ML20054B744
| ML20054B744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190159 | |
| Download: ML20054B744 (3) | |
Text
-
sh O
t' r
i s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
9;
,V-b Ag 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 50ARD ny 9 i-7 g4 1
Administrative Judges:
,N ca w
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman
' Dr. John H.
Buck Christine N.
Kohl SERVED APR161982
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
)
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2))
)
ORDER April 15, 1982 On March 9, 1982 intervenor Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) moved that Ernest E.
Hill recuse himself from fur-ther service on the Licensing Board for this operating license proceeding.
In essence, the motion and supporting affidavits challenged Judge Hill's impartiality.
On April 13, after receiving oppositions to the motion from the applicants and the NRC staff, the other members of the Li-censing Board issued a memorandum and order.
Observing that Judge Hill had declined to recuse himself for reasons set forth l
in an accompanying separate statement, the quorum memorandum and order addressed the question "whether the accusations (in the l
yO3 J
/
C) 8204190159 820415 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G
5
, motion] have merit and, if so, are legally disqualifying".
This question was answered in the negative and, accordingly, the mo-tion was denied.
As mandated in these circums tances by 10 CFR 2. 704 (c), the motion has now been referred to us.
Essentially for the reasons stated by the Licensing Board quorum, we do not believe that of themselves the motion and sup-porting affidavits provide sufficient cause for Judge Hill's recusal or disqualification.
At the same time, however, several of the comments contained in his separate statement give rise to a serious doubt respecting Judge Hill's present ability to judge CCANP and its assertions in this proceeding dispassionately.
The appearance of total objectivity being as important as the reality,1/ we are thus compelled to the conclusion that another member of the Licensing Board Panel should be now designated to replace Judge Hill.
l Because we understand that the next hearing session is 1
scheduled to commence next Tuesday, April 20, we are announcing l
the result of our review at this time.
A full opinion will is-sue at a later date.
i 1
-1/
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-101, 6 AEC 60, 65 (1973).
l
y.-
. l It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.1,bh mbh C. JgnShoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board