ML19347D229

Request for Reconsideration of ASLB 810218 Order Granting Application Withdrawal W/O Prejudice.Applicant Actions & Clear Lack of Necessity for Plant Demand That Dismissal Be W/Prejudice.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19347D229
Person / Time
Site:	05000376
Issue date:	03/03/1981
From:	Fernos G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8103110506
Download: ML19347D229 (5)

Text

.

3 March,1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSIO N B EFOR E THE ATO MIC S A FELYS#D LIC E NSING BO AR D ( ASLB)

", e In the Matter of f"V *

%+

fe ,

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC -

KET NO. 50- 376 POWER AUTHORITY g ,\

Applicant [P r' osed North Coast 3 8.a,*E*J g SSI4J uill e a r (PUnit l a n1\t _

GONZALO FERNOS, PRO SE, E #. '2rD'orr Islotf Ward, Arecibo, Pue Ri":" I 'D Interveners '

s

? L- y \

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D g CCc:<s$

e-!l q

-: PETITIO N FOR RECO NSIDERATIO N : b'4 O/ s e woglf ]f xa x&?]y >

i TO THE HONORABLE BOARD : b D '

\/

e COMES NOW the undersigned Intervenor, Pro Se, and on behalf of Members hc / l I"b Citizens for the Conservation of Nctural Resources, Inc. (CCNR), and respectft lly states, alleges and preys :

.1.- That on Februcry 18, 1981, the Licensing Board ORDERED " That Applicant's Motion for Termination of Prcceedings is granted and its Withdrawal Of Application is granted without erejudice." ( Emphasis added )

e 2.- That the Licensing Bccrd's Order referred to above arrived in the midst of the undersigned Intervenor's plans to depart for Baltimore, Maryland to undergo en operation scheduled for March 5,1981.

. 3.- That on September 18, 1980, Intervenors filed " Motion For Direct Certification" to Request Application Be Dismissed With Preiudice." which was transfered to the Licensing Beard.

. 4.- That both Applicant and NRC Stoff opposed end argued at length that the Withdrawcl of Application be granted without prejudice. Consequently, the Licensing Board granted Inter-venors until December 4,1980 to file o response thereof. Intervenors' Reply was filed by mail on December 3,1980.

. 5.- That subsequently, the Licensing Bocrd understood that Intervenors' Repiv of December 03110 y [

1

. 3,1980 advanced a new argument, thus the Board ordered Applicant and NRC Staff to file responses by December 31,1980, and so they did.

WHY THE LICENSING BOARD SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS ORDER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1981 GRANTING APPLICANT THE WITHDRAWAL OF ITS APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE e INTRODLCTION :

Intervenors realize that the Licensing Bccrd is in the business of granting licenses to build nuclear plants, not to discourage their construction. It is the some dual role for which the defunct AEC was often severely critized. Therefore, Intervenors are not a bit surprissed that the Lit ens-ing Biard is not going to spare any occasion to let the balance incline toward the Applicant's side, unless the arguments raised by Intervencrs are overwhelmingly convincing otherwise.

e ARGUMENTATION :

e Applicant pretends now to hang a halo over itself when the devil's horns are more op-propriate., Let us see. By its own admission, Applicant states :

" By Order of May 1,1978, the Licensing Board directed the Authority to keeo the Board and the oorties informed of developments in Puerto Rico."

( See Applicant filing entitled : ' Authority's Reply to intervenors' Reply dated December 3,1980, page 3, !ast paragraph.) ( Emphasis added.)

.Did Applicant comply with such directive when it filed 38 motions to desist with the Court of Expropriation of Puerto Rico ? CERTAINLY NOT. Furthermore, that such directive was given Applicant on such o Ate did not ever mean that prior to May 1,1978 Applicont was free to hide information from the Licensing Board and the parties as it did. There is indisputable evidence

., which proves that Applicant did in fact conceal two major actions offecting the outcome of the Nuclear Plant project, that is, the eventual withdrawal of the application which intervenors pressured it to do. Those two rnajor acticns are :

First, that on M.y 23, 1975, Applicant initiated a cause of action against 38 landowners in Islete Ward, Arecibo, Puerto Rico to expropriate their land to site Ncrth Coast Nuclear Plant on it.

L _ _ _

Second, thct en August 2,1975, c little over c yecr since the cferescid expreprictions hcd tcken place, Applicent subvertediy inificted c reversc! cction cy filing mctions tc desist en cil 33 exprepriction ccses. Applicent new clieges that neither cctions which were hidden

, frem the Licensing Socrd cnd the pcrties, have cny significence to the NRC reguleterv review end thct the leck of nctificction ( n w for first time cdrnited) therecf deceive no one. The fcets point towcrd the centr =ry. Med the NRC St ff kn:wn beforehend thct Applicent hcd desisted frem building the Nuclecr Plent cnd that it had given up to held title to the icnd where the NP!cnt wcs going to be sited, ths NRC St=if would net hcve underteken the time ens' the meney texpcyers' rneney, to prepere the cestly Site Scfety Sveluction Report published en April 27, 1979.

Applicent insists thct such en underhcnded cction cf net netifying these concerned with the proceedincs did net deceive cnyone. But it is well estchlished since Alice in Wenderland thct it is not the words that count but the reclities ci the situction. Applicent clso clieges thct the metions to desist were cf no consequence beccuse 't could clweys institute encther reversel ccticn to the reverscl cetion by exercising its power of eminent domcin instituted in 22 FRLA i 196(h),

204, iicth sections of the Lcw, bewever, cre devoid cf cny mention cf such irrctienci wcy of exercisirx; the power of eminent domcIn as Applicent clieges it een de : exprepricte- desist-ex-propricte-desist-expropricte, ed infinitum. There is no precedent in Puerto Rico end doubtfully elsewhere thct the power of eminet demcin can be exercised in the scr e icshion trc+ c tennis bcIl is forced bcck end fcrth ccress the net, cs App!! cent tecitly clcims it ccn do with rescrd to such expreprictions. Appliccnt seems to hcVe c specici chility to twist the fccts in a futile ettempt to prove its point. The issue is not whether Applicent hcs er hcs net the pcwer to exprepricte, but whether once it hcs exercised such right, whether to reverse the cction will sh;;w clectly er net that Applic=nt hes desisted frem pursuing the cppliccle'en. The fccts pertentously prove the de-ceiving cctions cf Applicent referred to chove by which it feeled the Licensing Socrd, NRC St ff cnd 'terveners clike.

Ag=in, Applicent erreneously c!cies th=t it did net deceive enybody beccuse the the revers:1

/

-4 of the expropriations was published in Puerto Rico's only English newspaper--The San Juan Star on June 30,1976 when they knew that the undersigned Intervenor was in Europe at the time and found out about the publication for first time when Applicant attached copy of it in its Reply of December 31, 1980. Besidas, that is the most irregular way of notifying the parties and the Licensing Board.10 CFR 5 2.730(a) and elsewhere in the Rules of Practice says that " All veitten motions shall be filed with the Secretary, and served on o!! parties to the proceeding."

The Rule does not provide for such an unorthodox method cf notification, if one could validly call notice o publication in a newspaper of low circulation (less than 50,000 copies daily ).

But the most cynical of all such allegations of Applicant is its claim which appears in its Reply of December 31,1980, page 8 and the end stating :

" The very fact that the Intervenors included a copy of one of such motion [ to desist Iin their petition of April 30, 1980, indicates that the motions were not secret."

Nobody claims that the motions themselves were clasified as secret documents. Surely they are as public as the thousands of documents in the custody of courts' clerks. But one has to find out first that they existand their docket number to get hold of them. What was secret and sneaky

. was Applicant's concealment of the expropriation and reversal actions and the filing of them.

Applicant's action of remaining silent about its action to desist seems to have been caused by Applicant's need for maintaining away fro their Financial Report to Bondholders the tremendous loss of admitedly over 80 million dollars which if otherwise had appeared as a write down in one single report would have adversely affected Applicant's credit.

Finally, there is ample evidence that Applicant does not need to provide additional electric energy generating units during the remaining portion of the current century. Presently, Puerto

.; ERico has a mean reserve of 130 percent its pecis daily demand. This is about 5 times larger than the mean reserve of the top 100 utilities operating in the United States. An intensive energy efficiency program undertaken by the l'.S. Energy Department and studies made by the National Academy of Scien.es and others show that by the turn of the century the country will be using

chout two thirds (2/3) of the present electricity consumption due to cogeneration and ether energy saving methods. Under that perspective even the 3-200 mes: watts ceal- fired electric power plants planned as Puerto Rico's next added generating units seems unnecesscry. What there seems to need is the revamping of the ex: sting electric generating facilities.

• e WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully pray the licensing Becrd to recensider its crder of February 18, 1981 with regard to the above-captioned case, so es to grant withdrawal of the application with orejudice ; and to stay its decision until efter the undersigned Intervenor Gonzalo Fern 6s, returns from Baltimore, Maryland where he will undergo en operation. on March 18th,1981, so es to preserve his right to appeal, if deemed necescry.

e in Sen Juan, Puerto Rico, this 3rd day of March,1981.

3>

&& A e

$g

& ~%

h mk W Gonzalo Fern 6s, Pro .5e, and 2 ' I representing Members of CCNR 3

503 Barb 6 Street Scnturce, Puerto Rico 00912 TO Tels. (809) 727-0087 / 727-2287 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL ~ :

e 1 HERE3Y CERTIFY: That on this some date copy of the above motion entitled:

" Petition for Reconsideration", has been served by first class or air mail upon the following :

Scmuel J. Chilk, Esq., Office of the Secretary of the Commission; Alen S. Rosenthal, Esq.,

Chairman, ASLAB ; Dr. John H. Buck, Member, ASLAB ; Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairmen, ASLB ; Docketing and Service Section, Office of the Secretcry ( All the above bearing some address es follows: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wcshington, D.C. 20555); Maurice

' Axelrad, Esq., Lowenstein, Newmen, Reis, Axelred & Toll,1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 ; Henry J. McGurren, Esq., Counsel for NRC Staff; Jose F. Iri:orry, Esq., General Counsel, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, GPO Box 4267, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00924 ; Eng. ' Alberto Bruno Vega, Executive Director, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, GPO Box 4267, Sen Jucn, Puerto Rico 00936 ; and Dr. Tom 6s Morales-Cordena, School of Medicine, Univenity of Puerto Rico, GPO Box 5067, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936.

'f D

AW Gonzalo Fernos -

. ,_ __