ML19261C404
| ML19261C404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903220388 | |
| Download: ML19261C404 (5) | |
Text
&
k..
W'.
)
Np'gi7 gj.
,C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.e Nf NUCIZAR REGULATORY OM!ISSION s
e y
C g :'
<b In the Matter of
)
y
, c.,
)
HOUSTON LIGHIING & POWER CGEANY, ET AL.
)
et s.
(South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATINC, COPANY, ET AL. )
) Docket Nos. 50-445A (Camanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-446A Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER CONCERNING HOUSION LIGHTING & PGER CQdPANY'S M0rION FOR PROIECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPARHENT'S DISCCVERY REQUEST (March 6,1979)
The DepartInent of Justice (Department) served its First Set of Written Interrogatories upon Houston Lighting & Power Cmpany (HIAP) on Novmber 22, 1978. HL&P served its Objections and Answers on January 11, 1979, and on January 15, 1979, it served Objection and Motion for a Protective Order. The Department responded to both filings on February 6, 1979.
HISP's first objection and motion for protective order relates to General Instruction No.1 subnitted by the Department. That instruction in part provides that if'some of the requested documents have already been made available for the Department's inspection, they may be listed and described in lieu of being produced again. HLSP regards this as requiring it unreasonably to review again and sort out and list documents previously supplied. The proble results fran the fact that many of onese docurents have been previously produced by HIbP in another civil 77632 2o 3S7
. case (West Texas Utilities Canoany, et al. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., No. CA3-76-0633F [N.D. Texas, Dallas Division]) and we have directed that discovery provided in other proceedings be considered as nnterial discovered in these consolidated proceedings.1/ However, our effort to udnimize duplicative discovery was not intended to prevent discovery which would otherwise be available to any party. Hence, we camund these parties for utilizing docunents discovered previously by E AP in the civil action. But that fact does not relieve M4P from producing documents pertinent to specific discovery requests.
It has the option either to produce all documents relevant to particular requests, or to list and describe those docunents it regards as duplicative.
In either event, a document and file review is required of EAP, regardless of what it tuay have done for other parties in other proceedings. This objection is denied.
The next objec* ion of MAP relates to discovery requests directed jointly to it and another canpany. HAP is only required to furnish such infonnation as is available to it.
10 CFR 52.740b(a). There is no implication that MAP is responsible for responding on behalf of some
, other unaffiliated corporation, which can respond on its own behalf.
This objection is overruled.
1/
- South Texas Special Prehearirg Conference Order, July 13, 1978, Tr. 6; Cananche Peak Prehearing Conference Order Regarding Issues, Discovery and Consolidation, Decenber 5,1978, Tr. 4.
. The Department in Section C of its request asked that all documents withheld because of a claim of privilege be listed and the basis for asserted privilege described. HIAP objects to preparing a "new" list of privileged documents because it had previously provided a list of allegedly privileged docunents in the other civil acticn. This objecticn is wide of the mark. Discovery in other proceedings is only the beginning of our inquiry, not the end. The fact that HLSP (or any other party) has been involved in other litigation, does not confer any innunity from or abridgement of normal discovery in this proceeding.
It is only minimizing unnecessary duplication that we seek to accomplish, not fore-closing pertinent discovery to veterans of other legal wars.
However, the Depart:nent goes too far when it requests that all documents claimed to be privileged, shall be sealed and deposited with the Board. We do not wish to take physical possession of any docunents, in camera or otherwise.
If the matter of privilege is properly brought to our attention, we will rule upon such claims and we will then decide whether or not an in camera inspection of documents is necessary.
Meanwhile, counsel and parties are directed to preserve intact all docunents withheld under claim of privilege, pending future rulings of the Board.
HLLP objects to Interrogatory 5(b), which asks for the identifica-tion of all provisions in the South Texas participation agreenent stich limit participation to utilities engaged only in intrastate cocmerce.
It contends that it calls for legal conclusions, and as such calls for nental impressions, opinions and legal theories of its attorneys. The objection is overruled. The interrogatory is addressed to a party, not its attorneys.
It is always proper to ask a party for its understanding of contractual provisions. The principles contained in Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are also applicable here by analogy, as to answers involving an opinion or contention that relates to fact, or the application of law to fact.
Objection is made to Interrogatory 13 on the ground that it is so vague and ambiguous that a meaningful answer is not possible. That interrogatory inquires whether the costs of regulation under FERC muld be greater or less than under the Texas Public Utility Ca: mission, and the basis for allegedly greater costs under the fonner. This is a fair question which Ses to some of the business justifications advanced by HELP and other for actions involving interstate versus intrastate operations and considerations. The objection is denied.
In substance, Interrogatory 19(a) asks wh ther HLSP had econanic or engineerine v ssons for not reconnecting with utilities with which it had previously been interconnected, after an FPC order dated July 21, 1976, and if so what bases there were in fact underlying such reasons.
. The objections relating to speculation, argunent and conjecture are overruled, and HIhP should supply the requested facts.
EUR THE A'IWIC SAFELY AND LICENSING BOARD
' / / li.; h t L [ l. / $G G
Mirshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of March 1979.
.