ML19322B993

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicants Answer to Motion of Intervenors to Resettle 721127 Prehearing Order.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19322B993
Person / Time
Site: Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  
Issue date: 12/05/1972
From: Avery G, Ross W
DUKE POWER CO., WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
To:
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7912200709
Download: ML19322B993 (6)


Text

/4/ / '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

DUKE PONER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A,

)

50-287A, 50-369A, (Oconee Units 1, 2& 3

)

and 50-370A McGuire Units 1 & 2)

)

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION OF INTERVENORS TO RESETTLE PREHEARING ORDER OF NOVEMBER 27,1972 On November 27, 1972, the Board issued a Prehearing Order recording the disposition of discovery objections made by the Board at a prehearing conference held on November 17, 1972.

The Order provided the parties with an opportunity to move for resettlement of its provisions.

Intervenors have filed a motion in that regard to which Applicant, Duke Power Company, herewith 1/

replies.-

While Applicant does not disagree wish the basic thrust of the modificarions sought by the intervenors, we believe tha t the rulings of the Board in regard to Joint Request Items 6(p) and 37 were more narrow than intervenors ' resettlement pro-posal would suggest.

_1/

Applicant also filed a motion seeking certai.i revisions on Decerier 4, 1972.

This motion dealt with provisions other than those addressed by intervenors' motion.

,7 912 20 0;bo9

. 1.

Recuest Item 6(p) - The Green River Proceeding As indicated during the oral argument, the Board agreed that Applicant need produce only those documents "which express the intent for which (Applicant's] participation before the FPC with regard to the Green River Project was undertaken."

(Tr. 247)

If, as suggested by intervenors, the Board's Order stated only that Applicant's objection to Joint Request Item 6 (p) was overruled, this limitation would not be reflected.

2.

Request Item 37 - Fuel Adjustment Clause Proceeding Joint Request Item 37, while specifically directed to FPC Docket No. E-7720, is similar to Item 4 (g) which was l

i directed generally to rate changes sought by Applitant.

By j

agreement between the parties, request 4 (g) was modified as follows:

Applicant agreed "'not to produce documents relating to 1, the intent for which rate levels or designs were initiated or maintained or 2, the contemplated effect of those

{

designs'"

(Tr. 232).

At the prehearing conference, counsel for intervenors narrowed

)

the scope of Item 37 so. that it, like Item 4 (g), was directed i

?

i

o to documents concerning the intent or contemplated effect of the FPC fuel adjus tment clause f'iling.

(Tr. 230-31)

As so modified, this request was acceptable to Applicant and Applicant agreed to respond thereto.

(Tr. 232)

Accord-ingly, the Board stated that this objection was "moom."

(

)

(T r. 232)

Intervenors suggest that the Board simply 1,ndicate i

i that Applicant's objection to Item 37 is moot.

Applicant respectfully suggests that the order should indicate that the original request was modified and, for that reason, the objection is moot.

Accordingly, Applicant requests that paragraph B (h) ( 8) of the Board's Prehearing Order Number Two be modi-fied as follows:

(h)

"8.

Pending Proceedings Before F.P.C. "

Applicant's objection to joint request 6(p) is sustained except that Applicant shall produce documents which express the intent for which it participated before the FPC in Docket No. 2700, regarding the Green River project.

Intervenors have limited joint request 37 to those documents which reflect the intent for which applicant initiated or

"D

. maintained FPC Docket No. E-7720 or the contemplated effect of the rate adjust-ment sought in that proceeding.

Applicant has agreed to respond to this request as modified.

Accordingly, the 6bjection to Item 37 is moot.

Respectfully submitted,

/l lid

) lh Mi. Wfrfiet).d Ro5s ' '

1 M

N Gsorge' A. Avery

/

s.' /

r' / l j' e

: l u,

i../

Keith S. Watson j

J t

.A h /.d b

^-

,g, Toni K.

Golden December 5, 1972 w

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

50-287A, 50-369A (Oconee Units 1, 2& 3) 50-370A McGuire Units 1& 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MOTION OF INTERVENORS TO RESETTLE PREHEARING ORDER OF NOV-EMBER 27, 1972, dated December 3, 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 5th day of December, 1972:

\\

l Walter W.

K.

Bennett, Esquire J.

O.

Tally, Jr., Esquire l

P.

O.

Box 185 P. O.

Drawer 1660 Pinehurs t, North Carolina 28374 Fayetteville, N.

Carolina 28302 Joseph F.

Tubri dy, Esquire Troy B. Connor, Esquire 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.

W.

Reid & Priest Washington, D.

C.

20016 1701 K Street, N. W.

Washington, D.

C.

20006 John B.

Farmakides, Esquire Atomic Safety and Joseph Rutberg, Esquire i

Licensing Board Panel Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Counsel for Washington, D.

C.

20545 AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Washington, D.

C.

20545 Licensing Board Panel Atomic Energy Commission Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D.

C.

20545 Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esquire of the Commission Special Assis tant for Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Matters Washington, D.

C.

20545 Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Joseph Saunders, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D.

C.

20545 Department of Jus tice Washington, D.

C.

20530

. 1 l

William T. Clabault, Esquire J.

A.

Bouknight, Jr., Esquire David A.

Leckie, Esquire David F. Stover, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Tally, Tally & Bouknight Department of Justice Suite 311 P. O. Box 7513 429 N Street, S. W.

Washington, D.

C.

20044 Washington, D.

C.

20024 Wallace E. Brand, Esquire i

Antitrust Public Counsel Section Department of Justice P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D.

C.

20044

~

Wald, Harkrader & Ross By:

Attorneys for Duke Power Company 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 1

4 e

I i

-.,4

- -,.,