ML19317E760

Applicant'S Supplementary Interrogatory & Document Production Request to Doj.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19317E760
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	09/17/1973
From:	Avery G, Brunner T, Golden T DUKE POWER CO., WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7912180944
Download: ML19317E760 (7)

Text

.. . . ,

. t

q 9 '2

.-p.,

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

) Docket Nos. 50-269A 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-zola, 50-369A (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 ) and 50-370A McGuire Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT' S SUPPLEMENTARY INTERROGATORY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF= JUSTICE Duke Pcwer Company (hereinaf ter " Applicant") pro-pounds the attached Supplemental Interrogatory and Document Production Reques t to the Department of Jus tice pursuant to 7tions 2. 740b and 2. 741(a) (1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. SS2. 740b and 2. 741(a) (1) ) with the request that the -interrogatory be answered under oath.

!~ WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Attorneys for Duke Power Company By George A. Avery i

Toni K. Golden Thomas W. Brunner September 17, 1973 7912'180f g

^Ci UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENFRGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-287A, 50-369A (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, ) and 50-370A

, McGuire Units 1 and 2) )

r APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY INTERROGATORY I

AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFINITIONS The definitions and other general ins tructions set forth on pages 1 to 3 of Applicant's Interrogatories and Document Production Request to the Department of Justice ,

dated September 14, 19 73, shall apply equally to this inter-J j rogatory and document request.

SCHEDULE (a) State whether the Department contends that Applicant has at any time since its formation entered into, proposed or agreed to an agreement or understanding to allocate rete!.i cus tomers or - to allocate the right to serve retail customers on a territorial basis. Allocations pur-porting on t' air f ace to be pursuant to the North Carolina or South Carolina territorial assignment laws and-allocations described in' response to interrregatory 13 of the Applicant's

Interrogatories and Document Production Request to the i

i l

. Department of-Justice, dated September 14, 1973, may be disregarded in responding to this interrogatory.

(b) If the answer to ( a) is not no," identify 1

and describe each agreement or understanding or proposed agree-ment or understanding so allocating territory or customers.

(1) As to each allocation by formal agreement.

the response should include, but not be limited to:

(i) the name or title of the agreement and J

the date executed or, if not executed, the date proposed, (ii) the other entity or entities entering into the agreement, or if not executed, contemplated as entering into the agreement, and (iii) a specific citation to the provision or provisions allocating retail customers.

(2) In addition, the response should include, but not be limited to, as to any proposed formal agreement not executed by Applicant, (i) a statement indicating the entity originating the proposed agreement, and (ii) a description of each incident in which Applicant agreed to or otherwise supported the proposed agreement.-*/

~

• / This des cription' should include , but not be limited to, (1) the representative or represenratives of Applicant or .any other entities involved, and (2) the specific actions taken by Applicant that con-stituted or demonstrated agreement or support, the ' method employed in each action ' and the L date or dates of each . action.

y y p r , -

e-r- w, - r-,- e w

( 3') As to my understanding or proposed understanding not recorded in 'a formal agreement and as to any proposal for an agreement for which no draft is presently available, the response j should include, but'not be limited to:

(i) the reprssentative or representatives of Applicant involved in discussions relating to the allocation or proposed allocation, (ii) the names of other entities involved in such discussions and their representatives, (iii) a statement 4.ndicating the origin of the proposal to allocate custome: or territory, (iv) all specific actions by which Applicant i

participated in discussions relating to the allocation or pro-posed allocation, the method employed in each action and the date of each action, (v) a listing of each action listed in i response to (ive in which Applicant agreed to or supported the allocation of territory or cus tomers , and (vi) the precise words used in each action listed in response to (v) in which Applicant agreed to the

[ allocation of territory or customers or, if the Department does not' rely on.an account or accounts th at records the word-

)

employed, the precise language of each account on which- the  !

Department does rely.

w

.m -

V f T T j- -'yrw'

• 71y w ,W fr twt'W'--W-1

.- . ~ - . . . - . . . . - - -

c

-. (4) Specify the sources relied on by the Department in responding to - the questions posed in each sub-part of this interrogatory.

(c) Produce all documents relating to any actual or proposed agreement or understanding to allocate customers or territory identified in response to (b) and all documents 1

relating to any transaction in which any actual or proposed allocation of customers or territory listed in response to (b) arose.

F 4

4 f

4 4

i,

-l 9

4- - , _ . . - . _ - _ - , , . _ . . , , _ . . . _ _

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 SUPPLEMENTARY INTERROGATORY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, dated September 17, 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 17th day of September, 1973:

Walter W.K. Bennett, Esquire J.O. 1 ally, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 185 P.O. Drawer 1660 Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Fayetteville, No. Carolina 2830:

Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire Troy B. Connor, Esquire 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W. Connor & Knotts Washington, D. C. 20016 1747 Penna. Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006 John B. Farmakides, Esquire Atomic Safety and Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Licensing Board Panel Benjamin H. Vogle r , Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Counsel for Washington, D. C. 20545 AEC Regulatory S taf f 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 Assistant 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 Washingron, D. C. 20530 Y

• ~ .

David A. Leckie, Esquire David F. Stover,-Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Tally & Tally Department of Justice Suite 307 P. O. Box 7513 1300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20044 Washington, D. C. 20036 Wallace E. Brand, Esquire J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esq.

Antitrust Public Counsel Section c/o Tally & Tally

• Department of Jus tice 1300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20044 1

, Wald, Harkrader & Ross By:

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

Washington, D. C. 20036 i

i f

e - - - ,s ,