ML20010H189
| ML20010H189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109240102 | |
| Download: ML20010H189 (3) | |
Text
..
Bd 9/22/81 UNITED STATES 0.' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA10Pf COMMISSION
\\
6 coexrFED usmc C
A76MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
8efore Administrative Judges:
ggp 2 2 W * $
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman g
4 g
,,3 %
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan
\\
y,.,3m Dr. Linda W. Little 4
- ah i,
9 SERVED SEP 221981 In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
(Restart)
Station, Unit 1)
)
September 22, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER SUGGESTED BY NRC STAFF By ;etter dated September 18, '981, the NRC Staff provided the Board and: Judge Milhollin with the documents reques:ed by the Board's order of September 14, 1981.
The Staff accepted the option accorded to it of not providing the documents to the parties until the matter of conffdentiali g gn C'
of the names of individuals involved in the cheating incidents is resc'ved.-1/
I 4
'(#h y$ ' ',
The Staff included a proposed protective order, C
C c
1 t^
suggesting that the Board could now issue it and the Staff would th j 6
1
/
0 provide the information to the parties named in the
(
\\
I
-1/
There are three such individuals that we know of to date whose names are disclosed in the information provided by the Staff (when the 1979 exercise conducted by Licensee is included).
95o3 s
I D DR
.G.
~
The Board believes,the discovery process can be expedited by means of interim protective arrangements psnding the ruling of the Special Master 2/
~
).
on the question of confidentiality.
It was for tt b reason we suggested in our order of September 14, the possibility of interim negotiated protective arrangements, which ^he Board could have ratified.
We cannot issue the Staff's suggested protective orcer as an interim order because the Licensee, on behalf of itself or'on behalf of the individuals involved in the cheating incidents, may believe the scope of the Staff's proposal does not provide sufficient protection in the 3/
interim.-
The 30ard itself has some question about the language
-2/
The briefing schedule on this questior is set out in our arder of-Sectember 14.
The Special Master must await the reply brief s i
and possiole oral argument, both schedid9d for October 2,1981, before issuing c ~J11ng thereafter.
3
-3/
We note that thi ;.ieensee may not have the sam': interests in canfidentiality as one individuals iri)1ved in.:e cheating. We Jo not know if the Litansee will file a heief in support of confidentiality, a,io if so whether it w.ill also be on behalf of the individuals.
We assume the Licensee has informed the individuals involved in the cheating incidents that the question of wheth'r their names would be accorded. confident:al treatment would be det'rn.ineo in i
this proceeding after the filing of briefs on the question by parties-I arguing for cenfidential treatment.
We request the Lict.1see to be prepared to discuss this at thc conference of the parties on October 2.
5 4
- ~
m e.e e
b n
wn,,-_c-
- ~,...,
3
~
of the order, but we are unwilling to make changes sua sponte even on an interim basis without hearing from all of the parties with an interest in arguing for confidentiality.
In addition, there are possible questions of enforcement sanctions available in the event of violation (particularly by non-attorneys) of a Board's protective order in the absence of a written nonaisclosure agreement executed by the parties.
We are therefore reluctant to have the Staff divulge the information which it believes should be kept confidential under the sole protection of its proposed protective order.
i For the reasons stated, we will await the briefs on the question of confidentiality.
Judge Milhollin, as Special Master, will rule on the question.
It would still save valuable time if the parties could agree by the tiae of the October 2 conference of parties on an interim protective agreement, and a propesed orcer ratifying it.
This would expedite the I
exchange of information pending Judge Milhollir.'s ruling on whether the names of the individuals involved in cheating are entitled to confidentiality.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/I A/
, Chairman Ivan W. 5m'ith ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland Septemoer T2, 1981 1.
1
-,,r
_