ML19326A639
| ML19326A639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1977 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002250943 | |
| Download: ML19326A639 (9) | |
Text
_
.~
I rsttSif UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p
pd NUCLEAR REGULA'"ORY COMMISSION y-
\\%l r
t
[ 93 I
- I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 9
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Richard S. Salzman 03 Jerome E. Sharfman a
)
In the Matter of
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND Docket Nos.
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
50-500A ILLUMINATING COMPANY
)
50-501A
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1, 2& 3)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A ILLUMINATING COMPANY, _e t_ _a _l.
)
50-441A
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
1 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
ORDER January 27, 1977 On January 19, 1977 we enlarged applicants' time to file and brief their exceptions to the initial decision below in this antitrust proceeding, thereby giving them four weeks for exceptions and seven more for briefing in
.I lieu of the 7 and 15 days,respectively, allowed by the Rules of Prac'tice.
In the same order we placed an outside limit of 300 pages on applicants' open-ing brief (or briefs).
At the same time we limited their 8002250 9 3 7
g
s
' opponents to answering briefs of 200 pages cach, due eight weeks after applicants' opening briefs, and allowed applicants to file a reply brief (or briefs) totalling another 100 pages.,(The Rules of Practice do not sanction the filing of reply briefs as a matter of course.)
Applicants are now back before us, this time seeking an additional week for filing opening briefs and leave to file briefs of not 300 but 500 pages.
We grant the applicants the additional week re-quested to brief their exceptions.
We do so not be-cause it is somehow " unfair," as applicants suggest, to allow them seven weeks for opening briefs and their opponents eight.
Anyone experienced in the practice of administrative law and familiar with the work habits of the legal profession -- and we claim these modest credentials -- appreciates that some of the time allowed for exceptions will be available for work on the briefs and, as 1]r. Peter' has suggested, work expands to fill
- the time available to do it.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the record is large, several utilities are involved, the issues are important to them, and no less than twelve lawyers entered appearances for applicants in l
r-
e4-na 2A-4 es.
3-the proceedings below.
We.therefore grant the applicants' request for an extra week before they must file their op,ing brief or briefs.
We are not prepared, however, to allow applicants to file opening briefs of 500 pages.
To be sure, four utilities are parties here and portions of the Licensing Board's findings are directed at some and not others.
But it is also true that in considerable measure the questions of law and fact are common to all parties I
and are most appropriately addressed in a single brief.
Indeed, we note that the case was tried below largely by counsel representing all the applicants jointly.
In the circumstances, we think it not unreasonable that applicants' briefs be limited to fewer pages than the total pages of those of their opponents, who do not share the same close relationship and joint interest.
We are unpersuaded that substantially longer briefs are needed to present applicants' case in full.
- Indeed, in our experience, the likelihood of an appellate court giving any group of appellants 200 pages, let alone 300, to brief an-appeal even in an antitrust case is small i
t w
' 1/
indeed.--
And as counsel well know, cases of Constitutional import, wider reach and greater complexity are regularly and adequately treated by the courts on far fewer briefing pages.
We suggest that counsel. bear in mind that we are not unfamiliar with the issues and that not all matters merit encyclopedic treatment.- / The applicants might 2
well be advised to employ the additional briefing time just allowed them to sharpen their presentations by appropriate editing.
We wish to make clear now, however, that we will not countenance the filing of briefs in ex-cess of the page limits we have set.
Any such non-complying documents received will be returned unread to the party submitting them.-3/
For the reasons stated, the portion of our order of January 19, 1977, in this case establishing a briefing
-schedule is modified to read as follows:
Exceptions -- February 7, 1977.
Briefs in support of exceptions -- April 4, 1977.
Briefs in opposition to exceptions -- May 30, 1977.
Reply briefs -- June 20, 1977.
--l/
See Rule 28, F.R.A.P. and Local Rule 8 (c) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
_2/
See Eccl. 12:12.
_3/
See Revised Supreme Court Rule 40 (5).
--w r
,~
\\
~
5-In all other respects the applicants' motion is denied. S!
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPFAL BOARD
))i ? n n,-
rot
__ ~
_n
/ Margaret E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board
---4/
We also call all parties' attention to what we find to be the helpful practice of including an appropriate summary of argument in their briefs (see Rule 28 (a) of the F.R.A.P. and Revised Supreme Court Rule 40 (f)) and by starring in the table required by section 2.762 (c) of our Rules of Practice.the authorities chiefly relied upon.
See Local Rulc 8 (d) of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
m ITED STATES OF A7 ERICA ht
\\R REGULATORY C0"CIISSION In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No.(s) 50-346A 50-440A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLCIINATING )
50-441A COMPANY
)
50-500A
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit No. 1; Perry
)
Nuclear Power Plant,- Units 1&2))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the of ficial service'11st compiled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Cor=nission in this proceeding in' 2-accordance uith the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington,
.C.
thi N,
day of 197
/
Office of the Secretary of the[ommission
\\
,r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:0!ISSION Iie the !!atter of
)
)
)
Docket No.(s) 50-346A (Davis;Besse Unit 1)
)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
50-441A (Perry Units 1 and 2)
)
)
50-500A (Davis-Besse Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A SERVICE LIST Douglas Rigler, Esq., Chairman Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh & Jacobs Antitrust Counsel
~
815 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D. C.
20006 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D. C 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
. Office of Antitrust & Indemnity Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Antitrust Counsel Washington, D. C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic 6afety and Licensing Appeal Board Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D. C.
205,55 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph J. Saunders, Esq., Chief Washington, D. C.
20555 Public Counsel and Legislative Section Richard R. Salzman, Esq.
Antitrust Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Appdal U. S. Department of Justice Board Washington, D. C.
20530 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D. C.
20555 e
6 M*"**.
50-346A, -440A,41A, -500A, -501A page 2 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Honorable Edward A. Matto Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge Assistant Attorney General and Madden Chief, Antitrust Section 910 -17th Street, N. W.
30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor Washington, D. C.
20006 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Lee C. Howley, Esq., Vice President Honorable Deborah P. Highsmith and General Counsel Assistant Attorney General Cleveland Electric Illuminating Antitrust Section company 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor P. O. Box 5000 Columbus,0hio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Michael R. Gallagher, Esq.
David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq.
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton, Michael Oldak, Esq.
Norman and Mollison 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
630 Bulkley Building Washington, D. C.
20006 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer Arnold Fieldman, Esq.
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W.
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Washington, D. C.
20006 John Lansdale. Jr., Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown Melvin G. Berger, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle. N. W.
Antitrust Division Washington, D. C.
20036 U. S. Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20530 Leslie Henry, Esq.
W. Snyder, Esq.
. Honorable Thomas E. Kauper Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Assistant Attorney General 300 Madison Avenue Antitrust Division Toledo, Ohio 43604 U. S. Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20530 Mr. George B. Crosby Director of Utilities John C. Engle, President Piqua, Ohio 45350 AMP-0, Inc.
Municipal Building William M. Lewis, Jr.
20 High Street W. M. Lewis & Associates Hamilton, Ohio 45012.
P. O. Box 1383 Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 Honorable Richard M. Firestone Assistant Attorney General Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Antitrust Section Assistant Law Director 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor City Hall Columbus,' Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Honorable William J. Brown Anthony G. Aiuvalasit, Jr., Esq.
i Attorney General Antitrust Division State of Ohio Department of Justice Columbus, Ohio 43215 P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C.
20044
50-346A, -440A, -441A, -500A, -501A Pcg2 3 Susan B. Cyphert, Esq.
Joseph A. Rieser, Jr., Esq.
Antitrust Division Lee A. Rau, Esq.
Department of Justice Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 727 New Federal Building Madison Building, Suite 404 2140 East Ninth Street Washington, D. C.
20005 Cleveland, Ohio 44199 Terence H. Benbow, Esq.
David M. Olds, Esq.
A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam P. O. Box 2009 and Roberts Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 40 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
47 North Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Janet R. Urban, Esq.
Antitrust Division Perry Public Library Department of Justice 3753 Main Street Washington, D~ C.
20530 Perry, Ohio 44081 Director Ida Rupp Public Library 301 Madison Street Port Clinton, Ohio 43452 4
8
, _, _