ML20210U298
| ML20210U298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1985 |
| From: | Ratner M RATNER, M.G. |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U288 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-158, FOIA-86-A-15 NUDOCS 8606020273 | |
| Download: ML20210U298 (14) | |
Text
.
.} g gf /[
7' f
law OrreCES s
'i f ;
.s.j,7 MOZART G. RATNER, P. C.
[
.. 4
/
1900 M STR C CT. N W.
SUITC 600
,/' /
wASwiworON. o.c.zO Osa ancacoscno mes.o.,a February 25, 1985 Director Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Director Division of Security U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. James M.
Taylor Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT 4
TO 10 CFR S 2.790(6) AND REQUEST FOR COMMISSION DECLASSIFICATION UNDER PART 9, APP. 2 (10 CFR 195-196)
Vera M..English, by her undersigned counsel, hereby requests that the enclosed list of documents, all of which are in possession of NRC but are not on file in the public document room, be made available for inspection and copying, without restriction, as soon as possible.
Mrs. English is complainant in DOL Case No. 85-ERA-2, in which the Secretary of Labor, af ter investigation, has found reasonable cause to believe that G.E.'s highest management, in its Wilmington, North Carolina, Nuclear Manufacturing Plant, discriminatorily transferred and e
discharged Mrs. English from her analyst job in the Wet Lab, because she constantly complained to management and finally to NRC about nuclear safety violations and hazards, quality 8606020273 G60429 PDR FOIA
..g>.
j RATNER 86-A-15 PDR
. ~
~
... ~..
(
C control deficiences and management's deliberate falsification and cover up violations.
If substantiated, the complaint of discrimination is a Severity Level I violatio.i.
(" Misc.
Matters," A, 4, 49 F.R. 8593)
The DOL hearing is scheduled to resume March 18, 1984 before ALJ Brissenden.
NRC should recognize an obligation to produce, before the reopening date, all relevant evidence in its possession bearing upon this violation.
10 CFR S 2.790(a)
(" violation of a license").
NRC regulations require the licensee to post, inter alia (10 CFR,5 19.11(a) all "(2) * *
- documents incorporated into a license by reference, and amendments thereto, (3) the operating procedures applicable to licensed activities; (4) any notice of violation involving radiological working conditions b
- *
- an order issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 2 of this chapter and any response from the licensee" and (10 CFR S 21.6(a)(3)), all procedures adopted pursuant to regulations in this part.
In addition, NRC inspectors in Region II have conducted investigations and issued reports on Mrs. English's charges against G.E.
Mrs. English is party to a proceeding against G.E. and the Second Region inspection staff of NRC, catagorized by Mr. Taylor as a 10 CFR S 2.202 proceeding (7590-01), in which Mrs. English charges that the NRC inspectors' reports are deficient, inaccurate, biased and,
~
(
(
unlawful -- i.e., violative of NRC's published standards, by which NRC is bound, but' which the inspectors did not apply.
The undersigned received from NRC copies of various
}
reports, 82-18, 84-04, 84-05, 84-13, 84-15, 84-16, 84-17,
/
84-18, under a protective agreement (10 CFR S 2.790(6)(i)),,
which Mr. Neal Abrams and Mr. Ed Shomaker stated was a condition precedent to receipt of these reports.
The undersigned does not agree that the aforesaid reports and/or the documents listed in the enclosure may lawfully be " deemed to be commercial or financial informa tion within the meaning of S 9.5(a)(4) of this chapter."
The undersigned asserts that as applied to a litigant in such proceedings as detailed above, 10 CFR S 9.5(4), which authorizes withholding f rom public disclosure as t
" confidential," matter "which is customarily held in confidence by the originator," is an unconstitutional denial of due process inasm'uch as it denies complainant access to evidence necessary, or at least relevant, to prove her case and thereby vindicate her statutory right.
It also frustrates performance by the charging party, "as private tttorney general," of the role Congress assigned such parties "in enforcing the ban on discrimination."
EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S.
590, 602 (1981).
Likewise, the undersigned asserts that subsection 4(i),
which exempts from disclosure "(i) (ij nformation received in confidence, such as trade secrets, inventions and discoveries -
x
r 4
(
(
and proprietary data," is unconstitutionally overbroad insofar as it exempts "information received in confidence" and
" proprietary data,".whatever that ambiguous, undefined, term i
may mean.
We have no quarrel with exemption from public disclosure of real " trade secrets, inventions and discoveries" and material properly classified as " Safeguards-Information."
But at maximum, only such portions of the inspection reports and the documents enumerated on the enclosed list, which truly contain such information, may lawfully be withheld from public exposure.
The " protective agreement" which the undersigned executed in exchange for receiving the documents applies to entire documents, not merely identified matter therein which can lawfully be withheld from public disclosure.
To this 5
??
extent, the " protective agreement" is legally overbroad and void.
S 10 CFR S 2.790 (b)(1), requires that "a person who proposes that a document or a part be withheld in whole or in part from public disclosure on the ground that it contains trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial information" shall submit an affidavit requesting withholding which "may designate with appropriate markings the " trade secret or confidential or privileged commercial information within the meaning of S 9.5 (a)(4)," the objector desires withheld.
Thus, the burden of proof is squarely placed on the objector to designate the parts of documents claimed to be
-4 t
(
(
exempt from public disclosure under S 9.5(a)(4).
Absent a sworn claim and proof by the opponent, G.E.,
that portions of the documents requested fall within S 9.5(a)(4), NRC is not permitted to withhold any document from public inspection, except on " Safeguards Information" grounds.
In this respect-also, the " protective ag reement" is overbroad and void.
Further, G.E.
has waived any " confidential" privilege it may have claimed under 10 CFR S 2.790, by providing complainant in 85-ERA-2 with papers and data stamped " Company Confidential" and permitting complainant to offer those documents in evidence without objection or any request for in camera inspection or for a protective order.
An example is Exhibit C-10, in 85-ERA-2, attached to this letter.
Under the
" opened door" doctrine, that waiver extends not only to documents named therein and to all like or related documents, e.
but to all documents relevant to the charge in 85-ERA-2.
To the extent that the decisions referred to and any document on the enclosed list of data may be withheld by NRC from public inspection, and receivable in evidence only subject to NRd's non-public access restrictions, we request that all restrictions be removed except from those portions of the i
documents as may be designated by G.E. which NRC, after careful review, determines are legally excludable.
Of coursa, until, NRC has released the documents for public inspection, or has been ordered by a court to do so, the undersigned, while at all j <
s
('
(
times reserving Mrs. English's rights and claims in the matter, will abide by the " protective agreement."
To the extent that any documents are withheld from public disclosure on the ground that they contain " Safeguards Information," we request " Declassification Review" under Part 9, App. A, pp. 195-196, 10 CFR (1/1/84 ed.).
Accordingly, a copy of this request is also being submitted to the Director, Division of Security.
Because of the closeness of the trial date, the recent issuance of many of the subject reports (84-15 and 84-16 were received February 25, 1985, and 84-17 and 84-18 were received February II, 1985), we re'spectfully urge consideration of and response to this " Request" on an emergency basis.
Very truly yours,
~
Mozar G.
Ratner Counsel for Vera M.
English cc:
James Lieberman, Esq.
hief Counsel Regional Operations and Enforcement Neal Abrams, Esq., Senior Attorney office of Executive Legal Director F. C. Shomaker, Esq.
i <
. {
(
f-(
.s REPORTS SUBMITTED BY GENER AL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS)'
TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10N FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC REGULATIONS DURING THE PERIOD s.
JANUARY 1, 1978 TO July 27, 1984
~
mlDTIAL V!0LATims JAfCARY 9,1979 UF6 GAS RELEASE FEMUARY 14,1979 002POWDERIHEFT FAY 22,1900 UrMUDORIZED RBWAL OF U02 PERETS
}
June 4,193/l kCIDEffTAL LOSS OF h'ASTE ll0UID
'llED VI0lATIONS 4
I' ARCH 10,1979 UmuTHoRIZED RBWAL OF CONTAMitMTED TRASH JAfCARY 1,19M SHIPMEt(T OF UF6 CYLit0ERS
..~
)
Lh ELL 1a.
4 Charles M.
Vaughan Manager, Regulatory Compliance
\\
c.le-
~
(
('
LIST OF REQUESTED NRC DOCUMENTS NOT ON FILE IN NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM p
/f l
{
C r
. j.' 1.
Letter of November 2, 1984, from Vaughan to Stohr re site p /4
~~
,u; specific training program for trainees from G.E.
to NRC.
to NRC describing _._&, c s-J1 2.
Letter of November 2, 1984, from G.E.
_f i
training program.
AP j-*
M.
Attachment to November 15, 1984 Vaughan to O'Reilly letter regarding results of inspection report 84-11 (dated 10-18-84, on file).
4.
Safety Evaluation Memo for Radiological Contingency Plan, identified in letter 12/11, Page to Vaughan (on file).
'W S.
Safety Evaluation Report for Changes to Chapter 4, identified in 12/11 letter Page to Vaughan (on file).
7 Letter from Vaughan to O'Reilly dated 2/14/84
.,y; 6
7.
Letter'from Stohr to Long dated 8/10/84.
i j
(6 and 7 are referred to in 10/31/84 Vaughan to O'Reilly j
letter in file) 8.
" Revised license application pages" - dated 10/23/84,
,,# Revision 6 submitted with letter dated 10/23/84 from j
?-
/vaughan to W T. Crow, NRC section leader; specifically,
/
f Sec. 2.9 " Investigator's Report of Unusual Occurrence" -
'/,
I-2.20 and " Records" sec. 2.10. I-2.21 G
/
n g ) 'X' 9.
Ibid, Chapters 3 - Radiation Protection sec. 3.
" Admin.
Regs" I-3.1; " Technical Regs" sec. 3.2; I-3.4; " Safety."
j
'( 10. Ibid, Chapter 9 - Overview of Operation.
i II. Ibid, Chapter 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
N
- 12. Attachment to 10/12/84 Vaughan to Brown letter, on exemption regs, referred to in 9/28/84 Brown to Vaughan
'"s.
- letter.
jl3. Material transmitted with letter from Chas. M. Vaughan to V
J.P. O'Reilly dated March 21, 1984 (source Vaughan to Brown letter, 9/28/84, in file).
y1 Letter from Stohr to Long dated August 10, 1984 (same cource as 13),
i e
e f'
A
(
(
,3-., ik,i5. G.E. 's Radiological Contingency Plan submitted to NRC on f
/
9.]
,o January 14, 1982, and supplemented on April 4, 1984.
/
'16. Application (6/1/84)/ Affidavit (6/4/84) concerning UPMP
,91f- >
(referred to in 9/11/84 letter, Cunningham to Vaughan).
[g 7 gh x. Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan submitted August T7 p\\/ 9 31, 1984 (ref'd to in 9/7/84 letter from Brown to 3
Vaughan).
3
_s
- 18. Letters of February 14, 1984 and March 21, 1984, relating
[
,,7 to the Fundamental Nuclear Control Plan, from Long to Stohr j.
'l/ /y.ji' referenced to in 8/10/84 letter from Stohr to Long.
. '....... 19. Enclosure to letter of August 10, 1984 from Stohr to Long
'(FNCP).
'20. P/P 40-17, Rev.
3, Nuclear Safety Traling (referenced in 84/10 p, 3, 11 7 and 8.
- 21. M.C. 41808 and M.C.
71814 (11 7 and 8, respectively, of 84/10 Inspection Report).
8 T,
,?
l
., 22. PROD operating procedures ref'd at p. 4 - 84/10 1 8(d)
- 23. Response of G.E. dated 6/7/84 to notices of violation f
issued 10/31/83 and 5/11/84 - referred to in letter from I
Stohr to Long dated 6/22/84 concerning Report
,l 170-1113/83-28
/
- 24. All responses of G.E.
to findings of violation between 1978
!l/
and 1985.
This is a continuing request.
- 25. Letter from J. O. O'Reilley to J.A.
Long dated July 30, 1984, summarizing meeting held in Atlanta (II) on July 10, 1984, between G.E.
Reps and O'Reilly et al., ref'd in letter from Vaughan to O'Reilly dated 8/29/84.
'26. Attachment to June 7, 1984 letter from Vaughan to Stohr (responses to findings of " referenced" inspection NRC Insp.
Rept. 83-28 (10/31/83).
O i
i Ip O
l
(
(.
1 February 22, 1985 I, Vera M. English, authorize my attorney, Mozart G.
Ratner, to receive all correspondence, transcripts, and other documents pertaining to " Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Regarding Activities at the Wilmington, North Carolina Facility of the General Electric Company," Docket NO. 70-1113, and English v. General Electric Company, DOL Case No. 85-ERA-2.
! L..bs 15 l is s e.
I Vera M.
English I
4 h
e 4
9 Y
~ ^
- ~ ~-~
^ ~
~~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~
ge4,
.?
(
(
GENER AL h ELECTRIC
~
COMPANY PROPRIETARY CONTAINS 10 CFR 2.790(d) INFORMATION Director - ONMNN October 12, 1984 ATTACHMENT GE-WMD requests an exemption, from requirements of 10 CFR 70.58(e) of samples and
' to usel analyses in the calculation of limits of error for those cases where batches of the same material, type are listed on the same transfer document (DOE /NRC Form 741).
===.
Background===
t 10 CFR 70.58(e) requires the determination of the limit of error for each measured quantity transferred.
General Electric sampling plans specify that a minimum number.of samples be collected from eachj of the various types of materials transferred.
On occasion, more than the minimum number of samples are collected and analyzed in determining the applicable uranium or enrichment
?
f. :. =
^
This authorization is requested in order to simplify calculating LEn for different batches, all of the same material, when one or more batch has a.different number of samples and analyses.
Sample and analysis data'is established in aj not for the batch. /
- Using, of samples and analyses in LE. calculations would not have a significant impact on the LE magnitudes and no degradation of the usefulness of the transfer LEs would occur.
Therefore, conclusions drawn from shipper-receiver analysis would not be adversely affected.
S 4
C.
M. Vaughan
~
- bsd Q
O,c,u nQ B -l lv Q. L{- 0lwaJJ GLt b eDrcYl2
k.
n. ' (. a ;. !.
- r.
.-. v c.
., ; c 8.
- ,..;-,.n e
- v C:,.; TAI'.!S 10 CF2 2.790(d) n!F0FM f? ION b reetor - C:: MSS
..u g '. s t 31, 1934 REQUEST FOR ONE TIME E:C ? TION IN METHODOLOGY FOR REFORTING INVENTORY VALUES E ACKG ROU'4D In acecrdance with provisions in the General Electric Fundamental
.f Nuclear Gaterial Control Plan, a number of/
This te cnn '.qu e is applied to a number of process intermediatec and some of the clesner /arieties of 00->
O scrap.
~
perforas representative ar.d U3
-.easu remen ts of those material types threnchnut.he caterial. balance periodland updates thef The correctnes; cf t;hese values is also menitored-cn anengotr.gbasisbythef
.in place at the
<,. 4 1. ; m y.
CT ~.E::T S.'W ATIC'.'
.--iia t e.'. ; pr i o r to the Ai.'g u s t 190 4 uraniu.a physicci v.w e n t ar y,
- Oil 3 ';=.d;termining the cuireat period'sf for t'.a L '., ' s n."
itar 21s di.scucsed,craviously,
- /a found that the ne
- 1 c il dau Mr six naterial types did not appear 2.ppropriata.
'Ihe s e
...4....,
. ~ u 1
- u...
(.,., 1. a u.. =. :
i.s.c 3
..s w,... N., O r i. 4. 4 O.E o. 4 '.i 4. a' ~*'i.'. A. t '.'. '" # ' I #
t:
2
- s. s s c s.
l and ti.ree ca'tsc.,ories o f.orinci< call. CO
~.
--(
2 tvoa :ntec'. als
'Gu discevaing th,ese values that appeared inappropriata, GE pa:. 2c a. :5 c n eval':ation of the potential for errcr and determined
- t. n e t the ne.i estimate of I cppeared to be in cercr sir.ca there.rss - o indicatien that the excected composition of the e 3 rials h:d cha.wed.
The clso 1
th c t tr.?.t e r ia l ac co,/
indicated unttng based on the 1933l was c : r re: c t.
5.t the : me ti'.2,
- 7 left th.
1903 values in the aiatn.t1 control c.nd accounting records 3 stem and embarked upon a r.tecureu nt ccafirv. tion of the material.
j 02 t e 0.: a itca; ': vol;cd, 150 of those items. >e re sar., p l e d :, r d
..... ~.,.
...,c....,l
... w
......,.v.....
...,.a
\\
... +..
....u
- h i y ;,.. :. 3 /
C.x uranica a.way.
- p. {, y-f44 ro a v-Iggn W"d'O W
A.-
.(
(,
n i.%,......g... n
.9.. t..
\\
.~..r q',.sn= *3 s rs
- i t s ' **
,?.
4Y*
s.
.a..
- e :
CGNTAINS i0 CFR 2.700(d) INFORMATION Oirector - O'4i::S c'u g u t 31, 1984 at ta c.' ".e n t - Nae 2 These uranium assay values obtained Thevar/
from ccmpared closely
.'.th the 1933 determined values.
iances between the 1933 and the redetermined 1984 values were/
at
/
due to thefabt that 'they were daterminect by
,s different measure.ents.
Knowing _. this, no l
' test whs performed
- "?
en the tt.o sets of data.
We assumed that t:ye vari'ances vece no d i f f e rent and performed ;'
tects to datermine if there ' was a significant dif ference between.,t.he means of' the 1583 an'd 1934 dcta.
For ti g ac.jerity of. the items, this test indicated no signific=.nt diff.:reness at the 9 5% confidence level.
However, for three care <;ories of. material the test l' I
.s
/
Ls then evaluated the ef fect of the two sets. of measurs aents oa the inventory dif ference for the current aaterial calance pericd.
e
'Il e e f f eet of usino. the redetermined 1934 values '.rould be an.
/
in the ;eriod's ending inventory off kileg rams crc ni em and !
- ilograms U2 3.,.
ith11e the results of the statistical tast would indicate that the 1931 cadetarn.aed vaitc.
chould t.: usad, it ap.psars that, in view of the amount of work c6 quired to ucdate the values of !
1.t ems. the 1903 res ults a re S2:, tis f7_ctorf for ma tdrial contrci and accounting
.. =.
.~ ' m. s x
- . w
.. n u L.
v l
Ceneral t'lectric is asking for NRC approval to use the 1933/
/
5.*=. lues and variances for the sin material types mentioned herein.
Par the purposes of calculating LEID, these materials will be categorized into separate strata.
d
+t-..-h....s.
-.s
/
J :.a
(
(
GEN ER AL () ELECTRIC NM[
l Director - ON!%3S December 28, 1984 INVESTIGATION TO RESOLVE U-FACTOR DISCREPANCIES The investigation to resolve the U-factor discrepancy encountered in the August 1983/ August 1984 material balance period for the Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing Department for material types /
/
will consist of two' parts:
(1)
Establish action control limits such that whenever al
/
the material will be-resampled and re-analyzed.
If the results L.
I the sample will be submitted to an outside vendor for analysis.
(2)
Redetermine the material (~
with an extensive
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
~
sampling of each material type. l l
will be collected from a container of each material samples will be y ken from th type l the contai_ner will then be F --
, and [- _e container, additional samples will be collected.
For each material type, the sampling program will continue until all containers or/
containers, whichever is less, have been s'ampled.
Samples will be submitted for analysis on a/
basis.
The results of this ' investigation will be analyzed and reported for the 1985 uranium, physical inventory.
CM Vaughan/GRM
- bsd e
a 7_
(
L AW OFFICES MOZART G. RATNER, P. C.
SulTE 610 WASHI NGTO N, D. C,2OO3 6 AREA 40DE 202 223-9472 March 7, 1985 UEDOM OF INFORMAllOh Wr, Joseph Felton, Director ACT REQUEST Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration FacA-es- /cs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 nocid 03lOS/fW SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST Vera M.
English, by her undersigned counsel, hereby supplements her " Request for Production of Documents Pursitant 1.o 10 CFR S 2.790(6) and Request for CommL3sion DeclassificatSon Under Part 9, App. 2 (10 CFR 195-196)," dated F6bruary 25, 1985, by the following items 1.
Letter from O'Reilly to Vaughan, dated 7/30/84 repbrting summbry of "our meeting in Atlanta," referred to in Vaughan t.o O'keilly letter of 10/29/84.
2.
Att8chLient A to G.E. 's Licen.se Condition MD. 9 (G.E. Lic.
SNN-1097).
3.
Attachment to Vaughan to Stohr letter of 6/7/84, pertaining to items of apparent non-compliance with NRC requirements.
4.
Atta'chments 'I and 2 referred to in 6/15/84 Vaughan to O'Reilly letter.
5.
Appendix A referred to in Gibson to Lonci lett#r.of 11/4/81, re: 70-1113/81-14.
6.
Inspection Report 82-07, referred.to in 4/6/82 letter from Gibscn to Long.
7.
Inspection R6 port 81-14 referred to in 4/2/82 letter froM 1
Olshinski to Long.
{
8.
Inspection Report is2-09 referred to in 4/13/82 letter from Gibson to Long.
j (McAlpine signed the above-referebced letter for-1 Gibson.)
/
_ D /> > f s > ) ).
1 * [ ]., I
~ yn yyo tu yp
e
(
Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985 Page 2 9.
Information submitted pursuant to 9/17/84 letter from Biddinger to Vaughan.
- 10. Inspection Report 84-11, dated 10/8/84, referred to in Vaughan to O'Reilly letter of 11/15/84 and response thereto, dated 12/9/84.
11 All records of changes in facilities and procedures in the Chemet Laboratory from January 1, 1982 to March 15, 1985, filed with Region II, pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.59(b).
- 12. General Electric Company's Revised License Application pages dated 6/20/84, revising its 7/25/83 License Application - Chapter I - 3.6 to 3.7.
- 13. Ibid.
I-5.15, I-5.9 to 5.13.
- 14. Ibid.
I-3.1, I-3.4,-I-4.1, I-4.4.
- 15. Standard Format & Content for Radiological Contingency Plans for Fuel Cycle & Materials Pacilities, NUREG-0762, referred to in 12/31/81 Fisher to Vaughan letter.
- 16. Standard Review Plan for the review of Radiological 4:
Contingency Plans for Fuel Cycle & Material Facilities, NUREG-0810, referred to in letter referenced in Item 7, above.
- 17. Report submitted to Fuel Facilities Safeguards and Licensing Branch pertaining to Fundamental Nuclear Control Plan, discussing the investigation and resolution of the discrepancies between 1983 and 1984 factors for six material categories.
16.
G'.'E.' License' Condition 2.1 of Amendment MPP-3, referred to in 9/28/84 letter from Brown to Vaughan about revision of License Condition 2.1.
- 19. Update of " Criticality" Emergency Procedure effective 12/26/83 and referred to in 9/25/84 memorandum from Terry to Crow.
- 20. ANS1 ANS-8.1-1983, described in request for additional information for UPMP Amendment Application dated June 1,
1984 and attached to Biddinger to Vaughan letter of 9/14/84.
I 1
g 4 -,
~
e -
w e
T d
~
I
(
Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985 Page 3
- 21. Plant Procedure (P/P) Calibration and Operation Instruction (COI) 6, Rev.
1, Control of Samples in Chemet Lab, referred to in 70-1113-Inspection Report 84/17, p.
4, paragraph d.
- 22. Nuclear Safety Release 6.1.0. - Radiology Safety Regulations for Chemet Lab, original and all revisions, including Rev. 4 (ibid., p.
4, 1 d).
- 23. Plant Procedure Nuclear Safety Instruction 0-6.0 and all revisions, including Rev. 14 (ibid., p. 5, 1 f).
- 24. G.E.'s Chemical Metallurgical and Spectrochemical Laboratory Manual, Rev.
5, 8/25/82 (ibid., p.
8, 1 j).
- 25. Plant Procedure Nuclear Safety Instruction E-6.0, and all revisions, including Rev. 11 (ibid., p.
12, 1 n).
- 26. Plant Procedure & Practices 40-19, Bioassay Program (ibid.,
p.
13, 1 n)
- 27. Nuclear Safety Release 0.2.0, Bioassay Urinanalysis Program, including Appendix A (ibid., p.
13, 1 n).
- 28. Revisions 1 and 2 to Calibration & Operation Instruction (COI) 409, (Revision 2 dated 7/25/84) (ibid, p.
15, 1 o).
- 29. All staff, evaluation reports of C.E.
committees filed with NRC between 1/1/80 and 3/13/85.
- 30. All PRODS filed with NRC between 1/19/84 and 3/17/85.
31.. Uranium Process Management Project Application Amendment, dated June 1, 1984
- 32. All P/P's filed with NRC from January, 1984 to March 11, 1985.
- 33. January, 1984 Memorandum concerning NRC Region II comments on G.E.'s application for renewal of SNM-1097, referred to in 4/12/84 Memorandum from Page to Cunningham.
. ~.
nm.
.s e
Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985 Page 4
- 34. NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/83-28 and Notice of Violation dated 10/31/83, referred to in Stohr to Long letter, dated 6/22/84.
- 35. G.E.'s 6/7/84 response to NRC's 10/31/83 Notice of Violation referred to in Stohr to Long letter dated 6/22/84.
Since the trial is scheduled to resume March 18, 1985, we respectfully urge your prompt action in response to this request.
Very truly yoprs, Moz t G.
Ratner cc:
James Lieberman, Esq.
Neal Abrams, Esq.
C F.C.
Shomaker, Esq.
l
{
f
[-es m
,og UNITED STATES
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 2.....*
MS 10 1986
,f Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 610 Washington, DC 20036 IN RESPONSE REFER TO F01A-85-158
Dear Mr. Ratner:
This is'the final response to your letter dated March 7,1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), copies of 35 specified documents.
This also responds to your June 27, 1985, letter regarding your request.
The records identified on the enclosed Appendix A are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Rcom (POR),
1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in PDR file F01A-85-158 under your name.
The records identified on the enclosed Appendix B are being withheld in their entirety because they contain information which identifies procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material at a licens This pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d) and is being withheld from public disclosure of the Commission's regulations. pursuant to Exemption (4) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC'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.
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. res The persons within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.This denial may be ap Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washin should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal
,and from an,Init,f a,1 F0IA Dec,ision."
The enclosed Appendix C provides additional comments regarding other specif records referenced in your June 27, 1985, letter.
This completes NRC's action on your request.
Sincerely, M
Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of-Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated Il j
,s>a
?? yr,,(p,! N'" (?ffJ n
L
.m.
s...
s,.
e
(
(~
Re:
F01A-CS-158 (Final Response to the 3/7/85 request)
APPENDIX A Records Being Placed in the PDR 1.
06/15/84 Letter from Vaughan, General Electric, to 0' Reil?y,
Subject:
Revisions to Fundamental Nuclear Material Contro. Plan.
(1 page)
(Document 4 of your request) 2.
12/28/84 Letter from Vaughan to Director, NMSS,
Subject:
Discrepant U-Factor Investigation.
(1 page)
(Document 17 of your request) 4
5
(
(~
Re:
FOIA-85-158 (Final Response to the 3/7/85 request) i APPENDIX B i
Records Denied - Exemption 4 1.
06/15/84 Attachments 1 and 2,
Subject:
Revisions to Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan (31 pages) (Document 4 of your request) 2.
12/28/84 Description of the Discrepant U-Factor Investigation (1 page)
{
(Document 17 of your request) i
~
..e i
2 L
,=c e
I e
i I
I r
1 i
I F
4
..........s...
s
(
(
Re:
F01A-85-158 (Final Response to the 3/7/85 request)
APPENDIX C NOTE: The documents are numbered to correspond with those listed in your letter of June 27, 1985.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
2 We have been informed by the NRC staff, they cannot identify the record as described.
9 We have been informed by the staff that they cannot identify any such record dated 9/17/84. However, there is a record dated 9/14/84 in the PDR under Accession Number 8409250078 which may be the record in which you are interested.
17 See Appendices A and B 31 We have been informed by the staff that the nonproprietary copies of the June 1,1984, submittal were returned to the licensee at the licensee's request prior to receipt of your request.
33 The record identified as number 33 was placed in the PDR in accordance with Mr. Felton's response letter to you dated 6/21/85.
11, 21-30, 32 The NRC is not in possession of these records.
=
+--y
{
gq+
w y,
y~-%
m u
e-r w-gwr
+we yyy-9
.\\
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,
r, y
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%,+.***
Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 610 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F01A-85-158-A
Dear Mr. Ratner:
This is the final response to your letter dated February 25, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA),
copies of 26 specified documents related to General Electric Company's facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, with regard to a complaint you filed with the Department of Labor on behalf of your client.
The records identified on the enclosed Appendix 0 and certain records or portions of records identified on the enclosed Appendix E are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room (POR),1717 H Str'eet, NW, Washington, DC 20555, in the PDR file folder under the above-referenced F0IA number and your name.
We have been informed by the staff that one record has been identified as separate records at numbers 1 and 2 of your request. This record was requested in your previous F0IA request F01A-85-554. The record is a letter from Vaughan addressed to Goode instead of Stohr.
Please refer to Mr. Felton's response letter to you dated November 19, 1985, Appendix A-2.
~
Further, we have also been informed by the NRC staff that most of the records regarding the responses of General Electric to violations between 1978 and 1985 (Item 24 of your request) were provided to you with NRC Region II Regional Counsel's letter dated March 15, 1985. Also, two records subject to Item 24 of your request were previously addressed with regard to your previous F0IA request F01A-85-440.
The record.s, identified on Appendix E are being withheld in whole or in part because they contain information which identifies procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material at a licensed facility. This infonnation is considered consne~rcial or financial (proprietary) information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d) and is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) of the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been determined that the infonnation withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. John G. Davis, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
j
>UG9$ha) n, in
un' D U7u MT
i
(_
(
s Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire 1 This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this. letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal i
from an Initial FOIA Decision."
This completes NRC action regarding your February 25, 1985, request. We will separately address your March 7,1985, letter (F01A-85-158).
Sincerely,
/>u)> Y Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated 9
i I
I l
v g
,,,--g.
a 4-
~
^
(
(
Re:
F01A-85-158A (Final Response)
APPENDIX D Records Being Placed in the PDR (Item 24 of your request) 1.
04/28/80 Letter to W. B. Kenna from A. L. Kaplan re: Inspection of Fuel Fabrication Plant in Wilmington, NC w/ attachment re: Notice of Violation.
(4 pages) 2.
08/11/81 Letter to R. C. Lewis from Charles M. Vaughan re: Results of Inspection Conducted at Licensed Fuel Fabrication Plant w/ attached letter to J. A. Long from P,. C. Lewis dated 7/23/81 w/ enclosed (1) Appendix A, Notice of Violation and (2) Inspection
~
Report No. 70-1113/81-07.
(15 pages) 3.
06/30/83 Letter to J. Philip Stohr from Charles M. Vaughan re: Special Safety Inspection w/ enclosed Attachment A and B.
(6 pages) 4.
12/03/84 Letter to J. Philip Stohr from Charles M. Vaughan.re: Results of Inspection Conducted at Licensed Fuel. Fabrication Plant w/ attachment re: Notice of Violation.
(8 pages) 5.
02/28/85 Letter to J. Philip Stohr from Charles M. Vaughan re: Results of Inspection Conducted at Licensed Fuel Fabrication Plant w/ attachment re: Notice of Violation.
(3 pages) 6.
03/15/85 Letter to J. Philip Stohr from Charles M. Vaughan re: Results of Inspection Conducted at Licensed Fuel Fabrication Plant w/ attachment re: Notice of Violation.
(3 pages) e,,
,e
(
Re: F01A-85-158A (Final Response)
APPENDIX E 1.
02/14/84 Letter from Vaughan to O'Reilly, RII,
Subject:
Revisions to Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan (1 page) - Released
- a. :
Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Changes Not Requiring NRC Approval Prior to Implementation.
(21 pages) -
Withheld - Exemption 4
- b. :
Revised Pages.
(41 pages) - Withheld -
Exemption 4 (Above pertains to Item 6 of your request) 2.
03/21/84 Letter from Vaughan to 0'Reilly, RII,
Subject:
Revision to Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan.
(1 page) - Released
- a. :
Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Changes Not Requiring (2 pages) -
NRC Approval Prior to Implementation.
Withheld - Exemption 4
- b. :
Revised Pages.
(16 pages) - Withheld -
?
Exemption 4 (Above pertains to Item 13 of your request) 3.
11/20/84 Letter from Vaughan to Stohr re: NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/84-12.
(1 page) - Released w/following attachments:
Attachment A:
11/20/84 re: Notice of Violation -
Inspection Report 70-1113/84-12.
(3 pages) - Portion Deleted - Exemption 4 Ex'hibit A -
7/3/84 re: August 1984 Uranium Inventory Preparation Activities.
(2 pages) -
Portion Deleted - Exemption 4 Exhibit B -
Uranium Physical Inventories.
(3 pages) -
Released Exhibit C -
Scale and Balance Program.
(10 pages) -
Released Exhibit D -
Scales and Balances.
(10 pages) -
Portions deleted - Exemption 4 (Above pertains to Item 24 of your request)
}
.. h eycoq;o, f
('
,. UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION
^
n g
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555,
\\...../
P{ C 0 0
. Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 610 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F0lA-85-158-A
Dear Mr. Ratner:
This is the second partial response to your letter dated February 25, 1985, in which you requested copies of 26 specified documents related to General Electric Company's facility in Wilmington, Nor.th Carolina, with regard to a complaint you filed with the Department of Labor on behalf of your client.
This also addresses your letter dated June 27, 1985, regarding this matter.
The records identified on the, enclosed Appendix A and the released portions of the records identified on the enclosed Appendix B are being placed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Public Document Room (PDR). You may obtain~ access to these records by requesting PDR folder F01A-85-158-A under
.your name..
~
The enclosed Appendix C further addresses documents pertaining to your request that could not be located 'because of insufficient identification or are not in the possession of NRC.
The denied portions of the records identified on Appendix B contain information which identifies procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material at a licensed facility. This information is considered commercial or financial (proprietary) information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d) and is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (4) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) of the Comission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been determined that the infonnation withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its productiert or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. John G. Davis, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, 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 F0IA Decision."
,,, ;, ) v 1 f/n ?
n p.,
-( s)/ VI (GyV7f QA
,)
[
(
Mozart G. Ratner, Esquire
_2-i i
'We will communicate' with you further regarding documents 1, 2, 6,13 and 24 of your request dated February 25, 1985.
i Sincerely, Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records i
Office of Administration Enclo~sures: As stated i
i
.t I
i i
I j
i f
i I
I I
i
(
Re: F01A-85-158-A (Second Response)
APPENDIX A NOTE: The number in parentheses following the description of the document corresponds to the number of the document listed in the request.
1.
10/13/84 Ltr from Vaughan to Crow, NMSS, (1 page) with attachment:
- a. : Description of Revisions Made to 7/25/83 License Application (1 page)
- b. : Revised License Application Pages dated 10/23/84 Revision 6 (38 pages) (8)
NOTE: Regarding document (8) as identified in your request, the document cannot be identified as Section 2.9, dated 10/23/84. However, the submittal dated 10/23/84 as listed above is being placed in the POR. This record also addresses documents (9) (10) and (11) of your request.
2.
12/10/84 Ltr from Vaughan to Crow, NMSS, with following attachment:
a.
6/1/84 non-proprietary submittal for the UPMP project with enclosed Affidavit dated 6/4/84 (225 pages) (16)
NOTE: The nonproprietary portion of the 6/1/84 submittal was returned to the licensee at the licensee's request prior to receipt of F0IA-85-158.
The nonproprietary portion was resubmitted by General Electric on 12/10/84.
b e
e e '.
(
(
Re: F0IA-85-158-A (Second Response)
APPENDIX B PORTIONS OF RECORDS DENIED FOIA EXEMPTION (4)
NOTE: The number in parentheses following the description of the document corresponds to the number of the document listed in the F0IA request.
1.
10/12/84 Ltr from Vaughan to Brown, subject: Exemption from Requirements Regarding Transfer Document LE Calculations (1page) Released a.
Attachment:
10/12/84 Request for an exemption (1 page) -
Withheld - Exemption (4) (12) 2.
08/31/84 Ltr from Vaughan to Brown, subject: Request for One Time Exemption in Methodology for Reporting Inventory Values.
(1 page) Released a.
Attachment:
8/31/84 Request for one time exemption (2 pages)
Withheld - Exemption (4) (17) 4 e
e 6 '.
(
(
Re: F0IA-85-158-A (Second Response)
APPENDIX C NOTE: The document number corresponds to the number in the request.
Document Number
Response
4.
Insufficient identification.
Request does not state year for 12/11 letter.
If it is 12/11/84, then the information is available from the PDR in Docket 70-1113.
5.
See number 4 above.
20.
NRC is not in possession of this document 22.
NRC is not in possession of this document
?
I 4
\\
(
(
s L AW OFFICES MOZART G. RATN ER, P. C.
1900 M ST R E E T, N. W.
SUITE 600 W A S H I N GTO N. D. C. 2 O O 3 6 ARCA CODE 202 223-9472 June 27, 1985 Mr.
J.
M.
Felton, Director Divison of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Re:
FOIA-85-158
Dear Mr. Felton:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 21, 1985, in partial response to my letter dated March 7, 1985, requesting 35 specified documents.
The last sentence of your letter says that NRC is not in possession of the following documents listed in my request:
Nos. 2, 9, 11, 17, 21-33.
Por the reasons stated in my letter of this date in re FOIA-85-158A, third paragraph, I cannot conceive that NRC does not have possession of item 2,
" Attachment A to G.E. 's License Condition No; 9," inasmuch as NRC must have all portions of G.E. 's application for renewal of its License SNM-1097 in 1984, which necessarily contains Appendix A.
The same is true of item 31.
If our identification of these doucments is somehow technically
, inaccurate, please advise us how you refer to them, so that we may, request Ap'pendix A and item 31 in appropriate technical termin616gy.
Item'9, information submitted by G.E.
to NRC, is requested in Biddinger's letter of 9/17/84 to Vaughan.
We cannot conceive that G.E. did not submit the material requested.
Again, perhaps the problem is identification.
Item 17, a report referred to as having been submitted by G.E.
to NRC, may likewise have been refered to inaccurately or inadequately.
Please search your 1984 and 1985 files for this.
Inasmuch as my request has been pending since March 7, 1985, and is relevant to the current 2.206 proceeding before p, ),j ] > ) 2 n - b-1 0 VJjv ff 97# WP l
(
7 l
Mr. J.
M.
Felton l
June 27, 1985 i
Page 2 i
i 4
i l
the I & E Director, I would appreciate a reply to this letter as soon as possible.
t Very truly yours, i
/
l 1
Mozart G.
Ratner i
MGR/hej t
f e
i e
i i
1 l
l I
I f
1 i
a I
i 2
i l
e i
i 1
i i
1 i
i
~-,-,-,,c_n,,-v...~+~,-e,
-n-v,,-r-~~