ML19329E896

Affidavit & Argument Re Accusation of Contempt of ASLB Order.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329E896
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/30/1972
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:
Shared Package
ML19329E893	List: ML19329E892 ML19329E896
References
NUDOCS 8006180739
Download: ML19329E896 (34)

Text

~

' i

,r3

%) . .

w, ~ .

" h

. ,o PACO. i. . .  :..;. & t @ 7 , 9-Os C00!ETED S- t:m

.:- 4-SEP 51972 >

. p- T UNITED STATES OF MIERICA f T.,'nN'd). // ATOMIC EllERGY COMMISSIO'i.

trua

% 6LL p '

'b -

In the 2 cter of ) -

)

CONSUMERS POWER C0!!NJ1Y ) Docket Nos. 50-32.0

) 50-330 Mid. land Plcut, Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT OF MYRON M. 'CilERRY Myron M. Cherry, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

1. I am the attorney.who has been representing the so-c< tiled Saginaw Valley, et al. Int.ervenors since the inception of this intervention.

2. At transcript 7009, the Board ordered me to serve upon the Board on or before June 9, 1972 a sworn statement of the circumstances "under which he committed what appears to the ,

i Board to be a contempt in this regard of the Board's order and' l

he can at the same time make whatever shov.'ing'he deems appro-I priate by way of an explanatien as to why the Board should not I

hold him in contempt and take whatever action it deems appro- i priato in the circumstanc:cs." *  !

.]

3.

This affidavit and submission is made in order to i

not forth my victs of factn uhich I believe have been erroneously c'a.: etarired, inilit.11y by count el for Dow Chemical Company

• ny tc.lephow: Chainmu nu.!phy cmtended the dato for filina until thc- cud of At: gust 1972. , ~

6 0 0 618 0' # 7 3. P

, t  !

and subsequently by the Doard. This affidavit is made without ,

in any vtay admitting that there are circumstances which. require that I make any showing as to why I should not be held in con-tempt and is further made without admitting that this Board is granted by the Rules of Practice of the Atomic Energy Com-mission any so-called powers of contempt. However, notwith-standing these exceptions and therefore my legal position, I am submitting the following statement of facts because I believe there has been a misunderstanding created, nurtured and seized upon by Dow Chemical's councel.

4. As this Board will recall, Saginaw Valley Inter-venors originally asked several interroga' tories of Dow Chemical Company dealing with the synergism or other interaction between chemicals and other releases from Don Chemical facilities with radionuclides. Although the Board originally characterized the request for information by Saginaw as an attack upon the radiation ,

standards of 10 C.F.R. Part 20, it is clear from the transcript that interest was shown in whatever information Saginaw (or the Board on its own motion) could bring to bear upon the so-called synergism problem. For example, at Tr. 1332-1341, Dr. Goodman indicated that the Midland plant might be the only plant in the world scheduled to be located next to a chemical facility and that Part 20 might be inapplicable in view of the fact that it, j that is, Part 20 standards, may have been drafted contemplating a pure atmosphere. ,

l l

1 l

. l l

\

, 5

5. Dow Chemical therefore objected to supplying information on the synergism matter and objected initially to surnlying any information as to Dow's releases only because Dow Chemical believed the matter was,not legally in issue.

Dow Chemical never took the position that'the information was entitled to any proprietary protection or that it was confidential in any fashion at all.

6. For example, 'the following exchange took place at Tr. 1332:

"Dr. Goodman: Do you suppose Dow has any objec-tion to giving this information out [that is, informa-tion as to releases from Dow's plant]?

"Mr. Wossel: Not as a matter of proprietary"in-

' formation but simply because it is not an area into which the Board should bc inquiring _ hecause it isn't going to load to anything that is pertinent."

7. Thercafter and at Tr. 1342 Dr. Goodman indicated that he could not think of any synergistic reaction that would

' preven t , all other things being equal, the issuance of a con-struction permit but that it might turn out to be s'omething which the Regulatory Staff, the Applicant and Dow ought to look at prior to the operating license stage. Dr. Goodman never sug-gested that the information should not be viewed publicly. In connection with Dr. Goodman's remarks, Mr. Wessel stated:

"Mr. Wesnol: I thin); I can say, speaking for  ;

Dow, that if there is any possibility of the kind of 1 snycrgictic reaction betwe,en a release from the Dow I plant and from radioactivity or radiation activity of a' nuclear plant, Dow would want to know it.

"Dr. Goodman: And know it now.

"Mr. Wessel: And know it now,~so that corrective action can be taken.

"Dr. Goodman: Why don't we suggest then that Dow try to come along up at this line. the hearing with some further thoughts "Mr. Wessel: I assure you we will consider it again, but I also say, Dr. Goodman, we do not know of

any such rouction."

Tr. 1342. .

Thus Dr. Goodman spoke of analysis of any possible snyergistic effect in the open and at the hearing.

8.

Thereafter and at Tr. 1394-95 the Board indicated it would consider tio nature of an order upon Dow Chemical in connection with the requested information.

9.

Thereafter and on June 21, 1971 the Board indicated that it had reconsidered its decision with respect to the so-called synergistic interrogatories and ordered:

the Dow Chemical Company to answer the inter-rogatories Tr. 1502. specifically with respect to the effluents."

T I queried the Board as to whether merely answering the interroga-tories would be sufficient inasmuch as what we, that is, Saginaw, wereintercuted in was having material placed in the record, including perhaps Dow witnesses testifying as to the underlying information. The Do:.rd recponded to that query by stating:

"As of now,' lot's not rule on the question of witne's nes, at least until the Board has ,some clearer notion of what exactly it is that you arc after." ,Tr. 1502.

,- _4.. .

.a- -

- -,e _ ..-. _ .._-.-.

w ,, n.. ,--..

-- ~ ._. -

Accordingly, when the Board originally ordered the information to be produced, it was in terma of a requirement upon Dow Chemical to answer inter.rogatories, thus overruling Dow's

' objection to our interrogatories on a legal basis. There was no suggestion by the board that the information was entitled.to any proprictary protection and, more importantly, there was never any suggestion (on the contra'ry, see supra) that Dow Chemical considered the matter.as entitled to proprietary protection.

The interrogatories which were ordered to be answered by Dow were interrogatories numbered 239, 241, 243, 245-46, 251, 259, 260, 270 and 286. (See Tr. 1511.)

10. After a recess, Dow Chemical's counsel objected to answering the interrogatories arui, in a sense, moved for reconsideration of the Board's order. At er a colloquy between counsel, the Board revised its c rder, stating:

"I suggest you go ahead, Mr. Wessel, and prepare .

what you propose to preparc and at that time let's all look at it and see what the next step is f rom there. (Tr. 1518)

Thus even with the Board's modification of its order to Dow Chemical to answer the interrogatories, the emphasis once again by the Board was that the information to be submitted by Dow Chemical was.to be for purpones of an analysis at the hearing and even at that late date th6re was no suggestion by the Board that it was entitled to proprietary protection; and, more important, Dow had not asked for any,

11. The next time this subject came up was at Tr.

I e.

i-1681-85, when Mr.LMcssel once again asked for a modification of the Board's order on what Dow was required to produce.

9 The Board ecquiesced and ~ once again stated for Mr. Wessel what was to be produced. Again there was no suggestion that the Board intended to treat the matter as proprietary or that Dou wished any confidential treatment. See Tr. 1681-85.

12. In light of this background, the whole question of a form of protective order came up almost inadvertently.

Thus, on June 24, 1971, Mr. Wessel again complained to the  ;

Board that Dow was having difficulty compiling the list of effluents, that Dow people were out of town and it had been -

difficult getting final clearance. Mr. Wessel stated:

"But in connection with what we're now dis-cussing, I would like to request that since this report -- since this list is being furnished for the very limited purposes of analysis, that it also be under the Board' June 14 protective order until such timo as the necessary foundation has been shown, that is, the order of June 14, which says that the materials to be used for the purposes --

Chairman Murphy: Let's treat it that way and Mr. Cherry can make an objection later on."

Tr. 2125.

Although I cannot indicate what my state of mind was at the time of the above colloquy and the Board's offhandedly applying the June 14 protective order to the Dow effluent list, it is I

clear that Mr. Wessel made a major change in position in re- 1

\

questing such protection.

It is also clear from an analysis of the June 14 protective order (a copy of which is attached hereto es Exhibit A) t' hat there was no basis in the record for l l

1 j

l

{

- - - - - - -m - p g y pg

applying the protective order to the Dow offluent list. The Board knows that the protective order was applicable only with respect to Intervenors and Applicant and covered only documents which Applicant asserted were entitled to proprietary (not (confidentiiD protection pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Board will also recall that the basis for the need of protective order was Babcock &

Wilcox's claim that certain information in reports . furnished as part of Applicant's case (and hence Applicant furnished them to Intervonors) were entitled to proprietary protection. The Board's protective order was carefully worked out in advance by Mr. Lowenstein and myself in the nature of an agreement and there-fore the protective order was entered in the sense of a stipula-tion between counsel for Applicant and counsel for Intervenors to se.ve a specific purpose. 'Perhaps I was negligent in not raising this point at Tr. 2125, but the Board will know from .

the history traced in this affidavit, together with Tr. 2125, that Mr. Wessel, a skillful trial attorney, succeeded in getting the Board to give him more than he was entitled and more than he ever asked for in earlier' descriptions of the documents. Indeed, the manner in which Chairman Murphy acquiesced in Mr. Nessel's request indieptes that the Board also may have had some reservations about giving the list protective treatment.

Inasmuch as I then did not have any intention of publicizing the Dow effluent list (and maintained that intention to the pre-( -

e uent) and' inasmuch as several wecks rad gone by since my first frequest for the information and I desperately needed it.for my clients, I recall that I made no mention of any objections at that point. The Board will also note that the colloquy with Mr. Wessel'and the Board (Tr. 2124-28) . came right in the middle of a complicated discussion between myself and Mr.

Engelhardt regarding the existence of documents dealing with certain safety features.

13. The next time this matter came up was at Tr.

2433-35 and the Board queried when I would be in a position to

! present information on synergism. I explained to the Board that I couldn't make any judgment until I received some of tho information which the, Board had ordered Dow to produce.

I noted that it had been some time since Dow had been ordered to produce the documents but they were still not yet available.

i.

Mr. Wessel acknowledged that I might have witnesses testifying about the matter, including Dr. Tamplin. No mention was made

by anyone that any sessions would be held in camera or that any information was confidential. I was interested in getting

~

'the information as quickly as possible.

14. The Board thereafter took a recess and the hearing i

was reconvened on July 7, 1972. Prior to that time and on JuneH29, 1972.I had received by messenger'from Mr. O'Connor of Dow the long-awaited list of anticipated Dow effluents.

I L

l .

• Thefinformation we received by messenger from Dow Chemical is attached hereto as Exhibit B. It is in fact the list of anti-cipated offluents which Dow prepared. Once again, Dow's skillful lawyer set forth in haec verba the text of'the protective order entered by the Board on June 14, 1971 which, as noted earlier, had nothing to do with the Dow Chemical information. I received the information pursuant' to the Dow Chemical conditions not becaus~e I believed they were applicable but because I was interested in beginning the long-awaited analysis of synergism.

In fact, in the interest of expedition, when I needed to -make some extra copies, I telephonsd Mr. O'Connor that day to get per-mission, even though legally I thought it an unnecessary extension of industry power with its arrogant agents and attorneys. At Tr.

2556 at the reconvened hearing, I explained on the record the circumstances of my receipt. Once again, I do not recall my state of mind at the time I received the document pursuant to the restric-tions incorporated in the list of effluents, but I saw no need then (or now) to take practical issue with respect to the application of the June 14 order to the Dow effluent list except by way of explanation. I do not mean to imply that the June 14 order validly was applied to the list of, effluents or that I violated any such order. I just wish to indicate the surrounding circum-stances and the fact that as lato as July 7, 1971 Mr. Wessel and the Board were aware of the fact tha,t distribution of the effluent list was to be made by me in the context of my preparation of ,

my clients ' case. There wc no suggestion as of July 7, 1971 or, i .

w

J

. o o '. ... Y. s .

s -

s *

. . ~

s S'/ ATE: 07' !UCHIC AN )

ca. -

COUlM OF 1'IDLA1 D )

t Jnr.:r 3 F -i*.nddox, being duly sworn, deposca and anyo that he in Project l'unager for The Dou ChcInical Company in connectica uith the proposed nuclear encrcy project and that he han rend th0 forcG0iHG lint of anticipated Dou cer: cot'.3/lir!l'id ( trip.cata . tit h he Mitws to k truc, 4 0,. .

..g,& &,,i_q),Jr >. - <- -

Jmacu. P 11addon.

• - Sub: cribe6 (:un ni.:ctn to beforo zuo thin 2rjth day of June,

. l

.19'/1.. i. .

. . _ . , O s?.-- m D'.L,\W) .

) o','CE C. tCCR U

- flobsy [ li., D1y C:'urit;, f.tkh!;;re kling la cr.d for th: Cwr. y l'Mknd ,

.- - ltyComiettrian tsp;rss M/?l,3972 .

c . .

' 5'. . . .

t . .

g I

~ ' - - ~ +A* - , . , . - . , . . , . _ , , ,

.~ - .

to my knowledge, at any time prior thereto, that I was not to give a copy of the Dow offluent list to anyone who could give some assistance to me and my clients in connection with the hearing.

15. It should be pointed out that Mr. Wessel's offhand

, request for application of a protective order to the list (Tr.

2324-25) was requested " . . . until such time as the necessary foundation has been shown . . ..

Thus, in a sense 4r. Wessel was asking for protection until such time as the Beard determined that a valid Part 20 attack had been made. It is stretching con-

, cepts of legal protection to say that non-proprietary documents of Dow or anyone else are entitled to protection until factual evidence required to be produced later is deem'ed admissible.

Ti ere is no basis in law for such an occurrence and, unfortunately,

-because of my zeal in wishing to have the information as soon as possible, I did not point this out earlier to the Board.  !

16. As of July 8, 1971, the next time this issue came up, Dow Chemical had admitted, in effect, that the Mapleton Intervonors were entitled to the list of effluents. At Tr.

2820-21, Mr. Wessel himself characterized the contentions which the Mapleton Intervenors had raised. Mr. Wessel said:

" Secondly, yesterday there were six suggestions

[ raised by Mapleton]. I have them listed'. Not seven. And I would like to supply what the six are so that if Mr. Ginster has a seventh we can l

, flush it out. . .

"Four was cynergi sm. " Tr. 2820-21. (Emphasis supplied.) l Thus, nu of Ju]y 8, 1971 Dow Chemical was not disputing the Mapleton Intervonors' right to have the document in question s

. ..~. ...... .. . - --- L - -- -- -. - ... ..- .

w and,_indeed, on the basis of Mr. Wessel's admission, one might very well have concluded that Mapleton Intervenors were entitled to the document ; and they could assist Saginaw in the preparation of Saginau's caso, particularly since Mr. Wessel had admitted that one of the Mapleton contentions was synergism.

To my knowledge, that matter was not again raised until some-timo later.

17. At Tr. 3970 Mr. Wessel indicated that the list, late in coming,-was incomplete and offered to clear it up the

.following Monday.

18. To my knowledge, the next time this matter was discussed was at Tr. 4634, where Mr. Ginster stated that he under-stood that I had been given (the day beforc) on July ' 20, 1971 a list of effluents put out by Dow Chemical Company and that he wanted it. Thereafter followed a colloquy among the Board, Mr. Wessel and Mr. Ginster:

" Chairman Murphy: You're going to request a. copy.

Will you furnish him a copy?

"Mr. Wessel: If the Board directs it.

" Chairman Murphy: The Board directs it.

"Mr. 1.'ess el: Subject to the same order as Mr.

Cherry, a protectivo order.'

" Chairman Murphy: I didn't remember that."

Tr. 4634.

The interesting part of this colloquy is that Mr.

Wesnel had no objection to furnishing the Mapleton Intervonors W

4

s a . copy of the effluent list so long 'as it was subject to the protective order. That is, it would not be disclosed except in the context of the hearing and if a foundation for an attack on Part 70 was made. Since Mr. Wessel was only interested in protecting the information from getting to the media (an advan-i tage.that perhaps Mr. Wessel and I,ow are not entitled to in any cycnt) , it is c3 car that Mr. Wes7el had no objection to placing the list in the hands of Mapleton so long as thcl so-called protective order was applied. And, as the Board knows and as later will be demonstrated, Mr. Like stated that he was always agrecabic to be bound by the terms of the protective order, although he did r,ot believe it applicable.

Of additional importance here is the remark by Chairman Murphy, "I didn't know that," an obvious reference to the most inadvertent and casual manner in which the June 14 protective order was applied to the effluent list in the first place. See Tr. 2124-25. It is interesting, to say the least, that Dow Chemical and Mr. Wessel, who complained of violation of an order and also about the integrity of the judicial pro-cess, are subject to a bit of contradiction themselves. This .

is shown by the following colloquy in the record beginning at Tr. 4634:

"Mr. Wessel: This is the effluent list and and there is no purpose in the world for them (Mapleton} to have it. Everybody who has it, lihu Mr. Cherry, has.given it to a technical i

scientist for the purposes of analysis. They [Mapleton]

have no such reason for this list at all.

"Mr. Ginster: We do want to present it to experts for analysis with respect to the synergistic effects.

"Mr. Wessel: Under the name protective order, if the Board please.

" Chairman Murphy: Yes.

"I do not recall that Mr. Wessel. [That is, Chair-man Murphy once again acknowledging for obvious reasons that the Dow effluent list was not the kind of As'I document have that was entitled to any protection at all.

pointed out earlier , it was Mr. Wessel's inadvertent reference to the June 14 order and not the Board's direction that started this whole business in the first place.] If it is subject to,a protective order

- to Mr . Cherry, then the same conditions will apply."

"Mr. Wessel: Furthermore, I don't think the Mapleton Intervenorn --

"Mr. Ginstcr: It's covered in contentions three and four.

"Mr. Wessel: It is. And they have been excluded.

He is correct.

"Mr. Ginster: They have not becn excluded.

"Mr._Wessel: The only on which [ sic) the Mapleton Intervonors have any right to present evidence is on contention No. 1. And in the other arcas they have been told if they wish to make an affirmative showing they may do so.

"Now ti li,s 1i n t__ of _c;f_f)_ genin was qi von to Mr . Cher_ry, at bin renuent for a sppci fic nurp V:c, to make a soccific_

nh owimt . Th a t- is not one of the areas in which the Manic-ton Int crvonors havn any congern, no_tjt_all,_nt any point t

.in thin _ hear i ng unt il_ thin mor,c pt .--or at _1 cast _until this riorni na when fir . __Gi nster asked for tha t- list. There is no reason in t.he world for this list to be furnished them, because even if~they qive it to someone and he analyzes it, (Jiat evidence could not be offered under the present ruling of the Board."

Tr. 4634-35.

=of interest in this colloquy are rour points:'

1. Chairman Murphy did not remember that a protec-l tive order had been issued, thereby calling into~ question

.whether ir. - fact a protective order really was issued. Tr. I 2'125;

2. Chairman Murphy saw no difficulty in giving the list to Mr. Ginster subject to a protective order, if in I

fact one was entered;

.3. Mr. Wessel stated at Tr. 4635 that the Mapleton  !

Intervenors wanthm a copy of the list was news to him and that, in Mr. Wessel's own words, "This is not one of the areas in which the Mapleton Intervenors have any concern, not at all,-

until this moment." Tr. 4G35. This statement of Mr. Wessel is to be contrasted with the statement above at Tr. 2820-21 (see paragraph 16 above) , where it was Mr. Wessel himself who informed the Board that one of the areas raised by Mapleton was synergism; and

4. Mr. Wessel's argument as to why Mr. Ginster should not receive the list was illogical in its zenith, inas-much .as Mr. Wessel first wanted,a protectivo order, so he said, until such- time as someone could analyze it in support of a foundation for an attack on Part 20, and then says at

-the bottom of Tr. 4635 that Mapleton could not have the list even to give it to someone to analyze since under the present rulings of the Board, they couldn't put the.cvidence in anyway.

e Since the purpose of the analysis was to determine whether a proper attack could be made~, I can only state that Mr.

Wessel's remarks arc illogical because that is the best manner in which he could explain his client's position.

'19 . Immediately after the inconsistent remarks

~

by Mr. Wessel, the following occurred dealing with Mr.

Ginstcr 's _3 ght to have the list:

" Chairman Murphy: I will have a look at it.

Do you want to respond?

"Mr. Ginstcr: Yes, sir. Even to make an offer or proof bearing on radioactive hazards to health we need this information for the benefit of the '

qualified experts.

"Mr. Messel: Would the Board esk Mr. Ginster what this list is. Let him say now what he thinks it relates to. Not Mr. Gadler, Mr. Ginster.

"Mr. Ginster: It's a list of effluents.

"Mr. Wes.scl: What is it going to show?

"Mr. Ginstcr: What is being put into the atmos-phore which has a bearing on synergism, which further has a bearing on the radioactive retention.

i

" Chairman Murphy: I'm going to tal:e a look at the contentions again, Mr. Wessel, and look back at the rest.

"Mr. Wessel: Would you l'ike a copy of the list?

And we will decide

" Chairman Murphy: I have it.

this on Friday."

Tr. 4535-36, 2 0 .- I wish to state that I have no present recollec-tion of ever tendering the Dow list of effluents to Mr. Like

• 1 e

o

m

- . - .  : n.  ;. . . , - -- - . - . - g-; _ _ _

Mr. Ginster or anyone connected with the Mapleton Intervonors.

~

. On the other hand, I have the greatest respect for'Mr. Like as an attorney, and if Mr. Like indicates that I gave him the list, and despite my present recollection that I did not do so, it is entirely possible that Mr. Like and I had communica-tions about the list during the time that Mr. Wessel admitted that syncrgism was one of Mapleton's contentions and during the time that Mr. Ginster asked for the list at Tr. 4634. I wish to state emphatically that this interpretation is being made by me based on the circumstances as I can recall them through the transcript. I can only state that a tremendous amount of confucion surrounded the list and what my present i

recollection is. .

21. Hero follow true and correct copies of pages 4605 through 4694 of the transcript:

j l

1 l

. i 4

/

,/

/'

e*

5

., A 96--- De 4 y d8

• We o.-e-A D'4pn e

• 4.4 %. m w 3 g 4. .pg w - - m

~

1: v.

O,

- l:. .

. i; lir, Ginc.ter, anG wo vil) opecify a time by which the affiriaa-

.; I  :

f. .

tiva ter.t.*.u. cay on the Dr.xt 20 viole.tionc shonJd ha submitted -

L l to the l'o:xd.

4  !

'~ In 1.h::t councot!.on, Mr. tJaf.: sol, --

r, I MR. GIES'fMR: Xncidentally, It% Citairnnn, tio did t

f. I- not m: u ths.t lie,t fucm Um.' Chnmic31 Corgany which wo need y j for on" c :p- rtr:,

l.

t": MR, UsSSE: liay I op2th to that, Mr Chairr.an?.

i f> l CIIP.XT.XP.U MORPID. :

Yon e you may.

i to I M R.. EE5mD: fir. GincPer madc hic application ,

u  ! nt r.b:mt five minuten af te:c sin on Wadansecy, predicating i I

., p 1 0. o .. t h :. s t. e .- : m t , "X underete. -e yerterday that M.e, p.:.r:ra1

.1

3 cjtwo H :. Ch 2.r::y a lict.

f.

1

+

1.i Now that list was (Jiven to Mr. Cherry on Junc u- / 2Sth i:n n rcmt. i t of dicouccionn which hsd cuartcri in April 10 nnd Ubich ' t ra in i.hin record cnd as to uhf.ch ther:c has bc en I

gy l' mch dircur,rsion. yrosticno by the partion, gn::stionc by I.

And the fcot that Mr. Gin:;ter I.1:.y have 1curnrtS u- ) Dr. Go Cw:tn.

r20mthint.: the rh.y b: forte 1 thini: la suggentivo of why ho ni e .in c! h:*.i:r.:. for it.

I' .p Thorc in pt itt.ne - there iu abculutc3y, no iristic f

l -

' in thi:': curo in which 137. Ginntc.r hac pro *:enund 2:.ny canten-tinn: c:: n c. M . * '.t .c h h n b r; cuy Mirht . h..tcc wc'r inficfer an l

l

.i.

't.*

.., .. **o .[. . . U ' I U * .* . O'.~sh iiM,).l'sC p bn k . h '.* h .'( I (c[.lbh IN U($

,,, l.I ui.ni' nt n to p.A. . . :it ! t

.s._

I

e, I- i . Firnt of all, becauca the lint in obvioucly en ito 4

1 2  ! f aco a highly conficantial natter which chould cnly be

.I . . .

3 pr.citurt.d if tharo ir a really goed recr.on for it to b'c pro-

~

4 <.or:cd; ,

S Ii And necond of all, b:cauce there is no recson in 1 '

j thic wo: cad why Mr. G:'.r.nto:.: t'hould bo in a positien and no:

7 i cock to 2:copan anothcm insuo ubich a.u at the point of being -

e clott dr. another issuc with torc of thin h.ind of Ivrecentation i i

!;  ! nnd Ir.one of thin Idnd of urgs.cnt. '

l Ire No hcyn in ore ~~ I believe it ic tha.ifuly 10th ,  !

'l.

11 f mnet.rnnduta, imb:.:ittod nu oleven-paga doctn9ent to thin Boe.rd i:: ; indica'.J.urj thu many, many dif.rn:amt inntencen n: uhich the n M pinton Intarennorn htyc failed and refe::cd to comply uith 14 orders of this no2rd. I ueuld lil:n to give you j ust one that ,

is happened on itsncnday in thin cena councchion.

1s l At pt:ge 39'.!3 of tho trenscript the Chairmn stated 1

-17 in ronponna to a quantion I had n::dc. - that I hcd chated, t.; or n cow.acnt nn to Mr. GinstePu not being prcrcnt:

Is '- ,

"Chr.in: cut Murphy: D,oth Mr. Lil:c nrad ia Mr Gineter talkcG to 1.u, and they do not intend

t to 1 art

*.ci;'ata to any c60itional ente ut so fnr en i

.x ,

I untbrut:n.d on quality nunnronce inhtcra. And on I

P.  ! th:t un!'t ct.:n U.ng they rugecuted parmicnicir not to h

i

;iI 'F: P.'.i:ri: . : -u by e.unnni te.0ay. ;pid this lherd I: . l l

2.i i .

grevd.n:i th .h } . nd .:t .* nn ."

-1 p:

3 .  :

i' ,

l li '

-. li

~ ~

} 4GU7 o

I Nevertheler:n, I pernicted in notine.; thut !!r. Ginnto :

~

2 uns, not here. 1.'o cor.cn in end out uhcit he liken, no did 3 14r. Like, and chtAc.n ti:: c11 up. Uc'vn got to'look bach over 4  ! the reco :1. q'end nightc findi.ug cut t:hcro the 1:ocrd ruled

!, thin nad. the 1.*oned ru.kG that, t.nd then on Wednonday, after

. I

g '

u. cre cli donc uith yeality cermrnnce, nt page 462' G :

y " fir. Ginstcr: I have j uct a feu ques-r: tion 5:, Ib:. Chaircacm " .

o Pogo 4G30, egain Iir, Cincter:

16 "I wouirl renew lay regnont to crocs- , l

'l cm.. .mine -~

3; i .

s I .

3;.,

Timmt was oy..acitii.n, rive ::inutec pact sir, en 1 3 the Ch.'.ir rn:.c.d at pr.gc 4631:

15 ") hit the Donrf. uill porw.it you to addreas s written questicr.0, if you checco,- "

it: Nn't .T think re.cpsetfully the tino hac con:o that r/ 1;r. Ginator should ob+:y n rulo,.

There iri not clic ronron in m thin procac6ing for h.h to have that highly confidential lint l

39 ,

und 7. would rei,pa.:tful3y requent tfic Latrd not to ich hir.1 l hr v^ it. There i:m't t.ny cheuiag of cuy hind.

,3;,

Wou lot IT.O. :Juy. gent er:other thing:

.,. )

i

p i Uh

in t. hic 0: ininn.'i:iy cr.U? Up in hpril upon the I

e

. h',ri:. of l**:. C.'borry' r 16 mr).og t, L:.:. ice, ti.re Donra raled thet I

.- ( it -* uld nci. retjo.'.rc the ftjrnbie:;r.g of cuch a Ji::t until a, lu lle. Charry hn0 imac r. : ).teuing -

There t;nc son.c orgta.'.cnt

)

7 i *hbout'that, X belicyc in early May. In June, the Board 2 reverrcd itcnit and 1:nid, "We adhexc to the prior ruling. .

3 Ue u!.ll not at thic point concider this other than an tthe.ch en P.?rt 20. I'ut,11r. Ect:::al, un ro going to chift 5

4 s

I thrt !a rdon to y.m. 7.ch !!r. Chcrry have the lint and then.". .

c ,

ha ot:u ntudy it, and if ho Eran.saako a sitouing, then ue uill s

l too uhc.xo we no,"

7 .

s.

r. i not: why .htt d tir. Gint: tor uti this point,

f. Uconcsdny, at five rainncos pnnt ni::, come in and not only a tehc advantc.ge.of when happened in P.prilr I!ny F.nd June, but, j

n I'

c.11 of hin violttione c11 the uny through. It coorts to v.o t'

1;. ll thr t ;h ni, uaat thic D:..-d chetGa. ray to him, "Mr. Gin: tc.::,

3:t i t.oin on in with your chow 3.ng, uit.h your offer of proof, and I

u I then you can have the lint " ..

l is I It.1d I respe.ctfully requesti the Donrd to adhcre to is thic ruling 0.nd not poruit hir. to have it.

re MR. CIHSTE:  !!r. Chnirrecn r in response to thic att.cch, firr.t of all it han been the contenticu k he sub-is u.

ntano:: cf co;;fr.nticu of tito !!nplcten Interreno:19 nll tho to i uny thrcutth firc.:a tha reriginal ff. ling of the patition for I

ler.vn to intervann that thcer:a people uro subjact to radio-

.z

'f.og3 cr.1 bn:n,rd fro.; thu entni:licin.cmt - tu.S God preve.nh it i end tho :.nu p:::xt :t :*t - or thin wonchronn pleut which

.; h. j vc balimn rud w 3 u .ll pecn. ein ci. tit radionceivity,

?c; includi.:9 riuMm t.hiu: g;e:en that cro lethel to uvu to n -

j.

-0

4G89 i;

g i yd:=cuncbin mod.ical nud : cientif.ic certainty into the I

y\ atho: phore. l?cw that han buon their contention all the way 3 through.,

l 4 '

I f, I non thorta contentionn havo bocn tande more specific n.:S hi G Z boca In traitted to question ,the gentletaan c 1

, j M': Ov.it:r e tmd the othc;; goutlev:nri orally, Mr. Gowe.s , the i

i qv.cutionr. wonin have been along tho lines of ~ about thic I

c

! p:mn:.Sca of not enataining a prenmtro vensel until it is necr 1

, ,c e

j cc: ?letion bacr.n'!a, tm I underntand it, tha integrity of vaMc in a pren:mun vonsci are a imtter of criticality - ,

g  ;

critiuncan reinting te provant:ing leakage of radic::ctive V y2:: Cr:= ut t:a: <x,::1unt.

l Dut in any ovent, the lino of quoctioning would i hi:ve been reint ed to: In thero any poscible way to detertainc ft p,.

, g.:

! the intq:.:ity of. uc.1dn unless, . for eno thing, you hava

! n r;:nctf.cul tur.inir:: or oxperience in walding and, nudaer two, t .

'. g if you tmderntr.ud radiogrrphic --

. i 15R. )GWa'.'ALITa Macn't thin what he uns nuppoced

,' 3 ,,

l to do in vri:.ing, lir. Chairuun?

u. 4 MR. GX1T&DR: This is juct ann:cring Mr. Monsel's

, 3 i vajuntif.kd att:m):.

. l); .

Jhtt, yev.': Honor - or It . Ch:tirnian, those ptrople

. ,, , g .

.., ll, 1

l.. ci a r:h:7.5 'to id s . whce c- th.:y e 9.b.:d to.

Not? I havo b .;n Anic.ni att here 7:itfit f. :<.a the beginninw : ud I miqht f

. hr ve: nt :r:..:.d out a cona b.y .ltu ,fer bot. by thn titt.c I (;ct donc,

,i

._ S_

hl N e e.M,M- - _ . _ , _,

o .

4690 l

7 thinh, cep::critMy with flirthur c::pc'rience, that I will bo

• >- tti c3.d _ pas in ther:a proccc:li.ngn. .

' X'm gJed y0:t urote the book, lir. Chairiann, boccur.e 1

Usin typ;i proceed:.::g io the moat unusual thing that I havo Il

• t' 3: c ver bac.n invo3vud in. ~-

CilhIrJi?iu I:llM.'UYr It ic X-rntcdc I thinh, C',l t

i IM. G'.'.13'.:13: . - in ci::(-ecn yce:::: cf practico ,

l, -  :

. in leu r including b. fes:c c67ainictrative agoncicu, nir.

I' I unCm r.tenG that if tr. got tha list of cffluenen l}' .

i~t ),ut out by the 1cu cleemict;l Company, whether particulate , I i .

12 cs: ch::7.ict:1r c thtt it in confidential, that it can only ba

. f:

l r:hty..m to en c:ri: t, and that iio 1:uat 1:cep that confidentin.1.,

n [!

!? q I

c.nd I rn0c.trutand thah wholly, So I trant to say this:

1:

) 0l i

' X hsvo acno my .lexci hant for ther.e linpleton ,

't ir y;::,creenors, I wil:t fight for them to the donth. Xt hac 11 bat n a priviloge for na to repre: cat thc)m, and X want to 11 u

. toll IM. Ucccc0. thM. I havo inst started to fight Dow "i

11 n c! Chr.aical CU.S.p:uty r.nd Canmne tro ).'ou,er Comp::ny, but it laay 4 -

n cpponr to bu a batt*!r: batut.::n 11:tviG cnd Golit th.

i

/> '

.' CHIJ.T.lTd: liUrl.511Y: Would you cero ho idt.,ntify tho t

n , pi:*. tion?

m i

e  :

(.f.i n 9 h t r . )

5 .

1.

P I .

li' l! '

e

I -

4G91 e,p. .,. .

We hhyt., 1:r. G!.netor, tuhon the r.:r*.hter of the I

?- i effluant natter tuder conr idorntion, vnd 'it. coem:n to us that .

3 it is not within t).c cror, which inin npt:cifico in the coaton, -

n I /, i tiono.

l t; } In vi .w of tha font -- or:p:cially in view of tho n

- (, Li fcot that Iht. Chcr:.y it in t!.r. proc::ns of conce.'. ting Uith peopla at: to thrsi.):nr or not. thoso Dou e.affinence' in fact hwa i ,

• i te i,

onyt.h'.ug to do with uhether the prob.1 ca of eynn.rgiran in n

. i i 0 i real p:ceblcat, wa u.rc going to deny the requent ttt thic lata nte.go to torn over the lict to ti a l linpleten Int.0):vano: n.

. 1)

I I. trould unh that you

= 1 j  !!P.. G J!.# W .m : fir. Ch: iriann,

. 11

'I l\i

)....uc.o yver raling, or the )toord'n zuling, until cuch tica s ,

u .

i  : ); i

.o .?a hr.n'c. nn opporttmity to r.a;het a writixn offor of pwof .

i f i

l; ,

ti cf teht:t ta vauld p>: >ve by our onporte s in no way, horcror,. .

i Ui . w ivir,9 th.2 position th:tt v'c uould have the right to premnt i .

I '

s

, 13 f 0.v.J. ter.ti):ony. , .

i - ',

4 i

1/ i Dut I have to got thn record elec.r in thic rc gtrd.

tJ ,

Cil7tM4U.ii P.URVnY: Ycu cwi1:take e. wxihton offer

( n.; p:;o:3f on the (p..r, tion, ou the incuec in 3 and 4, and uc 1

3 ts to I

, v 3..*i. ) o. ,1 el. the.t. int aD. ec arc nuggesting at the r. tor nt, i

I a v:e :.c'.ririg tit tb . Ic:/c.mt, ic i.ht be wil't not 8.cho the Paw

= t M l c.L.:i.ncut .1::.t.t nvt ilt b)c to yu; ce i t han been to flar. Chc.rry.

i:- .

J

'e

', lin. G - .::  % m 7.<::o nour.r:.LLad, r:i n, jn: t r;u bite i4 l ).cc.rd i:. c) ciu', (Mt u.: cow: nd nc t ors.1v n hazard frem thir:  :

I 4

4 i

pmat i m.: the ec :t h c,a .cc.:':;r. . 6.w i ncit::ven, ba t cir.;o a l

I

(- e-[I  : !,

, \

1 l

.- 4G92

..t I be

:ard fro.1 t):a r;rnergiotic effcetc, radioactivo offit'.ent I

r. eccN.uing ui% ofCucuts frw tha Doyt ntac'ts, claimedly I

- adve.u:aly nficatin:: the henith or being a dangar to tbo t'

{ -

t Scalth of. tbc. it.plui.cn i' nterrenora - j tnt so that the record

! it; t..? c .r in tiw.t retyard.

}

.; l Cil'fM*?... MORMiY: I i'. link the roco::d.is clcor in t i,

., . th c.t .'.cyc.::d .

. I i t 112 . Chc.s -;y, do you want a minuto or two, or chall

7, I. '.

a :tt :t? .

1 i, 3:,  ; im. 01:U1".N: Uhy don't ye cuy thrac minuttn? ,

t C.u. ..!u:w.:

......: r.t .,,,h.. .s:

~ .,

r.w..n .

- ,t

, g l, 11n. Cl!Dn r:*: Dr. Goostcn trar.' going to say ccacth!ng,

! g. 1 tha".;nt, on qinal:i '.; an: urt:nce. I did not want him to I

t

. .f icr:i:i. cbane it.

li .vba I'm v:.;ong. .

I i g .,;

i

' DX. GCOD:;id?: 12 0 , I van going to nuk you a i  :

l

! 3.: f

. Gif h : . :st que :: Lion. .

. 6 i i

liu. CDDT

'.".'f : Do you vast to c.! h it?

1 37 }

1 I

33 ,

Dn, CD:ETd': *It uns Chri:cg that poried of r,wbncut l

- c ra '-

'3.;ai tt t .I wa.: g.' ting to i.sk 5.t, and it' : a little hr.y;d c

3., . ~

I .

to b.s.ii.r. it'h;ck.

y (T.:.') Obi.e.'.)

e

. '. 'I Vit T.

t;-D.* * *O

(*.* d: ., .n i f V, O;* [IQ5.,r ' t b ,i; 40 l **.1\,* i. f .; t.I.

~ g.

b

.) *rui). . I.'ql1(et(- ,Lihta ta ta',.':0 Ch

[ *g

' I.' .?!? .. '..t...*.

24.* *:0 j!;;;' t *

• iif * .I..i!. ii.*0 .

  l ; i f f. ' . } g '.'

I.

b  !! :. O :: .' - . O , s ct : - t . . , . in?

I. . -

\

/.693

. y, .

1 I

. DR. GODit :.".'! : On i : y innua..

2 111:. CID:i: G : h60c.<t'i.tn tina -- .

I 3 l 11);. C O,' N '.9 : For yon to tri:ho nn affirl.utive ::howing<

5 yott to).d t c, off and on, Oprin;f the lant 7 or C 3;

j rm;.thr., that you uc.r.. c.;oing to he;ve on v.':firgativa chowing.

t c ' id. X've bre.o vuit.

r.g at.d unit:;rg for y:,nr t.ffiraativo r, hec ing.

l yI lin. Cir:::N. : On uhnt, cir?

r

. ' IT. ? . UCU C.

M Ou any of th'.: ict:uen that you broncht 9 il n?. 'lon' ve c.);o::n .7...._inoa, yon'vc donc thic; but ycia have e

f.

l' g.)

i. ned. put tiny uit.wsta. :: en.

!  !!n. CUU; n . . I' u @ cut to put can on.

It .

Il n .

Dr. Goo 6:n:n, let pc >;o: pond to 11. in thic inty:

. X hews i.r.i.cn execptici, from tho betjinning to the 11 l P.Rord' c )

plih.:r. on interrogatorius e.nd (.incovary, vnd I chill i

1.

I n; j!' take enc ept'.co.

Z 6.W t see hou un cc.n 1inke un affiiv.ativa u r:bo. J1:g t;ith rcycat to UCCS vatil the enrc.,htin becn put in; g7[ end t.!nat br.r noh b:.an put in. I don't cea how wa c:;n make I

g .,

I an i.ffi:aar.t.hc r hoit.ing in the ioGine inattern until the unthit 6 -

g l 3:: s c:..:.lv:.G, i .0 that h:u.. not brun renolved.

., yi .

r 6m.5 t :..ec. hc.u no can 1. :J:c r n affir:.u.ti.v:. chowine-l i

!,' n..a 7 (ion' t C: inh D i. ily . v .: chen.6 ba ::c nnized to twho' an

s. is I : . ji cG.5 4....:;tivo r.iic. itatt . .-- 0;, th'. ;ys >.p.ir: tic unhtern unM1 a il .

,..:.. : .;i.

c :. . . ;.e c .; t.) .a L .  :;;i., h . . Twe;s ti:n :..: ::i.ed ti:

ll t. . - t 't.;: to u.! t .: :.: o::. .

Ic ' .T ;r n, n.> :: :5 ;.i. ir.n ah t,).1, hat if: tb- pv cb.k;n

.t

.. . .; . ~

6 i.

• of the D:.e .Tict h: c bc.en rer,olved r:o.nt.ine in the cpring, onc

.: I;.

• l t:py or tbc other, then t:c won 3d have had no.uc period of titco .

b e.rcer a 1.5 0 h: : ring ste.rt':d.

1.c I cr.y, I don't w..Tt to bc crition... 1 I don't .

th::nh the cr."r. tion, nir, 10 t.n t,inplu an ny anying has i:ho f

i y -

)::,gr01:ch ::cir rtOil.:ta or runtir rLlingc..

I htr,t don' t .

o  :

think it i:: that ci):.plo. .

.,. l

i. thin?c it' rt a cc:nbinatio:t of factorn, and if yett t

3, 3 ,

3 f nr.?: to the : .*xplo gec.nhion, my ci).plo ensucr ic going to ha .

g, i no But I 6cn't think tho qu6ntion in thnt ni:gle, nor is .,

i.

g .

i.h . anrme): ti,: .'; c.irple ,

D.. t.no .v.

~.4. o....:. -. , .

, i.. ... .

.f. -

lii:. G. IED?mh  !!r. Cha,'.rm. an, onc ;: int. I wider -

. i!g.

lei o f.e re.. that D: , Tc191.f:t hna thic list of cff.'re.nts. .

If uc l

cna pmCuco m ec of c,thcr cupc:etc in thic~ arca, wh!.ch ac .

] '

I me:c.rcta.,.'. :.c voni.C be br.w.xdoil.c or iniuriotm offceto on a

hce.lili, hoit::n b ;alth f.rc:ai rt.Cio:Ictivity, or rr.dienctivo

, y, .

.Il l

ti"l:. ant.n, :1f t%ce n:ur.:n cro furnit. hod v:ould Dr. Tcuplin

., lf

!i.

i

'i

- !.c 3: .reitten co ca..muicate thor:e odlucatn -- that list -~

?; a.

s o i.., .:.

t i,.

MM . ':;-D i:nY : Mofore the ibard an:nisrc, could 1

, i

j. ' -

' u.nla- e nn,;c,g.: .i.:a i:hich r.J.y 7:c:..olve thic prchie.?.? .

Cbn.0<::.- tiu,t if be., han -- cud e .

F Mry < riv;< v.t to !h 1 cc 2.ot tr.d . ;.,3 .: . : r.t e .. en th c i Di:ed' c riC8.i:ig o.v nat rei;bng on l

, (* 3 vip ,a I3[ t'l (:". . .I. O l'. - - I Jbt *)l}.:.'( iG Cilt thi MC DLO:' tihOrD, if e, .

I =

___________._.m_ _ _ . _ _ -

. . . ~

j ! h.' . Ginnb. : st 1d p>.i vida no uith the. ncitan of the peoplo

.- (b .t ha v: .0 0 t:.lh to hno he hed the lict, i. f they have

., r c.. : .in:c: n

. r..s r).if.: w.tician I will conc 3.ch): talhing to the.a on i-

,. ji  : Ji' co:: ct b is,, c"0 then no can und t}d.n thing right nou.

1:-

M:,, UI:st 3'.: Off the reco::d?

p .

(

M .. Cin'1.1.Y : Can va ('o i'. that incy?

I.

y g m;; .Xn!'?.1? 110t Pn2 : . I don 't neo why not.

1 l

(;becric.)

s

.. j C i:r. Ill! L M i ).'iE :P 11Y : 'Ih? hearing will plococ coinc to b,

i j o:cl.cr.

1

. . i' U,i:ve:n o. r. ,

..g .

y 10:W.D M. I OL!i2S f.

i.

/

,, li re.: ci:1:' .6 c.r: a v.i.ts;;r,1: on behalf'of St.ginnw Valley t I:

n .i,. . w ;ve ar ra , c c~'d imving baan >:.u.:ct duly nuo):n, van excm:..nca 4

[.: av.' tutificJ! as fe.*t.lo:<?.::

'I I

i.' DIP 3CT- EP.I

'IZ11hTIOl? .

i

., Ii DY 1iR. C1.'GG:Y :

i li. .

li 0 M' .i t yo.'. r tnte your nn .o, p1. car:e?

, p. -

c Y- 9

1. ' )' -_.r.ld Mr.;tt!:e:r lia.1.n. u.

f, O E1' : . d:, yen livo, i;;r, itoln.ct:?

i t

,h N l .

. . b' o 1:: . it.:.1v...:, nurinr h t w:r e 02 "i. our tantimo::. bath

, U. ..

. . ,- .y. . . . ::  ; :j n(; .- ; ,. . , ( y. . s

,  :- rpgg #, 1;;;g j'gt,,;;.

.i

l .* : . hi ti:. . -A.:. T.,i. . d 1.i;Oh :z.L . a quent:; . :t.

And i.hed the.v.

.- . ' .s, .. ; ~ T .:e . .

, a t T /

. . ' /, . :n.v.ug t .;i . nj; ri,-l (..: .: .tlen t: , p"lca::c 4

I T'

These pages shua the confusion in connection with the Dow effluent " 8., the underlying circumstances surrounding it and the fact that even if the order of June 14, 19 71 had application to the list, it was not violated, but rather it was contemplated that Mapleton and Saginaw people would work together. Thus, as these pages demonstrate, the following is correct:

(a) Mr. Wessel argued that Mr. Ginster was making a late application.

(b) Mr. Wessel also argued that Mr. Ginster was attempting to reopen matters and show that Mr. Ginster had failed to follow other rules not applicabic to this discussion.

(c) Mr. Ginster indicated that he had information concerning synergism he thought useful.

(d) Mr . Wensol was concerned only with the confiden-tial nature of the list.

(e) I suggested that Mr. Ginster could have access to the list by virtue of working with me. I asked Chairman Murphy if that was agreeabic and Mr. Murphy said:

" Chairman Murphy: I don't see uhy not." Tr. 4695.

Accordingly, if there is any legislative history dealing with the practical availability of the effluent list to the Mapleton Intervonors, it clearly shows that so long 'as I was willing

-to vouchsafe for the confidentiality of the use-of~the 31st ,

by Mapleton, the two'of us could work together. It is clear (fol3'+?ing insert of tranucript) i ._ _.

that Mr. Wcssel was only concerned with protecting the confid-entiality of the order, which never was breached until Mr.

Wessel published the list himself. It is clear that the par ties at Tr. 4695, including Mr. Wessel and Chairman Murphy, acknowledged-the fact that the Mapleton Intervenors and their witnesson could have access to the list through me so long as it was kept confidential. Onco again, I reiterate that I have no present recollection of giving t'he list to Mr. Like or to Mr. Ginster. Il o w c V e r , I state emphatically on the basis of my review of the transcript that if I had givet the list to Mr.

Ginster or. Mr. Like, it was not a violation or flouting of the Doard's order but c]carly in contemplation of the informal and p).aelical inelhod which all of the parties ucrc awarc of and agreed to at Tr. 4695. Indeed, as the above transcript refer-ences demonstrate, Mr. Ginster made a promisc to keep the  !

list confidential and a commitment on the record. See Tr.

4690.

22. To my know1 cage, the next time this matter came up was on November 23, 1971. The pertinent pages are Tr.

5048-5050. In these pagon Mr. Like formally asked once again l I

for the list of Dow offluents, stating that he understood a )

i copy had been made available to Sagina.. Mr. Wessel objected, j Mr. Like countered that Dr. Iloover and others have contributed or are contributing teatimony which is relevant to offluents and that he, that is, Mr. Like, would like to have them

have an opportunity to examine the list of cffluents in conjunction wi th the testimony that they wi.11 give in the

~

proceeding. Mr. Wessel' objected again. The following colloquy then took place:

" Chairman Murphy: In view of the history of this, this is something that clearly should be made by way of uritten application.

"Mr. Cherry: May I say, I think the whole procedure is kind of moot. I just *. aid to Irving [Like], I am glad of all the help I ca. get and I would be delighted to have him look at them [that is, the Dow offluent list) on ray behalf. " .

Mr. Wessel inquired whether the list had bcon shown to Dr.

Tamplin and I admitted that this had been done. Mr. Wessel then said with recr;cct to Mr. Like assisting me:

"Mr. Wessel: So that courso is one that has

• been accepted all along, provided everybody says [ sic]

it is a party to the same restrictive agrcement."

Tr. 5048-5050.

Again, I reiterate that I have no present recollection of having turned c.ver the list to Mr. Like. Ilowever, it is clear from the prococdings here that the Board and Mr. Wessel acknow-1 Jcdgcd the fact that Mr. Like could assist me in the synergism case and it was contemplated by Mr. Wossel himself that Mr. , i Like's witnesses could sco the list in connection with their l Lestimony. All Mr. Wessel was concerned about was th'at the confidentiality be maintained. The confidentiality was main-tained, inasuuch as noted above, it was Mr. Wessel himself who fina21y admitted that the lint was not entitled to protection

and rolcased it to the media.

23. In light of this history and Mr. Nessel's agree-ment on the record on several different occasions, it is in-conceivab1c to me that Mr. Wessel made a fuss about this whole matter in the summer of 1972. It appears that Mr.

Wessel, in accusing lawyers of violating agreements, just hadn't done his homework. With respect to the transcript in the summer of 1972 and particularly pages 5506-5510, 5550-5555, 5558-5559, 5560-5575, 5578-5579, etc., no one during those discussions was cognizant of how the order came into effect. As has been shown above, it was clearly contemplated that the Mapleton Intervenors could assist me and thereby have access to the list, so long as they kept it confidential.

Mr. Ginster made that promise on the record. Mr. Like acknow-ledged that he had donc so and it was only Mr. Wessel's over-zealousness in looking narrowly at the June 14, 1971 protective order (which, as I have indicated, has no real application) and the list of effluents furnished on June 29, 1971 that appeared *~ get everyonc discombobulated.

24. In summing up, I wish to stato very clearly the following: -

(a) I have no present recollection of giving the list to Mr. Ginster or Mr. Like.

(b) I have the greatest respect for Mr. Like and if he states that I gave him the list, I am obliged to revicu - the tranucript in light of that statement.'

~

(c) I have reviewed the transcript and have quoted and attached pertinent parts thereof. These transcript references plainly show that overyone, including Mr. Wessel, was aware of the fact that there was to be communication between the Saginaw and Mapleton people in pursuing the syner ,

gism matter cnd that Mr. Wessel on two occasions agreed to that procedure. The~Doard acknowledged its acquiescence.

Finally, if one looks at the June 14 order itself, and assuming its applicability and assuming that I gave the list to Mr.

Like or Mr. Ginster, there was no violation thereof, inasmuch as the order does not restrict me from making the list avail-able to anyone who would assist me in the preparation of the syncrgism case, so long as the confidentiality of the list was maintained. It is clear that the confidentiality of the list was maintained and therefore no violation of the order took place.

25. I do not believe that I or Mr. Like has violated any order of the Board; I simply believe there was a great deal of confusion surrounding the entire matter, confusion goina to whether in fact the Board ruled that the list was over subject to the June 14, 1971 order. I had no intention of violating, and I do not believe that I violated, any order and, as the facts demonstrate, whether I am right or whether Mr . - Like -is right, cach of our assertions is plainly contom-plated by the so-called legislative history surrounding the

2.'.sclosure of the effluent list.

26. I respectfully suggest that the Board issue a ruling stating that it is clear that I did not violate any order.

If die Board wishes any further explanation from me in the event it wishes to take any action inconsistent with' the position I have set forth herein, I should appreciate some advance notice.

27. It is clear, if there ever was any doubt, that the colloquy among Mr. Wessel, Chairman Murphy and myself at the bottom of Tr. 4694 and the top of 4695 cannot be regarded as other than permission for Mapleton and its experts to view the list through me, so long as I vouchsafed its confidentiality.

In my judgment, contempt is precluded since permission was granted.

28$ I believe the entire confusion about the list stems from Mr. Wessel's not having reviewed the transcript ,

before he made his accusations. I assume that Mr. Wessel's accusations are inadvertent and in the heat of adversary conduct.

HowcVer, now that the transcript has been reviewed, I contemplate that Mr. Wessel submit appropriate apologies to mc and Mr. Like.

DATED: August,30, 1972.,

/Y um Nf // /

, i//ff ^ -- /. ~~ - 'l

-b9ron M. Cherry - j

/

Subscribed and sworn to '

Lefere me this 30th day -

of August, 1972.

h ? .- .. U'b t ;, )

Not?ary Pubile i