ML20148H905

Memorandum Following Telcon.* Summary of 880121 Telcon W/Applicants,Atty General of Massachusetts & NRC to Discuss Implications of Rockingham County Newspapers,Inc FOIA Request 88-28 on Proceeding.Served on 880125

ML20148H905
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/22/1988
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#188-5425 OL, NUDOCS 8801270326
Download: ML20148H905 (4)

Text

1, . S)YS'S i

00cKEice BD 1/22/88*8C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 JAN 25 #0:40 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD QFFICE Gf ilst it.t:(

00CXEitna a scavict, Before Administrative Judges: BRM Ivan W. Snith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED JAN 251988 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL  :

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, el a_1 (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) ) January 22, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOLLOWING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE The Licensing Board requested counsel for the Applicants, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the NRC Staff, respectively, to join in an infonnal telephone conference call convened at 11:00 a.m. on j

January 21, 1988. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the l

implications to this proceeding of a Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request by Rockingham County Newspapers, Inc. (F0IA-88-28). The conference was called without notice to the other parties and without verbatim reporting because the Board believed that prompt action on its part might be necessary for the proper management of the forthcoming i

evidentiary hearing on the emergency plans for the Massachusetti, l

! communities.

l 8801270326 880122 3 DR ADOCK 050 T

I f

9 I l

I l

'By^way of background, the Comission, in its Memorandum and Order of November 25, 1987 lifting the stay of low power aperation,I required as a condition of low power operation, that Applicants provide to the Staff and FEMA infonnation previously delcted from the proposed ,

I I

emergency plan for the Massachusetts comunities. As we later learned, the deleted infonnation included the names and addresses of entities who have agreed to provide Massachusetts-related services in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station. The Comission also directed that, prior to low power operation, Applicants must indicate their willingness  ;

to provide the deleted information to the other parties to tne proceeding, leaving it to the Licensing Board to fashion any needed protective order. Order, Slip op. at 6-7.

The Applicants provided the infonnation to the NRC Staff with a request that it be treated as proprietary infonnation, apparently pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.790(a)(4).

The matter surfaced at the evidentiary hearing when the Massachusetts Attorney General demanded the information and the Applicants agreed to provide it, but only under a protective order with disclosure to the parties only. The Massachusetts Attorney General and l other intervencrs object to a protective order, arguing that the public l

l Memorandum and Order (Lifting the Order Staying the Director of l Nuclear Reactor Regulation From Authorizing Low Power Operations l i

Due to the Lack of an Emergency Plan for Hassachusetts), November 25,1987(unpublished).

l

i is entitled to the information. The Applicants, on the other hand, posit that, from a purely legal consideration, the infonnation need not be made available at all until contentions on the Massachusetts plan are filed. Tr. 8398-8425, 8987-9004. No agreement was reached and the matter was deferred. Tr. 9004.

On January 21, 1988 the Chainnan of the Licensing Board was routinely provided with a copy (attached) of the F0IA request by Rockingham County Newspapers. They request the information redacted from the public version of the Massachusetts plan -- the infonnation that is the subject of the discovery dispute before the Board.

The Board was concerned that an early public release of the redacted infennation under F0IA would moot the issue before it to the detriment of its management of this proceeding. The telechone conference call was convened to detennine whether the Applicants knew of the F0IA request and whether they would be informed before the information is released.

The Board indicated that it was sensitive to the arguments made by i Applicants and that it believed that a temporary protective order might be appropriate until the issue could be briefed. Neither counsel for Applicants nor the Massachusetts Attorney General had known about the FOIA request. Counsel for the NRC Staff, after consulting with Mr.

Edwin Reis, Office of the General Counsel, reported that the Applicants l

would be advised before any release of the information and that the NRC Staff had not yet determined whether the information should be exempted from FOIA release. It became evident that Applicants will be provided l

l l

t!

an opportunity to seek appropriate relief in the event the NRC Staff decides to release the information t:nder FOIA. No action by the Board  !

\

is needed now.

The discussion then turned to when the request for the redacted i information and the need for any order protecting it should be entertained by the Licensing Board. The Massachusetts Attorney Ceneral and Applicants agreed to brief the matter on the merits without delay.

But when the conference participants reflected on the fact that other intervenors must be heard on the issue, the matter was deferred until a fonnal recorded telephone conference of the parties to be set for the following week.2 Participants in the January 21 telephone conference call may offer any additions or corrections to this memorandum on the record during the forthcoming telephone conference.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/

j'7 van/$

- W. Ditfi,Thairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland January 22, 1988 2

Subsequently a formal telephone conference of the parties was set for Wednesday, January 27, 1988.

.. . . _ _ _