ML19312C755
| ML19312C755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1973 |
| From: | Barham C CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Bennett W K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912190966 | |
| Download: ML19312C755 (5) | |
Text
- - - - - -
J n,
, s. In JA
\\
e 60.%14.s#t Camlina Power & Light Company i
roar orrica nox insi Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Lv.oa s. Ds:PA RT.W NT March 14, 1973 1
4 N
Honorable Walter W. K. Bennett Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 185 Pinchurst, North Carolina 28374 Re: DUKE F0WER COMPANY Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 McGuire Nuc1 car Station Units 1 and 2 AEC Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A, 50-287A 50-369A, and 50-370A
Dear Judge Bennett:
We have Icarned that the subpoena served by the Department of Justice on Carolina Power & Light Company on December 1, 1972, and the subject of the Board's Order of January 8, 1973, was discussed at a pre-hearing conference of the parties in the above captioned proceed-ing on March 9,1973. We were not present at this pre-hearing conference, nor were we notified or invited to attend.
It was our understanding of the Board's Order of January 8,
- 1973, that our Motion Requesting an Extension of Time in which to move, appear or otherwise respond to the subpoena of the Department of Just. ice was granted to the extent we were allowed thirty days follow-ing receipt from the Department of Justice of a Ictter specifying in suf ficient detail to permit identification the documentary information 79121907((
lie a.. r. lel e W. alter W.
K. Ilennett
-?-
tiar h 14, 19'I n our,h e by the nub ocua.
No such let ter han heen receiveil from Ihe l
Department of Justico; and as far as we arc aware, the Department of Justice has not complied with the Board's Order; but, on the contrary, suggested to the Board that it might want to reconsider its order of January 8, 1973, and broaden the scope of discovery permitted under the sub poena.
We did receive a copy of Mr. Brand's letter dated January 15, 1973, concerning his views as to the conditions in the Board's Order of January 8, 1973. While we did not feel that a response to his letter was necessary, we did respond by letter to the Board dated January 25, 1973 (copics of which went to all parties to the proceeding). It is now appropriate that we apprise the Board of tue unnecessary burden which the original subpoena would have placed upon us and to express our willingness to respond to specific requests for relevant information based upon the Department of Justice's examination of Duke Power Company's records, which examination we understand is now in progress and covers the period from January 1, 1960 We have received a copy of an Affidavit of Wallace E. Brand dated February 8, 1973, in support of his letter of January 15, 1973, suggesting that the Board might want to reconsider its January 8, 1973, ruling which requires e Department of Justice to specify the documents it wants to examine and would limit the discovery to a period comparabic to that imponed upon the parties to the proceeding.
Nothin;; in t.hin affidavit
Honorable Walter W. K. Bennett March 14, 1973 nuggests a valid banin for changing the limitations and conditions placed upon the Department of Justice by the Board's Order of January 8, 1973.
Contrary to the suggestion made in Mr. Brand's letter, it has not been the policy of this Company at any time to refuse requests for service, at either wholesale or retail, in situations where the Company might lawfully serve. As the Board itself concluded, the subpoena on its face is unreasonably broad.
To attempt to comply with and res pond to the subpoena, particularly in its original form, would be extremely time consuming, expensive and burdensome to our Company. We have no central file system nor any central file index, nor have ever had occasion to establinh such.
Following rcccipt of the original subpoena, we surveyed the various offices of the Company and determined that over sixty offices maintained files on one or more aspects of our bulk power supply operations and that literally hundreds of file drawers or boxes would have to be scarched by hand, file by file, and page by page.
Those Company officials who would have been most familiar with such material, particularly in early years, are either deceased or retired.
As we stated in our letter of January 25, 1973, the pleadings, orders and other papers filed in this proceeding indicate that the Department of Justice, the Atomic Energy Commission regulatory staff 'and intervenors are jointly reviewing voluminous. records of Duke Power Company pursuant to pre-hearing orders of the Board.
These orders appear to provide I
f
e linnoral le Wa lt er W. K. llenncLt March 14, 19 / ~l sufficient basis for the Department of Justice to obtain from Duke Power Company any relevant information with respect to transactions between Duke and other companies, or between Duke and wholesale P
customers (or potential customers) of Duke or other companics in the Piedmont Carolinas. Moreover, the intervenors in this proceeding represent systems which purchase part or all of their bulk power supply requirements from Duke Power Company and should be knowledge-able with respect to transactions which these systems have had with Duke or other neighboring companics.
We reaffirm our position that should a review of Duke's records, or for that matter records of any of the intervenors, suggest that certain specific relevant information may be held by our Company, a request for such specific information should be made at that time.
This would be a more orderly procedure and one which would not put an i
expensive and time consuming burden upon persons who are not parties to this proceeding.
If, as Mr. Brand suggests in his affidavit, the Board has agreed to treat his 1cteer of January 15,-1973, as a motion for reconsideration, and the Board is inclined to give consideration to such motion, we denf re the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Sincerely yours, l'LaudD7L L..J.$
Charles D. Barham, Jr.
/
CDB:cj Associate General Counsel
[i l l. i W. K. Itenn.t:
's Han.h 14, l'8 / 1 inorable Joseph F. Tubridy
.lonorabic John B. Farmakides Carl IIorn, Esquire Wi.Iliam 11. Origg, Esquire W. L. Porter, Esquire William Warfield Ross, Esquire George A. Avery, Esquire J. O. Tally, Jr.,- Esquire J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esquire Troy B. Conner, Esquire Joneph Rutherg, Esquire Denjamin II. Vogler, Esquire Wallace E. Brand, Esquire Mr. Abraham Braitman David Stover, Esquire
.Mr. Frank W. Karas Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Cliairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board Virginia El?ctric and Power Company American Electric Power Company, Inc.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company The Southern Company
.