ML18192A691
| ML18192A691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1975 |
| From: | Norton B Arizona Public Service Co, Snell & Wilmer, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A691 (6) | |
Text
X gc)ltC
~r UNXTED STATES OF AMERICA I~<h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMXSSXON Xn the Matter of )
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) Docket'. Nos. 50-528 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-529
) 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating )
Station, Units.l, 2, and 3)
I
)
APPLXC T'S RESPONSE TO XNTERVENOR ACEC's MOTION FOR FXNANCXAL ASSXSTANCE On April 28, 1975, Intervenor ACEC, through its coun-sel, Barbara E. Fisher, inquired by letter of Chairman Head if there were funds available "for our (ACEC's) participation in the hearings". By letter dated May 8, 1975, Chairman Head in-formed Applicants and Staff that this inquiry would be treated as a Motion For Financial Assistance'nd that the parties would have ten days from receipt of the May 8th letter to respond.
The letter was received by Applicants on May 13, 1975.
Applicants respectfully request that the Board deny the Motion For Financial Assistance as prematurely filed, all as more fully set, out, in the attached hlemorandum of Points and Authorities.
SNELL 6'XLMER Bruce Norton 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for ARIZONA PUBLXC SERVXCE COh1PANY
. MEMORANDUM OP POINTS AND AUTHORXTIES Intervenor ACEC's request for "funds for participation in the hearings" should be denied as premature. Nhile the re-quest does not state specifically for what purposes the funds are to be used or how much, Applicants assume that ACEC is ask-ing for monies for such things as attorneys'ees, expert witness fees, copying costs, and the like. Similar requests have been the subject of one Commission ruling, Consumers Power Compan (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), CLI-74-42, RAI-74'll 820 (Nov-ember 20, 1974) and a recent Appeal Board decision, Niacaara Mohawk Power 'Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, BAI-74-,, (April 8, 1975) .
Xn Consumers Power, Intervenor groups in three separate cases petitioned for financial assistance from the Commission in aid of their participation in those proceedings. The Commis-sion held that:
Payment in advance would reverse the pro-cedure long followed by the courts in awarding costs and, in the narrow classes of cases, at-torneys'ees. Such awards are made only after trial, when all of the circumstances of record can be assessed. Ne think the same approach should govern here -- pending the outcome of the rulemaking in which this issue will be reexamined.
For present purposes, therefore, requests for pay-ment. should be considered following entry of a final agency order in the particular adjudica-tions. RAX-74-11, 825.
The Commission noted that overall questions of funding for intervenors should be explored in a rulemaking proceeding.
RAX-74-11, 824.
~
Xn Hia ara Mohawk, the Appeal Board stated:
'he counsel and the expert witnesses who assisted the intervenors in this pro-ceeding did so without charge. Xntervenors now ask that we award them sufficient funds to enable them to pay reasonable fees and expensesl for those services "retrospective-ly." The right to such an award is claimed on the ground that intervenors made a material contribution to the proceeding and thereby served a valuable public purpose. $ Je believe the request premature.
While it has been discussed, it has not been decided whether the Commission is author-ized to make such payments and if whom, under what conditions and in what so to amounts. The matter is under consideration now and the Commission has referred zulemaking proceeding.
it to a See Consumers Power
'ompany (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant , CLI-74-42, RAI-74-11, 820 (November 20, 1974).
Xn these circumstances the wisest course is to abide the outcome of that proceeding. Ne therefore deny the intervenors'equest at this time, but without prejudice to its renewal before the Licensing Board in light of the Commission's ultimate decision. Ne thus need express no opinion about the Com-.
mission's authority to make such an award or the intervenors 'ntitlement to receive one.
Xn light of these two decisions, the fact, that the question of the award of costs is being studied and the matter is the subject, of a general rulemaking proceeding< it is respectfully requested that Intervenor ACEC's Motion be denied.
DATED this '
day of May, 197E.
Respectfully submitted, SNELL 6 NII2KR By Bruce Norton 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COYiPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that true and correct. copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to Intervenor ACEC's Motion 'For Financial Assistance have been placed in the United States Mails, postage prepaid, this ~Q day ot May, 197S, to the following:
Daniel M. Head, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington., D.C. 20555 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Technical Advisor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Research Assoc. Professor Fisheries Research Institute University of Nashington Seattle, Nashington 98195 Thomas M. Bruen, Esq.
Michael N. Grainey, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Barbara E. Fisher, Esq.
Arizona Public Law Advocates 201 North Stone Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Andrew N. Bettwy Assistant Attorney General 159 State Capitol 1700 Nest Nashington Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Mr. Carmine F . Cardamone, Jr.
1415 North Third Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85705 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vlashington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety an'd Licensing Board Panel U.=S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 SNELL 8 NXLMER Bruce Norton