ML19352B020
| ML19352B020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/16/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B019 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-635, REF-SSINS-6310 NUDOCS 8106020572 | |
| Download: ML19352B020 (2) | |
Text
'fj
['
ONITE D STATES
[**4\\{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. f
,E WASHINC. TON, D. C. 20555
- [.[ Q*
g SSINS 6310 A' h 15 1~ D
' IEM?RA'4DUM FOR:
'liiliam J. Dircis, Director Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Victor Stello," Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED COMMISSION PAPER ON WITHHOLDING 0F NRC SPENT FUEL ROUTE INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE The Office of Inspection and Enforcement cannot concur with Alternative 3 of the subject paper for a number of reasons.
First, as is adequately covered on page 4 of the paper, is the potential harm that would result from disclosure.
Recent criticism of the NRC for releasing the barrier data base and other documents relating to safeguarding a facility should serve as a case in point.
The spent fuel route data is truly a " road map" much rare comprehensive than the Barrier Da a Base.
It not only furnishes the acversary with the route but also the safe haven, LLEA radio frequencies, telephone numbers and areas where communications &ce poor.
The only infor-mation not furnished on the route data sheet, is the date and time of the shipment which the adversary could determire by mere observation at the point of origin.
If we are truly concernr.1 about a potential sabotage of spent fuel sh1pments, and SECY-79-278 ane 10 CFR 73.37 indicates that we are, I don't see the rationale for releasing such sensitive information.
The only rationale given in the paper is to be responsive to the public.
It should be evident by the public outcry over the release of the Barrier Data Base, MITRE Handbooks, Sandia Handbooks, and other docu..:ents that the public is also concerned over unnecessary release of sensitive information.
In fact, I would expect the public outcry over releasing the route infor-mation will probably far exceed the present public concerns.
- Secondly, Part II, Interstate Commerce Act, Section 222, Paragraph (e) restricts the release of route information by anyone except the shipper or consignee.
Part II, Interstate Commerce Act, Section ?22, Paragraoh (e)
"It shall be unlawful for any motor carrier or broker engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or any officer, receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or employee of such carrier, broker, or person, or for any other person authorized by such carrier, broker, or person to receive infor.e.ation, knowingly to disclose to, or permit to be acquired by any person other than the shipper or consignee withcut the consent of such shipper or consignee, any information concerning the nature, kind, quantity, destination, consignee, or routing of any property tendered or delivered to such motor carrier or broker for such transportation, which information may be used to the detriment or prejudice of such shipper or consignee, or which may improperly disclose his business transactions to a competitor; and it shall also be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly receive any such information which may be so used."
8106020 W h
IC 7-C P' a
-.a
.. &c ar r. ; e sic William J. Dircks.
2 7
A I
As. long as the need for. physical protection exists, the Office of Inspection i
and Enforcement'cannot concur with any alternative exc.egt Alternative 1.
i 7,,-
-w ex' Eictor Stelloj/Jr.
Director Office of inspection and Enforcement i
! ( A.- 4 !
/.. X<.. /W f i:
..,.i e
/'?7~
4
~
....,t/
4A e
,Yh=
b
-l % /
.Z%;
- w u r " -
, c t
I I
I i
)
i i
i t
i
'l 4
i
,v.
_, - -