ML19329C896

Minutes of 751114 Conference Call Re Request to Amend Interrogatory Answers & Request of Applicants for Extension of Time for Filing Prehearing Brief & Preliminary Lists of Evidentiary Documents & Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329C896
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	11/18/1975
From:	Benbow T OHIO EDISON CO., PENNSYLVANIA POWER CO., WINTHROP, STIMSON, PUTNAM & ROBERTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002200876
Download: ML19329C896 (8)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - _ _ -

.- s .

// 1 805 J

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of p -.

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos.s (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket Nos. 50-440A COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-500A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) 50-501A Units 2 and 3) )

MINUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL OF NOVEMBER 14, 1975 On November 14, 1975 at 4:15 p.m. the Chairman of the Licensing Board initiated a conference call with counsel for all parties, including Messrs. Charno, Hjelmfelt, Lessy, Reynolds, Berger and Benbow, principally to discuss two items: (1) the request of the Department of Justice to amend its interrogatory answers by adding a new allegation against Ohio Edison Company, and (2) the request of Applicants for. an extension of time for filing their prehearing brief and preliminary lists of evidentiary documents and proposed witnesses.

8002 200gg

.s -

2.-

The Chairman indicated with respect to the first item that the Board desired to have further oral argument limited to the question of the relationships of the proposed amendment to Matter in Controversy Nos. 4, 5 and 6 set forth in Prehearing Conference Order No. 2; the Department was advised that since it had the burden it should be prepared to go first. This matter was made the first agenda-item to be taken up at the prehearing conference rescheduled for November 26, 1975.

As to the second item, the Chairman stated that Applicants' motion for more time indicated that the Depart-ment was not opposed to the extension, that the Staff took no position on the question and that the City of Cleveland was opposed to any further extension. Mr. Hjelmf elt confirmed that it was the City's intention to oppose any further requests l

for a modification of the prehearing schedule and/or a post-ponement of the hearing. Mr. Lessy added that, while the Staff was taking no position on the Applicants' motion, it i

did want Applicants' prehearing brief before the hearing l commenced. The Chairman asked Mr. Reynolds what the length of Applicants' prehearing brief would be; he was informed l that it would be in the neighborhood of 200 pages. Mr. Benbow added that Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power were also sub-mitting a separate brief of approximately 75 pages. When the l

l

~- ,, , .- - - , . -- -

3,_ l Chairman asked Mr. Benbow the reason for the separate brief, it was explained that the separate treatment was necesssary  ;

)

in light of the new charges made only on September 5th of I this year going for the first time to Ohio Edison's service territory and competitors. Mr. Benbow- emphasized that the separate brief would not be duplicative, and that Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power would be joining in all relevant por-tiens of the prehearing brief submitted by Mr. Reynolds on behalf of all Applicants insofar as it was applicable to Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power.

The Chairman then indicated that he did not want to extend the date for the commencement of the evidentiary hearing to December 11, 1975, as suggested in Applicants' application for an extension of time. Mr. Lessy suggested half that time, and Mr. Charno suggested December 8th. Mr.

Benbow requested a December 9 date to accommodate out-of-town counsels' travel plans; the Chairman indicated th'at while in general he f avored four-day weeks in the future with either Monday or Friday as a travel day, for this purpose he preferred tentatively to commence the hearing on Monday, December 8th.

After substantial discussion, the following was agreed to with regard to the filing of prehearing briefs and the exchange of document designations and witness lists. On November 21st, the Staff, the Department and the City would mail to the Applicants their respective designations of witnesses i

4.-

and documents; copies of this material would be served by hand on Washington, D. C. counsel on November 24th. The prehearing briefs of the Department, the Staff and the City of Cleveland were to be filed on November 26, 1975. Applicants would have until December 1 to file both their prehearing briefs and their lists of documents and witnesses.

The Chairman next turned to the matter of the pre-hearing conference immediately to precede the hearing.

Following some discussion, this prehearing conference was set for November 26, 1975. The Chairman asked Mr. Reynolds to indicate preliminarily what procedural matters he intended to raise at the prehearing conference. When advised that Applicants planned to request a ruling from the Board requir-ing that the other parties specify, both with respect to their documentary and testimonial evidence, which Applicant (s) the evidence was directed against, the Chairman stated that he doubted Applicants would obtain such a ruling. He added that this proceeding involves a joint applicant for a nuclear facility and it therefore was a general conspiracy case, so that all evidence would be received as to all Applicants.

Mr. Reynolds , Mr. Benbow and Mr. Berger voiced strong objections.

In response to a request by Messrs. Benbow and Berger to allow Applicants to address this question fully at the November 26 prehearing conference, the Chairman agreed to add to the agenda

s 5.-

arguments on the question whether evidence offered with respect to one Applicant should be received as to all or any others. In addition, the Chairman advised the parties to be prepared on November 26 to speak to the additicnal questions pending with regard to the Applicants' motion to quash the Dep artment's subpoena, the City of Cleveland's motion to reopen discovery, and the issue joined with respect to Ohio Edison end Pennsylvania Power's interrogatories. He stated that some, or all of, these matters may be resolved before that date, however. Finally, Mr. Lessy asked the Chairman if the Staff could have an opportunity at the pre-hearing conference to speak to the matter of burden of proof vs. the burden of going forward; the Chairman also added that discussion to the agenda.

1 As a final matter, Mr. Lessy raised a question I 1

I regarding the nature of the summary statement describing testimony to be given by designated witnesses. The Chairman referred Zir. Lessy to the transcript of an earlier prehearing conference with the remark that it was his recollection that the summary of testimony was intended for the convenience of l counsel and to eliminate surprise at the hearing.

The Chairman stated that the Board would issue an order setting forth the new hearing schedule and advising as to the time and place of the prehearing conference. He asked l

l l

6.-

Mr. Lessy to prepare and circulate a summary of agenda items to be taken up on November 26; Mr. Reynolds was asked to circulate on November 25 those procedural matters that Applicants intended to discuss at the prehearing conference.

Respectfully submitted, WINTHROP, STIMSON, PUTNAM & ROBERTS

[' 4

?

K.

By /' b'.<. '~/ 'r of l.%'

A Member of the Firm 40 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 (212) WH 3-0700 Dated: Nover2er 18, 1975 i

I I

4 1

0

C aTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Minutes of Conference Call of November 14, 1975" dated November 18, 1975 have been served by first class U.S. mail, postpage prepaid, on this 18th day of November,1975 on the following:

Douglas Rigler, Esq. Andrew Popper, Esq.

Chairman Benj amin H. Vogler, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Roy P . Lessy, Jr. , Esq.

Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh & Jacobs Office of the General Counsel 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esc. Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William Bradford Reynolds, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 910 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 John M. Frysiak, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lee C. Howley, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President & General Counsel Washington,-D.C. 20555 The Cleveland Electric

, Illuminating Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Post Office Box 5000 Panel Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

Corporate Solicitor

^

Mr. Chase R. Stephens The Cleveland Electric Docketing and Service Section Illuminating Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 5000 1717 H Street, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Washington, D.C. 20006 John Lansdale , Jr. , Esq.

Abraham Braitman Cox, Langford & Brown Office of Antitrust and Indemnity 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chris Schraff, Esq.

Herbert R. Whitting, Esq. Office of Attorney General

Robert D. Hart, Esq. State of Ohio Law Department State House City Hall Columbus, Ohio 43215

, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Karen H. Adkins, Esq.

Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Assistant Attorney General David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. Antitrust Section 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 30 East Broad Street Suite 550 15th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 Columbus, Ohio 43215 l

t

,m -

Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq. Victor F. Greenslade, Jr. , Esq.

Ohio Edison Company Principal Staff Counsel 47 North Main Street The Cleveland Electric Akron, Ohio 44308 Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 David M. Olds, Esq. Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 747 Union Trust Building Robert P. Mone, Esq.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 George , Greek, King, McMahon

& McConnaughey Mr. Raymond Kudukis Columbus Center Director of Utilities 100 East Broad Street City of Cleveland Columbus, Ohio 43215 1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 James B. Davis, Esq.

Robert D. Hart, Esq.

Edward A. Matto, Esq. Director of Law Assistant Attorney General City of Cleveland Chief, Antitrust Section 213 City Hall 30 East Broad Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Lee A. Rau, Esq.

Joseph A. Rieser, Jr. , Esq.

Richard M. Firestene, Esq. Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Assistant Attorney General Suite 404 Antitrust Section Madison Building 30 East Broad Street Washington, D .C . 20005 i 15th Floor l Columbus, Ohio 43215 Leslie Henry, Esq. I Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder l Wallace L. Duncan, Esq. 300 Madisen Avenue Jon T. Brown, Esq. Toledo, Ohio 43604 Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ~

Washington, D.C. 20006 -

/ !

/ f,. u .c.- 6 N - t , ,_ l, Terence H. Benbow I