ML16340B484

Sanitized Order Denying Applicant Oral Motion to Consider Whether to Allow Governor Brown Counsel to Continue in Proceeding.Protective Order Under Which Facility Security Plan Released Violated.No Sanctions Imposed

ML16340B484
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/31/1980
From:	Bishop C NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	CALIFORNIA, STATE OF, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML16340B483	List: ML16340B482 ML16340B484
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8103120637
Download: ML16340B484 (56)

Text

~,

~

~

/a

a. j

/*

/

t w 1 Ac~ aa a

je e

~ Ttpopes o

D

~

1's

~ Reec aJCnnSOn

';.o"...as S.."core CJIC A 014 l4 0

'L S 'r.'

5 Or c="=R CA

~.UCL:"=8 ~=GUL=~DRY CO"':"SS~OE'.0?'.:C S~

="

~~ Z.D LZ.CZ'ZS"'F'G ~:"P~~ BOAiS

~eve I

ural'""'Eg 20)98> >

g gt the ~eelete geeke6eR <~

b

~

J ~

l v

o Late 0

pe

=r.i '

-'C G:='S Ali3:" FC ~ RZC COL.'~r.h~'Dia 1o

~,

~

Un: ~s Car+on Huclea Pox r Plan 1

a lQ 2)

)

.)

).

~

Docile"

)

)

)

.)'ao

))p Ncs.

50-275 OL 50-3~

OL

':essrs.

==. ce d'or on anc. Pr"hl'" C. Genr, Phoenix@

-z~ zona, a~c

~ cols Z.:-"r'""sh ano Philip A. Crane, Sa.. =rancisco, Cal'=o."'a,

="cr "~e app3.ican Pac"

~ c Gas ano =1ec-'c Co-.,~anv.

-:essrs..-.eraser i:. Pro~a, Lawrence C. Lanvner and C;""'s-cpher B.:-a."Sack, bas;. ng-o.,

D. C.,

ano

<<v=cn S. Gec~='c~,

SacraRie l cg Ca i:0 diag 'or ne G"ve"nor o" Cali=o n: a.

l';essrs..='.ar~

1~. P,ill's ano K. Anc.rew Balcwin, San a jc sc g

Ca1 i=o"ria, 'for

'~e '-ervencrs, San

~ uis Obispo

?m Ne s'r Peace.

~i S

S ~ 4w 2 il Jo s i LQCLnGa Low Coin s.'sxcil s M:r ~

Ol~steac.

a"..

Charles

-are& anu Swa

z f.o 4e '.iuclear Re@'latch Decemer 30, 80 (Sanitized Version)

-he a=~~3.ican has in ef~'ec" ncvec. "nis SoarP (l) o in'Qa Qcve nor "rovn's column se anc ember-a;-'".esses

."ave vio-a~co

"'ze prc"ec" ive o oer cove nine ne:

use o

pro"ec"eo in-c..a:'cn c

+

Dxa lo Canvo.-.

Seel ri-y p an ano (2) "o con-z'g~ her nose a.nvolv 4'b'Ll 'V eo shoc3.c he 'al1owec o con nue o

l81 03i S 0~8~"

~

~

~

~

IT I,

~

pa ticipate in hese proceedings.

he ecuest vas r.ade orally Curing the course o>> ou~ av=de= 'ary hearing on the plan's ace=

acy to safeguard the'nuclear fac'lity from indus-ial sabotage (Tz. '389)

~

7;e asRed

-'hose whose conduct aiPs callec 'nto this matter question as well as cthe s who had knowledge of N

to state

.on the eco"d hei version of whit had t="anspized

( z.

2353 ff.}.

Those statements provide adepza e cause o believe that two of the Governor's counse1 anc, his exper vitnesses did I

,no comply ully with he protec ive ozde while preparing d'=ect wz't en es"'mony contain='sg

"= otec ed information."

But -'he cue s tion whether that czde va s '

act violated raises fac al 'ssues.

Xn the circumst~aces

="esented, these could be resolved inallv only after a

= r"he hearing.

he do not believe it necessary,

however, o take that next-step.

Even we e a violation of our order establ'shed bv clear ~cd convinc-ing evidence, we are sat's

'ed fzon the record as i" now stands that "here 's but plight poss'b'1'tv that the security plan was comp omised.

Pmd we have no "eason o believe that any sip:lar incident w'll recur in.

hase p oceedir.cs.

while the episode is no

condoned, or the easons Theref ore, detailed below ve thin3c i" ep esents an "1-considered ac" on

~

~

O.

3

~

counsel's par ra~Der than a mat er va ranting disciplinary See 10 CZR,52.713 (c),~as.~mended, 45 Fed.

Reg.

69877, 69879 (Oc ober 22, 1980).

Fu=ther eo~loration of this scn~ a.~o.s i le or no purpose.

Accordingly, a"plica' motion that we inu the Governor's counsel'nd witnesses to have viola ed incident -

an evidentia~ hear'ng would therefo e serve li our protective orcer is denied.

T.".e seriousness we attach to insuri

.g the con iden"iali y o.. physical securi y plans and the g avi y of the charge lev-e'ed by

~he applican warran a full recitation of the back-ground of th's matter and our view o= i.

This reci al may proposed regulations for iz-also p ovice practical guidance to "nose o

icials charged vi"h evalua"ing the Commission's

-lementing recen" amencments o the Atomic Energy Act dealing

~ ~ 0

~

~

0

~

44 vi ~n "safeguards'nforihati.on." 'ir discussion necessarily re ers "o actals of the Diablo Canyon security plan.

Conse-cuently this op'nion, like the secu"i"y plan itself 'and,secu-ritv plan hea. ing transcripts, must be " eated as pro ected info=:.,ation.

The occision may not be publicly disclosed.

I qi13. be made available to counsel or Governor Brown and 1/

Atomic =nergy Act o

1954, 5147, 42 U.S.C.

52167, added june 30,

1980, Pub. L.:96-295, Ti le II, 5207 (a) (1),

94 Stat.

788.

The regulations p"oposed to implemen Sec-tion 147 appear a, 45 Fed.

Reg.

85459 (Decerher 29, 1980).

(fair

inte venor SLOOP in the secure =.ac'li ies provided for such puz oses by the HBC staff>and applicant for exan='na tion of protec"ed infomtion.

2l l.'ackcround.

'For reasons previously e>:plained, ve conduc ed

~he hearm~g on the adec-macy of appl'cant's physica" secu i y plan fo the Diablo Canyon

~ fac"lity 1Q ca>i,era at

~he applicant's San.rane'sco o =ices.

Cou~se3.

3/

and cope " witnesses foz the uo intezven~~g par ies

.".ave been given access to he full secu i y plan.

Zn orcer to nini;.ize the possibility o the pl~~'s unauthorized Qis-

closure, howeve, their access was sDjec't to a protective orde which 'nco porated an a

idav't of non-disclosure prescribing yheze.4be plan"m" ght-be examined and how the sensit"'ve in ovation it conta" ned

.was to be safeguarded.

2/

See our o dez of October 17, 19SO, at 5-13 (unpublished) certi""'ca 'on denied, Hovei~er 6, 1980 (unpublished).

3/

Intervenors are the Governor o= Cali opia and the San Lu's Obispo Mothers fo- =eace

("ST Ot'.=P")

SLOOP's counsel and cape t vi ness are not involved in "he mat er unce conside ation here.

~ ~

ne ull ex of "he protec i~~e o cer. (he einafter order")

'lT and non-cisclosure a.

icav'n F.>>~-600, 12 HPC 3, 14-17 doc~~sents pe tinent here are (he~eina ter "aff.") appea s

(1980).

The portions of those 4/

reproduced in the margm~

below.

Zn essence, we gave intervenors'ounsel and experts

~

pe=mission to examine the enti"e Diablo Canyon secu ity -plan at applicant's San P ancisco of 'ces in a acil'ty provided "P2'"hD=D PROTECT:V~

OBDZR W'"CUP TY P~~~N~ Zh'"O3"~KTIOH (uuly 15, 1980)

~ '

Cou=.sel and wi"aesses cr Zn erveno" San Luis Obispo 1'o he=s

. orPeace (Zn em>enor) anc for he Cove nor o.

Cal'ornia (Govewo

)

t;.ho have executed an

.. fidavit of Non-Disclosure in the

=o n attached, shall be per-mi "ed access to "protected info~ation" upon the followinc conc-'t'ons:

~;:.3.;;.Qa~ Zatezvenor.-~G =-the-Governor 's counsel and Xntervenor's expe="s v.'ho have been cua3.i iec in accord-ance wi~Q the recuiremen"s

o. our dec'sion in Pacific Gas and =-lect ic Co-.ian (Di-"lo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AL~-410, 5 HRC 1398 (1977),

and our subsecuen orae s 'ia his p oceedmc

...ay have access o pro ec d info mation on a "need o 3mow" basis.

2.

Counsel anc expe s who ece've any protected I

xn o~iatxon (lnclua'nc transcr p-s of 1n came=a nea.

3ngs, iles testimony or anv o '~er document -na-reveals pro-te ted

~ n=o=.iatxon).shall..a.~"'tarn x s con xdentiality as remi ed bv the annexed =f=idav't o= Eon-Disclosure, the e~s of ~'hich a,re he=eby

.nco"po ated into this p=o"ec"ive order.

AVID 12

'NRC a 14.

(zoo=r-o-=-

COHTzzU=-D OH.;=xz Ppc=)

~

~

C

~ ~

for

.ha.

pu ose

.6-

'L (see orde=;

prea-..~le and paras.

1 and 2; az pa"a.

4.)

he individuals thus civen access to "p otected in c~ation" -- meaning the secu ity plan -or information (POO1HOT" COKTZNUZD PRO?'.""=VZOT25 PAC:)

"A?'"ND D AF ZDRVZT OF 80?"-DXSCLOSURE heing duly svorn, state:

1 As Used in th1s Fiffidavit of Non-Disclosu et (a} "Protec"ed in o=;..a. ion" is (1) any form of.

he hvs'cal securi y plan for he licensee's Diablo Canyon uclea.r Poyer Plan, Uni s 1 and 2; or (2) any information obtained hy virtue o these =roceed'~=s vhich is not other-vise a ma er o p&lic reco c anc vhich deals vith or descr&~es details.of the secL~ri y pl-n.

(b)

Z~l "authorized person" 's (1) an employee o

the Huclea" Reaulatory Cow...ission ent" tied "o access to protec ed

~~t formation; (2) a pe son l'ho, at the invita-tion o ne Atomic Sa Bty ~ad icensinc Appeal Board

("A eal Boa=d") t has e>:ecuted a copy of this a

idavit-or (3) a..person=employed-'y'.

ac1~ic Gas and

=-1'ec ric

Company, he licensee, and. aLtnorized by '" in acccrQ-ance vi 4 Coraaission regu3.ations to have access to p o-tected 1nforma 1on.;=.-.-...t -.

2.

I-shall not disclose p o ected in o ation to anyone Bxce = ar. autho"i"ed person, unless "hat in.o~--

tion has prev'ously been c'sclosed in the public reco d

o this 'p=oceed"'nc.

X vtill sa ecua d protected informa-tion in vritten orm (isclucinc anv port'ons o

transcripts o

~ ln came a hea 1ncs

= 1lec tes imony 0 any 0 he Qocu men=s "'.a" contain 'such in c=.;ation),'o that it remains a" all tamils under he cont"ol o= an autho ized person and is'o disclosed to anyone else.

3.

X li'lnot reprocuce any p otected information hy any means withou the Appeal Board's e>~ress app ova3. or direc ion.

So lone as X possess protected i... obviation, shall con inue to take hese p=eca '"'ns u".I il fu ther orde of "he Appeal Board.

(FOOTNO ~

CONTZh 0" D ON N. 2 PAG- )

t

~

v'se a mat er of public record (a.==.

'l, obliged not o disclose.it ence=" to othe "a. tho~ized pa a.

1 (a} ) -- vere about i obtained through nese p oceedincs and not o her-persons"',

.defined as HBC o icials o appl'can 's erployees entitled to access o protec"e" info=.;.ation and persons Mis Board hac au horized o see the plan (a f. para.

1(h) ).

2x

,addition to intervenors'ounsel and e-perts, we also autho-

"'zed ce tain o

intervenors'ecre"a ies who executed non-disclosure affidavi"s o see protec-'d info=.~tion.

("OO&i'0'~ CONTZiiU:"D ROY~ 'PB. 7"OUS PAG:)

4. i shall similarly sa=ec"are and hold 'n con idence any ca a, notes, or copies o=

-- o ec ec ~.. obviation and al oiher papers wnxch contain any protectec 'nfor>>~tron by mea..s o

the ollovinc:

(a)

>, use o

"he rrotec ec infor..,aration vi"1 he made at a facility in San Francisco to he made avail&le by

'Paci ic Gas and =-lectric Company.

-.=.=4b) Z'i3.1.3ceap. and safeguard a21 such material in a safe to he obtained by '.";tervenors at 2'acific Gas and Electric Companv's

expense, after consultation with

~ ~

~

abaci.~c Gas and =-lectric Cc-,.pany and to be located pt all taxes at the above oesignated locat'on.

(c)

>ay. secretarial work perfo~ii.ed at mv recruest or Under mv supe vision wi 1 be pe ormed at the above location by o..e sec"eta y cf r~ des'enation.

Z shall

~

\\

fu~~sh Pacxfxc Gas anc =lectr'c Co.-pany, the inboard and Staff an approp iate res 'me o the sec=etary's hackcro".d and exper'ence.

(d)

Hecessary typina an= re-oduc~~'on ecuipzent vill be furnished hy 7'acific G-s and =lectr'c Company.

(e) 3~ 1 mail"ncs hv me involvinc protected infor-mption shall be made from "ne facility furnished by abaci

"'c Gps and =lect ic Co...pa.-.y.

~

~

directed 0 ahl o exa=.

ne the "ha-interveno s

appl ica lt S o" other 0"- o Ge s

p crises and prepare sec" r' plan on Canyon m J nC

'ncincs containing oc a cn anv.

e s xIpony "p=ote"- ea in=owation. "

o "";;is e.a, ne'her "he secu ity "an itsel nor in ervenors'otes,'"ahou"

"'" could he taken

=rem applic~~t's premises (a =. para.

4(a) ).

The la" er ve e o be re ained a

applicant's facili y in a sa e to vhich only inte~enors haa access (a.". pa"a.

4 (h) ).

723. secre" a: al wo k vas to he pe o z d at, applican

=acil "y, albe't hy inter-veno=s 'ecre ar's, vith the necessary typevriters

~ad repro-c'ct'on ecuipven

<<urnished bv the a plicant (a

. paras.

4 (c) and (d) ).

hhen.not

'n actual use, interveno=s'otes c= other

papers con a nnc p=o" ec" ea xn=c=..ation vere o he kept in a sa e provided o-that purpose a

tha" acili y (a.. para 4 (h) ).

S'im arl+ 't'heir pleaa'ines containing p o ected in-c;.,ation vere to be iled and served

'om that facility as vel 1 '(a

. para.

4 (e) } in accordance vith p"ocedures-s&se-.

5/

cuently ac eed upon hy the pa~~ies.

The

=o cgoing terr:.s had been agreea upon a te necotia-ion.

by cou..sel or the a=pl iczn, the staff. and 'nterveno S

Q'9'nd approvea by this Board a" a

rehearinc con.e ence held See Z~>>B'600, 12 h;RC 3, 12-13

(" 980).

hi=a Prehea inc Ccn erence Orders August 4, 1

80 at pp. 7-8 (unpuh ished).

~ 'I

~

~

ia.. ~l s

C Ohi po, Cal1:.orn" ag "as Ap

" 2nd, 6/'>

Ceps.

one dis-u"e a~+out

~ P II tec e"

~ -..=.o..a" ~on," vn c 7/

ev e>; I

]on Gisclos e

vere dulv executed i'f icav ts

~

~

~

".e ap=,ro="'ate ce=.

~ nx

~ on, o "pro-

.as esolved a=te Co-..= ission counsel and the cualified expe"t.SLY'-=P ha chosen to evaluate

~".e secu='ty plan on.i s behal S&sse@ent to the Cor~issionIs review o.

he dispu"ed issue, amended affidavits of non-Qis-c" osure

~"ere executed hy intervenor SLOOP's counsel and expert w'tness.

2.

Participat:on hy the Governor.

On June 11,

1980,

.e Governor o

Cal'fornia 'n o~ed us o

h s i~tention o

participate "as,tne representa"'ve of an interested S ate" "n the secu='

plan phase o

-'his p oceec'ng.,

be pe

>;.i ted h'm to.do so, according him the r'cht to review the securitv plan, "to. "he, extent and un er the terms and cond.itior s afforded

[SLOPPP']

epresentatives.

I's&-600, sacra 12 NRC -t 8-9.

he Governor's counsel, 'cual'ed experts and secretarial ass'stants hereupon also executed non-disclosure a" idavits.

6/

See L~-592, 11 NBC 744, 7'8-749 (1

80) - see also April 2nc in cameza T

. ness's'..

7/

See >i=~-392, 1

NRC 744, modified and remanded, CLI 24, ll ABC 773, on

emand, A -&-600, 12 HRC 3, 4-7 (1980)

~

Governor's securi y e> perts anc 8/

vron S

~

Geo c ou)

--e Ca'l 'o>>~-'

Governor '

lead counsel )

?x. He=bert es'cents+

However)

H B o') n ana his one o

.".'s counsel, 4

p in pal t La 1 ass~ s P nts 3.n th3.s 1

at on ) l.'essrs. Lavrence 0

C ~ Lanpher and Chris opher Hatrack) all hPve their oi.vices r'n 1';ashinc on, D.

C.

A."heir =e"vest, ve perr~ttec

?messrs.

Brol n ) Lanpher anc Hanback (and ~i'>> ez~e ts) to review the

.a an 'n ac'lit'es provicec -or tha Qu= Qse Qy.the s

aux at s Bethesda,

?)aryland, o vices.

As'e rom he change o

i loca. ion, access to the securi.y plan and the use o

protected in:0 i,a i ion 1 n Bethesca vas g anted hose in"ivicuals on the s~-,e e

ms a.c concit" oins that cove ned Ln San I ance'.sco)

Ps

.e Cove=nor '

counsel have ackno~.'e" cec

( i". 2404-05).

he Governor's couns'el and e>~erts x'ere allovec access to ~he"-plan-under-Q'e""eii,i oi'Z~ ned in'ely Pubs'.

On" August 13~4 &e Cove no-moved o i~ci=y the non-cisclosure a~=icavit on the grounc tha some o

the "estrictions it con-tained vere an "unnecessary inconvenience" and "unvorkable."

8/

9/

See "n. 9, in=.ra.

7 Tnere xs no ~ac.icat on "ha "he events rela ed herein about the Governor's trial co ".Sel 'involved ?iessrs.

Georciou o" Hanback.

xiii"'

0/

also ou>> Third 2'hear'c Con e=ence Orcer (Aucust 4 )

1980) a 8; Pou h Pre.learing Con~erence Orcer (August 8

1&80) a 4;

S af Counsel 's le e

o= Aucust >>

1980 to

.'s Boa c vith copies o all =a=ties;

?'.emorandum rota this Board "o all parties catec Al". s" 1S, 1980.

~

11.

Z.". particuiar, the Governor aske= permission for h's counsel a

4

'l nesses to from applican" 's

=e;.ove theirs.".otes about the securi y plan and staff 's p"e-;.. ses anQ to have counsel's

.secretar'es

" vpe our pleacincs an" o her materials at ou=

1 /

of=ice ather than at the IPRC,",

he applicant strongly The exac el'e.

as3 eQ by -'.e Governor's counsel in his mo-ion o"" Z.ucust 13, 1980, 's as ollows:

"a..

t~e recuest au hor'"ation to a3:e our notes

=om "he HRC's o G&:-'s offices on the condition that such notes ana mat ria~ s ceveloped rom such

'otes shall be 3.epta a

sa e in our office a all t'mies o"Her than w.",en 'n our personal possession.

e +ta anc PG &

iFy ver v the securi y o our o=fice ana safe.

(@hi e we would prefer to have tne secu="-'y alan itse

= at our office we are pre-pa ea to continue the inconvenience o

reviewing the plan at the NBC or at PG&"-.

Zt is ou" hope that this p oviues a meawincful basis o

compromise that will be ac eeable to

'PG&=-.)

"b.

Ve zecuest "hat ou" personal secretaries, each,-.

o -whom has=&ecu"ec noi-c sclosure affiaavits

( he a= icavits anc res~;..es a

e enclosea herewith) be pe i.itted to vpe ou= pleac'ncs'nd other materials a

our office ra"her han a

"he hBC.

This recues 0

Cou se, naturally flows from on~ first reauest to be ~le o use no" es ano p"epa e materials in our

o. ices.

"c.

i~e recues"'hat o"r e>:pe consultan s/witnesses be pe~i"tee to take ti.

= no es rom PG&K's offices ana o )seep them in a

sa=e a" all. t~ges tha sucn r -te ia s a

e not in the' pe=sonal possession.

. This is essential 'f these v,'tnesses are to con er vii h us and "o prepare testimonv

. or this p=oceedinc.

The IiRC ana 9G&= may ve=ify he securi y arrancemen"s or each witness'."

c-- os ec these chances.

e>a"essec he fear that they isc" C

O~

~os sibig en the Diablo Canyon. sec

= -y plan to a serious

't ity o compromise, givers the nas-.her o

people who

-c"~c be en"'tlec to remove "protec"ec

'n 0 Tiaat~ on io scattere Governo c locat'ons in California.an hashincton under he r's proposal;

.Si>e deniec the Governo 's motion, ex@la'z-

~ nc that the cons'cerations o "flichealth and. safe y

'nvolved to secu" in this case dictated tha "convenience must yield 12/

iiy~

3.

The incident in cuestion.

The 'a came=a hearing on "ne secu-ity plan took place as scnedulec Qurina the i

'e

.'. o" >iove.-.ie 10th in a con erence "oom a

ih,e applican 's I

cs..

= "e"..c'sco o

ces.

The ?'ovvze=

13 vo"e exemaetion of "he Gove nor s expe witnesses,

>>=. Zicha d Z. [<hite nd Co onel Louis..:.0, Giuffiida,. prorp ed an acknovledcemeit from C

one of the Governor's

counsel, I'". 'Lanpher, that Colonel G.'=

ida's written direct 'testi-;iony had no been p e=ared

~

~

ai e~tner the sta aczlxty n Bethesca or the appl'cant's o=ces in San Francisco.

Ra he hac been written and imed at the o fices o

the Gove"no"'s has'. inc'on counsel 12/

Order o

August 28,

19SO, at 6-11 (unpublished}.

llÃlAYI'L

( =. 235l-52).

Colonel Giu=.="=:"

con=.irmea that his x'-as ne

~

~

case no only a;ith et=are to 7 hite as ~..ell '( r. 2351-52).

but ".".a o

5 t st-i;.ony g Con,sel or the applican I

asser e= that "h's proce"ure viol-tee the non-c'sclosu=e a==i8avi s execu"ec by these w'"=.esses and the Governor'

counsel, contencing that the plaiz lancuace

o. our oraers

'e-"ui ec.

~"e--~eQ es"imony containing "protected in-"orma"ion" to be either a" the sta ='s cr applicant's o

ices (Tr, 2387-pc)

He askec

~'-. Herbert E.'Bro~w, the Governor's leaa

counsel, to cia '

hov the Governor's expert testimony haQ be n p"epare8

('r. 2353).

Hr. 'Brown cave tne ollow'nc ez-lanptlon

~

The two eo:pert

~.-i-'~~esses (Colonel C'u rica and

)'hite), "~. Lanpher, ance'e haa, all <<amiliarizeQ theg-herea e

selves with the Diablo Canvon physical security plan by re-V 0

v~ ew. na i at the appl scan i' San Francisco o fices or at. the s~a f's Bethesda acil'ty (Tr. 2353, 236l-62).

~ g

~

vx hout e~ov~~o any written notes o-o her oocuments conta'z-inc "p"otectea in omation" roim either facility

( ", 2362-.

6=,, "he

="-our incivicuals repai"eQ to counsel's hash'craton o=.='es (Tr. 2363).

There they wo~~eo together o

abou a

wee); to p epa e

he written tes" ir:.ony in cues ion.

Th' was then

~

~

tiped -nd >:erographically rep oc ced at counsel's of=ices 1

e ~

~r V

~

her s

clos '"e a= ='avit.

? z>>

secreta@;

s;ho had also executed a non-d's-

~ an-he"~ac)no+ledged, however, that there seas no

%w'ay oa know. ing hove:a=~v peop e i:lay have had a cess o h5.s a;-as heing yped

(

. 2382-83) secreta~'s vror~ a=ca t;hile the estirany or Rois h's secretary nigh" have disposed o.

any pages con a'sing either ypographical or copying errors

( r. 2383-84, 2386).

kL~. Brown explained counsel's and the vi nesses'o-es d'or the esthaony as

- ell as the testimony 'tsel

~"ere locked in a safe in co..nse of='e yhen not xn the' actual possession

{Tr. 2364).

C Brin and Lanpher state "ha" hei-intention

.i;.as "o epare test mony of a gene"al na"u e based on "heir s;."tnesses extensive bac)'grouses

~a and )'nox;ledge of security natters s'~ thout mcorpo a ing any "protected... 'pfo~tion."

vas counsel's position tha this had been done and, there-c"e, tha they had not viola ed the te

. s o

the, protective o=de and non-c'sclosure af oav'ts.

hessrs.

Brown and Lanpher also stated

-ha they had vade L"". Ol...stead and Ps.

Svaxtz, HZC

..C--

s t'.

cou..se, a~;a e o how ~ey 'ntenced "o presa e direct v it-en testimony for the Cove..or

('Z

. 2365-66)

~,

~

~

I Col o..e G u Ixaa - ~g 3.'.r t:.

te es cential ly co co" s 1

s Gesc

'D

- on o wha had ans~

~ed

('35 / 71)

"'-iey e..Iiphasized that they hac.

ee~ care ul to Beej sec~et he matte=s they we e wo king cn ('=. 2359)..he witnesses phso inclca ed tnat they the;..selves c'D not consul sta f,

P counsel about the proceaure

~aey we=e following but. relied 0

I

.upon ?messrs.

Brown ana Lanpher

( "=. 2370).

5'e as3:ea hr.

OLvs eaa, lea" counsel or the staff, o

co...;ienton the '"epresentatio.

s -hat he had been old be.

~

\\

~

nanc now the Covernor's'estimo.";y woild be prepared.

mat e-to ?'r. Olnsteaa's

"" es ion d

ca

~ i I ~On an@

Broom's actions m'ght viola e the cuestioned whe Der Y~,

O~;..s eaa explained, hat the Govt no s co'unsel naa not vol-u.teerec that n-o~ation.

Bathe

':s.

~

- a -=--i

-"-s ~ -~'ar z,

."'-.", OlmsteaQ's assoc ate counsel,.had lea nea i..c. "ec-'lv I

. ~ha I-.'lr ~ Broi n

\\

en ed to prepare estimonv a"ou "he secu~~"

secur~ i 1 n h~s ox~ace ra her th'aa at the s a f'..s facili"v-(fr~->373.).

3<s. Swartz b ought the pro ective o"aer.

3~~. Ol;..steaa s" a" ed "hat ?e "h t 1 h

. a

.e en telephonea own abou the matte ana tna he cautzonea 3z. Brown a:.ut tne neec'. to abiae bv he -=o ec" ve orcer in presa ing he Governor '

estimony

( ". 2372).

Xn aaa' ion, 3w. Olmsteaa tated tha>> he did not Qqow (no= c-G Bromal tell >ilPL) wh-xn.o~atxon would be inclQ":ed 'n the Cove nor's est'wonv

(

~ -. 2372-73).

1's.

S "

'z exp essed agree-.;;ent a"i h "-. Ol;..steaa's a

~

s a a I Bllicnl I ccc nc

" a-..pher only that she ha c discus sea wi"h 1z anc erWaps also with~!~. Hanbac3-he possibili y J

J tnat preparxna test

...ony in counsel's o

ice relight violate the p=otect'e orae (Tr. 2373).

bo ton, counsel or the'applicar.

zepresented ha he had been unaware tha~ tne Governo

's test'~ony had been p"e a=ca is counsel's private o==ices UJl il ?x.

LanDher

..ac so sta ea 'that raorninc

( =. 2377).

messrs.

Brown and Lanpher also represented "hat one copy each o= the testxmo.y o. "". i,hite anc Colonel Giu ="riaa

'" been ze ainea in the sa e

co@=.sel's 3;ashington o=" ices (Tz, 237&),

oc'he testi~..y

.".ad a so been eta ned "h-t sa e when not, act@a'y in use (Tr. 238l, 2383),

and tnat all Graf s not kept were ever. ually tozn"uo and'disposed c

zn the t"ash when the testimony was co.;pleted (.Tr. 2381).

!<-. Lanphe s ated that only h's s o

-'ce vanaaer had V

access to ne sa e in which "he "

inozv

'. ony ana c a=ts were kept (Tz.

2385).

He ac.'~".o~:~ ecce" he o=r' manaoer nac not execu" ea a non-.disclosure

a. idavit (Tz. 2383).

pe t..en

~ nvxtea counsel to cor~ent on what they had st heara.

2M. Norton, counsel o= the aaa3.icant, assertea I

he prepared test'rony o=: !'.". ilhite ~~a Colonel Giuf=rida

P

'n

. act contained p otected infc~ation (: r. 2357-60).

He fU,=the>>

e-;:.i..ceQ us that the Governor'oard's

'permission

"'o p epa askeQ this the

.ianne described, wh'h pe=;..'s s cou..sel haP. previously d

re tes

'mony essentially l3/

'on haQ been denieQ.

cant's counsel'ook the position that the eras of the ron-disclosur a=fioavit haQ therefore been breacheQ by he Governor's counsel.

'5e asked us so "o

=inQ and to take appropriate action n light of tnat v ola 'on bu" declined, ho1'ver, to recommend any specific sanction (Tr. 2389-90)

Pm. Ol...stead, leaQ s aff counsel, commen ed in essence tnat tne =ncxcent (assuming tnat epresen-'ed a breach o.

"he pro ective o=der) was no so se" o"s as o Tecuire any

..

eQxate ac">on.

He suggestea that we ins ruct the Governor' counsel to observe he terms o

the protective o~der meticu-louslv in the fu ure, caution them "hat. adai"ional breaches mich" warrant ~ediate suspens'on rom the hearing,

and, o-',herwise take the mat er unQer advisement (Tr. 239l-93).

Yz,"

7'7 llis) counsel o

SLOOP, limi"eQ h' emarks to the sugges"ion that the best course would be sir~ly to p oceeQ with "he hearing (T

2394 )

~

~

On behalf of those involved 'a the prepara ion of the

"'es 'monv in cuestion, that it containeQ no B o~~ took the basic position "protecteQ in ormation" and accordinglv See fns.

11 and 12, ann=a, and acccnnany'ng text.

18

~

~

=-on-c'sc1os"re a=ficav't hac not been hreachec

( r. 2397

~ >>

~

2=-.-') -

=-cr t~~s

eason, i;.a5 si-.,p1v to p"oceed v'e con

."ec

>at o>> " proper course "z the"~'..

'g

-( -. 2356). X'e I

-oarc "as o= a ci=., eren

view, c= he1 eveP tna" s ;.e sanction V

J J

i;.as* a===o= 'a e, ?'-. Bro~z as~co t~at tne...atte e'en De re=er ec to ano"her Boa 8 for a se=a a"e =actfinc.'cg 'Qeter-

-;..=.-.a

>on

( r. 2397, 284))

~

-"-"- -"ro'vn aticec that no one had Been caRBcec a s a resu1t of the '~ci e..t ana that in h' vie~

he.;=-tte '. was beina b1oww c'=

ropo tion o its s=.c..==~ cance

( r.

23 8-2400).

Ze =e'. erateci that the Gove>ors

='--.;esses anc cc ".se had actec

'.. coo" a'

w'th no in ent'on c

.:,a.:~-..c any protectec

'n c~~~at~oa pw1ic an" th'at no =rotecteQ Qr;>at ~ 0 l Sac

~ l act Dee '. ~ sc1 oseP.

(

~ r.

2-'. 04 285 1 )

~

~

He as) ec?w.

%hi"e, one o

a=~1 I

r he oDtainea ~e

~ n o~ation reciteQ 2346 at 15) hat t'ne a~~1icant icast's vitnesses, where his testwiony.-4Tr.'- Col.

.. cuarcs availah1e o respond o an a tac)'n

'.ie p1ant 5'~ invace s.

?~. 3;hi e es-o;.Geo

".a "4

source o

his ~-.=or;at~os was the applican"'s'ecu"i

" p1an

( ". 2402-03).

asveG L-

~

. own

~ >>>>,

r>>J

~ >>Jc>>

ccrc was a1so p&>lic1v ava 1a 1e

=.ro., o ~er sou ces.

Co"..se3. '

r resDQQse was that is p D1 ~ c

~n o.-a" ~on "hat the cua Q force wo'~~18 raxlce

.."z her, "thee is no puD1 ~ c s ate~ent" a~out he e>:ac nu-.,Se p" cua cs

(=.". 2~03).

Zn answe to a c"est oa rom ae ~ca 8,

?~w.

Ov. 1

4

sta ec hat he c'a not know at "'. e "ae he ="iled the i~'ritten his i.at Ron i" contained was c:

c 'es i-ionv 0 "wo w'=:tnesses wnethe

all, he iafor-a mat e"'

p'&lie "eco d or not

(:r. 2861).

Finally, at he par ies'ucces ion, we ac eed to take ro action on the applican 's motion be ore December 1st.

Ne cave them until that Gate to cile any written in=.owation cc.-i~ents or succestions

-lou, wee

".e= the pro ec" ive order h-d been v'olated and i so, v ha co. =se we should

~oh.low.

( r.

3030-".1).

Decer>e 1st passed, however, w'hou" any s'~.;l~ ss

~ ons roiil the pa tiEs on the smject.

20 O.

jjj t

The Governor's counsel and, secu ity eloper s were allowed

=-ee the ull Diablo Canyon security plan on ccnditions that ney (l) ma);e use of protected information only at specific acilities provided bv the applican"'and the sta; (2) retain sich in orma"'on in a sa e at one of those premises when not in "se; (3) have sec etarial work involvincr protected infor-ma"ion per. ormed at hose loca icns; and (4)

Keep ~ itten p o-tec ed in ormation at all times under the control of.a pe son a"

hG zec "o see it; Rep esen a

ons made 0 us by those

~.d:v cue s

(described Part a've) ac);nowle" ce tha (l) -'he writ en d'rect testimony c

"he Gove=.".or's exper s

was drafted in counsel's of ices;,(2) c a

s, notes and tha testi-mony itself, until filed and served, were re ained at those, 1

o= 'ces; (3) the testimony l's yped and reproduced 'n counsel's o== -: "es; and (4) when not in actual use, the material was kept at counsel's office in a s-=e accessible to an indiv'dual not a authorized to.see protected info=.,iation and who..a" not exe-cu';:" a non-ci sclosure af. idav'.

Co lsecuenilvg vhe her our

= o ective orde was violated and b"cached turns essentially on whe conte'ns "protected information."

the non-disclosure affidavits her the testimony in cues ion

'9'e must there=.ore ma)re a

'I "e'm~ na"y assessment o

tha tha it is a disputed points c est'on, recocnizing of course

~ ~

~

~

~

21

(.itct.

PrOtBCte"

~ n=o=..ca

~ On XS Ce

..e" aS:

(" ):=ay

=OWc O

the':".ySiCal SBC'r'ty Plan ~or the 1ice..see' Dia1 lo c=..vc.. Lutclea.

Power Plan Un ts l anc 2; o-(2):-;nv in=or-.ia ion o"-ci-.;B" Dy x>irtue o hese pro'eec.ines vh'ch is no-c-he""-se a

~ma "er o~

puDlic recorc anc vh'h c Bals v'h or cescr'Des cetai1s of the securi v pic.-.. 4/

~he it=~ tten Bs xnony o P=.

);a~ te an" Co1onel Gxur=rxaa "oeals v'th o= cescrihe cetai1s 0

-'.Se Dia 1O C-;.vOn SeCur'ty p an

~

few BX~cgleS Su=. 'e O Ce=.cconStrate hiS.

?'~. Rnite' t'Bstiwony

(=:o1.

". 2346)'c. pages 9 anc 10 alluces to a rance-r I t

7ne local sher' 0:: c e to =rov'ce ass'stance 1

-1 'l-~ ~

~.ac OC c c= v

~

~

B 0 ce lBn Gr:.

C~a s anc;.;.".t'o..s he 1 encth 0= t'~e neecec 0 Get such ass~ stance JC t : 0:0 iilat1on xs s e ou in h'e incicates.

secu i v plan.

Pa"-e 1 1 0< l.'>>

0

~ 4

~ l;hi e's tes irony I

Paces 12 anc 13 o

his tes iwony ciscuss assertec "ae iciBzci es" in the plan' pro-pcsec resp nse o 'nt ucers.

A "ace 15, ?'.r.

5 h e revea1s the =rec'e nu&er o outs'e a

c'B s

t 'ta

+B Dian cu r

0 0.

.B iS heine rainec tO epe1 c.-." Sta-eS B>

preSSlv he neer amec esponcers ava'ahle in =hat =o=ce.

~nc, as we have

notec,

~'~.

7 n'e Bo'presslv ackno1'le""ec tha his source fOr was "Ne securi"y p1cn '"se1 See p.

18, Co para.

1 (a).

See ~~."-609, 12:iB c

1 6,

I I ~

22 Colonel Gi"=frica' test'wo.".y

{

.:-Ol. 241l) s~-ail a=lv anc Lo he.; lB a

OnS a 'lat cc=.ta'.-.s ce a1" s 'o=.

"h.e D1ab" O SBC'~ariL~V the plan ar C

~ ~

A" paces l0 at pace ll.o ciscusses the 0

est'-.,a" BG'~ae neeaec or those I

amex ass' ance i callec upon c==ic'als to respone. vith c co so; anc

.u= her on he,

-'oo, cives he exact nl~Mler o i-.;" uGers he c'uarG 0 ce is e

1 v BD"~BQ to repel

{==. l(--20).

~ he ore"-oing ex~~pXBS ae~>onstra'~e suf=iciently tha BVB l C the Governcr's expert vi.ne ses intencec their testi

~.O=.Y 0 be B"..-==e y general ia aa=lzre, i coes in act

~

~

~

~ ~

CO n

.:0-a. a 10 1

~

~

~

Mn Cn Cea V

O GBSCr beS ce ails o

he sec'durity plan"

=o the D'ablo Canyon nuclear So~Br Plant..Anc. Y~. ignite has ack~ovleogec tha the source 0

hi S 1nZO ~.latlon about a hoSB CF:a1ls ce" ainlv aS O.

he. ~>:act aa~~ae OL guarcs yas he securi v plan i"self

{ =. 2402-03).

no be su"e, knovlecge o

the Dia" o sec""i v plan obtaineo thrc'=h these =-oceecings '

"protec" B" iaforna 'n". o.lv

~ g

~

V?S "aOL Othem=se a matter O

p'

.reCO=G. "=

An<i unli3CB the pev'o" s cues"ion whether

-'."e Governo"'s testimony llQe 1Ca an8 ca a

1 (

)

See C i-SS-24, suo -, 11:lZC -"-,79; 779 (acciuio.

1 v'ew c= Cc..=.:=ssio..e S"aczo c).

AL::679, suu=a, 12 1(RC a

l.-j.

i

~

23 a'ith'o cescr bes de"-ils of" the Di-bio Canvon securi y alas (i'h'h can be answereo by compari.".g -;ti e tes

. L, 0

~ly veith

<he p'an) -- whe her any info'(ation con-'ainec 'n the Governor' test'.-.ony is "other.ise a ma te c= public reco c" 's a

cuest'on'Zndeec, we take i to be -he p-=porte"ly public o

=act that we could esolve inal~y-only a ter a further lei hearing ch-"aeter of the plan's c:eta'ls

'oned in the Governor'

.tes irony that principally un"er".'es't".e asse"t'cn hy the Cove no s

~

~

4

~

co...sel h-t zt con" ai-.;s

.-." protectea

=-.. o mat~on (see, e.c.,

z. 239E-97).

ol eco dison Co.

(Davis-3esse, Gn 1

~

2 and 3) 9 332 )

3 lt~RC 7 6 5

(

9 /6) g 'volvinc con=i"'=-of-'terest charces against one sice s a=tom ys, we he d tha wne e

the moving par"v's allega

'c.".s vcl-)0 Tha.'.e a case

~ o" cisauali='cation" they shou~i be =efe=red o a "special board @or iria33 wi"bout co.-i-<<en 'ng on ~we,merits o~ the claim."

I8.

a 793.

Tha, hclcing res" ec on a provision in the Coszission's Rules w'..ice "nen provided that.

" (b) efo=e any pe=son is suspenccd o" b- "ea rom partici-pation as an at ornev in a p"oceec.'ng, charges shall be pTe erred by the p esiding c= ice= against such pe son and he sha.ll be af ozdeP an cppc"tunity -'o be heard hereon before another presic'ac o=='cer."

'0 C.P.R.

52.73.3 (c)

(l980 Rev.).:=at p=ov'sion c>> "efe ence to a special boarc has since been deletede 45':-ed.

Rece

69877, 69879 (October 22, l9"-0).

Deca use this change

'n the Rules o

Practice '

=rocecural

=athe= tnan sub-stantive we would applv he c-=rent rule he=e were such a sea='n9 necess-sy.

See',

=..e='can =am

'.".es v.

B ack Ball:- eicn" Se"vice, 397 U.S.

=32, 538-39

( 970).

~ s Cn he rese.-.t reco=d,

?"".

"="o>>n anc ~D~ s tes

'mony was prepa ec he acknowlecged that when I

c co>> eagues "didn'now" whether h'e i..format'ion it contai"..e= was o

was not

~ in the p"D 'c "eco=d (Tr. 2861).

ln these circumstances (and given staff counsel's po'n ed reminder to ~'.

Broom about he pro-

'tective cree=,

see p. 15, so==a), to have pzepase8 testisaooy about the security plan outs'de

";.e secure ac'i ies made available for thavt very purpose wit.c'i=st having made cer-'a'n tha

'" contained no con '.cent=-al information was, o sav the leas ill-cons ice e c ac ion on the pa t of the Coverno

'co nsel.

horeover, covnsel s ac3cnowlecgemen he cia not 3:now whether the information con ained in he testimony of his wi nesses was a mat er o

public record p"esen" s adem a e cause to believe ha" the speci ic in~or I

mation in the tes irony 'is no". "o.he~=='se a ~'~t"er o~ pisblYc reco c."

This is because o

the ve=v na"ure of the infor-mat'n in question and the steps aken to date o keep such o, lation =rom the public ccmai"...

t'ere &ere no countervailing cc..side ations, we micht ceem "he oregoing su ficie".t to warrant furler proceecings loo3-ing to the possible i-...=osition of sanc-t tions for di sregaraing Qe pro ective o=ce.=i Several Our au"ho ity to do so res s

c=. tne Rules o

Practice q.:erich, m'o ing the A8zinis""at've Procecure Act, cjv'e esicing officers powe= -o "re= la"e the course of the (7OOTNO Z COIsTZliu=D ON Y,">:T P~G=)

J

4c" ~

ccc" ac to s ) no~'Bve g

-.=neo Bs sa v her e.

lead us to de=ice that such a course is

(

st, vhile

".";.B=e a=pear to be certain l

of -'

ec" ed info.-.a"ion in the-te t'mo; y, the test mo=;v as a x;hole lends sua~ort o the esse" ~ion t..at it @as i.te sGBG to be cenera 1 in naiLsr e; -'e goal o= the draftsmen l

'vcs BvidBnt 1 v to hi ghl ight the p" an s ce:iciencies 4'ithout il1's-inati nc '

cetcil s

~

That

~sei coal vas not accomplisheP.

B scores oily o attempti".~-".

s ch an B>:ercise rom

.-,BmC"y al One.

But i" coes give c"edence to he notion that there

~'as no deliberate attempt here o risk co-;..promising e 't

~

Cae ~

'1 7/

(= OO POT" CO'iTi?iv-D:RO?2 2" VZOUS:i-;GZ) 1 hearing and the concuc cf togae -a- 'c'pa ts."

10 C.Z'.R.

K2. 718 (e);

and see,3 U. S.C.

5556 (c) (5).

The Rules speci ically au ho ize us,

"'= necessa v =o the orderly co duc 0.

a p occecily, I oj

. B-=i-..:-nd

<.ce-..su e or suspend rom part1c epation in "he pa""" cul a" p oceecina be ore i" re use to comply v'i h i s'i Bctionsg 10 C.P.R..

K2. 713 (c),

as- ~~ended, 45:-e".

=.Bc. at 69S79.

Au hori y tc i sue d'sc'p"'nary rules o

-~='s kind 's veil settled.

~eden x. Ucated 8"ates, 564 :..2c 2"8, 2".2-33 (7"h Ca

. i877 ar d c hot's "ti e=e c.'ec.

There are few acts

..~cr concuc of the p=oceed'nc" obey 0 de s to keep secure or a nuclear power plan r

B d'S" ="'Ve tO ""he Ovderly t:-;an a pa ty's ailure to ti:e ce=a 1s c

a security plan eleased to it in con. 'dence.

~

~

~

is:u t 16 talkie..

0 J co..s 61 anc con irmeQ(

witnesses' (O

4(

ev

(

t cps a ecua 0

by tne st ps L'LD

+ Yl~1 ah Tice 6 c

a.".ile they vere >(or);ing vi"h it in c" -..Se}.

s o

. ices anu o !;eep '". un"e lock anc key yhen

'I t~cv vere not.

To be Su 6

couns 6" s o

ice manager hac access to that sa. e,an" a 'lat 'L1v1cu? 1 is not author'zei to see protected 'n or-ma+ion..=..c, no coub, ~bile the tes-='-.iony ~as be'ng typeu eprccucec c"her unauthorize" i.."iv'uals'i'ere in 211 1

. >6 inooc ab" e to approach he a"eas

.ere..is~;crk x;as being per ormec.

Moreover cr- =

s of

..e "estimony vere c'spcsec o

~.ih lit le atten ion "o secur'tv, Nevertheless even assuming that the ~rctective o ce=

anc the non-cisclosure a: icavit vere b~'cache"( this is not 2 ccse Mhere counsel rec.';lessly cisrecardec he sens't've nature o

the in ormation 0

~

a N

4 0

a 0

~4 ~

~

entrusted to them.

awhile counsel shol-'ea poor juccgment in the'r handling of this ma e ial an" ve have cau ioneQ

'oem agains any repetiticn ->> thai=

c ncuct ooes not cross the 'e line sepa

?

1ng ac s -nat 2"6 un~i1se rom those v.".ich 'a e cen > C I u ure p closed ='nd';.=s -nc "riefs are to r

"y counsel'- all inter'venors in the secure areas spec'='ed

=o that pu=pose (Tr. 3029-30).

19/

IV Basec on the s atenents of the i.";: viduals vhose conduct has been called in cuestion, ve f'nc acec ate cause to be-.

lieve that the protective oraer un" er ~-=.ich t.,e Diablo Canyon 9/

> e are satisfiea that even i

~'-. ".'".ite and Colonel C:u ' r ca might have tech }ica11%

Q io e

ne

~

o c ive o"c er,

";.ey acted re asona"" y '

a c cepti ~c counsel '

reading of vhat hose oraers pe=i ec an" bea no espons'b'" '"y fo the cecision o ""epar tes

'-.iony counsel ' "p ivate o vices.

l the hearing "he Governor's co'nsel cuesticned Ne integri y of applica'nt's counsel in br'ng'ng. up this matter.

In our qua'~ient, ap-'icant's counsel acted responsibly in aoing so.

No one may be criticized o

call 'ng th '

Boa d '

at en cn "o a easo table possibility that our protective orcer vas violatea and tha "he D'allo Canvon secu='

plan sigh have been comprc-.i~ed.

naeed<

he

=ctect'g'e o cer spec:;

=icallv states that "Jcjounsel,

experts, or a }~ ot? e-

~

~

y

~ nd.vxcual

@no nas reason "o suspe=t that aoc=~ents conte'ning protectea. infoniation mav have been lost or mxsplacea

". or that orotec-ed information has other"=se become available o aaa"-".ori~ed o~rsons

~

I I

1 s Ja 11 notx y i hxs Soarc p"o~ip"1v o= "hos e suspicions and the easons fo them."

Crcer,- -a a.

6.

t Nf

se=u=ity via~ was eleased has been violated hv two tr'al reasons we nave explained,

however, we con'uce &a"..o urther pro-cee"'pcs're necessary a..d no sane ions against hose indi-v'ua' are ca>> ed or.

But we do aczonish thew to adhere in the fu ure strictly to the te~s. o~ the non-disclosu=-

a =idavits they execu ec o.'r ~ncu rv =n o he rat App'i 'Ca..t'S mO"iaa iS CenieP.;

20/

ter is closec.

It is so OBDZR=D.

FOR 2:":- P~P~L BOLERO C. ~e~g Bishop Sec=a y "o "he peal Boarc 20/

In this reaard we endorse Y

. Brown's sucklesion (Tr. 2852) ihat he immediately destroy or celiver to YRC s a=2 counsel anv relatec: notes, pr'cr c a ts o" copies o

the testimony o

?'". f"hite and Colonel Giu

= ica, i any such ~ate"ials s"ill ex'st.

t-