ML20214Q017
| ML20214Q017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1987 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214N570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706040206 | |
| Download: ML20214Q017 (2) | |
Text
t
. EDWAHO J. MA,mLv.
284'O Fem D>ss,mt. Massac=vseres
"'/".T..'"
Congree of tije Ghiiteb4tated
"f..n,5'N COMhS" SIS
- w. -.
"'" T " "*
Mouff of Re'prrgentatibeg g apg
~'
m N'
~5$
3Easfjington; BC 20515
"*II$'Er$.*E"uno# '
g a fg g c
May A, 1987 j
f6.* fOo9 ' 0&$
The Honorable Lando W. t Zech, Jr.
Chai rman.
MOW
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717. H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
.20555
)
Dear Chairman zoch On April 22,.1987, the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board (ABLD) reg octed Public Service of, New Hampshire's ' December 18, 1986 petition for_xaiver of the ComMasinnhmergency plannig requistions to__Ltduce the Seabrook emergency planning zone to one-mJle The Board's deci'tT6n lef6 pen the possibility that the t
utility may submit a now. petition.if it develops more complete suppo rting idocumentation.
I urge the commission to direct the NRC staff and its consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory, to terminate any further review or analysis of the Seabrook: Station y
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Update (SSPSA), including any other technical documentation applicable to an EPZ reduction proposal for,Seabrook, until 'or unless a new formal : petition is submitted by the licensee.
I have prevlously communicated to the Commission my strong' objections to PSND and theiNRC staff's' cooperative ef fort since September,.1985 to develop, persuasive arguments that the Seabrook emergency planning zone could be reduced without threatening public saf ety.
The NRC staff's conduct has raised the tuost basic questions about its timpartiality and f airness, thus undermining public confidence in the integrity of the Commission's licensing process.,
The Commission;has justified the NRC staff and Brookhaven reviews on the ground that such reviews provide ~ a better l
perspective of rick 'at Seabrook.
I have consistently rejected the Commission's position.as disingenuous.
In a letter idated January Commissionor Asselstine concurred by stating, "It is 20, 1987.,
clear.that the. extensive NRC: staff discussions With the Seabrook applicant and the detailed BNL ' review of the.SSPSA were for the purpose of f acilitating and expediting a subsequent petition requesting a reduction in the ten-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Seabrook plant. "
w s vdwMz$6 yyp 2pp -
~ - -
EDO --- 002619
^
6i h
'The Honorable Lando W ' zec, Jr.
May 4, 1987 Page Twoi A,
It is joy understanding that the NRC staf f a PSNN have scheduied a meeting f or tomorrow, i Nay 5,$1987, to
- further discuss the : technical merits of the utility's EPE reduction proposal.
By letter of April 21,,1987, I requested that;the commission's staff recuse itself fros further participation as an independent party in the licensing proceedings ;for seabrook. I Since I have' not yet received a response sto my letter of : April 21, I request that the Commissiont now also ' consider ithe Licensing Board's April 22
/
decision and 4 enjoin.the NRC staff f rom meeting f urther with the' utility in, connection with this issue until such time as a new 4 petition is sutzaitted.'
In light of the substantial unresolved technical ' issues enumerated by the Licensing Board in its April '22' decision, simple common sense ; and f incal prudency dictate that the NRC ' staff not >
use. its limited resources to entertain any discussion or analysis f pertaining to further iPSNH efforts to ; justify a reduced emergency planning sone.
Mo r eover, the Board's ' decision provides an.
opportunity for the NRC 'staf f to redeem :itself/ in part, in the '
1
.The NRC should not concern itself with anyi eyes of :the public.
consideration of the above-mentioned documents 'or analyses until such time that;PSNR submits a formal petition for NRCI Rather, commensurate with the Commission's mandate e
consideration. i l
to protect < the public heal:th and saf ety, the NRC ' staff should.
I responsibly return its attention to the ' numerous generic safety.
j questions which trouble ;the nuclear; industry.
Sincerely 4
~
^
i EdW d J. '. Narkey t Nember oficongres I
i i
l a
(
i e
_..................