ML19329C878
| ML19329C878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1975 |
| From: | Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200859 | |
| Download: ML19329C878 (1) | |
Text
RELATED'CCRRESPONDENCE.
f/, y e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
gy BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
E-NG'1 U 1975 > ee
?
~
In the Matter of
)
- **W '"
f 4
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and NRC Docket Nos.
- 46As <<, M, THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
50-500A COMPANY
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
)-
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
NRC Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
tilNUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL HELD NOVEMBER 5,1975 At the conclusion of Prehearing Conference #7 held on October 31, 1975, the Board indicated that with respect to the need for potential additional time by Applicants to complete their pretrial brief that a conference call would be held at approximately 2:00 p.m. on November 5th to discuss this matter. E lso on the agenda for the conference call A
was the timing of responses by other parties to" Applicants' Motion for Determination that Davis-Besse Unit 1 is ' Grandfathered' For Purpses of Operation filed November 4,1975 before the Licensing Board. This motion was filed simultaneously with " Applicants' Motion Requesting The Appeal Board to Direct Certification To It Of Applicants' Motion For Determination That Davis-Besse Unit 1 is ' Grandfathered'.For Purposes Of Operationwhich was also filed with the Appeal Board on November 4, 1975.
1/ In addition on Novemoer 4, 1975, Amlicants filed', "Apolicants'
~ Motion For An Extension of Time W1 Lain Which To File Their Pre-hearing Brief."
8 0 0 2 20 0 f._fjP M
2 Accordingly, at approximately 2:15 p.m. on November 5th a con-ference call was convened with the following participants: Chairman of the Licensing Board, Douglas V. Risler; Steven M. Charno, for the Department of Justice; William Bradford Reynolds, Counsel for Applicants; Reuben Goldberg, Counsel for the City of Cleveland; and Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Counsel for NRC Staff. fir. Lessy was designated to act as secretary for purposes of recording minutes of the call.
At the outset the Chairman indicated that he would like to keep the two subjects separate, that is timing of responses to Aeplicants' motion with respect to Davis-Besse 1, and potential adjustment of the Perry schedule in light of Applicants' timing needs with respect to their Pretrial Brief. Mr. Charno, on behalf of the Departme'nt of Justice re-quested 30 days from the Licensing Board to respond to the grandfathering motion. Mr. Lessy and Mr. Goldberg' indicated that they had been contacted by the Appeal Board which had indicated that responses by parties other than Applicants to the Appeal Board was not necessary at this time. The
' Chaincan responded that the motion is lodged initially with the Licensing Board and that the Licensing Board would go forward on that basis. Accord-ingly, Mr. Goldberg indicated that the City of Cleveland would also like 30 days to respond to Applicants motion. With respect to these requests, tir. Reynolds objected to any time extension and indicated that the issue had recently arisen in the Farley antitrust proceedings and that the Department of Justice and NRC Staff had taken positions with respect to grandfathering in that proceeding. Mr. Reynolds also indicated that Mr.
Goldberg also served as counsel in that proceeding.
I
.3-Mr. Goldberg responded that his firm did represent certain parties in that proceeding, but that he had not fully participated in the grand-fathering matter raised therein. Upon questioning.by fir. Rigler, Mr.
Reynolds agreed to grant the parties 15 days to respond to the grand-
. fathering motion. The Chairman then indicated that the Board would issue an order with respect to the timing of responses in light of the request for 30 days and Applicants' position that they desired responses by 15 days.
The parties now turned to consider the request for an extension of time by Applicants in which to file their Trial Brief. (In Applicants November 4th motion, Applicants moved for a 2 week extension until Nov-ember 24, 1975 within which to file their Trial Brief and their list of witnesses and documents. That motion did not request' changes in any other dates.)
The Chairman indicated that with respect to Applicant's request for an extension of time the Board had considered the Applicant's motion in light of the discussion which took place at Prehearing Conference #7 and had set the following dates:
f November 17th Filing of Trial Brief, witness and document lists by parties other then applicants November 21st Filing of Trial Brief, witness and lists by applicants November 24th Final prehearing conference Hearing begins.
December 1st
-l
4 It was also noted that November 15, 1975 was the date in which the Department of Justice and th'e NRC Staff were to respond to the
. motion by Ohio Edison for additional discovery against these parties.
Mr. Lessy then indicated that in order to avoid any delays asso-ciated with potential protective orders for fact witnesses of the NRC Staff, and for other reasons, the Staff would not seek protective orders for its witnesses. However, the Staff would apply to the Board for subpoenas of its fact witnesses.
The Chairman then noted that the Board would have great difficulty in granting further extensions in the Perry hearing schedule. Mr. Lessy on behalf of Staff requested that if Applicants were to seek additional time for the filing of the trial brief, tha.t,they be required to request such time before November 17th.
Chairman Rigler then inquired as to how the parties were proceeding with respect to the possibility of reaching stipulations.before trial as to authenticity of documents. Mr. Reynolds indicated that based on the rumors of the number of documents that may be involved, that appit-cants were not willing to make wholesale admissions as to authenticity of those documents but would censider the question of authenticity of documents'on a document by document basis. Chairman Rigler then asked whether or not this policy would also apply to documents which were pro-duced by applicants from the'ir own files in the discovery process. Mr.
Reynolds indicated that this policy of consideration of authenticity on a document by document basis was to be applied with respect to all documents incidding those which purportedly had been produced from the applicants 9
5 own files.
Mr. Goldberg expressed surprise at this. At which point the Chairman indicated that he would like the minutes.of the conference call to reflect that it is Mr. Reynolds' right to not stipulate generally to authenticity as to documents produced from applicants own files and that he had the right to take as much time as he wants to contest authenticity, but that with respect to consideration of such things as Applicants' motion to grandfather and Applicants' argument that Applicants had been prejudiced by delays caused by other parties, that the Licensing Board would also take into account any delays that would result because of applicants'own failure to stipulate as to' authenticity of documents pro-duced from their files.
Whereupon the conference call was ended.
Respectfully submitted,
_Roy 7. tessy, JW< pr Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of November 1975.
e 4
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the P.atter of
)
)
THE TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY and
)
NRC' Docket Nos. 50-346A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
50-500A COMPANY
)
50-501A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
NRC Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50 441A (Perry Nuclear Pcwer Plant,
)-
Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MINUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL HELD NOVEMBER 5,1975, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class.or air mail this 14tn day of November 1975:
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
Melvin G. Berger, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Licensing Board Steven Charno, Esq.
Foley, Lardner, Hcllabaugh Ruth Greenspan Bell, Esq.
and Jacobs Janet Urban, Esq.
P. O. Box 7513 Schanin Building Washington, D.C.
20044 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Docketing and Service Section Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 John Lansdale, Esq.
Mr. John M. Frysiak Cox, Langford & Brown Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 Reuben Goldberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq.
Panel 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20006 Washington, D.C.
20555
-2 '
~
Donald H. Hauser,'Esq.
' James B. Davis, Director Victor F. Greenslade, Jr.
of Law The Cleveland Electric Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Illuminating Company City of Cleveland P. O. Box 5000 213 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Leslie Henry, Esq.
Joseph A. Rieser, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Lee A. Rau, Esq.
300 Madison Avenue Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Toledo, Ohio 43604 Suite 404 Madison Building, N.W.
Thomas A. Kayuha Washington, D.C.
20005 Executive Vice President Ohio Edisen Company Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 47 North Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Akron, Ohio 44308 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 General Attorney Duquesne Light Company Michael C. Farrar 435 Sixth Avenue Atomic Safety and Lice, sing Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
. Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
Antitrust Section Richard S. Salzman 30 East Broad Street,15th Floor Atomic Safety and Licens)ag Columbus, Ohio 43215 Appeal Board U.S. Nucleae Regulatory Comission Mr. Raymond Kudukis, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 of Public Utilities City of Cleveland Michael M. Briley, Esq.
1201 Lakeside Avenue Roger P. Klee, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder 300 Madison Avenue David McNeil Olds, Esq.
Toledo, Ohio 43604 Willicm S. Lerach, Esq.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Terence H. Benbow, Esq.
747 Union Trust Building A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
P. O. Box 2009 Steven A. Berger, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 40 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge 910-17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 RoyP.pessy,Jr.
Counsel for NRC Staff 1
.