ML19296B188
| ML19296B188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296B189 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200231 | |
| Download: ML19296B188 (2) | |
Text
/,pw%q),
U?.:TED STATE 5
/ W fi T,'UCLE AR P EG'J L. TORY CON"'!SS;ON'
{_7, ef 5
V. ASHING T ON, D. C. 20555 g
.,,,!~
m, a, a gg CHAIRMAN The Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We ara pleased to respond to your letter of December 14, 1979 concerning Mr. Denton's discussion with Mr. William S. Lee of Duke Power Company regarding Section 104(a)(6) of the NRC authorization bill passed by the House.
Enclosed is a memorandum from Mr. Denton which describes the nature of' his contact with Mr. Lee.
Mr. Denton's memorandum indicates that the purpose of his conversation with Mr. Lee was to obtain an industry estimate of the technical manpower demands which might result from the staff's proposed TMI Action Plan prior to presentation of the plan to the Commission.
Incidental to this conversation was Mr. Denton's reference to the potential manpower demands of Section 104(a)(6).
Where Mr. Denton was trying to obtain a reasonable estimate of the impact on industry of a possible Commission action, we do not believe it c?.s necessarily improper for him to reference the additional demand _ which might come about if Section 104(a)(6) were enacted.
Commissioners Hendrie and Kenned. feel that the word "necessarily" should be deleted from the preceding sentence because it suggests that Mr. Denton's conversation was improper.
They do not believe that this was the case.
Mr. Denton has expressed regret that his remarks could be miscontrued.
We share this regret.
However, we believe he did not intend by his conversation with Mr. Lee to bypass normal channels for Commission communications with Congress.
We wish to assure you that it is our intention that Congress be properly and promptly notified of current NRC thinking on pending legislation.
Your letter also asked for an explanation for NRC's failure to provide your Committee with its position on Section 104(a)(6) at an earlier date.
Our December 17 response to your letter of December 11 states the Commission's position with respect to that sectior, and includes the minority position of Ccmmissioners Gilinsky and Bradford.
It also 8002200 2 3 l
The 4crsorable orris M.
Udall, Chairran descrites the evoluticn of the Ccr.ission's position on this issue and the reasons for any delay in providing that position to your Committee. We regret that this position could not have been communicated to the Committee sooner in writing.
However, we would note that the Subcommittee staff was advised verbally of NRC staff concerns as early as December 10, i.e. prior to the Commission's briefing, and that they were kept informed as the Commission position evolved on this issue.
Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky are concerned over the course of events discussed in your letter. Once Mr. Bingham, relying on NRC staff assurances, stated on the floor of the House that NRC did not oppose his amendment no modification to such an assurance should have occurred without Commission approval.
Unfortunately, both the communication referred to in your letter and the. December 10 communica-tion with the Subcommittee staff by the Office of Congressional Affairs, which was not approved by the Commission, did not follow such procedures.
Sincerely,
//. ww John F. Ahearne
Enclosure:
As stated
.