ML20071N262

Appeals Denial of FOIA Request for Documents Re Risk to Facilities from Low Trajectory Turbine Missiles

ML20071N262
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/03/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
FOIA-83-1, FOIA-83-A-3 NUDOCS 8306060381
Download: ML20071N262 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .

4 1%ren 3, 1963 F DECISION Mr. Jilliam J. Dir ns Executive Director for Operations h-A .3 kg O!

APPEAL OF INITIA(7-/

U.S. iiuclcur negulatory Co:mnission

.Vasnington, D.C. 20555 /2'M b/8

Dear Mr. Dircks :

Sy tnis letter 1 am appealing the initial decision made by J.M. Felton, Director, Division of hulcs and Records in responsc to n.y Freedom of Information Act request dated De cemoer 28, 1982 (FCIA-63-1), copy attacned. Tne portion of this initial decision in question is tnut denying the disclosure of Documents 4 and 5 (as listed in Appendix n of the decision) in their entirety occuust they are pur-portedly exempt under 5 USC 552(o)(5). The persons rt.sponsiols for tnis actormination are Mr. Felton and Mr. darold h. Denton.

5 USC Sa2(o)(5) exunpts from disclosure under ths. F0la " inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not oc availuole oy law to a party other than an agency in litication with the agency." This provision has 'ocen interpreted by the courts to oc far more narrow tnan an initial reading would indicate. Sec, e.g.,

-- Stoxe s _ v .iodgson, 347 F Supp 1371 (1972). also, the ourden of proof is upon tne agency relying on Exemption 5 of FvIA. 'la ccor Sale s clearing, Inc. v Departnt.nt of Tre asary., 471 F Supp 436 (1979).

Claims of ( nmption can only oc upntld if tacy are appropriately acvanced and supportcd oy tne at,cncy. Freenan v Sclirson, 4J5 F2d

- 13C6 (1968).

Only et rtain types of uemorandums are exempt unas.r 5 USC 562( b)( 5) .

Taosc containing purely factual material are not exempt; sg nviron-J:, ental Prote ction Arency v Hink, . 410 US 73 (1973); Gene ral Servi ce s ncministration v senson, 415 fed 878 (1969); iti s t ol-}'a e r s Co. v

u. val r%de com-ission, 424 F2d 935 (1970); consumevn IM nn n f' United States v Veterans _acninistration, 310 F Supp 796 ( 1963 ) .

Furtne r.r. ore , to bc exempt from disclcsure , documents must be purt of tne dt. cision-maxing process; i.e., they must oc both pre-cecisionui and deliberati vt. in nature. Falconc v intt-rnal nt venue.

Strviqq, 473 F Supp 385 (1979). "Fredecisional" means that tne cocument must actually be antecedant to the adoption of arcncy policy, and "aeliotrative" means that it must be related to the process by whien policics are formulated. Jordan v Department of .Tusti ce , 591 F2d 763 (1976). "Predecisional" memorandums must not ce confused with post-decisional communications, which st.rve to explain decisions already mace. Sristol-Myers, supra, also, in order to oc truly classified as predecisional, tne documents snould refls,ct personal opinions of an individual writer in the agency rather than the policy

'of the atoney as a whole. Coastal States Gas Corp _,_v Dtnartment of Energy, 617 F2d 854 (1980). Further, documents crarted prior to a cecision,_out tnen adopted as an agency's finul opinion, are not deliocrativt and are not protected from disclosure. fa l con e_, _su p ra .

0306060381 830303 PDR FOIA HIATTB3-A-3 PDR t

Tne phrase "availuole oy law te a party otner tnan an agency in l'itia. tion with the. aEency" has ocen construed to mean any hypo-tnetical pLrty in some type of litigation with the arency. nnehorare B_c;c._5ptcie q_C oun ci 1_ v _ Dc ou rtme n t o f liou si nr a n d Ur ou n 'k y e l_qn_me_n_k, 384 F Supp 1236 (1974); ponstrners Union, suora. Tnc " law" referred to means tac discovery provisions of the Federal hules of Civil Procedure (not the agency's rules of practice). SnLkespearc Co. V United States, 369 F2d T72 ( 19G8 ) . Of coarse, FnCP E6(o) is interpa ted croadly in the ints. rest of full aiscovery. iiiceman _v Taylor, 329 US 495 (1947).

(The most notnole exemption in hule 26(o) is the wor: .-product doctrine. )

Jcccover, when an agency nas adopted matt. rial in an otherwise exempt document as the basis of L non-exenpt decision, the adopted nattrial losds its immunt, status, since such exemption is statutory exception to other se ctions of 5 USC 602 (e.g. , 5 USC 562(a)(2)) which require disclosure. Enited SU tes v J.B. ?Li_lli pw cn.. 40b F Cupp, 796 (1975).

Finally, the FOIA was intended to 'ocnefit the puolic generally, and it is the effect on the puolic that must be weirhed in ordering di s clo sure . Consu=c rs Union, supra. It has even been neld that docu-ments normally excmpt under 5 USC d52(o)(5) should be released unless it is cettrained that such disclosure will result in denonstrable harm to tne puolic interest. Snl a,'cn un , 64 FCO2d 947 (1977). The ultimate purpost of 5 USC 552(b)(5) is to provt.nt injury to the quality of the agency de ci sion-making proce s s. Jiatural hesourecs Defense Council, 2 DOE 80,126.

Civt.n this legal cackground, one nust ecmpart. the NhC's initial decision regarding FOIA-83-1 with the law. In ordt.r to justify the denial of Documents 4 and 5 in tneir entirety, tne NnC must take a positive snowin6 that: the material withheld is not merely factual; it is oota predecisional and deliocrative; it would not ce availa'olc throug:1 ciscovery pursuant to FhCP 26(o) to any party in litigation with the NnC; and, it is not in tne puolic interest to disclose the ma t t.ri a l, or its aisclosure would harm the NaC's decision-making process.

Tne undersigned maintains that tncse criteria nave not 'oeen met by tne Nhc and cannot oc met, and, therefore, the disclosure of the docurt.nts is mandated.

In examining the documents mude available under FOIli-83-1, it is apparent tnat tne NnC's decisions regarding thu handling of the turoinc cissile issue for tne Perry Nuclear Pcuer Plant OL application have alrtudy ocen madc and are merely being withheld for disclosure in tne SS}h. Ynus, tncy cannot be said to be predecisional. Further-more, tnc notive ochind these decisions appears not to 'oe the sa fe ty of tne puulic, ou t , ratner, reducing tne rt.gula tory burden on licensee s and avoiding tinc-consuming independent analyscs of the turoine missile problem o., the NhC S taff. In this circumstance, public disclosure of the documents is mandated under 5 USC 562(a)(2)(3) and (C), and under the principle rivcn in Shla',cnan ( supra ). Indeed, puulic disclosure of this information would improve the quality of tat LtC's decision-maxing precess oy making it more responsive to the puolic interest, ratacr tuan ths. priva t e intt res t s of li ccr.se t.s .

L_

o -

-3

.In fact, it appears tnat the ?!hC Staff is even withholding vital information fro:s the nCnS. Suffice it to say that such ocnavior is inconsistent with tac nnerican tradition of hi -hly valuing tne puolic's right to xnow. It cas ocen nold that Exe:ap tion 5 of the F0la involves calancing of the Eoverrcent's riE nt of pri-vileEt and tne puolic's right to know. aEcncies should not oc requireu to " operate in a fishuowl," and the puolic dLallng with agencies snould not have to " operate in a darkroom." American Mail Line Ltd. v Gulick, 411 FI:d 696 (1969). Un the other nand, one cannot help out recall an old saying that sunshine (cf. Sunshinc Law) is the best natural disinfectant, phenol the oest chemical disinfectant, and puolicity tne oest moral disinfectant. Having witnessed the parade of regulations, cecisions, and policios race oy tne :!RC in tne past 2 years, tne undersigned opines tnat the Nhc is flirting too clcsely witn tnc pro: notion of nuclcar encrgy, an act.ivity foroiddcn by the incrgy heorganization net of 1974, and that a little sunshine and puolicity is needed to rectify this situation und to return the !htC to its statutory role us a protector of tne puolic interest in which the public can have confidence.

Tnus, it must oc concluded tnut tne docu:nents requeste d in FOIA-63-1 must oc provided in accordance with tne laws of the United Stutes.

Sincerely,

/ dm/

-g,w w ^ , % v Susan L. diatt UCr;E nepresentative 6275 Munson iid.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 256-3158

.