ML20004C731
| ML20004C731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Woliver J LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLERMONT COUNTY, OH |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004C732 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-483, FOIA-80-A-1 NUDOCS 8106050103 | |
| Download: ML20004C731 (2) | |
Text
,
- o UNITED STATES Q
g
,,n
,8 g
u CLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS -
f s
-t
,E WASHINGTON,0. C. 205ES
/
FEB 2 31981 f
i T
?
h:
6
~ hq%
3
'k AQ f
g g[
John D. Woliver, Esq.
j Legal Aid Society of Clemont County b
j 550 Kilgore Street P.O. Box 47 80-A-1(79-483)
Batavia, OH 45103
Subject:
ifoliver v. NRC, D.D.C. Civil Action No. 2627-l Daar Mr. Woliver:
i In connection with this caso, the NRC staff conducted a review of the docu-ments which were the subjet t of your Freedom of Infomation Act request -- the 1969 Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L) report.to the Cincinnati Gas & Electric L
Company (CG&E) entitled "An Economic Evaluation of Alternatives," associated transmittal letter, and companion summary report. Based upon the staff review and the administrative record which has been accumulated to date I have determined that the documents in question should be disclosed. CG&E's attor-l neys had been infomed that CG&E could supplement its submissions to the record if it so wished, but the company presented no additional factual sup-l port for its claim that the documents are confidential in nature.
I recognize that the staff's enMusior.., in their most recent review of the S&L report are different from conclusions recited in my letter of February 26, 1980. This is due to the. fact that the person who was primarily responsible for the first review of the S&L report is no longer with the agency. As a result, a team of staff members from various branches of the agency conducted
(
a very detailed and in-depth review of the report in preparation for defending this lawsuit. The team members reached the conclusion that there is no basis-for detemining that disclosure of the documents at issue is likely to cause-substantial competitive ham to CG&E.
Because the staff reached this con-clusion, I have perfomed a redetemination of your request to disclose the documents considering the factors required by Commission regulations at 10 CFR
,~'
2.790.
L
~
Applying those standards ^';o this case, I have detemined that:
(1) the docu-ments have been held in confidence by CG&E; (2) the documents are of a type customarily held in confidence by their owner; and (3) the information was transmitted to and received by the Commission in confidence subject to a detemination that the documents were proprietary. This does not end the inquiry, however.
Based on the. staff's review of the documents, I have also determined that infomation contained in portions of the documents is available in public sources.
Since that infomation is publicly available, it should not be withheld from disclosure.
In addition, those portions of the documents which 1
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES I
8106050 %
a-
y 9
1 John D. Poliver, Esq.
2
=.
7 a.;
are not publicly available are not likely to cause substantial ccupetitive Because of changes in federal goverrr.ent policies, changes in ham to CG&E.
the designs of various components, and changes in techniques c'escribed in the c
CGLE documents, the econcoic and technical data on which the S&L report are based are no longer sensitive and disclosure of the docur;cnts muld te of Also, given the nature of the parket for nuclear little conpetitive value.
supply systems at this tin.e, it is highly unlikely that as a result of the release of this report a vendor would forego an opportunity to bid on another CGAE proposal and thus cake CG&E's procurement process vore expensive and Assertions by CGEE of hem to Sarcent & Lundy.or..to l
difficult as CG&E claims.
nuclear supply systs vendors r~ too vague and speculative to serve as aTherefore basis for withholding these docw.ents.
in these twelve-year-old docuaents appears to hcVe little urrent value and g.< [,.... ;;
has significance only_for historical. purposes;;.
c
..... rw 9L. :..:.
. :._.;m
";;;' ~; -
=
There.is some concern within th'e agency that" disclosure of these documents"--
will. have:a' chilling cffect on...the relations between the NRC and its licensees:. Er-
~
7--
" and will~ r.ake it more' difficult to obtain~ infomation'frcm our liFeniifes' in
~
~
e
%?k 2.-f.CFR;50'7.0)f:the availabil.itE!oyurlsubpoeni.gato
.. u
.. the. future,:.:;Homveri.given the broad investiauthorttyMd_.the hitiip._olth.'e1.43i:?_"-K
- .:' docuaents at-Issue-r:.. twelve years ~ old and'6f. historic ~al.rather than:of. ccu = =,-
=-
c 7.
i petitive interest, Tdolnot thinEthere is a sufficiently strong likelihoodi.5H of impaireent of our regulatory ability to warrant nondisclosure of these docu ~
-See National Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. Forton, rerits on that ground.
498 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir.Tf74), among otner cases.
- .. g:
. 7. ;
Since the disclosure of thes'e documents is 'unlikely to cause substan'ial h-+:--- :.-.-
~
t competitive ham to CG&E, information contained in portions of the documents aircady publicly cvailable and disclosure is not likely. to impair. the ItRC's.,..
ability to obtain similar infomation and documents in the future. I have concluded that the public interest would not be served if. the NRC were to
~
Therefore, the docuaents you requested continue to'withho'd the:;e documents.
will be disclosed to~you'in thirty (30) days from the date of this deter-The documents will be transferred to the !!RC Public Document Room aination.
at 1717 h Street, IM., Washington, DC, 2055?, from which you can obtain i
Copies.
4.:.5..
.=-3 F
EEg:,
- hi(*
Sincerely.
l W6C YA!!!2t:1 }.Di,%f l
Millian J. Dircks l
Executive Firector for Operations 5
P00R BREW 1
(
&w Logal Aid Socioty of Clerment Ccunty
/
' '/
a branch office of the Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati l
550 KILGORE STREET P.O. BOX 47 E.
B ATAVI A, OHIO 45103
,e A United Appeal agency (513) 732-2422
^^
January 19, 1980
$PPE60 DE INWAL FO!A DECISION Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d 'i /-) - / ( [ L
.)' f f )
/
Wcshinton, D.C. 20555 j k ( ' g l,/,2, 2 - N Re: Appeal from Initial FOIA Decision 79-483
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find my appeal from the above-referenced FOIA decision.
Sincerely, g[
k John Woliver i
l l
l
?:h 5
?f A55h?h f DUPLICATE DOCUMENT a
El Entire document previously t]
entered into system under:
l y)
ANO ] $0 3 @ n $ 4 $
I No. of pages:
N
+.
_-_..I' m,,,sj g{t,.,
r
~[
,A j ~
s[
[
a_
1
>S 83G0 UNIT ED STATES pg UUCLEAR REGULATORY COIS11SS10N y-g wAsnincTON, D. C. 20555
-r
- 3q, j
December 21, 1979 y %..+ /
John Woliver, Esquire Legal Aid Society.of Clermont County 550 Kilgore Street I!: RESPO!!SE REFER
-P.O. Box 47 TO F01A-79-483.
Batavia, CH 45103
Dear Mr.1.' oliver:
T'his 'is in response to your letter dated November 5,1979 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of the 1969 Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L) report entitled, "An Ecor.omic -
Evaluation of Alternatives," associated transmittal letter, and ' companion sumary report.
The requested documents contain information which the licensee, cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, indicates may be confidential and proprietary.
RC with
-In addition, the documents were submitted and received by the ::
the understanding that they were being supplied to accommodate an NRC investigation; they would be reviewed to determine whether proprietary; and, if determined to be.non-proprietary would be returned without making copies.
Under these. conditions the documents are protected from mandatory public disclosure under the alternate test set out in National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.
Under that test, a record can be withheld because disclosure 197', ).
would impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future.
It is ny view that breach of the understa., ding between the NRC and the licensee in this' situation could in the future inhibit the free flow of information to the NRC and could interfere with the investigatory Therefore, this information is being withheld from public process.
disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4). We have asked the originators of this information to review their. proprietary claim, and will let you 1
know as soon as possible whether the documents, or any portions thereof, may be disclosed to the public.
Pursuant to 10 CFik 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been
~
determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the The persons responsible for this denial are the public interest undersigned and Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
U
/
NlM
$6
( h
'. ~
c,
,t.
'n This denial may be appealed to the Commission's Executive Director for-0perations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
As provided
. in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial-FOIA Decision."
Sincerely,
.. c
/
f*
, f_
f,,
/ **
John C. Carr, Acting Director
' Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration l
l 9
l O
e
~
0 f**iG UNIT ED sT ATEs g
- (h UUCLEAR REGULAiORY COMMISSION V.' ASHIN G T O N, 0. C. 20555 r
December 21, 1979
\\,.....f John Woiiver, Esquire Legal Aid Society of Clermont County 550 Kilgore Streat IG RESP 0MSE REFER P.O. Box 47 TO F01A-79-483 Batavia, CH 45103
Dear Mr.1.' oliver:
Ihis is in response to your letter dated November 5,1979 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Informatica Act, a copy of the 1969 Sargcnt & Lundy Engineers (S&L) rcport entitled, "An Ecor.omic Evaluation of Alternatives," associated transmittal letter, and companion sumary report.
The requested documents contain information which the licensee, Qincinnati Gas & Electric Company, indicates may be confidcntial and proprietary.
In addition, the documents were submitted and received by the CRC with the understanding that they were being supplied to accommodate an !!RC investigation; they would be reviewed to determine whether proprietary; and, if determined to be non-proprietary would be returned without Under these. conditions the documents are protected from making copies.
mandatory public disclosure under the alternate test set out in !!ational_
Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton_, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir.
Under that test, a record can be withheld because disclosure 1974).
would impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in It is my view that breach of the understanding between the the future.
f(RC and the licensee in this situation could in the future inhibit the free flow of information to the flRC and could interfere with the investigatory Therefore, this information is being withheld from public process.
disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the Treedom of Information Act l
(5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4). We have asked the originators l
cf this information to review their proprietary claim, and will let you know as soon as possible whether i.he documents, or any portions thereof, may be disclosed to the public.
Pursuant to 10 CFlk 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the The persons responsible for this denial are the public interest.
undersigned and fir. Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
h r
O
' ' ' ~
(,'
This denial may be appealed to the Commission's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days fro.1 the receipt of this letter.
As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."
Sincerely,_
,e
. b "' '. " * '
John C. Carr, Acting Director
' Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
_