ML24033A314: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 20: Line 20:
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION


                                                                          )
)
In the Matter of:                                                         )
In the Matter of: )
                                                                          )   Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY                                       )                       50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE                                     )
) Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE )
                                                                          )   February 2, 2024 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)                                 )
) February 2, 2024 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
                                                                          )
)


APPLICANTS ANSWER OPPOSING BEYOND NUCLEARS AND SIERRA CLUBS CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT HEARING REQUEST
APPLICANTS ANSWER OPPOSING BEYOND NUCLEARS AND SIERRA CLUBS CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT HEARING REQUEST


I.                                                                                                   INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION


Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and 2.307, Virginia Electric and Power Company, on behalf
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and 2.307, Virginia Electric and Power Company, on behalf
Line 34: Line 34:
of itself and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (collectively, Applicants), submit this Answer in
of itself and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (collectively, Applicants), submit this Answer in


opposition to the Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Second
opposition to the Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Second


Motion) filed by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (together, Movants).1 The Second Motion
Motion) filed by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (together, Movants).1 The Second Motion


is a corollary to Movants January 18, 2024 Motion for Withdrawal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   of Premature Hearing Notice
is a corollary to Movants January 18, 2024 Motion for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice


(First Motion).2 In the Second Motion, Movants ask for a six-week extension of time to submit a
(First Motion).2 In the Second Motion, Movants ask for a six-week extension of time to submit a


hearing request in this proceeding if the Commission denies the First                           Motion. Movants allege that
hearing request in this proceeding if the Commission denies the First Motion. Movants allege that


good cause for such an extension exists primarily due to the litigation burden placed on Movants
good cause for such an extension exists primarily due to the litigation burden placed on Movants
Line 48: Line 48:
counsel as a result of undertaking multiple simultaneous proceedings. As explained below, the
counsel as a result of undertaking multiple simultaneous proceedings. As explained below, the


1                                                     Conditional Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Feb. 1, 2024) (ML24032A004).
1 Conditional Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Feb. 1, 2024) (ML24032A004).


2                                                     Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 18, 2024)
2 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 18, 2024)
(ML24018A150).
(ML24018A150).


Line 57: Line 57:
litigation burden is insufficient to demonstrate good cause.
litigation burden is insufficient to demonstrate good cause.


II.                                                                                                                                   ARGUMENT
II. ARGUMENT


A.                                                                                     LEGAL STANDARD
A. LEGAL STANDARD


Good cause is the basic legal standard for mo tions in NRC adjudicatory proceedings. The
Good cause is the basic legal standard for mo tions in NRC adjudicatory proceedings. The


Commission has further explained that good cause in the context of a motion seeking extension of
Commission has further explained that good cause in the context of a motion seeking extension of


an adjudicatory deadline under 10 C.F.R. § 2.307, as invoked by Movants, requires demonstration
an adjudicatory deadline under 10 C.F.R. § 2.307, as invoked by Movants, requires demonstration


of unavoidable and extreme circumstances.3 Indeed, the Commission expressly adopted that
of unavoidable and extreme circumstances.3 Indeed, the Commission expressly adopted that


standard for all filing deadlines in a formal Statement of Policy published more than 25 years
standard for all filing deadlines in a formal Statement of Policy published more than 25 years


ago.4 Since then, the Commission has repeatedly held that the claimed inconvenience and time
ago.4 Since then, the Commission has repeatedly held that the claimed inconvenience and time


commitment required to voluntarily challenge a licensing application is not an unavoidable or
commitment required to voluntarily challenge a licensing application is not an unavoidable or


extreme circumstance that warrants an extension of time.5 And as directly relevant here, the
extreme circumstance that warrants an extension of time.5 And as directly relevant here, the


Commission has stated in no uncertain terms that, although multiple simultaneous proceedings
Commission has stated in no uncertain terms that, although multiple simultaneous proceedings


place burdens on the parties . . . [w]e cannot postpone cases for many weeks or months simply
place burdens on the parties... [w]e cannot postpone cases for many weeks or months simply


because going forward will prove difficult for litigants or their lawyers.6
because going forward will prove difficult for litigants or their lawyers.6


3                                                     See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 342 (1998)
3 See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 342 (1998)
(holding that construction of good cause to require a showing of unavoidable and extreme circumstances constitutes a reasonable means of avoiding undue delay); see also Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87210), CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1, 3 n.2 (1999) (We caution all parties in this case, however, to pay heed to the guidance in our policy statement that ordinarily only unavoidable and extreme circumstances provide sufficient cause to extend filing deadlines.).
(holding that construction of good cause to require a showing of unavoidable and extreme circumstances constitutes a reasonable means of avoiding undue delay); see also Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87210), CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1, 3 n.2 (1999) (We caution all parties in this case, however, to pay heed to the guidance in our policy statement that ordinarily only unavoidable and extreme circumstances provide sufficient cause to extend filing deadlines.).


4                                                       Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 41,872, 41,874 (Aug. 5, 1998).
4 Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 41,872, 41,874 (Aug. 5, 1998).


5                                                       See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), CLI-01-28, 54 NRC 393, 400 (2001) (noting that the cost and inconvenience of litigation is not relevant to consideration of a motion to suspend a proceeding).
5 See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), CLI-01-28, 54 NRC 393, 400 (2001) (noting that the cost and inconvenience of litigation is not relevant to consideration of a motion to suspend a proceeding).


6                                                     Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), CLI-01-8, 53 NRC 225, 229-30 (2001).
6 Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), CLI-01-8, 53 NRC 225, 229-30 (2001).


2 B.                                                                                       THE SECOND MOTION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE
2 B. THE SECOND MOTION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE


Movants allege that good cause exists for a six-week extension of the hearing request
Movants allege that good cause exists for a six-week extension of the hearing request
Line 98: Line 98:
deadline due to multiple deadlines and obligations in other cases that Movants counsel has
deadline due to multiple deadlines and obligations in other cases that Movants counsel has


voluntarily undertaken.7 But, as noted above, controlling Commission precedent expressly states
voluntarily undertaken.7 But, as noted above, controlling Commission precedent expressly states


thatas a matter of settled lawparticipation in multiple simultaneous proceedings is an
thatas a matter of settled lawparticipation in multiple simultaneous proceedings is an


insufficient basis for an adjudicatory extension.8 Because the Second Motion relies on that exact
insufficient basis for an adjudicatory extension.8 Because the Second Motion relies on that exact


basis as its purported demonstration of good cause, it must be denied.
basis as its purported demonstration of good cause, it must be denied.
Line 116: Line 116:
(1) a hearing request deadline in another NRC proceeding, and (2) an oral argument before a federal
(1) a hearing request deadline in another NRC proceeding, and (2) an oral argument before a federal


court of appeals.9 All of the other events mentioned in the Second Motion either already occurred
court of appeals.9 All of the other events mentioned in the Second Motion either already occurred


or involve deadlines that come after March 8, 2024.10 Two intervening obligations in a five-week
or involve deadlines that come after March 8, 2024.10 Two intervening obligations in a five-week


period cannot reasonably be described as creating an extreme circumstance.
period cannot reasonably be described as creating an extreme circumstance.
Line 126: Line 126:
dozens of pages of motions, declarations, and errata seeking to foist delays on the other parties to
dozens of pages of motions, declarations, and errata seeking to foist delays on the other parties to


this proceeding.11 Movants could have devoted that time to preparing a hearing request. But they
this proceeding.11 Movants could have devoted that time to preparing a hearing request. But they


7                                                     Second Motion at 1.
7 Second Motion at 1.


8                                                     Indian Point, CLI-01-8, 53 NRC at 229-30.
8 Indian Point, CLI-01-8, 53 NRC at 229-30.


9                                                       See Second Motion at 3-7.
9 See Second Motion at 3-7.


10                                         See id.
10 See id.


11                                         See First Motion; Second Motion; see also Errata to Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 22, 2024) (ML24022A066).
11 See First Motion; Second Motion; see also Errata to Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 22, 2024) (ML24022A066).


3 chose not to. And that unilateral choice does                                                                                                               not conjure an unavoidable and extreme
3 chose not to. And that unilateral choice does not conjure an unavoidable and extreme


circumstance warranting a multi-week delay in this proceeding.
circumstance warranting a multi-week delay in this proceeding.
Line 150: Line 150:
NRC Staff with developing a plan to restore the license renewal program to a path of timely and
NRC Staff with developing a plan to restore the license renewal program to a path of timely and


predictable reviews and achieve the goal of 18-month reviews.12 And Chair Hanson subsequently
predictable reviews and achieve the goal of 18-month reviews.12 And Chair Hanson subsequently


represented to Congress that the agency would prioritize efforts to find further enhancements to
represented to Congress that the agency would prioritize efforts to find further enhancements to


the timeliness and efficiency of those reviews.13 Granting the Second Motion, further delaying this
the timeliness and efficiency of those reviews.13 Granting the Second Motion, further delaying this


proceeding yet again, would do the exact opposite.
proceeding yet again, would do the exact opposite.


III.                                                               CONCLUSION
III. CONCLUSION


Because litigation burden cannot justify an adjudicatory extension, and because Petitioners
Because litigation burden cannot justify an adjudicatory extension, and because Petitioners
Line 164: Line 164:
otherwise have not demonstrated good cause, the Commission should DENY the Second Motion.
otherwise have not demonstrated good cause, the Commission should DENY the Second Motion.


12                                         Staff Requirements, SRM-M231102, Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business Lines at 1 (Dec. 11, 2023) (ML23345A214).
12 Staff Requirements, SRM-M231102, Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business Lines at 1 (Dec. 11, 2023) (ML23345A214).


13                                           Letter from C. Hanson, NRC, to Hon. S. Moore Capito et al. at 1 (Dec. 21, 2023) (Package ML23306A109).
13 Letter from C. Hanson, NRC, to Hon. S. Moore Capito et al. at 1 (Dec. 21, 2023) (Package ML23306A109).


4 Respectfully submitted,
4 Respectfully submitted,


Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
WILLIAM S. BLAIR, Esq.               RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq.
WILLIAM S. BLAIR, Esq. RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq.
DOMINION ENERGY SERVICES, INC.       PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esq.
DOMINION ENERGY SERVICES, INC. PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esq.
120 Tredegar Street, RS-2           MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Richmond, VA 23219                 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
120 Tredegar Street, RS-2 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Richmond, VA 23219 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
(561) 267-7459                       Washington, D.C. 20004 William.S.Blair@dominionenergy.com   (202) 739-5274 (202) 739-5796 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com
(561) 267-7459 Washington, D.C. 20004 William.S.Blair@dominionenergy.com (202) 739-5274 (202) 739-5796 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com


Signed (electronically) by Scott D. Clausen SCOTT D. CLAUSEN, Esq.
Signed (electronically) by Scott D. Clausen SCOTT D. CLAUSEN, Esq.
Line 188: Line 188:
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION


                                                                                                    )
)
In the Matter of:                                                                                 )
In the Matter of: )
                                                                                                    )     Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY                                                               )                               50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC                                                                         )
) Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC )
COOPERATIVE                                                                                       )     February 2, 2024
COOPERATIVE ) February 2, 2024
                                                                                                    )
)
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)                                                         )
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
                                                                                                    )
)


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Revision as of 19:20, 5 October 2024

Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclears and Sierra Clubs Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request
ML24033A314
Person / Time
Site: North Anna  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 02/02/2024
From: Bessette P, Blair W, Clausen S, Lighty R
Dominion Energy Services, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56926, 50-338-SLR-2, 50-339-SLR-2
Download: ML24033A314 (0)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE )

) February 2, 2024 (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

APPLICANTS ANSWER OPPOSING BEYOND NUCLEARS AND SIERRA CLUBS CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT HEARING REQUEST

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and 2.307, Virginia Electric and Power Company, on behalf

of itself and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (collectively, Applicants), submit this Answer in

opposition to the Conditional Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Second

Motion) filed by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (together, Movants).1 The Second Motion

is a corollary to Movants January 18, 2024 Motion for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice

(First Motion).2 In the Second Motion, Movants ask for a six-week extension of time to submit a

hearing request in this proceeding if the Commission denies the First Motion. Movants allege that

good cause for such an extension exists primarily due to the litigation burden placed on Movants

counsel as a result of undertaking multiple simultaneous proceedings. As explained below, the

1 Conditional Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Extension of Time to Submit Hearing Request (Feb. 1, 2024) (ML24032A004).

2 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 18, 2024)

(ML24018A150).

1 Commission should DENY the Second Motion because the Commission has expressly held that

litigation burden is insufficient to demonstrate good cause.

II. ARGUMENT

A. LEGAL STANDARD

Good cause is the basic legal standard for mo tions in NRC adjudicatory proceedings. The

Commission has further explained that good cause in the context of a motion seeking extension of

an adjudicatory deadline under 10 C.F.R. § 2.307, as invoked by Movants, requires demonstration

of unavoidable and extreme circumstances.3 Indeed, the Commission expressly adopted that

standard for all filing deadlines in a formal Statement of Policy published more than 25 years

ago.4 Since then, the Commission has repeatedly held that the claimed inconvenience and time

commitment required to voluntarily challenge a licensing application is not an unavoidable or

extreme circumstance that warrants an extension of time.5 And as directly relevant here, the

Commission has stated in no uncertain terms that, although multiple simultaneous proceedings

place burdens on the parties... [w]e cannot postpone cases for many weeks or months simply

because going forward will prove difficult for litigants or their lawyers.6

3 See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 342 (1998)

(holding that construction of good cause to require a showing of unavoidable and extreme circumstances constitutes a reasonable means of avoiding undue delay); see also Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87210), CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1, 3 n.2 (1999) (We caution all parties in this case, however, to pay heed to the guidance in our policy statement that ordinarily only unavoidable and extreme circumstances provide sufficient cause to extend filing deadlines.).

4 Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 41,872, 41,874 (Aug. 5, 1998).

5 See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), CLI-01-28, 54 NRC 393, 400 (2001) (noting that the cost and inconvenience of litigation is not relevant to consideration of a motion to suspend a proceeding).

6 Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), CLI-01-8, 53 NRC 225, 229-30 (2001).

2 B. THE SECOND MOTION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE

Movants allege that good cause exists for a six-week extension of the hearing request

deadline due to multiple deadlines and obligations in other cases that Movants counsel has

voluntarily undertaken.7 But, as noted above, controlling Commission precedent expressly states

thatas a matter of settled lawparticipation in multiple simultaneous proceedings is an

insufficient basis for an adjudicatory extension.8 Because the Second Motion relies on that exact

basis as its purported demonstration of good cause, it must be denied.

Furthermore, even if the Commission had not out right declared litigation burden to be an

insufficient basis for extending a filing deadline, the circumstances identified in the Second

Motion are not extreme by any objective measure. Between now and the March 8, 2024 hearing

request deadline in this proceeding, the only othe r deadlines identified by Movants counsel are

(1) a hearing request deadline in another NRC proceeding, and (2) an oral argument before a federal

court of appeals.9 All of the other events mentioned in the Second Motion either already occurred

or involve deadlines that come after March 8, 2024.10 Two intervening obligations in a five-week

period cannot reasonably be described as creating an extreme circumstance.

Revealingly, none of the identified circumstances prevented Movants counsel from drafting

dozens of pages of motions, declarations, and errata seeking to foist delays on the other parties to

this proceeding.11 Movants could have devoted that time to preparing a hearing request. But they

7 Second Motion at 1.

8 Indian Point, CLI-01-8, 53 NRC at 229-30.

9 See Second Motion at 3-7.

10 See id.

11 See First Motion; Second Motion; see also Errata to Motion by Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club for Withdrawal of Premature Hearing Notice (Jan. 22, 2024) (ML24022A066).

3 chose not to. And that unilateral choice does not conjure an unavoidable and extreme

circumstance warranting a multi-week delay in this proceeding.

Lastly, acceding to yet another delay in the resolution of this proceedingwhich already has

been delayed for multiple yearswould be inconsistent with recent Commission policy. As noted

in a Staff Requirements Memorandum issued just a few weeks ago, the Commission has tasked the

NRC Staff with developing a plan to restore the license renewal program to a path of timely and

predictable reviews and achieve the goal of 18-month reviews.12 And Chair Hanson subsequently

represented to Congress that the agency would prioritize efforts to find further enhancements to

the timeliness and efficiency of those reviews.13 Granting the Second Motion, further delaying this

proceeding yet again, would do the exact opposite.

III. CONCLUSION

Because litigation burden cannot justify an adjudicatory extension, and because Petitioners

otherwise have not demonstrated good cause, the Commission should DENY the Second Motion.

12 Staff Requirements, SRM-M231102, Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Operating Reactors and New Reactors Business Lines at 1 (Dec. 11, 2023) (ML23345A214).

13 Letter from C. Hanson, NRC, to Hon. S. Moore Capito et al. at 1 (Dec. 21, 2023) (Package ML23306A109).

4 Respectfully submitted,

Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

WILLIAM S. BLAIR, Esq. RYAN K. LIGHTY, Esq.

DOMINION ENERGY SERVICES, INC. PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esq.

120 Tredegar Street, RS-2 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Richmond, VA 23219 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

(561) 267-7459 Washington, D.C. 20004 William.S.Blair@dominionenergy.com (202) 739-5274 (202) 739-5796 Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com

Signed (electronically) by Scott D. Clausen SCOTT D. CLAUSEN, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5402 Scott.Clausen@morganlewis.com

Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company

Dated in Washington, DC this 2nd day of February 2024

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos. 50-338-SLR-2 and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ) 50-339-SLR-2 and OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC )

COOPERATIVE ) February 2, 2024

)

(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing

Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclears and Sierra Clubs Motion For Extension of Time to

Submit Hearing Request was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-

Filing System), in the above-captioned docket.

Signed (electronically) by Scott D. Clausen SCOTT D. CLAUSEN, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 739-5402 Scott.Clausen@morganlewis.com

Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company

DB1/ 144248139.3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML24033A314&oldid=3681585"