Joint Mqs for Production of Documents & Deposition Issued by ASLB on 790131 on Application by Central Power & Light. Movants,Five Manufacturers Not Parties in Proceedings,Argue Subpoenas Are Too Broad.Certificate of Svc EnclML19259B670 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
South Texas ![STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png](/w/images/9/9c/STP_Nuclear_Operating_Company_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
02/16/1979 |
---|
From: |
Cohn R, Leidl R BUTLER, BINION, RICE, COOK & KNAPP |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7903130522 |
Download: ML19259B670 (17) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant 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 ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
'
UNITED ATE FD M"@ R00lf ,
(v r
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d tgg{ h II.: , FEB1 6 N # I5 '
(\b :,2,;\ ?: g
- D ; 4 In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY :
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO :
THE CITY OF-AUSTIN and : Docket Nos. 50-498A -
CENTRAL POWER AND : 50-499A LIGHT COMPANY : -
~ ~ '
(South Texas Project, Units Nos. :
1 and 2). :
JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to the following:
R. Bruce Whitney, Esq. Jonathan Day, Esq.
Air Products and Chemicals, BUTLER, BINION, RICE, COOK Inc. & KNAPP
'P.O. Box 538 1100 Esperson Buildings Allentown, Penns*rlvai:ia 18105 Houston, Texas 77002 Ross Austin, Esq. Robert.E. Cohn, Esq.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Richard J. Leidl, Esq.
Wilmington, Delaware 19898 BUTLER, BINION, RICE, COOK
& KNAPP John Stapleton, Esq. .818 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Monsanto Company Washington, D.C. 20006 800 North Lindbergh St. Louis, Missouri 63166 Attorneys for Joint Movants Paul M. King, Esq.
PPG Industries, Inc.
One Gateway Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Stanley Baumblatt, Esq.
Union Carbide Corporation 270 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 February 16, 1979 79031305 @
Richard D. Cudahy, Esq. John E. Mathews, Jr., Esq.
Robert H. Loeffler, Esq. Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt Joseph Gallo, Esq. Gobelman & Cobb Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1500 American Heritage Life Bldg.
1050 17th Street, N.W. Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20036 Wheatley & Miller Robert E. Bathen 1112 Watergate Office Bldg. R.W. Beck & Associates 2600 Virginia Ave. 'W. P.O. Box 6817 Washington, DC 20037 Orlando, Florida 82853 Linda L. Aaker, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station Austin, TX 78711 Knoland J. Plucknett Executive Director Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc.
5541 E. Skelly Dr.
Uulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Jay M. Galt, Esq.
Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes 219 Couch Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101
}
Marshall E. Millet, Esq. Mr. Jerome D. Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief, Antitrust and Washington, D.C. 20555 Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael L. Glaser, Esq. J. Irion Worsham, Esq.
1150 17th Street, N.W. Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 Jon C. Wood, Esq.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Washington, D.C. 20555 & Barrett 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, TX 78205 Atomic Safety and Licensing Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Appeal Board Panel E.W. Barnett, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, TX 77002 RAND DELIVERED Chase R. Stephens Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission tashington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Douglas F. John, Esq. Josepts Rutberg, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Haver & Feld Antitrust Counsel 1100 Madison Office Bldg. Counsel for NRC Staff 1155 15th Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20005 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Morgan Hunter, Esq. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Chief, Public Counsel &
Bill D. St. Clair, Esq.
McGinnis, Lockridge & Legislative Section Kilgore Antitrust Section Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Bldg. U.S. Department of Justice 900 Congress Avenue P.O. Box 14141 Austin, TX 78701 Washington, D C. 20044 Kevin B. Pratt Texas Attorney General's Office G.K. Spruce, General Manager State of Texas City Public Service Board P.O. Box 12548 P.O. Box 1771 Austin, TX 78711 San Antonio, TX 78203 William H. Burchett, Esq.
W.S. Robson General Manager Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
South Texas Electric Cooperating, Northcutt Ely Inc.
Watergate 600 Building Route 6, Building 102 Washington, DC 20037 Victoria Regional Airport Victoria, TX 77901 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Joseph B. Knotts,'Jr.
Robert Jablon, Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Debevoise & Liberman 806 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005
Roff Hardy Don R. Butler, Esq.
Chairman and Chief Executive Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Officer Selman & Perry Central Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1409 P.O. Box 2121 Austin, TX 78767 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 Mr. Perry G. Brittain President Jerry L. Harris, Esq.
Texas Utilities Generating Richard C. Palough, Esq.
Company City of Austin 2001 Bryan Tower P.O. Box 1088 Dallas, TX 75201 Austin, TX 78767 R.L. Hancock, Director Don H. Davidson City of Austin Electric Utility City Manager P.O. Box 1086 City of Austin Austin, TX 78767 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 G.W. Oprea, Jr. Robert Lowenstein Executive Vice President J.A. Bouknight, Jr.
Houston Lighting & Power Company William J. Franklin P.O. Box 1700 L'awenstein, Newman, Reis &
Houston, TX 77001 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 John W. Davidson, Esq.
Judith Harris, Esq. Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson &
Ronald Clark, Esq. Tioilo U.S. Department of Justice 1100 San Antonio Savings Bldg.
Antitrust Division San Antonio, TX 78205 411 - lith St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Richard S. Salzman, Esquire R. Bruce Whitney, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 538 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105 Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul M. King, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 PPG Industries, Inc.
One Gateway Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Thomas G. Ryan, Esq. Ross Austin, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
One First National Plaza Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Suite 4300 Chicago, Illinois 60603 John Stapleton, Esq. R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Monsanto Company John P. Mathis, Esq.
800 N. Lindbergh Baker & Botts St. Louis, Missouri 63166 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.H.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Stanley Baumblatt, Esq.
Union- Carbide Corporation Roy P. Lessy, Jr. , Esq.
270 Park Avenue Micahel B. Blume, Esq.
New Yorx, NY 10017 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Joint Motion on all parties set forth in the attached list by first-class mail, postage pre-paid.
/ -
' Robert E.' Cohn, Esquire Counsel for the Joint Movants February 16, 1979 h
WHEREFORE, movants respectfully request that the subpoonas for the production of documents and for deposi-tions that have been issued to movants be quashed.
Re p tfully submitted,
/
o e t E.iCohn Richard J. Leidl BUTLER, BINION, RICE, COOK
& KNAPP ,
Attorneys for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Monsanto Company PPG Industries, Inc.
Union Carbide Corporation February 16, 1979
example, Air products alone estimates that no less .
than 200,000 documents relate in some respect to the broad issues raised by CPL's subpoena. These documents are housed in almost 120 linear feet of file space.
Requiring each company to comb all of its plants and facilities for documents rel.ating to the subpoenas would place an enormous burden on each movant's resources.
Such regulatory coercion must not be imposed without a strong demonstration that it is essential to the pro-ceeding. As established above, no such demonstration has been made, or indeed, can be made. In any event, the movant's should not be required to bear' the cost of pro-ducing the data. SEC v. Arthur Young & Co., 584 F2d 1018 (D.C. 1978).
III. CONCLUSION In consideration of the foregoing it is submitted that the subpoenas issued on the application of CPL and served on the novant's are " unreasonable," unduly burdcu-some and " require evidence which is not relevant to any matter in issue," and should be quashed. 10 C.F.R. S 2.720.
business forecasts, data, etc. relating to cost of pro-duction and other highly sensitive matters. The public release of such confidential documents and sensitive trade secrets would provide competitors with valuable information concerning each movant's internal operations and would have a severe adverse impact on its ability to compete in its field. Such invasions of privacy and confidential business relations should not be permitted. Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 46 F.R.D. 605 (D.
D.C. 1969); United States v. Serta Associates, Inc., 29 F.R.D. 136 (N.D. Ill. 1961); Continental Distilling Cor-poration v. Humphrey, 17 F.R.D. 237 (D. D.C. 1955). Even where a compelling showing has been made--which it has not in this case--for the release of confidential information, a protective order must be issued to protect the confi-dentiality of the documents.
- 3. Compliance with the subpoenas would entail a monumental and undue burden on all of the movants. As noted, the document request reaches every plant and facility of each movant throughout the country. Movants would be required to produce literally millions of documents. For
parties to the proceeding cannot adequately satisfy CPL's need for information. Equal Employment Opportunity Co==ission v. Packard Electric Division, General Motors Corp., 1569 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1977).
In these circumstances, the subpoenas should never have been issued and, therefore, should be quashed.
Premium Service Corporation v. Sperry & Huteninson Company, 511 F2d 225 (9th Cir. 1975); In Re Grand Jury Investigation (General Motors Corp.), 174 F. Supp. 393 (S.D. NY 1959).
- 2. The documents demanded contain--indeed, they themselves constitute--internal information which is privi-7/
leged, confidential and proprietary. Such information relates to the canner in which each movant conducts its operations, the various factors each movant considers in its own judgnent important in making business decisions concerning the location of facilities, the individual energy needs of its operations, the costs of production of its facilities, and proposals regarding future expansion and development. Hence, documents relating to siting of plants and consideration of energy usage, costs, availability, reliability, etc. , are inextricably intertwined in the entire operating process of the movant's and involva internal 7/ Documents relating to testicony in the Generic Rate Hearings nay in addition be privileged lawyer-client co==unications.
Thus, even those documents that pertain to activities of the movants in Texas are material and relevant only to the extent that they post-date the Commission's original anti-trust inquiry in the construction permit phase which termi-nated in early 1976 All but a very few of movant's manu-facturing plants were established and operating prior to 1/
1976. Consequently, documents relating to Texas siting deterninations of movants are all beyond the scope of this proceeding, with the arguable exception of the few facili-ties set forth in the margin below constructed subsequent to 1976.
Putting aside the question of relevancy and materiality, it is our understanding that all of the information which CPL wants is presently in the possession of persons who are already parties to this proceeding. There is no reason why disinterested non-parties must be forced to incur the time and expense of accumulating material which can be developed through other less burdensome means, or why discovery of 6/ All of the facilities of DuPont and Monsanto predated 1976. Of Union Carbide's facilities, only two very small pumping stations have been built since 1976.
Expansion is currently underway at one of Air Product's three Texas plants. One of PPG's six Texas plants was recently purchased from a third party; but the plant had been established prior to 1976.
Documents that do not bear on the question of consumer choice among the electric utilities in Texas can in no way be relevant or material to the Commission's limited anti-trust inquiry. CPL simply cannot establish anti rust in-fractions against Houston Lighting and Power Comrjany (HLP)
(or cthers) that do not involve the particular service areas of CPL and HLP.
Furthermore, the Commission's June 15, 1977 order instituting the instant proceeding makes it clear that the only matters which are in issue in this case are changes which occurred after the close of the construction permit proceeding in 1976. In this connection the Commission stated
. . .we are making the Section 105(c) (2) "de-termination" that a further antittust review is " advisable" because of "significant changes" in the licensee's activities occurring subse-quent to the antitrust review previously completed at the construction permit stage.
...we have concluded that this second look at the operating license state is to be a restricted one, focusing on the changed circumstances. 5/
5/ NRC Order dated June 15, 1977, at p. 28, 30. See also, NRC Notice of Special Prehearir; Conference dated May 17, 1978 at p. 2.
aspects of competition or the competitive conduct of 3/
the applicant."
CPL's subpoenas, on the other hand, if not quashed would require movants--who are not parties to this case and do not wish to participate in it--to produce all docu-ments in their possession since January 1970 relating to considerations of electrical power, usage, prices, reliability and availability in every plant or facility throughout the nation. The outrageously broad scope of the subpoenas would involve a vast number of industrial and operational facilities including DuPont's 90 plants, PPG's 44 plants, Monsanto's 78 plants, 23 laboratory facilities and 102 sales offices, Union Carbide's 130 (+) plants, 7 research and development facilities and 4 sales offices and Air Product's 97 plants, 5 laboratory facilities and 99 sales offices. Moreover, only a smal-1 fraction of movants' facilities are located in Texas (5 of DuPont's 90 plants, 6 of PPG's 44 plants, 2 of Monsanto's 78 plants, 12 of Union Carbide's 130 plants and 3 of Air Products 97 4/
plants).
3/ NRC Order dated June 15, 1977, p. 27. As the Commission stated, "a full-blown de novo antitrust review...would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme..." Id. at p. 31.
4/ These figures were assembled quickly and can only be con-sidered approximate.
Furthermore, the documents requested are not relevant to the issues in this proceeding and even if found to be relevant, they can be obtained through persons already parties to this case.
Finally, compliance with the subpoenas will place a monumental and unreasonable burden on the movants for which no need has been demonstrated.
In support of these premises, movants state as follows.
II. ARGUMENT
- 1. The subpoenas are unreasonably broad in scope, covering documents and data which are clearly irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding.
This case involves a limited antitrust inquiry into the activities of two electric utility companies in Texas. In its June 15, 1977 Order, the NRC instituted a limited antitrust review under section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2135, to determine whether any "significant changes" had occurred in the activities in Texas of the joint licensees in this case relating to "the impact of the operation of the [ nuclear] plant on
I. INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT Movants are industrial manufacturers. They are not parties to the captioned proceeding and have no interest or desire to participate in it. Movants are only five of thousands of industrial users of electrical energy through-out the nation. Yet, to the best of our knowledge movants are the only commercial consumers to have been served with subpoenas in this case. As a matter of law and sound administrative policy the subpoenas must be quashed.
The subpoenas are unreasonably broad in scope, covering documents which relate generally to almost every phase of the manner in which movants do business, and specifically to considerations of electricity usage in every plant or facility throughout the nation. Moreover, the documents embraced by the subpoena contain trade sec.rets and are privileged, confidential and proprietary in nature. They cover movants' internal policies and operations, the public release of which would have a severe adverse impact on each movant's ability to compete in its respective field.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of :
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY :
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO :
THE CITY OF AUSTIN and : Docket Nos. 50-498A CENTRAL POWER AND : 50-499A LIGHT COMPANY :
(South. Texas Project, Units Nos. :
1 and 2). :
JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.720, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products), E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) ,
Monsanto Company (Monsanto), PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG),
and Union Carbide Corporation.(Union Carbide), herein jointly called movants, hereby jointly move to quash the related sub-poenas for the production of documents and for depositions issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on January 31, 1979 on the application of Central Power and Light Company 1/ 2/
(CPL). .
1/ This motion to quash is timely under Rule 2.720 (f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice since it is filed promptly after service (on or about February 8, 1979) and "at or be-fore the time specified in the subpoena for compliance" which is February 19,.1979.
2/ This motion to quash relates to the subpoenas for the pro-duction of documents and the subpoenas for depositions since both demand information regarding the same sets of documents.