ML20136F403
| ML20136F403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1984 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310G510 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-48FR36358, RULE-PR-2 AB78-1-002, AB78-1-2, NUDOCS 8410300385 | |
| Download: ML20136F403 (12) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'.,,_ _ c,'
i f0h.V ] '
m STATEMENT OF POLICY INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS, AND ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS 3
?
On August 5, 1983, the Commission set forth interim proce-dures for handling conflicts between the NRC's responsibility to disclose information to adjudicatory boards and parties, and the NRC's need to protect investigative material from premature public disclosure.
" Statement of Policy -- Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings," 48 Fed. Reg. 36358 (August 10, 1983).
Those interim procedures called for the NRC staff or Office of Investigations (OI), when it felt disclosure of information to an adjudicatory board was required but that unrestricted disclo-sure could compromise an inspection or investigation, to present the information and its concerns about disclosure to the board h cay,ra, without disclosure of the substance of the information to the oth;r parties.
A board decision to d'isclose the information to the parties was appealable to the Commission, and the board was not to order disclosure until the Commission addressed the matter.
That Statement of Policy was to remain in effect until the commission received and took action on the recommendations of an internal NRC task force established to develop guidelines for reconciling these conflicts in individual cases.
The Commission in that Statement also requested public comments on the propriety and desirability of ex parte in camera presentation of informa-tion to a board, and suggestions for any better alternatives.
,, e 4' 3 ']/0 3 o O SBS NA-p
__ _ m_
2 The Task Force submitted its report to the Commission on December 30, 1983.
A copy of that report will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room.
The Task Force approved the principles discussed in the Commission's earlier Statement of Policy, and made several recommendations intended to define specifically the responsibilities of the boards, the staff, and OI in presenting disclosure issues for resolution.
The Task Force recommended that the f.inal Policy Statement explain that full disclosure of material information to adjudica-tory boards and the parties is the general rule, but that some conflicts between the duty to disclose and the need to protect information will be inevitable.
The Task Force further recom-mended that issues regarding disclosure to the parties be initi-ally determined by the adjudicatory boards with provision for expedited appellate review, and that procedures for the resolu-tion of such conflicts be established by rule.
Finally, the Task Force suggested that existing board notification procedures should remain unaffected by the Policy Statement, and that those procedures and Commission guidelines for disclosure of informa-tion concerning investigations and inspections should apply to all NRC offices.
Those recommendations have been incorporated in this Statement.
In addition, two comments were submitted by members of the public.
One commenter stated that the withholding of information from public disclosure should be confined to the minimum
3 essential to avoid compromising enforcement actions, and that appropriate representatives of'each party should be allowed to participate under suitable protective orders in any in camera proceeding except in the most exceptional cases.
The other commenter maintained that an in camera presenta-tion to the board with only one party present is undesirable and L
violates the ex parte rule.
That commenter suggested an alterna-tive of having the attorneys or authorized representatives of parties who have signed a protective agreement present at any in camera presentation, with appropriate sanctions for violating the protective agreement.1 The Commission, after considering these comments and the report of the Task Force, has decided that it wod1d be appropri-f ate, in~ order to better explain the Commission's policy in this area, to provide the following explanation of the conflict becween the duty to disclose investigation or inspection informa-tion to the boards and parties and the need to protect that
'informationt 1
o l
l
(
I l
Both comments also included suggestions regarding matters l
beyond the scope of this Policy Statement, which in concerned l
only with establishing a procedure to handle conflicts between the duty to disclose information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that information.
For instance, one suggestion was that the NRC impose a more stringent standard in t
deciding whether information warrants a board notification.
l Another recommended that the NRC improve the quality of its investigations.
f
4 i
All parties in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including the NRC staff, have a duty to disclose to the boards and other parties all new information they acquire which is considered material and relevant to any issue in controversy in the proceed-ing.
Such disclosure is required to allow full resolution of all issues in the proceeding.
The Commission expects all NRC offices to utilize procedures which will assure prompt and appropriate action to fulfill this responsibility.
However, the Commission recognizes that there may be con-flicts between this responsibility to provide the boards and parties with information and an investigating or inspecting office's need to avoid public disclosure for either or both of two reasons:
(1) to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation or inspection; and (2) to protect confidential sources.
The importance of protecting information for either of these reasons can in appropriate circumstances be as great as the importance of disclosing the information to the boards and parties.
With regard to the first reason, avoiding compromise of an investigation or inspection, it is important to informed licens-ing decisions that NRC inspections and investigations are conducted so that all relevant information is gathered for appropriate evaluation.
Release of investigative material to the subject of an investigation before completion of the investi-gation could adversely affect the NRC's ability to complete that investigation fully and. adequately.
The subject, upon discover-ing what evidence the NRC had already acquired and the direction l
5 being taken by the NRC investigation, might attempt to alter or limit the direction or the nature or availability of further statements or evide'nce, and prevent NRC from learning the facts.
The failure to ascertain all relevant facts could itself result in the NRC making an uninformed licensing decision.
However, the need to protect information developed in investigations or inspections usually ends once the investigation or inspection is l
completed and evaluated for possible enforcement action.
The second reason for not disclosing investigative material
-- to protect confidential sources -- has a different basis.
Individuals sometimes present safety concerns to the NRC only after being assured that their individual identity will be kept confidential.
This desire for confidentiality may arise for a number of reasons, including the possibility of harassment and retaliation.
Confidential sources are a valuable asset to NRC inspections and investigations.
Releasing names to the parties in an adjudication after promising confidentiality to sources would be detrimental to the NRC's overall inspection and investi-gation activities because other individuals may be reluctant to bring information to the NRC.
However, the need to protect confidential sources does not end when the investigation or inspection is completed and evaluated for possible enforcement action.
By this Policy Statement, the Commission is not attempting to resolve the conflict,that may arise in each case between the duty to disclose information to the boards and parties and the l
l l
l L
g need to protect that information or its source.
The resolution of actual conflicts must be decided on the merits of each indi-vidual case.
However, the Commission does note that as 1 general rule it favors full disclosure to the boards and parties, that information should be protected only when necessary, and that any limits on disclosure to the parties should be limited in both scope and duration to the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the non-disclosure policy.
The purpose of this Policy Statement is to establish a procedure by which the conflicts can be resolved.
The Policy Statement takes over once a determination has been made, under established board notification procedures, that information should be disclosed to the boards and public, but OI or staff believes that the information should be protected.
In those cases the Commission has decided that the only workable solution to_ protect bot,h interests is to provide for an in camera presen-tation to the board by the NRC staff or OI, with no other party present.
Any other procedure could defeat the purposes of non-disclosure and might actually inhibit the acquisition of information critical to decisions.
Allowing the other parties or their representatives to be present in all cases, even under a protective order, could breach promises of confidentiality or allow the subject of an investigation to prematurely acquire information about that investigation.
We note in this regard'the
~
difficulties of attempt'ng to prevent a party's representative.
i
7 from talking to his client about the relevance of the information and how to respond to it, even under a protective order.
The Commission believes that the boards, using the proce-dures established in this Policy Statement, can resolve most potential disclosure conflicts once they have been advised of the nature of the information involved, the status of the inspection or investigation, and the projected time for its completion.
In many of the cases when the procedures in this Policy Statement are triggered by a concern for premature public disclosure, it may be possible for boards to provide for the timely considera-tion of relevant matters derived from investigations and inspec-
~
tions through the deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing.
In other instances, the boards may be able to resolve the conflict by placing limitations on the scope of disclosure to the parties, or by using protective orders.
The Commission wishes to emphasize that these procedures do not abrogate the well-established principal of administrative law that a board may not use ex parte information presented in camera in making licensing decisions.
These procedures are designed to allow the boards to determine the relevance of material to the adjudication, and whether that information must be disclosed to the parties, and, if disclosure is required, to provide a mecha-nism for case management both to protect investigations and inspections and to allow for the tinely provision of material and relevant information to the parties.
As such these procedures.
c are analogous to the procedures for resolving disputes regarding
8 4
discovery, see, e.c.,
10 CFR 2.740 (c), and do not violate the prohibition in 10 CFR 2.780 against ex parte discussion of substantive matters,at issue.
In accord with the above discussion, the Commission has decided that the procedures to be followed, where there is a conflict between the need for disclosure to the board and parties and the need to protect an investigation or inspection, will include in camera presentations by the staff or OI.
- However, because this procedure represents a departure from normal Commis-sion procedure, it is the Commission's view that the decision should be implemented by rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the NRC staff to commence a rulemaking on the matter.
Until completion of the rulemaking, the following will control the procedures-to be followed in resolving conflicts between the duty to disclose to boards and the need to protect information developed in investigation or inspection:
1.
Established board notification procedures should be used 1
by staff or OI to determine whether information in their posses-sion is potentially relevant and material to a pending adjudica-tory proceeding.
The general rule is that all information warranting disclosure to the boards and parties, including
- information that is the subject of ongoing investigations or inspections, should be disclosed, except as provided herein.
While this Statement refr_s only to staff and OI who are *
[ Footnote Continued]
m -
9 2.
When staff or OI believes that it has a duty in a particular case to provide an adjudicatory board with information concerning an inspection or investigation, or when a board requests such information, staff or OI should provide the infor-mation to the board and parties unless it believes that unre-stricted disclosure would prejudice an ongoing inspection or investigation, or reveal confidential sources.
If staff or OI believes unrestricted disclosure would have these adverse results, it should propose to the board and parties that the information be disclosed under suitable protective orders and other restrictions, unless such restricted disclosure would also defeat the purpose behind non-disclosure.
If staff or OI believes that any disclosure, however restricted,' would defeat the purpose behind non-disclosure, it shall provide the board with an explanation of the basis of its concern about disclosure and present the information to the board, in camera, without other parties present.
A verbatim transcript of the in camera proceeding will be made.3 All parties should be advised by the board of the conduct and purpose of the in camera proceeding but should not be informed of the substance of the information presented.
If,
[ Footnote Continued]
the organizations principally involved, the statement will apply to any other offices of,the Commission which may have the problem.
3Nothing in this Statement prohibits staff and OI from sharing information.
r-J 10 after such in camera presentation, a board finds that disclosure to other parties under protective order or otherwise is required (e.g., withholding information may prejudice one or more parties or jeopardize timely completion of.the proceedings, or the board disagrees that release will prejudice the investigation), it shall notify staff or OI of its intent to order disclosure, specifying the information to be provided, the terms of any protective order proposed, and the basis for its conclusion that prompt disclosure is required.
The staff or OI shall provide the board within a reasonable period of time, to be set by the board, a statement of objections or concurrence.
If the board disagrees with any objection and the disagreement cannot be resolved, the board shall promptly certify the record of the in camera proceed-ing_to the Commission for resolution cf the disclosure dispute, and so inform the other parties.
Any licensing board decision to order disclosure of the identity of a confidential source shall be' certified to the Commission for review regardless of whether OI and staff concur in the disclosure.4 The board's decision shall be stayed pending a Commission decision.
The record before the Commission shall consist of the transcript, the board's Notice of Intent to require disclosure and the objections of 4The Commission has decidad to review any licensing board decision ordering disclosure of the identity of a confidential source.because of the importance to the Commission's inspection and investigation program of protecting the identity of confidential sources.
11 Staff or OI.
Staff or OI may file a brief with the Commission within1 ten days of filing ~a statement of objections with the board.
The record before the Commission, including staff or OI's brief, shall be kept in camera to the extent necessary to protect the purposes of non-disclosure.
The Commission recognizes that no other party nay be in a position effectively to respond to staff or OI's brief because l
1 the proceedings have been conducted in camera.
However, in those cases where another party feels that it is in a position to file a brief, it may do so within seven days after staff or OI files its brief with the Commission.
3.
Staff or OI shall notify the board and, as appropriate, the Commission, if the objection to disclosure to the parties of previously withheld information, or any portion of it, is withdrawn.
Unless the Commission has directed otherwise, such
'information -- with the exception of the identities of confiden-tial sources -- may then be disclosed without further Commission order.
4.
When a board or the Commission determines that informa-tion concerning a pending investigation or inspection should not L
be disclosed to the parties, the record of any in camera proceed-ing conducted shall be deemed sealed pending further order.
That record will be ordered included in the public record of the adjudicatory proceeding upon completion of the inspection or investigation, or upon public disclosure of the information involved, whichever is earlier, subject to any privileges that
12 0-o may validly be claimed under the Commission's regulations, including protection of the identity of a confidential source.
Only the Commission can order release of the identity of a confidential source.
7 > day of September, Dated at Washington, D.C. this 1984.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2.AA) 9
~
(,
SAMU g 7. CHILK Secretary o,. the Commission l
9 4
e
'?
~g UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE, PLEASE f *'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO:
M840906B
- ~
o 1.;+d:; j g-W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 f
eg September 10, 1984 Cys:
Dircks CFFICE OF THE Roe SECRETARY Stello MEMORANDUM FOR:
Herzel H.E.
Plaine, Gene ounsel Minogue Denton FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta 7
DeYoung
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF IR
" ION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 3 : 30 P.M., THURS:
, SEPTEMBER 6, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C.
OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I I.
SECY-84-307 - Petition of Alabama Power Company for Declaratory Order Interpreting Antitrust License Condition The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved an order denying
' Alabama Power Company's request that the Commission clarify the utility's obligation under the antitrust license conditions in the Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License and indicated that the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (10 CFR R 2.206) should be used.
(Subsequently, on September 7,1984 the' Secretary signed the Order.)
II.
SECY-84-276/276A - Report of the Task Force on Investigations, Inspections and Adjudicatory Proceedings The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved a Final Statement of Policy on Investigations, Inspections and Adjudicatory Proceedings and directions to the EDO to initiate rulemaking (see attached memo).
(Subsequently, on September 7,1984 the Secretary signed the Policy Statement.)
Attachment:
As stated.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech Commission Staff Offices EDO PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips Q h
[
'6Woyv7
, f /
/('
v
r,
'o -
UNITED STATES REF: ED014784 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
,g I ', " ~ 8 E
W ASH IN G T ON, D.C. 205SS
. 8 ACTION - GCunningham b.
September 12, 1984 Cys:
rcks OF FICE OF THE Rehm SECRETARY btello Minogue Denton DeYoung Dircks,Execp)iveDirector MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J.
for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secre(a
SUBJECT:
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INVEMTIGATIONS/
INSPECTIONS AND ADJUDICATIONS (SECY-84-276/276A)
The Commission has adopted.a Statement of Policy on the procedures to be followed in resolving the potential conflict between the duty to disclose information to adjudicatory boards and parties and the need to protect information obtained in investigations and inspections.
However, because the in camera procedures being adopted are a departure from normal Commission practice, the Commission believes it would be desirable for them to be implemented through a rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Commission requests that you implement the procedures in the Policy Statement through a rulemaking.
You should. proceed to issue a proposed rule (based upon the policy statement) for comment and prepare a final rule for Commission consideration following analysis of the comments received.
Should you need additional guidance in pre-paration of the proposed rule (beyond the Policy Statement) you should consult with the Commission.
- (EDO/ ELD) (SECY Suspense:
Issue proposed rule:
12/15/84)
Final rule to Commission:
3/30/85) cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC Rec'd 0tf. EDO OPE Da te..... ~~ I.S..^.
==
Time..... S.\\ M.
- n 849867 g3 ll t> P-Q l
w
M M
i 2032 FedIral R: gist;r / Vol. 49. No.179 / Thursday. September 13, 1984 / N:tices-
- pD fJed with the Department by the Trust.
conflicts between the NRC's guidelines for disclosure ofinformation Such plan is not required to include in responsibility to disc!ose information to concerning investigations and -
l the annual report any information adjudicatory boards and parties, and the ins?ections should appiy to all NRC concerning indnidual transactions of NRC's need to protect insestigative off'ces.Those recommendations have I
f I
material from premature public been incorporated in this Statement.
i the Trust.
(c) Reportirig Information Relating to disclosure." Statement of Policy-In addition, two comments were I
the Trust to be Aled with the Investigations and Adjudicatory submitted by members of the public.
Department offobor. The following Proceedings." 48 FR 36358 (August 10 One commenter stated that the l
information regarding the Trust must be 1983).
withholding ofinformation from public ripc,rted for the fiscal year of the Trust Those interim procedures called for disclosure should be confined to the ending with or within the plan year for the NRC staff or Office ofInvestigations minimum essential to avoid I
which a Participating Plan's annual (01), when it felt disclosure of compromising enforcement actions, and report is made:
information to an adjudicatory board that appropriate representatives of each (1) Name, address and employer was required but that unrestricted party should be allowed to participate identification number (EIN) of the Trust; disclosure could compromise an under suitable protective orders in any (2) A list of all Participating Plans inspection or investigation, to present in comero proceeding except in the most insesti g in the Trust identified by plan the information and its concerns about exceptional cases.
nrme. plan number, and r.ame and EIN d;sclosure to the board in comero, The other commenter maintair.ed that cf the plan sponsor as they appear on without disclosure of the substance of an in comero presentation to the board the ar.nual return / report, and each the information to the other parties. A with only one party present la plan's percentage interest in the Trust as board decision to disclose the undesirable and viol.tes the ex parte cf the beginning and ending of the fiscal information to the parties was rule.That commenter suggested an year of the Trust; appealable to the Commission, and the alternative of having the attorneys or (3) A statement of assets and board was not to order disclosure until authorized representatives of parties liabilities of the Trust:
the Commission addressed the matter.
who have signed a protective agreement That Statement of Policy was remain in effect until the Comm,t present at any in comero presentation, (4) A statement ofincome and ission expenses of the Trust; with appropriate sanctions for violating (5) The assets held for investment received and took action on the the protective agreement.*
(includ,ing the acquisitiens and recomrnendations of aninternalNRC The Commission, after considering dispositions dunng the fiscal year of the task force established to develop g' '
g Trust), leases and obhgations in default, guidelines for reconciling these, conflicts Task For has ec de t ould be and compensation paid by the Trust for in individual cases. The Commission in appropriate, in order to better explain services in the manner required by the that Statement also requested ubhc the Commission's poficy in this, area. to instructions to the annual return / report comments on the prcpriety an provide the following explanation of the Form 5500-desirability of ex pcrie in comero C
s os (61 A report of an independent presentation ofinformation to a board, 6
n quahfied pubhc accountant regarding and suggestions for any better to the boards and Parties and the need the statements and schedufes destnbed alternatives.
in subparagraphs (:) through (5) above The Task Force submitted its report to to protect that information:
which meets the requirements of 29 CFR the Commission on December 30,1983.
AU parties in NRC adjudicatory 2520103-1(b)(5).
A copy of that report will be placed in
{roceedings, including the NRC staff.
The Trust shall file the information the Commission's Public Document ave a duty to disclose to the boards described in this paragraph (c) with the Room.The Task Force approsed the and other parties all new information Department by mailing it to: Office c,f principles discussed in the they acquire which as considered Rtports and Disclosure. Office of Commission's earlier Statement of material and relevant to any issue in Pension and Welfare Bcnefit Programs.
Policy, and made several controversy in the proceeding Such U.S. Department of Labor,200 recommendations intended to define disclosure is required to allow full Constitu' on As enue. NW. Washington, specifically the responsibilities of the resolution of allissues in the proceeding.
D C. 2u:10. Attention: Texas Commerce boards, the staff, and 01 in present>ng The Commission expects all NRC offices Trust Co. Alternatise Method of disclosure issues for resolution.
to utilize procedures which will assure Compliance.
The Task Force recommended that the prompt and appropriate action to fulfill nal cy &aument Main eat fuH hWM4 Sig,ed at Wa shington. D C., this s:5 day of disclosure of materialinformation to However, the Comm,ssion recognizes i
September adjudicatory boards and the parties is that there may be confhets between this Robert A G' Monk
the general rule. but that some confhets responsibility to provide the boards and
- '"i"i8'" ON' 8/P'"8i8" ##d II/"'
between the duty to disclose and the parties with information and an
'I" D"
need to protect information will be investigating or inspecting office's need tra on -remo ra.a u s es.,4 inevitable.The Task Force further to avoid public disclosure for either or am coos eno a" recommended that issues regarding both of two reasons:(1) To avoid
-- disclosure to the parties be initially determined by the adjudicatory boards
'soih commeries at o inctoded ivseeinori.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY With provision for expedited appellate ngardes manm beyond emope or em Pacy CMMISSION 8 " " ' ' *"'" d "'Yd review, and that procedures for the estat'shms a prxedare to hand:e conbete resolution of such confhets be bemeen the do,> o disct4.e.nrorm.non ie the St tement of Policy; Investigations, inipections, and Adjud:catory established by rule. Finally. the Task bords ad pa-ties and the need to proiect ihai Proceedings Force sug;;ested that existing board infornen Fonnstme umgg.mn mn est notification procedures should remain
- ' * *" * " " unnsm'sta idard in On August 5.1983, the Commission set unaffected by the Policy Statement. and
.'[l rid.'nD"[rC$m",,Ei aidt f;rth intenm procedures for handling that those procedures and Commission traprow ee weht> ofiis irnestsenen i
1 h
rr y
Federal Register / _Vol. 49. No.179 / Thursday. September 13.1984 / Notic;s 36033 M
s compr:misir.g an ongoing investigation of each individual case. However, the.
These procedures are designed to allow e
or mspection; and (:) to protect Commission does note that as a gancrat the boards to determine the relevance of J.
confidential sources. The importance of rule it favors full disclosure to the material to the adjudication. and p
protecting information for either of these boards and parties. that information whether that information must be Q
reasons can in appropriate should be protected only when disclosed to the parties, and. if h
clicumstances be as great as the necessary and that any limits on disclosure is required, to provide a frnportance of disclosing the information disticsure to the parties should be mechanism for case management both J
to the boards and par ties.
limited in both scope and duration to the to protect investigations and inspections b.
With regard to the first reason, minimum necessary to achieve the and to a!!ow for.he timely provision of
{
evriding cornpromise of an imestigatien purposes of the non-disclosure policy.
material and relevant Information to the cr inspection,it is irnportant to informed The purpese of this policy Statement parties. As such these procedures are licensing decisions that NRC inspections is to establish a procedure by which the analogous to the procedures for k,
e nd investigations are conducted so that conflicts can be resolved. The Policy resching disputes regarding discovery, p'
Statement takes over once a see, e g.10 CFR 2.N0(c), and do not all relevant information is gathered for~
determination has been made, under violate the prohibition in 10 CFR 2500 a
appropriate evaluation. Release of F-ins estigative rnaterial to the subject of established board notification against ex porte discussion of an investigation before the completion procedures, that information should be substantive matters at issue.
cf the investigation could ads ersely disclosed to the boards and public, but In accord with the above discussion.
affect the NRC's ability to complete that 01 or staff believes that the information the Commission has decided that the
[,
^
investigation fully and adequately.The should be protected. In those cases the procedures to be followed. where there
- f subject. upon discoving what esidence Commission has decided that the only is a conflict between the need for the NRC had already acquired and the workable solution to protect both disclosure to the board and parties and l
direction being taken by the NRC interests is to prodde for an in camera the need to protect an investigation or investigation, might attempt to alter or presentation to the board by the NRC inspection wi!!includeincomera L
limit the direction or the nature or staff or 01, with no party present. Any presentations by the staff or 01.
oailibility of further statements or other procedure could defeat the However, because this procedure Gvidence, and prevent NRC from purpose of non disclosure and might represents a departure from normal I;arning the facts.The failure to actually inhibit the acquisition of Commission procedure. it is the cscerta:n all relevant facts could itself information critical to decisions.
Commission's view that the decision result m the NRC making on uninformed Allowing the other parties or their shculd be implemented by rulemaking.
licensinF ecision.Howeser the need to representatives to be present in all Accordmgly, the Commission directs the d
protect information descloped in casts, even under a protective order.
NRC staff to commerce a ru!cmaking on f
investigations or inspections usually could breach promises of confidentiality the matter.
I snds once the im estigation or or allow the subject of an investigation Until completion of the rulemaking.
j the following will control the procedures f
inspection is :ompleted and es aluated to pren.aturely acquire information f;r possible enforcement action.
about the investigation. We note in this to be followed in resching confhets Th2 second reason for not disclosing regard the difficulties of attempting t between the duty to disclose to boards I
im estigative matenal-to protect prevent a party a representative from and the need to protect it. formation confidential sources-has a different talking to his client about the relesance developed in invest:gation or inspection:
bisis. Individuals sornetimes present of the mformation and how to respond
. Establ shed board notification safety concerns to the NRC only after to it, even under a protective order.
procedures should be used by staff or 01 i
being assured that their mdwidual The Commiss;on belieses that the to determine whether information in identity will be kept confidential. This boards, using the procedures established their possession is patentially relevant desire for conf;dentially may arise for a in this Policy Statement, can resolve and material to a pending adjudicatory number of reasons. including the most potential disclosure conflicts once proceeding 8 The general rule is that all possibility of harassment and they have been adsised of the nature of information warranting disclosure to the retihation. Conf:dential sourges are a the mformation involved, the status of boards and parties, including I
va!uable asset to NRC inspections and the mspection or investigation. and the information that is the subject of investigations. Releasing names to the projected time for its completion. In ongoing im estigations or inspections.
i parties in an adjudication after many of the cases when the procedures should be disclosed. except as provided promising confidentially to sources m this Policy Statement are triggered by bi"'
'I would be detrimental to the NRC's a concern for premature public
- 2. When staff or 01 beheves that it everall inspection and investigation disclosure. It may be possible for boards has a duty in a particu:ar case to cctivities because other indisiduals may to provide for the timely consideration proside an adjudicatary board with a
be reluctant to bring information to the of relevant mattus denied from inf rmation concerning an inspection or NRC. Hown er, the need to protect investigations and inspections through investigation. or when a board requests confidential sources does not end when the deferral or rescheduling ofissues for such information. staff or 01 should th? investigation er inspection is hearing. In other instances the boards proyide the mformation to the board and completed and evaluated for possible may be able to resolve the conflict by Panties unless it belies es that snforcement action.
placing limitations on the scope of unrestricted disclosure would prejudice By this Policy Statement, the disc!csure to the parties, or by using an ongoing inspection or im estigation.
5.
Come'ission is not attempting to resolve protective orders.
or reveal confidential sources. lf staff or the conflict that may arise in each case The Commission wishes to emphasize 01 believes unrestricted disclosure between the duty to disclose that these procedures do not abrogate information to the boards and parties the well. established principle of d*M,wl[*$'""'Mh'($','((,3
[
and the need to protect that information administrative law that a board mcy not L
crits source.The resclution of actual use er porte information presented m
.ta.,- ee 1: app!y to any cen err.cu of the conflicts must be decided on the merits comero in making licensing decisions.
c=meon we. may hne tre prot >iem t-t F
~
- s
,.36'134_
_F;diral R gist:r / Vcl. 49. N2.179 / Thursday. Septtmb;r 13. 1984 / N:tices l
l l
would hase these adverse results. It brief, shall be kept in camera to the Pennsylvania. The license provides, should propose to the board and parties extent necessary to protect the purposes among other things, that it is subject to that the information be disclosed under of non. disclosure.
all rules, regulations and Orders of the suitab!e protective orders and other The Commission recognizes that no Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the restrictions unless such restricted other party may be in a position Commission) now and hereafter in disclosure would also defeat the effectively to respond to staff or Ol's effect.
purpose behind non-disclosure. lf staff brief because the proceedings have been H
cr 01 believes that any disclosure.
conducted in comera. However. in those however restricted, would defeat the cases where another party feels that it is On November 19.1980, the purpose behind non-disclosure, it shall in a position to file a brief. it may do so Commission published a revised section provlde the board with an explanation within seven days after staff or 01 files to CFR 50.48 and a new Appendix R to cf the basis ofits concern about its brief with the Commission.
10 CFR 50 regarding fire protection disclosure and present the information
- 3. Staff or 01 shall notify the board features of nuclear power plants (45 FR to the board, in camero, without other end as appropriate, the Commission,if 76602).The revised section 50.48 and parties precent. A verbatim transcript of the objection to disclosure to the parties Appendix R became effective on the in camera proceeding will be made.'
of previously withheld information, or February 17.1981. Section 111 of All parties should be advised by the any portion of it. is withdrawn. Unless Appendix R contains fifteen board of the conduct and purpose of the the Commission has directed otherwise, subsections. lettered A through 0, each in comera proceeding but should not be such information-with the exception of of which specifies requirements for a informed of the :ubstance of the the identities of confidential sources-particular aspect of the fire protection information prestnted. lf, after such in may then be disclosed without further features at a nuclear power plant. One comera presentetion, a board finds that Commission order, of those fifteen subsections. III.G is the disclosure to other parties under
- 4. When a board or the Commission subject of this exemption.
protecta e order or otherwise is required determines that information concerning Subsection ll!.C specifies detailed (e.q;. withholdng information may a pending investigation or inspection requirements for fire protection of the preludice one or more parties or should not be disclosed to the parties, equipment used for safe shutdown by jeopardize timely cornpletion of the the record of anyin camera proceeding means of separation and barriers proceedings. or the board disagrees that conducted shall be deemed sealed (III.G.2).lf the requirements for release will prejudice the ira estigation).
pending further order.That record will separation and barriers cane.ot be met in it shall notify staff or O! ofits intent to be ordered included in the public record an area, alternative safe shutdown crder disclosure, specifying the of the adjudicatory proceeding upon capability, independent of that area and information to be provided. the terms of completion of the inspection or equipment in tha' area la required any protective order proposed. and the investigation, or upon public disclosure (III G.3).
basis for its conclusion that prompt of the information involved, whicheser In response to previous requests from disclosure is required.The staff or O!
is earher, subject to any privileges that the licensee, the Commission grarted an shall provide the board within a may validly be claimed under the exemption to requirernents of ev'..ection reasonable period of time, to be set ty Commission's regulations, f neluding Ill.G and 111 L o. hfarch 14.1983. By the board, a statement of objections or protection of the identify of a letter dated Decembu 16.1983 and concurrence. If the board disagrees with confidential source. Only the supplemented by letter dated htay 30.
any objection and the disagreement Commiss!on can order release of the 19s.t. Duquesne Light Company e]s f.I identify of a confidential source.
requested additional exemption from, d e bo 8
c ot
,d p
camera proceedmg to the Commission Dated at Washington. D.C. this 7th day of the requirements of Subsection Ill.G c.
for resolution of the disclosure dispute.
September.19st Appendix R.
cnd so inform the other parties. Any Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
III licensing board decision to order Samuel l. Chilk.
We have reviewed the licensee's disclosure of the identify of a secretaryof the Commission.
exemption requests and evaluation of confidential source shall be certified to tra ou umm r*d * ""*3 the Commission for review regardless of these requests is as follows:
,w,,a coes,,, e,,
whether of and staff concurin the
~
L FixedSuppression andDetection disclosure.* The board's decision shall Systems be stayed pending a Commission (Docket No. 50-334) decision.The record before the ggg Duquesne Ught Co., et al. (Beaver is requested from Section III.G.3 to the tr s p.the b a s t c ofIntent to Va"cy Power Station Unit No.1);
extent it requires fixed suppression and require disclosure and the objections of Esemption detection to be provided throughout a fire area for which alternative shutdown Staff or 01. Staff or 01 may file a brief g
with the Commission within ten days of has been provided:
fihng a statement of objections with the The Duquesne Ught Company. Ohio Primary Auxiliary Building (PA-1A),
board.The record before the Edison Company and pennsylvania Elev. 768 Commission, including staff or Ors Power Company (the licensees), are the Control Room HVAC Equipment Room holder of Facility Operating License No.
(CR-2). Elev. 713 DR au o z s ope a n 8No n in th Statement prohibits staff on 01 p
Emer ncy Switchgear Rooms (ES-1 &
- The Corrmssion has decided to review any No.1 (the facility) at steady-state power I
twens na board decision ordenns disclosure at the levels not in excess of 2652 megawatts Process Instrument Room (CR-4). Elev.
6denury et e cent,denn.) source been e or th' thermal. The facility is a pressurized 713 Sei7s"on pIs.7o7pse"clIs$he tdentEr of water reactor (pWR) located at the Communications Equipment & Relay b
t to*f.dentiat sources.
licensee's site in Beaver County.
Panel Room (CR-3). Elev. 713