ML20003D332

Requests That ASLB Proceed in Absence of Intervenor Hourihan Response to Disputed Contentions

ML20003D332
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	03/11/1981
From:	Bischoff C SNELL & WILMER
To:	Callahan D, Cole R, Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, UNION CARBIDE CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8103260509
Download: ML20003D332 (3)

Text

3

\s . . . . 6. l.= c a

.... ms-c.

- t e s. ? . = c . *

• c .. s . . c: ...e secos.o*

J

' f.'%5Yo',' 5.['N='c. s... .[ #.I'.,Yc..i 5 .==e. ,c.v.c

• ..e:* s :=c

s. . e c.=o.v.s=.

.. ,t ...s...: sc..

a .

... e ,r c c .

Jc't.'? 2,"c. *?.'i."i"P.'!c*;a S N ELL & WiLM ER W,t".

.2 ses5'.i.Mf.' c- 1

.12.5J.*a:-'?.,,

2 c.

w: :.T*:. ..e cu a . ~ . .L'." !E,e .it,' ....c. e:e t a.c v e e .. . c. .. ~. : c ~. c .

inn!.*..*f.'#t-  :.v.'Iccin:ba* "-oc~'".^a:2o~^"o'2

. ;:n.

.c c .'.,.'f.'cii"~

?

..!.d.c:'.',".,

cc L.'n..'.c .m.

w e m. *v,

.i'.';.u. " " ' " * "

.c .. .;..E.;.M. . *...

• 'M.: . ...

' ,'. 52.t.t. :

C ..g ' . c.

.Cc6 c.=O.... n.c 0.Q7, s ;.c . . G.a.t.:c=

sC C =

..o-c 3 c. .a .ce

. .cco

=C c . eCc ~c . , ,. .c. .oc..

3.Cc.h.

'*t';!

.c er '.7.c '.'.r',",'c

, .c U i G,ec!?t # **

M.u;ce March 11, 19E1 e:

2..:.*."1.'t ..

.,.c c. c. .e..eu *; "4..*.N,o,c

. .*s.-c 3 'i */.*.*c,i.

c.c.,v. 6 c.

.o.

Rcbert M. La::o ~, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 w  ! m.-

Dr. Richard F.. Cole 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board DOCKriD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 k USE 3 2 MAR 161981 >  ;

>. ~

Dr. Dixon Callahan Offee tf th Seitry .

Union Carbide Corporation # 1I

• B2c:P P.O. Box Y 9 ,a Oak Ridge, TN 37330 Qg,;A ,.

Re: In the Matter of Ari:cna Public Service Company, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-523, STN 50-529, STN 50-530 Gentlemen: "

, Pursuant to the agreement reached at the December 2, 1980, prehearing conference in the above-referenced proceeding, on December 12, 1980, the NRC Staff, Intervenor P. Lee Hourihan, and Joint Applicants filed with this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board a Stipulation of Parties Regarding Contentions and Discovery I

(" Stipulation"). The parties agreed that the contentions set forth in Aependix A to the Stipulation were legally.. acceptable : . ,

for litiga' tion, but were unable to agree *Ethe~ acceptanility;

'of the contentions set forth in Appendix B to :the. ,.

Sticulation.

On December 19, 1980, and also cursuant to the agreement reache'd at the prehearing conference, both the Staff and Joint Applicants filed their respective responses to the disputed con-tentions listed in Appendix B to the stipclation.

In an Order dated January 6, 1981, the Board afforded ,

Intervenor the opportunity until January._20. 1981, to respond in writing to any contention which was objecied_..to. by Joint Applicants

'I)

] g g i

'8 10 sag g '

L

.- ---.- . .~. _ . . . . . - . .

SNELL & WILM ER March 11, 1981 Page Two or the Staff. On or about January 20, 1931, Joint Applicants received a call from Intervenor asking for an agreement to a ten-day extension of the tire afforded to Intervenor to respond to such objections. Joint Applicants agreed not to object to such ten-day extension; it is our understandi'ng that NRC Staff counsel took the same position.

To Joint Applicants '.:nowledge, Intervenor did not file a motion seeking a ten-day extension. More importantly, Intervenor failed to file a response within the additional ten-day period. Indeed, as of the date of this letter, Joint Applicants still have not been served with a copy of any such response by Intervenor, which leads Joint Applicants to con-clude that Intervenor neither has filed nor intends to file a response to the objections of Joint Applicants and the Staff.

Seven weeks have now passed since the date established by the Board for Intervenor to file a response. Almost six weeks have passed since the. expiration of the extended time agreed to by Joint Applicants. During these many weeks , Joint Applicants have received no communications from Intervenor respecting why a response has not been filed or when one could be expected. In view of such circumstances, it can hardly be cuestioned that Intervenor has decided to forego the opportunity af forded to

her by the Board.

i i In the previ'ously-referenced Stipulation, the parties

-agreed to a discovery schedule for admitted contentions. Joint Applicants wish to commence discovery in order that this proceed- ,

l ing can move forward in a timely manner. In the interest of meet-ing such objective, and in view of the fact that Intervenor has had more than ample time in which to file a response , it is re-spectfully re' quested that this Board proceed in the absence of a i response from Intervenor and issue its order listing those of l

Intervenor's contentions which are to be litigated in this pro-ceeding, and approving the discovery schedule set forth in the Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Bischoff SNELL & WILMER Attorneys for Joint Applicants CAB: jaw .

s A

S N E LL & WILM ER

!! arch 11,1981 Page Three cc: Ms. P. Lee Hourihan Henry J. !!cGurren, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atemic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 6

9 e

9 6

)

e I

I l

t f ..

~

e I

I k

4 .

l l

~

, , . . . - . .