ML23257A031

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
FOIA-2023-000090 - SECY-A-78-1 Released Set
ML23257A031
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/16/2023
From:
NRC/OCIO
To:
References
FOIA-2023-000090
Download: ML23257A031 (4)


Text

SECY-A-78-1 Pages 1-15 Withheld in Full

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~ll1ISSION ll.Tct,!IC SAFETY AJ.~D LICENSING APPEAL PA..NEL Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck, Vice Chairman Michael C. Farrar Richard S. Salzman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman

)

In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

) Docket Nos. 50-329

)

50- 330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

)

________________ )

MEMORAJ.'1D UH December 14, 1977 (ALAB-450)

Now pending before a specially constituted Licensing Board (special boa*rd} are charges o_f professional misconduct leveled against three lawyers who have appeared for cer!:ain of the parties in the remanded construction permit proceeding

_!/

involving the Midland facility.

Those charges were referred to the special board for adjudication by a November 4, 1977 order of the Licensing Board presiding over the remanded proceeding (hearing board).

The referral was grounded upon

_y See Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 F. 2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1976),

certio:!'."ari granted sub nom. Consumers Power Co. v.

Aeschlir.'.an, 429 U. S. 1090 (1977).

the provisions of 10 CFR 2.713(c) relating to suspension or debarment from participation as an attorney in a pro-2/

ceeding*.-

Norrnally, by reason of a delegation of authority from 3/

the Co{llillission,- appellate review of the special board's determinations would be undertaken by an appeal board drawn from the membership of the Appeal Panel.

Unusual circumstances present here, however, prompt all members of the Appeal Panel to recuse themselves.

. More specifically, it appears from the hearing board's November 4 order that debarment of one of the lawyers is being sought on the basis of his written representations-to the hearing board regarding an incident in the Emergency Core Cooling System rulemaking proceeding (Docket No. RM 50-1) several years ago.

These representations have been formally characterized as wholly false by the members of the ECCS

...!I hearing board~

Two of those members (Ors. John H. Buck 5/

and Lawrence R. Quarles) also serve on the Appeal Pa*ner.-

Thus, any Appeal Panel r,1ember reviewing the special board's determinations might well find himself in the intolerable position cf having to pass judgment on the merits of a contro-versy in which the credibility of his colleagues was placed

_Jj

_]_/

_y 21 See Tol edo Edison Co~ (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-332, 3 NRC 785 (1976} and ALAB-378, 5 NRC 557 (1977).

See 10 CFR 2.78S (a).

See ALAB-395, 5 NRC 772, 787-88 (1977).

Although Dr. Quarles retired from general service on the Appeal Panel last June, he continues as a member of the appeal board for one proceeding to which he

3 -

in issue. _y We announce our recusal at this juncture so that the Commission may, if it deems it advisable to do so, either (1) authorize the submission directly to it of any papers which would otherwise be filed with an appeal board; (2) delegate its review authority in this matter to a specially constituted appeal board (not drawn from the members of the Appeal Panel); or (3) take some other action considered to be appropriate in the circumstances. _y FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL fl,,ft(Z,;:;r;E 4?,,A 9,,,

Mar aret E. Du.lo~

Secretary to the Appeal Panel

_ii Insofar as Dr. Buck is concerned, there is an even more obvious reason why it would be inappropriate for him to participate in such review.

Additionally, there may be other considerations (unrelated to those discussed in the text) which might have induced some of the members of the Appeal Panel t o recuse themselves.

No present necessity exists to elaborate upon them.

_]_/

The recusal of the entire Appeal Panel extends, of course, only to the disciplinary matter before the special board.

The members of the Panel assigned to the Appeal Board for the remanded construction permit proceeding will continue to serve on that Board.