ML20147H945

Fifth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App I Being Made Available for Pdr.App J Records Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)

ML20147H945
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/08/1997
From:	Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Williams O JRA ASSOCIATES
Shared Package
ML20147H952	List: IA-96-466, Submits Followup to Earlier Conversation ML20147H945 ML20147H961 ML20147H975 ML20147H981 ML20147H986
References
FOIA-96-466 SECY-96-189-C, NUDOCS 9704100051
Download: ML20147H945 (4)

Text

,

U.S. NUCLEAR NEGULATOR Y COMMISSION NRC f OlA REQUEST NUMBE RIS FOIA - FMM)/

4' [.%

Response rvPe QM RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF I m^t IA1 PAFITIAL J'7 i

i iNFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST o^TE

'N APR 0 81997 ese<*

DOCKET NUMBE R(S) p/apphcab/e/

EoVESTER

/

PART 1.-AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checkedboxes)

No agency records sabject to the request have been located.

No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section, Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Append;x(es) are already available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)

M are being made available for public. inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Ror<in,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC,in a foider under this FOlA number.

The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my stof f is now being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOI A number.

1 Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) may be inspected and copied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identifiea in the Comments section.

Enclosed is mformation brt how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Pub!ic Document Room,2120 L Street, N.t?, Washington, DC.

g Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.

RIcords subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agency (ies) for review and direct response to you.

Fm You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaling S You will receive a refund from the N RC in the amount of $

i in view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated

, No.

PART 11. A-lNFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE i

Cert in information in the raiquested reenrds is being withheld f rom public filsclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated j

In Pcrt it, B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public l

inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOI A number.

)

l COMMENTS l

l i

/

b l

l /.

REco[r poRMATION AND PUBUCAtlON5 SERVICES isioN oe us.olRtetoy

')

Wr %f Q, w, f,, wf

,y mp 3;,

,c

.u fp

., r

,,,ya w

c n c, -

am9 a

g$@$$hM " "

N-h.

l e

m 1

['

l

.gl g

k[${%M " Gbl-

% "M -

9704100051 970400 p

gp' M

PDR FOIA e"s

-m e

_i WILLIAM 96-466 PDR j

=c.en:n au en lm on

.=

7OI A v>McERt3}

DATE

' RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOIA (CONTl UATION) 1 1

PART 11.8-APPUCABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendix (es) are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the E ernption No.(s) and for the reason (s) given below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of N RC regulations.

1. The withheid c ormation 6s property classified pursuent to ExecutNo Order. (Exemptkin 1) o 1

. I2. The wethhe.d enformaten relates solely to the internal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (Exemption 2) l l

l3 The withheld enformation as specifically esemptr 1 from pubhc disclosure by statute indicated,(Exemption 3)

Gections141145 of the Atomic Energy Act, whief' prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Date or Formsrly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 21612165L Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, tshich prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167L 4, The withheld oformaten as a trade secret or commercial or financial informaten that is being withheld for tne reasonist indicated. (Exemption 4)

The mformation is considered to be confidentiel business (propnetary) mformation.

The informat#on m conskiered to be propnetary eformation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dH1).

~

The information was, submitted and received an confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dH2).

( $, The withheld mformation consists of mterogency or mtraagency records that are not available througn discovery dunng litigation (Exemption 5), Applicable Privilege:

Debberative Process: Disclosure of predecisional information'would tend to mhebst the open and frank encunge of ideas essentiel to the deliberauve process Who,e records are withheld m theer entirety, the f acts are mentricably intertwmed with the predecisional mformation There also are no reasonably segregable f actual portions because the release of the f acts would permit an mdirect equiry mto the predecisional process ci the agency.

Attorney work product pewslege (Documents prepared by an attorney era conternplauon of htigation i Attorney. client privilege (Confidential commumcations between an ettorney and his/her client.)

6. The wethheld mictmation is exempted from pubhc disclosure because its disclosure would result m a clearly unwarranted evasion of personal pnvecy (Exemption 6)

7. The withheld snformation consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is bemg withheld for the reason (s) indicated (Exemption 7)

Disclosure could reasonably be expected to amorfere with an enfor.:ement proceridmg because it could reveal the scope, direction, and focus of enforcement efforts. and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to Shield potential wrorydomg or a violation of N RC requirements from investigators. (E nemption 7 ( AH Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted mvasion of personal pnvecy. (Ememption 7(C))

The mformateon consists of names of mdividuals and other informaton the disclosure of wh*ch could reasonably be encacted to reveal identities of contniential sources. (Exemption 7 (D))

OTHLH l

PART 11. C-DENYl*4G OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CF R 925(b) areos 9 251c) of the U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisuon regulations. it has been determmed that the informaison withheid is exempt from pro-duction or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the pubhc interest. The persons responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officiels and the Director, Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services. Office of Administration, for any denists that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operetions IEDO) l DEisVING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL 7 60 SECMTAAy G

.., /

,/

.. p l

1 1

1 l

PART 11. D-APPEAL RIGHTS The demal by each denyms official identified in Part ll.C may be appealed to the Appellate Official identified there, Any such appeal must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt cf this response. Appsats rnust be addressed. es appropriate, to the Emacuthre Defector for Operations. to the Secretary of the Commession, or to the inspector Generel U.S. Nuclear Regu4 story Comrmesion. Washington, OC 20%5, and should clearly ettte on the envelops and in the letter that at is en " Appeal from en initial FOI A Decision."

NRC FORM 444 (Part 21 (191)

U.S. NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMISSION

8.'

g W

Re:. FOIA-96-466 APPENDIX i RECORDS BEING REl. EASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY

.l

)

HQ, DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNI)

~

1 Undated

" Commissioner Diaz' Comments on SECY-96-189", with attached i

marked-up pages (3 pages).

2.

09/05/96 Note to Commissioner Assistants from J. Blaha,

Subject:

Background Information for SECY-96-189 (6 pages) 3.

09/13/96 Draft memo to J. M. Taylor from G. J. Dicus, (not finalized nor signed by Commissioner Dicus) with potential questions on 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters (2 pages)

T 4.

09/18/96 Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information Need for 50.54(f) Letter to Licensees with annotations (7 pages)

I 4

5.

09/26/96 Letter from J. Conran to E McGaffigan, providing supplementa!

l comments for clarity and completeness (3 pages) 1 6.

10/01/96 E-mail message from J. Conran to M. Fleishman, Subject Boilerp(ate for 50.54(f) Info request, transmitting a document (1 page) 1 2

e

[(.;

i i

j Re: FOIA 96-466 APPENDlX J i

RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN PART fEL DATE DESCRIPTION /fPAGE COUNT)/ EXEMPTIONS i

1 1.

10/08/96 E-mail message from J. Conran to J. Johnson, with attachment

{

providing, "Some followup comments to our earlier conversation" (1 page) EX. 5 a

i i

r r

O f

e 9

i

J. A

}

J/R/A ASSOCIATES 1

Regulatory Information & Support Systems P.O. Box 4604

.CapholHeights, MD 20791-4(04 (301) 249-9672 1

October 25,1996

)

l OGW-96-193 9/,- fle la

)

i Mr. Fnamall A. Powell, Chief gg:

Freedom ofInformation/Iscal Public Document gg

//-/3 44 1

Room Branch m()g: -

&c/

M/S T6D8 -

RMCase:

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

i

~ Washington,'DC 20555

SUBJECT:

FREEDOM OFINFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr. Powell:

Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 USC Paragraph 552), I hereby request copies of L

any and all documents related to the iemance of the October 9,1996 letter from Mr. James Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to licensee Chief Executive OfBcers. He letter 4

requested information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) regarding the adequacy and availabihty of 4

Design Bases information in order to provide the NRC added confidence and assurance that

)

i nuclear power plants are operated and maintained within the Design Bases and that any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner.

l i

I herein request an information referred to in the above paragraph, in whatever form, written or l

othmwise, including, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, records of reviews performed by i

the NRC Staff and the Commission, statements, notes, summaries, drafts, correspondence, interview reports, files, records, and any other data compilation, regardless of origination.

l For each and any requested item, or portion thereof, that you withhold puranant to a Frealom of i

Information Act exemption, please provide an index itemiring and describing the items wahheM and individuaHy disclosing the specific basis for the withholding. Whatever expenses may be i

associated with this request wiH be acceptable, up to a maxhmim of $500.00 and for any fees or j

expenses incurred pursuant to this request, please forward the charges, along with the requested t-records and information, to my attention at the addras above.

Please callifyou have questions.

i b

k

WW)!xK y.

- a,

. +.w

.1

.y y;

/_

a J'

Mr. Powell -

Pagh 2 '

i y'

j r

j

Ihank you for your services.

4 b

Sin

ely, i

)

he in G.,

dliasim

l 4

4 s

d I

'l e

. i A

i a

1 i

\\

4 i

i If Y*

i er t

4 4

4 I

I 1

4 1

i l

- !1

i s.

1 c,4k" "'4',k i

UNITED STATES g

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055dM201 3

%..... /

September 5, 1996 NOTE TO COMMISSIONER ASSISTANT _S.

OCM/SJ OCM/KR QCM/GJD L Marylee Slosson Myron Karman

_ Brad Jones

_ Annette Vietti-Cook L Mort Fleishman L Terence.Chan Mitzi Young Jack Sorensen

_ Anthony.Markley James Johnson Seth Coplan

_ Joel Lubanau

_ Brian Holian

. _ -Lynn Deering

_ Keith McDaniel Regis Boyle Lil-Vancise

_ Donna Smith

_. Bob Mc0sker Ann Haikalis

_ Joanne Field Jackie Silber Janice Dunn Lee Chris tillier 0CM/ND OCM/EM-Scott Moore Gerry Schuetze Maria Lopez-Otin L Joe Gray Evelyn Williams L Charlie Ader

_ Cathy Grimes Judy Ledbetter Vicki Bolling

_ Linda Lewis Pat Celenza Leslie Hill FROM:

James L. Blaha Assistant for 0 e' ations, OED0

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR SECY-96-189 Attached are some hypothetical questions and the staff's replies rcgarding SECY-96-189 and the 50.54(f) letter the staff proposes to send to all licensees to gather information about destg1 basis reconstruction efforts.

d Several of these responses were provided in the briefing package for the forthcoming Congressional Hearings.

Attachment:

As stated cc:

J. Taylor, EDO (w/ attachment)

J. Milhoan, DEDR (w/ attachment)

J. Blaha, A0/0ED0 (w/sttachment)

V. McCree, OED0 (w/ attachment)

W. Dean, OEDO (w/ attachment) 1 SECY (w/ attachment) g/

OGC (w/ attachment)

/V f

)

Y cH e m e w f Gre

Design Basis' Issues w/ 50.54f 2

Q: At which plants has the NRC identified programmatic weaknesses i

which could impact the operability of' required equipment or raise

[

unreviewed safety questions?

A Operability concerns were identified at the Millstone units and at the Baddam Neck plant; these facilities are presently shut down and will remain so until these concerns are resolved. Other design issues were identified as a result of NRC inspections of j

refueling practices and as part of other recent inspections.

The accumulated findings of these inspections are the basis for NRC's

{

concern t'hmt the problems may not be limited to the !!illstone and f.

Haddam Neck facilities.

Qt In light of the inspection findings and NRC's concern as demonstrated by issuance of letters to CEOs under 50.54(f), what is the basis for continued op; ration of these facilities?

3 i

l At The issues noted reveal problems in implementation of i

processes that warrant increased NRC and licensee attention.

However, the extent and significance of the findings to date do not demonstrate immediate concerns about equipment operability except at the few plants which are presently shut down.

The information obtained in the licensees' responses will be used by the NRC to prioritise and better focus its continuing oversight, such as through design inspections, as well as other engineering l

inspection activities.

The NRC believes it is prudent to pursue this area to determine whether extensive problems exist at other facilities.

Qt Why did four years pass between the issuance of the Commission's policy statement and the Commission's recognition of these broad programmatic weaknesses?

How could NRC have identified these weaknesses and taken action sooner?

i

.m

l' At The NRC had intended to continue design-related inspections after the policy statement was issued.

over the next several years, in response.to findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified in the 1991 Regulatory Impact survey, the staff reduced its effort on specific, ruseurce-intensive, design-related team inspections and refocused its inspection program on operational safety and performance.

The refocused inspection activities provided onlj limited insight into the maintenance and use of design basis information as compared to the design-related tema inspections.

1 Recent NRC inspections and reviews have identified broad programmatic weaknesses in licenses design programs at a few sites and indications of potential problems at some others.

One of the purposes of these letters is to understand to what extent design basis programs were implemented., and how effective they were.

The weaknesses might have been recognized earlier if the i

staff had continued its more intense focus on design-related team inspections or had followed the implementation of industry plans I

for design basis reconstitution programs more closely.

As part of its response to Millstone, the staff is conducting a lessons-learned review of NRC programs and processes to identify needed improvements.

Q:

How will the information roguested by the NRC in these 50.54(f) letters be used to give the Commission added confidence and assurance that plants are being operated and maintained within the plant design basis?

As NRC has asked for information about design basis reconstitution activities, or licensee reasons for concluding that such activities are not needed.

These activities have as their objective ensuring the correctness of design basis information and that it is being maintained current and used in plant modifications and operations.

Knowledge of the design basis is needed to maintain consistency of the plant physical and

/

l

\\

- an,

..E

-. _ - -. _ ~.

r functional attributes with the design basis when modifications 1

j are made to the plant or procedures.

Licensees are also being f

j asked to address how their programs and processes (i) address translation of design basis requirements into procedures, (ii) address problem identification and corrective actions, and (iii) address overall effectiveness of processes in keeping the configuration of the plant consistent with its design basis.

I e

i The responses will enable NRC to understand the measures taken by licensees to improve design basis information accuracy and e

i

. accessibility.

The NRC will use the information provided to help prioritize and focus our inspection activities on those plants, or in those areas, where weaknesses in plant design basis 1

information and related processes are identified.

r Q:

What kind of design-related inspections does the NRC intend l

to perform?

How will the NRC determine at which plants to perform these inspections and how many inspections are being planned?

i As The NRC plans to conduct a number of design-related j

inspections such as safety system functional inspections and safety system outage modification inspections.

These inspections l

will assess selected licensee activities to determine whether regulatory requirements for maintenance and utilization of design l

basis information are correctly implemented, and whether design i

control processes are effective in maintaining the plant configuration consistent with the design basis.

Contractor assistance with specialised knowledge of engineering design will j

supplement NRC staff inspectors.

Resources have been budgetsd to l

1 support at best 12 inspections per year.

In addition, other inspection activities have been undertaken which include

" vertical slice" activities, that is, to review in detail individual systems with respect to design requirements, calculations, procedures and other information.

Decisions on i

l

- = _. - - -..

l i

which plants will be inspected will be made based on the responses to the 50.54(f) letters; assessment of the engineering support to operations through periodic Systematic Assessment of l

Licensee Performance (SALP) evaluations; events or conditions reported by licensees; and ot'her inspections being performed at a site.

Q:

The 50.54(f) letters discuss an industry guidance document 4

for licensee programs for design basis information.

Would the NRC conclude that implamentation of a design reconstitution

]

program conducted using this guideline is an acceptable response l

.to this letter?

At The NRC will base its judgment on program success on its i

independent inspections of the results of the programs.

The NRC will use the program information to focus and prioritize these inspections but will not approve particular licensee programs.

~

The industry document, NUMARC 90-12, provides guidelines for design basis programs that licensees may undertake on a voluntary basis to organize and collate a plant's design basis information to suppcrt plant activities.

The guidelines also address validation of information, that is, whether the information is l

consistently reflected in the plant and documents used to control P ant operations, and integration with configuration management l

and design control.

In 1990, the NRC noted that NUMARC's l

approach provided a useful framework and worthwhile insights te those utilities undertaking design basis programs of varicue scopes.

Further, NRC provided comments to NUMARC about the j

guideline document that indicated areas where further guidance might be useful; for example, NRC noted that the program should include a technical review of the design parameters, calculations and analyses.

i The Commission Policy Statement of August 10, 1992, Policy Statement on Availability and Accessibility of Design Basis 4

i

i

- Information, provides NRC expectations that after completing a design basis reconstitution program, the licenses will have current design documents and adequate technical bases to demonstrate that the plant physical and functional-characteristics are consistent with'the design basis, the systems, structures and components can perform their intsaded functions and the plant is being operated in a manner consistent.

- 1 with the design basis.

As noted above, the success of licensee efforts will be sampled and evaluated through independent NRC itspections.

i f

l 4

i l

l l

l i

J 4

e A

a

,