ML20197B519
| ML20197B519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1998 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Hassell D NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803110157 | |
| Download: ML20197B519 (3) | |
Text
'
UNITE-) STATES j W,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
WASHING 7oN, D.C. 30666c001
%,,g February 24, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Donald F. Hassell, Assistant General Counsel for Administration Office of General Counsel FROM:
Michael F. Weber, Chief 1
Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS
SUBJECT:
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SUBMITTALS I am requesting an interpretation of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790 regarding the submittal of proprietary information to the NRC. The Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch (FCLB) routinely receives a large number of proprietary documents from fuel fabrication licensees. Most fuel cycle licensees are required to submit a variety of documents, such as criticality safety analyses (CSA), Integrated Safety Analyses, decommissioning cost estimates, and process descriptions to NRC for review. Many of these submittals are highly technical and include information, including descriptions of process equipment and operations, deemed proprietary by the icensee because they contain trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. Consequently, licensees propose that this information be withheld from public disciocure in acccedance with 10 CFR 2.790.
According to 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1)(ii), "The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated, as far as possible, into a separate paper." This requirement may be unnecessarily burdensome because it could be interpreted to require licensees and applicants to prepare separate and redundant sets of documents. For example, one licensee submitted a CSA summary consisting of five chapters, one of which was asserted to contain proprietary information. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has previously interpreted l/,
2.790(b)(1)(ii) to require two separate technical submittals, one non-proprietary and one proprietary, and stated that the licensee should provide a non-proprietary version of the h6 proprietary chapter. FCLB would prefer to require a proprietary version of the summary only, qgyy and not require that the licensee prepare and submit a non-proprietary version of the proprietary chapter. A non-proprietary version of the chapter, or of similar submittals, would contain insufficient technical information to support staff conclusions and would not be meaningfulin assisting the public to be fully apprised of the basis for and offects of itensing.
( # (l'7]
.a
[$//N 7
n n.-
~3 ll,ylll)@yylllljgjiygJllVI
.g,p y 3
r 2
As you may be aware, NRC is currently developing proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 70 to require certain licensees to prepare and submit Integrated Safety Analyses (ISA). The protection of and paperwork burden associated with proprietary information contained in the IGAs has emeNod as a principh concern of the licensoes. I would appreciate your views on the proper interpretat;on of the requirements in $2.790(b)(1), particularly with respect to the noed to submit separaie non proprietary varsions of documents, in support of the rulemakly, es wek as our ongoing rev!ev.s of licensing submittals.
If you have any que 4tbac concerning this requeet, please contact Ms. Mary T. Adams, at 415 7249 or MTA.
Distnbution ge,y _
g war.A cot sg P115
'rt w A 6.lle-.3 NRC File Center PUBLIC FCLB R/F FCSS R/F NMSS R/F d l4 -~
[G:\\propples mt)
STreby, OGC 4 gn hycva, ( f,,, f,,,,,,,,
OFC FCLB FkB [
FCLB FCLB jC NAME CGaskin#
PSheM Madams
- MWeberg
,DATE 2/0/98
/98 h 2/10/98 2/lfl98
n 2
As you may be aware, NRC is currently developing proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 70 to require certain licensees to prepare and submit Integrated Safety Analyses (ISA). The protection of and paperwork burden associated with proprietery information contained in the ISAs has emerged as a principle concern of the licensees. I would appree! ate your views on the proper interpretation of the requirements in $2.790(b)(1), parti:ularly with respect to the need to submit separate non proprietary versions of documents,in support of the rulemaking, as well as our ongoing reviews of licensing submittals.
If y u have any questions concerning this request, please contact Ms. Mary T. Adams, at 415 7249 or MTA.
I