ML20039C697
| ML20039C697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000376 |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1981 |
| From: | Fernos G CITIZENS FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, IN |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112300053 | |
| Download: ML20039C697 (8) | |
Text
'
e 22 p.ecydLh,1981 j
62Ob j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g 29 k
B E F O R E T H E N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O M.fNI S ON g
ey,l.d[q...-
s 5
~ 'i'.
id "
In the Matter of
[
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC D O C K ET N O. '50 - 3;*6 i
POWER AUTHORITY ( PREPA )
i l
Applicant Proposed N orth Coas!
N uclear Plant, U r.; r 1 intervenors Islote Ward, Arecibo, Puerto c.
Dr N
Q RECEwgg DEC2 9 !98t w h PETITION FOR REVIEW :-
{ ::ama 3
roc TO THE HONORABLE COMMISSION :
L 9
s i
. COMES NOW the undersigned Intervenor, Pro Se, and on behcif of I.
Citizens for The Conservation Of Natural Resources, Inc. (CCNR ), collectively referred to as Intervenors, and pursuant to 10 CFR 12.786 respectfully states alleges and t.roys :
.,.7 l.- On December 7,1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Sosrd ( ASIAj )
issued Decision ALAB-662 offirming the Licensing Board's ruling ( Msmorandua and Order granting Applicant's Motion of September 11,1981 seeking to withdraw of February 18, 1981 )
~
its application to construct North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. The withdrawal motion did not seek to be granted without prejudice. On September 18,1980 Intervenors requested that the dismissal be granted with orejudice. However, the dism:ssal was granted with~ ut pse -
o judice. On July 2,1981, the Appeal Board issued Memorandum and Order, ALAB-648, by which it denied Intervenors' Motions of June 13,1981 and June 16, 1981 wHch sought tg supplement the record on appeal based on evidence not available at time the issue was aire I
below. The Appeal Board's decision of July 2,1981 ( ALAB-648 ) was not previously petitione for review inasmuch as Intervenors considered it of interlocutory nature and would rather wait for this occasion to request its review together with ALAB-662. Intervenors consider both dects on 8112300053 011222 h@$j PDR ADOCK 05000376 G
PDR g
i s
s
. Pe,ilben For Revisw 5 Dock;t No. 50-376 l
( ALAB-648 and ALAB-662 ) eeneous and thus hereby request review.
?
\\
t ll., All the matter of fact and low furtheron succinctly raised in this Petition For Review o
~
l
'scs - previou:,1y raised before the Appect Board. Some issues, however, not available then,
.~
w
,nct f,iseu et the Lice.<ing Board level and on that grounds they were rejected therein. Ho I
l the lenguage of 10 CFiii 2.786(11) suggests that while the case is still pending within the NR l
juriidiction new issues} con be raised and properly considered. This refers particul venors' claim under oath o? Applicant's corrupt state ( Appeal a tef at pp. 2 & 3 ).
r
~
- 7. '
. Ill.- The Appeal Board's Decision is fundamentally etineous in offirming on uncondi-0 o
lional dismissal of the application without prejudi~ce.1/ " The Decisio s
,,,any conNdaration now of the denunciation of corruption within Applicant's ope s
~
y
- 'irrelevaf, it thus erroneously defers any consideration now of the Applicant's corrupt climate y-s, a
. e';
and in lieu ruled thatsuchon issue should be postponed to be n.ed and considered only when utility might file on applicsti n Ier o permit to build a nuclear plant iri Puerto Rico at some future time, if and when some interested person might then bring to the attention of the NRC Staff or the i
Licensing Boatd the kind of information "which might bear adversely upon the entitlement of the
.l Applicant to receive o permit to construct a nuclear power plant."-
\\%
IV.- The Commission should exercise its prerogative to rev'iew the instant case on the e
sole ground that public safety connot be guaranteed except her. it is founded on a solid moral standing of the utility officers entrusted with overseeing puolic safety. The Commission should be loathd to sustain the reluctance, indifference and refusal of the Licensing Board offirmed by the Appeal Board, to look at the corrupt stoic of Applicant dencunced by Intervenors. In view of the.
'N s %
1.- There oro non substantive errors and omissions which need to be corrected. For example,
, on page 2 the Decision states : "The first proposal for a nuclear plant in Puerto Rico dates back S'
'to 1979 when the opplicant filed fo, a construction permit to build a facility at Aguirre, Puerto Ri c o. " The correct year is 1970, not 1979. ( More precisely, on Novemebr 28, 1970.)
s e
s Petition For Review Docket No. 50-376 s
E fact that the Decision as well as the record below foil to indicate that the Applicant will be imposed any conditions for o future filing of an application for a permit to construct nuclear plants in Puerto Rico, even though the evidence strongly indicates that some conditions should
=
hove been imposed when a dismissal of the instant case was granted without prejudice, review by the Commission becomes mst potent!y justified, particularly when considering the Licensing Board's ambivalent ottitude toward moral turpitude in Applicant's administration. That is, on the cne hand, the Licensing Board tacitly concedes and the Appeal Board offirms that a news medio report or disclosure of an event related to Applicant's operations constitute o valid notificaticn 2/
for the record of this case.
On the other hand, the some adjudicators reject as having been belatedly raised, Intervenors' denouncement of the nationally known scandal, the facts of the
$1,250,000.00 paid in kickbocks to some of Applicant's officials for diverting the awarding of a juicy contract to a "most favorable bidder" as established through a Federal Government inves-tigation and a grand jury indictments which were widely reported by local and national news media several months before the oppealed order was adjudicated by the Licensing Board on February 18, 1981. Shortly offer such date it was also widely publized the conviction of several General Electric Company executives and a New Jersey contractor on charges related to the conspiracy V
to bribe the former PREPA operations chief.
2.- See the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of February 18,1981 at p. 5 ; and the Appeal Board's Decision of December 7,1981, at p.10.
3.- It was established that a bribe fund of at least $1,250,000.00 was created to direct the awarding of a design and construction contract of a $ 94 million power plant turbine at Aguirre, Puerto Rico to General Electric Co. See United States v. General Electric Co., et al., case at U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (indictments of September,1980 and convictions during February,1981 ). Those indicted were found guilty on six counts of mail and wire fraud and other violations of low involving the bribery of at least one ( probably three ) PREPA officials paid the $1,250,000.00 in kickbacks. In early December, 1980, $ 800,000.00 was recovered through a certified check that Carlos Velazquez Garcio turned over to the Puerto Ricen Legislature, Select Committee on irregularities in Public Administration. During December 17-19,1980, the Commit-( Footnote continues on next page.)
l PetiIion For R;vi w Dockst No. 50-376 Further, Intervenors must emphatically underline their disagreement with the Appeal Board's faving deferred to consider in its Decision the claim of an ever present danger of sabotage to this utility ( FREPA )'s electrical installations, including future nuclear plants (if ever built ),
on the basis spelled out in the Decision as follows :
" The claimed vulnerability of the North Coast project to acts of sabotage will be fully open for intervenors to advance should applicant again file for a permit to construct a n" clear plant."
The need to consider now the unique vulnerability of Applicant's electrical installations does not stem from unfounded suspicion or fear. The assertion that nuclear power plants in Puerto 4]
Rico will be vulnerable to terrorist attacks is a well established fact.
The corruption among some key utility officials and the well organized group of saboteurs rnake the instant case a unique one amon ; a!! filings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. The particeier circumstamcs stated forth below in footnote 4 dictate - thit the NRC
( Continuation of footnote 3 from preceding page.)
tee also identified in Bermuda on additional bribery sum of $1,925,000.00 over which the gov-ernment of Puerto Rico, because of statutory limitations to prosecute, has reached agreements with the concerned parties, all presentand/or former employees of PREPA or their heirs. The on-going corruption in PREPA's operations has been recently reported by Caribbean Business, a local weekly newspaper.
4.- For example, the weekly local newspaper " Caribbean Business" on September 23, 1981, carried a front page news article reporting on the clandestine terrorists guerrillas calling them-selves "Macheteros", who mailed to o PREPA official an August 18, I?80 :ommunique entitled
,"Special Bulletin 10", warning that they "have given instructions to cur members so they, con become fully involved in case of a strike (at PREPA ) and have instructed our uccheteros fighters to make the necessary arrangements, so that if the situation warrants it, the combat unit con be mobilized to help the UTIER workers." That could have been ignored as coming from a bunch of maniacs. However, on November 27, 1 981, PREPA's deputy director's previously manifested l
cpprehension on that matter was fulfilled like a prophesy. On November 29, 1981, The San Juan Star published a news item about the considerable sabotage in millions 4 dolbr losses the action l
taken two days before by the "Mocheteros" severely destroying the Cond do electrical substation and another Taft Street similar facility. "Macheteros" claimed responsibility for the twin attack by " specialized demolition units" stating they acted in support of Uni ersity of Puerto Rico sto-dents and the embattled residents at Villa Sin Miedo squatter commnity in Rfo Grande.
k
w d
~
f
.Petiti~en For Revicw Docket No. 50-376 take all necessary steps to preserve in active files the experience had with this Applicant for d
future considerations if and when the occasion should come for a third filing of an application s
permit to construct c nuclear plant anywhere in Puerto Rico.
It has been well established that sabotage activity toward PREPA upsurges whenever there is a political confrontation stemming l
i from Puerto Rico's uncertain political status. The ever present spector of sabotage compo.unded i
by the deep-seated corruption among some key utility" officials and the resulting blackmailing by union leaders accentuates the necessity to treat this case by deporting from the usually lax h
NRC policy in dismissing on application. Hence, stringent conditions must be imposed in th, j
dismissal of the application regarding the instant case.
l In a more realistic approach to the issue on whether dismissal of Applicant's case is granted q
with or without prejudice, in view of Presideor Reagan's most recent pro nuclear policy statement, and NRC Chairman, Nunzio Palladino's agreement to it, Intervenors realize that no matter how strong a showing we can make to prevail on the merits of our contention that only a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in the instant case, it is most improbable that the NRC, under any circum-stance, would grant to any utility a dismissal with prejudice. The NRC, however, undoubtedly is aware that in the same fashion that when an early site review and other early studies are pre-l served for future consideration because of the time and money consumed on them, in the same token i
adverse facts should also be preserved. That is so beccuse otherwise NRC would not be properly discharging its statutory function as watchdog for safety of nuclear plants and subsequently may be vulnerable to court action. Therefore, in a conciliatory rpirit purported to keep this case from I
1 court review, Intervenors may be willing to stipulate that Applicant be granted a jonditional dismissal without prejudice. Such a conditional dismissal would be consistent not only with the j
i statutory functions of NRC to oversee in a broader sense the safety aspect of nuclear power plants, as tacitly manifested by the Appeal Board in its Memorandum and Order of June 11,1981, at p.3 which states :
e
A Petifion For R vizw Docket No. 50-376
" no permit will l' ter issue to this applicant for the a
construction a a nuclear plant facility without prior full consideration of all relevant developments --
no matter when they might have come to light."
The conditional dismissal sought would be in line as well with the U.S. Court of Appeals doctrine which states :
" Any findings which may be made on record developed well in advance of the final decision must be regarded as subject to reconsideration should supervening develop-ments or newly available evidence so warrant."
Hudson River Fishermen's Association v. Federal Power Commission, 498 F.2d 827 ( 2nd Circuit,1974 ).
Per}nps the only difference between the position held by the Licensing Board / Appeal Board and intervenors is that the former may not consider it necessary to spell-out now in the order granting dismissal without prejudice what a " full consideration of all relevant developments" may entail. Time is a healer of all evils simply because they are forgotten. Intervenors' appre-hension against a blank dismissal without prejudice is that with the passage of time adverse findings of this case currently known would disappear upon deactivating the NRC files on this matter.-5/
If and when Applicant decides in the future to apply anew for a permit to build a nuclear power plant in Puerto Rico, naturally, only the favorable evidence from the previous dismissed case would be presented. Therefore, in order to preserve any information which might bear directly or :ndirectly on the safety aspect of a future application for permit to build a Nuclear Plant in Puerto Rico, Intervenors believe that the granting of a dismissal of Applicant's Motion of September 11, 1980, should be conditioned now, inter alia,by the following :
5.- During a visit last year to NRC Docketing and Service Section's Public Document Room located on ground floor at 1717 "H" Street, NW, Washington, D.C., this Intervenor was con-fronted with the disarrayed condition of the filing of Docket 50-376 in which early submissions were either missing or misplaced. It took several hours for the undersigned Intervenors to locate some pertinent documents ; however, some essential ones were never found. To this the explana-tion given by the filing clerks was that only from a certain date on were they keeping every sub-mission on file. This raises the question : How long would the docket of this case be preserved before a new application for permit to construct a nuclear plant is filed 7
)
p
- ' Petition For Review _ Dockat No. 50-376 1.- That if and when other investigations of Applicant's operations now underway reveal e
wrongdoing by utility's officers, those involved must be severed from their post and completely _
disassociated from Applicant's operations before any new construction permit application to builf a nuclear power plant in Puerto Rico con be filed and considered.
e 2.- That prior to any steps taken to apply for licensing any nuclear plant in Puerto Rico<
Applicant mest file with the licen:ing Board a sworn statement to the effect of stating the nome c.md qualifications. of all key personnel who deal with awarding, purchase, design, construction, maintenance and operation contracts related to nuclear power plohts and that such personnel has been cleared from any participation in post wrongdoings in the utility's operations.
3.- That the utility has devised effective safeguards to preverit schotoge and/or the sale
~
of plutonium to any unfriendly country to the United States and Puerto Rico by dissident employed
.i.
or militant members of the utility's labor union ( UTIER ).
e 4.- That o!! the utility personnel directly or indirectly connected with the design, purchase, construction, maintenance and operation of a nuclear plant in Puerto Rico must have taken on oath of loyalty to the. United States and Puerto Rico.
5.- That any other condition the Commission considers appropriate to impose upon this e
Applicant, in accordance with NRC's statutory responsibility to foresee the necessory measures to assure public safety related to nuclear plants in Puerto Rico,be included in the conditional dismissal.
. WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray the Honorable Commission to remond this case to the licensing Board requesting the lotter to delineate and impose conditions.upon Applicant for cranting dismissol without pre [udice consistent with the above, in Son Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of December,1981.
e r
b Gonzolo Fern 6s a
.cCy$N
(
xf h
Petition For Review Docks
$. 8" VG.go. 50-_37
!5 E
CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE 4 M. +Cs6-l' gf 7
0$c6b5fhCB i HEREBY CERTIFY : That on this some date copy of the cSove writ entilted :
e
-li PETITION FOR REVIEW has been served by First Class / Air Mail upon the following :
[
Samuel J. Chilk, Esq., 3ecretary of the Commission ; Coma.luioner Nunzio Palladino, E
Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ; Hon. Alan S. Rosenthal, Administrative H
i Judge, Chairman, ASLAB ; Hon. John H. Buck, Administrative Judge, ASLAB ; Hon.
Stephen F. Eilperin, Administrative Judge, ASLAB ; Hon. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Administrative Judge, Chairman, ASLB ; Hon. Richard F.' Cole, Administrative Judge, ASLB ; Hon. Gustave g
A. Linenberger, Administrative Judge, ASLB ; Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq., Counsel for NRC Staff ;
f two copies to Docketing and Service Section ( All the above bearing some address os follows :
f::
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 ) ; Maurice Axehad, Esq.,
F-E Lowenstein, Reis & Axelrod,1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 ;
h Jos5 F. Irizarry, General Counsel for PREPA, GPO Box 4267, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936 ;
and Dr. Tom 6s Morales-Cardonc, School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico, GPO Box 5067, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936.
r in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22nd day of December,1981.
f.
e
\\,,',
3,I,
~9 Gonzalo Fern 6s., Pro Se, and
[
p g
representing Members of CCNR.
L 3
503 Barb 6 Street 3
Y,',~,3 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00912 Tel :(809) 727-0087 / 727-2287 TO r
t 1