ML19326A956

Answer to AEC Memorandum & Order & Notice of Hearing on Suspension of Const Activity at Facility.Const Activity at Facility Should Not Be Suspended

ML19326A956
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	04/19/1972
From:	Charnoff G CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19326A951	List: ML19326A950 ML19326A956
References
NUDOCS 8003050856
Download: ML19326A956 (3)

Text

__

e

\m-)~ .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and Docket No. 50-346 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)

ANSWER TO ColGIISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

1. On April 18, 1972, the Commission published in the Federal Register a Memorandum and Order and Notice of Hear-ing on Suspension of Construction Activity at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station which ordered that a hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board be held on the question of whether the activities under Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 for the Davis-Besse facility should be suspended pending com-pletion of the final NEPA review.

2. The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Elec-tric Illuminating Company .(Permittees) will appear and present evidence with respect to the issues in the proceeding. This 8003050h

evidence will include testfmony updating Permittees ' " State-ment Pursuant to Section E of Amended Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50- -- Reasons for' Uon-Suspension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-80," dated October ~15, 1971.

3 Permittees' testimony will demonstrate that:

a) It is not likely that continued construc-tion under Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 dur-ing the NEPA review period will give rise to a significant adverse impact on the environment.

b) Any adverse environmental impact from such continued construction, while not likely in the 'irst f instance, can reasonably be re-dressed even in the unlikely event that modifi-cation, suspension or termination of Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 should result from the ongoing NEPA environmental review.

.c ) Continued construction under Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 during the NEPA review period ,

would not foreclose adoption of alternatives in facility design of the type that could result from the ~ ongoing NEPA environmental review.

d) The additional irretrievable commitment of resources pending completion of the NEPA review will not affect the eventual decision reached on the NEPA review. j

- b e) Suspen'sion of construction activity under Construction. Permit No. CPPR-80, even for the limited period of the NEPA review, would have a substantial adverse impact upon the public interest and would impose substantial delay costs on Per-mittees and to consumers of electricity in the areas which they serve.

4. Attached hereto are Notice of Appearance in this proceeding by Gerald Charnoff and Jay E. Silberg.

Respectfully submitted, s f.i Eb .

/ Gerald Charnoff p j- Jay E. Silberg- I Counsel for The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

'l Dated: April 19,- 1972 G