ML19329C426
| ML19329C426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1975 |
| From: | Aliuvalasit A, Berger M, Charno S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130791 | |
| Download: ML19329C426 (7) | |
Text
__
9 6 ' C,
~
N y
c.
"%w
, c. -
.,s s
~
e
,r
.~-
UNITED STI.TES CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUf.ATORY CCICIISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC S'AFETY /.ND LICHISD'G 20ARD In the Matter Of The'Tolado Edicen Company and ~
J--
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Docket No. 50-346A Company
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Pcuer Station,
)
Unit 1)
The Cleveland Electric Ill H nating
)
Docket Ncs. 50-440A Company, et al.
and 50-441A (Perry nuclear Pouer. Plant, Units 1 and 2)
APPLICATICH FOR RECCliSIDERATICN OF THE BOARD 'S RULING CN THE ICTICN CF TK3 CITY CF CLEVEUd;D TO CP!GGE FRCCEDU21.L DATES The Department of Justice requests the Ecard's recencidera-tion of its Ruling on Motion of the City of Cleveland to Change Procedural Dates (Ruling), dated July 21, 1975.
Such reconsid-eration is sought because of the substantial hardship the revised schedule will cause i. A Department.
This hardship is occasioned by the Board's Ruling having.allcwed a four and one-half week.
extension of discoverv, uhile extending the remaining procedural deadlines by only two vecks for informing Applicants of the l
nature of the case to be presented, and by only one week for i
filing of written testimony and pretrial briefs.
Since virtually all of the depositiens and supplemental document review have taken place outside Washington, the
,,f:
$51 Department's attorneys have not been available to complete 8 0 02130 N /
A
~
c theirreviewofdocuman'tsanddfbsitiontranscripts.
After com-pleting review of these discovery materials, the Department must still formulate its position on the detailed issues in controversy after consultation with its expert witnesses.
- / Under the Board's Prehearing Conference Order No. 4 (Order), the Department was to be alloued a six week period in which to ecmplete these steps in th'e preparation ~of its case.
The Ruling allous only four weeks f' rom the end of discovery to the filing of a detailed statement of issues.
Due to the manpower limitations previously recogniced by this Board, this is not a sufficient period for the Department to effectively frame the relevant issues in this proceeding in the required detail.
Since the Department, at the Board Chairman's request previously made no filing on this issue, we will set out in de-tail below our prcposal, together uith the schedules set forth in the Order and the Ruling:
Department Order Ruling Procosal Ccmpletion of all Depositions July 1 Aug. 2 Aug. 2 Parties Other Than Applicants to Inform Applicants of Nature or case to oe Presented Aug. 15 Aug. 29
' Sept. 5 Applicants May Respond To Delineation of Issues Aug. 22 Sept. 5 Sept. 12 Prehearing Conference to Con-
' sider Motions to Curtail Or Eliminate Issues Sept. 4 Sept. 12 Sept. 25
- / These difficulties are not solely due to the highly compact deposition schedule, but also due to a limited extent to the four week delay in receipt of deposition transcripts which can only be avoided at a cost of at least four. times what is currently being paid.
2
+
^
.aI.
,f" Department
+P Order Ruling Prcuosal Parties Other Than Applicants File Direct Written Testimony of Expert Witnesses Sept. 12 Sept. 26 Oct. 3 Applicants File Direct Writ' ten Testimony of Expert Witnesses Sept. 17 Oct. 3 Oct. 8 All Parties File Protrial Briefs Oct. 1 Oct. 15 Oct. 22 Hearing Begins Oct. 23 Oct. 30 Nov. 10 The Board in its Order recorded the awareness of all the parties that "the schedules proposed are stringent in terms of time allowances."
(Order at p. 4).
That " stringent" schedule had allowed for a little over 16 weeks frca the conclusion of discovery (July 1) until the commencement of the hearing (October 23).
The Ruling has truncated this time period into one of less than 13 weeks (August 2-October 30) by postponing the hearing a mere week while allowing an extra month of dis-Covery.
Although the Ruling does allow for an extension for the filing of a statement of issues from August 15 to August 29, this two-week extension is misleading since the August 15 deadline uas based upon there being over a six-week period from the end of discovery.
Consequently, under the Ruling, the six-week period established in the Order has been uhittled i
d~rt to about four weeks.
The Department of Justice's proposed schedule seeks to ccm-promise between the " stringent" schedule embodied in the Order and rhe new schedule handed dcwn in the Ruling by setting a 3
q c
~
7 7
~
3 five-week period from the end of discovery until the filing of the statement of issues.
Thereafter, the Department's proposal maintains the same time periods established in the Order, with the exception of allcwing three less days from the time of filing briefs to the hearing's commencement than was allowed in the Order.
Respectfully submitted,
(..,
~ lL b it<.L<gg dN STEVEN M. Cl!/M O lA
[ f
' !)'N d k f
')
4AM MELVIH G. BhdGER v
LU W'T.I r
~
Il!TiiOWY G. /A1UViMSIT, JR.'/
- j Attorneys, Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20530 July 25, 1975 9
e JP -
^
g e*'
b g
,f' 1
UNITED STATES OF A11 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULisTORY CO 01ISSION
?;
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Ccmpany 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 certiify that copies of APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDEPA-TION OF THE BOARD'S RULING ON THE MOTION OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND TO CHANGE PROCEDURAL DATES have been served upon all of the parties listed on the attachment hereto by deposit in the United States mail, first class, airmail or by hand delivery, this 25th day of' July 1975.
f w'
Anthony G.
Aiuvalasit, Jr.
o
~
Attorney, Antitrust Division Department.of Justice l
l l
~
~-
'~
,s.
.~
g c
ATTA'C!! MENT s.5 Douglas Rigler, Esquare Andrew Popper, Esquire Chairman Benjamin H.
Vogler, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Board Office of the General Counsel 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 teveland 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 Frank W.
Karas John Lansdale, Jr.,
Esquire Chief, Public Proceedings Cox, Langford & Brown Staff 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Office of the Secretary Washing ton, D.C.
20036 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chris Schraff, Esquire Office of Attorney General Abrah'am Braitman State of Ohio Office of Antitrust and State House Columbus, Ohio 43215 Indemnity 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
_m,,
~-} % e 6 * "' "
I H e* *
'9 w
_m y
..,. ~. _.
4.
1 ls p
Thomas A.
Kayuha, Esquire Ohio Edison Company 47 North Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 I
David M. Olds, Esquire Reed, Smith,'Shaw & McClay t
747 Union Trust Building 7
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Mr. Raymond Kudukis 4
Director of Utilities City of Cleveland 1201' Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 J
Wallace:L. Duncan, Esquire Jon T.
Brown, Esquire Duncan, Brown, Weinberg
& Palmer 1700. Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 2
Edward A.
Matto, Esquire Ascistant Attorney General I
' Chief,-Antitrust Section 30 East Broad Street j
15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Richard M.
Firestone i
Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Section 30 East Broad Street 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215
~
l
-Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esquire Principal Staff Counsel The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company-
{
Post' Office Box 5000
' Cleveland, Ohio 44101
\\
I e
J e
y t'
y
+
t-er,
y c,-wv-
-.e.
=w#-'
r a-
+-
men-e