ML19309D317
| ML19309D317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1980 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004100243 | |
| Download: ML19309D317 (3) | |
Text
i.
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(
D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ocCMETED S
uame
-11
}
AP.9 1 tgg,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9'
Office of the Smetary '/2 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman D
a Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
'1 gjys
/
G:
9 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
50-498A
)
50-499A (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-445A Units 1 & 2)
)
50-446A ORDER (March 31, 1980) 1.
On March 14, 1980, the NRC Staff filed a Motion To Compel Supplemental Responses By Houston Lighting and Power Company.
We understand that HL&P has already produced and/or will produce the documents identified under Part I, and accord-ingly that part of the instant motion to compel is denied as having been mooted.
The Board grants Part II of the instant motion, and HL&P shall produce forthwith the documents therein identified subject to the Protective Order being issued today.
2.
On March 27, 1980, HL&P filed a Motion To Compel l
l Production Of Antitrust Analyses Of The Electric Utility Indus-try Prepared By NRC Staff's Expert Economic Hitness.
HL&P asserts that the analysis prepared by Dr. Norman Lerner for the Staff related to the economic and competitive effects of 8804100
2 various settlement offers in Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), NRC Docket Nos. 50-329A and 50-330A, and thus should be produced since it would be relevant to the development of his testimony in the instant proceeding.
The motion to compel is denied since the settlement proposed in the Midland case is still pending and has not been ruled upon by the presiding Licensing Board in that case.
Accordingly, confidentiality must and will be accorded to Dr. Lerner's analysis relating to settlement in the Midland case.
3.
On March 27, 1980, HL&P filed a Motion To Compel Production By NRC Staff Of Testimony Questions Answered By Expert Witness Robert H. Hartley.
HL&P asserts.that on March 17, 1980, the NRC Staff informally produced a document prepared by its expert engineering witness, Robert H. Hartley, but that said document only reflected Mr. Hartley's answers and did not reflect the questions.
Apparently the Staff mis-understood our oral ruling (Tr. 421-23) and our Order of June 25, 1979, wherein we stated, in part, that an attorney's written questions, if unanswered, are the attorney's work pro-duct and are not discoverable, but that, if said written ques-tions are answered by a witness in writing, such a document -
is subject to discovery.
Accordingly, the instant motion is e
3 granted, and the Staff forthwith will produce the written questions.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
Oh&nk$$
SheldonJ.Nolfe, Acting Chairman
~
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 31st day of March, 1980.
l l
l e