ML20082D890

Motions for Judge Carpenter Disqualification,Judge Morris Disclosure of Further Biographical Info & ASLB Postponement of Special Prehearing Conference Until Resolution of Motions

ML20082D890
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/18/1983
From:	Potter R, Remis S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082D894	List: ML20082D890 ML20082D900 ML20082D913
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311230124
Download: ML20082D890 (4)

Text

- - - ,

.o .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO., et al., Docket No. 50-354 OL (Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),

~

, MOTIONS.FOR (1) JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE HIMSELF, (2) JUDGE PETER A. MORRIS TO DISCLOSE FURTHER BIO-GRAPHICAL INFORfiATION, AND (3) FOR THE BOARD TO POSTPONE THE SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE UNTIL THESE MOTIONS ARE RESOLVED FIRST MOTION The Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey

("Public Advocate") hereby asks Judge James H. Carpenter, Ph.D., to disqualify or recuse himself from this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") because:

1. In.his prior position as a technical consultant to the lead applicant in this proceeding, Public Service Electric & Gas Co. ("PSE&G"), Dr. Carpenter 8311230124 831118 PDR ADOCK 05000354 G PDR hb 9s

. _ .. . . _ = . _ - _ - _ . . _ _ _ - - . _ .

. . -- . - . -. . . ~_ - - . . . - .

f performed certain studies, apparently with regard to the environmental acceptability of Newbold Island as a site for the nuclear generating station which is now the t

subject of this proceeding. These studies or the fruits thereof could uell be tested in this proceeding.

2. If Dr. Carpenter denies this motion, then, in order to lay to rest any question of impropriety, he should identify and describe all studies he performed for PSE&G and provide copies of any contracts which describe the nature of his consul.tations.. In addition, Dr. Carpenter should provide copies of his work product derived from the PSE&G contracts. If. Dr. Carpenter

.provided consultations on the environmental effects of nuclear power plant operation for any other electric ,

utility, he should also identify and describe the nature of his work and attach his work product which resulted from these consultations.

3. Finally, if Dr. Carpenter declines to step aside, he should state on the record why he believes that disqualification or recusal is inappropriate, and f

describe any protective measures he finds necessary or appropriate.

SECOND MOTION The Public Advocate also requests that Judge Peter A. Morris provide the parties additional bio-

, _ _ . _ _ - - , _ - , . . - . - _ _ - _ _ . - . _ - - . _ . . _ . , _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ ~ _ . - _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . - , _ . _

graphical information regarding the extent, if any, of his prior responsibility for the licensing of the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station (" Hope Creek") or the Newbold Island Nuclear Generating Station ("Newbold Island"), the-predecessor site and name for Hope Creek, during his tenure as Director of the Division of Reactor Licensing of the Atomic Energy Commission

("AEC").

THIRD MOTION Due to the exceptional nature of these motions, the Public Advocate believes that it would be improper for the Board to hold the Special Prehearing Conference, now scheduled for November-22.-in Salem, New Jersey. At that conference the Board, including Judges Carpenter and Morris, will consider the Public Advocate's conten-tions which contest PSE&G's application for an operating license. A postponement will in no way prejudice PSE&G, as operation of Hope Creek is at least three years away. However, a decision to continue with the conference will prejudice the Public Advocate and impair public confidence in the impartiality .and fair-ness of the entire proceeding.

For example, if the Board holds the conference 4

while the motions await resolution, and then votes to exclude Public Advocate contentions, the public may draw negative inferences regarding the underlying

o a

reasons for exclusion. Moreover, it would be unseem1y if not improper, for a judge to hear and vote on con-tentions, only to decide later to disqualify himself.

Finally, should he later decide not to disqualify him-self, his decision will automatically be referred to the full Commissioners or the A:omic Licensing Appeal Board. 10 C.F.R. S2.704 (c) . Thus, whatever decision he reaches, a cloud will hang over any action taken by the Board until finally lifted by higher authorities.

In support cf these motions the Public Advocate relies on the accompanying memorandum of law and affidavit.

Respectfully submitted,

-~ JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ Public Advocate of the State of New Jers 7

By:

R. WILLIAM POTTER Assistant Public Advocate h

SUSAN C. REMIS Attorney, Division of Public Interest Advocacy Dated: November 18, 1983

. - . .- . - - _-.