|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20101M7061992-06-30030 June 1992 Applicant Answer in Opposition to Amended Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* City of Brook Park Untimely Intervention Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101E1261992-06-15015 June 1992 Amended Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* City of Brook Park Should Be Granted Discretionary Intervention & Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086G6401991-11-22022 November 1991 Petitioners Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Amended Petition of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc for Leave to Intervene to Respond to Arguments Made in Licensee & NRC Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B7981991-09-16016 September 1991 Answer of Util to City of Brook Park,Oh Suppl to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Concluded That City Petition Failed to Satisfy Any of Three Criteria for Intervention,Therefore Leave to Intervene Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B7901991-09-16016 September 1991 Answer of Util to Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene & Suppl Thereto.* Petition Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B3581991-09-0404 September 1991 City of Brook Park Suppl to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* in Consideration of Foregoing,Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20082P1611991-08-23023 August 1991 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Petitioners Have Demonstrated Right to Be Made Parties to Proceeding and Instant Petition for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted & Proposed Contention Admitted ML20082G8921991-07-31031 July 1991 Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene.* City Requests That NRC & ASLB Deny Applicant Request for Hearing.W/Svc List & Certificate of Svc ML20082D4411991-07-10010 July 1991 Supple by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Facility Requests Addl Time to Mod Suppl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B5111991-07-10010 July 1991 10CFR2.714(b)(1) Suppl to Conditional Petition to Intervene of City of Cleveland,Oh Submitted in Connection w/910725 Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20082B2511991-07-0303 July 1991 Petition of Util for Leave to Intervene.* If License Conditions Can Disappear & Reappear W/Shifting Economics of Electric generation,AMP-Ohio Future Will Be Seriously Jeopardized.W/Certificate of Svc ML20077G2661991-05-30030 May 1991 Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* Util Requests Intervention in Further Proceedings on Applications of Ohio Edison & Other Applicants.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043D6751990-06-0101 June 1990 Ocre Response to Licensee & NRC Staff Answers to Ocre Contention.* Ocre Contention Should Be Granted Since NRC Has No Valid Argument to Preclude Admission of Contention & 10CFR2.714(b)(2) Requirements Met.W/Certificate of Svc ML20012E6901990-03-23023 March 1990 Licensee Answer to Ocre Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Concludes That Ocre Lacks Requisite Interest in License Amend Proceeding & Requests That ASLB Rule on Ocre Petition.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20012E6771990-03-0808 March 1990 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Requests Hearing on Util 891219 Amend Request & Submits Petition W/Intention of Becoming Full Party.Petition Should Be Granted Since Ocre Demonstrated Right to Be Made Party ML20148D0511988-01-0707 January 1988 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Formal Adjudicatory Hearing.* Ocre Demonstrated Right to Be Made Party in Proceeding & Petition Should Be Granted ML20214W6371987-06-0505 June 1987 Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy,Sunflower Alliance,Inc,S Sass & SB Carter for Revocation,Mod or Suspention of OL Per 10CFR2.206.* No Regulatory Review Has Taken Place at Plant in Response to Reed Rept.W/Svc List ML20215N2451986-10-29029 October 1986 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene & Request That Commission Postpone Action on Full Power Operation.State Emergency Evacuation Review Team Not Convinced Plan Adequate.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215H6861986-10-21021 October 1986 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene & Request That Commission Postpone Action on Full Power Operation.State of Oh Emergency Plan Should Be Reviewed Before Full Operation Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214U9901986-09-29029 September 1986 Reply to Licensee Response to State of Oh 860904 Petition for Leave to Intervene.State Seeking Opportunity to Advise Commission as to Serious Safety Concern Re Eventual Full Power Licensing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214R3381986-09-23023 September 1986 Response Granting State of Oh Petition to Intervene as Interested State,To Allow Entering Proceeding to Advise Commission on Pending Immediate Effectiveness Review.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20214R5671986-09-19019 September 1986 Response to State of Oh 860904 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request That Petition Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212Q8461986-09-0404 September 1986 Petition of State of Oh for Leave to Intervene.Requests Participation in Evaluating Adequacy of Licensee Offsite Evacuation Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20195E8551986-05-28028 May 1986 Petition for Leave to Intervene in Matter of Contamination of Navarre Marsh,Toussaint Creek & Lake Erie by Util.Served on 860606 ML20197G7621986-05-13013 May 1986 Response Opposing Licensee 860428 Brief Opposing 851110 Petition for Hearings & Intervention Procedure for Disposal of Low Level Radwaste at Facility.Util Request Should Be Denied.Affidavits Encl ML20197G7401986-05-0606 May 1986 Petition of Save Our State from Radwaste,Consumers League of Ohio,A Gleisser & Gs Cook for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Served on 860513 ML20155G8131986-04-30030 April 1986 Appeal of Denial of G Zatroch 860408 Petition to Intervene. Petitioner Resides 53 Miles from Facility,Within Zone of Interest & Alleges That Injury Will Probably Result.Served on 860505 ML20155G6891986-04-29029 April 1986 Licensee Response to State of Oh 860414 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Petition Should Be Dismissed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205N3241986-04-28028 April 1986 Response Opposing Petition of Western Reserve Alliance for Leave to Intervene in Proceeding Re Low Level Radwaste Burial.Petition Should Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210N7121986-04-28028 April 1986 Responds Opposing Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter 851105 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Petition Should Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205N3781986-04-28028 April 1986 Response Opposing Save Our State from Nuclear Wastes, Consumers League of Ohio 860411 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210K7511986-04-25025 April 1986 Response Opposing Petition of PE Dornbusch for Leave to Intervene.Suggests That Petition Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.Dornbusch Ltr Fails to Comply w/860310 Memorandum & Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20141H1931986-04-22022 April 1986 Response Opposing Citizens for Land & Water Use 860411 Petition for Leave to Intervene.Petitioner Failed to Plead Admissible Contention to Identify Deficiencies in Licensee Method of Low Level Waste Disposal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203B3231986-04-16016 April 1986 Petition of Save Our State from Nuclear Wastes,Consumers League of Ohio,A Gleisser & Gs Cook for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on Radioactive Sludge Disposal Issue. Served on 860416 ML20203B3501986-04-14014 April 1986 Petition of Ef Feighan for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Util Proposal to Store Low Level Radioactive Sludge Onsite.Served on 860416 ML20155E8571986-04-14014 April 1986 Petition of State of Oh for Leave to Intervene as Party. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 860417 ML20203A0261986-04-11011 April 1986 Petition of Citizens for Land & Water Use,Inc for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Util Request to Bury Low Level Radioactive Dreggings Onsite.Served on 860415 ML20202J8231986-04-0808 April 1986 Petition of G Zatroch for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Radioactive Sludge Disposal at Plant Site.Served on 860415 ML20210A5181985-11-10010 November 1985 Request for Hearings & Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Western Reserve Alliance Re NRC Current Consideration for Approval of Procedure for Disposal of Low Level Waste Proposed by Toledo Edison Co ML20209H2271985-11-0606 November 1985 Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudication Hearing. Intervenors Oppose Util Petition to Bury Low Level Radioactive Dredgings Onsite.W/Certificate of Svc ML20198C9311985-11-0505 November 1985 Petition of Save Our State from Radwaste for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20115A5681985-03-0808 March 1985 Petition for Suspension of CPs & Nuclear Fuel Shipments & Conduct of Investigation to Ascertain Whether Central Area Power Coordinating Group Financially Qualified to Design & Construct Facility ML20078K3501983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to Util & NRC 831003 & 06 Answers,Respectively,To Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830916 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2.NRC Misunderstood Thrust of Motion. Contention Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20078E5161983-10-0303 October 1983 Answer Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830916 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2 Re Diesel Generator Reliability.Motion Fails to Meet Criteria of Adequate Basis & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080H2651983-09-16016 September 1983 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2 on Diesel Generator Reliability.Good Cause Contained in Recent Documents Describing Generator Failure of Type to Be Used at Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024B7491983-07-0505 July 1983 Reply Opposing Util & NRC Responses Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830510 Motion to File Contentions on SNM License Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A2871983-06-13013 June 1983 Answer Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830510 Motion to Admit Five New Contentions on SNM License Application.Contentions Unjustifiably Late,Outside ASLB Jurisdiction or Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066B9791982-11-0404 November 1982 Answer to Sunflower Alliance 821019 Reply Brief to NRC & Util Answers to Sunflower Motion to Submit Addl Contention on Shift Rotation.No Support Exists for Sunflower Untimeliness Argument.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069J9811982-10-19019 October 1982 Reply Brief Supporting Motion to Submit Addl Contention.Good Cause for Late Filing Demonstrated.Applicant Shift Rotation Plans May Not Be Incorporating Circadian Principles 1993-11-12
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20059L9391993-11-12012 November 1993 Petitioners Supplemental Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Court Held That NRC May Not Eliminate Public Participation on Matl Issue in Interest of Making Process More Efficient. W/Certificate of Svc ML20101M7061992-06-30030 June 1992 Applicant Answer in Opposition to Amended Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* City of Brook Park Untimely Intervention Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101E1261992-06-15015 June 1992 Amended Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* City of Brook Park Should Be Granted Discretionary Intervention & Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Granted for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086G6401991-11-22022 November 1991 Petitioners Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Amended Petition of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,Inc for Leave to Intervene to Respond to Arguments Made in Licensee & NRC Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B7981991-09-16016 September 1991 Answer of Util to City of Brook Park,Oh Suppl to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Concluded That City Petition Failed to Satisfy Any of Three Criteria for Intervention,Therefore Leave to Intervene Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B7901991-09-16016 September 1991 Answer of Util to Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene & Suppl Thereto.* Petition Should Be Denied Based on Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083B3581991-09-0404 September 1991 City of Brook Park Suppl to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* in Consideration of Foregoing,Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted. W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20082P1611991-08-23023 August 1991 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Petitioners Have Demonstrated Right to Be Made Parties to Proceeding and Instant Petition for Leave to Intervene Should Be Granted & Proposed Contention Admitted ML20082G8921991-07-31031 July 1991 Petition of City of Brook Park,Oh for Leave to Intervene.* City Requests That NRC & ASLB Deny Applicant Request for Hearing.W/Svc List & Certificate of Svc ML20082D4411991-07-10010 July 1991 Supple by American Municipal Power-Ohio,Inc to Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Facility Requests Addl Time to Mod Suppl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B5111991-07-10010 July 1991 10CFR2.714(b)(1) Suppl to Conditional Petition to Intervene of City of Cleveland,Oh Submitted in Connection w/910725 Prehearing Conference.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20082B2511991-07-0303 July 1991 Petition of Util for Leave to Intervene.* If License Conditions Can Disappear & Reappear W/Shifting Economics of Electric generation,AMP-Ohio Future Will Be Seriously Jeopardized.W/Certificate of Svc ML20077G2661991-05-30030 May 1991 Petition of Alabama Electric Cooperative,Inc for Leave to Intervene.* Util Requests Intervention in Further Proceedings on Applications of Ohio Edison & Other Applicants.W/Certificate of Svc ML20043D6751990-06-0101 June 1990 Ocre Response to Licensee & NRC Staff Answers to Ocre Contention.* Ocre Contention Should Be Granted Since NRC Has No Valid Argument to Preclude Admission of Contention & 10CFR2.714(b)(2) Requirements Met.W/Certificate of Svc ML20012E6901990-03-23023 March 1990 Licensee Answer to Ocre Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Concludes That Ocre Lacks Requisite Interest in License Amend Proceeding & Requests That ASLB Rule on Ocre Petition.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List ML20012E6771990-03-0808 March 1990 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Ocre Requests Hearing on Util 891219 Amend Request & Submits Petition W/Intention of Becoming Full Party.Petition Should Be Granted Since Ocre Demonstrated Right to Be Made Party ML20148D0511988-01-0707 January 1988 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Formal Adjudicatory Hearing.* Ocre Demonstrated Right to Be Made Party in Proceeding & Petition Should Be Granted ML20214W6371987-06-0505 June 1987 Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy,Sunflower Alliance,Inc,S Sass & SB Carter for Revocation,Mod or Suspention of OL Per 10CFR2.206.* No Regulatory Review Has Taken Place at Plant in Response to Reed Rept.W/Svc List ML20215N2451986-10-29029 October 1986 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene & Request That Commission Postpone Action on Full Power Operation.State Emergency Evacuation Review Team Not Convinced Plan Adequate.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215H6861986-10-21021 October 1986 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene & Request That Commission Postpone Action on Full Power Operation.State of Oh Emergency Plan Should Be Reviewed Before Full Operation Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214U9901986-09-29029 September 1986 Reply to Licensee Response to State of Oh 860904 Petition for Leave to Intervene.State Seeking Opportunity to Advise Commission as to Serious Safety Concern Re Eventual Full Power Licensing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214R3381986-09-23023 September 1986 Response Granting State of Oh Petition to Intervene as Interested State,To Allow Entering Proceeding to Advise Commission on Pending Immediate Effectiveness Review.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20214R5671986-09-19019 September 1986 Response to State of Oh 860904 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request That Petition Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212Q8461986-09-0404 September 1986 Petition of State of Oh for Leave to Intervene.Requests Participation in Evaluating Adequacy of Licensee Offsite Evacuation Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20195E8551986-05-28028 May 1986 Petition for Leave to Intervene in Matter of Contamination of Navarre Marsh,Toussaint Creek & Lake Erie by Util.Served on 860606 ML20197G7621986-05-13013 May 1986 Response Opposing Licensee 860428 Brief Opposing 851110 Petition for Hearings & Intervention Procedure for Disposal of Low Level Radwaste at Facility.Util Request Should Be Denied.Affidavits Encl ML20197G7401986-05-0606 May 1986 Petition of Save Our State from Radwaste,Consumers League of Ohio,A Gleisser & Gs Cook for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Served on 860513 ML20155G8131986-04-30030 April 1986 Appeal of Denial of G Zatroch 860408 Petition to Intervene. Petitioner Resides 53 Miles from Facility,Within Zone of Interest & Alleges That Injury Will Probably Result.Served on 860505 ML20155G6891986-04-29029 April 1986 Licensee Response to State of Oh 860414 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Petition Should Be Dismissed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205N3241986-04-28028 April 1986 Response Opposing Petition of Western Reserve Alliance for Leave to Intervene in Proceeding Re Low Level Radwaste Burial.Petition Should Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210N7121986-04-28028 April 1986 Responds Opposing Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter 851105 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Petition Should Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205N3781986-04-28028 April 1986 Response Opposing Save Our State from Nuclear Wastes, Consumers League of Ohio 860411 Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210K7511986-04-25025 April 1986 Response Opposing Petition of PE Dornbusch for Leave to Intervene.Suggests That Petition Be Treated as Limited Appearance Statement.Dornbusch Ltr Fails to Comply w/860310 Memorandum & Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20141H1931986-04-22022 April 1986 Response Opposing Citizens for Land & Water Use 860411 Petition for Leave to Intervene.Petitioner Failed to Plead Admissible Contention to Identify Deficiencies in Licensee Method of Low Level Waste Disposal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20203B3231986-04-16016 April 1986 Petition of Save Our State from Nuclear Wastes,Consumers League of Ohio,A Gleisser & Gs Cook for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing on Radioactive Sludge Disposal Issue. Served on 860416 ML20203B3501986-04-14014 April 1986 Petition of Ef Feighan for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Util Proposal to Store Low Level Radioactive Sludge Onsite.Served on 860416 ML20155E8571986-04-14014 April 1986 Petition of State of Oh for Leave to Intervene as Party. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 860417 ML20203A0261986-04-11011 April 1986 Petition of Citizens for Land & Water Use,Inc for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Util Request to Bury Low Level Radioactive Dreggings Onsite.Served on 860415 ML20202J8231986-04-0808 April 1986 Petition of G Zatroch for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing Re Radioactive Sludge Disposal at Plant Site.Served on 860415 ML20210A5181985-11-10010 November 1985 Request for Hearings & Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Western Reserve Alliance Re NRC Current Consideration for Approval of Procedure for Disposal of Low Level Waste Proposed by Toledo Edison Co ML20209H2271985-11-0606 November 1985 Petition of Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy & SA Carter for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudication Hearing. Intervenors Oppose Util Petition to Bury Low Level Radioactive Dredgings Onsite.W/Certificate of Svc ML20198C9311985-11-0505 November 1985 Petition of Save Our State from Radwaste for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing ML20115A5681985-03-0808 March 1985 Petition for Suspension of CPs & Nuclear Fuel Shipments & Conduct of Investigation to Ascertain Whether Central Area Power Coordinating Group Financially Qualified to Design & Construct Facility ML20078K3501983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to Util & NRC 831003 & 06 Answers,Respectively,To Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830916 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2.NRC Misunderstood Thrust of Motion. Contention Should Be Admitted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20078E5161983-10-0303 October 1983 Answer Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830916 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2 Re Diesel Generator Reliability.Motion Fails to Meet Criteria of Adequate Basis & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080H2651983-09-16016 September 1983 Motion to Resubmit Contention 2 on Diesel Generator Reliability.Good Cause Contained in Recent Documents Describing Generator Failure of Type to Be Used at Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024B7491983-07-0505 July 1983 Reply Opposing Util & NRC Responses Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830510 Motion to File Contentions on SNM License Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024A2871983-06-13013 June 1983 Answer Opposing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 830510 Motion to Admit Five New Contentions on SNM License Application.Contentions Unjustifiably Late,Outside ASLB Jurisdiction or Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066B9791982-11-0404 November 1982 Answer to Sunflower Alliance 821019 Reply Brief to NRC & Util Answers to Sunflower Motion to Submit Addl Contention on Shift Rotation.No Support Exists for Sunflower Untimeliness Argument.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069J9811982-10-19019 October 1982 Reply Brief Supporting Motion to Submit Addl Contention.Good Cause for Late Filing Demonstrated.Applicant Shift Rotation Plans May Not Be Incorporating Circadian Principles 1993-11-12
[Table view] 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 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 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 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 ML20064N9201994-03-21021 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/Svc List 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
_ -. -. __ __ - _ _ __ _
pf, 2 -
~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSItJ BOARD '92 IL -1 P3 :26
- M uom.m4,s af.0,f
tn 1 1
) . sam u In the Matter of )
)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY ) Occket No. 50-440-A
) 50-346-A
'(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, )
Facility-Operating License )
No. NPF-58) ) (Suspension of THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC TLLUMINATING
) Antitrust Conditions)
)
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 91-644-01-A THE TOLEDO EDISON COHPANY )
)
(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' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED PETITION OF THE CITY OF BROOK PARK, OFIO, FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME Last year the City of Brook Park, Ohic unsuccessfully sought
-to intervene in this proceCling #1 On Jur:e 15, 1992, Brook Park filed an Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time
(" Brook Park Petition"). This Answer is submitted on behalf of Ohio Edison-Company ("OS"), the Toledo Edison Company ("TECo")
and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CEI")
1/ See Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclaer Power Plant, Unit 1),
LBP-91-38, 34 N.R.C. 229, 252 (1991) ("LBP-91-38").
9207090012 920630 PDR ' ADOCK 05000346- 3p g30 2 M. PDR
l l
i f(collectively " Applicants"), who oppose. Brook Park's amended request to intervene in this license amendment proceeding.
I.
Leoal~ Standard for Late Intervention Petitions As Brook Park recognizes,2/ the NRC's rules of practice 4 include specific provisions'that govern untimely requests for intervention in an ongoing NRC licensing' proceeding.EI Nontimely intervention petitions " vill.not be entertained" absent a deter- i
.mination that, on balance,. veighing the following five factors, the late petition should be granted: (1) " good cause" for fail- .
ure to file on time; (2) the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's-interest will be protected including, specifi-cally, (3) the extent to which the petitioner's interest vill be represented by existing parties; (4) the extent-to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; and (5) the extent to which the
. petitioner's participation vill broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
'The requirements for late intervention are supplemental to the judicial requirements of standing, set forth in NRC's rules 2/ Brook Park Petition at 4-5.
l/ See 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 (a)(1)(i)-(v).
I
l of practice, which a late' petitioner also must satisfy.S/ In summary, in order to have standing, a petitioner must have a cog-nizable interestLin the proceeding that could be adversely affected by the proceeding's outcome. In addition, the peti-tioner must indicate the specific aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding asfto which it wishes to intervene.EI If a late petitioner does not satisfy all of the require-ments specified above, it is not entitled to intervene. In its discretion, however, a Licensing Board may nevertheless grant a petitioner's request to intervene if the Board concludes that it vill serve the public interest to do so.5# In particular, dis-cretionary intervention may be appropriate where a petitioner shows a "significant ability to contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which vill not otherwise be properly raised or presented, sets forth these matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demonstrate (s] their importance and immedi-acy, justifying the time necessary to consider them."2#
.1/ 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1); see 10 C. F. R. 5 2.714(d)(1); Flor-ida' Power & Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-91-13, 34 N.R.C. 185, 187-88
.(1991).
5/ See Metropolitan EdisonlCo. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-
-tion, Unit No. 1), CLI- 8 3-2 5, 18 N. R.C . 3 2 7, 331 (1983).
.6/ Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1-and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 N.R.C. 610 (1976).
2/ Id. at 617
_ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _-..._.__._.___.m_. . _
II.- The Brook' Park Petition Does Not Satisfy the Recuirements for Late Intervention ,
The Brook Park Petition does not satisfy. any of the require-ments for' late intervention set forth in110 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(1).E/ Accordingly, _the Petition should be denied.
A. Failure to Meet the Good Cause Requirement Brook Park explains in great detall in its Petition why it did not file an amended petition to intervene until April 21, 1992, the date that Brook Park adopted an ordinance creating the municipal electric system, Brook Park Public 8/ - Applicants continue to maintain that Brook Park lacks stand-ing to intervene due to its failure to establish an " injury-in-fact." See Answer of-CEI and TE to Petition of City of-Brook-Park for. Leave to Intervene and Supplement Thereto (Sept. 16, 1991) at 2-3; Answer of OE to City of Brook Park's : Supplement to Petition.for Leave to Intervene (Sept.-16,-1991) at 6-9 While. Brook Park citizens passed a referendum and the City Council enacted an ordinance-autho-rizing Brook Park to establish a municipal electric system, Brook Park.has taken'no concrete actions toward the actual development of-the system.. For example, Brook Park has yet to arrange.for the' financing of this expedition. Although the Board has indicated that the referendum alone may remove the'" provisional" aspect of any potential injury, (LBP-91-38 at:38), Applicants believe that the_ municipality is nothing more-than a shell incapable of incurring the requisite injury-in-fact in the absence of financing arrangements and similar: concrete affirmative actions establishing the actual-
' municipal. electric system. _In_ addition, Brook Park has not specifically identified any particular~ aspects of the case as to which it vishes to intervene.
L e H M -- q= - - - g -=
i Pover.E/ Absolutely no explanation is provided, however, as to why Brook' Park did not file its amended petition two months ago, immediately after Brook Park's adoption of that ordinance. What has Brook Park been doing for the last two months ? Perhaps Brook Park would contend that it need not have filed its Petition until May 21,.1992, _the effective date of the ordinance. But the ordi-nance is written so as to automatically go into effect in May; there is no justification for Brook Park's delay, particularly when, as Brook Park vell knew, Phase One of this proceeding was drawing to a close.
Counsel for Brook Park takes pride in its knowledge of the proceeding.1S' Apparently, then, in April, 1992, counsel for Brook Park fully appreciated the fact that in November, 1991, the Licensing Board had established a briefing schedule and in March, 1992, the Board established an oral argument schedule for comple-tion of.the first phase of this case.11# Brook Park still vould have missed the established briefing deadline for Applicants' opponents had it alerted the Board and the parties in April of 2/ -Brook Park Petition at 6-10, and Exhibit A (City of Brook Park Ordinance No. 7711-1992 (adopted April 21, 1992; effec-tive May.22, 1992)).
1S/' See Brook Park Petition at 19.
11/ Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), Orders of Nov. 14, 1991 and March 19, 1992, as modified by order of March 20, 1992.
L
- , . - . . - . . . - - . - - .. - .. . - . . - . . .. - ~ _ -
I l
- l l
its intcrest in participating in the proceeding and had the Board permittedLBrook Park to do so. Nevertheless, it would have been much less burdensome to fold Brook Park into the process at that juncture than to endeavor to do so nov..
Briefing is complete; the oral argument is over. In that process, Applicants responded to the separate arguments of five parties opposed to the pending license amendment request. It is either naive or-disingenuous for Brook Pack to claim, as it does 12/ that it vould not be " inappropriately" disruptive -- at least to the Applicants -- for Brook Park nov, at this late date, to file papers on the bedrock legal issue.13/ -
In short, Brook Park's Petition does not satisfy the " good cause" requirement set.forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(1).
Brook Park's unexplained two-month delay at this late stage of the proceeding is inexcusable.
12/ Brook Park Petition at 22.
12/ In Section II.D, infra, Applicants-address Brook Park's
. description of how it seeks to participate in' Phase One of this proceeding. See Brook Park Petition at 21.
._a.- .
l B. Existing Parties Will Protect Brook Park's Interest Beyond the absence of " good cause," there are in place over-lapping and redundant means by which Brook Park's interest in this proceeding is being amply protected.14/ There is no need to -
admit Brook Park.
Brook Park argues that its " interest in this proceeding is unique."15/ This simply is not true.16/
Brook Park's interest as a municipality with a potential electric utility company is virtually identical in all respects to the status of the City of Cleveland, one of the five party opponents in this case. Whether or not Brook Park and Cleveland li/ 10 C.F.R. SS 2.714(a)(1)(ii) and (iv).
15/ Brook Park Petition at 14. .
lE/ In Section II.C, infra, Applicants address Brook Park's repeated factual assertions about its ostensible ability to provide " live" proof of the continual need for the antitrust license conditions. See Brook Park Petition at 15. Whether the Brook Park situation might be material evidence in the second, and only, factual phase of this case -- a notion Applicant's show in Section II.C is erroneous -- is not sig-nificant in determining whether Brook Park should be permit-ted to intervene now. Any party can talk about Brook Park, or call upon Brook Park representatives as witnesses, during Phase Two. For purposes of late intervention, the question is whether Brook Park's concerns about and approach to the case are shared by other parties already admitted and actively participating in the proceeding.
._. . . ~. _. .. __ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _
are " potential competitor (s),"17/ a point Brook Park seems to
. consider' relevant,-has nothing to do with the conviction with-which each municipality seeks.to retain the NRC's antitrust license conditions, their respective use of the conditions, the nature of each city's arguments in opposition to the conditions, and.the corresponding vehemence with which each city opposes Applicants' license amendment-requests. For example, Brook Park has not identified any legal position it would-take in Phase one of this case that has not been vell articulated and argued by tne City or Cleveland (among others). To the contrary, rrook Park suggesta that it vill adopt the arguments of Cleveland (and other opponents of the pending license amendment requests) in its "for-mal statement" submittal on Phase One.18/ Neither has Brook Park identified any divergence of interest between itself and Cleve-
. land that would result in T different approach to Phase Two of the proceeding, which primarily concerns the relative cost of power from Perry, Davis-Besse and alternative sources of electricity.1E! Obviously, Cleveland and Brook Park are not the ll/ Brook Park Petition at 17 18/ Brook Park Petition at 21. Brook Park does not mention the legal issue raised by Cleveland concerning the affirmative defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, laches and law of the case.
12/ Presumably, Phase Two also would include the so-called-
" agency bias" issues that were held in abeyance by the Com-mission-pending resolution of Phase One of this case. Brook
' Park does not address these issues.
y ,--y -
same city. But'the experience of Cleveland in the retail market-place, for example, in contrast to the " emergence"29/ of Brook Park in:this' arena, does not change their " coterminous"21 inter-est-and vantage point in opposing Applicants in every respect possible, presumably, in both phases of this proceeding. In short, Cleveland can fully represent Brook Park's interest in this case.
Furthermore, four other parties share Cleveland and Brook Park's interest in convincing the NRC and any subsequent appel-
' late tribunal that the Applicants' license amendment requests
,. -should be denied. Brook Park's arguments about the differences between itself and these other parties do not address the funda-
-mental questions (1) whether.the party opponents' legal arguments and factual assertions vill diverge in any way from those advo-cated by Brook Park, and, consequently, (2) whether the existing party opponents vill adequately represent Brook Park. Thus, for example, while_ Brook Park may not be a member of AMP-0, like AMP-0, it. foresees itself as a competitor of one of the Appli-L cants. Brook Park's f actual' (albeit irrelevant)-assertions about how the sky vill fall in the absence of NRC's continued 2S/ Brook-Park Petition at 14.
- i. .
f.
1 M/ M. at 17 12/ Brook Park Petition at 17 l-
_ _ _ . . . . _ . ~ - . _ . . ___ . _ . . _ _ _ . __ _ ___. _ . _ _ . .
- m
enforcementiof the license conditions,Section II. C, infra, are
. remarkably similar to the-factual (albeit_ irrelevant) assertions >
of AMP-0.22I Brook Park also fails tolshow Why "the efforts of (NRC) staff and DOJ to advance and defend the important questions of public policy at issue"1S# here prevents these parties, who share BrookJPark's_ position-in the case, from " properly _
represent [ing] the-direct-and unique interest of Brook Park."2E#
-This is not a self-evident proposition, and. Brook Park presents no facts or explanation to support it.
-C.- The Improbability'that. Brook Park Will Assist in Developina a Sound Record
-Based on Brook Park's contribution to date, there is no rea-son _to believe that Brook Park "may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record," another criterion for untimely. requests for intervention. 5 111/ Compa re B rook L Pa rk _ Pe t i t i o n a t .14 -16 w i t h AMP-O B r i e f ,
March 9, 1992,-at-18-22. --
See-Applicants' Reply,- May 7,
, -1992, at 71-74. See also NRC Staff's Response to Brook Park's Supplement to Petition-to Intervene (Sept. 16, 1991)
-at 8-("there-is no reason-to-believe that Brook Park's
' interest' vill not be adequately protected and represented by AMP-Ohio or_other' parties to this proceeding").
21/ Brook Park Petition at 18.
21 / g..
25./ 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1)(iii).
en __
_The issue of law-now;pending before the Doard concerns the meaning of_Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended _("the Act")._
Neither Brook Park nor its counsel purport to have any_ knovledge or expertise about the Act, the NRC's " par-ticularized" role in antitrust regulation under Section 105(c),
or any aspect of NRC's nuclear licensing responsibilities.27/ In -
fact, quite remarkably, the Brook Park Petition is utterly devoid of any mention of Section 105(c) of the Act, the statutory provi-sion that is the subject, and the only subject, of Phase one of this proceeding.28/ -
Brook Park also' fails to mention the nuclear power plants that are the focal point of the proceeding, much-less to suggest that it is knowledgeable about them. Yet the relative cost of'pover from these nuclear-powered plants and alternatives-to them is the subject, and the onlij subject of Phase Two of the proceeding.2S! '
Instead,1the Brook Park Petition is_ filled with unsubstantiated ^(and patently biased). factual assertions about the utility industry in Ohio, Brook Park's place in it, and the reliance Brook Park 1 intends to_ place on the NRC's license 21 7 See Brook Park Petition at 18-20.
2i/ Again, Cleveland's affirmative defense claims are not at issue-here. See-n.18,.sapra.
- 23/ Again, Applicants' ' agency bias claims are -not at issue here.
--See n.19, supra.
l l
l.
conditions -- a reliance which,'not surprisingly, is designed to Linvoke essentially all of the conditions which. enable it to avoid the-nuclear facilities' high-cost power, and assiduously not to use the license conditions that provide access to Perry and b Daviu-Besse.2E This factual nonologue by Brook Park is inter-esting in that it_ proves the point Applicants have suggested is the case, namely, that the NRC's antitrust license conditions in fact are being used for a purpose antithetical to that for which they were intended. 'But, notvithstanding Applicants' anecdotal interest in this factual dissertion by Brook Park, none of this information is relevant to the. resolution of the case. It per-tains neither to-the legal issue that is the subject of Phase l One, nor to the factual issue that is the subject of Phase Two.
Brook Park relies upon its counsel's asserted knowledge and expertise.about Ohio municipalities and the application of FERC l an'titrust law to the utility industry.31/ -
However, neither the world of Ohio municipalities nor FERC's general antitrust author-ity-are central to this case;-in fact, _the former issue probably 10/ See1 Brook Park Petition at 12. Specifically, Brook Park intends to rely-on-Conditions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10, which concern sales and exchanges of wholesale power and coordina-
' tion services, interconnections, wheeling, short term power supplies,'and-full and partial wholesale power requirements.
Brook Park does not intend to use Conditions 4, 8 and 9, concerning CAPCO membership, reserve sharing,-and ownership in and access to Perry and Davis-Besse.
31 / Brook' Park Petition at 18-20.
P
i has;noJrelevance at=all.-- In_any. event. both'of these subjects '
aiready havelbeen addressed by the opposition parties.32/ -
In suntmary, Brook Park has not distinguished itself f rom' the opposition in any way as for as its ability to provide additional assistance in' developing the_ record. To the contrary, the sub-ject with which-Erook Park is preoccupied -- its anticipated use of-the subject license conditions -- is irrelevant. Most impor-tantly,farook Park does not show any interest, knowledge or familiarity with the issues specified for resolution in this c a s e .'
D. Brook Park's Admission Will Cause Disruotion and Delay Brook Park states that it " vill not seek individually to ,
- brief or argue summary dispcsition to the Board," but vill submit
=
a " formal statement," which vill specify those " portions of the arguments _ advanced by (Cleveland, AMP-0, Alabama Electric Cooper-ative"and the Department of Justice) it wishes to adopt."E2/
Applicants are not sure what a " formal statement" is, or just vhat' Brook Park has_in mind, but'to the extent Brook Park is sim-ply repeating verbatim other opposition parties' assertions, its
-al/ See, ez ga, AMP-O 3rief at 18-20; Cleveland Motion at 26-28.
ll/ Brook Path Petition at 21.
l-.
I-L _ _
cr;ntributicr.; is nil and r.hould not be permitted for-that reason alone. On the other. hand, if Brook Park intends to use the other parties' " arguments" to formulate new arguments or place a dif-ferent slant'of. , iG arguments, its submittal vill delay Phase One of the proceeding, which is now complete (other than its resolu-tion by the Board). In short, any filing Brook Park makes which is not entirely redundant, and therefore meaningless, vill neces-sitate a response by Applicants, to whom Brook Park is opposed.
Obviously, this vill delay the ability of the Licensing Board to resolve Phase One, and if appropriate, to move on to Phase Two.
.Moreover,.since Brook Park apparently_ seeks to include in Phase Two the types of factual allegations contained in its Petition,34/ its participation there also would be meaningless because these allegations are irrelevant to the subject-matter of Phase Two. Alternatively, the admission of such issues would extraordinarily broaden the scope of Phase Two, which has been narrowly and precisely defined.
In short, the fifth " factor" considered u. evaluating a late petition to intervene also veighs against--Brook Park.1E#
11/ See Brook Park Petition at 22.
15/ See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1)(v).
4
. . . . - . ~ - . . . .- . _- . - _
i In summary, rantimely intervention petitions will not'be entertained absen. proof by a petitioner that, on balance, the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(1) overcome the presumption against the petitioner's admission. Brook Park fails-to. satisfy any of the f actors which it bears the burden of prov-
.ing weigh in its favor. Accordingly, its Petition should be denied.
III. -There is No Reason for the Board, in Its Discretion, to Admit Brook Park Each of-the reasons set .forth above, which weigh against Brook park's untimely intervention, similarly disf avor its dis-cretionary intervention. As the Commission stated in Pebble Sorings, the criteria for late intervention are analogous and useful factors to be considered in assessing the facts and cir-cumstances relevant to the consideration of whether to grant intervenor-stetus to a petitioner otherwise not entitled to participate.EE Moreover, Brook Park fails to make the particularly impor-tant showing that it has a "significant ability to contribute on 25/ See'CLI-76-27, 4 N.R.C. at 616.
i
e
~
substantial-issues of law or fact vhich will not otherwise be-properly % raised or: presented. "El/ The issue of law that is the central subject' of this proceeding -- and which Brook Park acknowledges is the subject of this proceedingIE/ -- already has been properly-" raised" and " presented" by others. Brook Park gives no-indication _that it vill contribute meaningfully, much less "significant[1y)," on this issue.
As-to the issues of fact that are the subject of Phase Two -- _i.e., the relative cost'of
. Perry, Davis-Besse and alternative sources of power, and the issue of agency bias -- the_ Brook Park Petition is utterly devoid of any. discussion;about them or even discussion _particularly rel-
, evant to-them.
Because'there is no reason to believe Brook ~ Park vill make a significant contribution to this case, discretionary intervention i should be denied.
IV. . Conclusion -
Forithe reasons set-forth.above, Brook Park's untimely i
intervention petition should be denied. Brook Park i's not l
lL 21/ .14. at-617 L 31/'-Brook Park Petition at-22: as.previously noted,_see n.la, h supra,. Brook _ Park does'not mention-the Cleveland affirmative
[ -defense 1 issues.
_ , , -~ .- - . . - .
entitled.to intervene, and there is no reason for the Board, in its discretion, to grant Brook Park's Petition.
Respectfully submitted, James P. Murphy
- ELL, 4 \'1Sc ~ h 1,2i s u.$ L Gerald Charnoff L' Colleen Conry Dchsrsh 3. Charnoff Mark A. Singley SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY 1201 Pennsylvanla Avenua, 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 Compenj Dated: June 30, 1992
.e
l l'Ob l. ll i>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UbHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
'92 JL -1 P 3 :26 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gwm:
yg ,,Mi{. Qpr. %i .. v ?
ifl
) H i. t ~ "
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 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
) Antitrust Conditions)
)
COMPANY ) ASLBP No.91-644 ^1-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) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of June, 1992, a copy of the foregoing-Applicants' Answer in Opposition to the Amended Petition of the City of Brook Park, Ohio, for Leave to Intervene Out cf Time was served by first class mail postage prepaid on each ot the following:
Samuel J. Chilk Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Charles Bechhoefer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-4350 East West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814
G. Paul Bollwerk, III 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 22124 Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
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 Mark C. Schechter, Esq.,
Janet Urban, Esq.
Transportation, Energy and Agriculture Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice -
Judiciary Center Building 555' Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 lI
-i JuneLW. Weiner,_Esq.,- '
Chief Assistant Director of Law William M. Ondrey Gruber, Esq.,
Assiatant Director of Law William T. Zigli, Esq.
Assistant Director of_Lav City Hall, Room 106 ,
601-Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 4
Reuberi C9)dberg, Esq. .:
-Channing D. Strother, Jr., Esq.
.Goldberg, Fieldman & Letham, P.C.
1100 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. -20005 D. Biard MacGuineas, Esq.
Volpe, Boskey and Lyons ,
b 918-Sixteenth Street, N.W.-
Washington, D.C. 20006 1 Philip N. Ovetholt Office-of Nuclear Plant Performance Office'of Nuclear Energy U.S. -Department _of Energy,'NE-44
.19901; Germantown Road, Room F,-478
-Germantown, Maryland 20535'
~ Ke7neth 7... -Hegemarin, P. E.
President- .
American _ Muriicipa' Power-Ohio, Inc.
601 Dempsey Road F.O. Box 1549 Westerville, Ohio- 43001-DavidLR.iStraus,-Esq.
Spiegelr-& McDiarmid
~1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100
-Washington, DiC. 20005-4798 Anthony J.: Alexander, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel chio-Ed.inon Company-
. 75 South Main Stree:
19th Floor.
Akron,; Ohio' 44308 ;
^~ 3 -
l h
I,,
(...
l.
Gregg D. Ottinger, Esq.
John P.'Coyle, Esq.
Duncan & Allen Suite 300 1575 Eye. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1175 David A. Lambros, Esq.
Lav Director City of Brook Park 6161-Engle Road Brook Park, Ohio 44142 .
O /
/
m
,s SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20037 (202) 663-8000 i
I l
i i
l l
_4_
I l
_ - - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ .. .-_ ..