ML19329C782
| ML19329C782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1975 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190895 | |
| Download: ML19329C782 (11) | |
Text
.
November 7, 1975 Lm.11-r e t-
.e.m. A.m. -1_. o 0-.p A
.m n-T. c n,
.r i
s N..C u. -,,can ncavLn-1Cm.yy G,0a....,.Sc_rOJ, o
n1 Before the Atcmic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of
)
)
. n r --,a_cas a s i a O a,,
C o., A... a n c,
)
r Anz nr a en-po'n F.-
,..r*u*t._..a12aG
)
vocxe r.o.
i a
.c u nc s can..v cuin2v aum 1
1 A
COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nucleai' Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
n a s. m,........,, A... r,1au
)
,,,n..
C. -,._, A a..-.)
.c i s aes:-
.mu.2_ a Cr
.%'t, si a'
)
L t
..'c s. ra'e-*
a
-'o c ':e :
(Perry '4uclear Power Plan:
)
50 :NIA Unit.r. I and 2)
)
)
-..p
--r--,
p s,...
,7
)
O r - gs zu cad v,+,..n. n. n, za na.
an x
.=u (Davis-Berse Muclear Power Station,
)
Docket Mcs. SC-500A
- s s
..,,.. e
-s..u s)
)
DV g
,d U...a a
svA A o.n
- T. c a,.?.im. e r
.._r e.c e u e r p
- m..3 T.u.r C.T.v. c; r a m a,m
~
v.
m C L -,., a.
.rD e -. :- _ v > -
r.' v, naur J-v a C.-
n-sr
--s--
-c, c
.m c
a a.
On 0 obo."
0',
7 0 7, ;
"."..a. u" c.' Clava'cin.d od j s filed yet another request with this Board to reopen dis-covery.
This time reference is made to the direct expert testimony of Mr. Lentz, filed on behalf of all Applicants, and the direct expert testimony of M".
Caruso, filed on c -..n t.s..
(' " v~ r _- n s bo_h,.,
,o
..w.,.
c, 3..,.e
,n d r., m_ c.. _4, r., _,,m,... i.. e. e.r. e-s v.
,m e s,
v.
m m
as a basis for undertaking another fishing expedition for documents falling within the City's overbroad and imprecise document requests.
2.
Once again, Applicants remind this Board that this antitrust hearing stands.as a very real obstacle to e
t
+-
8002190 276
/4
_2_
ccamencing on schedule (second quarter of 197o) maj or con-struction of Perry Units 1 and 2 and fuel loading for the actual operation cf Davis-Besse Unit 1.
If Applicants must at this late date undertake another file search, especially cne of the breadth suggested by the City's most recent e z. 6. '. ' m a -
- k. a. ' ".'. e-
..>4 7 _7 x.2 u' n m' '<' o ' ' -
d.cu..t.."4w
" a q "a '- o~ 'v u,
- h a.
'e n *.
o
.s
-o,,., d ~4 -,,.
2 4,.....w.
.w.
4.. o.. 4 a -o m.
v m. a...,.
.w. y ns.=_
2 va.
i.
..- c u.
.-v
' " u ~c *v
." a "..d a. '..
c w " 4 ^ ".
P.
"c'd]'
k a a..n.
- a..v.. =.r.e~a d-
.o" o." ^s. a ' ~-o w.
u-2 g.,
.so.a. e" a..". c d
.1 ' ' '
- a. '."e.. ' c. ".c a.. " " -." * '. =. "u=.'-c,~~.
d
."~" sv d~^n-
. a..
~.
e.
reason has been set forth by the City in suppe": of its present motion.
This request to recpen discovery is, we suspect, just as the ones preceding it, but another ploy te
- a. m,..
u,cu c-g.. o n
.o.,.w.....m.
s.
m 3
1.] p.
a a
..n
- b e l _4 c../ m
- w,6 6.'n _4,
.A c u,.w 4u 4..* a.
uuu '. k.. m *.
4 3 4 a
e m
o its direction to the parties to file direct written expert testinony in advance of the evidentiary hearing would provide a legitimate basis for commencing ancther "ound of discovery.
-n p p. - 4., 2..
o, c, - m.
a... m... _, w.. o.
. c e.v.,.w. a.1c,.4.,. c
.n. 4. w..
y
.- - e M.e
_4
,+
3, A-o 3
onm em.
-o a,.,
o...d4
.o m..es a
u.- m. n., n. u 4..
. w. u,
.c _e _ o d. e s 4 _ c n,.. c.o 2,,
a.v - o.., o m,
m
-o o
.a g
witnesses 30 days in advance of the date each such witness is scheduled to testify.
This should be adequate lead time to allow the parties to prepare their cross-examination.
Fur-ther discovery of the sort requested by the City is both un-warranted and unnecessary.
I I
l l
. 4.
'dith specific reference to the particulars of the City's motion, We find unpersuasive the City's pro-eteoseA
-..w
.w.4 n.
e
- o *.k. a.
n a
- L.n o.
Oi
- bs e u.y n e..n *
- s 6 4...C n..,J en no s.p a a a. y a
aa
.cov.
i v
~ L, u s + < e A-
%. y., n%..
i s
=o-w n +. s. a.
n 4. f. r -
m A
?.s T u-8. a.r.e s -
u "v u.
o c,
.r.
a o
a..
w i.~
v_v c
u.iu v
o September 5 filings make it abundantly clea" that the m.. a. ~,.. a a.4 - n..., o a. s v/.
..r.
u ra c
u n+-
a-a.
e o _s.e.euo a
..,u.
c.e
- u.. a.
n u
c
- a --
- o. y 4 a. n.. 4, -..
.-,...._4.y.
- 1. a. a.> d,
"..".a.
u _'. s".~e -.n. v. b. '.
^
c 0
. ~e y. '_." -
. o bp an.2n u. m A_ _4
-. p am. e.,m, n v.P
_ 4.m.. e A,. m *-. _.e. 3 Aae e; ~ _
n e..m
_n c. 'r. a. a e
- +2 e-
+
..a r o m.
c"e
'caa, n. d." '. ". a. _* v '.. e~
a n o w a. " ~,
'.t h _' ' ".
w^ o "a =.." a. d
.h a.
a...",.' " c.
4 o.
u.c
'. *. e." +a."... *.. 4 c. a.. d.
.d a. ". e. _' n' -. o...
o.'
'n'P^r
.c,. x $ o.,
u'. d
.T. '. a' '
.a
-a.
4n 6ha.
- 4. 6.n l./
_7 ^ [ O t b u..e w o. l.n 6. _4 m r e b. _4 e
- h. a.,.t c. o n.
e k s.
6..t c,
a.r. 4 7
e v
,m.
e, v.
r
- h e _4." r a. c - a. c ', _4 "o.
.y yu." ec a~ a. s n a.d.
o ". o* a. o. " 4 ". a. o~.
a' d d '. ' c. ' '
d-""-
uu.
9 7 6
w a. n H q w/,
m.. o b. n.e _*--
..t _n aa n6
. e q. s o -. s d.
&. b.a 6 A J m..c..s, A _Ja#
w c6 sh een
.a e-.
e u
m.
v us.
u
> h ta.
C.4 k../
a1. a m e.,
m a. q e s s m ", oP C"'
P
-o 1. c.n
- m. ~a n.e m p
- m..v.4 m_ 1' A,.n _' n ;7
- s..
mm, m
-m.
the most recent round of discover.v in Davis-Eesse 2 and 1.
.u. y _e.. a m., p.,,.
- n. a.
.w4-
.c. _ _ sL,,,
a.s nn m goo,_4 4c.a-2.r.d u^ ".. o e e n
...m.. e.o c
...a
. o
,g u,.,, a.. a.
.e,,...u. n..., 4.- u. <.>..a,.,. d_>oco.,.e-..,
o n a.
e _J u.
a, n
..vv v
m es
_a now in no pccition suddenly to latch onto Mr. lenta's filed
- a.,. e.
- . e.e w _4.nn-.,-,
,a
,n ex.,,,op vo.
- n. e e a-s.4.,,,,, a..-..
- u. u. _ e a
.. r
.a.
a
_' a. a. d'.a c.d m' '. L'. n. h.'.". c. k. a."
^
- a. x e m n o~ _4 ". a.o
'"c" vf Aep.'_'aa.a' e
-a
^
a
.c4lan.
a a
5
- ? m.n Je
- k. h.a n a wecacn 6.c en.r 9
6.er*4u. v.n.
6 a
m ~n w o.
_a
. o n,e,
o g u,
- o uhe Ca.' ' o-d ' c "..~..a n * ". e.
4
- a '.' a 'r.
a." a.
a n..
a _' d
- o ". a. ' a " s. "s "u a'a-a n
-w r
x Mr. Carusc's filed expert testimony.
The City asserts that
.e6e*.he.
_4_
the subject matter of that testimony -
_i._e.,
the feasi-bility of the City constructing its own transmission lines --
introduces a " newly raised centention" (Motion, p.
- 10) into o
the proceeding.
Reference need only be made to the City's 4
l September 5 filing, however, to disprove this statement.
There the City stated (p. 9): " Cleveland may aise offer evidence regarding the feasibilit; of constructing a ecm-peting transmission grid."
That this was not intended as mere surplusage can be seen by reviewing the written testi-I many filed by the City's own expert, 'di111am R.
Mayben.
He specifically addresses the question whether the City
"[c]ould
- expect to construct its own transmission i
lines to effect interconnection with power supply utilities 1/
other than CE. * * *" (Mayben Testimony, p.
20).-
6.
Thus, for the City now to advise the Board 4
that "until the filing of the testimony by Mr. Caruso the City had no reason to believe that CEI would present such an issue
[i.a.,
the feasibility of the City constructing its own transmission lines]" (Motion, p. 3 emphasis added),
is mystifying.
Certainly, the City did not expect CEI to let the City's allegations go unanswered.
It was the City who stated in its September 5 filing (p. 10) that " Cleveland 1/
We also note in passing that this issue is treated in the written expert testimony filad by the NRC Staff and by the Department of Justice.
i
. should be able to engage in powe." transactienc with Paines-ville as well as with PASHY or the City of P.ichmond, Indiana."
The Caruso expert testimony responds fully to that statement.
7 Moreover, a careful reading of Mr. Caruso's expert testimony provides no legitimate basis for allowing the City to conduct discovery for the documents referenced nn paga.e a
_a. ~s t
- n..c
~
.n..n~.
n.
- m. u. 10 sv<.
a n
,e.,u a v ~.n. c;
..c.o_.n_sa _-
- u. m.= o-c v
o y
no meaningful relationship tc ;he engineering and econcaic
.a.r. m ' g" o 4 e
- d..' o" ^. u w w-a. d "w y".V..".
- o. n..""u e c.
'J. e." a.
w o u..n s ". '. P.' w ".' o' um*
. e v
y s
--.>n-
.n
.e,a.
..,~,....v.a.., u. a s. c.. a n o c,.e n=~,-
.r > ~ o
_a
--- o
--a-4 v.g-e e
j-v v
.v desperate effort to find scmething to back up the groundless charges it has made.
CEI has been more than cocperative in
. -. 3, *, s".* r. 6~
.FA "w ".
- k.. e V".d * ' ' o~
- e..' " '.4 a. ". a ^s e^ u 6.a. "A. " a
'.1a. a 'w o~.
'I v^ gv d e
~^o
.J u
v.
<g 3
reason has yet been given why it should be put to the tre-T.endcus burden on the eve of the evidentiary hearing of under-
..4r,
.2
- a c t u.o.,.
1, _4, 2
-on o. u.m e. n 4 n m m - - -,..e o + o
- u. m o m..2
,~.
2 e u r.. n o g..
i ogo mv v
v.
..o.
expansile requests.
3.
'dhile the above reasons provide =cre than a o m.c.c.i c _4u,.r.. u m.., 4 -.., m.. g,
...e e..
ao,
.w-c 4. /.,,.. o.. _4v, r.,..i _
__ov
.~.o.
- vam,
.u s.
,_o o.
much of the material now scught by the City pe-tains to al-leged legislative and judicial activities of CEI.
Such m.. -. m. 4,,
4-e x,
.ug
.n..
_4._, ]. --.yc pa
,.a u.~ns
,_c
-. s. 4. s- -.. Dco.-
or-a--
-a u-.
.o.
-u vu.
-v trine; thus, as to the documents in this category, there is yet another reason to look unfavorably en the City's motion.
I
-m
. Oee, _e.e.>
In the tiatter of Duke Power Connany, MRC Docket Hos. 50-269A, 50-270A, 50-287A, 50-369A and 50-370A, Pre-hearing Order No. 2 dated "ovember 27, 1972; In the :iatter of Consumers Power Cemeany, HRC Docket Mos. 50-329A, 50-330A, Order dated November 23, 1972.
The Noerr-Pennington Doc-
.,4-,
- u.. n -. o.,. n -.c.c.. s. o. a. b,. s a. a a p14 n.,. 4 o n
, i......,. 4 c
.c -.,..
w e,
...u.
o m
e.
.v 6he-u,..
_f
,3., o.
7,,,, e
..4A.a.
w,
.3e os p w e n *. _4 a. p,
O A m o _4 ~. o.. d u n.
e6
.. ~ -
.e v.
a.
_4...o,L, o r. u, m.
. a.. n. a m o. 4.c 4..., v.o
, m,_,.,. o _, 2.
4.. m.
- c. o., 4
,4,,
- c.. e.,,, u..,.,.
v
.._.o o/
=.. e _,,.
.a.
z._o o.e,v...a.......a...
.-.4.,a...,>-a,
_ ~..c.-..
u e a...
~
,- >,.n. _. s-
......~
..- c a - -,. +
- a...e
.. a s,.
c
_m
-, c,,. =..c. c a 4
as 4
..n. a. v g_.---
>~ e,4,,
-s....a..
s
.v O/
.w n n a. c. A.f..s~ a. s
.s _7 - -
.. a. l A *o a
..t.4. w 4 r.
4. o-w w
. w n e. s.,
- _4 n..r.
.. o. x. na.
o.
.u..
.v e
ot
.e. m. u2,
r,,. m.,..
- 2., 4_.,,-ea
,m. me4aa_ m.,~
r~-...om_. o n.. n a.
=.a.,
- u. u p.- -
n..
,u_,w.
.a c U.a".
' e^ ', ( _' C. 6 2,'
t'o-vo a.
~
c ' "< a." n. v.
c
^*
s, v
.'.. ~. a. d
.'_"..a. ."v..=_"~
n_ _' s'. 2_ ".' '. = _
-.m'e._'_-'.",
'=c.
D a. ". ~.. '...e.
c ".,
=od 2S' U.v.
4 G "t 'u'0c':,)
(
e~.~>.a c.t
- a o.
...r,'-
.1..=.m..
~ ~"
2 u-
. o n i y..
.v..-,,,.
- u.. n...
.%. e.. - 4.. m.
v v... _ _. _. -
es o
c,-,.,
7, 7
-v.
m
~ m F.
Sup?. 305, 363-70 ( S. D. :i.. 19c5) (lesislative bcdies and c d.._4 e
, g..m.. _4 s. e,
.c v e.s.,.
ca.3.
q,.-
t q,, n,- n e -.. ~.,.,,
uo....4,..
o
~s s
Av v-j j3 u..
-_m v
C.^. ~ S _* ' ". a "..= "v -. a.
- n. ' = me c. =.
hoo.=.;a' s' u. ' \\' c v ^. o.3 ".
1a,v ;,
a '
v.
3 s.
v A
j (o-.o e
u,n.a c m., n....
- 3. c~ _4
- o. v ).
4 o..,. a_
- Jc L_4 c
s. s 7/
Q a
g/
- a. a, p. a~., L.n,_ _4 0 - w s.
n,--w T. w.,.,, p w. -
c, n. y T. wi. q. 4 n.. ~=.
v.
vvi
.4v..
n..,_ 4.. 4. e. A., 403 "v.c.
s. a" i..->'-
'v e.. ". ' '_
- n
-.'-~~ l 7*n" Aa-2'"
n u
aw-.-
a
.a 4...J e..,
(' '.. c. w _4 +.4....1**.t,
,r 72uaw,1-.
. p m... a.
4 C_~,y=.'.
Q n, v. R.,
. ~. -.
_1 ^ #* n ) (.q v, _7 4 a Jv. a-q-4,.
- c _, 7. _3.,
p 4
( 3 h.
-~ P v.'.' a. s. e. -.
u, 3,.3 c n
_4.n.
a*
wa
-- u s y,u
.co m. pm,., - e ' s a s o f v^ "v. ' _'.". _' n 3
."'".o"ob'a.
." e 3 "-.' ' _' v.. e
'.d. a.' ' " " e a" "m ' v
^ -
u
.m a
-.a".a.ca)-
4 ".
- a. c ^.r. ^. ~...' o.-. " c c...^ee " *..' " a.
, 2. '.. V. a.
_O n _' d a? u...
c'_.' a.
ed" a.
^ 21 ara Ass'n, 456 F.2d 1361 (loth Cir. 1972) (solicitation e
y o. w.4,., 2 r,....A S e.4
- o. e nJ
.4,a n n..a-C.c c C.. y t,
.>. o,
4 1
q-,-
.c - v v.
-v-o.
c o
6v v
.,.,.,..u,/,.
= A,,.,,,, a. z.
p., w. -.. t.
- 4., g e m..
\\
,.,,3.4.ep 0
3 +e u, a.,
a uem.
u.
. _. c. o
.o
~.
- wA myO i.~... 'v'".
.ty' '( 9' ',
i
^ -
Ccl_v^". '_ w o ". ' c. a ". ' n e.
N_.. e..
- c, 'f r.H d v- ),
0' 2
.o u
. 7 0 0
(',_ c, I :s,T
'. - 4., 4.
a,. 4.
n oo., c. u ".
- a^
"v u^
4
.,o.
2..a-3
- o. o g.w.
--s e
(av_
e w e c v ". ' -b..
),
U..c u e_ s_ "..r '. d Good 2 C ' ". ". '_ a ". o ' C
^^
u *. a. s. m v P. e. ".." a.' _',
e n. *'v' " c. a
_o w s -
m s
4:.2 e.sa 7.o
(... c 4,
lc,_)
( o o, _4 _ _4. 2
_<.-. v.o 2 c e.m, -
- e
,g
-o. n..c 3 c-..e *'.'."'o-
.. '.' a a c., a.
.c " ' d e
.#.~ ^ a " k.. e..., " " n
- o
- 9. s. a. n, G a_ ^ ". c e a
m 3.
y T..7_n u^4.y
.4_4,,,
- o. ". c d u..- o_ ". -.A c e ' n, <_ c, o..?. Suyc. 4 ',,O na n g s e n..e 4
e o
,6c,'
'c
( o" o '.' ^.'. n. _i ^ n.
.# v^ r a o. ". ' v^ n
x'.s. "..s-e "s ' c e e f'vo"-
(D.
.M. ' n. an.
4
)
v able to defendants but harmful to plaintiff before Department of Agriculture).
,w.
_7_
efforts to influence the cutcomo of a vote by the citicens of Washington State on an " anti-litter' initiative, Rocers v Federal Trade Octaission, 492 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1974).
And, the Doctrine was given similar force in connection with efforts before a city council both to gain a franchise and subsequently to obtain legislation blocking a si.aila" fran-chise to a competitor.
Lanb Entern-isas, Inc. v Tcledo Blade Co.,
461 F.2d 506 (6th Cir.), certiorari denied, 409 U.S.
1001 (19~2).
9 It therefcre can serve no useful purpose cc
.._'- u*.a.
d.4 = c o ". =_ " "
- c. r.
7'a-
.=
'_4v4"*s_m
.'.n a.c.co " a *. l'. e " 4.. '/
^
_ o
_ a u
u
.s v-.
" c a_ "." o _.." _'
5'
. n..
- " ^ ~ a. n. * ' o..r..
- 7. b.Ls c a.
n." s.
.e., uk. y. a *4c..
. w.. o.em w.m.aa
.c y..
e6 la=
ha u, J.w 2 A
.J r..
A. h. n.
h..p a w 4 n..e~.
- p. m *
...c o & g w -
&. b.. g &.
pgra v.
v
.o
- e _J
_4 m..o v p _,.. /
v.
_m Activities of the sort described above have consistently been
- m. m_ c n o.., c-d m e p.e n
- o., g d u, r. a..m uw we..
- a... m o d.e.. o_.r.
, a.m.a u s, cvuu.
4 ya e
vue._mm.
m u
en~.4+-..
u.
m s. a. u..a n,/,.n3. p u. 4 n. n e _, a_
< ~
0, u s e u, *. ou
.= u,,,
- 6. 4 n..
un nn&
a.
1
...a es ev s.
s u c " _* m..' *.1"
" u'
- a_ d " s" *.". a.
m " p. o...a. ^^u".
ci
.ha.
"u.r. 4. u' d.
S""'a.s C
- i _a c s a
.v 4 r C n '1 i.# c ".. _' '_ M. c v- ". m. " o..a c c ".. Ce. v ". " u c'm'_..r U. '. ' "... '. ' a_ d, a u"s ". o,
n-04*
a_
.oo _, _, o. 2.. 3
=, v _ ?, _,, <-
r,v.S.
a&.
,_m
_,- s.
n
.. _ ~
.t.m
-u We conclude that it would be des-t m.,,.,. _4./ n.
m.o r.J-w
, o.o m,.' a" c ^ 4 o * ' n n a"..d v
3u.a em.
C.P pe
- 4 ~.1' a r. *o hn,d.
- h. o *
- c. c t.1n n
. r 4
- k.
~~
v u
t,..
,v a c C".."".c "..
_4.". "v e " a o '.
.'"...S.",
.. o ",
'.'I _' ' " c u' "v a
'o vi o.*.*..e~
- k..e u'
"v _4 ". " a-.
- xs, uo.a
- t. h. a.
u channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts to advo-cate thei" causes and points of view o
.n e.
c 2.,~..a,n 0 1
- s..u. a_ a - s,, o... a b, o-
. e a p... v.an3
--a a
.u v
va and economic interests vis-a-vis their competitors.
l 1
~_.
I
_8_
10.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that the City's motion to reopen discovery should be denied.
The requect is plainly out of time; it is
- o.."e.m...'
o-a. d er k.a.
.' _ _.4.". u~ o.' n e ".
- a.i.n a ".p 9_ ".
N. a 4 ^ k k
- a *.'.. o..s",
- v a
. a va testimony provides no good cause to ccmmence another round of discovery at this late date; and, at least as to the CEI d^"L...aa.o-s v^ "
.k..
k, /-. n a. v '. y,
.~..'a ~ >. ^.
"".a.
..c."s."..._'
' _ _ ' ^ ' a..'." ' s"
^4 e
m c' M.'da.
'o " 3
.c 'v 'g _
o i' t h'.'. a-
_S n o _' "."'m'o-'.
i..q 'm' '..s' ' u' n d a_ "..h. a_
".v'a_".'_'-
a s
u m
o _ n n. 4 r,e,
,4-m_.
1..
a4 m
-4..,. i.,.,
pm.mo-m..
m a_ n., e v, v c a.. 4
.n.,.u.
2
.m s~
~.._a
.v a
4 4e r.e c...n. a
_4 n -,., n.h
- w., a, a, nonc,u,ov,..,-
.o, -w-.
m, r.,.. a u,...
u-o
.v m
._.m ea.
... y v
n o.. -,,.,
Am.,.7 A
- ap pl.4 4..n o - m 0 _ r.. o..n _e ' _1.,
m.. A.
2-
"7T 4 n.
. v m.. e. o r
amn -
~m s,
.yvo-va v
.g..
u 4
4-e-,
- a. v _ m_.e e s, 2_
b u,- a m. n,, s g _ n_ _ 2,_ /..c. _
e4..m_
4.Lm.r.
e.. _ n. a. m,.,
2-e _
m ma a_ v a. ",", a.#.# c." *. ' e b a_ _' ". e-.d a ". c v d 'oo p."ay a- "_4..c~
. ' ". " ' b. a. ^~<..'o"s" a
m h o _c,4
.e,. n...
w,
.n o. -,m _. _= s nc v.r._s,..
,,.d e o,_4
,w, m. 4..
e-
_ o-ci e
..ao v.
its disruptive impact cn the hearing; it also is unscund in light of the xtensive document production already ccmpleted in this proceeding.
The City's motion suggests no scod reason t o "e _ _1 _4 a_ v a. -k_.
a ".c. k.. a. "
_'.o."e -s c a _ a_
~a o =_ c" o. k
".v # ' '.__
n"cduv-a. mm/'
a e-oa a
y.
material not already available to it that eculd affect the outccme of this p"cceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
.e., u..a",.1, p r m. w..e. 4.I,
rom. m.e.,
m..a Ot w* e rnc e s
m.-a_
~
\\,N
\\ M..-.c_ (_.\\ \\(_, _.,.._.
.a,y.
~
Wm. Bradf crds Reynolda\\
Gerald Chaancff i
Counsel for Applicants Dated:
November 7, 1975
rJILTmrD em. A.co- 0.
m.Len r L a e
-m HUCLEAR REGULATOR'l COI.U4ISSIO!I Before the Atomic Safety and Licensin? Board In the Matter of
)
)
- m. e _r r n n. _D I e 0,1 C v,.L ndy a.e.ci 1
m.u.r n
J
_s i
- o.
t o 0 4 o'n.a u
r cm.niC
.r.nm..u--In1ItG
)
Docxet 2,n.
CL r Ln *.-
~s 1
.s J
i C,,..,,,.,
)
uc.c n.. :
(Da"is-Eesse Nuclear Power Station,
)
.s s
rrun4
,)
)
s.
)
c
.1,,
A u a c..n
_.m
)
,.,:- v n. 4 D.
,v-,r L...
i :.
.n.r u v r. m. 'Io c. cou 4 0 n.c.
r.. v c..e.s. ". v_,.r.
e.
ee,.
.t
)
s (Perry ::uclear Pc. er Plant
)
50-441A Unita 1 and 2)
)
)
.nL_Dn. =.- _- _er r r. n.:..= n.. v_, _=. m.
)
. t; =
- r m
- 1. s.
(Davis-Besse.Iuclear Powcr Station,
)
Docket :Ios. 50-500A
,,, 'e)
')
"G.n. 4 c o n.r.a e n _ 0,.a.
JG C " ~;.'..~ r. 7_7 * "'a' 07 c~
U v^r vn s
um..
u T-w o_ c, w.,
. c. m 4.c.....n.
- n. o n.e m. a-n1 t.u. m.
n o m r o..r.ae
.w o
- r s
s
_u e
. a
" Applicants' F.esponse To The City Of Cleveland's Motion To Recpen Discovery" were cerved upon each of the persons 7_4,taa en
- w... a.2 *. _,.,g m a. e 4.
7 _ n. m_
4 4-.,
ts 3. _0.4 m
1_47 m m. _4.o.-
ac o
m.o a
a copy to these persons in the Washington, D. C. area and s].
..a _# 1.'.. ~ ' " w' c '),
"o-d, ' o '- '.'
-. h. o.." a,
a'- cn c " *n ' u~ a.e
^".
e
^
a s
w e
.ew
.4, en.a 4. n u,.o a
. w,, m. a..,, 9,s 3
,.n.-u SHAW, PITTMAN, PCTTS & TRCWERIDGE 1
'N m
r.,),.
\\. #w.s e f....r N
g
~ m.
-1 s
..,s.'.__
i f
- s..
.. _ A.O.m.n a Qw,u
.O. m. a., n 7u. v u a.
4c m
Counsel for Applicants j
m i.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSIGH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLE'/ELA!iD ELECTRIC ILLUMI:IATIMG
)
NRC Docket Ho. 50-346A CO:1?AHY
)
(Davic-Ecsse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELA:ID ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
HRC Docket :Co s. 50-44CA (Perry Huclear Power Plant,
)
50-441/.
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
mH. "10 L_n0 _D 7 9 0 a' r "Y. 3 ' 'JV.,
_cm. Am.
)
7 5
1 m
m (Davis-Besse !!uclear Power Staticn,
)
HRC Docket :Joc. 50-500A
~
Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A S e m l T C e.
r ~_ q m.
_a Doug1r_s V. Rigler, Esq.
Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Chairman, Atomic Safety and Docketing a Service Section Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion Foley, Lardner, H0112baugh 1717 H Strect,
.'!. W.
and Jacobs Washington, D.
C.
20005 Chanin Building - Suite 205 815 Connecticut Avenue, N. 'd.
. Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 Roy P.
Lescy, Jr., Esq.
Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Office of the Enecutive Legal Direc c-_
Atcmic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regula: cry Cctmiccion Board Panel Washincton, D.
C.
20555 U.S.
Nuvlaar Regulatory Commission Washingtcn, D.
C.
20555 Joseph J.
Saunders, Esq.
Steven M.
Charno, Esq.
John M.
Frysiak, Esq.
Melvin G.
Berger, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Anthony G.
Aiuvallait, Esq.
Board Panel Ruth Greenspan Bell, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Janet R.
Urban, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.
C.
20530 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.
C.
20555
Heuben Goldberg, Ecq.
Ruccell J.
Spetrino, Ecq.
David C.
ifj elmrolt, Ecq.
Thomac A.
Kayuha, L.cq.
Michael D.
Oldak, Ecq.
Ohio Edicon Company Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt 47 North :'ain Street 1700 Penncylvania Ave.,
.W.
Akron, Ohio 44308 Wachington, D.
C.
20006 Terence H. Benbow, Ecq.
Wallace E.
Brand, Esq.
A. Ed..urd Grachof, Ecq.
Pearce & Brand Steven A.
Berger, Ecq.
Suite 1200 Winthrop, Stimcon, Putnam & Robertc 1000 Connecticut Ave., !!. W.
40 Wall Street Uachington, D.
C.
20036 New York, New York 10005 Frank R. Clckey, Ecq.
Thomac J.
nunsch, Ecq.
Special Acciatant General Attceney Attorney General Duquecne L.:.cht Company r
.ioc,
<m. q 4_o, r
,c
.. &.x.
n.r n..r
_u..
,2 Tow::e Fauce Apartment:
Pittsburgn, PA 15219
.u. a.. _.e
. s, ~,
,,,,e
,r
_ 7.'.t v.)
nr
.o 1n David Oldc, Ecq.
Mr. Raymond Kudm:ic William S.
Lerach, E c c..
9.4.,, -
o m c.<
.n o u _3 4 nue,'" _4 "
E, e c d
.C.... _t ',..".
.C 'n _".
m" c'u m' a^
e
~
City of Cleveland Union Truct Euilding 1201 Lakecide A.? ue Box 2009 Cleveland, Chic 44114 Pittaburgh, PA 15230 Jamec B.
Davia. Eirector Lee A.
Rau, Ecq.
Robert D. Hart Esq.
Joseph A.
Riecer, Jr., Esq.
Der artmont of Lc 1 Reed Snith Shaw L McClay 1201 Lakeside Ave. 'e Madicen BuildinC - Er..
204 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 1155 15th Street, '.W.
Washincten, D.
C.
20005 Dc;.ald H. Haucer, Esq.
Viccor A.
Greenslade, Jr., Ecq.
Edt:ard A. Matto, Ecq.
The Cleveland Eleccric Richard M.
Firestone, Esq.
Illuminating Ccmpany Karen H.
Adkins, Esq.
55 Public Square Antitruct Section Cleveland, Chio 44101 30 E.
Ercad Street, 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 John Lansdale, Esq.
Cox. Lar;: ford & 3rc. n Chrictopher R.
Schraff, Ecq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Acciatant Attorney General Washingcen, D.
C.
20036 Environmental Law Secticn 361 F..
Broad Street, 8th Floor Leclie 'icnr'1, Ecq.
Columbuc, Ohio 43215 Michael M.
Briley, Esq.
Roger P.
Klee, Ecq.
Jamen R.
Edgerly, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodce & Snyder Secretary and General Counsel 300 Madison Avenue Pennov1vania Pouer Company Toledo, Ch10 43604 One Eitut Washi:'Gton Street Nos Cactle, PA 16103 he -
--+=*.-w-
-*