ML19317E233
| ML19317E233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1972 |
| From: | Brand W, Clabault W, Leckie D JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912170477 | |
| Download: ML19317E233 (5) | |
Text
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE j
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-269A. 50-270A
)
50-287A (0conee Units 1, 2, and 3
)
50-369AT 50-370A EbGuire Units 1 and 2)
)
ANSWER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO MarIONS OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, MD SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY The Department of Justice hereby answers the Motions of Virginia Electric and Power Company (December 8,1972),
Carolina Pcwer & Light Company (December 12, 19 72), and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (December 12, 1972) relating to Subpoenas Duces Tecum issued upon its Application of November 16, 1972, in the above-captioned proceeding.
Virginia Electric and Power Company moved for an exten-sion of time until January 15, 1973, within which to.rcspond or file a motion to limit or quash the subpoena.
Carolina Power & Light Company moved to extend to February 1, 1973, the time in which it may move, appear, or otherwise respond to the subpoena.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company moved to quash the subpoena as unreasonably burdensome because of the short time specified for compliance and, alternativ'ely, that it be given sixty days frem December 15, 1972, in which to make further response.
_7912170
m As stated in the Application, the Department seeks to ascertain the existence or lack of bulk power supply coordinat-ing alternatives or sources of bulk power supply for electric utility systems in the Piedmont Carolinas in order to measure the extent or limits of monopoly power that may be possessed by Applicant Duke Power Company--a relevant matter in contro-versy in this proceeding.
The subpoenas are narrowly directdd to specific categories of documents, seek only relevant infor-mation and should not require either a wide-ranging file search or production of a tremendous volume of paper.
The 1940-to-date period was selected because we anticipate relatively few reportable episodes of actual or potential bulk power supply competition.
Bearing this out, compliance with very similar subpoenas issued to major electric utilities in the Consumers Power proceeding, AEC Docket Nos. 50-329A and 330A (covering the same time period, relating to another part of the United States), has been accomplished without apparent difficulty or production of a mass of documents.
The Department has no objection to a reasonable' extension of time for compliance with these subpoenas duces tecum--
particularly in view of the presently anticipated June 1, 1973, date for Applicant's completion of document production under the First Joint Request and its effect on the schedule
'for this proceeding.
We would have agreed readily to such an extension if ' asked.
With the granting of said^ reasonable extension of' time for compliance, the Motion to Quash of i
2 t
l l
4 e
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company would become moot.
We do not believe, however, that the moving parties here should be permitted extended time in order to first search their files and then determine whether or not to comply, or-what objections to make, or what kinds of documents to with-hold.
Such decisions should be made and any objections voiced at or before the time specified for compliance with the subpoena, according to Section 2.720(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. Part 2 (1972).
Here, considering the dates of actual service of the subpoenas, Virginia Electric and Power Company and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company initially had fourteen working days and Carolina Power &
Light Company had ten work days to make timely legal objections.
The pendency of the present motions has given these companies further time to formulate such objections.
The Department of Justice therefora requests that the Board limit any extension of time for objections to compliance with our subpoenas duces tecum to a period of five working days after it rules on these Motions.
Respectfully submitted, bwOE &&i
.~.
a DAVID A. LECKIE WALLACE E. BRAND WILLIAM T. CLABAULT Attorneys, Antitrust Division Department of Justice i
December 20, 1972 Washington, D. C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSICN In the Matter of
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A
)
50-287A (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3
)
50-369A, 50-370A McGuire Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of ANSWER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO MOTIONS OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC
& GAS COMPANY, dated December 20, 1972, in the above captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 20th day of December, 1972:
Ecnorable' Walter W. K.'Bennett William Warfield Ross, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and George A. Avery, Esquire Licensing Board Keith Watson, Esquire Post Office Box 185 Toni K. Golden, Esquire Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Honorable Joseph F. Tubridy Washington, D. C. 20036 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016 W. L. Porter, Esquire Duke Power Ccapany Honorable John B. Farmakides 422 South Church Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Conmiission J. O. Tally, Jr., Esquire Washington, D. C.
20545 J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esquire Tally, Tally & Bouknight Ccrl Horn, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1660 President, Duke Power Company Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28200 Troy B. Conner, Esquire Reid & Priest William H. Grigg, Esquire 1701 K Street, N.W.
.Vice President and General Washington, D. C.
20006 Counsel Duke Power Company-Joseph Rutberg, Esquire 422 South Church Street Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Antitrust Counsel for AEC r
Regulatory 3taff U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 g
e,-
a,p-. -,. -
Mr. Abraham Braitman, Chief Chairman, Atomic Safety and Office of Antitrust and Licensing Appeals Board Indemnity U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 John H. Shenefield, Esquire David Stover, Esquire Hunton, Williams Gay & Gibson Tally, Tally & Bouknight Post Office Box 1535 429 N Street, S.W.
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D. C.
20024 Charles D. Barham, Jr., Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Associate General Counsel Board Panel Carolina Power & Light Company U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Post Office Box 1551 ilashington, D. C.
20545 Raleigh. North Carolina 27602 Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Mr. George H. Fischer Public Proceedings Branch Vice President and General Counsel Office of the Secretary of South Carolina Electric & Gas the Commission Company U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 328 Main Street Washington, D. C.
20545 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
,.e "7
,.-f L /,
., s.
n.~,.-.,
DAVID A. LECKIE Attorney, Antitrus t Division Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20530 e
t