ML19352B191
| ML19352B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Holt R NEW YORK UNIV., NEW YORK, NY |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-43, FOIA-81-A-1 NUDOCS 8106030293 | |
| Download: ML19352B191 (4) | |
Text
(-
N s.
M UNITED STATES j'
'j, NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION h ['(\\ W l C1.G
?..
WASHING T ON, D.C. 20555
~(
+
m,ii, ieei k,' e
' C FFICE OF THE
- fo -
SLCHET;.RY N
C, i
l'
']
e Qw*,YlS97s
') 44 E'
y u u !
,4 ***
Robert R. Holt, Ph.D New Y^rk University 4'
Department of Psychology Re:
FO ' klyffg 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor (8i-A-New York,~NY 10003
Dear Dr. Holt:
Although your February 18, 1981 Freedom of Information Act appeal concerned only the documents denied in NRC's response of January 21, 1981, the Commission has decided to treat that appeal as if it were directed also to the documents subsequently denied on March 25, 1981.
All of the documents at issue concern the development of the Indian Point Order, issued on January 8,
- 1981, and thc report of the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point.
As in its April 8, 1981 Ictter, the Commission has determined daat the documents in question are exempt from mandatory public disclosure under Exemption 5 and should be withheld because disclosure of this information about a proceeding of extreme sensitivity would adversely affect the deliberative process and idaibit the free flow of information between commissioners and their staf fs.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5).
The Commission believes that the public interest in this matter is outweighed by the need for candid and complete deliberations among the Commissioners, between them and their respective staffs and their principal advisors - deliberations which would be impeded if subject to full disclosure.
The documents subject to dais appeal are being withheld in their entirety, based upon the following reasoning (please refer to the attached list of documents):
Document #1, Memo from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re:
Indian Point, SECi-A-80-95 and SECY-A-80-96, dated i
7/22/80.
This document consists entirely of the author's recommendations,
and. opinions regarding the Indian Point Order, especially questions for consideration and decision criteria.
This pre-decisional document is exempt from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 5 and is being withheld for reasons described above.
l 8106030JfJ
2 Document #2.
Memo from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re Indian Point, dated 9/18/80.
Document #3.
Memo from D.
Hassell to Commissioner Hendrie Re Indian Point Order, dated 10/15/80.
Document-#4.
Memo from D.
Hassell to Commissioner Assistants Re:- Indian Point Order and enclosure, dated 10/17/80.
Document #5.
Commissioner Hendrie's note and D.
Harsell's note Re:
Commissioner Gilinsky's memo dated 9/30/80.
Document #6.
D. Eassell note on T. Gibbon's memo dated 9/18/80.
These documants contain draft versions of portions of the Indian Point Order and comments thereon in the form of recommendations and opinions.
These records are a part of the deliberative process, the disclosure of which would inhibit the free flow of advice, opinions, and recommendations among Commissioners and between Commissionera and their principal advisors.
They are therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5 and are being withheld for reasons described above.
Any factual matter is already in the public record through the Task Force Report.
Document #7.
Commissioner Hendrie's notes on L.
Bickwit and E. Hanrahan's meno dated 7/15/80 Re:
Indian Point Units 2 and 3 -- Memorandum and Order.
This document consists of ?.he author's comments upon a draft. version of the India n Point Order and is exempt from mandatory disclosure under Exemptica 5.
It is being withheld for reasons described above.
Attach ed to this document le a copy of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Motion to Disqualify Commissioner Hendrie, filed with the Commission on June 23, 1980, which is already available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washing ton, D.C., and at the Local Public Document Room situated at the M11te Plains Public Library,1011te Plains, New York.
This letter represents the final action of the Commission in this matter.
Judicial review of this decision is available in a
3 district' court of the. United States in the district in which you-reside or have your principal place of business, in whic'i - the records. are located, or in the District of Columbia.
~
's necrel h$
.J Ch Secretar:( ~ of the Commission s
" Attachment List of' documents.
l 1
t t
i
.+
n
+,
Re:
FOIA-81 43 APPEtiDIX 1.
Memo from Comissioner Hendrie to_ Comissioners Re: SECY-A-80-95 and SECY-A-80-96, dated 7/22/80 2
Memo from Comissioner Hendrie to Comissioners Re: Indian Point, dated 9/18/80 3
McDo from D. Hassell to Comissioner llendrie Re: Indian Point Order, dated 10/15/80 4.
Memo from D. Ilassell to Comissioner Assistants Re: Indian Point Order and enclosure, dated 10/17/80 5.
Comissioner Hendrie's note end D. Hassell's note Re: Comissioner Gilinsky's memo dated 9/30/80 6.
D. Hassell note un T. Gibbon's memo dated 9/18/80 7
Comissioner Hendire's notes on t.. Dickwit and E. llanrahan's memo
. dated 7/15/80 Re: Indien Point Units 2 & 3 -- Mer.orandum and Order e
l I
t i
e g
e
.G l
t APPEAL FROM INITIAL FOIA DECISION February 18, 1981 Secretary of the Commission and/or Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission APPEAL OF INITIAL FOIA DECISION 3
[/ _f / C ( FO-Oh Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
b '~'
This letter constitutes a formal appeal of your letter dated January 21, 1981, signed by Mr. J.M. Felton, and referred to as FOIA-80-578.
In that letter _ numerous documents were listed on Appendix B as being exempt pursuant to Exemption (5) of the Freedom of Information Act and pertinent implementing regulations.
It is my contention that certain of those documents, in toto and/or in part, are not covered by Exemption (5) in that some of the material is factual as distinguished from policy advice, that some of the material was incorporated into the agenc 4 order of January 8,1981 on interim operation of Indian Point 2 and 3, and that in any event Exemption (3) is not to be applied by rote but that a balancing of the public interest favors disclosure in this particular request.
In addition, I contend that there is additionat relevant information in documentary form that was not listed on either A>pendix A or Appendix B in your January 21, 1981 response to my November 17, 1980 request for such documents.
I trust that the time requirements of 10 CFR secs. 9.11 cnd 9.13 will be adhered to in dealing with this appeal.
Thanking you for your continued cooperation, I am Sincerely yours,
/1 i
,GI, rl Q f &(
Robert R. Holt, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology fO TfloW606%(o
N
('
,.y o %,,
f N.
- y ". g' f;[p]..'$
M NI; CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
', e
- r. AseoncioN. o. c. 20sz T,f*L /
January 21, 1981 Robert R. liolt, Ph.D New York University Department of Psychology 6 Washington Place, 4th Florr IN RESPONSE REFER New York, NY 10003 TO F01A-80-578
Dear Dr. Holt:
This is in respuisse to your letter dated November 17, 1980 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of all documents regarding the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point submitted to the NRC Comissioners in June,1980 and any other subsequent correspondence.
The documents listed on Appendix A are enclosed.
The documents listed
~
on Appendix B contain information which constitutes advice, opinions and recommendations of the staff.
This information is being withheld from public 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) of the Coninission's regulations.
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 conmission 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 Commission.
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,
\\
, g -
.... J J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated pf;g o SI(L2($365 39p}
m
7--;
- e-
.(,
.(
R3: F01A-80-578 APPENDIX A 1..
. 6/13/80-
' itemo to Commissioner llendrie from lierb Fontecilla
-2.-
. 6/30/80
- Memo to llanrahan/Bickwit from S. Chilk -
Staff Requirements of Briefing on Recoanendations of Indian Point Task Force (transcript of meetin Public Document Room)g available in the 3.
7/2/80.
Memo to Commissioner Ahearne from Commissioner llendrie 4.
- 7/22/80 Memo to Manning from liassell t
G e
9
- e I
u W
e v
3
r.
,c s
4 ;.;
(
Re:
' APPENDIX B 1.-
6/25/80
' Memo from Tom Gibbon to Commissioner Bradford Re: Indian Point 2.
7/11/80 Note from Bill Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Interim Operations 3.
7/16/80 Note from Bill Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Interim Operations 4.
7/21/80 Memo from Manning to Commission Assistants Re: Draft Order' 5.
7/25/80 Draft of Commissioner Gilinsky's separate views 6.
7/25/80 Memo from Bradford to Commissioners Re:
Indian Point 7.
8/1/80 Memo from Roger Tweed to Samuel Chilk Re:
Indian Point 8.
9/23/80 Memo from Bill Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 9.
9/30/80 Memo from Commissioner Gilinsky to Commissioners Re: Draft Order 10.
11/5/80 Memo from Bill Manning to Samuel Chilk Re:
Draft Order 11.
11/23/80 Bill Manning's handwritten notes Re:
Draft Order 12.
11/25/80 Note from Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 13.
11/26/80 Note from Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 14.
Undated Note from Bill Manning to Commissioner Gilinsky Re: Comments on Task Force Report
'15.
Undated Draft - Gilinsky questions to the Appeal Board e
- a.,';.
g"
['
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQJEST New York University
- ~~
A priwsc uniwrsity in the public service F:culty of Arts and Science Department of Psychology Psych: fogy Building.
6 Washington Place,4th Floor New York, N.Y.10003 Telephone: (212) 598 2745 November 17, 1980 Mr. Joseph Felton, Director FREEDOM OF INFORMAT10rf Division of Rules and Records ACT. Rf.QUESI Office of Administration
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission F 2 A--80 -57 7 Washington, DC 20555 g /g g pg
Dear Mr. Felton,
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request copies of the following:
all reports, memoranda, drafts, statements of data, and other working documents 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.
Thanking you for your cooperation, I am Sincerely yours, t-htas Robert R.
Holt, Ph.D.
Prrfessor of Psychology RRH:jc Y
=
3
'o
'ry
[
/$por UNITcD STATES f
{
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.g g
WA$W NG mN, D. C. 20555 s
S{
f i
p March 25,1981 Robert R. Ifolt, Ph.D.
New York University Desprtment of Psychology 6 4ashington Place 4th Floor IN RESPONSE REFER New York, NY 10003 TO F0!A-81-43
Dear Dr. liolt:
This is in further response to your previous Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Tack Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.
NRC staff have recently located additional documents subject to your request.
These documents, listed on the appendix, contain information which constitutes advice, opinions and recommendations of the staff.
This information is being withheld from public 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 pubite interest.
The person responsible for this denial is Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
This denial may be appealed to the Conmission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Connission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, t!ashington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FGIA Decision".
S ncerely, W
. / $p;H
- ft t
. M. Felton, Director D,1 vision of Rules and Records
- Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated 3up of D +4bi.44 n (2 P)
P
ajq'. +
+-
~
.M{)lA-81-43
-R
?
E APPENDIX.
1.
Memo from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re: SECY-A-80-95 and SECY-A-80-96,' dated 7/22/80
- 21 Memo-from Commissioner Hendrie to Commissioners Re: Indian Point, dated.9/18/80 4
3.
Memo from D. Hassell to Connissioner llendrie 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. Hasse11's note Re: Commissioner Gilinsky's memo dated 9/30/80 6.
D. Hassell note un T. Gibbon'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 t
4