ML19246C007
| ML19246C007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1979 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190451 | |
| Download: ML19246C007 (4) | |
Text
7E9 A s-
.<q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g.
Y
'Oqc[7 3, Q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 00M!ISSION
- s. g E
, t"f kI In the Patter of
)
- V F HOUSION LIGHrING & PGER COMPANY, et al.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A (South Texas Project,
)
50-499A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UNJ GEEPATING CDMPANY, et al. )
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche Pesk Steam Electric Station,
)
50-446A Units 1 ano 2)
)
ORDER (June 25,1979)
On June 1, 1979, a conference was held pursuant to our Notice of May 15, 1979 in Bethesda, Maryland. Houston Lighting and Powr Company (HLSP) was represented by J. A. Bouknight, Esq., Greg Copeland, Esq., and Theodore Weiss, Esq. Texas Utilities Generating Company (TIA was represented by Joseph Knotts, Jr., Esq. and Merlin Sampels, Esq. The NRC Staff (Staff) was represented by Roy Lessy, Jr.,
Esq. and Michael Blume, Esq.
The U. S. Department of Justice (Justice) was represented by Sue Cyphert, Esq., John bhitler, Esq. and Ponald Clark, Esq. The City of Austin was represented by Richard Balough, Esq. The Public Utilities Board of Bromsville, Texas (Brownsville) was represented by Robert Jablon, Esq.
and Mark Poirier, Em.
Central Power and Light Company (CP&L) was represented by Richard Powell, Esq. and David Stahl, Esq. Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(Tex-La) was represented by William Burchette, Esq.
South Texas Electric Cooperative and Pedina Electric Cooperative was represented by Douglas Falcon John, Esq. Gulf States Utilities Canpany (Gulf States) was represented by Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.
34 00 7 9 o71o o yf g
2-The instant Order reflects certain rulings by the Board made during the Conference or subsequent thereto.
1.
The Board heard counsels' arguments upon HILP's and TU's motions for partial or full strmary disposition filed on April 3,1979.
(Tr. 217-321) The "c r d will issue a dispositive order at a later date.
However, for the convenience of the parties and in order that discovery will proceed apace, the parties are herewith advised that we will deny the aforementioned notions.
2.
The Board heard oral argument upon Gulf States' Fbtion for Protective Order and Gulf States' Supplemental bbtion filed on April 25 and April 30, 1979 respectively.
Said untions related to a subpoena duces tecu:n issued by the Board on February 26, 1979 at the request of Brownsville.
(Tr. 321-390, 454-470)
The Board ruled that by June 18, 1979, Gulf States should, without rairrbursement for costs, procuce all of the documents encompassed by the subpoena except that, in accord with our prior rulings, Gulf States is not required to produce, list or describe documents generated by it and other parties solely as part of regotiations to settle this proceeding.
(Tr. 389, 470)
(In a conference call on June 19, 1979, with counsel for Gulf States, Bromsville, Justice and Staff, Chairnan Miller confirmed that Gulf States' bbtion for Protective Order was denied except to the extent as indicated in rFa June 1 conference, and stated that there nust be in-depth scrutiny where anti-ccgetitive activity is alleged) 3.
Oral argument was heard upon HIAP's ?btion to Compel the IEC Staff to Provide Fuller Responses to Houston's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documnts filed on March 26, 1979 and upon Staff's Answer in Opposition filed on April 30, 1979.
HIAP's Fbtion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part. The Staff is not required to produce the Dece.rber 18, 1978 bbl jf)l memorandun from Mr. Bltre or the January 15, 1979 macrandun from Mr. Lessy (nore recently identified in Exhibit 1 to HILP's Motion to Cmpel) since said menoranda merely reflect Staff counsel's questions posed to eg ert witnesses and, as such, constitute the attorneys' work products and are innunized against discovery. (Tr. 421-423) However, the Staff shall produce the balance of the documents. This is ordered because (a) if an attorney cocmunicates with an expert, who is going to be an expert witness, such a connunication could have a bearing on the witnesses credibility (Tr. 402) and (b) if an attorney presents notes of his interviews with certain expert witnesses to other expert witnesses in order to prepare than for testifyug at the trial, such documen.
may show that stich might have influenced their thirA1ng (Tr. 417-21).
4.
On April 3,1979, CP&L filed a Motion for a Protective Order.
On April 19, 1979, HISP filed its Response and Motion to Coupel Answers to Interro-gatories. We understood that only one matter in HLbP's Motion to Cmpel was left to be resolved (Tr. 390, 394) -- viz. whether notes taken by one of CP&L's attorneys dunng an interviea with individuals who were not witnesses and wid.ch were passed en to Staff counsel should be produced. The Board ruled that these notes came within the work product privilege and thus were exmpt from discovery.
(Tr. 435-436) 5.
After hearing from counsel (Tr. 287-288, 444-454), the schedule set forth in the Preheanng Conference Order of April 4,1979 is now anended as follows:
October 30, 1979 ccmpletion of all discoverf.
October 31, 1979 final prehearing conferer a under 10 CFR $2.752, exchange or witness lists, short smmarie; of testimny, and reccnmendations regarding consolidation.
341 302 Navsrber 14, 1979 submission of trial briefs.
IMcenber 3,1979 thru -
evidentiary hearire, Bethesda, January 1980 Maryland.
It is so ordered.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY MO LICENSING BOARD A%\\ 414 Sheldon J. WaCle, Acting Channun Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of June 1979.
3