ML19329D069
| ML19329D069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1977 |
| From: | Berger M, Urban J JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002240064 | |
| Download: ML19329D069 (7) | |
Text
___
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket No's. 50-346A Company
)
50-500A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
50-501A Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
REPLY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEFS IN SUPPORT THEREOF i
l On January 6, 1977, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) issued an Initial Decision (Antitrust) in the above-captioned proceeding.
On January 13, 1977, Applicants filed.their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Exceptions and Briefs in Support Thereof.
The Department of Justice (Depart-ment) opposes Applicants' requested schedule and requests that the Appeal Board set the following schedule:
Exceptions to the Initial Decision February 7, 1977 Briefs in Support of Exceptions March 7, 1977 MC 7
8002 24 0 oGy p,
sh Answering Briefs April 25, 1977 Reply Briefs May 16, 1977 The schedule proposed by the Department is two months shorter than that proposed by Applicants.
Because of the extensive license. conditions ordered by the Licensing Board, it is essential that a final decision be reached as soon as possible.
If the relief ordered is to be meaningful and effective, both Applicants and the other electric entities within the combined CAPCO Company Territories (CCCT) must begin the long-range planning necessary for its implementation.
A lengthy delay in the issuance of a final decision would, of i
necessity, have a chilling effect on negotiations of agreements implementing the ordered relief.
An expedited Appeals schedule is all the more important in light of Applicants' Motion for an Order Staying, Pendente Lite, the Attachment of Antitrust Conditions.
The Licensing Board found that the issuance of an unconditioned license would lead I
^
to the creation and maintenance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and 'therefore prescribed relief designed to
, alleviate this situation.
If a stay is ordered, the situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws will be allowed to continue until a final decision is reached.
Thus, in the event of a stay, it becomes all the more critical that a final decision be reached 1
2
expeditiously.
Applicants should not be afforded relief from license conditions properly imposed while being permitted to delay, as long as possible, final resolution of the issues.
The proposed schedule submitted by the Department provides for an expeditious briefing of the issues consistent with the needs of the parties to thoroughly examine all questions of law and fact. 1/
Under this schedule, the parties have 60 days from the date of the initial decision to prepare their. briefs in support of their exceptions to the decision and 45 days in which to reply to the initial briefs.
This is consistent with the briefing schedule set by the Licensing Board which ultimately provided eight weeks for Applicants' brief and seven weeks for briefs by the parties opposing the issuance of an unconditioned license.
1/
The Department suggests that the imposition of a page limitation on briefs would further serve to expedite the proceeding as well as to snarpen the presentation of the questions to be decided.
Such a page limitation would be consistent with Rule 28(g) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides for a limit on the length of appellate briefs.
We suggest that the following page limitations would be appropriate and that for the purpose of page limitations, the Applicants be considered one party.
Briefs in Support of Exceptions 300 pages Answeri'ng Briefs 200 pages Reply Briefs 100 pages 3
l l
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Department prays that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board deny Applicants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File Exceptions and Briefs in Support Thereof and order the briefing schedule proposed by the Department.
Respectfully submitted, MM jd MELVIN G.
BERGER
- OM
! '2 Tf-~/ M/
J ET R.
URBAN Attorneys, Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C.
20530 January 18, 1977 S
4 e
~-m,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!! MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket Nos. 50-346A Company
)
50-500A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
50-501A Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A Company, et al.
)
50-441A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of REPLY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEFS IN SUPPORT THEREOF have been served upon all of the parties listed on the attachment hereto by deposit in the United States mail, first class, airmail or hand this 18th day' of January 1977.
Ct. u 2.$ h Y lt. k /. k ANET R.
URBAN
/
Attorney, Antitrust Division Department of Justice m-
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board N
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)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A 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 SERVICE LIST Alan S. Ro.centhal, Esq.
Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.
hairman, ALomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 John M. Frysiak, Esq.
Jerome E.
Sharfman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{
Appeal Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regula' tory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing & Service Section Washington, D.
C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C.
20006 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Roy P.
Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Douglas V.
Rigler, Esq.
Office of the Executive Chairman, Atomic Safety and Legal Director Licensing Board.
U'8* Nuclear Regulatory Commission Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh and Jacobs Washington, D. C.
20555 Chanin Buildi.ng - Suite 206 815 Connech.:.t.ut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006
Terence H. Benbow, Esq.
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
Steven A. Berger, Esq.
Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Esq.
Robert E.
Zahler, Esq.
Steven B. Peri, Esq.
Jcy H.
Bernstein, Esq.
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts Shtw, Pittman, Potts &
40 Wall Street Trowbridge New York, New York 10005 1600 M Street, N.W.
Wnchington, D.C.
20036 Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
General Attorney Duquesne Light Company Rsuben Goldberg, Esq.
435 Sixth Avenue David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq..
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Michael D.
Oldak, Esq.
Goldberg, Fieldman & Hjelmfelt David McNeil Olds,.Esq.
Suite 550 Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Union Trust Building Washington, D. C.
20006 Box 2009 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 lincent C Campanella, Esq.
Direc of Law Lee A. Rau, Esq.
Robert O.
Hart, Esq.
Joseph A.
Rieser, Jr., Esq.
1st Ass' t Director of Law Reed Smith Shaw & McClay City of Cleveland Suite 900 213 City Hall 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
C1cveland, Ohio 44114 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
James R.
Edgerly, Esq.
Spscial Ass't Attorney General Secretary and General Counsel Room 219 Pennsylvania Power Company Towne House Apartments One East Washington Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 New Castle, PA 16103 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
John Lansdale, Esq.
Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esq.
Cox, Langford & Brown William J. Kerner, Esq.
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
The Cleveland Electric Washington, D. C '. 20036
~
Illuminating Company 55 Public Square Alan P. Suchmann, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 1800 Union Commerce Building Michael M.
Briley, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Ptul M.
Smart, Esq.
Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder Edward A. Matto, Esq.
Richard M. Firestone, Esq.
P. O. Box 2088 Karen H. Adkins, Esq.
Toledo, Ohio 43603 Antitrust Section Russell J.
Spetrino, Esq.
30 E. Broad Street, 15th Flcor Thomas A.
Kayuha, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ohio Edison Company Christopher R.
Schraff, Esc.
47 North Main Street Assistant Attorney General' Akron, Ohio 44308 Environmental Law Section 361 E.
Broad Street, 8th Floor i
Columbus, Ohio 43215 O