ML19329D076
| ML19329D076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1977 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002240071 | |
| Download: ML19329D076 (6) | |
Text
_
Jcnucry 13, 1977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
[346A)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket No.
COMPANY
)
^
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
Docket Nos. FH A' (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 MOTION FOR AN EXTEN!3 ION OF TIME TO FILE EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEFS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
/-/3-77 1.
On January 6, 1977 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") rendered its Initial Decision in the above-captioned antitrust proceeding.
Pur-suant to Section 2.711 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R.
S 2.711), Applicants hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") to extend the time within which to file exceptions and briefs in support thereof.
Applicants regret having to file this motion on the last day contemplated by the rules (see 10 C.F.R.
S 2.762),
but we had been endeavoring to reach agreement on a schedule mutually satisfactory to all parties.
In fact, the parties 002 2 1
/19 40 o l/
us -
were very close to agreement on such a joint schedule and it was not until yesterday that Applicants first learned that it would not be possible to reach agreement.
2.
Applicants request the Appeal Board to set the following schedule which is essentially the same schedule agreed to by the parties and approved by the Appeal Board in the Consumers antitrust proceeding -(see Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-282, 2 N.R.C.
9 (1975)):
Exceptions To The Initial Decision - February 28, 1977 Briefs In Support Of Exceptions
- April 29, 1977 Answering Briefs
- June 28, 1977 Reply Briefs
- July 19, 1977 3.
This request is made in view of the length of the Initial Decision (264 pages), the length and complexity of the record (12,836 transcript pages and 1331 documentary exhibits), and the multiplicity of parties involved.
The proceedings in this consolidated docket have been as protracted as those in.the Consumers proceeding, and the record compiled here is even more lengthy.
Applicants need a fair opportunity to evaluate the factual findings and legal conclusions and to brief the many issues contained in tha Licensing Board's Initial Decision.
i l
1
. WHEREFORE, Applicants request the Appeal Board to grant their motion to extend the time within which to file exceptions and briefs in support thereof.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE c
By:
C ~hi Nd wC Wm. Bradford Reynblds N
Counsel for Applicants Dated: January 13, 1977.
6 v
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. 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 COMPANI, ET AL.
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-500A Units 2 and 3)
)
50-501A CERTITTCATE CF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Motion For An Extension Of Time To File Exceptions And Briefs In Support Thereof" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List, by hand de-livering copies to those persons in the Washington, D.C.
j area, and by mailing copies, postage prepaid, to all others, all on this 13th day of January, 1977.
"SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & 'IROWBRIDGE 7
i s By:
( j m. OdLJ
\\ C_~_A Wm. Bradford Reynolds \\
Counsel for Applicants
..e 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. 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. Rosenthal, Esq.
Ivan W.
Smith, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic 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. F2Fsiak, Esq.
Jerome E.
Sharfman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washinoton, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 Atomic Safety and Licensing ashington, D. C.
20006 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Douglas V.
Rigler, Esq.
Roy P._Lessy, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Executive Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh and Jacobs
~Chanin Building - Suite 206 Washington, D. C.
2055a 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 m. _
. Jcseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Terence H. Benbow, Esq.
Antitrust Division A. Edward Grashof, Esq.
Department of Justice Steven A. Berger, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20530 Steven B. Peri, Esq.
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts M0lvin G. Berger, Esq.
40 Wall Street Jcnet R. Urban, Esq.
New York, New York 10005 Antitrust Division P. O. Box 7513 Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.
W2shington, D.
C.
20044 General Attorney Duquesne Light Ccmpany R uben Goldberg, Esq.
435 Sixth Avenue D vid 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 Vincent C. Campanella, Esq.
Director of Law Lee A.
Rau, Esq.
Robert D.
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.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
James R.
Edgerly, Esq.
1 Special Ass't Attorney General Secretary and General Counsel Room,219 Pennsylvania Power Company l
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 Alan P.
Buchmann, Esq.
55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 1800 Union Commerce Building Michael M. Briley, Esq.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Edward A. Matto, Esq.
F e, H n y, ge & Snyder 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 Floor Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio.43215 Ohio Edison Company Christopher R.
Schraff, Esq.
47 North Main Street Assistant Attorney General Akron,-Ohio 44308 Environmental Law Section 361 E. Broad Street, 8th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215
-