ML19296B076
| ML19296B076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1977 |
| From: | Bender M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-0684, ACRS-R-684, NUDOCS 8002200009 | |
| Download: ML19296B076 (2) | |
Text
.
f*" %jg f ;' b
<'-]$oi_ "f 7 :
?
g
~
UNITED STATES v
~
- g s,
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ar t/..
1 gg,j j ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS V'-
9 gr
.f WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 March 18, 1977 Honorable Marcus A. Rowden Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Rowden:
The Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards has considered the application to its activities of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b., Pub. Law No.94-409). The Comittee has been ad-vised of the legal interpretation of the Act as applied to ACRS activities, and the en=!ttee offers the following coments with respect to application of the Act as it relates to the effective discharge of its duties in protecting the public health and safety.
The ACRS desires to implement the Act fully and has implemented applicable provisions of the Act in larga measure well in advance of its effective date. Except for limited sessions needed to dis-cuss information specifically requiring protection, most sessions to gather information, including discussior.s with NRC staff mem-bers, licensing participants, and intereste3 members of the public, have been open to the public since implementation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. More recently, the Comittee has also opened its deliberative and decision-making sessions to the public in accordance with the intent of the Government in the Senshine Act.
The Comittee is concerned however, that open. sessions at which forthcoming ACRS reports are discussed and drafted will tend to compromise the collegial nature of these reports. This is particu-larly likely to be the case if Comittee deliberative discussions taking place in public sessions are permitted to be put in issue in subsequent hearings on license applications or other NRC pro-ceedings. Tha Comittee desires that statements of views or ex-pressions of opinions by individuals during open sessions not be treated as matters of record in other Comission proceedings since such statements may not reflect the individual's final views or positions. Nor should proposed positions be treated as the collec-tive judgment of the Comittee, since the Comittee's final deter-minations are reflected only in its final reports, which, in licens-ing cases, are made part of the public record in accordance with Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act. These reports do include supplementary remarks which represent the final conclusions of individual members when they disagree with the Comittee's col-
'lective judgment.
S0022QQ &
Honorable Marcus A. Rowden March 18, 1977 Beyond this, we are concerned that conducting our letter-writing sessions in public could impair the scope and depth of our collec-tive drafting effort. Even without the constraints which seem likely to flow from public presence, drafting responses which are fully debated and acceptable to all members is normally difficult.
Our recent experience with open drafting sessions has convinced the Comittee that the addition of public observers compounds these problems. Open sessions limit the uninhibited discussion of issues since rnamhars are reluctant to discuss matters which may involve the privacy of individuals or other privileged matters. Thus, Comittee members are likely to be restrained in their discussion with a resulting loss in the effectiveness of the Comittee's de-liberative process.
We understand that, in the Aec:r h1imv1 case, the court.of appeals recognized the collegial nature of the ACRS and refused to permit discovery of individual ACRS members because of the disintegrative effect that discovery would have on the collegiality of advice and recomendations. The court concluded that the ACRS is comparable to an admnistrative adjudicator whose mental processes are pro-tected fra examination. The Comittee's unique statutory role in the Comission's licensing process appears to be a part of the Com-mission's adjudicatory proceedings since the process cannot proceed to completion without benefit of an ACRS report. We believe that these considerations support a conclusion that the tenth exemption of the S.mshine Act is applicable to those portions of the ACRS meetings where reports related to the hearing process are being prepared. It is anticipated that the other nine exemptive provi-sions of the Act will be used only to the extent necessary to pro-tect specific information being discussed which is exerrpt fr m pub-lic disclosure.
The Comittee desires your consideration regarding the application of the Sunshine Act to ACRS activities as noted above. The Com-mission's endorsement will result in essentially all substantive discussion at Comittee meetings being conducted in open sessions, except for the preparation of final reports related to adjudica-tory matters.
Sincerely, M. Bender Chairman