ML19224D695
| ML19224D695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Butzel A BERLE, KASS & CASE (FORMERLY BERLE, BUTZEL, KASS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D692 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160125 | |
| Download: ML19224D695 (3) | |
Text
.
/,
8/
M[
STATE OF NEW YORK JUN 3 ISIS *yd DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 6
BOARD ON ELECTRIC CENERATING m
SITE AND THE ENVIRCNMENT CM5 LaS*
_______x b
O
%t In the Matter of the Application of o-POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW Case 80006 YORK (Greene County Nuclear Generating Facility)
._x JOINDER OF GREENE COUNTY ET AL. IN APPEAL FRCM RULING OF PRESIDING EXAMINER RELATIVE TO TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING Greene County, the Town and Village of Catskill, and the Town and Village of Athens (collectively, "Greene County") hereby join in and support the appeal of the Department of Public Service Staf f from the Ruling of Presiding Examiner Cohen issued May 14, 1979.
By that ruling, Judge Cohen denied a motion by Staff, joined in by Greene County and others, to dismiss the application in this case and terminate the proceeding.
"'his appeal is of special concern to Greene County.
The County has consistently and vigorously opposed PASNY's plans to build a nuclear plant in its midst and has spent well over $100,000 of its own funds in an ef fort to defeat the proposal.
Now it appears that those efforts will bear fruit.
However, as long as there renins any prospect that the Cementon or Athens' sites wil] be used for a nuclaar plant, it is virtually impossible for Qe county to plan its cwn future.
Aside frcm direct economic threats (as, for example, in discouraging the renewal plans of the Lehigh Cement Cc=pany), the spectre of Three Mile Island has made practically any prospective nuclear site undesirable for other uses.
The County anc its citizens ought not to be subject to this uncertainty.
If PASNT or any successor intends to prcceed with the nuclear propcsal, it should be required to do so now.
Otherwise, the application in' Case 80006 should be dismissed.
1CC
{,9 y.
7007100/2 O
(+~
This is not an interlocutory appeal, but one '. hat seeks an end to the case.
As such, it may well be that the full Siting Board must act on the question.
If the Co ission deems this necessary, the County respectfully asks that the appeal be referred to the Board.
Whatever r_he forum, however, the County asks for a decision now.
In support of this respect, the County incorpcrates the points made in Staf f's appeal papers, and adds the following additional observations.
1.
It is ridiculous for Judge Cohen to state that the time limits imposed by the amendments to Article VIII were " designed principally to protect an applicant against unreasonable delay..."
Unfortunately, this attitude that the applicant is entitled to whatever delays it wants has characteri ed a great many of Judge Cohen's rulings in this case.
The Legislature, however, did not amend Ar ticle VIII to include e proviso that the time limits do not apply to applicants, nor can that reasonably be read into the statutes.
The limitations were designed to provide the punlic - and not only the utilities -- with a regulatory process that would ensure prompt decjsions and not leave matters hanging and uncertain for lengthy periods.
Judge Cohen's ruling runs directly counter to the statutory m ndate.
It =ust be reversed under any reasonable reading of the law.
2.
It is also ridiculous for Judge Cohen to gest that PASNY could properly amend its application in e.s e 80006 to substitute a coal plant at Athens for the
..uclear unit it had asked to be certified at Cementon or, alternatively, at Athens.
PASNY's application in Case 80006 does not include any proposal or request to build a coal plant -- and it has long claimed that a coal plant was neither conter. plated nor authorized by its trustees.
If the tmstees now change their tune, PASNY can file a new application, subject to the amended provisions of Article VIII.
There is no basis, however, in law or in fact, for contending that a coal plant can be proposed by PASNY within 'd.is docket.
It is noteworthy that with a new filing, PASNY will have to prove need, whereas its trustees ' determination was previously conclusive under the statute.
It'is also noteworthy that with a new filing, PASNY would have to make S200,000 available for municipal and intervenor studies,
whereas if it could hew to Case 80006, it would presumably argue that it had no further obig 2 : ion of contribution.
Beth of these points are conveniently downplayed by cudge Cohen.
Yet they were obviously at the hea-t of the Legislature 's O
$s
thinking when it amended Article VIII, since [1 concluded that PASNY's own determination of need should no longer be determinative and, further, that added funds for municipalities and intervenors were to the public benefit.
Judge Cohen's suggestion that PASNY could now amend to propose a coal plant would, if accepted, ccmpletely undermine the Legislative directives that have been given.
This is beyond the authority of a hearing officer or anyone else to do.
3.
Finally, we cannot help but observe that Judge Cohen's ruling is as insensitive to the concerns of the intervenors as it is attentive to t".e interests of PASNY.
This has not been the most pleasant of proceedings, due in part to the arrogance with which PASNY approached the case.
The Authority's attitude that its decision to build a nuclear plant was beyond question; its consistent refusal to present an analysis of a coal alternative; the litigation that it brought to challenge any consideration of nuclear risks; its denial of any substance to the concerns of Lehigh Cement; its insensitivity to the visual inpacts of its cooling tower and plant structures -- these and other aspects of PASNY's conduct have created a sense cf overreaching that cannot be gainsaid.
Against this background, Judge Cohen's deferential approach to the Authority is particularly discomfitting.
The County, for one, has had to live too long in the shadow of PASNY's plans.
It is time that the Authority be held to the same standards as others.
It is time, in short, that this docket be brought to an end because PASNY has failed to make its case and was wrong in its proposal.
This application in Case 80006 should be dismissed
_n o _.
w Da.ed:
June 5, 1979 Respectfully submitted, BUTIEL & KASS Attorneys for Greene County, et al.
45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.
Y.
10020
'By F rert :.. Butzel /
cc:
Active Parties 9 5 D 9 0