ML19207B480

Motion Submitted by Intervenors Forelaws on Board & Coalition for Safe Power That VB Deale Disqualify Himself as Chairman of ASLB in Proceeding.Affidavit of E Stachon Encl

ML19207B480
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	07/16/1979
From:	Stachon E FORELAWS ON BOARD, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B479	List: ML19207B480
References
NUDOCS 7908300018
Download: ML19207B480 (6)

Text

. ..

Forelaws on Board

'Tilh FOl'R LAWS OF ECOLOGY I. En resthung n ennnected to ever.sthsng Our consesente teaches us at as traht. et,g_

our reason trachte us at ss useful. 2. Et-erythune must so somewhere that men should isor accordsna to 3 .Vature knma n best.

""n.ws a n,.s, FORELAWS ON BOARD

' " " " ' "" '"'^ '"' # ~ '""'^~

Sing,$egonN ECRiE C TOL~

Ph. 837-3549 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

Puget Sound Power & Light ) DOCKET NOS. 50-522 & oN Company, et al. ) 50-523 g e

) oocKETED (Skagit Nuclear Power ) USNRC Project, Units 1 and 2) ) DATED: July 16, 1979 T

) -

JUL 2 31979 > -

h Office of the Sectitary {

Docketing 3. Sese

% c' FOC/CFSP IIOTICII TO REQUIRE DISOUALIFICATIOII N '

0F BOARD CIIAIPJtAI!

Intervenor FOB /CFSP, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.704(c),

hereby moves to have Valentine B. Deale disqualify himself as Chairman of the Licensing Board in these docketc.

Attached to this motion is supporting affidavit setting forth the grounds for this motion.

Respectfully, J

he M.i M4 790'830co IF 'r1o 3 t"" "

Forelaus On Doard Coalition for Safe Power A REVEttENCE FOR ML LIFE -

T!!E COLDEN RULE -

T!!E FOUR LAWS OF ECoLoCY e

GUIDELINES OF CREATIVE ENVlllONMENTALISM FORELAWS ON BOAllD h

Forelaws on Board

• Tile FOt'R LAWN OF ECOLOGY Our conscience teachte us st s e eseh t, I hersthang s* ennnreted to et crythsng else.

Our reasm teachte us st as useful. 2. &rrythung must go somewhere.

that men should leur accordsnt to T Nuture knma s best the Golden Rule.

t Threr ss nn euch thsnt as a irrelunch.

W. Winwood Reade FORELAWS ON BOARD 19142 S. Bl..tra Ferry Rd. ,,,. . .. , , ,a , , , ,s.. c,.cu Boring, Oregon 97009 ,,,. , , , . . , . .

Ph. 837-3549 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

In the Matter of )

) 5~ b Puget Sound Power & Light ) DOCKET NOS. 50-522 N Company, et al. ) 50-523 e 4 to

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2)

) DATED: July 16, 197 #(# 6'Ig/ \\

) Z <b ,

h h k AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC STACI10!! O d

/

In Support of F0D/CFSP Motion ch es I, Eric Stachon, having been duly suorn, do hereb affirm and state:

\. ,

a) that I represent both Forelaus On Ecard and the Coalition for Safe Fouer in these proceedings, b) that I have appeared before both the previous Board Chairman (Samuel W. Jensch) and the-current Chairman, Valentine B. Deale, c) the the following sets forth sufficient grounds for the disqualification of Valentine Deale as presiding officer:

1) Chairman Deale's first appearance in these proceed-ings was at a pre-hearing confM once on January 16, 1979. The purpose of the conference was to identify remainint; issues before the Board. Board Order of December 22, 1978.

A REVERENCE FOR ALL LIFE - Ti!E GOLUEN RULE -

THE FotR LAWS OF ECOLOGY e

GUIDELINES OF CREATIVE ENV!!tONNIENTALISat e

FORELAWS ON llOARD 45

ens -

2 E) The most significant issue pendin before the

. Coard at the time of the conference was a late-filed petition to intervene entered on behalf of threc !!ative Accrican tribes.

The petition had been granted by the previous chairman but, on appeal, that decision was vacated by the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Appeal Board and the matter was remanded to the nculy consti-tuted Board. ALAD Order of January 12, 1979.

3) Chairman Deale recognised the significance of the Indian issue and its effect on the course of these proceedings,

• stating, " ...wefeelthat-thc(India 3)matterdeservespriority attention." Tr. 11,489 (emphasis added). Deale also stated, "And, quite, clearly, the sooner the Petition to Intervene is ruled upon the better." Tr. 11,495. As for schedulin6, the chairman commented:

...in the scheduling of the issues to be considered by us, while the Indians' petition is being considered, I believe the Board would be sympathetic in scheduling, say, the issues for its consideration in the petition which the Indians have an immediato interest in at perhaps a later time than might otherwisc be scheduled."

Tr. 11,491-92

4) While acknowledging the seriousness of the Indian issue, the chairman let it be 1:nown that he would not lot it delay the hearings, stating, "Ifow , I Vant to make sure this is understood, that this proceeding will not be held up until we mal:e a decision on the Indians' petition." Tr. 11,491 and, "We said in our order that we intend to move ahead with this case with all deliberate speed...".Tr. 11,522

5) As a means of e::pediting :he hearings process, the Soard convened a second pre-hearing conference on April 24, 2979.

"The purpose of the confere. ice is to schedule evidenti-ery hearings and to tal:e curther steps in moving along the proceeding." Order for Ccnference, March 27, 1979.

851 346

3 The Order also stated:

"Detween neu and the scheduled conference, the Board is planning...to issue its order on the question of intervention by the Upper Skagit Indian Tribo, the Sauk-Suiattic Indian Tribe and the Swibomish Tribal Community..."

6) At the April 24 conference the Eoard ruled on the record against granting the Petition to Intervene. The Chair-man, hcwever, delayed any appeal, requiring petitioners to await issuance of a written decision. Meanwhile, at the April 24 ,

conference, the parties agreed to a three-wcok evidentiary Enssion to start on July 17. The petitioning tribes had shown interest in many of the issues scheduled to be addressed at the July session.

7) L'hile awaiting issuance of an appealable order, petitioners found ti necessary to file a Motion to Expedite Issuance of E'ritten Decision Denying Intervention, filed Mcy 15, 1979. The tritos were understandably anxious to begin the appeal process, stating:

"The Tribe, are fearful that the Board's previous delay, and any further delay, will prejudico their position on appeal." Motion at p. 2.

3) The written decision was finally entered on June 1, 1979, over six months after the initial granting of intervention by the previous chairman, almost five months after the Appeal Board remanded the issue back. to the Board, and over two months after the chairman announced the Coard's intentions of ruling on the petition on or before the April 24 conference.

9) Not only had Chairman Deale personally assured a quick decision on the~ petition, but also the Commission, in an Order dated March 8, 1979, noted, "(the) Board should proceed to consider the matter expeditiously." The subject of the Order was the pe :ttion for Commission review of the Appeal Board order, filed by the tribes. The Commission deferred ruling on the petition until the Licensing Coard issued its decision.

10) The Chairman's lack of des' ire in resolving the Indian issue, while at the same time taking action to speed up the ultimate 851 547

f.

~

~

~

^

?DDR DilBEU conclucien of the proceedings, hac ccverely prejudiced the ri., hts of the petitioninr tribec. The matter is procently before the Appeal Board. Yet, before the Appeal Coard rules on the matter, evidentiary hearinEs vill have been held on subjects of concern to the tribec. Even if the Appeal Coard reversos the Coard's decision and allouc intervention, it is doubtful that petitioncrc will be able to addroce issucc previously litigated before thic Board.

Chairman Deale t.4c not offered, nor do FOD/CFGP fcc1 that he can, ,

provide a reaconable c::planation for hic delay in incuing a decision that petitioners could appeal.

11) Ecyond the iacue of timelineca, there is the matter of the nature of some of the language used in the chairman's Order of June 1. At p. 5 Deale refers to the Indians' participation in a federal court case granting the tribes federally adjudicated fishing richtc. Deale states:

"The Indians victory in the latter cacc[ United Statcc

v. Uachington) mic,ht have energiced the Indians to try another legal battleground...." Order at p. 5.

Dealc'c remarhc regarding Indians and battlegrounds conjures up visions of the uhite man's stercotyped image of Hative Americans as "cavages." There is no place in thoce proceedings for such rcmarks.

12) Thus, Deale 's uords, as uell as his ac tions, consti-tuto crounds for his removal. In In the Hatter of Commonucalth Edicon, G URC GC, ALAD-lO2, (Feb. 20, 1973), the Appeal Ecard stated at F. 71:

"an appearance of prejudgement is as much a ground for disqualification ae is prejudgement itself."

Thcro is no doubt that, at the very least, Chairman Dealc appgpra to have prejudiced the rights of the peticioning tribec and has caused them needlocc haraccmont.

In the interects of preserving Commission intcCriey, Chairman Deale chould disqualify himscif ac presiding officer.

Respectfully, 851 348 EJA Eric Stachon Forclawa On Board Coalition for Safe Power

A 4 Subscribed and sworn before :ne this /7N'- lay of July, 1079.

^

} .j r ,l1,Lcts.L. b- -

~

a- {}.).

. I!otary Public '

MyCommissionExpires:ll[.3'7/7.A 851 349

.