ML20234F325
| ML20234F325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | Voight H LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-682, FOIA-87-A-28 NUDOCS 8707080180 | |
| Download: ML20234F325 (2) | |
Text
,
\\
o O
LEBOEUF, LAMB,'LElBY a MACRAE
. m
,s....c.m
.......a o........,
13 3 3 N E Vr HA M P S H I R C AV E N U C WAssmorow. DC 20036 (2o 2) 44,7 7600 TEttr 440#,4 rar.seee Lt. aos as ? 7 set
= Ew *c a n. = v 503 fou. MA
- 04. r Lasis C,7 v. uT
"[
Sou7 tt pom7, C7 ca. reo p. mc NEWAnk,ma j
sA=r.=:.sco.c^
May 27, 1987 LO L A NC,ELEf,. EA JAC E B O es V'L.L E, FL Samuel J. Chilk, Es q. -
APPEAL OF NDAL FO!A fXC d
Secretary g4,p lPc Q 4 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission IM-@ ",) -f J 1717 H Street, N.N.
Room 1135A Washington, DC 20555 Re:
Appeal From a Partial Initial FOIA ' Decision i
POI A 48 6-6821
=._
Dear Mr. Chilk:
This is an appeal from a partial initial decision by the Of fice of Investigatiens on a Freedom of Infortration Act
("FOIA") request which I submifted on September 12, 1986.
The.
document which has.been denied is a letter to Victoria Toensing, Esq.4, Deputy Assistant. Attorney General, Criminal
- Division, U.S. Department >of.Tustice, from Ben B. Hayes, Director, Of fice of Investigat ions, dated April L L,
- 1986, subject:
" Individual: Operator Actions Regarding the Falsification of Leak Rate Test Data at TMI, Unit 2."
Pursuant to the F01A, 5 U.S.C. S 552 (1982), and the a
Cormuission s regulations, 10 C.F.R. $$ 9.11, 9.15 (1987), I hereby appeal the partial denial of my request.
According to the ruling I received, the letter I requested is alleged to be exempt from disclosure undct " Exemption 5" to the FOIA, i
5 U.S.C. S 552(b)(5)(1982) and 10 C.F.R. $ 9.5(a)(5)(1987).
The ruling states, in part, that the iletter is being withheld
, because it allegedly contains predecisional information, the disclosure of which "would tend totinhibit the open andifrank exchange of ideas essential to the' deliberative process."
The letter requeqted discusses the Office of Investigation's Roport of investigation, Case Number 1-84-022, I
e.ntitled "Three MileiIsland Nucicar Generating Station,e Unit 2:
Investigation of Tndividual Operator Actions Concerning the Falsification of Leak Rate Test Data" dated 87070g0g O N DR GHTB7-A-28
9 y'
Sainuc 1. ~J.
Ch ilk, Esq.
.May 27,,1987 Page 2-March 5,-19H(,,
and.Its' referral,to'the Department of Justice.
The. Report itself has~been incorporated into the public record o t' t.he Commission's administrative, proceeding, Docket No. LRP, inquiry' Into Three Mile f aland. Unit 2. Leak Rate Data Faisification.
The ruling rolative to FOIA-86-682: teleased to me. tuo' addi(ional aiemo canda and one letter relating to the Report.
Becauuc the Report,and referenced correspondence discuss the same. material. as - the letter withheld ~ and have already been disclosed, the letter is no longer exempt under 5 U.S.C. $ 552(5)(5).
We !.1 ro rd v._,Ha rdi n, 315 F.
riupp. 175, 178' (0, Md. 1970),_af6'd, 444 L9.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1971"y.
Where a document. has becrt formally or informally adopted as an agency. position on an issue,.the statutory-exemption for predecisional documertts is forfeited.
M_urphy_v,,
Tennessee Valley Au.thority, 571'F. Supp. 502, 505 (D.D.C.
1983).
The Commission's decision.to refer the matter to the Department ot' Jnstica, and the referral itself, constitute a Commission position, and Exemption 5 protection :for the letter
' withheld is thereby: forfeited.
Finally, while the Commissionihas publicly disclosed the.Reportland certain colated correspondence but has withheld therletter' sought, the. Commission.has provided only a concIusoryijustifIcation.for withholding:the singic letter.
The : purpose of the' Le01A is to establish a general philosophy of full disclosure unicss the document sought is clearly esempted by the statute.
The FOIA placcs the burden' on a government agency to justif y its action in withholding. records as exempt under the FOTA.
Euste4d v.
No_r. wood,' 5 2 9 F. Supp. 323, 325 (S.D. Fla. 1981).
In light *of the ciremustances, I respectfully request that the initial decision be reversed and that the document be made available to me.
Very truly yours, i