|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20070E4671991-02-26026 February 1991 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-9 Re Upgrading Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage of Nuclear Reactors.Recommends That NRC Deny Petition to Increase Design Basis Threat for Security ML20207C1331986-12-18018 December 1986 Order Terminating CPPR-81 & CPPR-82,per Util 860711 Motion to Withdraw Applications for OLs ML20215E7301986-12-17017 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Authorizing Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissing OL Proceeding,Per Applicant 860711 Motion. Served on 861218 ML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20211L6391986-12-11011 December 1986 Affidavit of Gb Staley Re Preparation of Answers to Board 861203 Questions on Termination of OL Proceeding. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20211L6181986-12-11011 December 1986 Response to Board 861203 Questions Re Util Request to Terminate OL Proceeding ML20214Q4431986-12-0303 December 1986 Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204 ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20214T7361986-09-26026 September 1986 Memorandum & Order Dismissing OM Proceeding as Moot & Deferring Action on Applicant Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application Pending NRC Preparation of Environ Assessment.Served on 860929 ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212B0311986-08-0101 August 1986 Memorandum & Order Withdrawing Retention of Jurisdiction Over Radon Issue Presented in Facility CP Proceeding & Vacating ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Remedial Soils in Consolidated CP Mod & OL Proceeding.Served on 860801 ML20212B0521986-07-31031 July 1986 Order Extending Time Until 860815 for Util & Other Parties to Respond to Questions Posed by 860716 ASLB Order.Time Extended Until 860825 for NRC Response to ASLB Questions & Util Motion.Served on 860801 ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207E2851986-07-16016 July 1986 Order Presenting Questions in Response to Util 860711 Motion to Dismiss OL Proceeding & to Terminate Order of Mod Proceeding.Served on 860717 ML20202G1621986-07-11011 July 1986 Notice of Change of Address for Washington Ofc of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,Attys for Util.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20202G0491986-07-10010 July 1986 Affidavit of JW Cook Re Conversion of Plant Into combined- cycle,gas-fired Power Plant.Plant Never Operable as Nuclear facility.Nuclear-related Equipment Will Be Sold ML20202G0281986-07-0808 July 1986 Affidavit of Ta Mcnish Re True & Correct Extracts of 860408 & 0618 Minutes of Meetings.Resolutions Recited Therein in Full Force & Effect ML20198J3861986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20198J4651986-05-27027 May 1986 Notice of ASLB Reconstitution.C Bechhoefer,Chairman & J Harbour & Ga Linenberger,Members.Served on 860529 ML20137E0041985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Appearance in Proceeding ML20137D9651985-11-21021 November 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F6421985-10-0909 October 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134N3771985-08-30030 August 1985 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl DD-84-17, Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 8506241985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Affirming 840724 Director'S Decision DD-84-17 Denying Bp Garde 10CFR2.206 Petition for Action Against Util Re Plant Const.Const Abandoned on 840910.No Further Enforcement Action Required.Served on 850624 ML20127N7591985-06-20020 June 1985 Transcript of Commission 850620 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc Concerning Denial of 2.206 Petition for Midland plant,SECY-85-60 Concerning Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule & Shoreham Order.Pp 1-4 ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4751985-04-19019 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850405 Order Re Dismissal of OL Application.Application Neither Abandoned Nor Delayed in Dilutory Manner.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20107K8011984-11-0101 November 1984 Affidavit of Jd Selby Re Plans Concerning Facilities.Const Will Be Resumed Only If Proposed by Appropriate Governmental Agencies & Officials & If Funds from Some Other Source Become Available.Related Correspondence ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20092J0241984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to B Stamiris Second Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on QA & Mgt Attitude Issues. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092J0361984-06-22022 June 1984 Reply to NRC Further Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re QA 1991-02-26
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20215B2071986-12-11011 December 1986 Responds to Questions Posed in ASLBP 861203 Memorandum & Order Re Conversion to gas-fired Facility.Imposition of Conditions on Withdrawal of OL Application Unnecessary. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl ML20214G7941986-11-24024 November 1986 Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal of Licensee OL Application & Terminate Pending OL & CP Mod Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20212M7661986-08-25025 August 1986 Response to Util 860711 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & for Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings.Board Should Hold Motion in Abeyance Pending NRC Review of Stabilization Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20206M8171986-08-15015 August 1986 Response to ASLB 860716 Order Requesting Responses Re Termination of OM Proceeding.Termination of OL Proceeding & Withdrawal of OL Application Requested.Om Proceeding Should Be Considered Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20203F8791986-07-28028 July 1986 Response Supporting Util 860711 Motion for Termination of Appeal Board Jurisdiction Over Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20207H6871986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Extension Until 860815 to File Responses to Four Questions Re Util Motion to Dismiss OL & OM Proceedings. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20202G0121986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Authorization to Withdraw OL Application & Dismissal of OL & Order of Mod Proceedings ML20202G1201986-07-11011 July 1986 Motion for Termination of Aslab Jurisdiction to Facilitate Termination of Cps,Withdrawal of OL Application & Dismissal of Consolidated OM-OL Proceeding ML20133D9481985-05-13013 May 1985 Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met ML20116G5181985-04-29029 April 1985 Response to Memorandum of City & County of Midland,Mi Re ASLB 850405 & 0313 Orders on CP Mod Proceedings.Bechtel Should Not Be Granted Admission to Proceedings ML20115J5421985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Aslab Request for Responses to Questions Presented in 850313 & 0405 Memoranda Orders. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J5501985-04-19019 April 1985 Response Opposing Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order Re Dismissal of OL Applications.Urges Board to Permit OL Applications to Continue in Suspension Until Applicant Affirmatively Resolves Disposition ML20115J5551985-04-19019 April 1985 City & County of Midland,State of Mi Response to Aslab 850313 Order to File Memoranda Re Whether Aslab Should Vacate ASLB Decision Re Certain Mods to CP Due to Mootness. Proof of Svc Encl ML20115J4351985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae,Per Aslab 850313 & 0405 Memoranda & Orders Requesting Response to Questions Re Proceeding ML20116G5321985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Resolution of Issue to Involuntary Dismissal of License Application,Per Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order.Granted for Aslab on 850422. Served on 850429 ML20115J5461985-04-19019 April 1985 Motion to Participate Amici Curiae in Resolution of Issue of Involuntary Dismissal of License Application as Identified in Aslab 850405 Memorandum & Order ML20112J5281985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum in Response to Aslab 850313 Order LBP-85-2. Decision Should Not Be Vacated.Ol Should Be Dismissed.Based on Listed Changes,New OL Review Required ML20112J6301985-04-0101 April 1985 Memorandum Requesting Aslab Not Take Any Action to Vacate LBP-85-2 or Dismiss OL Applications,Per 850313 Order,Based on Current Intent to Hold CPs & Attempt to Sell Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20112H0981985-03-27027 March 1985 Response to Aslab 840313 Order Re Whether ASLB Decision to Review Issues in Soils Hearing Appropriate Use of Public Resources.Concurs W/Decision to Remand OL W/Instructions to Dismiss OL Application for Failure to Pursue Soils Issue ML20106D6631985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing B Stamiris 841224 Pleading Requesting Evidentiary Hearing on Matter Raised in applicant-Dow Chemical Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F6531985-02-0808 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor B Stamiris 841224 Motion for Evidentiary Hearings Re Litigation Between Applicant & Dow Chemical Co.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101S9421985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201 ML20101S9111985-02-0101 February 1985 Motion for Extension of Time within Which to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101F3191984-12-24024 December 1984 Request for Evidentiary Hearings on Matter Raised in CPC-Dow Trial & Referral of Certain Matters to Ofc of Investigations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106F5241984-10-24024 October 1984 Motion to Request ASLB to Cancel Const License & Application for OL ML20084J6111984-05-0404 May 1984 Responds Opposing Sinclair 840419 Motion to Request Caseload Forecast Panel Evaluate New Const Completion Schedule.Aslb Should Deny Request for Relief Contained in Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084H2581984-05-0202 May 1984 Memorandum in Opposition to Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 840417 Petition for Review.Gap Policy on Disclosures to Press Rules Out Genuine Claim That Affidavits Were to Be Maintained in Total Confidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N6481984-04-17017 April 1984 Petition for Review of Aslab 840330 Decision & Order ALAB-764 Re Subpoenas Directed to Govt Accountability Project.Aslab Erroneous Re Important Questions of Law & Policy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087M9821984-03-30030 March 1984 Response to B Stamiris 840304 New Contention Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc Diesel Generators.Bases in Support of Contention Clarified.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079M6481984-01-23023 January 1984 Request for Leave to File Encl Corrected Copies of Applicant 831209 Memorandum in Opposition to Appeal of Govt Accountability Project.Table of Contents & Table of Authorities Inadvertently Omitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082U0311983-12-0909 December 1983 Memorandum Opposing Govt Accountability Project (Gap) 831021 Appeal of ASLB Order Granting Util Motion to Depose Gap Witnesses.First Amend Argument Inapplicable Since Affiant Identity Will Not Be Disclosed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1341983-11-22022 November 1983 Request for Extension Until 831209 to File Brief Opposing Appeal of Govt Accountability Project Deponents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086A8801983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Util Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas.Submission to Discovery Would Cause Immediate Grave & Irreparable Injury to Organizational Viability.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20081F8991983-11-0202 November 1983 Motion to Compel & Application for Enforcement of Subpoenas Against Govt Accountability Project Deponents,L Clark, T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg.Response from Deponents Must Be Filed Before 831110.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E8931983-10-31031 October 1983 Reply to Applicant 831014 Response to Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of B Stamiris 831005 Motion to Litigate Two Dow Issues.Issues Timely Raised & Present New Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H4271983-10-26026 October 1983 Motion to Continue Beginning Date of Hearings Scheduled for 831031 to 3 Days After Date.Extended Hearing Necessary to Allow Time to Receive Responses to 831011 Discovery Requests.W/Certificate of Svc ML20081B1751983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion to Compel CPC Responses to 831011 Interrogatories & Request for Production Re Investigation of Alleged Violation.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090H3401983-10-25025 October 1983 Motion for Admission Into Evidence of Transcript of Jl Donnell 831015 Deposition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E9481983-10-25025 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of 831021 Appeal of ASLB Orders Granting Issuance of Subpoenas.Subpoenas Violate First Amend Rights.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081B0681983-10-21021 October 1983 Memorandum in Support of Appeal from ASLB Orders Granting Discovery Against Govt Accountability Project.Subpoenas Violate Common Law of Privilege.Util Showed No Compelling Need for Discovery ML20078K3141983-10-14014 October 1983 Response to B Stamiris 831005 Second Supplemental Memorandum Supporting Dow Issues.Stamiris Fails to Show New & Significant Info Justifying Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078F5561983-10-0505 October 1983 Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Stamiris Motion to Litigate Dow Chemical Co Issues Against Applicant.Dow Documents & Complaints Support Litigation of Issues Raised in Original Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P1161983-10-0303 October 1983 Errata to 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080P9131983-10-0303 October 1983 Motion to Stay Depositions of L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg as Directed in ASLB 830831 Order.Depositions Should Be Stayed Pending Review of 830930 Motion for Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078A3471983-09-21021 September 1983 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 830808 Motion to Litigate Dow Issues.Documents Reveal That Util Knew Fuel Load Dates Presented to NRC Jul 1980 - Apr 1983 False. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077S7161983-09-19019 September 1983 Motion by L Clark,T Devine,Bp Garde & L Hallberg for Extension Until 830930 to File Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830831 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8261983-09-0202 September 1983 Response Opposing M Sinclair Motion to Reconsider Privilege Ruling.Presence of Bechtel Officials at 821124 Meeting Does Not Destroy Privilege.Bechtel & CPC Share Common Legal Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20024E8771983-09-0202 September 1983 Motion to Reconsider Schedule for Submitting Proposed Findings of Fact on Remedial Soils Issues.Intervenors Should Be Required to File Proposed Findings on Remedial Soils Issues by 831115.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076F3261983-08-23023 August 1983 Motion for Extension Until 830902 to Respond to Intervenor Motion to Reconsider Order Upholding atty-client Privilege Protection for 821124 Util/Bechtel Meeting.Motion Received 5 Days After Mailing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076C6711983-08-17017 August 1983 Response to M Sinclair & B Stamiris 830728 Motions Re Dow Vs Util Lawsuit.Aslb Should Defer Motions for 30 Days.Motions Could Be Refiled After Documents Reviewed.Two Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards in Pdr.Certificate of Svc Encl 1986-08-25
[Table view] |
Text
.
006 '
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USHRC BEFORE THE COMMISSION
'84 HN(-7 A10 54 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330_OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
(Midland Plant, Units 1&2)
Docket Nos.' 50'-[3)9fML/d"
) 50-330aOL' MEMORANDUM OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OPPOSING GAP's PETITION FOR REVIEW Consumers Power Company (" Consumers" or " Applicant"),
by its attorneys, hereby submits its Memorandum opposing the Petition for Review filed by Louis Clark, Thomas Devine, Billie Pirner Garde, and Lucy Hallberg of the Government Accountability Project (referred to collectively herein as
" Petitioners" or " GAP") on April 17, 1984.
INTRODUCTION Petitioners are seeking to have the Commission quash four subpoenas duces tecum that would require them to appear for depositions and disclose, in expurgated form, copies of anomymous affidavits alleging poor work quality at Consumers' Midland, Michigan plant. ..The information would be disclosed subject to a stringent protective orde to shield identities of the anonymous affiants.
GAP has asserted a claims of privilege against s disclosure of any part of the anonymous aff davits', and
- r 8405070499 840502 ' ,
PDR ADOCK 05000329 O
PDR , ..
- ~ i
( .
against giving any testimony concerning them, based on the theory that such privilege is necessary to protect the identities of the affiants. GAP asserts this blanket claim of privilege even though it has advanced no reason for believing the protective order entered by the Licensing Board will be inadequate to protect the affiants' identities, and even though selected portions of the affidavits have already been released to the press. See Articles in Midland Daily News, June 28, 1982, Attachment A to Consumers' Appli-cation for Deposition Subpoenas (July 8, 1982). In addition, it is uncontested that certain of the revised contentions of Intervenor Mary Sinclair are based upon newspaper articles containing information from the anonymous affidavits.
Prehearing conference, August 13, 1982, Transcript at 8359; Licensing Board Order Accepting Contentions (December 30, 1982).
In an order entered on August 31, 1983 the Licensing Board denied GAP's motion to quash the subpoenas in question, concluding that the motion was " premised on the false notion that the Applicant is seeking to expose the identity of the confidential informants." LBP-83-53, 18 NRC at 286. None-theless, the Board, with Consumers' acquiescense, entered a I protective order provided that (1) the names of the affiants and any other identifying information will be deleted from i
subpoenaed documents and need not be disclosed in the depositions; (2) any identifying information inadvertently disclosed
during the deposition will be deleted from the transcript and not revealed by those present; (3) all of the informa- <
tion elicited will be restricted to Applicant's counsel, the NRC staff, Intervenors, and, if necessary, the Board itself; I
and (4) the parties may present to the Licensing Board any '
disputes over what constitutes protected information. Id.,
Appendix, 18 NRC at 289-90. >
On October 3, 1983 GAP moved for recens1deration of the Licensing Board's decision. The Board denied the motion, addressing in more detail GAP's claim of privilege.
The Board found it unnecessary to reach the question of ,
privilege, but pointed out that it had already undertaken c v the balance of interests that would have been required if it
,1 had found that a privilege existed, and.that even assuming the existence of a qualified privilege, "the lack of harm which we found would result from. revealing t e information ;
subject to a protective order would dictate'ouridenial of.
the GAP deponents' motion to quash." LBP-83-64,2.18 NRC k, 768-69. The Board also imposed strict limits onthe scope '
7 of inquiry at the depos!Pi;13. Id. at' 771-72. /,
In their D9':t2 nior,Reviewthefetitioners' press their claims of pru:.13 3 , and assert that their interests dh!
~ ,'
have not been given due consideration in the three decisions that already have been issued by the; Licensing, Board ,
andythe Appeal Board. For the reasons set > fort h' below,; the decisions 'I' i
below have fully accommodated.the interests asserted by-the ,
.i . c jy,
! Petitioners and their petition for review should accordingly# #
jh be denied. .
,1;C.
'I
/) .,<
,. O y ';j
,,[ W'.h i
i ,
.s -
ARGUMENT I. GAP has failed to establish the existence of privilege.
It is a fundamental tenet of the American system of justice that "the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980).
"[E]xceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created, for they are in derogation of the search for the truth." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974). Accordingly, new privileges should be created only where there is a " compelling justification." In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426, 430 rehearing denied 666 F.2d 592 (5th Cir.
1981), cert. denied 457 U.S. 1106 (1982).
The Petitioners are claiming an unprecedented privilege, asserting that the qualified privilege of journal-ists not to reveal confidential sources should be extended to protect GAP's interest in providing information to government agencies.* Petition for Review at 4-5. GAP has simply failed to justify this novel extension of the jour-nalist's privilege.
Courts have been reluctant to extend the privilege enjoyed by the media. See e.g. Wright v.' Patrolman's Benevolent Ass'n., 72 F.R.D. 161 (S.D.N.Y 1976) (journalists' '
privilege not extended to bar association conducting inves-
- GAP's advocacy of the right to promote " full and free flow of information on matters pending before govern-mental bodies and agencies," while certainly laudable,
~
is somewhat ironic goven its actual posture in this case -- seeking to prevent the " full and free flow" of selected portions of the information it gathers..
l tigation of qualifications of judge transferred from criminal to civil bench); In re Dinnan, (denying " academic privilege" asserted to protect deliberations of tenure review committee).
1 The only authority cited by GAP in its Petition for Review to support its expansive view of privilege is a single district court decision which a recognized " scholar's privilege" against disclosure of confidential research notes. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 4, 1984, No. CV-84-0336 (E . D. N . Y . April 9, 1984). Even assuming the soundness of that decision, it does not require recognition of a privilege for GAP.
Scholarly research, like journalism, is a well-established field of endeavor whose benefits to the public have long been recognized. Thus, assuming that the privilege should be extended to scholars, those entitled to the privilege-would constitute a reasonably well-defined group. If the journalist's privilege were extended to organizations such as GAP, which claim privilege based on a generalized right to' gather and disseminate information, and not as part of a long-established institution, then the privilege could just as well be extended to any member of the general public who gathers and disseminates information. See Wright v. Patrolman's Benevolent Association, 72 F.R.D. at 162 (observing that extending the journalists' privilege beyond the media would create serious problems in defining the scope of the privilege). GAP has not justified the open-ended e., tension' of the journalist's privilege it now seeks.
l i
II. The Licensing Board and the Appeal Board applied the balancing test that would have been required if GAP had demonstrated privilege.
l l
l As the petitioners have conceded, even where a First Amendment privilege has been recognized, the courts have balanced the need for information against the potential harm from disclosure. E.g., Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 596 (1st Cir. 1980). See GAP Motion for Reconsideration at 4 (October 3, 1982). The Licensing Board in fact applied the " balancing test" that would have been required if GAP had established a qualified privilege. The Board found that the information sought was relevant to the issues raised in the licensing proceeding, and not obtainable elsewhere, and that its protective order would allow discovery of the information without any harm to GAP. LBP-83-53, 18 NRC at 287, 288; LBP-83-64, 18 NRC at 768-69, 771-72.
GAP suggests in its brief that the Licensing Board did not consider the issue of Applicant's need for the information. Petition for Review at 8. To the contrary, the Licensing Board's finding that the information is needed because it is relevant to contentions already accepted by the Board is apparently uncontested. LBP-83-53, 18 NRC at 288; LBP-83-64, 18 NRC at 771.*
- GAP implies that Consumers' real purpose in seeking the subpoenas is-not to obtain relevant evidence'but discredit GAP. Petition for Review at 7 and n. 11. The Licensing Board already has examined portions of a deposition transcript that were asserted to support this claim
GAP's suggestion that the Licensing Board failed to consider its interests is likewise without foundation.
The only interest GAP has ever asserted is an interest in protecting the identities of the anonymous affiants. The protective order entered by the Licensing Board takes elaborate precautions to protect those identities. The order allows GAP to make the initial determination of what infor-mation to wihthhold because it may lead to disclosure of identities, and it closely restricts the persons to whom even non-confidential information about the affidavits may be disclosed. Protective Order, Appendix to LBP-83-53, 18 NRC at 289-90.
Throughout these proceedings GAP has failed to suggest any reason other than pure speculation and unsubstan-tiated accusations why the Licensing Board's elaborate protective order is inadequate to protect the affiants' identities. See LBP-83-64, 18 NRC at 769-80 & n. 4, 5. As the Licensing Board observed, " licensing and appeal boards have acted on the assumption that protective orders will be obeyed," and if a party has "an actual, as opposed to purely (cont.)
- and concluded that most of the questions contained i
there sought relevant information, and did "not appear to represent an attempt to discredit either GAP-or the l witness who. sought GAP's assistance." LBP 83-64, 18 NRC at 771. Nonetheless, the Board has given the parties careful guidance'about the scope of discovery and has ordered that the GAP deponents will be allowed to refuse to answer questions on grounds of relevance, subject to later consideration-by the Licensing Board.
Id. at 771-72. The Licensing Board not only considered GAP's concerns about overbroad discovery, it afforded generous protection against inquiry into irrelevant ~
matters.
theoretical risk "of a breach, then it has "the obligation to document that basis," Id,. at 287-88, quoting Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB 735, 18 NRC 19, 25, 26 (1983).
GAP has suggested that any disclosure of the substance of the affidavits will necessarily lead to dis-covery of the affiants' identities. Hearing of Motion to Quash, July 26, 1983, Transcript at 19084. GAP's stated policy on disclosures of anonymous allegations belies any genuine fear that this is so.
An affidavit submitted by GAP to the Licensing Board states that GAP's understandings with at least three of the anonymous affiants contemplate public f melosure of' the substance of their affidavits in varying degrees of detail. Affidavit of Billie Pirner Garde, Exhibit B to GAP Motion for Reconsideration, at 2, 5, 6 (October 3, 1983).
As the Licensing Board observed, GAP apparently has not attempted to prevent publication of " selected information" from the affidavits. LBP-83-64, 18 NRC at 770. As the Licensing Board also observed, " GAP's desire to shield its operations from scrutiny while nevertheless permitting i,
allegations against the Applicant to be revealed anonymously to newspapers is grossly unfair to the Applicant and'to the adjudicatory process itself." LBP-83-64, 18 NRC at 770-71.
(
l See also Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 97 F.R.D. 703, 706 ;
V (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (denying claims of privilege for internal investigation of "60 Minutes" broadcast accusing General William Westmoreland of misrepresenting the strength of enemy forces, when report already had been " held out . . .
to the public as substantiating [CBS'] accusations"). GAP's stated policy on disclosures to the press, and the selective public disclosure of portions of the affidavits, rule out any genuine claim that the substance of the affidavits was i
ever intended to be maintained in total confidence.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons Consumers Power Company respectfully submits that GAP's Petiton for Review should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, I CGNSUMERS POWER COMPANY a ,
By: y !) mde.
One of its Attorneys David M. Stahl Sarah H. Steindel ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National' Plaza
- Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 DATED: May 2, 1984 4
I I
.- ~ . . _ _ - .- .-
, I 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
! I, Sarah H. Steindel, one of the attorneys for
.- Consumers Power Company, hereby certify that copies of the-Memorandum of Consumers Power Company Opposing GAP's Petition
> for Review were served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first
! class postage prepaid, in accordance with the Commission's i Rules of Practice.
") 1).
1
}-
,_ r ,i XZu .. .l. A i,
Sarah H. Steindel s
a 4
s l
i i
}
s I
a,
, Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Attorney General of the Atomic Safety & Licensing State of Michigan Board Panel Carole Steinberg, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 Environmental Protection Division Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 720 Law Building 6152 North Verde Trail, Apt. #B-125 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Cherry & Flynn Atomic Safety & Licensing Three First National Plaza Appeal Board Suite 3700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Chicago, Illinois 60602 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Mr. Scott W. Stucky 4625 South Saginaw Road Chief, Docketing & Services Midland, Michigan 48640 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Office of the Secretary Mr. Steve Gadler Washington, DC 20555 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 William D. Paton, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Ms. Mary Sinclair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
5711 Summerset Street Washington, DC 20555 Midland, Michigan 48640 Atomic Safety & Licensing James E. Brunner, Esq. Board Panel Consumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
212 West Michigan Avenue Washington, DC 20555 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Jerry Harbour Mr. D. F. Judd Atomic Safety & Licensing Babcock & Wilcox Board Panel P.O. Box 1260 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Barbara Stamiris Ms. Lynne Bernabei 5795 North River Road Mr. Thomas Devine Route #3 Mr.-Louis Clark Freeland, Michigan 48623 Government Accountability Project of the Institute Samuel A. Haubold, Esq. for Policy Studies Kirkland & Ellis 1901 "Q" Street, N.W.
200 East Randolph Drive Washington, DC 20009 Suite 6000 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Frederick C. Williams, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. Robert Brown, Jr., Esq. 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Clark, Klein & Beaumont Suite 840 1600 First Federal Bldg. Washington, DC 20036
[ 1001 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 -
John Demeester, Esq Dow Chemical Build.ing Michigan DivisiLn Midland, MI 4f640
(\ x L
e Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
{ Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky
; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
)
i l
i A
i k
1 1
l
,}}