ML20197H704
| ML20197H704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1984 |
| From: | Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406190152 | |
| Download: ML20197H704 (8) | |
Text
.
00CKETED June 15, 1984 Unsc
'84 JTi18 P3:15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~J'-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' FURTHER ANSWER TO SUNFLOWER'S MOTION TO READMIT ISSUE NO. 2 On February 14, 1984, Sunflower Alliance, et al.
(" Sunflower") filed a motion to readmit Issue No. 2 (Financial Qualifications) based on the February 7, 1984 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 727 F.2d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Responses were filed by the Applicants, Staff and Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy.
On April 19, 1984, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board orally directed that Applicants file a further brief on the financial qualifications issue by May 7, 1984, and that Applicants' brief inform the other parties that the Board had authorized replies to Applicants' pleading within ten days of its filing.
In a subsequent telephone conversation, the Chairman 0406190152 840615
~1 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0
PDR 3503
I*
I
/ extended Applicants' filing deadline until four business days after the Commission issued its second statement of policy on i
c financial qualifications issues.
That statement of policy was issued by the Commission on June 12, 1984.
49 Fed. Reg.'24111.
A copy is attached hereto.
Applicants' February 29, 1984 answer to Sunflower's motion pointed out that the Commission's February 27, 1984 Statement of Policy, 49 Fed. Reg. 7981, directed licensing boards to continue to: treat the 1982 financial qualifications rule as valid.
The Licensing Board was therefore without authority to readmit Issue 4
h No. 2.
The Staff's March 5, 1984 answer to Sunflower's motion suggested'that, pending further guidarce from the Commission, the i
. Licensing Board hold the motion in abeyance.
i The Commission has now provided that further guidance.
In s
i' the June 12, 1984 Statement of Policy, the Commission states that it is responding to the New England Coalition decision.by l
conducting a new rulemaking proceeding responsive to the concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals (See 49 Fed. Reg. 13044).
The new proposed rule would continue to exclude financial l
qualifications issues from operating license proceedings.1/- The i
i Commission states that "the March 31, 1982 rule will continue in j
effect until finalization of the commission's response to the Court's remand" and that-licensing and appeal boards are "to l
l 1/
~As with the March 1982 rule, the proposed rule vould apply to " electric utilities."
Applicants all come within the definition of that term.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 50.2(x), 49 Fed.
Reg. 13044, 13047, 13048 (1984) (proposed SS 2.4(s),
50.2(x).
l z
[
P m
m,_
..._,,m..-...
,,,,_,,--,-_-_-_,m
,...,,.._,,-,,.,-..._m..,
,_..-,,,,-,y-,_,,
%...y,.-,-m-,--.---
o r
proceed accordingly."
As a result, licensing and appeal boards are not "to begin the process of accepting and litigating financial qualifications contentions...."
Id.
Based on the June 12 Statement of Policy, the Licensing
. Board must therefore deny Sunflower's motion.
As a result of the June 12 Statement of Policy, the Licensing Board is without jurisdiction to readmit Issue No.
2.
See Memorandum and Order (Concerning Psychological Stress Contention), LBP-82-53A, 16 N.R.C.
208 (1982); Memorandum and Order (Motion for Reconsideration or' Certification), LBP-82-69, 16 N.R.C. 751 (1982).
Respectfully submitted, BY:
e_
JAY E.'SILBERU, P.C. J S
PJTTMAN, POTTS/& TROWBRIDGE lE j M[ Street, N.W.
Wa e ington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 i
Counsel for Applicants DATED:
June 15, 1984 l
I I
k I P
,m--
+ - - - -,,
-,--,,-------v-,-,y,,,,
e
,-v em,,--
d j
Federal Register / vcl. 49. No.114 / Tu:sday. Jun] 12. 1984 i Rul:s end Regul thns 24111 particular proceeding shall be qualified England coalition on Nuclear Pollution utilities will be able to cover the costs of in the conduct of administrative
- v. NRC. 727 F.2d 1127 (D.C. cit.19M).
operation through the ratemaking pieceedings. An altemate may be the Nuclear Regulatory Commisuon process.
assigned to serve as a member of an issues a statement of policy cl arifying its Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal response to the Court's remt.id.
fa the interim. the Court's mandate has issued.The mandate contained no Board for a particular proceeding in the post pusmesa fesposessATMW contact:
event that a member asigned to such Carole F. Kagen. Office el the General guidance other than that furnished in the proceeding becomes unavailable.
Counsel. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Court's opinion.The Commission has (b)In the absence of a quorum, the Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555:
c neluded that the issuance of the following individuals are authorized to phone (202) 634-14p3.
mandate does not have the effect of act for an Appeal Board on procedural ustoring the previous regulation under suppt.sassseTARY IMpolth0ATIose:On t
matters, including requests for stays of February 7.1984, the U.S. Court of which financial qualification review was orders by presiding officers:
Appeals for the District of Columbia required as a prerequisite for a reactor (1) The Chairman of the Appeal Board assigned for a particular proceeditig:
Circuit granted a petition for review by c nstruction permit or operstmg Incense, (2) The permanent Chairman of the the New England Coalition on Nuclear in mmanding the rule to the Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Pollution (NECNp) which challenged the withot.1 explicitly vacating the rule the Panel. in the event that the Chairman for Commission's Mvch 31,1982. rule Court cited Williams v. Washirgton a particular proceeding is not available eliminating case-by. case financial Afetropolitan Area Transit Commission, o act upon the matter in question, or q al fication review requirementa fcr 415 F.2d 922 (D.C. Cir.1968) (en bancl.
electric utilities. New England Coalition cert. denied 393 U.S.1081 (1969).
(3 rNet s or avail.sble full-time on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC. 727 F.2d Williams does not require that the member of the Appeal Panelin the 1127 (D.C. Cir.1984). The Court found agency action be vacated on remand. In event that (i) the Chairman for a that the rule was not adequately another situation where the D.C. Circuit particular proceeding is uravailable or supported by its accompanying remanded a set of rules to an agency for I
i has not been assigned, and (ii) the statement of basis and purpose and an adequate statement of basis and l
permanentChairmanof the Appeal remanded to the agency. but did not purpose. the Court allowed the old rules i
Panel is unavailable or the position is explicitly vacate the rule.
to stand panding agency action to vacant.
In response to ths decision the comply with the Court's mandate.
(c)(1) Except with respect to requests Commission initiated a new financial Rodway v. United States Department c/
for stays of orders of presiding officers.
qualification ru!cmaking to clarify its Agriculture. 314 F.2d 809 (IlC. Cir.1975).
action by a designated individual under posttion on financial qualification The Commission is compipng with the the authority of paragraph (b) of this my ews f r electric utilities. 49 FR 13M4 Court's mandate by repromulgating its section shall be reviewable by the (1 84). One of the points focused upon in financial qualifications rule in a manner Appeal Board for the particu'ar the Court's decision was the responsive to the Court's concern. The proceeding, upon its own motion or Commission s observation in the upon a motion filed within three (3) days Statement of Considerations for the Commission anticipates that the new rule eliminating financial review at the of the date of the particular action in ac 1982 ta
[
accordance with 9 2.730.
{
operating license stage only will soon be (2) Action under the authority of past during construction have chosen to In place. While there are no construction paragraph (b) of this section with abandon or postpone projects rather permits proceedings now in progress.
respect to requests for stays of orders of than cut corners or s.tfety. The Court there are several ongoing operating license proceedings to which the new
,i presiding officers shall be reviewable by bell ved that such acticas by a e rule will apply. It would not appear po a mot n le wit n e
) days financially trou ed utilities would reasonable to construe the Court's of the date of the particular action iri follow the same course. The revised opinion as requiring t at t e acccrdance with I 2.730.
proposed rule would eliminate financial Commission instruct its adjudicatory j
review only at the operating license panels in these proceedings to beg,m the g
Dated et Washington. D.C th:s 6th day of stage. The question of reasonable process of accepting and litigating June N.
assurance of adequata construction financial qualifications contentions. a l
For it.e Nucleat Reg'alatory Commission.
funding can be an issue only at the process which would delay the licensing i
i l
Samuel J. Chilk, construction permit stage. Thus, the of seseral plants which are at or near Seretaryn/<he Commission.
Commission's current rulemaking is completion, only to be required to usponsive to the Court's concern by dismiss the contentions when the new irn o.c. u mu rit.d e-it-ea ses
- "Inmg the financial qualifications rule takes effect in the near future.
caos n m review for construction permit According!y. the March 31.1982 rule upplicants, will continue in effect until finalization l
10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 The Court was also trcubled by what of the Commission's response to the
(
it perceived to be an inconsistency Court's remand. The Commission directs i
Financial Qualifications Stat between elimination of the review only its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
C.
or r seio a se a i n that financial Panel and Atomic Safety and 1.icensieg AosNcy:U.S. Eclear Regulatory qualifications reviews are unnecessary Appeal Paul to procud acco&gh.
t Commission.
because it finds no !!nk between Commissioner Gilinsky did not AcTioes: Policy statement.
financial qualifications and safety. This participate in this decision.
observation is not relied on in the new Commissioner A :eistine a dissent from i
suwt Any: In resporise to the issuance of proposed rule. Instead, the rule is this decision and the separate views of the mandate of the U.S. Court of premised on the assumption that, it the Chairman Palladino and Commissioners
+
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in New operating license level, regulated Roberts and Bernthal follow.
i
-.:k
24112 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.114 / Tu;sdry. June 12. 1984 / auhs rnd Reguhtirns Separate Statement of Chairman Separate Views of Commissionet Commission's 1982 financial Palladino Bernthal qualifications rule.They told us that this I believe that the Commission's action means that the old enie governs until the The Cccrt of Appeals remanded the f.nancial qu stifications rule to the in institutin8 the recent rulemaking Commission can substitute a valid new Commission. The Commission promptly d gi f rule removing the issue from A
C n's pr ccedings. The best that our legal mitiated rulemaking to address the mn ndi at s he C advisors could say about the course ic[sta
,, ra o ls being pursued by the Commiss!on is that deficiencies identified by the Court. It p
then faced the question of what to d f
e March 1982 rule related solely to the Commission's position is " colorable" about financial quahfications in pending crerating license cases. The Cuurt's issues which. even under the pre-1982 given the absence of explicit language in opinion did not say that the rule was rule, would be litigable only at the the Court's decision vacating the n.le, They ind;cated. however, that they cfastr ction p it stag w'
' vacated " Thus. the Commission was the would not advise taking this course presente with a question interpretation of the Court s opinion.
sake of argument that the Court vacated because of the significant litigation risk the rule insofar as it found the inv !ved. My reading of the case law The Commission adopted the view that i
's rationale inadequate. the leads me to agree with their conclusion.
the Court s opinion could reasonably be mtarpreted as not vacating the rule for Commission took prompt action in To deal with this situation, the
~
eperating license reviews.
modifying the 1982 regulation by General Counsel proposed an interim reposing a rule which woud reinstate policy statement which would have The Commission has not sought t financial qualifications reviews for all enabled the boards and parties to flout the Court or escape its mandate.
The Commission has attempted to be construction permit applicants.
resolve the financial qualifications issue I have based my decision on a plain in individual cases in an expeditious responsive to the Court's opinion and at reading of the opinion of the Court.
manner.There would have been some the same time, has sought to avoid wherein the Court listed the five unavoidable, short-term delay and some unnecessary disruption of its licensing contentions raised by the appellants, inconvenience in a few cases. However.
l and regula tory program. It interpreted and noted "We agree with the last [of had the Commission acted in a timely i
the Court s opinion with fall reccanition the five contentions)." That is, the Court manner to adopt that policy statement that the Court would correct its held that "the rule is not supported by when it was proposed a month ago, mterpretatiun if the Court had intended to vacate the rule.
its accompanying statement of basis and much of thatinconvenience and delay i
purpose * * *" and accord:ngly would be over by now.
l Separate Stateraent of Commissioner remanded the rule to the agency. Given Instead, the Commission has chosen l
Roberts that holding. I believe the Comtr;ss!an's to ignore the advice of all of its legal action is directly and precisely advisors and te act as if the 1982 rule Is.. in the separate statement of rerpensive to the decision of the Court.
were still valid. By pursuing this course.
om Chairman Palladino. in addition. I would it is unfortunate that the Commission.
the Commission risks reaction by the l
point out that, of the five contentions was required to consider. elaborate D.C. Circuit which would not only reject pe,rceived by the Court to have been arguments and interpretations based on the Commission's erroneous raised by the petitioners challenge. the legal precedent to resolve what should interpretation of the Court's previous Court agreed only with the last-that have been a straightforward matter.
decision but which would also set out the rule is not supported by its I concur in the views of the Chairman precisely what the Commission must do accompanying statement of basis and and Commissioner Roberts.
In the case of those proceedings decided purpose. In discussing the grounds for under the invalid rule. Any flexibility in its rematid, the Court addressed only its S*Parate Views of Commissioner ealing with these proceedings could bas!s for disagreement with that portion Asselstine well be lost to the Commission. and of the rule that would eliminate a The Commisc.lon's policy statement is serious delays and disruption could financial qualifications review in both shortsighted and most likely illegal. result if the Court decides several connection with consideration of The Commission is in effect betting that months from now that all of these applications for construction permits.
the D.C. Cltcuit will not now act to make proceedings must be reopened.
The Court concluded that. in refusing to it very clear that the Committion's Ntoreover. it is not clear that there consider. in a vacuum. the general "new" financial qualifications rule has exists an adequate factual basis to ability of utilities to finance the indeed been vacated, and that the support a new rule eliminating financial construction of new generation Commission must re-open all those qualification issues from all nuclear facilities. the Commission had proceedings in which the rule was used powerplant operatmg heense abandoned what seemed to the Court
- to exclude financial quahfication proceedings. For example, even if it is "the only rational basis enunciated for contentions.1 choose not to join the pcssible to demonstrate that electric 8enerally treating public utilities majority in this course because I believe utdities receive routine approval of l
differently for the purpose at hand."
that the Court's previous decision fundmg requests to cover the cost of The Court apparrntly did not focus on effectively vacates the Commission's operating a nuclear powerplant-an the rationality of the Commission's basis 1942 financial qualifications rule.
essential element in the justification for for treating public utilities differently for hforeover. I believe that the the Commission's new proposed the purpose of considering applications Commission's approach risks in the long financial qualification rule, this does not for operating licenses. Thus. it appears run serious disruptions and delays to necessarily assure that these funds will unlikely that the Court intended, or had pending cases.
be used by the utility for meeting any reason, to vacate that portion of the Our Executive I.egal Director. our operating plant safety needs.The rule eliminatin,t a inancial General Counsel and now the financial difficulties facing several l
qualifications nview in connection mth Department ollustice have all advised electric utilities in meeting the cost >f I
consideration of applications for the Commission that the decision of the ongoing construction programs and in l
operating licenses.
D C. Circuit did indeed vacate the providing an adequate rate of return on e
Federal Register / vd. 49. N:.114 / Tuisday Juna 12. 1964 / Rules end'Regul:ti::ns 24113 investment are widely publicizati. it is
- 4. On the same page, first column. line entry reading "I per year per t
likely that in such cases these factors seventeen. " Commission" should read inspection": and entries three and four can create pressures on the utility to
" Communication".
from the bottom should appear as one reallocate operating funds to other
- 5. On page 21295. first column.
entry reading "I per 2 years per competing functions. In such shiaation of Ceilings, paragraph three, inspection".
circumstances, ratemaking decisions first line. "not" should read "no".
- 22. On page 21308. first column in the sufficient to cover operating expenses
- 6. On page 21296, first column. second table, entry K. second line " times" alone would not necessarily provide an complete paragraph. line eighteen.
should read "i' ems"; and in entry P. first adequate lustification for excluding "four" should read "for".
line. "materaial" should read " material".
financial qualifkation issues from
- 7. On the same page, third column.
- 23. On the same page. column four in operating license proceedings.
first compl.e paragraph. line three, the table. lines three and four should perhaps most disturbing of allis the "efective" should read " effective".
a.ppear as one entry reading "1 per year Commission's willingness in this case.
- 8. On page 21297. first column. first per inspection"; lines seven and eight as well as in some other recent complete paragraph. line thirteen. "335" should appear as one entry reading. "I decisicas, to take what are at best should read "355".
per 3 years per inspection": lines nme questionable legal positions for the sake
- 9. On page 21299, third column. first and ten should appear as one entry of gaicirg a perceived short. term complete paragraph, insert the sentence reading. "I per 3 years per inspection";
benef:t. 'Ihis approach does everyone "An individual operator canno' be lines eleven and twelve, should appear involved in our licensing proceedings a licensed apart from a facility." between as one entry reading. "1 per 3 years per I
disservice and has several unfortunate lines fourteen and fifteen.
inspection": lines thirteen and fourteen i
consequences. Such procedural
- 10. On page 21300, third column.
should appear as one entry reading. "1 shortcuts can ultimately be very eleventh line from the bottom. "that" per 3 years per inspection"; and lines l
disruptive to many ongoing licensing should read "than".
fifteen and sixteen should appear as one l
proceedings if a court tejects the
- 11. On page 21301, first column.
entry reading. "1 per 3 years per -
l Commission's approacn months or years Regulatory Flexibility Certification. line inspection".
later when the number of affected fourteen. " consider
- should read proceedings has grown substantially.
" considered".
I 170.51 lcorrecteil
}
l
- 24. On page 21309. column one,
(
Furthermore, continually taking II I I ' **I'd 3 1170.51 line six. "to CFR 5131" should questionable legal positions can em sily lead to a much more searchfrug and
- 13. On page 21304, first column.
read "10 CFR 15.31".
f tnote one. line five "a" should appear critical attitude on the part of reviewing courts, and to adverse deelsions that pefore,' specific' : and, in line fourteen, of' should read "or.
can seriously restrict agency flexibihty a
pag. tst c,lu dealing with future cases. Finally. the g[ n s ould DEPARTMENT OF HEAL.TH AND ommission's approach simply read"has
- HUMAN SERVICES a
reinforces the belief of msny that this dgency Will go to any lengths to deny g 170.31 [Correctedj Social Security Administration members of the pubhc a fair opportumty
- 15. On page 21305, column one, f
20 CFR Part 404 to raise issues in our licensing i 170.31. entry 3.B., line seven.
proceedings and to have those issues
" licensees" should read " license": entry "I
fully and fairly litigated.
3E., line one. "uses" should read "use";
Signed in Washington. D C., tha 'th day of and in entry 3.G line one "uses" should FederalOld Age, Survivors,and g
Jur.e 1984.
read "use".
Olsability insurance; Gender 5
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 16. On the same page, column two.
Discrimination; Foreign Worts Test; Samuel J. rsini.
entry 3.K.,line eight. *!icensess" should Special Age.72 Benefits; Benefit Secretary of the Commission.
read "!! censes".
Reduction for Widows and Widowers:
- 17. On the same page column three, and Acknowledgement of Natural l
pno.eu n rit.o.n* en.,,9 sume coac ree c.m entry 5.B. line five. "1.icenes" should Chnd read "I icense".
- 18. On page 21306. column three, Ac MCY: Social Security Administration.
~
10 CFR Part 170 footnote 1(d), line sixteen. "in" should 1111S.
appear t atween "10F." and "which".
Action: Final rule.
l g' Revision of License Fee Soned 48e
- 19. On the same page column three.
footnote 2. first line "or" should read suuuAny:The Social Security I
Correction
-for",
Administration is amanding its regulations to implement certain Title !!!
In FR Doc. 84-13517 beginnin 28 11 0.32 (Corrected) provisions of Pub. L 58-21 "The Social l
21293 in the issue of Monday 1 2'
l
- 1984. make the following correctinns:
- 20. On page 21307, t 170.32. column Security Amendments of1983"-that one of the table, entry 2.A line four.
eliminate gender based distinctions in
- 1. On page 21223. second column. the "lon. exchanging" should read "lon-the Social Security Act. We are also EFFECTIVE DATE now reading " June 18.
exchange"; also in entry 2.B.. line one, making changes to reflect two other Pub.
1994 should read June 20,1984.
" possession" should read " processing".
L 98-21 provisions. One amendment l
- 2. On the same page. third column.
- 21. On the same page column four of changes the work test for the second complete paragraph, line four, the tabte the eleventh and twelfth beneficiary doing non-covered work
" developed" should read " developing".
entries from the bottom. should appear outside the United States from 7 days in
- 3. On page 21294. first column. line as one entry read "1 per 7 year per a month to more than 45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br /> in a eleven. " Broadcaster" should read inspection": entries seven and eight month before losing benefits for that
" Broadcasters".
from the bottom should appear as one month. The other amendment eliminates
e-t June 15, 1984 f
r UNITED STATES OF AMET.1CA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Further Answer to Sunflower's Motion to Readmit Issue No. 2" were served by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 15th day of June, 1984, to all those on the attached Service List.
N L
- 9 i
Bilberg '
[
Jay DATED:
June 15, 1984 e
l n.
,., _,., - -.,,. - -,,, - -, ~.,,
's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY
)
50-441
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST
.P:ter B.-Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2shington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline-Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 lur. Glenn O.
Bright Colleen P. Woodhead, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Wnshington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christina N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Terry Lodge, Esquire Appeal Board Suite 105 t
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 618 N. Michigan Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appeal Board Lake County Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Center Washington, D.C.
20555 105 Center Street Painesville, Ohio 44077 G ry J. Edles, Esquire Atomic Safety'and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire Ms. Sue Hiatt i
Prosecuting Attorney 8275 Munson Avenue AOhtabula County Courthouse Mentor, Ohio 44060 Jcfferson, Ohio 44047 i
--r-----
--e o w-
-,w-
~m---w---------,w---w-,
r-,
,----r--,-,-