ML19329C711: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML19329C711
| number = ML19329C711
| issue date = 10/02/1975
| issue date = 10/02/1975
| title = Utils' Reply to City of Cleveland,Oh Petition for Reconsideration of 750919 Aslab Memorandum & Order.Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl
| title = Utils Reply to City of Cleveland,Oh Petition for Reconsideration of 750919 Aslab Memorandum & Order.Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl
| author name = Reynolds W
| author name = Reynolds W
| author affiliation = CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
| author affiliation = CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#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                       )
)
                                                )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and             )
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING     )
)
COMPANY                             )             m (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,     ) Docket Nos.s50 ^46X3 Unit 1)                             )               50-440A
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
                                                )               50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING     )
)
COMPANY, ET AL.                     )
COMPANY
(Perry Nuclear Pcwer Plant,             )
)
Units 1 and 2)                     )
m (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO THE CITY OF CLE7 ELAND'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATICN
)
: 1. On September 29, 1975, the City of Clevelanu
Docket Nos.s50 ^46X3 Unit 1)
(" 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
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)
m DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-346
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:
: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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


                ~                 <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.
<s
: 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 practice and is unacceptable.
: 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.
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.
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
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
. issues in suit, but do resolve discovery and other pre-liminary issues that are in controversy.
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.
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.
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
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


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


l WHEREFORE, Applicants submit that the City of Cleveland's petition for reconsideration should be denied.
e
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAII, POTTS 1 TROWBRIDGE By:      _t              2 d Wm. Bradford Reynolds
> - e.
                                                                    ~ _?L Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants Dated:    October 2, 1975 i
I l
1
 
e                           -
        > - e.
s.
s.
        . . j' 1/
.. j'
Justice and the NRC Staff, at least as of December 6, 1974     ;
* 1/
          .. and it coincides with the Licensing Board's conclusions re-garding this matter. In view of the City's argument, Judge
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.
    .          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.
In view of the City's argument, Judge Learned Hand's admonition in Hotchkiss v.
1912), aff'd, 231 U.S. 50 (1913), bears repeating:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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                         )
)
                                            )
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and             )
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLU::I.' RATING   )
)
COMPANY                               )
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLU::I.' RATING
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,       ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1)                               )               50-440A
)
                                            )               50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING       )
COMPANY
COMPANY, ET AL.                       )
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,               )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1 and 2)                       )
)
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
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     >
" 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.
By:      k ) <_ . b> ddd     -da ,
C.
Wm. Bradford ReynolcN Counsel for Applicants Dated:   October 2, 1975
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                         )'
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     )
Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
COMPANY                             )
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,     )     Doci . Noc. 50-346A Unit 1)                             )                   50-440A
TIIE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
                                          )                   50-441A TNE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.                     )
)
(Perry Muclear Power Plant,             )
COMPANY
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.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
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~
Doci
. Noc. 50-346A Unit 1)
)
50-440A TNE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
50-441A 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 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.
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.
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Chanin Building - Suite 206                 Office of the Executiva Legal 815 Cen".ecticut Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atemic Safety and Director Licensing Board U.
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.
S.
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                     ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh Washington, D. C.
Washington, D. C. 20555
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
r
                    . Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.                                         ,
.m l
. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Donald II. Hauser, Esq.
Donald II. Hauser, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.                                             -
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
General Attorney Antitrust Division                                                              -
General Attorney The Cleveland Electric Antitrust Division j
The Cleveland Electric j                     Department of Justice                                                                                   Illuminating Compa'ny
Department of Justice Illuminating Compa'ny Washington, D. C. 20530 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44101 i
,                    Washington, D. C. 20530                                                                       55 Public Square i
D'rger, E'sq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Melvin G. D'rger,             O          E'sq.                                             ,
Melvin G.
O j
Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
Leslic IIenry, Esq.
Leslic IIenry, Esq.
j                      Anthony C. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
l Antitrust Division Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor 300 Madison Avenue J
Antitrust Division Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snydor l                                                                                                                    300 Madison Avenue J                     Dcpartment of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530
Dcpartment of Justice Washington, D.
                                                                                                            -      Toledo, Ohio 43G04
C.
!                      Reuben Goldberg, Esq.                                                                     . Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
20530 Toledo, Ohio 43G04 Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company I                     David C. Hjclafelt, Esq.                                                                     47 North Main Strcot
. Thomas A.
!                      Go'idberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfolt                                                             Akron, Ohio 44308 j                       1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Kayuha, Esq.
i                     Washington, D. C. 20006                                                                                       ,,
Ohio Edison Company I
Thomas J. nunsch, Esq.
David C.
u                                                                         .
Hjclafelt, Esq.
* General Attorney
47 North Main Strcot Go'idberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfolt Akron, Ohio 44308 j
!                      Wallace E. Brand, Esq.                                                                       Duquesne Light Company Pearce & Brand                                                                           -
1700 Pennsylvania Ave.,
435 Sixth Avenue Suite 1200                                                                                 ~Eittsburgh, Pennsylvani.a 15219 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.                                                                   ,
N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036                                                                     David Olds, Esq.
i Washington, D.
* Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.                                                                     Union Trust Building Jon T. Brown, nsq.                                                                           Box 2009                     -
C.
Duncan, Brown 6 Palmer               ,
20006 Thomas J.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.                                                                                      .
nunsch, Esq.
Washington,,D.-C. 20006                                                           ,
u General Attorney Wallace E.
John Lansdale, Esq.
Brand, Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown Frank R. Clokey, Esq.                                                                       21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Duquesne Light Company Pearce & Brand 435 Sixth Avenue Suite 1200
Special Assistant                                                                           Washington, D. C. 20036 Attorney General Room 219                                                                                   Edward A. Matto, Esq.
~Eittsburgh, Pennsylvani.a 15219 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
,                      Townc House Apartments                                                                     Assistant Attorney General Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105                                                             Chief, Antitrust Section 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor
Washington, D.
  !                      Mr. Raymond Kuduki.s                                                                         Columbus, Ohio 43215 i                        Director of Public Utllitics i                       City of Cicycland                                                                           Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
C.
1201 Lakeside Avenue                                                                       Assistant Attorney General j
20036 David Olds, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114                                                                       Antitrust Section i                                                                         .                                          30 E. Broad Strcot, 15th Floor i
Reed Smith Shaw & McClay Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.
;                      licrbert R. Whiting, Director                                                               Columbus, Ohio 43215 Robert D. Ila r t , Esq.
Union Trust Building Jon T.
Kann H. Adkins , Esq .
Brown, nsq.
!                      Department of Law                                                                           Assistant Attorncy Concral           ;
Box 2009 Duncan, Brown 6 Palmer Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
1201 Lakeside Avenuo                                                 .
Washington,,D.-C. 20006 John Lansdale, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio                         44114                                               Antitrust Section 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor     !
Cox, Langford & Brown Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
John C. Engle, President                                                                     Columbus, Ohio 43215 AMP-0, Inc.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
* Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.
Special Assistant Washington, D.
i                       Municipal Building                                                                         Assistant Attorney General 20 liiqh Street Environmental Law Section llamilton, Ohio 45012                                                                 '
C.
3G1 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor 4
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
Columbus, Ohio 43215


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

Latest revision as of 06:37, 31 December 2024

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

~

- 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

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

)

50-441A 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 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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19329C711&oldid=4754432"