ML20028F765
| ML20028F765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1978 |
| From: | Yore J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Kelley J, Rothschild I NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028F757 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-490 ALAB-458, NUDOCS 8302040161 | |
| Download: ML20028F765 (2) | |
Text
... p.
. i 8
UNITED STATES f*
7 g;
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l L-Li ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL l
/
WASMNGTON. D. C. 20555
....+
. March 28, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James L. Kelley
~
Acting General Counsel Irwin B. Rothschild, OGC
~
FROM:
James R. Yore, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SUBJECT:
COhBiISSION POLICY ON CAMERA COVERAGE OF HEARINGS The Licensing Board in Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330), has scheduled a prehearing conference in Chicago, Illinois on April 20-21, 1978.
The fifth and last issue on the agenda to be considered flows from the Appeal Board's order of remand in ALAB-458 (February 14, 1978) slip opinion page 43, footnote 87.
Reference is made to previous " comments relating to an alleged, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to prevent full dis-closure of the facts relating to Dow's intention with regard to its contract."
(See enclosed letter dated February 16, 1978 with attachments, from Anthony Z. Roisman (NRDC) to Jerome Nelson, Esq., General Counsel, and reply dated March 22, 1978 from James L. Kelley.)
The Appeal Board has directed the Licensing Board to see that these charges "are fully aired and resolved".
Under the circumstances, framing these issues may well involve charges i
]
reflecting on the conduct of a number of individuals allegedly
{
involved in these events.
Such charges could reflect on the reputations of individuals before any proof of evidence was adduced.
Pros and Cons of Permitting Audiovisual Coverage of the Proceedine Pros 1
1.
TV coverage of the prehearing conference would not require an amendment of the Commission's new policy on camera coverage of hearings.
8302040161 830112 PDR FOIA s_.
HARTMAN82-490 PDR
(-.-----
,e
~
.2-James L. Kelley Irwin B. Rothschild, III March 28, 1978 Pros (contd) 2.
TV coverage would fully comply with the Appeal Board's directive that these charges are " fully aired".
3.
Full camera coverage would avoid the possible necessity for removing cameras when the issue in question is reached.
Cons 1.-
If this portion of the prehearing conference is televised, the procedure could be deemed unfair if not i
lacking in procedural due process.
It could be analo-gous to televising a grand jury proceeding when charges in the form of a proposed indictment are being con-sidered.
There would be little or no opportunity to explore the merits of the matter, or-to put on evidence to give a balanced picture.
2.
When the Administrative Conference of the United
{
States adopted Recommendation No. 72-1, providing for audiovisual TV coverage of administrative proceedings, it expressly recommended that such coverage should be excluded in adjudicatory proceedings involving the rights or status of individuals.
.in which individual past culpable conduct or other aspect of personal life is a primary subject of adjudication and the person in question objects to coverage.
W ~.t z A.-
ames R. Y e
Chairman, ASLBP
Enclosures:
2/16/78 ltr Roisman to Nelson 3/22/78 ltr Kelley to Roisman 3/9/78 Notice of Prehearing Conference d
s l
d
~ * ;, _ _,
" * ~
t1