ML19305B544
| ML19305B544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 8003190872 | |
| Download: ML19305B544 (2) | |
Text
_
\\
~
A c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c00 3
6 $807 $
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
7 o
10 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman D
i Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire, Member Seymour Wenner, Esquire, Member s
4 In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. P-564A
)
'(Stanislaus Nuclear Project,
)
Unit 1)
)
ORDER CONCERNING DWR'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO ITS FOURTH SET OF INTEFROGATORIES 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 from that definition.
In response, 24 m.eities were identified by name by PG&E.
One was anonymously described merely as "...an entity in the San Joaquin Valley proposing a cogeneration project filed by biomass derived fuel who has asked to remain anonymous - clause (4)."
h
?DN
,Q 6003190 N
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ The name of this entity is a proper subject of discovery under our rules of procedure.
The adequacy of the proposed Stanislaus commitments is an issue, and exclusions with their effects on j
)
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 motion 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 Idaui3 A Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of March 1980.
_