ML19257A360
| ML19257A360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1979 |
| From: | Blume M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Moorhead J, Tartar S INTERNATIONAL COURT REPORTERS, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001030819 | |
| Download: ML19257A360 (2) | |
Text
on accog(o, UNITED STATES g og'gh[:j/'(,
WASHING TON. D. C. 20555
,,/ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p5fg 0., p
'% *....e December 21, 1979 V
Scott Tartar Jack Moorhead International Court Reporters, Inc.
1917 Bank of the South West Building Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Houston Lighting & Power, et al.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-493A and 50-499A:
Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2) Docket l'os. 50-445A & 50-446A Gentlemen:
As you know, International's contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the delivery of deposition transcripts in the above-ceptioned proceedings is on a five-day basis.
I previously expressed my concern to you regarding your failure to deliver the depositions of Messrs. Taylor and Hartley, expert witnesses for the Departrent of Justice and the NRC Staff, rescectively, in this time.
Mr. Taylor's decosition was taken on October 25 and 26, and yet we did not receive this transcript until December 11.
We have still not re-ceived the transcript for "r. Hartley's deposition. Nor have we received the deposition transcript for Mr. Walter Bowers, whose deposition was taken on November 1.
Our concerns have been aggravated by a pleading recently received from Texas Utilities Company entitled "TUGC0's Opposition to the Motien of the Department of Justice for Modificaticn of Discovery and Hearing Schedule; Motion to Quash Subpoenas; and for Other Relief." On pages 14 and 15 TUGC0 there states:
Indeed, an examination of the transcript of each of the opposing experts in this case will reveal that ncne of the experts... has formulated... the substance of their testimony to be given in this case.
For example, Mr.
Hartley, the NRC Staff's engineering excert witness, has been employed since the succer of 1978, rendered a report to the NRC Staff in October,1978, and has not been asked to do a single tning since that time, at least according to his deposition testimcnv.
As you can see, the above pleading, filed December 10, 1979, implies that TUGC0 has examined copies of the deposition transcripts for the Staff's experts, in-0]3 MNM.
1671 205 8oo1og S'/9 M
2_
cluding Mr. Hartley. As you know, Staff has not to date received Mr. Hartley's deposition transcript.
This matter will be referred to our contracts office because, as you know, five day service is generally more expensive per page than five week service.
I hope that we will be able to count on receiving deposition transcripts on the basis of the five-day comnitment contained in the contract from now on.
Whether or not this commitment is adhered to, however, we expect that no party shall receive a transcript or draft in advance of any other party, when similar service has been contracted for.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you desire to discuss this matter further.
Yours truly,
,1,
^ -
'er Michael B. Blume Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Susan B. Cyphert 1671 206 O