ML19326A577

Responds to City of Cleveland'S Motion to Strike App a to Applicants' Reply Brief.Recommends Denial.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19326A577
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	08/09/1977
From:	Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8002250897
Download: ML19326A577 (6)

Text

. _.

m '

August 9, 1977 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 )

COMPANY, ET AL. ) 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 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CLEVELAND'S MOTION TO STRIKE 3 The City of Cleveland has moved to strike Appendix A to Applicants' Reply Brief on the ground that it contains 16 pages in excess of the 100-page limit set by the Appeal Board.

The City's motion is not well taken and should be denied.

Applicants attached Appendix A to their Reply Brief in an effort to assist this Appeal Board in reviewing the several briefs filed by the respective parties hereto. After reading the Opposition Briefs, Applicants were struck most of all with two impressions: (a) the Staff, DOJ and Cleveland had largely I-relied upon the same language as used in the Initial Decision to make their arguments, and (b) no real effort had been made 8002 250D9 /rq

-.--m

s s

by the opposition parties to coordinate their similar positions in an organized fashion that would facilitate the Appeal Board's review. The charts we prepared as Appendix A were intended to bring some order to this confusion, while at the same time demonstrating the parallel (and usually identical) treatment of issues by our adversaries, on the one hand, and the Licensing Board, on the other hand.

We believe that the referenced material has been prop-erly included as an Appendix to our Reply Brief. It does not in any realistic sense " discuss, analyze and argue, the factual

.l arguments made by City, the Department of Justise [ sic] and NRC l

4 Staff in their briefs" (City Mot., at p. 2), as Cleveland con-tends. The footnote references in Appendix A comment very briefly on but twenty-four additional record references appearing in the Opposition Briefs which did not appear in the Initial Decision. In this respect, our Appendix A is certainly much less " argumentative" than the extra pages appearing as the initial Appendix in the respective opposition Briefs filed by 1

Cleveland and the Staff.

There thus exists no legitimate reason to grant Cleve-land's motion to strike. The information contained in our Ap-pendix will, we believe, be of considerable assistance to the Appeal Board in identifying, coordinating and evaluating the arguments made in the several appeal briefs. Far from making j a mockery of the Board's orders, Applicants have made a consci-  ;

s '

entious effort in Appendix A to pull together in one_ place the articulated positions of all the parties to this appeal and to reflect where in the Initial Decision the same points have been addressed. '

Such an organizational framework is, we respectfully submit, indispensable to a meaningful review of the many ex-ceptions and the voluminous record that are involved in this appeal. To claim that the inclusion of this information as an Appendix to our Reply Brief is " unfair and prejudicial" to any party hereto (see City Mot., p. 2) is simply untrue. Rather, as a vehicle for making more manageable the review process that this Appeal Board must now undertake, Appendix A cannot help q but be a decided benefit to everyone concerned.

WHEREFORE, the City of Cleveland's motion to strike Appendix A to Applicants' Reply Brief should be denied.

i l Respectfully submitted,

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By

_ + bh Nm. Bradford Rhynolds

_C

-Robert E. Zahler (

Counsel for Applicants Dated: August 9, 1977.

m 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 )

COMPANY, ET AL. ) 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. 50-5000A Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Applicants' Reply To Cleveland's Motion To Strike" were 4

cerved upon each of the persons listed on the attached Ser-vice List, by hand delivering copies to those persons in the Washington, D. C. area, and by mailing copies, postage pre-paid, to all others, all on this 9th day of August, 1977.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE km'

. >A h ME '

Wm. Bradford Rhiiolds CounselforApplicants(

l

~_

• 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC

JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS ON Sefore the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Beard c

In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON CCMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Deckee No. 50-346A COMPANY )

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) -

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

CCMPANY, ET AL.

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

) Docket Nos. 50-440A

). 50-441A Units 1 and 2) )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Decket Ncs. 50-5002 Units 2 and 3) ) 50-501A SERVICE LIST Alan S.. Ros~enthal, Esq. Ivan.W. Smith, Esq.

Chairman, Accmic Safety and Atcmic Safety and Licensing Boarf Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmissic U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Washingten, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Jercme E. Sharfman, Esq.

John M. Frysiak, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard

. ' Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmissic Appeal Soard

• Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission .

Washington, D. C. 20555 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Richard S. Salzman, Esq.

Scard Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv Commissic Atcmic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission

.Decketing & Service Seccion Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of che Secrecary

-Atomic Safety and Licensing 1.N g ea eg ac y a ssic:

Appeal *carc. Panel Wasnine on, D. C. 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Cc= mission Washington, D. C. 20cca Jose h Ruthere, Esc.

_ee.,.] a._u ; n ..

, V;,_. _, e _. , _as.

' Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

Office of the Execucive Legal Direccor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmissio:

j Washingten, D. C. 20555

m

. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. Terence H. Eenbow, Esq.

Antitrust Division A. Edward Grashof, Esq.

Department of Justice Steven A. Berger, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20530 Steven 3. Peri, Esq. '

Winthrop, 'Stimson, Putnam & Pcbert Melvin 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 Duqu,esne Light Ccmpany Reuben 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 Washingten, D. C. 20006

• Box 2009 Pittsburgh, Pi 15230 Vincent C. Campanella, Esq. .

Director of Law Lee A. Rau, Esq.

Robert D. Hart, Esq. Joseph A. Rieser, Jr., Esq.

1st 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 Washingten, D. C. 20036 Frank R. Clokey, Esq. James R. Edcerly, Esq.

Special Ass't Attorney General Secretary and General Counsel Roca 219 Pennsylvania Power Company Towne House Apartments .

One East Washington Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 .'

New Castle, PA 16103 Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Jchn Lansdale, Esq.

Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esq. Ccx, Langford & 3rown William J. Kerner, Esq. 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.,

The-Cleveland Electric Washington, D. C. 20036 Illuminatinc Cemean^v ~

55 Public Square Alan P. Suchmann, Esq.

Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 1800. Uni'on.Cc==erce Building Michael M. Briley, Esq. Clevela'nd, Ohio 44115

?mul M. Smart, Esc. . . . , _

Fuller, Hen v,- Ecdge &'Snyder *IC ^. sq.

P. O. Box 2088

'Y*harc.M.Mayto, Ric Fgrestene, Esq.

. Toledo, Ohio 43603 Karen H. Adkins, Esq.

-Antitrust Section Russell J. Spetrino, Esq. 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Flcor Thomas A. Kayu:ta,- Esq. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ohio Edison Ccmpany 76 South Main Street Christocher R. Schraff, Esc.

Akrcn, Ohio 44308

• Assistaht Atecrnev General ~

Environmental Law 1Section 361 E. 3rcad Street, 8th Flecr Columbus, Ohio 43215