ML20137B226
| ML20137B226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1985 |
| From: | Chilk J, Chilk J, Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Ratner M RATNER, M.G. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137B229 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-542, FOIA-85-A-40 NUDOCS 8511260215 | |
| Download: ML20137B226 (3) | |
Text
m.;.
s:. web
~
A.os..ause.M r
4
,s, s
p arc
/
o UNITED STATES L
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
(
November 13, 1985 Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 610 Washington, D.C.
20036
SUBJECT:
F01A-85-A-40 (APPEAL FROM F01A-85-542)
Dear Mr. Ratner:
This responds to _your letter of September 27, 1985, appealing the initial denial, pursuant to Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA),
of your document request. One document was identified as responsive to your request: a draft handwritten note from Neil Jensen, an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel (0GC), to the General Counsel and an attached draft handwritten letter from N. Jensen to M. Ratner.
0GC has reviewed this document and determined that the initial three paragraphs of the uncompleted draft note contain factual material, mainly reports of letters and a telephone call from you, which can be segregated from the final paragraph of the note which contains predecisional advice and a recomendation from a staff attorney to the General Counsel.
Accordingly, the initial three paragraphs of the draft note are being released to you. Enclosure 1.
The remaining paragraph of the draft note and the attached draft letter are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 5 552(b)(5)) anc 10 C.F.R. 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. Release of this ma erial would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas and free flow of advice essential to the deliberative process and would interfere with an attorney's work-product See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-154 (1975) privilege.
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. DOE, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Exxon Corp. v. DOE, 585 F.Supp. 690, 698 (0.D.C.
1983).
Other matters raised in your appeal letter have no relevance to your F0IA claim but pertain to the 2.206 petition which you have submitted to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement. That petition is still being considered by I&E.
This denial represents final agency action concerning your request for documents under F0IA. Judicial review of this FOIA denial is available in 8511260215 851113 PDR FOIA RATNER 85-A-40 PDR
. ~ _ _ _ _ -,.
O e
s 2
the district court of the United States in the district in wh'ich you reside, or have your principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. 5 552(a)(4)(B).
Sincerely, amuel Secreta ry of the Commission 1 -
Enclosure:
i As stated 4
1 4
f I
1 30 A O
t l
i 1
i
[
6-ENCLOSURE 1 s
O l
d
- - -,