ML19329D020: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML19329D020
| number = ML19329D020
| issue date = 08/05/1974
| issue date = 08/05/1974
| title = Responds to Aslb'S Request for Clarification of Contentions in ASLB Prehearing Conference Order 2. Certificate of Svc & Ltr to Counsel from O'Brien & Gere Engineers Encl
| title = Responds to ASLBs Request for Clarification of Contentions in ASLB Prehearing Conference Order 2. Certificate of Svc & Ltr to Counsel from Obrien & Gere Engineers Encl
| author name = Brown J, Palmer F
| author name = Brown J, Palmer F
| author affiliation = AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER-OHIO, INC., AMP, INC., DUNCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG & PALMER
| author affiliation = AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER-OHIO, INC., AMP, INC., DUNCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG & PALMER
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:*
{{#Wiki_filter:*
cp             v
cp v
                                                                              /t       acc Eits       3 s             auEc 1
/t acc Eits 3
h jf 7
auEc s
11NITED STATES OF AMl!RICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 0
1 11NITED STATES OF AMl!RICA 0
AUG 57974 i""er**arw
AUG 57974
                                                                                        's2.* ?"''   S
[4 h jf ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i""er**arw 7
[4 1                                                          6 in the Matter of
6
                                                        )
's2.* ?"''
d'
S 1
                                                        )                          <b N
in the Matter of
The Toledo Edison Company and               )
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminatil.g         )
)
                                                        )
<b d'
Docket No. h Company (Davis-Desse Nuc1 car Power Station)         )
N The Toledo Edison Company and
                                                        )
)
The Cleveland Electric Illumi.nating         )   Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.                         )                 50-441A
The Cleveland Electric Illuminatil.g
                                                        )
)
Duquesne Light Company, et al.               )   Docket No. 50-412A (Beaver Valley, Unit 2)                     )
Docket No. h Company
RESPONSE OF AMP-OllIO TO Tile BOARD'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF                     .
)
AMP-OHIO'S CONTENTIONS IN THE BOARD'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE CRDER #2 I. INTRODUCTION On July 25, 1974, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter the Board) issued its Prehearing Conference Order #2.
(Davis-Desse Nuc1 car Power Station)
In it the Board apparently again seeks a further explanation of the issues presented by American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (hereinafter AMP-OHIO). As stated by the Board:
)
In its Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1974, the                             l Board required AMP-0 to explain more fully the mechanisms and relationships that it believed would result in operations under the licenses for the Davis-Besse and Perry plants injuring AMP-0. This requirement was held in abeyance pending the development of the Joint Statement.
)
The Joint Statement did not provide the informa-                               l tion the Board seeks, and consequently, such requirement is hereby reinstated. AMP-O's 8002240 03 3                     p7
The Cleveland Electric Illumi.nating
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A
)
Duquesne Light Company, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-412A (Beaver Valley, Unit 2)
)
RESPONSE OF AMP-OllIO TO Tile BOARD'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF AMP-OHIO'S CONTENTIONS IN THE BOARD'S PREHEARING CONFERENCE CRDER #2 I.
INTRODUCTION On July 25, 1974, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter the Board) issued its Prehearing Conference Order #2.
In it the Board apparently again seeks a further explanation of the issues presented by American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (hereinafter AMP-OHIO).
As stated by the Board:
In its Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1974, the Board required AMP-0 to explain more fully the mechanisms and relationships that it believed would result in operations under the licenses for the Davis-Besse and Perry plants injuring AMP-0.
This requirement was held in abeyance pending the development of the Joint Statement.
The Joint Statement did not provide the informa-tion the Board seeks, and consequently, such requirement is hereby reinstated.
AMP-O's 8002240 03 3 p7


2-statement shall be filed within 10 days of this Order.       In any event, since AMP-C's contentions were limited to wheeling, its discovery shall also be so limited.1/
2-statement shall be filed within 10 days of this Order.
AMP-OHIO is frankly surprised at the requirement of the Board that its position on nexus be made more precise than it has already been in its Petition to Intervene, the Rcquest for Reconsider-ation of Tentative Denial of Petition to Intervene filed by AMP-OHIO, the Joint Statement referred to by the Board supra, oral argument before the Board at the various hearings held, and in the letter from O'Brien 6 Gere, AMP-OHI0's consulting engineers, on file with this Board as an exhibit. This is particularly so since the Board has already found AMP-OHIO's contentions to be a "... sufficient pleading of nexus to permit AMP-O's intervention in the Perry proceeding.' 2/
In any event, since AMP-C's contentions were limited to wheeling, its discovery shall also be so limited.1/
AMP-OHIO is frankly surprised at the requirement of the Board that its position on nexus be made more precise than it has already been in its Petition to Intervene, the Rcquest for Reconsider-ation of Tentative Denial of Petition to Intervene filed by AMP-OHIO, the Joint Statement referred to by the Board supra, oral argument before the Board at the various hearings held, and in the letter from O'Brien 6 Gere, AMP-OHI0's consulting engineers, on file with this Board as an exhibit.
This is particularly so since the Board has already found AMP-OHIO's contentions to be a "... sufficient pleading of nexus to permit AMP-O's intervention in the Perry proceeding.' 2/
Moreover, we reiterate our contention that this matter is a proper subject for discovery, but not a matter relating to the threshhold jurisdictional question once.that determination has been made.
Moreover, we reiterate our contention that this matter is a proper subject for discovery, but not a matter relating to the threshhold jurisdictional question once.that determination has been made.
Nevertheless, in recognition of the desire of the Board for a further exposition of the question of nexus, AMP-OHIO will, once again l
Nevertheless, in recognition of the desire of the Board for a further exposition of the question of nexus, AMP-OHIO will, once again l
1/ Ibid, at p. 14.           It should be noted that counsel for AMP-OHIO were not served with a copy of the July 25, 1974 Order. Mr. John Engle of AMP-OHIO was served, but became aware of its existence only after return from vacation.           Thus the undersigned were not made aware of the extant Order until August 2, 1974.                 We are unable to explain this lack of service upon counsel.
1/ Ibid, at p. 14.
2/ F_inni Memorandum and Note        Orderthat on Petitions to Intervene and Reouests to                     p. 5.               the Applicant did not tile a F~e,r tie,a r i n g, a ttor Rehearing of the Board's final order and AMP-OHIO tition has a full and final status as intervenor in these proceedings.
It should be noted that counsel for AMP-OHIO were not served with a copy of the July 25, 1974 Order.
Mr. John Engle of AMP-OHIO was served, but became aware of its existence only after return from vacation.
Thus the undersigned were not made aware of the extant Order until August 2, 1974.
We are unable to explain this lack of service upon counsel.
2/ F_inni Memorandum and Order on Petitions to Intervene and Reouests to p.
5.
Note that the Applicant did not tile a F~e,r tie,a r i n g, a ttor Rehearing of the Board's final order and AMP-OHIO tition has a full and final status as intervenor in these proceedings.
l i
l i


                                                                                                ~
~
delineate the "... techn,ical, economic and marketing relationships that AMP-0 asserts could icad to AMP-0 being unabic to fulfill its commitment to Cleveland."2/
. delineate the "... techn,ical, economic and marketing relationships that AMP-0 asserts could icad to AMP-0 being unabic to fulfill its commitment to Cleveland."2/
II.         The Interests of AMP-OllIO In the present proceeding, AMP-Of!IO stands as an actual competitor-to the applicant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (hereinafter CEI).                     As the Board is well aware, AMP-OHIO stands in the unique position of having the institutional capability of purchasing low cost hydroelectric power from the Power Authority of the State of New York under Public Law 85-159.                                               As the Board is further aware, AMP-OHIO has access to approximately 30 megawatts of PAS!!Y power for resale to the City of Cleveland, a present and captive customer of CEI.                           Finally, AMP-Oi!IO has ample authority under                                       )
II.
its Articles of Incorporation and General Corporation Act of Ohio                                                                     l to develop generation on an economic basis for the benefit of its                                                                     !
The Interests of AMP-OllIO In the present proceeding, AMP-Of!IO stands as an actual competitor-to the applicant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (hereinafter CEI).
I constituent members.                                                                                                                 {
As the Board is well aware, AMP-OHIO stands in the unique position of having the institutional capability of purchasing low cost hydroelectric power from the Power Authority of the State of New York under Public Law 85-159.
As the Board is further aware, AMP-OHIO has access to approximately 30 megawatts of PAS!!Y power for resale to the City of Cleveland, a present and captive customer of CEI.
Finally, AMP-Oi!IO has ample authority under
)
its Articles of Incorporation and General Corporation Act of Ohio to develop generation on an economic basis for the benefit of its constituent members.
AMP-OHIO is, however, presently precluded from either 1
AMP-OHIO is, however, presently precluded from either 1
serving as the Ohio marketing agent for PASNY power or trom develop-                                                                 '
serving as the Ohio marketing agent for PASNY power or trom develop-ing large scale generation due to the fact that CEI controls needed transmission facilities.
ing large scale generation due to the fact that CEI controls needed transmission facilities.                           AMP-OHIO's immediate interests in these proceedings relate to the PASNY question, but there is no doubt that the issues posed by AMP-Ollt0 in the present proceedings have applicability to the longer term re la tions o f AMP-0IITO and Clit .
AMP-OHIO's immediate interests in these proceedings relate to the PASNY question, but there is no doubt that the issues posed by AMP-Ollt0 in the present proceedings have applicability to the longer term re la tions o f AMP-0IITO and Clit.
i/     I* 1 al.a I ble hto s .ui lons n o.1 s i s 41 u e... I'. . : I e li n.. s.. l eil .i s v..no .i n.1 t e . .. g e s. . i t, ie l,o r lis t r i ng, , a l     p.   ',s .
i/
I* 1 al.a I ble hto s.ui lons n o.1 s i s 41 u e...
I'.. : I e li n..
s..
l eil.i s v..no.i n.1 t e... g e s.. i t, ie l,o r lis t r i ng,, a l p.
',s.
I
I


AMP-OllIO's immediate concern deals with the ef fect of the Perry unit on CEI's transmission capabilities. There is no doubt that the addition of Perry will have an overati impact on CEI's total system, although the nature and extent of that impact-can only be delineated through the normal processes of discovery.
. AMP-OllIO's immediate concern deals with the ef fect of the Perry unit on CEI's transmission capabilities.
In the discovery process, AMP-OHIO will seek to determine whether the addition of Perry will render CEI incapable of wheeling PASNY power, on behalf of AMP-OHIO, to the City of Cleveland.       Second, and assuming wheeling capacity would remain, AMP-OllIO will sock to determine whether the addition of Perry will affect CEI's system to such an extent as to pose reliability questions in relation to wheeling services for AMP-OHIO.
There is no doubt that the addition of Perry will have an overati impact on CEI's total system, although the nature and extent of that impact-can only be delineated through the normal processes of discovery.
In either circumstance, AMP-OHIO's competitive relation-ship with CEI will be affected. If the addition of Perry means that AMP-OHIO will be effectively precluded from serving as a present or future competitor to CEI, then this Board, and ultimately 1
In the discovery process, AMP-OHIO will seek to determine whether the addition of Perry will render CEI incapable of wheeling PASNY power, on behalf of AMP-OHIO, to the City of Cleveland.
the Commission, must consider whether the granting of the requested license will be in the public interest as embodied in the Atomic Energy Act and the anti-trust laws. In so doing, this Board, and ultimately the Commission, must further consider the desirability of imposing conditions and/or restrictions on the license that would accommodate the interest and needs of CEI and of AMP-OHIO.           l l
: Second, and assuming wheeling capacity would remain, AMP-OllIO will sock to determine whether the addition of Perry will affect CEI's system to such an extent as to pose reliability questions in relation to wheeling services for AMP-OHIO.
It should be kept in mind that at this stage of the             i proceedings both AMP-OHIO and this Board lack sufficient information to formulate definitive opinions and views as to the issues presented.
In either circumstance, AMP-OHIO's competitive relation-ship with CEI will be affected.
Only through discovery and the normal course of events of these             l l
If the addition of Perry means that AMP-OHIO will be effectively precluded from serving as a present or future competitor to CEI, then this Board, and ultimately the Commission, must consider whether the granting of the requested license will be in the public interest as embodied in the Atomic Energy Act and the anti-trust laws.
proceedings can the issues be resolved.     But AMP-OHIO and the Board do have the benefit of the opinion of O'Brien 6 Gere and AMP-OHIO again
In so doing, this Board, and ultimately the Commission, must further consider the desirability of imposing conditions and/or restrictions on the license that would accommodate the interest and needs of CEI and of AMP-OHIO.
It should be kept in mind that at this stage of the i
proceedings both AMP-OHIO and this Board lack sufficient information to formulate definitive opinions and views as to the issues presented.
Only through discovery and the normal course of events of these l
proceedings can the issues be resolved.
But AMP-OHIO and the Board do have the benefit of the opinion of O'Brien 6 Gere and AMP-OHIO again


submits as an exhibit a copy of their letter concerning technical aspects of the impact of Perry on CEI's system. In O'Brien 6 Gere's view, operation of Perry raises questions concerning wheeling capacity                           .
. submits as an exhibit a copy of their letter concerning technical aspects of the impact of Perry on CEI's system.
and system reliability. While the language of the letter is tec,hnical, the message is clear--there will be scme impact.                         It is now up to the parties to define the extent of impact through discovery and hearings.
In O'Brien 6 Gere's view, operation of Perry raises questions concerning wheeling capacity and system reliability. While the language of the letter is tec,hnical, the message is clear--there will be scme impact.
III. Conclusion In light of the schedule established by the Board, it is apparent that the issues posed by AMP-OHIO will now be resolved within a definitive time frame. AMP-OHIO intends to vigorously pursue discovery and participate fully in these proceedings. CEI is and has always been fully aware of AMP-OHIO's interest herein and has always understood the issues posed by AMP-OllIO. If, in the discovery process, CEI believes that JJIP-0!!IO sccks information not germanc to the issues posed, then CUI has recourse to this Board pursuant to the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Hcpefully, however, all parties now have a full under-standing of the position of AMP-OllIO and its relationship to CEI and discovery processes can commence in an orderly fashion.
It is now up to the parties to define the extent of impact through discovery and hearings.
Respectfully submitted,                                     ,
III.
i                l            l
Conclusion In light of the schedule established by the Board, it is apparent that the issues posed by AMP-OHIO will now be resolved within a definitive time frame.
                                                                                              ~>n Fredr'           D. Palmer
AMP-OHIO intends to vigorously pursue discovery and participate fully in these proceedings.
                                                    -  y c K._ J'%._                           . , - ~
CEI is and has always been fully aware of AMP-OHIO's interest herein and has always understood the issues posed by AMP-OllIO.
                                            . ii T . lipokn '
If, in the discovery process, CEI believes that JJIP-0!!IO sccks information not germanc to the issues posed, then CUI has recourse to this Board pursuant to the Commission's Rules and Regulations.
DlINCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG G PALMER 17 10 Pennsylvania Avenue , N. W.
Hcpefully, however, all parties now have a full under-standing of the position of AMP-OllIO and its relationship to CEI and discovery processes can commence in an orderly fashion.
Suite 777
Respectfully submitted, i
  .                                          W:i,hinniein, 11             (: . 2 tit 106             )
l
{ .!(12 ) .!!!b l .i /. !,
~>n Fredr' D. Palmer y c K._ J'%._
i:inin so I fo r AMi' 01110                                 ;
~
l 1
ii T. lipokn '
m
DlINCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG G PALMER 17 10 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Suite 777 W:i,hinniein, 11
(:.
2 tit 106
{.!(12 ).!!!b l.i /. !,
i:inin so I fo r AMi' 01110 m


Exhibit A
Exhibit A
                                        '''?.T.[~.*" ''iI.3 s  viNGINEiEi%. INC.          .
' '''?.T.[~.*" ''iI.3 viNGINEiEi%. INC.
March 29, 1974
s March 29, 1974
                                                              ~
~
l John T. Brown, Esq.
l John T. Brown, Esq.
Duncan, Brown & Palmer                                                             :
Duncan, Brown & Palmer The Mills Building 1700 Fennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
The Mills Building 1700 Fennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                                                     ,
Washing ton, D.C.
Washing ton , D.C. 20006                                                       ,
20006 Re:
Re:   Amp-Ohio, Inc.                     !
Amp-Ohio, Inc.
PASNY Power     ,
PASNY Power File:
File:     1243.001                           l
1243.001 l


==Dear Ri ck:==
==Dear Ri ck:==
We are making the following comments at your request concerning the March 15, 1974 Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Energy i
Commission relative to the proposed Perry Nuclear Power Station.
l 1
On Page 10 of the Memorandum, the Board states that "the peti-l tioner seems to be saying that the sole nexus involved here is that the Perry Plant would merely affect the ' wheeling' capacity of CEI's transmission system."
This is not the sole nexus; i
there is alra the question of overall power system stability l
that was raised in our letter of February 28, 1974.
We shall comment first on the question of wheeling.
Refer to the guidelines in Waterford which the Board says must be met to establish a nexus.
On Page 1170 of Waterford, allegations i
(2) and (5) most certainly apply in the case at issue.
The Cleveland Electric does control the bulk power transmission system which is the last vital link for the wheeling of PASNY power and with the installation of the major Perry Plant may i
be in the position to load transmission circuits to preclude the delivery of power from the Power Authority of the State of New York to the City of Cleveland.
i


We are making the following comments at your request concerning the March 15, 1974 Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Energy                  i Commission relative to the proposed Perry Nuclear Power Station.              l 1
John T. Brown, Esq.
On Page 10 of the Memorandum, the Board states that "the peti-                l tioner seems to be saying that the sole nexus involved here is that the Perry Plant would merely affect the ' wheeling' capacity of CEI's transmission system." This is not the sole nexus;                    i there is alra the question of overall power system stability                l        ,
that was raised in our letter of February 28, 1974.                          ,
We shall comment first on the question of wheeling.        Refer to the guidelines in Waterford which the Board says must be met to establish a nexus. On Page 1170 of Waterford, allegations              i (2) and (5) most certainly apply in the case at issue. The Cleveland Electric does control the bulk power transmission system which is the last vital link for the wheeling of PASNY power and with the installation of the major Perry Plant may            i be in the position to load transmission circuits to preclude            :
the delivery of power from the Power Authority of the State of New York to the City of Cleveland.                                  ;
i l
l l
 
John T. Brown , Esq.                                                                        .
Ma rch 29,,1974 Page Two As mentioned above, the question of stability must also be reviewed.
Ma rch 29,,1974 Page Two As mentioned above, the question of stability must also be reviewed.
The author has had considerable experience in power system analysis, having served as a utility representative on a special Federal Power Commission study of the November 1965 Northeast power interruption.
The author has had considerable experience in power system analysis, having served as a utility representative on a special Federal Power Commission study of the November 1965 Northeast power interruption.
It is almost the universal practice in power sys tem planning to fully represent area transmission and generating facilities in system transient stability studies to determine if the addition of a major gonerating plant could result in condi tions following a system dis-turbance tha t would result in sys tem ins tability and the break-up                       ,
It is almost the universal practice in power sys tem planning to fully represent area transmission and generating facilities in system transient stability studies to determine if the addition of a major gonerating plant could result in condi tions following a system dis-turbance tha t would result in sys tem ins tability and the break-up of the area transmission system.
of the area transmission system.                                                           1 i
1 i
In this instance , there is the danger of the Cleveland Municipal                        '[
System, radial to the transmission f acilities of the Cleveland
;          System, radial to the transmission f acilities of the Cleveland
'[
;
In this instance, there is the danger of the Cleveland Municipal Electric Illuminating Company on a tie ordered by the Federal Power Commission, separating f rom the interconnected system.
Electric Illuminating Company on a tie ordered by the Federal                           ;
i This separation would not only interrupt the delivery of PASHY.
Power Commission , separating f rom the interconnected system.                         i This separation would not only interrupt the delivery of PASHY.                       !
power but i t would also sever the system from the availability o f eme rgency power.
power but i t would also sever the system from the availability                       :
The Cleveland Electric. Illuminating Company is a member of ECAR, the area transmitting reliability group, and l
o f eme rgency power. The Cleveland Electric . Illuminating Company                 ;
has access to all pertinent system data; whereas, AMP-Ohio is l
is a member of ECAR, the area transmitting reliability group, and l           has access to all pertinent system data; whereas, AMP-Ohio is l           not a member of this group and does not have access to the neces-sary information to test the sys tem for a load and stabili ty con-ditions. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company must dem-                 ,
not a member of this group and does not have access to the neces-sary information to test the sys tem for a load and stabili ty con-ditions.
onstrate that computer model simulation has included the vital                     ;
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company must dem-onstrate that computer model simulation has included the vital wheeling facilities for PASNY power and of full representation of the Municipal Generating Facilities in stability studies.
wheeling facilities for PASNY power and of full representation                     .
l Very truly yours, f
of the Municipal Generating Facilities in stability studies.
l f
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
j J
C arles H.\\ e W
,, w\\
s l
Illingwo th, P.E.
Managing Engineer i
l l
l l
Very truly yours, f
CHI /fc cc:
f O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.            j            i
Mr. John C. Engle M r. Adam W. Kubik l
                                                    ,, w\      s          J    -
l s
l                                                C arles H.\      eW Illingwo th , P.E.
t l
Managing Engineer                      i l
!                                                                                        l CHI /fc cc:   Mr. John C. Engle                                                     !
M r. Adam W. Kubik                                                   l l
s t
l


b d
b d
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J
I hereby certify that service of the foregoing pleading has been made.on the following parties listed on the attachment hereto, this .[D ' day of August, 1974, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class or air mail, postage               repaid.                                     l l                                                 /#           /
I hereby certify that service of the foregoing pleading has been made.on the following parties listed on the attachment hereto, this.[D
ETA') i WP             ,' "    /m..,                                     ;
' day of August, 1974, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class or air mail, postage repaid.
l l
/#
/
i WP
/m..,
ETA'
)
}
}
Fredrick D. Palmer I
Fredrick D. Palmer I
i t
i t
                                                                                                                      ;
i 1
i -
i i
1                                                                                                                  i
t i
                                                                                                                  ;
a w
i
-c-e
* t i
a w                   ,  - - , - -
                                                                              -c- e           , , _ , - - ,


ATTACHMENT i
ATTACHMENT
          /w,.aic Safety and Licenning Board         Jasoph J. Saunders, Esq.
/w,.aic Safety and Licenning Board Jasoph J. Saunders, Esq.
L.S. Atomic Encegy Commission               Steven Charno, Esq.
L.S. Atomic Encegy Commission Steven Charno, Esq.
Vla:.hin;; ton, D. C . 20545               Antitrust Division Department of Justico Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief         ,
Vla:.hin;; ton, D. C.
Washington, D. C. 20530 INblic Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary                     Abraham Braitman, Esq.
20545 Antitrust Division Department of Justico Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D. C.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission             Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C. 20545                     U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
20530 INblic Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esq.
      .                                              Washington, D. C. 20545 John B. Farmakidos, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.
Chairman                                   William T. Clabault, Eaq.
20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
inomic Safety and Licensing Board           David A. Leckie, Esq.
20545 John B. Farmakidos, Esq.
U. S. Acomic Energy Commission             Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20545                     Post Office Box 7513 John H. Brebbia, Esq.
Chairman William T. Clabault, Eaq.
Atomic Saicty and Licensing Board           Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
inomic Safety and Licensing Board David A. Leckie, Esq.
Alston, Miller & Gaines                     Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1776 K Street, N. W.                     910 - 17th Street, N. W.           ,
U. S. Acomic Energy Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
Wa shington, D. C. 20006                   Washington, p. C. 20006 1
20545 Post Office Box 7513 John H. Brebbia, Esq.
Dr. Georgo R. Hall                         Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Atomic Saicty and Licensing Board Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board           Special Assistant Attornoy General U. S. Atomic Energy Conunission             Room 219 - Towno Houso Aparanem Washington, D. C.     20545 .            Harriuburg, Ponasylvania 17105 acnjamin d. Voglar. Esq.                   Thomas J. Munsch, Jr. , Eaq.
Alston, Miller & Gaines Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1776 K Street, N. W.
Joseph Rutberg, Esq.                       General Attorney Office of the General Counsel               Duquosno Lisa: Company             1 Regulation                                 435 Sixth Avenue               -
910 - 17th Street, N. W.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission             Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania   15419 Washington, D. C. 20545
1 Wa shington, D. C.
                ,                                    David McNeil Olds, Esq.
20006 Washington, p. C.
Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.                   John McN. Cramer, Eaq.
20006 Dr. Georgo R. Hall Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel               Reed, Smith, Shaw k McClay acgulation                                 747 Union Trust Duilding           j U. S. Atomic Energy Commission             Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C. 20545 John R. White, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Special Assistant Attornoy General U. S. Atomic Energy Conunission Room 219 - Towno Houso Aparanem Washington, D. C.
Andrew F. Popper, Esq.                     Vice President and General Counsol Office of the General Counsel               Ohio Edison Company Regulation                                 47 North Main Street U. S. Atomic Energy Commission             Akron, Ohio     44308     .
20545 Harriuburg, Ponasylvania 17105 acnjamin d. Voglar. Esq.
Washington, D. C.     20545             ,
Thomas J. Munsch, Jr., Eaq.
Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
General Attorney Office of the General Counsel Duquosno Lis : Company a
Regulation 435 Sixth Avenue U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15419 Washington, D. C.
20545 David McNeil Olds, Esq.
Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.
John McN. Cramer, Eaq.
Office of the General Counsel Reed, Smith, Shaw k McClay acgulation 747 Union Trust Duilding j
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C.
20545 John R. White, Esq.
Andrew F. Popper, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsol Office of the General Counsel Ohio Edison Company Regulation 47 North Main Street U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D. C.
20545


t   ,
t
          ..q:c 2                                             ATTACHMENT (Continue.1)
..q:c 2 ATTACHMENT (Continue.1)
Pennsylvania Powe: Company               Reuben Goldberg, Esquire i East Washington Street                1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Pennsylvania Powe: Company Reuben Goldberg, Esquire 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.
New Castic, Pennsylvania 16103           Suite 550 Washington, D. C. 20006 Leslie Henry, Esq.
W.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder                               ,
i East Washington Street Suite 550 New Castic, Pennsylvania 16103 Washington, D. C. 20006 Leslie Henry, Esq.
300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The C1cveland Elcetric Illuminating Co.
The C1cveland Elcetric Illuminating Co.
Post Office Bo:: 5000 Cleveland, Ohio   44101 John Lansdale, Jr. , Esq.
Post Office Bo:: 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 John Lansdale, Jr., Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Cox, Langford & Brown 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545     .
Washington, D. C.
Dr. John H. Buck                                               ,        .
20036 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission Washington, D. C.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. Lawrence K. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board                               '
20545 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.
20545 Dr. Lawrence K. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.
Deborah M. Powell, Esq.
Deborah M. Powell, Esq.
* Antitrust Section 8 East Long Street Suite 510                                             -
Antitrust Section 8 East Long Street Suite 510 Columbus, Ohio 43215 s
Columbus, Ohio     43215                       .
s l
1}}
1}}

Latest revision as of 06:32, 31 December 2024

Responds to ASLBs Request for Clarification of Contentions in ASLB Prehearing Conference Order 2. Certificate of Svc & Ltr to Counsel from Obrien & Gere Engineers Encl
ML19329D020
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Davis Besse, Perry  Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 08/05/1974
From: Jonathan Brown, Palmer F
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL POWER-OHIO, INC., AMP, INC., DUNCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG & PALMER
To:
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8002240033
Download: ML19329D020 (10)
v • d • e


Text

cp v

/t acc Eits 3

auEc s

1 11NITED STATES OF AMl!RICA 0

AUG 57974

[4 h jf ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i""er**arw 7

6

's2.* ?"

S 1

in the Matter of

)

)

n Fredr' D. Palmer y c K._ J'%._

~

ii T. lipokn '

DlINCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG G PALMER 17 10 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Suite 777 W:i,hinniein, 11

(:.

2 tit 106

{.!(12 ).!!!b l.i /. !,

i:inin so I fo r AMi' 01110 m

Exhibit A

' '?.T.[~.*" iI.3 viNGINEiEi%. INC.

s March 29, 1974

~

l John T. Brown, Esq.

Duncan, Brown & Palmer The Mills Building 1700 Fennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washing ton, D.C.

20006 Re:

Amp-Ohio, Inc.

PASNY Power File:

1243.001 l

Dear Ri ck:

We are making the following comments at your request concerning the March 15, 1974 Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Energy i

Commission relative to the proposed Perry Nuclear Power Station.

l 1

On Page 10 of the Memorandum, the Board states that "the peti-l tioner seems to be saying that the sole nexus involved here is that the Perry Plant would merely affect the ' wheeling' capacity of CEI's transmission system."

This is not the sole nexus; i

there is alra the question of overall power system stability l

that was raised in our letter of February 28, 1974.

We shall comment first on the question of wheeling.

Refer to the guidelines in Waterford which the Board says must be met to establish a nexus.

On Page 1170 of Waterford, allegations i

(2) and (5) most certainly apply in the case at issue.

The Cleveland Electric does control the bulk power transmission system which is the last vital link for the wheeling of PASNY power and with the installation of the major Perry Plant may i

be in the position to load transmission circuits to preclude the delivery of power from the Power Authority of the State of New York to the City of Cleveland.

i

John T. Brown, Esq.

Ma rch 29,,1974 Page Two As mentioned above, the question of stability must also be reviewed.

The author has had considerable experience in power system analysis, having served as a utility representative on a special Federal Power Commission study of the November 1965 Northeast power interruption.

It is almost the universal practice in power sys tem planning to fully represent area transmission and generating facilities in system transient stability studies to determine if the addition of a major gonerating plant could result in condi tions following a system dis-turbance tha t would result in sys tem ins tability and the break-up of the area transmission system.

1 i

System, radial to the transmission f acilities of the Cleveland

'[

In this instance, there is the danger of the Cleveland Municipal Electric Illuminating Company on a tie ordered by the Federal Power Commission, separating f rom the interconnected system.

i This separation would not only interrupt the delivery of PASHY.

power but i t would also sever the system from the availability o f eme rgency power.

The Cleveland Electric. Illuminating Company is a member of ECAR, the area transmitting reliability group, and l

has access to all pertinent system data; whereas, AMP-Ohio is l

not a member of this group and does not have access to the neces-sary information to test the sys tem for a load and stabili ty con-ditions.

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company must dem-onstrate that computer model simulation has included the vital wheeling facilities for PASNY power and of full representation of the Municipal Generating Facilities in stability studies.

l Very truly yours, f

l f

O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.

j J

C arles H.\\ e W

,, w\\

s l

Illingwo th, P.E.

Managing Engineer i

l l

CHI /fc cc:

Mr. John C. Engle M r. Adam W. Kubik l

l s

t l

b d

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J

I hereby certify that service of the foregoing pleading has been made.on the following parties listed on the attachment hereto, this.[D

' day of August, 1974, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class or air mail, postage repaid.

l l

/#

/

i WP

/m..,

ETA'

)

}

Fredrick D. Palmer I

i t

i 1

i i

t i

a w

-c-e

ATTACHMENT

/w,.aic Safety and Licenning Board Jasoph J. Saunders, Esq.

L.S. Atomic Encegy Commission Steven Charno, Esq.

Vla:.hin;; ton, D. C.

20545 Antitrust Division Department of Justico Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D. C.

20530 INblic Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esq.

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.

20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 John B. Farmakidos, Esq.

Chairman William T. Clabault, Eaq.

inomic Safety and Licensing Board David A. Leckie, Esq.

U. S. Acomic Energy Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C.

20545 Post Office Box 7513 John H. Brebbia, Esq.

Atomic Saicty and Licensing Board Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Alston, Miller & Gaines Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1776 K Street, N. W.

910 - 17th Street, N. W.

1 Wa shington, D. C.

20006 Washington, p. C.

20006 Dr. Georgo R. Hall Frank R. Clokey, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Special Assistant Attornoy General U. S. Atomic Energy Conunission Room 219 - Towno Houso Aparanem Washington, D. C.

20545 Harriuburg, Ponasylvania 17105 acnjamin d. Voglar. Esq.

Thomas J. Munsch, Jr., Eaq.

Joseph Rutberg, Esq.

General Attorney Office of the General Counsel Duquosno Lis : Company a

Regulation 435 Sixth Avenue U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15419 Washington, D. C.

20545 David McNeil Olds, Esq.

Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.

John McN. Cramer, Eaq.

Office of the General Counsel Reed, Smith, Shaw k McClay acgulation 747 Union Trust Duilding j

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C.

20545 John R. White, Esq.

Andrew F. Popper, Esq.

Vice President and General Counsol Office of the General Counsel Ohio Edison Company Regulation 47 North Main Street U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D. C.

20545

t

..q:c 2 ATTACHMENT (Continue.1)

Pennsylvania Powe: Company Reuben Goldberg, Esquire 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.

W.

i East Washington Street Suite 550 New Castic, Pennsylvania 16103 Washington, D. C. 20006 Leslie Henry, Esq.

Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

The C1cveland Elcetric Illuminating Co.

Post Office Bo:: 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 John Lansdale, Jr., Esq.

Cox, Langford & Brown 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 Dr. Lawrence K. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545 C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.

Deborah M. Powell, Esq.

Antitrust Section 8 East Long Street Suite 510 Columbus, Ohio 43215 s

1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19329D020&oldid=4754168"