ML19329C976

Affidavit Re DOJ 751010 Document Request.An Prentice 670228 Ltr W/Encls Was Not Initially Produced & Is Forwarded

ML19329C976
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	10/20/1975
From:	Kayuha T OHIO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19329C973	List: ML19329C970 ML19329C974 ML19329C975 ML19329C976 ML19329C979 ML19329C980 ML19329C981
References
NUDOCS 8002200948
Download: ML19329C976 (4)

Text

. =

f3 \ .

V UNITED STATES OF AERICA NUCEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION EEERE THE ATOMIC SA] TTY AND LICENSING E0AED In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISCN CCIGANY and ) NRC Docket Nos. 50-346A THE CLEVELAID EECTRIC ILLUEIATEG ) 50-500A CO:GANY ) 50-501A (Davis-Eesse Nuclear Fever Station, )

Units 1, 2 & 3 )

)

THE CLEVEIA'O ELECTRIC ILLUMINATriG ) IEC Decket Nos. 50 h40A CCIGANY, ET AL. ) 50-441A (Ferry Nuclear Fever Plant, ' N

)

Units 1 & 2) ) cp 'b

'? iia *

.II AFFIDAVIT OF THO:MS A. AYUHA,  ; OCT211975 >

ATTORNEY FOR CHIO EDISON CCIEANY, TO @  %.-

PROVIIE A FACTUAL RESFCISE TO THE LETTER OF *"s '~ /

THE DEPARTMEIC OF JUSTICE OF CCTCEER 10. 1975 b C

\

ce N I, Thc=as A. Kayuha, being first duly sworn on oath depose and state the follcwing:

l

1. I as presently an Attorney employed by Chic Edison Cc=pany l 1'

("Chio Edisen") at its principal place of business at 47 North Main Street, Akron, Ohio 4h3C8. A=ong =y responsibilities is the general coordination ,

I and advising Chio Edison, its officers, =anagers and e=ployees wi" i l

respect to the production of documents requested to be produced in the l l

l subject proceedings. j

2. As Attorney, I was actively involved in the process of pro-ducing those docu=ents in Ohio Edisen's possessien, custody and control j pursuant to the repartment of Justice request dated August 2, 1974 (Joint l Request of AEC Regulatory Staff and the United States repartment of Justice  :

1 For Interrogatories and the Production of Documents by Applicants) as nodified l

8002 200 fM  !

j

. 'O

' ~- -

2 and the request dated May 23, 1975 (Request of the Department of Justice for Interrogatories and the Production of Documents by Applicants) as modified by agreement of counsel centained in Mr. Steven M. Charno's letter to Mr. Wm. 3. Reynolds dated July 3,1975, and was at all times familiar with such requests.

3. On October 16, 1975, I received a copy of the Department of Justice's letter to Wm. 3rsdford Reynolds dated October lo, 1975 requesting Chio Edison to i= mediately produce five documents; this being the first time such a request was made to me, and furthermore such letter indicated also for the first time Ohio Edison had failed to either produce the required documents or infom the Deparhnt of Justice that these docu=ents were no lenger in Chio Edison's possession or in existence. The statements made here-after with respect to the request of additional production are made after I have personally reviewed the subject letter.

4 Upon request of Mr. km. Bradford Reynolds on October 15, 1975 and after receiving the subject letter, I, and in some instances with the assistance of other Chio Edison e=ployees, undertook to search those files of Chio Edisen's President, including those of its former President, Vice President (Engineering), Vice President (Construction / System Operations / Fuel),

Vice President (Division Operations), General Supervisor of System Operations, General Coordinator of Division Distribution Practices and the Engineering File Room using as guidance the identifying infc=ation provided in an atte=pt to locate the subject documents. Further= ore, a phone call was =ade to Chio Edison's retired President in an attempt to locate the subject documents. It is sfter such search that I have prepared this Affidavit.

5. Document No.1, " Letter frem R. J. Dreisbach, General Coordinator of Division Distribution Practices to F. G. Streit, C&SOE, dated February 2, 1966", which the Department of Justice has alleged to be responsive to D-14

~

3 and E-1 (Perry Request dated August 23,1974) a".d E-3 (Davis-Besse No. 2 and 3 Request dated May 23,1975) was not produced in response to such request as it was not called for under any reasonable interpretation thereof.

6. Document No. 2, " Letter from A. N. Prentice, CP, to Mansfield, White, and others, dated February 28, 1967", which the Department of Justice alleges to be responsive to D-14 and E-1 (Ferry Request dated August 23,1974) and E-3 (Davis Besse No. 2 and 3 Request dated May 23,1975) was not produced in response to such request as it was not called for under any reasonable interpretation thereof.

7. Document No. 3, " Letter from J. L. McNealey, CECE, to Messrs.

Zimmer, Oxley, Flahie, McVay, dated December 31, 1966" and Document No. 4

" Letter from J. L. McNealey, C&SCE, to Messrs. Zd-ar, de Bruyn Kops, Flahie, Dunhem, Mansfield, dated December 27, 1968, with attachments", which the Department of Justice alleges is responsive to E-1 (Ferry Request dated August 23,1974) and E-3 (Davis Besse No. 2 and 3 Request dated May 23,1975) eculd not be located in the files of Chio Edison Co=pany after the search described in Article 4 hereof was completed. The description of Document No. 3 does not list an e=ployee of Chio Edisen as an addressee and like Docu=ent No. 4, there was no subject matter included. To the best of =y knowledge and belief the subject docu=ents are not ncv in the custody or centrol of Chio Edison.

8. Document No. 5, " Letter from Ecward A. C e hs, Buckeyo Power, Inc., to Roger Waite of Norwalk, Ohio, dated March 14, 1971 vith handwritten marginal notes in upper right corner", which the Department of Justice alleges to be responsive to E-1 (Ferry Request dated August 23, 1974) and E-3 and E-5 (Davis Besse No. 2 and 3 dated May 23,1975) was =ade available for rough screening by the Department of Justice pursuant to such request, was

,m ,

shipped to the Central Depository in Washington, D.C. pursuant to the Department of Justice request, and according to our records was actually copied by the Department of Justice.

O ff*O racmas 2. xayune STATE OF OHIO )

) SS:

SIM:IT COUNIT )

Sworn to before =e and subscribed in =y presence this 20th day of October, 1975.

rw . - b,-<,.w..

D.

.l.:1 : ... - /-l. ' c-Notary Public PATRICIA t,1.CE GCCOG Notary, Public Sucmit fo r.!y. Onio My commissn expir:s Dc:.14,1973 4

0 1

a O

I'****~ ,)

, ',_7 ,, to ti .gs u y=3 OHIO POWER COMPANY ~

% gCW gs?-}

A. N. PRENTICE s. #* cestn AL Orrict Cu CANTON, OHIO Vice President & Gene,al Managef d .

g February 28, 1967 m a Mr. J. K. Davis, Toledo Edison Company Mr. D. Bruce Mansfield, Ohio Edison Company Mr. J. L. McNealey, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company Mr. J. M. Stuart, Dayton Power and Light Company Mr. W. H. Zimmer, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Mr. D. E. Hollen, Monongahela Power Company Mr. G. V. Patterson, American Electric Power Service Corporation Gentlemen:

With reference to our meeting of January 27 on the proposed terricory integrity law, a committee composed of Messrs. D. B. Mansfield, John White, J. K. Davis ,

Les Henry, G. V. Patterson and H. B. Cohn, reviewed the Conditions for a Territory Integrity Law dated January 12, 1967, which I sent to you with my letter of January 17.

We have made certain changes in these Conditions and I am attaching a copy of the original draft, indicating the additions, insertions, and omissions (omissions are in parenthesis) made in die original draft, so that you might more easily compare it to the original. Also, attached is a revised copy of the Conditions for a Territory Integrity Law dated February 24, which includes the above mentioned corrections made by the committee.

I would appreciate your reviewing this latest draft of the Conditions and advise me by March 10 if not satisfactory. As soon after March 10 as possible, and following out the suggestions made at our January 27 meeting, the committee mentioned above will hold further meetings with representatives of the rural electric cooperative group to attempt to reach some understanding of a proposed territory integrity law, using the February 24 Conditions, attached, as a guide. These Conditions will not be submitted to the rural electric cooperatives in these discussions.

No notes were made of the January 27 meeting but for your records I am attaching a list of those who attended this meeting.

Sincerely, ANP/s A. N. Prentice ec: Mr. Les Henry Mr. John White Mr. Ed Rommel Mr. B. J. Yeager Mr. Harry Miller Mr. R. S. Weygandt

. - ' . ~ . .. . . . .

. .* CONDITIONS FOR A TERRITORY INTEORITY LAW February 24, 196N

1. ANNEXATION Provide for a single supplier in a mur.icipality. In the event of annexation, an attempt wculd be made by the two suppliers to trade equivalent facilities and customers or otherwise tc accom-plish the desired result through mutual agreement. In the event that the suppliers cannot agree, P.U.C.O. would be cuthorized to require a trade of equivalent facilities (giving due considera-tion, to the extent practicable, to the desires of the customers affected) or, if such a trade is not possible, to require a sale

.of facilities to the supplier in the original municipal area on a fair and equitable basis.

2. MUNICIPAL WHOLESALE LOADS The present municipal wholesale loads would remain with the existing suppliers.

3. SERVICE AREAS (a) All areas in the state would be certificated, includ-ing those served by municipal systems, which would be certificated to the utility supplying in whole or part at wholesale, or if no wholesale supply, to the surrounding utility, or if partially surrounded by two _or more utilities, as determined by the P.U.C.O.

Service areas would be determined by filing with P.U.C.O. service area maps. Such service area maps appear to be feasible.

(b) Each utility would hcve included in its mapped service area the area adjacent to its 34.5-kv and up lines in its general service area, consisting of a corridor of perhaps 5 miles on either side of such facilities, for the serving of industrial loads directly from such facilities, including normal extensions.

4. REGULATICN If the cooperatives have service responsibility in assigned service areas they should accept fu.11 regulation ~as in numerous other states. There should be no exemptions from any provisions of such regulation except under circumstances where the facts l applicable to cooperatives overwhelmingly demonstrate that it is in the public interest to provide an exemption (or partial exemp-

! tion) from a particular provision or provisions.

i I

~ '

.TERRITORY INTEGRITY MEETING COLUMBUS & SOUTHERN OHIO ELECTRIC COMPANY OFFICES COLUMBUS, OHIO JANUARY 27, 1967 ATTENDEES Harry Miller, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric' Company J. L. McNealey, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Company

• M

/

John K. Davis, Toledo Edison Company g o cf8N Les Henry, Toledo Edison Company 7

, .3 W. H. Schwalbert, Toledo Edison Company -

b@g$ .

John White, Ohio Edison Company W O , , .[ }

gpy Ed Rommel, Dayton Power and Light Company vs Jim Beckford, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company R. S. Weygandt, Monongahela Power Company G. V. Patterson, American Electric Power Service Corp.

H. B. Cohn, American Electric Power Service Corp.

A. N. Prentice, Ohio Power Company E. E.'Fournace, Ohio Power Company 0

0 e