ML20049H153
| ML20049H153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1981 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-81-176, NUDOCS 8110280632 | |
| Download: ML20049H153 (16) | |
Text
..
g; -. ;c 1
f a nauq A
-March 18. 1981 SECYe81;176
'l s%,...../
POLICY ISSUE:
(Affirmation)
~
For:
The Commissioners From:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
General Counsel
Subject:
COMMISSION RESPONSE TO HOLT.FOIA' APPEAL (81-A-1C)
Background:
On November 17, 1980, Robert Holt requested all, NRC records relating to' the report of the Task Force on Interim Ooeration of Indian Point'.
In. response, NRC released 4 documents and withheld 15 Commission-level documents under Exemption 5 (advice, opinion,'recommenda on) all of which are subiect _to this appeal.
We OS. reb recommend _
b J \\,
u,
\\
~.. _
--~
Discussion:
Our discusi~ ion ~~Tn Ehis paper is primarily
~
limited to those documents (or portions thereof) which we recommend s
L-i P
~ ~
Richard A. Parrish, OGC 634-3224 4
j~,
. yf 7
v.
information in this record was deleted Act, cremt 035__pedem of information in accordance with ib C.[jg)J > 0 '
,N
~
F0l A _ 8325
' l(
i
. ~
2 1.
" June 25, 1980 memo to commissioner Bradford from Tom Gibbon re: Indian Point."
h,.
V t
l
- W wmW#
d.
" July 11, 1980 note to Commissioner Gilinsky from Bill Manning re: Interim r_ Operations."
f /.)
/
f
-:=.
~
W.
" July 16, 1980 note to Commissioner Gilinsky from Bill Manning re: Interim Operations."
r.s \\<
(N f
s
..,.... r.. _ _
w" " * ~; # ~ "
'-a...
4 '.
" July 21, 1980 memo to Commission Assi
. ants from Bill Manning re: Draft Order."
~ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ -
b Gf J
)
j i
L..
(fz __m, 5.
" July 25, 1980 Draft of Commissioner
~
Gilinsky,'s Separa.te V.i.ew.s. "_
_-m
~
~ - ~.
q_
a.
O
3 a
6.
" July 25, 1980 memo to the Commissioners from Commissioner Bradford re: Indian Point."
.... - ~
(~~
(~
I 63' q_
t
~
7.
" August 1, 1980 memo to Samuel Chilk from Roger Tweed re: Indian Point."
m 7
4 - (J 8.
" September 23, 1980 memo to Commissioner Gilinsky from Bill Manning re:. Draft Order."
%,('
_.n.-.
9.
" September 30, 1980 memo to the Commissioners from Commissioner Gilinsky re: Draft Order."
r r~
'(Y.U(
- 10. " November 5, 1980 memo to Samuel Chilk from Bill Manning re: Draft Order."
v'y~a[
.-7----~--
w
- 11. " November 23, 19 80 handwritten notes of Draft Order.
Bill Manning re:
[
(
2
.~ _. -
- * - - - - ~ * + -. = ~. _ -.... _,.,,.,,
12.
" November 25, 1980 note to Commissioner Gilinsky from Bill Manning re: Draf t Order. "
. y.J{
S.
r q
, J'
~-.
- _ _. =
1 i
m
4 13.
" November 26, 1980 note to Commissioner Gilinsky from Bill Manning re Draft Order."
--s, 7
d)(.
I_
/
7 14.
" Undated note to Commissioner Gilinsky f rom John Austin (mistakenly attributed to Bill Manning in initial response) ret Task Force Report."
(_
J, '
\\
15 r-"Un' dated draft of Commissioner Gilinskys Ouestions for the Appeal Board."
k s.
Recommendation _:
,f -
(
l s
a. >, _v w. -
r_
Leonard Bickwit, J r.' '
General Counsel DISTRIBlfTION_
Conmissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat Attachments:
1.
Draft letter to Dr. Holt 2.
Documents proposed for disclosure 3.
List of documents reviewed 4.
Partial set of withheld documents 5.
Background correspondence Comissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretar) b;' c.o.b. Wednesday, April 1,1981.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be cubmitted to the Comissioners NLT -
with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of March 25, 1981, such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the-Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when connents may be expected.
This parec is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an O' pen Meeting during the Week of April 13,1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
I
.4 4,
w-
.xsJ e.
+
A.
A P
':g
.y t,
?
)
4 4
/
k/
l 4
e ATTACHMENT 2
' f i
e I
p
' F e
k o
r b
i f
' t B
f e
4
(
i a
' I s
e h
i i
I I
1
-J r
b
f{[
W[,o(9*)g g e [e MC3
~ :!
NYMIpG'0 YATES l m -, ? 3 7d M @ g (g $, f 5
. ?Jb;;m,,g() d 0
5 *.E r K H+W 22:rW:MG f
'NEw y0RK NY 10038 f M%G5W454f4%@
1-06a0305146 07/lu/Bn ICS IDMMTZ2 CSP WSWA
-s-(j 212Ta96c60 9G9 TDHT NEW YORK NY 054 07-14 11258 EST f
, " ss
( + /e' f
ELLYN WEISS fl J ~
- d SHEL )ON HARuCN AND WEISS 1725 I ST NORTHWEST SUITE 506
$\\
WASHINGTON DC 20006 DEAR COMMISSIONERS, WE APE INFDPMED
'.9'T ON FRIDAY, JUNE 15, YOU DECIDED (No i) TO ACCEPT AS IT STANDS THE REPORT OF THE STAFF TASK FORCE ON INTERIM OPERA OF INDIAN POINT, (No 23, TO DENY THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND THE CITIZENS' TASK FORCE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS REFORE YOU ON THE ISSUE, AND (No 3) TO INSTRUCT THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE 70 PREDARE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AN ORDER YHIC WOULO PERMIT INDIAN POINT 2 AND 3 To CONTINUE TO OPERATE DURING PENDENCY OF THE FORTHCnHING ADJUDICATION.
WE URGE YOU, AT THIS LATE HOMENT, TO SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER THE IMPORT OF THESE DECISICNS AND THE IMPLICIT, IF NOT, EXPLICIT, HESSAGES THEY CONVEY. WHATEVEA HAY HAVE BTEN YOUR INTENT, NEWS OF YOUR DECISION GOT REPOPTED IN THE N Y TIMES (JULY 12) AS " INDIAN POINT PLANT RULED SAFE'." AND THROUGWOUT THE COMMUNITY OF CnNCERNED INDIVIDUALS.
ORGANIZATIONS, THE HORD WENT ROUNO THAT THE COMMISSION FAS ALREADY JUD ED THE CASE, PEFORE THE ASLB HAS EVEN BEGUN ITS INVESTIGATION.
G HOWEVER, AND WE APPEAL TO YOU TO DEFER A FINAL THE DIE IS NOT CAST, OPERATION UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARF HE DECISION ON INTERIM OF THE NEW CHAIRMAN', IF HE IS TO PLAY A
- 1. SENATE CONFIRHATION GUIDING THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY PROCESS OF THE U S FOR LEADING. ROLE IN AT LFAST THE NEXT 5 YEARS, SURELY DR CARNESALE SHOULD BE DIRECTLY
(
INVOLyEO WITH DECISIONS ABOUT THE REACTOR THAT AFFECTS HORE PEOPLE IN j
THIS COUNTDY THAN ANY OTHER.
l
(
- 2. RELEASE OF THE FEHA REVIEW OF.THE STATUS OF STATE AND LOCAL EHE GENCY PLANNING ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT ON DECEMBEP 7, 1979 AND R
SENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE LATE IN JUNE WHERE IT HAS SINCE BEEN
(
EHRARGOED SINCE, IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, PROTFCTION OF THE PUBLIC WOULD ULTIMATFLY DEPEND ON THE ADEQUACY OF ENERGENCY PREPAREDNESS THE COMMISSION HUST ACQUAINT ITSELF FULLY WITH THE
(
REVIra BEFOPE CONCLUDING THAT THE PLANTS CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE TO THE PUBLIC. fHAY WE DURING THE A0JUDICATION WITHOUT UNOUE RISK REWIND THE COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, TWAT A NEW YORK STATE EHERGENCY JUNE 25 THAT NEW YORK PREP AREDNESS OFFICI AL TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU 04 couln NOT 9E IN COMPLIANCE WITH TWE NEW EvFDGENCY PLANNING
(
~
i i
- 3. COMPLETION OF THE AGENCY'S TASK r00CE wnDK. THE TASK FORCE S PEPODT FAILS TO PROVIDE SDECIFIC INF0puATInN GE00ESTE0 BY THE C0w"ISSION IN ITEMS 3, c, AND 5 0F ITS HAY 2R ORDEP. REGARDING ITEM 3,
AT NO PDINT DID THE STAFF TASK FORCE DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL CURRENT OR NEAR-FUTURE STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS FOR THE INDIAN POINT REGION INCLUDING MEW YO:K CITY. THE CouMISSION NEEDS TO DEFINE FOR ITS TASK FORCE A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FOR "p0TENTIAL EMERGENCY RES ONSE SYSTENS." CLEARLY THE RELEVANT TIME FRAHE HUST BE NOW AND P
THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE'. FOR EXAHPLE, IF THE HEARINGS CAN BE EXPECTED TO TAKE APDP0YINATELY A YEAR, EMERGENCY RESPONSE HEASURES THAT MAY BE IN PLACE SOPE TIME AFTER A YEAP FROM NOW, BUT NOT SOONER, ARE TOTALLY IRAELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF INTERIH OPERATIONS OURING THE HEARINGS.
THE TASK FORCE REPOPT WAS DEFICIENT ON ITEu a AS WELL, FOR IT DID NOT CONSIDEP, AS DIRECTED TO, THE~ " TECHNICAL DESIGN COMHENTS RECEIVE 0 IN RESPONSE TO THE CouMISSION'S FE9PUARY 15 SOLICITATION OF CDPHENTS.*
THE DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SUBMITTE0 BY THE UNION OF CONCEDNED SCIENTISTS AND OTHERS REQUIRC FULL CONSIDEDATION BY THE TASK FORCE A FEW BDIEF OUOTES INCLUDE 0 IN T HE SU'4 M A R Y OF PUBLIC COHuENT AT THE END OF THE REPORT 00 NOT CONSTITUTE "CONSInEoATION." INDEED, IT IS STRIKING THAT THE TASK FOPCE FAILED TO INCLUDE IN ITS ARRAY OF POSSIBLE ACCIDENT SCENARIOS USE0 AS A cpITERION OF DESIGN SAFETY, ANY OF THE POSSIBILITIES THAT WEPE THF RASIS OF THE UCS'S PETITION. NOR HAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PP05 ABILITIES OF ACCIDENTS OF EXTERNAL ORIGIN -- NOT JUST THINGS LIKE EARTHOUAKES OP TooNA00ES, BUT PLANE CoASHES, SABOTAGE, OR ACTS OF T ERRORISM, TO WHICH AN INTERNATIONAL POPULATION CENTER SUCH AS NYC HAY BE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE. FINALLY, YOUR TASK FORCE, REPORT FAILS TO DEAL FULLYWITH THE "NON-SAFETY' ASPECTS OF INTERIM SHUT 00NN H001FIED OUTPUT, OR CONTINUED OPERATION. SINCE THE LICENSEES, CE0TAIN ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND OTHER PROPONENTS OF NUCLEAR POWER, HAVE PREDICTED THAT AN INTERIM SHUTDOWN OF INDIAN POINT WOULD HAVE DIRE ECON 0"IC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR N Y,
AND $1NCE IT IS POSSIRLE THAT THESE WAPNINGS HAVE HAD 50"E IMPLICIT, IF NOT EXPLICIT, INFLUENCE ON THE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION, IT WOULO SEEH NECESSARY THAT THESE ISSUES RE AIRED FULLY IF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE TO ARRIVE AT AN INFORMED OECISION ON INTERIM OPEPATIONS. WHEN THE TASK FORCE C0wPLETES ITS WORK. WE HOPE THAT THE COMMISSIONEPS WILL SUBJECT THE FINISFED REPORT TO "UCH CLOSER SCRUTINY THAN THEY DIO AT THE INITIAL BRIEFING.
- n. ORAL PoESENTATIONS ON THE ISSUE OF INTERIH ODERATIONS BY THE CJTIZENS' TASK FORCE AND THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS'. IF YOUR DECISION ON INTERIM ODERATIONS IS TO BE BASE 0 ON FULL CONSIDERATION OF ALL ISSUES, YOU HUST ALLOW US TO PRESENT OUR ARGUMENTS TO YOU'. WE HAVE POINTS TO HAKE AND QUESTIONS TD PAISE AND WE WOULO WELCowE YOUR QUESTInUS OF US. hE CAN NOT AFFORO 70 GO TO COURT TO APPEAL A RULING AGAINST US CAS CAN THE UTILITIES): WE HOPE YOU WILL ALLOW US TO PRESFNT 000 CASE TO YOU N0k.
RES FCTTULLf P
?,M.
[dllkU ((c l f) ll j 1 b..b f q ;1. u.a4^c.y_a,.7,.. s._...ac J.
~8
.,.3 1 -- ~g yr*as k gp
..\\py2q$Wc ~ ~..tf.:'.m. :
..._ ~ - - _.4.ouJ.,m~,,_-er
-*.t::r <..
~. ~.. -E:.:1.w.
~
m.
,,,.7-
- .s. ww- ~
s CITIZEN 8S TASK FOPCE CARE OF N Y PURLIC INTf9EST QESEARCH GROUP INC-5 9EFx4&N ST N Y kt Y 16038
(
CCi ELLYN WEISS SWELOOk' HARMON AND KEISS 172S I ST NORTHWEST su!TE 506 WASw1NGTON OC 70006
(
^
l CONGRESSWOMAN ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN HOR
[.:
WASHINGTON DC 20515
.-ATTN JOANN MACBETH JOAN HOLT 23i26 EST
(
MGMC0"P HGM
(
C 8
i
'C
-( -
(
l
('
(o 4
I
(..
en s
.e e. e
+
,&y
,k-L,)n--A,---4%
6-as A
=.m..,
ms me b h.s**'+,4 em en,L t
-4A as as
.r a<e-J$2mw.S
+
k v f ATTACHMENT 3 r a h + i t i ) 1 I I ' l l l - 1 APPENDIX B 1. 6/25/80 Memo from Tom Gibbon to Comissioner Bradford Re: Indian Point 2. '7/11/80 Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Interim Operations 3. 7/16/80 Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gi.linsky Rei Interim Operations 4. 7/21/80 Memo from Manning to Comission Assistants Re: Draft Order 5. 7/25/80 Draft of Comissioner Gilinsky's separa'te l views 6. 7/25/80 Memo from Bradford to Comissioners Re: Indian Point 7. 8/1/80 Memo from Roger Tweed to Samuel Chilk R.e: In.dian Point 8. 9/23/80 Memo from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 9. 9/30/80 Memo from Commissioner Gilinsky to Comissioners Re: Draft Order 10, 11/5/80 Memo from Bill Manning to Samuel Chilk Re: Draft Order 11. 11/23/80 Bil_1 Manning'.s handwritten notes Re: Draft Order 12. 11/25/80 Note from Manning to Com 5:,ioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 13. 11/26/80 Note from Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 14 Undated Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Coments on Task Force Report 15. Undated Draft - Gilinsky questions to the Appeal Board t = a .i4.- mA 422 rav .. 43A - ' h j e - i . I l 9 2 P 1 ~ a ATTACHMENT 5 f f I O e ? s r 4 6 . I r 5 b i h O r t 9 3 --n- -,. ~ .,..-,y y y g, m., _.. i:REEDOM'OF INFORMATION ACT REQJEST- .T New York Unhcrsity ' A prisate university in the publir service Faculty of Arts and Science Department of Psychology + . Psychology. Building 6 Washington Place,4th Floor New York, N.Y.1000) Telephone: (212) $98 274$ November. 17,-1980 FREEDOM OF INFORMATIOK ? Mr. Joseph Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records ACT. REQUEST._ Office of Administration @g_g Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 M g//gp M---
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, (2aAnd Robert R. Holt, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology RRH:jc
'i I
O
- 9 i
- h
UfMT E D STATES
' ~[%.
9/1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!.*,f.*lSSION 3,.,.y,,..j,y'/
y WASHING TON. D. C. 20ZL r
- , JI!l:
o %, v p
January 21, 1981 Robert R. Holt, Ph.D New York University Department of Psychology 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor IN RESPONSE REFER New York, NY 10003 TO F01A-80-578
Dear Dr. Holt:
This'is in response 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 Comission'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 Comission within 30 days frcm 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,
\\
0
/
gv.,
J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated b
s:
Re:
F01A-80-578 APPENDIX A 1,
6/13/80 Memo to Commissioner Hendrie from Herb Fontecilla 2.
6/30/80 Memo to Hanrahan/Bickwit from S. Chilk -
Staft Requirements of Briefing on.
Recommendations of Indian Point Task Force (transcript of. meeting available in the Public Document Room) 3.
7/2/80 Memo to Commissioner Ahearne from Commissioner Hendrie 4.
7/22/80 Memo to Manning from Hassell 4
e e
0 e
e I
O *
'f" Re:
F01A-80-578 3-APPENDIX B
- 1. -
6/25/80 Memo from Tom Gibbon to Comissioner Bradford Re: Indian Point 2.
7/11/80 Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Interim Operations 3.
7/16/80 Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Rei Interim Operations 4.
7/21/80 Memo from Manning to Comission Assistants Re: Draft Order 5.
7/25/80 Draft of Comissioner Gilinsky's separa'te views 6.
7/25/80 Memo from Bradford to Comissioners Re:
Indian Point 7.
8/1/80 Memo from Roger Tweed to Samuel Chilk R.e:
Indian Point 8.
9/23/80 Memo from Bill Mannir.g to Comissioner 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:
Draf t Order 11.
11/23/80 Bill Manning's handwritten notes Re:
Draft Order 12.
11/25/80 Note from Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Draft Order 13.
11/26/80 Note from Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Draf t Order 14 Undated Note from Bill Manning to Comissioner Gilinsky Re: Comments on Task Force Report 15.
Undated Draft - Gilinsky questions to the Appeal Board
m APPEAL FROM ZNI'IZAL FOIA DECISION February 18, 1981 Secretary of the Commission and/or Executive Director for Operations APPEAL OF INITIAL FO!A DECISION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f f_./C(PO-O Washington, D.C.
20555 O"
Dear Sir:
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 Treedom 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 /s order of January 8, 1981 on interim-operation of Indian Point 2 and 3, and that in any event Exemption (5) 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 additional relevant information g
in documentary form that was not listed on either Appendix A or Appendix B in your January 21, 1981 response to my November 17, 1980 request for g/[I such documents.
~
I trust that the time requirements of 10 CFR secs. 9.11 and 9.13 vill be adhered to in dealing with this appeal.
Thanking you for your continued cooperation, I am Sincerely yours, m p'
,,v; du Robert R. Holt, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology e