ML19326A856
| ML19326A856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1972 |
| From: | Silberg G CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326A855 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050759 | |
| Download: ML19326A856 (6) | |
Text
'
9
- UNITED -STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 4
In the Matter of THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and Docket No. 50-346 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
.(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)
EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION SUBMITTED BY THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY 1.
The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Elec-1 tric Illuminating Company (Permittees) believe that the Initial j
Decision issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding on May 19, 1972, is clearly correct and is supported by substantial evidence.
Nonetheless, Permittees submit the following three exceptions.
Modification of the Initial De-cision pursuant to these exceptions, while not necessary for the correctness of the Initial Decision, would however further
.strengthenLit by providing additional evidence-that continued construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during the NEPA review period will not affect the final outcome of that review and that total abandonment of the-Davis-Besse 800305.02 N
. facility is not a likely outcome.
~
EXCEPTION 1:
2.
The Licensing Board erred in failing to consider the fact that Permittees waived all consideration of the addi-tional investment to be made during the review period for the cost-benefit evaluation to be developed in the full NEPA re-view.
" Testimony on Behalf of The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company" (incorporated in the record at Tr.100), p. 26a; Tr. 22.
Although the Licens-ing Board need not have ruled on the Permittees' right to waive the incremental investment cost from consideration by the -Commiccion in its NEPA review, the waiver of the invest-ment, which is at Permittees' own risk, is not an insignificant factor to be. considered in evaluating the effect on the final cost-benefit analysis.
EXCEPTION 2:
3 The Licensing Boa'-d erred by ignoring the an-contradicted testimony that the present design for systems in the Davis-Besse plant'which collect, process and control releases of radioactive effluents would require no additional
. equipment to meet the conservative numerical dose limits in propoced. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
T r. 167-68. ' This
-testimony does not involve any of the considerations which be f
~'--
5-r-
-g e
m, m
.. lead the Licensing Board to exclude evidence relating to operational effects.
It did not prejudge the final NEPA re-view.
Nor did it involve a rehearing of matters previously decided at the construction permit stage.
EXCEPIION 3:
4.
The Licensing Board erred by ignoring the un-contradicted testimony that Permittees have received a certifi-cation from the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board pursuant to Section 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that there is reasonable assurance that the Davis-Besse facility will meet applicable water quality standards.
Tr. 168.
Inclusion of the present fact of certification in the Initial Decision would clearly involve no speculation as to future
~
events.- As with Exception 2, the fact that the Davis-Besse facility has already received a water quality certification does not involve those considerations which lead the Licensing Board to reach its ruling on the scope of the hearing.
5 The Permittees respectfully request that the Initial Decision be modified to reflect the matters identified l
t i
-4 above which the Licensing Board omitted.
Respectfully submitted, i
(L's
{
] u:. A( /
.n Ger a Charnoff Jay 3. S 1 berg Counsel for The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Corapany Dated: May 24, 1972 4
9
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and Docket No. 50-346 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Exceptions to Initial Decision Submitted by The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company were served on the following, by deposit in the U. S. mail, on May 24, 1972:
Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman Nathaniel H. Goodrich, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Chairman Board Atomic Safety & Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington,.D. C.
20545 lDr. John H. Buck, Vice Chairman Atomic -Safety and Licensing Secretary (20)
Appeal Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 Attn: Chief, Public Proceedings Branch j
Dr. Lawrence Quarles Dean of the School of Engineering Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman!
.and Applied Science Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The University of Virginia-U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Charlottesville, Virginia Washington, D. C.
20545
. Dr. John R.' Lyman Martin Malsch, Esq.
(6)
Department of Environmental Office of General Counsel Sciences U. S. Atomic Energy Commission The University of North Carolina Washington, D. C.
20545 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Jerome S. Kalur, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth. A. Luebke Jamison, Ulrich, Burkhalter 610 Foxen Drive
& Hesser Santa -Barbara, California 93105 1425 National City Bank Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Board Panel 11 S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 SEAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By
+
/
~
/L L/
4 y,E. Silberg J
-