ML20113G427
| ML20113G427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1984 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Aftergood S COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113G428 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-198 SECY-83-500, NUDOCS 8501240352 | |
| Download: ML20113G427 (6) | |
Text
b - OI
/g,.+,I'(
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
Jllt 251984 Mr. Steven Aftergood Comittee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue #203 IN RESPONSE REFER Los Angeles, CA 90025 TO F01A-84-198
Dear Mr. Aftergood:
This is in response to your letter dated March 18, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Infomation Act, a copy of SECY-83-500 and all documents concerning the SECY paper.
The documents listed on Appendix A are enclosed and are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
The documents listed on Appendix B are being withheld in their entirety 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 Commission's regulations. There are no reasonably segregable factual portions.
Document 1 and its enclosures on Appendix B contain predecisional advice, recomendations, and analysis of the Director, Office of Policy Evaluation to the Commission concerning a proposed amendment. The factual contents in these documents are already in the public record in the SECY paper file in the Public Document Room and release of the factual portions in these documents would reveal a predecisional evaluation of which facts are important. See Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 2 GDS 1 81.123 (D.D.C.1981), aTf'd, 682 F. 2d 1045 (D.C. Cir.1982).
Release of the documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process.
Document 2 and its enclosure on Appendix B contain the legal analysis, opinions, and recommendations of the General Counsel to the Comissioners on a request by the NRC staff to initiate a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 73.40(a), regarding what measures should be necessary to protect a research reactor from potential sabotage.
Release of the documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process.
OSOth0352040725 1A PDR AhERGO94~190
.e g
Mr. Steven Aftergood Documents 3 through 7 on Appendix B contain the advice and recommendations of Commissioner assistants and reflect the predecisional process between Connissioners and their assistants.
Release of these documents would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process.
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 the denial of document 1 is Mr. John Zerbe, Director, Office of Policy Evaluation. The person responsible for the denial of documents 2 through 7 is Mr. John Hoyle, Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
These denials 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 Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
This completes action on your request.
Si cerely, 9-A
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated i
1 a
RE: F01A-84-198 APPENDIX A 1.
October-December 1983 NUREG-0936, Volume 2. Number 4; Clarification of General Physical Requirements.
(2 pages) 2.
11/9/83 Routing and Transmittal Slip to Sarah Wigginton from Carl Withee,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(2pages) 3.
12/6/83 SECY-83-500,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(16pages) 4.
12/6/83 Memo to the Comissioners from William J. Dircks,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(4 pages) 5.
11/10/83 Note to Sue Gagner from Carl Withee.
(15 pages)**
6.
11/10/83 Memo listed addressee form Robert F. Burnett,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(16 pages)**
7.
11/22/83 Routing and Transmittal Slip to Sarah Wigginton and Bob Fonner from Carl Withee.
('16 pages)**
8.
11/14/83 Memo to John G. Davis from Robert F. Burnett,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement (73.40(a)).
(18 pages)**
9.
11/16/83 Memo for Raymond F. Fraley thru George Beveridge from Robert F. Burnett,
SUBJECT:
Proposed Clarifying Amendment to General Physical Protection Requirement (10 CFR 73.40(a)).
(10pages)**
10.
12/12/83 tiemo to Guy Cunningham from John G. Davis,
SUBJECT:
Transmittal Memorandum on the Proposed Clari-fying Amendment to 10 CFR 73.40(a).
(2 pages) 11.
11/28/83 Memo to William Dircks from John G. Davis,
SUBJECT:
Proposed Clarifying Amendment to 10CFR73.40(a).
(17 pages)**
12.
11/1/83 Memo to John G. Davis from Robert F. Burnett,
SUBJECT:
Hearing Board Findings on UCLA.
(3pages) l l
l
13.
11/14/83 Memo to Carl Withee from John Philips,
SUBJECT:
DRR Review of Amendment to 10 CFR Part 73,
" Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirements".
(17 pages)**
14.
11/16/83 Memo to Robert F. Burnett from Ross A. Scarano,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement (73.40(a)).
(1 page) 15.
11/16/83 Memo to Robert F. Burnett from Karl R. Goller,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement (73.40(a)).
(,1 page) 16.
11/16/83 Memo to Robert F. Burnett from Thomas T. Martin,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement (73.40(a)).
(1 page) 17.
11/17/83 Memo to John Davis from Richard DeYoung,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Re-quirement (73.40(a)).
(17pages)**
18.
11/10/83 Annotated ELD Uail Control Form.
(1 page) 19.
11/18/83 Note to E. S. Christenbury from J. R. Gray,
SUBJECT:
Proposed Rulemaking "Clarifyino" Physical Protection Requirements of 10 CFR 73.40(a).
(17 pages)**
20.
11/21/83 Memo to Robert Burnett from Darrell G. Eisenhut,-
SUBJECT:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement (73.40(a)).
(1 page) 21.
11/22/83 Memo to W. J. Dircks from R.F. Fraley,
SUBJECT:
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material" and 10 CFR 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials".
(1 page) 22.
11/30/83 Routing Slip to the listed addressee from Withee,
SUBJECT:
Summary Sheet (Notation) for the Commiss-ioners fm Dircks re: Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(1 page) 23.
UNDATED Handwritten document by Sarah Wigginton re: Part 73.
(2pages) 24.
UhDATED Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 CFR, Part 73:
Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirement.
(DRAFT)
(6 pages) i
n i
25.
11/9/83 Note to File re: Part 73 Clarifying Amendment (73.40(a))-Carl Withee.
(1 page) 26.
11/9/83 Transmittal Routing Slip to Sarah Wigginton from Carl Withee.
(1 page) 27.
6/4/84 Notation Vote Response Sheet to S. J. Chilk from Chairman Palladino.
(1 page) 28.
3/1/84 Notation Vote Response Sheet to S. J. Chilk from Commissioner Asselstine.
(1 page) 29.
3/8/84 Notation Vote Response Sheet to S. J. Chilk from Comissioner Roberts.
(1page) 30.
6/13/84 Memo to William Dircks from Samuel Chilk,
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-500/83-500A.
(8pages)**
31.
6/4/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Chairman Palladino.
(1 page) 32.
4/3/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Comissioner Roberts.
(1page) i 33.
5/22/84 Affimation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Comissioner Asselstine.
(1page) 34.
6/4/84 Affirmation Response Sheet to Samuel Chilk from Commissioner Bernthal.
(1 page) 35.
6/6/84 Memo to Samuel Chilk from'C. W. Reamer,
SUBJECT:
(3page) 36.
6/13/84 Memo to Herzel H. E. Plaine from Samuel Chilk,
SUBJECT:
Staff Requirements - Affirmation /
Discussion and Vote, 4:30 P.M., Thursday, June 7, i
1984, Comissioners' Conference Room, D. C.
I Office (0 pen To Public Attendance).
(2pages) i l
- Related documents are attached.
4 9
l l
l
7
~
Re:
F01A-84-198 APPENDIX B 1.
Memo from J. E. Zerbe to Cannission re: Clarification of Physical Protection Requirement dated 1/17/84 (four page memo; Enclosure 1-2 pages; Enclosure 2-2 pages).
2.
SECY-84-ll6-Seven-page. memorandum dated March 15, 1984 to the Commissioners from H.E. Plaine, General Counsel,
Subject:
UCLA Reactor Lincense Renewal Proceeding and Staff Request to Initiate Rulemaking on the Interpretation of 10 CFR 73.40(a); three-page attachment, draft order re:
propose renewal of UCLA Research Reactor License.
3 Note from Dan Garner, Technical Assistant, to Chairman Palladino, re: SECY-83-500 and SECY-84-ll 6, dated 6/1/84.
4.
Note from Bill Reamer, Legal Assistant, to D. Garner re:
SECY-83-500 and SECY-84 Il6, dated 3/22/84.
5.
Note from Bill Reamer to D. Garner re: SECY-83-500, dated 1/31/84.
6.
Memo from Steve Sohinki, Legal Assistant, to Commissioner Bernthal re: SECY-83-500, SECY-83-500A, and SECY-84-116, dated 4/10/84 7.
Memo from Pat Davis, Legal Assistant, to Commissioner Asselstine re: SECY-84 ll 6, undated.
O
(D
~
NUREG-0936 Vol. 2, No. 4 NRC Regulatory Agenda Quarterly Report October - December 1983 I
a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of Administration p****%<,,
o#
s
/
)
o J
ls.
l l
l TITLE:
+ Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirements CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 73 ABSTRACT:
The general physical protection requirement for fixed sites (Sec.
73.40(a)) is being amended to clarify that the threat of either radiological sabotage or theft, or both, must be treated in a licensee's physical security plan in accordance with the more detailed requirements of other sections of 10 CFR Part 73 which apply to specific classes of licensees or specific types of material. This action is being taken because an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in a recent ruling, has made an interpretation of the general requirement which is different from the interpretation currently being applied. This action will clarify the Commission's policy regarding the rule's intent and will codify present application of the general physical protection requirement. No economic impact on a licensee will result from this action.
TIMETABLE:
NPRM 02/00/84 1
l LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Carl J. Withee Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4040
-109-sums--em-m um
'