ML19329C794
| ML19329C794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1975 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190905 | |
| Download: ML19329C794 (8) | |
Text
.-.
November 14, 1975 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 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)
)
3
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
i THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Eesse Nuclear Power Station, )
Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING PREHEARING BRIEF 1.
On November 4, 1975, Applicants filed with l
this Board a request for an additional two weeks (until November 24, 1975) within which to file their prehearing brief and to submit their preliminary document designations and witness lists.
No party opposed this request.
By telephone conference call of November 5, 1975, the Chair-man of the Licensing Board announced that Applicants' motion for more time would be granted in part by extending the filing date for Applicants' prehearing brief and lists of documents anc ditnesses 11 days, until November 21, 1975 The Board also moved the hearing date from November 20 to December l.
s
/
g 8002190 f 03 q.
+ + +
e 7-+.
g&.-
y,-
g,
-.m--.
-..w+_.,we e
-e----rwp
,c y.e-
l j
2.
Applicants' earlier motion for an additional two weeks had been based on the realization that to com-plete Applicants' prehearing brief would require not only the time necessary to write, type and assemble the docu-i ment, but also considerable additional time to coordinate f
this effort among the five Applicant utilities, all located j
outside the Washington, D. C. area.
A similarly demanding task was called for to complete simultaneously Applicants' preliminary document designations and witness lists.
4 3.
It is now clear that Applicants' original estimate of the extra time needed was too conservative.
The coordination effort alone ha.; become a far more time-I consuming process than anticipated.
In addition, Applicants' counsel has had to interrupt his work on the prehearing brief to prepare in time for filing on November 15, 1975, the response of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to the subpoena for additional discovery filed by the De-i l
partment of Justice.1/
Accordingly, Applicants' prehearing brief simply will not be completed by November 21, or even 1/
While the Board indicated in the margin of its " Order Setting Schedule For Resolution Of Applicants' Motion For Determintien That Davis-Eesse Unit l'Is ' Grandfathered' For Purposes Of Operation" that Applicants' counsel had "obtained relief from response requirements" in connection with the Department's subpoena, the effect of holding Applicants' counsel I
to a November 15 filing date ha's been just the opposite.
The i
s.ubpoena was not served on CEI until November 10, 1975; under normal circumstances, CEI would have had until November 17 to file the present motion to quash.
1
~.
1 i
by November 24, 1975 The purpose of this filing is there-i fore to request from this Board an extension of time for filing Applicants' prehearing brief, and Applicants' lists of witnesses and documents, until December 1, 1975.
4.
This request for additional time is both necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.
This Board, i
in granting to the other parties, over Applicants' partial opposition,2/ an extension of 17 days within which to sub-mit a responsive pleading (normally due 5 days after receipt),
noted that "all parties are operating under stringent time i
requirements."3/
Recognising this, we would hope that the i
Board would be equally receptive to the request for relief in the present motion.
5 Even with the extra 10 days now requested, Ap-plicants have only called upon the Board for a total exten-i cion of 21 days from.the original November 10 filing date
)
within which to make the filings now under discussion.
This 4
I 2/
While the Licensing Board characterised Applicants' oppositicn as " unreasonable", it neglected.to state for the record that Applicants opposed granting to the NRC Staff and the Department of Justice any additional time to respond to " Applicants' Motion For Determination That Davis-Besse Unit 1 Is ' Grandfathered' For Purposes Of Operation" only because the Department and Staff have just recently prepared and filed ccmprehensive briefs on the identical "grandfathering" i
question in the Farley proceeding.
Applicants did not oppose j
granting the City additional time to brief this issue since j
it had made no such filing in Farley.
1/
See " Order Setting Schedule -For Resolution Of Appli-cants' Motion For Determination That Davis-Besse Unit 1 Is
' Grandfathered' For Purposes Of Operation," dated November 6, 1975 4
l
. should be compared with the 30 extra days granted by the Board to the City of Cleveland in order to allow it to com-l plete discovery and the 22 extra days separately granted h
p by the Board to the Department of Justice in connection 2
i
[
with the filing of expert testimony.
If the present motion is granted, we would propose that the prehearing schedule i
be adjusted to take into account the. requested extension in the following manner:
Item From To l
Filing of Prehearing November 17 November 26 Briefs and designa-1 tions of documents and v'itnesses by partit, other than Applicants 1
Filing of Applicants' November 21 December 1 Prehearing Brief and designations of documents and wit-
'l nesses i
Prehearing Conference November 24 December 4 1
4/
j Hearing commences December 1-December 11 1
The Department of Justice has advised Applicants' counsel that l
it does not oppose the revised schedule requested in this mo-j tion; the NRC Staff has advised that it takes no position with l
1 3/
Applicants have been advised that office space in the l
building where the evidentiary hearing is to be held will not
]
be available for the installation of files and office equip-ment until December 1, 1975 In light of this development, I
the December 1 date for commencement of the hearing seems pre-j mature in any event.
{
l
.e
- =
i
-5_
i regard 'to the motion; the City of Cleveland has advised that it is opposed to the motion but does not anticipate j
filing a written oppositicn with the Board.
WHEREFORE, Applicants request that their motion i
~or an additional ten days within which to file their pre-t hearing brief and to submit their preliminary lists of wit-I j
nesses and documents, until December 1, 1975, be granted.
l Respectfully submitted, i
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE j
l By:
- - d-h s~ ~LL Wm. Bradford Reynolds Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants t
Dated: November 14, 1975 l
l i
\\
l i
l j
l
s -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
~
In the Matter of
)
)
i THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
)
l THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A 1
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
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Motion For Extension Of Time For Filing Pre-hearing Brief" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand delivering a copy to those persons in the Washington, D. C. area and by mail-ing a copy, postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 14th day of November, 1975 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i
By:
k _
\\
... _.L1 -
. i. _ A L..
Wm. BradfordNReynolds\\
l Counsel for Applicants i
[
r
1 tlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
NRC Docket No. 50-346A COMPANY
)
i (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-440A r
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
l THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Pouer Station,
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2.and 3)
)
50-501A i
SERVICE LIST i
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Mr. Chase R.
Stephens
. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Docketing & Service Section Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh 1717 H Street, N.W.
i and Jacobs Washington, D.
C.
20006 Chanin Building - Suite 206 815 Connecticut Avenue,,N.W.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director '
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Joseph J.
Saunders, Esq.
Steven M. Charno, Esq.
~
John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Melvin G.
Serger, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Anthony G. Aiuvalasit, Esq.
Board Panel Ruth Greenspan Bell, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Janet R.
Urban, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Antitrust Division i
Department of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20530 i
Board Panel
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D. C.
20555 I
1 l
m e,,-, --
---t 9
9 y -
wm
--s y-gg
y------~"Wtes'"6v=
9'-"
'-T'-
Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Russell J. Spetrino, Esq.
David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq.
Thomas A.
Kayuha, Esq.
Michael D. Oldak, Esq.
Ohio Edison Company Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt 47 North Main Street 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D.
C.
20006 Terence H. Benbow, Esq.
Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
Pearce & Brand Steven A.
Berger, Esq.
Suite 1200 Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
40 Wall Street Washington, D. C.
20036 New York, New York 10005 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
Special Assistant General Attorney Attorney General Duquesne Light Company Room 219 435 Sixth Avenue Towne House Apartments Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Harrisburg, PA 17105 David Olds, Esq.
Mr. Raymond Kudukis William S. Lerach, Esq.
Director.of Public Utilities Reed Smith Shaw & McClay City of Cleveland Union Trust Building 1201 Lakeside Avenue Box 2009 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 James.B. Davis, Director Lee A. Rau, Esq.
Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Joseph A. Rieser, Jr., Esq.
Department of Law Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 1201 Lakeside Avenue Madison Building - Rm. 404 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washingten, D.
C.
20005 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Victor A. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Edward A. Matto, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Richard M. Firestene, Esq.
Illuminating Company Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
55 Public Square Antitrust Section Cleveland, Ohio 4t'01 30 E. Broad Street, 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 John Lansdale, Est.
Cox, Langford & Brown Christopher R.
Schraff, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20036 Environmental Law Section i
361 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor j
Leslie Henry, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Michael M.
Sriley, Esq.
Roger P. Klee, Esq.
James R. Edgerly, Esq.
Fuller,Henryb Hodge & Snyder Secretary and General Counsel P. O. Box 208 Pennsylvania Power Company Toledo, Ohio 43603 One East Washington Street New Castle, PA 16103 C~'*~
~
.