ML20011A135
| ML20011A135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Hartman S DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-97, FOIA-81-A-8 IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8110070394 | |
| Download: ML20011A135 (5) | |
Text
W p*ato
- /
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
{
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 S
/
[
\\,,,,
July 9, 1981 s
crFICE OF THE 1j k
SECRETARY JQ m u,,
-Blu Mr. Sanford L. Hartman D
%uDoes Debevoise & Liberman
\\.A 1200 17th Street, NW.
IN RESPONSE REFERb,/4, 9
Washington, DC 20036 TO 81-A-8(81-97) o m
Dear Mr. Hartman:
This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) appeal of May 11. 1981 for fifteen documents withheld by the NRC in its April 29, 1981 denial letter.
These ducuments pertain to the Comission's deliberations preceding the issuance of CLI-80-21.
The Comission has determined that your appeal should be denied for the reasons discussed below. An Index describing the withheld documents is enclosed with this letter and provides a more detailed statement of denial on each document.
Fourteen documents are memoranda, prepared by Comissioners or members of their personal staffs, which contain preliminary views, analyses, and opinions of the authors on various ways in which to resolve the matters ultimately decided in CLI-80-21.
They are clearly pre-decisional apr' part of the agency's deliberative process.
Your argument for discicsu.a based on Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir.1980) does not refTect the nature of the documents withheld.
Coastal States indicates that the disclosure of pre-decisional documents is required if those docun.cnts are in practice used as agency administrative precedent.
The documents in the present case are not a body of precedent but w' re generated for the singular purpose of deciding a petition for NRC action and reflect the nonnal give-and-take process involved in reaching a decision.
Exemption 5 is intended to protect such deliberations by the agency's withholding of such documents if necessary to preserve free and candid dialogue between Comissioners and their respective staffs.
The public interest in sound and complete decisionmaking outweighs any need for these internal memoranda.
For these reasons, the Comission has determined that these docements are exempt from mandatory disclosure.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), 10 CFR9.5(a)(5).
The remaining document is a draft of a revision for a Comission paper prepared by the Office of Policy Evaluation.
That revision was never adopted.
Exemption 5 covers such draft documents when part of the pre-decisional process.
Accordingly, this document is similarly exempt from mandatory disclosure.
5U.S.C.552(b)(S),10CFR9.5(a)(5).
8110070394 810709 hT 1-A-8 PDR
I Mr. Sanford L. Hartman 2
This determination is a final agency action under the Freedom of i
. Infonnat on Act.
Judicial review is available in a United States district court in either the district in which you reside or have your principal place of business, or the District of Columbia.
Sincerely 1
1 j
amuel J.
hilk Secretary of the Commission
Enclosure:
Index of Documents b
4 e
\\
E
e
{
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS Document 1 is an October 8,1980 memorandum to Commissioner llendrie from technical assistant H. M. Fontecilla re: Environmental Qualification Order.
This memorandum contains the author's advice, opinions, and recommendations regarding the imp' mentation of CLI-80-21. The single piece of factual infor-mation recounts a selected portion of the Order, which is already a matter of public record.
Document 2 is a September 4,1980 memorandum to Commissioner Bradford from Thomas Gibbon re: Commission Order on Environmental Qualification. This memorandum contains the author's advice, opinions, and recommendations re-garding CLI-80-21.
The only factual portion of the document consists of portions of CLI-80-21 which were selected and summarized in such a manner as to disclose the deliberative process.
This factual information is already a matter of public record through CL'I-80-21.
~
Document 3 is an October 1,1980 memorandum to Commissioner Bradford from Thomas Gibbon re: Commission Order on Environmental Qualification. This
~
memorandum consists entirely of advice, opinions, and recommendations re-garding CLI-80-21.
Document 4 is a May 15, 1980 memorandum to the Commissioners from Commissioner Bradford re: UCS order on environmental qualification and fire protection.
This memorandum contains a draft version of CLI-80-21 and the author's opinions and recommendations regarding the order.
Document 5 is a Itay 22, 1980 memorandum to Chairman Ahearne from Commissioner Bradford re: UCS Petition. This memorandum consists of the author's opinions and recommendations regarding CLI-80-21.
\\
e 4
n.y a
e 2
Document 6 is a May 14, 1980 memorandum to Commissioner Bradford from Thomas Gibbon re: Chairman Ahearne's changes to an order responding to a petition submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This memorandum consists
~
entirely of the author's advice, opinions and recommendations regarding a draft versicn of CLI-80-21.
' Document 7 is an April 14, 1980 memorandum to Commissioner Bradford from legal assistant Thomas Gibbon re: Environmental Qualification liceting. This memo-randum contains the author's advice, opinions, and recommendations regarding a then-upcoming r.eeting to address the general subject.
Document 8 is a memorandum from Commissioner Bradford to the other Commis-sioners dated unuary 31,1980 indicating Cwanissioner Bradford's opinions and recommendations concerning a draft version of the deciclon on the UCS Petition. This document is clearly part of the deliberar.tve process which preceded the eventual decision, and contains no factual data.
Document 9 is a memorandum dated December 17, 1979 from Mr. Gibbon, Commis-sioner Bradford's legal assistant, to Commissioner Bradford.
The memorandum centains only Mr. Gibbon's personal response to a letter from VEPC0 dated June 25,1979.
~
Document 10 is a memorandum dated December 10, 1979 from Mr. Gibbon to Com-missioner Bradford.
The memorandum compares a draft decision on the UCS petition to Document 11 below, analyzes this comparison, discusses options in ongoing discussions with other Commissioners.
The memo also contains a hand-written response to Mr. Gibbon from Commissioner Bradford.
The memo is in its
~
entirety non-factual and' deliberative.
'It s
i
F~
3 Documents 11 and 12 are memoranda dated September 26, 1979 and July 20, 1979, respectively, from Commissioner Bradford's office to the other Commissioners.
discussing Canmissioner Bradford's positions on draft decisions.
These docu-ments are part of the exchange of views between the Commissioners regarding the decision to be made in the case.
Document 13 is a memorandum from Mr. Gibbon to Commissioner Bradford dated July 11, 1979 discussing an upcoming meeting on qualification of connectors.
The memorandum summarizes Mr. Gibbon's discussions with NRC officials on the subj.7ct and tir. Gibbon's reaction to the same.
Document 14 is another memorandim from Mr. Gibbon to Commissioner Bradford, dated June 6,1979 concerning the UCS petition.
The document 'is roughly divisible into two parts of equal length.
The first pa'rt is analysis and canparison of various standards (i.e., IEEE-323-1971 and IEEE 323-1974),I&E Bulletin 79-01, and Reg. Guide 1.89, all of which are part of the public record.
Factual descriptions of public documents are intertwined closely with Mr. Gibbon's evaluation, and thus cannot reasonably be segregated.
The second half of the memorandum discusses possible Commission action on the UCS peti-tion.
Document 15 is a draft paragraph for a suggested revision to the draf t re-sponse to the UCS petition, by Bernie Snyder, OPE, for the Commissioners, dated June 5, 1979.
Neither the language nor the tenor of this draft response became a part of the final response to the UCS petition [found at 11 NRC 707 (1980)].
l 4
\\
L..
J