ML20237H484

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partial Response to FOIA Request Re All Records Re Development of Objective Performance Indicators.Forwards App a Documents.Documents Also in Pdr.Documents Completely & Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)
ML20237H484
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/12/1987
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To: Potter J
NUCLEAR LICENSING REPORTS
Shared Package
ML20237H486 List:
References
FOIA-87-402 NUDOCS 8708170235
Download: ML20237H484 (6)
v • d • e


Text

.

~ '

  • U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nnc FOIA ABOUEST NUMBERISI lre Foh-M -Vo2 ktSPON6L TYPt f, i RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF i l*"^' IXI "''

~

)

\e / eeee INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST j Q\Nl'"

i AUG 121987 DOCKET NUMBERlSi (t/ eppeceasel l

o W

! PART l.-RECONDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked boxes)

No aoency records subject to the request have been located.

]

No gddit'onal agency records subsect to the request have been located.

l I Agency records subsect to the request that are icehdfied in Appendix AR + B a,e si,e.dy vanabie fo,pubiic i,.cection and copying in ine NRC peiic Document Room, l 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC y Agency records subsect to the request that are identified in Appendix A a,e being made av.iiabia fo, pubiic inspection .nd copying in.tne NRC Pubiic Document A Room,1717 H Street, N.W,, Washington, DC. In a foldir under this FOIA number and requester name.

The nonpropnetary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made evalable for public inspection and coying et the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOsA number and requester name.

Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W./Nashirgren, DC.

Agency records sub) pct to the request are ent,losed. Any applicable charge for copses of the records provided and payment procedures era noted in the comments section.

I Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agency (ios) for review and direct response to you.

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

PART li.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBUC DISCLOSURE l

Certain informaton in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exomptions described in and for the reasono stated in Part 11, sec- I tions B. C. and D. Any re' eased portons of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are b6.ng made available for public inspection and copying in l the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA nurnber and requester name. j l

841 b O (\ M d it  %' U N MC fh v bQ:nwW 1 bed A orix?we %wbgpr  !

&ed k  % gs hen u a ~% %u k'x A ., A A w 4 k na q\\

& e su m k %o seh ta.

> y wpages % uw r9ves .

, w ir w . :s a % a % m xt a u &

M @h A i n

@lGN J , DIRECTOR l$10N ' LES AND RECORDS W IV- M hh ,

s ,

M, g "efos1702'35 8952 w' $1.4sf-402

,v...

PDR sf,' o '

s s

s s s s

s s

> t 2C FO*,M 464 (Part lp

I FREEDOM OF EN70RMATION AC.T RESVONSE FOIA NUMBER (S): h - f2, DATE: 12 $$7

~

PAitT li B- APPLICABLE F(PIA EXEMPTIONS jP i R: cords subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendices 9 are being withheld in thei entirety or in part under FOIA l ExImptions and for the reascns set forth below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10'CFR 9.5(a) of NRC Regulations.

1. The wittheid information a property clamadad pumvent to Executive Order 12356 ttXEMPTION 1)
2. The withheld information relates solely to the intemal personnel ruler, and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 2)
3. The withheld information a specifically exempted from put'lic disclosure by stature indicated; (EXEMPTION 3) s Section 141145 ef the Atomic Energy Act whsch prohibits the dsclosure of Restncted Data'or Formerty Restricted Data IC U S.C. 2161 2165).

I Section 147 of the Atome Ene<gy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Undassihed Safepuards information (42 U.S C. 2167).

l

4. The withheld informat;on is e trade sacret or commercial or financial information that is being w6thheld for the reason (s) indicated: (D.MPTION 4)

The information is consdered to be confidential business (propnetary) information.

1 The information is considered to be proprietary information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dH1).

Tbs information was submitted and received in confidence from a foreign source pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(2).

5. The withheld information. consests of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery during litigation. Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to irihibst the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative pre, cess. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextncatWy X intertwined with the predecisional informataan. There elao are ne ceasonabiv seg egable factual portior.s because the release of the facts would permit an endirect inouiry into the predecessonal process of the egency. (EXEMPTICN b I
6. The wethheld information is enempted from publ*c disclosure because its disclosu.e would result in a clearfy unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (EXEfAPTION 6)

J

}

1

7. The Mthheld information consists of invest $ story records compiled for law 6nforcement purposes and is beeng wtthheld for the reason (s) indicated.1 EXEMPTION 71 Disclosure would interfere with an enforcement proceeding because it could reveal the scope, direction, and focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow thern to take action to shield poteettsal wrongdoing or a violation of NRC requirements from investigators. (EXEMPTION 7(A)) '

i Disclosure would constrtute an unwarranted irwasaan of personal1:nvacy (EXEMPTION 7(CH

{

The informattan cons sts of names of endiv4uals and other information the disclosure of which would reveal identities of confidential sources (EXEMPTIOfJ 7(OH PART ll.C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursucnt to 10 CFR 9.9 and/or B.15 of the U S. Nucieer Regulatory Commi6sion regulations. it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure.

and Divisionthst of itsgules and Records, Office of Administration, for any denials that may be appealed to the Executrve Director for Operations IED

^

DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL SECRETARY EDo i 8 k Oh IN C k

~ .'

h%DQ

_ ws 3 I

l PART 11 D- APPEAL heGHTS I

The denial by each denying official identifnd, in Part it.C rnay M appealed to the Appellate Official identified in that section. Any such appeal must be in

{ writing aJd must be made within 30 Geys of receipt of this response. Appeals m Jst be addressed as appropriate to the Executive Director for Operutions or to tha Steretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter thrt it is an " Appeal f.am an initial FOIA Decision."

l NRC FQW 4s4 IPart 2) ce U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION

a"__ ~ ^ ^ ^

. APPENDIX A

Fj)M8[R OfC, DE SCRIP fl0N_ -,'

l

1. October 16,1986, . memorandum from Chilk to Stello, re: SECY-86-265 -

Proposed Revision to NRC Policy Statement " Guidelines for NRC Review l of Agreement State Radiation Controi Programs". (Under staff review) 1

2. January 7,1987, note j' rom Jim Partlow, IE to Richard E. Cunningham, 255, et al. ; with SECY-86-317 as attachment. (Under staff review) .
  • 3. January 12, 1987, note from John G. Davis to R. E. Cunningham and R. F. Burnett, re: Performance indicators (withheld as predecisional under Exemption 5)

Attachments to 3 above:

(a) 12/30/86 memorandum from Chilk to Stallo, re: SECY-86-317 Performance Indicators (Under staff review)

(b) 11/5/86 letter Zack Pate, INPO to Chairman Zech (Under staff review)

(c) 7/10/85 letter Zack Pate, INPO to William Dircks(Released)

\

(d) 7/16/84 letter Zack Pate, INP0 to William 'Dircks (Released)

(e) Attachment 3 (date not clear) - Extract from INP0 Responses to l August 1986 Report Leadership in Achieving Operational Excellence (Understaffreview)

(f) ED0 Action Ticket 002471, with 1/6/87 letter Congressman Markey to Chairman Zech (Under staff review) l o. October 9,1986 memorandum John Evans to Richard E. Cunningham, et al re: NRC Senior Nnagement Meeting (release d) j

5. October 7,1986 memorandum Cunningham to Johrt Davis re: NRC Sentor I
  • 5(b) Management Meeting (WS$ 86-765) with 3 enclosures.

( Cover memo and enclosu:-e 85(c) 1 are releaseo withheld under e;xemption 5 as documents 5 (b) and 5 (c)) enclosures 2 and 3 congain

- ** 6.

' October 26, 1986 memorandum from Cunningham to John D. Evans, re: NRC q Senior Management Meeting (NMSS #86-960). (withheld in part  !

underExemption5) 4

  • 7. November 14, 1986 memorandum from Davis to Cunninghta and Burnett j re: Performance Indicators. (withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5) '
  • 8. December 12, 1986 memorandum from John Hickey to Glenn Terry re:  !

Performance Indicators. (withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5) '

l i

i

APPENDIX g MBE R DATE _ DESCRIPTION

{

  • 9. December 1986 note from Glenn Terry to Michael Kearney re: Davis' Memo on Performance Indicators. (withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5)

Enclosures to 9 above: l (6) Enclosure 1 - AEDD/N601, Report on 1985 Nonreactor Events and i Five-Year Assessment for 1981-1985, 37 pages. (Released)

(b)d Enclosure 2 - 12/16/86 Note to Mike from Glenn,1 page (Released) .

1 (c)l Enclosure 3 - Reports Issued Prior to 1985 - By Year (Released)

(d) Enclosure 4 - Does not fall within scope of the FOIA and is l not included with this copy.

i

  • (e) 12/11/86 Draft - Input to Terry from W. T. Crow (Withheld, Exemption 5)
  • (f) 12/12/86 Memorandum from John Hickey to Glenn Terry, re:

Performance Indicators w/ enclosure. (Withheld, Exemption 5)

  • 10. undated handwritten notes - Actions resulting from utg with Davis on 12/16/86 on Performance Indicators (withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5).

Attachments to 10 above:

  • (a) Briefing sheet for 12/16/86 Performance Indicators briefing (annotated w/h'andwritten notes) (Withheld, Exemption 5)
  • (b) Earlier draft of above for 12/8/86 (annotated with handwritten notes) (Withheld, Exemption 5)
  • (c) 11/14/86 memorandum Davis to Cunningham (Withheld, Exemption 5) v (d) 11/18/86 memorandum to Crow et al from Glenn Terry, re:

Performance Indicators (Released)

  • (e) undsted - Outline for NMSS Presentation at the NRC Management Meeting. 13 pages (annotated with handwritten notes). (Withheld, Exemption 5)

(f) 10/16/86 memorandum from Chilk to Stello, re: SECY 86-265 (Under staff review)

oc: t01 A- 87-302 I

t - ' _

j APPENDIX .. . A _ '

/

)

MBE R DATE OCSCRIPTION i
11. Mar-ch 2,1987 memorandum from Cunningham and Partlow to Those on List, re:

Results cf Executive Seminar. (Under staff review)

  • 12. Undated handwritten notes re: Developfng an Improved System for Early Identification of Problems - Specific Licensees and Generic, f pages.

(Withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5) 13.s May 15,1987 memorandum from Thompson to Murley re: NM55 Input for Senior Management Meeting, June 2-3, 1987 (Released)

Att.achments to 13 above:

(a) s Agenda and Background Papers for fuels / Materials Portir n of EDO Senior Management Meeting June 2-3, 1987 (Released)

  • (b) 4/21/87 memorandum Sjoblom to Regions re: Draft Inspection Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicators to Identify Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention", 9 pages.

(Vithheld, Exemption 5)

(c) 5/18/87 memorandum Martin (RI) to Sjoblom re: Draft Inspection Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicators to Identify Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention", 5 pages. **

(Under staff review)

(d) 5/19/87 remorandum Montgomery (RV) to Sjoblom re: Draft Inspection Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicators to Identify Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention". ,

! (Released)

(e) / 5/21/87 memorandum Stohr (RII) to Sjoblom re: Draft Inspection Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicetors to Identify Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention". (Released)

' If)s 5/29/87 memorandum Bangart (RIV) to Sjoblom re: Draft Inspec-tion Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicators to Identify Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention", 2 pages. ,

(Released) i (9) 6/11/87 memorandum Hind (RIII) to Sjoblom re: Draft Inspection 1

Procedure 89100, "Use of Performance Indicators to Mentify  !

Licensees for Enhanced Inspection / Attention", 2 pages, (Released) j

  • 14.  !

Undated, briefing package - Performance Indicator Program for Non-  ;

Reactor Licensees Determination of Feasibility, 9 pages. ,

(withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5) 4 l

1 i.

....u,,-

APPENDIX a

NUMBER DATE OCSCRIPT!ON .*

l

15. June 10, 1987 memorandum from Wiederon, et al, to Nuclear Materials safety ';ctions Staf f, re: Trial Progra a for Materials Performance Indicators (Red Flags), 4 pages. (Relea: ed) <
  • 16. July 1,1987 semorandum from Thompson to Kammerer, re: Annual All 1

Agreement State Meetting, 2 pages. (Withheld as predecisional, Exemption 5 - meeting set for October 1987) 17.s Ltr to Agreement and Non-Agreement States from Donald A. Hussbaumer with enclosure, dated November 26, 1986, 6 pages. (Released)

18. SECY-86-144, from Victor Stello, Jr. to Commissioners i dated May 5, 1986, 6 pages plus enclosure. (Under staff review)
19. Memo to Victor Stello, Jr. from Samuel J. Chilk, dated October 16, 1986,. 2 pages plus enclosure.(Under staff review) 20- SECY-86-265, PROPOSED REVISION TO NRC POLICY STATEMENT, , i "GL'IDELINES F0D NRC REVIEW OF AGREEMENT STATE RADIATION j CONTROL PROGRAMS" (Under staff review) i
21. May 1,1987 memorandum from S. Chilk to H. Denton transmitting staff requirements regarding SECY-87-65, Revision to NRC Policy Statement, " Guidelines for NRC' Review I of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" (Under staff review) {

l

22. January 13, 1987 letter from D. Farrar to S. Chilk'regarding proposed revision  ;

to General Statement of Policy for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation  ;

Control Programs (Available in PDR in file PR-51 FR 41172)

)

I NOTE:

  • denotes withheld in entirety
    • denotes withheld in part I i

p-4114caucur i 1 INPW Nudear Power Operations ,1 g ,c = = ~ r  !

=

1. % ==. ss> uo. )-

i July 10,1985

] ,

Mr. Wil11aa J. Dircks '

Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Consission -

Washin ton, D.C. 20$55 -

Dear r. eks:

1 We are beginning to see examples '

industry to reduce unnecessary scrams,of increasing especially NRC sinet pressure Dennis i A the Wilkinson's letter to the industry on this subject in early 1984, a copy of which was furnished to the NRC.

Reducing necessary scram theis number of matter a delicate unnecessary scrans without (ever) alf ainating a the industry to reduce unnecessary sc. rams At INPO, we are continuing to Gncourage '

but we constantly stress the need j to manage for excellence scram performance

  • fs only one.

using a broad set of performance indicators, of which We also constantly stress to member utilities 4 that in striving for improved perfoncance against measurable objectives, they must keep these efforts in perspective for their operational and technical personnel. 1 For example, in the case of scraes, we cannot afford to have an operator feel cor,cern over initiating a scram that he thinks is warranted. y

~  !

I do not believe that it is in the best interest of reactor safety f the NRC, as the regulator, to put pressure on utilities to reduce screas.orI believe senior NRC management can encourage . industry progress in general l

, discussions relating to a wide range of performance indicators. But s.pecific ,

regulatory programs or activities that put pressure on the utility to reduce scraes, reduce forced outages, or increas's availability could result in an -

nuclear station.unconservative or incorrect decision by personnel involved in operatin Using.quantifiable performance indicators is, in fact, a good example of an area where the industry, with INp0 assistance is making progress, but which is not amenable to the regulatory process., We have been working in this area for some four years now and are begin'ning to see some encourag ng results.

A copy of a recent summary we prepared is enclosed. We w 11 tr manage our actWities in this important area to best serve the utilities,ythe to ,

NRC, and the public. Your support, helpful in achieving our mutual objectives. along the lines I have discussed, will be I

[d sincerely, .

p( 36 deer., ate .,

president ,

adw p

Enclosure - (o,)s vm-=q n , ,sv9 /p 9 L

v v

[/

s ATTACHMENT 2

" l Institute of.

l Nuclear Power Operations I

[jcg7s Patiewey l Mienta, Georgia 3033g ,

TeWOW 404 953 3600 -I July 16, 1984 l

Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l washi gton, DC 20555

Dear r. ircks:

l A May 28, 1984 INSIDE NRC article stated that a-new NRC compilation shoved an increase in 'the average number of scrams per plant from 5.5 for the 1980, 81 and 82 three-year average.to 6.5 for 1983. We understand that this data.was made public by a senior member; of the Division of Human Factors Safety during a May 11, 1984 ACRS General Meeting. As you may know, a recent INPO study indicated a decline in the average number of automatic plant scrams for-1983 from the 5.5 average for 1980-82 (source:

NRC Gray Book). Copies of. the INSIDE NRC article and the INPO letter are enclosed for convenient reference.

  • Af ter extensive review,. we conclude' that the 6.5 average for  !

1983' as quoted to the ACRS- must have' included all trip-related data from the informal daily "50.72' phone report' (this data includes manual trips, start-up test . scrams, and reactor pro-

  • tection system actuations), whereas the 5.5 average for 1980 1 (that has been quoted widely) comes from NRC Gray Book data. If  !

the "non-automatic scram" data is subtracted ifrom the raw '50.72' data, the 1983 scram. rate corroborates the Gr*ay, Book automatic scram data and agrees with the. INPO report. 4 Bill., we received many questions about our report on the

' trend of scrans af ter the inaccurate statement before the. ACRS.

As you know, af ter such a " media release' occurs, .it is difficult to set the ;ecord straight and some damage to INPO's credibility is an inevitable result. I would appreciate it if you would set the record straight with your staff and with the ACRS. ,  ;

O are a bit slow in addressing this- matter but I asked my

' people to check and recheck- the data before writing to you.

Thank you for your support.

-4_

A  ;

s (a) M ek ..

. President ate M .

2 rP/has hh u "W

^A l9 V/D 9 -/ e - -i

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237H484&oldid=3252358"