ML19322A553
| ML19322A553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Bradford P NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gorinson S PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120458 | |
| Download: ML19322A553 (2) | |
Text
I UNITED STATES
~ Q ",7 j%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 d,3 2 6 7(W f,E WASHIN GTON. D.C. 20355 o
%.'.'..,o" November 5,1979 OFFICE OF THE COMM!SSIONER Mr. Stanley M. Gorinson Chief Counsel President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island 2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037
Dear Mr. Gorinson:
In leafing through the document. entitled " Report of the Office of Chief Counsel on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," I came across one error that seemed to me to be significant enough to call to your attention.
The Report on page 37 states that "whether the rules apply to informal rulemaking proceedings, then, is apparently an unsettled question, since a new ex parte rule was recently proposed that would exclude informal rulemaEng pr'oceedings from its prohibitions."
This statement is incorrect.
The ex parte rule by its own terms does not apply to rulecaking proceedingE The Federal Register notice itself noted that the substance of the proposed rule was largely ur. charged from the Commission's current rules and practices.
Just las: Oly, the Commission declined to experiment with logging ex parte contac s in rulemakings.
(See the attached July 7,1978 leEer to Rober: A. Anthor.y. )
Furthemore, the error is compounded by a second one in Fcatncte 144, which states that I refused to discuss emergency preparedr.ess during my depositicn because of a rulemaking proceeding because cf the ex parte rule. The referenced page 93 of my deposition shows :aat tre refusai was based not on the ex parte rule but on my concern that !
would be pre;ucging or appearing to prejudge the outcome of a canding ruiemaking.
This concern stems from the District Court's holding regarding Chairman Pertschuk in the recent children's television advertising case and has nothing to do with the ex parte rules.
I have not reviewed Commissioner Kennedy's deposition or had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, but it seems at least possible that his refusal to discuss Class 9 accidents (noted also in Fcatnote 14) may have been based : ore on a concern to avoid prejudicial cement tnar on a concern about ex carte contact, for it would be hard to ar:ue tna the Three "ile Isla7Ic Commission was an " interested party" te eitner of these proceedings.
Sincerely
/
Peter A. Brad d
Commissioner i
Attacment:
As stated 5011120 y$g Pl
2-cc:
Chairman Hendrie (w/o attachment)
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Ahearne L. Bickwit, OGC S. Chilk, SECY Rogovin Inquiry e
%