ML19210E048
| ML19210E048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ANAHEIM, CA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 7911290215 | |
| Download: ML19210E048 (2) | |
Text
MIfN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY OTHISSICH h-
~
'IHE ATOMIC SAFELY AND LICENSINI BOARD g\\
[3 5
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chnfman Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, M aber g
9 Seynour Wenner, Esquire, Meder In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECIRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. P-564A
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
Unit 1)
.)
ORDER DENYING MEION OF SOUIHERN Umt.S K)R PROECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PG&E'S FOURTH SET OF INIERROGAHRIES (Nov mber 9, 1979)
On October 19, 1979, the Intervenors Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California (Southern Cities) filed a motion f.or protective order with respect to their objections to certain questions 91 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) fourth set of interrogatories. The latter's response was filed on Noveder 5, 1979.
Objections are made to Interrogatory Nos. 4(f), 8(c), 9(c),12(f),15(c),
16(c) and 17 on the grounds that it would be unduly burdens e e to identify which documents relate to particular interrogatories. These objections are overruled.
Southern Cities are in the best position to identify which docments relate to specified actions taken by ths. Their own analyses in this regard are also proper discovery for trial preparation by their adversaries.
The "best estimates" as to bonding capacity called for by Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 13 do not ask for mere conjectures, and should be answered.
143g 004 2 /'T 7911290 The prenaturity objections to Nos.17 and 23 are denied, and the information presently available should be furnished, subject to subsequent supplementation.
The objections to No. 62 regarding ccntacts between representatives of the cities and state legislators are denied. This question is subject to a reasonab12 interpretation in asking Sot 1thom Cities to make appropriate inquiries of their representatives and disclostre of information. The response of PG&E to this interrogatory objection is stricken. The Board does not intend to consider responses which merely refer it to another response to another party's motion.
If the subject is not worth repaaHng, it is not worth our time to consider it.
It is so ordered.
FOR THE ATO4IC SAETI AND LICENSIl0 BOARD s
/
L Marshall E. Millsr, Chauman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of November 1979.
1A37 005
,