ML19329C711: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:
{{#Wiki_filter:Uc%ober 2, 1975
{{#Wiki_filter:Uc%ober 2, 1975
                                                         ~
                                                         ~
                            -
o    -
o    -
, .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Accea' Ecard In the Matter of                        )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Accea' Ecard In the Matter of                        )
                                                 )
                                                 )
Line 34: Line 32:
(" 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.
(" 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
: 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                                  ~
         ,                    m                                  ~
                                                                                  .
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-346
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)
: 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:
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:
Line 54: Line 44:
: 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    I l
: 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    I l


              .
      .          .
  - .
        *
                 ~                  <s                              -
                 ~                  <s                              -
                                                                                           -4 practice and is unacceptable. Our position is that those portions of the Component Cooling Water System which service items 1, 2 and 3 should be classified Sefsmic Category 1.
                                                                                           -4 practice and is unacceptable. Our position is that those portions of the Component Cooling Water System which service items 1, 2 and 3 should be classified Sefsmic Category 1.
                      .
: 4. Those portions of the letdown line of the Makeup and Purification System from the containment isolation valve through the prefilter, purification demineralizer and pos t-filter to the makeup tank that is classified Quality Group C is t  t in agreement with current AEC practice and is un-acceptable. Our pos!. tion is that these portions of the Makeup and Purifi-cation System which form the letdown loop should be classified Quality Group B and Seismic Category 1.
: 4. Those portions of the letdown line of the Makeup and Purification System from the containment isolation valve through the prefilter, purification demineralizer and pos t-filter to the makeup tank that is classified Quality Group C is t  t in agreement with current AEC practice and is un-acceptable. Our pos!. tion is that these portions of the Makeup and Purifi-cation System which form the letdown loop should be classified Quality Group B and Seismic Category 1.
: 5. With regard to your respcase to Questien 3.2.1 as indicated in Amendmeat 3 to the FS AR, the spot radiographic examination of the welded joints of the Eorated Water Storage Tank is unacceptable. Nuclear Storage Tanks designed, fabricated and tested to ASME Section III, Class 2, (Quality Group B) re-quire fuli radiographic examination.      To be accep table, we will require additional nondestructive testing to assure a quality level at least equivalent to that currently associated with Quality Group B.
: 5. With regard to your respcase to Questien 3.2.1 as indicated in Amendmeat 3 to the FS AR, the spot radiographic examination of the welded joints of the Eorated Water Storage Tank is unacceptable. Nuclear Storage Tanks designed, fabricated and tested to ASME Section III, Class 2, (Quality Group B) re-quire fuli radiographic examination.      To be accep table, we will require additional nondestructive testing to assure a quality level at least equivalent to that currently associated with Quality Group B.
l l
l l
          . . . .


                      .-          _ _      . _ _ _ _        __            _. _ _ _ _          . _ _
e  e
                                                                                          .
* issues in suit, but do resolve discovery and other pre-liminary issues that are in controversy.                As such, these intermediate decisions are as " binding" on the parties with respect to the particular determinations made as any ultimate decision on the merits would be.                In effect, l
e  e                                     *
they serve to guide the course of litigation and control the conduct of the litigants in the presentation of the case. The Special Master's determinations in the present proceeding are a classic example.            They deal with a dis-covery issue which has traditionally been viewed as an in-                                    I terlocutory matter.      The fact that the parties agreed "to be bound" by the Master's rulings does not remove them from the interlocutory category.            They are still " binding" intermediate decisions in the hearing process with respect to which the appeal bar in Section 2.730(f) of the Com-mission's Rules is fully applicable.
      .
          *
  , .
issues in suit, but do resolve discovery and other pre-liminary issues that are in controversy.                As such, these intermediate decisions are as " binding" on the parties with respect to the particular determinations made as any ultimate decision on the merits would be.                In effect, l
they serve to guide the course of litigation and control the conduct of the litigants in the presentation of the case. The Special Master's determinations in the present
,
proceeding are a classic example.            They deal with a dis-covery issue which has traditionally been viewed as an in-                                    I terlocutory matter.      The fact that the parties agreed "to be bound" by the Master's rulings does not remove them from the interlocutory category.            They are still " binding" intermediate decisions in the hearing process with respect to which the appeal bar in Section 2.730(f) of the Com-mission's Rules is fully applicable.
3    With regard to the City's continued reliance on Section 034 of Chapter 0106 of the AEC Manual, its position in this regard has already been aired in briefs and on oral argument before the Appeal _ Board.                The City still fails to appreciate that its consent to the reference procedure involved here removes this matter from the pro-scription in Manual Section 034 and brings it squarely within Section 2.753 of the Commission's Rules.                  All parties
3    With regard to the City's continued reliance on Section 034 of Chapter 0106 of the AEC Manual, its position in this regard has already been aired in briefs and on oral argument before the Appeal _ Board.                The City still fails to appreciate that its consent to the reference procedure involved here removes this matter from the pro-scription in Manual Section 034 and brings it squarely within Section 2.753 of the Commission's Rules.                  All parties
                                                                  .                  ._ .  ._


                                                                .
                                                    -
p.
p.
  ,
.
to the stipulation stated at oral argument before this Appeal Board that this was not.a reference imposed by the Chairman of the Licensing Board against the will of any party; it was an agreement entered into freely and volun-tarily by all. As the Appeal Board properly concluded, to rely on Manual Section 034 in such circumstance "would exalt form over substance" (.'Omorandum and Order, page 4).
to the stipulation stated at oral argument before this Appeal Board that this was not.a reference imposed by the Chairman of the Licensing Board against the will of any party; it was an agreement entered into freely and volun-tarily by all. As the Appeal Board properly concluded, to rely on Manual Section 034 in such circumstance "would exalt form over substance" (.'Omorandum and Order, page 4).
4    Curiously, the City seems to argue in its present petition that the parties never entered into any agreement at all regarding the procedure for resolving claims of privilege. Thus, it states, "[s]ince there was no meeting of the minds, there was no agreement" (City's Petition, page 5). This flies in the face of the City's brief filed with this Appeal Scard and also contradicts the position taken by the City on oral argument. The Ap-peal Board has had full opportunity to consider the nature and scope of the agreement involving the Special Master and after careful deliberation has concluded that it "must be taken as precluding the parties from seeking review now or in the future, of his rulings made within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the agreement" (Memo-randum and Order, page 3). Such a reading is clearly war-ranted by the express stipulation "to be bound"; it accords with the understanding of Applicants, the Department of
4    Curiously, the City seems to argue in its present petition that the parties never entered into any agreement at all regarding the procedure for resolving claims of privilege. Thus, it states, "[s]ince there was no meeting of the minds, there was no agreement" (City's Petition, page 5). This flies in the face of the City's brief filed with this Appeal Scard and also contradicts the position taken by the City on oral argument. The Ap-peal Board has had full opportunity to consider the nature and scope of the agreement involving the Special Master and after careful deliberation has concluded that it "must be taken as precluding the parties from seeking review now or in the future, of his rulings made within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the agreement" (Memo-randum and Order, page 3). Such a reading is clearly war-ranted by the express stipulation "to be bound"; it accords with the understanding of Applicants, the Department of


_    -              __ _ _ _ _
l WHEREFORE, Applicants submit that the City of Cleveland's petition for reconsideration should be denied.
          ._                    - .
                        ,                                    .-
* l WHEREFORE, Applicants submit that the City of Cleveland's petition for reconsideration should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAII, POTTS 1 TROWBRIDGE By:      _t              2 d Wm. Bradford Reynolds
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAII, POTTS 1 TROWBRIDGE By:      _t              2 d Wm. Bradford Reynolds
                                                                     ~ _?L Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants Dated:    October 2, 1975 i
                                                                     ~ _?L Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants Dated:    October 2, 1975 i
                .
I l
I l
1
1
                                          . . - . . ,    --    -    -    . - _ . - -


__ _ _ _
              >
          $      -
e                            -
e                            -
         > - e.
         > - e.
s.
s.
         . . j'
         . . j' 1/
          *
                                                    .
1/
  -          -
Justice and the NRC Staff, at least as of December 6, 1974      ;
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
           .. 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,
     .          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.
  .
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:
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.
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.
Line 123: Line 80:
l l
l l


                      <-                            -
    *
.
UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGF TORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety ard Licensing Acceal Board
UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGF TORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety ard Licensing Acceal Board
                                                                .
                                     ~
                                     ~
In the Matter of                          )
In the Matter of                          )
Line 145: Line 98:


-      ~
-      ~
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Apneal Board
r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Apneal Board In the Matter of                        )'
                                      -
In the Matter of                        )'
                                           )
                                           )
Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and          )
Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and          )
Line 157: Line 108:
Unito 1 and 2)                      )
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                    Abraham Braitman, c sq.
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                    Abraham Braitman, c sq.
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.                    Chief, Office of Anticrust Atomic Safety and Licencing                    and Indemnity Appeal Board                          U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscic, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion        Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Richard S. Salcman, Ecc.                    Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing                U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.                    Chief, Office of Anticrust Atomic Safety and Licencing                    and Indemnity Appeal Board                          U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscic, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion        Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Richard S. Salcman, Ecc.                    Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing                U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Appeal Board                          1717 H Stree;, N.W.
* Appeal Board                          1717 H Stree;, N.W.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission        Washington, D. C. 20006 Washington, D. C. 20555~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission        Washington, D. C. 20006 Washington, D. C. 20555~
Benj amin H. Vcgler, Esq.
Benj amin H. Vcgler, Esq.
Line 167: Line 117:
Washington, D. C. 20555
Washington, D. C. 20555


__ _            _
                                                               .      r                        .m l
__ , _          _. _                    _    ___ _              . . _ _ .
                                                                                                                                                .      .
                                ,
                                          .                        .              .
                                                                                              ..                                .
                                                                                                                                              .
                                                    ,
                                                               .      r                        .m
                                                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                                                        .
                                                                                                                                            -
                                        .
      .              .
                                                                                                                            *
                                                            *    -        -
,                                                                                    .          .
                                                        ,
              -      '
                                      ,
l
                     . Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.                                          ,
                     . Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.                                          ,
Donald II. Hauser, Esq.
Donald II. Hauser, Esq.
Line 193: Line 123:
General Attorney Antitrust Division                                                              -
General Attorney Antitrust Division                                                              -
The Cleveland Electric j                      Department of Justice                                                                                    Illuminating Compa'ny
The Cleveland Electric j                      Department of Justice                                                                                    Illuminating Compa'ny
  ,                    Washington, D. C. 20530                                                                      55 Public Square
  ,                    Washington, D. C. 20530                                                                      55 Public Square i
        .
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Melvin G. D'rger,              O          E'sq.                                              ,
i Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Melvin G. D'rger,              O          E'sq.                                              ,
Leslic IIenry, Esq.
Leslic IIenry, Esq.
j                      Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
j                      Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
Antitrust Division
Antitrust Division Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor l                                                                                                                    300 Madison Avenue J                      Dcpartment of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530
                                                                                ''
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor l                                                                                                                    300 Madison Avenue J                      Dcpartment of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530
                                                                                                             -      Toledo, Ohio 43G04
                                                                                                             -      Toledo, Ohio 43G04
                                                                                                  ,
!                      Reuben Goldberg, Esq.                                                                      . Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
!                      Reuben Goldberg, Esq.                                                                      . Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company I                      David C. Hjclafelt, Esq.                                                                      47 North Main Strcot
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.
  !                      Go'idberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfolt                                                            Akron, Ohio 44308 j                      1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
i                      Washington, D. C. 20006                                                                                        ,,
i                      Washington, D. C. 20006                                                                                        ,,
Line 212: Line 137:
* General Attorney
* General Attorney
!                      Wallace E. Brand, Esq.                                                                      Duquesne Light Company Pearce & Brand                                                                          -
!                      Wallace E. Brand, Esq.                                                                      Duquesne Light Company Pearce & Brand                                                                          -
435 Sixth Avenue
435 Sixth Avenue Suite 1200                                                                                ~Eittsburgh, Pennsylvani.a 15219 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.                                                                    ,
!'
Suite 1200                                                                                ~Eittsburgh, Pennsylvani.a 15219 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.                                                                    ,
Washington, D. C. 20036                                                                      David Olds, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20036                                                                      David Olds, Esq.
* Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.                                                                      Union Trust Building Jon T. Brown, nsq.                                                                          Box 2009                      -
* Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.                                                                      Union Trust Building Jon T. Brown, nsq.                                                                          Box 2009                      -
Line 221: Line 144:
Washington,,D.-C. 20006                                                            ,
Washington,,D.-C. 20006                                                            ,
John Lansdale, Esq.
John Lansdale, Esq.
                                                                                                      -
                                                                                                        -
Cox, Langford & Brown Frank R. Clokey, Esq.                                                                      21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Cox, Langford & Brown Frank R. Clokey, Esq.                                                                      21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Special Assistant                                                                          Washington, D. C. 20036
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
* 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 i                        Director of Public Utllitics i                      City of Cicycland                                                                          Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
   !                      Mr. Raymond Kuduki.s                                                                        Columbus, Ohio 43215 i                        Director of Public Utllitics i                      City of Cicycland                                                                          Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
1201 Lakeside Avenue                                                                        Assistant Attorney General j
1201 Lakeside Avenue                                                                        Assistant Attorney General j
'
Cleveland, Ohio 44114                                                                      Antitrust Section i                                                                          .                                          30 E. Broad Strcot, 15th Floor i
Cleveland, Ohio 44114                                                                      Antitrust Section i                                                                          .                                          30 E. Broad Strcot, 15th Floor i
  ;                      licrbert R. Whiting, Director                                                              Columbus, Ohio 43215
  ;                      licrbert R. Whiting, Director                                                              Columbus, Ohio 43215 Robert D. Ila r t , Esq.
'
Robert D. Ila r t , Esq.
Kann H. Adkins , Esq .
Kann H. Adkins , Esq .
  !                      Department of Law                                                                          Assistant Attorncy Concral          ;
  !                      Department of Law                                                                          Assistant Attorncy Concral          ;
'
1201 Lakeside Avenuo                                                  .
1201 Lakeside Avenuo                                                  .
'
Cleveland, Ohio                        44114                                              Antitrust Section 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor      !
Cleveland, Ohio                        44114                                              Antitrust Section
* 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor      !
John C. Engle, President                                                                    Columbus, Ohio 43215 AMP-0, Inc.
John C. Engle, President                                                                    Columbus, Ohio 43215 AMP-0, Inc.
* Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
* Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
                                                                                                                              .
i                        Municipal Building                                                                          Assistant Attorney General 20 liiqh Street Environmental Law Section llamilton, Ohio 45012                                                                '
            '                                                                              -
i                        Municipal Building                                                                          Assistant Attorney General
'
20 liiqh Street Environmental Law Section llamilton, Ohio 45012                                                                '
3G1 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor 4
3G1 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor 4
,
                                            .
                                                                                  ,
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Columbus, Ohio 43215
    -,          -          -. - ___ _ ___                                                                            . _ . ,


                                                        ._ _ .____ ._______ ._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _  __
     .      e.
     .      e.
              .
r                ..
r                ..
        .                    .
  .                          .
                                     '                                                y ,,
                                     '                                                y ,,
                                          '
s Joseph    A. Riccer$
s Joseph    A. Riccer$
Shan ypr,1ch137
Shan ypr,1ch137 Reed Smith Suitc 40ll tiag <
                                  '
Reed Smith Suitc 40ll tiag <
Washington, D      C      000          -
Washington, D      C      000          -
                                                                                                #
                                      .
I I
I I
1 l
1 l
l i
l i
e
e l
                            %
l}}
l l}}

Revision as of 20:55, 31 January 2020

Utils' Reply to City of Cleveland,Oh Petition for Reconsideration of 750919 Aslab Memorandum & Order.Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19329C711
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse, Perry  Cleveland Electric icon.png
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)
v • d • e


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 )

COMPANY, ET AL. )

(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 I l

~ - 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 )

COMPANY, ET AL. )

(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 >

By: k ) <_ . b> ddd -da ,

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

) 50-441A TNE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. )

(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 Abraham Braitman, c sq.

Michael C. Farrar, Esq. Chief, Office of Anticrust Atomic Safety and Licencing and Indemnity Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscic, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Richard S. Salcman, Ecc. Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Appeal Board 1717 H Stree;, N.W.

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 Board Panel Andrew F. Popper, Esq.

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 Antitrust Division -

The Cleveland Electric j Department of Justice Illuminating Compa'ny

, Washington, D. C. 20530 55 Public Square i

Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Melvin G. D'rger, O E'sq. ,

Leslic IIenry, Esq.

j Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.

Antitrust Division Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor l 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 i Director of Public Utllitics i City of Cicycland Richard M. Firestone, Esq.

1201 Lakeside Avenue Assistant Attorney General j

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 .

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Antitrust Section 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 ..

' y ,,

s Joseph A. Riccer$

Shan ypr,1ch137 Reed Smith Suitc 40ll tiag <

Washington, D C 000 -

I I

1 l

l i

e l

l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19329C711&oldid=2359369"