ML20072C748
| ML20072C748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1982 |
| From: | Stamiris B STAMIRIS, B. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-477, FOIA-82-A-20 NUDOCS 8303100059 | |
| Download: ML20072C748 (1) | |
Text
.j.
October 4 1982-re: FOIA 82 477 (FCIA 81 227)
APPEAL OF INITIAL FOIA DECi 0 Secretary of the Corraission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission-32 - S - 2d3 C C. P 2. - ft 7 7j,
'.*ashington D.C. 20555 Y @l 0 #l S'-S Z 9
Dear -Secretary:
gjg This is an appeal from an initial FOIA decision, 81 227, issued July 6,1981 and reaffin:nd Oct. 8,1982 according to uMerstandings reach d betwcon qself and Mr. Shomker of OELD. The now FOIA denial, 82 477, will be issuod on October 13,1982 for procedural clarity, although the issues and respensos remin the same. according to Mr. Shomker. At g request Mr. Shomkor read m the O:t. 13,1982 denial letter over the phone. All related correspondence is attached.
I3 In phone conversations on Oct. 7 ard 8,1982, Mr. Shc< raker ard I IS discussed the status of the FOIA requests. Although I had originally in-ten 3od to wait the outcon2 of the Midland 03 OL proceeding to appeal the FCIA denial (812 61, letter), the unexpectM turn of-events in this case 8
mkos the requested Confidential Proposed QA Stipulation of renewed interest 3~
to m in 1982 O$
.Fi Thoso recent events which mtivate y appeal at this tiro include the
] $,
reopening of the record en QA by the NRC so as to allc. Mr. Keppler to g;
reconsider his QA testimony of 1981 (7-7 82 ASLB mmo), and the subsequent
,g consideration by the NRC of a second stipulation or CA solution addressing g,
the new QA problems of 1982 (713 82 ASL3 memo).
88) gw I fear that the terns of the first QA Stipulation from 1981, in question n:]:
here, will increase the likelihood of the NRC negotiating a new QA a5reemnt gu with consumers. The Confidential Proposed QA Stipulation thus has the gg potential to undermine the essence of the CM OL hearings if the new NRC/CPC gg agreements mdo for confidential reasons allow the soils remedial un3er-pinning work to proceed prior to ASLB resolution of the cuestion of QA n-og, implementation posed in the December 6,1979 CWer regarding the soils issues.
g
,,, h For these ultimte public health and safety reacons, I cnce again seek Fg access to the 1981 Confidential Proposed QA Stipulation as soon as possible within the twenty days frce the NRC's Oct. 4,1982 receipt of ry Oct.1,1932 o
f3 Appeal. The urConey of g rec,uest is due to the October 29, 1982 submission o <o
- date for N3C QA testimny and the Novenber 30, 1982 QA hearing dates in the 03 OL proceeding.
My rosIx>nses to the cited exemptions of the 82 477 denial repeating those of the 81 227 denial will be forthcoming.
Sincerely, dA h f/
cc: E. Shomker, OELD Barbara Stamiris S. Kohn, GAP 5795 N. Fiver Parties m-OL Proceeding Proclard, Rich. 48623 9303100059 821013 PDR FOIA STAMIR82-A-20 PDR
Mi,. [
@rc4 o
~
-g > -
? 4*
UNITED STATES
- p '. ; ;,y
.g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- eg y c
wnmm,iog o c. 203ss -
k
,?
' Oc tobe r. 13', 1982-lis. Barbara -Stamiris -
~
5795 N River Freeland,141: _48623 lN RESPONSE REFER TO F01A-82.-477 -
Dear lis. Stamiris:
This i' in. response to your letter dated October 1,1982,-in which you' s
sought reconsideration of the Nuclear Regulatory Com,nission'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-Itidland pieceeding.
Since-requests for reconsideration are not strictly speaking a_ form of request for information pursuant to-the Freedom of.
Information Act, lir. 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. fir. Shomaker has indicated that you agreed that this office i.an consider your October 1,1982 request for reconsideration as a new F0IA request for tl.e stipulation' document an.d that you are making this request 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 liidland facility.
' Acting upon your request, lir. Shomaker contacted the NRC attorney in the liidland proceeding, William Paton, and coordinated with the attorneys who generated the subject document at 1 sham, Lincoln & Beale in Chicago, Illinois.
Both these parties have indicated that an initial decision has not been rendered in the liidland Oli-0L proceeding and that the cocument 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 withhelo pursuant to EAEnptions (b)(4) and (b)(7)(B) of the Frcedom 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 Commission's regulations.
G y_
frF
- Q.
{...
[.,, ;~~.
-- 2 '
I
- Pursuant to C.F.R. 9.15;of the Commission's
- regulation, it has _been 7
' determined that'the information itithheld is;cxempt 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 p
E>,ecutive Legal Director. --
This denial = may be appealed to the Coninission within 30 days _ from the t
receipt'..of this. letter.
Any such appeal must be:in' writing, address' d to e
l the Secretary of the-Conmission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.
l.
Washington,1DC '20555, and should clearly state on:the envelope and in the-p letter that._it is an " Appeal-from an Initial F0IA Decision."
Sincerely,
/
h.M. 'elton, Di rector ivision of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
7/6/81 letter h
L l
i i
I l
7
- e " y'
' UNITED STATES
~-
?[
'g, o
~E '
' 'A
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y, g' g!
E
" wasmucTon, n. c. 20sss o.
j'
'JulyL6,1981
-Ms. Barbara Stamiris:
5795 N River IN RESPONSE REFER Freeland, MI 48623
-T0 F01A-81-227
Dear Ms. Stamiri5:
This is in response to your _ letter dated June 11, 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 corpor'ations 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.
Exposu're of previous draf ts 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 beino 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 Commission's regulations.
/-
'L' l
Additionally, the Proposed Stipulation ~ is being withheld pursuant to y'
exemption.(b)(4) of the Fre' dom of Information Act-(5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4))
e 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 1
in;the-form of-an attorney work ' product which; reveals strategies developed by Consumers Power Company in preparing for legal action..
i Pursuant ^ to 10 CFR 9.15 of the Commission's regulations, it has been deterr..ined that-the information withheld is-exempt from production ' or disclosure and that its -production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest.
The person responsibic for this denial is Mr.. Thomas F. Engelhardt, Acting' Executive legal Director.
This ' denial may be appeiled to the.Connission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed i
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 F01A Decision."
Sincerely,
/k?. ',.
f'
..;;l.,/
- / <-
J. M. Telton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration 1*
f i
e i
t i
~{
.u ;
c, June II, 1981'.
w
- Joseph M Felton-
~
-Director, Divis ion -RuIes A Recordi N.uc l e a r ' Re g u l a t o'ry Commis s ion,
~
Dear Mr. Fe lton,
This is a Freedom of Information Act_Recuest'for a document in pos s e s s-lon,of t he NRC, wh i ch c ame from Consumers Power Company
~'
as 11 part of the 50-329 50-330 OM & OL-Proceeding for the Midland Plant.
I first Iearned of the existence of this document on May 6, 1981 from Mr. Wm. Paton. It ~1s a proposed stipulation or document proposing te rms of a 'comproalse : or agreement between the NRC and n,
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 g
consider it essential to my case, despite its being stsmped "confi-
' dent ial" and considered as such. I believe this docu:nent was receive, by Mr. Paton. of the liRC 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 Bechhoe fer of the ASLE, to set forth my objections to it in writing. Due to these time constraints, I would appreciate your r'eply as soon as possible, to this FOIA request.
Sincerely,
,i b'1k)<th.L,'
V 17tc.o p
-l
,j