ML19253C511
| ML19253C511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1979 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Mark Miller, Wenner S, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 7912050672 | |
| Download: ML19253C511 (2) | |
Text
s fa "Ecg'o, UNITED STATES E"#f,'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 0~%, N ] s,5 November 14, 1979 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Seymour Wenner, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4807 lbrgan Drive Chevy Chase, Maryland h,315 Re:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No.1, NRC Docket No. P-564A
Dear Chairman Miller and Members of the Board:
Bv ietter dated October 29, 1979, the State of California Department of Water Resources submitted to the Board and the parties the " Joint Statement of Southern California Edison Company and the State of California Department of Water Resources" (" Joint Statement") concerning the subpoena duces tecum directed to Edison.
The Staff now has had an opportunity to review that agreement and, as promised in the Staff's October 24, 1979 letter to the Board, provides the following comments.
The Staff was not a party to the negotiations which led to the Joint Statement of Edison and DWR, and, of course, is not a party to the Joint Statement. After careful review of the Joint Statement, the Staff has concluded that for its purposes in this antitrust proceeding, production of documents by Edison pur-suant to the Joint Statement in lieu of the subpoena duces tecum as modified by the Board's January 25, 1979 Order is unsatisfactory in a number of respects.
Specifically, the Staff has the following objections to the Joint Statement:
(1) The Joint Stipulation (sections 1.1 and 1.2) does not provide for the production of documents to the Staff. Even if all other terms of the Joint Stipulation were acceptable to the Staff, and they are not, Edison should be required to make the documents available to the Staff for in-spection and copying.
(2) Production of documents pursuant to section 1.1 of the Joint Statement is inexplicably limited to documents dated between January 1, 1960 and December 31, 1976. The latter cut-off date should be at least July 1, 1979. There is no apparent reason why the Staff should be denied rele-vant documents dated between January 1,1977 and at least July 1,1979.
1503 350 t 7912o 30O
(3) Production pursuant to section 1.1 should not be limited to the files of, primarily, the Power Contract Division without written assurances from Edison of what information is excluded from production by such a limita-tion.
(4)
Production pursuant to section 1.1 should not be limited to documents which " constitute, report on, or discuss communications between Edison and PG&E, or acts, plans, positions, policies, or practices of PG&E".
Such a limitation has the effect of excluding, for example, all documents which.would evidence a conspiracy or combination by other than overt means.
(5) The Staff objects to section 1.2 to the extent that the charge cf $1.00 per page might be applied to the Staff, whether directly or as a part of the cost passed-on to the Staff by DWR, whether such a result was intended or not.
(6) The Staff objects to section 1.3 insofar as it attempts to have privilege claims determined by a Special Master under California law. All privilege claims should be submitted to the Board for its determination under applicable federal law.
If the Board, either on its own motion or in conjunction with all parties, wishes to utilize a Special Matter, then one should be appointed consistent with the NRC Rules of Practice.
(7)
Section 1.4 fails to include certain subjects which the Staff deems es-sential to the antitrust issues in this proceeding.
These are the docu-ments responsive to paragraphs 1 (California Power Pool), 2 (Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie), and 4 (transactions between the Cali-fornia and Pacific Northwest Utilities) of the subpoena duces tecum as modified by the Board's January 25th Order. The Board will recall that paragraphs 1 and 2 are limited to those documents already produced by Edison at FERC, as updated, and subject to privilege claims submitted to and approved by the Board. The Staff intends to discuss with Edison the production of these documents in addition to those requimd by the Joint Stipulation. The Staff is also willing to discuss a further narrowing of its document request after appropriate discussions with Edison.
The Staff appreciates the Board's consileration of Staff's position concerning whether the production by Edison pursuant to the Joint Statement is satisfactory in lieu of production pursuant to the provisions of the subpoena as modified by the Board and upheld by the Appeal Board.
Ve,ry truly y urs, l/Q.$
}
Jack R. Goldberg g Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
All Parties Arthur L. Sherwood, Esq.
David N. Barry, III, Esq.
1503 351