ML20214G087
| ML20214G087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Rosenthal A NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F620 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-50FR21072, RULE-PR-2 AB78-1-070, AB78-1-70, NUDOCS 8705260411 | |
| Download: ML20214G087 (1) | |
Text
.
' ,# o UNITED STATES g
- o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- r. j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
% g WASWNGTON, D.C. 20565 January 29, 1987 To: Alan Rosenthal From: Christine Kohl CM' Re: Relationship Between Investigations / Inspections and Adjudications -- Codification of Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of Information I have not reviewed the draft document too closely, in light of the representation that this version does not differ significantly from the prior version, on which I commented on October 3, 1986 (see attached copy of my prior memorandum). Most of my earlier suggestions appear to have been accepted, although the draft still suffers somewhat from a lack of punctuation in very long sentences. In this regard, I have penciled in a few editorial and citation changes on pp. 3, 4, 5, 7, 17, and 19.
Two suggestions that have not been accepted still concern me. For one, I believe it is unwise to permit a motion for a protective order to be made orally, for the reasons stated in my earlier memorandum at p. 4. I think, at the least, any oral motion should be required to be followed with something in writing. Second, nothing appears to have been done with respect to publication in the Federal Register of the Commission's new Board Notification policy.
(See my prior memorandum at pp. 4-5.) I think the Commission should make some effort to comply with the FOIA in this regard. (In the event that my comment was i misunderstood, I was not and am not suggesting that the new BN policy is subject to APA notice and comment rulemaking.)
I also question whether the citation to Westinghouse Electric (at p. 17 of the draft) is apposite to the point i for which it is cited. Somehow it does not seem right, and i I do not believe the draft would suffer from its omission. l (I do not recall this being included in the earlier version '
of the draft that I reviewed.) Finally, at p. 21 of the draft (lines 9-10), "Such an approach would also be wasteful of already scarce staff resources" should be stricken as disingenuous (albeit humorous) . I was under the impression that the resources of the ASLBP (21 full-time judges, 22 part-time judges, and a substantial support staff) were anything but " scarce."
Attachment 8705260411 B70520 PDR PR 2 50FR21072 PDR
-_ _ _ _ _ _ ,_. _ ._ _ _ _ - - . ,