upon cach pt rnon design::!.ed on t-h a o f;. .i e j t1 nervice lint co:np.iled by the 30erelary .in th i:. proceed i ny .i n accordance wi.th the ri:[uirenenI?. OC f;~l.17 of Iho 1:n1 e.. ,, r Practice and Procedure.
. .
Dal ed a L Uanh i nyt on, D.C. t.b i t. ~~2 41.h c!.: y o f July , 19 79
,I ( D,
~. . :
.$. ->C ?s . ,iN
.
.
, ..
f.
. % n .h .! 'i_ .'..u. ., ' '
.,
(/J.6hn n. SchanIger, a r;j -
Of Coun0c1 Por-TilR CT.EVRI. AMD 1:Ll:CTP.TC JI.LilMl M AT1 M G CO' R'AN Y .
1283 -)49
.._. . ..
-
.-
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the Comments of the Department of Justice upon the parties listed on the attachment via first class mail, postage
.
prepaid this 13th day of September, 1979.
N. 1, / / !lr 4/A
- * . Janet R. Urban Attorney
- United States Department of Justice 1233 ')50 9 e m
.
.
ATTACHMENT Mr. Harold R. Denton Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Director, Office of Nuclear Special Assistant Attorney Reactor Regulation General Nuclear Regulatory Towne House Apartments,.
Commission Room 219 1717 H Street, N.W. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 _
Washington, D.C. 20006 Edward A. Matto, Esq.
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq. Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
and Jacobs Assistant Attorney General 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Chief, Antitrust Section
,,
- Washington, D.C. 20006 20 East Broad Street, '15th Floor
-
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Appeal Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Law Section Commission 361 East Broad Street, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Richard S. Salzman Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Jerome E. Sharfman John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard K. Shapar, Esq. Atomic Safety an ' Licensing Executive Legal Director Appeal Board Pc 91 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Reg 4. atory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
, Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Public Proceedings Branch Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Of fice of the Secretary Office of the Executive Legal .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Abraham Braitman, Esq.
Office of Antitrust Indemnity Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Roy P. Lessy, J r. , Esq.
" Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Regulation ~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1283 ')5i
.
. .-
.
..
Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Terrence H. Benbow, Esq.
Goldberg, Fieldman & S teven B. Peri, Esq.
Hjelmfelt Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam Suite 650 & Roberts 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 40 Wall Street Washington, D.C. 20006 New York, New York 10005 Russell J. Spetrino, Esq. Alan P. Buchmann, Esq.
Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Ohio Edison Company 1800 Union Commerce Building 47 North Main Street Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -
Akron, Ohio 44308 Leslie Henry, Esq.
John Lansdale, Jr., Esq. Michael M. Briley, Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown Roger P. Klee, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W. Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Washington, D.C. 20036 Post Office Box 2088 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Richard A. Miller, Esq.
Vice President and General James R. Edgerly, Esq..
Counsel,- '-
. Secretary and Gene al Jounsel 3 The Cleveland Electric Pennsylvania Power 'smpany Illuminating Co. One East Washington Street Post Off. ice Box 5000 New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq. The Cleveland Electric Robert E.1 Zahler, Esq. Illuminating Co.
Jay H. Bernstein, Ecq. Post Office Box 5000 Shaw, Pittman, Potts Cleveland, Ohio 44101
& Trowbridge !
1800 M Street, N.W. Thomas J'. Munsch, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 General Attorney Duquesne Light Company Atomic Safety and Licensing 435 Sixth Avenue Board Panel Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Station Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David McNeill Olds, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 William S. Larach, Esq. .
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Joseph A. Rieser, Esq.
Post Office Box 2009 Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 1283 952 -
,
l