ML19210E050
| ML19210E050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 7911290222 | |
| Download: ML19210E050 (2) | |
Text
.
LNITED SIAIES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGUIMOIT COffISSIN 2
E 9 gg7.B Y DE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSHU BOARD 73 Marshall E. 3;).ler, Esquire, Chn4mmn k
p**
Sheldon J. kn.fe, Esquire, M sber 9
Seymur Wenner, Esquire, Maber b
j os In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND EIECIRIC 004PANY
)
Docket No. P-564A
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
Unit 1)
.)
ORDER DENYING KTf15 0F DWR FOR PROIECfIVE ORIER AS TO PG&E'S FIFIH SET OF INIERROGA101uES (Novmber 9,1979)
The Intervenor State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) filed a notion for a protective order on October 9,1970, with reference to the fifth set of interrogatories previously filed on July 19, 1979 by Pacific Gas and Electric Ccupany (PG&E). The latter's response in opposition to the notion was filed on October 24, 1979.
DWR objected to Interrogatories 4(f), 8(c),15(c), 23, 50(c), 50(d), 52(c),
52(d), 56(c), and 56(d) on the ground that they are premature. These interroga-tories essentially are not " contention" interrogatories, as that term was used by the Board with reference to an earlier (fourth) set of questions (Tr. 2501, 2504). Rather, they inquire largely as to factual matters such as the identifi-cation of particular documents concerning studies, minutes of meetings, efforts to utilize various funding sources, refusals to sell wholesale power or electrical ser"ces, identification of persons having knowledge of specified facts, and the like. These interrogatories should be answered to the best of J06 pI 7911290
.4 DWR's ability at this time.
If there is at present no infomation, this should be stated. Wc have previously indicated that all discovery is continuing in nature and that answers should be suppleented as additional infomation becomes avC7able.
. s indicated by our Order of Novmber 2,1979 with regard to a similar untion filed by NCPA, the prematurity argment is no longer persuasive. Discovery has been proceeding for an awandad period of time, and it has involved hundreds of thousands of doc ments. It is now time for the parties to sta-t answering interrogatories which probe the bases for various contentions and issues, even if discovery has not yet been completed.
The notion of DWR for a protective order is denied, and responses should be made to the fifth set of interrogatories propounded by PG&E.
It is so ordered.
FOR THE A1U EC SAFEIY AND LICENSING BOARD gap.husf $
1 v
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Marylcnd this 9th day of November 1979.
14 4 007