ML20044D166
| ML20044D166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1993 |
| From: | Reynolds N WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305170321 | |
| Download: ML20044D166 (3) | |
Text
p l
~
WINSTON & STRMVN FREDERfCK H WASTON 08511888) 900 L S'REET. N W emcaso cuce stas n STRAwN peausa6)
WAST 4tNGQN. DC 20005 3502 as wrst worn o=>ve cacaso umo:s se (202) 371 5700
[ [,,[,
rACS MLE 4202)371-5950
- s. m.a <x>en iDFi 269 2W April 13, 1993 BY HAND Mr. James Lieberman Director Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Lieberman:
This letter is a follow-up to our letter dated January 4,
1993 and your letter dated February 4, 1993, pertaining to the request of Northeast Utilities (NU) for confidential treatment, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.790, of its report and accompanying attachments submitted to your office on November 24, 1992.
Further to your request, we have segregated the report into exempt and non-exempt material.
The proposed redactions are extensive, but necessary we feel to protect from public disclosure the personal privacy and critical self-analysis information contained in this document.I' We have also attempted to segregate exempt from non-exempt material in several of the attachments for which redactions are proposed (Attachments 27, 28, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 75, 93, and 95-99).
We enclose with this letter a redacted and bracketed copy of the report and these attachments.
i l'
We have redacted references to certain material, which would I
arguably not be exempt from public disclosure in a different context, because the failure to redact such references would allow the reader of the document with even limited knowledge of relevant facts to glean information about, and thus invade the personal privacy of, the individual who made the y- ) g ~g '9 allegations in this case as well as about Company i
self-evaluative deliberations subject to the critical i
self-analysis privilege.
[%
O 9305170321 930413 PDR ADOCK 05000336 p
Mr. James Lieberman April 13, 1993 Page 2 With respect to the other attachments for which we believe protection is warranted, a number of these did not lend themselves to segregation of exempt from non-exempt material, in that the exempt material is so inextricably intertwined with non-exempt material that it was simply not possible in our view to redact the exempt material.
These attachments are of such a nature that the disclosure of even portions of them would invade the personal privacy of the affected employees.
Egg Attachments 19-21 (personnel evaluations); Attachments 40, 61, 68, 71, 78, 90 and 91 (memorandum discussing personnel matters); Attachments 79-89 (statements or representations by individuals responding to allegations of misconduct) ; and Attachments 101-04 (disciplinary letters)."
Hg_q Carter v.
U.S.
Department of Commerce, 830 F.2d 388, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (the court upheld the nondisclosure of information contained in disciplinary files where the redaction of personal information would not be adequate to protect the privacy of the subjects because the requester could easily obtain and compare unredacted copies of the documents from public sources); Marzen v. HHS, 825 F.2d 1148, 1152 (7th Cir. 1987)
(redaction of " identifying characteristics" held insufficient to protect the privacy of deceased infant'asfamily because others could ascertain identity of the family); Alirez v. NLRB, 676 F.2d 423, 428 (10th Cir. 1982) (mere deletion of names and other identifying data relating to a small group of co-workers held iradequate to protect the individuals from embarrassment or reprinia because requester could still possibly identify the individuals).
Moreover, other attachments, in our view, are properly withheld in their entirety pursuant to the critical self-analysis privilege.
Eg_q Attachments 8, 9,
18, 22, 76A, 77, and 105-107.I' 2/
We note that the NRC, in responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA"),
has withheld from disclosure information relating to " investigations of the conduct of named individuals" pursuant to Exemption 6
(Personal Privacy Information). Egg Memorandum from Thomas E.
Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "NRR d
Office Letter No. 104, Rev.
2, Freedom of Information Act Requests," dated July 31, 1990.
I' We also note that Attachments 30 and 76 should be withheld in their entirety because they are materials generated by the NRC in the course of its investigation and, therefore, would appear to fall under the investigatory privilege of the agency.
Moreover, since the NRC created these documents, the agency should make the final determination as to whether they should be placed in the PDR.
l
=
j m
Mr. James Lieberman April 13, 1993 i
Page 3 l
In that connection, your February 4, 1992 letter disagreed with the position that our report in this matter could properly be withheld in its entirety on the basis of the self-critical analysis doctrine, on the ground that the submittal, although voluntary, "is similar in many respects to an t
answer that a licensee would typically file in response to an order or proposed civil penalty."
We note that we have substantially narrowed our claim for withholding on this basis to a few attachments and not to the report itself.
However, we respectfully maintain that the entirely voluntary. nature of the submission of materials for which protection is sought actually strengthens our argument for non-disclosure and distinguishes it i
from a response to an order or proposed civil penalty.
^
In the Appendix to this Memorandum, we list for your convenience each of the attachments for which redactions are proposed (Section I) and each of the attachments which we propose i
should be withheld in their entirety (Section II), with an
+
accompanying explanation for each document.
We ask that the Appendix be withheld from disclosure since it summarizes the information for which protection from public disclosure is sought.
In closing, we want.to thank you for the opportunity to~
provide additional support for our position.
We again ask that in the event you are unable to grant our revised request for protection, that you return the report and attachments to us in accordance with the regulation and past NRC practice.
- )
Sincerely, h Ok O( s Nicholas S. R nolds Marcia R. Gelman NSR/ayc