ML22230A114

Tran-M790910: Public Meeting Oral Argument in the Matter of Duke Power Company (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 -- Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at Mc Guire Nuclear Station)

ML22230A114
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/10/1979
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M790910
Download: ML22230A114 (42)

Text

ffl_URN JO SECRET NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE MATTER OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE SNM-1773 -- TRANSPORTA-TION OF SPENT FUEL FROM OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION FOR STORAGE AT MC GUIRE NUCLEAR STATION)

Place -Washington, D. C.

Date - Monday, 10 September 1979 Pages 1-40 Telephone:

(202) 3.47-3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Offici.al Reporters 444 North Capitol Street

• Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE.- DAILY

CR6996 1 DTSCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of th~ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Monday. 1 o September , 979 in t.11e Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washingto;n, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may 'contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general inforinational I

purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9 .103, it is not part o:f the formal I

or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.: Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflec~I final determinations or beliefs. No pleading. or other paper ~ay be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as-- the result of o;r addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as; the Commission may authorize.

i I.

R6996 2

- 2 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE .MATTER OF DUKE POWER COMPANY; (AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE SNM-1773 -- TRANSPORTATION or SPENT FUEL 6 FROM OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION FOR STORAGE AT MC GUIRE NUCLEAR.

STATION) 7 8

Room 1130 9 1717 H Street, N. o/*

Washington, D. C. 1 10 I I

Monday, 10 September I 1979 1l The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:55 a.m.

- 12 13 14 BEFORE:

DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman VICTOR GILINSKY, Cornrniaaioner 15

' ~ ~* v.;,:--" *-**

16 17 PRESENT:

18 Messrs. Bickwit, Mallory, Eilperin, Hoyle, McOsker, I Sawyer, 19 Roisman, Porter, Riley, *and Christenberg.

20

-- 21 22 23 I I

24 I.-

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

16996 0 I 01 '3

- MM PROCcEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we can come to order, why 3 don't we get started. The Commission, which is li~ited just 4 to the chairman this morning, meets this morning to hear 5 oral aigument in the matter of Duke Power Company I am 6 sorry, I thought you were*n" t coming.

7 (Commissioner Gilinsky enters hearing rdom.)

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We meet this morning :to hear I

I 9 oral argument on the matter of Duke Power Company,. the 10 amendment on Materials License SNM 1.773, for tran~portation

.11 of spent fuel from Ocon.ee Nuclear Station for sto~age at 12 Maguire.

13 The meeting is an open meeting, and it i,s my hope 14 that we can maintain it as an open meeting. Howe~er, if it 15 becomes nece.ssary to hear some of the material whi,ch is --

16 which relates directly to routing and which would 'be 17 considered exempt material, why, we will have to go into 18 closed portion of the mEeting.

I 19 Last Friday, the Commission somewhat abr:uptly 20 issued an interim order suspending temporarily but going 21 forward with the proceeding which was to have gone on this 22 morning, to examine the question of whether we should 23 continue we should protect certain information in this 24 case.

I I

25 Our purpose this morning is to examine whether

169S-6 01 02 4

• [*i

'" 'Ii

.r1,1 that in t er i m rel i e f s ho u l d be continued in e ff e ct 'to a 11 ow 2 the Commission time to examine the merits of this case.

3 I will note that the other Commissioner~ will be 4 reading the transcript of this morning's discussi~n and 5 that, if we deal with the merits of the case, it ~ill of I 6 course be on the basis of a quorum of the Commissipn, and I

7 that will be at some later time, presumably as so~n as we 8 can gather a quorum.

9 With at least that much introduction, lit me ask I

10 the general counsel or Mr. Eilperin if they would like to 1 11 add some f urt he~ initial remarks here.

I 12 MR. EILPERIN: We have allotted the tim~ to each I

13 party of perhaps 20 minutes.

I 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes .. I would hope that we 15 could hear the oral arguments in something like 15 or 20 16 minutes per party, of those who want to speak. And if 17 someone will give me some direction as to who wou1d like to 18 start, why, please go ahead.

19 MR. OLMSTEAD: I believe, Mr. Chairman, on behalf xxx 20 of the staff, I am Mr. William Olmstead, and I would like to 21 go on behalf of our petition.

22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Very good. Go ahead~

23 Mr. Ol stead.

24 MR. OLMSTEAD: Chairman Hendrie, 25 Commissioner Gilinsky, the staff is here because they are

I Q_;,y6 0 I 03 5

• Iv\M confronted with a classical logical dilemma. The New 2 American Heritage Dictionary defines a classical l~gical I

3 dilemma as 11 a choice betw_een alternatives in an ad1versary I

4 proceeding where either alternative leads for forfeiting 5 one"s position."

I 6 In this particular case, we are confronted with 7 precisely that, because we are told that we shoul~ provide I

e specific factual informacion in order to show tha~ our claim I

9 and specific in camera information in this case ought to be 10 protected; and at the same time, we are told that ,we can"t 11 have an in camera proceeding in order to review that I

12 information and to verify that the staff-"s representation in I

13 that regard is correct. That"s the first point I Mould like 14 to make.

15 I do have a preliminary point dealing w~th an 16 eminently reasonable request that was made of the 'staff. In 17 the hearing when the board provided us 30 days to ,bring this i

18 appeal, Mr. Reisman, on behalf of NRDC, Mr.Riley, on behalf 1

19 of CESG, the state, and other parties, pointed out that the 20 30 days would run approximately two days before the hearings 21 were to commence this morning before the licensing board 22 here in Washington.

23 They asked that they be informed when t~e staff I

24 determined whether or not it would seek relief from either 25 the appeal board or Commission. We found that request to be I

16996 01 04 ' 6

-  :'.\M reasonable, and we indicated that we would do that.

2 However, due to mitigating circumstances which the 3 staff feels surrounds this case and the procedural 4 complexity of this case, that decision to seek review was 5 not made until August 31. So, the parties and the 6 Commission got very short notice of this appeal, ~nd for 7 that we are sincerely apologetic.

B However, in view of the novel policy and legal 9 issues, I would like to move directly to the issu~s.that you 1O asked us to address this morning; namely, whether 'specific 11 routes are al ready in the public re cord of this proceeding; 12 number two, whether it's possible to discuss the ~eneral 13 routing rather than the specific routing in this Rroceeding; 14 and number three, what the harm to the public int~rest would 15 be from disclosure.

16 Taking the first point, the staff rspresentation I

17 to the licensing board to the appeal board and to 1the I

18 CommLssion is _that the specific routes now approved for Duke I

19 Power Company are not in the record of this proce~ding.

I 20 Now, that representation was made to the licensing board, 21 but the licensing board based its finding on its J_'belief 22 that most of the route information was already public.~

23 A close examination of the records will1show that 24 that belief is based on looking at a map of the state and 25 assuming that most of the route has to be on Interstate 85.

- - ________ .**~' --

6.;:Y6 0 I 05 7 That belief is based on an argument by counsel in 'the 2 proceeciing, both the applicant and Mr. Roisman, o~ behalf of 3 the NRCC, which said that since the Commission's rule was to 4 avoid thJ transport of spent fuel through congest~d areas I

5 and the only congested area on this route was Charldtte, 6 therefore ipso facto the route changes must invol~e only 7 that area of the route around Charlotte, therefor~, less d than 10 percent.

Y Applicant's counsel, of course, was in the I

1O position of representing a client who was appealir).g the II staff's denial of its primary route which was precisely up 12 Interstate 85 and through Charlotte, and that app~al was not

/

13 finalized to the director of NMSS until Friday afternoon, at 14 which time the director denied that appeal.

15 So, the only party who had no interest in the 16 routes in terms of whether they should be protected under 17 the Commission's new rule was the NRC staff, and the staffJs 18 position was the Commis~ion's policy, which became effective 19 in July, should be applied in this case, and that means I

1 20 treating specific route information confidential. I 21 The staff maintains that an in camera rJview of I

22 that information by the decisionmaking o.fficial _..,;. either 23 the licensing board, the appeal board, or this Co~mission 24 is the only way to verify for certain that those :i;-outes are 25 not in the public record of this proceeding.

16996 01 06 8

i\'lfr\ The staff is prepared to make the off er ,of proof 2 that it was prepared to make before the licensing ,board in 3 this proceeding, if the Commission so desires.

I 4 The second point that I wish to address,that the 5 Commission raised in its order was whether general routing 6 information, rather than specific routing information, will 7 be sufficient to conclude the record in this proceeding.

I 8 NRDC has a sabotage contingent. On the record at 9 transcript 3221, counsel for NRDC indicated that ~e wished 10 to cross-examine on whether the route approved for Duke I

11 Power Company complies with the CommissionJ's regu+ation.

12 Now, to some degree, that can be done generally.

I 13 It is possible, however, that specific route information 14 will be n_eeded to verify certain aspects of that:

15 contention. Carolina Environmental Study Group has a 16 contention concerning health effects to people along the 17 specific route. There already has been cross-examination in I

18 this record abowt the population along the originally 19 proposed route which is in the public record, on which 20 specific cross-examination has been allowed.

I 21 And finally, I might point out that the 1 i censing 1

I 22 board itself thought that information on the routes of the 23 specific -- of a specific nature - would be nece*ssary. An I

24 implication to that effect can be found at transcript page 25 3225.

6YY6 01 07 9

• Iv\M Now, turning to the third aspect of the 1 2 Commission/s order - namely, harm to the public interest 3 the Commission/s new rule, which became effective ,in July, 4 is to prevent hijack and sabotage of spent fuel shipments in 5 congested areas. Two concerns: One is interception of that 6 shipment in a congested area; two is interception of that 7 shipment and movement of it to a congested area.

8 The board ruled that the regulations became 9 effective in July were not -applicable. You will find that 10 at transcript 3237. The appeal board apparently accepted 11 that rationale, citing Wolf Creek, for the proposition that 12 proprietary information which has become a matter 'of the 13 public domain is no longer entitled to protection~

I 14 The staff would suggest to the Commission that 15 it/snot entirely clear that Wolf Creek applies irl this 16 situation. And you may wish to have that briefed by the 1

17 parties. I would point out two distinctions that:ought to 18 be made on the Wolf Creek case.

19 First of all, the Wolf Crsek case involved a 20 situation where company confidential competitive information 21 was at stake. The company wanted to protect the 22 information. The company was not directed by the NRC to so 23 protect the informationn, and requested protection for the 24 information. In such circumstances, when that information I

25 became a part of the p.1bl ic domain, the appeal bo 9rd ruled

6.996 OJ 08 10 I

il,1 that that information was no longer entitled to protection.

2 I would contrast that, however, with th~ Indian 3 Point decision, which you will find at 8 AE 420 AtiAB 228 and I

4 the Porta County chapter of the Isaac Wal ton Leag4e of I

5 America v. AEC 380F(630), where it was agreed that in the 6 securities area, security information was entitled to I

7 protection. In the Indian Point case, we were de~ling with I

I 8 plant-specific security plans when a new Commissi~n y regulation went into effect. At that point, the appeal I

JO board held it no longer had any discretion under the I

11 regulation; it was bound by it. And we sumit to ~ou that 12 that's the case here. I

- 13 14 15 practice.

Furthermore, this is consistent with Co~mLssion I

It's our understanding that in the Vir9inia I

Sunshine Case v. Hendrie, staff aft idavi ts were prepared I

i and 16 filed in that case following the promulgation of your rule I

17 saying that this was now current Commission practice, which 18 is the position that the staff attempted to take before the 19 licensing board.

i 20 Having addressed the thrse points in yoijr order, I 21 would like to summarize.

22 Number one, the staffJs contention is t~e routes I

23 have not been disclosed in this case. Two, there are 1

I.

24 contentions in this case which may require the parties to I

25 have access to this information, which they can have under

I69Y6 Ol OY ll i

-i!Ui[ protective orders pursuant to the Diablo Canyon deFision, I

2 and that that information may 9e relevant to exist1ing

/'

contentions, and it may be necessary to have some 1in camera

- 3 4 review of that specific information for them to formalize 5 their contentions~

6 7

10

_l 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CR6996 MM t.2 jl 1 12 I

Number 3, that the public interest whichiyour regula-1 2 tion was designed to protect will not be protected~ by*. the I

3 release of this information; namely,that public interest was 4 to prevent making it easy for saboteur to get acce$s to 5 specific route information so that he could plan a* attack on I

6 a fuel shipment and move it into a congested area and thus I

7 harm the public.

8 Counterbalancing that is the interest inlthe parties I

9 in having access to that information which . they ca~ have under 10 Diablo Canyon in order to pursue their contentions'. The Staff

,,I 11 feels, in the balance, the Commission's regulation1 ought to be I

12 applied in this case. Consequently, we would recomment the I

13 following:

I 14 That you have in camera review of the sp~cific route I

15 information if there is any doubt iIJ. your mind with regard to I

16 the Staff's representati,on on point number 1, name ..J..y that the 17 specific route information is not putlic.

18 Number 2, that you make your protective ~rder, which I

19 you issued* on Friday, permanent.

i 20 And number 3, that you direct in camera proceedings i

21 on. any contentions which require the revelation of specific 1

22 route information in this case.

I 23 I would like to reserve a few minutes time for I

24 rebuttal.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

I 25 COMMISSION GILINSKY: Could I just ask y 1ou one I

j1 2 13

• 2 3

question? What is the precise nature of this information?

i t the route? Does timing come into it?

MR. OLMSTEAD:

I Is Part of the testimony which the Staff 4 has prepared for cross-examination on the contenticrm would 5 include timing. The information, as it came up in'the hearing 6 at this point, is the specific routes.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is there one route, or are 8 there alternative routes?

I 9 MR. OLMSTEAD: There are alternative routes, sir.

10 Duke's primary route was disapproved. That was the route that 11 was published in 1978. They came in with alternative routes 12 after the rule became effective in July, and the Staff is 13 protecting those routes at this point.

14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.

15 MR. OLMSTEAD: Any other questions?

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Not at the moment, I guess.

18 COMMISSIONER GILINKSY: Let me ask you one more 19 question. Yo~ are saying that even though there a~e several 20 routes, and knowing them would not necessarily te1:1 you exactly 21 which way the fuel is moving in each specific instance or when I

22 i t was moving. Nevertheless, that is information which should 23 be protected?

24 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes, and there is a reason for that, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

I 25 and- I hesitate to go too much further into what th~ reason is.

j1 3 14

• 2 3

I think when you see the routes you can ~ee immediate-ly what the reason is.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.

xxxx 4 ORAL ARGUMENT BY TONY ROISMAN 5 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissionerl Gi linsky ,* if 6 I had my way, I'd take a week recess, because I learned of the I

I 7 oral argument this morning, about an hour and a half I ago. The 8 telephonic message to my office at 5:30 on Friday aid not reach 9 me until I readhed the hearing room this morning.

I I

10 In addition, of course, the Staff's pape:i::- didn't I

I 11 reach me until several hours after they reached you, which was 12 a little puzzling since your office and my, office are only. a I

13 block away from each other.

I I

14 So I am going to start and talk about something I

you I

15 probably don't want me to talk about, and that is: why the 1*

16 Staff should be allowed to get away with this and why you l

17 knuck,led under to the Staff putting you in this kihd of a bind.

18 Now, the Staff does this all the time, apd you know 19 it. The Staff is slow and in some respects incomp~tent in get~

20 ting its hearing records together, so they spend ap inexcusab.le 21 almost 30 days of a 30-day stay trying to figure out whether to I

I 22 take an appeal. They made their decision on the 31st of August, I

23 but they didntt tell any of us about it. They didhI 1 t tell us I

24 until the papers were filed, so we had even no lead I time to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 know this was coming, no opportunity to prepare for it, no

j1 4 15 I

opportunity to do our own research on it; and, quite frankly, I I

2 think I speak for all the parties when I say that we assumed, I

3 when the Staff didn't take its appeal within a few:days after 4 the conclusion of our hearings. th~t were held in Charlotte in 5 late July/early August, that i t must have meant that the Staff I

6 was not intending to take an appeal at all.

7 The Staff was not only failing to keep t0 a reasonable 8 schedule in taking this appeal, but i t allowed the1hearing to I

9 disclose the bulk of what are going to be the routes of the I

I 10 transshipment of this spent fuel without taking any actions at 11 any earlier stage in the hearing even though the Sandia 12 I Laboratory report, which was the genesis for the regulation I

I 13 which the Commission has now promulgated on this subject, had i

. 14 been out for several months. The Staff simply didn't do its 15 work.

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can I stop you for a moment?

I I 17 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.

18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Isn't the key question whether

. I

. I 19 the public would be harmed*by further disclosures.' The Staff I

I 20 may have or may not have acted improperly. That's; something 21 that ought to be dealt with.

22 MR. ROISMAN: I confess if it were not the case that I

23 the .Staff's position is frivolous on the merits, i t would be I

I 24 harder for me to make the argument about the Staff 1' s conduct.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 But nonetheless, this kind of sad conduct is always putting the

.,I

jl 5 16 I

Commissioner's in this kind of a position and putting us and 2 the public in this kind of 'a positi~n. The public~s position I

I 3 is not going to be adequately represented here to ~ou, and there 4 is no way that it could be. The Staff spent 30 days meditating 5 about this. They had plenty of time to pull all ofI their I

6 record references, all of their citations -- you heard I them this 7 morning tell you that there are some affidavits in1the record 8 of a case involving the Commission, a District Court case in I

I 9 which some affidavits were put in by the Staff abo,;it the routing 10 question. I've never seen those. I didn't learn ~ out them __

11 until I saw the Staff's document. I had no way to!get to those, 12 b~cause the public document room was closed by the:time I got 13 my copy of it.

I 14 You 1*re being asked to take it on faith. I Your General 15 Counsel's office presumably has the affidavits, I ~on' t.

i 16

\

Now, there's a public interest involved ~n seeing to

. I 17 i t that you have a chance to make the right decisipn. We don't I

18 have to worry here. We've already got three Licen~ing Board I

19 members and three Appeal Board members who have already said 20 that this isn't worth a whit it terms of being up in front of I

21 the Commissioners.

I 22 You wouldn't have to worry. They're fairly competent I

23 -- those six people. So I'm not concerned. My cohscience isn't I

24 bothered by telling you it* would be perfectly responsible for 1 I Ace*Federal Reporters, Inc.

I 25 you to say to the Staff,. "This is too late. You'v¢ had two

jl 6 17

• 2 bites at thi's apple; you've lost both of them; you,'ve done your work very incompetently, and we will not contenanc~ it by giving

- 3 4

5 you the benefit of our review of what six very competent people have already told us."

I Now, I think that's a respectable thing for you to 6 do, so I'm not bothered by that. I think it's a legitimate I

I 7 issue in this case, whether the Commissioners shou_id take their I

8 time to look at an issue when the Staff wasn't wil~ling to do I

I 9 its work properly.

10 And I think it's. important, if you don't! ever put your 11 foot down to the Staff, they will continue to do this. I This I

12 isn't the first time it's happened; it won't be the last time,

. ' I 13 because they'll always get away with it. It's jus:t like a I

14 child who learns that the parent will always give 'in in the end I

15 if they throw their tantrum.

16 Mr. Olmstead has thrown his tantrum, end ¥OU are giving 17 in. They threw the tantrum last Friday; they rush:ed up to you I

18 with their papers; they said, "The world is going :to come to an 19 end." Three technical people and three lawyers said, "No.

I No, 20 the world isn't corning to an end. It's a perfect~y reasonable I

I 21 order."* I I

22 I think the Commission should simply ha~e not taken review of the matter at all, but I will get to the merits next, 23 I 24 if you like.

Ace-Federal. Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would.

jl 7 18

- 2 MR. ROISMAN: All right. We have two sections of the regulation that are involved,. 2.790(d) and 73.37. :I You can read I

3 them in as much detail as you like, and there isn't a work in 4 there that says anything about keeping the routes for spent I

s fuel shipments confidential. There is .nothing in the i

I, 6 Commission's 73. 37 regulation which says that tout~ng informa-7 tion is even relevant to safeguards.

8 If you take a look at that section, you will see that 9 it even has in it provision to allow the shipment ;of spent fuel 10 by rail.

11 Now, I don't want to go into great detai 1, but you 1

I I

I 12 know the options on rail are somewhat limited. Rqutes are not

• I 13 a big secret i tern, and nobody thought that know1ng the route of 1

I 14 .the spent fuel shipment was the key to the safeguards question.

15 When you promulgated the regulation bac~ in June 15th i

16 of this year, you said, "The focus of concern" -- :and I'm I

17 quoting from the Federal Register now -- "is on possible I

18 successful acts of sabotage in densely populated urban areas.

I 19

• That's what. you were concerned with, and of course that's what I

20* the Sandia Laboratory addressed. There was no redord in front I

21 of you to suggest that knowing routing informatio~ was the 22 crucial flaw in the shipment of spent fuel. The concern was 23 that a saboteur might grab that shipment tn*a highly populated I

. I 24 area, and* theri by using shaped charged and other devices dis-

. . . . I Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

I 25 cussed in the Sandia Laboratory, threatened to release that I

I

jl 8 19 I

material, And because there would be so many people around, 2 the threat would be so much more critical if it were made near 3 downtown Charlotte than if it were made out where there I were 4 only a few cows and people around who could be easily moved out 5 of the area, That was the focus of the concern.

I 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How do you react:to I the point 7 that the material could be moved into a populated ~rea?

8 MR, ROISMAN: I believe you covered that,by making I

9 sure the truck would be disable. In other words, you addressed i

10 the problem IDf keeping it out of the populated -- ~y purpose 11 here is not to argue with you about whether your regulation 12 went far enough,_ but I think you* tried to 'address those ques-13 tions. I I

14 First, don't deliberately go through a populated I

15 area. And even that, you didn't say i t was prohibited. You I

I 16 said i t should be avoided if at all possible. And: the Staff I

17 has interpreted that, in this case, as requiring tpat it not 18 go at least through the Charlotte area~ which is the most 19 densely populated of the a:i:-eas on the original proposed route, I

20 not the only densely populated area. So routing doesn't seem I

21 to have been crucial". You didn't think i t was crucial.

I I

22 N:ow, 2. 790 (*d) relates to **not* the questidn of whether I

I 23 or not everything an Applicant submits in

• response to a 1 I

- 24 Commission safeguard regulation should be kept sec;ret. That Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. i 25 section says,:' in***.pertinent part, "The corresponden!ce to and

j1 9 20 I

1. from the NRC which identify a Licensee's or .A.pplic<:1-nt' s pro-I 2 cedures for safeguarding license, special nuclear material, or I

3 detailed security measures for the provision of prbtection of I

4 the license facility or plant in which licensed sp~cial nuclear I

5 material is possessed, and in the statement of considerations 6 with reference to that promulgated provision, the Commission I

I 7 said -- and this is back in 19 76 in the Federal Re9ister --

8 41 Federal Register 1180 8. They clarified a provision of the 9 proposed regulations and said, to clarify it, that "such 1

I 10 documents would be withheld from disclosure if they identify I

I 11 security measures."

So the key is that the Applicant is not to disclose 12 13 a security measure. That's what we're trying to a~oid.

I 14 Now, nothing in your regulations, as now,promulgated,

• I 15 or in your statement of considerations in support bf them, or 16 in your underlying document prepared by Sandia, wh1ch generated I

I 17 it all, suggests that knowing routes had a securitr measure 18 concern. Now that's not an illogical position.

19 If you look at the record of this proceeding -- and 20 I'm sorry I can't give you the*exact transcript pa~es -- you 21 will see there was some extensive discussion, and the Staff I

22 witness -- I believe it was a Mr. Glen -- testified when we I

23 were arguing about whether people would be exposed! to radiation I

1 24 just when the truck was moving along the ,road, the shine that Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 comes out of the cask, and he said, "Well, nobody is going to

j 1 10 21 I

I get near this vehicle., because it's going to be cl~arly marked I

2 on the side with a great big sign that warns people that there's 3 radioactive m*aterial in there."

I 4 I think the Chairman of the Licensing Bo,ard put it I

5 aptly: "It sounds like someone is trying to hide :an elephant 6 in -the tulips." This is not some secret, clandesti'ne shipment I

I 7 that's taking place of a little bit of plutonium h;idden away I

a in somebody's handbag. We are moving a huge tract:or trailer I

9 truck with an enormous cask on it, clearly marked lthatI it's *.

10 radiation material.

11 Now, anybody -- if we' re talking about anybody who 12 wants to sabotage one of these, we already know th is isn't a 1

13 casual saboteur. They have to do a little pla~ni~g. They have 14 got to have their detailed material available to b 1reak open the

• I 15 cask. No big trick to stand in front of the Duke :Power 16 Company's plant at Oconee and watch for the trucks,. Anything I

I 17 that's smaller than an elephant you don't have to ;follow; and 18 anything as big as an elephant with a big mark on :the side of I

19 it, you know that's a spent fuel shipment.

I 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You would not have us withhold 21 route information at all then?

I 22 MR. '.ROISMAN: Absolutely not. I don't think I

it makes 23 any sense. E},ut you ,don't have to reach that issue in this

• -~ I 24 case. I think the Staff is trying to make you think you do I

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 have to reach that issue in this case. You don't ~have to reach

jl 11 22 it here because it's all been made public already.: Virtually 2 everything is there.

I 3 Now, the Staff says, "Well, we' re only talking about 4 counsel's representations." And I agree, if it's <i::ounsel' s 5 representations; it wasn't an innocuous counsel, it was I

I 6 Mr. McGarry, who was counsel for the Applicant, who made it 7 quite clear that he had direct knowledge of what the proposed 8 routes that were submitted to the Commission Staff:-- and he's 9 the one who said, at transcript page 3046. "I beli¢ve, for the I

10 record and the Board's edification -- .I believe Mr~ Roisman is I

11 correct. 11 This 1s after I had made the allegation I that I

12 essentially 90 percent of the route was already known.

I I

13 And what we're talking about here is avoiding I

I 14 Charlotte. For all intents and purposes, the route that has i

I 15 been provided the Board previously in the EIA, for; all intents i

16 and purposes, is the same route except for that bypass, at least 17 in one or two of the alternatives -- three alternatives have 18 been approved.

I 19 I admit I haven't seen the routes, but Ii think we are I

20 blinking reality

• And the Staff's discussion in its motion I

21 that technically it's not in the record simply pre~umes that

. I

• 22 nobody could read the record and figure out that. if I you look at I

23 all the maps, and you see that the Applicant despe~ately wants 24 to stay on the interstates anyway, they.have offered affidavits Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 in the public domain in the form of

• testimony that:' s to be

r j 1 12 23 presented at the hearings this week indicating that: they think 2 it's safer to move shipments on interstates than it: is to move 3 them on lesse*r roads. For purposes of safeguarding, one doesn't 4 have to think that it's very unlikely that the Appl,icant' s route 5 include as much interstate as they could possibly get away 6 with; and there's basically only two involved here, and one of 7 them is I-77, and one is I-85.

8 So you didn't have to look beyond this record to find 9 anything. The record already indicates to you that most of the 10 route is already available, and what isn't available will be 11 known to anybody who knows what one of those big yellow and 12 black signs look like.

13 And that will put them into it.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

CR 6996 24 MELTZER t-3 rote 1

All of that.puts me into the question, all right, 2 where does the public interest lie in this case. 'As the

• 3 4

5 Commission is aware, the Natural Resources Defens~ Council I

I has been one of the leading proponents of tougher 1safeguards regulations across the board with regard to speci~l nuclear 6 material, and we were one of the people urging in ;this case 7 that the ability to ship without having any safeguards provi-

- I 8 sions applied to these shipments created a real danger.

9 Therefore, we were happy and applauded the irnplem~ntation of 10 these regulations.

11 But we think that foolish safeguards make no sense I

12 at all. Safeguards that give one the impression ~hat things I

13 are safe when they are not may cause people to take less

'll 14 safe measures than are really needed. . .r 15 The escorts, the armed escorts, are the key to the 16 safeguards here. The communications system that is set up I

17 between the truck and anyone outside, the mechaniJm I for 18 disabling the truck so that it can't be moved, so~that the 19 guy who is driving it -- and of course, the quality assurance 20 in*J the implementation of those measures by the Applicant are key. That's where the safeguards will come, not in this 21 I

22 fictional frivolous routing information.

23 But the public has another side to it. 'The public I

24 side relates to their need and desire to know whether they

.Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

I 25 are going to .be subjected to shipments of radioact,ive wastes

r mte 2 25

- 2 through their communities.

I Now, I think the Commission I

I take official notice, if we had had time, we could have can

• 3 4

5 brought you affidavits that the public is concerned.

want to know:

frankly, I think Is it coming through my town?

I They And quite 1

I the public would read any decision here to 6 close the routing information from public scrutin~ not as a 7 safeguards measure, because the public is smart enough to see I

I 8 that's not any use, but rather as an attempt to keep the 9 public, if they wish to protest the routing of th~t, from 10 being able to stand up and protest it with their ~lacards in 11 town meetings, as has happened in many other parts of the I

- 12 13 14 country where the routing of wastes were known.

There is a real public concern with this, and I would ask the Commissioners to take a look at the,transcript 15 of the Kemeny Commission proceedings that were held two weeks I

16 ago, the one at which Mr. Denton showed up preparjd to present 17 one piece of testimony and the Washington Post sc1oped him

\

18 by reporting on something that he had not .told theI 19 Kemeny Commission about.

20 The whole day was devoted to the Kemeny;commission's

-21 reaction to the fact that they learned about it i*directly.

22 I think that is a lesson in human psychology. I think the I

I 23 *people who suddenly see one of these trucks moving through I

24 their town with the big yellow and black circle on it -- and Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. i I

25 they're going to see it, because you encourage them to move

_J

mte 3 26

- 2 3

by day, and that's right for safeguards -- are goipg to be much more upset about seeing that thing rumbling dbwn their street than they ever would be if they had known in advance I

4 it was coming and had been able to accept it.

5 Deal with the protests. They get more upset by the I

6 1 secret shipment, and I think that's where the publ ic is going I

7 to react.

8 Finally and lastly, we are told that und:er the 9 Diablo standard, if this. information were kept pri~ate, we I

10 would still be able to participate in the proceedi,ng. Now, I

11 I think the staff is being disingenous with you on.this.

- 12 13 14 Number one, I made very clear on the rec'ord in I

I

• arguing this question --- and this was on the day -:- it was J

on August 7, 1979 -- that one of the principal concerns that 15 we had was that our experts would not participate ;in a closed 16 or in camera session, and the reason they wouldn't participate 17 in that session was because they already have, through the 18 public domain, confidential information which they can discuss I

19 publicly because they got i t publicly. If they eier go into I

20 an in camera session, they will be subject to the 1potential 21 for harassment by someone saying it was in the in 1camera 22 session they learned their information.

23 So both Doctors Cochran and Tamplin wou.Id not

. 24 participate .in an in camera session.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 .rn addition, if the Commission looks at ~the I

I

mte 4 27 subsequent history of the Diablo Canyon case, what the 2 Commission will find is that David Corney, the late David Corney, I

- 3 4

5 who served on many expert safeguards panels and a *consultant to the ACRS on that subject, was himself denied access to the safeguards information in the Diablo case, under ;he inter-6 pretation of what the Diablo standard meant.

7 The staff is not offering us any open invitation 8 to participate. They apply a very strict standar*4. And the 9 standard applied by the Licensing Board in the Diablo case 10 when they applied the rule was essentially, if you didn't 11 work with the nuclear industry and have direct pe~sonal 12 knowledge of all the safeguards information from your work, 13 you weren't an expert.

14 I So I think it is misrepresentation to suggest to you I

15 that all of us who are now in the hearing, this very narrow 16 group of the public, will even be able to see this safeguards 17 information. Under the Diablo standard, that's c~rtainly an 18 open question.

19 In conclusion, this is a know-nothing case. It I

20 doesn't belong in front of you, even on the merits. And on 21 top of that, you have simply encouraged the staff:to pull 22 this kind of shenanigan again. There's a hearing1going on 23 now out in Bethesda and I should be there. But I'can't

- 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 because in order to meet the staff's ~rtificially created set of deadlines, you had to hold your hearing simultaneously

mte 5 28

- 2 with that hearing. So Mr. Riley is not here and the State of South Carolina and their representatives ,are not

- 3 4

5 here, because they are out at the hearing.

staff's I haven't been able to write a response to the document as it now appears. I haven_'t been able to 6 look at the citations they have given you. I haven't had an 7 opportunity to check the case involved in the Virginia 8 protesting groip, the "Sunshine Alliance." You don't have the 9 benefit of any of that. You yourselves are down to two; you're 10 below a legal quorum.

11 We are acting under pressure, all because the staff 12 can't get its act together. Now, how do you make.the staff I

13 do its job right? You punish them when they don't, until they 14 learn. What you have done is, they have acted wrong and you've 15 given them a lollipop.

I 16 I urge you to dismiss the appeal, not to decide it, 17 and let the Licensing and Appeal Board decision stand.

18 -Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Done under 20 m1nute$.

I Very .good.

20 Let's see. *You wanted a couple of minutes to 21 respond?

22 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes, sir.

I I

23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Before you start, could I I

24 ask you: Are these trucks in fact marked clearly1as containing Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 radioactive material?

rote 6 29 I

MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes, they are, sir. And II would like 2 to address that point, if I might.

- I 3 4

5 question.*

COMMISSIONER GILiNSKY: Can I ask you one I

Are the local authorities informed that such shipments will be made through ~heir areas?

I more 6 MR. OLMSTEAD: My understanding is they are informed, 1

I 7 with the request that they keep the information ccinfidential.

I I

8 And with one exception, that has been respected throughout the I

9 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, how can the fact that I

I 11 the trucks pass through*the area be confidential if they're 12 clearly marked?

13 MR. OLMSTEAD: Well, I think what we areI missing I

14 here is the point, and the point is, how does one;find out I

I 15 what all the routes are so that they can be absohitely certain I

I 16 that the truck is going to pass by the point at w~ich they I

I 17 wish to sabotage it. And the security people tel+ me that 18 their concern is that, if we are able to prevent them from 19 knowing the specific route, that then one is forc~d to follow I

20 these trucks all along the route to find out what: the route 21 is, and the chance of detection is much greater because the 22 truck drivers are trained to observe following cars.I I

. outsi"d e th e plant 23 And one would also have to wait

. I I

24 gate, waiting for a shipment, thus enhancing the ;Likelihood Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 of detection. I

rote 7 30

• 2 I might point out in that regard that at one point I

in the transcript of this proceeding Mr. Reisman, ;in represent-1 3 ing his position to the board, at transcript 3197 ,1 said:

I 4 "We share the concern that the Commissiqn has 5 expressed in its regulations and that the staff h~s i expressed I

6 rere, that the knowledge of where the transshipments are going I

I 7 to go is a significant fact which could be useful 1in an attempt I

8 to- sabotage spent fuel, and we agree with the un:dJrlying

- I I

9 premise of the Commission's regulations, which ar~ that there 10 is a genuine threat of sabotage of spent fuel."

11 I might point out that the staff also provided and I

I '

12 marked to the Licensing Board Staff Exhibit No. 23, which is I

I 13 a memorandum -:to_:_ Mr. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, 14 dated June 25, 1979, from William J. Dircks, setting forth i

15 specifically the staff position that specific det4ils of I

16 approved routes, strip maps and notices of shipme~ts will be 17 considered commercial license information pursuant to 18 10 CFR 2790 (d) (1) .

I 19 So it's not true that Commission policy~ at least as I

20 understo_od and interpreted by the staff, was not before the I

21 board, and it was very clear that routes fell under 2790(d)

I I

22 and nobody challenged the staff on that represent~tion. The I .

23 staff lost that issue solely because everybody st~od up and

. I 24 said, we don't believe the routes could possibly!not be in the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I i

25 record. But nobody ever looked at the routes to determine I

mte 8 31 whether they were in the record or not.

2 So what we have are representations. M~. Roisman I

• 3 I refers you back to Mr. McGarry, and if you will recall, I I

4 indicated in my opening that Mr. McGarry was representing the I

I I

5 Applicant, who was appealing the staff's determin~tion at that I

6 very moment, wanting to go back to the primary route and use I

e-3 7 I-85. The staff denied that appeal only last Friday.

I 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

1 25

-p 6996 04 0 l MM 2

I I,d also like to talk about hiding elephpnts in I

tulips versus the public interest, public need to ~now, for I

32 I

3 shipment. On the one hand, Mr. Reisman tells you ;you can't I

4 hide these trucks. They're very visible. And on the other I

) hand, he says if the public doesn" t know this inf o,rma t ion I

5 publicly, they will never inow that a shipment is going by their house.

8 Now, the fact is they will know. The fact is that

-J our regulations have uniformly been interprete*d to: allow 10 public intervenors to intervene if they're within 50 miles I

11 of affected nuclear activities and in this partic~lar case, I

12 most of the routes would fall within 50 miles of i I line 13 drawn between McGuire and Oconee.

i 14 So I think there is enough notice to the:

. I public I

l.:i that one had not ought to throw over the policy t~at the I

16 Commission established with the regulation, which 1is i that I

1/ there is a detriment to the public interest in allowing too i

18 much information to be available to potential sabqteurs, I

19 thus enhancing the ability to sabotage the spent ~uel 20 sh:i.pment. I 21 Now, I would like to speak to the Diablq' standard 22 for just a moment.

i 23 COMM! SSIONER GI LINSKY: Can I just ask you about I

24 these alternative routes you mentioned earlier? IIs the idea 1

25 that the shipments would go on one or another of these I

33 6996 04 02 I - P MM routes in some random way?

2 MR. OUliSTEAD: Yes. The staff has approved any I

3 combination of the approved routes *. Now, what I c'an say I

4 publicly is that the staff issued NUREG-0561 in wHich it did I

I indicate that congested areas must be missed by three I

5 miles. So what is known in this puolic record is that 1 I

Charlotte must be missed by three mil es. That-" s the extent I

I 8 to which anybody would know, factually, *what the change in routes would be. I 10 Now, you can base a lot of thinking on ~ssumption I

11 and belief and if I were doing it this is the way I would do 1 I

12 it. But the only way to know for sure is to 1 ook ;at the I

13 specific routes and decide if it"s something you want to I

14 protect. And that"s why the staff felt obligated to bring 1

15 this matter to the Commission in spite of the fact that we 16 had to wade our way through a procedural jungle td do it.

/

1I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, iagain, I 18 think you"ve answered it but I want to be absolut~ly clear.

I Even though you have three alternative routes whiqh are 20 interconnected in various ways -- in ot he r words, 1

1 t can 21 switch from one to another at various points, app~rently I

22 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes, sir. I I

23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

• some way t hat 1s

-- 1n 1

• no t 24 predetermined.

25 MR. OLMSTEAD: That's true.

- - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - " ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - ' _ _ : _ _ _ ______ -

34 6996 04 03 I

~ p MM COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You still regard those 1

2 three lines as material -- as information which s~ould be I

3 protected? I i

4 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. And I think I can JhowI you

) very readily, if you overlay the routes, why I

5 CO Mi.Ji ISSI ONER GIL INS KY: But you regard t he 1

I 7 explanation as being something that also ought no; to be I

8 discussed?

I

) MR. OLMSTEAD: I have been informed by t he client 1

I 10 in NMSS that that information is considered by the1m to be 11 groprietary and I am respecting their wishes in that i

12 regard. Now, I would like to address the Diablo sltandard.

I 13 Mr. Reisman is right. He has indicated that his ~xperts I

14 will not sign a pr.ofective order because one of tl1eir I

15 strategies is to not sign a protective order so tHey can I 16 demonstrate the vulnerability of these spent fuel 17 shipments Just based on public information.

18 And I think that's a perfectly permissi~le 19 strategy. What he didn't tell you is that he wou~dn't 20 himself take advantage of the opportunity to look ~t this I

21 information in order to prepare his case and his 22 cross-examination of staff witnesses.

23 With that in !"llind I would like to point :out, too, 24 that Mr. Reisman signed -'a brief to this Commi.ssion on

. I I

25 September I, 1979, and filed it, which I. did not get this ei

-p 6996 04 04 MM 2

morning, myself.

Are there any other questions?

35 1,,,-

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Counsel?

4 i-1R. BICKWIT: I have one question of lav.lI that I

~ would like to put to both the parties: the Commi~sion has I

6 an interim protective order. out. It 'has to make t,he 7 determination of whether to continue that in effe~t. What I

8 standard should it use in making that determinatiqn? Where I

9 are the burdens in this case, according to the pa~ties?

I I

10 MR

• OU-1S TEAD: That was one of the thinas -. that i

11 caused the staff a great deal of consternation in 1coming up 12 he re

• Our p e t i t i on for r e vi e w i s not f i l e d a s of Ir i g ht ,

13 therefore we have not attempted to meet the Virginia 14 Petroleum Jobbers standard. We have not captioned it a I

lj petition of reconsideration.

16 ~~e are saying to the Commission as though in I I

1, equity, Commission, you have the inherent supervisory I

18 authority as you described it in the Seabrook case, to step 19 into a licensing proceeding when you think your pqlicy is I 20 about to be violated. We're asking you to exercise that I

21 discretion. (We don't feel that that the Commissidn itself I

22 is bound by any standard to exercise that authori 4y, so we I

I 23 are essentially here in a persuasive mode, namelyi as we I

24 understand your policy, we think you are applying:it in that I

2:5 way. If we are wrong, say so. The information w~ll be

-p 6996 04 05 MM 2

public ,and we'll all go back to the hearing.

If we are right, we ask you to look at this I

36 3 info~mation in camera and determine for yourself ~f _it's I

I .

4 the type of information that you want protected, and if so, 5 direct the Licensing Board to prot,ect it.

6 MR. BICKWIT: Mr. Reisman?

MR. ROISMAN: I think the difficulty is that it's I

8 clear, it's a fact case. In a fact case I thin!< 'IJhe staff

,) clearly has the obligation of burden. The burden,1 I think, 10 is under Petroleum Jobbers. I don' think weJve pVayed games I

I 11 about it. We"ve got two boards that have said thi;s 12 information can be released, and we"ve got a board that's 13 got a hearing that" s going on right now *.

14 And this morning that board ruled in re~ponse I

to a I

I :5 staff request, that it will not allow any testimony to 16 discuss specific routing until it hears from this:

I l I Cammi ssion. I think you"ve got to apply that sta~dard. I*

I 18 think your problem is what to do about the facts. 1 I

19 Mr. Olmstead said, I'm quoting from another couns~l, and I

20 he's quoting from documents that aren*'t in the re9ord.

I 21 I mean, it's a mess, but standard is goVng I to be 22 -- the burden is on the staff and it should be th~ standard I

23 like Virginia Petroleum Jobbers. I don't think ydu're I

24 dealing here with - I dont" think thereJ s any vi~lation of I

25 any Commission policy. At a miminum, the w9rst that you I

I.

6996 04 06 37 eap MM have got here, the application of a Commission poiicy to a

\

I specific set of facts.

3 There's no policy that says this information I

4 shouldn't be releas,ed. So thereJs no presumption running J through the staff in that regard.

I MR. BICKWIT: We have no more questions.

l (Counsel Bickwit and Chairman Hendrie conferring.)

8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'

18 20 21 22 23 24 25

CR 6996 MELTZER 38 t-5 mte 1 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we will then :stand I

.i 2 adjourned on this matter until the r~st of our co~leagues get I

3 a chance to read the transcript and we have a chance to discuss 4 the merits and see where we want to go.

I 5 I'm sorry we had to haul you all down h~re on 6 Monday morning instead of allowing you to enjoy the more 7 beneficial climate in Bethesda.

8 Thank you very much.

I 9 MR. ROIS.MAN: Can I just ask one procedural 10 question, Mr. Chairman?

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.

12 MR. ROISMAN: I think at le*ast the parties in the 13 proceeding and the Board are going to want to have some idea 14 as to what the status of the existing protective drders the I

I 15 Commission has issued and some concept* *of decisionI date. We I

16 have got a hearing that was to have ended this Friday. So if I.

17 I could take back to them, or at least if this tr~nscript I

18 could reflect something on that, if you can say ~~ything to 19 that, it would be helpful.

20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me see what I canI indicate I

21 along that line. Commissioner Gilinsky and I are not -- do 1

I 22 not constitute7-although I'm sure the two of us would agree 23 that we could make a reasonable decision, we neveitheless I

do 24 *

• not constitute a working quorum of the Commission, I h Te Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 protective order then will have to stand until welcan gather I

i I

I

mte 2 .'

39 I

a quorum together to discuss what action the majority wants to

.\

2 take. I would hope that that would take place in the next 3 couple of days.

4 We have three Commissioners at least physically 5 present in the Washington area. Commissioner Bradford is I

I 6 simply hopelessly tied up today with other matters. So that I

• I 7 three of us ought to be able to get together in the next I

8 couple of days and to get on to the parties' deci 9 ion on the 9 protective order.

i .

I 10 MR. OLMSTEAD: I would like to clarify one matter.

I I

11 We are prepared to give you in camera the specific;: route I

12 information, which is the same information we were prepared I

13 to give to the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board. Are you I

I 14 wanting to review that now and hold it over for your quo!."lurn, 15 or are you considering taking it?

I I

I 16 MR. ROISMAN: A*

I would like to say one t.ing to that.

I 17 I will strongly pro.test any attempt for this Commission to I

I 18 decide the case on the basis of information that I will not 19 have seen. And I have not even had proffered to me a proposed I

20 protective order for me to sign.

I 21 I.want to make clear, a:s a lawyer, I ca~ read it I

22 and make legal arguments. But when I do cross-ex~mination, I I

I 23 often like to have the benefit of my experts. Bu~ I have not I

24 even seen a protective order submitted to me for that.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 I would s:trongly protest the Commission deciding

mte 3 40

• 2 this case for me on the basis of information that ~ounsel has not seen and not had an opportunity to address to *the' 3

4 5

Commission any argument about.

relevant.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I also don't thin~ it's That suggests that s~ould, at a 6 further meeting, the Commission want to hear about the specific 7 routing information, you would like an opportunity to at I

8 ' I least consider attending under an appropriate protective 9 order?

10 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we ought to ~imply close 12 for the moment, and the Commissioners can see whether they 13 feel they want to have that further information. *As soon as 14 we can come to any view there, why, ~ will let yqu know.

15 All right. Thank you very much.

16 (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was e-5 17 adjo.urned.)

18 19 20 21

• 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25