ML20215C279: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_-__ __     - _ _
{{#Wiki_filter:_
                        _
_-__
  %  $
__
- _ _
%
$
![
#
o,,
UNITE ~) STATES
,
,
    ![#
o-
    W
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                  o,,
W
                    o-
,I
                    ,I
wAsmwoTow, p. c. zones
                                                UNITE ~) STATES
DEC10 386
                                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
*
                                            wAsmwoTow, p. c. zones
.....
                *
Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire
        .....                                 DEC10 386
Government Accountability Project
          Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire
Midwest Office
          Government Accountability Project
IN RESPONSE REFER
          Midwest Office                                         IN RESPONSE REFER
3424 Marcos Lane
          3424 Marcos Lane                                     TO FOIA-86-A-177
TO FOIA-86-A-177
          Appleton, WI 54911                                     (F01A-86-380)
Appleton, WI 54911
          Dear Ms. Garde:
(F01A-86-380)
          This is in response to your letter dated September 11, 1986, which appealed
Dear Ms. Garde:
          Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's letter dated August 21, 1986, which denied fourteen
This is in response to your letter dated September 11, 1986, which appealed
          documents subject to your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request for
Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's letter dated August 21, 1986, which denied fourteen
          documents regarding Inspection Report 85-16/85-13 regarding the Comanche Peak
documents subject to your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request for
          nuclear power plant.
documents regarding Inspection Report 85-16/85-13 regarding the Comanche Peak
          Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and
nuclear power plant.
          have determined that some additional information can now be made publicly
Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and
          available. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.
have determined that some additional information can now be made publicly
          Portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed on the enclosed appendix can
available. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.
          now be made publicly available and are enclosed. Documents one through eleven,
Portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed on the enclosed appendix can
          thirteen, and the remaining portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed
now be made publicly available and are enclosed. Documents one through eleven,
          on the enclosed appendix will continue to be withheld from public disclosure
thirteen, and the remaining portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed
          pursuant to Exemption (5) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5)
on the enclosed appendix will continue to be withheld from public disclosure
          of the Commission's regulations.
pursuant to Exemption (5) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5)
          Documents one, two, three, and fourteen are inter'nal documents containing advice
of the Commission's regulations.
          and opinions which were predecisional to the issuing of the inspection report.
Documents one, two, three, and fourteen are inter'nal documents containing advice
          Exemption (5) shields from mandatory disclosure documents generated in the
and opinions which were predecisional to the issuing of the inspection report.
          deliberative process that precedes most decisions of government agencies.
Exemption (5) shields from mandatory disclosure documents generated in the
          Documents four through eleven, twelve, and thirteen, are draft documents which
deliberative process that precedes most decisions of government agencies.
          are clearly predecisional because they were prepared prior to a..a in the course
Documents four through eleven, twelve, and thirteen, are draft documents which
          of reaching a final agency decision. These documents describe preliminary staff
are clearly predecisional because they were prepared prior to a..a in the course
          thinking and, therefore, contain preliminary aivice, opinions, and recommendations
of reaching a final agency decision. These documents describe preliminary staff
          of the staff in the deliberative process of determining proper actions regarding
thinking and, therefore, contain preliminary aivice, opinions, and recommendations
          the Comanche Peak plant. Exemption (5) was intended to permit the agency's
of the staff in the deliberative process of determining proper actions regarding
          withholding of such documents to preserve the free and candid internal dialogue
the Comanche Peak plant.
          necessary for the careful formulation of agency decisions.
Exemption (5) was intended to permit the agency's
            8612150087 861210
withholding of such documents to preserve the free and candid internal dialogue
            PDR FOIA
necessary for the careful formulation of agency decisions.
              GARDE 86-A-177 PDR 6
8612150087 861210
              .
PDR
O
FOIA
                                                                                              .
GARDE 86-A-177
PDR 6
.
O
.


                                                    -                -
  ._
.
.
          e     , ih
._
    .-i ,     ~   *
-
                      ~Ms. Garde                                       -2--
-
                      This is a final.. agency decision.:'As. set forth.in the F0IA (5 U.S.C.
e
                      . 552(a)(4)(B)), judicial . review of this decision-is available -in a- district-
, ih
                      -court of the United States:in the district in'which you reside, have your
.-i ,
                      principal place of. business or in'the District of Columbia..
~
                                                                          Sincerely,
*
            '
~Ms. Garde
                                                                                -
-2--
                                                                                      .g.
This is a final.. agency decision.:'As. set forth.in the F0IA (5 U.S.C.
                                                                              tor Stello,   .
. 552(a)(4)(B)), judicial . review of this decision-is available -in a- district-
                                                                          Executive Dire or for 0perations
-court of the United States:in the district in'which you reside, have your
                      Enclosures: As stated
principal place of. business or in'the District of Columbia..
Sincerely,
'
.g.
-
tor Stello,
.
Executive Dire or for 0perations
Enclosures: As stated
4
4
                              _=-       . - _ _ .   .--., _ ..___ ,                     ., - . - _ _ . _ . _ .
_=-
.
- _ _ .
.--., _ ..___ ,
., - . - _ _ . _ . _ .


                                                                                      _-
_-
    #
#
    4 -'.
4
  .                                                                     86-A-177
- ' .
                                          Appendix
.
        1.   11/25/85 Memo to T. Westerman.from H. Phillips're: BISCO Fire
86-A-177
                        ' Seals Certification and QA Records which Burned (3 pages)
Appendix
        2.. ~3/6/86   Memo to E. Johnson from H.-Phillips re: BISCO Fire
1.
                          Penetration Seals Test Reports PCA-76 and 748-183 (3 pages)
11/25/85
        -3.-   4/4/86-   Memo to T. Westerman from H. Phillips re: NRC Inspection
Memo to T. Westerman.from H. Phillips're:
                          Report 85-16/13 and Retention of Draft Reports (2 pages)
BISCO Fire
        4     Undated-   Draft Inspection Report 50-445/85-16 and 50-446/85-13,
' Seals Certification and QA Records which Burned (3 pages)
                        ' document 1.a and 1.b (31 pages)
2..
        5. - Undated   Draft Ins
~3/6/86
                        -(5 pages)pection Report, document 2.a Revisions to 1.a
Memo to E. Johnson from H.-Phillips re: BISCO Fire
        6.   Undated   Draft Inspection Report, document 2.b, Revisions to 1.a
Penetration Seals Test Reports PCA-76 and 748-183 (3 pages)
                                            ~
-3.-
                          (19 pages)
4/4/86-
        7.   Undated   Draft Inspection Report, document 2.a. Revision 1 (3 pages)
Memo to T. Westerman from H. Phillips re: NRC Inspection
        8.   Undated   Draft Inspection Report, document 3 Incorporates changes
Report 85-16/13 and Retention of Draft Reports (2 pages)
                          to 2.a and 2.b documents (Lost typed version of 2)
4
                          (21pages)
Undated-
        9.   Undated   Draft Inspection Report, document 4 (25 pages)
Draft Inspection Report 50-445/85-16 and 50-446/85-13,
        10. Undated     Draft Inspection Report, document 5.a, Draft No. 2, Rev.1
' document 1.a and 1.b (31 pages)
                          (19pages)
5. -
        11. 2/11/86     Draft Inspection Report document 5.b, Final Draft Transmit
Undated
-(5 pages)pection Report, document 2.a Revisions to 1.a
Draft Ins
6.
Undated
Draft Inspection Report, document 2.b, Revisions to 1.a
(19 pages)
~
7.
Undated
Draft Inspection Report, document 2.a. Revision 1 (3 pages)
8.
Undated
Draft Inspection Report, document 3 Incorporates changes
to 2.a and 2.b documents (Lost typed version of 2)
(21pages)
9.
Undated
Draft Inspection Report, document 4 (25 pages)
10. Undated
Draft Inspection Report, document 5.a, Draft No. 2, Rev.1
(19pages)
11. 2/11/86
Draft Inspection Report document 5.b, Final Draft Transmit
to OPS (19 pages)
-
-
                          to OPS (19 pages)
12.
        12.   2/13/86   Inspection Report Route Sheet (1 page) with two draft
2/13/86
                          letters to licensee two draft notices of violation, and
Inspection Report Route Sheet (1 page) with two draft
                          twodraftinspectionreports(57pages)       (Released:
letters to licensee two draft notices of violation, and
                          Inspection Report Route Sheet)
twodraftinspectionreports(57pages)
        13.   Undated   Outline of NRC Report 85-16; 85-13, November 1979 Exit
(Released:
                        with TUGCo (6 pages)
Inspection Report Route Sheet)
        14   10/25 -   Report input by McCleskey NRC Consultant (20 pages)
13.
                          (Released: First page on report 7, dated 11/26/85)
Undated
Outline of NRC Report 85-16; 85-13, November 1979 Exit
with TUGCo (6 pages)
14
10/25 -
Report input by McCleskey NRC Consultant (20 pages)
12/11/85
(Released:
First page on report 7, dated 11/26/85)
'
'
              12/11/85
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:02, 3 December 2024

Final Response to Appeal of Denial of FOIA Request for Documents Re Insp Repts 50-445/85-16 & 50-446/85-13.Encl Portions of App Documents 12 & 14 Also in Pdr.Documents 1-11 & 13 Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)
ML20215C279
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  
Issue date: 12/10/1986
From: Stello V
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML20215C281 List:
References
FOIA-86-380, FOIA-86-A-177 NUDOCS 8612150087
Download: ML20215C279 (3)


See also: IR 05000445/1985016

Text

_

_-__

__

- _ _

%

$

![

o,,

UNITE ~) STATES

,

o-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

W

,I

wAsmwoTow, p. c. zones

DEC10 386

.....

Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire

Government Accountability Project

Midwest Office

IN RESPONSE REFER

3424 Marcos Lane

TO FOIA-86-A-177

Appleton, WI 54911

(F01A-86-380)

Dear Ms. Garde:

This is in response to your letter dated September 11, 1986, which appealed

Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley's letter dated August 21, 1986, which denied fourteen

documents subject to your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request for

documents regarding Inspection Report 85-16/85-13 regarding the Comanche Peak

nuclear power plant.

Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and

have determined that some additional information can now be made publicly

available. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.

Portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed on the enclosed appendix can

now be made publicly available and are enclosed. Documents one through eleven,

thirteen, and the remaining portions of documents twelve and fourteen listed

on the enclosed appendix will continue to be withheld from public disclosure

pursuant to Exemption (5) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5)

of the Commission's regulations.

Documents one, two, three, and fourteen are inter'nal documents containing advice

and opinions which were predecisional to the issuing of the inspection report.

Exemption (5) shields from mandatory disclosure documents generated in the

deliberative process that precedes most decisions of government agencies.

Documents four through eleven, twelve, and thirteen, are draft documents which

are clearly predecisional because they were prepared prior to a..a in the course

of reaching a final agency decision. These documents describe preliminary staff

thinking and, therefore, contain preliminary aivice, opinions, and recommendations

of the staff in the deliberative process of determining proper actions regarding

the Comanche Peak plant.

Exemption (5) was intended to permit the agency's

withholding of such documents to preserve the free and candid internal dialogue

necessary for the careful formulation of agency decisions.

8612150087 861210

PDR

FOIA

GARDE 86-A-177

PDR 6

.

O

.

.

._

-

-

e

, ih

.-i ,

~

~Ms. Garde

-2--

This is a final.. agency decision.:'As. set forth.in the F0IA (5 U.S.C.

. 552(a)(4)(B)), judicial . review of this decision-is available -in a- district-

-court of the United States:in the district in'which you reside, have your

principal place of. business or in'the District of Columbia..

Sincerely,

'

.g.

-

tor Stello,

.

Executive Dire or for 0perations

Enclosures: As stated

4

_=-

.

- _ _ .

.--., _ ..___ ,

., - . - _ _ . _ . _ .

_-

4

- ' .

.

86-A-177

Appendix

1.

11/25/85

Memo to T. Westerman.from H. Phillips're:

BISCO Fire

' Seals Certification and QA Records which Burned (3 pages)

2..

~3/6/86

Memo to E. Johnson from H.-Phillips re: BISCO Fire

Penetration Seals Test Reports PCA-76 and 748-183 (3 pages)

-3.-

4/4/86-

Memo to T. Westerman from H. Phillips re: NRC Inspection

Report 85-16/13 and Retention of Draft Reports (2 pages)

4

Undated-

Draft Inspection Report 50-445/85-16 and 50-446/85-13,

' document 1.a and 1.b (31 pages)

5. -

Undated

-(5 pages)pection Report, document 2.a Revisions to 1.a

Draft Ins

6.

Undated

Draft Inspection Report, document 2.b, Revisions to 1.a

(19 pages)

~

7.

Undated

Draft Inspection Report, document 2.a. Revision 1 (3 pages)

8.

Undated

Draft Inspection Report, document 3 Incorporates changes

to 2.a and 2.b documents (Lost typed version of 2)

(21pages)

9.

Undated

Draft Inspection Report, document 4 (25 pages)

10. Undated

Draft Inspection Report, document 5.a, Draft No. 2, Rev.1

(19pages)

11. 2/11/86

Draft Inspection Report document 5.b, Final Draft Transmit

to OPS (19 pages)

-

12.

2/13/86

Inspection Report Route Sheet (1 page) with two draft

letters to licensee two draft notices of violation, and

twodraftinspectionreports(57pages)

(Released:

Inspection Report Route Sheet)

13.

Undated

Outline of NRC Report 85-16; 85-13, November 1979 Exit

with TUGCo (6 pages)

14

10/25 -

Report input by McCleskey NRC Consultant (20 pages)

12/11/85

(Released:

First page on report 7, dated 11/26/85)

'