ML19329F612
| ML19329F612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1972 |
| From: | Kartalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257F005 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007030391 | |
| Download: ML19329F612 (4) | |
Text
_
.o:..
- ,ns
.u.-..~.
L)l
. r'%
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION I
?n the "tter of
-)
T CDN5'#ERS PO'.;ER CC:!PNiY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330
' Midland Plant, Units i and 2
)
1 REPLY OF AIC REG'JLATORY STAFF TO WESTINGHOUSE MOTION FOR RECCNSIDIRATION OF ORDER DENYING ITS DECEMBER 7, 1972 "0 TION TO QUASH SUBPOENA On Ncve~ m- ?1 1971, tha Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Li-
- 3nsing Ecir:
, :Us? ; cral subpoena directing Westinghouse Electric
' Corporation ciestinghouse) to produce three reports / sought by inter-venors Saginaw '! alley Nucleer Study Group et al. (intervenors). On Decemb'er 7,1971, Westinghouse filed a motion to quash this subpoena, in its December 22,1971_ " Order with Respect to Various Motions Filed-in this 3roceedinc," the Licensing Board denied the Westinghouse accion and, ancng other things, directed Westinghouse to submit "its arguments and suc;orting data, if any (by affidavit), to sustain the
~
claim that the information in question is proprietary." By the instant motion., filed January 15, 1972, Westinghouse seeks reconsideration of the Licensing Soard's order denying its motion to quash the subpoena.
This motion is succorted by a brief, dated January 15, 1972, and by an." Affidavit of Robert A. Wiesemann," dated January 14, 1972 (the Wiesemann affidavit).
'In ac ordance with the_ guidance of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bcard -(the Aopeai Board) in its " Memorandum" of Septenter 21,
-"/ ' (i) WCAP 7153-L,." Investigation of. Chemical Additives for Reactor
- Containment $crays,"-(2) WCAP 7198-L, " Evaluation of Protoctive Coatings for.Use in Reactor' Containment," and (3) WCAP 7499-L, "Tooical Report--Elemental Iodine' Removal by Re ctive Sprays."
A neer.rietarv has been made, the L -
~ ' ' ', '
A
. ~ ; to 00tain rais0nable essurance that t::e in fo rmaticn is. in fact, p roprietary. " As noted below, Westingncuse has, with the instant motion, submitted information
. a Wiesenann 3 ffi davi t', in Ou.n:crt of its claim that tne reacrts are in fact :rcrinag, tnus rescondinc to the Licensine Board's
-9
-. ; -,, ne.m-.- r
- enablinc the Licensing Scard
-s
..e=;-
+c; ce-
- ac A ry ccntenclated by the Acceal
.._...,_.s
. 7., i.q m/.
.es ti n ghause e zer:qe':ss argues that the Licensing Board should dispose of this matter cn the arounds of need, relevance or "oublic ithout firs; 2::2rtaining hether the recorts are croprietary.
cFi
,:.r e c., tqe les-/n-Mc 2e arguments ir su port of this cosition d
3-as n!.
7"a seincipal c:ntention of Westinchouse is tra-the Licensing Board snould treat the matter of r.eed as a threshold i nq ui ry.
This, howe ~;er, is plainly at odds with the controlling
' estinghouse has not shown any valid ca:<1ance of the imaeal Joard.
reason for reccnsiceraticn at this tira of the Licensing Board's order denying the mntion to cuash.
As to the question of N'e nrcarietary nature of the recorts, West-inqhouse takes the legal cosition tnat a report is oroprietary if it is 'cus tr'carily helc c:r " %nce ay tne Sricinator. " The Wiesemann 3ffidivit is tencered by.:estinghouse as evidence that the reports
a
.r 8
.- r;c cd r,et this test and are thre forn i
.s 7,
Ue believe that.M tiegnouse nas coerectly stated the test to be acalied in determinicc whether the subacensed reports are orcorietary.
Tr.= t tes t is tne are ;1ica would annly if a der and for the recorts had been n;de d2r il CFR 2.744 (i.e., a demand for procuct'.on by 3,, - -
mn4 :o 3 dimand under 10 CFR 2.720 for oroduction
+
. c'S. htm), and :E ' ADCET21 SoPd has 3lready
'. 3. the 3 'nJ3rds for d3temining./hether
' d O C '. 'e -i t is M r' 2 : 3 r;
'li GUld b0 sinnlir under Section 2.720 and
+/
2.744. ' Xe are a'so or' the view that the diesemann affidavit establi3hes 2*"
Scio
- 1t ?"? F7ncrts are Or00rietary.
T!'e mt ^ ' in.iiscosing of this matter is to orovide the inter-
-,2n.;cd o tng 'estis.qhouse assertion that
. :. n --, -
c-cervts are cas traril < held in confidence by '.iestinchouse.
If the intervenors elac ta out the h'estingnouse assertion in issue, the 3 card saould scnadu'e al evidentiary sessicq to resolve tre issue.
If the intervenorr, do not choose to contest tne assertion by Westing-house. the lenginv controversy involvino these renorts will be, in our view, rice for termination by cn order aucshing the subpoena. The
-.j i.e.'- 37, y rc :. r.andum ;;;,as, o
.,3 "r,enerally sceaking.
i we cerceive of w cea.:on any :ne standarcs for cetermining whether i n f0 rnti cq i; :onriatary should be different decendinc on whetner Section 2.720 or Section 2.744 is utilized for oroduction of tne inforr:a tion. '
t l r.
.s.
... s O
.m d
4
- e. y
..,'J n.
pa.n.c.y,s
,na.
,,r e.
- a. i. n,a.
u,
, m_ _ _ :.., :,
m..
..e s._
1
".' ich th2 ;e r 1:37 effec 5 of disclosure against the ce':enstrated need for pr0"uction,, wnica is tn,e secano, anc rinal step in procedure 4....,s.=.
- .-., n d,4 w _, s..a..., n.,,. u,.. C
- . $e p y o.r..v e-e. g ~I, 3 c v, t.
a.
s m
u..
..i
.s.u Jcco rdi r. gly, ;P s 1 E ~, ro TJi ato r.'/ s t a f # ur es the Licensing Board D
- c c2 '/ US # n
- tir ; ' O ~. i '
- cr r3conSi feraticn anC to 3rOceed in the
^
s
...s
.e
' n. s. 2.,o,*
.m.
j a
. f.. s,,1
.n c.: m, s.
i-j
,jg ;; V,
! 0$ N David E. 7.artalia mc ur s e,4
- or e<..v segul atory ata. r-e -
e c
s.
s s.
v.. 2,..-
=..,.m....,
.s.,..,,, u,. u
.;,n.. :...
.1,
., c.
. =.,...,.,
e,m...
-f
,,4...
... s. ;
- 4..-
,-.s.__._,
. _ s.
, 4.-sn2..c.
card'e " t.,e,-+oi #. i c at. on c #.
~#
i
^
Ocesticns to the Acceal Scard," dated August 18, 1971.
1 I
L.
_