Opinion ID: 495208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Would Disclosure Impair the NRC's Ability to Obtain Necessary Information in the Future?

Text: 19 The NRC's impairment claim under this prong of the National Parks test, 19 see supra p. 282, is not a model of clear statement. We endeavor next to examine its components. 20 First, the NRC points to unequivocal statements in the record that INPO would not [voluntarily continue to] supply these reports to the NRC if the agency made them available to the public. 20 CMEP, however, urges us to treat these self-serving representations on INPO's part with considerable skepticism inasmuch as it runs directly counter to the interests of INPO and its members for INPO to jeopardize its relationship with the NRC by refusing to voluntarily release its safety reports. 21 21 Even if we were to assume that INPO would discontinue voluntary transmission to the NRC, however, it is not clear whether, or the extent to which, the Commission's future ability to obtain necessary information would be impaired. A minor impairment, we have elsewhere observed, cannot overcome the disclosure mandate of FOIA[;] the impairment [must be] significant enough to justify withholding the information. Washington Post, 690 F.2d at 269 (remanding case for the district court to make findings on the extent to which the government's ability to obtain information would be impaired by disclosure); accord Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board, 505 F.2d 383, 385 (D.C.Cir.1974) (same). 22 We note, in this regard, that INPO has not suggested that it would discontinue either production of the reports here at issue, dissemination of those reports to its members, or any other aspect of its SEE-IN program--let alone that INPO itself would disband--were we to reject definitively the NRC's FOIA exemption plea. 22 Therefore, to show the requisite impairment of its information-gathering ability, the agency must persuade the court either (1) that cessation of INPO's voluntary submission of these reports would in fact deprive the agency of the information contained therein, or (2) that alternative available means for obtaining the INPO reports would entail a significant risk that the value of the submitted reports would decrease. 23 The district court made no findings on these questions, observing only that it is preferable to have the INPO reports furnished to the NRC voluntarily, rather than delivered up under compulsion in circumstances less conducive to candor, accuracy, and timeliness. 23 We agree, but were that proposition sufficient to overcome FOIA's disclosure mandate, our circuit's requirement that the agency provide a detailed justification [of] the extent to which disclosure ... will impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information [, supported by] specific factual or evidentiary material, Pacific Architects, 505 F.2d at 385 (emphasis added), would have little, or no, force. Why demand detail if the voluntary character of the submission suffices to shield the reports? 24 We note, first, the NRC's concession that it has ample statutory authority, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2201(c), 24 to compel the production of the INPO reports, either by institut[ing] a program of periodic issuances of subpoenas 25 to INPO or its utility-members, or by requiring those utilities to submit the INPO reports as a condition of obtaining a license from the NRC. 26 However, even if the NRC could compel production of all INPO reports, the question remains whether compelled production would entail qualitative impairment of the information contained therein. Our precedents recognize that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests. Association for Women in Science v. Califano, 566 F.2d 339, 346 (D.C.Cir.1977), quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3106, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); see also Washington Post, 690 F.2d at 268 (If the government can enforce the disclosure obligation, and if the resultant disclosure is likely to be accurate, that may be sufficient to prevent any impairment.) (emphasis added). The NRC has asserted that disclosure would result in a substantial risk that the reports ... would become less valuable. 27 But at this juncture, that assertion lacks clear focus and solid factual support. 25 The Commission's presentation leaves us uncertain as to the contours of this facet of the NRC's impairment claim. To explain our difficulty in fathoming the Commission's position, we describe in more detail the nature of the information contained in the INPO reports. INPO obtains most of the factual material on which its reports are based from information filed with the NRC by INPO's member utilities--information that the NRC routinely makes available to the public. 28 INPO also obtains relevant data, however, from other, non-public sources, such as interviews with plant personnel during either routine site visits or detailed field investigations of particular safety-related events. 29 In addition, the O & MRs, see supra p. 280, may discuss nonsafety related incidents that are not required to be reported [to] the NRC but that one of INPO's members has brought to [INPO's] attention, or ... event[s] or occurrence[s] which [have] been reported to INPO by one of its vendor participants. 30 26 Quite apart from the factual material collected by INPO and included in its SEE-IN reports, INPO performs its own analyses of the reported events, e.g., trend analysis to determine if patterns of recurrence among events indicate underlying problems requiring action, and sequential risk analysis to examine the actual sequence and all possible sequences associated with an event in order to reveal problems with design and operational practices that might not be detected otherwise. 31 27 This dual aspect--factual and analytical--of the information the NRC receives from INPO suggests two ways in which the NRC's ability to obtain that information may be impaired by public disclosure. First, INPO's analyses may be conducted less vigorously, and in its brief to this court, the NRC so contends. The Commission asserts that [i]f INPO knows that the reports will be publicly disclosed, its reports are less likely to be entirely candid and, therefore, helpful to the NRC. 32 We find the record barren, however, of any support for this assertion; the record evidence to which the NRC's brief refers does not, in fact, even suggest that INPO would perform its analytical tasks with less candor or thoroughness post-disclosure than it does at present. Rather, that evidence speaks to a related, but distinct, claim, that the factual basis of the INPO reports will be impaired. 33 28 The claim that disclosure will impair the quality of the analysis is not implausible, particularly in light of the resemblance between INPO's analytical process and the agency deliberative process protected by exemption (b)(5), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(5). However, the agency's burden under FOIA requires more than plausibility. 34 The NRC has failed to put forward the detailed justification our precedents require. Pacific Architects, 505 F.2d at 385; see also Orion Research Inc. v. EPA, 615 F.2d 551, 554 (1st Cir.1980) (the mere conclusory say-so of an agency that its ability to acquire information would be impaired will [not] suffice; that conclusion must be plausibly supported in some detail). 29 We mention in particular two shortcomings in the NRC's evidence. First, as noted above, see supra note 29, we find confusing and possibly contradictory evidence in the record concerning the presence vel non of any base data in the INPO reports that are otherwise not already in the agency's possession. Obviously, the NRC 's ability to gather information it already independently receives cannot be impaired should the utilities become less than forthcoming in providing that information to INPO. 30 Second, even were we to credit the NRC's assertions that any lack of candor on the utilities' part would deprive it of some necessary information, we remind the agency of its burden to persuade the reviewing court that the impairment is significant enough to justify withholding the information. Washington Post, 690 F.2d at 269. This requires the agency to specify, with greater precision than the NRC has here, the kinds of information it fears it will be deprived of in the future and the uses to which that information is currently put. Only then can a court intelligently gauge the nature and significance of the impairment that may accompany disclosure. 31 On remand, then, the NRC should be given the opportunity to document its necessarily uncertain prediction that disclosure would impair either the factual base, or analytical quality, of the INPO reports. To pass muster, the agency must spell out comprehensibly both the nature of the information of which it fears it will be deprived, and the nexus between the disclosure sought by CMEP and the anticipated impairment. 32