ML20198B915

Appeals Denial of FOIA Request for Info Re Guidance Given to NRC Concerning Various Issues at Facility.Documents Should Be Released Based on Listed Reasons

ML20198B915
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/25/1991
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20198B911	List: ML20198B905 ML20198B915
References
FOIA-90-568, FOIA-91-A-11E NUDOCS 9106170277
Download: ML20198B915 (7)

Text

i DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON ATToRN EYS AT LAW 12 55 TW E N TY-T H I R o ST R E E T WAS HINGTo N, o. C. 2co37

'CLEPMONE (202) 857-2500 T E L E c opi E R (202) 857-2900 casst*oo* #

J AM E$ P. McGRAN E RT, J R.

D*8Cf t>A. NO

.s,su, April 25, 1991 APPEAL OF INmAt FOIA DECWOM

?lAN f ( 90 -6~M)

O t W fU0-7j 2

James M.

Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Appeal From Initial FOIA Decision (FOIA-90-568)

(partial)

Dear Sir:

l This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act

("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C.

S 552 (a) (6), of (a) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC" or " Commission") Partial Response dated March 26, 1991

(" Partial Response") which deniss, in part, my FOIA request dated December 20, 1990, (U.S.N.R.C.

FOIA-90-568).

10 l

C. F. P.. S 9.29(a) (1990).

)

I.

BACKGROUND The December 20, 1990 FOIA request to the NRC sought one copy of, among other records, (a) COMKC-90-19 (dated November 8,

1990) consisting of, or relating to, guidance given to the NRC Staff regarding various issucs in one or more stages of the proposal to decommission the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and (b) all other records consisting of request for guidance and/or guidance to NRC personnel relating to the proposal to decommission Shoreham in particular and/or Shoreham and one or more of Rancho Seco and Fort St. Vrain, which records (1) were generated after January 1, 1989 and (2) have not yet been placed in the public document room or published in the Federal Register.

The Partial Response identified 22 documents already available in the PDR which are relevant to the request in its Appendix A, furnished an additional 14 documents identified in its Appendix B and, in its Appendix C, described in part 10 documents which were being withheld in whole or part.

Part of document C.7 was withheld on the basis of Exemption 7(a).

The 9106170277 910425 PDR FOIA MCORA91-A-11E PDR

' James M.

Taylor i

April 25, 1991 Page 2 witholding (in whole or in part) of the other nine documents as well as part of document C.7 was premised exclusively on the attorney work product privilege portion of Exemption 5.

See Partial Response at Part II.B.S.

II.

RECORDS SOUGHT ON APPEAL A.

By this appeal, we seek the release of those portions of documents C.7 which have been withheld, as well as the total release of all other documents listed in Appendix C to the Partial Response.

B.

In addition, we infer from the title of document C.7 (" Monthly Status Report on Decommissioning of Rancho Seco")

the existence of such " monthly status" reports on the decommissioning of Rancho Seco and, separately, monthly status reports on the decommissioning of Shoreham from the relevant Regional Administrator to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (emphasis added).

All such " monthly status" reports are within the scope of our request, yet only a single such report was furnished.

Hence, we appeal the silent denial of all such status reports (monthly and otherwise) from the Regions to Headquarters as well as any record (s) establishing the requirements for, or relating to, reports from Region I and/or V re Shoreham and/or Rancho Seco.

C.

Requesters also note the establishment of bi-weekly conferences and/or teleconferences re Shoreham, Rancho Seco, and Fort St. Vrain under the aegis of Mr. Seymour Weiss.

Requesters also appeal the silent denials of the agendas and memoranda for, and relating to, those conferences.

The balance of those reports must be furnished.

D.

We also appeal the Commission's failure to identify, to the best of its ability, the source (si of the documents furnished in whole or part and denied in whole or part, since the source of that document greatly effects the significance of the document.

In particular, we identify documents B.3, B.4, B.7, B.10, C.4 and C.S.

E.

The Commission relies on Exemption 7(A) to withhold a portion of document C.7, a mere " Monthly Status Report on Decommissioning of Rancho Seco" relating to

" engineering / technical support" at that plant.

On the face of it, it appears highly unlikely that the deleted portion would have anything to do with " enforcement proceedings."

Further, the information should be released not only because it is probably

l

' James M. Taylor April 25, 1991 i

Page 3 merely factual, but more importantly, because "there are no enforcement proceedings pending, [and] none is contemplated Poss v.

NLRB, 565 F.2d 654, 657 (10th Cir. 1977).

(If on appeal, the Commission invokes Exemption 7(A) with respect to H

documents C.1, C.3, C.6, C.8, C.9 and/or C.10, we would urge that j

the same analysis (i.e., no enforcement proceedings pending or i

contemplated with respect to the subject of-those documents) would also make that exemption unavailable for those documents.)

III.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A..

Appendix C to the Partial Response of March 26, 1991, indicates that documents C.1, C.8, C.9 and C.10 (some "with handwritten annotations") are " draft confirmatory action letter (s)

(" CAL")."

None of these documents indicate that they were drafted by an attorney, rather all of them indicate that they are drafts by "J.B.

Martin," the NRC Administrator for j

Region V; thus, they do not qualify for the attorney work-product privilege.

Further, if the NRC should attempt, on appeal, to invoke the " deliberative process" rationale, we first question-whether the annotations may not have converted one or more of those " drafts" into a decisional document to issue the CAL or not to issue the CAL, in which case those " drafts" embodying such a decision must be released.

(Sgg, e.a.,

Sears Roebuck & Co.,

infra); and second, we submit that reasonably segregable portions of those " drafts" containing factual materials must by released in any event; and third, the fact that at least one of those draft CALs is dated June 21, 1989 indicates that a decision has been made by this time to issue or not to issue a CAL; in either case, the document evidencing that final decision to take or not to take enforcement actions must be released.

Sears Roebuck &

Co.,

421 U.S.

at 155-57, 95 S.Ct. at 1519.

However, there is nothing in the denial to indicate that the deleted portion of the paper was drafted by an attorney; if it was not drafted by an attorney, it cannot possible fall within the attorney work-product privilege and must be released.

See, e.a.,

National Labor Relations Board v.

Sears Roebuck & Co.,

421 U.S.

132, 154, 95 S.Ct. 1504,.1518, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975);

Poss v.

NLRB, 565 F.2d 654, 659 (10th Cir. 1977).

Further, even if the deleted portion was written by an NRC attorney, it can only be withheld as attorney work-product, if it involves "the attorney's theory of the case and his litigation strategy"; given the nature of this memorandum, we consider it highly unlikely that the deleted portion falls within that privilege.

E.a.,

Sears Roebuck & Co.,

421 U.S.

at 154, 95 S.Ct. at 1518.

l

' James M.

Taylor April 25, 1991 j

i Page 4 i

B.

Document C.3 is described as " Memo from Allegation l

Review Board to Allegation File RV-89-A-0054" for which an attorney work-product privileged is claimed.

The very description of the memo defeats the assertion that it was either prepared by an attorney (or even if it were drafted by an J

attorney, it loses protection when, and adopted by the Board) or constitutes an " attorney's theory of the case and his litigation strategy."

Sears Roebuck & Co.,

supra.

The description of the memo indicates that it is a " decisional" document which must be released pursuant to Sears Roebuck & Co.,

supra.

And even it only contains a recommendation, it still must be released pursuant to Sears Roebuck & Co. if that recommendation was adopted by the ultimate decisionmaker.

Moreover, even if none of 1

the foregoing propositions are deemed to control the decision on the release of this " memo," the reasonable segregably factual portions of the " memo" must be released.

C.

Documents C.6F and C.7 indicate affirmatively that they were not drafted by the NRC legal staff ("OGC"), and documents C.4 and C.5 contained no affirmative indication that they were drafted by OGC.

In these circumstances, the attorney work-product privilege exemption simply does not apply.

F.c.,

Sears Roebuck & Co.,

supra.

If the NRC cannot establish by a preponderance of the evidence that these documents were authored by members of_its legal staff and addressed the lawyer's " theory of the case and litigation strategy" in contemplation of litigation, an attorney work-product privilege cannot be claimed and they must be released in total.

In any event, all reasonable segregable factual portions of these documents must be released.

IV.

EXEMPTION 5 IS NOT OTHERWISE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE The courts have established, as a fundamental premise of FOIA, that records must be released unless they squarely fall within an exemption.

E.a.,

Coastal States Gas Corp. v.

Department of Enercy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir 1980) ("We reemphasize the narrow scope of Exemption 5 and the strong policy of the FOIA that the public is entitled to know what its government is doing and why.")

(" Coa sta l States).

In one of the most recent D.C. Circuit cases addressing the standards to be applied in determining the validity of an agency's decision to withhold a document under Exemption 5, the 1/

Mr. Wong holds an executive, not a legal staff position as Deputy Director of the NRC's Office of Enforcement.

James M.

Taylor April 25, 1991 Page 5 court stated that "[t]he law speaks clearly on this issue.

An agency may withhold a document under Exemption 5 when it is oth predecisional and deliberative."

Formaldehyde Institute v.

Department of Health and Human Services, 889 F.2d 1118, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) ; see also E_LRB v.

Sears. Roebuck

& Co.,

421 U.S.

132, 150-53, 95 S.Ct.

1504, 1516-17, 44 L.Ed. 29 (1975) (" Sears"); Senate of Puerto Rico v.

U.S.

Department of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 585-86 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Arthur Andersen &

Co.

v. Internal Revenue Service, 679 F.2d 254, 257 (D.C. Cir.

1982);

Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866 ("we look to whether the document is 'predecisional' - whether it was generated before the adoption of agency policy - and whether the document is

' deliberative' - whether it reflects the give and take of the consultative process" (emphasis original)); Jordan v.

U.S.

Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978)("two prerequisites must be met the document must be

'predecisional' (and) the communication must be ' deliberative'")

(" Jordan").

Thus, before the documents may legitimately bc withheld under the deliberative process privilege, the NRC must demonstrate that they are both "predecisional" and part af the agency's " deliberative" process.

Neither requirement is met in this case.

The final CAL record, if not disclostd, would form exactly the kind of " secret agency law" which Congress and the courts have found intolerable.

The Supreme Court left no doubt that an agency must release all documents which illuminate the basis of an agency's decision:

The public is vitally concerned with the reasons which did supply the basis for an agency policy actually adopted.

These reasons, if expressed within the agency, constitute the 'surking law' of the agency and have been held by the lower courts to be outside the protection of Exemption 5.

Sears, 421 U.S.

at 152-53, 95 S.Ct. at 1517 (citations omitted).

This disclosure requirement reflects the " strong congressional aversion to ' secret (agency) law' and represents an affirmative congressional purpose to require disclosure of documents which have 'the force and effect of law.'"

Seats, 421 U.S.

at 153, 95 S.Ct. at 1518.

CAL decision

4 l

' Jame; M. Taylor April 25, 1991 i

page 6 i

records are in fact a source of " secret agency law."U Coastal States, 617 T.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("even if the document is predecisional at the time it is prepared, it can lose that status if it is adopted, formally or informally as the agency position on an issue or is used by the ugency in its dealings with the public ).

a The NRC also may r.ot be able to properly characterize the records as part of the deliberative process.

ERS CQaptal States, 617 F.2d at 868.

The policy considerations outlined in Coastal States, which-must be present before an agency can justifiably withhold documents as part of an agency's deliberative process have no applicability in this case:

(Exemption 5) serves to assure that subordinates within an agency will feel free to provide the decirionmaker with their

. uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or-criticism; to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted; and to protect against confusing issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency's action.

617 F.2d at 866 (emphasis added); gne algt, lordan, 591 F.2d at 4

772-74.

1/

It is particularly relevant to note that the records which the Supreme Court required to be released in Sears were memoranda decisions of the NLRB General Counsel declinina to file an enforcement complaint and the related Advice and Appeals Memoranda.

42 U.S.

at 155-56, 95 S.Ct. at 1519.

The records sought here are the Commission's decision issuing _or declininq enforcement orders.

Therefore, Sears controls the instant FOIA request and dictates release of those records.

- r

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

c.,-,-

,.,~..--.,n

.,n,.e,-

~~.n,-

... =

- -. -.- - -. - ~. -... -. -. -. - -

-. - -.. - ~..

A 1

i James M.

Taylor April 25, 1991 Page 7 V.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, you should reverse the decision denying release of the requested records, I would i

appreciate your expediting the consideration of this appeal and I will expect -to receive your decision within twenty (20) working days as required by FOIA and NRC regulations.

10 C.F.R.

S

9. 29 (b) (1990).

Re pectful y submitt d,

/ c.

f

/

/

Mames P.

McG ra ne ry,,-

r.

JPM/jmb Enclosure i.

I t

4 h

-.-g-y

...y---r-*

g.

9.,.g,mg.,,,q,,.,

,y,yy,

,, S p w y gsw

,-w.p-,..w-w 9 w-g.

e

-sqqag:-qgy cwppp.,y4,~

,._mge y

e....

c.y-1.ur'4-1 e c e D

• + wa--yy-%kw vT49=-

.yrt-*p1-p w g tr-MT MF T*

• W 8 sr-tMew+-e-'

i

.e i

DON LOHNES & M.IERTSON "M'^'* "#'S @ "*# 4 '"

X: ". L' '

r.iG1l'"

.';.u.%

c s - M ' m m o c. n c a

~% :'.n.

T ::;.*..,..'s:.::

'T.T..s...

L::l.T.':

.". ' ..~

i:.'" "n

.Y: *.'."...

• s w '= v c ~. o c. aco w u

... ~.,.

..L, *;. D...; ** * *

.n

............u........

o

,. e

.m

.w..

~.,.

,.m.....

,....e.

.o..........,

j

.w.,y.,c,,.,,,,,

m..

. m - a

.,e,.

-..m..,.....

....m..

s_....,..,.......,.

4

~.,..

~..

s,.

. m

.s

.w.

.on...

.m........

.u

,m...-

~,......

.,. ~

,u......

~

.e c.. :

.m.

m.,....

.:.~,...~4...

v

.m..,~.

~

- g.,..,

,e c.

u

.s i..,

. ~

.1

..v. m s,.

.. x,.

l

.m w,-

n.

.w.

,..n e.

n.,. v.

.,...s..

w.

...w

.~...x m,

1

......t..m-,,

u.~.....:-,-

~.

,.o....

,. n...,

e.

r.s..

- u, n,,. :. n

-i..,.

-o

,w u.

~. ~

.v..

m,,., m, a..

, i.o.

.~

.E.m.1.L".?".G.s,",.07.,0 T2.* ?!,.

(202) 857-2929

w...

..m..

3

.1...,

w.

n.

i

...u.~.n

-n.

.m. c

v. 4

,a.

m December 20, 1990

-,.. ~,

...m.,

~..

n..n.

r. '..'.'.'T f REEDOM Of INf 0RMATl0N

• * ~ ' ' ' ' " '

ACT REQUEST VI A Ifl3CO)?X (L*3L.A. wst,2 Mr. Donnjo H. Grinsley Director

(' /

){-pO 40 Division of Froodom of Information and Publicatjons Servicos office of Administration i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ce.nission Washington, D.C.

20555 1

l FNEMM OF_ IM.QJy AMQN_. apt RE,.QUERT

Dear Mr. Grinsloy:

1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

i 9.23(b) (1969), I hereby request c7e (1) copy of (a) COMXC-90-19 (dated Nove.Tber 8, 1990) consisting of or Iclating to guidanco given to the NRC Staf f regarding various issues in one or more stages of the proposal to decommission the Shoreha:n Nuclear Power Station, and (b) all other records connisting of requests for guidance and/or guidanco to NRC personnel relating to the proposal to decottnission Shoreham in particular and/or S.oreham and one or teore of Rancho Seco and Fort St. Vrain which zacords () were generated af ter January 1, 1989 and (2) have not yet been placed in the Public Document Room or published in the Federal Registor.

1XIINT_TA_ PAL TJG I do not believe that the scarch for the requested recordc chould exceed two hours or that the records are in excess of 100 pages and, therefore, I do not believe that there will be any chargo for the requested search and records, purnuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 9.39(b)&(c) (1989).

However, if thero are fees to be charged, I hereby indicate my willingncos to pay such foes in i

3...<....m.c..

. c... u.... a

-....:.....n..

u....n.,....

. w..Ots.;,>*S.ef.c3

.t.

6,. t.. *.. M d a 3 0

.w.t u e,;.. s les.

p.gs.1 alm.rt se ti..

S.

nt x.m

,/.D *..o.. ov *t c

• f.t.. p t..:. 7 54.so t I.... s1i it. M

.t...

.f

• .'*l.t..

2.X...;.e,'P.,

.(

i ;' 3df J US

.. :t. 4

. 4 9.u s..". 3 2144..

.934.

.( -J..h.....

0_

_ff, sY j 1 0 '

?

f

}l

' j i.

w-4 w

n Mr. Donnie H. Griceley May 3, 1990 Page 2 charged, I hereby indicato my willingness to pay such fcos in accord.with 10 C.F.R. 5 9.40(a) (1989) so that the search for the records and their release may proceed as expediticusly as possible.

EEG]IS.LLQR FEE _WMXE3 If fees would otherwisc be charged, I also request waiver or reduction of the fees, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 9.41 (1989), on the basis that the records vill be used to further the public understanding of the commission's actions in connection with Shoreham and to aid the participation of the Shoreham-Wading Rivor Central School District (" School District") (which is a state croated entity) and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.- ("SE ")

(which is a 501(c)(3) tax except 2

organizatiqn) in participation in proceedings related to the l

Shorcham Plant.

It is difficult to describe precisely the likely impact l

on the public understanding of the subject without seeing the records themselvos; however, their availability will surely improvo public understanding of the Co 21ssion's processes and l

pcsition on the Shoreham issues.

The public affected here, in addition to the School its Board, employees and students and SE and its District, arc all of the poople of Long Island who,ould benefit w

members, from the supply electricity from Shoreham and whose electric supply and reliability nsy be daraged by the absence of tuo

. Shoreham Plant.

The-intended scans for disso=ination to the general public includes the furnishing of the records to NRC Licensing Boards and the Federal courts considering various proceedings on the question of-whether Shoreham should be decommissioned.

Public access to-the information would be provided free of ch.i rge.

Thero is no censcrcial or private interest which I, the have in these recordo.

School District, or SE2 RECpFDS NOT EXElill I do not belicve that the requested records are oxempt from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 9.17(a) (1989).

I also suggest that theno records uhould be made available to the public in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 9.21(c) (2) and (4) as (i) statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the NRC and have not been published in the Federal Register and/or (ii) instructions to NRC personnel that af fect a member of the public.

See Memorandum for the Commissioners from James M.

Mr. Nnnie H. Crirr.} ey May 3, 1990 Tage 3 Taylor,

Subject:

Plant Clocure Activitics (Novotnbcr 9, 1990)

(identifying CCMKC-90-19 as part of the "provicun r.ta f f guidhnco").

NFFD FOR FXP.EQLT.LOli Civon the press of natters before the NRC and ongoing litigation in redoral court, it is respectfully requested t hat the release of the requested records be expedited by telecopy to ne at (202) 8S7-2757.

.C.CZYA]QChT1.C1!1 If any clarification or additional inforration in r.qu red, please call no at (202) 857-2929.

dith cany thanks for your attention to t hin inattor, I am, sincerely yours,4 1d h

)(?+ p. r

-g e va.en P.

McGranery, J r.

JPM:jnb cet Joreph F.

Scinto, Esq.

Charles E. Mullins, Esq.

!.w c a r.c e J. ch s t: il c r, Tcq.

4ay,sgA.

W IAL._4.__._

Aa. Amu 4 4xw 5

E aa W a s a 4__

a=:14s.A4.J----

_M--,9A.1, w ae e

e

>ms__

-T

.h.

ha Aa4.d

__.._AL_d,M eau A-

---A.Jm 4.A 24um F

/WtEA-I S

jfc a

}.

R

/

J. W hGC f

w by Y

a a as s aa-s

&h&,

J4 A - p M

zuo avLKdna f

/

p s z6 a6 h p Ode 4caJ -

A s i.

esc A x

4.

OP

\\g Qg< so?ffjp 4AeAAX r

d, PSsit7 g;^"\\

f i

r u 5 NuctI Ah AlGUL A10m COMuiL5 UN

..m, o,,, m w,,,,,,,, m FOlA - 90.%g f'... a.a.7;,

u srO~si n n RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 1*+*L

] e"iit

'.)/)-

INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST MAR 61991

. j, i

. a. ii ves# um e, l AE Oct ST(4 James P. ftGranery. Jr.

P ART l, AGENCY RECORDS RE LE ASED OR NOT LOC AT ED I$ee cwa kf tonest No apncy records sAcct to t* e 'ea est tase t'een located No addi'iO*4' aiency rtcords s.L,(ct to l' e rtQsest ta.e been w.ted Requested records are available throug*i another pubhc distribution program. See Comments section.

k Agency f ecords subject to the request that are identified en Apperid a(es) art alreA1y available for pubhc inspection and copying at the X

NRC Pubhc Dxument Room 2120 L St:eet. N W WaWon DC.

8

._ re being m de a a lable for pubhc inspection and copi ng Agency records sub;ect to tte reauest that are identified m Appendiates) e X

at the NRC Pubhc Document Floorn. 2120 L Street. N W. Washington, DC. in a folder under this F Ol A number.

The nonproprietary version of the oroposaHs) that you areed to accept in a telep5one con es.wn atth a member of rny staff :s noa being made a<a ab;e v

f or pubhc inspection and copying at the N RC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street, N.W. Washington DC. m a folder under this F OI A number.

Agenc y records sutiject to the requent that are sdentified in Append.alesi may be inst ected and copied at the NRC Local Pubhc Docu vt r

Room identified m the Comtrerits section.

Enclosed is mf ormation on how you tror obtain access to and the charges for copying recoros located a' te e NRC Public Docurrant Room 2120 L St*wt.

NW Washin;aon,DC

[ Apncy records subgct to the request are encesed [ App. B, and releasable Nrtions of App. C document 5 are enCIOSed.]

Records subject to the requent tave been teferred to another Federal erncyl es) for revievv ar.d direct resporse to you X

rees WAlVED You *ill be be ied by the NRC for fees tctahng $

You ed recene a tr'und ficm the N DC in it.e amount of $

In view of NRC's rest onse to tms reasest no furt'er action 6 being ta6 en on wpea' :etter dated

,No PART ll. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD F HOM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Cenein information in the reowested records is beies withheld f rom pubhc disclosu e pursuant to the esemot*ons described in and for the seasons stateo r

in Part 15, B. C. and D Any releaseo portices of the dmw eais for wtich only part of the record is beie.g withheld are being rnade evacatie for puboc 2120 L S:reet. N iN. Was er.aton. DC in a 6w noer tha FOi A nu nt>er 5

insoection and c; ping in the N AC Putshc Docurrett A com n

a

OMME NTS A

A E. DIRECTOR, OlvisiONg pilOW OF INF ORM AT CN AND PUBLPJTI%S $E RviCE S GN;he #

4 Q /m

(

5.s 6 '

v.'

e1 ye4 g

r 6

k v

. [

+.m

,no me ~ e _. -

~

__-.._m____-_________m__

__m_

r~~

WEPOM OF INFORMATION ACT HESPONSE FOiA NuMot as,s, FOIA 568 cA, PAR 2 6194 PART 11 B-APPLIC ABLE i AIMPTION$

Y-k(Df ds b

,e 110 l'4 reQvent tf at s'e dC6 cited On the enClc hed ApDend'E'e%1

_ _ ere bt ng netP

• eld an their en{stct y Ot en part ynder tr e ise,wt o.s and tw the eases set futh twe psvant ic 5 u 5 C 5524t > and to C# R 9 i h of W Repabons

_4 Tree withheld er.tumet.cn is (doc e'Is c'es s '_ed pv'swant to (s ecutsve Ordet 1

4(s( M PIlON IJ 2 The Althhe6d tritysmation te stes so'eir to the (lef nal personriel twits and proce3e es of NRC i[ kEMPflON 2 r

The niihheo e ormat.on,s sc ecit.can, e.empies from put+c d.sclcsse tiv stat te recateo it atMPtiON 3e 3

s Se s t.ons 141 145 Of the Attre t ( r.e r b Ac t n *w h pt @t.sts the J's % ss e C f ste s!' c ted Dat a a F orrNeef, enest s tee Dva.42 U s C 2161210ti e

i

$eCleon 14 7 of the Atorewi f r489y Act wh<ch Stohat91s the 0+Sciosse c1 Unctass.f ed Safepwards informanon i42 U $ C 21671

4. The eithheed ardormat+on as a If ade ses'et os c ommercial of financial it.loemation that is besng nethheld f oi the +pason(s) edacated 1E R E MPf 80N di The snformateoh is CDns+defed to be Cord dentisi bus #ess lpf Dof ela% I ef ormation The enf ormation es consioeted to be proprietar, enf ormation pursuant to 10 CFR 219Cnosill The enformar.on was bubmittec and received e cont.oence pu svant to 10 Cf R 2 790<dii2) r X.5 7te w+thheid mformat,on coas>sts of intevageec e or miraegency records tt-st are not a.saatse theovg*. disco.e, opng st$ai on 4m!MetlON 51 Apr4catae Ponege Deht erative Pf ocess >sposse of pel Jec+orar eformation wovaa tend to.nnet the cpen and frans enchaage of.oess essenttaa to the det.terative process Where #ecords see adhheed on t*ed erst +'ety. ft.e f acts see ine stoc ably etert *ined noth the predec.s.onalinlovenat.on There aiso see no reasonsbo, seg'egable f actua' ortions tecause the reiwase of the forts a puds verwt am endaect ir couw into tre pnececisionai process of the agencs p

X A ttorne v o a praov.i etw.icae.Docomer is reeve'e4 to en a to ne, e c omienvate of # tsai.on i A n arne, ciet p...e p.C W de-s e s sorw eeu-s t ciatert er 4t' er. 70 ts te (i era e

6. The withM4a mW at<or is o>st csse aosd res.,rt m a cies", u wa"an'es in.ase of se'sora pe.ac, I (MobON 6 n

7 T*e withee <o efemat on c or s sts cd rec o'3s c ort c oed f o' 14

• enf ec eme-t psa ses and is beir g *.tthets f o< tre seasc,nis!.no.cated iE mEMatrON 7:

D sclosse uwa eass ati, t e esc enes u e tede's eth an etue e-t ex erseg te: dose.' cowo e.e

",e save ouection soa focus f en f gicef'hent e f fW1s ar d I* w s c h d &issl'y a A Itch L ist e etN *5t( h* e J i. 'ent d' A + L* p3p rg e 3, pay 4fe fii[ ggjegry gnt g t.ft,g,w g g1ggg ge g n

k, ( N ( M P ? !C. 7 Ao I

s,.cio s,e.- smie e,~n.a, a,e t 4.as n of ce.sm p., a:, r,twte.oc-

. t he m.ma,m s,,s o, na-es of ~. sa i ame. -~

res m e m.m.e a,., m.ae e m e.t,m,e.e amer t, es o, caf eent.as sNeces f a E MatiON 7 <D o

. Ower I

t PART41 C - DENYING OFPCIALS sus.,am t; 10 CF A 9 25 t-a-c oe 9 J $ w cf t*e v 5 %.civa Reasaiw Cw..ss e 'ep ars s eo -t aw tc t+ e c t x.nieresi De M oa s e ws t~e 'a tre con ai re 1Nse othc 4 s.oect.LeJ belo* as Jerv ing Pf hc.4 s enc !* e )"ec t O' )% s cn Li s't tJOrr of ifdV*tidl& dr JP.4t iC af wrs$eintces Olit e O' AJrvest ate ered Re s0WCes Ma%dge'T ent IJiant dea's t' ai may t,e am rea is ir e f.ec t s e Daectu 9 Oc e awa E00+

DENviNG OFFICI AL TittE OFFict atCO8CS Of VED AP*(u Alf OmCiAL S E C sy t a py too

]nhn R Mart in -

Paginn11._Administr_at nr _ Pag. v c/1; c/~4 r/Jn y

Deputy General Counsel for bseph Scinto Hearing and_Enfnueant C#

X

+

PART11 D - APPEAL RIGHTS oftcia cent iog en Part il C may be appea;ed to tr e Appeltate Off.c>ai dent:f.ed en that section Any such appesi must be r weitmg and m st The den ai by each cenyms,ece pi of ih,s,esponse Appetis musi be a$a,essed as awc,pnaie io the t.ec*e ouem, fu, One,at.ons ono ihe $evew, of ihe Com.w n r

i u

be made.,tn.n 30 days oi U $ Nvciear Regv: story Commession Washrgton OC 205E5 and skould cieany stee or the emesore and m t* e retter that it is an ' Appeal from an init.ai FOIA Decision itc Fo w Asa6Pertas U S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION l

I Re FOIA-90-568 APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1.

6/21/89 Letter from David Boggs, SMUD, to J.

B.

Martin, NRC Region 5, subject: Rancho Seco Closure Plan.

PDR Accession No. 8906290481 2.

6/30/89 Letter from Dan Keuter, SMUD, to J.

B..

Martin, subject:

Rancho Seco Closure Plan.

PDR Acc. No. 8907070012 3.

8/14/89 SECY-89-247 -Shoreham Status and Developments.

PDR Acc. No. 8908160237 4.

8/30/89 Letter from Thomas Murley, NRC, to Anthony i

Early, LILCO, regarding reduction of expenditures while assuring safety at shoreham.

PDR Acc. No. 8909060130 5.

9/15/89 Letter from Chairman Carr to The Honorable James Watkins, DOE, regarding Shoreliam.

PDR Acc. No. 8910160028 6.

11/27/89 Letter from Thomas Murley to Davis Boggs, regarding Closure of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

PDR Acc. No. 8912050069 7.

12/22/89 Letter from Jan Schori, SMUD, to William i

Parler, NRC, subject:

Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

PDR Acc. No. 9005230181 8.

12/27/89 Letter from David Boggs to Thomas Murley, subjects _ Closure of Rancho Seco Nuc. Gen.

Station.

PDR Acc.'No. 9001050202 9.

3/12/90 SECY-90-084 - Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

- Status and Developments.

.PDR Acc. No.

9003190006 10.

4/25/90 Letter from Thomas Murley to David Boggs, subjects. Possession.Only License Amendment l

for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

PDR Acc. No. 9004300203 Status of the Shoreham Nuclear 11.

7/20/90 SECY-90-259 Power Station.

PDR Acc. No. 9007240231

-.. a-

l

=

l

~

. +

l Ret FOIA-90-568 APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS ALREADY AYtILABLE IN THE PDR (Continued)

WUNBER DATE DESCRIPTION l

12.

9/18/90 Letter from James Watkins to Chairman Carr regarding plan to dismantle the Shoreham nuclear plant.

PDR Acc. No. 9009270253 f

13.

10/2/90 NRC Staff Response to Petition to intervene i

on Proposed License Amendment Filed by the l

Environmental Conservation Organization - by Lisa B.

Clark, Counsel for NRC Staff.

PDR Acc. No. 9012260131 14.

10/9/90 Letter from Michael R.

Deland, Council on i

l Environmental Quality, to Chairman Carr, urging that a comprehensive environmental impact statement be prepared with respect to activities at Shoreham..

PDR Acc. No.

l 9011290369 15.

10/10/90 Federal Register Notice - Sacramento Municipal utility District, Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating

?

License and Proposed No Significant Hazards consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing.

55 FR 41280 16.

10/17/90 Commission Order (CLI-90-08)

LILCO/Shoreham.

PDR Acc. No. 9010290085 17.

10/17/90 Letter from S.

David Freeman, SMUD, to James Taylor regarding Decommissioning Funding ~for Prematurely Shutdown Nuclear Plants.

.PDR Acc. No. 9010240339 18.

11/5/90 Letter from A.

Clegg Crawford, Public Service Company of Colorado, to Seymour Weiss, NRC, subject:

Plant Closure Activities.

PDR Acc.

No. 9011150256 19.

11/7/90 Letter from A.

C.

Crawford to Seymour Weiss, HRC, subject:

Plant Closure Activities.

PDR Acc. No. 9011140124

Re FOIA-90-568 APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR (Continued)

NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 20.

11/8/90 Letter from John Leonard, LILCO, to NRC, subject:

Shipment of Fuel Support Pieces to Shoreham Nuclear

Barnwell, S. C.

for Burial Power Etation.

PDR Acc. No. 9011160161.

21.

11/9/90 SECY-90-379 - Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Status and Developmente.

PDR Acc.

Station No. 9012200061 22.

11/14/90 Letter from Seymour Weiss to John D.

Leonard, subject:

Response to LILCO November 8, 1990 Letter of Intent.

PDR Acc. No. 9011260054

l 4

4 Ret FOIA-90-568 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR HUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIOi!

1.

9/1/89 Letter from Dan Keuter, SMUD, to J.

B.

Martin, subjects h4ctrict Commitmente in Emergency Response to NRC Ir opection 89-14 Planning.

(8 pages) 2.

9/6/89 Letter from John Martin to Dan Keuter 19garding development of a closure plan.

(2 pagen) 3.

9/7/89 SMUD Time Line.

(1 page) 4.

3/6/90 Shoreham - Briefing Sheet.

(1 page) 5.

4/13/90 Handwritten notes regarding Shoreham Biveekly Call.

(1 page) 6.

4/25/90 Handwritten memo from E.

Blough to W.

Kane, subject:

Plant Decommissioning.

(1 page) 7.

10/9/90 Shoreham Debrief.

(21 pages) 8.

11/8/90 Handwritten notes regarding Brief for T.

Martin on Shoreham.

(3 pages) 9.

11/8/90 EDO Daily Highlight.

(1 page) 10.

Undated Hendwritten notes re Rancho Decommissioning.

(1 page) 11.

Undated News article: "SMUD Ratepayers Benefit Ordinance."

(2 pages) 12.

Undated News Article:

"Is there life after Quadrex7" (1 page) 13.

Undated News Article:

" Support for Seco cools down after rejection."

(2 pages) 14.

Undated News Article:

"Last nail in coffin."

(1 page)

s

/

Ret FOIA-90-568 APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS BEING WITHHELD IN WHOLE OR IN PA!!T NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1.

6/21/89 Unsigned, draft Confirmatory Action Letter to Joseph Fir 11t from John Martin, with handwritten annotations.

(4 pages)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5.

2, 8/15/89 Handwritten notes from Walt Butler to various addressees, with attachment.

(1 page)

Portion withheld pursuant to Exemption 5, Attorney work-product.

(NOTE:

The attached 8/3/89 letter from the Coalition For Shoreham to Chairman Carr is already in the PDR -

Accession No. 0910160029.1 3.

9/28/89 Memo from Allegation Review Board to Allegation File RV-89-A-0054.

(2 pages)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5 4.

1/11/90 Handwritten notes regarding Shoreham and SMUD.

(1 page)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5 5.

1/11/90 Handwritten notes regarding SMUD Decommissioning.

(1 page)

Withhelr. in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5 6.

4/12/90 Handwritten notes from Howard Wong to various addressees, regarding decommissioning of Shoreham, Rancho Seco and Ft. St. Vrain.

(1 page)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5.

7.

11/20/90 Memo from John Martin to Thomas Murley, subject: Monthly Status Report on Decommissioning of Rancho Seco.

(5 pages)

Portions withheld pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(A).

8.

Undated Draft CAL by J.

B. Martin.

(1 page)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5

A l

e Ret FOJA-90-568 APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS BEING RELEASED IN PART (Continued)

NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 9.

Undated Unsigned draft Confirmatory Action Letter from J.

Martin to Dan Keuter.

(4 pages)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5.

10.

Undated Unsigned draft Confirmatory Action Letter from J.

Martin to Joseph Fir 11t, with handwritten annotations.

(2 pages)

Withheld in entirety pursuant to Exemption 5.

-. _ _ _ _ - - - - _ ___ - -_- - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _