ML20247M811

Responds to 890614 Appeal of Dh Grimsley 890526 Denial of FOIA Request for Records Re Insp of Catalytic Industrial Maint Co from 1984 to 890214.App Records Publicly Available. Remainder of Records Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)

ML20247M811
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/19/1989
From:	Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Burhans J, Garde B BURHANS, J.T., GARDE, B.P.
References
FOIA-89-93, FOIA-89-A-21 NUDOCS 8909260060
Download: ML20247M811 (3)

Text

_

m

~ p ung E 8 $1 UNITED STATES

r,,

[' '

.~ D.

ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5

[

SEP 191989 Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire L John Burhans, Esquire' IN RESPONSE REFER 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue ~T0 F01A-89-A-21 n

Appleton, WI 54911-4897 (F0IA-89-93)

Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Burhans:

l This is in response to your letter dated June 14, 1989, in which you appealed

' 26, 1989. Mr. Grimsley's res Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's response dated Maydenied records subject to Mr. Bur request for records concerning inspections of Catalytic Industrial Maintenance Company from 1984 to February 14,.1989, pertaining to the D. C. Cook nuclear power plant or the Indiana and Michigan Company.

Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have determined that some additional information can now be made publicly available. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.

The two documents listed on the enclosed appendix can now be made publicly available and are. enclosed. The remainder of the previously withheld information will continue to be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemptions 10 CFR 9.17(a)(5)(and(7)(A)(oftheF0IA(5U.S.C.552(b)(5)and(7)(A))and

5) and (7) 1) of the Comission's regulations.

For your information, the withheld records are currently being evaluated by the NRC's Region III staff. Depending on'the outcome of that review, enforcement e action could be taken by the NRC against the licensee. Premature public disclosure of these records while they are still being reviewed could interfere with the government's ability to take appropriate action. The records will be made available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 upon completion of the review. The review is expected to be completed by mid-October, 1989.

This is a final agency action. AssetforthintheFOIA(5USC552(a)(4)(B)),

judicial review of this decision is available in a district court of the 8909260060 890919

f. PDR FOIA GARDE 89-A-21 PDR

L~ ,

F Ms. Garde and Mr. Burhans Un'ited States in the district in which you reside or have your principal' place of business or in the District of Columbia.-

Sincerely, l A

H h L. Thompson, e ENcutiveDirector r Nuclear Ma er s Safety, Safeguards

and Operations Support

Enclosures:

1. Appendix

2. Released documents I

L L ______________.____________._________________._____________._______.___________.___._________._..__._._____.____.__._.____._______________________.______________._________________._...____________5

L.

l P,e: F01A-89-A-21 APPENDIX

1. 5/3/88 Letter to M. P. Alexich from A. Bert Davis. (2 pages)

2. 10/7/88 Letter to M. P. Alexich from A. Bert Davis. (1 page) l l

l

p- ,

w .

May 3, 1988 a k Mr. M. P. Alexich Vice President

. Indiana Michigan Power Company P. O. Box 16631-

' Columbus, OH ~43216

Dear Mr. Alexich:

.By. letter' dated March 31, 1988, you. responded to three allegations made~by a former QC supervisor who had been employed by a contractor at the Donald C. Cook' Nuclear Plant. These allegations had been transmitted to you for investigation by Mr. Norelius of this office by letter dated November 3, Your March-31, 1987.- Our review.and evaluation of your response is on 1988 letter also requested. pursuant to'10 CFR of the 2.790(b) going.

Commission's regulations, that your response and all accompanying documents'be wholly withheld from public disclosure. The reasons for withholding stated in your affidavit for withholding are 1) disclosure of: portions of the documents would

' constitute a. clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and

2) disclosure could. interfere with NRC's investigation, deprive parties of an" impartial adjudication, and constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

We have~ evaluated the affidavit for withholding provided with.your letter and have concluded the following:

. .) . As noted above, our evaluation of the allegations, including your response is ongoing. .We have determined that.the investigation details and supporting documents provided with your response are exempt from~public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(7) while our investigation into this matter is ongoing. Accordingly, these documents will not be placed in the Public Document Room at this time.

2. With respect to your March 31, 1988 letter, we have concluded that no significant personal privacy issues are involved. In addition, we have determined that the letter does not constitute an investigatory record the release of which would interfere with NRC's investigation, deprive a person of a right to a-fair trial or an impartial adjudication or constitute'an' unwarranted invasion of personal' privacy. The letter consists, in essence, of conclusions reached by your staff. We perceive l no negative impact on NRC's review of this matter by public release of this letter.

Nor do we believe release would harm any person's right to a fair trial. Finally, since no personal identities er information is revealed in the letter, we see' no unwarranted invasicr of personal privacy.

- .Since the determination to withhold decurents or, thE basis they ccnstitute l' investigatory records is one for the Comission to mate, and we perceive L /

g%gEW2f"4fyp exac+so sg

-?- May 3, 1988 -

Mr..M. P. Alexich no' reason'for withh'olding.:your request to withheld the March 31, 1988 letter is denied. The letter and affidavit for withholding will be placed.

-in'the NRC Public Document _ Room 30 days'after the date of this letter urless you' provide furtherw justification' for withholding the letter and affidavit within that time.

3. The affidavit asserts that disclosure of " portions of the_ documents" would constitute a clearly unwarranted ~ invasion of personal privacy, but does not specify which portions of which documents should be withheldShould Accordingly, your request for withholding on this basis is denied.

you wish to pursue this request you should . file a supplemental affidavit specifically identifying those documents and' portions' thereof which you believe should be withheld. We request any such supplemental However, response be as discussed fileo within 30 days from the date of this letter.

~in paragraph 2. above, we have concluded that no significant personal privacy issues are associated with the March 31, 1988 letter you requested be withheld.

-Please contact Bruce Berson, our regional counsel at (31E)790-5732 if you have any que3tions.

Sincerely.

A. Bert Day 1 Regional Administrator cc: E. G. Greentran, RIII DCD/DCB(RIDS)-PDR Only bcc: J. A. Grobe, RIII C. H. Weil, RIII E. C. Shomaker, 0GC F:III n FIII ^

EIII ,. OGC RII!g I

WP' A Ia 'ic

- 5 m .:c ar O w pze b m Ber' wsee lr ci .n.L

~ Gree %"tr .

%f ( Y 0CT 7 1988 Docket'Nos. 50-315;50-316 Mr. M. P. Alexich Vice President  ;

Indiana Michigan Power Company

. Post Office Box 16631 Columbus, OH 43216

Dear Mr. Alexich:

This is in response to your letter dated June 9, 1988 which renewed, in part, your March 31, 1988 request for withholding from public disclosure certain transcripts of interviews you provided to Region III on March 31, 1988 which were part of your review of several allegations. The June 9,1988 letter and affidavit request withholding from public disclosure 20 of the 27 transcripts on the basis that they contain addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers and/or derogatory comments. My May 3, 1988 letter to you denied withholding of the transcripts unless you specified which portions of which documents should be withheld on personal privacy grounds.

We are currently in the process of completing our technical review of the transcripts and the underlying allegations. The results of that review will be documented in an Inspection Report. With respect to your renewed request for withholding the transcripts, we agree that home addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers constitute infonnation the release of which could cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Therefore, this type of information will be deleted from the transcripts prior to placing them in the Public Document Room following completion of our technical review of the allegations. However, your supplemental affidavit fails to identify any particular derogatory information contained in the transcripts which you believe should be deleted and our review of the documents did not identify consnents which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Accordingly, your request for withholding the 20 transcripts is granted in part and denied in part. The transcripts will be placed in the Public Document Room following completion of our technical review of the allegations once home addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers have been deleted, unless within twenty days from the date of this letter you specifically identify by transcript page and line number the derogatory consnents which you believe justify deletion along with a statement of reasons as to why each identified comment should be deleted.

Sincerely, _

et ll M H I g onal inistrator cc: DCD/DCB(RIDS) - PDR Only (w/ incoming ltr dtd 6/9/88) bec: E. Shomaker, OGC E. Greenman, RIII osc J. Grobe, RIII ,

C. Weil, RIII "n'

"Lik ""5 "'8 f Pap riello [y y2 vis Ber /jr in/ A /no s

Burgej/RR 1n/ t Greenman 10/ 0/88 10/ /88 10/ t' /88 MfdAM ),.T