ML20150D041
| ML20150D041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | Baker L, Dugelby B, Harrison D EARTH FIRST!, LONE STAR GREEN, SOUTH TEXAS CANCELLATION CAMPAIGN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5902 2.206, NUDOCS 8803230058 | |
| Download: ML20150D041 (6) | |
Text
r--
t f cjp &
+
k, fff0fYSY99'(E.266)
OCLKEiEO USNM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'88 MAR 18 P1 :19 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v f h..
GOCeC Ma;
'r
- ul g.. o.
In the matter of South Texas Nuclear Project Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
sec. 2.206 Units One and Two PETITION OF:
Earth First!
Gray Panthers of Austin Lone Star Green Public Citizen South Texas Cancellation Campaign Travis County Democratic Women's Committee Dated: March 17, 1988 h$h DOC G
3 0
I.
}
(
PETITION TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
secs. 1.202 and 2.206, Petitioners request the Nuclear Regulatory. commission (NRC) to delay voting on a full power operating license for the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) until the following are completed:
1.
A complete investigation cf all allegations regarding the STNP.
2.
Release to the public of en investigative / inspection reporc dispgs.tjcning each allegation.
Petit 3cner
.4 6aking this esquest in order to prevent a potential health and safety problem from occurring as a result k
of the NRC's failute to h.lly or proparly investigate 600 to l
700 al3.egatioTs provided 'cy current ano former STNP workers
}'
and pe rson affiligted with tha nuclear industry.
I or information in the pe'cition filed in this matter by the covernment Accountability Propact (GAP), dated January 26, 1988, it is clear that the 23C hao lot fulfilled its legal responsibility to protect thn pub)tc health tnd safety.
The f
facts in this case, as recited in pagen 1-1
.nd 6-9 of the GAP petition, document NRC cor. duce that may well constitute criminal negligence or reckless disregard for the public h7alth and safety.
The NRC has a mandatoff duty to exercise itj autho 2LY to protect the health and safe ( j of the public (see authorities cited on pages 4-5 of the GAP peticlon).
It la inconceivable that the NRC can properly fulfill that dutf without conducting 1
k
_----___-.____________.________________.J
a thorough investigation of the significant and substantial allegations filed by knowledgable parsons with GAP.
How can the NRC claim to be protecting the public's health and safety when the NRC refuses to investigate the allegations?
How can the NRC assert those allegations are unsubstantiated when the NRC refuses to examine the evidence offered for the purpose of demonstrating the substantial basis for the allegations?
How can the public have any faith in the NRC when the NRC steadfastly refuses to respond to public demands for a meaningful investigation of all allegations and a substantive report on the findings on each allegation?
After a review of the NRC's preliminary report in this matter (NRC Safety Significance Assessment Team Report, NUREG-1306, released 3/14/88) [SSAT Report), Petitioners assert the following deficiencies compel postponement of the licensing hearing:
1.
Many allegations are not yet resolved and are to be the subject of future reports or futu~e corrective action (see 5.1.4.4, 5.1.6.3, 5.3.2.2(4),
5.3.2.3, 5.4.2.2, g
5.6.1.4 and 5.6.4.3, and part 4, SSAT Report).
N 2.
Approximately 240 allegations were classified by the SSAT as harrassment/ intimidation or wrongdoing and referred by SSAT to NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) for review (see pp. ix and 2-6, SSAT Report).
Those allegatiot.s undermine the credibility of the documentation relied on throughout the SSAT Report.
Overwhelmingly, the authors of the SSAT Report relied on investigation reports of Region IV and SAFETEAM (see pp. x, 2-7, details 2
~
-n.
k throughout part 5, and Appendix B, SSAT Report).
The reliance on any report by SAFETEAM is not proper because SAFETEAM is not required to comply with 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B.
In its Summary and Conclusions (p. 3-11), the SSAT Report closes with the critical admission:
. the overall assessment of GAP's allegations will not be complete until the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) completes its review of the harrassment/ intimidation and wrongdoing allegations.
Upon completion of OI's efforts, the NRC technical staff will further review the safety significance of any technical concern spun from these investigations."
Until OI completes its investigation of the 240 allega-tions referred to it in this matter, the basis for the SSAT Report is suspect, and no decision on the safety of the plant can be made.
A Additionally, the enormous number of allegations of harrassment/ intimidation brings into question the validity of H.L. & P. as a license holder.
Unless these allegations are resolved, the NRC cannot know if H.L.
& P.
has the corporate character and competence to be a license holder.
l 3.
The SSAT investigation of several allegations relied on a mere sampling of items.
(See, e.g.,
valve installation, 5.2.1; valve maintenance and reassembly, 5.2.2; weld rod, 5.5.1; electrical cable separation, 5.6.6).
Public safety i
3 l
i demands a thorough inspection, not some haphazard selection of a few sample items.
4.
Some items, such as the essential cooling water system (5.1.6), are expressly left unresloved by the SSAT Report.
The allegations address the thickness of the pipes and possible corrosion that has already occurred. 'The SSAT conclusion is not responsive to the allegations: it addresses monitoring future corrosion.
5.
Perhaps the most serious deficiency in the SSAT Report is the attitude revealed by its conclusion (p. 3-11):
"In conclusion, the SSAT review of all of GAP's allegations has identified no substantive safety issue which would warrant delay in the NRC's consideration of a full-power license for STP Unit 1."
WHY DOES THE NRC REQUIRE THE PUBLIC TO PROVE THE PLANT IS UNSAFE?
WHY DOES THE NRC NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THE
)
PLANT IS SAFE?
The first four items are telling examples of the SSAT's P
bias against the GAP allegations and in favor of licensing, even though the investigation is not complete, even though l
other reports are yet to be filed, even though documentation l
relied upon is of questionable trustworthiness, and even though potentially defective hardware has not been inspected.
The NRC has no duty to issue an operating license come hell or high water, yet the history of events in this case suggests that the NRC is hell bent on such a course of action, i
4
a The NRC has a mandatory duty to exercise its authority when necessary.
The foremost priority for the NRC is to determine that there will be adequate protection of the health and safety of the public.
Public safety is the first, last, and permanent consideration in any decision on the issuance of a license to operate a nuclear facility.
The NRC cannot fulfill that duty when its report concedes that the NRC has not investigated hundreds of the allegations filed in this case, and that scveral additional reports are yet to be filed.
Petitioners respectfully request that the NRC dispel its image of neglect of duty by exercising its duty to withhold issuance of a license until the public health and safety are assured, and that the Commission delay the vote on licensing the STNP until a thorough investigation of all allegations is completed and a comprehensive public report is issued.
Respectfully submitted, M Y
/13arbhta Dugelbff, foparth First!
/Th6 mas E.
Smith, for public Citizen M
han k rd ss a Charlotte Flynn, fo'r Gray Dan Harrison, for South Panthers of Austin Texas Cancellation Campaign hv
-<x
~
LangA[ Baker, for Lone Star Green Anne C.
McAfee, for Truvis County Democratic Women's Com$littee Dated: March 17, 1988 5