ML19329D310
| ML19329D310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1976 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002270899 | |
| Download: ML19329D310 (4) | |
Text
"
v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,o e
/
5 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Alan.S. Rosenthal, Chairman D
1082 g 1976 >40 l
2 Michael C. Farrar o..g *Pff,*,,
Richard S. Salzman q,
5.<**j
'm
)
In the Matter of
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
Docket Noc. 50-346A. -
COMPANY
)
50-500A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
50-501A Units 1, 2, & 3)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-440A (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER March 19, 1976__.,
We accept the Licensing Board's certification to us today of four questions which it has ruled upon in connection with its disposition of the motion of the City of Cleveland to disqualify the law firm of Squire, Sanders and Dempsey from further participation in this antitrust proceeding as counsel for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
Further, to the extent not implicitly encompassed by those four questions, we direct the certification of the following additional questions, to be answered in light of the dis-closures in the record and of Canon 5 of the American Bar 8002 270
~
- Association Code of Professional Responsibility (in particular, Ethical Consideration 5-16 and Discip.linary-Rule 5-105 under that Canon) :
(1) When the City of Cleveland requested the firm of Squire, Sanders and Dempsey to represent it respecting the issuance of municipal bonds to finance construction of a new City power plant, what e,xplana-tions were given to the City by the firm about potential conflicts of interest which might arise because the firm also represented its competitor, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company?
(2) Precisely when, by whom, and to whom vere those representations made and what significance attaches to them?
(3) What (if any) bearing does the fact that the City's lawyers retained the firm have on the application of the Canon to this case and, in particular, did it affect the firm's obligation to " explain fully to each client the implications of the common representatidn and [to]
accept or continue employment only if the clients consent"?
The briefs of all parties which oppose the result reached by the Licensing Board in its order of certification (i.e.,
"that suspension of the firm [of Squire, Sanders and Dempsey]
Q l
3-is necessary and required" )
shall be filed no later than April 2, 197G.
The briefs of all parties which support that result shall be filed no later than April 16, 1976.
Reply briefs may be filed no later than April 23, 1976.
In their briefs, the parties may, if they so choose, raise any additional points in favor or against the result below even though not encompassed within the certified questions.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
$s !a.? ".-
/f0sa.)
L Margaret E.
Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Board M
t
I NRC Fcnu'195 u.s. NUCLI:AO f;F.CULATCRY COMMISSIEN O
NUMBER
^
00/501/440/441A n.rst FILE NUMPER NRC DISTRIBUTION FOn PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL ligAttIr:G TRANSCRIPTS !
TO:
SECRETARY, NRC 3-1hfk""
^I" NRC WASIIINGTON, D.C.
DATE RECEIVED IR 3-23-76 DLETTER ONOTORIZED PROP INPUT PCHM NUMBER OP COPf ES RECEIVED DORIGIN AL QUNCLASSIFIE D 2
D:OPY m
3-19-76 DESCIIPTION EN CLOSU R E NO LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL REC'D WIT!!
HEARING TRANSCRIPTS DATED HEARING TRANSCRIPTS.....
PAGE 6677_
THRU 0045 (2 Cys enci reg'd),
PLANT NAME:
.;d.,
k 3....,
~
l FOR ACTION /INFORMATION lW[ REG FILE [5 3 ULYuui;G i
DENISE i
F SALTZMAN I
i i
l INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION I
I l
I e
m M
.BD
.O EXTERNAL' DISTRIBUTION CONTR OL NUT.*BE R i
q 2f/S I