ML20214Q392

Requests That Commission,Including Executive Director of Commission,V Stello,Recuse from Further Participation as Independent Party in Licensing Proceedings for Facility

ML20214Q392
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/21/1987
From:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20214Q397	List: ML20214Q392 ML20215K690
References
OL, NUDOCS 8706050010
Download: ML20214Q392 (2)

Text

-

( +... >,w n s 1

'"* O%'*" fongrcgg Of.the Militch $latts l",,"'j y"

} . ""  !

i r o .~o

,,~, house of Representatibes l'.; inn..x'.5lMlT, i

Masfjington, BC 20515 g ,pj,,ic,aA g ; ,

' ' April 21, l'987 )

l Zech, Jr.

The Honor able. Lando W.

Chairman

.U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. W.

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Zech

. I write- to request. f ormally that the Commission's staf f, including the Executive Director of the Commission, Mr. Victor Stello, recuse'themselves from further participation as an y independent party in the licensing proceedings for the Seabrook >

'L! '

nuclear power ; plant.

- Under the Commission's regulations, Sec.. 0.735-49(a), "An employee .shall avoid any. action. . .which might r esult in, or create the appearance of...(b) giving pref erential treatment to any pe r so n. . . f o r ] (d) losing complete' independence or impa r ti al i ty . . .- Io r ) (f) af fecting adversely the confidenceSec.

In addition, of the public in the integrity of the Government."

0.735-3(a) (6) of the Commission's regulations state that

" Employees shall...not give or appear to. give f avored treatment or competitive advantage to any member of the public... appearing before them on their own behalf or on behalf of any nongovernmental interest." The staf f's and Mr. Ste11o's actions have not comported with these standards.

On November 18, 1986 the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, which I chaired in the 99th Congress, held a hearing in Amesbury, Massachusetts regarding the Seabrook licensing process.

The Subcommittee presented persuasive evidence that the staf f had a worked hand-in-glove with Public Service of New Hampshire to craf t c

' a ' technical justification f or a petition to reduce the size of the Seabrook emergency planning zone to a 1-mile radius around the L'

pl ant . This strategy was' clearly . designed as an artifice to remove Massachusetts f rom participating in the emergency l planning

,% issues relevant to full-power licensing. The Subcommittee investigation revealed that in the critical period of February to y

September,1986, senior NRC staf f participated in at least 6 phone y calls and 2 ' meetings with senior of ficials of Public Service of New Hampshire. It is my understanding that neither of these Moreover, senior NRC of ficials meetings was publicly noticed.

have participated in additional publicly-noticed meetings with the s licensee regarding Seabrook and emergency planning.

khh ~ $f h f.L p &

hi! '

~

Furthermore, .in a.Secemuur'le,.4yoo p t . , 0 . u ,,, e e g , , , , , , , , , , , , .

tv ice 'of New Hampshi r e l cf ,

MraiStello (and other s),1a ' Mr.

Mr. Der Stellorickson

.a skedofwhether Public~ti.e ut ility intended 'to .  !

combine theJwaiver ; request with a proposed utility plan and Mr.

I Derrickson indicated that the present petition did not involve a -l

- utility pl an. In a-January 27, 1987 meeting in which Mr. Stello -

and Mr. Derrickson again.were the principal participants, Mr.

Derrickson said that his company had not decided whether or when to submit a utility plan. Mr. Stello observed that the strongest technical case' for public saf ety would include a utility plan.

In a public meeting on1 March 18,1987, Mr. Stello virtually.

implored representatives of Public Service of New Hampshire to submit emergency. plans for the 10-mile radius around Seabrook. '!

Recently the licensee submitted as ' utility plans" emergency. plans [

.that~ had' in f act been prepared- by consultants to.the Commonwealth of . Massacnusetts and reiected by the State as finadequate. i Moreover,f the utility has cited thet submittal of those plans as  !

basis f or a. motion that the Commission vacate its order staying - l the staf f f rom issuing a low-power license, subsequent to the l l

Commission's decision on ALAB-853. . .

l

This disturbing' pattern of close cooperation with the utility ,

violates the. spirit and letter of the Commission's regulations. l The staf f's conduct has demonstrated a consistent ' bias toward the util ity' s ; int e r est s. . They have acted repeatedly -to assist the!

utility in its. attempt to. secure a license, and have gone so f ar as to counsel them on appropriate courses. of- action. This  ;

behavior goes f ar beyond .the. commission's normal discussions with licensees .and. license applicants regarding technical matters and

' 1proceuuralf requirements.

Moreover, this is not the only case in which the issue of Mr.

Ste11o's and' the staf f's conduct has arisen. In: the Shor eham'-

proceedings, the staf f's lack of impartiality also has' become 'an issue, and the County of Suf folk has requested that the EDO and i

. the staf f recuse themselves'f rom- participating as a party in those l' proc.edings because of consistent bias in f avor 'of the utility.

The Commission cannot ' continue to f unction ef f ectively if the public does not believe that it's actions are f air and impartial.

In the Seabrook. case, the Commission clearly f aces a crisis of public confidence. The staf f's conduct has contributed significantly to the public perception of . Commission bias. The Commission staf f, including the 'EDO, should be r emoved f rom

f urther participation in the Seabrook case.- only by taking these {

p-

' steps -can the Commission begin to restore the public's f aith in i the integrity of the NRC's licensing process.

t Si cerely, e

~

Edward J. Ma rke , M . C . ..

cci ' Honorable Philip R.. Sharp I

.