ML19322C000

Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time within Which to Object to Document Request & Interrogatories.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19322C000
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	10/02/1972
From:	Stover D PIEDMONT CITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, TALLY, TALLY & BOUKNIGHT
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7912200717
Download: ML19322C000 (6)

Text

-

e/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In thc Macter of )

}

DUK2 PCWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A

) 50-287A -

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

INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO OBJECT TO DOCUMENT REQUEST AND INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Section 2.711 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the Cities of High Point, et al., hereinafter referred to as "Cicies" or "Intervenors", move the Atomi, Safety and Licens-ing Board (" Board") for an order extending the time to file objec-tions or motions to quash the discovery request served upon by Applicant on 13 September 1972'. Intervenors request an extension of tw a weeks. from the present due date of 4 October 1972 to 18 October 1972.

The document request and interrogatories served by Appli-I cant on Intervenors raise a number of questions which will require 1 more time for their solution than is presently provided for., , l l

1. The request served by Applicant is quite as voluminous as the Joint Document Request served on Applicant by the Department of Justice, the AEC Staff, and Intervenors. It covers, as to the grear majority of questions, the same twe'lse-year time span as the request directed to Applicant, and would require the production of

• / 7..e Board's Prehearing Order of 7 September 1972 directed that each side file its objections to the other's discovery requests within 21 days after service. The Order also allows to exten-sions of such time. limit for good cause shown. The Applicant i Duke Power Company has already filed a motion requesting such )

an exrension of two weeks, which Intervenors do not oppose.

1912200m)

4 Counsel for both sides have already had i

thousands of documents.

one meeting, (on 26 September 1972) at which time tentative progress How-was made toward limiting the scope of Applicant's questions.

ever, it is still necessary both to have further meetings of this kind and, on Intervenors' part, to determine the availability of many of the categories of information sought by Applicant.

2. Various questions put to Intervenors by Applicant appear a

to be non-germane or otherwise subject to objection on grounds other than the burden of physically producing the information called for.

Again, counsel will require further conferences to attempt to limit l

or alter these questions to obviate the objection. If such efforts are unsuccessful, Intervenors' counsel will require additional time to prepare the legal analysis under:.ying any objections or motions to quash they may have to file, or in the alternative to prepare stipulations to be offered as a substitute for the answering of the objectionable questions .

3. As stated above, Applicant has moved for a two-week We extension of the time available to it for filing of objections.

believe that, if the Board grants that extension, it would be only fair to afford Intervenors a corresponding opportunity to deal i

1 There are a number of cases where Applicant has requested records

• / which would be available if the respondent were a public utility subject to the various reporting requirements incumbent on Duke or similar companies, but which are not required to be maintained by municipally-owned public utilities such as Cities. In such cases, it will have to be determined between counsel what if any estimated data are desired, and by Intervenors' counsel, their technical consultants, and the governments of the nine Cities whether such estimates can be made.

adequately with the problems presented by Applicant's very compre-hensive discovery request.

We are authorized by counsel for all other parties to state that they have no objection to the granting of this motion. We submit further that the extension herein requested will contribute to the just and expditious conduct of the proceeding and that the matters discussed above constitute good cause for granting it.

WHEREFORE, Intervenors request that the time limit for fil-ing their objections to Applicant's Document Request and Interroga-tories be extended to 18 October, 1972.

Respectfully submitted, Tally, Tally & Bouknight Attorneys for Intervenors 2 October 1972 6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) .

)

) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY 50-287A

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

McGuire Units 1 & 2) )

AFFIDAVIT District of Columbia ) ss:

et al.,

I am counsel for the Cities of High Point, Intervenors in the above-captioned proceeding. I have read the Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time, dated 2 October 1972, filed in that proceeding, and am familiar with the facts therein set forth. All such facts are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

. [

David F. Stover

/

Subscribed and sworn to before me this chh day of October, J im '-

b. ,,

FNotary Pu lic' My Commission expires: S/y /%

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

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

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by de-posit in the United States Mail, first class or air mail.

Walter W. K. Dennett, Esquire Mr. Carl Horn, Jr., President Post Office Box 185 Duke Power Company Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W. George A. Avery, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20016 Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 19th Street, N.W.

John B. Farmakides, Esquire Washidgton, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing i Board Panel Troy B. Conner, Esquire l U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Reid & Priest i Washington, D.C. 20545 1701 K Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20006 l Atomic Safety and Licensing {

Board Panel Joseph Rutbera, Esquire  !

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire 1 Washington, D.C. 20545 Antitrust Counsel for AEC -

Regulatory Staff Abraham Braitman, Esquire U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Special Assistant for Washington, D.C. 20545  !

Antitrust Matters i Office of Antitrust and Mr. Frank W. Karas i Indemnity Chief, Public Proceedings Branch l U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of the Secretary of Washington, D.C. 20545 the Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission I Washington, D.C. 20545 l

l i

. l

V .-

Joseph Saunders, Esquire U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20530 William T. Clabault, Esquire David A. Leckie, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section ,

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C.

Wallace Edward Brand, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C. 20044 Washington, D.C., this 2nd day / /ZN L -

of October, 1972.

Tally, Tally & Bouknight Attorneys for Intervenors 1

i

)

. . ,_