Tx Util Generating Co Objections to 781122 DOJ Interrogatories & Requests for Documents.Doj Demands Will Result in Unfair Burden to Tugc;Declaims Specific Interrogatories.Moves for Protective OrderML19274D425 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
South Texas ![STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png](/w/images/9/9c/STP_Nuclear_Operating_Company_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
01/12/1979 |
---|
From: |
Knotts J, Reynolds N, Worsham J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7901230332 |
Download: ML19274D425 (11) |
|
|
---|
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
.
. g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, )
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, )
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, and Docket Nos. 50-498A
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
) i
' 'kN3'/
. . ^w . , t a (South Texas Project, Unit Nos. ) , t ,-
1 and 2) )
'I ,
TUGCO' S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTIONS FOR - I J';)
PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CERTAIN OP- J[I DEPARTMENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS -
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ' -
Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al ("TUGCO" ) is today responding in a separate document to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents directed to TUGCO by the Department of Justice on November 22, 1978. TUGCO submits herein its objections and requests for protective orders in order to protect its rights under 10 C.F.R. 52.740 (f) .
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2. 7 4 0 (c) , a protective order may be entered to protect the party from whom discovery is sought from annoyance, oppression, undue burden or expense. Examples of such orders given in the regulations are: " (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions . . .; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters; and . . .; (7) that studies and evaluations not be prepared."
q9012303Ib2
TUGCO's objections and request for protective orders are directed to certain definitions and instJuctions contained in the Department's request (and hence to all inquiries and responses involving those definitions or instructions) and to specific combined interrogatories and document requests (those numbered 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 25. In most instances, TUGCO is making such response as it considers it reasonably can to the thrust of these inquiries.
OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS Definitions Definition A.3 seems to require identification of documents already copied and delivered to the Department. TUGCO believes that if such is intended, it casts an unfair burden on it, and is not willing to identify documents already in the hands of the Department. In other words, it should not fall to TUGCO to prepare an index or catalogue of documents already furnished the Department. TUGCO's objections and request for a protective order are discussed in greater detail with respect to General Instruction E.1.
Definition A.8 purports to require responses with regard to possible or contemplated actions. It is extremely difficult and burdensome if not impossible to fully respond to interrogatories based on a definition of such vagueness and breadth (even reaching mental impressions) and covering such an extended period of time.
To the extent that possible or contemplated actions were documented,
i these can be (and we are informed have been) collected in the dis-trict court litigation and provided to the Department. Accordingly TUGCO objects and requests that the operation of this definition be modified with respect to interrogatories to require no more than a reasonable inquiry of likely officers as to their recollection of contemplated actions, and limited to such contemplated actions as reached the stage of discussion among senior management.
Instructions Instruction C pertains in part to assertions of privilege.
We are informed that no privileged documents have become involved for the first time in these responses. However, some documents as to which privilege has already been asserted and identifying information supplied are or may be involved in some responses to document requests and these should be considered excepted from responses. In any event, TUGCO's assertion of privilege is in no way waived. Moreover, the instruction purports to require that documents as to which privilege is asserted be delivered to the Licensing Board under seal. We do not believe that the Licensing Board should be unnecessarily burdened with such matters and in any event do not believe that the suggested procedure is an appropriate one. TUGCO objects and requests that the instructions be modified accordingly.
General Instruction E.1 seems to require, in the case of documents already made available to the Department, detailed identifying information. TUGCO asserts that such a request is burdensome and uncalled for and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the stipulation of the parties regarding discovery
in other proceedings and the Licensing Board order on the same subject. Moreover, for the Department to cast upon TUGCO the burden of determining which of the documents the Department requested and already has should be matched with what questions in its current interrogatories and document requests is for the Department to have T:TGCO do its indexing. It would be unduly bordensome and expensive for TUGCO to have to match up documents already provided with after-the-fact questions, especially where the questions do not reflect an effort to avoid duplicative dis-covery.- TUGCO therefore objects and requests a protective order to the effect that identification or matching of documents already produced with subsequent questions not be required.
In regard to the Department's instructions for responses to the interrogatories and document requests as a whole, TUGCO requests a protective order to the effect that the fomn of response to an interrogatory may be references to documents produced. In other words, documents should be considered a sufficient answer to interrogatories without a complete paraphrase or catalogue.
TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the foregoing effect.
Before proceeding to the specific interrogatory and document requests, an observation and suggestion are in order.
At the June 21st prehearing conference, counsel for the Depart-ment noted (Tr . 118 - 119) that it would be working on a proposed factual stipulation and that it hoped it would be in a position to put forward a draft of such stipulation "about four months into discovery". Such has not yet been done. It appears to us that, if
mutual agreement were reached on such a stipulation, this would obviate the need for the Department and TUGCO to go through much time-consuming and expensive searching out of examples of actions or of patterns of conduct when the general proposition sought to be established could more easily have been negotiated and stipulated to. If the Department will come forward with its draft stipulation even now, perhaps much if not all of the Depart-ment's task of resolving disputed matters regarding these inter-rogatories and document requests can be eliminated.
Specific Interrogatories and Document Recuests Question 3 begins with " describe in detail". TUGCO objects and moves for a protective order to the effect that the summary response, taken together with the documents already in the hands of the Department, suffice for any reason-ble discovery need.
Interrogatory 4 seeks to have TUGCO describe certain policies or reasons for conduct "in order of their relative importance". TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the effect that it not be required to rank its reasons for historically avoiding interstate operations where such would entail plenary FPC (now FERC) jurisdiction, and, further, that the summary response provided should be deemed sufficient when viewed in conjunction with the documents referred to in response to doctuent request 1.e.
Interrogatory 7 refers to " threats" by TUGCO. TUGCO objects to that term on the ground that it is argumentative and requests that the inter:rogatory be deemed modified to read " advised" or
" notified" as the context may require.
Interrogatory 9 is unduly broad. While the summary response provided to the interrogatories and the document references furnished constitute, we are informed, a complete answer to the best of the knowledge of the individuals involved, there can be no assurances that all occasions of communication and all documents involved have in fact been obtained despite good faith efforts to that end. Accordingly, TUGCO objects and requests that the interrogatory be modified to require no more than a good faith effort to provide a reasonably complete response.
Interrogatory 16 seeks extremely extensive information over a 28-year period. Although the request is quite burdensome, and very time-consuming, the protective order which TUGCO requests here is a reasonable additional period of time within which to collect the information requested, and to be accorded the flexi-bility to furnish the requested information in somewhat different form (to the extent it is not available in the form requested) .
Interrogatory 20 is another instance where the Department seeks a catalogue of every communication on a particular subject.
It would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible, to answer this interrogatory as framed to th; extent that it goes beyond documented communications. M. 7er, as framed, the interrogatory would require the indexing of documents already furnished the Department and, as discussed above, such should not be required.
Accordingly, TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the effect that production of documents regarding the formation of ERCOT suffices by way of answer to both the interrogatories and the document request.
The thrust of interrogatory number 21 has been fully addressed in discovery and testimony in the District Court proceeding.
Accordingly, TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the effect that reference to those documents should be deemed to constitute a sufficient response to the interrogatory and the document request.
Interrogatory 23 seeks a detailed catalogue of all instances where inspections were made of equipment designed to prevent the flow of electric power in interstate commerce and related information pertaining to installation or maintenance of such devices and the costs associated therewith. It would be extremely burdensome if not impossible to answer this interrogatory as framed, particularly with regard to undocumented instances.
For purposes of the present proceeding, the summary response provided and documents referenced should be deemed sufficient.
No cost estimates should be required of TUGCO since such would require TUGCO to perform a study which, if the Department requires one, should be performed by its consultants or expert witnesses.
Accordingly, TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the foregoing effect.
Interrogatory 25 is in part argumentative in its entirety, in part founded on an hypothetical premise which has no present foundation and in part would require TUGCO to perform studies for the benefit of the Department which more properly should be performed by its consultants or expert witnesses at its expense.
The interrogatory is argumentative in that it assumes some " excess"
cost associated with intrastate operation and no benchmark case is given for comparison. Of course, the only alternative to intrastate operation is interstate operation, and if that is the premise of the question there is no foundation fcr the proposition that interstate operation is cheaper than intrastate operation (whi.:h would be required to produce an " excess" cost for intrastate operation). Accordingly, TUGCO objects and requests a protective order to the effect that this discovery not be had.
Respectfully submitted, b M ht h I, b '[
Joseph Bl.' Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Nicholad S. Reynolds' , Esq.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
M.D. Sampels, Esq.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
WORSHAM, FORSYTHE & SAMPELS 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Dated: January 12, 1979.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, )
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Docket Nos. 50-498A
)
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, and 50-499A
)
CEN'IRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "TUGCO's Objections to and Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Certain of Department's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 12th day of January, 1979:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Mr. Jerome D. Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief, Antitrust ~and Commission Indemnity Group Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael L. Glaser, Esq. Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 J. Irion Worsham, Esq.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Merlyn D. Sampels, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Commission Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Washington, D.C. 20555 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Jon C. Wood, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory W. Roger Wilson. Esc.
Commission Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane &
Washington, D.C. 20555 Barrett 1500 Alamo National Building Chase R. Stephens S:n Antonio, Texas 78205 Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Charles G. Thrash , Jr. . Esc.
Commission E.W. Barnett, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Theodore F. Weiss. Esc.
Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002
R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Baker & Botts Richard E. Powell, Esq.
'701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. David M. Stahl, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20606 Thomas G. Ryan, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq. One First National Plaza Michael B. Blume, Esq. Chicago, Illinois 60603 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Don R. Butler, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Sneed, vine, Wilkerson, Selman & Perry Roff Hardy P.O. Box 1409
_ Chairman and Chief Executive Austin, Texas 78767 Officer Central Power and Light Jerry L. Harris, Esq.
Company Richard C. Balough, Esq.
P.O. Box 2121 City of Austin Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. Perry G. Brittain President Don H. Davidson Texas Utilities Generating City Manager Company City of Austin 2001 Bryan Tower P.O. Box 1088 Dallas, Texas 57201 Austin, Texas 78767 R.L. Hancock, Director J.A. Bouknight, Jr.
City of Austin Electric Utility Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
P.O. Box 1086 Axelrad Austin, Texas 78767 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 G.W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President John W. Davidson, Esq.
Houston Lighting & Power Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson Company & Tioilo P.O. Box 1700 1100 San Antonio Savings Houston, Texas 77001 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Richard D. Cudahy, Esq.
Joseph Gallo, Esq. Douglas F. John, Esq.
Robert H. Leoffler, Esq. Akin, Gump, Haver & Feld Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1100 Madison Office Building 1050 17th Street, N.W. 1155 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20036 Ronald Clark, Esq.
Judith Harris, Esc. Energy Section U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division P.O. Box 14141 Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20044
Morgan Hunter, Esq. Kevin B. Pratt Bill D. St. Clair, Esq. Attorney General's Office McGinnis, Lockridge & Kilgore State of Texas Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank P.O. Box 12548 Building Austin, Texas 78711 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
William H. Burchette, Esq.
W.S. Robson Northcutt Ely General Manager Watergate 600 Building South Texas Electric Cooperating, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20037 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport Victoria, Texas 77901 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Robert Jablon, Esq.
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
/
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.
-