ML19347B888

Responds to Appeal Re Denial of FOIA Request for GE Nuclear Reactor Study & Related sub-task Force Repts,Known as Reed Rept.Grants Appeal.Rept Will Be Available in PDR within 20 Days.Forwards Order Re Availability of Reed Rept

ML19347B888
Person / Time
Site:	Black Fox
Issue date:	10/09/1980
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Hunt B SUNBELT EDUCATION FOUNDATION, TULSA, OK
Shared Package
ML19347B889	List: ML19347B888
References
FOIA-79-A-13C NUDOCS 8010160148
Download: ML19347B888 (1)

Text

. _ _ -. _

'D r%

'/

/ j

<,f %:qo UNITED STATES f

8'i d

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A'

I h *-

WASHINGT ON. D.C. 20555

/

/

b 4

b..... !

October 9, 1980 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Mr. Brian D. Hunt Sunbelt Educational Foundation 1534 East 3d Street Tulsa, OK 174120

Subject:

F0IA-79-A-13C

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter responds to your appeal of a June 18, 1979 denial of the Sun-belt Educational Foundation's request, under the Freedom of Infonnation Act (F0IA), 5 U.S.C. 552, for the General Electric Nuclear Reactor Study and its related Sub-Task Force Reports, which is generally known, and hence will be referred to, as the Reed Report.

The Recd Report is the only document at issue in this appeal.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over hearings in the Black Fox proceeding, to our knowledge, possesses the only NRC copy of the Reed Report, having obtained it in confidence, and subject to a protective order, from General Electric. The Commission was evenly divided on whether to withhold the Report.

Chairman Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie would withhold the Report; Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford have voted to release it. Under the F0IA, because a majority of the Commission did not vote to withhold the Report, it must be released. Therefore3 the Commission has granted your appeal for the Reed Report and will make a copy of the document available for inspection and copying in 20 days at the NRC Public Document Room in Washington.

Further arrangements for the document may be made through that section.

I am enclosing a copy of the Commission's order regarding the availability of the Reed Report.

This letter is a final Commission detennination on your appeal under the Freedom of Infonnation Act for the Reed Report.

Sincerely, S.uel J. Ch Ik S cret ry of.the Commission

Enclosure:

Memo. & Order 8 e.toise qq

foT/1-7'l-//- fSC 7

s June 28, 1979

Gecretary, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Huclear Regulatory Commission APPEAL OE INlIIAL E0]A DECISION Uashington D.C.

7 9 g _/g c {. p y j AM'd 7& 79 To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

By this letter, the Sunbelt Educational Foundation is appealing the June 18, 1979 denial of a Freedom of Information Act Request by Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson, Atomoic Safety and Licensing Board.

On June 5, 1979, The Sunbeli: Educational Foundation requested from the NRC a copy of a General Electric Huclear Reactor Study which was pre-nared under the direction and supervision of Dr. Charles Reea in 1975

{known as the Reed Report). This request was made pursuant to 5 USC g 552. Mr Wolfe denied the above reonest citing for authority 5 USC g 552 (b)(4) and 10 C.F.R. 9.5(a)(47.

The exemption cited by Mr. Wolfe deals with the section defining trade secrets and commercial or financial information. The materials listed under 10 C.F.R. 9.5 (a)(4) subsections (1)(11) and (iii) respectively deal with trade secrets, inventions and discoveries, proprietary data, technical reports and data, designs, drawings, specifications, formulas gener'ated by or for the HRC, and statist-ical data relating to contract performance, income, profits, losses and expenditures.

The issues in question researched by Dr. Reed and analysed in the Reed Eeport have to do with the safety aspects of GE's reactors.

Clearly, information regarding the ultimate safety of any device should not qualify as a trade secret or any other exemption listed above. This argument is more heavily supported by the fact that a reactor similar to the one ananlysed by Dr. Reed is being proposed for operation at the Black Fox site near Tulsa, Oklahoma. The 27 structural safety questions raised by the Reed Report are integral issues to the safety and health of the people of Oilahoma and in all areas uhere GE reactors are in operation. We are not dealing in the abstract. We are dealings with the lives of people. TFE FU3LIC HAS AN UKALIENA3LE RIGHT TO KNOW ANY INFORMATION THAT AFFECTS THEIR LIVES IN THE MANNER AS DO THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF UUCLEAR REACTORS.

As a defense against public inspection of the Reed Report, GE has submitted several affidavits stating that the information contained in the reed Report, if released to the public, would cause "substan-tial hara to the competitive position of General Electric Company...'

In the same affidavit signed by Glenn G. Sherwood on lixch 22, 1978, it is stated that the 'information sought to be withheld (from public disclosure) is a list of safety related items derived from General Electrics Reed Report..."

The question to be decided then becomes: What is more important, the competitive position of General Electric, or the public's right to know if a product will substantially alter the health and safety of their environment?

'D F*

W q0o707o417 $upo

^M

=

d.

If the safety issues raised in the Reed Report are detrimental to the conpetitive position of GE reactors, then we must assume that the same safety issues are detrimental to the safety of the public.

If these safety issues are not significant?

Im their "monorandum In Support of General Electric's Motion to Quash" GE argues that the public should be satisfied since the NRC reviewed the Reed Report. However the intent of the Freedom of Information Act was to provide the public with the access to infor-nation so that the decision making process of the government could include the public. By denying the public access to information that could drastically affect their lives, Mr. Wolfe has knowingly aid intentionally subverted the intent of that act in a capricious manner.

Mr Wolfe stated in his June 18, 1979 letter that the ASIB has cert-ified to the.ommission the q.uestion of whether the Reed Report should now be returned to GB. In view of this situation, we would request that a reply to this appeal be nade prior to the Commission ruling on the above question.

Mr. Volfe has already denied the citizens of Oklahoma access to information which could substantially affect their lives. This denial was made in the interest of preserving the competitive int-erests of a c orporation. Obviously, Mr. Wolfe considers the finan-cial interests of GE more important than the public's right to know what dangers the corporate sector is foisting upon them. He sincerely hope that you d not concur with Mr. Wolfe. We hope that you will protect the interests of the public as you are mandated to do as a government body.

n,(

20

~

Brian D. Hunt for The Sunbelt Educational Foundation