ML19340A289

Applicants' Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law of Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power,G Lau & Aec. 710220 Findings & Conclusions Should Be Adopted in Support of Issuance of CP

ML19340A289
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/08/1971
From:	Charnoff G TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8003050690
Download: ML19340A289 (5)

Text

. . . - . - .

l.

~

,- , i UNITED STATES OF 'AFERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION .

In the Matter of '

2-E - 11 i

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND i THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket No. 50-346 COMPANY-Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station APPLICANTS' REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT I AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF COALITION FOR SAFE NUCLEAR ' POWER, GLENN LAU AND AEC STAFF

1. After review of the proposed findings and conclu-sions filed in this proceeding by the Coalition for Safe Nuclear l Power'(Coalition), GI- n Lau and AEC ReguJatory Staff (Staff),

Applicant submits.ti. Its. proposed findi-p and conclusions I

L ' filed'on February 20, 1971 accurately reflect the evidence in the captioned proceeding and Applicant requests that they be adopted in supportLof the issuance of the construction permit, except as set forth below under Reply to AEC Staff. Applicant sets'forth.below general observations on the findings and conclu-

l. sions submitted by the' Coalition, Glenn Lau, and the Staff.

L ' Reply-to Coalition

~ 2. - In its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of-law, Coalition alleges that it was not allowed adequate time to prepare for

. this. proceeding in spite of -its requests for continuance. 'In

. I 1

-1;6 Coalition 's Proposed Findinge ' of ' Fact and Conclusions of; Law, l

para. I.1.

.8 0 08 05g [fg

r~

I that there is reasonable assurance that such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the completion of The Supreme Court construction.of the proposed facility..

specifically approved this procedure in Power Reactor Develcoment l

! y The Court there held that the Co. v. International Union.

Commission is permitted 'bo defer a definitive safety finding 5/

! until, operation is actually licensed."

4. The uncontradicted testimony identifies the matters remaining to be resolved and the programs for their Applicdnts' l resolution, many of which have been completed.

proposed findin; No. 11 and the Staff's proposed finding No. 13 are consistent with the evidence.

5 The Coalition proposes as a Finding of Fact the f

statement that Applicants' have not yet obtained a water quality certification from.the Water ~ Pollution Control Board of the Ohio Department of Health. While this is an accurate state-Under l

ment, it is irrelevant to the issuta before the Board. e/

l i

Section 21(b)(8) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, if a construction permit for the Davis-Besse facility is issued

- before April 3, 1971, a water quality certification from the State of Ohio need only be obtained within one year from the 5/ '367 U.S. 396 (1961).

6/ 367:U.S. 407 (1961) .

Proposed Finding of Fact "L".

~

-J/

9/. ' 33. U.S.C.1171(b)(8), added by the ~ Water Quality Improveme Act of 1970, P.L.91-224.

• o

issuance of the permit. If the Board's decision is not issued until after April 2, 1971, the AEC will necessarily have to delay issuance of the permit, assuming it is authorized by the Board, until it receives the required water quality certification.

6. The remaining findings of fact proposed by the Coalition should be rejected as either not being consistent

~

with the evidence in the proceeding or not relevant to the issues in the proceeding.

Reply to Glenn Lau

7. The proposed findings and conclusions filed in this proceeding by Glenn Lau ignore the weight of the evidence in the proceeding, and reflect nothing more than the unfounded allegations repeated too many times by Mr. Lau.

Reply to AEC Staff

8. With minor exceptions, the Staff's proposed findings and conclusions are in accord with the substance of those proposed by the Applicant. The Staff's proposals reflect its preference for abbreviated findings. Applicant prefers more comprehensive disposition of the issues and the matters in controversy in contested proceedings. This is primarily a matter of taste.

9 Applicant agrees with the Staff's proposed sub-stitute subparagraphs 37('d), 37(f) and 37(o).

10. The Staff's proposed finding in paragraph 18 is adopted by the Applicant.

-4

i, 1 .

11. The final sentence in the Staff's proposed form of Order in paragraph 20 is adopted by the Applicant.

Respectfully submitted, w

Gerald Charnoff Counsel for The Toledo Edison -

Company Dated: March 8, 1971 I

l

.