ML19350C357
| ML19350C357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Holt R NEW YORK UNIV., NEW YORK, NY |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-43 NUDOCS 8104010022 | |
| Download: ML19350C357 (2) | |
Text
t)
.<)??) sQ fb, & )b
=
a neau i
'o, UNITED STATES
- d A T 4
E
,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5'
E WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555 N
8 Y)[-}-k/
/
e O
k March 25, 1981
- /gOg d
4
., 4z ir k i {-j e
Robert R. Holt, Ph.D.
4 New York University
't
\\
Depgrtment of Psychology
'N dQ 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor IN RESP 0N REFER New York, NY 10003 TO F01A-81-43
Dear Dr. Holt:
This is in further response to your previous Frei i of Information Act request regarding the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.
NRC staff have recently located additienal documents subject to your request. These documents, listed on the appendix, contain information which constitutes advice, opinions and re ommendations of the staff.
This information is being withheld from pub?ic disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5 a)(5).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.15 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The person responsible for this denial is Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
This denial ~may be appealed to the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision".
Sincerely, f-I
\\
- . ii
- ,6' l' (1H, d.M.-Felton, Director
/DivisionofRulesandRecords L0ffice of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated
/
y
Re:
F0!A-81-43 APPENDIX 1.
Memo from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re: SECY-A-80-95 and SECY-A-80-96, dated 7/22/80 2
Memo from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re: Indian Point, dated 9/18/80 3.
Memo from D. Hassell to Commissioner Hendrie Re: Indian Point Order, dated 10/15/80 4.
Memo from D. Hassell to Commissioner Assistants Re: Indian Point Order and enclosure, dated 10/17/80 5.
Commissioner Hendrie's note and D. Hassell's note Re: Commissioner Gilinsky's memo dated 9/30/80 6.
D. Hassell note un T. Gibben's memo dated 9/18/80 7.
Commissioner Hendire's notes on L. Bickwit and E. Hanrahan's memo dated 7/15/80 Re: Indian Point Units 2 & 3 -- Memorandum and Order i
I m_
\\ h, i
(
New York Unisersity A private unnerssty see the pubhc struce Faculty of Arts and Science Department of Psychology Psychology Building 27 January 1981 6 Washington Place. 4th Floor New York. N.Y.10003 Telephone: (212) 598 2745 FREEDOM 0F INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. REQUESI _.
Mr. Joseph Felton, Director bO2d-2 /-
g eg g_ Q_ g/
Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In re:
Dear Mr. Felton:
I have just received your letter of Jan. 21, 1981, with enclosures in reply to my request of Nov. 17, 1980 under the Freedom of Information Act.
You mention that your refusal to send the 15 letters and memos listed in your Appendix B may be appealed, and I want to inform you that I will oursue such an appeal promptly and vigorously.
Let me note, however, that your reply strikes me as puzzlingly unrespon-sive to my original request.
I asked for " reports, memoranda, drafts, state-ments of data, and other working documents relevant to the report of the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point...and any other subsequent reports, memoranda, or correspondence pertaining thereto...."
It is rather striking that with the sole exceotion of the first item actually sent (a brief note of transmittal of preliminary findings to Commissioner Hendrie, dated June 13, 1980), nothing in either Appandix A or Appendix B antedates the submission of the Task Force Report itself.
I thought it self-evident that my request for "any other subsequent reports" etc. was an addendum for the sake of completeness and that the major emphasis of the request was on antecedent material, but on re-reading my letter I see that perhaps I failed to make clear what I wanted.
In fact, I have just noticed what appears to be a typographical error in my original request:
I intended the first word after the colon in line 2 to be "all" and it came out as "real."
Of course, "all reports, memoranda...
relevant to the report" would have included much more than you inventoried, and only now do I realize that the letter did not say what I intended.
i l
l
. Let me clarify my letter of Nov. 17, 1980, therefore.
It is clear, from the-Commission's recent order instructing the ASLB about the forthcoming hear-ings on tne Union of Concerned Scientists' charges of unsafe conditions at Indian Point, that the 6/80 report of the staff's Task Force is to play a critical part, and that the Commissioners expect it to be subjected to careful critique..For the necessary scrutiny to take place, it is vital to have 'ull information on precisely those matters which the Commission noted were r.st included in the report itself:
its methodology, assumptions, data, and proce-dures.
Because a group with which I am associated is considering intervening on the grounds.of inadequacies in the Task Force's analysis, it is necessary h
$1
)
r
_2_
in the public interest for us to have tccess to documentary materials describ-ing the CRAC code, the procedures follo.9d in modifying the WASH-1400 approach to computing probabilities, just what accident scenarios were considered, what assumptions were made about releases of which fission products at what times, what assumptions were made in the computati;n of consequences about the patho-i genicity of various types of exposure to varying quantities of alpha, beta, and 1
gamna radiation, etc. Of particular intr. rest are documentary records demon-i strating how decisions were made concer'iing the analysis of accidents and con-sequences at Indian Point, including computations of the effects of the changes ordered by Mr. Harold Denton.
I trust that by now it is apparent why, with these desires and expectations, I found the materials you sent of so little interest, and how tangential even the materials listed in Appendix B and withheld are to my purposes and interests.
Therefore, this is a formal request reiterating my earlier request (of 11/17/80) for all " reports, memoranda, drafts, statements of data, and other working docu-ments relevant to the report of the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point, submitted to the Commissioners in June 1980, and any other subsequent reports, memoranda, or correspondence pertaining thereto up to 11/14/1980."
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 9.8, I expect a response within 10 working days or sooner, in light of the fact that my counsel and I consider that this request has been pending since Nov. 17, 1980.
Sincerely yours, k % r ( k, H b
Robert R. Holt, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology RRH:bb f
f L1-