ML20039B545

Reply Brief on Issue of ASLB Jurisdiction to Decline to Afford Proprietary Info Protection from Public Disclosure. ASLB Should Refrain from Making Determination as to Proprietary Nature of Info.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20039B545
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/17/1981
From:	Davis F WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20039B539	List: ML20039B538 ML20039B545
References
NUDOCS 8112230222
Download: ML20039B545 (21)

Text

.

. s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00;KETED 09:RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING b AdE0

.q .t ,

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-266 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) 50-301

) (OL Amendment)

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, )

Jnits 1 and 2) )

REPLY BRIEF OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORFORATION, APPEARING SPECIALLY, ON ISSUE OF LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION TO DECLINE TO AFFORD PROPRIETARY INFORMATION '

PROTECTION FRM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE I. INTRODUCTION In replying to the Brief of the Regulatory Staff dated December 7, 1981, this Reply Brief addresses the questions of whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board")

assigned to this proceeding has been accorded jurisdiction fr.om either: 1) the Muclear Regulatory Commission's ( "!!RC" ) rules found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

( " Ru le s" ) , or 2) the nature of the adjudicatory process to make a determination regarding the proprietary nature cf information cubmitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.790 (1981), and, if that test is met, then refube to afford that infocmation protection from public disclosure, after the Regulatory Staff has examined the information and determined that it is proprietary and should be withheld f rota public disclosure as provided in that 8112230222 811217 PDR ADOCK 05000266 G PDR 00156 regulation. Following an examination of the Regulatory Staff's

~

Brief dated December 7,'1981, Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(" Westinghouse") asserts that the Board derives authority from neither the Rules nor the nature of the adjudicatory process to-make such an independent determination after the Regulatory

- Staff has properly _ reviewed the information, concluded that it is proprietary, and determined that it should be withheld from public disclosure.1/ -

II. BACKGROUND The background to this matter was related in the Westinghouse and Regulatory Staff Briefs dated Dec~mber.7, 1981. We will not repeat it here. Apparently, no other party has filed a brief on this issue.

III. 'HE LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION The Westinghouse position continues to be that the 4

Licensing Board does not have authority to make such an independent determination under either the Commission's Rules or tne nature of the adjudicatory process af er the Regulatory Staff has acted on the matter.

1/ The Regulatory Staff's letter granting the application of -

Wisconsin Electric Power Company was from R. A. Clark to R. A. Wiesemann to Westinghouse dated November 20, 1981.

0015b '

As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") has noted, Congress has vested authority to administer the licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.4 The Commission in turn is authorized by the Act to have atomic safety and licensing boards preside over adjudicatory proceedings, which boards may be convened "to conduct such hearings as.the Commission may direct."3 Thus, like ourselves, licensing boards "are delegates of the Commission and exercise only those powers which the Commission has given

[them]."o

[ Footnotes to this Appeal Board excerpt]

4Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 5201(f)_and (g), 88 Stat. 1243,-

42 U.S.C. 55841(f) and (g).

542 U.S.C. f2241.

6Morthern Indiana Public Service _ Company (Sailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1),

ALAB-249, 8 AEC980, 9871 (1974).2/

A fair reading of the Commission's regulations regarding a Licensing Board's jurisdiction over the matter of trade secrets or privileged or confidential.commerical or financial information1! gives the Board the authority to examine the information, make it available to persons who are properly and directly concerned to inspect it, fashion protective orders for 2/ Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (14arble-Hill Units 1 and 2), ALAS-316, 3 URC 167 at 170 (1976).

1/ 10 CPR 2.790( a) (4) . This information consistently has been termed " proprietary information" throughout this proceeding. This Reply Brief continuec to do so.

0015t this purpose, and hold hearing' sessions in camera when the information is produced or offered in evidence. 10 CFR S 2. 74 C i c) ( 6 ) , 2.790(b)(6).

Contrary to the Regulatory Staff's position, the Rules fail to give a Licensing Board more authority than. discussed immediately above. Indeed, a logical interpretation of

52. 7 90 ( b ) (6 )$! is that the Commission perceived "the presiding officer" to have a distinct role in the process apart from that of "the Commission." If thes? separate roles do not E.

exist, then one would expect the Commission not.to use l

different terms for the two entities, perhaps by giving the presiding officer the authority to examine the documents pending his or her decision on the application for withholding.

4/ Section 2.790(b)(6) provides in part that:

i' Withholding from public inspection shall not affect the right, if any, of persons properly and directly concerned to inspect-the do'ument. The Commission may require information claimed to be a trade secret or privileged or confidentical commercial or financial information to be subject to inspection . . . (ii).by the presiding officer in a proceeding; and (iii) under

protective order, by parties to a j proceeding, pending a decision of the Commission on.the matter of whether the l' information should be made publicly available or when a decision has been made that the information rhould be withheld from public disclosure. In canera sessions of hearings may be held when the information sought to be withheld is prcduced or ottered in evidence. (Emphasis added.)

0015b 4

In its Brief, the-Staff fails'to give'a specific reference-to a delegation from the Commission of the authority.to make the determination here sought. .The reason for-the staff's failure to cite specific regulatory-authority-is clear - there is no such authority. Failing to find any such specific delegation, the Staff's Brief attempts to find authority by indirection. The Staff's indirect interpretation fails to' meet the test of Marble .'.ill, quoted above. The absence of such a specific delegation to the Licensing Board must be interpreted to mean that no such authority exists in an area where the Regulatory Staff has Oeen granted and has exercised jurisdiction. This would be an efficient result, for there is no nced for the Licensing Board to assert authority.in the a ea. In the instance at hand, the Commission's authority-to make a withholding determination has already been exercised by, the Regulatory Staff, as evidenced in its letter dated "ovember 20, 1981.5/

In addition, Westinghouse asserts that the Staff's reliance on Wolf Creek5/ is aisplaced. First, as the staff recognizes on page 5 of its Brief, the information in Wolf Creek was~not an "RC record.1! Second, the information in Wolf Creek was 5/ See Footnote 1.

6/ See citation and quotatior, above at page 3.

2/ Rather, it belonged to a vendor and was not already in the possession of the flRC or parties to the proceeding.

0015b 5-

sought via discovery and there was a dispute as to whether a protective order would be applied to the information. Here, on the other hand, the information at issue has already been made available pursuant to the Board's protective order. Indeed,

'the only persons with an interest in seeing it who don't already have it are Westinghouse competitors. Third, in the case at hand, tne Regulatory Stuff already has examined the-information and given it proprietary protection. Finally, in Wolf Creek, the Licensing Board, whose decision was the subject of the Appeal 3 card'c determination, had issued its decision January 9, 1976. The rule now being interpreted (S2.790) was not published until :4 arch 22, 1976 (F.R. 11808) to-be effective april 2, 1976. Thus, the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board 8/ in that case were acting outside of the context of this more limited rule, and the rule's meaning should not be broadened by the interpretation of facts occurring before it was adopted and when the Commission's Rules pertaining to proprietary information were substantially different than they are now.

Reliance by the Staff on the Commission's memorandum issued June 6, 1972, in the proceeding concerning the acceptance 8/ The 4ppeal Board decirion was issued April 27, 1976.

0015b criteria for emergency core cooling systemsE/ is misplaced.

The Commission's memorandum came at a time when the Commission's Rules pertaining to proprietary information were substantially different. Further, the memorandum was issued in the context of a unique rulemaking proceeding unlike the

-licensing proceeding here.

Reliance by the Staff on S2.790(e), which relates to NRC records, is also misplaced. As stated above, we are not dealing with NRC records and documents.

The nature of the adjudicatory process did not enlarge the Board's authority granted by the Conmission. The Commission has provided the Board authority in Lcs Rules of Practice to conduct a proceeding fair ta all parties, as discuased above in interpreting SS2.740(c) (6) and 2.790(b)(6). Seemingly, the exercise by a Licensing Board of this purported authority would unduly complicate the adjudicatory process by creating an unnecessary administrative morass where the Staff has

' determined to withhold the proprietary information and the Board second-guesses that decision.

The Fegulatory Staff is in a position to render the most reasoned decisions on applications for withholding. Its. staff 9/ TID-26713, U.S. Energy Recearch and Development Administration (March 1975).

0015b ~7-

includes those who know the history of other applications and de:erminations and rationale used in deciding them. Chi the orher hand, Licensing Boards do not necessarily have this experrise in this somewhat specialized area. In the event that they assert this authority and begin exercising it, inconsistent and unjust _ decisions may follow and, in the long run, tne Alcensing program may suffer.10/

For the foregoing reasons, Westinghouse urges the Board to ref rain f rom making any determir.ation as to the proprietary nature of Westinghouse information, and to continue in effect t h 9. protective order heretofore entered.

4 i / (

! Francis ::. Davl s "

l Counsel for Westinghouse Electric j Corporation, Appearing Seccially P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Dated: December 17, 1981 10/ Analogous reasoning has been accepted by the Appeal Board in deternining that Licensing Boards assigned to hear radiological health and safety and environmental issues should not be presumed to have the expertise to determine antitrust issues au well. Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Units 1 and 2), .\ LAB-316, 3 NRC 167 at 172 (1976).

0015'o -8_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY.AMD LICEUSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-266 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) 50-301

) (OL Amendment)

-(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the REPLY BRIEF OF ,

NESTINGHOUSE 2LECTRIC CORPORATION, APPEARING SPECIALLY, ON ISSUE OF LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION TO DECLINE TO AFFORD PROPRIETARY INFORMATION PROTECTION FROM PUDLIC DISCLOSURE in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on those shown on the Service List by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 17th day of December 1981.

Nrx l .

7 Francis X. Davis Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appearing Specially Dated: December 17, 1981 0015b- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

J SER' LICE LIST Peter B. 31och, Chairman

( .;dministrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Xashington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Administrative Judge 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, NM $7544 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judga Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regula: cry Commission NasSington, D.C. 20655 Kathleen i:. Fal.:, Escuire

• Nisconsin's Environmental Decade 114 1: Orth Carroll Sureet

!iadison, WI 33703 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaission Washington, D.C. 20555 Francis X. Davis, Esquire Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appearing Specially P. O. Box 355 t

Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Atcaic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regul,atory Commission h~ashington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ;m U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Locketing and Service Section-Office of the Secretary U .' S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Bruce Churchill, Esquire Gerald Charnoff, Esquire -

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1300 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 s

4

-,y n.- --- . - - - - - , - , - - - - r , - -

I' p

/

\ - /

. n, i u n .%,s n %. . , , ,mm ,

m.._..

5:0Ui; C0iporatica y r.sc 21 N0:47 .x._.-.,. 4 . ,

n.

. . ,. . c. . .s

___ .r . ea. _ . 3, ., ,~r r

-l .eA,. ' , . ,,

a. ~ -

Monroeville Nuclear Center

~

, p'oa "' q p.

t,

.N . ,.. ,, ,;- s 3 m -m.,

. u an:o a,,ey.,., en u (412) .2 e a -* a ho December 17, 1951 O. m--- n ., - ; . e _,_m s,u .

-.if c.,,4_.~._

L.au.

.',u....?,,..,.,::.a.s.,,wr.....

-'. ,. ; a_ .i 4. A. n. n.,

I A ' ;~s.

^

' "_ r,v .m. . .A ( .C u, a v_ ; . - . = ~ . - me v ._ . c . _. r. . ,~f O

- - n .,. , u' . s ;n.._ m.i,

, g -rE

.9s.L._-

d gg e-u . -. e:. _ 3/- a u . C %* u_

cT,ya L '.d'.ca

_ ... e%g1 a a(%1 v .yg

,1

.n.s..-...,w

, , ,. - o a: ;n ua.. g 3.

. L. - .s s

""',q-.e * ' c (* As  ; <

I"' ) ,3. r*8 ,- ; ;-= D.v.q * . - y s e',3,r- t p,,

w au-. . -.v s -- .. - w a _ .,a , , _

_ v1p ' yN. v'*

g

- . . LN )

. }*. ._.

W y y

] ,9 u,

l . v'"a.1 ,. q9 a L ., %%. ( . ..

ms 3

u_

• , ~ ,

.va 2, c_

.s .;. ,_.. , . q n.. ._a0 g ;.

[ go * "'

4 4 sh e,g  % A $e

's . _ = -*.m .-( AW 'T -

_. . - .':, . g4 A( .m 4%'

v

~' - , > -

-.v. . v~ v. .u7.. f. L3 ,; .IC ,~, .p. .

?-.n~ri 1 o .'- t ' r!. 7o '-

b. . u' ) ' ~'. _ g-' I ; Oe' me' c3 &~ T, .?c,' .>

4 '

P [ p p. 3t s_ i t' m +.. . e ,. n ;. h. c i .* o <"

s m _.

c' ,.,

s r

, u , , , . , - n.,.c..,

s-u . . . . . .: ,, . .

. x. .

c. . ; . 1 3 ,7 ,

g ,,

v. --x .r -,,,n - c, e u ~; ,, n . , , i,.

c,  ;

p, n c. ~., v. g ac, n *

• i

~'4-s v. f < , ; ia u L. J.-Am. . ,..n

&,_ v., . , n .1_ .( .

.3 2.,.

, t,. 4. C 3. tA L. y O p. s. I t, tot., ,. .y

.- i.

,. I n.. x.~ O y.m , &u.u On l

3 e_ . 4-_ . L p p1-t ..' c m -

1 -' .' sr 9 .C ' ' 'r S I 4v mC '_'.*.as.,'I.m c- L^a "'d " O . 1 -

On v.i

-s T.'. _. L p ,- i.ms n. r 1 {) ,

}.O'd l

20,

.w _. --,A p .' ,2a e;7 i

. - . 3

. c, d m- c ,_ c c s ., a.

Lt k. i a,- n 4 , r g _]. ,;, n s t.A L, f- < & . 13. g g. L, L. ~.. b n.. r 1 1 r,- -

i 23 .. ei 1 op , *.. p G. , , ~v. n ..L, -._: .. c 4.. cc t gial C., L%.

ss: (. u _1 .1 .pf. /r., 1' a..

, . , .1 C, 3

> .-+ v - .,s u..L y v Lu ,1. 2. Le u v , .

e '

• u n ,1, -

l

. u, ,

1 , .. . L G, c _,r,..,

_ su .,

~ .. -, .4 v,i .

L, u,. m ,g; O .c .

4 ti t buu t, t, w, a . , L. /, 1981 I

l 'D u' t

.n., 3- 4--0." . C ". . #~

u h. : ' # u' '; .

.e.'-' ^ ' . ' 'c . _

7 l ~a - 4'u O ~.o. ~. 'J r l' u' 1 1 'm' a C p .- is .r..,.a -

1-u s i t, .

l u., s_... , , .

o 1. n :.

'u'.,,.'

' u S .l' /u

'CU " . ' .m'r "a 'c r i 4.

'a' - Il *- ',s- T m o' 'u "t < ' ~f' ' t uQ

+

^

11' #. n. . ". ~1 M. r a . ,. .<

" 1_1.sk t.:41 :. QX n 'WCaGu i

01- C""1C P . ','1' t0iGFhCnO Ca _ EO Her OT

9. p. . - . >. - . . .p 1 Q , u-ve . n.., s. c 4

v n _. 3 . . . n A .

- s s

'.',.,...r.,.;

t r. , 'uut., ,

3.rJ r ca r j

CN \ {q *

\ / l N jty.,5 t *. . .8V w:cux.vma CC 'l!10 01 f O r YiO O t .!1 r h 0 U S G

-'lOCtriC CCrpOiat10nf

- -a - o. u, r 4 4yo mW j ~viu' } ). v,

[

• f,*

a O Y."

4 *.* [,* { $ .  ?. _ co k

• l *.,.* / ,", t- . .)

-T---*--hy3m e ew-e Tg-e* -at.-=^iy.g vm.,p-g-- --ve+www-ea - = = =-'

UNITED SwmisEOF AMERICA U % PI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE isTOM k S "

b ICENSING BOARD XCRUia T 5 T. 50 w.

)

~

In the-Matter of

) Dacket Nos. 50-266

• WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) .

50-301 *

) (OL Amendment)

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

1 REPLY BRIEF OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,-

APPEARING SPECIALLY, ON ISSUE OF LICENSING

-BOARD'S JURISDICTION TO DECLINE TO AFFORD PROPRIETARY INFORMATION '

PROTECTION FRM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE I. INTRODUCTION In replying to the Brief of the Regulatory' Staff dated December 7, 1981,;this Reply Brief addresces the questions of.

whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board")

assigned to this proceeding has.been accorded jurisdiction from either: 1) the Nuclear Regulatory > Commission's ("NRC") rules found in Title 10 of-the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

( " Rule s" ) , or-2) the nature of the adjudicatory' process to make j_

a determination regarding the proprietary nature of information-

$ submitted pursuant to 10 CPR S2.790 (1981), and, if that. test isimet, then refuce to afford that information~ protection.from public disclosure, after the Regulatory Staff has examined the information and determined that it is. proprietary and should be withheld from public disclosure as provided in that

-1. .

0015b

4 .

O 4

regulation. Following an e:: amination of the Regulatory Staf f 's i

Brief dated December 7, 1981, Westinghouse Electric Corporation 4

(" Westinghouse) . asserts that the Board derives authority from neither the Rules nor the nature of the adjudicatory process to make such-an independent determination after the Regulatory Staff has properlyfreviewed the information, concluded that it is proprietary, and determined that it should be withheld from public cisclosure.1/

II. BACi; GROUND The backgrcund to this matter was .related in the

• estinghouse and Regulatory Staff Briefs dated: December 7,

'1931. We will not repeat it here. Apparently, no other party has filed a brief on this issue.

III. THE LICENSING BOARD'S JURISDICTION

The Westinghouse position continues to be that the.

. Licensing Board does not have authority to make such an independent determination under either. the Commission's Rules or the nature of the adjudicatory process after the Regulatory Staf f has acted c:t the matter.

~1/ The Regulatory Staff's letter ~ granting the application.of -

Wisconsin Electric Power Company was from R. A. Clark to R. A. Wiesemann to Westinghouse dated _ November 20, 1981.

0015b , . . __ . - . - _ _ -. ,_ - - -_- . _ . . -__- _

As the Istcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") has noted, Congress has vested authority to administer the licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy'Act in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.4 The Commission in turn is authorized by the Act to have atomic safety and licensing boards preside over adjudicatory-proceedings, which boards may be convened "to conduct such hearings as the Commission may direct."5 Thus,.like ourselves, licensing boards "are delegates of the Commission and exercise only those powers which the Ccmmission has given

{them]."6

[ Footnotes to this Appeal Board excerpt]

4 Energy Roorganization Act of 1974, as-amended, S201(f) and (g), 88 Stat. 1243, 42 U.S.C. S5841(f) and (g).

542 U.S.C. 22241.

6N orthern Indiana Public Service Company (Gailly-Generating Station, Nuclear 1),

ALAB-249, 8 AEC980,.987 (1974).2/

A f air reading of the Commission's regulatioria regarding a Licensing Board's jurisdiction over the matter of trade secrets or privileged or confidential commerical or financial information3/ gives the Board the authority to examine the information, make it available to persons who are properly and directly concerned to inspect it, fashion protective orderc for

-2/ Public Service Company of_ Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 at 170 (1976).

3/ 10 CFR 2.790(a)(4). .This information censistently has been

-termed " proprietary information" throughout this proceeding. This Reply Brief continues to do so.

00156 this purpose, and hold hearing seccions in camera when the information is produced or offered in evidence. 10 CFR l*

S2.740(c)(6), 2. 79 0 ( b) ( 6) .

Contrary to the Regulatory Staff's position, the Rules fail  !

to give a Licensing Board more authority than discussed immediately above. Indeed, a logical. interpretation of

52.790(b)(6)d! is that the.Commissien perceived "the presiding officer" to have a distinct role.in the process apart from that of "the Commission." If these separate roles do not exist, then one would en cet the Commission not to use t

different terms for the two entities, perhaps by giving the presiding officer the authority to examine the documents pending his or her decision on the application for withholding.

4/ Section 2.790(b)(6) provides in part that:

Withholding from public inspection shall not

' affect the right, if any, of persons properly and directly concerned to inspect the document. The Commission may require information claimed to be a trade secret or privileged or confidentical commercial or financial information to be subject to inspection . . . (ii) by the presiding officer in a proceeding; and (iii) under protective order, by parties to a proceeding, pending a decision of the Coramission on the matter of whether the information should be_made_ publicly available or when a decision has been made that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. In camera sensions of hearings may be held when the information sought to be withheld is produced or offered i

1 in evidence. (Emphasis added.)

0015b _ , _ . . . . ._. _. , , . , - _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . , ~ . . . _ . . -- _,

In its Brief, the Staff fails to give a specific reference to a delegation from the Commission of the authority to make the determination here sought. The reason for the staff's failure to cite specific regulatory authority is clear - there is no such authority. Failing to find any such specific delegation, the Staff's Brief attempts to find authority by indirection. The Staff's indirect interpretation fails to meet the test of Marble Hill, quoted above. The, absence of such a specific delegation to the Licensing Board must be interpreted to tean that no such authority exists in an area where the Regulatory Staff has been granted and hac exercised jurisdiction. This would be an efficient result, for there is no need for the Licensing Board to assert authority in the area. In the instance at hand, the Commission's authority to make a withholding determination has already been exercised by the Regulatory Staf f, as evidenced in its letter dated November 20, 1981.2:/

In addition, Westinghouse asserts that the Staff's reliance on Wolf Creek5! is misplaced. First, as the staff recognizes on page 5 of its Brief, the inforcation' in Wolf Creek _ was not an URC record.1! Second,.the information in Wolf Creek was 1/ See Footnote 1.

6/ .See citation and quotation above at page 3.

7/ Rather, it belonged.to a vendor and was not already in the possession.of the NRC or parties to-the proceeding.

'0015b sought via discovery and there was a dispute as to whether a prorective order would be applied to the information. Here, on the other hand, the information at issue has already been made available pursuant to the Board's protective order. Indeed, the only persons with an interest in seeing it who don't already have it are Westinghouse competitors. Third, in the case at hand, the Regulatory Staff already has examined the information and given it proprietary protection. Finally, in Wolf Creek, tije Licensing Board, whose decision was the subject of the Appeal Board's determination, had issued its decision January 9, 1976. The rule now being interpreted ($2.770) was not puolished until March 22, 1976 (F.R. 11808) to be effective April 2, 1976. Thus, the Licensing Board and'the Appeal Board E! in that case were acting outside of the context of this more limited rule, and the rule's meaning should not be broadened by the interpretation of facts occurring before it was adopted and when the Commission's Rules pertaining to proprietary information were substantially different than they are now.

Reliance by the Staff on the Commicsion's memorandum issued June 6, 1972, in the proceeding concerning the acceptance 3/ The Appeal Board decision was issued April 27, 1976.

0015b

, 3 d

criteria for emergency core cooling systemsE/ is misplaced.

The Commission's memorandum came at a time when the Commission's Rules pertaining to proprietary information were substantially different. Further, the memorandum was issued in the context of a unique rulemaking proceeding unlike the licensing proceeding here.

Reliance by the Staff on 52.790(e), which relates to NRC records, is also misplaced. As stated above, we are not dealing with NRC records and documents.

The nature of the adjudicatory process did-not enlarge the Board's authority granted by the Commission. The Commission has provided the Board authority in its Rules of Practice to conduct a proceeding fair to all parties, as discussed above in interpreting SS 2. 74 0 ( c) ( 6) .ind 2.790(b)(6). Seemingly, the exercise by a Licensing Board of this purported authority would-unduly complicate the adjudicatory' process by creating an unnecessary administrative moras? where the Staff has determined to withhold the proprietary information and the Board second-guesses that decision.

The Regulatory Staff is in a position to rend >r the most reasoned decisions on appli~ cations for withholding. Its staff

-9/ TID-26713, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (March 1975).

00156 -

includes these who know the history of other applications and determi:.ations and rationale u sed in deciding them. On the other hand, Licensing Boards do not necessarily have this expartise in this somewhat specialized area. In the event that they assert this au hor;ty and begin exercising it, inconsistent and unjurt decisions may follow and, in the long run, the licensing prograr may suf f er.10'/

s For the foregoing reasons, Westinghouse urges the Board to refrain fror making any determination as to the proprietary nature cf Westinghouse information, and to continue in effect

ne protective order heretofore entered.

N

\

Frdncis X. Davis '

Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Ar;7aring Specially P. O. Bcx 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Dated: December 17, 1981 M/ nalogc _:s reasoning has been accepted by the '.ppeal Board in determining that Licensing Boards assigned to hear radiological health and safety and environmental issuec should not be presumed to have the e.pertise to determine antitrust issues as well. Public Service Company of '

Indiana, Inc. ( B'.a r b l e Hill Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 ,..m r~ i - a.- ,9

.d/ is 19/o- .

0015b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

I r. the Matter of

) Docket Nos. 50-266 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) 50-301

) (OL Amendment)

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the REPLY BRIEF OF ,

5ESTIGGliOUSE ELECTRIC CJRPORATION, APPEARING SPECIALLY, ON ISSUE OF LICENSIMG BOARD'S JURISDICTION TO DECLI'lE TO AFFORD PROPRIETARY INFOR:1ATION PROTECTION FROM PUDLIC DISCLOSURE in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on those shown on the Service List by deposit in the C.lited States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 17th day of December 1981.

\ '

\  !

A .A FEancis X. Davis

Counsel for Westinghouse Ele;tric Corporation, Appearing Specially Dated: Decenber 17, 1961 0015b - - _

. o'

< l

)

SERVICE LIST l Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Administrative Judge 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Kathleen M. Falk, Esquire *

• irc nsin's Enviroamental Decade

~14 Ucrth Carroll Street

!!d a 12 c a , WI 53703 Stuart A. Treby, Esquire Of fice of tne Executive Legal Director U.S. ' cclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, D.C. 20555 Francis'X. Davis, Ecquire Wectinghouse Electric Corporation, Appearing Specially P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section

-Office of the Secretary U.S. Suclear Regulatory Commission

ashington, . DC 20555 3ruce Churchill, Esquire Gerald Charnoff, Esquire -

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

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