ML20057E149
| ML20057E149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1993 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Graham P GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056C056 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310070375 | |
| Download: ML20057E149 (3) | |
Text
.
,v M *c %
i' 45 k
UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l:
g j.#
wassisotos. o.c. aoss54aoi SEP 0 81993 I
Mr. Phil Graham Vice President River Bend Nuclear Group Gulf States Utilities Company P.O.
Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 l
l
Dear Mr. Graham:
On July 31, 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wrote l
Gulf States Utilities (GSU) seeking inforustion as to the potential " chilling effect" of alleged discrimination-against a former contract employee.
GSU responded to this chilling effect letter on September 29, 1992 and in its responE3 requested that i
material attached to its letter be given confidential treatment i
and withheld from public disclosure under the " unwarranted i-invasion of personal privacy"- related exemptions of the Freedom
)
of Information Act (FOIA).
On June 29, 1993, the NRC wrote to you concerning a request under the FOIA to which we were responding.
The purpose of that letter was to obtain a better understanding of the basis for your claim of confidentiality for 1
your September 29, 1992 letter.
You responded on July 30, 1993 through Winston and Strawn, your Washington counsel.
This letter responds to that July 30, 1993 submittal.
l The July 30, 1993 letter from Winston and Strawn contends that the entire GSU response is exempt from disclosure under Exemption l
4 of the FOIA as commercial information, or alternatively, "under l
l Exemption 6 because multiple portions of the document contain i
information whose release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy of various individuals...."
Further, it was argued that any portion of the material that is not exempt is so intertwined with exempt material as to be not reasonably segregable.
i L
The Winston and Strawn letter contends that the material is I
confidential commercial information that was-voluntarily provided to the NRC rather than being submitted in response to a requirement and thus is covered by the broader exemption i
treatment accorded such information under Critical Mass Enercy Proiect v.
NRC,'975 F.2d 871, (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert.
I denied, 113 S. Ct. 1579 (1993) (" Critical Mass III").
i I
We have carefully considered the arguments raised in the Winston and Strawn letter and the nature of your response to our chilling effect letter.
In this case, we do not accept your argument that your September 29, 1992 response should be treated as a
" voluntary" submission.
However, even accepting, Arcuendo, your l
i l
9310070375 930928 PDR ADOCK 05000458-P PDR; n
Mr. Graham
-2 position, we have determined, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(b) (5), that, except for certain privacy-related informatidn, your September 29, 1992 response should be released in the public interest.
Specifically, as a result of evaluating a recent FOIA request, we have reconsidered our position on the withholding of thia type of information.
We have concluded that it is in the public interest to disclose why a licensee believes that enforcement action is not warranted.
This is information used by the e.gency in determining whether enforcement action is warranted and will form part of the basis for the Commission's action in this matter.
The information sought to be withheld is different in kind than INPO reports, the subject of the decision in Critigal Mass III.
We do not view information developed to determine if a regulatory violation existed or to influence an agency enforcement decision, to be a self critical evaluation within the meaning of that decision. Even if the information to be withheld is proprietary and within exemption 4 of the FOIA, it should be released in the public interest.
Considering the factors in 10 CFR
- 2. 790 (b) ( 5) (1) and (ii), we believe that it is important that the public (including your employees) be fully apprised of NRC's regulatory efforts to ensure that employees feel free to report safety concerns and of your efforts, as reflected in your response to our chilling effect letter, to address our concerns about discrimination at the River Bend Station.
This is especially true when another federal agency has issued a finding that discrimination has occurred.
The redacted document is a balance of your need to be able to conduct investigations protecting the identity of individuals interviewed and the public disclosura of enforcement related information.
In our view, as was stated in Winston and Strawn's letter at page 20, the disclosure should not result in licensees consciously failing to cooperate with the NRC or being less candid in their responses.
The redaction of privacy-related information should minimize any future lack of cooperation by your employees due to concerns about confidentiality.
For these reasons, the NRC intends to release your response, except for the small amount of information that is clearly privacy related and which has been redacted.
Specifically, the enclosed redacted version of your response will be released in 20 days from the date of this letter.
Sincerely, i
s d t.es Lieberman, Director Response [O
- fice of Enforcement
Enclosure:
September 29, 1992 dacted
SEP 0 81993 Hr. Graham DISTRIBUTION:
GCant, OE JPartlow, NRR JScinto, OGC-Day File I
i l
i I
I r
Ah na.
O[$ : N ph0E d
OG DQS
) bray JPartlow JScinto O M. S herman GCant 09 /$(/93 09/8/93 b9/8/93 09/6/93 09jh93 Doc Nane:
G:\\GSURESP1.GDC
.m.._
c.-.----=-
___S-