ML16340B482
| ML16340B482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Brown H, Lanpher L CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340B483 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-84 ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8103120633 | |
| Download: ML16340B482 (6) | |
Text
p ~
h ~
~
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMISSIONERS
'ohn F. Ahearne',
Chairman Victor Gi1 insky Joseph,M.
Hendrie Peter A. Bradford NUCLEAR REGULATORY C V ltS
~9',egg/(p jjtjd jjd SAgg ~
~was~Qruy
~4 Atlg~ g poc ups jt.,c FEB 2 0 19M >
Office of fh~ s<<~"j Qocketinl 4, Scnice h
FE'8 ~
If@(
In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS 5 ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2)
Docket Nos.
0-275 OL (Security)
ORDER d
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reviewed'the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision of December 30, 1980 which chastised Governor Brown's counsel, Herbert H.
Brown and Lawrence C. Lanpher, for their conduct in this proceeding.
The Commission has affirmed the Appeal Board's decision and agrees with the Appeal Board that in the present case Messrs.
Brown's and Lanpher's conduct was ill-considered and constituted extremely poor judgment.
The Commission will not hesitate to impose severe sanctions on any individual if the protective orders issued by the Appeal. Board. are.not: strict.-.
~
ly adhered to during the remainder of this proceeding We also wish to '
d
~ ~
emphasize that any party, upon obtaining evidence which appears to indicate that another party may not be in full compliance with a Board order, should p
I
~id' t tt App I
1 d.
r.....::j jjjjjjjj hhh
'~03180~~~
,.... s8$gdp-
S qsr Jt I!
P, p,
lr
~
~
The Commission is making available to the public the Appeal Board's decision of December 30, with protected physical security information deleted.
It is so ORDERED.*
By the Commission EM SAMUEL J.
CHILK Secretary of e Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this~
day of February, 1981.
Commissioner Gilinsky recused himself from this aspect of the proceeding.
P
'mjj "j
~
~
DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BRADFORD The Commission did not need to review this matter and should not have done so.
In light of the Appeal Board's reasonable satisfaction that "no protected information was made public" by the conduct in question, its handling of the matter was an effective disposition of an issue of limited significance.
The Board conveyed its disapproval of the violation of its order clearly and efficiently; no further action
'was required.
Once the Commission did decide to take review, it should at least have sought the views. of the parties before converting the Appeal Board's judiciously crafted private rebuke to a blunderbuss agency public censure of the attorneys for the state of California.
g) 9OGKHED QSHRc FE82P]9@ ~
6 Office of the Secrctap DOCllCHflg 4 Qgyjgg Bra:h C
CTl