ML20057B571
| ML20057B571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1983 |
| From: | Trubatch S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-83-028, SECY-83-28, NUDOCS 9309220245 | |
| Download: ML20057B571 (52) | |
Text
Qyk:dut. asis::
f Mna w m m e nte m w n ma w n m..n:--un.w- -
2 c
Y MOV
\\
.,i January 20, 1983_
- ...+
POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
For:
The Commissioners From:
Sheldon L. Trubatch Acting nssistant General Counsel
Subject:
FOIA APPEAL 82-A-20 1
Purpose:
To recommend that r,
D.-
(.
J Discussion:
On July 11, 1981, Barbara Stamiris, a
participant in the Midland pro:eeding on soils construction (OM-OL proceed-ing), l_/ requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a copy of a Proposed Stipulation between the NRC and Consumers Power Company regarding quality assurance issues at the Midland site.
[ Attachment 1.]
On July 6, 1981, the NRC withheld the document in its entirety contending that its release could distort the Licensing Board's ultimate decision on the soils construction matters in issue.
[ Attachment 2.]
1_/
That proceeding was initiated in March 1980, in response to a request by the licensee for a hearing on a December 6, 1979 Order issued jointly by NRR and I&E.
That Order prohibited CPCo from performing certain soil related activities pending approval of amendments to the construction permits.
The Order was based on investigations regarding deficiencies in quality assurance related to soils construction activities.
CONTACT:
Infrmafirn in tNs read. n d.Ncd Gary M. Gilbert, SECY in acen. M IN Mdc 1/ mmh 5
634-1435 Act, exem;tions 9309220245 930428
~
o b
2 a
In October 1982, Mrs. Stamiris requested the NRC to reconsider the denial or, in the alternative, appealed the denial.
[ Attachment 3.]
The NRC treated her request as a new FOIA request.
On October 13, 1982, the NRC again denied the request, noting that since an initial decision had not been issued in the Midland proceeding, the ra'_ic,nale for withholding continued to b<
valid.
[ Attachment 4.]
Ms. Stamiris is now appealing that decision.r For the reasons discussed below,'_we believe that
{$c-a k-
'3 1y-( s,
3 The NRC staff also withheld the document under Exemption 4 on the basis that the
" Proposed Stipulation is privileged information in the form of an attorney work product which reveals strategies i
developed by Consumers Power _ 'ompany in preparing for legal action."
In her appeal,.Ms. Stamiris challenged the applicability of Exemptions 7B and 4.
[ Attachment'5.]
She asserted that the Proposed Stipulation fails to meet the criteria of Exemption 7B because it is neither an investigative record nor was it compiled for law enforcement Ms. Stamiris also asserted purposes.
that Exemption 7B was inappropriate because that exemption was designed to protect individuals by preventing prejudicial pretrial publicity.
With regard to Exemption 4, Ms. Stamiris contended that the exemption applies only to trade. secrets and commercial and financial information, and not to attorney work product.
-malysis:
W5 551ieve that
/
-m
'.3T~Z Z 21:_72/
2 continues from previous page.]
I i
- t_'
6
[.
1 I
P
\\
t r
(
4 1
. O T, a
4 i
i
\\~
i
.j s
t 4
_.._._ Therefore, the litigative risk
-. posed by this case b
f.
\\
I 1
i i
i I
~,
5-7 nT
+
'O
\\
i t
~s-F
.,.__wew, liowever, we believe that
\\
t
\\.
h
.e l,
p I
r i
t i
Q gwg.
w, s-
g-l i
1 C
l
\\.
j In view Tif
~
q, j
/
~ ~ ~ ~
-l we recommend Recommendation:
l f
w
' heldon L. Trubatch Acting Assistant General l
Counsel-Attachments as stated t
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, February 4, 1983.
commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted j
t to the Commissioners NLT Friday, January 28, 1983, with an information. copy to the Of fice of the Secretary.
If the i
paper is of such a nature that it requires ~ additional time i
for analytical review and comment, the commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION.
Commissioners oGC OPE
-j oIA EDO ELD j
SECY 2
1 i
t
, ;,. %s.=iMtQ$ W:%%@MbgMy %.&9YQMw1:::;,:;.%t;, %.~
y 1 myy.
[
4 t*,%.
b I
EJkt..s.ap%. i.gM...y v.y,.
Mw. n.p
--A o.-
c.
i.
.e p..%c..m,,~e., >
,g -.tv
- ~c~wpf;. '
...e -
,N.m 2.,r n.
y hw &w r,. m m.
Q;W.
e i,.. L.'gy,c.Q.h..:.f.. WV y $.::q q
Ms
,. l
-..' n !! p t C.H S &p n.2~.1, qwpMfh..qM kQ'
~
f
.$rMTM.
A
?c -~.nr g;R#' nq).W3, pip %... )W
-e.;.p53,
w4
% WA.
r 1 i - N v. A e.v......y...n. A @ w.
.c.
.4 a.r G-g r & Q.. Q - L1 g..
e A
A A
I#
.: b.~. ~..a.r3 '. ef.p<f. +. yW
, $f'.*'t.-
- t. J<nwz.y*. <; ;
..:'. W. E4 g *. f. Q 7 A. po..p :g -.nlj @ ~y 2.,
s2 e
- * '- 2.%. c~yJ * *
,, p.. n N. 1';y p,yis ye M Q-c,,;.
' m' ' Qy.P a..m
.t n
- m. +.
c....-
.., ~,.
1
,r
. a y -8
+ :,....
.c
.iT..J6:9.1;p..G(Ajt % @ w,C y %,. W.,s.,:..ey p y,hg thh..$..
fytp.si:Q.y -.4R:'l&+ @ $.[get MQ..g
.: w..g---% t..;.g..;-Q&. ?14m Tw
. : ~
g >: -v
< ;. 6 : l.:.
Mr Q.g;.:))$r.
G 7
s., M n.. u :'
4-.w;.n:..
gp..h.jh'
.32 W &f?'tMt.ce
.p i n, L. w ; u. @.'r.1,-.. x.: ;p'r. Q.,M y 2.
M :: u. Q. t.'. m Q s...,.i. c;.3 tw f
>As.
.,, ;y i:
- c.qp ?.:C, m.
, a',v.%~hg'@w ':%..~.g[;Yb~M Eb kNbd
>c.
I
- Un,n
' k, y
.m
. e
.v
. v..
- n...
n. b M.. Y,DbN'h :...:
m....M.m,+k.Ih.E 3- [
i
.w:. g~- >g.
/.
u. <- 3y#,,.,
, n.,
p.-a. g...
u A
A
-M
...;., ~.:..s v A.;
~
--. ii. M :l i).. s;,i.f-p.; w-;
g dgl $j.".
, n W.?;Gs.QL by ftQq%%a%.Q4;g.
.J'Yb.Q'.yN Q;'g
@@;':g.&j.c,.QQl:f WR'..WL,.
jf!f 5 g
,.,,p.. g;.'~:.,:g @ M. n.& a;c a p
.:s. a.g.= :-g14, v,p.,g.%: g.Qy
.5.m gL yy v.94 gr p g.
. % %.'.,R.:.& $ Q w.d,"W.& $,csaij Q,3.-& % f.k Gh Q:f.4h_l" h
L i +.
t w
. :lc ~.g.,.;-;
l ' ' i:.,. MgkM a Q.3 ~w.-
^,
.. : =+
v.;... H:<rt..' ',\\;.
m.:
-. f
'.1'.. (,,' d.A r c g.
,,f ' [; h-I ~
.. h. f...YA,..,' [ _e '. (,'
- A i
,.I.,4,, u,.w-y m
a 3.s y
,'i. i N.
, v AT,TACHMENT, 1~
,P n-T/
2.
1'J.g '?. s":..
s ?*
~
- 2 {.9. '
T*;b_
.' t"f%4gf.! -
' h,. **",)hh$+&,;-
- Q f?!'}Y$ P".j;.'f A
.. =' Nse*
a 7 #* kdh :? ',:
~,.
~
f*
[
-=.j l
U ik # &rh
-,Mh
~
i s
- %, w*
{F.4 a. > p'.h.-
Q' W.
.h. 's 4
? - ;, *
-WS?'.
- \\
a.
- q
,.* c YQQ'*?
1 A-l
-[ s,,
.,,c."
w'
~
Y.h l
o,d' fk.-l
- u.?.k.. < " Q N. $.r ~..*
...h.p(4 %.7,.s.k h,Y, s.&. s
-,. 3 y brW E'..
_ _- } ;
.A
. ~ -
. w.,. *
.. 4 N, q, ;,..
g.
i
' hi *
.['i-Y
'.4
.e*
- 1. ',: g 7, J [*
[~E
~
g.
. &*- 'd'.x$.g g f -
i,
.**,,.g..
.~~
' ' ' ' " ' ^'
2%'$*.^~~;'~
~~**~~'.Y;
_ L ~ ~.^ T... '," ""~. '.. ~.:. 2 ': ^ ^ ;.~:. :. '7.f.*.,.
.... #M
. E"T M '-
. '.w
's y: 2 - +pp wp@F.s,.
n s
..s. a g, c..
- w. p;- C.
4, Q ' - Q Q h (N W
>. w :.p;. x e
- ng
.x s.
fQ
". C..Q&Q. :
x-5:
=i Q,,,,-g%d#.%,. g,
..,....... ~. k,. [f j.n...
.'. y -
+ +
-b,T&.g~Rhfxg'&*y.
,.,.,.. 'l':Sf ',;;..,; y,.
.+.. * *
,. - l
>r a --
g y
, n:>.g< mp,.z -
.a. m
%.:, :.4,. -
. =',:-J.;q
+.r.
- i..r.. p.~..C.e: 4-
., - w ::..
h M.
x ~
.t.
C 4
m,,
g
. r'.g.
,. r, w p 5); %.Qghtm g
-.. m.
Tcptektg
/
~_
- W M k w:u a,:,n..
M
- ~:L ti Nw. n -e n;y?%.qe:s.g;::.
- 5..Q lr.
.~ *pg;...g%. \\.
4
~
e-.
er. 4. $-
.s.t ". ~.
u -
n.
.+.g. n 4 p..
.t_..w...
..-- s.,..,a.
.: m
~ c,..<. g.;q 4 - m..y.s.o,.,,w. ;... ve,.u.g* t my pgg.
~ w,2. y*_*., g... Rc,j.,{,
.j.
__m. g __ _.;.
.,g,
..m.,..
a. 4- ;,W4.,. %~' _
- 2..
^ n;,.
su.....
L L./ L'}
fa+
~ ?2-W e.j' d
........ ~.
- -. *... ~. -.
~ -;._-. ^
. -.. _ -. ; 2. ~
Lev.;n u u. m:<:.
M 1-
. - -:L n:m m ~
- ~
~
s.
June II, 1981 Joseph M Felton Director, Division Rules & Records Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission
Dear Mr. Fe lton,
This is a Freedom of Information Act Request for a document I
in possession of the NRC, which came from Consumers Power Company as a part of the 50-329 50-330 OM & OL Proceeding for the Midland Plant..
I first Icarned of the existance of this document on May 6, 1981 from Mr. Wm. Paton. It is a proposed stipulation or document proposing terms of a compromise. or agreement between the NRC and Consume rs regarding Quality Assurance issues in this " soil settle-ment" hearing. As a pro se Intervenor, and full party to this proceeding, I believe I have every right to see this document and consider it essential to my case, despite its being stamped "confi-dential" and considered as such. I believe this docenent was receive (l by Mr. paton. of the NRC somet ime between April 29, 1981 and May 6, 1981, although I cannot be certain of these dates.
I have waited until I was sure that the %QA Stipulation *prope:
and its affect.on my intrests did take place. Having received the proposed stipulation today, I have been given until June 24, 1981 by Judge Bechhoefer of the ASLB, to set forth my objections to It in writing. Due to these time constraints, I would appreciate your reply as soon as possible, to this FOIA request.
Sincer
k' h[
M hhbh.M*
),
T.
%hd*k?*
I'*S4[Ek.
.V"t'#.-
YENWdkbf.c..w O;<..;mN.u,h.h.p.
N.N.N,
. y c
a sQ <
d ya % v,,;
. ~ -
.w MG& &b-
k ?
hk&
4?N cN~ 9&k.E&sa.
', N5 1
-Wd T
R. d. ;
M;: $ y. h s = n',,.g. n?$$fM9 PWfMM
.u.Z'A' A.
s,.y, [
~
V.n. r s y tm +. es W
e.-
..er
$Q
?M
' f=;. ;
fM~
. :w:x.
- u..a.M{ Ep ph,,4.gww' ~ x...
-, 3,. 4i
-/.
e, x:*
7,,.4'.. -.., b.a. *,. -
.h' 31 M;$ ( h..,.e.*-
. *. 4
.,pg-e;
- 's p 4
. ~....:.
.w
. Ih
, i.' '
';^ -.D I'
h.
r,,M.ar.,. !#'
- v...
m
- +.~ - p. g.~ "g P,..
..?
r o
,. m-eg xn:
r a.~.
<r..
v
< r-
- .Yh;bk.g% f'. 5 ' **"
.. w
~$
h~kkhh b
$^* *. *
. :?. ~
s,'
i y +g
' Ly...
a w j
..r
.1-
.g~--
_ %4._a;
,4c :.. _ _v...
....,y.y.9.,.
... -.....wf[g;
,e 4
m hf*;~%s).Y#~
~
(.:
~ ;2 *I. $ $t' Q
&^W
- ^ *zt.h y. AGE;i"V-
@ Q 'f*.[ ;"*a :;;)u ?.;
'~.:; "
p&
p.
(p. W 4 m+.*. <-. a,gs w % W u n v.s -.t e !
+.
~ g p j %.2. g
- ,-o
.g g p
, Ag.
- ~. 5
. 4;p3 l
~ g gpg.e4 e p
bbY' f.s t.-r v. f. h..r A ?.e"gg;. p.h. dwv as fr.m &. s'IE' & b j
l fded p kh
--~.k *I* \\t?
z:
.
- dQu
%t'
- t f,
4 -cQ -/. ~
[ f _ "--T. :M r
u
- g
. %l.f.e pnle..$,# s,.
. I;.: u,s..,.7..k a,i..,. C. y; - ~..
'3
.F
- .f-l 4. 4 3-
. t 1 -,.,.,,, e,.
i
....,~n l,
e
.r
- s. n,- ~ ~ -
- y. -
..' @%%,k_.][p..t.Mh. M A".'..'* c.C
.. A.
s s
s.
2 - jffe ll 5
3.Q djQ.<.f,9k.),3 M-J.S
3
.a i
e
.s b
.,Ep%!q~ ',0 l
.W. s Vp' g,,c.W$*i. &c.
&......kd,.YM}')A e
,.m'"f4
'V '
._,.F.'
VW
$.4 $u -we.p.f,;9;R~7 y4
.,,e l
.- v Q:.f.. {x%y'1.h f* $.i.' W '. L
.s l
hc.
p-
- e s
.h
.Q. JN.%. - (i I d.
.%@[' ^,.%g }.y2, e.f44 ~ sq'. '..., *
.. -a%,
1' :. 4.r S u s,..
s i-N,9
' ' ', s'4,
,,e
- ~
v,M. OK>,g,$, -p **M. c;...; 't'./. f.jf, A ' '
., y
. ^.
g s
-C m
~. z
-..e g
.h l
U W "
^
y-** w
!D R.' ?
- Y^ f %,
- r...
,...%.g-
~s, t
.a
'g..
- ' $ 4%
, w.....-. g.
b.
4.'. % 4 M M h.A* M;;* <5 h~i~*,e*'?
.Nd'g,.d.f f.% OtW,.
. /
i
~
'. ;< J.- -
g ppy. -pw n p*e.* f,v U.3,.-
2 a
e ATTACIDENT. 2., W... ~
u
.m
.g,.
.u.
s
.q c. >..
.s w
as.,y.*; A is l f g,.
li:
.'s%
4 fl,.
..: - c i.
- )
f>.
.?
s m..
ns..
..u..,
. s.
. ;;9
-H g - *-
.i
-gt u4
.m n - p., t..
g,3l?%- c:.
(-:gq ;,
~(.
1..
- s.v.
m,
,,, r,.
s,u -
.g. 4 :)g...
g.
. g,.m.
e t
c 4
.y.
3
-. e.
.}
- hW.,D-];.,,g' ff.'
- hId 3,, h
(
"*df-
~ 9.~.
',i;.? ;
',V, q.*
4,.
t WM ;-i W,fij,? :.f,,,.,
., : f. p.M Q~.W'"
'. ; 4'Q M..
r n.1 rW
.-m
?
- s.,
m:-.-
.a s
. v w
g.,..* : t; n.a c,
,a.
9 z
.x b
{^
r,
"' [U \\
-I
,, p 4g e
. 4j,
[*
. (. [ 'h # c[, A -., ' " '
4 { M*.Jw.Q ai5 "
. J; h"SL'.gL.-
. y f y&p.L.-- i. :-.Y
{-
...-.;=
.a..w g-.
- c..- -
.. F c
. s'.t. p.+. s x.,.,. x g;
_.p
- y y y s..y.
a
.g>
=s v 1..
-J..
[ ',..".i
%_ n
- f
* _ ;g _, L ym
^V.*
,-e.,y s.
-
- P f
a *"
9
7
.- 3:. m. g..
3.&j f.
-. % gw.- :g..
s t g4 4-h6 s
u
. ge 4.,p Y
+"
1 t
3
.q g
.s
,.v g
- ' d Y.
., j.'.-fj h'f [ * @ M.a.J k k.
,5. m.' I b *
- 4 hWF '"T L,.~
/
..[,. G, Yh. $.;jef*3 ?.
^
h
Y {?
C.Y D
.,.,.:.<+..
v A.*
. m-e w.
.s
...F-.
- '* ] y e
..;L e v...
.5m r- -
.s..
"\\*@p'.&. 3f,g %
GVe
.**g Q q:,y:f f;.,
L~.
g 7
.a n.
y-a,
.c.. -
. r.-,
. :.y
-. z...
s,.
i 12 l.~
- k, s. e
.l~
p $g., ~., # f h *
-*.s,.e.~.,s o
n.,,.
s
,,p
. - yf
-(* A E#
'.'., n
- ]
--h
- *', ' ' I[ '
- 8, 3
s
- [. [#.
7.1 --
~
, s:a.
h8
, p*
x-
- - ~.
. r.
(pwM_.Lw
- ~. :.w
_J,
., e '
y ^.
&,~$ &@ 9. & -,-., ~- w M'.?b Q W w w - w. W
.J "msh.
m:k %:%
m,m p.vz w m e n.a w emy ~
44.
s. _.,K.
.m, yw....
m c
.w Y.
-r.' Ie',
K, WC"*y
.h,
';e,*b.~y )..m._ 95 '.':
. &. '&p d. RQ %
o' s5 j{_,
.h *i)u..h.,. A.:u-6
.a.
..'jh_ l$.. &... l.
1.~
-n.
3,y. r...
I.
~., f **te e
UNITED STATES
- A),
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
8 WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555 g
- y
\\..../
July 6, 1981 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N River IN RESPONSE REFER Freeland, MI 48623 TO FOIA-81-227
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
This is in response to your letter dated June ll,1981, in which you requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the document proposing terms of a compromise between the NRC and Consumers Power regardin'g quality assurance issues in the Midland proceeding.
The NRC is in possession of an eight page CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSED QA STIPULATION which is the subject of your request.
This document is a record which is part of the NRC's ongoing enforcement proceeding involving Consumers Power Company and their Midland Plants.
As you may be aware, exemption (b)(7)(B) of the Freedom of Information Act protects from disclosure material which would " deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication." This protection extends to corporations as well as individuals.
See, 5 USC section 551(2).
As the Attorney General's Memorandum on the 1974 Amendments explains, the provision operates to safeguard a litigant when "the release of damaging and unevaluated information may threaten to distort an administrative judgment in a pending case."
1974 Attorney General Memorandum at 8.
The facts in the Midland case threaten such a distortion.
In the present case a quality assurance stipulation, signed by the NRC and Consumers Power Company and submitted to the licensing board, still awaits approval.
The stipulation the board has before it is the result of several months of negotiations between the NRC and Consumers Power Company.
Exposure of previous drafts of stipulations without exposure to the process under which those drafts were developed can severely distort the perception of the board as to the merits of the present stipulation.. It may prompt the board to second guess the posture of the parties and involve the board in the negotiation process.
This is the type of situation exemption (b)(7)(B) was intended to prevent.
Therefore, this Proposed Stipulation is being withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(7)(B) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(ii) of the Comission's regulations.
I.
y Additionally, the Proposed Stipulation is being withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(4) of the Fre'edom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4))
and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) of the Commission's regulations.
Exemption (b)(4) is applicable here as the Proposed Stipulation is privileged information in the form of an attorney work product which reveals strategies developed by Consumers Power Company in preparing for legal action.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.15 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 public interest.
The person responsible for this denial is Mr. Thomas F. Engelhardt, Acting Executive Legal Director.
I This denial ray be appealed to the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, 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, y
,.:/
N, I' fL'!W
/
//
J. M.*7elton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration e
k l
I I
i
'. l :!. W O 4 W. & l$ W 5#.k M* W iH? V F ~ &[
$.NN.fhh. &4%%%'it.=:(q4N k
h..... m.
fhL.r h+ _.~ %m A +n. W.. V x, s,, s,
- s. 3.....<
g e.w#.....,.va qA.,, m..r n...
qM Mn
.. M E 4. f +i &u.a 9.r v.t e
.,,,& w 2..
Y,
~
{
I i v $NdM3Dkk
' M b..e ) h h b M i$ w a m v; 4 p m - w w y;.:
c w+-&.n,c. w::,, w w - W. 4..~. e we fs v
m: e. mh t.c 1
' l.Mi@'fgJ&;M :..M;y{.}Q,~x.y(sN.w7.C :$^'Q.?%.y-a :..+df'.,.
Q.
sr.a.
q ;.~.
m..
'1 nw a 4.
- m--
[.r Lyy&f
. f~
.,. ;.f.rl. ::.Q 4..gC.f'fQ, a.:;QQQ:dp.QQ.fitf,U..b 4Ryf *,.
_4. %..~u %. -h;..;22 -
.7: : -
t a m..,,.
n.
.m
- n r g-hgK_Q Q3j,*,,;a;3mg* ~
-l;&,4r *;y,
g.
.r
. - - -m..T. =1;.$ { _. ~
.s,--
~
hf."
!}&:
~ k
?' '
$^$$ ^: ~% U:;
3.}f ffhN
(:.},
Jh!J
~M5&q%y&gw c@&@
- ~% -
55 kkW
.., 0,.. ; Q.M{.WW:" ?f ;&A%fQe'Q...%g; M.u :: w w N b
.k bt w
.du wg y,
.nnwwm. w.sm. %gn* d.4,,*~,
MG 9 4 s.
.Q. m.,e
\\
a.
\\
- 0 g._. W. 4..r.g..-
. ;....,R qN.;~!,..
..:.m
.. u;,
m..,. p ~. ~,...;
s.
.=
c i, }'ji f.h5^*$
- ihe W, fE.5 $.hj,-
- Y.ki:
l
- .A.:}
9 g d.. g % W M M W M..,g<n W. Q M...a...
4 W
L
,e 9.f M. 4
+Q5.. 9>.s.n.$;.t N.. s
- .
- n ; y 94 @ f,.q.:. g, g..s, g.e. %.,, y.
y %
.4. s.
w
- ' W R.. >., -
.# s_sp;.w w s
m.
s[..
q.gyg.%.,,y q.Q
'W e
d:-i&k;N,Q..?WQ'.:Q:f&.,, yl@j;QT:}~ fig...$W:',M.g; Q =;
' 'y.
- 3.. y->;.a.m.
, r -
u,:,: Q,:. Q. 4 : y:.. Q,.:3._< ;i p.. 'y. q..
- g.i' M
%c.,.
~
~
u c -na;&cV6,, MMk.k.sy.c. Q2 3 wN d.
,.cc ':r,..+.
. r ;..v,... ; &.g.. w.. 4.,..f. y g M 7...
. g.
..O.
y
.,,, w
.ge..r...
~
~ - d;3 3
,.ATTACHM,ENT 37 :!* p _. v..
,,,ryg.: c,.
r y
g g.
w,.+ a, :..
m
.. ;.t'. ;M ' * ; ' <
- >,' t '~; %:QR;& A.h::.
Y ;h.:k, M.-
~ ~ F, q::..5:-.a: 2
.s
.c s-t
.,-:. f : Y.,
i^
... IJ!.l r s
- '. ^ *
- C;.WT.%g yl't;~4C f f 4 * * '%: ~' ~.T. ' 'r: f;;.,
Ef.. l. in M f ftl-h.
sl-
- QS
} (l.
=: " '
. n.. n a n..y -
.n
.t e
m c.
- w.. vJ
~n.
.s
.. -.-. r _
..t L.-
.'":b:*,i4
.n..,:,.e.L.; ':.3...t. '...n '
., % e '. r: ?: 7.'. ?;
, p... :,
, Ig...s.,g.
,f;.
. s. r,:.u. c. 44 f. '; p..e...e. c....-a.:-w..
.;. -- - v..-.
o s.
,,. s w. &. s.
a
.3 f-4 r
.. <: w.
e
= '.
/
. h
~-
- ~
a y K.,";g?.: y h txt.t.C
.,r h?*J:R
. q y.,;
.w u
M %y~1 s..
~
.. ::.J q u S :. y ;. g.. ;
.m >-
gi:p
- Ma.
... i...: irWNab n >.
.5
..M u+$w%^.
". :.=':.:~:= :::WMr, '". ". ',t.g= :
p
^
..v.
7---*~-
.::n.= ;r. t J 7.., W. 'Z;.g_.g.,my,.. ~g,.X..y./ p N.S.bf 9 ;W.4. 9.~~
@G qS.,
. v. w ? h',.
- wy :
xa 2aez D
a,: q L.
n:
J Fri,; ; id.. ~
g
. t.
4..
m.
.......-?.,.... r. r.. m a.
o.
m.
v
. >..y: sc p.x. 2;'...s.:.: - M.:.,..n.,.. g. y&... xp.. m < >.. ;; A. s.:.
- ry'Tg;,g,q:.y y
....... 5.. r. r.. :
> :.. w. ~,,..
.. ~...
- m.
sL
<s.
- ,'.M S ;%
?l
- 1& & hf'.....:;+f &_l...~+ M l.(
' * l.
' ;..P::y. L x.9,... M. ::& Q'h&:v45.Q.Q M f.i.h H;i$:f (
f
(?
.m a. g5.S,,,.q.,. a.. m.g;;.w.
9n.=.
,i
.m, s.
-e o.-
',.2 4..*. >: n'j %y
_m..
,L
'y
,...,. v'. ;...-. e..~4
.. a.. ~ ef v *. e 6.. O. c,y.y. :m2 c.
,c : -.. ;.y., sA.,
a...+..,, p-p ~ n.-.w
,,g, gaf%y.
s.~
,z*
- r.Q..
n ',. s '.. --.
,',2
. Y
..w) ;;-
1::.:..
-.T..
3.
- t. 2 *q q y,;
.g=
a.m. s.
. :.g y j.g;;g
- <.6
.a.,,o
, jgj
~'v;.
. 7. *,..;.
- a p:
,.y
..'+ 4.D
.N.,.
.,., ' tV g,.~y ah.
.3..,f. t. -. -.,c.
^
s,
- - M b. a.
2,.
n,.
. m ;;,,. -..
w t
~ ~.. $+ n.
,[ w, - ?n l':,1
~,
T,,.
.a.,,.',~.,>,*;
G y
... c.:.:.;
n.
v
..,.,,..s...
".4 %.
3
.s c-
- ** EW...e(
y..
^ * *
- WW [w '. *.,.*.,V._ t.
~e",,.l.
-' W. ri.. *.E..Vj.=..4_..~~*
a..."%'. g g'*3. 3 ) 7 p j.i. f.k :.g
't...*. '_e..' a.'%
J a..' J K :~t e,".m
- ..be 7, W {g'4..TpA. 4.~'l i....
ft' r
~*
T-
- y
'L n,,n g
. e, f R....g.g
.%w.f.*psM~ 7 2
... (s t.*
' * %,7. *, *. ;r. ? p. (< $..h.;..;t.,
M g
,..;.. g. -.
.<.~
,,T-
[.
- " g s.
f.e g.
J.
e s
g c
c
~
t ',
. t. ' * '; v..
~1. *
- 2.:
..a w, '; *
- *.. 4 c s a 4.@,L :. ;
,.2 ' _t...Z..r/..
,y N.;.g w dg',.:g;..
. e ;," *.-
-. a
.M.: *..,,;;.... ': ~$2 O.e:& i !n h.y. h~..:._. -. :.5& -..;5. '%:. J'
- E'> ~
Q
..: -.;- : ?
- .,r g s-t4 vy.
- e. : L,:.
October 1, 1982 J.M. Felton Division Rules & Records Office of Administration
Dear Mr. Felton,
This is an appeal to the July 6,198I denial of my June.-11, 1981 FOIA request for the eight page CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSED CA STIPE ULATION (FOIA-81-227). This appeal is filed poursuant to the FOIA-Act and your.Ietter of August 20, 1981 in which you indicated that I should " feel free to submit a request for reconsideration
- at a later time.
Accordingly, I submit the appeal at this time.
I Iook forward to hearing from you as soon as possible within the twenty days allow-ed by law.
Sincerely, Barbara stamiris Intervenor OM-OL Proceeding Midland Plant 5795 N. River Freeland, Mich. 48623 cc: Mr. S. Kohn Gov. Accountability Project
If,, u,,'%
UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ '\\
s.,
g C
WASHWGToN. D. C. 20555 e
- e e'
4
+....
August 20, 1981 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, MI 48623
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
This is in reply to your letter dated August 12, 1981, in which you requested an extension of time for filing an appeal, if necessary, in connection with your Freedom of Information Act request for a proposed QA stipulation in the Midland proceeding.
Access to this document was denied to you in my letter dated July 6,1981 (F01A-81-227).
I have been informed that hearings are currently being scheduled through December,1981 in connection with this proceeding.
Therefore, I must deny your request for an extension at this time due to the administrative burden it would place on this office.
If you decide to seek the denied document when a decision has been reached in the proceeding., please feel. free to submit a request for reconsideration at that time.
Y.*
/
/
/'
. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration s
4
~
~
August 12, 1981 J.M. Felton, Director Div. Rules & Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dear Mr. Felton,
I received your July 6, 1981 denial of my FOIA request for a confidential proposed O.A. Stipulation in the Midland,
Michigan 50-3Z9, 50-350 OM-OL Proceeding.
I have decided not to pursue what I beIIcVe is my right to see this confidential document, unless I am compelled to appeal the initial decision rendered in the OM-OL Proceeding.
If I should decide to appeal the OM-OL Proceeding however, this confidential proposed O.A. Stipulation would be an important part of my case.
1 Therefore I now seek an extension of time in which to file an FOIA appeal for this document, in the hopes that such an appeal will not be necessary.
I seek that I be allowed 20 days beyond the receipt of an initial decision in the OM-OL Proceeding in which to f!!c the FOIA appeal for this document if necessary.
Sincerely,
?
Barbara Stamicis
]
i 5795 R. River Freeland,Mich. 48623 i
uuinnsenwe~vit
- (
(FCIA 81 227)
Secretary of the Cor:x:ission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Fashington D.C. 20555
Dear Secretary:
This is an appeal frca an initial FOIA decision,81-227, issued July 6,1981 and reaffirmd Oct. 8,1982 according to understandings reached between vself and Mr. Shceaker of OELD. The new FOIA denial, 82 477, will be issued on October 13,1982 for procedural clarity, although the issues and responses remin the sam. according to Mr. Shomaker. At y request Mr. Shomker read me the Cet. 13,1982 denial letter over the phone. All related corresponderne is attached.
In phone conversations on Oct. 7 and 8, 1982. Mr. Shccaker and I discussed the status of the FOIA requests. Although I had originally in-tended to wait the outcome of the Midhi CM OL proceeding to appeal the FOIA denial (812 81;1etter), the unexpected turn of events in this case ukes the requested Confidential Proposed CA Stiplation of renewed interest to ne in 1982 Those recent events which motivate y appeal at this time include the reopening of the record on CA by the NRC so as to allcw Mr Ieppler to reconsider his QA testimony of 1981 (7-7 82 ASIB mmo), and the subsequent consideration by the NRC of a secord stipulation er CA solution addressing the new CA problems of 1982-(7-13 82 ASIB mmo).
I fear that the terns of the first CA Stiplation fron 1981, in question here, will increase the likelihood of the NRC negotiating a new QA agree::ent with Coraumers. The Confidential Proposed QA Stiplation thus has the potential to undermine the essence of the %CL hearings if the new RRC/CPC agreements mde for confidential reasons allow the soils remdial urder.
pinning verk to proceed prior to ASLB resolution of the question of CA irrple::entation posed in the December 6,.979 Crder regarding the soils issues.
For these ultimate pblic health and cafety reasons, I once again seek access to the 1981 Confidential Proposed CA Stipulation as soon as possible j
within the twenty days free the NRC's Oct. 4,1982 receipt of n Oct.1,1582 i
Appeal. The urgency of g request is due to the Cetober 29, 1982 sub:::ission date for NRC QA testimony and the Nove:ber 30, 1982 QA hearing dates in the CM OL prooseding.
My responses to the cited exe=ptions of the 82 477 denial repeating those of the 81-227 denial will be fortheccing.
Sincerely, cc: E. Shomaker, CELD Barbara S6miris S. rohn, GAP 5795 N. River Freelard, Mich. 48623 Parties %CL Prcceeding
r,'.I i 'f.%@%idWQ AU: W #7%
'V.Z.C.' Wyr'.
p'~" ____
M*M.., M.d., M$,+.n.s @*.p.,. -@.q.,fu
..,W h
$9qD.8
...s
.g.phN -
w% -
- 3. rred. sf s.5.Q.Z'yt-iA'*be.A+
- odn s
. -.... ~
g.Q,. t
- w
.4 A.-
J i
y :.Wft%ps W
9
- ^,Y k m
f Y h, w.. x,. :8f,y.a+n ob y,q. m a k;,~
. W
-, 9.:9..
v, : y.:; m,.- g...m
.. m.,.; n-wr j - y m y
m.w. m.~. 4. p;p Q.
g:it p m %
+
- -.u s sg r
.m-r y gin..
- n
- n e.m.
a; v.
a
."-+mq,...
.., 4.
h v
.~
3
,=.s m 'n m.. un. s..
.:c:
..,.". w',:<. sc w J'p.'...e.4 ff
.;;;,; is
. L.
.., 3*,. z 1 'W
, y
)g t, %ps. w,-. !*.y m.: W. ~.,' -
s.
- Q.
a,s.w y Q',
M".6.. -
w %,;. ;...% W.; c. ',.. s.7. :- _
. :,q; >
-f M,,+,1.
. b v. -.,..
y..
g...
~
,e.
% c $ o.a ?..'
. - : + ?.,.
- - ~
<*g'*V ;?'i <.' d - -
md.
., >~
...;. - ~ ;
.f, $. ;.p.;?
.,.91. ;
Z~
'-?
,.y..;f? -
n g,
y 7 q.3, p.y.
9p.. ;
~
i.e.*.?.,,
s,..,n., w. _..
.~., - -.. -
m.- -.,m..,7
, _. -.. ~ - - - -
. - gju
..:.eA's ' *% ~).,
.,. n. vQr
? '.
.y:..,%..%%..:..iy - r d,:' 3 n ~.. :v-
,. j J '.O. g (v..n: L, *' ; ^ : o.-.
,',,*p w.
.a,..-
v
'a y C,,.,..*
.?-
-+
- Qh.'r :r.C.:H*;.~ '. :
. : ~.df,,
~ i.Qf,.QLQ. t.b. ; ?A.,a s :
':1 q ;,:*
i~
.4. c>::.
v
.O n
n s.., :
. 37 w :.:. y. -r..
. ; ~... o. ye%y g w.e
.ng e
-.Ahs ;n
,r
, n.g%q.,. f, yX;d,..,~..
w.-,-
~..,.i, :i,.-M.,W..,y:e, M.y&d }l.:,h, -,9e w...
M...
n e..,w am>.y;.q. '
, e 4,,
Qm.3 n-p m
~ '. *% a),
}&_'
.'; f '~* l &
W,,-
.v k'
~ h (*.
(l l A *n : -;.
t SQ:"N&*Q&.t;$ &$.'&S W:' ;i '.2. [$djkhk??^.hT ?... -.
. j., <N,r..e @g. r.'*,g@,s b'A.Sn).f..?, M..M. '.w.. 3 1 '.
. :. :: i AL M'
. r..,.-
?f;d., 'W., so +y +.
-t. W :,. ' 6, i,MC..
WgW.4.i..rf',..n,. M, c w r s.
~,r
~f"
,, s ',., ;
~
1 a.,
,6 d:6$y$.: m&. v.e.g-B....h
- X.. Q,: P.R.'
- C ?:. @ $ % ; 3 : :,. w.O.m :: ~ -
'.. a.
.~
usy.
a
", "..W-
- ~..,
..e
,,1%.C m,
m
.w k #.6, '.-gy.,. * ;".,'@N,;[hq
,3 ' 'e.K.
.*'..g 9h5h..N, [ j:S.h.., f -8. N. UN. cNjd,lh..j#,
M
> d' f
FC$[. M h.V.i'
[-T ' * ' "'y $[;-?.. $.2.{f:
r
'a
.. ; -- r,.
?
A%
.. ^
... Ng:,p.[;Mcm,:f::.;..s,;,.
'e ) %%,f3 Mi%
- T X.
,;.... k
., ab. l.] *,. e.....
~ ~
z
.n.s.
s.yc;
.v..e,,, r.. w.w.
. 4,,:.,
.. L.,9 %p akq o.. %.
.., c -
ATTACEMENT 4-
.. 47,3 '
c ff..-
..."';.;, J. G.. u.
. f $ f h %.~
.. $, x;.,;.
m
=.
_a 5.
p.,Q N W1
. *..". l -
f.
,a.
h] a f
'..[) $
".*s',
- '~~tg'.:, c b( N" ib.
ai -
l< -
c.my h*
, w., +
..n.-
.p
.}w&.w pf,m.2
~u,%, %, ; - r 3
. m., n; -
j-2 ;-)-. e...
a
'su -..
~,,,. -
. c r,. *.,
o v,.- -
- ..-. g,g,.4, j,4.,.q.
p
,3.
- m> a, c k s
- g y,
.su 3
<. +,, *.-
c.
s..
r.
t J
]*[
- E.
L'..*p
- ?
Q
.N
.p; g k
j,-
'y
.I -
-},.
I..,
.n,
%,' &,i<-
,##.v[
s; 2
+y. M, %p
. m.n' A
.f,....-
n
. - p.,..,
- -.. v..
4 s,
hg%,,L.,
- r q,
--,.~'3.u-.y
],.i - * :
y ;-. ;. -,..
,,3g =._,, 3
.<.A,
.r a pg 3
p :...)./
.n
.. sy;f$LfD*;, mh
^ * ' > ~
3,. -.... r
-.~
,;p.:. +
m n.
. v,.m :.
..,.,., r
-L..8..
r
.... %. 2g.
%p **
7
-f.,.'
q o-w p, "
a r,
e
.s-
- =
g=
g e*_
.--.e
['
8..
e
,. y@e.19 g.r,., p g, g s.
' ' s a u. -
?.5-3pa
..v, _
4.[ &
,$ N. . Ap. +
N
' ~~g i I.,$'h'
. ~@,.. -
. s s
- m cc...o - - p...~., - mg.
y
..,u, s
s.
.g nw.
,A
,f'
'{5 : ?.v l[M -
- - Q3.
.. y '7
}.
1 {* *
(y g
~ p e.
q-n yyr u
.5. m :
pp:,4 f.hv?
6
..?.m,,,
- f. c h...
.o.-
~c L
. ^ YW %r sQ;. yt
,r,y y s... -
.. n.s
.:. h.
il'
,Q.:. c Q ' < : : 5l,$. L' *a
- y.. _...
_ 3... _d.. 4j .i.h n.
'c.
., y s;g _.2 ;. _.s.
h A
.4
. ~
.,v. g,.s 6..%.-
W'. N.-%#. M.c-i.;@g:".,q'v..,g.;W /r i C...& Ww/f:' M'rg bp,,c.d+b
~ % Q. ;'#(.% g..@es. " ? Pf "J 5. _.
Q-A s
a s
7
,.., '..x :7 t n
.,.% ; ~'. -
3,1
. u;.c;.::Q,,,,, Q,,;,f4&,, 4 J
y gLyh,..a..-ng9[q8 A..,. -
- n p
.., 7. > '_.n y :
.s n a,. y
~
2.,.
' Lf..:.i J /. 'fr. '. e..
,.f.. O yff.
t@A*.q Jg p.
,. g w c-2.
as f
- Ctc,
s jo UNIT ED STATES
,yQ g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
- c*g\\K, E
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
...../
October 13, 1982 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N River Freeland, MI 48623 IN RESPONSE REFER TO F01A-81-477
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
This is in response to your letter dated October 1,1982, in which you sought reconsideration of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's July 6,1981 response to your initial Freedom of Information Act request of June 11, 1981.
In both requests you have sought a copy of an eight page CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSED QA STIPULATION -- a document proposing terms of a compromise between the NRC and Consumers Power regarding quality assurance issues in the Midland proceeding.
Since requests for reconsideration are not strictly speaking a form of request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Edward Shomaker of the Office of the Executive Legal Director contacted you on October 7,1982, to try and clarify the scope and form of your request.
Mr. Shomaker has indicated that you agreed that this office can consider your October 1,1982 request for reconsideration as a new F0IA request for the stipulation document and that you are making this recuest now because (1) you wish to query whether the basis for the NRC's withholding the subject document has modified since July 6,1981; and (2) you believe that this document would be valuable to you in preparing to comment upon some remedial QA actions that are being proposed in relation to the Midland f acility.
Acting upon your request, Mr. Shomaker contacted the NRC attorney in the Midland proceeding, William Paton, and coordinated with the attorneys who generated the subject document at Isham, Lincoln & Beale in Chicago, Illinois.
Both these parties have indicated that an initial decision has not been rendered in the Midland OM-OL proceeding and that the document continues to be privileged information in the form of an attorney work product which reveals strategies developed by Consumers Power Company in preparing for legal action.
Accordingly, the rationale for withholding explained in my letter of July 6,1981 (copy attached), continues to be valid.
Therefore, this proposed stipulation is being withheld pursuant to exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(7)(B)- of the freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4) and (7)(B)] and 10 C.F.R. 9.5(a)(4) and (7)(ii) of the Comission's regulations.
4.-
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9.15 of the Comission'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 public interest.
The person responsible for this denial is Mr. Guy Cunningham, the Executive Legal Director.
This denial may be appealed to the Comission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
Sincerety,
'{S!gned) J. M. Perkd J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
/*
~
Enclosure:
7/6/81 letter Distribution:
DRR Rdg DRR Subj EShomaker PGNorry WPaton Reed Carr JMFelton PDR l
/
')
bD
[i(l*l.
(-
t r
g.-
- --.,- ~.._.
9D /, %{w~ hd 0%,[,
,g,(,,,,,,
,,,,,4 0
,l,,,,,,,,,,,
. c;.l..
...........i..j F;B Ra ga n J'
ton EShomaker:no
..l..
!.I.'__.!....
.... h.
^M
. - */- d..s $,NDj @ ' %,'iii@. %.1 @ -
t
.m
. y
>E:
. ~
MSf.
- . w
,.u w+. 4.
u,.
n$pe#v..
~
w m. ~ ;,ph%' r e.
p:
A.
-s o
-,..r. #,!* f ** Ca#f'Ast.
f'R.@g'..
n*
)"
3,w Q
yu ~ ~ ~ '.
A W..p s d-f. ig+.S.. W :M,. *,t..
r.
s,Sd w.<,*,.
. y, -
.U m.
, c.,... a y v.~ in,.a....
.--9 a.
.,e..
2 u...n w...g y
-e
'..e w w.n m,+u.x.ep.,. v..
.m, a-.y-x.,...
.e n,s k..u n.<4+:4;v
-- m,.....,4
+m
.x.,
- ( _ _
. 3 '.
$2@.G4'M. g e -...- =. :eM@pF,9
- d. %.,7. y@ $u n;P e.J..F. M, %: 3 - 4,$ p g %. n m.-
-.-. 3,,
g i.
.ey,.
M..<. %.is y:,, Q. V,. %. 5 $ g..;gSfij.i.,.,a s$ -
m'..t
. 3 i
. r..yc:.::.2 9.e.>, i:
w: L.
-- - *. 4 ~2.g.'.7...w.5,m.w;-.:. 4+:.,:. c_ : ~.-
.v.
-..m g,.
n.
.,.2
. m..y :.
m..
. ;.' r#r 9.p..
w-
- .s.
. m : a.
t.
g g do.-J, g3g;.,.
y
'd mar (.MtQ eg.-h & >:t 'QQ QfQ g*ty.g Qf l
~. -
- ,.- 4.
- y.. 7 y--.. -
k
%W WlW%@.whLg A
r g M;e.t 4 1 'u A : v,. s it p i
..,v.,n.. y,n.m
,F.
ga
- P ~
A<.Ws.yn b.. y, e.
a
~.
w.. M.r a.g w; ea 7-r
+*p* ga{e; c
... ;,w +L'.* c w.. ;;.
'.x.u M. a & h.,:n,N p$v$,.- :W'Y t
c.
Ah5. var 751s &..p~ 9 % ' W.f' b i.4 %
%9., '.
+
- wr N.
7 e..:&'wz.-
. 0
- .-.,.,.. f n :'
A,Q~.,,.,y.9. q.m L,.
. a w.,.,, m e.g y,t kYy ay&,.
ay
.y,
. Y h & y... a.e&l '.
W,.,-
,i n-;M..L.p.'
2,..
pM.
.K'WW< j >$,,-5 q.
d:SCh&.an.,,. $ 7:ify[ k.kh. 4..-am
__. &....h...*.h, ;~P..fh..h.
NS$...c
/
wp %.>
.W.
yh f'&*&&
f e&.,..
,3 m
s n
,i.
. th.- - V AuW. '
1
~ ' ' '
W. &.. _7&...&. Y.,.m &+.:.&... f4 &
u
.. g
- pt:
4-GL.E.
s:;$.m, Q~~ G. W-. ~y.Q; :k.k ~ % ' ?:.i;.y y.p g g
.e.
t gg.3,,,..: r%m y ;.g,.
i:W
- e ust-
^ 3:.
Y"?dh%t;$n.gasw$:$&.U. 'i:?-Q lW
.p
.... e.wn.w:m
...=. ATTACHMENT'.S h..
%_ A.
L.
,* +,'ar.-
. :$;.5..,.l.lI~
~
+-
4
,..o
- , rQ@'l5 f"i. **"*' j-
-d
- %
- 1I
'Mi e "
i Ne;&',pk.k" @' '&..q; 'm.j%.s+.
- ?,' Q..r f
,g.'.i.
2***-
?
.Q* ;'- (
a
..., *.:. w, -.aA
~
....A y f.
..~,. -,
...-.+g
- q, e, utr.*;
v
,. -. c. a.4..q -.,. e.nw s
s
..r.
.,,..-...~.2 3
';3 3 r..% *GistC '. ~. Xf..iu, e.-
.. r p'
- et
- .a
.sw.M
- %g 9...
(..
.,.; V V.
'...WCp RTt.*'O
}..
% f' Q 'q $;R & P,:x V.,
[. Ly ' :,.4-54 p W:..i)*}:!.:tYx;. f. 5.;.
.&_4x -
- %'iV l T >'
4
- ., ; -. ?..Q,. } -
- ,
-f:y 3.iv. W 7.'
.A ' V.. w.m p m Y %, o:u, y.- t o.,A..t.,
p Q.. +w *.
r..
...s'q.. ;v.D : '%
,4
. M.? Jg q.
-d e '.
, y C.,..,.r.
.m--- n.
v
~ :
m,
.. ~
.a
%...g y.
%m
.p.
r
- 5,
. hy.4 y:
.n m-mwy;,.. ;tn f n,
.y
.g--g
~~
g
.2 t
...: s
%%p...., gcy 47
. - m n.,
g 4 _.,..f.
. f.:;-
xgy
,3 g
.n -
s.o
, o.
f
.. e..
ye
..~.
- .-N,
- yjge',j'A,,,f f,'hN G l.
- &'[ 'f}.f,h,. h.: ' _
-, ~.2., f.&* ;
&. *~.
s
.,7.,7
^ 3e:.yq%. j-.....r, j R....wr -.., g:.. : y ; Q:qy a.,..y
..s...
,. ?,
..__.. _. __..' h.. <....._ _.. ~ i. ___.l%, _s.y,%.,*.& ~~C_.
_&_G,. T.';...: ~_:__t...,
._, _W, :.% 4.? } ':3y% -
' i6O_,,_ _ _ i, 1
-y,,.-*" &'
.a
.,p %
,.r_. p 4 w..%
=, - -
~
.e %. w
....p.. ~.%y;pg og %
<M*~~
.'y',,s.:,..,,m ; w.wg 4Q~,,,.v.'*;.g~4
- y c....
1 g
4. :~... J. >. ~.m
~.g:n. 4,.;..y.;g.
- , ~:.* g, v.c f:. i. g,'
. m -,. :.e m *4
- ,:;. c
,d
..L..
w%.+ ;,
r a-
. y
,p v.-
r,
~-
+
- w 3,;V'w,$gi;~.,%Q S. o..ph'*2.7: n. M.-A.;3.-..
.-u w,',...
^:
.,'.3 ' y r 2,t%.3 y.f. <..a, w, ~ :Vf,. t
. :::.:: &y m g.,., j p c.:- - -~ q sp
.,g y.,
.s
- y.
w,)5
- a n h;y;:w say.n *;% ~..w f C.C:f.j%, W r:::,;s-h,'*. hg. ;QQ'9 g
..s L ::'?;/.'~yg.
.p k
a -
.~
hf f
~fx&c;. f., h5hf)!'R.nn f., a'ty{'t* bh._<.$$h.e t%
'
- f, Ai-}- R. f. ' a. *, N?.
'g.
<. w,.,, w+,,f, %.,%.;4..s %.,&,..
(.,,-,.,.
r.
.s is i.
s,. r.. r 4.
- ,g <
.s; p m.y..:Q.q
- .3.~,., s,. A mm e.
.w q.. *<. ; '. ;.p p g g m y.
r,m_,, q..
a-
,..t.,.,..
- m.u,..y
..,... ~.,
,c..
.*~;~
- s. pp v.:; ;,-n
...,c.-
,e
-m.-,.p Me..
...u.,...,..m; ;.m g.
%'.m.y;..(;
4,,,. w,..-,;....,~
.,.c.
r
[
C.,.....,
.....r
. ~... ~,
, e.y -Jp. g.,. ;.j 6.L ;s,v;i g.t..:
_ y g. ' j, gg..,
,;t gN.r.
2
.,e..
...-A.-
.,,d.. w =
.L...c.,
s
~
.f - Q,, e :
., 5,.M:gQi./,j-g3:e 4
- $ g;E Thydig l
<. c
, r. a d.d.>..t N..,.g e...,.
x.. p..
E.tejs.T..e s
-w21 s
.M..' e ?
p.
,s 9;..
n.
-g. f
.y _.. r. vb -
1
+ )..p,. s.a
,.....3..
s ;. 9 d Mc.e.... a~or...y.:
w.e Waq..,. > a.m _.
. s,
.r..
.,e
- s..
s
.n,
. y.X n s
...y:
+
>n.
~ '
.N ~*',J' %..,,.af g 8 +7,.?f.E*1 y*.e, ; 3
,',.'.%.D Y.. [ ^..S. %*,.m~N.f.p k,
- n
.q
.;.y. Dcm.dsh..m.M..,be.(._..p.m....g-rg g
. V Jg %e
.t v _.
w
-..t.
J *djb'1.O;k'
's.fsI..g s f
- d
- 4.A ' :y
-,-*, /1 M.$ ::t.4., a yjN'd*T'[r 5
pr.-
......,...g t:b y..
- v. 4 E,
.;r.a.....,.;m As q.gWp~Q'y:ju.Am :.... ;... C&.:.erM'M ".
?
M.P.,g.;;.,"g?
.,- j y,,.
- . - % 4.
v.
.,.a., g,.,=y.j-g I' g 4.... o
.. :e :.g.u s-
... _ _ _._. _3 5%.j,;,....,.....-.-9.,...a,..
j,.,
,. m. s.. 7. _..r. u.G,....
3._.._.,.,.
g, g.
- v. g 7._.
,y -. -.
,.,,.,w..
mw.
.,c..
u.....
c.,- T
~
l Parbara Stemirls" Intervenor 50-329, 50-330 OM-OL Proceeding l
5795 N. River Freeland,141ch. 48623 October 27, 1982 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nucicar ?.egulatory Commission Washingtto J.C. 20555 re: FOIA Appeal 81-227 and 82-477
Dear Secretary:
Please regard this letter as a supplement to my appeal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss-ion's denial of my Freedom of Information Act recuest of 6/11/81 (FOIA SI-227); to the reaffirmation of this re uest dated IQ,I3/82 (FOIA 82-477); and to my appeals of these recuests dated 8/12/81, 10/1/82,and 10/13/82.
The original FOIA recuest and all subsecuent correspondence concern the release of a 1983 Confidential Proposed GA Stipulation yubmitted to the NRC by Consumers ?cwer Company regarding Cuality e
Assurance adecuacy in the Midland nuclear plant " soil settlement" proceeding (hereinafter Stipulation).
1 The recuested document contains the confidential terms of t
the '!?C/Consttmers ?cwer Conpany agreement upon which the 6/5/81 puhlic CA stipulation is based (attached). Consumers Power Company E; reed to t.'.is Stipulation upon receiving the NRC's " reasonable f
assurance" judgement for quality assurance adecuacy contained in J tacs Reppler 's' OM-OL test imony (p.1464 ).
My S/II/81 FOIA recuest was denied in a 7/6/81 letter from J.:/..Felton of the NRC. This FOIA denial and the reasons justifying the denial were reaffirmed in a 10/13/82 letter from Mr. Felton.
r
t,
+
page 2 FOIA Appeal Midland Mr. Felton cited two exemptions justifying his denial of the FOIA request.
He also asserted that the release of the Stipulation was n,ot in the public interest, and therefore not di.sclosable under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidel$nes.
The two FOIA exemptions cited were 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4), which concerns " trade secrets and commercial or fin-ancial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential," and 5 U.S.C.'552(b)(7)(B) which exempts certain
" investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would...
deprive a person o'r a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication."
Mr. Felton also denied release' of the Stipulation under 10 CFR 9.9(a) which allows for th'e release of otherwise exempted information if disclosure is "not contrary to the public interest and will not adversely affect l
the rights of any person..."
This appeal letter will show that both exemptions to the FOIA have been missappliek, and have no bearing on the Stipulation given the facts of this case. The use of these exemptions has contravened\\
public policy, public interests, and the congressional intent of the FOIA.
Furthermore, release of the Stipulation will further the public interest in the construction a safe nuclear power plant, and further the public interests of No the citizen s surrounding the Midland nuclear plant.
i l
g Fago 3
~
FOIA Appeal Midland person's rights or interests would be " adversely affected" through the release of the Stipulation.
Thus the disclosure of.th
'tipulation is:. not only required under law, it gla also required under NRC policy.
_, _ I.
Exemption (b)(7)(B) is not Applicable or Relevant to, the Stipulation.
The Exemption Was Misappled and can not be used to Withhold Release of-the Stipulation under the POIA.
In order for a record or file to be exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B), it must meet a three part test.
If it fails to meet any part of this test the record cannot be withheld.
The records must be both " investigatory" and " compiled for a law enforcement purpose," to be covered under any of the subsections of Exemption (b)(7).
In order to be covered by subsection (B) of Exemption (b)(7) the record must further " deprive a person of a right to a fair trial.or an impartial adjudication."
Irons v. Bell, 596 F.2d 468 (1979); Gregory v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Civ. No. 78-1702 (D.D.C. March 29, 1979);
120 Cong. Rec. S 9336 (daily ed., May 30, 1974); Education /
Instruccion, Inc. v. HUD, 471 F. Supp. 1074 (1979), Church of Scientology v. Department of.the Army, 611 F.2d 738 (1979).
In his July 6,1981 letter Mr. Felton fails to even ElleF3 that the requested Stipulation was either an " investigatory" record, or " compiled for law enforcementpurposes."
Felton's failure to make the allegation is not suprising.
Clearly the
Page 4.
FOIA Appeal Midland l
l Stipulation is not an " investigatory record."
It is a document submitted by a private corporation in anticipation of a j
valuable benefit. As the Stipulation is not an investigatory
\\
/
record) it can not be exempted under (b)(7)(B).
Furthermore, the record was not " compiled for law enforcement purposes. "
The standard for such purposes has been well defined - it applies only to information compilied
. fot_a demonstrated law enforcement purpose, Scientology v. Army, i
611 F.2d 738,748 (1979); Irons v. Bell, 596 F.2d 468 (1979).
The courts have consistadly held that investigatory documents with no law enforcement component are not exempted, such as civil rights monitoring reports, see Sears, Roebuch and Co.
- v. GSA, 509 F.2d 527 (1974); law enforcement manuels, Cox v.
Dept. of Justice, 576 F2d 1302 (1978); union authorization i
cards, per.aittee on Masonic Homes v. NLRB, 566 F.2d 214 (1977).
3 i
As the Stip,ulation was neither an " investigatory" record ror a record "compilied for law enforcement' purposes,"
Exemption (b)(7)(B) is not applicable.
Even assuming the.
-i I
Stipulation was an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes, the Stipulation still fails to overcome the third burden
" depriving a person of a ri ht to a fair l
S t
trial or an impartial adjudication."
h a
o, 3,
g Fage 5 FOIA Appeal Midland Mr. Felton claims that subsection (b)(7)(B) is relevant because the FOIA applies to " corporations as well as individuals," thereby implying that corporation s have simi-lar privacy interests as individuals and (b)(7)(B) is designed to pretect these interests.
Felton also aserts that this exemption applies to administrative hearings as well as to jury trials, and the release of the Stipulation might
" distort the perception of the board" and " prompt the board to second guess the posture of the parties and involve the board in the negotiation process."
Felton's application of (b)(7)(B) is completely erroneous.
" His implied assumption that corporation s and individual s have similar privacy interests protected under the exemption is wrong.
Equating the standard used to protects a person's interests before a criminal trial and before an administrative proceeding as in any way similar,is wrong.
His fear that the release of the Stipulation might " distort" the board's perceptions is unfounded, and runs counter to the NRC's rules of evidence.
i Although the case law on subsection (b)(7)(B) is scarce, the type of interest protected by this subsection can be analogized to the privacy interests protected in (b)(7)(C) which denies disclosure of information which would " constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
As the case law under this exemption clearly points out, the types of privacy or secrecy interests protected are dissimilar in cases
q Prge 6 F<,
i Appeal
'and
'of people and cases of corporations.
It is wrong to analogize information which may hurt the reputation of an individual and thereby prejudice him or her at a trial, and similar information
~
dealing with a corporation.
The courts have consistant17 held that th'e standard for protection of t a corporation is much lower than the standard for an individual.
In fact, a corporation is not even extended any of the privacy interests protected by (b)(7)(C).
The courts have held that this exemption has no
application to corporations, see e.g. Public Citizen v. HEW, 477 F.Supp. 595 (1979); Robertson v. Dept. of Defense, 402 P.Supp.
1342 (1975);
Ferguson v. Kelly 455 F.Supp. 324 (1978).
y Felton completely misinterprets the correct standards to be used in determining the application of the exemption at an administrative hearing as opposed to at a jury trial.
An adn'.nistrative hearing is not a jury trial, and the standards
~
used to protect a person from prejudice in these two radically different forums is likewise different.
An administrative hearing is comprised of a pannel of experts, not lay j urors often completely unfamilar with the subject matter, the case law, and the traditions of the judical process.
What "may be highly prejudcial to a lay jury is often dismissed as irrelevant to a pannel of experts.
The courts have recognized the ability of administrative judges to insulate themselves from otherwise prejudical remarks.
In Education / Instruction, Inc.,
v.
U.S., 471 F.Supp. 1074 (1979), the court held that exemption
(
Pago 7
^
FOIA Appeal Midland (b)(7)(B) was primarily a protection against prejudical publicity in criminal proceedings and has little significance in civil court or administrative hearings:
...prejudical publicity has little significance in administrative proceedings..."
Felton's letter demonstrates a cicar misunderstanding of basic rules of evidence and NRC administrative procedure.
Felton claimed that the Stipulation would violate Consumers Power's right to a fair ajudication because:
" Exposure of previous drafts of stipulations without exposure to the process under which those drafts were develped can serverely distort the perception of the board as to the merits of the present stipulation..."
This statement rests on two incorrect assumptions - first, that the Stipulation will be accepted into evidence, and second, that if it is &ccepted into evidence, the witness at the proceeding will not be able to explain any) possible unfair prejudice contained in the Stipulation.
The NRC's regulations regarding submission or documenm into evidence are clearly spelled out in 10 C.F.R. 2.743 The acceptance of evid'nce is predicated on a three part test.
The I
e f
document must be " relevant," " material" and " reliable."
If the document fails any part of this test, it cannot be admitted into evidence at the proceedings.
First, no unreliable information can be admitted into evidence.
If the evidence is not sufficiently self-explanatory, it can only be admitted into evidence by a witness who is qualified to i
I Y
s Page 8 FOIA Appeal Midland explain the document.
If the document standing by itself is not self-explanatory, the only witness who would be able to explain the document at a hearing would be repre.sentatives from either Consumers Power or the NRC who are familar with its I
history, development, and meaning.
The ability to have witnesses on the stand, either called up for direct testimon?.*
or examined under cross, will insure that any of the " distortions" l
(
contained in the Stipulation standing by itself can be rendered l
l l
harmless.
In order to be admitted into evidence the Stipulation must also be both relevant and material, see 10 C.
.R.
2.743 In order to meet this burden, the document must.be both addressed to an issue being litigated and influenti.a1 as to the outcome of the proceedings. If the Stipulation is not relevant and material it cannot be submitted into evidence, and therefore exemption (b)(7)(B) is irrelevant. If the Stipulation is relevant and material, then the interveners have a compelling reason for its release, and if the Stipulatior, is not released, the intervenors' rights to a fair and impartial hearing will be abridged. ( As an intervenor in this matter, I
, find this situation particularly aggrievous.
This E rguement will b? further developed in the third section of this letter,
- th15h cov'ers the release of information which serves the public interest. )' ' See 10 C.F.R. 9.9(a)
O
o l
I i
e Page 9 FOIA Appeal Midland Felton also alludes to the fact that a hearing is presently pending, and the final stipulation is still "awaitihg approval" as a factor in applying the (b)(7)(B) exemption.
Felton cites no case law or no portions of congressional debate to support this misleading assertion.
There are no cases which support Felton's position, and the history of the exemption completely negater his assertion.
Subsection (B) was added to exemption (b)(7) in 1974 as a means of narrowing the exemption.
Prior to 1974 a number of courts allowed a broad reading to the definition of " investigatory records". Exemption 7 was explicity narrowed in order to restrict withholdings under
\\
( this exemption, 120 Cong, Rec. S 9336 (daily ed., May 30, i
1974).
Only information contained in six very explicit subsections of exemption 7, (b)(7)(B) being one of the subsections, could be withheld from public view.
The Su.preme Court has recognized that this narrowing process was the primary intent of the 1974 amendment to the exemption:
...the thrust of-congressional concern in its amendment of Exemption 7 was to make clear that the Exemption did not endlessly protect material i
simply because it was in an investigatory file," NLRB v.
Robbins, 437 U.S. 214,230 (1.978).
There is no specific category or subsection in exemption 7 relating to the withholding vf or en investigatory files or investigatory files relating i
Pare 10 s
F0fA A:; eel XLiland r
to pending litigation.
The very existance of subsection (b)
(4)(3) presuposes that material relat:ag to a pending hearing i
Or trial can be released, and only exempts a small portion of these files which are (a) investigatory; (b) compiled for a law enforcement purpose; (c) and would " deprive a person of a right/to a fair trial or iui.inpartial adjudication," none of which i
~
I apply in this case.
In fact,in ruling upon the public OA StipuI.ation, the ASLB accepted only Parts I and 2 of the Stipulation, declining to rule upon Part 3 concerning CA adecuacy until hearing test 1: cony and i
receiving evidence on that subject. (See attached Ruling) The Boardts
.ecuest for relevant and material evidence on the NRC's position concerning " reasonable assuranc'e" of CA adecuacy makes disclosure of the recuested document necessary to a complete public record.
In 3;= nary, Felton's use of Exemption (b) / 7)(3)is, erroneous.
(1)
The exemption only covers " investigatory" records c0 piled for " law enforcement purposes."
As such, the 5:ipulation, which was not ec'npiled as part of an investigation, or for law enforcement, is not covered by (b)(7) (B).
The Stipulation was a document voluntarily suinitted to the NRC from a private corporation with the anticipation of receiving a valuable benefit-(2)
The standards under (b)(7)(B) for corporatio,ns and indi'.'iduals are not identical.
'3)
The Stipulation will not prejudice an administrative hearing.
~.,
- a t
Page 11 FOIA Appeal Midland (4)
The standards for prejudicing an administrative hearing are not identical to that of a trial by jury.
(5)
The NRC rules of evidence will protect the NRC or Consumers Power from any prejudice resulting from release -
of the Stipulation.
(6)
If the Stipulation is not reliable, relevant,and material,'it cannot come into evidence.
(7)
If the Stipulation is relevant and material, it must be released to protect the interests of the public, f
and the rights of the intervenors to a fair and impartial hearing.
p (8)
The fact that hearings are presently pending is not relevant given the facts of this case.
II.
Exemption (b)(4) is not Applicable or Relevant to the Stipulation.
The Exemption was Misapplied and can not b6 used to Withhold the Release of the Stipulation.
The second exemption cited by Mr. Felton in'his July 6,1981 letter as justifying the NBC's refusal to disclose the Stipulation is (b)(4), which exempts " trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential," from disclosure, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
This exemption has been cumuletely misapplied, and is not relevant to the facts of the present case.
\\
l
Page 12 FOIA Appeal Midland Felton states that the Stipulation is " privileged information in the form of attorney work product," and thereby exempted
_ _. __through (b)(4).
But attorney work product is not covered by this exemption.
This exemption applies only to " trade
/
secrets" and " commercial or financial" information.
Attorney g
work product is explicitly excluded from its scope.
Felton has made no attempt to portary the Stipulation as either a " trade secret" or as " commercial or financial" information.
In fact, the Stipulation is nothing of the kind.
It is a document concerning important soils issues and quality assurance issues and problems suffered at the Midland site.
~
Because the Stipulation is neither a " trade secret"nar " commercial f
or financial" information, the exemption has been misapplied.
I The courts have been very clear that only trade secrets t
and commercial or financial information are covered by this exemption It ' does not apply to other types of information, see e.g.
Board of trade v. Commidity Futures Trade Committee, 627 F.2d 392,405 where the court stated that the " plain language" of Exemption 4 restricted its use to trade secrets and comm-ercial or financial information. In County of Madison v. Department
.of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036,1042 (1981) attorney work product was explicitly exc1dded from exemption (b)(4).
Fr. Felton apparantly misread this exemption in precisely i
the fashion the courts have warned a5ainst.
In Brockway v.
Denactment of Air Force, 518 F.2d 1184,1189 (197,4), the court b
's t
w Page 13 FOIA Appeal _
Midland explained the origins of this misreading:
"The tendency has been to grant little weight to these passages,from reports (i.e. congressional history) on the I
theory that the passages (which support a broad reading of exemption 4) were taken from previous congressional reports on an earlier draft of the Freedom of Information bill which in fact exempted confidential, non-commercial and non-financial matters." (emphasis added)
Thus attorney work product has been explicity excluded from coverage under exemption (b)(4). The misapplication of the exemption has been explicit,y warned against in numerous cases, see e.g. National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (1974);
consumers Union v.
Veterans Administration, 301 F. Supp. 796 (1969);
county of Madison, supra, at 1189 (1981).
Significantly, even if the material requested was commercial or financial, and was given to the NRC on a strictly confidential basis, the Stipulation still would not be included within exemption (b)(4).
It is well-settled law that information give n to a
- federal agency under a promise of strict confidentiality is not automatically exempted from the public under the FOIA.
In Petkas v. Staats, 501 F.2d 887 (1974) the court held that a
" promise" of confidentiality cannot itself defeat the right of disc 1soure.
Even before the 1974 amendments to the FOIA, the s
t Page 14 FOIA Appeal _
Midland I
courts were clear that information given to the government, even r
if confidential and related to commercial or financial matters, is not automatically exempt under exemption (b)(4):
"The Board, citing the Attorney General's memorandum of 1967, maintains that Exemption 4 applies to any information given the
'l government in confidence.
But this interpretation tortures the plain meaning of Exemption 4..."Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670 (1971) at 673 Also see Dept. of Air Force Rose, 425 U.S. 352,371 (1976).
v.
Information given to the government in order to satisfy a -
statute or regulation, or to obtain a valuable economic benefit, are not exempted from disclosur'e by exemption (b)(4).
The exception to this general rule is information which would hurt a corporation's competitive standing or reveal a trade In National Parks v. Morton, 498 F.2d 756 (1974),
secret.
the court held that information given to the government in order to obtain an economic benefit was not covered by exemption (b)(4), despite the fact that it was given in confidence and contained financial information:
...since the concessioners are required to provide this financial inform'ation to the government, there is presumably no dan 'ger that.ipubite:
s disclosure will' impair the ability of the Government to obtain this information in the. future," 498 F 2d at 770 Consumers Power Company must give the NRC certain information in order to comply with the law and obtain a valuable financial l
~
s
\\
Page 15
~
^
FOIA Appeal Midland benefit - the operation of a nuclear power plant.
Consumers Power gave the NRC the Stipulation in anticipation of a valuable benefit.
These. reasons clearly place the Stipulation outside of even the type of commercial or financial information the exemption was designed to protect.
As stated above, exemption (b)(4) does not apply to attorny work product.
The FOIA exemption which does apply to attorny work product is completely inapplicable.
Although Mr. Felton correctly did not use this exemption [ 5 U.S.C.552 (b)(5) ), it is important to distinguish it in order to avoid confusion.
Exemption (b)(5), Nhich c* overs attorney work product, exempts
" inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in lit-igation with the agency."
This exemption only covers " inter-agency" or " intra-agency" material, and does not cover attorney work product submitted to the government by a private corpor ation or law firm, see e.g. NLRB v. Sears, 421 U.S. 132 (1975); Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340 (1979);
County of Madison v. Dept. of Just1ce, 641 F.2d 1036 (1981).
The exemption was designed to protect "the exchange of ideas among agency personel," H.R. Rep. No.
1497, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 10 (1966), Ryan v. Dept. of Justice, 617 F.2d 781 (1980).
e Page 16 FOIA Appeal _
Midland Because the Stipulation was the product of a Consumers Power. attorney, it is outside of the statutory languge and outside the scope of the exemption.
The courts have also been clear _that exemptions (b)(4) and (d)(5) are not inte:achangeable.
If a private attorney's g-
~
work product is not, covered by (b)(5), it also is' not covered by(b)(4):
"The government's plea that it should be able to guarantee confidentiality for its dealings with special nongovernment parties would be more properly courched in argument that.the relevant provision here instead is exemption four (as opposed to exe.ntion 5), which excepts from disclosure
'information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.'
This position would be countered, however, by exemption four's limitation to ' commercial or financial information."
County of Madison, supra at 1042.
The County of Madison case is right on point. The United States attorney had confidential dealings with the attorney for the Oneida Indian Tribe.
Information obtained from these confidential meetings were held outside of both exemption *
(.b)(4) and (b)(5).
In the case at bar, the St'ipulation is outside of the (b)(4) exemption because the material is not
" financial or commercial," and it is outside the (b)(5) i a
exemption because it is not an " inter-agency or intra-agency" e
memorandum.
9
a i.
l Page_17 FOIA Appeal Midland 4
The courts have held that even if the government stood to benefit from the conducting of confidential negotiations, still the material (s) from these attorney negotiations would not be covered by exemption,(b)(4) or (b)(5):
"...the Oneidas approached the governnment with their
.own interest in mind.
While they came to parley, they were past and potential adversaries, not coopted colleagues.
1 We recognize that the government also stood to benefit from a successful settlement, but we believe that expanding exemption five to include self-seeking petioners 'within' agencies would do more violence to statutory language than U
congress ' direction permits. "
County of Madison, supra.
e at 1040,1041.
Again, the facts of the two cases are nearly identical.
Consumers Power and the NRC were "past and potential adversaries," consumers Power approached the NRC for their own interest, and the NRC was seeking to recognize a
" benefit from a successful settlement."
But as County of Madison plainly holds, neither exemption (b)(4) or (b)(5) is applicable.
I e
t Page 18 FOIA Appeal Midland III.
The 3elease of the Stipulation will Serve the Public Interest and rust be Released According to NRC Regulations, Even if the Stipulation was properly Withheld via (b)(7)(3)
I and (b)(4) i According to 10 C.F.R. 9 9(a), the NRC must. release i
1 3
docunents requested under the FOIA, even if these documents are properly covered by the various exemptions, if the release of the material "is not contrary to the public interst and will not adversely affect the rights of any persons..."
The section of the Code of Federal Regulations which covers the MEC is written in complete accordance with Supreme Court decisons and interpretations of the congressional intent behind the FO:A. The Su preme Court has ruled that all of the exe:ptions to the FOIA are discretionary, and there are no candatory rules for disclosure, Dept. of the Air Force v. Rose, L25 U.S. 352, 361 (1976).
Furthermore, all of the exemption's to the FOIA r.ust be narrowly construed:
...the exemptions set forth in the FOIA are be be narrowly construed so as to impisment the overall legislative policy of disclosure, NLRB
- v. Robbins, k37 U.S. 214 (1978), see also Kissinger v.
F.eporters Conr.ittee, 245 U.S. 136,152 (1980).
Mr. Felton, in an unsupported assertion, states that disclosure of the Stipulation would be " contrary to the public policy" and dis cisses arguments for disclosure based on 10 2. F. ?.. 9 9(a).
No only was no evidence presented to explain e
- 2 7,a;c 17 g
FOIA Aopen!
l CTitanc hsv this FOIA reauest would contravene public policy, the
- RC
, in a 10/0/32 telephone conversation end in the 10/13/82 letter, stated that their refusal to release the Stipulation was based upon consultation with Consumer.'s law firm. The NRC decision to withhold the document thus did not reflect any reDard for public policy.as asserted.
In fact,public health and safety interests which rest in the full and f air consideration of all relevant soil settlement and cuality assurance issues in the. OM-OL proceeding established to resolve these issues, can only be met by release of the Stip-ulation in cuestion.
As an intervenor acting solely in the public interest to Or0:ste safety at the Mi.dland n,uclear plant, I an denied my brights as a full party to the proceeding 2ndthe public is denied their rights to a full and f air consideration of all relevant issues by being denied access to a document which concerns the resolution of t'r.e key is s ue: of this proceeding - the cuestion of CA adequacy by the agency acting in their behalf, the NRC.
According to NRC policy, resolution of the ultimate issues in a proceeding are to be left to the ASL5 hearing the case, not the ?:RC Staff. public Service of Indiana, Marble Hill 162, ALAB 461, 7 :RC, 310-313 (1978). Yet resolution of the ultimate issue in this case, the judgement on QA " reasonable assurancc", has been used as a bargaining tool in the NRC/ Consumers Power Company CA Stipulation.
Such - agreements which make use of public-safety CA decisions as
P' age 20 FOIA Appeal Midland elements of negotiation, based on confidential terms, violate ASLB' directives (see attached Ruling); NRC ' regulations limiting stipula-tions to "any relevant fact or the contents or authenticity of any document" 10CFR 2.753; and the public trust in ther agency upon which they must depend, The.NPC's denial of.this FOIA recuest can only be
/
viewed a(s an eff. ort to protect themselves or Consumers Power Company, which, places these interests ahead of the public health and safety interests they are charged with protecting.
The soil settlement issues which are the subject of the Stip-ulation are without cuestion the most critical pubIIc health and s af e ty I'ssues at the Midland plant. Every major safety system at the plant is affected by the soil settlement problems, and their integ-rity depends on the adequate resolution of the related technical and quality assurance cuestions at Issue here. The affected safety Category I structures which have settled, c' racked, and are subject to extensive remedial support, surcharge, or underpinning measures include: the Auxilliary Building (electrical penetration and feedwater Isolation valvepit areas controlling the reactor core); the Diesel Generator Building.(e=ergency power supply); the Service Water Intake Structure (supply of cooling water); the Forated Water Storage Tanks (emergency borated water supply); and the Underground Safety Piping
.and Conduit (the electrical and coo 1Ing water lifelines of the plant).
u of these,. the DGE, the SWS (portion on fi1I), and the BWST were begun after Consumers was aware of the sitewide soils problems CPC P7oposed Findings 3/15/82, p. 221 final sentence *and see 1978-1979 commencement dates
I f-Page 21 FOIA Appeal Midlano The extent and seriousness of these soil settlement problems and their remediation is unprecedented 1*n the nuclear industry.....
Director Xeppler of Region III has likened the soils remedial work to the equivalent of building a third reactor onsite. And the ASI,B Judges have warned of the potential for " Irreversible damage in safety class structures".from.the delicate remedial work.. Yet,re newed CA problems in this, soils remedial worTc have caused the NRC to reopen the OA hearing record in the OM-OL proceeding.
In the f ace of the disproven OA adequacy assessment ' con-tained in the 6/5/81 pubile OA Stipulation, and the numerous previousIy misjudged signs of CA improvement (LBP 74-71, ALAB 106, ALAB 147) In* Midland's p6 bile record, the' t iae, has come for the ?fRC to lay all the facts out to the public and to the Board regarding the t
CA and soils i s sues at Mid'Iand.
Given the history of QA failure; at Midland, the importance of the soils CA issues, and the manner in which the NRC CA judgements were used in stipulution agreements, the public has a compelling interest in the release of the requested Stipulation.
No persons rights will be adversely affected if the Stipulation is released.
According to 10 CFR 9.9(a), such release is mandated in the public Int e re st, even if the Stipulation was otherwise exempt.
In fact, the pub 1Ic's rights will be seriously compromised if this important document remains secret.
v ~ e 22 a
F02A Appeal Midland In conclusion, the two exemptions cited by Mr. Felton as justifying his refusal to release the requested document s'-
are badly misapplied, misleading, and have no bearing whatsoever on the case at bar.
There are no other exemptions to the FOIA which would allow the NRC to refuse to disclosee the
/
requested documents.
NRC policy requires the Stipulation be t
released even if the exemptions did apply.
As an intervenor in nuclear power plant proceedin5s before the NRC, I have extraordinary needs and interests, protected by the FOIA, NRC policy, and sound and rational public policy.
The Supreme. Court of the United Stat'es has recognized interests..
such as those articulated in this request, as representing the very essence of the FOIA:
"The basic purpose of the FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."
NLRB v.
Robbins, h37 U.S. 214,242 (1978).
I hereby request that toe Stipulation requested under the FOIA be disclosed to me without delay, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) and 10 C.F.R. 9.9(a).
If any or all parts of this appeal is denied, I plan to take this matter to court.
Sincerely, j
Barbara Stamiris CC Government Accountability Project
.g g a,..
Wgg: >m,gbbyA; c
.j.,
C'.pQ ' ty.Q _. fr'Wz'; q;Q
. (f y%..?"
u.:. g s.s w pmj
.w.ca
- L.
-.2 9 g
Jy 3M-w,-
.A{ w 1
1
.. y.. w,....w 3,.wg,s,
g-...--e*. -.q *..+ r*o. w/ 6,4,f.,
.Q
<.s.
.. m.
.f.
w.
4
,1,..
c.,
w, Or f ;x. vc d 4.y,w[J J,
xms.p--ge @ g g,f(.: f-[p#f
$f ).,'wh,
.g r,..:
s
?.MIk%pfD$
. j.'[.h
,y,.
g t*m - t-. a.wt*W*,u-t. q,% %*M. :k..:;gh. i.:cu,- A-- d.pg gir h n:*
hc
..ger:M.a s.
. t.f.
- 3 yo. -
N f
n
~
- e.,. 4,. W. 2 T ~~ r..
wa C,%. yJ'..s
_.y # %.4..,.~,, W d.%.*H...",;~. c.,ce%r,.
i
.c c. ;M.~..t '( %*. -.M,.h.& ram. -
s:u
.'9 y
. 7; 7 r
- 2 t
=e - > *.
.m.
- 3.-
., : g cy,.c....
- c-.
4 y
- W.
- . E 'dp'f.h... w.E.}.. j..
-f.Jf %,-h;m 3-p.
6.(
4
-.g%e Fc.
M v;
2y.p..
.3
.E i
__4,., _ r __., f.,, a.#
.d. e..
a.,.
...' _'., g, g
..?.**
>l.5 %..
- *y. 'm.4? rQ % -!.*y zf*W7vS.Q. d;g-Q'*g.,:-$..,%.ykQ+y,..., 3 y.4H.'$suf ;'.a y.y ~.,2
_7
, :. e
.. e
. g
~
h w yJ. w.
.v.,a.i. y 4.,..-- m,w: g.:,-
h,R.7
- p~>;&.g.,.y-i.,i G_l,qq
- a '..%.#,.9, gm.,f s'g,n....q.s,.%,.~~A.. Q. -k~
V*
W w
.~
. mv s
hb
'h
'I-h N h. '. $. _;
pg z, y.gjty,. ~
I.,
h;
-/
rF
- i. y s
%.p:(,
..g
- y..;,,
g<g..m y,;9. 7 -?,g! '..^ w. i.~_
y p 1.2..
,s
%. *..m y ! n s.. p..m.. :,.. ;,.*. ;. G;'.O, F.W.., e
.,+=
? l.:'h.hh,fS;f N_; y, g.,,,fg*G. c.
ent :
+ c p
A
. v. a,.: sp.9.,g.. u'. : q.
.,.g.9:,
_. (.,
R. 1 M W M. h $ fibf h b. f &, $'k@s.o. M. 6 W(
.3..
w Wl$?k
&l
.ew.w w s m.
m r
r m
. q yQ&....* y y 9.. pgt:qQ'.9 : gQ;h.fgQ:y,.g y:y
_ j., h p..dy;c. f~:.. -... :... a s,....,v g.,,
4
.,3
~.
-f.... a q. ag..,..,.q. y 7. 3, y ny. g1..
~. o -
.. i &
.w..
..s.
... ~
g
.v O f ;.
_,. : p. ;. g.[.; Q q, '
- ngQ..
.m. g}s.Y _*..,.4 c'
L a..,
~
,.,. g
&p
, wn
.y. :,7..
m n
. : y,.
whTTACEMENT'6 ~ 'W
< :M '
o
- m,...-,.
.U D *.
ogth. :s-
.4
-yW~..m..p.,i.
v
,l f
c,
&, j
. ' 'q~ ~,J.%g,%r rr-
.' q 2,.WL.4 s
s 4.v.g a
' hk
.,b j..r.- f '
f.
t
- }Y -
N
r
' r?
.... x
- a-c 63..
~
t..* *** Q *. 8 h" N.'r,,,.
..k'h.
6
(*
f.
4*
- S-
'i'^y'
.a
= / O ?,.. <4
- h..
P?I N..
.gu
- q s'
/*
.J 4
j
,h?,.k ryg.y.m,'l'.
1*'+ c& p:=.,
3
.- i ' '*
f 3,
..*,.s, A-g.9 Myp
= m
.y
..:D / %y;s~Q,,l9.
., t...; N.*:.
...*y h
,.. ; ?
r
,h r-
- n..
x 5*. 'ls' ' {
m&"
q j
g
's a.,,.
.. _... _ _ _ _.... _.. -.... _%,.m, s
<2 t
- t'n_n a.
4 c /.~..
t'
.. j.,,is.._..
s.g.
.,,t p'
.,. ( _ y v.-
.o.
s
- J', -
.~, g e
..)
. jp j.i; *
- { { h *
-k i" & y g<T.h.4 g r."I' y.; A w ' !.. ?.. {I f -
- j.'
- ' h s.,
- h... )h.,U.
r M
a
. n.. w; ~
- 1..... *.
2 19' 3.,fa. j p.~
yy.,g.
\\
-- e.
- ?
tj 's.1.
'tI.?
'N
- re-
. -* J.A a
.s s-a
.-9 G.
,-i..,
W.P
'g84 7,,*h
, p.3.\\s TI:[:.a
.?
,f. E.s (
v e
- i.,~
= <. e,
- ,s 1
+
. ; _ 4 -(,
- 1".~
J
~ ~ ' ' '
(.
} )t j
7
- ~,s g.......
p.q,gS..g:g Q.
~
cw.
o
,g.
. PEN.b
_ +..h.p.
l
, ' x t
- 3. c..
~ :.*'dp [m,.,ip#
1 1
.e
.r.
f J,,
l Q.
. - s. ?( * ;
- S t
.x%.
. &. a,,.,,.c
- s. -.;
s
,e p.. e. E.e a
5. j,,. -, a
.... A..g eg y-
- g.
- 7... q
- .% 7.
. A.f. 7.q'
. %.s..--. 3L 4'3"., sE.a.,.,,
y
- 3_,
_y.*
tr M-
...4s,..,'4+,.
-;--...,~~..-.-.
i A.;.t.,.w 2
ar...,,
. n %.
- 2
,.a fY21. a. N.r:
\\
3.
. ~~n.
1 j.,.,,. e u:..,y
- w~ zy,y t.l.s,...
. v.
g g..
}*ff1.,,';,k:.
m:
^r.
- f*
' :*h
.:.:.u
.' sS[
1 CO../IDENTI AI, -- DO HOT DISt.. OSC g
Mz /lN ENT ISHAM. LINCOLN, & E.Ef.LE dY
~.u,-
owc,somesrec ae,tue : c, t v s t C ow D ' 6 00**
C eescrOO. 4LL14089 eCwCD
,esno cm sse sse.rsoa seten:1 s,ee
.,w..o. o. e.ca j
- * **""* *'1"..' e s June 22, 1981 cio so,.
2>...se Ms. Ellen Brown Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
Res POIA Request for Documents in Consumers Power Co.
(Midland P3 ant, tJnits 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-324-OM, 50-330-OM, 50-329-OL, 50-330-OL
Dear Ms. Drown:
On June 16, 1981 you informed Consumers Power Company ("CPCo") that you received a request, pursuant to the Freedorn of Information Act ("POIA"), from Barbara Stamiris for information relating to the still ongoing settlement negotiationr between CPCo and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Staff in the above-captioned proceeding ("Hidland proceeding").
Ms. Stamiris, an inter-venor in that proceeding, stated she necdod the material in order to prepare her case for hearing.
Specifically, Ms. Stamiris requestod that the NRC disclose a draft of a stipulation pertaining to the quality assurance aspects of the case prepared by CPCo and used in settlement negotintions between CPCo and the NRC Staff.
CPCo has always considered that document and any information relating to the negotiations in the Midland proceeding between itself and the HRC Sta f f highly con-fidential.
This is to inform you that CPCo opposes any disclosure of that document or related documents at this time.
Utipulation was given to the NRC Staf f under the express condition that it be maintained in confidence and each sheet of the document was clearly marked to indicate its con-fidential nature.
CPCo submits that the FOIA exempts such negotiation material as a " record compiled for law enforcement purposes *
.'k 5552 (b) Y
(" exemption (b) (7) ( A) ") and 552 under 5 tl.S.C.
(b) b (the" exemption (b) ( 7) (li) ").
Dir. closure of the docu-mnt while Midland proceeding is pending will interfere with the orderly conduct of tbc hearing and will c c.r iously threaten CPCo's right to a fair adjudication in the matter.
i Exemption (b)(7) protects the Premature Disclosure of Informa-tion in Pending Admini s t r a t i ve P r oce ed i n,g s.
CPCo's oppor.ition to the disclosure of the draft quality assurance st i pulat ion 3o based upon the FOIA exemp-tion 5 552 (b) (7).
F.x e mpt ion (b) (7) protects from the dis-closure any
" investigatory record complied for law enforcement purposes...to the extent that production of such records would (1) interfere with enforcement person of a proceedings,
[andl (ii) deprive a
impartial adjudica-right to a fair trial or an tion....*
This exemption oppJics to any records which were croated through an agency'n inquiry int o specific conditions which might have involved or violated administrative regu-lotions, such as the now pending Midland proceeding. Biloy, J., Toderal Information Djnclosure Act, 17-17 (1978). It opplies to al1 aspecia o T"Od TnWs t TGa t lon :
the fact that
~~
prepared by attorneys at the the material, as here, wan hearing sta90 does not mean the Jona of the " investigative"
- status, see, e.g.,
U.S.
v.
J. it. WJ111ams Co.,
402 F.Supp.
796 (s.D.N.Y. 1T75);
U.r..
v.
rs ucG~nJ Empl oyer s, 39 Ad.L.2d appTica'bja ln civil administrative 694 (D.C.D.C.
1976). It as procedures such as this one.
See, e. t]., Williams v.
- IRS, 479 P.2d 317 (3d Cir. 1973).
It protects any information in the investigatory recorsi even if the information was generated by a private party and not the gove r nment.
Congressional News Syndicate v.
U.S. Department of Justice, 438 F.Supp.
N (D.C.D.C. 19771: ForresTei v.
D.s. Deaartmont o f La bor,
433 F.Supp. 907 ( S. D. N. Y. T97 ).
8FTUiis, Tie 7 a ct. tfiXt CPCo, not the NRC Staff, generated the draft does not dilute exemption (b) (7) 's pi ot ect ion.
Compane, County of Madison, New York v.
U.S. Department of Jur.tice, 641 F.2d T036 (1st Cir. 1981).
Finally, unlike the earlier version of the (b) (7) i exemption, the present exomption explicitly protects the interests of a party out side of the government who has sub-mitted information to the government in confidence.
Even under the prior version of (b) (7) courts have considered oubstantive claims under the e xempt. i on 'y those who supplied Sears, Roebuck & Co.
- v. GSA, the government with information.
i
.,.4,-
l>O NOT DISCLOS CONpI Dr.NT I AL --
~
Page,
l along'with the NRC has 509 P.2d 527 (D.c. ris. 1974).
cPCo t
standing to assert i t s opposi t. ion to dicclesure' under l
exemption (b) (7).
l Exemption (b) (7) ( A) :
n< lense of the Draft Will Interfere with the'Pendisly Mid]and Proceedinti._
information the Exempt son (b) (7) ( A) pr o t ec t.n t
with enforcement pro-of which may " inter f ere" i
an oarlier draft of a settlement disclosure ver n ion or which is yet unapproved ceedings.
The relonac of stipulation -- the finn) neverely interfere with NRC by a licenning boned -- w>uld l
enforcement proceedjncis in general, and the present enforce-ment procoodInq in paitien1ar.
Purther, it would disrupt l'
NRC dincovery procedures.
l Justice Stevenn, in bis concurrence in N.L.R.B.,v.-
243, 98 B.ct. 2311,
- 214, Robbins Tire
- s. Rubben Co.,
437 (J. S.
envisioned by exemption Tf2T il9 7 8)' d'e fi ned th-T' interference An integral (b) (7 ) ( A) as "the act of meddIing in a process.
I one which the Com-
- proceedings, negotiation and stipulation.
part of the p r oc e n r-in NIK.
in mission e spec i a l l y pr orm t er., Policy on Conduct of Licensing In its recent "stntement. of Proceedings," ("NitC Policy") isaued-May 23, 1981, (C LI 8), the Commisnion s ta t. css :
"The partics should be encouraged to negotiate at all t a me r.
pi i<o to and during the hearing to l
resolve coa t e n s i nn.*, ne t-t l e procedural disputes, and he t. t. e t define issues.
Negotiations should be mon i t m ed by Ih" bonrd through written reports, prehearinq confc:ences and telophone conferences but the board nhould not becomo directly involved in the nt yo t l a t. i on s themselves." NRC Policy at 5.
Release of an enr]ier drnft of a yet unapproved quality assurance s t. ipul a t ion briweco t. h e NRC and CPCo would cer-
"m< -dd l i n y " - i n the negotiation process so encouraged by th" NI'r Policy.
Significantly, it could tainly constitut.e a destroy the usefulnens of t.he process altogether.
the viability of the First, it would tbecaten negotiation me t hoe! fin senolving probl eins itself.
I t.
is well recognized tbat di nclosure o f proponals of settlement would i mpede the nonos int inn process.
In Branch v.
PhilllP8 I he court denied the relcase of settlement to the covernment in a discrimination case.
Petroleum Comp ~any, in Title proposals made neon t i a t. i on policy contained opportunity Act would be defeated Branch held that the VII of the' P.qua l Employment by such disclosure:
3 i
l m
-a
CONr.
ENT)A1,-- Do if0T DISCLC
..r.
Page di ne:J osure or possi ble admi ssion "The prospect of proposals made during conciliation into evidence-of to inhibit the kind of free and ef fort s would tend neconnary to achieve unlitigated open con.mun ien t ion requirements of Title VII.
compliance with t.he of conciliation materials,
-l Therefore, disclonutewould discourage negotiated even to t.he pa r t. l e n,
settiement and f r u n t. r n t.o the intention of Congress n ego t. i n t.i o n t. "
638 P.2d 873, 881
[to encouroye (1981).
- Similarly, I h <' release of draf ts of as yet un-approved quality assurance sti pulation as Ms. Stamiris requests here would des =t.roy the negotiation process so en-The automatic release of couraged by the NitC Policy.
pr iva tel y gene ra t.ed nettlement proposala would eviscerate the "give and take" of negotlations.
To remain undisclosed all negotiation pr oposa l s made by those outside the government New York v.
U.S. Department of Jus tTce,'y o f Mad i son,
alis6 recogn Eed the-~fmportance In Count
~
nupra, a court oT confidFrit.In1ity in negotlation:
in prodigious amount of "The gove rnw nt engages plaintiff and defendant.
l i t i e.s a t. 3 o n bot h ar Hegot. i a t ed r,< t t. J e mon t in the most officient means Knowledge that noch d i sput es.
to t e r m3 na t -
communications will be avail-w r i t t.e n nettlementirrespective of the merit of his able t.o a n yor.c.
or her need to know, inevitably will to some (Citations omitted)".
e x t. e n t.
i m3.c de t.his means.
apply exemption (b) (5)
(per-Thnt co u r t.
refused t<>
taining to intesaecncy and int raagency memoranda) to ps e vent. e.hc discionnae of certain not.tlement materials.
However, county of Madinon is distinguishable from this cane. Itere t he claim for protection is based on exemption
~-
(b) (7) not e wmption (b) (5).
Further, in the Midland proceedin<3 those are stil) ongoing negotiations between the partien.
I re Coun t.y o f Mad i son, the negotiations and hearinos dosinO"wlisch'Ihe nig6t'iations took place appeared to be ended.
Finally, is this instance there is an exp1ieit N P: ' Po] icy encournging negotiations the release of t.hc material.
which woulci he impoded bysuch policy was articulated.
In Count y of Madison no I n 7adILinh', CPUe. nuhmi t s that County oJ Hadi_sory was wrongly decidad nnd uruer, the NRC to consic er exemption the untimely disclosure of (b) (5) ac protection againrt se t tl enie nt nia t.e i a l.
160 h0T DISClhbd CONF 1DCNTJAb --
Page i f v r!. t teri their ure would either have to be unwa i t-ten or explicitly supervised by t.hs and would have to be ca r< f ul l y retain or work submitting part.y.
Th gove rtonen t. could not government could not with the proposal in psivat.c.
The counterproposal by protect the other side'n proposal or writing it out itself.
Even the government could not freely make confidentia) we i t t en proponnis in negot.fations since the other side, the proposal would be beyond any " attorney-client privilege" between the NRC' Staff once communicated to and its attorneys.
- s. e,
c.3.,
Mead nata Cent., Inc., v.
U.S.
r.2d"242, 155 (D.C. Cir. 1977).*
This Dept. of Air Force, meaningful resolution i
%6 Eituation would stif]e not. encourage j
discussions.
1 Further, t br eat oned elcase of settlement pro-ponals could termint.te n< got. ia t i ons cornpl e t e l y.
As recognized under the rederal Hule of r.v i ele nc e 408, Advisory Commit. toe l
necot. i at ions are reade for a Comments, proponair. Ourin:
at all with the 7
nu nt not comn.en sura te variety of purposes liabi.lity or guilt.
See Federal Rule
/
Among idea of admir.nions ofAdvi son y commi tt ee 's Note, Itdle 4 08.
to avoid l
of Evidence 408, propose settlement other things, partier se<tt.lo or ot.her related interests.
io p r omo t.e costly litigation an<1 proposals to the general pelease of earlier rett]ement pub)ic, without exp) min t i <.n of t h i r-background, would dis-anel deny a party an opportunity negotiating positiour.
Under such circumstances, a
f tort to explain its true pon i t i <in.
to negotiate with ht refusal licensee's r e l uc t.a nce or outsi9or release of his bargaining the NRC because of I he I he eat position is unde r s t.amiab) <. *
- A grant of Ms. S t.ami r i s '
requent for the e ar1 ics <i r a f ( of the quality assurance a r-
= roc elent for such premature dis-stipulation would act closures, inhibitin<. s u t. u r e-negotiations in this and all other NRC casen.
l L
(b) (5), held that.
1 Head Data, dealin witb exemption once a p oposal in given to the other side (b) ( 5) no uovernment's attorn.oy-client. privilege; longer prot ect n i h< -
during d<iibe eii ive a nel ure-dcelsional processen and to the public.
Unlike this
<. a n b, > relenned the p r o g e r.n l
<oncerned-necotiation material however, Mce.1 I ta t a cc>n t ra c t -- not an inventigator) ;
case from an a]: nasty' w ii<We1 action.
p.i.dinu admissi st r ative on forcement file from N W carefully prot.ects its own It is notable that
- t. h e regulations explicitly bargaininq g.ositions.
Its prohib1L the dinclosure of NRC bargaining positions until the a c t. i on in which t.he positions were taken is to rmi n a t.ed.
.4 er - 1 O c. F. I!.
59.5(2).
4 m
.. ?.
5 CON FI DF.NTI Al, -- DO NOT DISCLOSE Page.
Second. the release of the earlier draft of the quality assurance atipulation would t.hr e a t en the viability of the negotiation procesr in the Midland proceeding in particular.
The signed quality assurance stipulation of which the requented materin) is an earlier draft still awaits approval by the 3icensing board.
The process en-visioncd by t.n e rme rolicy in 3 Iccraning proceedings pro-hibits a board from beenmin<i involved with negotiations.
Release of this document. would make this licensing board directly aware of the give and t.ake of negotiations for the quality assuranco atipulation.
In direct conflict with the dictates of the Niu Policy, this would involve the board in the negotiation process.
Purther, in pending Midland proceeding there are still ongoing neqot int ions between the NRC Staff and CPCo.
Disclosure of negotintino positions from prior stipulations would jeopardize thene disconnions.
Indeed, without the protection of exempt ion (b) (7) t.here is no reason why a i
nimilar POIA request could not. be made -- and granted --for any material rel at In+1 to these discussions.
CPCo may be forcod to reconsider pa r t i c i pa t. i ng in settlement negotiations altogether i f t.hei r neuot i n t i nq positions are exposed prior to the resolution of the hearing.
The result of Ihe t.ermination of the negotiating process in evident:
a lengthy hearing in which each issue must be litigated comp l e t.e l y, regardless of its nettlement potential.
The time s ciiu l i ed alone would disrupt and intorfere with the alrendy lenqthy Midland proceeding, seriously overtaxinq the 1iconsing board and obstructing the NRC Policy encour aging the use of nogotiation to resolve innues.
Third, the disclosure of the draft of the quality assurance stipulatiori wriuld have the effect of interfering with the normal NRC e u j e r, of dincovery.
This sort of inter-ference, as J u n t. ! ce Stevens not ed, is the type specifically protected by the opes at ion of exemption (b) (7) ( A) :
"A statute Irm nninq t_ he FO]A] that authorized discovery q cat <i than a va i l a tile under the rules
]
norma 13 y appl icnble to ah enforcement proceeding would interfere with this proceeding in that j
nense."
Robbins Tire & F_ubte r Company,, s_u p r a, 98 S.Ct. at 2327.
The lenislative hi story of exemption (b) (7) makes clear that litigants such as Ms. Stamiris are not to obtain speciel discovery boner i t n from t.h e FOIA.
See Attorney General'. Memorandum en the Public InformatIon Section of
k.. M fYJNTIM M'.kT[k-,.M-....Yb h C %,.e i l
+ -~:-~....
.2
- 4.Q
.h q.-.. g e-e w y...~
.?EN
. Q" ~
".g,.4
.;.+.nz y.
p.mg
.=:...
? y';
.qtl$.
- :::m-DO NOT DISCLCSS t
c.
,.;i CONFIDENTIAL Page *l W-The Supreme f
a 7.-
4 (1967).
to' give Procedure Act at 38 of the FOIAN.L.R,B. V.
use IS'0T~TITTK).
disproved thetion beyond discove95 S Ct.
ry.
the Administrative Court has explicitly 21 U.S. 132, dures, anadjudicated applica-party access to informaSears, Roebuck r. Co and made by Ms. Stamiris As noted in Virginia 1 and 2),
Under the hand a Power Station Unitscircumst nort first by the licensing board. Power Compang (North A of the a licensing board's tion to discoveryon proper ciation for all thea necessa y adjun North (1974)
T4~1T, 7 Arc 313, contact with and appreIn dis r
casontial". usual circukst a
caso is d is of surrounding a determinationn.of the licensing boarwhether the disclosure under thewith the presentontrol 314. Therefore, discretion Anna, au ard would determino or interfereif naconsary it could c ra,
- See, order.
and ElecEficY pt licens 1.ngthe draf t would disru through a protectivealso Kans and procooding, enforcement t.be material
~
10
., Xansas City PoweUnit I) released to Hs. order is c.
erating station, material is to any 7Ge released "is available7 T.2d 787, if the However, ro1A no protective l
Revenue Service, 46 of such lack of contro under thematorial once unovalu-Stamiris
~
in under the FOIA, Internal re suTt ts inhorentcodorated.
v.
Hawkes The person" (6th Ci?. 19TJT.the detrimental effeccould no compromise unlimited discovery 790 H.3 would mean thatated draft offers to ted which is generally trea an POIA as delays in of the h
for informationi nificantly increase t eAs desc use
- Purther, at 2325:
tool, especially proceedings.Rubbor Co.,
rulings
- supra, confidentially, would s gt licensing and onforcemenin t<obbins Tire contests, whereconclusion 4.
Supreme Court discovery ble until the FOIA ordinary appealaagency's denial of ain the d Unlike are generally not an viewable can then of the proceedings, is immediately re t's decisionThe potenti and the district cour court of appeals.
djudicatior request rostructuring of...ahus not ins court, viewed in the for dolay and forfrom FOIA req be re attemptin is of heretofor As a timein proceedings, l under the FOIA would e at
- Thun, to re trict discovery lines confidential materiain the NRC Policy guide s
- d
,.v -
]
- a..<- <
CONF 3 DENTI A L -- DO 1;&T DISCLOSE, Page -B-The purpose of discovery is to expedite hearing by i
the disclosure of information...which is relevant to...the proceeding so that issues may be narrowed, stipulated or eliminated and so that evidence to be pr esen t ed... can be stipulated or otherwise limited to that which is relevant.
According3y, the. board should manage and supervise all discovery Jncluding not only the initial discovery directly following admission of con-tentions but also any discovery conducted there-after.
Nnc policy at 6-7, (emphasis added).
Disclosure of a private settlement material outside of the normal discovery process directly contravenes the intent of this Policy.
It would lengthen not expedite proceedings, discourage stipul a t i on s and remove the control of discovery from the licensing board.
In the present case Ms. Stamiris' FOIA request would have such an ef fect.
The licensing board has ordered all discovery closed in the Midland proceeding.
Midland Proceeding Licensing Doard Order (Concerning various Pending Hotions), June 15, 1981 (the "orde r").
By that Order the
. Board acknowledge the already expanded discovery in the case and determined that no further discovery was appropriate.
Order at 4-5 The board specifically denied all of Ms.
Stamiris' discovery requests and granted a protective order against any future discovery requests.
Ms. Stamirls' FOIA request is merely an end run around this Order.
Grant of the POIA request would expressly contravene the underlying basis for the Order, lengthen the case and lossen the board's control of it.
Exemption (b) (7) (B) :
Release of the Draft Will Deprive CPCo of a Fair Adjudication The grant of Stamiris' request for the quality assurance stipulatjon d ra f t should also-be denied under oxemption S552 (b) (7) (B).
Exemption (b) (7) (B) protects from disclosure material which would " deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication."
This pro-toction extends to corporations as well as individuals.
see, 5 USC 5551 (2).
As the Attorney General's Memorandum on the 1974 Amendments explains, the provision operates to safeguard a litigant when "the release of damaging and unevaluated information may threaten to distort an adminis-trativo judgment in a ponding cane."
1974 Attorney General Memorandum at 8.
The facts in the Midland case threato,n such a distortion.
In the present case a quality assurance stipu-a
. *f ' 6
.-~l 4
u CONFIDENT 1/sb -- 00 NOT DJ.SCLOSE' Page -#
.4 s'
lation, signed by the NRC and CPCo and submitted to the licensing board, still awoits approval.
The stipulation the board has before it is the result o f several months of negotiations between the NRC and CpCo.
Exposure of previous draf ts of stipulations without exposure to the process under which those draf ts were developed can severely distort the perception of the board as to the merits of the present utipulation.
It may prompt the board to second guoss the posture of the parties and involve the board in the negotia-tion process.
It is thJ s exact nituation exemption (b) (7) (B) was intended to prevent.
Further, the only way in which to even minimally remedy these nide e f fects would be to make the board aware of the purpoacs of the various positions taken by the parties throughout the negotiations.
This would entail a complex evidenLiary presentation to explain the positions.
Such a hearing would lengthen an already protracted Midland proceeding and re-focus it on matters totally collateral to the main considera tions.
It could involve matters protected by the attorney-client privilege.
To fully explain their positions to the board CPCo -- or the NRC -- would be forced to waive that privilege.
Such a coerced valver may infringo upon the constitutionally protected right to counsel.
CONCLUSION CPCo asserts its right under the Freedom of Information Act to have its draft of the quality assurance stipulation remain undisclosed.
Release of such material would hamper the enforcement proceedings and threaten CPCo's right to a f air adjudiestion in those proceedings.
While the thrust cf POIA is toward disclosure, examination of oxemption (b) (7) demonstrates that it was intended to protect parties, such as CPCo, from just those problems.
With the Commission's e xplic i t policy in favor of the negotiation process, it is difficult eGen to infor a public interest which could countervail this protection.
CPCo submits that the NRC aunt deny Ms. Stamirls' request and f
withhold the draft stipulation.
If the NRC decides to grant Ms. Stamirls' request, CPCo requests at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> cotice of the release in order to permit it to protect its rights through appropriate j
procedures.
Sincerely,
/
Dsv
, ~--2 c
o,mm,
_