ML20055D540
| ML20055D540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1990 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007090073 | |
| Download: ML20055D540 (2) | |
Text
..
COMJC.90-5 long tarm, I would propose that we abolish the Appeal Panel and, in its place, establish a mechanism for direct review of Licensing Board decisions by the Commission.
To accomplish this, I would propose that the Commission begin an orderly phase-out of the Appeal Panel and its functions, with the ultimate objective of abolishing the Appeal Panel once the rights of the parties to pending appeals have been properly accommodated.
To ensure a proper and orderly phase out of the Appeal Panel, I would propose that we direct the office of General Counsel to provides 1.
a transition plan to phase out the Appeal Panel, e
taking into account the procedural rights of parties to pending proceedings to pursue appeals before the Appeal Board; 2.
a discussion of the options for direct Commission review of Licensing Board decisions; and 3.
recommended changes to the procedural regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 to reflect the abolition of the Appeal Panel and the establishment of a mechanism for direct Commission review of Licensing Board decisions.
These evaluations and recommendations should be provided in a timeframe that would allow the Commission to terminate the Appeal Panel when the Panel's work on currently pending appeals is completed.
?
l 1 concur with Commissioner Curtiss' COMJC.90 5 SECY, please track.
proposals.
In particular i endorse his proposals 1, 2, and 3 regarding requests of the Office of General Counsel to provide a transition plan to l
I cc:
SECY phase out the Appeal Panel, options for direct OGC Commission review of Licensing Board decisions, and recommended changes to 0 CFR Part i
1
................................./Kennethb.Ro rs 6/26/90 have established a body of procedural requireme5t's"cjov'eYdfn'g" 5'C"'""'"
appellate review that is comparable to those applicable 11-most appellate courts.
Interpretive rulings in particular have resulted in detailed procedural requirements on matters sus's as the format and content of appellate briefs, the timing of motions for extensions of time on briefs and the matters to be addressed in motions to postpone oral arguments. See, e.a..
Public service Electric & Gas Co.
(Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-394, 5 NRC 769, 771 n.2 (1977)
Louisiana Power & Liaht-co.
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-117, 6 AEC 261 (1973); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-165, 6 AEC 1145 (1973).
This sort of i
extreme proceduralization of an administrative appellate process has been widely criticized -- and properly so, in my view.
]
99g799oo73 900626
'"^Y
- v 4-khRE E $
PDC h
i
-.