ML19209C316
| ML19209C316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-213, FOIA-79-A-15 NUDOCS 7910150003 | |
| Download: ML19209C316 (3) | |
Text
'
7
.g
-0t)kUf/))1LaUJO\\
I, 4
i hM
/8 f' O pm Rico UNITED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATO9Y COMMISslON g,.
- g
['
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r.
aj t
/c Octcber 11, 1979
- e Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 IN RESPONSE REFER TO
Dear Mr. Conner:
FOIA 79-A-15 This letter will complete the response to your appeal of July 18,1979, as supplemented on July 20, 1979.
You appealed the withholding of documents 6 through 10 identified in Appendix A to Mr. Felton's letter to you on June 29, 1979. These documents were initially withheld under exemption (5). The Commission has granted your appeal in part and determined that the following documents should be released:
6-Memorandum from the General Counsel to the Commission dated March 29, 1979; 8c-Unsigned copy of a Pemorandum from the General Counsel to the Commission dated M.ay 4,1979, unsigned copy of the Notice of Hearing issued on June 6,1979, and a draf t of ^.he Memorandum and Order issued on June 6, 1979; 8e-Unsigned copy of the Notice of 51 earing issued on June 6,1979; and 9-Dr,af t of the Memorandum and Order issued on June 6,1979.
Copies of these documents will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Regarding the remaining documents, the Commission has determined, for the reasons discussed in the attached appendix, that exemption (5) properly applies and that the public interest would not be served by their release. Accordingly, your appeal as to these documents is denied. However, it should be noted that Commissioner Gilinsky would have released all of the documents you requested, and Commissioner Bradford would have withheld only Document 10.
The determination in regard to the above documents is a final agency action.
As set forth in the Freedom on Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), judicial review is available in a district court of the United States in either the district in which you reside or in the District of Columbia.
- ncerely, f
Samuel J C 1k 3J
~ 80 S cretary of he Com.ission 79 OJ g 3
Enclosure:
Appendix 2
~)
h)
E" V
APPENDIX The Commission has determined that the following documents should not be released:
7-Draft of the General Counsel's Memorandum to the Commission dated March 29, 1979; 8a-Two pages of a draft of the Commission's Memorandum and Order issued on June 6, 1979, in the Sheffield proceeding; 8b-Rough draft of the General Counsel's Memorandum to the Commission dated May 4, 1979; 8d-Rough draft of the Notice of Hearing issued rc June 6, 1979, in the Sheffield proceeding; 8f and 8g-Rough drafts of the Memorandum and Order issued on the June 6, 1979, in the Sheffield proceeding; 10-Memorandum to Sheffield Litigation file, from M.E. Chopko, SU MARY OF NECO TERMINATION AT SHEFFIELD.
Documents 7, 8a, 8b, 8f and 8g were prepared by the OGC attorney
. assigned to the Sheffield proceeding.
They contain preliminary views, analyses, opinion, conclusions, and recommendations pre-pared to assist the General Counsel.
Several of these documents also contain the General Counsel's written comments.
Thus, these documents are clearly pre-decisional and are part of the agency's deliberative process.
Exemption (5) was intended to permit the agency's withholding of such documents to preserve the free and 1133
'81
s 2
candid internal dialogue essential to the careful formulation of agency decisions.
Moreover, release of these documents may result in unwarranted inferences and speculation which might be totally in error.
Therefore, the Commission has determined that release of these documents would adversely affect the agency's deliberative process to the detriment of the public's interest in reasoned agency decisionmaking.
Document 10 is a memorandum prepared by an OGC attorney in anticipation of litigation.
It selects, summarizes, and analyzes factual and legal matters in a way that reflects the preparer's deliberative process.
Thus, the document comes under the attorney work-product privilege contained in exemption (5).
The availablity of this exemption does not turn on whether litigation actually ensued.
For these reasons, the Commission has determined that exemption (5) properly applies to this document.
O e
113:
^82
.