ML19276E699
| ML19276E699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1979 |
| From: | Knotts J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903200287 | |
| Download: ML19276E699 (10) | |
Text
TFho UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO. g g
et al.
)
50-499A p
edmo (South Texas Project, Units
"'f" s
)
1 and 2)
=0 k-MAR )5 87.9 > i
- k. w
- Docket Nos. l 50.4 4 5A-TEXAS UTILITIES GENE'1ATING COMPANY, et al.
t E*,*,& *
//
'~
~
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric (3
~
Station, Units 1 and 2)
TUGCO'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS WITH REGARD TO BROWNSVILLE'S INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS On January 31, 1979,Public Utilities Board of the City of Brownsville served by mail its interrogatories and requests for production of documents to TUGCO, et al., in the South Texas docket, in which TUGCO is a party intervenor.
On February 14, 1979, TUGCO requested an extension of time which was granted in part by the Board's Order of February 15, 1979,such that objections or other pleadings are due March 2, 1979.
In accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice, and in order to protect its rights under 10 C.F. R., S2. 74 0 (f), TUGCO submits these objections and requests for protective orders.
A pervasive problem which TUGCO has in attempting to respond to these interrogatories is that they are la many cases universal in scope, vague and general, and response would be unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
Among other things, these inter-rogatories and document requests do not "zero in" on specifics as TUGCO is entitled to expect after review by Brownsville's counsel 7903200M7 of the many thousands of pages of documents provided to the Department of Justice (and loaned by us to counsel for Browns-ville) and of the documents inspected during a multi-week visit in the offices of_the TU Companies by Brownsville's representative.
Equally troublesome is that Brownsville's requests range so far beyond what we take to be the appropriate cnd reasonable scopo of inquiry by Brownsville to TU.
Bearing in mind tha'
~~
t Brownsville is a party intervenor in the South Texas docket and that TUGCO occupies the same status in that proceeding,and that Brownsville did not seek to intervene in the Comanche Peak pro-ceeding, then Brownsville should be entitled only to such dis-covery against TU as relates to the issues in the South Texas proceeding.
To the extent that Brownsville alleges an improper combination or improper actions by or between one or more applicants in South Texas and other companies (including TU Companies), then we take it that inquiries regarding agreements and the like are appropriate for inquiry by Brownsville, as may be certain electric market inquiries.
The proper scope of inquiry should end there.
But Brownsville's requests are not so limited.
As will be seen by reviewing the requests, and as discussed more specifically below, the subject matter of many of them does not seem to be even generally relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.
Therefore we object to the scope of Brownsville's inter-rogatories and request a protective order to the effect that Brownsville be required to establish the nexus between the issues in this proceeding and any interrogatory or request for production which relates to any matter other than agreements or joint actions between TU Companies and one or more third party utilities, or reasonable market inquiries.
Moreover, we request that Brownsville be directed to make its requests specific and wherever possible tie them into documents or some other appro-priate point of reference such as a statement in the transcript of the District Court proceeding.
Objections and requests for protective crders with regard to specific requests are set forth seriatim below.
The numbering system used is the same as that employed by Brownsville.
1.
This question is so vague and general as to make any attempt at response a matter of guesswork and speculation, as well as unduly burdensome.
We request a protective order to the effect that TUGCO's response to Question 14 of the NRC Staff be taken as a sufficient and-complete response to this interrogatory and that no further response be required.
3.
and 4.
In both cases items (a) and (b) are in part duplicative and in part best answered by reference to the respective agreements.
TUGCO's response to NRC Staff interrogatories, Item 4.e., along with reference to the respective agreements.should be ordered to be sufficient response.
7.
Any such indices requested, other than lists of designated documents and exhibits, together with proposed findings which refer to them, all of which are available for inspection and copying, would be privileged as work product and should be protected as such.
6.
Response to this interrogatory as framed would be excessively burdensome and unreasonable.
Moreover the interrogatory does not appear to be direc' ed to c
the discovery of material even generally relevant to any issue in this proceeding.
Finally, and in any event, TUGCO asserts privilege with respect to projected or potential sources of supply which may be
~~
a matter of exploration or development or negotiation on the ground that such constitutes confidential and proprietary information which TUGCO ought not to be required to divulge.
Accordingly TUGCO requests that this discovery not be had.
9.
The interrogatory as framed is so comprehensive, vague and general as to make response a matter of guesswork and unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
10.
This interrogatory as framed is so comprehensive as to render response unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
Moreover the matters sought to be inquired into are so far beyond the scope of any issue between Brownsville and TU as to render them beyond the proper scope of discovery.
ll. (a)
This request for production of all fuel contracts is unduly burdensome and unreasonable and appears to be out-side the proper scope of Brownsville diccovery as dis -
cussed above.
ll. (b)
Absent a showing of relevance to a proper issue in this proceeding, TUGCO should not be required to develop the response requested.
I
. ll. (d) This question is so ambiguous and vague as to make meaningful response without guesswork impossible.
ll. (h-j )
Production of such documents appears unduly burden-some and unreasonable and beyond the proper scope of inquiry for Brownsville in this proceeding.
13.
TU should not be required to respond to this inter-rogatory since it was not in a position to offer participation in the South Texas project in which it never has had'any financial interest.
15.
It would be unduly burdensome and unreasonable for TUGCO to be required to respond, and specifically to list and dacument every transmission feed point of a TU operated company to any other electric utility.
Moreover the-request is in part duplicative of Staff interrogatory Question 15 and documents produced.
16.
Response to this interrogatory as framed would be unduly burdensome and unreasonable in light of its unlimited and universal scope.
17.
This interrogatory as framed is so comprehensive as to make response unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
19.
Again this interrogatory is so comprehensive as to render response unduly burdensome.
Moreover, the interrogatory would seem to embrace generally avail-able public documents such as decisions of the courts or agencies having jurisdiction, governmental studies and the like,and, apart from the generally available public documents, it would not be reasonable to expect that TU would have such documents as might be generated by or for municipally or cooperatively owned elec$ri[
utilities.
- 20. As framed this interrogatory is so comprehensive as to render response unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
- 21. Again, this interrogatory as framed is so comprehensive as to render response unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
Moreover this interrogatory as framed would require TUGCO to perform a study.
- 22. Again this interrogatory as framed is so comprehensive as to be rendered unduly burdensome and unreasonable.
- 27. (a) The question necessarily involves a legal conclusion and the mental processes and/or work product of counsel and is therefore objected to.
Moreover the balance of Question 27 (a) and all of Question 27 (b) and (c) are so comprehensive and vague as to render response unduly speculative, burdensome and unreasonable.
- 28. TUGCO wi'shes to reserve the right to object and be protected from this request depending on whether or not the parties are able to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement.
Extensive documents have already been provided to Brownsville's counsel on a loan basis and all responses to interrogatories have already been provided to Brownsville's counsel.
29.
A blanket request to up-date responses in other pro-ceedings irrespective of any possible relevance to any proper issue in this proceeding is burdensome and ought to be denied.
Certain discovery in this proceeding is of a continuing nature and the supplements responsive thereto will be provided to Brownsville as have the original responses.
CONCLUSION TUGCO's objections as noted above should be sustained and TUGCO's duty to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents should be limited as requested herein.
R ctfully submitted, ea 4
."KN'o t Jr.
DEBK OISE & LIBERMAN 1 MO Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Date:
March 2, 1979 Washington, D.C.
20036 J.
Irion Worsham Merlyn 0.
Sampels Spencer C. Relyea e
WORSHAM, FORSYTHE & SAMPELS 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER CO.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A
_e t _a l.
)
50-499A (South Texas Project, Units
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric.
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "TUGCO's Objections and Motion for Protective Orders with Regard to Brownsville's Interrogatories and Document Requests" dated March 2, 1979 were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid this 2nd day of March, 1979.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Jerome D.
Saltzman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory
'hief, Antitrust and Commission Indemnity Group Washington, D.C.
20555 Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Michael L.
Glaser, Esq.
Commission 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, Esq.
Commission Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane &
Washington, D.C.
20555 Barrett 1500 Alamo National Building Chase R.
Stephens San Antonio, Texas 78205 Docketing and Service Branch U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles G.
Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Don R.
Butler, Esq.
E.W.
Barnett, Esq.
Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Selman & Perry J.
Gregory Copeland, Esq.
P.O. Box 1409 Baker & Botts Austin, Texas 78767 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Jerry L.
Harris, Esq.
Richard C.
Balough, Esq.
R.
Gordon Gooch, Esq.
City of Austin John P.
Mathis, Esq.
P.O.
Box 1088 Baker & Botts Austin, Texas 78767 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
20006 Don H. Davidson
~
City Manager Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.,
Esq.
City of Austin Michael B.
Blume, Esq.
P.O.
Box 1088 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Austin, Texas 78767 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert Lowenstein J.
A.
Bouknight, Jr.
Roff Hardy William J. Franklin Chairman and Chief Executive Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Officer Axelrad Central Power and Light Company 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
P.O.
Box 2121 Washington, D.C.
20036 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 John W.
Davidson, Esq.
Mr. Perry G.
Brittain Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson &
President Tioilo Texas Utilities-Generating 1100 San Antonio Savings Company Building 2001 Bryan Tower San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75201 Douglas F.
John, Esq.
R.L.
Hancock, Director Akin, Gump, Haver & Feld City of Austin Electric Utility 1100 Madison Office Building P.O.
Box 1086 1155 15th Street, N.W.
Austin, Texas 78767 Washington, D.C.
20005 G.W.
Oprea, Jr.
Morgan Hunter, Esq.
Executive Vice President McGinnis, Lockridge & Kilgore Houston Lighting & Power Fifth Floor, Texas State Company Bank Building P.O.
Box 1700 900 Congress Avenue Houston, Texas 77001 Austin, Texas 78701 Judith Harris, Esq.
Richard D.
Cudahy, Esq.
Ronald Clark, Esq.
Joseph Gallo, Esq.
U.S.
Department of Justice Robert H.
Leoffler, Esq.
Antitrust Division Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O.
Box 14141 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20044 Suite 701 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael I.
Miller, Esq.
Xevin B.
Pratt, Esq.
Richard E.
Powell, Esq.
Attorney General's Office David M.
Stahl, Esq.
State of Texas Thomas G.
Ryan, Esq.
P.O.
Box 12548 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Austin, Texas 78711 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 RErederick H.
Ritts, Esq.
William H.
Burchett, Esq.
Bill D.
St. Clair, Esq.
Northcutt Ely McGinnis, Lockridge & Kilgore '
Watergate 600 Building Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Washington, D.C.
20037 Building 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 W.S.
Robson General Manager South Texas Electric Cooperation, Inc.
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 t, L4
(.
e Jos h B.
Knotts, Jr.