ML20236P738
| ML20236P738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/16/1987 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P741 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-570, FOIA-87-A-90 NUDOCS 8711180141 | |
| Download: ML20236P738 (2) | |
Text
'[. j ucq e
c, UNITED STATES
!i, d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S~
' /-
i WASHINGTON. O C 20555
- b h
- g ss j OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NOV 16 w I'r. Pobert M. Rader Conner & Wetterbahn, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, D.C.
20006 TO 87-A-90(87-570)
Dear Mr. Rader:
This letter responds to your October 15, 1987 appeal of documents withheld in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's October 7, 1987 response to F01A-87-570.
l In response to your appeal the documents wece again examined to determine whether the withheld ' documents contain any reasonably segregable factual infomation.
I have determined to release, in part, document 2, the two-page February 11, 1987 memorandum for William C.'
Parler and Victor Stello, Jr.,' from Samuel J. 'Chilk (attached).
Powever, the deleted portion of document 2 and the entire twelve-pace enclosure continue to be withheld under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act ("F0IA"). Any other factual material in the withheld documents is inextricably intertwined with exempt portions. With the exception of the portion of document 2 now being released, I affirm the-agency's initial action.
The documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 contain the predecisional legal analyses, opiniors, and recommendations of the staff and are also part of the agency's predecisional process concerning draft documents. The purpose of the deliberative process privilege is to
" prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions." NLRB v. Sears l
Roebuck & Company, 421 U.S.132,151 (1975). Disclosure of these l
predecisional documents would be likely to " stifle honest and frank l
communication within the acency." Coastal States Gas Corp. v.
l Department of Eneray, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir.1980).
In addition, Enclosure E to document 1 on Appendix C, an October 20, 1986 Memorandum from William C. Parler, General Counsel, to Commissioner Bernthal, is being withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege incorporated in Exemption 5 of the FOIA.
Exemption 5 prohibits the i
disclosure of " confidential communications between an attorney and his client relatina to a leaal matter for wM ch the client has sought professional advice." Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 at 252. This privilege applies to both facts and opinions civen by an attorney to his client based upon those facts, see, e.a., Schiefer v. United States, 702 F.2d 233 at 245; Brinton' v.
{
l 8711100141 g71116 hE[s A-90 PDR
\\
_2 Department of State, 636 F.2d 600 at 605.. Disclosure of this information would constitute a clear violation of the atterney-client privilege.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9.15 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the infonnation withheld is' exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or. disclosure is contrary to the public interest. Ecwever, the aaency is continuing to resiew additional documents to deterrine whether they may be released. pursuant to your.
F0IA request.
This letter represents final agency action on your October -15,1987 FOIA appeal. Judicial review of.the denial of documents is available in.
Federal District Court in the district in which you reside or have_your.
principal place cf residence or business, or in the District.of ~
Columbia.
S ncerelf f
.d 0; - k
(
Famuel J.
%41k I ecretary 6f the Comission S
l 1
J a