Licensing Reform and Price-Anderson

Ramey nevertheless agreed with Toll that a review of the specifically requested documents was vital to the staff study. Ramey therefore drafted a formal letter, from Anderson to Strauss. In it the Joint Committee chairman noted that although the investigation had thus far been conducted in a spirit of mutual cooperation, he regretted that the AEC reached this decision not to cooperate fully. He could not see how the Joint Committee staff could make an adequate investigation without full access to the pertinent documents being held administratively confidential by the AEC. Citii section 202 of the 1954 act that required ttie AEC to keep the Joint Coimnittee fully and currently informed, the senator insisted that either the documents be made available or a 

Since the AEC had not yet replied to Anderson s 16 October letter, the Joint Committee viewed its earlier request for information in the context of the proposed regulation. When Ramey telephoned General Counsel Mitchell on 9 November, he learned that the new rule would not apply to Joint Committee requests for information. Mitchell reconsidered his opinion, however, and a few days later wrote to Ramey that his telephone statement was not entirely accurate. The new regulation would apply to J oint Committee requests for specific internal documents, Mitchell wrote, unless those requests were individually granted by the Commission or the general manager.  

Those developments deeply concerned Anderson, who placed much emphasis on being kept fully and currently informed about AEC activities. He had Ramey draft a letter to Strauss, which was never sent, that demanded an insertion in the public-records rule stating its non- 

Libby and Strauss were only partially convinced. Libby had no problem with furnishing the Joint Committee with the pertinent scientific information on which the Safeguards Committee based its findings but thought it unwise to provide the verbatim reports because of the executive-privilege precedent. Strauss worried that other AEC activities, such 

McCullough conferred by telephone with the far-flung part-time Safeguards Committee members, who collectively agreed that the requested reports should be given to the Joint Committee. A majority felt, however, that release of their proceedings should not become a customary practice. The survey of the Safeguards Committee bolstered the Vance-Fields position and persuaded the Commission to release the reports.  

---