ML19319D098
| ML19319D098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1977 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003090078 | |
| Download: ML19319D098 (6) | |
Text
.
m J
February 14, 1977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matte.
.f
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
s THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Nobs 50-346A COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50 441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A z -!J - 17 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CLEVELAND'S MOTION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR BRIEFS RELATING TO CLEVELAND'S EXCEPTIONS 1.
On February 7, 1977 the City of Cleveland filed a
" Notice of Appeal and Exceptions" to the Initial Decision in this antitrust proceeding and a motion requesting the Atomic e
i Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") to issue an order establishing page limitations for briefing its ex-ceptions.
It.is Applicants' understanding that all briefs in t
support of Cleveland's exceptions, whether filed by Cleveland or by another party, will be filed on April 4, 1977, all briefs in opposition to Cleveland's exceptions will be filed on to CD May 30, 1977; and reply briefs by those parties who filed to c3 supporting briefs will be filed on June 20, 1977 This com-c CD ports with the Appeal Board's briefing schedule set forth in o
NJ its Order of January 19, 1977, as modified by ita.0rder of ST January 27, 1977
2.
With reference to the paEe limitations proposed by Cleveland, the four separate Applicant-parties (treating Ohio Edison and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Penn Power, as one for briefing purposes) once again request that they each be afforded at least as many pages in which to treat the refer-1/
enced exceptions as the " opposition parties"- are each allowed.
In this connection, it should be obvious on the face of Cleveland's filing that the several Applicants will have identical responses to the issues raised.2/
Each not one should be given equal opportunity to state its separate position without any more stringent page requirements than the Appeal Board sees fit to place on each of the " opposition
-1/ The term " opposition parties" was coined by the Licensing Board in its Initial Decision as a reference to the NRC Staff, Department of Justice and City of Cleveland taken together (see slip op. at 8).
The frequent references to these par-ties jointly as the " opposition parties" helps to underscore the Licensing Board's clear awareness of the commonality of interests among these " separate" parties.
-2/ Applicants' separateness, both in terms of identities and positions, is of extreme importance in this proceeding.
It is for that reason that we would like to take this opportunity to correct a mistaken imoression apparently held by the Appeal Board.
In the Order of January 27, 1977, it is noted that "the case was tried below largely by counsel representing all the applicants jointly" (at p. 3).
As the Appeal Board be-comes more familiar with the record, however, we believe it will early become clear that, to the contrary, each Applicant-party was represented by its own separate counsel in addition to being represented by the undersigned counsel.
Separate counsel played an active and continuing role in the defense of each Applicant.
This included making opening statements, conducting the entire direct case of each Applicant, and con-ducting the majority of cross-examination of the fact wit-nesses.
Typica.'.ly, separate counsel for the Applicant most directly concerned with the tectimony of a particular witness would take the 13ad in cross-examining that witness.
In addition, Applicants also sought to have exhibits received into evidence marked to indicate which particular Applicant was sponsoring that exhibit.
The Licensing Board refused this s
parties."
Not only does such an approach satisfy the most basic notions of due proces
., also preserves the integrity of the administrative proceedings by eliminating a possible suggestion that the Commission's own staff, and those parties aligned in interest with the Commission's staff, are being afforded preferential treatment.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE u \\, m ---
m
.c By:
~~a..-
Wm. Bradford Reynolds Robert E.
Zahler Counsel for Applicants Dated:
February 14, 1977 1
2/ -- continued --
request, but it did allow the initials of the sponsoring Applicant to be attached to the exhibit number as a suffix and did indicate that it would be clear from the record which Applicant had sponsored the exhibit (see Tr. 1758-69).
This is not to discount the role played by the undersigned.
counsel during the hearing.
Cross-examination of the expert witnesses, limited cross-examination of some fact witnesses, procedural motions and most evidentiary objections were principally the responsibility of the undersigned counsel.
For the most part this was because the referenced categories concerned matters common to the individual Applicants, and coordinating their common (but not joint) litigating posture through a single counsel was a means of expediting the hear-ing and eliminating needless duplication.
This degree of coordination does not, aowever, change the hard fact that this case was largely tried by separate counsel for each Applicant (treating Ohio Edison and Penn Power as one), and not by joint counsel.,
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 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 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' l
Reply to Cleveland's Motion for the Establishment of Page Limitations for Briefs Relating to Cleveland's Exceptions" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand delivering copies to those persons in the Washington, D.C. area, and by mailing copies, postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 14th day of February, 1977.
SHAW. PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l
1
) )
rs s e
.s By: u c,. e
=
~ %--s Wm. Bradford Reynolds l
l l
l
t k
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Appeal 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 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2'and 3)
)
50-501A SERVICE LIST Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 j
John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Jerome E.
Sharfman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Appeal Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board Panel Richard S.
Salzman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Docketing & Service Section Washington, D.
C.
20555 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.-C.
20006 Appea) __mrd Panel U.S. Nuclear -egulatory Commission Joseph Rutherg, Esc.
Nashington, D.
C.
20555 Benjamin H. Vogler,' Esq.
Douglas V.
Rigler, Esc.
ECE.P. Lessy, Jr.,
Esq.
l Chairman, Atomic Safet" and Ofrice or yhe Executive Licensing Board Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Foley, Lardner, Hollabauch and Jacobs Chanin Building - Suite 206 Washington, D.
C.
20500 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 i
~-
, Joseph J.
Saunders, Esq.
Terence H.
Benbow, Esq.
Antitrust Division A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
Dspartment of Justice Steven A.
Berger, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20530 Steven B.
Peri, Esq.
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts Malvin G.
Berger, Esq.
40 Wall Street Janet R.
Urban, Esq.
New York, New York 10005 Antitrust Division P.
O.
Box 7513 Thomas J.
Munsch, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20044 General Attorney Duquesne Light Company Rsuben Goldberg, Esq.
435 Sixth Avenue David C.
Hjelmfelt, Esq.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Michael D.
Oldak, Esq.
Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt David McNeil Olds, Esq.
Suite 550 Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Union Trust Building Washington, D.
C.
20006 Box 2009
^
Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Vincent C. Campanella, Esq.
Director of Law Lee A.
Rau, Esq.
Robert D.
Hart, Esq.
Joseph A.
Rieser, Jr.,
Esq.
j lst Ass't Director of Law Reed Smith Shaw & McClay City of Cleveland Suite 900 213 City Hall 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Frank R.
Clokey, Esq.
James R.
Edgerly, Esq.
Special Ass't Attorney General Secretary and General Counsel Room 219 Pennsylvania Power Company One East Washington Street Towne House Apartments Harrisburg, PA 17105 New Castle, PA 16103 Donald H.
Hauser, Esq.
John Lansdale, Esq.
Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown William J.
Kerner, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
The Cleveland Electric Washington, D.
C.
2003'6 Illuminating Company 55 Public Square -
Alan P.
Suchmann, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 1800 Union Commerce Building Michael M.
Briley, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Paul M.
Smart, Esq.
Fuller, Hanry, Hodge & Snyder Epward A. Matto, Esc.
Ricnard M.
Firestone, Esq.
P.
O.
Box 2088 Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
. Toledo, Ohio 43603 Antitrust Section Russell J.
Spetrino, Esq.
30 E.
Broad Street, 15th Floor Thomas A.
Kayuha, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ohio Edison Company Christopher R.
Schraff, Esc.
16 South Main Street Assistant Attornev General -
~
Akron, Ohio 44308 Environmental Law'Section
~
361 E.
Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 l
4
-