ML19322B964
| ML19322B964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1972 |
| From: | Rutberg J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Bennett W K, Farmakides J, Tubridy J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912191049 | |
| Download: ML19322B964 (3) | |
Text
,
MG8 WZ g_,,,,e
/H TRUST Walter W. K. Bennett, Esq.
John B. Farmakides, 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
~)
- 3~
6ent1emen:
D On July 26, 1972 Counsel for the applicant, M$ ment of Jus ce, Atomic Energy Cocaission 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 Prehearing Con-farence, issued on July 14,1972.
Parties discussed all of the matters raised by the Notice and Order and reached 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 theory is based until discovery is completed.
2.
With respect to paragraph B. of the P ar, the parties and the petitioner to intervene have reached the following egreements:
a.
Settlement:
Counsel for the applicant and counsel fbr the proposed intervenors agreed to meet with the applicant and discuss the prospects of settlement and to keep the Department of Justice and the AEC staffs advised.
)k b.
Stipulation:
e The parties agreed to stipulate wherever possible.
Counsel for the applicant indicated that it would stipulate to all of applicant's forms on OGC OGC omer,
summe >4.yogler:rs J_Rutberg 8/8/72
, 8/ /72 om,
Fons AEC. Sis (Rev. 9 53) ABCM 0240
- v. s. oovranuarr enorrneo orru'E : 1,1, o - eos-see
- 9121910pc/,g
file with the Federal Power Comission, the North Carolina and South Carolina P.egulatory Comissions.
Applicant's counsel will stipulate to the authenticity of documents in its files and will consider other requests to stipulate on the merits and relevancy of the specific request.
3.
Interventicn. There would be no objection to the petition to intervene for antitrust purposes.
4.
Issues:
The parties agreed to attempt to present the Board a joint statement of the issues of facts and law.
Each party agreed that this should be accomplished as soon as possible. The applicant's counsel agreed to initiste this procedure and to present its draft of the issues of facts and law +4 the other parties and the aroposed intervenon in seven days. The proposed intervenors will prepare and integrate its draft of the issues of facts and law dithin seven days of the receipt of the applicant's draft nd 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. All parties reserve the right to a final review of the joint staterunt before its submission to the Board.
h b
5.
Dis covery_:
All parties agreed that extensive document discovery, interrogatories and depositions would be required.
Due to the extensive nature of the discovery 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 problens referred to the Board. The applicant's counsel requested that the intervenors, the Department of Justice and the Atonic Energy Comission present one joint request for document discovery similar to the procedure being followed in the Consumen Pcwer Company case. This procedure was agreed to by all of the parties. Therefore, the parties agreed to make every effort to be as inclusive as possible in their first document request so that if a seccnd rcund of docurent discovery becomes mandatory, it will be as brief as possible. Tne croposed intervenors indicated that they need extensive discovery along the lines they had requested in FPC Docket E75-57 plus additional information.
The proposed intervenors also requested open access to the applicant's files to conduct the document search. This aporoach was rejected by applicant's counsel. However, applicant's counsel indicated that requested documents would be made available when the request was confined to soecified categories and the materiality and relevancy of the requested documents have been established. The proposed intervenors agreed to initiate the discovery procedure in this matter by serving the parties with a copy of that portion of the record in FPC Docket E75-57 that contains the intervenor's discovery request and a list of any addition.a1 documents needed within two weeks.
Mr. 3 rand stated that upon receipt of the discovery request from the emcr >
I sumwc >
I DATE >
..................l.
Fom AEC-He (Rev.9 33) AEO4 0240 e, s. covusutzt remtmc orrier s teto o. 4os.see
3-1 proposed intervenors, he would be willing to coordinate with the Atomic Energy Comission and prepare a joint discovery request 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 Septeder 6,1972.
6.
Miscellaneous:
The Department of Justice requested that a courtesy copy of all docu-ments 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 Mr. William H. Grigg, Vice President and General Counsel, Duke Power Company, P. O. Box 2178, Charlotte, tiorth Carolina 28201, be served with a copy of all documents circulated in this matter.
The attomeys 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 proposed intervenors; Wallace E. Brand, Attorney, Department of Justice; Jcseph Rutbera and 3enjamin H. Vogler, Attomeys, Atomic Energy Commission.
Sincerely,
Joseph Rutberg i
Antitrust Counsel for
/
AEC Regulatory Staff cc: William Warfield Ross (2)
Wallace E. Brand (2)
J. A. Bouknight, Jr. &
J. O. Tally, Jr. (2) bec:
B. Vogler, CGC (2)
OGC Reading File ntra ile D
mia,
su m-,
om,
1 Form AEC-Ste Bev 9-53) AECM 0240
- c. A covrasum7 PnInT::sc orrrer : t,to o. eos.34e