T h e B lack Vault The Black Vault is the larges t o n l ine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth a t : h t tp://www.theblackvault.com This document is made av a i l a b l e through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE REQUESTER: jJohn Greenewald DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS: All documents that have been collected about UFOs that have been collected from 1975 to date. PART I. -INFORMATION RELEASED You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison. Contact information for the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison is available at !:lttQs://www.nrc.govreading:rm/fola/contact.:foia.html 0 Agency records subject to the request are already available on the Public NRC Website, in Public ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRC Public Document Room. Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you. We are continuing to process your request See Comments. PART I.A -- FEES You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed. Minimum fee threshold not met You will receive a refund for the amount listed. Due to our delayed response, you will "See Comments for detatls Fees waived. not be charged fees. PART 1.8 INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). 5 U.S. C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters: it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist. We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II. Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination. You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or e-mail to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or
[email protected]. Please be include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal." You have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Public Liaison, or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). Contact information for OGIS is available at httgs://ogis.archives.gov/about-ogis/contact-information.htm PART I.C COMMENTS { Use attached Comments continuation page if required) Signature Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee Stephanie A. Blaney ON;c=US, O"'U_S Govemrnent. I)U=US. NW:bul ~1oi'(C0mMis$i,'JI'!, 0\.FNRC-P!V,Gt'FStephafliU A ffial'l*y, 0.9.234'2.19100300.100.1.1"'200001997 NRC Form 464 Part I (03-2017) I Add Continuation Page I Delete Continuation~ NRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST PART II.A APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the FOIA exemption(s) as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552(b)). 0 Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order protecting national security information. D Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC. 0 Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by the statute indicated. 0 Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165). 0 Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S. C. 2167). 41 U.S.C. 4702(b), which prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals, except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the of the proposal. Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated. The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1 ). The information is considered to be another type or confidential business (proprietary) information. The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 0 Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are normally privileged in civil litigation. D Deliberative process privilege. D Attorney work product privilege. D Attorney-client privilege. Exemption 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because Its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 0 Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated. 0 (A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an open enforcement proceeding. 0 (C) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (D) The information consists of names and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. 0 (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. PART 11.8 DENYING OFFICIALS In accordance with 10 CFR 9.25(g) and 9.25(h) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the official(s) listed below have made the determination to withhold certain information responsive to your request DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELI.A TE OFFICIAL I Stephanie Blaney FOIA Officer II identifying information Appeals must be made in writing within ~calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or
[email protected]. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal." NRC Form 464 Part II (12-2015) Page 1 of 1 Printed 711212010 Cooper DRS Overall Responsible Branch PSB1 01 Action: No 01 Report: Sometime between 1986 and 1989, an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) violated the protected area at Cooper Nuclear Station and was not reported to the NRC as required. Action Branch Assigned Plann~ Completed 1 Acknowledgement letter ACES 6/1312010 7/13/2010 17/912010 . I ACES to Forward to licensee for their information, no response required Make branch recommendations for initial ARB. Summary ACES 6/17/201 0 An unidentified flying object violated the protected area at Cooper Nuclear Station sometime between 1986 and 1989, but the event was not reported to the NRC as / 5 Referral letter ACES 612912010 7/6/2010 Forward to licensee for their information, no response required Received Date Purpose of this ARB: Initial ARB Basis for a Subsequent Does the Alleger OBJECT to the NRC requesting that the licensee formally assess/evaluate the concem(s)? If any of the following factors apply, this allegation shall not be submitted to the licensee for investigation or review. lnfonnation cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or confidential The licensee could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the <fiSCUSSions. The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would nonnally receive and address the all ation. The basis of the allegation Is Information received from a Federal or State agency that does not approve the infonnation being released. licensee's allegation trend, quarrty of response(s), problem Identification and resolution, and/or cycle review results are such that the NRC should independently evaluate the concem s . The NRC evaluation would be more tilll(!ly and efficient -there is an ongoing or upcoming Inspection which could evaluate the concem. Significant pubnaCommisslon Interest warrants independent assessment of c::on<:em{s). LBerger Jlarsen . JKowalczik RAzua JWalker Halre KFuller I Chairman Approval: ~ Brief Overall Alleoation Summarv-if more than 3 Concerns use kevwords tooics subiect etc.: Provide a summary or selected keywlrdsltopics/subject for the whole allegation's contents below. ***See the BEPR Desktop Guide for assistance. An Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) hovered over the protected area 21 years ago. Page 2 of3 Responsible Branch: PSB 1 *Discipline: Security *01 Investigation Priority: OJ Case Number: 4-20XX-OXX i *01 Priority Basis: 1 Concern: (A eoncem is one or two sentences.) :!\;:~:-::l?:.:.:L::;:,~i .::!;:.~-~j;f/;'.: Sometime between 1986 and 1989, an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) violated the protected area at Cooper Nuclear Station and was not reported to the NRC as reQuired. The Cl described an event that occurred during his employment as a security officer at Cooper Nuclear Station. He was employed there from 1986 through 1989 and did not remember specifically when during that time the event While posted at the intake structure one night, he observed an "unidentified flying object" fly down the Missouri River about 150 feet in the air and hover in front of the intake. He observed it for a few moments and then contacted a fellow security officer who also observed it (he could not recall the individual's name exactly but his first name was(!h}] and his last name was eitheriCb)CZ)CC) I. After they together observed the UFO, it turned and went back up the river and did not come back that shift. He and the other officer shared their observation with their peers who did not believe them. The next evening he again was posted at the intake and observed the UFO return again. This time he didn't call anyone until the UFO had traversed into the protected area and hovered above the protected area just north of the Reactor Building. He said it was roughly triangular in shape with a circle of rotating lights on the bottom. He could not hear any propulsion noise from the UFO. He believes that it was roughly 1/3 the size of the Reactor Building. Once the UFO hovered in the protected area, he ~ll!lhe :~ b: ~m and :, of the officers on shift observed the UFO. These indiViduals includedKb)(Z)(C) _ andHb)(Z)(C) kboth of whom were security officers), all of whom still wor a e plan~o ay.er ovenng ere for a few minutes, the UFO exited the protected are and returned back up the river to the north as it had th~ previous night. The Ci said that he never saw the UFO at the plant again after that evening. Cl believes that this incident should have been reported as a violation of the protected area space but was not The SRI at Cooper conducted a search of the corrective action program between 1/1/1986 --- 12/31/1989 using the words: "ufo", "flying", unidentified, "protected area", and "hover". The search yielded no associated with this concern. Basis: Describe the concern's safety significance (current, on going issue; level of individual(s) involved; etc.). Past event that has no impact of current safety or security of the station. Check each question as applicable to this concern. X Is It a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Is there a potential deficiency? X Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated acttvities or policy (e.g. SCWE)? X Is the validity of the issue unknown? If all of the above statements are checked, the issue is an allegation. _ ;?;; .: :~ t:l _ *Technical Staff Recommendation(s) Recommended Action Assigned Branch Planned Date 06/24/10 SRI Interview listed personnel and return results to ARB PSB1/RPBC UNI.TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 780114125 Brian J. O'Grady, Vice President-Nuclear Chief Nuclear Officer Nebraska Public Power-Cooper 72676 648A Avenue Brownville, NE 68321 SUBJECT: REFERRAL INFORMATION REFERENCE: ALLEGATION RIV-201 0-A-01 01 Dear. Mr. O'Grady: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently received information concerning activities at the Cooper Nuclear Station. We are providing this information described in this letter for your evaluation. Specifically, sometime between 1986 and 1989, an Unidentified Flying Object {UFO) violated the protected area at the Cooper Nuclear Station, was allegedly witnessed by security officers, and was not reported to the NRC, as required. No response to this letter is requested. This letter should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know." Please contact Ms. Bernadette Baca, Senior Allegations Coordinator, Region IV, at {817) 860-8245 with any additional questions you may have concerning this information. Docket: 50-298 License: DPR-46 William B. Jones, ~hief Allegation Coordination and Enforcement bee w/enelosure Allegation File S:\RAS\ACES\ALLEGATIONS\201 0 Case Files\RIV-201 0-A-01 01\10101 FYI Letter.d ADAMS No ltJ SUNSI Review Com lete E=E-mail F=Fax UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 .ARLINGTON, TEXAS SUBJECT: CONCERN YOU RAISED TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) REGARDING THE COOPER NUCLEAR STATION RE: ALLEGATION RIV-201 0-A-01 01 This letter refers to your conversation with Nick Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector on June 13, 201 0, during which you expressed a concern related to a violation of the protected area by an unidentified object sometime between 1986 and 1989 at the Cooper Nuclear Station. In your conversation with Mr. Taylor, you indicated that you would not object to the NRC requesting information from the licensee with regard to your concern. In addressing this issue, the NRC will provide the information regarding the craft in the protected area to the licensee for review and any subsequent actions. Your name and any other identifying information will be excluded from the information that is provided to Copper Nuclear Station. Unless the NRC receives additional information that suggests that our actions should be altered, -we plan no further action on this matter. enclosure with this letter is a brochure entitled, "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC," which contains information that you may find helpful in understanding our process for review of concerns. The brochure contains an important discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters, as well as those circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect a concerned individual's identity. If a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act related to your areas of concern, the information provided will, to the extent consistent with that act, be purged of names and other potential identifiers. Further, you should be aware you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been formally granted in writing. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Thank you for informing us of your concern. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety mission. We take our safety responsibility to the public seriously will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority. Should you have any additional questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Michael at 800-952-9677, extension 215, or you can call Ms. Bernadette Baca on the NRC Safety Hotline at 800-695-7403 Monday-Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30p.m. Central Time. Enclosure: Safety Concerns to the NRC Sincerely, . ~f /. Ro,Y"&~ia~o. Division Director of Reactor Safety bee Allegation File S:\RAS\ACES\ALLEGATIONS\20 10 Case Files\RIV-201 0-A-01 01\1 01 01 -Acknowledgement and Closure Letter.doc I ~SUNS I Review Comelete I Reviewer Initials: wbj ~s AC:ACES C;PSB1 C:ACES JKowalcz1k M~hai'].(J)n OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail Rollins, Jesse R4ALLEGATION Resource: FW: Results of corrective action program search Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:30:59 AM Bernadette/Judith/Lynn, Please add this to file for 2010-0101. Thanks. From: Taylor, Nick Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:47-AM To: Rollins, Jesse Cc: Baca, Bernadette Subject: Results of corrective action program search Sorry I missed your call. We're working weird hours at Cooper right now due to flooding, ongoing event on site. I did some searching of the records in the corrective action program. I searched for hits between 111/1986 and 12/31/1989 for the following words and did not find any hits that sounded remotely close to what you are looking for: unidentified" "protected area" If you can think of any other word searches you want me to try, let me know. One precaution -I'd be ca