ML16341C650: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML16341C650
| number = ML16341C650
| issue date = 02/25/1980
| issue date = 02/25/1980
| title = TMI-2:Coal Burning Plant.Summary of Study of Converting TMI-2 to Fossil-Fueled Plant.
| title = TMI-2:Coal Burning Plant.Summary of Study of Converting TMI-2 to Fossil-Fueled Plant
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
| author affiliation = GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lpga(
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lpga(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:                                                               C/                          '9 John. F. Ahearne,   Chairman
COMMISSIONERS:
                                                                                      ~os~
John. F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T.
                                                                        ~l                +"<ec Victor Gilinsky                                                             gp Richard T. Kennedy Joseph M. Mendrie Peter A. Bradford                                                                 g~r n @0>."PQ~
Kennedy Joseph M. Mendrie Peter A. Bradford C/
                                                                                    >epPg~~i4
'9
                                                                              ~o                         8 In the Matter of PACIFIC   GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY                         Docket Nos.         -        0. L.
~os~
50-323           . L.
~l gp
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
+"<ec g~r n @0>."PQ~
ORDER CLI-80-11 On March 13, 1980,   Joint Intervenors filed     a motion requesting the Commis-sion to disqualify Dr. John       H. Buck from sitting   on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board assigned     to hear the appeal     on the seismic issues in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. In the alternative,- Joint Intervenors requested that the                   Commission I
>epPg~~i4
refer the matter to     Dr. Buck for an   initial ruling.     On March 21, 1980,             the Commis-sion issued   an order directing Dr. Buck to rule       on   the motion.       The order         stated that should Dr. Buck decide   to remain in the proceeding,       his decision           will     be subject to Commission review pursuant to         10 CFR 2.786.     CLI-80-8,     11     NRC On March 24, 1980,   Dr. Buck issued   a memorandum   in which     he concluded             that there was no legal requirement that     he disqualify himself,     and   that     he     did not intend to   do so. On March 28,   1980, Joint Intervenors filed       a   petition requesting the Commission to review that decision.         The Commission     has decided         to deny the petition.
~o 8
                                                                                      'I II Joint Intervenors     have suggested   two grounds   for disqualification:                 (1) Dr.
In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Buck's participation would creat'e     an appearance   of bias   because     in two previous
Docket Nos.
: 0. L.
50-323
. L.
ORDER CLI-80-11 On March 13, 1980, Joint Intervenors filed a motion requesting the Commis-sion to disqualify Dr. John H.
Buck from sitting on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board assigned to hear the appeal on the seismic issues in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.
In the alternative,- Joint Intervenors requested that the Commission I
refer the matter to Dr.
Buck for an initial ruling.
On March 21,
: 1980, the Commis-sion issued an order directing Dr.
Buck to rule on the motion.
The order stated that should Dr. Buck decide to remain in the proceeding, his decision will be subject to Commission review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786.
CLI-80-8, 11 NRC On March 24,
: 1980, Dr.
Buck issued a memorandum in which he concluded that there was no legal requirement that he disqualify himself, and that he did not intend to do so.
On March 28, 1980, Joint Intervenors filed a petition requesting the Commission to review that decision.
The Commission has decided to deny the petition.
'I II Joint Intervenors have suggested two grounds for disqualification:
(1) Dr.
Buck's participation would creat'e an appearance of bias because in two previous


licensing proceedings     he did not accept the views of one of the Joint Intervenors'xpert witnesses,   Dr. Mihailo Trifunac; and (2)         that   an appearance     of bias is created by his participation in       a 1971 Appeal Board       decision which Joint Inter-venors assert erroneously affirmed an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision h
licensing proceedings he did not accept the views of one of the Joint Intervenors'xpert witnesses, Dr. Mihailo Trifunac; and (2) that an appearance of bias is created by his participation in a 1971 Appeal Board decision which Joint Inter-venors assert erroneously affirmed an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision h
granting a construction permit for Diablo       Canyon   Unit   2. Joint Intervenors assert that Dr. Buck   at that time failed to adequately consider their seismic concerns.
granting a construction permit for Diablo Canyon Unit 2.
In response,   Dr. Buck, stated     that a judge is not required to         disqualify himself from   a proceeding   just   because   he has had     prior involvement with similar issues or parties,   citing   FTC v. Cement   Institute     333 U. S. 683,     703 (1947).                   He further noted   that in each of two earlier   proceedings       in which   he did not accept Dr. Trifunac s judgment he was joined in his opinion by another Appeal Board member. He explained that   he is not biased against Dr. Trifunac, but that ."rea-sonable minds can and do     differ on any given issue". With respect to Joint Inter-venors'harges     that he made   erroneous   rulings in the'Diablo       Canyon   construction permit proceeding,   Dr. Buck noted     that those rulings are "ancient history" and'that five other   members of the Licensing     Board and Appeal Board also decided to approve construction of the Diablo     Canyon   facility.
Joint Intervenors assert that Dr.
The Commission has reviewed the         matter and determined       that a case has not been established   for disqualification.       Dr. Buck has not previously ruled on the specific factual questions before the         Appeal Board, and we have no evidence                           that he is partial or   has a closed mind.       The mere   fact that     he has   not accepted Dr. Trifunac's views in the past does not force the Commission to conclude                                   that Dr. Buck   will be unable to objectively consider Dr. Trifunac's views in                                 this proceeding.
Buck at that time failed to adequately consider their seismic concerns.
The Commission   has never taken the     position that       because a member                 of the Appeal Board   participated   as an   adjudicator in     a   construction permit proceeding for
In response, Dr.
Buck, stated that a judge is not required to disqualify himself from a proceeding just because he has had prior involvement with similar issues or parties, citing FTC v.
Cement Institute 333 U. S.
: 683, 703 (1947).
He further noted that in each of two earlier proceedings in which he did not accept Dr. Trifunac s judgment he was joined in his opinion by another Appeal Board member.
He explained that he is not biased against Dr. Trifunac, but that."rea-sonable minds can and do differ on any given issue".
With respect to Joint Inter-venors'harges that he made erroneous rulings in the'Diablo Canyon construction permit proceeding, Dr.
Buck noted that those rulings are "ancient history" and'that five other members of the Licensing Board and Appeal Board also decided to approve construction of the Diablo Canyon facility.
The Commission has reviewed the matter and determined that a case has not been established for disqualification.
Dr.
Buck has not previously ruled on the specific factual questions before the Appeal Board, and we have no evidence that he is partial or has a closed mind.
The mere fact that he has not accepted Dr. Trifunac's views in the past does not force the Commission to conclude that Dr. Buck will be unable to objectively consider Dr. Trifunac's views in this proceeding.
The Commission has never taken the position that because a member of the Appeal Board participated as an adjudicator in a construction permit proceeding for


a particular facility that the     member is precluded from sitting   on the Board that will review   the operating license application     for that same facility. We find no special circumstances   here which would cause the Commission to change       that policy.
a particular facility that the member is precluded from sitting on the Board that will review the operating license application for that same facility.
We conclude that based on the information before us       that Dr. Buck is not biased, his participation does not present an appearance       of bias,   and that his prior involvement with Diablo     Canyon at the construction permit stage     does not require disqualification. The petition for review is, therefore, denied.
We find no special circumstances here which would cause the Commission to change that policy.
Commissioner Bradford would have granted the     petition for review.
We conclude that based on the information before us that Dr.
It is so ORDERED.
Buck is not
For the Commission SAMUEL J.     LK Secretary of t e Commission Dated at Washington,   D.C.
: biased, his participation does not present an appearance of bias, and that his prior involvement with Diablo Canyon at the construction permit stage does not require disqualification.
this       day of /PA<< -1980.
The petition for review is, therefore, denied.
* Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a "majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Gilinsky was not present at the meeting at which this Order was approved.       Had he been present he would have voted with the majority. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Com-mission is 3-1.}}
Commissioner Bradford would have granted the petition for review.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission SAMUEL J.
LK Secretary of t e Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this day of /PA<<
-1980.
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization
: Act, 42 U.S.C.
: 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a "majority vote of the members present."
Commissioner Gilinsky was not present at the meeting at which this Order was approved.
Had he been present he would have voted with the majority.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Com-mission is 3-1.}}

Latest revision as of 18:03, 9 January 2025

TMI-2:Coal Burning Plant.Summary of Study of Converting TMI-2 to Fossil-Fueled Plant
ML16341C650
Person / Time
Site: Crane Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/25/1980
From:
GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
To:
Shared Package
ML16341C651 List:
References
NUDOCS 8004090484
Download: ML16341C650 (4)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lpga(

COMMISSIONERS:

John. F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T.

Kennedy Joseph M. Mendrie Peter A. Bradford C/

'9

~os~

~l gp

+"<ec g~r n @0>."PQ~

>epPg~~i4

~o 8

In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos.

0. L.

50-323

. L.

ORDER CLI-80-11 On March 13, 1980, Joint Intervenors filed a motion requesting the Commis-sion to disqualify Dr. John H.

Buck from sitting on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board assigned to hear the appeal on the seismic issues in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.

In the alternative,- Joint Intervenors requested that the Commission I

refer the matter to Dr.

Buck for an initial ruling.

On March 21,

1980, the Commis-sion issued an order directing Dr.

Buck to rule on the motion.

The order stated that should Dr. Buck decide to remain in the proceeding, his decision will be subject to Commission review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786.

CLI-80-8, 11 NRC On March 24,

1980, Dr.

Buck issued a memorandum in which he concluded that there was no legal requirement that he disqualify himself, and that he did not intend to do so.

On March 28, 1980, Joint Intervenors filed a petition requesting the Commission to review that decision.

The Commission has decided to deny the petition.

'I II Joint Intervenors have suggested two grounds for disqualification:

(1) Dr.

Buck's participation would creat'e an appearance of bias because in two previous

licensing proceedings he did not accept the views of one of the Joint Intervenors'xpert witnesses, Dr. Mihailo Trifunac; and (2) that an appearance of bias is created by his participation in a 1971 Appeal Board decision which Joint Inter-venors assert erroneously affirmed an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision h

granting a construction permit for Diablo Canyon Unit 2.

Joint Intervenors assert that Dr.

Buck at that time failed to adequately consider their seismic concerns.

In response, Dr.

Buck, stated that a judge is not required to disqualify himself from a proceeding just because he has had prior involvement with similar issues or parties, citing FTC v.

Cement Institute 333 U. S.

683, 703 (1947).

He further noted that in each of two earlier proceedings in which he did not accept Dr. Trifunac s judgment he was joined in his opinion by another Appeal Board member.

He explained that he is not biased against Dr. Trifunac, but that."rea-sonable minds can and do differ on any given issue".

With respect to Joint Inter-venors'harges that he made erroneous rulings in the'Diablo Canyon construction permit proceeding, Dr.

Buck noted that those rulings are "ancient history" and'that five other members of the Licensing Board and Appeal Board also decided to approve construction of the Diablo Canyon facility.

The Commission has reviewed the matter and determined that a case has not been established for disqualification.

Dr.

Buck has not previously ruled on the specific factual questions before the Appeal Board, and we have no evidence that he is partial or has a closed mind.

The mere fact that he has not accepted Dr. Trifunac's views in the past does not force the Commission to conclude that Dr. Buck will be unable to objectively consider Dr. Trifunac's views in this proceeding.

The Commission has never taken the position that because a member of the Appeal Board participated as an adjudicator in a construction permit proceeding for

a particular facility that the member is precluded from sitting on the Board that will review the operating license application for that same facility.

We find no special circumstances here which would cause the Commission to change that policy.

We conclude that based on the information before us that Dr.

Buck is not

biased, his participation does not present an appearance of bias, and that his prior involvement with Diablo Canyon at the construction permit stage does not require disqualification.

The petition for review is, therefore, denied.

Commissioner Bradford would have granted the petition for review.

It is so ORDERED.

For the Commission SAMUEL J.

LK Secretary of t e Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.

this day of /PA<<

-1980.

Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization

Act, 42 U.S.C.
5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a "majority vote of the members present."

Commissioner Gilinsky was not present at the meeting at which this Order was approved.

Had he been present he would have voted with the majority.

Accordingly, the formal vote of the Com-mission is 3-1.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16341C650&oldid=5158462"