ML20210P920
| ML20210P920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Carr A DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-584, FOIA-86-A-5 EA-84-093, EA-84-83, EA-84-93, NUDOCS 8605130546 | |
| Download: ML20210P920 (7) | |
Text
" ~
[@ KECy o
UNITED STATES 8
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,o f
APR 9 1986 Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esquire Duke Power Company 3
Legal Department IN RESPONSE REFER P.O. Box 33189 TO F01A-86-A-5 Charlotte, NC 28292 (F01A-85-584)
Dear Mr. Carr:
This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 1986, in which you appealed Mr. D. H. Grimsley's letter dated December 26, 1985, which i
denied-in-part your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request for documents regarding Enforcement Action No. EA-84-93 concerning the Catawba Nuclear Station.
1 Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and I
have detemined, for the reasons stated below, that most of the previously withheld documents will continue to be withheld from public disclosure pursuant j
to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of j
the Commission's regulations. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.
l Portions of documents J-6, J-14 and M-11 are now being made publicly available i
and are enclosed. As Mr. Grimsley explained in a telephone conversation with i
you on February 18, 1986, document J-11 is outside the scope of your request because it pertains to a facility other than the Catawba Nuclear Station and was mistakenly identified as being subject to your F0IA request.
For your information, documents J-12 and M-12 are the same document.
All of the remaining documents, except J-12, K-lb, K-4, L-1, L-2 and L-3, are draft documents which are clearly predecisional because they were prepared prior to and in the course of reaching final agency decisions. These documentsdescribepreliminarystaffthinkingand,therefore,contain preliminary advice, opinions, and recommendations which were subsequently changed during the preparations of the final agency decisions. As such, these drafts do not reflect final agency positions. Exemption (5) was intended to permit the agency's withholding of such documents to preserve the free and candid internal dialogue necessary for the careful formulation of agency I
decisions.
(See Jordan v. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C.
Cir. 1978) and Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
Segregation and disclosure of the factual information 7
contained in these documents would reveal the staff's evaluations of which facts were important and thereby expose to public scrutiny their thought processes.
Thus, the entire documents may be withheld (See Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Consequently, I have determined that the release of these documents would adversely affect the agency's deliberative process.
8605130546 860409 PDR FOIA CARR86-A-5 PDR
i
)
l Documents J-12, L-1, L-2 and L-3 are internal agency advice and opinion memoranda which were predecisional to the NRC establishing the standard vis-a-vis Section 50.7 in the Director's 2.206 Decision in the matter of i
Duke Power Company.
It is that publicly available Director's Decision which is the NRC's." working law" document and not these preliminary and predecisional documents. The annotations on K-lb and K-4 were generated in the deliberative l
process of responding to a letter regarding the enforcement.
Exemption (5) shields frcn mandatory disclosure records generated in the deliberative process that precedes most decisions of government agencies.
(See Jordan v.
Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1978)). Thus, the exemption protects not only communications which are themselves deliberative in nature, but all communications which, if revealed, would expose to public view the deliberative process of an agency.
(See Montrose Chemical Cor). of California
- v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974)).
In Jordan, Judge Wil(ey articulates the policies behind the Exemption (5) protection of the deliberative process.
He states:
There are essentially three policy bases for this privilege.
First, it protects creative debate and candid consideration of alternatives within an agency, and thereby, improves the quality of agency policy decisions. Second, it protects the public from the confusion that would result from premature exposure to discussions occurring before the policies affecting it had actually been settled upon. And third, it protects the integrity of the decision-making process itself by confirming that " officials should be judged by what.they decided [,] not for matters they considered before making up their minds." (591 F.2d at 772-3 (footnote omitted)).
?
Consequently, I have determined that the release of these documents and.
annotations would adversely affect the agency's deliberative process.
As you requested, for those items where it is possible, a more detailed description of the document has been included on the enclosed appendices.
This is a final agency action. As set forth in the FOIA (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B)), judicial review of this decision is available in a district-court of the United States in either the district in which you reside,'have your principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia.
Sincerel
'/
/,
- ^~
tello, 4 ;
~t Executive Direqf,or for Operations-
Enclosures:
As stated i
u
- ~
. ~,. _.,,
.n APPENDIX J 1.
Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (21 pages) 2.
Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (26 pages) 3.
Undated Draft Ltr from O'Reilly to Tucker issuing NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty with NOV (6 pages) 4.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Owen transmitting Director's +
Decision (3 pages) 5.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild transmitting Director's Decision (3 pages) 6.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde responding to her 6/28/85 ltr with 6/28/85 ltr (3 pages) (Released: 6/28/85 letter) 7.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde responding to her 9/27/84 ltr (4 pages) 8.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde responding to her 9/27/84 ltr (3 pages) 9.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde responding to her 9/27/84 ltr (3 pages)
- 10. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde responding to her 6/28/85 ltr(2pages)
- 11. 11/26/84 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet from Axelrad to O'Reilly with Notation Vote Response Sheet (3 pages)
- 12. 05/23/85
. Memo from Taylor to Grace: subject: Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Decision on Discrimination at Catawba (2pages)
- ^
- 13. 06/04/85
-Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild transmitting Director's Decision (7 pages)
- 14. 08/07/85 Routing and Transmittal Slip from Taylor to Grace, et al transmitting a draft of a ltr from Taylor to Garde res-ponding to her 6/28/85 ltr (3 pages) (Released: Routing and Transmittal Slip)
+
F
't
APPENDIX K 1.
07/16/85 Facsimile transmittal sheet from Holler to Jenkins (1 page)
- a. Draft Letter from Taylor to Garde responding to her 6/28/85 ltr (1 page)
+
- b. 6/28/85 Ltr from Garde (unsigned) to Taylor 3
w/ handwritten notations (2 pages) 2.
Uncated Draft Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 with handwritten notations (21 pages) 3.
Undated Draft Letter from O'Reilly to Tucker w/ handwritten notations (3 pages) with attachment:
- a. Undated draft notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (3 pages) s 4.
06/28/85 Ltr from Garde (unsigned) to Taylor with notations (2 pages) 5 i
f t
r.
~,.
,n.
a,
APPENDIX L 1.
07/11/84 Memo from Burns to DeYoung, subject: Section 2.206 Request on Catawba Filed by Robert Guild (2 pages) 2.
11/28/84 Memo from Burns to Axelrad, subject: Effect of Licensing Board's Decision in the Catawba Proceeding on Staff Enforcement Action (5 pages) w/ attachment i
A. Parties Positions and Boards Remarks on Discrimination and Harrassment Incidents (6 pages) 3.
03/19/85 Note to Jane Axelrad, IE, from Burns, ELD re: Draft Catawba 2.206 Decision (2 pages) 4.
Undated Letter from DeYou.ng to Guild transmitting Director's Decision (2pages')w/ attachment:
A. Draft receipt of Request for Action under 10 CFR 2.206(2pages) s
~
APPENDIX M 1.
Undated Three draft ltrs from Taylor to Garde responding to her 9/27/84 letter (10 pages) 2.
Undated Rev. 3 Draft of ltr with notations from O'Reilly to Tucker issuing NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty with NOV (8 pages) 3.
Undated Rev. 8 Draft of ltrs with notations from Grace to Tucker
~
issuing NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty with NOV (7 pages) 4.
04/01/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision with notations.
(23 pages) 5.
04/11/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision. (23 pages) 3 6.
05/08/85 Draft Catawba 2.20f decision with notations.
(29 pages) 7.
05/07/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision with notations.
(26 pages) 8.
05/08/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision (26 pages) 9.
05/13/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision with notations.
(39 pages)
- 10. 05/14/85 Draft Catawba 2.206 decision.
(38 pages)
- 11. 05/14/85 Draft letter from James Taylor, IE, to Robert Guild, forwarding Catawba 2.206 decisions with notations.
(6 pages) (Released: handwrittencovernote)
- 12. 05/23/85 Memorandum from Taylor. IE, to Grace, RII, subject:
Proposed Enforcement-Action and 2.206 Decision on Discrimination at Catawba.
(2pages)
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTAWUTY PROJECT 1555 Conn KDCUT Aeve. N W. Suire 202 washington. D.C. 2CG36 (202) 232 655C June 28, 1965 g f/ffff~,n k 97-Mr-James M.
Taylor
/
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20558 Re:
Director's Decis:on under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 re: Catawba
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Your June 4, 1985 decision to propose a 564,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Company for violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 was a long awaited welcome. Your decision was laudatory and we hope that the NRC will not waiver from the well documented decision.
The decision to soley base the civil penalty on tihe findings of the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board panel was, however, unfortunate. The harassment Quality Control inspectors at and intimidation of Catawba was much more widespread than just the treat =ent of Mr.
' Bean' Ross.
The authority of the Director of Inspection and Enforcement is not constrained by ASLB proceedings in mattcrs of onforcement, as you well know.
The weakness of of the harassmentthe agency's decision to recognize only cne incident of Mr.
to the real danger to the plant's Quality Assurance progRoss instead of lookin as a result of the corpcrate attitude tcward ran Oual:.17 Cc rci inspectors and managers its cenacien.u;;s is unaccuptacle.
- c:xi-hstanding the debate on the I must respond to your letter about propcsed nenalty, Region II's candling cf the Duke Catawba case.
and as sucn was unabashedly self-serving.Your letter was obvic
~: personnel, a matter cf practice the Director refers complaints such asI understand that as those : nade in my September 27, 1984 in order to get "the other side of letter to the region disappointed that your response contained no analysithe story." However, I a charges that i raised. I igree that the allegations made s.of the against Region II were serious, and I continue to regard the actions of Region agency shculd be ashamed of, no'tII in tnis matter as conduct which your i
inability to recognize defend. In fact, your personal j
of regional personnel is very disconcerting.the serious nature of the misco
\\
Q d r$ f l}
}hh~
~
F
" 2 ': -
yr... a:-(2 5 fage
.N e June if, IM-a Perhaps..y letter wasn't clear enoungh. I woulo like to be able to present GAP's view on this to your staf f, or to the office of Inspector or Auditor (OIA) tf you feel it appropriate.
I Icok forward to your response, which shouldn't be delayed by erthor DOL or Duke interferences.
Sincerely, Billie P.
Garde 3
e e
e I
l l
4 m-
,y--
.m,-,
1 l
l Deee
~
8/7/R5 m g..e....
.m n_.e,.
Noncy/PeeQ oe,e L
1012 5
\\
nO n
-Jw Mr M-E FBe Note and Retum hval For Oeerance Per Cc.Tarsation 4 R*4W For Correction CircuW Prepare Repty For Your Informatiors See Me C: -T+ 4 lavestigste CoonGnation sgmre Justify y(b ffj % es,
stDwtKs r
\\
l i
4 00 fe0T use tNo fami se a'fttcono et approvese, cenerences and simaer actione
-i 6"r org, symbof. 4ency/ Post floom No-eldg.
J e.
east-ter
- us e e_
g ramsa m. m cream aa cE"am-auss
~J ly na v23 M
e
4 i /
i 1
O m
E j
^
6/ 6.f 9, et4L t
l(Y;7
- - A' 6 u cM
]
"k mprurac4
~
z M% rac c cc, A
2 D ( l lib O ncss
\\
.g e
e
s pm%
UNITED STATES 4'
E
.j
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
'C WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 g
/
- ...+
D F.C.2 6 Y Dor.ket No.
0-413/50-414 Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Duke Power Company Leoal Department IN RESPONSE PEFER P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242 TO F01A-85-584
Dear Mr. Carr:
- This is the third partial response to your letter dated August 19, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), copies of all records related to and underlying Enforcement Action No. EA-84-93 regarding the Catawba Nuclear Station.
The documents identified on th~e enclosed Appendix H are already available for public inspection and copying in th'e NRC Public Document Room (PDR). The PDR accession number is noted next to the description of each document. Additional records related to your request have been identified in NRC's response to a previous FOIA request. This response is maintained in the PDR in folder F01A-84-722 under the name of Bell.
You may citain copies of those records by referring to the above F0IA folder.
y The four documents identified on the enclosed Appendix I and certain documents identified on the enclosed Appendix K are being placed in the PDR in Washington, DC, and at the NRC Local Public Document Room in South Carolina.
~
The documents identified on the enclosed Appendices J, L, M, and certain documents on Appendix V., are being withheld.- The applicable F0IA exemptions are noted on the Appendices.
The information withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) consists of advice, opinions and recommendations of the staff. Disclosure would inhibit the frank.and candid exchange of communications in future deliberations and thus would not be in the public interest. This predecisional infomation is being withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5))
and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. There are no reasonably segregable ' factual portions.
Information withheld pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) consists of an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes which is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A)public
~
) and
)
10 CFR;9.5(a)(7)(1) of the Commission's regulations because disclosure of the information would interfere with an enforcement proceeding.
a f4 Y
t
~
Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr.,
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC'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 persons responsible for the denial of all of the documents identified on Appendices J, L and M and certain documents identified on Appendix K are the undersigned and Mr. James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The persons responsible for denial of documents identified on Appendix K are the undersigned and Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administator, Region II, as noted on Appendix K.
This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
- should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
We will communicate with you further regarding additional records related to your F0IA request.
Sincerely, Q
P JW
~_
i Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated 9
Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX H RECORDS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN PDR i
1.
04/29/83 Memorandum for James J. Cummings from Ben B. Hayes, (1 page)
PDR # 8410190382 2.
09/14/83 Government Accountability Project Petition to Commission with attachments including Duke Power Company's Construction Project Evaluation for Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1/2, September 27-October 14, 1982. (528 pages) PDR # 8309190025 3.
09/14/83 Ltr to the Commission from Garde (50 pages) PDR # 8410190388 4.
09/16/83 Memorandum for Sandra Showman from Edwin G. Triner, w/ miscellaneous documents.-(7 pages) PDR # 8504150615 5.
10/14/83 Ltr to Garde from DeYoung, w/ enclosure (3 pages)
PDR # 8310240245 6.
10/21/83 Memo for the Commission from Messenger (23 pages)
PDR # 8508120315 7.
11/01/83 Ltr to Palladino from Udall (2 pages) PDR # 8401100133 8.
11/01/83 Ltr to Garde from DeYoung (3 pages)
PDR # 8311100365 9.
05/22/84 Memo from Messenger to Palladino and Commissioners, subject:
Catawba Nuclear Power Station--Review of NRC Handling of Allegations (3 pages) PDR # 8410190376
- 10. 05/22/84 Report of Investigation, title: " Catawba Nuclear Power Station--
Review of NRC Handling of Allegations" (14 pages)
POR # 8410190379
- 11. 06/22/84 Partial Initial Decision, ASLBP-81-463-06 OL (284 pages)
PDR # 8407030223
- 12. 06/27/84 Ltr from Guild to DeYoung (3 pages) w/ attached Partial Initial Decision (3 pages)
PDR #8407170537
- 13. 07/20/84 Ltr from DeYoung to Guild (2 pages) w/ enclosure: Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages) PDR #8407270055 14.
10/10/84 Memo and Order, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board regarding in-camera testing on Foreman Override (3 pages)
PDR # 8410110161 s
(
r
-y
1 Re: F0IA-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX H (Continued) 15.
10/26/84 (Proposed) Supplemental Partial Initial Decision by Duke Power Company (36 pages)
PDR # 8410300319 16.
12/06/84 Memo to Files--Patricia Davis (2 pages) PDR # 8412070341 17.
12/20/84 Order re DD-84-16 PDR #8412240132 18.
12/27/84 Ltr requesting staying PID immediate effectiveness, Guild to Commission (3 pages) PDR # 8502150664
- 19. 12/28/84 Ltr on Immediate Effectiveness, Duke Power Company Attorneys to Commission. (42 pages) PDR # 8502150681
- 20. 01/10/85 Ltr from Duke Power Company Attorneys to Commission regarding Intervenor Requests to make presentation at Commission meeting on licensing of Catawba (5 pages) PDR # 8501110489
- 21. 01/28/85 Memo from Chilk to Dir.cks - Staff Requirements re Catawba 1, PDR #8502050237
- 22. 03/01/85 Memo, Chilk to Board and Parties regarding Commission declination of review of ALAB-794 (1 page) PDR # 8503050469
- 23. 04/22/85 Duke Power Company's Response to GAP's September 27, 1984 Enforcement Action Request (26 pages) and Note from Shapar to Commissioners, subject: SECY-78-308 - Protection of Informants - Response to Commission Questions Regarding Section 7 of S. 2584 (7 pages) and Attachment B (3 pages)
PDR #8504250162
- 24. 06/04/85 Ltr from Taylor to Guild w/ attached: Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (28 pages) PDR #8506130458
~
- 25. 08/13/85 Ltr from Taylor to Duke Power Company, subject: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (6 pages)
PDR #8508160156
- 26. Undated Occurrence (PN0-II-83-74). (2 pages)
PDR # 8309160241 s
Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX I RECORDS BEING PLACED IN PDR AND LPDR 1.
09/27/84 Ltr from Garde to DeYoung and Axelrod, re: Enforcement Action Request, Duke Power Company (9 pages)
- 2.
12/19/84 Routing and Transmittal slip from Holler to Puckett, with attached copyrighted decision, Brown Root, Inc. v. Donovan, Civil No. 83-4486 (5th Cir. 1984). (10 pages) 3.
01/03/85 Notation Vote Response Sheet from Comm. Asselstine (1 page) 4.
01/09/85 Memo from Chilk to Plaine, subject: SECY-84-467 - Director's Denial of 2.206 Petition (In the Matter of Duke Power Company)
(1 page)
A O
i 4
Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX J RECORDS WITHHELD IN ENTIRETY EXEMPTION (5) 1.
Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (21 pages) 2.
Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (26 pages) 3.
Undated Draft Ltr from O'Reilly to Tucker (3 pages) 4.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Owen (3 pages) 5.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild (3 pages) 6.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 pages) 7.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (4 pages) 8.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 pages) 9.
Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 pages)
- 10. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (2 pages)
- 11. 11/26/84 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet from Axelrad to 0'Reilly with Notation Vote Response Sheet (3 pages)
- 12. 05/23/85 Memo from Taylor to Grace; subject: Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Decision on Discrimination at Catawba-(2 pages)
- 13. 06/04/85 Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild (7 pages)
- 14. 08/07/85 Routing and Transmittal Slip from Taylor to Grace (3 pages)
.e
\\
Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX K 1.
07/16/85 Facsimile transmittal sheet from Holler-to Jenkins (1 page) Released-Attachments:
- a. Draft Letter from Taylor to Garde (1 page) withheld-Ex.5 (Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE))
- b. 6/28/85 Ltr from Garde (unsigned) to Taylor-Released w/ handwritten notations (2 pages) - Annotations withheld-Ex.5 (Region II) 2.
Undated Draft Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 (21 pages) with handwritten notations - Exemption (5) (IE and RII) 3.
Undated Draft Letter from O'Reilly to Tucker w/ handwritten notations (3 pages) with attachment:
- a. Undated Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. (3 pages) - Exemption (5) (IE and RII) 4 06/28/85 Ltr from Garde unsigned to Taylor (2 pages) - Released in Document #1.b. above. Annotations withheld - Exemption (5) -
(IE) e, 4
\\
i
l Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)
APPENDIX L RECORDS WITHHELD IN ENTIRETY EXEMPTION (5) AND (7)(A))
1.
07/11/84 Memo from Burns to DeYoung, subject: Section 2.206 Request on Catawba Filed by Robert Guild (2 pages) 2.
11/28/84 Memo from Burns to Axelrad, subject: Effect of Licensing Board's Decision in the Catawba Proceeding on Staff Enforcement Action (5 pages) w/ attachment:
A.
Parties Positions and Boards Remarks on Discrimination and Harrassment Incidents (6 pages) 3.
03/19/85 Note to Jane Axelrad, IE, from Burns, ELD re: Draft Catawba 2.206 Decision (2 pages) 4.
Undated Letter from DeYoung to Guild (2 pages) w/ attachment:
A. Receipt of Request for Action under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages) e 4
h A
l r
R'e: F01A-85-584 (Third Partial)
APPENDIX M RECORDS DENIED IN ENTIRETY - EXEMPTION (5) 1.
Undated Three draft responses to B. Garde, GAP, 9/27/84 Letter.
(10 pages) 2.
Undated Draf t enforcement package for EA 84-93 labeled "Rev. 3".
(8 pages) 3.
Undated Draft enforcement package for EA 84-93 labeled "Rev 8" (7 pages) 4.
Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 4/1/85.
(23 pages) 5.
Ondata" Draft Catawba 2.206 decision. (23 pages) 6.
Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision w/ notations.
(29 pages) 7.
Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/7/85.
(26 pages) 8.
Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/8/85.
(26 pages) 9.
Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/13/85.
(39 pages)
- 10. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/14/85.
(38 pages)
- 11. 05/14/85 Draft letter from James Taylor, IE, to Robert Guild, forwarding Catawba 2.206 decision.
(6 pages)
- 12. 05/23/85 Memorandum from Taylor, IE, to Grace, RII, subiect: Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Decision on Discrimination at Catawba.
(2pages)
G
.a 1
- }.
g.
Duxn Pownn GOMPANY r,vevc c omiern sa LEGAL DEPARTMENT f,'J"*l M"ft' " '"
E O. Box omno Ein."o'.**"ad"sa GHAHLOTTE. N. G. 20e42
... m 2570
- "OII"8c"E![co"a?"sa l%" E ?."::,"la T 't.";", J ' '"
2S"i, l'. '.'Z, d,",,
August 19, 1985 Et" ' I.E'. " '"
FREfBOM OF INFORMAMN(
ACT REQUEST 50.2~A -/3-SJf J. M. Felton, Director ggh hdYI Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request Regarding Enforcement Action EA 84-93
Dear Mr. Felton:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 5552) and the NRC's implementing regulations thereunder (10 CFR $9.3 et seq.) I hereby request on behalf of Duke Power Company all documents related to and underlying Enforcement Action No. EA 84-93 being taken against Duke Power Company.
This enforcement action is reflected in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty issued August 13, 1985.
2 This request extends not only to all relevant documents at NRC Headquarters relating to the enforcement action and the events surrounding Mr.
Gary E.
" Beau" Ross, but also to all such documents within NRC Region II including any such documents reflecting any communications between Region II and NRC Headquarters. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents reflecting, underlying, or otherwise relevant to:
1.
Any communications between NRC employees and/or representatives and members and/or representatives of Palme'tto Alliance, the Government Accountability Project and/or any other outside group or individual concerning possible enforcement action based on the events surrounding Mr.
Ross and/or the concerns expressed by the welding inspectors at Catawba Nuclear Station, and/or alleged harassment and/or intimidation of any quality control / quality assurance inspector at the Catawba Nuclear Station.
2.
The June 4,1985 Director's Decision (DD-85-9), including alternative drafts or proposals, and including all documents reflecting any independent fact-finding investigation conducted by NRC in connection with the enforcement action or concerning Mr. Ross.
3.
Any decision to engage or not to engage in any independent fact linding in connection wjth the enforcement action and Mr.
Ross.
4.
Deliberations regarding whether the record developed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was adequate to support a finding of discrimination within the meaning of 42 USC 55851 and/or 10 CFR 550.7.
This request also extends to any documents reflectino deliberations whether the Q}gn-g,\\\\
MM
~
t s
1 - :
.?
~
J. M. Felton, Director j
U. S. Nuclear REgulitory Commission August 19, 1985 Page two record developed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was adequate to support the Board's finding of discrimination.
5.
Deliberations regarding the appropriate severity level to be assigned the alleged violation.
6.
Any communications between representatives of the NRC and representatives of the Department of Labor relating to this enforcement action or the events surrounding Mr. Ross.
7.
The Commission's decision not to review DD-85-9, including documents underlying and reflecting the majority votes of Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Bernthal and Asselstine, and documents underlying and reflecting the dissenting views of Commissioners Roberts and Zech.
8.
The August 13, 1985 Notice of Violation including alternative drafts or proposals.
9.
The August 13, 1985 Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, including alternative drafts or proposals.
I would appreciate your prompt response to this request within the ten a
working day period provided in 10 CFR 59.9.
Duke Power Company's deadline for responding to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.is September 12, 1985.
The documents I am requesting could well prove to be significant to that response.
Accordingly, I hope that this request will be met as expeditiously as possible.
If you cannot meet this request within the period set out in the regulations, please notify me as soon as possible, and tell me when you will be able to respond.
Sincerely, Albert V
.arr, Jr.
c: James N. Taylor Jane A. Axelrad 4.
e l
.