ML19329E980
| ML19329E980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1973 |
| From: | Brand W, Clabault W, Leckie D JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006190758 | |
| Download: ML19329E980 (6) | |
Text
u;'
/ /9/73 IHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES U11ITED STATE 3 0F &2RICA -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC EKERGY COMIISSION In the Matter of
)
CONSU!ERS POWER COMP NY Docket Mos. 50-329A 50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ANSWER OF THE DEPARTMEtC OF JUSTICE TO APPLICANT 'S MOTION FOR ORDER MODIFYI"G PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE The Department of Justice hereby answers Applicant Consumers Power Company's Motion for Order Modifying Procedural Schedule filed in this proceeding on December 22, 1972 At the second prehecring conference on October 25, Appli-cant st:ated that it "should be able to complete the full company file scarch in about two months" and that the joint discovercrs "would have essentially all of [ Applicant's]
documents by the end of (1972]." Transcript, p. 118.
Accord-ingly, we were astonished to learn Applicant now represents that documentary production frcm its central office alone r
will r2 quire until February 16, 1973, and that the total production originally called for, including a search of Appli-l cant's field offices, "cannot possibly be completed any earlier t'aan May 1, 19 73. "
Motion, pp. 1-2.
Based upon our e::perience with the tir.e required for documentary production of similar scope by other electric utilities under the civil investigative demcad procedure, 8006190 Q S 8
15 U.S.C. 531311-1314, no question seriously <:hether Applicant might not have far more expeditiously complied with the first joint request for documents in this proceeding.
- Itowever, our lack of specific knowledge concerning Applicant's files, the conduct of its document search and the complications that might possibly arisc were more people employed in making the search leaves us unable effectively to challenge Applicant's present representation of the need for additional time.
Further, we are unable to accede at this time to exclusion
^
of Applicant's field offices from the file search.
Applicant, quito understandably, cannot assure us that its field offices do not possess relevant documents not duplicative of those in the central office, and we believe the field offices may well have many such relevant documents--particularly those documents ralating to preliminary negotiations, cperating-level discus-sions and day-to-day contacts with competing small electric utility systems.
To exclude the field office files from our j
discovery-- especially, nou vhen Applicant has already had over five nonths to scarch them--would certainly deprive us of the thorough compliance to which Applicant agrecs we are cutitled.
Motion, p. 3. -
In view of our inability to verify Applicant's expressed need for more time, and our desire that the field office scarch not be ccmpromised, ne are reluctantly forced to accept Applicant's proposed dates of February 16, 1973, for completc production of the central office documents and May 1,1973, 2
1, for total produccion under the first joint request, including all relevant field office documents, Ucre the anticrust hear-ing on this construction permit application not controlled as it is by the " grandfather" provision of Section 105c(8) of the Atomic Energy Act, so that further delay of the hearing might delay co=mencement of construction of the Midland Plant and, as a result, delay also the macting of Michigan's cicctric
, power needs, the Department could not, of courso, agree to Applicant's requested delay.
Accordingly, for the. reasons indicated, the Department of Justice acquiescos in the schedule now proposed by Applicant and respectfully requests that the Board formally order Applicant to prcduccithe requested documents in accordance with that schedule, with substantial interim production from now until February 16 and between February 16 and May 1.
Acceptance of these datos for compliance would require modification of other procedural dates previously set by the Board.
The Department of Justice accordingly proposes.that the time frames scheduled for further proceeditygs'/
in anticipa-
./
tion of Applicant's finishing joint requesp/ document pr6d ction by December 31, 1972, be retained, using ins tead, however, the May 1,1973, final production date as the starting point.
The schedule as thus revised uould be (1) June 15 :
completion of all discovery; (2) July 9:
final prehearing conference /sub-mission of documentary evidence; (3) Auguet 6 :
pretrial briefs
6 g.
in the Beard's hands; and (4) August 13:
cotznenecment of hearing.
The Department believes that this procedural schedule will provide the necessary time for our case prepara-tion following Applicant's Fay 1,1973, completion of all joint request document production.
Respectfully submitted,
.s
,f r,
' f.
I
((/J f / /_. '-
WALLACE E. BRAND DAVID A. LECKIE ITILLIAM T. CLABAULT Attorneys, Antitrust Division
-Department of Justice January 8,1973 Washington, D. C.
4
(
,.*W*
__,a*
f l
/
7 p
<+
mee-+-
i e
t b
e e
rnn s
nv,..
e-,
e e,-
,re
UNITED STATES OF. A12RICA -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COINISSION In the Matter of
)
~
CONSUL 2RS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329A 50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of ANSWER OF THE DEPART 32Nf 0F JUSTICE TO APPLICA1;T 'S MGrION FOR ORDER MODIFYING PRCCEDURAL SCHEDULE, dated January 8,1973, in the above captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 8th day of January, 1973:
Honorable"Jerome'Garfinkel Atomic Safety and Licensing
~
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board Panci Licensing Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S.. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Mcnorable Hugh K. Clark Licensing Appeals Board Post Office Box 127A U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Washington, D. C.
20545 Honorable J. Venn Leeds', Jr.
Mr. Abraham Braitman, Chief Post Office Box 941 office of Antitrust and Indemnity Heuston, Texas 77001 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 William Warfield Ross, Esquire Keith S. Watson, Esquire Harold P. Graves, Esquire Wald, Harkrader & Ross Vice President and. General Counsel 1320 Nineteenth Street, N,U.
Consumers Power Company Washington, D. C.
20036 212 West Hichigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Honorable Frank Kelly t.ttorney General Joseph Rutherg, Esquire State of Michigan Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Lansing, Michigan 48913 Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff James F. Fairmcn,-Esquire U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 2600 Virginia.iveauc, ".W.
Uashington, D.
C.'
20545 Wcshington, D. C.
20037
s i
1:r. Frank i,1. Y,aras, Chie f Public Proceedings Branch-
~
Office of the Secretary of the Com:nission U. S. Atomic Energy Cormaission Washington, D. C.
20545 t
/
b-:i~u:
. '.T *.:.....cl;.
David A. Leckie Attorney, Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington,I;. C.
20530 4
I i
i me -
b
.