ML19290E824
| ML19290E824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 8003170092 | |
| Download: ML19290E824 (2) | |
Text
A D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B
U NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cct j
g
'9 6 GECP THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E
ME y
CiSCSk"' th
\\
senico
/0 Etb Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman
\\,
0 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Member 0
Seymour Wenner, Esquire, Member In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. P-564A
)
(Stanislaus Nuclear Proj ect,
)
Unit 1)
)
ORDER CONCERNING DWR'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO ITS FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PG&E (March 5, 1980)
On February 1, 1980, the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) filed a motion to compel Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to provide further answers to DWR Interrogatories 289, 292 and 400.
By its response filed February 26, 1980, PG&E indicated that it was supplying the additional information requested by Interrogatories 292 and 400.
We therefore assume that no further action is required at this time as to those interrogatories.
Interrogatory 289(b) related to a definition of the terms
" neighboring entity", and a listing of entities excluded frem that definition.
In response, 24 entities were identified by name by PG&E.
One was anonymously described merely as "...an entity in the San Joaquin Valley proposing a cogeneration proj ect filed by biomass derived fuel who has asked to remain anonymous - clause (4)."
8003170091 The name of this entity is a proper subject of discovery under our rules of procedure.
The adequacy of the proposed Stanislaus commicments is an issue, and exclusions with their effects on competition are relevant.
DWR is not required to defer appropriate discovery in this respect.
PG&E points out in its response that it has recently been directed by the California Public Utilities Commission to do every-thing possible to develop sources of cogeneration, and that a disclo-sure of identity might adversely affect the anonymous entity.
This is purely speculative, and insufficient reason to establish an_
immunity from discovery.
As requested by PG&E, we note for the record that this discovery order results from the m<> tion filed by a Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, duly representing the Department of Water Resources.
The motion is granted as to furnishing a complete and responsive answer to Interrogatory 289(b).
It is so ordered.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/ lau/A r,76te ardhall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of March 1980.