ML20054C962
| ML20054C962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Eilperin S NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C939 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-437 NUDOCS 8204220176 | |
| Download: ML20054C962 (2) | |
Text
5,.
[ '*
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
a 4
'E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL l., g%
/
msmucrou.o.c.20sss September-28, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALL PART FROM:
El perin, Chairman Three Mile Island-l Restart Proceeding RE:
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ET AL.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear SEtTon, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
On September 21, 1981, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel assigned me to chair the Appeal Board that will review at least the Licensing Board's August 27, 1981 Partial Initial Decision (on manage-ment issues) in this proceeding.
The purpose of this memorandum is to disclose to the parties such prior in-volvement as I have had in matters touching the TMI-1 restart proceeding.
Prior to my September 21 appointment to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel and to the Appeal Board l
for the TMI-l restart proceeding, I served as the Solicitor l
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with supervisory l
responsibility for handling the Commission's litigation.
On two occasions issues raised in the TMI-l restart pro-l ceeding were brought to court.
In People Against Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 81-1131 (D.C.
l Cir.)
(" PANE") prospective intervenors in the restart i
proceeding sought review of the Commission's decision not to consider contentions regarding psychological distress in that proceeding.
In Three Mile Island Alert,.Inc. v.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 81-1557 (D.C. Cir.) a lawsuit was brought seeking review of the Commission's March 23, 1981, decision to remove from the restart pro-ceeding the issue of the licensee's financial qualifica-tions to operate TMI-1. safely. As Solicitor I supervised the defense of the Commission's position in court in both cases.
This involved supervising the preparation of a l
motion to dismiss each case as interlocutory, and super-vising the writing of the Commission's brief in PANE after the motion to dismiss that. case had been denied.
8204220176 811112 PDR FOIA ELLIOTT81-437 PDR
'\\
f
- I s ALL PARTIES I did not advise the-Commission on either of the Commission orders that gave rise to those lawsuits, although I had occasional discussions with lawyers in the Office of the General Counsel who were formulating possible Commission positions, about the relative merits of different approaches.
Except as I have just explained I have had no involve-ment with matters at issue in the TMI-1. restart proceeding.
In particular I have not served in a prosecutive or inves-tigative role with regard to any facts at issue in the pro-ceeding, I have had no hand in advising the. commission on any of the orders it has entered, I have not consulted with any party to the proceeding about any matters at issue in the proceeding, I have not reviewed the hearing record, nor formed any position on the merits of the Licensing Board's August 27, 1981, partial initial decision.
I consider my-self free of bias about issues which might come before me for decision in the case, and I think I can fairly decide whatever issues, if any, a court might remand to the Com-mission for further consideration.
If there are any objections to my participation on the Appeal Board in this case please advise me by October 6, 1981 and I will consider them.
I
,---m-