ML19319B866

Applicants' Reply to Motions of Aec,Doj & City of Cleveland to Produce Documents in Washington,Dc & to Submit Addl Info in Response to Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc & Transmittal Encl

ML19319B866
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	12/16/1974
From:	Charnoff G, Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8001280714
Download: ML19319B866 (29)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

                                                                  .Dscamber 16, 1974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of                               )
                                                        )'

THE TOLEDO EDISUN COM2ANY ana ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440a

                          .                             )                  50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING            )

COMPANY, ET AL., ) (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and'2) ) . APPLICANTS' REPLY TO MOTIONS OF TH' AEC REGULATORY STAFF, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE CITY OF CLEVELAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN WASHINGTON, D. C., AND TO SUDMIT ADDITIONAL INI'OIUsIATION IN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES A. Background

1. By Motion dated December 5, 1974, the AEC Regulatory Staff (" Staff") moved the Licensing Board for an order compelling each of the Joint Applicants to deliver to the Staff in Washington, D. C. copies of each of the several hundred thousand documents that have been produced by the Joint Applicants in response to the Staff's document pro-duction request. On December 9, the Department of Justice

(" Justice") filed a similar motion. On December 12, the City of Cleveland filed a separate motion seeking to have all i, 80012807/k ' N

of Applicants' produced documents placed in a central de-pository in Washington.

2. The Staff's Motion also requested production and delivery to its offices in Washington, D. C., of (a) a list identifying the request pursuant to which each document was produced and (b) a list identifying documents for which privilege is claimed. The Justice motion contained,similar requests as well as certain others which are discussed below.

 .                3        Attached hereto are lists identifying the docu-ments for which privilege is claimed by The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, and the Toledo Ecison Company.       No privilege is claimed ',r any documents produced by Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylv&nia Power Company.

In all other respects, the motions of the Staff, Justice, and the City of Cleveland should be denied for the reasons set forth below.

                       'B. Delivery to Washington, D. C.

of Documents Produced Is Not Required by AEC Discovery Rules

4. In response to the Staff and Justice's joint document discovery requests, and the separate document requests of the City of Cleveland, each Applicant conducted an extensive and exhaustive file search. The requested documents have been physically segregated, reviewed for privilege, and grouped in t

4 i

response to each of the document requests. The CEI docu-ments requested by the Staff and Justice are contained in 56 file drawers; those documents requested by the City occupy another 61 file drawers. The Duquesne Light documents re-quested by the Staff and Justice are located in 90 file drawers; those documents requested by the City fill an ad-ditional 135 file drawers. The Toledo Edison documents re-quested by Staff and Justice occupy 28 file drawers; those documents requested by the City are contained in an additional 30 file drawers. The Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power Com-pany documents requested by the Staff and Justice fill 107 file drawers; an additional 94 file drawers hold the documents re-quested by the City. 5 The documents produced by each Applicant in response to the Staff and Justice alone easily-number in the hundreds of thousands (281 file drawers). There are even a larger number of documents which have been segregated by each Applicant in response to the City's requests (320 file drawers). This volume of material has been collected for production over a relatively short time period in a good faith effort to meet fully the broadly-framed document requests served upon Appli-cants by the other parties. At the outset, Company counsel for each Applicant advised those persons conducting the file searches to be as thorough as possible, making subjective 6 i

Judgments with lespect to production in favor of inclusion, rather than exclusion. Perha'ps Justice, the Staff and 'te City of Cleveland did not expect this kind of cooperation from Applicants. In any event, having put Applicants to the burdensome task of separating from their extensive files the large quantity of materials called for in their document re-quests, the requesting parties should, in fairness, be re-quired to assume the much less onerous responsibility of inspecting the produced papers on location. -

6. To require Applicants to deliver the documents in question to Washington would first necessitate a massive reproduction undertaking, since the vast maj ority of the produced material consists of working documents, the originals of which must be retained at company headquarters for use in conducting-day-to-day business affairs. It is conserva-tively estimated that reproduction costs would be at least eight to ten cents a page. In addition, the packaging and transportation costs associated with moving so large a number of documents to Washington would, in itself, be extensive.

Neither the Staff, Justice, nor the City of Cleveland has

            . undertaken to pay these expenses either in their request for production or in their motion to compel.

7.. The time required to reproduce and transport such volumes of material to Washington and set up the files here

                           -l.
                                           -__                        x             ~

_5_ in the carefully organized manner thah they are now in at each of Applicants' offices would necessarily cause a sub-stantial' delay in the discovery process. While the request-ing parties seem to suggest that the present procedure will cause delay-due to the travel associated with its document inspection, any such travel delay is de minimus compared to-the massive reproduction and transportation effort a.dvanced as an alternative. All of the Applicants are locat'ed within approximately two hours air time of Washington; indeed, -

   . Washington Counsel for the City of Cleveland has already spent several days in Cleveland examining the documents produced by The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. The Staff and Justice hava had the same' opportunity available to them for the last 15 days; yet, while seemingly concerned about a possible delay in the discovery process, they have made no effort to examine the documents that have been produced.

8. Justice argues, and the Staff appears to argue, j that the phrase " inspection and related activities will be per-l mitted as requested," as used in 10 CFR $2 741(d), includes l delivery of the documents produced to the home office of the requestor. Justice Motion footnote 2, page 8. This'is a l

novel reading of the Commission's regulations. The term "re-lated activities" has long been understood to encompass the right of the requestor to take notes from requested documents, i.

and to reproduce,at the requestor's expense, those docu-ments which, upon examinatior, are deemed to be of possible evidentiary value in the particular hearing. It does not oblige the owner or possessor of the documents to undertake the cort of onerous activities or expenses as have been suggested by the present motions. Ir. point of fact, the manner of production provided by each of the Applicants in the present proceeding is consistent with common discovery practice in administrative and judicial proceedings. Not only is it the contemplated practice under the provisions of 10 CFR $2.741(d); it also is the general procedure fol-lowed under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where hundreds of thousands.of documents are involved. 9 In this connection, we note that the City of Cleveland produced documents in precisely the same manner as the production afforded by each of the Applicants. While Justice tries to make much of the fact that it actually de-livered its document production to Applicants' counsel in Washington, the argument that Applicants should therefore respond in a similar fashion is not well taken. Justice's delivery consisted of no more than 1-1/2 - 2 inches of paper, and required no interstate transportation costs. This bears l l no meaningful comparison with the many hundreds of thousands 1 of documents produced by each Applicant, all located outside 4 I k Ol

                                    ,            ,__m,   -

m "+

Washington, D. C.1/ Moreover, Justice itself requested and obtained agreement of Applicants' counsel to retain for inspection at Justice's offices a large number of requested documents in order to avoid precisely the-same delays and expenses that Applicants would be confronted with if re-quired to make delivery of the volume of materials they have produced. See Letter of October 25, 1974, attached hereto. It should not now be heard to complain of Applicants' similar

               -handling of the document discovery process.

10. One further observation is necessary. Staff suggests that Applicants' production but non-delivery is "particularly _ objectionable inasmuch as the Board pursuant

~ to Applicants' motion granted an additional 30 days within which to produce documents." Staff Motion, page 4. Justice makes a similar point. Justice Motion page 9, footnote 3. This sort of disingenuous argument serves no legitimate pur-pose. The extension requested by Joint Applicants followed the Licensing Board's Order of October 11, 1974, on objections to discovery requests, and it provided all the parties with the same amount of time as had been contemplated in the orig-inal schedule for discovery set out in the Licensing Board 1/ We note further that the offer of the City of Cleveland in its motion' papers to deliver its produced documents to a Washington depository does not begin to suggest that Applicants

               -should be required to do likewise. The-City's document pro-duction totals two file drawers, as compared to the 601 file drawers produced by Applicants.                           ,

lI

           *                    .                                               ~

Order of August 12, 1974. No " additional" time was afforded by the revised discovery schedule. Within the designated discovery. period, Applicants performed a herculean task in 4 examining all their files and segregating and grouping the many hundreds of thousand documents requested. The fact, as conceded in the motion papers of Justice and the Staff. that the requested documents were indeed produced within the schedule, was itself an accomplishment of no small signifi-cance. At no time was it ever contemplated that the revised - schedule was. intended to afford the parties time to xerox copies of all the. documents produced and deliver them to Washington, D. C. C. Answers by the Applicants to the Justice Interrogatories Are Responsive

11. Each of the Applicants prepared replies to the questions propounded to it by Justice and the Staff. Justice now argues that a limited number of the replies were evasive and/or non-responsive. This position seems to be premised on the absurd assumption that the broad interrogatories pro-pounded'by Justice demanded identical answers by the respective companies. But each Applicant operated in a different service area. By virtue of that fact alone, the responses to inter-rogatories concerning matters of generation, distribution and t

transmission ol' electric power must necessarily differ. Moreover, because the interrogatories are so inartfully drafted, they are subject to varying interpretations, any one of which constitutes a legitimate reading of the language used. The objections of Justice are therefore not well taken.

12. For example, Justice complains of the response by The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CEI") to Joint Interrogatory No. 3. The Interrogatory was framed in -

the following terms:

                           # # # has Company ever trans-mitted electric power through its system for any electric utility * * *.

Precisely to avoid the possibility of any confusion as to CEI's interpretation of this unclear language, CEI stated that its response was based on the assumption that the Inter-rogatory does not relate to CEI's transmission of power which originates at plants located on the CEI system. CEI under-stood the' word "through" to mean "in at one side and out at the opposite side of", which is the dictionary definition of the word. . Quite obviously, if power originates within a system, it is not power which comes "in" and then goes "out" of the system. Justice may now have second thoughts as to the phraseology it used, but such second thoughts hardly warrant an accusation that CEI's response is " evasive an'd 4 s. i

                                                                  ._ . , .   . .m

nonresponsive". In this regard, Justice's reference to Duquesne Light's' response relating to use of CEI's facili-ties to transmit power to Duquesne is entirely inappropriate.  : l First,'Duquesne's legitimate interpretation of an ineptly drafted question may well not correspond with the equally legitimate interpretation by others; the apparent incon-sistency -- if indeed'there be one -- lies not in the thoughtful a:.eNers but in the vague question. Second, and of more im-portance, the power spoken of by Duquesne originates at the Eastlake Plant on the CEI system, and as such, while it has been transmitted on the CEI system, it certainly has not been transmitted through (i.e., in at one side and out at the opposite side) that system.2/ 13 Justice also claims that CEI's answer to Joint Interrogatory No. 5 is " evasive and meaningless" because the.

          ' company stated therein that:

In answering Interrogatory No. 5, CEI has assumed that the interrogatory does not relate to CEI's use of transmission facili-

                      ,        ties of a Company with which CEI is directly interconnected and from which CEI may purchase power.

Again, CEI is being-criticized for making a statement which was intended to clarify its understanding of what is being

   ,          2/ What is stated in paragraph 12 above has equal appli-
         - cation to CEI's response to Joint Interrogatory No. 4, which Justice also seems to find objectionable.

e e

                                                                     .       .~

i requested. CEI's position is that when, for example, it

                  . buys power from or. sells' power to Ohio Power Company, with

! ~ which CEI.has been interconnected since 1962, CEI does not consider this type of transaction as "use" of Ohio Power's transmission. There have been hundreds of transactions

                  !between CEI and Ohio Power (and the PJM system and Ohio Edison Company with which CEI is carectly interconnected).

CEI does not read Justice's loosely-worded Interrogatory as , requesting the company to. spell out the details of each and

                  -every such transaction; such information has no relevance whatsoever to the present antitrust' proceeding..

14. With regard to CEI's response to Joint Inter-

                                                           ~

rogatory No. .5, Justice seems to set great store in referring

                  .by comparison to the answer of Duquesna Light Company to Joint Interrogatory,No. 3, "which names CEI as a party to agreements pursuant to which Duquesne has' transmitted power".                                        l

Jus'tice then concludes

" Clearly, if Duquesne transmitted power for CEI, CEI used the transmission facilities of another."

                  -.This. conclusion is,~on its face, non-sequitur.                    In fact,
                                                                       ~

JDuquesne has not transmitted power for, or to, CEI. The only , transfers of power involving Duquesne and CEI have been by means.of a direct sale of power by Duquesne to a company inter-connected with CEI, which company in turn resold.that power to CEI..'However, this is not a situation contemplated by the 9

                                    ^

e

Interrogatory. The Company stands tur its answer to Inter-rogatory'No. 5. 15 Finally, Justice takes issue with CEI's answer to Joint Interrogatory No. 6, as being "at the very least, incomplete and nonresponsive". Joint Interrogatory No. 6 reads as follows: State each request since Sep-tember 1, 1965, made by an electric utility to Company for a new or altered interconnection arrangement, giving (a) the name of the entity, - (b) the date of the request, (c) the date of any agreement to interconnect, (d) the reason for any refusal to in-terconnect, and (e) the date and author (s) of &ny document relating to any such refusal. As with the other' Joint Interrogatories, this one is inart-fully drafted. Justice's specific complaint is that_CEI's response "nowhere mentions the making of such requests by the Cities of Cleveland or Painesville, Ohio". Reference to these " requests" in the response to Joint Interrogatory No. 6 seemed inappropriate, however, since there have been no formal requests for interconnection as such by the Cities.

             - Moreover, as to subparts (c), (d) and (e) of this Interroga-                       ,

tory,-there was in this context no "date of agreeme'nt", no " refusal to interconnect", and, obviously, no docu-4 . men t s re al ting to a refusal. Faced with the practical problem of weaving a discussion concerning the Cities of s i I

                                                                               - _ _ . -   - .. I

f Cleveland and Painesville into the framework of Joint Interroga-tory No. 6, and looking to the wording of Joint Interrogatory No. 7, CEI concluded that the matters relating to negotiations with these Cities could best be described in response to the latter Interrogatory, particularly since it is the brnader of thectwo, referring to " reserve sharing" as well as "intercon-nection". Justice cannot seriously believe it has been incon-venienced or misled by CEI because the subject was treated in answer to one Interrogatory rather than another.

16. The other objections by Justice to answers pro-vided by Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company, on the one hand, and by The Toledo Edison Company, on the other hand, are equally unfounded. Justice's broad charge that certain re-sponses are evasive and/or nonresponsive,without any meaningful articulation of the basis for such vague generalizations, is as difficult to answer as are the Joint Interrogatories, which have been framed in similsrly sweeping language. If Justice wishes to redraft its questions with more clarity and resubmit them, Applicants will respond thereto.

Respectfully submitted, a t

                    .               SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE

! By: \b db  % _UL Wm. Bradford Refnolds T Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants Dated: December 16, 197h. a 9 - "- . . . = ge

l4 CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS TO DOCUMENTS OF DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY The following is a description of documents which are going to be withheld from production by the Duquesne

             ' Light company as. privileged material:

1. By: David McN. Olds To: W. F. Gilfillan, Jr.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Date: February 7, 1969 Re: $tatus of Pitcairn litigation. Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

2. By: W. F. Giifillan, Jr. To: John M. Arthur S. G. Schaffer Date: February 7, 1969 T. J. Munsch, Jr.

W. A. Conwell D. E. Greene R. R. Parkman Re:- Copy of Olds' letter described in item No. 1 above, with short cover memo. Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

3. By: David McN. Olds To: T..J. Munsch, Jr., Esq.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay , l i Date: September 25, 1968  ! Re: Borough of Pitcairn v. Duquesne Light Company. l Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

g. -

                                                                                        ~ _

4.

• By: T. J. Munsch, Jr. To: J. M. Arthur S. G. Schaffer Date: September 25, 1968 W. F, Gilfillan, Jr.

W. G. Dempler J. W. O' Nan David M. Olds, Esq. Re: Copy of letter described in item No. 3 above, with short cover memo. Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilega.

,                 . Responsive to:      City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

5. By: T. J. Munsch, Jr. . To: David McN. Olds, Esq.

Date: Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay January 17, 1969 Copies to: J. M. Arthur ' S. G. Schaffer W. F. Gilfillan, Jr. W. G. Dempler Re: Borough of Pitcairn v. Duquesne Light Company Privilege asserted: Attorney-cl~ient privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

6. By: David McN. Olds To: T. J. Munsch, Jr.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Date: January 10, 1969 Re: Pitcairn litigation. Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13

7. By: John McN. Cramer To: Thomas J. Munsch, Jr.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Date: January 3, 1969 Re: Pitcairn litigation. Privilege asserted: Attorney-client privilege. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request C.7b Government Request D.13 2 _ l

                     -                                                         ~ 2 n-      1 _  _

l

   *-   ^                          .                                                                        \
                                                                                                            \
                                                                                                            \

l i l CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS TO DOCUMENTS OF THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY The following is a description of documents which are going to be withheld from production by The Toledo Edison Company as privileged material: 4 h 1. October 7, 1968, memorandum written by Mr. Leslio Henry and received by Mr. John Davis evaluating the legal issues involved in the Pitcairn litigation.  ! Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 7 . Government Request No. 13 l 2. 4 March 23, 1973, memorandum written by Mr. Leslie Henry and received by Mr. John Williamson, Mr. John Davis, Mr. William Schwalbert, Mr. W. Moran, and Mr. Marvin Keck which construed and evaluated _several legal issnes involved in the Beaver Valley, Perry, and Davis-sesse proceedings. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 7 Government Request No. 13 3. April 5, 1973, memorandum written by Mr. Leslie Henry and received by Mr. John Williamson, Mr. John Davis, Mr. William Schwalbert, Mr. W. Moran, and Mr. Marvin Keck reviewing certain antitrust aspects involved in the 1 Beaver Valley, Perry, and Davis-Besse proceedings. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 7 Government Request No. 13 4. October 12, 1973, memorandum written by Mr. Wilson Snyder and received by Mr. John Williamson, Mr. Glenn Sampson, and Mr..Lowell Roe discussing and evaluating certain legal aspects involved in the City of Cleveland's peti-tion to in.tervene in the Davis-Besse proceedings. Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 7 Government Request No. 13 5. February 22, 1974, memorandum written by Mr. Wilson Snyder _and received by Mr. John Williamson and Mr. Lowell Roe discussing and evaluating ~the petition of the City of Cleveland to intervene in'the Beaver Valley, Perry, and Davis-Besse proceedings. 0 L

                                \

Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 7 Government Request No. 13 '

6. May 24, 1973, memorandum written by Mr. Leslie Henry and received by Mr. John Williamson discussing certain legal aspects of a possible CAPCO generating company.

Responsive to: City of Cleveland Request No. 9 Government Request No. 11 e O I e 9 e 0 0 2 l

CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS TO DOCUMENTS OF THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY Attached is a description of documents which are going to be withheld from production by The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company as privileged material. I e l d . i 1

                          \                                                                  l
                                                                  . _ , . _ _ _ - -      .J

                                                                                                                                                                                                .i Y.'             .

.7,,ElFiM+.-F js t7 From  !

T_ o,_ Dat7 Bubject ,-  !" h .' q Request No. p.j;d ' . - %' .Q

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . c , sv         , . ~

11-16-66 Phny Plant - SS&D Memorandum .- C-132 '-@0 n y P. 8. Croy R. L Herrick

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . ,-;6
           , t John IAnsdale                                                         Donald Hauser                            10-27-66                Cover letter and memorandum regardirig DECLP rates                                                           ti-112
 ..- py
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~

I, 's?' r

• P. A. Crantier R. & Staebler 2=2849 '

fanexation - Painerville Township - Gibson ' C-16a Pedevelopnent Apartments G. L. More Y. W. Brooks 2-06-68 Planning Project P-116-A "Mmicipal Underground C-37e Iegislation" L. C. Howley Committee on b-01-69 Planning Project P-116-A "mnicipal Un6erground ' C-37e.

               -                                                                     Planning and Policy                                              Iagislation" D. L Hauser                                            Richard A. Miller                        11-23-70                Financing-Cooling Towers (Davis-Besse Plant)                                                                 c43p s'       .                               ..                                                                   g I,eslie' Henry                                         D. G. Nicholson                           1-26-71                Cooling Tower Financing                                                                                      C43p                   '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,4.                         .t-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .f C. C. Chopp                                           C. T. Loshing                             3-23 71                CAPCO Coal                                 ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,,. . f. 4 ,,)r;j.'t}r.'

C-376 . , .,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~ . 2 n. :...-+.:..4 cy.;nu .
                                                                                                                                                                                  .;; .1 . e . . s.                                                                        ,,   . Ai.~:or V. F. Greenslade                                      K. E Rudolph                     -

5-13-71 CAPco - mner Coal r . C-374 .:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..?.   ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ..                   s.         .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~

Y. F. Greenslade File 7-13-71 11anor Coal Properties - C-37 bad

                                                                                                                                                                                                        \                                                                                 -

Y. F. Greenslade O. S. F1karls 6-03-71 Ceneca Plant - FPC Form 6 C43e G. 8.'Fikaris J. & Borthwick 7-27-71 Deneca. Plant - FPC Form 6 C430 Y. 7. Greenslade /

i

                                                                                                                                                  -    1-
        .                                                                                                                                                                              ..         .,             u                        -
 ...;. ;,; .. m . . m . . .- u                                              .,..,...,....,u.       . ,, .: .,. 3"*'**?"% m. u.., w.,,.Tiik .wmmdue e,Otd Ut,N55NdpiikEN. ,N,@., c.,; ah:Q Yn.

T

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           'dE5M  .a.a

From Documert TJ Dat9 Dubject Request No, T. J. Horvath K. H. Rudolph 8-26-71 twris-Besse Cooling Tower - Chio Water Development C-%3p R. M. Cinn Authority Tax Drempt Financing - I Harry A. Poth. .Tr. Ime C. Howley 2-17-72 Interconnection between CEI and City of Painesville M-20 & 25 A. Obermeyer L. C. Rowley k-20-72 Wheeling Power C-112 b . A. Obermeyer C. E. Chancellor 5-09-72 Legal Research - Muny Problems C-112 A. Obermeyer L. C. Rowley 8-16-72 Methods of Referring Sale of MELP to a Vote of C-112 tha People Ime C. Howley D. H. Nauser 10-32-72 Tank Force a m aicip~al C-112 C. T. Loshing

                                                                                                      ~ "                          ~

W. R. King . W. R. King lee C. Howley 9-29-72 White Papers C-112 D. R. Hauser K. H. Rudolph 6-20-72 MRLP - Spinning Reserves M-20 D. N. Hauser L. C. Howley 6-26 72 NEP - Ingal Research C-18e

• J. J. Borkowski .

W. R. King C. T. Loshing G. L. Wore ' A. Obermeyer ' F. P. Sener V. F. Greenslade W. N. Bingham 9-27-72 FPC Filing - Power Sale to Toledo cut of ' - C-374 Enatlake 5 - F i

                                                                                                                                                                                                          .a

[

. op a ,Thh b'b tPe 8 ?WP:NWC6.M fWF2 'S UFTE% " T

! """"""*##""*~ 7 .

                                                                                                                                                                                               ~"

1 4

                  ~

l Prom Document _To 1)ste subject Request No. , n i j Inslie Henry D. G. Nicholson 10-27-72 Draft of Nuclear Fuel Lease E _ _ t C43p t W. R. King L. C. Howley 10-30-72 October Chokol Survey C-112 Arthur W. Trtnap D. G. Nicholson 11-10-72 Nuclear Fuel Lease Agreement C-43p J l I C. T. Loshing C. C. Chopp 12-20-72 Nuclear Fuel Leasing - Cover memo for letter C43p i W. E. Walker sent from Arthur Trump to Theodore J. Barrath e i ' T. J., Morvath Arthur W. Trump 1-18-73 Davis-Besse nuclear Fuel Lease C43p'

                                    $U?                                                                                                                                                                 ,

Ts J. Horvath ' f.5 f..- 73 K. H. Rudolph 1-19-73 Drris-Besse Plant - Nuclear Fuel Lease C43p

                                              .R. M. Ginn C. T. Loshing

• n A. Oberneyer '.'lL. C. Howley y 1-31-73 Mx-t B88e Revenue Bond Ordinance No. 2104-72 C-112' i

                                                                                                                                                                                            ;           l-a~

Alan P. Buchmana Objections to the 8taff Report i <

                                              ' O. T. Icehing                   k-16-73 C-54 lh .

1

          .      R. M. Kemper                   C. T. Ioshing                   444-73             Comments on objection to Staff Report                                            C-5%

i * -

 ,               C. T. Loshing                  R. A. Miller                    4-17-73            Candid Rate case Report                                                          C-54 i

4 G. L. Pbore W. N. Bingham 4 20-73 Adslitional Objections to staff Report C-54

,                V. F. Greenslade               A. M. F Amico                   k-26-73            Paasible Antitrust consideration                                                 C43p l           lp-.m.w-q'*   ". ,,glg
                                .]

3 s

                                                                                                                                                                                - j' {11 J d
                                                                                                          .,t.._  _,_t_        _               _         _m   e        k' 1   1                  'A M MIWtl'MiMalte.HFidiN;tPSirT.F4 9ygCMt.*mw/t.M sd ? s % t ji 7 4 a' r 9f M Wi '6 W %s Y '"hlj 9 8

4 4 T't !-i ii1. "i^. O.;idTiVI'P.'Ti9 6'1i T*' W# Ga'41stiMti AWd 'iM4a J'imIN.EM4

From Document TJ Day Subject Request No, F. R. Stead L. o. Beek 5-03-73 v. 7. creenslade's Letter c-437 J. A. Boetic R. n. Schuerger C. T. Loshing C. C. Chopp B-23-73 cover memo for y, F. creenslade's meno C-374 , e.ttachment, dated July 26,1973 N. L. Williams K. R. Rudolph 9-25-73 Terry Antitrust ' R. M. Ginn c-2b L. C. nowley C. T. Loshing - D. R. Davidson

                                   ' John H. Donaler T. J. Morvath       9-2 7-73        Fhnsfield Pollution Control Financing - Single Christner                                                                                                  C-19c, 20, Company Requisition ce the Cocatruction Fund                                 25, 29, spetrino
                                                   , Wushinske                                                                                                        32, 37 Htrary C. T. Loshing   W. N. Bingham       9-28-73        Antitrust Problems - Covering asmo regarding                            AT-GO & 23 C. C. Chopp                        D. H. Hauser's meno N. J. Lester G. L. Moore D. R.10mser     L. C. Rowley     10-31-73 cover memo far v. F. oreenslade's memo f 3                              AT-20 & 23 )

H. L. Williams D. H. Hkuser D. R. Davidson C. T. Loshing ' I 1

                                                                                                                                                                    .e.

i. .

                                                                                                                                                                    ' *

• f.

                                                                                                                                                                  . Q':
                             ,                                                                                                                                   *

• A* I e

                                                                                    .k
                                                                                                                                    , o ,  .,,,1.c1 - 0a.S .L*n%.Y'mbSO MJ O 3 3hy p%v ve .., bY? b.4..A5"NJKT :
                                                                                                            . a i.\ . + "V- nW       ~ .i ' WAni!"'WW"MS* M'"**

From To Datn Document _sub.1:et Requ~ t No. A. # ermorer F. R. Stead 10-29-73 Proposed Change in Appendix A c 43p G. L. more John Lessdale 2-27-714 Ristoric Comparison of CEI and MELP bills C-16e

             +

D. M. Blank File 5-31-73 conments of ruinesville version of Interconnee- AT-20 tien Draft (This is latest memo of a series of - atmos in file titled " Interconnection Contracts - Painewille"- Notes and memos which CEI considers privilege communications) Y. F. Greenslede R. A. Miller 3-30-74 circo - Accounting and Finance comnittee - C-37d Pricing of Unit Sales C43

                                                                                                                                                                                     ^

(Attachment - Memo from V. F. Greenslede to H. L. Williams, D. R. Davidson, W. D. Masters, D. G. Strauss - re CAPCO - Implementation of Buy-SellAgreementsfor1975) s 1,

                                                                                                                                                                     ', '_., , . .r.   . I [[
                                                                                                                                                         ,   ...,   s. - f:-                  -

I e

• O I

W#fbiIQ,M$$.fNN$?.I,$iliHiibiNNN$$ INN;hNbikb

                                                                                                                                                                                                 = a : . ., ..

Pres Dets Document TJ Subject Roquest No. T. J. Harvath 8. A. Stepanian k-09-73 quarto Mine Financing

                                   .9,                                                                                                                                                                         .M-18a -

4

                                            . V. P. Greenslade        J. R. Edgerly                   2-29-72          Joint Purchasing f.y                                  L. Henry                                                                                                                                    M-19 sd                                 T. J. M2nsch M~                                 J. R. White e.;

4 ' T. J. Manach J. R. Edgerly 5-26-72 Joint Purchasing M-19 V. F. Creenalade i${ i L. Henry y; J. R. Mbite t i 4.m i V. F. Creenslade J. R. Edgerly  %-11-73 Nuclear Mael Rtrehasing M L. Henry M -18e&b

T. J. Manach

                                 '9 b4                                   J. R. White i%                                                                                                                 '

t ': r

                                 .  V. F. Greenslade               J. R. FAgerly                     5-01-73         #2elear Feel Purchasing l:'                                  L. Henry                                                                                                                                 M-18e&b T. J. Mansch J. R. White                                                                       .
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,c . t. ,                                             .!

V. F. Creenslade File 10-30-67 7,,i Hunielpal Membership in CAPco M-23aab s - V. F. Greenslade File 11-06-69 4 r Size of Utilities in Power Pools M-23

                               ,              T. J. Horvath          L. Henry k-10-73           Pollution control Financing and Commission                                              M-18g R. J. spetrino f.ls, Jurisdiction ft att:

File 3-13-73 (%,,,T.J.Munsch ccustitutional Prohibition Against Lending or . M-23aab Credit by Manicipalities to Private Corporaticas

                            .Ijp$

k?" 4o 6- _be

                          ,                                                                                     .___.A..----
                          ~

_t '- \ O d* ' ' d * '"'L k' d ' ^ ^* A hN.M,.'hbNb$@ND.T'IY9 N,f N ', *

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                #I

    . , =

• Prem To Document Dat'l Subject Request No.

Norton Kerr File 10-09-72 P:ablic Utility Tax Partner,ttips M-23c David Olds J. R. Edger 1,y 4-17-72 Mmsfield Station Environment Controls M-18g T. J. MInsch Fred T. Okeler 3-03 71 ws 7 patW wet - %7 3 og John & Dessaler T. J. Mansch 5-17-71 Unit Operating Agreement - Agency

  !. . A                                                                                                                                                                           M -23e pg       '

File 12-11-70 Diinent Domain Rights of Foreign Corporation , M-184 75} V. F. Greensinde as Joint Tenant M. 3 L t's. ;5

               'T. J. Mmseh                                            File                          5-2749                     Accountability of Tenant in Cousnon to co-Tenant Z                                                                                                                                                                                M-23c
           , V. F. Greenslade                                          File                          2-26-69 i                                                      ~                                                              Eastlake No. 5 Construction Contract - Dourable    M-23e 2htorest 5 M.I.T                                                                                                                                                          -
  ,$,[; J. R. Edgerly                                                  J. R. White                 10-20-67                     Manicipal Ownership as Joint Tenant in Pennsylvania M-23ae UM.

E, In addition to the foregoing, Legal Memoranda, reports, files and correspondence addressed [Q y-!fF to Counsel for the Company prepared by Debevoice, Liberman ?. Cerben (Washington, D.C.),

• _

Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Cibson (Richmond, Virginia), and National Economic Research

 .%)                                                        Associates, Inc. (New York, New York), dated November 2,1970 and August 1,1970, concerning legal research on application of antitrust lava to regulated industries, are deemed to be k@@ * ';

privileged as documents within the Attorney-client and attorney " work 1xroduct" privilege. Said documents would otherwise be produced in response to Document Discovery Request No.19

 'bl j
 .Q I
        ^
                -""Mr                                    '- 1_;.JM.;M4mFf.tp3bk.hkhdtNMfaid&}.iUE.
                                                                                                       . . , _ .          . 1 ,
                                                                                                                                     .1._-q    - A n g g w fi d n-2:Q by ,4A/M%%$4T

_bi,5fUENIliIifMEtOSEEEEEhh@fM82Nh3MNObN [O3dbSi 3

4 Legal privilege is asserted as to: (1) Memoranda and drafts, prepared by Counsel for the Company, correspondence to and from Counsel frr the company, and similar material contained in the workinB files of the office of the Corporate solicitor of the company, which directly relate to the conduct of the instant hearing, cr which directly relate to negotiations with Staff of AEC, representatives of the Department of Justics and for Counsel for the City of Cleveland growing out of such hearing; (2) Memoranda and drafts prepared by Counsel for the Company, correspondence to and from

• Counsel for the Company, and similar material contained in the working files of the Office of the Corporate Solicitor of the Company with Staff of the Federal Power Commission and/or, which for Counsel directly relateoftoCleveland the City negotiations growing out of the proceedings ncnr pending and being conducted before the TTC to pro-vide for interconnection between the Company and the City of Cleveland, and other pro- i coedings currently pending before Federal or State courts or administrative bodies involving controversies currently bein6 libigated between the compeny and.the City of Cleveland; and (3) Memoranda and drafts prepared by Counsel for the Company, correspondence to and from -

Counsel for the C=W, and similar enterial contained in the working files of the Office of the Corporate Solicitor of the Company, which directly relate to negotiation proceedings currently being conducted between the Company and the City of Painesville, Ohio, to provide for interconnection between the Company and the City of Painesville.

• The privilege asserted is Attorney-elient and atterney " work product" privileCe.

I 4 "I , 8

            ,J g    d     #

8

• g ,, 8 h8 *

                                                                                                                                                                    .. ,_, l.

t l l i

                                                                             -s.
                                                                                                                                                     . ~ _ _ . .

NWM4%M*WH.155 EDd W4hd/d$dQ@A M%,WfyN,hNMy.NklNU *dib %*c8f [ h' Nf.jh- IW'f* hj%4%.M%f IjbO[h,WMNQQWG Q,~f il pff iQh, '; I

4 1 - .

     '..                            gY A,                UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE '
    ,.                             '*D.h./.                           WASIHNGTON, D.C. 10530 x
    .                       ^"."imum D6              1 dinaiad                          October 25      8 1974 s             and Rafar se laisi l.and Nummber TEK:JJS:SMC u0-415-73 William Bradford Reynolds, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trewbridge 1

910 Seventeenth Street, N.W . Washington, D.C. 20006

Re: The Toledo Edison Company The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station; The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. -

Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2 AEC Docket Nos. 50-346A. 50-440A and 50-441A

Dear Brad:

Q This will confirm our understandings concerning your discovery of documents in the files of the Depart =ent of Justice which Nere made, sent or received in connection with the procecling before the Securities and Exchange Com-mission titled ,merican Electric Power, Inc. (Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-1476). The Department will make available for your inspection and. copying at its offices all such docun es placed in the record in that proceeding. The Department has conducted a . file search of all documents relating to that proceeding which are not of record and will produce such of those docu-ments as are required under your document request. Please advise us in writing if t.his letter correctly sets forth our understanding.

  , -}

J Sincerely yours,  :

      .%-                                                                      THOMAS E. KAUPER 4~]                                                                   Assistant Attorney General
  ,,,j

*/

Antitrust Division i.

 ! 4 7.:
                                                                                         $.             ~_ --  .

effij p By: Steven M. Charno - gjyj, t-/- Attorney, Department of Justice ,  ! l

 ~!n

n.

• r l ,

[.,,.'j  ! r.

'; "l',i"~".".:.

                .. :-                                     \

_____ :t. ~':: : . .:.

                         ' :::. '-. : .: . . e .

                                                                                 \

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

                                              )                                  l THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and              )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) COMPANY ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear. Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A

                                              )                50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING        )

COMPANY, ET AL., ) (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Reply To Motions of The AEC Regulatory Staff, The Department of Justice, And The City of Cleveland To Produce Documents In Washington, D. C., And To-Submit Additional Information In Response To Interrogatories," together with the attachments thereto, were served on the persons listed in the attached Service List by mailing the same, postage prepaid, on this 16th day of December, 1974. SHAW,_PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By {Ah D A _..-w d_ Wm. Bradford Rgynolds Counsel for~ Applicants ( Dated: December 16, 1974. o g ..-_-____."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of- )

                                                      )

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and ) THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC

                                                     )            -

ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

                                                     )        .

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

                                                    .)                   Docket Nos. 50-346A
                                                     )                                50-440A
                                                     )                                50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC                    )

ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. )

                                                     )              -

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) *

• Units 1 and 2) ) .

SERVICE LIST . John N. Farmakides, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens Chairman . Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20545 WashinCton, D. C. 20545 John H. Brebbia, Esq. Benjamin H. VoGler, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board * ' Office of General Counsel - Alston, Miller & Gaines Regulation 1776 K Street, N.W., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20006 Washington, D. C. 20545 . Douglas V. Rigler, Esq. Robert J. Verdisco, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of General Counsel I

         .Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh                           Regulation                                  {

and Jacobe U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Schanin Building l Washington, D. C. 20545 e 815 Connec'ticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006

                        ~                                      Andrew F. Popper, Esq.                      )

Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing - Regulation j Board Panel .v: U.' S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ' Washington, D. C. 20545 { Washington, D. C. 20545 l

                      .                                                                                    \

J

                               -e                                                                          l 4
                               \\

Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. Leslio Henry, Esq. Steven Charno, Esq. - Ful'1cr, Henry, Hodge & Snyder

         . Antitrust Division                      300 Madison Avenue Department of Justice                   Toledo, Ohio 43604 Washington, D. C.'20530 Thomas A. Kayuha, Esq.

Melvin G. Berger, Esq. Ohio Edison Company Antitr 't Division 47 North Maja Street Depart. nt of Justice Akron, Ohio 44308 Washington, D. C. 20530 " Thomas J. Munsch, Esq. Reuben Goldberg, Esq. General Attorney David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. Duquesne Light Company 1700 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 435 Sixth Avenue Washington, D. C. 20006 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Frank R. Clokey, Esq. David Olds, Esq. Special Assistant Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay

• Attorney General Union Trust Building ,

Room 219 Box 2009 Towne House Apartments Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 " John Lansdale, Esq. Mr. Raymond Kudukis Cox, Langford & Brown Director"of Utilities 21 Dupont Circic , N.'.i. City or Clevelano Washington, D. C. 20036 1201 Lakeside Avenue ,

       ,      Cleveland, Ohio 44114                  .Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.

Jon T. Brown, Esq. Herbert R. Whiting, Director Duncan, Brown & Palmer Robert D. Hart,-Esq.

• 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W.

Department of Law Washington, D. C. 20006

            .1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 34114                   Dwight C. Pettay, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General John C. Engle, President Chief, Antitrust Section AMP-0, Inc. 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor Municipal Building Columbus, Ohio 43215 20 High Street < Hamilton,.. Ohio 45012 Deborah Powell Highsmith, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Antitrust Section Managing Attorney 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor The Cleveland Electric Columbus,. Ohio 43215 Illuminating Company 55 Public Square- Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.

           . Cleveland, Ohio 44101                   ' Assistant Attorney General
             -                                       Environmental Law Section 361 East Broad Street, 8th Floor Co,1umbus, Ohio 43215 o      ' O g              .         .
                                                                            .             - .}}