ML19242B557
| ML19242B557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/12/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Hungerford M SYRACUSE UNIV., COLLEGE OF LAW, SYRACUSE, NY |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-4, FOIA-79-47-7907 NUDOCS 7908080723 | |
| Download: ML19242B557 (2) | |
Text
b,u -$c k
h [@/
!,,, f,,g /h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c 2.gc'.,f e; 4 c 4.c wa vamu cion. o.c. mss WeJ c % ~... July 12,1979 = OFFICE CF THE SEC R cTA.nY 3 9~ Mr. F.ichael Hungerford Environr:ntal Law Clinic Syracuse University College of Law Ernest I. L'hite Hall Syrecuse, New York 13210
Dear Mr. Hungerford:
This 1etter respoads to your appeal of a denial of one document under the 'eeco:a cf Infomation Act (FOIA). That document was withheld in its entirety from you under tne " deliberative process" privilege cabodied in Exeurption 5. For rea sans stated nerein, the Commission has denied your appeal. Accordingly, the er. ire Cocurent will continue to be withheld under Exemption 5. Tne memmandur, that you. seek is for Howard Shapar fron. Jar.es L. Kelley, dated Jan;ary 10, 1975, and is entitled "The Legal Effect of Granting a Construction Ferrit for a f;uclear Reactor -- the Extent to Which the Utility is Ecund by Representations in its Application and cn the Hearing P.ecord." It was written for W. Shapar, a principal Commission legal advisor, by U.r. Kelley, an attorney then assigned to his staff who subsequently served as the i2C Actirg General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel. This remorandum, consisting of twenty-three pages including a three-page attachment, d.scusses in detail the comparative cerit of three different legal theories under which a Commission licencee cight be held bound fer design features, quality assurance programs, and rmsures to
- :e:t the environment.
In the tremorandum text, Mr. Kelley assesses the strencths a- ' <. eat. esses cf the different theories, explores possible approaches to rule-t-: in -h's crea consistent with statutory reouirements, anc considers the
- i.2; a. resuits on judicial revie,:.
The attachment consists of a review of s:rc-5 s.aff oractices with an opinion of that practice and was prepared for iP. Heliey's use in pre. caring the temorandum. It is an integral part of the re crandum text, providing material background information. The emo andr it being withheld as a predecisional document which is part of the Cunissian's deliberations on this subject. This specific memorandum is part of the General Ccunsel's review of petitions concerning a particular aspect of the
- = f i'- rccl ea r rea cto r.
' o final decision has been r.ade on that subject, which $$ :t ues :c te actively considerec by the Commissi'.m. For these reasons, Ine '.;-.ss.:r. nas ce:e nined that this r<emorancum shoJid continue to be withheld 5, at least ur.:il tne Conriission r.skes a ce:emination cn the C:= x= nic 1 ((~.l's.;$sho_l i ar.e in this area. 5 U. S. C. 5 5( b ) ( 5 ), 1 CFF 9.5(a)(5)(il. ,er Evac ~o-d noted that he prefemd tc defer action on this a;pejl s af:e - a :cT-ission reaches a cecisicr. on tns taill-case anc wouit
- .::e -
. ":ncl the cocument 2: tr.is tire. n - c, ~ J) n/- i i s i' 790808072 3
.':r. "ichael Hungarford 2 This danial cor.stitutes the final agency action on your appeal for this document. 10 CFR 5 5 9.11, 9.15. Judicial review of this action is availah'le in a United States District Court in t!e districe '. chare you reside or have.your principal place of business, or in c:.e District of Columbia. Sincerely, i AlAh 50 SC Scmuel J. ChiIk / Secreta ry . EhjY% p ~- y-. Q;, ' -, u ' %,,] ?_? q q ff) 4 ~ ' s _: ~ - _ ~ " w i){,; ) .}}