|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20196G4021999-06-18018 June 1999 Comment on FRN Re Rev of NRC Enforcement Policy NUREG-1600, Rev 1 & Amend of 10CFR55.49.Concurs with Need to Provide Examples That May Be Used as Guidance in Determining Appropriate Severity Level for Violations as Listed ML20206H1881999-05-0606 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App K Re ECCS Evaluation Models. Commission Grants Licensee Exemption ML20206H2221999-05-0404 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 ML20206M5111999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083 Re Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e). Recommends That Listed Approach Be Adopted for Changes to Documents Incorporated by Ref CY-99-007, Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-0071999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Changes to Improve Insp & Assessment Processes for Overseeing Commercial Nuclear Industry That Were Published in Fr on 990122 & in SECY-99-007 TXX-9825, Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment Endorsing NEI Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10CFR50.65, Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness at Npps 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 ML20154C4101998-09-30030 September 1998 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Comanche Peak Electric Station Endorses NEI Comment Ltr & Agrees with NEI Recommendations & Rationale ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order ML20216E1051998-04-0707 April 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1029 Titled Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic & Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-related Instrumentation & Control Sys 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 ML20217H3611998-03-26026 March 1998 Comment Opposing Draft GL 97-XX, Lab Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal, Issued on 980225.Advises That There Will Be Addl Implementation Costs ML20198Q4851998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane That Requests NRC Amend Regulations Re Emergency Planning to Require Consideration of Sheltering,Evacuation & Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public ML20211A4871997-09-12012 September 1997 Changes Submittal Date of Response to NRC RAI Re Proposed CPSES risk-informed Inservice Testing Program & Comments on NRC Draft PRA Documents ML20149L0311997-07-21021 July 1997 Comment on Draft Guides DG-1048,DG-1049 & DG-1050.Error Identified in Last Line of DG-1050,item 1.3 of Section Value/Impact Statement.Rev 30 Should Be Rev 11 ML20140A4871997-05-27027 May 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Safety Conscious Work Environ.Util Agrees W/Nuclear Energy Inst Comment Ltr ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20133G5411996-12-0505 December 1996 Transcript of 961205 Meeting in Arlington,Tx Re Comanche Peak Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers. Pp 1-111 ML20135B7881996-11-29029 November 1996 Order Approving Corporate Restructuring of TU to Facilitate Acquistion of Enserch Corp ML20128M8011996-10-0303 October 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Generic Communication, Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Control Rod Drive Mechanism & Other Vessel Head Penetrations ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant ML20097D7321996-02-0909 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re CPSES Request for Amend to Its Regulations Dealing W/Emergency Planning to Include Requirement That Emergency Planning Protective Actions for General Public Include Listed Info ML20094Q6421995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment Supporting Petition for RM PRM-50-62 Re Amend to Regulation Re QAPs Permitting NPP Licensees to Change Quality Program Described in SAR W/O NRC Prior Approval If Changes Do Not Potentially Degrade Safety or Change TSs ML20094H4801995-11-0808 November 1995 Comment Supporting Nuclear Energy Inst Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR60,72,73 & 75 Re Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or high-level Radwaste 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 ML20091M6441995-08-25025 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Review of Revised NRC SALP Program.Believes That NRC Should Reconsider Need for Ipap or SALP in Light of Redundancy ML20086M7921995-07-0707 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed GL Process for Changes to Security Plan Without Prior NRC Approval ML20084A0181995-05-19019 May 1995 Comment Suporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Containment Leakage Testing.Supports NEI Comments ML20077M7311994-12-30030 December 1994 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20077L8711994-12-22022 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50,55 & 73 Re Reduction of Reporting Requirements Imposed on NRC Licensees ML20073B6731994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Re License Amend Request 94-015 ML20073B6951994-09-19019 September 1994 Affidavit of Cl Terry Authorizing Signing & Filing W/Nrc OL Amend Request 94-016 ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20058E0561993-11-10010 November 1993 Comment on Proposed Rule Re Staff Meetings Open to Public. Believes That NRC Has Done Well in Commitment to Provide Public W/Fullest Practical Access to Its Activities ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20045D8321993-06-11011 June 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 54, FSAR Update Submittals. ML20044F3271993-05-21021 May 1993 Comments on Draft NRC Insp Procedure 38703, Commercial Grade Procurement Insp, Fr Vol 58,Number 52.NRC Should Use EPRI Definitions for Critical Characteristics ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20056C1881993-03-17017 March 1993 Order.* Directs Util to Respond to Motion by COB 930319 & NRC to Respond by COB 930322.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930317 ML20128D9651993-02-0303 February 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Stay Request Filed by Petitioners Denied.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930203 ML20128F6221993-02-0303 February 1993 Transcript of 930203 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote Public Meeting in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-2.Related Info Encl ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3461993-01-29029 January 1993 NRC Staff Notification of Issuance of OL for Facility.* Low Power License May Be Issued by 930201.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D6321993-01-29029 January 1993 Memorandum & Order.* Denies Citizens for Fair Util Regulation for Fr Notice Hearing on Proposed Issuance of OL for Facility.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 930129 ML20128D6111993-01-26026 January 1993 Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric 1999-06-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20056C0831993-03-19019 March 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Petitioners Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License.* Licensee Urges NRC to Reject Petitioners Motion & to Deny Petitioners Appeal of 921215 Order.Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D4651993-02-0202 February 1993 Texas Utils Electric Co Response to Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioner Request Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Meet Heavy Burden Imposed on Party.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128D3391993-02-0202 February 1993 Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of low-power Ol.* Petitioners Specific Requests Listed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127L9091993-01-25025 January 1993 Tx Util Electric Response to Citizens for Fair Util Regulation Request of 930113.* Request Fails to Raise Worthy Issue & Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G9441993-01-19019 January 1993 TU Electric Brief in Opposition to Petitioners Appeal of ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Requests That Petitioners Appeal Be Denied & Licensing Board 921215 Memorandum & Order Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7451993-01-14014 January 1993 NRC Staff Response to Motion of Petitioners RM Dow & SL Dow, (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station),For Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127G7941993-01-12012 January 1993 Opposition of TU Electric to Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow (Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station) & RM Dow.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A6131993-01-0707 January 1993 Motion for Leave to File Out of Time & Request for Extension of Time to File Brief.* Petitioners Did Not Receive Order in Time to Appeal & Requests 15 Day Extension from Motion Filing Date to Respond.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7911992-12-31031 December 1992 Petitioner Amended Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Petitioners Requests Until C.O.B. on 930108 to File Appeal Brief.W/Certificate of Svc ML20127A7641992-12-30030 December 1992 Petitioner Motion for Continuance to File Appeal Brief.* Counsel Requests That Petitioners Be Granted Until 930109 to File Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128C9751992-12-0303 December 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements & Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene by B Orr,D Orr, J Macktal & Hasan.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20128B8721992-11-27027 November 1992 NRC Staff Response to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow, Petitioner.* Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied for Reasons Explained in Encl.W/Certificate of Svc ML20128A0271992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Util Requests That Petitioners 921118 Motion to Compel Be Denied in Entirety.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127P8181992-11-25025 November 1992 Texas Utilities Electric Co Answer to Notification of Addl Evidence Supporting Petition to Intervene.* Petitioners Notification Procedurally Improper & Substantively Improper & Should Be Rejected by Board.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M4591992-11-19019 November 1992 TU Electric Opposition to Motion for Rehearing by RM Dow.* RM Dow 921110 Motion for Rehearing Should Be Denied.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20127M4271992-11-15015 November 1992 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Info Secreted by Restrictive Agreements.* Petitioners Bi Orr,Di Orr,Jj Macktal & SMA Hasan Requests That Board Declare Null & Void Any & All Provisions in Settlement Agreements.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116M3181992-11-10010 November 1992 Motion for Prehearing by RM Dow,Petitioner.* Requests Period of Ten Days to File Supplemental Pleading to Original Petition.Certificate of Svc & Statement Encl ML20106D8881992-10-0808 October 1992 Opposition of Util to Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposbale Workers of Plant & RM Dow.* Request for Extension of Time & to Become Party to Proceeding Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20106D2821992-10-0505 October 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief by SL Dow Doing Business as Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* Petitioner Requests 30-day Extension.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101P5891992-06-30030 June 1992 Response of Texas Utils Electric to Comments of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc. Dispute Strictly Contractual Issue Involving Cap Rock Efforts to Annul Reasonable Notice Provisions of 1990 Power Supply Agreement 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 ML20127K8141992-05-19019 May 1992 Request to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke License Held by Util for Unit 1 & for Cause Would Show Commission That Primary Place of Registration for Organization Is Fort Worth,Tarrant County,Tx ML20096A6281992-05-0707 May 1992 Applicants Reply to Opposition cross-motions for Summary Disposition & Responses to Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition.* Applicants Conclude NRC Has No Authority to Retain Antitrust Licensing Conditions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095C4691992-04-17017 April 1992 TU Electric Answer to Application for Hearings & Oral Argument by M Dow & SL Dow.* Concludes That NRC Should Deny Application for Oral Argument & Hearings on Petition to Intervene & Motion to Reopen.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2561992-04-0606 April 1992 Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.* ML20094K4161992-03-16016 March 1992 TU Electric Answer to Petition to Intervene & Motion & Supplemental Motion to Reopen by M Dow & SL Dow & TU Electric Request for Admonition of Dows.* Concludes That Motion Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091A0461992-03-13013 March 1992 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend License Pending New Hearings on Issue. W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4241992-02-24024 February 1992 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Reopen Record & Suspend OL for Unit 1 & CP for Unit 2,pending Reopening & Final Decision.W/Certificate of Svc ML20090C4431992-02-21021 February 1992 Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time.* Requests That Petition for Leave to Intervene Out of Time Be Granted for Listed Reasons.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 ML20086Q3121991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Motion for Leave to File Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Requests That NRC Recognize J Ellis as Case Representative for Filing & Pleading Purposes.W/Limited Notice of Appearance ML20086Q3811991-12-26026 December 1991 Case Response to Portions of Motion of R Micky & Dow to Reopen Record.* Submits Responses to Motions to Reopen Record ML20091G2511991-12-0202 December 1991 Licensee Answer to Motion to Reopen Record by M Dow & SL Dow.* Requests That Petitioners Motion Be Denied for Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc & Notices of Appearance ML20086G7381991-11-22022 November 1991 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests That Licensing Board Reopen Record & Grant Leave to File Motion to Intervene. W/Certificate of Svc ML20006C4811990-02-0101 February 1990 Applicant Answer to Request for Stay by Citizens for Fair Util Regulation (Cfur).* Cfur Failed to Satisfy Burden to Demonstrate Necessity for Stay & Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20006B1691990-01-27027 January 1990 Second Request for Stay Citizens for Fail Util Regulation.* Requests That NRC Stay Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation of Unit 1 Until 900209.Certificate of Svc Encl 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 ML20248J3601989-10-15015 October 1989 Request for Stay Citizens for Fair Util Regulation.* Requests That Commission Retain Authority to Order That Fuel Loading & Low Power License Not Be Immediately Effective,Per Util Intent to Request License.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20246B8671989-08-17017 August 1989 Motion for Reconsideration of NRC Memorandum & Order CLI-89-14.* NRC Should Excuse Itself from Consideration on Matters Re Jj Macktal & Should Refer All Issues on NRC Requested Subpoena to Independent Adjudicatory Body ML20248D6291989-08-0202 August 1989 Jj Macktal Statement Re Motion for Recusation.* Macktal Motion Considered Moot Due to Commission No Longer Having Jurisdiction to Consider Motion Since Macktal Not Party to Proceeding Before Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247Q3851989-07-26026 July 1989 Withdrawal of Motion to Reopen Record.* Withdraws 890714 Motion to Reopen Record.W/Certificate of Svc ML20245J7331989-07-26026 July 1989 Request of Cap Rock for Reevaluation of Director'S Determination That No Significant Changes in Licensee Activity Warrant Antitrust Review at OL Stage.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20247B5901989-07-19019 July 1989 Motion to Reopen Record.* Requests Board to Reopen Record & Grant Leave to Renew Earlier Motion for Intervention Status. W/Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc ML20248D5541989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Recusation.* Requests That NRC Recuse from Deciding on Macktal Cases on Basis That NRC Will Not Be Fair & Impartial Tribunal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248D5731989-07-0303 July 1989 Motion for Reconsideration.* Requests Reconsideration of NRC 890122 Order on Basis That NRC Subpoena Filed for Improper Purposes & NRC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Matters Presently Before Dept of Labor ML20245J9411989-06-30030 June 1989 Response of Texas Utils Electric Co to Request of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative,Inc,For Order Enforcing & Modifying Antitrust License Conditions ML20248D4891989-06-13013 June 1989 Motion for Protective Order.* Requests That Jj Macktal Deposition Be Taken at Stated Address in Washington,Dc & That Testimony Remain Confidential.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-03-19
[Table view] |
Text
-
- f699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/ ,kh'Jp f/
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION se" p' W,y q\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .[ '~,
In the Matter of (
EOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. '50-498A CO., et al (South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 )
and 2) )
)
MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPON$ES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS John H. Shonefield Donald L. Flexner Assistant Attorney General Deputy Assistan: Attorney General Antitrus.t Division Antitrust Division Communications with respect to this Document should be -
addrenced to:
Donald A. Kaplan Chief Robert Fabrikant Assistant Chief Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Wachington, D.C. 20530 Judith L. Harris Ronald H. Clark Frederick H. Parmenter Attorneys Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Washington, D.C. 20044 February 6, 1979 79022267 573
UNITED STATES OF AMI'RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
IlOUSTON LIGilTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al (South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPAFY (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 )
and 2) )
)
MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COMPEL TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. Introduction The Department of Justice (" Department") respectfully moves this Board for an order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740(f),
compelling the Texas Utilities Company and its subsidiaries
("TU") to provide fuller responses to the Department's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (" Interrogatories"), served November 22, 1978.
On January 12 1979, the Department was served by mail with the ANSWER OF THE TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO THE FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
("TU's Responses"). On the same date, the Department was
served by mail with a copy of TUGCO'S OBJECTIO!!S TO AND MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CERTAIN OF DEPART-MENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ("TUGCO'S Objections"). The Department's re-sponse to TUGCO's Objections (" Department's Response") is being filed simultaneously with this motion to compel.
In its Objections, TUGCO specifically took exception to, and requested issuance of a protective order regarding, interrogatories 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 2 0 ', 21, 23 and 25 of the Department's Interrogatories. In its Response to TUGCO's Objections, the Department has discussed in detail its position regarding these interrogatories and has indicated why it believes that TUGCO's objections and request for a protective order should be denied. Rather than repeating those arguments here, the Department respectfully requests that the Board consider the Department's Response to TUGCO's Objections as a part of this motion and that, in addition to granting the relief requested below, the Board compel fuller responses to those interrogatories specifically objected to by TUGCO and addressed in the Department's Response.
II. Argument A. The Failure of TU to Provide a Single Document in Response to the Department's Interrogatories is Indicative of TU's Failure to Meet its Obligation to Respond TU's Responses did not contain any documentary material.
It is apparently TU's position that since the Department informally reviewed and received copies of discovery materials made available to parties in West Texas Utilities Company, et al., v. Texas Electric Service Company et al., No.
CA-3-76-0633-F (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.) (" civil case"), no further documents need now be provided. The Department maintains that this assumption is manifestly incorrect.
The materials reviewed by the Department at TU's various offices were materials produced in response to discovery requests made in the pretrial stages of the civil case. While that action is similar to the present proceed-ings, it is not identical to this proceeding in terms of parties or issues. Moreover,-discovery in that case closed On July 15, 1977. TU's Responses do not indicate that TU has sear ~ched for materials which came to light or which came into existence after July 15, 1977, or even after the Department conducted its informal document review this past Fall.
In addition, several new areas of discovery were initiated in the Department's Interrogatories. For example, discovery in the civil case was not concerned with possible monopolization or with TU's relationships with electrical cooperatives and/or municipal systems. Again, there is no indication of any searches having been conducted in existing discovery materials or in other files to locate materials relating to these "new" subjects.
It is simply inconceivable that not one document has been created or come to light subsequent to the close of discovery in the civil case, or that no documents whatsoever exist which relate to areas with which the civil case was not concerned. Therefore, the Department respectfully requests that the Board direct TU to undertake a prompt and thorough file search. Moreover, the Department requests that if, at the conclusion of this search. no additional documents are found, counsel for TU be directed to file with the Board an affidavit describing the efforts under-taken to discharge this responsibility.
B. TU's Laconic and Incomplete Response to Interrogatory 12 is Not Acceptable The Department's twelfth interrogatory states:
(a) the report is incorrect in assessing the amount of cost necessary to interconnect ERCOT and SWPP as being S31,175,000 (p. 32);
(b) The report is incorrect in asserting:
"' Internal' load flows for single contingency loss of the largest generating unit in South Texas (South Texas Project 1,250 MW unit) and single contingency loss of the largest generating unit in North Texas (Comanche Peak 1,130 MW unit) were made for ERCOT interconnected with SWPP and the rest of the eastern interconnected systems group for 1982. No over loads or adverse effects were observed" (p. 28);
(c) if the answer to (a) or (b) is affirmative, and UL&P or TU does rejt, that finding of the study, explain the basis for that rejection; (d) provide all documents which relate to (a)-(c) above. (Interrogatories at 13-14).
TU's response states:
12(a) TU believes the repott is incorrect.
12(b) TU cannot determine the meaning of the report in this respect.
12(c) See answers to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 6 and 14.
12(d) Documents requested by this inquiry have been made available for inspection and copying, and all documents designated to be copied have been delivered to the Department of Justice. (TU's Responses at 8).
Interrogatory 12 poses several questions based upon a 1978 study completed by the Fort Worth regional office of the Fede'ral Energy Regulatory Commission. That study focused upon some aspects of possible interconnection between ERCOT and the Southwest Power Pool. The interrogatory asks TU to assess several statements made in that study, and to explain any disagreement TU, its engineers and/or its consultants have with the study's findings.
Response 12(b) states: "TU cannot determine the meaning of the report in this respect." It is virtually impossible to understand what TU means by this response. A complete quote from the study is given, though inadvertently the word " internal" was substituted for " inertial," and the page of the study from which the qcote was taken is identified. There is no justification for this failure to respond on the part of TU.
Similarly, pact (c) of this interrogatory asks for an explanation as to why any of the study's findings have been rejected by TU. TU's response is limited to citing answers to other Department interrogatories which have little, if any, relevance to the questions posed in this interrogatory.
The Department maintains that it is entitled to have TU make a good faith effort to study the questions posed in interrogatory 12 and to respond with an appropriate degree of conscientiousness and specificity. TU certainly possesses ample engineering expertise such that performing this task would not be burdensome. The Department would, therefore, request that TU be directed to respond to Interrog-atory 12 .
C. TU's Response to Interrogatory 14 Fails to Answer the Ouestion Asked The Department's fourteenth interrogatory reads:
State whether, prior to the May 4, 1976 disconnection, UL&P and/or TU made, commissioned or reviewed any analysis, study or evaluation as to possible adverse effects upon wholesale, industrial and residential consumers of electrical power throughout Texas which would result from HL&P and TU disconnecting from r.ll other Electrical Utilities with which they were inter-connected. If so, state the conclusion of any such analysis, study or evaluation, and by whom, when and under what circumstances it was made. Provide all documents relating to such analysis, study or evalu-ation. (Interrogatories at 14).
To which TU answered:
Based upon the facts, circumstances and available alternatives, the TU Companies believe that an intra-state mode of operation has been and continues to be in the best interests of their customers. This conclusion has been fortified by repeated analysis over the years of what mode of operation is in the best interest of their customers. In each instance, the TU Companies have concluded that operating in an intrastate mode produces for their customers the most reliable and economical electric service. The adverse consequences from disconnection on May 4, 1976, were far less than the adverse consequences of remaining connected. See the depositions and testimony of Messrs. Austin, Hulsey, Marquardt and Scarth in West Texas Utilities Company, et al v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al, Id.
Documents requested by this inquiry have been made available for inspection and, copying, and all documents designed to be copied have been delivered to the Department of Justice. (TU's Responses at 8).
This interrogatory is one of the least extensive and complicated of those posed by the Department to TU. It asks, in a most direct manner, if a particular kind of study has been performed by TU. The response tendered by TU 's i
anything but direct. TU's response does not state whether this type of study was ever undertaken, and, if so, when.
Instead, TU merely states an unsubstantiated conclusion that intrastate operation is in the best interest of its customers.
T: n central focus of this interrogatory remains unanswered.
Furthermore, even if this answer were responsive, it still would not comply with 10 C.F.R. S2.740b(b),
which mandates that interrogatories shall be " answered separately and fully in writing." Merely stating a con-clusion, in this instance that intrastate operation sub-stantially benefits TU consumers, is not sufficient.
Detailed and complete explanations as to why and how this conclusion was reached must also be included. The Department requests that the Board direct TU to furnish a complete answer to this interrogatory.
D. The Mere Citation to Testimony, Depositions, And Other Documentary Materials, Without Identifica-tion of Pertinent Passages by Page Number, Constitutes An Insufficient Response to the Department's Interrog-atories In responding to many of the Department's interrog-atories, see, e.g., TU's Responses to interrogatories 2 (a) and (b), 3(a), 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 21, 24 and 25, TU has employed a procedure to which the Department strenuous-o ly objects. In each of referenced responses, TU purports to answer the Department's interrogatory by merely citing trial testimony and/or depositions in the civil case, without so much as indicating relevant passages and/or pages.
Thus, no ef fort has been made to discharge TU's obligation to provide complete and full responses to the Department's Interrogatories. Similarly inadequate references are made to Texas Public Utility Commission proceedings, and Security and Exchange Commision proceedings.
There has been a vast amount of tescimony, and docu-mentary material generated by other related proceedings, particularly the civil case. Therefore, merely to list a number of individuals whose testimony and/or depositions should be consulted, without specifically identifying the pages which are pertinent, frustrates rather than facilitates the discovery process.
For these reasons, the Department respectfully requests that this Board direct TU to complete its initial responses to the above identified interrogatories by identifying those portions of referenced testimony, depositions, and for transcripts which they are relying upon. Only after that is done will the Department be in a position to evaluate the adequacy of TU's responses.
III. Conclusion For all of the reasons discussed in the Department's Response to TUGCO's Objection's and incorporated by reference herein, the Department respectfully requests that the Board compel responses to interrogatories 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 25. The Department further requests that TU be compelled to provide fuller answers to interrogatories 12 and 14 and that it be directed to search all of its document repositories, for all documents which respond to the Department's Interrogatories but which have not yet been produced. If, at the conclusion of this search, no additional relevant documents are found, the Department respectfully requests that TU's counsel be instructed to file with the Board an affidavit outlining the search. Finally, for the reasons stated above, the Department requests that TU be compelled, at a minimum, to cite pertinent sections and specific page references when it refers to testimony, depositions, and/or documentary materials from the civil case in responding to the Department's Interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted,
?A '
- Ju6ith L. .-[rris Ha Ronald H. Clark Frederick II. Parmenter Attornnys, Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 February 6, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al.(South Texas ) 50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam ) 50-446A Electric Station, Units 1 )
and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing MOTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO CDMPEL TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS has been made on the following parties listed hereto this 6th day of February, 1979, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid.
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Board Panel -
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Commission 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 Jerome E. Sharfman, Esquire Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Commission Panel Washington, D. C. 20555
..S. Nuclear Regu;atory Commission Chase R. Stephens, Secretary Washington, D. C. 10555 Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Commission Office of the Secretary of the Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jerome Saltzman Commission Chief, Antitrust and Washington, D. C. 20555 Indemnity Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Roff Hardy Michael I. Miller, Esquire Chairman and Chief Executive Richard E. Powell, Esquire Officer David M. Stahl, Esquire Central Power and Light Thomas G. Ryan, Esquire Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 2121 One First National Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Chicago, Illinois 60603 G. K. Spruce, General Manager Roy P. Lessy, Esquire City Public Service Board Michael Blume, Esquire P.O. Box 1771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Antonio, Texas 78203 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Perry G. Brittain President Jerry L. Harris, Esquire Texas Utilities Generating City Attorney, Company Richard C. Balough, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower Assistant City Attorney Dallas, Texas 75201 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 R.L. Hancock, Director Austin, Texas 78767 City of Austin Electric Utility Department Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire P. O. Box 1088 Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Austin, Texas 78767 Spiegel and McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
G. W. Oprea, Jr. Washington, D. C. 20036 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Power Dan H. Davidson ,
Company City Manager P. O. Box 1700 City of Austin Houston, Texas 77001 P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Jon C. Wood, Esquire W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Don R. Butler, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane 1225 Southwest Tower
& Barrett Austin, Texas 78701 1500 Alamo National Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Joseph Irion Worsham, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Dallas, Texas 75201 Suite 701 1050 17th Street, N.W. Joseph Knotts, Esquire Washington, D. C. 20036 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman 806 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D. C. 20005
e Douglas P. John, Esquire R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld John P. Mathis, Esquire 1100 Madison Office Building Baker & Botts 1155 15th Street, N.W. 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20024 Washington, D. C. 20006 Morgan Hunter, Esquire Robert Lowenstein, Esquire McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore J. A. Bouknight, Esquire 5th Floor, Texas State Bank William J. Franklin, Esquire Building Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, 900 Congress Avenue Axelrad & Toll Austin, Texas 78701 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Jay M. Galt, Esquire Looney, Nichols, Johnson E. W. Barnett, Esquire
& Hayes Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire 219 Couch Drive J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Esquire Baker & Botts Knoland J. Plucknett 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Committee on Power for the Southwest, Inc. Kevin B. Pratt, Esquire 5541 East Skelly Drive Assistant Attorney General Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 P.O. Box 12548 Capital Station John W. Davidson, Esquire Austin, Texas 78711 Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson
& Tioilo Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire 1100 San Antonio Savings Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Building Watergate 600 Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Washington, D.C. 20037 W. S. Robson General Manager South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. Itd 1 - DU Route 6, Building 102 J u d'i t h L . Harris, Attorney Victoria Regional Airport Energy Section Victoria, Texas 77901 Antitrust Division Department of Justice
_ _ _ _ . _.