|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
-
Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f,if@tA *8= 0 A .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nx
$/l/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B IN THE MATTER OF ~
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. $
(South Texas Project, Units S DOCKET NO. 50-4980L 1 and 2) S S 50-4990L i
HOUSTON CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT '
OF OPEN P.tOCEEDINGS
, '# EG acre 3 i
{i USNRC 1
-Oh JUN 2198L
[k C'?:
1 L':itbg & Service C: g -
e W.
ROBERT BROWN LIDDELL, SAPP, ZIVLEY, BROWN i
! & LaBOON !
500 Gulf Building Houston, Texas 77002 !
(713) 223-4151 (
State Bar No. 03178000 !
I l
5 4
9 9 i 9 j ro w8106040 c, .
M
. . _ _ _ . . . , . _ . _, , _. . , . _ , _ _ , , . _ _ ~_ ,,_..,., . -_ ~ -
/
- , ~.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & .'0WER CO.
(South-Texas Pro.fect, Units S DOCKET NO. 50-4980L 1 and 2) S 50-4990L S
HOUSTON CHRONICLE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPEN_ PROCEEDINGS a
COMES NOW the Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
(" Chronicle") and submits this, its brief in support of open proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing n oard in the captioned matter and in connection therewith wo;ld respectfully show as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION:
- ?
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .
(" Board ") currently is holding hearings in Houston, Texas on the application of on Houst Lighting and Power Company for an operatin:
' cense at the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant.
Intervenors in ti.at hearing have n
filed.a motion to hold _i_n camera sessions during the testim ony of
' certain witnesses, thereby excluding the public and press The .
Houston Chronicle appeared before the Board to oppose the motion, and'any other action the Board might take which would close the hearings to the public.
The Board has asked the Chronicle to I
l .. .. ,,. . . - - . .. ,. .- - _ .. .. -._- - .. -
1 U
' submit a written-brief and appear for oral ~
argument on two ques-tions, 1) and 2) the newspaper 's standing to' appear in this proceeding ,
the substantive issues relating to the closure of the hearing.
graphs.
These questions are addressed in the following para-II. _ STANDING:
1 The Chronicle does not petition to intervene in this proceed-ing as a party. .
The Chronicle has no property or financial in -
terest in the ultheate outcome of the proceedin g which would give
' ' the newspaper strnding to intervene as a party .
The Chronicle's interest in this proceeding is a very limited and .
narrow one, that of maintaining the access of the public and t proceedings so that press to these reporting the news. it can perform its constitutional function of '
The NRC rules of procedure allow for participation i n this "
~ -~ ~
proceeding through oral and written statements by persons ]
not parties. who are 10 C.F.R. 52. 715 (a) (1980). There are no standing requirements for non-party participation other than the permis-sion of the presiding officer.
Continued oral and written participation by the media under 52.715(a) on the open-hearing issue is unquestionably proper.
The Board will receive the bene-fit of the medi t 's expertise and position on the constit utional issue of closute, but the substantive proceeding will not be encumbered with the presence of improper parties.
2 w - - - - - . - - , . , ~ -,-.,e , y + ---.--------+y- , - .-y, ==. - , - - - . - _ ,--w,.--..-+,,--->ce-.-,
- ~,---e wesaw er
.~. ..
- .~
The Chronicle'does not seek nor1does it desia re to become party to or to intervene in this proceeding.
It seeks only to.
participate in this oroceeding,to.the extent necess ary to pro'.ect the- public's right te. Information relating to thi s topic of great public concern and, accordingly, submits this'brief or the f
. Board 's consideration.
III. . THE REOUIREMENT FOR OPEN HEARINGS: _
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation s, the Atomic Energy Act, and the applicable case law'clea l r y indicates that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board lacks u a th p this proceeding. ority to close A.
_The to the Commission Board to conduct regulations which grant powers not
-[ing include the authoritylicensing to clo hearinos do to the public and the press se a proceed-~ ~ '
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is s l l the Nuclear Regulatory Commission o e y a creation of Act of 1954 and subsequent amen,sentsPursuant to the' Atomic Energy
, the Commission promulgated
~
Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing roceedings. P 52.1 et. seq. (1980). 10 C.F.R.
Under the rules, Boards were created to t hold hearings on applications for nuclear powe r plant construc-tion permits and operating licenses .
10 C.F.R.
52.721 (1980). A board is granted the same powers as presidin Edjudication. Generally, g officers in any NRC it has the power to issue subpoenas ,
receive evidence, order depositions, regulate the cours b9 aring, examine witnesses, etc e of the
. 10 C.F.R. S2.718 (1980).
None 3 '
.; 4 4 I
-l of the specifically enumerated powers in Section 2rough .
718(a) ' th (1) - would allow the Board to close a hearing B. -;g Section 2.751 of the Commission reculations explicit.".y the publ: .c . requires this hearino to be open to -
?
Section 2.751 states:
"Except of the Actas may.be~ requested pursuant to Secti on 181 otherwise o,rdered by the Commission."all hearings will be public u This rul'e requires that all hearings be open to th they are -(1) e public unless-previously ordered closed by the Commission, or(2) closed by the, Board pursuant to a request to safeguard n orma-if tion which contains Restricted Datan or ormation defense as if defined by the Atomic Energy Act (Section 181]. Here,.the Com-i mission has not ordered the proceedings closed u to the p bli c, and therefore there is no authority for the Ecard t that basis. o close them on Further, there has been no request to close the ' "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
hearings pursuant to Section 181 of the Atomic En ergy Act. That section directs the Commission to provide procedures th at will
" effectively safeguard and prevent disclosure of Restricted Data,
-defense information, or such safeguards information
...with minimum impairment of the procedural rights which would b !
\
- . e avail-able" if such information were not involved. i S2231 42 U.S.C.A.
" Restricted Data" includes only data concerning e th
-dssign of nuclear weapons, the production of special nuclear i
material or the use of special nuclear material inroduction the p ;
L i
4 i l i
of energy. 42 U.C.S.A. S2014. Therefore, the request here to close the proceedings in order to protect certain witnesses'i.s .s -
not a proper purpose under either the Act'or the regulations, and~
the hearing ~must remain open.
9 C.
Through its ru:'.es and decisions the Commission ,
has developed a clear oolicy in favor of open hearings.
The Commission's public hearing rule is very explicit and restrictive in comparison to other agencies ' regulations. For' '
example, . . . -
the- Nationar' Labor Relations Board regulations require i that hearingsshall be public unless otherwise ordered by the Board or the administrative law judge. _
29 C.F.R. S102.34 (1980).
The Federal Trade Commission allows presiding officers ,
to hold in, camera proceedings in a number of circumstances 16
~
C.F.R. 53.41 (1980). [
The Commission could have given such broad I
powers to its licensing boards, but it consciously chose to re- ;
1 strict the circumstances in which in camera proceedings are ap- 'I propriate.
There is dicta in two Nuclear Regulatory Commission opinions which indicates a strong policy in favor of public access to
, -licensing information. !
In Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit
. No. 1 [1976) 2 Atom. En.
L. Rep. (CCH) 130,067 the Commission 1 i
held that. provisions in a commercial supply contract for uranium batween Westinghouse and the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant which or-f >
bade the plant from disclosing the purchase price of uranium 5
l i
l -
k*. .
would not be. deferred to in~the Plant's construction permit pro-ceeding. The Commission required the price to be discicsed b citing a " strong-public interest" in' adjudicatory proceedings
-which are to be "as open as possible to full public scrutiny."
Wolf Creek Generating Station at 130.067.08. The Commission implies in a footnote to the text that a-hearing may be closed only when a party shows that disclosure of confidential com-mercial injury would " work a clearly defined and very serious iniury." _Id. emphasis added. In another decision the Commission said, "there are no alternatives to public disclosure since the public's right to know does not have any limitations or restraints...the trend and tenor of the decisions are confirming the principle of the public's right to know." Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 (1976] 2 Atom. En. L. Rop. (CCH) 130,124.
D. There are no cases which support the inter-venor's motion to close this hearing.
Intervenors apparently rely on Hunt v. Nuclear Regulatory e
Commission, 611 F.2d 332 (10th Cir. 1979) cert. denied 445 U.S.
906, 100 S.Ct. 1603, in arguing that the hearing may be closed to the public. The case is not an affirmative precedent, however, which would support a decision by the Board to close a hearing.
The court held only that Board hearings are not subject to the Open Meetings Act because the Board is not a subdivision of the i
. Commission as required by the Act.
6
-. . - , , . _ . -,.,m. ., .-
i s
The-decision' is-inapplicable to the present hearing forltwo i reasons.- 'First,.in Hunt the plaintiff's sole attack ofLthe in .)
creera session was-based on the Open Meetings Act. He did not challenge the Board's-legal authority to close hearinge.and he ,
failed .to ' raise' any. constitutional issues. The opinion specifi-a cally notes the narrow grounds on which plaintiff's action ,
~ rests. Hunt v. ERC, 611 F.2d at 336. As such, the- holding is ll simply an interpret'ation of the Open Meetings Act. It does not ;
discussiany collateral issues, nor does it offer any justifica- ,
i e
U tion f5r closed Board hearings.
Second, the Board held an in camera session in Hunt to pro- l tact proprietary information. There - is ample authority in the l
Commission rules to close a~ licensing hearing to protect trade l necrets. But the decision does not offer any support for closing hearings in situations where Commission regulations require them
~
to be open to the public.
E. Closing the hearings would not serve the ulti- ,
mate purpose of protecting the witnesses and, e therefore, even if the purpose is legitimate, the action is inappropriate. l Both the Comm'ission rules requiring disclosure of final !
)
public records, 10 C.F.R. 52.790 (1980), and the Federal Freedom l, of-Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b) , will allow the public to discover the testimony of the witnesses. Section 2.790 of the N.R.C.' rules requires that all final records and documents must I
be made available to the public for inspection and copying unless ;
2 4 -
N i
i I
i
.. \
.7 .. '!
i i
t
-those1 records fall within any of.nine'specificall ;
tions l to the . rule. . ' Those exemptions ' y stated exemp- I as the~ exceptions to disclosure under thecFre dare almost ,
Act and .none will exempt' documents ' fro e om of Information: ;
witnesses of a quasi-judicial hearing m disclosure to protect' .
I of the witnesses will become part ofr the reco dSimilarly, the; of the license application hearing which any person may re quest access to under :
the Freedom of Information Act .
I will allow the Agency to refuse disclosu re.
~None of the Act 's e{ ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and C Thus, where both the ,
(
of broad disclosure with specifically e stat dongress have adop '
exemptions, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boardu sho ld seeks to delay the effectuation of that o cy. p linot take an action which F. ,
desire to protectVarious courts have thatexplicitly held the (
the identity and testimony sufficient reason to close hearingsof - ot a' - witnesses fro(
Wigmore wrote that .
}
"the public has a right to every man' s evidence...when the course of justice requires th i e investigation of the truth, no man has any knowledge that i private."
t s rightly 52192.
Wigmore on Evidence, McNaughton Revi i .
s on, Volume 8 t
. This attitude is reflected in cases i desire of witnesses to testify or ref which hold that the !
1 place in the determination of a court torain from testifying have noI v or as a closed hearing. conduct a trial publicly ;
Des Moines Register & j Hildreth,-181 N.W. 2d 216
_ Tribune Co. v. :
(Iowa 1970). ;
8 i l
l
i 1
l
.Even if the protection of' witnesses is a recognized and valid reason'for closing a hearing, the intervenors have made no show %
ing that a compelling interest exists here to require closure.
The fact that ten of the twenty witnesses the intervenor_will subpoena are willing to testify publicly undercuts its owns as- I sertion that public testimony-will cause witnesses substantial -
iharm. Further, the witnesses are protected from employer retali-ation by the National Labor Relations Act and the Commission's !
own regulations which forbid discrimination _against workers who '
testify against a licensee.
10 C.F.R.519.16 (1980). l IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: !
t closure of the hearing to the public and the press abridges ~
t the public's right to attend adjudicatory proceedings of the '
l 5
government and the right of the press to collect and report the news. A basic tenet of the Anglo-American legal tradition is ~
that trials should be open to the public so that citizens can \
watch the operation of their government. Recent Supreme Court i decisions have held that part of that tradition is embodied in '
the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, No.79-243 before the i i
t L Supreme Court decided July 2, 1980. Without the right t; attend [
trials, "important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press i
! would be eviscerated." Richmond at page 17. In his concurring t i
opinion Mr. Justice Brennan said that open trials are "bullworks t
i 9 '
i
_--- &= = . - __ . , -
I of out free and democratic government." Jd_ at124. And in Gannett Co. v. De Pasquale, US ,~61 led 2d608, 99 S.Ct.
2898 (1979) , Mr . tJustice-Powell, concurring, said that the. press must Jnot be excluded from trials because it obtains for the citizen "the information needed for the intelligent discharge of 1
his political responsibilities." Gannett Co. 61 led 2d at 632. A
' free press with access to adjudicatory proceedings is "the only guarantee a citizen has of his right to know what is going on in .
, his government." State ex rel Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. ;
Phillips., 351 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio Supreme Court 1976) .
These i
interests are clearly present in an atomic power plant licensing ;
hearing. The public's interest in knowing how well a nuclear I plant is constructed and how safely it will be operated is undeniably at the highest level. The language cited above should 1 apply with even greater force in this administrative hearing. -- - ----
t Although the First Amendment right to open trials may be subjected to the 6th Amendment right to a fair trial or other :
constitutional rights, the countervailing interest of protecting witnesses does not reach constitutional status and should not I
[
defeat the First Amendment interests which are preserved by an l l
open hearing.
~
! V. CONCLUSION:
i The Houston Chronicle does not assert that it has standing to intervene in the licensing proceeding. It seeks only to partici-10 l
l i .
j L __ = -
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~
1 pate in the. proceeding to the extent necessary'to protec+. the public's right to attend the hearing and hear the testimony of .g
.the witnesses on this topic of great concern.
It is clear that-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has adopted a general policy of public hearings. Nothing in the 7
Commission . regulations gives the Board the authority to close a hearing in order to protect a witness and there is no indication
~in any Commission decisions that a Board may exercise this power.
Further, the constitutional rights of the.public-to attend 4
trials and of the press to report the news would'be abridged if the hearing is closed.
While the protection of witnesses may be a legitmate purpose of the Board, it cannot defeat the rights-and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. '
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Houston Chronicle Pub-lishing Company requests that all hearings and proceedings before' ~
~
this Board remain open to the public and the press and for such otner relief as may be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, I s ),
F. Robert Brown Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Brown l & LaBoon l 500' Gulf Building Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 223-4151 '
State Bar No. 03178000 11
- , - . , , . - -,...-,_m , . , . - 3 e , , , - , - , _ . _ _%, ,,+,,,,.____________,-__._._.,_-._w----
s a .'. . -
s OF COUNSEL:
Richard L.: Tate 1 Liddell,-Sapp, .51vley, Brown '
I E LaBoon 500 Gulf Building Houston, Texas 77002
-(713) 223-4151 State-Bar No. 19664460 I
W D e 9 e I
L T
l s
12
-5
= ' - , ,- , - . , - . . .,# . . , ,.. _