ML20235X196

Responds to 870615 Appeal Re 870605 Denial of 860930 FOIA Request for Records Concerning Possible Noncompliance W/Nrc Fire Protection Regulations.Initial Decision to Withhold Documents (Ref FOIA Exemption 7) Reaffirmed

ML20235X196
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	07/20/1987
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Bauman L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
References
FOIA-86-718, FOIA-87-A-33 NUDOCS 8707240081
Download: ML20235X196 (2)

Text

4if '%'o o UNITED STATES f ~ D f

<f, "

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{  ; W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 OFFICE OF THE July 20, 1987 SECRETARY Linda Bauman F0IA Co-c~iinator Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-4897

Dear Ms. Bauman:

This letter is a response to you June 15, 1987 Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) Appeal 07-A-33C(86-718). On June 5,1987, Donnie Grimsley, Director of the Division of Rules and Records, notified you that your September 30, 1986 request for records in the possession of the NRC's Office of Investigations and related to possible non-compliance with the NRC's fire protection regulations at the Donald C. Cook Plant was being denied. These records are referred to in Appendix B of Mr. Grimsley's June 5,1987 response to you. >

In response to your appeal, these documents have been reviewed. On the basis of that review, I affirm the initial decision to withhold the documents under exemption 7(A) of 5 U.S.C. $ 552(b). These records were compiled for law enforcement purposes and release of them to the public could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings by allowing those investigated to learn the focus, scope, and direction of the agency's or the Justice Department's efforts, and to use that knowledge to shield actual or potential wrongdoing. Exemption 7(A) applies to civil administrative enforcement proceedings under Federal statutes as well as to criminal enforcement proceedings. See, e.g., Stern v. F.B.I., 737 F.2d 84, 89 (D.C.

Cir.1984). Moreover, the exemption is available where such proceedings are neither pending nor certain to take place, but are nonetheless possible. See, e.g., & at 88.

These documents do not contain any reasonably segregable portions which could be released, since the portions which discuss publicly known facts or paraphrase established law and policy are either inextricably intertwined with exempt portions, see Neufeld v. IRS, 646 F.2d 661, 665-66 (D.C. Cir. 1981), or so "relatively smalT" in proportion, and "so interspersed with exempt material that separation by the agency and policing by the courts would impose an inordinate burden." Lead Industries Association v. OSHA, 610 F.2d 70, 86 (2d Cir.1979); see also Doherty v. United States Department of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 53 (2d Cir.1985) (existence of some exempt material in documents largely exempt does not require district court to undertake burdensome task of analyzing some 300 pages of documents line-by-line). The agency is not obliged to provide you with a Vaughn index during the administrative process of responding to your request. Safecard Services,'Inc. v. SEC, Civil No.

84-3073, slip op, at 4-5 (D.D.C. April 21, 1986).

8707240091 870720 '

PDR FOIA BAUMANB7-A-33 PDR

,..o Linda Bauman 2 This letter represents final agency action on your June 15, 1987 FOIA Appeal of the denial of the documents. referred to in Appendix B of Donnie Grimsley's June 5, 1987 notice to you. 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.

Sincer .ly, f

• damue $

Secreta (y of the Comission l

~