ML20246P692

Requests Party Brief on Support of Appeal of Denial of FOIA Request Re Records of Investigation Into Events Surrounding 870331 Shutdown of Plant

ML20246P692
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/04/1989
From:	Clair K SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS
To:
Shared Package
ML20246P677	List: ML20246P673 ML20246P692
References
FOIA-89-25, FOIA-89-A-16 NUDOCS 8905220264
Download: ML20246P692 (12)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _

q l

In Re: Appeal From the Initial Determination of the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission of Freedom of Information Act Request No.

89-25.

REQUESTING PARTY'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST NO. 89-25 I. INTRODUCTION On January 13, 1989, pursuant to the Freedom of l Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. S 552 and 10 CFR 5 9.8, the requesting party requested all formal or informal, written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts, memoranda, corre-cpondence, summaries, and outlines compiled as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (" Peach Bottom"). The NRC assigned FOIA No. 89-25 to the request. A copy of the request is attached as Exhibit A.

On March 6, 1989, the NRC partially responded to this request, refusing to disclose any documents pursuant to Exemp-tion 7(A) as provided by the Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. 5 552 (7) (A) . A copy of the response is attached as Ex-i hibit B. The responding party, Office of Inspector and Auditor

("OIA"), claimed that: " Records in the Office of Inspector and l Auditor (OIA), subject to the request, relate to an ongoing OIA investigation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant 8905220264 890404 PDR FOIA CLAIRB9-A-16 PDR

h ,.

to Exemption 7(A)." On March 21, 1989, the NRC indicated there were no further documents responsive to FOIA Request'No. 89-25.

This appeal' challenges the NRC response of March 6, 1989, denying documents to the requesting party. I In support of its appeal the requesting party asserts the following:

1. there is no ongoing investigation as the relevant underlying investigation is closed;

2. release of any or all requested documents would not interfere with any OIA investigation;

3. the requesting party is a third party and is not involved in a dispute with the NRC.

II. ARGUMENT

1. There is no onacina investigation On March 31, 1987, the NRC suspended Philadelphia Electric Company's ("PECO") operating license for the Peach Bottom facility. OIA had previously begun its investigation on March 27, 1987, and continued the investigation following the shutdown order.

As a result the investigation at Peach Bottom, the NRC imposed a $1.25 million fine in August 1988. PECO has not

f I

I L

appealed or otherwise challenged the imposed fine. In light of this, oIA cannot credibly claim that its investigation into events surrounding the closing of Peach Bottom is ongoing.

2. Releasing any or all of the requested documents will not interfere with an office of Inspector and Auditor'pending investigation To withhold requested documents, the OIA must show-that disclosure would interfere with a pending or future inves-tigation or enforcement proceeding. "The key question, of course, is whether production would ' interfere' with the pend-ing enforcement proceeding." New Encland Medical Center Hosoi-tal v. National Labor Relations Board, 548 F.2d 377, 382 (1st Cir. 1976).

Courts uphold an agency's refusal to disclose rele-vant documents only where the underlying investigation or enforcement action is pending or still unresolved. See Nation-al Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rt!bber Co. , 437 U.S.

214 (1977) (court refused to order disclosure of witness' state-ments to a requesting employer five days prior to hearing before NLRB) ; New Encland Medical Center Hosoital v. National Labor Relations Board, 548 F.2d 377(1st Cir. 1976) (court re-fused disclosure to an employer of employee statements con-tained in both open and closed files as they would interfere with a pending action); Marzen v. United States DeDartment of Health and Human Services, 632 F. Supp. 785(N.D. Ill.

1986) (court refused disclosure because records could interfere

l

. 1 l

with a future contemplated proceeding as well as a pending i one).

The rationale of these decisions is that disclosure j in pending investigations would "tip the agency's hand" by affording the requesting party an opportunity to'see the ev-idence in advance of the proceeding. Here, since the NRC has already fined PECO for the March 31, 1987, incident, there is no credible reason why OIA should not release documents in re-sponse to FOIA No. 89-25.

OIA's investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of Peach Bottom is not "pending": the order has been issued; the civil penalty has been assessed and paid. FOIA No. 89-25 interferes with nothing relevant to the request and, therefore, documents pursuant to this request should be disclosed. "Where an agency fails to ' demonstrate that the ... documents [ sought] relate to any ongoing investi-gation or ... would jeopardize any future law enforcement pro-ceedings,' Exemption 7(A) would not provide protection to an agency's decision." National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 235(1977). Accord Van Boura, Allen, Weinbera & Roger v. National Labor Relations Board, 751 F.2d 982(9th Cir. 1985) (disclosure ordered because no pending or contemplated proceedings against the law firm's client or the subject of the requested affidavits); Poss v. National La-bor Relations Board, 565 F.2d 654(10th Cir.1977) (Board's deci-sion not to file charges brought proceedings to a close;

l y .

f disclosure permitted); Wavland v. National Labor R' elations Board, 627 F. Supp. 1473(M.D. Tenn. 1986) (disclosure of re-quested statements would not interfere with a specific, pending proceeding) ; Kilrov v. National Labor Relations Board, 633 F.

Supp. 136(S.D. Ohio 1985) (as the requested documents relate to 58 closed cases, disclosure allowed). All of these-decisions underscore the point that closed investigations, as here, would no longer bar disclosure of documents gathered'and used in the underlying investigation.

I Both the facts surrounding FOIA No. 89-25 and the i general law underlying such requests show that OIA's asserting an " ongoing investigation" avails it naught; OIA's rationale is devoid of. substance and should not be allowed to foreclose the release of documents from a closed investigation.

3. The reauest is made by.a third carty The requesting party here is a third party to any pending, ongoing or closed proceedings. The requesting party is not now, nor ever been, involved in a dispute with, or in-vestigation by, the NRC or OIA. Moreover, FOIA No. 89-25 does not request documents for the purpose of gaining a strategic, tactical or other advantage over the NRC or OIA; this request is for informative purposes only.

OIA should consider, if it has not already done so, the requesting party's third party status, and not be so ready e

to dismiss the request out of hand. Camnbell v. Denartment of Health and Human Services, 682 F.2d 256(D.C. Cir. 1982).

III. CONCLUSION Neither the NRC nor OIA should avoid its statutory obligation to disclose documents under 5 U.S.C..S 552 by a i blanket assertion of speculative fact. Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64(D.C. Cir. 1986).

The relevant investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, order suspending operations at Peach Bottom has been  !

conducted and concluded: consequently, documents in the closed file should be released to this requesting party.

Even if OIA can make out a factual or legally legiti-mate reason for refusing to release documents, the obligation does not end there. OIA should provide the requesting party with a detailed index of those documents withheld with support-ing reasons . 10 CFR S 9.11(c) (1) . See also Vauchan v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

The requesting party appeals the NRC's initial deter-mination on March 6, 1989, refusing to disclose any documents pursuant to FOIA No. 89-25, requesting that the documents should be released immediately.

l- h /d t Requestin( Party.

Dated: April 4, 1989 4

I i

i L-______________________________ _ _

)

4

, '+

e . In Re: Appeal From the Initial' Determination of..the Nucleari Regulatory Commission of~ Freedom of Information Act Request No.-

89-25.

REQUESTING PARTY'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF-FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST NO. 89-25:

I. INTRODUCTION On January 13, 1989,' pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. S 552 and 10 CFR S 9.8,3the requesting party' requested all formal or informal, written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts, memoranda, corre-spondence, summaries, and outlines compiled as part of the Nuclear Regul atory Commission ("NRC") investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (" Peach Bottom"). The NRC assigned FOIA No. 89-25 to the request. A copy of the request is attached as Exhibit A.

On March 6, 1989, the NRC partially responded to this request, refusing to disclose any documents pursuant to Exemp-tion 7(A) as provided by the Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. S 552 (7) (A) . A copy of the response is attached as Ex-hibit B. The responding party, Office of Investigations

("OI"), claimed that: " Records in the Office of Investigations (OI), subject to the request, relate to an ongoing OI investi-l gation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to l

l

-' 'b g

i o  ;

~

h Exemption

7 (A)'. " On March 21, 1989,'the NRC indicated there were no further documents responsive to-FOIA' Request No.'89-25.

1 This appeal challenges the.NRC response of March 6, 1989,' denying 3 documents to the1 requesting party.

/

In' support of its appeal the requesting party asserts the following:n

1. there is no ongoing investigation as the relevar t underlying investigation is closed;

2. release of any or'all requested documents-would not interfere with any OI investigation;L 3.- _the requesting party is a third party and is not involved in a dispute with the NRC.

II '. ARGUMENT

1. There is no onaoina investigation on March 31, 1987, t'.le NRC suspended Philadelphia Electric Company's ("PECO") operating license for the Peach Bottom facility. OI had previously begun its investigation on March 27, 1987, and continued the investigation following the shutdown order.

As a result the investigation at Peach Bottom, the NRC imposed a $1.25 million fine in August 1988. PECO has not

o g

+' .

5 s

!'; - h' ~ f

t; t h

a .

.appealedLor otherwise challenged the' imposed fine. .In' light of

.this,-OI cannot' credibly claim that its; investigation;into events surrounding the closing of Peach' Bottom is ongoing..

2.- Releasing any or all of the. requested' documents willinot interfere-with an Office of Investigations pending investigation To withhold requested documents, the OI must show that disclosure would interfere with a pending or future inves-tigation or enforcement proceeding. "The key question, of

~

. course, is whether production would ' interfere' with'the pend-ing-enforcement proceeding." New Enaland Medical Center Hosoi-tal v. National Labor Relations Board, 548 F.2d 377, 382 (1st Cir. 1976).

Courts uphold an agency's refusal to disclose rele -

vant documents only where the underlying investigation or enforcement action is pending or still unresolved. See National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,

437 U.S. 214 (1977) (court refused to order disclosure of witness' statements to a requesting employer five days prior to hearing before NLRB); New Encland Medical Center Hospital v.  !

Hational Labor Relations Board, 548 F.2d 377(1st Cir.

1976) (court refused disclosure to an employer of employee statements contained in both open and closed files as they would interfere with a pending action); Marzen v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 632 F. Supp. 785(N.D.

711. 1986) (court refused disclosure because records could

l 1

i a

i

)

1 interfere with'a future contemplated proceeding as well as a -j l

pending one).

i The rationale of these decisions is that disclosure in pending investigations would "tip the agency's hand" by affording the requesting party an opportunity to see the ev-idence in advance of the proceeding. Here, since the NRC has -

already fined PECO for the March 31, 1987, incident, there is t no credible reason why OI should not release documents in re-sponse to FOIA No. ' -25.

OI's investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of Peach Bottom is not "pending": the order i has been issued; the civil penalty has been assessed and paid. FOIA No. 89-25 interferes with nothing relevant to the request and, therefore, documents pursuant to this request should be disclosed. "Where an agency fails to ' demonstrate that the ... documents [ sought] relate to any ongoing investi-gation or ... would jeopardize any future law enforcement pro-ceedings,' Exemption 7(A) would not provide protection to an agency's decision." Naticaal Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 235(1977). Accord Van Boura,.

Allen, Weinberg & Roger v. National Labor Relations Board, 751 F.2d 982(9th Cir. 1985) (disclosure ordered because no pending j or contemplated proceedings against the law firm's clieat or the subject of the requested affidavits) ; Poss v. National La-bor Relations Board, 565 F.2d 654(10th Cir.1977) (Board's deci-sion not to file charges brought proceedings to a close;

disclosure permitted); Wayland v. National Labor Relations Board, 627 F. Supp. 1473(M.D. Tenn. 1986) (disclosure of requested statements would not interfere with a specific, pend-ing proceeding); Kilrov v. National Labor Relations Board, 633 F. Supp. 136(S.D. Ohio 1985) (as the requested documents relate to 58 closed cases, disclosure allowed). All of these deci-sions underscore the point that closed investigations, as here, would no longer bar disclosure of documents gathered and used in the underlying investigation.

Both the facts surrounding FOIA No. 89-25 and the general law underlying such requests show that OI's asserting an " ongoing investigation" avails it naught; OI's rationale is devoid of substance and should not be allowed to foreclose the release of documents from a closed investigation.

3. The reauest is made by a third party The requesting party here is a third party to any pending, ongoing or closed proceedings. The requesting party is not now, nor ever been, involved in a dispute with, or in-vestigation by, the NRC or OI. Moreover, FOIA No. 89-25 does not request documents for the purpose of gaining a strategic, tactical or other advantage over the NRC or OI: this request is for informative purposes only.

OI should consider, if it has not already done so, the requesting party's third party status, and not be so ready 1

to dismiss the request out of hand. Campbell v. Department of E Health and Human Services, 682 F.2d 256(D.C. Cir. 1982).

III. CONCLUSION Neither the NRC nor OI should avoid its statutory obligation to disclose documents under 5 U.S.C. 5 552 by a blanket assertion of speculative fact. Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64(D.C. Cir. 1986).

The relevant investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, order' suspending operations at Peach Bottom has been conducted and concluded: consequently, documents in the closed file should be released to this requesting party.

Even if OI can make out a factual or legally legiti-mate reason for refusing to release documents, the obligation do.3s not end there. OI should provide the requesting party with a detailed index of those documents withheld with support-ing retsons. 10 CFR 5 9.11(c) (1) . See also Vauchan v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820(D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

The requesting party appeals the NRC's initial deter-mination on March 6, 1989, refusing to disclose any documents pursuant to FOIA No. 89-25, requesting that the documents should be released immediately.

7equesting Party.

Dated: April 4, 1989 l

i

____ ____ -_a

, p ,

.jg  %-4 UNITED STATES

-g

~,

_ y4

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i j l 7a ; . WASHINGTON, D.C,20555 - '

e,,  ;

& . ,. .Y/ '

OFFICE OF THE.

.~

May 12, 1989 SECRETARY Ms.-Kathleen S. Clair SCHNADER', HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS 1600 Market.. Street Philadelphia, PA -19103

.t

.Re:' FOIA Appeal 89A-16C I' '

Dear Ms. Clair:

This letter responds to your April 4,1989 appeal of this Agency's denial of -

Office.of Inspector and Auditor (now, Office of Inspector General) documents relating to the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant. These documents were identified in our March 6, 1989 response to F0IA 89-25.

The Office of Inspector General was informed of your appeal and the basis for.the appeal. They advise that an investigation is currently underway which relates to events:regarding the shutdown of the Peach Bottom plant but focuses instead on an entirely distinct issue relating to NRC personnel. Because this is an ongoing investigation that could result in disciplinary or other adverse action, the assertion of Exemption 7A to protect the documents from disclosure was entirely proper.

.This letter represents final Agency action on your April 4,1989 appeal.

Judicial review of the denial of documents is available in Federal District Court in the district in which you reside, or have your principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia.

Sincerel ,

al a-Samuelb ilk Secretary of the Commission i

at$80N56 TYPt

_ e; . [*g .

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF L ' **' ' n *a'i'i c

! I :j. .

'e  ! INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST - L'AR 6 t' 1929 A .- . e e / -s .... oocm ~ues, or a .-

SLOUL5ttR - -

~Kathleen'S. -.Clai'r PART l.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED See checked t>omess No agency recorcs subsect to the reauest haYe been located.

.f No additional agency records subsect to the reouest have been located.

Recuested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments Section.

are already avaiaabte for public inspection and copyeng en t-Agency recoeds subsect to the secuest that ase identified on Appendiates)

NRC Public Document Room 2120 L St'eet. N W., Washington. DC 20555 Agency records suDpect to the veavest that are noental.ed on Appendiatest s'e being made available for public inspection and Copying m t NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street, N W., Washington. DC, in a folder under this FotA number and requester f%ame.

The nonpropnetary version of the proposaltsi that you agreed to accept m a teiephone conweesation with a member of my staff is now being made available for publ.

inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room 2:20 L Street, N.W., Washington. DC, in a folder undet this FOIA number and reouetter name.

may be mspected and copied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identif.

Agency recoros subsect to the voovest that are identified on Appen@ues; m the Comrnents Secteon.

Enclosed es information on how you may obtain eccess to and the Charges fot Copysng records placed m the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N W,.

Washington. OC.

Agency records subsect to the veavest are encicted.

Records subivet to the request have been referred to another Federal agencylses) for review and direct response to you.

You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaling S o in vtew of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appesi letter dated No.

PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FaOM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain information en the reovested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the esemptions desCrabed in and for the reasons stated in Part it, sections B. C, and D. Any vetessed portions of the documents for which only part of the record es bemg withheld are being made available for public inspection and g copying en the NRC Public Document Room 2120 L Street. N.W., Washington, DC.in a folder under this FOIA number and recuester name.

COMMENTS '

SI URE IRECT DIVISION Or FRE OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES

/ > ...  %- n-

/

• ,,gr .,.9o Yp~.a.,

h I ., . , ,

O Kpfg$ p(p G,3 M B 1'E B "

_ _ . _ - - . - - - ~ .mm - -

m ,,

, PART 11 B- APPLICABLE EXEMPTf0NS ism o Recorcs suolect to the recuzst that are oescreed on the enclosed Appenointes) A are being withheld in their entirety or in part u':dtr tf f.memptions and for tne reasons set forth beiow pursuant to 5 U.S C. 5521bl and 10 CFR 917(a) of NRC Regulations.

1. The withheld mfor*mation is property Classif ed pursuant to (secuuve Order (EXEMPTION ll 4

2. The withneid inf ormation relates solely to the mteenal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 21

3. The witnheid mfoemation is specifical'y esempted f rom public disclosure by statute indicated: ((KEMPTION 31 j Sections la 1 1a5 of the Atomic Energy Act which D'obitsais the disciosure of Resmcled Data or f ortnerly Restricted Data ta? U $ C 2161 2165)

Section 147 of the Atom #c Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Ssf aguards information 142 U $ ' . 2167L 4 The wethheld mformation is a trade secret or commercial or financial mformabon that as besng withheld for the reasontal indicated (EXEMPTION 4)

The information is considered to be confidential business (peoprietaryl mformaison The mformahon as considered to be proprietary snformahon pursuant to 10 CFR 2.79014:11L The mformation was submitted and receeved in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790td>I2L

5. The withberd mformation consists of anieragency or mtraagency records that are not ava6lable through d+scovery durmg htigation IEXEMPfl0N 51 Apphcable Privilege-Delicerauwe Process. O.sciosues of preoecis onai entormanon wouid tend to inhitut the coen ano frenei enchange of soess essential to the ochberative process.

Where records s'e withheld an Their enterety, the 1 acts are mentricably insertwaned with the pienec,sional mf ormanon. There also are no reasonably seJregable f actu.

portions because the release of the f acts would permet an indirect mouiry mio the predecisional process of the agency Attomey norm-product privilege (Documents prepared by an attorney m contemoisioon of libgatron i Attomev ~ chent p'ivnepe. IConfidenhal communicahons bet ween an altosney and his her cient i

6. The withheid mformation is enempted from pubhc disclosure because its disclosure viould result m a clearly unwarranted mvasion of personal prwacy. (EXEMPTION 6) g 7. The withheld mformation consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason (s) andicated. fEXEMPTION 7)

Disclosure couid reasonably be expected to mterfere with an enf orcement proceeding because it could reveas the scone. d,rection. and f ocus of en-XX forcement efloris, and thus could possibly Show them to take acDon to shield potential wrongdomg or a violation of NRC requirements from enwestigators.

EXEMPTION 7 (Alt 2

Desclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pnvecy (EXEMPTION 7(C))

The information consists of names of individuals and other mformation the disclosure of vgh.ch couid reasonably be esoected to revealidenuties of conf.denbat sources (EXEMPTION 71D1)

OTHER ~-

PART 11. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 25(b) and/or 9.25 tc) of the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. It has been cetermined that the information withheld is esempt from produchon or disclosure, and that its production or d setosute es contrary to the pubhc mterest. The oe' sons responsible for the denial are those officials edennt.ed below as denying of ficiais and the Director. Division of Freccom of informai on and PuDaicahons Services. Of fice of Admmistration and Resources Management for any denials that may be appepied to the Executive Duector for Operanons IEDOI.

DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL SFCRETARY EDO Ben G. Hayes Director, Office Of Investigations A/1. A/2 yy Director, Office of Inspector Sharon R. Connellv and Auditor _ A/3 XX PART IL D- APPEAL RIGHTS

\

The denial by each denying officialidentef.ed in Part il C may be apctsled to the Appellate Of ficial ident# feed m that sect on. Any such appeal must be m writing and must l be made withm 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate to the Executive Director for Operations or to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regufatory Commission. Washington, DC 205E 5. and should clearly state on the envelope and m the letter that et is an " Appeal from an initial FOIA Decision.'

NRC FORM a64 (Part 2) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIC (11 88)

FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION I 1

l 1

h' , .

Re: F01A-89-25 APPENDIX A RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY

' 1. Various Records in the Office of Investigations (01), subject to the-request relate to an ongoing 01 investigation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption 7(A).

2. Various Records in NRC's Region I subject to the request relate.to an ongoing 01 investigation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuanttoExemption7(A).

3. Various Records in the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) subject to the request relate to an ongoing OIA investigation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption 7(A).

4 e

e e

em ope

- - __ - ._.____m.__ . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.__,__m ___,_,._____ _

FJCitNADE N II AN NIHON. SI: CAL O LEWIM ATTORNEYS OT LAW suitt 13oo

, suits hoo -' SviTE 36oo .

'sao mAorsow AvcNur 16oo MARnET STREET MAnnisevao. PENusvLv4 Nia i7 eo. <

wcw vonn, wtw voan nooi7 ' fe?a3mooo airevasooo . PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA 191o3 sis 7si tooo svitt too svett sooo vettcoPita ris 7si-atos owe moNtooWERY PLAZA Nt cN E W NORRisToWN PENN LVANIA 19Aoi '

-H TEtts 034 So a CABLE WALEW Acad63 afdoo -

DIRECT DIAI NUMBER E 215-751-2612 January 13, 1989 ACT REQUEST MA -17 ,?..s e f Administration GM 'd bW'?

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Freedom of Information Act Rectuest

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.8 governing information requests under the Freedom of Information Act, I wish to request copies of the following documents:

1. the files of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") Office of Investigations compiled.as part of the investigation into alleged improper control room conduct at the Peach Bottom' Atomic Power station, located in Delta, Pennsylvania, that led to the NRC's shutdown of Peach Bottom on March 31, 1987, including all written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts, memoranda, correspondence, summaries, outlines, and other documents; 3

2. all documents, including written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts memoranda, corre-spondence, summaries and outlines, concerning communications with personnel from General Elec-tric Company with regard to allegations of improper control room conduct at Peach Bottom;

3. all documents, including written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts memoranda, corre-spondence, summaries and outlines concerning communications with personnel from the Philadel-phia Electric Company ("PECO") with regard to  !

allegations of improper control room conduct at Peach Bottom; Q4d 7 IA A %9/

'O f f J/ g ' ' ' )

--V .

i.-

-m 6

- bCHN ADER H ARMICON, SEQ AL & LEW10 M

x ,

! . Director L . Office ~of Administration p

~

4. transcripts, notes,. memoranda or' summaries of' H 'the following interviews conducted-by..the Office-

? of Investigations with~ regard to allegations off improper; control room conduct at Peach Bottom:

a)- Shields Daltroff b). M.J. Cooney c)- G.M. Leitch d) S.R. . Roberts .

/Y e). R.S. Fleischmann, II f) D.C. Smith g) J.E. Winzenried These documents:are not part of an NRC continuing investigation into activities at Peach Bottom. The investiga-

- tion resulted in the imposition of aLfine, which PECO has already; paid. Moreover,'the requested documents are'not in-cluded in!those Peach Bottom documents already placed in the L '

Public: Document Room.

Finally, should any duplicating charges be incurred' in' meeting this request, we agree to pay these costs up to a

- $200.00 maximum amount unless our authorization is obtained for additional charges. I would request advance notice of whether and what amounts may be incurred in excess of $200.

Thank you for your consideration of,~and cooperation

- in,.this matter.

Sincerely,

/

Kathleen S. Clair' For SCHNADER, HARRIGON, SEGAL & LEWIS l

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