ML20041G185

Motion for Recusal of Judge Hill from Further Participation in Proceeding.Hill Is Employee of Company Which Is Part of Nuclear Industry & Which Keeps Intelligence Files on Nuclear Critics.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041G185
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/09/1982
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20041G180	List: ML20041G179 ML20041G185
References
NUDOCS 8203190368
Download: ML20041G185 (3)

Text

. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of (

)

Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Docket No. 50-498 (South Texas Project, Units 1 ) 50-499 and 2) ( , ,

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP)

MOTION FOR JUDGE ERNEST HILL TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCEEDING g g )

Ever since Judge Ernest Hill joined the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for this proceeding, he has demonstrated a lack of impartiality. Judge Hill is a nuclear engineerf.inf).I' Presumably the Commission selected Judge Hill to serve od"this Board in order to provide his professional expertise to this proceeding. Unfortunately, Judge Hill seems to perceive his I

role as that of defender of the NRC and Applicants rather than that of an objective professional analyst. Judge Hill l ha s repeatedly demonstrated his overt hostility to the participation of CCANP in this proceeding.

CCANP is an anti-nuclear organization and never pretended l

i to be otherwise since the ince'ption of the hearings. But CCANP ha s always participated in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Commission and the federal regulatory process.

Judge Hill is an employee of an institution which is part of the nuclear industry and which is known to keep intelligence files on nuclear critics. Judge Hill ha s been unable to separate his service on this. Board from the inherent bias of his position in private life.

Judge Hill has normally been careful to confine his expressions of bias to off the record manifestations. On more than one occasion when the Board permitted CCANP to engage in cross examination Judge Hill did not want to allow, Judge Hill has used the recess periods to engage in yelling at the Chairman loudly enough to be heard through the closed doors of the Judges' chambers. While. sitting as a judge, Judge Hill has made clear his disapproval of CCANP's participation by grimaces, gestures, off the record outbursts, and vigorous complaints during the numerous off the record conferences held by the judges prior to ruling on a particular motion. As a result, the other members of the Board have been repeatedly bludgeoned into rulings which violated the due process rights of CCANP .

and created a record replete with errors.

The clearest example of Judge Hill's inability to remain impartial is found in his responses to the Quadrex Report.

8203190368 820309 PDR ADDCK 05000498 0 PDR

. e Shortly after the Board received the Quadrex Report, the Chairman convened a meeting of the Board in Washington, D.C.. Out of that meeting came an order scheduling a special hearing to consider suspending all safety rela ted construction at the South Texas Project. Among the Board concerns was the potential continuation of the deficiencies identified in the Quadrex Report. Judge Hill was upset enough to join in signing a Board order for the first time.

Since that order, Judge Hill's a ttitude ha s changed dramatically. Judge Hill argued against immedia tely hearing the allega tion of a conspiracy to hide the Quadrex Report from the NRC. Judge Hill became more determined in cutting off any effective cross examination of the NRC or Applicant witnesses by CCANP. And finally, in the last week of hearings Judge Hill went on the record to criticize the NRC for conducting the investigation which discovered the Quadrex Report.

CCANP perceives the change in Judge Hill's attitude towards the Quadrex Report as a product of the two value systems in conflict within the judge. As a nuclear engineer, Judge Hill could not help but be appalled at the findings in the Quadrex Report. For once, his professional training overcame his bias. Faced with an engineering and design process apparently contrary to even the most ba sic principles, Judge Hill's professionalism was deeply disturbed. Judge Hill's initial reaction was to join with the Board in threatening to stop all sa fety rela ted construction.

But then Judge Hill realized the full _ implications of what was happening. When CCANP filed its allega tion of a conspiracy by HL&P to withhold the Quadrex Report from the Commission and Citizens for Equitable Utilities, the other intervenor, filed a petition with the Commission to suspend all construction at the project, Judge Hill realized the Quadrex Report and surrounding events could lead to license denial for the Applicants. His role as protector of the industry reasserted itself culminating in his criticism j of the NRC for discovering the report.

l The advoca tes in this proceeding are supposed to be I sitting where the NRC attorneys, intervenor representa tives, j and Applicants' attorneys are sitting, not on the other side of the bench. The judges are supposed to be impartial adjudicators ready to reach whatever decision, including license denial, the evidence warrants. If a judge cannot entertain all the possible decisions on a fair and impartial basis, then said judge should recuse himself from the j pro c e edi,ngs .

CCANP believes Judge Hill knows the above to be a fair rendering of his attitudes and performance. For this reason, CCANP moves Judge Ernest Hill to recuse himself from any further partipation in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, Lanny Sinkin Pro Se Counsel for CCANP Dated: March 9, 1982

.; . . o -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'82 IBR 11 A11 :11 In the Matter of ( l

) o .

Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Docket No.i30-49,8,.E-.

(South Texas Project, Units 1 ) 50-499""

and 2) (

~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP) RESPONSE TO CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES (CEU) MOTION TO REO,UIRE FULL DISCLOSURE AND INDEPENDENTLY PREPARED AFFIDAVITS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPARTE COMMUNICATION WITH COMMISSIONER ROBERTS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1982 AND WITH COMMISSIONER GILINSKY OF DECEMBER, 1981 and

) CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP) MOTION FOR JUDGE ERNEST HILL TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROCEEDING were mailed, first class postage prepaid to the following, this 9th day of March, 1982 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Chairman Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Axelrad & Toll U. S. N. R. C. 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Wa shington, D. C. 20036 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Mrs. Peggy Buchorn l Route 1, Box 1684 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Brazoria, Texas 77422

~

Mr. Ernest E. Hill Docketing and Service Section Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Office of the Secretary University of California U.S.N.R.C.

P. O. Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C. 20555 Livermore, California 94550 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Brian Berwick, Esq. U. S. N. R. C.

Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Atomic Safety and Licensing Austin, Texas 78711 Appeal Board U.S.N.R.C.

Tom Hudson, Esq. Washington, D .' C . 20555 Baker and Botts One Shell Plaza

• /-

Houston, Texas 77002 '

u mi .

Edwin J. Reis La nny,//Sinkin -

Office of Executive Legal Director v j U.S.N.R.C.

I Washington, D.C. 20555 l

.