June 9, 1999

Secretary
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Re: Government in the Sunshine Act Regulations 10 CFR Part 9

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I write in opposition to the notice of intent to implement a final rule that amends the Government in the Sunshine Act with regard to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  I have reviewed documents provided by the NRC Office of Public Affairs and the Federal Register pertaining to this matter.

The proposed action would change the way meetings are conducted within the NRC.  Meetings could be held which would not be open to the public, and without effective public oversight.  The 1985 rule contains a provision which states that transcripts of closed Commission meetings will be released only when their is a request from a member of the public. This is not a minor point. This provision creates a Catch 22 situation in which a member of the public would have to have reason to request a transcript about which he or she has little or no knowledge.

The citation by the NRC of the 1984 Supreme Court decision (FCC v. ITT World Communications, 466 US 463), the American Bar Association report, and the Administrative Conference of the United States Recommendation does not alter the fact that there is no consensus on this matter and that the Administrative Conference left the question open in 1995.

The NRC fails to identify solid evidence to back its assertion that meetings which are not held impair the collegial process.  Furthermore, by providing examples of what might be considered non-Sunshine Act discussions, e.g. how is the Commission functioning as an agency? or,  are we working effectively with Congress?,  the NRC trivializes the nature of an amendment to a rule which has served the agency for over two decades.  Examples of non-Sunshine discussions in the 4 May 1999 Q&A, Annette Vietti-Cook states, " Spontaneous, casual discussions of matters of mutual interest could include discussions of a recent news story relating to NRC-licensed activities, or a Commissioners insights and personal impressions from a visit to a facility or other travel." (emphasis added) A "bright line" definition of what constitutes a meeting, i.e. a quorum of commissioners, is precisely the public deserves and is what the Commission ought to adhere to.

Finally, with regard to international projects and the free flow of information, the amendment may prevent the public from obtaining important information about companies based outside the United States.  For example, the British firm BNFL is shielded by the Official Secrets Act in that country.  Likewise, the French concern COGEMA is immune from our Freedom of Information Act.  By closing meetings which are for "presentation or exchange of information,"  public access to information about these companies will be denied.  Important national policy decisions will suffer as a result of the information blackout on foreign industries which will construct facilities and provide plutonium fuel to reactors to utilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Respectfully submitted,


Louis A. Zeller
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE