ML20247F734
| ML20247F734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1989 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Clair K SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-25, FOIA-89-A-16 NUDOCS 8905300158 | |
| Download: ML20247F734 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ -
-[p uc o o. UNITED STATES
[
g 4,,p, '
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
??
- s.,*
/
Ms. Kathleen S. Clair MAY 2 41989 Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis 1600 Market Street IN RESPONSE REFER Suite 3600 TO F01A-89-A-16 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (FOIA-89-25)
Dear Ms. Clair:
This is in partial response to your letters dated April 4,1989, in which you appealed Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's response dated March 6,1989. - Mr. Grimsley's response denied three files which were subject to your Freedom of Information Act request for records concerning the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant.
These files are identified on the enclosed Appendix A of Mr. Grimsley's March 6, 1989 response. I am responding with regard to the files identified at numbers 1 and 2 on Appendix A of Mr. Grimsley's March 6,1989 response. ,
The Secretary of the Commission will respond separately regarding the third !
file.
Acting on your appea?, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and i have determined that the previously withheld records in the NRC's Office of Investigations and Region I will continue to be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A)) and 19 CFR 1 9.17(a)(7)(i) of the Commission's regulations. Your appeal is, therefore, f denied. i i
for your information, the subject matter of these records is currently under l review by the Department of Justice. Therefore, release of these documents l could interfere with the government's ability to take appropriate action on the !
basis of the Department of Justice's review, should that be desirable. In !
these circumstances, your firm's alleged third party status is not germane.
Until the Department of Justice completes review of this matter, these records J l
will be withheld in their entirety.
This is a final agency action. As set forth in the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)),
judicial review of this decision is available in a district court of the United States in the district in which you reside or have your principal place of business or in the District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
/17 /
Hugh . hompson Jr I De5u y Executiv D ctor for i clear Material' afety, Safeguards, and Operations Support l l
Enclosure:
As stated 8905300158 890524
$1R -A-16 PDR
Re: F0!A-89-25 F01A-89-A-16 APPENDIX A
' RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY
- 1. various Records in the Office of Investigations.(01),' subject to the request. relate to an ongoing 01 investigation and are being withheld in their entirety; pursuant to Exemption 7(A).
~
- 2. Various - Records in NRC's Region I subject'to the request relate to an-ongoing O! investigation and are being withheld initheir. entirety pursuanttoExemption7(A).
- 3. Various Records in the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) subject, to the request' relate to an ongoing OIA investigation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption 7(A).
t De-
I' SCit NADE R. IIAR Ril40N. SEG AL & LEWIC 4 ATToANEYS AT LAW BUITE 6d00 NUE E 330 h.ADiSON Avt Nut 16oo MArxEr STREET NARR$sev PENYsvLvANtioi A-PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19to3 7'7'23'*000 l- 3973e 00 2iS-751 P000 suite 700 TE L E copiE R 2157512209 ONE MONTGOMERY PLAZA TELE 8 83 80 CABLE WALEW NORRISTOWN PENN LVANIA Deot C O 202463-2900 DIRECT OtAL NUMBER
. UPS NEXT DAY AIR 215-751-2612 April 4, 1989 l
\
Executive Director for Operations /J l. .I. 07 ! u . .n'. . . . . ; . _ v . . .s . 4 Wasiki n D Re: Freedom of Information ADoeal k'd 4+n
Dear Sir or Madam:
On January 13, 1989, I requested certain documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). This request
, is Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Request 89-25, a copy of l which is attached to the enclosed brief as Exhibit A. On March 6, 1989, in response to FOIA 89-25, the NRC mailed a notice of its refusal to disclose any docilments pursuant to Exemption 7(A) of the Act on the ground that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing investigation. A copy of the notice is at-tached to the brief as Exhibit B. I appeal from this adminis-trative determination.
The Office of Investigations erroneously denied the request, for releasing the documents would not interfere with an ongoing investigation. While it is true that the requested documents relate to a law enforcement proceeding, the particu-lar proceeding has been closed.
As the attached brief supporting this appeal indi-cates, the Office of Investigations wrongfully refused to disclose the requested documents. I request that the documents be released immediately.
Sincerely, 9
Kathleen S. Clair For SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS 1
Attachments S t:ll r e l 9 6 h a}
q>w -J
e' In Re: Appeal'From the Initial Determination of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Freedom of Information Act Request No.
89-25.
l-REQUESTING PARTY'S BRIEF Il!
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. % 552 and 10 CFR S 9.8, the requesting party requested all formal or informal, written or transcribed notes, statements, transcripts, memoranda, cort'-
spondence, summaries, and outlines compiled as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of the Peach Dottom 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 Freed., of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. 9 552 (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 I (OI), subject to the request, relate to an ongoing OI investi--
gation and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to 3 A & qn2o/11 A 9 ((%d " 7
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.
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 requeste'd' documents would not interfere with any OI 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 enacina investigation On March 31, 1987,.the NRC suspended Philadelphia
~
i ' Electric, Company's ("PECO") operating license for the Peach 1
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
_ -__ . _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ---___--_ _- _ _- _- - -- __-_-____-- _ _ ___-- _ -_ _ - -_ - -
LG ,,
'i appealed or otherwise challenged the imposed fine. .In Jight of this, oI cannot credibly claim that'its investigation into l 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 Investigations pending investigation To withhold regr.ested documents, the'0I must'show that disclosure would interfere with a pending or future inves- q tigation or enforcement proceeding. "The key question, of course,-is whether production would ' interfere' with the< pend-ing enforcement proceeding." New Encland Medical Center Hospi-
-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._
National Labor Relations Bo_ard, 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.
Ill. 1986)(court refused disclosure because records could
^
interfere with a future contemplated proceeding as well as a pending one).
p The rationale of these decisions is that disclosure in pending investigations would "tip the agency's hand" by affording the requesting party an opportur , ty 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 OI should not release documents in re-sponse to FOIA No. 89-25.
OI'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 & Rocer 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; 4I e
disclosure permitted); Wavland v. National Labor Relations -
-Board, 627 F. Supp. 1473 (M. D. Tenn. 1986) (disclosure of I-
. 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 docu 'onts 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
to dismiss the request out of hand. Camobell v. DeDartment of-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. S 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 does not end there. OI 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 Roquesting Party.
D Dated: April 4, 1989 j
]
i 1
Y______-_____.____------ - _
, \
i, In Re: Appeal From the Initial Determination of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Freedom of Information Act Request No.
89-25.
1 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. 5 552 and 10 CFR S 9.8, the 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 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-hibit B. The responding party, Office of Inspector and Auditor
("OIA"), claimed that: " 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 opq s/c~ 2 ? ' - l JC <
g;f J"' ts4f> f (p (
l-
- 5. .
p -
^
E l.
I 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 onaoina investigation i
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 4
- _ = _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -- - -
o l l
i, 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 Hospi-tal v. National Labor Relations Doard, 545 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 & Rubber 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 Enaland Medical Center HosDital v. National Labor Relations Board, 548 F.2d 377(1st Cir. 1976) (court re-fused disclosure to an employer cf employee statements con-tained in both open and closed files as they would interfere with a pending action); Marzen v. United States Deoartment of Health and Human Services, 632 F. Supp. 785(N.D. Ill.
1986)(court refused disclosure because records could interfere I
i
with a future contemplated proceeding as well as a pending one).
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 no credible reason why OIA should not release documents in rc-sponse to FOIA No. 89-25.
OIA's investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, shutdown of Peach Cottom 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-coedings,' 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, Weinbero & Rocer 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 ;
t i
the subject of the requested affidavits); Poss v. National La- !
l bor Relations Board, 565 F.2d 654(10th Cir.1977) (Board's deci- I i
sion not to file charges brought proceedings to a close; i
disclosure permitted); Wayland v. National Labor Relations 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.
Both the facts surrounding FOIA No. 89-25 and the 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 narty 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, l
1 the requesting party's th!-d party status, and not be so ready
1 to dismiss the request out of hand. Camobell__ v. Department 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. 5 552 by a blanket assertion of speculative fact. Crooker v. Buteau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firea rms, 789 F.2d 64(D.C. Cir. 1966).
The relevant investigation into events surrounding the March 31, 1987, order suspending operations at Peach Bottom has been j 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 chould 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.
)
Requestincf Party.
Dated: April 4, 1989 1 f.
Il .
SCit N ADEN. II ANNIf90N. S EG AL O LOWIO
- ATTORNEYS AT LAW susic esoo suite 36oo ~** "0"'***'"""'
suivtimoo 330 uao' son avtNuc 16oo MAmmET StaEET sanaisewoo. ec NusvLvaNia i? ion
- New voas Ncw venn sooe, 7t?a3mooo PHiLADELewiA, PENNSYLVANIA 19 to3 sia or3 sooo ass ?si acoo svitt too soitsnooo ,, g g eopig n ,,5.,3 .,,os eug pos,cougn,purg, 1H NETEENTH ST TELEX 83 eBo CApst WALEW NonnistoWN PENN LVaNea 19 dol
, Ca acadesaboo camEc7 DIAL NUMeca FREEDOM OF llliORMATl0tl
-215-751-2612 January 13, 1989 ACT REQUEST
' Fork-17-As of of Administration ,
/'N "!
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Freedom of Information Act Recruest
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;
- 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; n e:: J u !1n n,
'u i WI f ' ' '
scHNAotd. HARRISON, sCOAL & L EWIS Director Office of Administration 4. .-transcripts, notes, memoranda or. summaries- of the following interviews conducted.by the office of Investigations with regard to allegations of-
! improper control room conduct at Peach Bottom:-
a) Shields Daltroff b) M.J. Cooney c) G.M. Leitch d) S.R. Roberts .
e) R.S. Fleischmann, II f) D.C. Smith g) J.E. Winzenried Theso documents are not part of an NRC continuing investigation' into activities at Peach Bottom. The investiga-tion result d in the imposition of a fine, which PECO has already paid. Moreover, the requested documents are not in-cluded in those Peach Bottom documents already placed in the 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, v
Kathleen S. Clair' For SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS l
i
)
nsso~si s.a.
ss s.%
.s .
.g
.'
- M '* * ' * -
l 1 j. RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF '"
i a- .- INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST . ldAR 6 i. Ing c.,
f ooc m huu.t.s.,,,e- e-,
s't Qut 5t L R Kathleen S. Clair PART 1.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED See cherard ocaess h No agency recoros subiect to the reovest have been located.
No aoditienai agency records suciect to the reovest have been located.
f4eowested records are availabie through another puche disinbution program. See Comments Section.
att already avadable f or puDhc inspection and copying m
- Agency secoeds subsect to the secuest that are identet.ed on Appendaiell NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W . Washington. DC 20555 3.e being made avadaDlg for public ar'sp*Cleon and Copying m 1 A9ency fec0'os subieCl to the reouest that are identified on Append.afesi NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street. N W., Washengton. DC. m a folder under inns FolA number and reovester name The nonproprietary version of the propossus) that you agreed to accept m a telephone conveesstion with a membe# mberof and my teovester statt is now being made a name.
inspection and copymg at the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W., Washington. DC, e a folder unces this FOIA nu may be mapected and copied at the NRC Local Public Docuenent Room noent,'
Agency escords subsect to the focuest that a<e identified on Append aient m the Comments Secuan.
Enclosed es mformai.on on how you may obtem access to and the charges for copying secords placed m the NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Sirec Washington. OC.
Agercy records subsect to the recuest are enclosed.
Records suoiect to the request have been seferfed to another Federal agencybest for #eview and direct response to you You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaung 8 ,,
No.
in view of NRC's response to this reouest. no further action is bemg taken on apDeal letter dated -_
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PU8LIC DISCLOSURE Certam cr oimation m the teowested records is bemg withheld from pubfec d<sclosvee pursuant to the esemptions descrioed m end lor the eessons st sections 8. C, and O. Any reitased portions of the documents f or which only part of the record is being withheld are being mace avadable for pubi.c inspection g copymg en the NRC Pubhc Document Room, 2120 L Street. N.W., Washrgton, DC.in a folder under this FOIA number and reovestee name COMMENTS 1
l I'
1 I
l j
l si URE (RECT
_ . h,R' DIVISION .m OF FREP* OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES
/ 1 9' ns j .} 4
- I y *
.M:..:;f ,
Th m m.n_.
ONO/%O& ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
J' EXHIBIT s"
.__~~ __ _
- _ - ~ - - -- - --- - ~ - - - - - - - "v~" "
WW PART 11 B- APPLICABLE [X(MPTIONS 4.
<ren u
)
Records suD#ect 10 t*ie reQu2st that er8 described on the enclosed Appendaalasi A are being withhSid an their gnterely or in D8rt undt.r8 bemptions and for tne reasons set forth beso* pursuant to 5 U S C 55hbl and to CFR 917ta) of NRC Regulations.
- 1. The withheld informaDon es properly classified pursuant to Esecubve Order i[TEMPtsON 18 2 The withheld mformation relates solely to the internal personnel rules and procedures of fvRC. ((X(MPTION 2)
- 3. The witnheid mformabon es specifically esemoted bom pubhc disclosure by statute edicated ((XEMPTION 31 Secuons 141 ta5 of the Atomic (ne'gv Aci an*ch t"oh'b'is the disciosure of Restricted Date or Formeriv Restricteo Data 44 2 U 5 C 21612165:
I Secbon 147 of sne Atomic (ne'gy Act which prohnbets the disclosure of Unclassafred Safeguards informanon 142 U S C 21674
- 4. The withheld mtormation is a trace neceet or commercial or financial inf o-mation that is bemg withheld for the reasonist moscated 1(XEMPfiON 4)
The eformation is considered to be conf 4ential busmess foropteetaryl mformat.on The eformation is considered to be proprietary information pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790tdH11.
)
I The mformaten was submstted and rece'ved m confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2,790tdH2).
- 5. The withheld mformation consists of interagency or mtraagency records inat see not avaiiable through discovery cunng litigation IEXEMPTION $1. Applicable Privilege-Dehberative Process: Disciosure or preoecesionai inrormateon wound tend to mneet the open and trank enchange of edeas essentisi to the dehdeve proces' Where records see withheld m tnear entirety the f acts are mestricably etert*med with the predeces.onalinformaten. There also are no reasonably segregable ta porbons because the release of the f acts would permrt an mdirect movsty mio the predecisional process of the agency.
Attorney worm.oroduct onveiege.10ccuments prepared by an attorney m contemo'aieon of hbgation i Attorney -Cherit orsvpege (Confidential communicaDont between an attomey and h+s net chent i
- 6. The withheid mio, mat.on is enempted from public disclosure because its d sciosure would result m a clearly unwarranted mvasion of personai pnvecy. l(XIMPTION 61 g 7. The withheld information consists of records con piled for law enforcement purposes and is bemg withheld for the reasonis) mdicated. (EXEMPTION 71 Disclosure could reasonably be espected to mterfere with an enforcement proceedmg because at could reveal the scope. direction. and focus of en.
g forcement efforts. and thus could possibly al4ow them to take acason to shield potential *rongoomg or a violabon of twnC reouvementa from evestigators.
EXEMPTION 7 lAll
~i Disclosure would const tute an unwarranted invasion cf personal pnvacy diXIMPTION 7tCl)
- The information consists of names of mdividuals and other informaien the desclosur e of which cou'd reasonably be esoected to reveal centit es of 5 confidential sources ((XEMPTION 7 (DH l OTHER PART 11. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 25!bl and/or 9 25 tc) of the U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulabens. et has been determened that the mformation withheid is esempt from production or disclosure. and that its producbon or desctesure is contrary to tne pubbe suerest. The persons responsible for the denial are those officials idenbfied below as denymg of fic4ais and the Duector. Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services. Office of Administration and Resources Management, for any densais that may be appes.ed to the taecutive Director for Operanons (EDol.
DENYtNG OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE AECOROS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL SfCRETARY _ibo i
Ben G. Hayes Director, Office of Investigations A/1. A/2 n l Director, Office of Inspector i
l Sharon R. Conne11v and Auditor A/3 XX PART 11. D- APPEAL RIGHTS The denial by each denyng officialidentified in P'rt a li.C may be appealed to the Appellate Officialidenufsed m that section. Any such appeaf must be m wntmg and mi be made withm 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropnate to the Executive Director for Operations or to the Secretary of the Commissic U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Commessen. Washington, DC 20555, and should clearty state on the envelope and m the letter that it is an " Appeal from en lastial FolA Decision NT.C PORM 464 (Part 2) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS; 111 84)
FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION i
r.
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.
. pursuant to Exemption 7(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).
~
a 5
i i .
v !
, i.
- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ - - . _ _ _ - - - -- - _ _. - . - - -