ML19323C666
| ML19323C666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005160470 | |
| Download: ML19323C666 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ - _.
8005160QTO N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENS7"G APPEAL BOARD
,;p
'N v;U '
b g83 > T-)
Richard S.
Salzman, Chairman Dr. W.
Reed Johnson
'C ISM,,
g Thomas S. Moore
\\\\
8 g
9/
\\
to. CD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 OL
)
50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
RULING ON INTERVENOR'S OBJECTION TO SECCND PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER May 1, 1980 A question before us at the prehearing conference held on April 2, 1980 involved the conditions under which confi-dential information about the licensee's physical security plan for its Diablo Canyon facility -
" protected information"
-- might be made available to intervenor's counsel and expert witness for their use in this proceeding.
We summarized our ruling on the point at page six of our Second Prehearing Conference Order of April 11, 1980, as follows:
One matter, however, could not be resolved by agreement [among the parties].
The [ protective]
order and affidavit [of non-disclosure] allows the recipients of " protected information" to discuss it only with " authorized persons" (terms defined in the affidavit and not in dispute).
The question arose whether intervenor's counsel and expert witness could nevertheless discuss protected information publicly with outsiders my
s
- where they had obtained such information from other sources, i.e., other than by disclosure under the terms of the protective order.
Over intervenor's objection, we ruled that such dis-cussion would not be permitted.
Intervenor's counsel object to that paragraph.--1/
They perceive it as unjustifiably creating "an inference" that either they or intervenor's expert " wished to discuss
' publicly with outsiders' protected information which they might have obtained other than by disclosure under the terms of the protective order."
Counsel disclaim any such desire.
Rather, they explain that they object to the condition for other reasons, objections that they are now pressing before 2/
the Commission itself.
We have reviewed the licensee's and the staff's responses to intervenor's objection and carefully reexamined the transcript of the in camera prehearing conference of April 2nd,1980.
In our judgment, the statement that intervenor finds objectionable is not freighted with the sort of " inference" intervenor per-ceives.
Rather that statement merely recounts what transpired 8
--1/ Intervenor's letter of April 17, 1980 objecting to r
the Prehearing Conference Order.
See 10 C.F.R.
s2.752(c).
2/ On April 23, 1980, intervenor petitioned the Commission, i
among other things, "For Review of the Affidavit of Non-Disclosure Ordered by the Appeal Board."
l i
i I
4
, at the conference proceeding.
It therefore needs no emendation and intervenor's objection is overruled.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.bmmi AM C. Jea Bishop
\\
Secret ry to the Appeal Board
)
4 l
i j
i
]
i I
.