ML20077L030

Discusses Review of Transcript in Gpu Vs B&W.Providing Each Commissioner W/Access to Advice & Assistance of Ofc of General Counsel Endorsed.Ofc of General Counsel Should Assess Legality of Action Outlined in 830210 & 25 Memos

ML20077L030
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/09/1983
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20077K587	List: ML20077K992 ML20077K996 ML20077K999 ML20077L001 ML20077L004 ML20077L020 ML20077L024 ML20077L030 ML20077L036 ML20077L039 ML20077L042 ML20077L056 ML20077L059 ML20077L064 ML20077L070
References
NUDOCS 8308080127
Download: ML20077L030 (2)

Text

. '.;.-d; k+

UNITED STATES

, NUCLEA' REGULATORY COMMISSION 4,

R g

N.;

.r*P..O WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

.t...,

.,: ^

-? q: 'y

%.. #o ;.

..c..

. i

.-g. **M crF c..

March 9, 1983 I

A CHAIRMAN s.

e--

. bHb.,.

_.,...4.=,,-..

*i4;4.r:L

• M Q Q.

-;6;;&'N

". ~

Yu- '... : : :Est=n

~

-b:. ;;- ;-..;.:Q ;-t.

m;

. i;. ;.

V_ 4..

MEMOR'A Commissioner Gilinsky

~ NDUM F0R:

%.: :.- - w--- s c

r-v - FROM 7;;-

Nunzio 0. Palladino

n..,... =...,..._. -.zz-..... : _.

-. Mi SUBJECT-:L.

. REVIEW OF TRANSCRIPT IN GPU v. B&W wa _m- + = -

- u --- -.= _ s ::, =

p-

..-.#'d'.'_I._n_t y o..u r_r,3. :.--m.emo.of M. arch.2, 1983, subject as above, you stated:

P~.

~.W=-:t-=s555=5S=1 v

1. dEE22~"?M iAs'a ma t t e r o f l a w, t h e fi v e N RC C ommi s s i o n e rs a re

-PW@sEfiiIq~ially entitled to advice and assistance of the General

@2.Mi;M~ifC o~u n s e 1 ~ a n d o t h e r a g e n cy o f f i c e s.

Any effort by the

.e llc..n"'2C.h.'.a'i rma n o r a maj o ri ty o f th e C ommi s s i o n to co n s t ra i n a n a

genwgnd.1vidual Commissioner's access to such informaton is Em

:.=M. sit 1 e g al. "

~

.=.:-?:EMiBiz.-

. W:5.+.

.g As :ags3 c principle, I strongly endorse providing each Commissioner

• - - -. access-foradvice and. assistance of the General Counsel and other

~

agsn Q ffices.

However, when the request of a given Commissioner to :haVeswork done in a given o.ffice duplicates work which the n.-;

Com'misTi'on has determined should be more properly done in another

~

.$.'E offic~evrI'.have proceeded on the basis that the Commission decision

{ Q.; shou g 'revail.

1+.3

3:.2:.7 T w:

The bas.is for proceeding this way is Section 4(d) of the President's E- -

Reo rgiii6jzatio n Pl an No. I of 1980 in which I believe the Congress o'ricuF.fsd.

Section 4(d) states:

b4

_ ~.

,':-;;i0=

.J2:'"(id),. Th e - hea d s o f th e Commi s s i o n l evel of fi ce s o r s ucc e s s o r

-m.

..- Z. =.a of fices, of General Counsel, Secretary to the Commis-

+: :=-V

-Mra

• s i o n, Office of Policy Evaluation, Office of Inspector T- ~

?M and Auditor, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• ~2..

. M E Panel and Appeal Pane *l, and Advisory Committee on 95~

T F C Reactor Safeguards shall continue to report directly M

~ @ h to the Co~mmission and the Commissio'n shall continue to

.g g.[,.q1rms

=rece1ve such. reports."

g w.-

=..aw.

Mf FuVt15Wo~re, the House Report on Information Flow as it relates

~

E.

to th"eTstaff's role under the Reorganization Plan states:

-:T--2'?

. MW -

.3_.

• 75;::&E,:* ~..*

.. L-:

5 % :-

M.$

' M:. ~.

. d,'.

1."f.P.

=W5.--

-c. -

~

.L.;*,*.*.C...

g

_. a.n..

9308080127 030715 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENC. E..PDR

.n

• 4% & -

-. m Com. ic.sionar Gilinsky

- :s - s - -

- 2 m

U.,y. ;.

., : : *g.

2 ; "-r ::...

,g

, d ;.,.

The. collegial body is"the central component of the agency, 7 '

charged with policy setting, direction and control.

That body should, as a matter of course, determine the agency's

~ priorities,.which are then carried out under the Chairman's

. - -. -e.

direction.

Individual requests from the Commissioners may "J. ;..

not ' receive priority attention if the requested

• work does rc not come within the subject areas determined by the Com-

~

mission as requiring primary staff attention.

In such N -'

matters, the Chairman of the Commission is the original

.TsC. -

arbiter.

If a Commissioner is dissatisfied with the

.J;5. ;; ?

decision of the Chairman as~to the attention to be given

~

~ - '.

his individual request, he may appeal to the Commission,

_ f2.se:;. % _-which_as indicated above, will make the~ final determination

__....,ncerning matters appropriate for priority attention.".

. c. g. e._..

w-

- co

. =.

Mf5 'I b'eliefe"that the actions being taken with regard to' analyzing

~

GM;7ti the GPU v. B&W cas.e have been in accordance with the foregoing Mihguidance.r Nevertheless, in view of your belief that the. action

.=.s;-a.& being taken on this issue is illegal, I request, by copy of this

"=. T memo to the General Counsel', that.he provide an. assessment of

~3 E.~the legality of the action bei.ng taken on this matter as outlined 3h f -in my memos of 2/10/83 and 2/25/83, which have been approved by 3i..); a major _ity of the Commission.

w.y..

- c.- +.=-

7=F b cc:

Commissioner Ahearne

• " ~

Commissioner Roberts

. Commissioner Asselstine H..Plaine

-f '..

J lZerbe

?" : -

.. Chilk p_

E^

x

. s-.. _

- -h;,

~

.=:..

.=

2 === =.

. :+ :=

a-L.-..

. =..

4-.

'N i'- -

_g:.:..

5.*i-

.n

k:

..M.

-3

. _.!:.v.t.

m.....

l g

- _ = -

~ ? >,..

._{_.S.WS

=z=i_==..

-;t.=..E

. 39 '

77.i

~~$~; *

%~ '

'Q:.

i

~. f.

l W--

~~~

e s

w

=

l

==%

.,, - - - - -, - ~, -.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - +