ML19282C223
| ML19282C223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903220244 | |
| Download: ML19282C223 (5) | |
Text
'
e r
^
v
.o tQ,M 9
UNITED STATES OF A> ERICA bSNWib7 NUCLEAR FEGULATORY CGMISSION d
1
",s
,E a+.cfj#.
/g TAge In the Matter of
)
)
8 HOUSION LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ET AL. )
- llid
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A (South Texas Project,
)
50-499A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UrILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-446A Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER CONCERNING TUGCO'S FUTION FOR PPMECITVE ORDER REGARDING DEPARIMENr"S DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND DEPARIMENr"S SMION TO CGIPEL FULLER RESPONSES (March 9, 1979) 1.
Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany (TUGCD) on January 12, 1979 filed it objections to and motions for protective orders regardirg certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents, filed by the Department of Justice (Department) on November 22, 1978. The Department's response was filed on February 6,1979. TUGCO's objections will be considered seriatim.
Some of these objections are similar to those the Board has pre-viously ruled on in its Order Regarding Motion of Department of Justice To Compel Austin to Provide Fuller Respons s, dated February 28, 1979
[LEP-79-5, 9 NRC
] (Austin Orded, and in Order Concernire Houston Lighting and Powr Company's Motion for Protective Order Regardirg Department's Discovery Request, dated March 6,1979 (HISP Order).
790322 0 Af[
. khere the reasoning in our prior orders is equally applicable to the instant objections, it will not be repeated at length.
TUGC0 objects to Definition A.3 because it requires the identifica-tion of documents already furnished to the Department. This objection is denied (HIAP Order, pp.1-2).
Definition A.8 provides that requests conceming a subject or item include possible or contsplated actions as to such subject or item.
This definition *culd require a reasonable inauiry of those persons likely to possess relevant knowledge or inforention concermng contemplated actions, and the objection is denied.
Instruction C pertains to assertions of privilege. Prior claims of privilege in other proceedings may not be excepted from TUGCO's responses.
However, such documents shall not be delievered to the Board, but the parties shall follow the procedure described in the FlLP Order, p. 3.
Objections to General Instruction E.1 are denied, for the reasons referred to in our ruling on Definition A.3, suora, and HL&P Order, pp.1-2.
Interrogatory 3 asks the party to " describe in detail" certain factors, reasons and the like. This is a usual and custanary phrase in written interregatories which has been used by most of the parties to this and other proceedings.
It is desned proper, and the objection is overruled.
.. Interrogatory 4 asks TUGC0 to describe the underlying policies or bases for its alleged refusal to engage in the interstate transmission of electricity, "in order of their relative importance." TUCGO should not be required to rank its reasons or weight policies covering many aspects over an extended period of time. The objection to the ranking requirement of this interrogatory is sustained.
Interrogatory 7 asks for the identification of every occasion when TUGC0 either opened or threatened to open certain interconnections.
In context, the term " threats" is not deemed to be argurentative, and the objection is denied.
Interrogatory 9 requires only a good faith effort to respond in a reasonably ccr:plete manner. The objection is overruled.
Interrogatory 16, may be answered in a reasonable time as required to collect rather extensive information. The parties shall confer and endeavor to agree upon a reasonable tire extension for this purpose.
The objections to Interrogatory 20 are denied for the reasons set forth in this Order regarding Definition A.3, Instruction E.1, Interro-gatory 9, and HLSP Order, pp.1-2.
It is contended that Interrogatory 21 is covered by discovery and testimony in District Court litigation. This is an insufficient answer, as we have previously indicated supra and in FLLP Order, pp.1-2.
The objection is denied.
. Only good faith efforts to respond in a reasonably complete manner are required of TUGCO by Interrogatory 23, and its objections are overruled.
Interrogatory 25 asks for details of how a policy to operate exclusively in intrastate comnerce has affected the operations of TUGCO.
This interrogatory asks for underlying facts, and it is not deemed to be argumentative or impermissibly hypothetical. The objections are denied.
II.
The Department filed a motion to compel TUGC0 to provide fuller responses to tne first set of interrogatories on February 6, 1979. TUGC0 responded to the Departrent's motion on Msch 2,1979.
For reasons set forth in the Austin Order, pp.1-2 (LBP-79-5, 9 NRC
), we deny the Department's request that the Board direct TUCCO to make another search of its files, or direct counsel to file an affidavit of search efforts.
Certain responses previously filed by TUGC0 are not the direct, full and camlete responses to interrogatories contemplated by our rules and discovery practice. 'IUGC0 is directed to file adequate responses to Interrogatories 2(a) and (b), 3 (a), 4, 7, 9,12,14,15,16, 20, 21, 23 and 25. Mere references to other trial testimony, depositions and the like are not sufficient for this purpose. The Departrent's motion to
.. cmpel fuller responses to these designated interrogatories is granted.
FOR TE A1U4IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' / ((4 p[t.tc ( I, )?!L dbt Marshall E. Miller, Chauran Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of March 1979.