ML20004C485
| ML20004C485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/1980 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19295A142 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-635 NUDOCS 8106040158 | |
| Download: ML20004C485 (4) | |
Text
.; (
L 0
Macu
/
'T -f_
UNITED STATES V$
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20155
%*****)
" June 20,1980
. MEMORANDUM TOR:
Comissioner Hendrie FROM:
Carlton Karnere Office of Con ressiona
~
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NEW tCTION 147 0F THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT Chairman Ahearne has asked me to respond to your memorandum of June 11, 1980 concerning the new Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act included in the FY 1980 NRC authorization bill as reported
'by the conferees and agreed to by the House and Senate.
Your memorandum requests clarification of the following sentence _
contained in the new section:
"Nothing in this Act shall authorize the Commission to prohibit the public disclosure of information pertaining to the routes and
. quantities of shipments of source material, by-product material, high-level nuclear waste, or irradiated nuclear reactor fuel."
On its face it appears unclear whether this sentence should be read to require only disclosure of generic information as to approved routes and quantities of sp'ent fuel normally shipped along such routes or whether it can be interpreted to require the disclosure of information as to the routing and quantity of specific shipments of spent fuel.
If the latter, as you point out, the language might adversely affect NRC's ability to safeguard effectively spent fuel shipments.
We believe that the Congress intended to apply the first interpreta-tion and that this intent is clearly established in the legislative history.
The authority to withhold certain sensitive safeguards information was requested by the Comission and included in the version of the FY 1980 authorization bill which passed the House.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The House provision was modified and adopted by the conferees.
During the floor debate preceding. House passage of the bill," the safeguards information provision was interpreted and explained in a colloquy between Chairman Udall, the bill's floor manager, 'and l
@.2 i
l t
'8'10604o1 %
~
(..
- (...
+
2 E
Congressman Moffett. '(See attached)' During the discussion it was made clear' that the intent of Congress was to include as withholdable information "the specific routes and times of any specific shipment of nuclear wastes" as well as information regarding 'the methods used jin deciding the specific routes for any specific shipment..."
.Information regarding specific shipents was clearly distinguished from "such general information as the frequency, quantities, and forms of n0 clear wastes regularly in transit through a particular jurisdiction and the general routes used - which in the case of spent fuels, for example, are approved by the NRC - by nuclear waste
. shipments." The latter infonnation, general in nature, may not be withheld.
There is nothing in.the legislative history of the conference report
.in either House that would contradict the interpretation given this section in the Udall-Moffett floor colloquy.
In addition, there is
' language in the reports o' both the House Interstate and Foreign Comerce and Interior and Insular Affairs Comittees in connection with the State notification provision -(section 301) which supports the view that Congress intended the Comission to withhold from the public safeguards information related to the routing and timing of specific shipments' of certain materials where disclosure might endanger the public.
For example, the Scuse Commerce Comittee in providing for timely notification of governors of shipments through their jurisdictions further states in their accompaning report that the "Comittee recognizes that public knowledge of such shipments could endanger them thus, the bill makes clear... [p]ublic notice is not required."
The Connittee believes that Governors " deserve to receive notice of the time and routes of.such shipments so they can make appropriate preparations".
It is conceivable that some governors would not wish to receive information as to the specific times and routes of parti-cular shipments. which t'iey would then have to safeguard. The phrasing in the Comerce Committee report together with the absence n
of contradictory language would seem to allow sufficient flexibility to formulate a rule which, while providing general notice of shipments to take place, would only provide specific time and route information on request of the governor.
cc:
Chairman Ahearne Comissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy r
Comissioner Bradford
,.SECY
-OGC OPE EDO.
9
-