ML19257C187
| ML19257C187 | |
| 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 AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001250182 | |
| Download: ML19257C187 (2) | |
Text
!(
[o UNITED STATES g
-r c g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg p
. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 gd
%**"*[YDOON @@fffQ December 21, 1979 egs R
a 2
3 5 0 '7 Y
yeM Qj Scott Tartar g
OS@So}.fhJ#*
Jack Moorhead 00 'ge.g
,/
International Court Reporters, Inc.
1917 Bank of the South West Building O
e y'
Houston, Texas 77002 N
Re: Houston Lighting & Power, et al.
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)
Docket flos. 50-498A and 50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2) Docket Nos. 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-captioned 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 Department of Justice and the NRC Staff, respectively, in this time. Mr. Taylor's deposition was ta'en 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 fir. Hartley's deposition.
Nor have we received the deposition transcript for Mr. Walter Bowers, whose deposition was taken on flovember 1.
Our concerns hav> been aggravated by a pleading recently received from Texas Utilities Company entitled "TUGC0's 0pposition to the Motion of the Department of Justice for Modification 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 none of the experts... has formulated... the substance of their testimony to be given in this case.
For example, Mr.
Hartley, the URC Staff's engineering expert witness, has been employed since the summer of 1978, rendered a report to the NRC Staff in October,1978, and has not been asked to do a single thing since that time, at least according to his deposition testimeny.
g As du 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-
'[.'
1808 041
/
800125018E
- cluding Mr. Hartley. As you know, Staf f 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 commitment contained in the contract from now on.
Whether or net this commitment is adhered to, however, we expect that no party shall receive a transc.ipt 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.
s Yours truly, I,
" ! ~... s_
i.
Michael B. Blume Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Susan B. Cyphert O
M
^
C O
cD
?,9.\\'
..s>