ML19263D672
| ML19263D672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Gossick C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7904130124 | |
| Download: ML19263D672 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES
/p ecg'o, g
.. CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSib,
yl WASHINGTCN, D. C. 2C555 Edqtts, PD((
- s.
- C.
'E 3 -.
%l '.v
[
November 9, 1978 CFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR :
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Oper tione FROM:
amuel J. Chilk, ary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF AND VOTE ON SECY-78-504 - CLASSIFICATION OF SENSITIVE SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION, 9:35 A.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1978, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D. C. 0FFICE (CLOSED TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 1.
The Commission, by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Gilinsky dissenting *,
approved the plan to classify sensitive safeguards information for SSNM activities only (under authority of Executiv_e Order 12065).
Commissioners Kennedy and Gilinsky also expressed their support for the proposal (alternative 1(b)) that the Ccmmission should continue to support enactment of legislation applicable to unclassified safeguards information.
Commissioner Kennedy further noted that no f.urther comment is needed now for the NSC. **
2.
The Commission also requested that:
(a) the action plan in SECY-77-75 provide a basis for future staff actions related to implementation of the classifi-cation program applicable to SSNM activities; (NMSS/SEC) (SECY Suspense: On-going)
(b) a classification guide envisioned as part of the proposed action plan be submitted for Commission approval; (NMSS/SEC) (SECY Suspense: 12/21/78)
(c) proposed Parts 25 & 95 to the Commission's regulations (SECY-77-290A) be resubmitted for Commission approval.
(NMSS/SEC) (SECY Suspense: 12/21/78)
- Commissioner Gilinsky's separate views are attached.
- Vu-graph defining alternatives is attached c.
~
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Ccrmissioner Kennedy CONTACT: P.M:0sker (SECY)
Cc missioner Bradford 4-1410 C:rmissioner Ahearne Acting General Counsel Director, Policy Evaluation Director, Public Affairs Direct:r, Congressional Affairs 790413 0 ( N
,g&.:;:muu. ;rD'. **YA$$
cr b
Q Q
L wdea es+ og,w' m
Re4 E ~
SEPARATE VIEWS OF CCMMISSIONER GIL NSKY 97;M REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF SENS TIVE SAFEGU'R:S INF:RMAT:05 g
w While a strcng case can be made in this instance for national security classification pursuant to an Executive Order, I would prefer a statutory solutien, which I believe could provide equivalent prctection tc the in-formatien in question.
As far as I can tell, the Commission's action is unprecedented; this would be the first time that classification pursuant to Executive Order was extended to cover private activities conducted for private ends.
Unless narrowly circumscribed by law, this precedent cculd cpen the door to further intrusion of national security classification into the crivate sector.
That is why we should have sought a legislative sciuticn to this croblem.
I believe the reason the Congress did not act on tne Commission's earlier legislative proposal was that the proposal did not sufficiently circumscribe the area of information control.
I do not exclude the possibility that national security classification might in the enc be necessary.
But if information pertaining to a private activity is not protectable without national security classification, then we are faced not only with the cuestion cf the acplication of such classifi-cation but also with the cuestion of whether that activity ougnt to remain private.
N.
9