|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212D1771999-09-20020 September 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50,App A,General Design Criterion 57 Re Isolation of Main Steam Branch Lines Penetrating Containment ML20211A1801999-08-16016 August 1999 Forwards Comments on Draft Geig Re NUREG-1437 ML20205M8401999-04-15015 April 1999 Memorandum & Order.* Orders That Petitioner Appeal of Board Ruling Be Denied.Commission Affirms LBP-98-33 in Entirety. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990415 ML20199K8231999-01-25025 January 1999 NRC Brief in Opposition to Appeal of Nb Williams,Wb Clay, Ws Lesan & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Licensing Board Decision in LBP-98-33 Should Be Affirmed.With Certificate of Svc ML20199K8101999-01-25025 January 1999 Duke Energy Corp Brief in Opposition to Appeal of Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Informs That Licensing Board Decision in LBP-98-33 Should Be Affirmed.With Certificate of Svc ML20199D7021999-01-14014 January 1999 Notice of Appeal.* Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Files Notice of Appeal to Commission for Review of ASLB 981230 Memorandum & Order Denying Petitioner Petition for Leave to Intervene ML20199D7241999-01-14014 January 1999 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Brief in Support of Appeal of Order Denying Intervention Petition & Dismissing Proceeding.* Commission Should Grant Petition for Review & Remand ASLB Memorandum & Order ML20198K9911998-12-29029 December 1998 Memorandum & Order (Denying Petition to Intervene).* Denies Petitioners Requests for Intervention Because Proffered Contentions Failed to Meet Requirements for Admissability. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 981230 ML20198D2601998-12-22022 December 1998 NRC Staff Response to Petitioners New Info.* Informs That Info Provided by Petitioners Not New & Does Not Support Proposed Contentions.Recommends Proposed Contentions Be Dismissed & Proceeding Terminated.With Certificate of Svc ML20198D2191998-12-21021 December 1998 Duke Energy Corp Response to New Info Submitted by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition in Support of Processed Contentions.* Petitioner Submittal of New Info Should Be Stricken for Procedural Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20197J9201998-12-14014 December 1998 Order (Requests by Staff & Applicant to File Responses). Motions of 981211 Re Applicant & Staff Request for Leave to Respond to Petitioner Filing of 981209 Granted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981214 ML20197J9441998-12-11011 December 1998 NRC Staff Motion for Leave to Respond to Petitioner Filing.* Staff Requests Leave from Board to Respond to Info.Staff Will File Response within 3 Days After Board Order Issued,If Board Grants Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20197K1131998-12-11011 December 1998 Duke Energy Corp Motion for Leave to Respond to New Info Submitted by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Requests Leave to Respond to Petitioners New Info Based on Listed Grounds.With Certificate of Svc ML20196J9051998-12-0909 December 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Licensing Board Order Requesting Info Concerning high-level Radioactive Waste Transportation Rulemaking.* Util Requests That Board Certify Question Immediately.With Certificate of Svc ML20197J8691998-12-0909 December 1998 Petitioners Response to ASLB Request for Addl Info & New Info for ASLB to Consider with Petitioners First Suppl Filing.* Response Filed on Behalf of Ws Lesan,B Clay, B Williams & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition ML20196E0091998-12-0202 December 1998 NRC Staff Response to Order Requesting Information.* in Staff View,Impacts of Transportation of HLW Not Appropriate Issue for Litigation in This Proceeding ML20196E0191998-11-30030 November 1998 Affidavit.* Affidavit of Dp Cleary in Response to Licensing Board Questions Re Environ Impacts of Transportation of High Level Waste.With Certificate of Svc ML20195G5621998-11-19019 November 1998 Order (Requesting Addl Info from Staff).* Based on Directives in SRM M970612,staff Should Furnish Listed Info by 981202.Applicant & Petitioners Have Until 981209 to File Response.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981119 ML20195D5281998-11-16016 November 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Supplemental Petition to Intervene Filed by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition & Nb Williams,Wb Clay & Ws Lesan.* Request for Hearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20195C1601998-11-16016 November 1998 NRC Staff Response to Petitioner First Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Failed to Submit Admissible Contention.Iaw 10CFR2.714,petition Should Be Denied & Petitioners Request for Stay Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20155F5041998-10-30030 October 1998 Declaration of N Williams.* Declaration Expresses Concerns Re Duke Power Co Application for License Renewal for Oconee Nuclear Station,Units 1,2 & 3.Application Inadequate to Protect from Unacceptable Risk of Radiological Accidents ML20155F4951998-10-30030 October 1998 Declaration of Ws Lesan.* Declaration Expresses Concern Re Duke Power Co Application for Renewal of License for Oconee Nuclear Station,Units 1,2 & 3.Application Inadequate to Protect from Unacceptable Risk of Radiological Accidents ML20155F4791998-10-30030 October 1998 Petitioners First Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Request That Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Be Admitted as Party to These Proceedings & That Contentions Be Admitted for Adjudication.Unsigned Declaration for Wb Clay Encl ML20154H0771998-10-0909 October 1998 NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by N Williams,W Clay,Ws Lesan & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.Petition Should Be Denied for Listed Reasons. with Certificate of Svc ML20154A9371998-10-0101 October 1998 Order (Ruling on Request for Extension of Time).* Motion for 30-day Extension to File Amended Petition to Intervene Denied.Petitioners Have Addl 11 Days Until 981030 to File Suppl to Petition.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981002 ML20154A0401998-09-30030 September 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Request for Enlargement of Time of Chattooga River Watershed Coalition & Messrs, N Williams,W Clay & Ws Lesan.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied for Listed Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20153H4191998-09-29029 September 1998 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Enlargement of Time Filed by N Williams,W Clay,W Lesan & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Petitioners Failed to Establish Sufficient Cause for Delaying Submission of Amends.With Certificate of Svc ML20153F3131998-09-25025 September 1998 Notice of Appearance.* Informs That ML Zobler,Rm Weisman & Je Moore Will Enter Appearances in Proceeding Re Duke Energy Corp.With Certificate of Svc ML20153H0801998-09-22022 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium (Ki) as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Emergency Plan Calls for Evacuation of Population of EPZ in Timely Fashion to Prevent Exposure to Radiation from Oconee ML20151Z7051998-09-18018 September 1998 Memorandum & Order.* Applicant & Staff Shall File Respective Answers After Petitioners File Any Amend to Intervention Petition.Answers Shall Be Filed IAW Schedule as Submitted. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 980918 ML20151Z5681998-09-18018 September 1998 Notice of Reconstitution of Board.* Provides Notification of Reconstitution by Appointing P Cotter as Board Chairman in Place of T Moore in Duke Energy Corp Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980918 ML20151X9911998-09-16016 September 1998 Establishment of Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.* Board Being Established in Proceeding Re Application by DPC to Renew Operating Licenses for Units 1,2 & 3,per 10CFR54.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 980917 ML20210K7351997-08-18018 August 1997 Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective Immediately).Rj Nelson Prohibited for 1 Yr from Date of Order from Engaging in or Exercising Control Over Individuals Engaged in NRC-licensed Activities TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20044G7371993-05-25025 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rule ML20101R5931992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Opposes Rule ML20070E6291991-02-28028 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Regulations to Upgrade Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors ML20147F3231988-03-0303 March 1988 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $100,000 within 30 Days of Order Date ML20215D6741987-06-12012 June 1987 Suppl 4 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.Ucs Reply to Responses from NRC & B&W Owners Group.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214F4411987-04-24024 April 1987 Endorsements 35 & 36 to Maelu Policy MF-101 & Endorsements 43 & 44 Nelia Policy NF-248 ML20210C4191987-04-0606 April 1987 Principal Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Petition Should Be Denied ML20205F2911987-03-23023 March 1987 Suppl 3 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Requests That Listed Names Be Added to List in Paragraph 1 of 870210 Petition ML20210C2691987-03-0606 March 1987 Initial Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Request for Immediate Suspension Should Be Summarily Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211F5091987-02-20020 February 1987 Suppl 2 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Lists Names to Be Added to 870210 Petition & Corrects Address for Save Our State from Radwaste ML20210N4861987-02-10010 February 1987 Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W Co.* OLs & CPs for Facilities Should Be Suspended Until Listed NRC Actions Taken ML20203N3261986-09-19019 September 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $50,000 DD-85-19, Order Extending Time Until 860303 for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-19.Served on 8602201986-02-19019 February 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860303 for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-19.Served on 860220 ML20137L5911985-09-10010 September 1985 Response Opposing Jf Doherty 850611 Petition for Show Cause Order Requesting NRC to Institute Consolidated Proceeding Per 10CFR2.202.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133P9591985-07-26026 July 1985 Unexecuted Amend 8 to Indemnity Agreement B-83,modifying Definition of Radioactive Matl as Listed 1999-09-20
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20199D7021999-01-14014 January 1999 Notice of Appeal.* Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Files Notice of Appeal to Commission for Review of ASLB 981230 Memorandum & Order Denying Petitioner Petition for Leave to Intervene ML20198D2601998-12-22022 December 1998 NRC Staff Response to Petitioners New Info.* Informs That Info Provided by Petitioners Not New & Does Not Support Proposed Contentions.Recommends Proposed Contentions Be Dismissed & Proceeding Terminated.With Certificate of Svc ML20198D2191998-12-21021 December 1998 Duke Energy Corp Response to New Info Submitted by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition in Support of Processed Contentions.* Petitioner Submittal of New Info Should Be Stricken for Procedural Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20197J9441998-12-11011 December 1998 NRC Staff Motion for Leave to Respond to Petitioner Filing.* Staff Requests Leave from Board to Respond to Info.Staff Will File Response within 3 Days After Board Order Issued,If Board Grants Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20197K1131998-12-11011 December 1998 Duke Energy Corp Motion for Leave to Respond to New Info Submitted by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Requests Leave to Respond to Petitioners New Info Based on Listed Grounds.With Certificate of Svc ML20196J9051998-12-0909 December 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Licensing Board Order Requesting Info Concerning high-level Radioactive Waste Transportation Rulemaking.* Util Requests That Board Certify Question Immediately.With Certificate of Svc ML20197J8691998-12-0909 December 1998 Petitioners Response to ASLB Request for Addl Info & New Info for ASLB to Consider with Petitioners First Suppl Filing.* Response Filed on Behalf of Ws Lesan,B Clay, B Williams & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition ML20196E0091998-12-0202 December 1998 NRC Staff Response to Order Requesting Information.* in Staff View,Impacts of Transportation of HLW Not Appropriate Issue for Litigation in This Proceeding ML20195D5281998-11-16016 November 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Supplemental Petition to Intervene Filed by Chattooga River Watershed Coalition & Nb Williams,Wb Clay & Ws Lesan.* Request for Hearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Stated.With Certificate of Svc ML20195C1601998-11-16016 November 1998 NRC Staff Response to Petitioner First Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Failed to Submit Admissible Contention.Iaw 10CFR2.714,petition Should Be Denied & Petitioners Request for Stay Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20155F4791998-10-30030 October 1998 Petitioners First Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Request That Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Be Admitted as Party to These Proceedings & That Contentions Be Admitted for Adjudication.Unsigned Declaration for Wb Clay Encl ML20154A0401998-09-30030 September 1998 Response of Duke Energy Corp to Request for Enlargement of Time of Chattooga River Watershed Coalition & Messrs, N Williams,W Clay & Ws Lesan.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied for Listed Reasons.With Certificate of Svc ML20153H4191998-09-29029 September 1998 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Enlargement of Time Filed by N Williams,W Clay,W Lesan & Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.* Petitioners Failed to Establish Sufficient Cause for Delaying Submission of Amends.With Certificate of Svc ML20215D6741987-06-12012 June 1987 Suppl 4 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.Ucs Reply to Responses from NRC & B&W Owners Group.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20210C4191987-04-0606 April 1987 Principal Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Petition Should Be Denied ML20205F2911987-03-23023 March 1987 Suppl 3 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Requests That Listed Names Be Added to List in Paragraph 1 of 870210 Petition ML20210C2691987-03-0606 March 1987 Initial Response of B&W Owners Group to Petition Filed Under 10CFR2.206 by Ucs.* Request for Immediate Suspension Should Be Summarily Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20211F5091987-02-20020 February 1987 Suppl 2 to Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W.* Lists Names to Be Added to 870210 Petition & Corrects Address for Save Our State from Radwaste ML20210N4861987-02-10010 February 1987 Petition for Immediate Action to Relieve Undue Risk Posed by Nuclear Power Plants Designed by B&W Co.* OLs & CPs for Facilities Should Be Suspended Until Listed NRC Actions Taken ML20137L5911985-09-10010 September 1985 Response Opposing Jf Doherty 850611 Petition for Show Cause Order Requesting NRC to Institute Consolidated Proceeding Per 10CFR2.202.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A3531985-06-11011 June 1985 Petition/Request for Order to Show Cause Why Plants Should Not Be Shut Down Until CRD Mechanisms Inspected ML20004F4851981-06-16016 June 1981 Answer Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810606 Request to Stay ASLB 810419 & 0526 Decisions.Util Compliance W/Regulations Entitles ASLB to Find Facility Can Be Operated W/O Undue Risk to Public Health.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004F0131981-06-0808 June 1981 Exceptions to ASLB 810526 Supplemental Initial Decision & 790418 Initial Decision.Aslb Erred in Rejecting Jl Riley Evidence as Expert Witness & Decision That Riley Affidavit Not Responsive.Affidavit of Suc Encl ML20004D4161981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Commission Should Refer Decisions to ASLAP for Review.Potential for Irreparable Harm Due to Serve Hydrogen Explosion Is Great.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004D4231981-06-0505 June 1981 Request for Stay of Initial & Supplemental Initial Decisions.Aslb Lacks Basis for Finding Operation Would Not Expose Public to Undue Risk Since Board Did Not Determine Consequences of Shell Rupture.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20004C8571981-06-0101 June 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810515 Motion to Permit Appeal of ASLB 810506 Order Denying Util Request for 35% Power Operations.Party May Not Appeal Favorable Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343D3451981-04-17017 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant Request for Waiver,Exception or Exemption from 10CFR2,App B.No Special Circumstances Exist to Waive Procedures ML19345G9021981-04-17017 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810402 Motion Questioning Util 810324 Request for OL for 35% Power level.TMI-type Accident Is Not Credible.Proposed Order & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9171981-04-0909 April 1981 Response in Opposition to Carolina Environ Study Group 810406 Request for Extension to File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Applicant Transcripts Available to Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2471981-04-0606 April 1981 Request for 10-day Extension to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Counsel Occupied W/Other Cases. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19343D1461981-04-0606 April 1981 Response Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group 810302 Request for Certification or Referral.Request Unnecessary Since Commission Has Specifically Addressed Issue. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347D9761981-04-0303 April 1981 Response Opposing Applicant 810327 Submittal of Jl Riley Affidavit & Affirmation of Svc.Filing Is Contrary to ASLB Ruling.Record Is Closed & Filing Is Not Responsive ML19347D9791981-04-0303 April 1981 Response to Jl Riley 810327 Affidavit Re Polyurethane Pyrolysis in Form of Encl Wh Rasin Affidavit ML19350D2501981-04-0202 April 1981 Reply Opposing Applicant 810324 Motion for License Authorizing Up to 35% Rated Power Operation.Alleged Need to Bolster Util Summer Reserve Is Result of Scheduling Oconee 1 Maint During Summer Peak.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347D7811981-03-24024 March 1981 Request for License Authorizing Operation Up to & Including 35% Rated Power.Fuel Loading,Initial Criticality & Zero Power Physics Testing to Be Completed by 810515.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19341D4501981-03-0202 March 1981 Response in Objection to ASLB 810217 Memorandum & Order Denying Admission of Contentions 5 & 6.Supplementary EIS on Class 9 Accident Is Necessary Predicate in Proceeding.Denial Should Be Certified to Commission.W/Certificate of Svc ML19350B7511981-02-26026 February 1981 Carolina Environ Study Group Application for Subpoenas Re Reopened McGuire Units 1 & 2 OL Proceeding.List of Proposed Witnesses & Questions Encl.Related Correspondence ML20003B3151981-02-0404 February 1981 Request for Reconsideration of Schedule.Carolina Environ Study Group Should Be Allowed to Submit Prefiled Testimony Seven Days After Receipt of NRC Complete Prefiled Testimony. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML19345E8431981-02-0202 February 1981 Response Opposing Carolina Environ Study Group Motion & Memorandum to Add Contentions.Question of Need to Suppl EIS Resolved.No Special Circumstances Exist to Include Charlotte,Nc in Emergency Plans ML20002E0871981-01-21021 January 1981 Memorandum Supporting Carolina Environ Study Group Motion to Add Contentions 5 & 6 Advanced in 801107 Reply to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20002E0531981-01-19019 January 1981 Response to Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners & City of Charlotte 801231 & 810113 Requests to Participate. Applicant Has No Objection.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340E5881981-01-0808 January 1981 Motion to Suppl 801107 Contentions 5 & 6 W/Memorandum of Law.No Objection to Extension for Reply.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340D2821980-12-15015 December 1980 Response to Carolina Environ Study Group Motion to Add Further Contentions.Carolina Environ Study Group Addl Contentions 5 & 6 Found Factually & Legally Flawed & Merit Denial.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345E0491980-12-0202 December 1980 Response in Opposition to M Fennel 800926 Request to Reopen Hearing If Viewed as Late Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339C3361980-11-12012 November 1980 Supplemental Filing Re Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition of Application for Fuel Loading & Low Power Testing.Calls Attention to Encl 801021 Fr Notice.Urges Expedited Consideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340B7751980-11-0707 November 1980 Suppl to Statement of Matl Facts Re Absence of Issues to Be Heard.Hydrogen Generation Event During Worst Case May Be Terminated Prior to Onset of Core Damage.Notice of Mu Rothschild Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19340C4801980-11-0707 November 1980 Response in Opposition to Applicant 800930 Motion for Summary Disposition Re Application for License Authorizing Fuel Loading.Moves for Consolidated Hearing Re Provisionary & Full Term Ols.Related Correspondence ML19339B5581980-11-0303 November 1980 Comments on Commission 800926 Order Requesting Positions of Parties on Carolina Environ Study Group Revised Motion to Reopen Record.Affirms Prior View That CLI-80-16 Has No Direct Bearing on Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347B4111980-10-0909 October 1980 Response in Opposition to P Edmonston 801002 Request to Make Statement,If Viewed as Petition to Intervene.No Objection If Viewed as Request to Make Limited Appearance Statement If Hearing Held.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347B3641980-10-0808 October 1980 Response in Opposition to s Wilson 800930 Ltr,If Viewed as Late Petition to Intervene.No Objection to s Wilson Public Statement,If Hearing Reopened.Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-01-14
[Table view] |
Text
- _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
~
llk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
DUKE POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A (0conee Units 1, 2 & 3; 50-287A McGuire Units 1 & 2) 50-369A, 50-370A RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO JOINT DISCOVER 0RS' INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUEST AND TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS Intervenors (Cities of High Point, et al.) respond herein to Applicant's objections and motion for protective orders, filed 21 November 1973.
I. APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERR0GATORIES
- 1. Interrogatory 16 of Joint Discoverors asked Applicant to List all land and water rights owned or controlled by Applicant th;r. a'e considered by Applicant as poten-tially useful * !.3 elf or to any othe ' electric utility or potential e' .ric utility for hydro lactric generation.
Applicant has briefly described three pieces of its property (at Keowee-Toxaway, Green River, and Trotters Shoals) which it considers (or in one case, which "others" consider) useful power development. It states that it owns land or water rights at no other site it considers potentially useful, to itself or others. Apparently Applicant wishes to avoid listing all the individual land and water rights in these three areas.
We believe that Applicant's objections as to burden cannot be sustained. Prelim-inarily,-we must note that the general description furnished (e.g., "along the Green River in North Carolina") is not sufficient to show whether Applicant has, or may have,. acquired lands with the design er effect of interfering with hydroelectric 79121809&y
2 development by others. There can be numerous different projects, appealing to different electric entities, on the same reach of a river. See, e.g.,
Washington Public Power Supply System v. Federal Power Cor$nission, 387 U.S. 428 (1967)(the"HighMountainSheep" case).'Tomakethejudgmentreferredto,we must know with reasonable precision (a) where Applicant's holdings are and (b) when they were acquired. Such a judgment is clearly-relevant to the issues herein.
In order to minimize the burden and expense of compliance, Intervenors suggest the following procedure: (i) Applicant will supply maps showin 'he location of its holdings in these areas, without identifying individual purchases; (ii) Joint Discoverors .Il will examine these maps and designate 'those maps or parts of maps where the detail originally requested is required, which (iii) Applicant will then supply.
Applicant's objections with rega,d to possible prejudice would be met com-pletely, in Intervenors' view, by entry of 3 orotective order as described on page 5 of the Objections. Intervenors have no objection to such an order.
- 2. Interrogatory 28 U is objected to on grounds of burden alone. Applicant's statement, however, goes only to the last branch of the interrogatory (complete
. listing of its contacts with Ebasco). It does not assert that stating whether it had if Or, as the case may be,, AEC Staff and the Department of Justice only.
y "Did Applicant participate in the selection of Ebasco as Greenwood County Electric Power System's enginearing consultant to prepare a study ev7.luating the proposed sale of the Greenwood. County system to Applicant? If so, what was the nature and extent of Applicant's participation? List each and every ccc. tact between Applicant and Ebasco concerning such an Ebasco study or concerning business trans-actions between Applicant and Ebasco (both prior and subsequent to Applicant's acquisition of the Greenwood County system)."
i
-l' i
i I
a hand in the selection of Ebasco as consultant in the Greenwood County study and, if so, describing its participation, would be burdensome or otherwise objectionable.
This information should therefore be provided.
The list of 167 Ebasco bills paid by Applicant is not an alternative to any of the requests made under number 28. We note that Applicant is required to report paymer;ts made to outside consultants to the Federal power Commission (FpC Form 1, pp. 354 et seq.) together with a characterization of the services paid for.
If in fact the list furnished co,rresponds to the transactions reported (as a total) in the Form 1, there must be some record available of the subject matter of these 4
transactions. No such indication has been supplied.
- 3. Applicant asserts that Interrogatory 30 1/ s iburdensome and asks for irrelevant material. We have adverted above to the importance of detail information on land' holdings. There is admittedly a catego y of land holdings (such as office
. building sites and parking lots) which have little relevance to present issues.
If Applicant is able to segregate such acquisitions, non-production of the data thereon would not foreseeably prejudice Intervenors. But the answer that " * *
- where Applicant's holdings may be of competitive significance, they have been identified in response to other inquiries * * *" is not an adequate response.
In the first place, the Interrogatory spoke not only of Applicant but of "any subsidiary thereof". Applicant has not represented that the holdings of its 1/ " Furnish a list of all parcels of land, interests in land, or water rights purchased since January 1, 1960, by Duke Power Company or by any subsidiary thereof.
.The list should include the name of the purchasing entity, the name of the seller, the size of the parcel of land, the nature of the interest or water right(s) pur-chased, sufficient description of the property to permit its identification on a map, and the name(s) of any waterway (s) located on or adjacent ,to such property."
e w
4 subsidiaries are all shown. In the second place, Intervenors should not be required to accept Applicant's conclusory judgment as to which of its land holdings
^
have competitive significance.
- 4. In discussing Interrogatory 33 0 , Applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that the Board sustained its Noerr-Pennington_ objection "without pre-judice to a renewal thereof [i.e., of discovery requests] on the showing of prerequisites required by law." Prehearing Order 2, 27 November 1972, 5 B(2)(b).
s The prerequisite referred to was greater specificity in requesting information.
See Tr. 241-242. This is what the Joint Discoverors have done in Interrogatory 33.
It is not necessary for the' Board to reexamine its position on this subject as Applicant suggests.
Applicant has suggested in discussing Document Request 6 that the Board defer ruling until after the depositions of Mayor Quis and Mr. MacPherson. Intervenors believe that this procedure, if adopted at all (and they have no objection to the Board's doing so) should apply also to any ruling on Interrogatory 33, We do not admit that the Interrogatory is moot by reason of Mr. Sood 's affidavits. Inter-venors do not mean to impugn Mr. Booth's good faith in executing them; however, it should be noted that his first affidavit, which is reaffirmed in his second, refers only to assistance to two named mayoral candidates. Interrogatory 33 is not so limited. Intervenors therefore urge that the Board either require a complete answer to Interrogatory 33 or' defer any ruling thereon until after the depositions referred to above.
M " Describe any participation or assistance undertaken by Duke Power Ccmpany
. or any subsidiary thereof in each of the following political campaigns: [ describing two specific campaigns]."
5
- 5. Interrogatories 34 and 35. Only a brief response is needed here:
(a) The Form 1 data is.useful so far as it goes, but it does not, in many cases, g.ive the addresses of th attorneys listed, as the interrogatory requested, and (b) it does not, in many cases, segregate retainer fees from fees for specific matters. If Applicant will (a) now supply the addresses not given in the Form 1 reportr, and (b) undertake to furnish promptly on request a breakdown between retainer and other payments for such attorneys as Joint Discoverors designate after study of the Form 1 data, Intervenors would belilling to forego present production of all the data requested. Otherwise, we must press our request.
That "mucn of the information sought" is a matter of public record is not responsive when what is not public record is necessary to understanding of the rest.
II. APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
- 1. Document Request5 1 _/ is first objected to as moot in view of Applicant's objection to Interrogatory 30. This is a non sequitur. Far from deciding, as Applicant would have it, that a complete answer to Interrogatory 30 is a "prerequi-site" to responding to Request 1, the Board might consider the inquiries in reverse order and require production of those land purchase data which had some connection wi.th power generation studies. Intervenors are not advocating this procedure, but merely pointing out that Applicant's first argument does not follow.
i l
l 5_/ "All studies of and documents pertaining to the hydroelectric potential, or potential other use for power generation, of each parcel of land, interest in land, or water rights purchased as indicated in Applicant's response to interrogatory no. 30; and all documents relating to the use of such lands, interests in land, or water rights by others for power generation (including but not limited to hydro-electric generation). ,
6 With respect to " burden and scope", Intervenors see no grave prejudice in Applicant's dealing with the lands and rights in groups corresponding with the individual studies of power potential. We agree that if a 500-acre potential power
~
site is acquired in a thousand discrete half-acre purchases, there would be additional paperwork in documenting the a'ssociation of each half-acre with the generation etudy. The possibility of handling this item in that fashion should be explored before Applicant, or the Board, concludes, that this request is too burdensome.
- 2. Document Request 2 N. Intervenors believe that a practical solution to Applicant's objections here could be based on Applicant's proposal. We would suggest that Applicant supply all relevant (meaning, in Intervenors' view, " relating to the electric operations, service, or sales of Applicant or any other electric utility") clauses (regardless of how often used), as it proposes. Joint Discoverors would retain the right to call for specific classes of further documents as to specific clauses, following a study of the clauses themselves.
- 3. Document Request 4 2/. We understand Applicant to challenge the relevance of this item. Applicant is respectfully referred to Northern Pacific Railway Co.
- v. United States, 356 U. S. 1 (1958).
E "All documents relating to limitatic'1s on the use of any parcels of land, interests in land, or water rights sold during the period January 1,1960, to the present by Duke Power Company or any subsidiary thereof."
2/ "All documents relating to the provision of utility services to properties sold by Duke Power Company or any subsidiary thereof."
~
7 ,
DocumentRequest6./. 8
- 4. Intervenors' position here is described under the corresponding Interrogatory, number 33. We would point out, however, that with respect to the paragraph quoted from Prehearing Order 6 (Applicant's Objections ,
- p. 21), Intervenors maintain that attempts to govern the outcome of elections in cities whose electric systems compete with Applicant's are attempts "to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor."
s III. ALPLICAtlT'S MOTI0tlS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS Intervenors have no objection to protective orders limiting access to documents under Interrogatory 16 and Document Requests 3 and 7 to counsel for the AEC Staff and the Department of Justice.
~
IV. -GENERAL MATTERS Intervenors have attempted in this pleading to suggest ways in which adequate, if not complete, discovery might be had at less cost and with less expenditure of time. We do not claim that these suggestions represent the position of any other party, but our own belief is that they are worthy of exploration.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully urge that the 30ard deny Applicant's objections and other prayers except as specifically consented to herein.
4 Respectfully submitted, y $Y CL s ) 197]f) -
TALLY & TALLY Attorneys for Intervenors "All documents relating to the participation of Duke Power Company or any subsidiary thereof in the Statesville and High Point election campaigns referred to in interrogatory no. 33."
.~
.o .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C041ISSION I'n the Matter of )
DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A (0conee Units 1, 2 & 3 ) ~ 50-287A, McGuire Units 1 & 2) ) 50-369A, 50-370A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing documents in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following bF deposit in the United States mail, first class or air nail, this .7th day of December,1973:
Walter W. K. Bennett, Esquire Troy B. Connor, Esquire P. O. Box 185 Connor & Knotts Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire 4100 Cathedral Avenue N.W. Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20016 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Antitrust Counsel for AEC John B. Farmakides, Esquire Regulatory Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20545 Atomic Energy Comnission Washington, D.C. 20545 Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Public Proceedings Branch Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secrotary Board Panel of the Commission Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Energy Ccmmission Washington, D.C. 20545 Washington, D.C. 20545 Abraham Braitman, Esquire Joseph Saunders, Esquire Special Assistant for Antitrust Division Antitrust Ma'tters Department of Justice Office of Antitrust and Washington, D.C. 20530 Indemnity Atomic Energy Commission George A. Avery, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20545 Toni K. Golden, Esquire Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
- 4
' ~
David A. Leckie, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section .
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C. 20044
]
4 Wallace E. Brand, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section P.O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C. 7]O44 TALLY & TALLY By: AfA 4't%.-- ==-
Attorneys for Intervenors l .
Suite 307 j 1300 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
. Washington, D.C. 20036 and P. O. Box 1660 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302 l
4 e
S e
--a , _