ML19319C568
| ML19319C568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1975 |
| From: | Berger M JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002191005 | |
| Download: ML19319C568 (9) | |
Text
'
6 3bD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket No. 50-346A Company
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
and 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
MINUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL WITH BOARD CHAIRItAN ON JULY 14, 1975 On Monday, July 14, 1975, the Department of Justice initiated a conference call at 2:00 p.m. concerning the Motion of the City of Cleveland, Ohio, to Change Procedural Dates.
This conference call was a follow-up to the conference call of July 11, 1975.
Participants in the call were:
Licensing Board Chairman Douglas V.
~
Rigler; Mr. Wm. Bradford Reynolds, counsel.for Applicants; Mr. Roy P.
Lessy, Jr., counsel for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff; Mr. David C. Hjelmfelt, counsel for the City of Cleveland; Mr. Richard M. Firestone, counsel for the State of Ohio, Mr. Jon T.
Brown,' counsel for AMP-Ohio; and Mr. Melvin G. Berger, counsel for Department of Justice.
n\\r La 8 0 u 191 mr T __
5 It was first determined that all parties had received the Motion of the Qity of Cleveland, Ohio, to Change Procedural Dates and the suggested schedule contained therein.
Mr. Berger stated that he believed that the time schedule set forth in Prehearing Conference Order No. 4 should be adhered to and that all dates stated therein should be slipped by one month since the conclusion of depositions had slipped by one month.
Mr. Berger also requested clarification from the City of Cleveland with respect to the August 29 date listed in the City's Motion because it was unclear to him whether the City was requir-ing all parties other than Applicants merely to state the general nature of the case or to give a detailed explanation of the issues and facts.
Mr. Hjelmfelt responded by stating that the requirement listed for August 29. was deliberately made ambiguous for the City does not know what scope that statement of issues will have.
He suggested that a conference call or prehearing conference might be held to clarify this question.
Mr. Reynolds stated that Applicants did not want to go beyond l
f the August 29 date to receive a starament of issues.
He also 1
)
indicated that he believed that the statement due on August. 29 should contain a statement of the relief being requested.
Mr. Rigler asked Mr. Reynolds if he agreed with the City schedule.
Mr. Reynolds stated that it would be all right if he received what was requested on August 29th but did not comment on the remainder of the schedule.
1 2
1
s g
Mr. Lessy noted that Prehearing Conference Order No. 4 did not contemplate a statement of relief to be requested by the parties.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the Prehearing Conference Order No. 4 contemplated one hearing to cover both a situation incon-sistent as well as remedy and that he should be entitled to a statement of issues as well as remedy.
Mr. Rigler noted that there was a discussion during a pre-hearing conference on what was to be contained in the statement of issues and that he did not remember precisely what was said but suggested that the parties review thIe transcript.
He then asked again if Applicants agreed with the City schedule.
Mr. Reynolds said he had no problem with the remainder of the schedule except that the originally scheduled three-week f
period between the filing of pretrial brief and the start of the hearing was cut to two weeks.
He suggested that a restora-tion of this time period would move the hearing to November 6 or 7.
Mr. Berger noted that he agreed with Mr. Reynolds that the original time periods should be maintained but that the same time periods should be kept throughout all.the steps listed in 4
Prehearing Conference Order No.
Mr. Lessy stated that the schedule of Prehearing Conference Order No. 4 should be kept but that Staff did not oppose nor support the City's suggested schedule.
He also noted that the depositions had a broad scope.
3
4 Mr. Rei ilds again noted the shortening up by one week of the period between the filing of pretrial briefs and the start of the hearing.
Mr. Berger noted that his problem was primarily with the first time period in the schedule, the time between the end of depositions and the filing of the statement of issues.
He noted that only four weeks were now being allowed, while six weeks were allowed in Prehearing Conference Order No. 4.
He also noted that it would be difficult to cbtain transcripts from depositions conducted during the end of July and fully digest them to allow their use in the statement of issues since only about four weeks were allowed between the two dates.
He further stated that the specificity required in the statement of issues would probably determine whether four seks was enough time to complete the statement.
Mr-. Lessy suggested that it might be best if the Department of Justice not be made to cite issues or evidence in the deposi-tions since they could meet the deadline under those circumstances.
Mr. Reynolds objected stating that Apolicants wanted all the issues spelled out for them on August 29 and did not want addi-tional issues brought up later.
Mr. Lessy suggested that the parties be allowed to amend the statement of issues once between August 29 and September 12, the date set by the City schedule to censider motions to curtail or eliminate issues.
4 O
P --, -. - _
N e
\\. -
Mr. Reynolds stated that he would not be satisfied with an amendment of issues after Applicants' response thereto due September 5 was due.
Mr. Rigler asked whether the possibility of daily copy had been explored as a means of getting the deposition transcripts in the hands of the Department as soon as possible.
Mr. Lessy noted that daily copy costs about $5 per page, while regular copy costs about $1 per page.
Mr. Rigler suggested that daily copy during the last ten days to two weeks'might solve the problem.
Mr. Reynolds stated that he did not object to the October 30 hearing date.,
Mr. Rigler noted that the Licensing Board would act in the near future on consolidation of Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3,with the Perrv, Units 1 and 2,and the Davis-Besse, Unit 1, proceeding.
He urged that any party wishing to submit anything related to con-solidation do it soon.
Mr. Lessy inquired about the parties' positions on new discovery in Davis-Besse, Units 2 and 3.
Mr. Reynolds stated that Applicants would file their discovery requests in this matter very soon.
Mr. Rigler asked whether these requests would delay the schedule if the proceedings were consolidated.
Mr. Reynolds stated that he did not expect any delay to result.
5 4
8 h
\\*
~
Mr. Rigler stated that he would consult with the other Board members on a new schedule and that he would be available by telephone if needed.
He stated that with respect to Mr. Reynolds' statement about the statement of issues requir-ing a statement of the relief to be requested, Prehearing Con-ference Order No. 4 governs.
Thus, the listing of issues is tied to Applicants' interrogatories and if the interrogatories called for a statement of relief, Mr. Reynolds would be entitled to such a statement.
Mr. Rigler again reminded all that if a prehearing conference or additiona,1 arguments on consolidation were desired, such action should be taken soon.
Mr. Belger asked if Mr. Rigler wanted all parties to respond in writing to the City's Motion.
Mr. Rigler said that he had the position of all the parties and that he did not need any additional information.
Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the conference call was concluded.
Respectfully submitted, Nw M lV MELVIN G.
BERGER Attorney, Department of Justice-Washington, D.C.
20530 July 29, 1975 i
4 9
e
t r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
' The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket No. 50-346A Company
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
and 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MINUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL WITH BOARD CHAIRMAN ON JULY 14, 1975 have been served upon all of the parties listed on the attachment hereto by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 29th day of July 1975.
1 i
l i
s r1 M Melvin G.
Berger Actorney, Antitrust Division Department of Justice l
k.
ATTACHMENT Douglas Rigler, Esquire Andrew Popper, Esquire Chairman Benjamin H.
Vagler, Esquire Atomic Safety,and Licensing Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Office of the General Counsel Board Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh Nuclear Regulatory Commission
& Jacobs Washington, D.C.
20555 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire William Bradford Reynolds, Esquire John H. Brebbia, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing 910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C.
20006 Alston, Miller & Gaines 1800 M Street, N.W.
Lee C. Howley, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20036 Vice President & General Counsel The Cleveland Electric John M. Frysiak, Esquire Illuminating Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 5000 Board Panel Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Donald H. Hauser, Esquire Corporate Solicitor.
Atomic Safety and Licensing The Cleveland Electric Board Panel Illuminating Company Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 5000 Washington, D.C.
20555 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 John Lansdale, Jr., Esquire Frank W. Karas Chief, Public Proceedings Cox, Langford & Brown Staff 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chris Schraff, Esquire Office of Attorney General Abraham Braitman State of Ohio Office of Antitrust and State House Indemnity Columbus, Ohio 43215 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Karen H.
Adkins, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Herbert R. Whitting, Esquire Antitrust Section Robert D. Hart, Esquire 30 East Broad Street Law Department 15th Floor City Hall Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Leslie Henry, Esquire Reuben Goldberg, Esquire Fuller, Henry, Hodge
+
David C. Hjelmfelt, Esquire
& Snyder 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
300 Madison Avenue Suite 550 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
i -.
- ~ -
4
\\
~'
. ~. '.,.
e Thomas A. Kayuha, Esquire Ohio Edison Company 1
47 North Main' Street Akron, Ohio 44308 David M. Olds, Esquire Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 747 Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Mr. Raymond Kudukis Director of Utilities City of Claveland 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Wallace L.
Duncan, Esquire Jon T.
Brown, Esquire Duncan, Brown, Weinberg
& Palmer 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Edward A. Matto, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Chief, Antitrust Section 30 East Broad Street 15th Flcor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Richard M. Firestone Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Section 30 East Broad Street 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Victor F.
Greenslade, Jr., Esquire Principal Staff Counsel The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 t.,
1
-