ML19319B322
| ML19319B322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1976 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B321 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001150782 | |
| Download: ML19319B322 (2) | |
Text
.
' p, ' '
g i
- Q s
{
(
'N h 4
o
.;h N
.s a
/ 1b76 > To
- ;g g
-0 ,'*! @
MAR 2 219761 C 5" *
//
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
o,,...,,.,,,,,_
A o~' "-
- s-.a.
s efore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g
f-)"/
j g\\
-:. l 4 In the Matter of
)
}
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
Docket Nos. 50-346A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
50-500A COMPANY
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER CERTIFYING RULING IN SPECIAL SECTION 2.713 PROCEEDING By Order of Jaunary 19, 1976, this Board entered an order of suspension and disqualification in these proceedings of the firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey '(the " Firm"), counsel for Applicant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
This order was issued pursuant to a motion for disqualification filed on November 20, 1975 by the City of Cleveland (City).
Board member Smith dissented on the merits to this action of the Board.
As required by,the provisions of Rule 2.713, the order of suspension was stayed pending opportunity by. % affected firm to be heard by another presiding officer.
By Order of February 24, 1976, a Special Atomic Safecy and Licensing Board found no evidence of unethical. conduct by the 8001150 7[h
c
(
(
~
PROCEDURES BEFORE THE SPECIAL BOARD Having decided that the initial Board should be the ultimate arbiter of disqualification, we then must decide the motion for the City of Cleveland that we enter an order of sus-pension notwithstanding the ruling of the Special Board.
During the course of the proceedings before the Special Board, additional first impression questions as to the nature of that hearing and the scope of evidence to be received were raised into question.
Basically, there was disagreement between the Special Boar ' and the parties with respect to whether additional evidence relating to the charges preferred by the initial Board should or could be received.
At the hearing before this Board on December 31, the City of Cleveland took the position that it would be entitled to intro-duce new evidence before the Special Board in the event the initial Board failed to prefer charges.*
The Firm, at the hearing before the Special Board, not only attempted to present evidence but made a proffer of evidence to preserve its objection to the refusal of the Special Board to admit that evidence.
It-should be noted, however, that this asserted right was grounded upon a contenti~on that the initial Board would be in error in failing to consider certain of the Firm's documen:
which had been withheld from production to the City under claim c' Parenthetically we note that the initial Board reviewed privilege.3 all privileged ~ documents alleged to be connected with the Firm's they were in fact of a
! representation of CEI and determined that that the content of those documents l privileged nature and, further,
' offered no evidence supporting the City's motio,n for disqualification.
' Tr. p. 3:::r - 31,31G.