ML090780933
| ML090780933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2009 |
| From: | Mahowald P Prairie Island Indian Community |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-282-LR, 50-306-LR, ASLBP 08-871-01-LR-BD01, RAS 2998 | |
| Download: ML090780933 (6) | |
Text
March 19, 2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-282-LR Northern States Power Co. ) 50-306-LR
)
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, ) ASLBP No. 08-871-01-LR Units 1 and 2) )
PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COMMUNITYS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS By the Memorandum and Order of March 16, 2009, the Board directed Northern States Power Company (NSPM) and the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) to negotiate a mutually agreeable protective order and a non-disclosure statement and report to the Board no later than March 20, 2009 whether or not an agreement has been reached. NSPM and the PIIC met and had constructive discussions on March 18, 2009, and PIIC is hopeful that an agreement will soon be reached that will resolve certain disclosure concerns. However, because answers to the NSPMs Motion for Protective Order and Non-Disclosure Agreement Regarding Proprietary Documents are due today, PIIC provides the following answer reflecting its current position.
The only significant difference between the protective orders and non-disclosure agreements proffered by PIIC and NSPM is PIICs inclusion of a heightened designation of Highly Confidential - Attorneys Eyes Only for highly confidential and proprietary information, including certain PIIC proprietary documents and information that may be, and only to the extent such documents and information are, relevant to Contention 2. PIICs primary concern is NSPMs purported need to obtain certain financial information from the PIIC -
specifically the income of Treasure Island Resort & Casino and any other PIIC businesses - in order to address the PIIC Contention 2. As a point of clarification (and as discussed with counsel for NSPM), PIIC is already prepared, subject to an appropriate protective order consistent with those proposed by PIIC and NSPM, to disclose as Proprietary Documents (but not designated Highly Confidential - For Attorneys Eyes Only), certain information and analysis regarding the valuation of PIICs land, homes, commercial buildings and infrastructure. At the present time, however, PIIC is not certain whether and to what extent information on the income of PIIC is relevant to or will otherwise affect the SAMA analysis and Site Restoration Study methodology. PIIC will continue its discussions with NSPM in an effort to reach an understanding and agreement on specific additional financial information, if any, that might be relevant to Contention 2 to include in the Sandia Site Restoration Study methodology for calculating decontamination costs.
While PIIC and NSPM appear to be close to resolving this issue, PIIC cannot agree to NSPMs proposal in its Response to PIICs Motion for Protective Order to permit disclosure of PIICs Highly Confidential - Attorneys Eyes Only information to four NSPM employees.
PIIC simply does not believe that any NSPM employee needs to know what PIICs revenues are.
To the extent that this information is relevant and subject to disclosure, if at all, it is only in connection with the SAMA analysis or Site Restoration Study methodology. And based on discussions to date, it is unclear whether this particular data input (PIICs revenues) would even appear in any report generated using either the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS2) or the Site Restoration Study methodology. If this is true, then there is simply no need to disclose this highly confidential information to anyone other than NSPMs outside legal counsel and independent expert. Moreover, to the extent such information is or could be 2
included or itemized in any such report, PIICs financial information could be easily redacted without inhibiting NSPMs managements review of the analysis.
Accordingly, if PIICs financial information (including revenue from its gaming enterprise and other businesses) is relevant to Contention 2, PIIC seeks a limited and more restrictive disclosure of Highly Confidential - Attorneys Eyes Only to restrict access to NSPMs Outside Legal Counsel and independent experts on a need-to-know basis to first ascertain whether the requested information would impact the SAMA analysis or Site Restoration Study methodology. This information could also be provided to NRC Staff Counsel who sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement. NSPMs expert consultant could then perform sensitivity analyses to determine whether use of the PIICs relevant financial information affects the results of the SAMA analysis contained in the Environmental Report. NSPM management could review the expert consultants sensitivity analysis so long as any inputs derived from PIIC confidential financial information are not disclosed (i.e. any copy of the consultants report provided to NSPM will have PIIC confidential information redacted), and NSPM could then provide PIIC with a copy of the consultants report. The parties would then be in a position to better evaluate Contention 2 and discuss whether a compromise resolution of the contention is achievable, or, alternatively, to petition the Board to modify the protective order to permit further use or disclosure of PIICs Highly Confidential - Attorneys Eyes Only as necessary in these proceedings.
PIIC and NSPM continue discussing their respective proposals for addressing this concerns and issues, and will provide a further report to the Board tomorrow in accordance with the Boards March 16, 2009 Memorandum and Order.
3
Accordingly, PIIC respectfully requests that the Board deny NSPMs motion and issue the proposed Protective Order and Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form proposed by PIIC.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Signed electronically by Philip R. Mahowald/
Philip R. Mahowald PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COMMUNITY 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089 Tel. (651) 267-4006 Counsel for Prairie Island Indian Community Dated: March 19, 2009 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-282-LR Northern States Power Co. ) 50-306-LR
)
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, ) ASLBP No. 08-871-01-LR Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Prairie Island Indian Communitys Response in Opposition to Northern States Power Companys Motion for Protective Order and Non-Disclosure Agreement Regarding Proprietary Documents, dated March 19, 2009, was provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service on the individuals listed below, this 19th day of March, 2009.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Esq., Chair Dr. Gary S. Arnold Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Email: wjf1@nrc.gov Email: gxa1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Secretary Dr. Thomas J. Hirons Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop O-16 C1 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy@nrc.gov; hearingdocket@nrc.gov Email: thomas.hirons@nrc.gov
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Mail Stop O-16 C1 David E. Roth, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Maxwell C. Smith, Esq.
E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; david.roth@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov; maxwell.smith@nrc.gov David R. Lewis, Esq. Peter M. Glass, Esq.
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq. Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
Stefanie M. Nelson, Esq. 414 Nicollet Mall Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 2300 N Street, N.W. E-mail: peter.m.glass@xcelenergy.com Washington, DC 20037-1122 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: stefanie.nelson@pillsburylaw.com
/Signed electronically by Philip R. Mahowald/
Philip R. Mahowald