ML20127P475

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Appeal Re Denial of FOIA Request for Documents Identified in Paragraph 1 of 840106 Stipulation in Civil Action 83-1988.Forwards Related Documents.Document 52 Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 7)
ML20127P475
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 10/24/1984
From: Berkovitz D
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To: Bernabei L
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML17215B062 List:
References
FOIA-83-161, FOIA-83-A-9 NUDOCS 8505240005
Download: ML20127P475 (1)
v • d • e


Text

__--_-- - -- - ._ -

%, UNITED STATES

[ S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O j WASHINGTON, D. C. lP0666

\, ""' / FoIA-23-&l g VA-9 October 24, 1984 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Government Accountability Project 1901 Que Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 Re: INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES V. U.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, D.D.C.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 83-1988

Dear Ms. Bernabei:

The Department of Justice has declined to prosecute the matter referred to in paragraph 1 of the January 6, 1984 Stipulation in Civil Action No. 83-1988. Accordingly, the documents mentioned ~in paragraph 1 of the Stipulation, other than Vaughn Index document no. 52, are being placed in the Public Document Room (PDR) under FOIA-83-161. Document no.

52 will not be made available because the tape recorded interview is of a confidential source and is being withheld in its entirety according to FOIA Exemption 7 (D) . Release of the tape recording would reveal through. voice identification the identity of the confidential source.

This completes all action regarding this lawsuit.

Sincerely, Dan M. Berkovitz Attorney Office of the General Counsel 8505240005 841024 PDR FDIA BERNABEB3-A-9 PDR

. _ . . - , . _ . - __ .. . , _ . . . . _._ . ~ . _ _ ,. -,

4

.n UNITED STATES

~

.((T

, *- ;E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j

q

+

..... / November 10, 1983

. 3

's i

'  ?

Lynne'Bernabei, Esq. 'W Government Accountability Project

. 1901 Q Street, N.W.  %

Washington, DC 20009 3

Subject:

FOIA APPEAL CONCERNING PALO VERDE INVESTIGATION (F01A-83-161) , .

3

~ ~ ^ ~ ~

Dear Ms. Bernabei:

~

2 The NRC has completed action on the Government Accountability Project I (GAP)'s appeal dated May 13, 1983 concerning a March 29 request under j the Freedom of Information Act for all records related to or gene' rated 1 by NRC employees in the investigaticn of certain allegations at the Palo i Verde facility. We regret the delay. As you were informed by Ms. g Nordlinger of the NRC Office of the General Counsel on July 8, the ii Office of Investigations (01) identified a large number of documents to 4 be reviewed at the same time it was completing its investigation. OI

~ ~ "T was~ of the view that when the nearly completed OI work was forwarded, m m, - most if not all of the documents, on a list enclosed in a July 19 letter l "Cyf to,you,~ could .be released. The 01 investigation was extendedi in part, 7

^ nf as a' response to GAP's concerns, and is now complete. Accordingly, the j NRC grants your appeal for most 01 documents subject to your request but 5

. denies your. appeal for documents and portions of them as indicated below 2 and for three documents withheld from GAP in the initial response. 9

_.. q q

~ ~ With regard to 01 documents,'one tape and substantial portions of ten si other tapes and of tweni.y-one documents are being withheld under Ex- Q emption 7A so as not to interfere with the possible referral of part of =

the investigation by OI to the Justice Department. 5 U.S.C. = -

552(b)(7)(A),10CFR9.5(a)(7). Disclosure of such sensitive informa-tion might compromise the ability or willingness of the Department to ^n undertake its own further investigation. Moreover, at this point the N public interest favors further investigation and not disclosure. The M vast majority of the other investigative documents subject to your i request are being released. The exceptions are noted as follows. j These records include portions of twenty-one documents from which names 3 and personal identifiers have been deleted and two entire tapes under  %

Exemption 7D, because the source was promised confidentiality. 5 U.S.C. Q 552(b)(7)(D), 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7). Release of the identities could curtail d 01's investigative work by showing that the NRC was unwilling to back 4 its promises. Portions of three documents were withheld to protect i names and personal identifiers of persons at Palo Verde alleged to have 7 used controlled substances. In view of the fact that these charges were E 2

E f il h n u d A $

v ' yow  ;

i

~ %D.

I i

.y , v ,.

~#

' 4 .

.~ J; 2  ;

not proved, the NRC is withholding this information under Exemption 7(C) as information that, if disclosed, would infringe personal privacy. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7). In a limited number of in-stances, portions of fourteen documents and one tape have been deleted to prevent the identities of persons alleged to have been overexposed from being disclosed. The information is routinely withheld by the NRC.

~ 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(6), (7)(C),10 CFR 9.5(a)(6)(1), (7). Nine documents,

'.- part of a contractor employee's personnel file, and one document, a salary chart, are also being withheld in their entirety under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). The disclosure of the above information would tend to embarrass these individuals and subject them to public scrutiny on matters where there is no countervailing public interest.

~- The applicable exemption (s) is clearly noted in the documents where a deletion was made. Where Exemption 7D is invoked it is because those w individuals became witnesses under a promise of confidentiality and their continued involvement in the investigation is important to its

' satisfactory-completion. - Where Exemption 7C is invoked, it will be clear from the context that the information was deleted to avoid'an

-=

' Mnvasion of personal privacy through an allegation of wrongdoing, such as use of a controlled substance. Where Exemptions 6 and 7(c), it will

  1. , be clear that the information either about radiation. exposure or person-

.m . nel history. The documents from which information is deleted to a .

,,.A - certain extent may, have p.ortions " deleted for several reasons and al1~ are m- listed in the Appendix to this letter, based on the list provided to you 2 C,6 m on July 19._ A11.01 documents will be released to the Public Document gmwRoom the early part ofe next week. An appropriate Notice of Disclosure Lg will be filed in the docket of GAP's pending lawsuit against NRC' on this ,

-; 7,quegg, ~ yg m - ,

m agg,n ,

Finally, sixteen' document's are_being withheld for ,the time be'ing u'nder

. m. - Exemption 4 because the owners,of the documents have raised concerns

,i that. they contain confidential business information. The NRC technical

. G. . staff and DI are studying the claims under the criteria in 10 CFR a%:, 2.790(b).. At this time, the NRC believes that a colorable claim has -

w:-

been made and the agency'is not able to disclose the documents in full.

- 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4). When the NRC's action is completed, '

additional documents or portions of them may be released.

^

With regard to the three documents withheld in the NRC's initial partial

' response, the Commission believes;that the three documents should be withheld under Exemption 5. The documents are a four page paper to the Comission from the Deputy General Counsel and the Director of the

~

Office of Policy Evaluation (OPE), SECY-83-125, and two earlier undated drafts of the paper. In -SECY-83-125, OGC and OPE weigh and evaluate the

".2~ advantages and disadvantages of alternative ways in which the Commission might approach.an imediate effectiveness decision for Palo Verde,

. culminating in a recommendation for Comission action. The two draft documents also contain the above information as well as the changes,

-deletions. -additions,' questions, and coments of the drafters and i

' ~

u .

W

[.~ ylyI ~;  ;

]{ -

, . i l

3 l

reviewers that led to the final document. These documents contain the advice, opinions, and recomendations of two of the principal advisors  ;

to the Comission on a pending adjudication and disclosure would tend to undemine the frank exchange of views that the Comission must expect from its advisors. The documents are sensitive predecisional comunica-tions and will be withheld. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5).

However, a portion of a transcript of a March 15 Comission meeting has been found relevant to your request and is being released. .

This constitutes final action on your appeal. Notwithstanding your pending lawsuit. I am required by law to infom you of your right to file suit against the NRC with regard to the partial denial of this request. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(ii). Given the nature of the withholdin in this case and the sensitivity of the information to further prose g cution and the rights of the individuals involved, the Comission requests GAP to reconsider whether litigation regarding this FOIA

_ request is appropriate. ,

Si rely,

~

^'

.f.1 __ __

~,- ,~~

. Samuel J. Ch 1k '

.x . ,. Secretary.f the Comission

- v a.%w . ~ z ' ,. - . . 4w 97.; .m. ,

m.-.. .

5 . Appendix enclosed M .

ikv _ .

k e

O e

e 5

.m

80.

TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEWS

. Date of FOIA Name Job Title Interview Exemption

23. *AGUAYO, P.A. Electrician 6/17/82 7 (A)

(24. ANDERSON, Electrical 7/15/82 Clinton M., Jr. Engineer

@25. . BAKER, William M. Journeyman 7/15/82 Wireman 926. BUNTING, 7/13/82 James Terry

. e 927. BURDICK, QC Engineer 7/01/82 William R. ,

@28. CRANE, Joseph H. Foreman 6/17/82 Electrical

@29. . DEAKINS, Richard A. QC Engineer 7/01/82 -

Level II-Electrical .

930. 'DOEBLER, Norman J. General Foreman 7/02/82 Electrical .

031. GOLDBERG, Michael B. Sr. Construction 6/28/82 Engineer

@32. *GUNDERSON, Former 6/01/82 -

7 (C)

Robert D.,Jr. Electrician 7 (D) at PVNGS f

33.. HALL, Forrest R. Electrician 6/16/82 b34. HANZE, John T. Level II 7/01/83 .

QC Engineer .

935. KEITH, Richard B., Jr. High Voltage 6/17/82 Foreman c 36. *KENNARD, G.A. . Electrician 6/17/82 7 (A) c37. *LEGG, C.D. . Electrician 6/17/82* 7 (A) i38.

  • MAST, D.J. Electrician 6/17/82 7 (A) e39. ,
  • MOODY, Steven J. Electrician 6/17/82 7 (A) p 1 m... . _ . .

, . , ; c ,. . ,

7., '.

,Name _ Job Title Interview Exemption 340. *NUNEZ, Hector R. General Foreman 6/29/82 7 (A)

Electrical 341. OSWALD, James Elect ician 7/02/82 Walter' Michael 342. REHFELD, Russell A Electrical QC 6/30/82 Engineer 943. RUFF, Robert C., Jr. Electrical Field' 7/15/82 Engineer 944. *SANDOVAL, Joe G. Forman '

6/28/82 7 (A) -

Electrical -'

D45. *SCHUH, John H. Electrician 6/17/82 7 (A) 94 6.~ SEGER, Kenneth H. Electrician 6/17/82 947 % SOLLAMI, Philip A. Electrician 6/16/82 948.

  • SWEET, James B. Electrician 6/28/82 7 (A) 949. - VISE, Jack E. General Foreman 7/02/82 .

Electricial ,

Start-up

$50. *WALLERSTEIN, Cary . Electrician 6/16/82 7 (A) h51. WILLIAMS, Louis, Jr. Termination 6/28/82 Engineer

52. YOSHIMOTO,-Sus Forema.n 7/13/82 -

7 Electricial 6/16/82 h53. * (withheld) (withheld) 7 (D)

$54. * (withheld) (withheld) 6/11/82 7 (D) 7 (A) l . .

l _

l l m/

5 e 9

y. m,y , .- _ - , ,
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20127P475&oldid=3465177"