ML20133G966

Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Ofc of Inspector & Auditor Inquiry Into Charges That NRC Responded Improperly to Allegation by Whistleblowers.Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7(a))

ML20133G966
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/03/1985
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
References
FOIA-85-589 NUDOCS 8510160205
Download: ML20133G966 (2)

Text

- _ .

i

/. [ jo.,, UNITED STATES

!" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \

h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

e OCT 3 @

Thomas Devine, Esquire Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F01A-85-589

Dear Mr. Devine:

l This is in response to your letter dated August 20, 1985, in which you re-quested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), all records re-garding the Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) inquiry into charges that NRC staff responded improperly to allegations by whistle-blowers at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

The OIA staff has approximately thirty (30) feet of documents subject to this request. The OIA staff informed me that they believe a majority of these documents has either been previously provided by you to the NRC or have been provided by the NRC to you.

The OIA review of matters relating to Diablo Canyon is ongoing. All the documents are predecisional in nature and are being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Comission's regulations. There are no reasonably segregable factual portions in these documents because releasing the factual portions of these documents would reveal a predecisional evaluation of which facts are important. (See Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 2 GDS

$81,123 (D.D.C. 1981), aft'd, 682 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Such " selective" i

facts are therefore entitled to the same protection as that afforded to purely deliberative materials as their release would " permit indirect inquiry into

the mental processes," Williams v. Department of Justice, 556 F. Supp. 63,65 (D.D.C. 1982), and so " expose" predecisional agency deliberations. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Train, 491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Additionally, some of the documents are being withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the FOIA (5 3 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(1) of the Commission's regulations.

i Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.15 of the Comission'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 person responsible for this denial is Ms. Sharon R. Connelly, Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor.

i i

i l 8510160205 851003 PDR FOIA DEVINE85-589 PDR

(

Thomas Devine, Esquire I This denial may be appealed to the Secretary of the' Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the C9mmission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and'should clearly state on the envelope 4 and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."

Si rely,

. M. Felton, Director i Division of Rules and Records i Office of Administration i

1 a

e 4

i i

t L