ML19351A167

Comments on Various Matters in Proceeding.Intervenors Concerned That Aslab 810611 Order Does Not Mention Compelling ASLB to Keep Record Open on Applicant Past Performance.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19351A167
Person / Time
Site:	05000376
Issue date:	06/16/1981
From:	Fernos G CITIZENS FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, IN
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8106260169
Download: ML19351A167 (3)

Text

,

.T '

16 June,1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N UCLEAR REG UL ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING /sPPEAL BOARD (ASLAB)

• ,,q %

in the Matter of p D PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC DOCKEf NO. 50 - 376 A POWER AUTHORITY ( PREPA ) 2 5 a Applicant

• 7 v 3 S

5! C $)

if ALO FERNOS, PRO SE, ET AL. Proposed North Coast -

1. D

• Nuclear Plant ( Unit 1 ) En ."_.

E N%

e ',,. * ************ '

p { n p lslote Word, Aree:bo, Puerto Ric Y INFORMATIVE MOTION #

il, UN 2 51981* c8 9 "'ToEsWTHE NORABLE APPEAL BOARD :

V>y(g } COMES NOW the undersigned Intervenor, Pro Se, and in representation of Members of Citizens For The Conservation Of Natural Resources, Inc. (CCNR ), collectively referred to os the Intervenors, and respectfully states for the record :

e 1.- That on this day the undersigned Intervenor received copy of the Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order of June 11, 1981. Intervenors thus take notice of the Appeal Board's position. Although we are relieved to some extent to know that should the Applicant of this case file in the future for "any new construction permit application",provided someone brings these matters to the Licensing Board's o*+erdion, then the Appeal Board would be concerned about the disclosure of Applicant's past, present and future oc.tions "which might bear adversely upon the entitlement of the applicant to receive a permit to construct a nuclear power plant", and that such on application "will be open to any interested person-including the present intervenors."

However, the fact that the Order locks any mention of compelling the Licensing Board to keep open the record of this prospective future applicant's post performance, and for the NRC and its entities to suo sponte raise those post performances "which might bear adversely upon the entitle-ment of the opplicant to receive o permit to construct a nuclear power plant", is a matter of great concern to this Intervenors. " Future time", naturally, is unlimitted. If the Appeal Soord

.../

8106 n a o/(8 g 90 $

$ *[i

i 1 '

. b -

1 Informative Motion 2- 16 June,1981 '

takes no action now on whatever Applicant's wrongdoings are currently known --whether on the record below or not --could be interpreted as giving the Applicant the opportunity to lick its wounds now and hope thct when these Intervenors disappear *, to be able to return j ogain when there is a prospect of less opposition. We will elaborate further on this issue in our Brief.

e 2.- That to set a date now for the filing of Intervenors' Brief seems meaninglen for the teosons furtheron stated. The Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order of June 11, 1981, l suggests in footnote 3 that Intervenors were not materially prejudiced by the belated service )

! of NRC Stoff's Response of May 29,1981, received June 13, 1981. Intervenors indeed were prejudiced because had we received the stroyed documents on time, we would have had the NRC Staff's position clear when we filed our Petition for Reconsideration of June 6,1981, and i

thus could more adequately have directed our pleading.

l e 3.- That Intervenors, although taking exception to the denying of the extension of

time requested, will obide by the Appeal Board's ruling of not granting extension of time to l

consider the Department of Justice and I.egislative investigations of Applicant's alleged corrupt I

operations. On the other hand, the Appeal Board has been totally silent about Intervenors difficulty in obtaining NRC issusonces to support their ( our ) stand pro a dismissal of the appli-cation with prejudice. NRC Staff alleges that "Intervenors have had more than six years to obtain NRC issuonces in this case." NRC Stoff overlooks that during most of this six year period the case has been hibernating. Intervenors never have had a crystal ball or clairvoyance faculties during that period to see the anticipated needs for such evidence and case law. Further, the NRC issuances were requested in writing from the NRC Stoff on September 3,1980. NRC Staff has never uatil now denied intervenors copy of requested documents, in fact, Henry J. McGurren, l

• The undersigned Intervenor is almost 62 years old now, and most likely will be out of the picture when this power utility files again for the next time, which would be its third try.

The denounced corrupt situation, however, will most likely remain the some, as it goes to the very core of the modus operandi of the utility.

. . YA Informative Motten 16 June,1981 Esq., Counsel for NRC Staff in his

• atember 23,1980 reply states that if "the procedding continues, we will make arrangeme.as to Nr to the Local Public Document Room ( LPDR )

nearest you a microfiche set of the NRCl. We will also loan to the LPDR a microfiche reader."

Now, the NRC Staff backs down on its offer, pretending we are asking for research service i

when it is not so. NRC Staff referred Intervenon to the National Technical Information Service, but as of this date our request to that concem has remained unanswered. Let the Appeal Board take notice that if the NRC issuances we requestd from NRC Staff are not on hand upon the undersigned Intervenor's return to Puerto Rico by July 15, 1981, arrangements will have to be made for this Intervenor to go to Washington, D.C. to NRC document room to do the necessary research there. The additional time thus consumed would be requested to the time given to file

the Brief. The Appeal Board could simplify matters by ordering the NRC Staff to serve or loan the issuances requested by Intervanors who are as anxious as anyone else to get through with t

s this case as soon as possible.

Sha Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of June,1981. .

~

b Gonza o F fr Se, and y5,y>

s

] representing Members of CCNR.

%.;; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE M7oRgO*

e i HEREBY CERTIFY : That on this so ne date copy of the above pleading entitled :

informative Motion has been served by First Cicss or Air Mail upon the following : Samuel J.

Chilk, Esq., Secretary of the Commission ; Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman, ASLAB ; Dr.

John H. Buck, Esq., Member, ASLAB ; Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman, ASLB ; Dr. Richard F. Cole, Member, ASLB ; Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member, ASLB ; Henry J. McGurren,

, Esq., Counsel for NRC Staff ; two copies to Docketing and Service Section ; ( All the above

! bearing some address as follows : U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555)

Maurice Axelrod, Esq., Lowenstein, Reis & Axelrod,1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Wash-ington, D.C. 20036 ; Joss F. Irizarry, Esq., General Counsel, PR !PArGPO-Sox 4267, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936 ; and Dr. Tomas Morales-Cardona, Scho'c)l f M'e Puerto Rico, GPO Box 5067, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936. , y G

alo Fe 6s yv l

._._.._,:_._._-____.~.__.___1----------- n