ML19260E114
| ML19260E114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lash J National Resources Defense Council |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR48621, RULE-PR-21 NUDOCS 8002130381 | |
| Download: ML19260E114 (2) | |
Text
- " %.,
gg 4
UNITED STATES C d%[V) j' j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CDF b 1"
WASHIN G TO N. D.C..'0555
%.e/
+
January 23, 1980 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN Mr. Jonathan Lash Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, NW.
Washington, D.C.
20005
Dear Mr. Lash:
The NRDC letter of March 2, 1979, submitted for Commission consideration a joint Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) document on the subject of 10 CFR Part 21, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance." That document urged the Commission (1) to repeal the amendments to Part 21 set forth in the Federal Register on October 19, 1978,(43 Fed Reg 48621),(2) to reimpose the original requirements of Part 21, (3) to direct the staff (a) to immediately begin a program to improve the understanding of Part 21 and (b) to process exemption applications based upon the criteria proposed by NRDC/UCS.
In addition, NRDC/UCS proposed modifications to the NRC policy governing regulatory actions in relation to (1) the use of an " advance notice of proposed rulemaking" and (2) the method of processing
" staff proposals" for regulations to ensure that the public is able to comment on these proposals before such proposals are submitted to the Commission.
These latter requests concerning the policy with regard to regulatory action will be the subject of separate action by NRC.
After consideration of your comments on amendments to 10 CFR Part 21 as well as the other comments received, the Commission has determined that no further amendments to 10 CFR Part 21 are necessary at this time.
The Commission did not intend that the original Part 21 would reach to every level of manufacturer / supplier.
Indeed, we do not interpret Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act as requiring regulation at all levels.
We believe the staff has attempted a balanced implementation of Section 206 within the Commission's direction.
NUREG-0302 addresses the issue of how far down the tiers of suppliers toward items such as bolts and nuts should Part 21 be applicable.
The guidance given in NUREG-0302 on this subject was that "all organizations, activities and products are not such that they 'could create a substantial safety hazard.'" This is believed adequate to bring within the scope of the implementing regulation (a) those items that have unique design, or specification requirements for nuclear applications and (b) all commercial grade items when they are " dedicated" to a nuclear safety application.
8002130 3 0/
Mr. Jonathan Lash 2
The Commission recognizes that the implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 is compli-cated and its scope is broad.
The staff, in its review of operating information and during inspections, has been monitoring and will continue to monitor the application of Part 21 to determine if proper implementation is being achieved.
Si cerely, f; c jaaw r
' John F. Ahearne bChairman
Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.
91715Tn srazzT, N.w. CGCXET NUMBER WAS HINGTON, D.c. 2 0 0 05' ' '? ^l RULE PRM -
202 737-5000 Westem Oftes Neur York 0lTes 23 4 5 YALZ 8TREET 822 ZAsr 4:30 sTzzzT PALo ALTO, CALIF. 9 4306 March 2, 1979 NEW YOR1, N.Y. 2 00 37 415 327-1080 2:2 949-0049 9.I UCC"ET f U IR F.RCF03ED RULE
2/ h388%2(
,\\sN, Sf 1
c.
.i; r-Yl
\\
f-4 Samuel J. Chilk e
p Y;
d_/
Secretary of the. CoI:mtission
'?.s' Y' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f{
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The' enclosed is a petition for rulemaking as well as comments on amendments to 10 CFR Part 21.
Sincerely, f
f,
/
^M C Anthony
/Ro.sman enclosure
/
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissione Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Kennedy
~
Enclosure D g
.~
\\"
W' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'b ll sChs&
g Q
g\\N "
d In The Matter Of
)
M g\\ h g*.I [
)
g.
AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 21
)
S
\\
ij %r s.
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL COMV.ENTS ON. AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 21 AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT Introduction on October 13, 1978, the Ccmmission took the extra-ordinary action of making a major amendment to a major nuclear safety regulation without prior public notice.
Amendments to 10 CFR Part 21,' exempting suppliers of commercial grade components from the regulation, were made immediately effect-ive upon publication in the Federal Recister on October 19, 1978 (43 FR 48621).
The justification for emitting notice of proposed rulemaking and public procedure thereon was, in large part, allegations by the Staff that:
1.
The c endments were not controversial; 2.
Continued application of Part 21 could have adversely affected safety, reduced nuclear power plant availability and delayed construction of other plants; and 3.
Staff resources would have been adversely affected by the need to act on pending and anticipated exemption requests.
The record of the Staff's activities with respect to these amendments does not support the Staff's allegations.
f
On October 25, 1978, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Informa-tion Act, all documents related to the amendments to.l'0 CFR Part 21 which were adopted (Enclosure 1).
The Staff's " partial response,'" dated November 15, 1978, provided some, but appar-ently not all, documents (Enclosura 2).
However, the documents which have been produced show a sharply divergent picture of what has actually occurred from what the Staff alleged.
Backcround The regulations in Part 21 were developed to implement Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
The proposed rule was published for comment on March 3, 1975 - (40 FR 8832).
The final rule was published on June 6, 1977 (42 FR 28891), and became fully effective on January 6, 1978..The principal thrust of.10 CFR Part 21 was to provide a mechanism for the detection, evaluation and reporting to the Commission of' defects in safety-related components.
The rules provide that, if the supplier of the component cannot evaluate the safety significance of the defect, the purchaser shall be notified of the defect in order to cause the defect to be evaluated.
Knowing and conscious failure to pro ide the required notice would v
subject the supplier to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for 1/
" Defect" is a term of art defined in 10 CFR S 21. 3 (d).
It includes, for example, deviation from design specifications and incorrect design or construction.
4 3
each such failure, not_ to exceed S25,000 within any period of thirty consecutive days.
It is clear that 10 CFR Part 21 imposed no new safety requirements.
These regulations simply required the development of procedures to detect and report failures to adhere to safety requirements impcsed by other regulations.
The amendments to 10 CFR Part 21 which became effective on October 19, 1978, exempted suppliers of co==ercial grade components.
Now Part 21 applies only after the cc==ercial grade component is dedicated for use in a safety-related component (i.e., a " basic component").
Cc==ents The documents relating to the amendments to 10 CFR Part 21 listed in Enclosure 2 have been reviewed by the NRDC and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Based on our review, we have concluded that the Staff misled the Commission concern-ing the urgency of,..the need for and the. safety-significance of amendment of 10 CFR Part 21.
The bases for this conclusion are set forth belcw.
Actions of Nuclear Industrv.
The record' indicates that, from the date Part 21 became effective, sc=e segments of the nuclear industry launched a coordinated campaign to shift to lower-tier suppliers the responsibility for quality assurance and for reporting defects.
There is little evidence in the record of any bona fide attempt to implement Part 21 correctly by linit-ing its use t.o " basic components."
Rather, Part 21 was being invoked in " procurement documents" for all cog.ponents, even when the purchaser knew the component was not safety-related.
For exa=ples of this, see documents A-8, A-39, A-44,
4 o
and A-82.~
The result was that Part 21 was being invoked when ordering material "to be used for Hand Rails, Drain Pipe, Identification Tags, etc. (Noncritical)
(Document A-82).
The Staff recognized that such blanket applications of Part 21 '
were " incorrect" (Document A-8).
Nevertheless, the Staff urged amendment of Part 21, in part because it was " causing an adverse effect on the ability to obtain needed items and may increase the costs of [ commercial grade] items" (Document A-96).
A more accurate description of the situation would be that the nuclear industry was deliberately misinterpreting Part 21 in order to force the Staff to seek the amendment which the Commission eventually adopted.
Safety Sienificance.
All this manipulation by the nuclear industry might be irrelevant if there were, as the Staff asserts, no safety significance to the amendment.
In fact the amendment may have a potentially serious impact on reactor safety.
The starting point for assessing the safety significance of the Part 21 amendment is 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
That appendix requires establishment of quality assurance programs "to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in service."
In short the QA program is the fundamental mechanism to assure that 2/
Document identification refers to the document as identified in the NRC response to the NRDC Freedom of Information Act recuest.
That response is attached as Enclosure 2 to this filing.
5 a nuclear plant will in fact be built and operated in the manner required to justify the finding of adequate protection for the public health and safety.
Ths purpose of Part 21 was to provide explicit oper-ating requirements for QA programs and to impose penalties for failure to comply as an inducement to compliance.
Predictably the imposition of the reporting requirements coupled with the penalty provisions was not popular with the nuclear industry.
But Part 21 was in fact not a substantial burden.
No penalties were applicable to anyone who failed to report a defect unless the failure were knowing.
However, the importance of the Part 21 requirements cannot be overemphasized.
By its ter=s, Part 21 reaches all components which have safety significance and no others.
It is further focussed only on those aspects of safety significant components for which defects would be relevant to safety.
Thus if the safety function of a bolt is unrelated to the quality of steel used in its construction, then no QA program related to the steel is required under Appendix B and no report-ing requirements of Part 21 are applicable.
If, hcwever, the quality of the steel is relevant to the safety function of the bolt, Appendix B and Part 21 are both applicable, and they should be.
In a uniquely disingenuous presentation, the Staff alleged that safety would be adversely affected by continued application of Part 21.
There is no concrete evidence in the e
6 record to support this allegation.3 At best, there are un-supporred, mostly seccadhand, allegations that "[clontinued application (of Part 21] may have an undesired effect on the level of safety.
(Document A-96, emphasis added).
(For other examples, see Dccuments A-73 and A-77.)
There is no discussion in the record to explain why " continued" ap li p
cacio "may" degrade safety, but past application apparently did
- not, since the Staff issued no show cause orders or took any ot er steps to correct the safety problems.
Thus, under the threat of future adverse effects on safety, but without any specifi c
evidence to support the threat, the Staff recc= mended amendment of Part 21.
In so doing, the Staff ignored its own finding that ene of the principal objections to Part 21 was the risk it poses of financial liability. (Documents A 26 and A-71).
It would appear that, so long as no financial risk attached, vendors were not uncomfortable about certifying ccmplianc e with the quality assurance requirements of Appendix B The result of the amendments to Part 21 is tha purchaser, even further removed frem the manufacture of the component, must attest to the quality assurance of the component and report any defects discovered to the Ccemission. What 3/
The sole exception (Document A-2) became effective.for exe=ption by a byproduct materials licensee be pertains to a request (Document A-3).
The Staff denied the exemption request re Part 21
a really occurring is that the purchaser, who has,significantly more financial interest in seeing the nuclear plant built, is assuming the burden of Part 21 reporting requirements even though the purchaser is less able than the supplier to detect the defects that must be reported.
Of course the goal of Part 21 was to enforce real quality assurance for components, not to find responsibility for components later found to be defect-ive.
To fulfill its mission, Part 21 must be made applicable to precisely the class of components which the Part 21 amend-ment has new exempted.
The use of components provided by so-called second choice suppliers could not degrade safaty if ccepliance with the Cc= mission's regulations is adequate to protect the health and safety of the public and if the Staff enforces the regulations.
In fact, the second choice suppliers who are willing to accept the financial risks of Part 21 may actually produce better components, evidenced by a better quality control system which allows the supplier to have the confidence to accept the Part 21 regulations.
Staff Perceotion of the Problem.
Frcm the documents released pursuant to the FOIA request and from the public meeting transcript, it can be seen that the principal problem which' motivated the Staff to seek this amendment was the fear of.
having to process numerous exemption requests.
The Staff in effect concedes that it could determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the provisions of Part 21 were being misinter-preted.
To fully appreciate the Staff position in refusing to proceed on a case-by-case basis, it is necessary to look care-fully at the problem which triggered the exemption req'..ests.
4
~
8 The prsblam arose where sub-tier suppliers of off-the-shelf components were receiving precurement orders which included Part 21 compliance requirements.
These suppliers apparently had no QA program for such cc=penents and thus could not implement a progra= for reperting defects because they could not identify
' defects (Docu=ent A-26).
If the cc=ponent supplied were irrele-vant to safety (like equipment I.D.
tags (Document A-82) ),
then the supplier should not be subject to Part 21 or Appendix B (see, e.g., Docu=ent A-83).
If the co=ponent is relevant to safety, there is every reason to impose both Appendix 3 and Part 21.
It is irrelevant that the component. supplied is an off-the shelf item used for many non-nuclear purposes if, when it is used for a nuclear plant, it performs an important safety function.
If the supplier of such a cc=ponent is unwilling to comply with Part 21 because it does not have a QA program which complies with Appendix 3, the remedy is not to exempt the supplier from Part 21 but to enforc~e the ptovisions' of-Appsndix B and Part 21.
The Staff solution.
Inasmuch as the real problem for the Staff was the need to do substantial paperwork to process individual exemptions, it is not surprising that the Staff solution was for the Co= mission to grant a blanket exemption.
Unfortunately the blanket exemption seriously ccmprcmises plant sa5ety.
According.to the Staff, plant safety is preserved because once the compenent is dedicated to use in a nuclear plant, the provisions of Part'21 become applicable.
But is
.~
9 that applicability likely to be meaningful?
We think not.
If off-the-shelf bolts are required to have a certain strength which depends in part upon the quality of the steel used in their manufacture, how dces the purchaser of the bolts develop a QA program to assure that the bolts have the proper strength?
Such a progi._ would depend upon a record of the steel used for making each batch of bolts, a record of the batch of bolts from which the purchased bolt came and a system to assure that the bolts were. handled in a way which made it possible to identify their origin.
These records must be main-tained by the bolt supplier and not the bolt purchaser or the bolt purchaser will have to test the strength of every bolt purchased.
The same analysis would apply, for instance, to wire used in a relay or switch, and to relays or switches used in electrical components.
What the Staff solution does is sub-stitute the incompetent QA program of the purchaser for the essential QA program of the supplier.
The Process Used.
Equally cbjectionable as the mnendment adopted was the process used for its adoption.
The Staff claimed to have an urgent need for i==ediate action requiring the waiver of normal public co==ent.
The justifications given were urgency "because of possible disruption in the construction schedule of nuclear plants and the absence of any objection to the proposals.
'The reason that the Staff felt a sense of urgency in amending Part 21 was that the Staff had been telling the industry, for at least five conths, that Part 21 would be amended on an
10
" urgent basis" (see Docu ents A-50, A-51, A-53, A-35, A-53, A-61, A-62, A-63, A-68, A-76, A-80, A-81, A-90, and A-91).
In fact, as early as May 1978, the Staff had drafted the amendments, determined that there should be an 1:::ediate rulemaking, and begun telling the industry the regulation would be mcdified.
Public notice of such an intent at that time would have provided at:ple cpportunity for any expression of public concern.
By deliberately concealing its intentions from the public, by not publicly noticing exemption requests, and by spending over five months preparing the amendment for Co= mission action, the Staff artificially created the time pressure which it then used as an excuse for Cc==ission action without any prior public notice.
Similarly, without any prior public notice of an intent to amend Part ?l, it was disingenuous for the Staff to cite the absence of any public objection to a Part 21 amendment as evidence that the public would not in fact object to the amend-ment.
In fact, the Office of General Gaunsel noted that the case for immediate effectiveness had not been made, that it was likely some members of the public would be interested in cc==enting on the amendment and that there was an alternative approach which would permit gathering public co==ent (Document A-92).
There is an additional proble= with the reliance on construction schedule disruption as an excuse for the regulatory change.
First, as shcwn above, there was no safety risk to continued use of Part 21 and the assertion that.there was had no substantive basis in the record.
Second, there is an
--e
11 important safety risk created by the new a-andment which the Staff did not disclose - i.e.,
the inability of the ecmponent purchaser to provide a meaningful QA program with respect to the purchased component.
In such a case, the use of a reason for regulatory action whi~ch is pertinent only if the Commission is in the business of promoting nuclear power is particularly objectionable.
Every Co= mission regulation has the potential effect of sicwing plant construction.
It is inappropriate and illegal for the Ccemission to use that fact to justify reducing the level of public safety, particularly to do so under an i==ediate effectiveness rule.
The Proper Solution.
Viewed most favorably to the i
nuclear industry, the difficulty with Part 21 implementation was a misunderstanding of its terms and conditions by the industry.
The Staff has not attempted to straighten this out but essen-tially panicked when the exemption requests began to arrive.
The record shows that the General Electric Company was the. source of many of the difficulties encountered in implement-ing Part 21.
Scme divisions of G.E.
flatly refused to supply compcnents if Part 21 was invoked in the procurement document (see Documents A-31, A-35, A-39, and A-49).
G.E. decided that it would not supply components under Part 21 unless its suppliers would agree to be subjected to 10 CFR Part 21 (Document A-83).
The Staff informed the Commission that "[t]he problems being encountered in the implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 may be considered to be associated with the ' learning' of a new regulation,
i.e., the industry may find a way to properly
12 and appropriataly implorant 10 CFR 21."
(Occu=ent A-9 6 ).
The record indicates that this was a ecrrect observation.
The Staff was aware that G.E. experienced no difficulty in imple-
=enting Part 21 when the requirements of Appendix 3 to 10 CFR Part 50 were applicable.
Rather, such difficulties arose, and properly so, when the supplier was not following the Quality Assurance Requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3 (Cocument A-26).
Further=cre, a large number of the procure-ment difficulties encountered by licensees such as: Virginia Electric and Pcwer Cc=pany were resolved by determining that Part 21 had been incorrectly invoked en non-safety items, by purchasing an alternate cc=ponent, or by further discussion with the supplier- (Docu=ent A-83).
What is required is a clearly articulated policy about the applicability of Part 21 which stresses its functional nature and decries the mindless application of it to all components irrespective of their use.
In addition the Cc= mission could allcw the Staff to approve an exemption tram Part 21 for any supplier if the purchaser demonstrated that 'it could imple-ment an effective QA program that would detect any and all safety deficiencies in the purchased cc=ponent and that it would assume the responsibilities imposed by Part 21.
The recalcitrance of the incustry a'nd the Staff averson to paperwork and to producing a clear articulation of the require =ents of Part 21 should not be the excuse for an amendment that under-
' ~
~
mines the purposes of the statute and of Part 21.
~
13 We therefore urge the Commission to repeal the amend -
(
\\
ments to Part 21 set forth in the Federal Register en October 19, i
1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 48621), to reimpose the criginal require-ments of Part 21 and to direct the Staff to i==ediately begin a program to improve the understanding of Part 21 and to process exemption applications based en the criteria discussed above.
Conclusion There is obviously more to this proceeding than a? -
mistaken amendment to a-regulation.
The Staff presentation to the Co= mission was clearly an adversary presentation during which the Staff sRillfully used its presumed expertise, humor and the selective emphasis of record facts to persuade the Cc= mission to do something it should not have done and to do it in an inapprcpriate manner.
It is important that the Co==ission take steps to reduce the risk created by the Staff
\\
acting in an adversarial fashion.
To this end, we propose that
.s she Commission adept the following modifications in the policy applicable to consideration of regulatory actions:
1.
All proposed regulations be preceded by an advance notice of intent to develcp a regulation.
This would have produced a public notice no later than June 1978.
2.
Staff proposals for regulations be treated no differently from those generated by the public -
i.e.,
a Staff submittal of a prcposal to the Co= mission should trigger a Federal Register notice and opportunity for public co==ent on the
14 Staff proposal.
Only after receipt of the public comment should the Co==ission take action on the proposal.
The Staff proposal could be treated as the proposed amendment, provided its publica-tion did not represent a prejudgment of the merits by the Co==ission.
If these simple rules had been followed here, the present controversy would not hav.e reached this unfortunate status..
Respectfully submitted, JJ db d a Rooert Pollhrd
/
Union of Concerned Scientists 1025 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)347-5800 W
f Anthony 2r smasman Natural r sources Defense C uncil 917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)737-5000 Dated:
March 2, 1979 s
e
facksa.r-t I
r Natural Resources Defense Cotnail,Inc.
i 917 15:1I sT*AIEr, N.W.
4 WASIII N GTo N', D.C. 2 0 0 0 3 1
i 2 0 2 7 3'f-j O 0 0 I
New York Of.:.e
- "*4'" 87***
Western Opes
. " ' *** "*Y
'7 1
'octecer 25["19'i8 ~ M ' ' ' "- ~
._223 949-0049 23e vm sme
.4 T '.
4:.0 4:.:o. c4ur. 943os
.y, y,,
, 4,,.
., r 425 327-io8o Freedo= of Information officer,. - _ -
EREEDOM OF INFORMATICM i
}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc-- 's:n.on,.
g gggg-
/ o&i c/ /d -P 7-78
_1, f-o d -7
-J.9.g Washington, D.C. -2055s, l
Dear Sir or Madam:
L
'3 Pursuhnt to the Freedcm of Infor=ation Act and the please, provide the following which relate
}
generally to the amend =ents to 10 CFR Part 21, dated Octcher.
'j Sunshine Act, s
7 13, 1978 (43.?ed. Reg. 48621, Oct. 19, 1978):'.
4
'All materials examined by the Cc==issioners in 7
j 1.
~ deciding whether to issue the amendment.
All -ad als prepared by the Staff or the Cc==issicn or any of their' employees or censul-j 2.
a tants with resoect to the a=end=ent or with j
respect to si:S.lar proposals to alter Part 21 including analyses of
.h or to alter its effect,
.f.
cc= plaints about Part 21, analyses of safety J
i=plications of proposed amendments er alterations.
q All co==unications received by the Staff or the 4
Cc==ission or any of"the'ir e=ployees or consultants' q
3.
with respect to the proposed er similar amendments' and with respect to exe=ptions from Part 21.
'1 j
All doc'.=:ents available to the Staff 'or the Cc is-e sion or their e=ployees or consultants to support y
4.
or oppose the view that i= position of the require-l I
=ents of Part 21 without the a=end-ant would, cr could, or did result in the use of second class suppliers for co=ponents of nuclear reactors.
i All docu=ents available to the Staff or the j
a 5.
Cc'- 4 ssion or their employees or consultants i
which support or cppose the view that a reasonable, 3
effort was =ade to infor= the public of the sub-stance of the proposed amend =ent and that no one y
expressed opposition to it.
i
- t e
M,
~ ~ ' -
.I ecxi i
~
)
s I'r2edc= of 2 formation Officer October 25, 1978 l
Page Tao 6.
All ce==:nications between the Staff or the Cc==issica and the ACES with respect co the
~ -
subject of the amend =enn.
7.
All documents available to the Staff or the cc 4 ssion which support or cppose the conclu-i.
sion that the a=end=ent must be adopted i==ediately j
to assure the i' ediate availability of cc=penents y
for the nuclear industry.
p
-j 8.
Any othe: documents available to the Staff or the 4
cc ission which thev believe su=.c. ort or co_ _ nose p
their position on the need for the a=endment and on the need for making the amend:ent 4 ediately y[
effective.
e secause the request relates to a matter for which public cc== ant H -a is limited, no extensions of time will be con-sidered, absent ce= celling circt stances.
i
'l
~
Sincerely,
. J.
(
)
b~.
f 1
I a
mn s
i Anthony Z/Roisym1 d
U
?!
s 5
c.
4 i
4 4
I I
.i j
SW l
I 1
W j
4 i
'1 e
- \\
%C 03U 6 ge UNITED STATES
-S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!Ss10N N/ y ',f%
j I
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f
- a. 711[/
8 i
%, C' November 15, 1978 Mr. Anthony Z. Roisman Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W.
IN RESPONSE REFER g
Washingten, DC 20005 TO E0IA-78-294 j
Dear Mr. Roisman:
This is in response to your letter dated Oct ber 25, 1978, in whicn you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, documents relating i
generally to the amendments to 10 CFR Part 21, dated October 13,197S i
(43 Fed. Reg. 48621, October 19,1978).
Your request was received by the Office of Administration on October 27, 1978.
In partial respense to your request, pending completion of our search for documents subject to your request, the documents listed in Appendix j
A are being placed in the NRC Document Roca (PDR) located at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
l i
Sincerely,
.7 s
J. M. Felton, Director l
Division of Rules & Records i
Office of Ad.tinistration
Enclosure:
Appendix A
!i I
i i
8 I
i' I
n
A??ENDIX A FOIA-78-294, 1.
November 3,.L915 Memorandum for L. V. Gossick from Samuel J. Chilk concerning ENERGY REORGANIZATICN 2.
July 5, 1977 Letter for. U.S.N.R.C. from J. A. Ranschoff i
3.
July 22, 1977 Letter for'J. A. Ranschoff frca L. V. Gos-sick 4.
July 22,1977 Lette'r for Boyce H. Grier.frem Hope M.
Babcock i
5.
August 10, 1977 Letter for Boyce H. Grier frem H. A. Grubb i
6.
September 7,1977 Letter for NRC fr== Larrie K. Trent of Babcock & Wilcox 7.
December 9, 1977 Letter for Director of I&E frem Warren F. Peabody 8.
December 20, 1977 Minutes of 10 CFR part 21 Regulati.on Meeting 9.
January 5,1978 Letter for Secretary of the Cccr.ission from Jay E. Silberg 10.
January 12, 1978 Letter for I&E from Claude Varinois 11.
January 23, 1978 Letter for I&E from A. M. Adamic i
12.
January 27, 1978 Memorandum for B.H. Grier, J. P. O'Reilly, J. G. Keppler, E. M. Howard, and R. H. En-gelken from G. W. Reinmuth enclosing the minutes from meeting cencerning 10 CFR part 21 13.
February 21, 1978 Letter for NRC from W. H. D' Ardenne cencarning Agenda for Meeting on 10 CFR part 21
+
T'
- 14. March 8, 1978 Letter for Warren F. Peabody from Howard K. Shapar l
l 15.
March 8, 1978 Letter for Claude Varinois from Howard K.
l Shapar l
I
- 16. March 16, 1978 Letter for Dr. Ernst Volgenau frcm John W.
Gore, Jr. with enclosure
- 17. March 16, 1978 Letter for Dr. Ernst Volgenau frcm John W.
Gore, Jr. with enclosure
- 18. March 17, 1978 Letter for A. M. Adamic frem G. W. Reinmuth
?
Y I
s s
~ FOIA-78-294 19.
Marcn 22, 1978 Letter for M. Vic: r Stelle, Jr. f<ca l
Troy B. Conner, Jr.
20.
Maren 27, 1978 Nemorancum for Norman C. Moseley frca l
G. W. Reinmuth concerning Discussions with GE cn Part 21 21.
March 29,1978 Letter for John W. Gore, Inc. from Ernst i
Volgenau i
22.
March 31, 1978 Letter for W. E. Campbell, Jr. frem R. O.
Hunt 23.
April 6,1978 Letter for Ernst Volgenau frcm John W.
Gore, Jr. with attachment
- 24. April 10,1978 Letter for Babcock & Wilcox from C. V.
.f Smi th, Jr.
25.
April 14,1978 Letter for Ernst Volgenau frem John W.
Gore, Jr.
26.
April 21,1978 Memorandum for Victor Stello, Jr., Darrell i
Eisenhut, Wayne Reinmuth, Martin Malsch, i
and Guy A. Arlotto from William T. Russell I
concerning Summary of Meeting with GE g
I 27.
April 25,1978 Letter. for NRC from Kenneth B. Anderson
-4 28.
April 25,1978 Letter for Pipe Fabrications Institute from Kenneth B. Anderson concerning 10 CFR part 21 29.
April 25,1978 Letter for J. E. Silberg frca L. V. Gossick 30.
April 26, 1978 Memorandum for E. Volgenau, H. K. Shapar, E. G. Case frem M. Kehnemuyi concerning 10 CFR part 21 with enclosure 31 April 26,1978 Letter for Gould Inc. frem James M. Stavely
- 32. April 26,1978 Letter for Secretary of the Commission, NRC, from W. V. Botts concerning 10 CFR part 21
- 33. April 28,1978 Letter for John W. Gore frem Ernst Volgenau
]
i 3a.
April 28,1978 Memorandum for Guy A. Arlotto from Norman l
C. Moseley concerning Response to AIF Inquiry en Part 21 l
-1 35.
May 1, 1978 Letter for E. Volgenau from Gould Inc. with I
attachment i
e i
, FOIA-78-294
- 35. May 2,1978 Draf t of letter for W. E. Campbell *frcm M. W. Peranich
- 37. May 2, 1978 Questions and answers for B. Campbell from M. W. Peranich
- 38. May 3,1978 Inf master for Mark ?eranich frca Kenneth B. Anderscn e
1
- 39. May 3,1978 Note to Files frca Mark W. Peranich j
1
- 40. May 4,1978 Le'tter for Lee V. Gessick frc'm H. O.
]
Reinsch with attachment l
- 41. May 5,1978 Memorandum for William T. Russell frcm l
W. M. Morrisen c ncerning Summary of Meeting with GE t
42.
May 8,1978 Note to W. E. Campbell, M. R. Staenberg, and W. T. Russell frem M. W. Peranich i
concerning Part 21 with enc,losures
- 43. May 8,1978 Note to W. E. Campbell, M. R. Staenberg, and W. T. Russell frcm M. W. Perahica concerning Par: 21 with enclosures j
- 44. May 9,1978 Letter for Howard K. Shaper from Charles
'l Hansen
-l
- 45. May 9,1978 Memorandum for M. G. Malsch from N.C.
l Moseley concerning Request for Exemption i
- 45. May 12, 1978 Memorandum for V. Stello, Jr., Darrell Eisenhut, Wayne Reinmuth, Martin Malsch, l
and Guy A. Arlotto from W. T. Russell concerning Clarification of Summary of Meeting with GE Company
- 47. May 15,1978 Exemption Request Under 10 CFR 21 l
- 48. May 16, 1978 Letter for W. T. Russell frem H. R. Hollman
- 49. May 17, 1978 Letter for Director of I&E from E. E. Van Brunt, Jr. with attachment
- 50. May 18,1978 Memorandum for W. M. Morrisen from W. E.
Campbell, Jr. concerning 10 CFR part 21 with enclosure f
51 May 25,1978 Memorandum for M. Malsch, V. Stallo, J. G.
Davis, R. E. Cunningham from G. A. Arlotto concerning 10 CFR part 21 I
i l
, F0IA-75-294 52.
May 30, 1973 Letter for W. V. Ectts frem L. V. Gossick
- 53. May 31,1978 Letter for Guy A. Arlotto frca James F.
-I Young with attachments 54 June 1, 1973 Memorandum for Files from G. A. Arlotto
- 55. June 5,1978 Letter for H. O. Reinsch frem L. V. Gossick 56.
June 5,1978 Memorandum for G. A. Arlotto frca V. Stello 57.
June 6, 1978 Memorandum for G. A. Arlotto from Harold D. Thornburg concerning 10 CFR Part 21
- 58. June 6,1978 Letter for John W. Gore, Jr. from R. 8.
Minogue 59.
June 8, 1978 Memorandum for G. A. Arlotto frem Sheldon Meyers concerning 10 CFR Part 21
- 60. June 8, 1978 Letter for Edwin Flack frem Willian E.
Coats
- 61. June 9,1978 Letter for Kenneth B. Anderson frca Mark W. Peranich with attachments
- 62. June 12,1978 Letter for E. E. Van Brunt, Jr. from Ernst Volgenau of I&E
- 63. June 12, 1978 Letter for R. T. Hebert frem Err.st Volgenau
- 64. June 14,1978 Letter for Edson G. Case from LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae with enclosures 65.
June 16, 1978 Note to G. A. Arlotto from Martin G. Malsch "
concerning 10 CFR Part 21
- 66. June 16,1978 Letter for Robert B. Minogue frca William C. Hunt
- 67. June 22, 1978 Letter for Secretary of f!RC form Leo R.
Flynn of Sigma Instruments, Inc.
- 68. June 26, 1978 Memorandum for H. K. Shapar frem R. 8.
Minogue ccncerning 10 CFR Part 21 w/ encl.
- 69. June 28,1978 Letter for W. T. Russell from H. R. Holl-mann
- 70. June 28, 1978 letter for V. Stello, Jr. from W. L. Proffitt r#
1
, FOIA-78-294 i
71.
June 30,1973 t' ate to Rcber: S. Minocue frem Howard K.
I
~
Shapar cencerning 10 CFR part 21 72.
July 7,1978 Letter for L. V. Gossick from B. H. Fal-k
- 73. July 7, 1978 Letter for James B. Kelley frca A. E. Scherer with attachment 74.
July 13,1978 Letter for Edsen G. Case frca LeBeauf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae with enclosures 75.
July 14,1978 Note to Bill Campbell frem Marc R. Staenberg l
5
- 76. July 27,1978 Letter for Leo R. Flynn frca R. B. Minogue i
- 77. July 27,1978 Memorandum for H. K. Shapar, D. J. Donoghue, j
C. V. Smith, Jr., H. R. Denton, and E. Vol-genau frem R. B. Minogue with attachment i
t 78.
August 1,1978 Memorandum for Themas A. Rehn from Mark E.
l Chopko with attachment j
79.
August 2, 1978 Memorandum for R. B. Minogue frem C. V.
Smith concerning 10 CFR Part 21 I
- 80. August 3,1978 Letter for Bernard H. Falk frem R. 3. Minogue j
t 31.
August 4,1978 Letter for E. W. Rhodes from L. V. Gossick
-I 82.
August 8,1978 Letter for Director of I&E frem Charles L.
I
' Kleier l
- 83. August 10, 1978 Memorandum for W. M. Morrison, V. Stello, j
and M. M. Malsch from G. W. Reinmuth cen-cerning VEPCO with enclosures i
I 84.
August 11, 1978 Note to File i
- 85. August 11, 1978 Black Fox proceeding (one page) 85.
August 11, 1978 Note for M. Staenberg and W. Cigbell from l
M. W. Peranich concerning NRC INSPECTION AUTHORITY UNDER SEC7 ION 206(d) 0F THE ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 87.
August 14, 1978 Memorandum for D. G. Eisenhut frem.-J. H.
j Sniezek concerning Part 21 Exemption Re-i quest with enclosures l
+
88.
August 15, 1978 Letter for L. V. Gossick frem Carl Walske l
I I
1i 4
.M'.'
k
,l6b; y
g
- FOIA-78-29a
- 89. August 16, 1978 Memorandum for John G. Davis frcm Martin G. Malsch concerning FINAL C0"liISSEN PAPER CN 10 CFR PART 21
'90.
August 22, 1978 Letter for A. E. Scherer frca R. 8. Minogue
- 91. August 24, 1978 Letter for William C. Hunt from R. B. Mino-gue
- 92. August 24, 1978 Memorandum for Thomas A. Rehn frcm S. F.
Eilperin concerning OGC Cements on Draft Staff Paper on Amendments to Part 21
- 93. August 27, 1978 Letter for Carl Walske frem R. B. Minocue 94.
August 28, 1978
. Memorandum for Tem Rehm from Ken Pedersen ccncerning Draft Staff Paper on Part 21 95 August 30, 1978 Letter for H. D. Thornburg frca N. H.
Moerke, P.E. with enclosure 96.
September 8, 1978 Consent Calendar Itam, SECY-78-496 for the Comissioners frcm R. 3. Minogue 97.
Undated 10 CFR Part 21 Applicability to Non Licensee Suppliers of Ccmmercial Grade Items (SECY-I 78-496)
I 98.
September 19, 1978 Letter for Charles L. Kleier frem John G.
J Davis with enclosure
-l.
99.
September 20, 1978 Memorandum for Chairman Hendrie, Ccemissioners Gilinsky, Kennedy, Bradford, and Ahearne i
frem James L. Kelley concerning Amendments I
to 10 CFR Part 21 i
100. September 28, 1978 Letter for N. H. Moerke, P.E. frem H. R.
I Thornburg with enclosure 101. October 5, 1978 Memorandum for L. V. Gossick, Carlton C.
Kammerer, and Joseph J. Fouchard from Samuel J. Chilk concerning ' discussion of I
102. October 9,1978 Letter for G. Hart from R. B. Minogue with j
enclosures 103. October 11, 1978 Letter for H. O., Reinsch from R. B. Minogue l
104. October 11, 1978 Memorandum for Samuel J. Chi 1k frem J. M.
Felton concerning Federal Register Notice 105.
October 31, 1978 Letter for H. John Hein:, III from William
'~
J. D'ircks,wi.th enclosure
~
l i
i e
J
l
-.0IA-78-294 106. Undated Oraft P.macsal 107.
Undated Part 21 - Clarification of "Sisic.comcenent
and Detar.inatien of Sub-tier Su;:cliers 1
i O
i l
l l
l l
't i
p i
l I
9 3
1 4
E p
C E
5 E.
e k