ML20050F904
| ML20050F904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-488 NUDOCS 8204140010 | |
| Download: ML20050F904 (2) | |
Text
o4
' GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUT( PROJECT institute for Pohcy Studies 1901 Que Street. N W.. Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9382 Novanber 23, 1981 Director FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Office of Aininistration ACT REQUEST Nuclear Pogulatory Ccmnissi=
FcG A-Pl-y?P Washirgton, D.C. 20555 Gee Q \\ t 2I To Whan it May Omcurn:
Ch behalf of our client, Mr. Thomas Applegate, and pursuant to bor.h the Freedcm of Infonnation Act (5 U.S.C. S552) and the Privacy Ict (5 U.S.C.
S552a), we reqtaest copics of all notes, menoranda, telephone logs, tapes, diaries and/or other records prepared by U.S. governnent crployees in connection with an August 7,1981 Nuclear Pegulatory Camission ("NRC")
Office of Inspector and Auditor ("OIA") report entitled "Special Inquiry re:
Ideqtacy of IE Investigation 50-358/80-9 at the William H. Zimner Nuclcar Power Station " ("Zirner OIA Report"), as well as the investigation the Zirtier OIA lbprt is based upon.
In particular, Mr. Applegate requests all earlier full or partial drafts and/or proposed supplements to the Zirmer OIA Peport, as well as all records related to any deletions fran its final version.
If any material covered by this request has been destroyed and/or rmoved, please provide all surrounding documentation including but not limited to a description of the acticn(s) ta!mn, relevant date(s),
and justification for the action (s).
Mr. Applegate requests that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public." 5 U.S.C. S 552(a) (4) (A). The fee waiver stould be granted for three reasons. First, he subnits this request to further the goals of -
his December 10, 1980 whistleblcwing disclosure to the Office of the special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
'Ihe Special Counsel required an NBC investigation only after finding a reasonable belief that Mr. Ipple-gate's disclosure evidenced illegality, mismanagement, gross waste and a substantial and speci.fic dnager to public health or safety. Unques-tionably, the Special Counsel finding and the ensuing OIA Peport - which fundamentally challenges tin generic nature of NRC investigations -
proves that Mr. Applegate's ocncerns serve "the public interest." He seeks these doctrnents in order to monitor the adequacy. of the NBC respcnse.
l Second, the findings of the Zimner OIA Ibport totally ignored two vital issues l
in Mr. Applegate's whistleblowing disclosure -
- 1) the failure to adequately review his criminal allegations of widespread blackmarkets, snuggling, and theft; and
. i i.
- 2) the failure to ccntact witnesses in April 1980 who would have exposed a series of issues six nonths before CAP raised them with the Chiunission and the Special Counsel.
820414001o 811123 PDR FOIA DEVINE81-488 PDR
,4~
b e
Director Office of Adntinistiation Nuclear Ibgulatorf Camdssion November 23, 1981 Page 'Iwo
'Ihc Special (bunsel had ordered the Conmission to respond to both allegations.
'Ihe doctznents Mr. Applegate requests nay help to explain why the Ocnmission chose to defy a legal requirement of the Civil Service Reform Act. We submit that it inherently serves the public interest to further understand the process that leads to government illegality.
'Ihird, press accounts have contained charges that the report was " watered down." Although deleted portions would not represent the Comtission's findings, it is in the public interest to fully air the facts and conpating policies in the debate that produced this controversial document.
'Ihe issue is of the utmost inportance to the Ancrican people - the adequacy of NBC efforts to protect public health and safety.
For any docunents or portions of documents that you deny due to a spccific exenption, please provide an index itemizing and describing doctments or portions of documents withheld. 'Ihe index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the docujent or portion withheld. 'Ihis index is required under vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 ' (1974).
We look forward to your response within ten working days.
Sincerely, M'
fc' Associate Director I
e l
l e
~
~