ML20040A838
| ML20040A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Madden T KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-81-A-5 NUDOCS 8201220209 | |
| Download: ML20040A838 (4) | |
Text
4*Y UNITED STATES N
b
- T
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i* $< %,$
I wasmnaron, o c. 2csss MblD7M W a
June 1, 1981
+
orrect or THE Y
'v SECRETARY
' g p
Re:
FOIA 00-515 1
, h g3 (81-A-5) g, NN Thomas J. Madden, Esq.
dk%.DeMgrou Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, llays & Handler
~
I 1575 Eye Street, N.W.
p Uashington, D.C.
20005 G 7 IU
Dear Mr. Madden:
This letter is in response to your April 10,1981 F0IA appeal of a denial of disclosure of a portion of one document and all of fifteen others that pertained to either Item 10 (llRC responses or followups to GA0 reports about the agency) or Item 12 (infonnation relating to f,he NRC resident inspector program) of your October 16, 1980 request. With one exception, the Commission has affirmed the initial decision that those materials are exempt from disclosure under F0IA.
I The document that was partially disclosed was a memo from the Secretary of the Commission to the Acting Executive Director for Operations concerning a July J
1980 Commission budget markup session. The Commission has detennined that an l
additional portion of this paper, paragraph (B)(1)(e), should be released. This paragraph, like the portion of the memo already provided, relates to the resi-dent inspector program. The Commission has decided, however, that a portion of this paragraph is still exempt from disclosure under F0IA Exemption 5 in that it relates to the tentative fiscal year 1983 budget and its disclosure would harm the Commission's deliberative process.
No exemption is now being claimed as to the fiscal year 1982 budget figures because such information has been submitted publicly to Congress subsequent to our March 12 response to your request. As was indicated in the initial denial, the remainder of the memorandum is not partinent to any of the items in your request and therefore has not been disclosed.
The other fifteen documents at issue, which are being withheld in their entirety, i
consist almost entirely of advice, opinions and recommendations regarding matters relating to either Item 10 or Item 12 of your request.
Protecting the confidentiality of the analysis contained in these documents preserves the free 4
i and candid internal dialogue essential to the careful fonnulation of agency j
decisions.
To the extent any of them may contain factual material, it is not reasonably segregable in that it is either not separable from the underlying j
context without distortion or is inextricably intertwined with the analysis and recomendations.
Release of these documents would adversely affect the agency's deliberative process to the detriment of the public interest in reasoned decision-making and, accordingly, Exemption 5 is being invoked to preclude their disclosure.
i The documents being withheld in their entirety are described as follows:
i i
p gi g o9 810601 MADDEN 81-A-5 ppg
\\
Thomas J. fladden, Esq.
2 A.
Relating to SECY-79-387 -- NRC's response to GA0's recommendations regard-ing higher civil penalty authority.
1.
July 12, 1979 one-half page memo to Commissioner llendrie from tech-nical assistant lierbert Fontecilla analyzing and advising on NRC 4
staff's proposal for response to GA0 recommendations; no factual material.
2.
July 20, 1979 one-paragraph memo to Commissioner Bradford from tech-nical assistant llugh Thompson giving recommendations on NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 recommendations with handwritten marginal note from Commissioner Bradford regarding response; no factual ma terial.
3.
U.. dated draft dissenting views of Commissioner Bradford and i
Commissioner Gilinsky concerning respoase to GA0 recommendations; no segregable factual material.
4.
One-page memo dated June 26, 1979, to Commissioner Bradford from technical assistant !! ugh Thompson discussing answers proposed by NRC staff concerning GA0 recommendations and recommending responses; no segregable factual material.
5.
Uqdated one-page memo to technical assistant llugh Thompson from NRC staff member George Barber concerning possible response to GA0 recom-mendations; factual material not segregable.
B.
Relating to SECY-80-27 -- NRC's response to GA0's report on the resident inspector program.
1.
Three-sentence memo dated January 22, 1980, to Commissioner Hendrie from technical assistant Iterbert Fontecilla analyzing and advising on the NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report; no factual ma terial.
2.
One-half page ma:no dated January 31, 1930, to Connissioner Ahearne from program analyst Jesse Funches providing recommendations with supporting reasons concerning NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report; factual material not segregable.
C.
Relating to SECY-79-195 -- NRC's response to GA0 report on the reporting of unscheduled events at commercial nuclear facilities.
1.
One and one-half page memo dated !! arch 27, 1979, to Commissioner llendrie from technical assistant John Austin containing analysis and recommendations regarding NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report; no segregable factual material.
l l
Thomas J. Itadden, Esq.
3 2.
April 27,1979 one-sentence memo to then Commissioner Kennedy fro.n Commissioner Ahearne giving his position on issue related to SECY 195; no factual material.
3.
One-half page memo dated April 27, 1979, to Commissioner Ahearne from program analyst Jesse Funches containing recommendation with support-ing reasons concerning NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report; factual material not segregable.
4.
One-half page memo dated April 25, 1979, to Commissioner Gilinsky from technical assistant George Eysymontt analyzing and advising on NRC l
staff's proposal for response to GA0 report with handwritten marginal j
notes of Commissioner Gilinsky concerning response; no segregable factual material.
t D.
Relating to SECY-78-281 -- NRC response to GA0 report on management of the-licensing process.
1.
June 8,1978 one-paragraph memo to Commissioner llendrie from technical assistant James Hard advising on NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report with attached two-page Office of Policy Evaluation advisory memo on staff's proposed response containing handwritten notes by i
j James Hard; no segregable factual material.
2.
June 27,1978 two-sentence memo to Commissioner Gilinsky from tech-nical assistant George Eysymontt analyzing and advising on NRC staff's proposal for response to GA0 report; no segregable factual material.
E.
One and one-half page memo dated December 5,1979, to Commissioner Gilinsky frcxn technical assistant John Austin analyzing the resident inspector program; no segregable factual material.
F.
Undated three-page document relating to unidentified staff proposal for response to unidentified GA0 report; first page consists of unknown author's handwritten draft of portion of response, which is directed to technical assistant Hugh Thompson; second and third pages consist of hand-written notes on eleventh and fourteenth pages of NRC staff's proposal for response analyzing that proposal; no segregable factual material.
i This letter is the final action of the Commission.- Judicial review of this decision is available in the United States District Court in the district in which you reside, in which you have your principal place of business, or in
Thomas J.11adden, Esq.
4 which the records are located, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
l3 Sincerely),
L1wJAbs Secretary of th,Chilk j
Samuel J.
e Commission
Enclosure:
8/1/80 memo SJChilk to WJDircks containing additional disclosed parag raph