View source for IA-85-536, Summarizes 850521 Hearing on NRC New Sunshine Act Regulations Before Subcommittee on Enery Conservation & Power of House Committee on Energy & Commerce.List of Attendees Attached

{{Adams
| number = ML20137K191
| issue date = 05/22/1985
| title = Summarizes 850521 Hearing on NRC New Sunshine Act Regulations Before Subcommittee on Enery Conservation & Power of House Committee on Energy & Commerce.List of Attendees Attached
| author name = Kammerer C
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
| addressee name = Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts
| addressee affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
| docket = 
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = FOIA-85-422, FOIA-85-536
| document report number = NUDOCS 8601230506
| package number = ML20137K152
| document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 4
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:F
            .r    .                       bfilb ML LQLLR                              vLu-     {
{
ff " * % *g ,                           UNITED STATES                     f g y' O'.
M,,kI@ "{',g'        ''
y    Tir      q              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
        ,-                                    WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
        \ .- }l May 22, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:      Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM:                Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

==SUBJECT:==
MARKEY HEARING ON SUNSHINE ACT REGULATIONS This memorandum sumarizes the May 21, 1985 hearing on NRC's new Sunshine Act regulations before the Subcomittee on Energy Conservations and Power of the House Comittee on Energy and Comerce. A list of attendees is attached.
In his opening statement (attached), Chairman Markey charged that the new regulations would " draw a lead curtain around the Comission's deliberations." He then stated his belief that the rule would lead to diminished public trust which would in turn lead to a bleak future for nuclear power. After expressing his concern that the new rule has the potential for unintentional misuse as well as deliberate abuse, Mr. Markey indicated that Congress, industry, Wall Street and the general public had been well served by the Comission's traditional openness.
The opening remarks of Mr. Eckart (D-Ohio) and Mr. Sikorski (D-Minnesota) proceeded in much the same vein. Mr. Bilirakis (R-Florida) expressed his hope that Members would keep an open mind during the questioning, but he also indicated that he had reservations of his own.
Questioning progressed along these lines. Two recurring questions concerned the need to make the rule effective before considering public coments and the problems that Congress and the public would face in knowing whether or not the Comission had acted responsibly whenever it held a closed gathering under the new regulations.
At the end of the Comission's testimony, Mr. Eckart indicated that he was prepared to offer an amendment to the NRC authorization bill in markup the following day in order to intervene legislatively in the rule change. He mentioned three possible avenues: a requirement for notification before any closed gathering, a requirement for notification af ter the fact, or a one year delay in implementing the rule change.                                 Q
                                                                                                 ,b v
8601230506 851219 en           ,,
I BELL 85-536                                          i  i Cy I
k_

2_
i The other witnesses appeared together as a second panel. Mr. flader and Miss Weiss were not supportive of the rule nor the Commission in general.
Former Commissioner Ahearne found the Commission's approach disturbing, but did attempt to communicate his own frustrations and problems with the original Sunshine Act procedures. Former General Counsel Len Bickwit stated his belief that the Commission's actions fell within the recent
;          Supreme Court ' ruling in this area and would be reaffirmed if challenged.
,          Copies of the testimony are available from this office upon request.
Attachments:
As stated c: OPE OGC SECY s
1 i
l'

,   .               e.      ...n .. w .. .
            *3 h:      3," '           Nbb                       U S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATlVES
            , y' ; ."*. ',7"**
7 ;* , *..' 2."*
                                                     * *
* S.6CCvvfEE CN ENEeGY CONSE%atCN e         *E ".*c.;".%            *$.0                                  ANDPOWEm
            .7'" " T "."*O                                                   : ' **'
C0vucEE ON ENEaGy AND C0YVEncE e u'Oe*C                o*
w A$mNGTON. DC 20515 Opening Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey May 21, 1985 At the Subcommittee's recent budget authorization hearing, I said that I would try to be fair and vigorous in overseeing the operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Whare praise is warranted, I promised to be the first to lavish it. And, where criticism is required, I promised not to hesitate in rendering it. I am saddened to report that
          . today is a day for criticism.
tast Thursday the Commission approved a new rule amending its Sunshine Act regulations and took the unusual step of putting the new procedures into effect prior to obtaining public comment. The new rule can more accurately be described as ' Sunset Regulations", because they draw down a lead curtain around the Commission's deliberations. In effect, they establish a new type of Commission meeting. Currently, when a quorum of the Commission meets to discuss agency business, the meeting is either open or closed to the public under the Sunshine Act.                          If the meeting is closed under specific exemptions, a formal transcript is usually kept and subsequently reviewed for possible release. L'nde r the amended regulations, a new category of secret meetings called
* gatherings
* would be created of which no transcript, minutes or other record would be kept.
To add insult to injury, the Commission also voted 3 to 2, with Chairman palladino and Commissioner Asselstine dissenting, to preclude public comment on its decision to exclude the public until af ter the new rule is already implemented. What are we to make of this? Did the Commisison decide to take this extraordinary action because of an emergency situation threatening public health and safety, or, because it doesn't really care about public comment? I think the answer is obvious.
The theme of the Subcommittee's NRC oversight has and will continue to be the importance of public participation in nuclear decision-making with a goal toward butiding public confidence in the Commission. I believe that it is axiomatic that without public participation in NRC's activities, there will be no public trust. And if there is no public tfust, the future of nuclear energy will be bleak, indeed.
The Commission states tb.at holding secret meetings 'would improve its ability to do the public's business." However, part and parcel of doing the *public's business' is doing it in public. This should not be news to the Commission. Listen for a moment to the stinging conclusion of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision against the NRC just last year in Philadalehia Newscacer h v. MiC A decade ago revelations of secret abuse of of ficial power shocked this nation and seated in our minds a lesson vital to the health of a democratic polity: covere-ame should cenduct thg eublie's businann la public. In the Sunshine Act Congress moved to ensure that those in government do not forget that they are above all accountable to the people of this nation. Nowhere is the need for accountability more acute than in the Ccamission's handling of the Three Mile Island controversy.                Without a doubt. cenerena intended liga agg baefnm Agg wc;1d caara . tee public accounte lity 23 Eu11 11 Sat 21 1A1 *211 * *
* E i t i V 8 Ana difficu!t iss en 21 gag 11 g1 gag safety gg nuclear rower.                   temphasis added)
The Commission has apparently decided to strike an opposing theme.
It is a motif of public exclusion, a policy emanating from apparent mistrust of the public.
The Commission's testimony begins by stating that the purpose of the rule change is to conform the Commission's procedures with the Sunshine Act as interpreted in a 1984 Supreme Court decision. That case, rederal Cc- u-te tiens ce--issien v. ;;; gg;13 cc- unientiers, involved a highly unus.a. :et cf spect!te factual circumstances wnten in all likelthcod, s.;l n:t :e ec;1 teated at the NPC.
                                                                         -recr-

i           .           .
mativewth C0*Gagll eacu ia2 2ie 81*a#0 J Maastv. M188AcaulfMS Cw&amenas                                                   E 202 2 3 "o'".L*''"Ci;"              ''c'd!!a"!?''''?'"'"'''
Tc'?!!.t't.i.;'.'''.....    "?c**'Taffif.'t.           U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2.~E''.1'4f.'s              j''Jdt'.'lo",''1*Ef/.cmu   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION EEUs'.!EU' '.~Jsov.                                                 AND POWER pgogew w.cm cam                                                      0F THE
                         ,,,,c..,,                           COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE c-c cov=m aao stan o.secrea WASHINGTON, DC 20515 DATE AND TIME:                         Tuesday, May 21, 1985 at 10:00 a.m.
PLACE:                                 2322 Rayburn House Office Building

==SUBJECT:==
NRC Implementation of the Sunshine Act.
WITNESSES PANEL 1 The Honorable Nunzio J.      Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H. Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Accompanied by:
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Lando W. Zech PANEL 11 Mf. John Ahearne                                               Ralph Nader, Esquire Resources for the Future                                       Center for the Study 1616 P Street, NW                                                 of Responsive Law Washington, D.C. 20036                                         Post Office Box 19367 Washington, D.C. 20036 Leonard Bickwit, Jr., Esquire                                  Mr. Warren H. Owen Miller & Chevalier                                             Executive Vice President 655 15th Street, NW                                           Duke Power Company Washington, D.C. 20005                                         E9x 33169 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Samuel E. Klein, Esquire                                       Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Counsel to                                                     General Counsel The Philadelphia Inquirer                                      Union of Concerned Scientists Kohn, Savette, Marion & Graf                                  1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1101 Market Street                                            Washington, D.C. 20036 Philadelphia, Pennslyvania 19107}}