ML22095A212
| ML22095A212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/2022 |
| From: | David Nelson NRC/OCIO |
| To: | Gaglio E Aguirre & Severson, LLP |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2022-000038, NRC-2022-000095 | |
| Download: ML22095A212 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 30, 2022 IN RESPONSE REFER TO:
NRC-2022-000095 (NRC-2022-000038)
Sent via email: egaglio@amslawyers.com, mseverson@amslawyers.com, maguirre@amslawyers.com Elijah T. Gaglio, Esq.
Aguirre & Severson LLP 501 West Broadway, Ste. 1050 San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Gaglio:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter dated March 3, 2022, in which you appealed, on behalf of Michael J. Aguirre, the agencys February 1, 2022 response to Mr. Aguirres December 6, 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NRC-2022-000038. Mr. Aguirres request sought all communications between any agent, employee, or officer of the [NRC], on the one hand, and any agent, employee, or officer of Southern California Edison, on the other hand, regarding recommendations of FOIA Exemptions to assert regarding the following requests: NRC-2020-000163, NRC-2020-000194, NRC-2021-000235 and NRC-2022-000014.
On behalf of Mr. Aguirre, you appealed the adequacy of search, the denial of information based on Exemptions 4 and 6, and whether the agency provided any reasonably segregable portions.
Acting on Mr. Aguirres appeal, I have reviewed the material that was denied to you and the basis for denial, as well as documentation of the search conducted to locate any responsive records. I have determined that the FOIA Office was the only program office reasonably expected to maintain any records responsive to Mr. Aguirres request. Staff in the FOIA Office thoroughly searched and reviewed each FOIA case file to locate the responsive records. Those records were identified in the response to Mr. Aguirres request. Accordingly, I have denied Mr.
Aguirres appeal insofar as it challenges the adequacy of the search.
With regard to the denial of information, I reviewed the denied material. The records in the agencys possession that have been identified as responsive to Mr. Aguirres request and withheld under exemption (b)(4) of the FOIA were created by and obtained from a person outside the United States government (i.e., Southern California Edison (SCE)) and constitute SCEs confidential commercial or financial information. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 9.28, the NRC contacted SCE to ascertain its views respecting its information. SCE confirmed that their representatives transmitted the information to the NRC in confidence and that this information is neither available in public sources nor customarily made available to members of the public. As such, I am upholding the assertion of exemption (b)(4) to protect this information 1.
1 The inclusion of exemption (b)(6), on page 32 of the released records, was in error. Exemption (b)(4) was appropriately claimed for the entirety of that document.
Gaglio, E. I am upholding the application of exemption (b)(6) for the name of an SCE official that appeared in the records responsive to the prior FOIA requests for which the business submitter consultation process was undertaken, because the release of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of this individual. Mr. Aguirres appeal letter does not discuss any public interests that might be served by the release of the redacted name, and I am unable to identify any legitimate public interest in the release of this information that would outweigh the personal privacy interests at stake. Accordingly, the information was properly withheld under exemption (b)(6) and I am denying the appeal.
Lastly, I have determined that SCEs analysis of records that originated with SCE were properly withheld in their entirety. To the extent SCEs analysis included any isolated non-meaningful fragments of nonexempt information, e.g. the repetition of the questions posed by the NRC (which were already released to Mr. Aguirre), such portions are inextricably intertwined with the exempt proprietary information and, therefore, no reasonable segregation is possible.
Accordingly, I am denying the appeal insofar as it challenges NRCs duty to segregate.
This is the final agency decision with regard to this request. As set forth in the FOIA (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B)), you may seek judicial review of this decision in the district court of the United States in the district in which you reside, in which you have principal place of business. You may also seek judicial review in the district in which the agencys records are situated or in the District of Columbia.
The 2007 FOIA amendments created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect Mr. Aguirres right to pursue litigation. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS College Park, MD 20740 Email: ogis@nara.gov Telephone: 202-741-5770 Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448 Fax: 202-741-5769 Sincerely, David J. Nelson Chief Information Officer Office of the Chief Information Officer