ML20203L631

Responds to Expressing Case Objection to Reliance on Pending FOIA Requests to Satisfy 860307 Request for Production of Documents Re OL Proceeding.Related Correspondence

ML20203L631
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/25/1986
From:	Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Garde B TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
References
CON-#286-960 OL, NUDOCS 8605010318
Download: ML20203L631 (2)

Text

,

c k UNITED STATES m @ COR F #

[f 3m j

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 -

o., E .A < W"! '

%'. . . . * / APR 151986 /[b

/

Ms. Billie P. Garde 7 ("[ [ C Director, Environmental Whistleblower Clinic {.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.

2000 P Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Uiiits 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-445 6 50-446 r(

Dear Ms. Garde:

Your letter of April 8, 1986 to Mr. Victor Stello, has been referred to me for reply. Dy your letter, you express CASE's objection to the Staf f's reliance on pending FOIA requests to satisfy CASE's March 7,1986 request for production of documents in the Comanche Peak operating license proceeding, made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il 2.744 and 2.790. In addition, you renew CASE's request for the documents speelfled in your March 7th Ictter - the OIA report on the "T-Shirt Incident" and the 01 report of the Fermi 2 SAFETEAM program, and related documents. In a separate letter to me, also dated April 8, 1986, you express the same objections in connection with my March 27, 1986 letter to you regarding your January 31, 1986 request for documents relating to the EGnG Study Team's Report on harassment and intimidation issued in September 1985. You also note your

" exception" to the Staff's unwillingness to arrange an informal meeting with the Study Team, and ask for a formal determination by the Executive Director for Operations on both your document request and request for a meeting, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.744.

With respect to your letter to Mr. Stello, CASE's interpretation of his letter of March 25, 1986, incorrectly concludes that his objection to the request for documents was based on the pendency of the GAP FOIA requests that were referenced in his letter. Rather, as set forth in his letter, the objection to CASE's request was based on his determination that neither of the requested documents, or related documents, were shown by you to have any relevance to the ongoing Comanche Peak proceeding. The OIA report presents an assessment of the Staffs handling of the " T- S hirt incident" and not an assessment of the licensee's activities. Consequently, as the Staff has previously argued, it is not relevant to the issues before the Licensing Board. A determination of relevance is a necessary prerequisite under 10 C . F. H . I 2.744, if the documents are not otherwise publicly available pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.790. (Independent of relevance, a determination that the documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10 C. F. R. I 2.700 and that their disclosure is not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding or that the information is reasonably obtainable from another source, would also be grounds for objection.) The reference i

R DO D Q ,

- ;)

~

'/

to the pending GAP FOIA requests was intended merely to indicate that, spart from CASE's discovery request, the NRC was considering whether to -

release the same documents as you requested and place them in its Public Document Room , in which event, they would be available for CASE's use. .

For example, although you did not, in your March 7 letter, establish the ,

relevance of the OIA report of the "T-Shirt lucident" to the Comanche Peak proceeding, that document and its attachments were released in response to m a GAP FotA request and are available for inspection and copying in the .: t i Commission's Public Document Room.

In light of the fact that, by his letter of March 25, 1986, the Executive Director for Operations has already determined that CASE has not shown the relevance of the documents requested to the Comanche Peak proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. I 2.744, and, as a result, has objected to your -

discovery request, it is not necessary that he again consider your request.

In response to your letter tc me, please be athrised that the Staff is t reviewing the EG&G documenta you requested to determine whether they can r-be released. Although this review process is being conducted in response j to the FOIA request referenced in my March 27th letter to you, the same i factors must be considered in determining the extent to which the documents can be released pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 9 as under 10 C. F. R. $ 2.790. This is a necessary step in deciding whether and to what extent the documents requested should be produced.

1 In reycrd to your request for an informal meeting with the Study Tesm, the wi Staff continues to be unwilling to schedule such a meeting at this time . -

Informal meetings of the type conducted in this proceeding in the past, i with both the Study Team (regarding its first report) and the TRT mernbers , are not provided for by the Commission's regulations but were held as a convenience in order to expedite the proceeding. Because of the voluntary nature of such meeting, the requirement that CASE seek formal depositions of Staff members as would otherwise be required by 10 C.F.R. e i 2.720(h)(2)(1) was avoided. If CASE wishes to seek formal depositions >

on this matter, it is, of course, free to do.

Sincerely.

.hObt' ' _h Lawrence J. Chandler 't.

Special Litigation Counsel cc: Service List 1