ML19329C711
| ML19329C711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1975 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002180204 | |
| Download: ML19329C711 (9) | |
Text
~
Uc%ober 2, 1975 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Accea' Ecard In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
COMPANY
)
m (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos.s50 ^46X3 Unit 1)
)
50-440A
)
50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Pcwer Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO THE CITY OF CLE7 ELAND'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATICN 1.
On September 29, 1975, the City of Clevelanu
(" City") filed with this Appeal Scard a petition for recon-sideration of the Memorandum and Order. issued September 19, 1975 The petition states no legitimate basis for granting the relief requested.
2.
The City argues that the rulings of the Special Master crnnot be considered " binding" and at the same time constitute an interlocutory determination which is unappealable under Section 2.730(f) of the Commission's rules.
Such an assertion can only be based on a fundamental misconception of the basic characteristic of interlocutory rulings.
They are, by definition, the intermediate decisions along the liti-ration path which do not finally dispose of the substantive 8002180 M Y g
=
.=
~
m DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-346
- 1.,With regard to your response to Question 3.2.2 as indicated in Amend-ment 3 tr the FSAR, the following Quality Group A components within the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not in compliance with Section 50.55a of 10 CFR Part 50.
These components are:
(1) Reactor Vessel, (2)
Part Length Control Rod Drive Housing, (3)
Steam Generator (tube side and shell side), and (4) Pressuriaer.
For items 1 through 4 to be in compliance with Section 50.55a of 10 CFR Part 50 based on a construction permit date of March 24, 1971, these ccmponents should be constructed to ASME Section III, 1968 Edition, Subsection A, and the following addenda:
Anmmar 1069 and Winter 196S.
Our position is that conformance with Section 50.55a of 10 CFR Part 50 is mandatory unless it can be shown that compliance with these requirements would result in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
2.
Your Seismic Category II classification of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System is not in agreement with current AEC practice and is unacceptable.
Our position is diat those components of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System that perfona the cooling function should be classified Seismic Category 1.
3.
Your Seismic Category II classification of thcs e portions of the Component Cooling Water System which service:
(1) Reactor Coolant Pumps, (2) Letdown Cooler, and (3)
Seal Return Cooler, is not in agreement with current AEC
~
- e.
s.
.. j'
- 1/
Justice and the NRC Staff, at least as of December 6, 1974 and it coincides with the Licensing Board's conclusions re-garding this matter.
In view of the City's argument, Judge Learned Hand's admonition in Hotchkiss v.
National City Bank, 200 F.
287, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1911), aff'd, 201 F. 664 (2d Cir.
1912), aff'd, 231 U.S.
50 (1913), bears repeating:
If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party, when he used the-words, intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes upon them, he would still be held, unless there were sore mutual mistake, or something else of the sort.
5 While the City again asserts that the Special Master ignored the law, denied the City a fair hearing and failed to do a workmanlike j ob, these broad assertions have never been substantiated to any degree -- nor, we submit, can they be.
In any event, in light of the stipulation of the parties and the interlocutory nature of the discovery determins. ions being challenged, consideration of the cor-rectness of the Special Master's rulings are not relevant to this appeal.
1/
At oral argument before this Appeal Board, both the Department of Justice and.the NRC Staff stated that their original understanding of the agreement was consistent with Applicants' position.
However, each expressed some "second thoughts" as to the scope of the agreement after reflecting on the matter some six months later.
l l
UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGF TORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety ard Licensing Acceal Board In the Matter of
~
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLU::I.' RATING
)
COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1)
)
50-440A
)
50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Reply To The City of Cleveland's Petition For Reconsideration" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand delivering a copy to those persons in the 5ishington, D.
C.
area and by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 2nd day of October, 1975 SHAW, PITTMAN, PCTTS i TROWBRIDGE m
k ) <_. b> ddd
-da,
By:
Wm. Bradford ReynolcN Counsel for Applicants Dated:
October 2, 1975
~
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Apneal Board In the Matter of
)'
)
Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
TIIE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Doci
. Noc. 50-346A Unit 1)
)
50-440A TNE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
(Perry Muclear Power Plant,
)
Unito 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Alan S. Rosenthal, Ecq.
Atomic Safety and L?cencing Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board Panel Licensing Appeal Eoard U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 sq.
Abraham Braitman, c
Michael C.
Farrar, Esq.
Chief, Office of Anticrust Atomic Safety and Licencing and Indemnity U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiscic, Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Docketing & Service Section Richard S. Salcman, Ecc.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Atomic Safety and Licensing 1717 H Stree;, N.W.
Appeal Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.
C.
20006 Washington, D.
C.
20555~
Benj amin H. Vcgler, Esq.
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atemic Safety and Director Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh Washington, D. C.
20555 and Jacobs Roy P. Lecay, Jr.,
Esq.
Chanin Building - Suite 206 Office of the Executiva Legal 815 Cen".ecticut Avenue, N.W.
Director Washington, D.
C.
20006 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licencing Andrew F.
Popper, Esq.
Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U. S.
Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
2003b Director U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion John M. Fryciak, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commicsion Washington, D. C. 20555
r
.m l
. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Donald II. Hauser, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
General Attorney The Cleveland Electric Antitrust Division j
Department of Justice Illuminating Compa'ny Washington, D. C. 20530 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44101 i
D'rger, E'sq.
Melvin G.
O j
Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
Leslic IIenry, Esq.
l Antitrust Division Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor 300 Madison Avenue J
Dcpartment of Justice Washington, D.
C.
20530 Toledo, Ohio 43G04 Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
. Thomas A.
Kayuha, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company I
David C.
Hjclafelt, Esq.
47 North Main Strcot Go'idberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfolt Akron, Ohio 44308 j
1700 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
i Washington, D.
C.
20006 Thomas J.
nunsch, Esq.
u General Attorney Wallace E.
Brand, Esq.
Duquesne Light Company Pearce & Brand 435 Sixth Avenue Suite 1200
~Eittsburgh, Pennsylvani.a 15219 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 David Olds, Esq.
Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.
Union Trust Building Jon T.
Brown, nsq.
Box 2009 Duncan, Brown 6 Palmer Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington,,D.-C. 20006 John Lansdale, Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Special Assistant Washington, D.
C.
20036 Attorney General Room 219 Edward A.
Matto, Esq.
Townc House Apartments Assistant Attorney General Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Chief, Antitrust Section 30 E.
Broad Street, 15th Floor Mr. Raymond Kuduki.s Columbus, Ohio 43215 Director of Public Utllitics i
i City of Cicycland Richard M.
Firestone, Esq.
j 1201 Lakeside Avenue Assistant Attorney General Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Antitrust Section i
30 E.
Broad Strcot, 15th Floor i
licrbert R. Whiting, Director Columbus, Ohio 43215 Robert D.
Ila r t, Esq.
Kann H. Adkins, Esq.
Department of Law Assistant Attorncy Concral 1201 Lakeside Avenuo Antitrust Section Cleveland, Ohio 44114 30 E.
Broad Street, 15th Floor John C. Engle, President Columbus, Ohio 43215 AMP-0, Inc.
Christopher R.
Schraff, Esq.
i Municipal Building Assistant Attorney General 20 liiqh Street Environmental Law Section llamilton, Ohio 45012 3G1 E.
Broad Street, 8th Floor 4
Columbus, Ohio 43215
e.
r Joseph A. Riccer$ ypr,1ch137 y,,
s Reed Smith Shan Suitc 40ll tiag <
Washington, D C
000 i
e l
l