ML19322B948
| ML19322B948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1972 |
| From: | Vogler B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Bennett W K, Farmakides J, Tubrity J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912191033 | |
| Download: ML19322B948 (4) | |
Text
m I
o UNITED STATES
/
O
/ O,'.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 1 *4 l'
was.cwaTon, o.c.
os4s x
i t
Walter W. K. Bennett, Esq.
John B. Fannakides, Esq.
P. O. Box 185 Atomic Safety and Licensing Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20545 4100 Cathedral Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20016 In the Matter of Duke Power Company Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3, and McGuire Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A, 50-287A, 50-369A, 50-370A Gentlemen:
On July 26, 1972 Counsel for the applicant, Department of Justice, Atomic Energy Commission and the proposed intervenors met in conference at the office of Wallace E. Brand, Department of Justice, and discussed the issues and related matters set forth in the Notice and Order for Pre-hearing Conference, issued on July 14,1972.
Parties discussed all of the matters raised by the Notice and Order and re ched the following conclusions:
1.
With respect to paragraph A.(1) and (2) of the Order, the parties and the petitioner to intervene believe.that the answer and replies to the notice will set forth the legal theory concerning the question as to whether the issuance'of the permit applied for would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. But the parties and the petitioner to intervene are not able to present detailed facts on which such legal useory is based until discovery is completed.
J 2.
With respect to paragraph B. of the Order, the parties and the 1
petitioner to Intervene have reached the following agreements:
i i
I 79121910 3 }
l
m o.
<~
~ a.
Settlement:
Counsel for the applicant and counsel for the proposed inter-venors agreed to meet with the applicant and discuss the pmspects of i
settlement and to keep the Department of Justice and the AEC staffs advised.
b.
Stipulation:
The parties agreed to stipulate wherever possible. Counsel for the applicant indicated that it would stipulate to all forms on file with the Federal Power Comission, the North Carolina and South Camlina Regulatory Commissions, but would reserve judgment on documents subject to inference or interpretation and consider stipulating to those documents at a later time.
3.
Intervention. There would be no objection to the petition to intervene.
4.
Issues:
The parties agreed to present the Board a joint statement of face.s and issues involved.
Each party agreed that this should be accomplished as soon as possible. The applicant's counsel agreed to initiate this procedure and to present its draft of facts and issues to the other parties and the proposed intervenors in seven days. The proposed intervenors will prepare and integrate its draft of facts and issues within seven days of the receipt i
of the applicant's draft and furnish it to the parties, and the Department of Justice and the AEC staffs will furnish the Board with a joint statement representing the positions of all the parties.
5.
Discovery:
All parties agreed that extensive discovery, interrogatories and 4
depositions would be required.
Due to the extensive nature of the discovery
-,_.,,,.,,,y,-
,,,,,.,,.~w
m o
r
. it is expected that discovery will consist of two rounds.
Discovery requests are to be in writing and conducted on an informal basis with specific discovery problems referred to the, Board. The applicant's counsel requested that the intervenors, the Department of Justice and the Atomic Energy Commission present one joint request for discovery similar to the procedure being followed in the Consumers Power Company case. This pro-cedure was agreed to by all of the parties. The proposed intervenors indicated that they need extensive discovery along the lines they had requested in FPC Docket No. E75-57. The proposed intervenor also requested open access to the applicant's files.
This approach was rejected by Mr. Ross, but he indicated that specific requested files would be made available voluntarily if deemed relevant. The proposed intervenors agreed to initiate the discovery procedure in this matter by serving the parties with a copy of that portion of the transcript in FPC Docket E75-57 that contains the intervenor's discovery request and a list of any additional documents needed.
Mr. Brand stated that upon receipt of the discovery request from the proposed intervenors, he and the Atomic Energy Commission would integrate their discovery requests for presentation to the applicant.
All the parties hoped that the joint discovery request could be presented to the applicant before the prehearing conference on September 6,1972.
6.
Miscellaneous :
The Department of Justice requested that a courtesy copy of all documents filed in this matter be sent to P. O. Box 7513, Washington, D. C.
20044, because of problems with mail delivery. The applicant requested that
e m
a l
~
Mr. William H. Grigg, Vice President and General Counsel, Duke Power Co.,
P. O. Box 2178, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201, be served with a copy of all documents circulated in this matter.
The attorneys present at the meeting were: William Warfield Ross,
Keith S. Watson, Toni K. Golden, Counsel for the applicant; J. O. Tally, J. A. Bouknight and David F. Stover, Counsel for the pmposed intervenors; Wallace E. Brand, Attorney, Department of Justice; Joseph Rutberg and Benjamin H. Vogler, Attorneys, Atomic Energy Commission.
Sincerely, Benjamin H. Vogler Assistant Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff cc: William Warfield Ross (2)
Wallace E. Brand (2) i J. A. Bouknight, Jr. &
J. O. Tally, Jr.
(2) bec: b. Vogler, OGC (2)
OGC Reading Files OGC Gmtn Files REG Central Files l
y r-