ML20203C287

Further Response to FOIA Request for Three Categories of Records Re Equipment Qualification at Facility & Subjs Discussed at 860418 Meeting at Plant Site.App D Documents Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)

ML20203C287
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/16/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Weiss E HARMON & WEISS
References
FOIA-86-293 NUDOCS 8607180386
Download: ML20203C287 (3)

Text

y f-Y

(, y1g uag[g UNITED STATES

{ p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i:l

\...../

Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire M 1 0 1000 Harmon and Weiss 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 430 IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20009-1125 TO F01A-86-293

Dear Ms. Weiss:

This is in further response to your letter dated April 21, 1986, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), three categories of records related to equipment qualification at Three Mile Island (TMI-1) and the subjects discussed at a meeting held April 18, 1986 at the TMI site.

The records identified on enclosed Appendix D are responsive to your request.

These records are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. These records are either drafts, comments on drafts, input to drafts, or other notes which reflect the decisional process. They consist of predecisional information compiled by the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of the ongoing review process of an inspection.

Releasing this information would tend to inhibit the frank and candid exchange of information in future deliberations and would not be in the public interest.

The factual matter in the records is available in the NRC's Public Document Room as EA-86-63 which was issued on May 2, 1986.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 'O 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 Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

The staff is continuing to review additional records subject to your request.

We will notify you when this review is completed.

Sincerely, 6%~ /b w Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated 8607190386 860716 PDR FOIA WEISS86-293 PDR

_a

{ APPENDIX D F01A-86-293

1. Unda ted Draft Inspection Findings (24 pages) 2 Undated Inspection Notes (13 pages)

3. Undated Draft inspection notes (1 page)

4. Undated Draft inspection notes (12 pages)

5. Undated Draft inspection notes (1 page)

6. Undated Draft Operations (3 pages) _ l

7. Undated Draft inspection notes (1 page)

8. Undated Draft Surveillance and Testing (2 Pages)

9. Undated Draft inspection notes (4 pages)

10. Undated Draft inspection notes (2 pages)

11. Undated Draft inspection notes (7 pages)

12. Undated Detailed Inspection Findings (24 pages)

13. Undated Draft inspection notes (3 pages)

14. 3/14/86 Performance Appraisal Observation (4 pages)

15. Undated Observation of TMI Shift (3 pages)

16. 2/28/86 General Description (8 pages)

17. Undated Report (Draft)No. 50-219/86-08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Inspection on March 24 to 27, 1986 at GPU Nuclear - Technical Functions, 99 Cherry Hill Road, Parsippany, NJ, and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, NJ.

(32 pages)

18. 3/31/86 Sandia Technical Consultant's report input to the USNRC (3/31/86) for the inspection of GPU, Oyster Creek in Parsippany, NJ, March 24 to 27,1986.

(38 pages)

19. Undated Idaho National Engineering Laboratories input (Draft) to USNRC Inspection Report 50-219/86-08, Review of Equipment Qualification Records and Documentation - GPU, Oyster Creek. (8 pages) 1

20. 4/8/86 USNRC IE Reviewers input (Draft) to USNRC Inspection Report 50-219/86-08, GPU, Oyster Creek (7 pages)

21. 4/9/86 Region I input (Draf t) to USNRC Inspection Report 50-219/86-08, Reviewers Summaries, GPU, Oyster Creek. (17 pages)

22. 4/9/86 USNRC IE Reviewers input (Draft) to USNRC Inspection Report l 50-219/86-08, GPU, Oyster Creek. (22 pages) l

~

p e-

23. 2/6/86 Note to Jane Axelrad from Stephen G. Burns re: EA-86-7: GPU Nuclear (Oyster Creek). (1 page) i I

1 l

IIARMON & WEISS 2000 S STREE r N.W.

SUITE 430 WASIIINGTON, D.C. cocoo-nies GAIL McGREEVY H ARMON TELEPHONE ELLYN R. WEISS (202)328 3500 OlANE CURRAN DEAN R. TOUSLEY ANDREA C FERSTER Ap r il 21, 19 86 Joseph Felton, Director @m W INN)$RIAM Division of Rules and Records M @~

United States Nuclear gj _gQ J Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C . 20555 g g g s[d RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr. Felton:

Pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request copies of the following material related to equipment qualification April 18, 1986at TMI-l and the subjects discussed in a meeting of described in the attached meeting notice:

1. Any reports, memoranda or other documents related to the recent Performance Appraisal Team evaluation of TMI-l mentioned in the attached meeting notice, including but not limited to the " unqualified cable finding" described therein.

2. Any and all material submitted by GPU relating to the five subjects described in the meeting notice.

This should meeting include material submitted both at the and otherwise.

3. Any documents containing or reflecting evaluations or assessments of the current status of environmental qualification of electrical cables at THI-l and Oyster Creek.

Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated. I Very Truly Yours, V

i Ellyn R. We iss

\\ /

DYgo D  !

g(p If*

g*

[

g . .4 , h

'o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APR 1 8 ggy .

. 2* - l REGION i

,, 631 PARK AVENUE

. . . . . /p

%, ' \ KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406

.. j E Docket No. 50-289 .

GPU Nuclear Corporation ATIN: Mr. H. D. Hukill Director, IMI-l P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:

Subject:

TMI-1 Equipment Qualification Meeting h is ietter is to confirm tne clanned meeting to be held at 1G:00 a.m. or.' April 18, 19S6, at Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the overall equipment qualification program approaches at the Three Mile Island, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1) and Oyster Creek facilities, and, specifically, the recent Performance Appraisal Team unqualified cable finding at THi-1. You should be prepared to discuss the following items:

Discuss the methods used to establish t.*.e caster lists for Three Mile Island I and Oyster Crevi. list the similarities and differences.

Identify f rom records, to ir.clude central and site procurement files, all cable types requiring qualification. Verify and discuss what' methods were used to establish qualification (test / analysis).

Discuss what as-built inspections have been performed at TMl-1 to verify the sampling process.

Discuss what other cere:odities or equipment the nonrepresentative sampling techniques were used for in determining the master list.

Discuss the scope of the current inspection and document review performed by your contractor and the results.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, contact R. Blough (215-337-5051) or J. Durr (215-337-5282). Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

\f l j h, p . (/ f r.L N * '

,f , Stewart O. Ebn'eter, Director Division of Reactor Safety j

i

\ l gg$*0w tp.

. 1

. J

- _ _- .