ML20050J182

Motion for Order Postponing 820427 Hearing for 30 Days Due to Newly Discovered Matl Evidence.Documents Prove That Salt River Project & Doi Know That Phoenix Cannot Sell Effluent to Util

ML20050J182
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	04/07/1982
From:	Hourihan P HOURIHAN, P.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8204140173
Download: ML20050J182 (5)

Text

_.

\ v-s Qc L\dua[ + 36s y

l/  %

g RECEIVED. 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PR 13 79825 h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,_ . , , '

'r 6 r$lfQp 4 DDC

- ! t' '

h, } RE THE ATOMIC 3AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~ m In the Matter of )

ARIZONA PU3LIC SERVICE )

COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528

) STN 50-529-(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) STN 50-530 Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) )

MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING The Intervenor moves for an order postponing the hearing set for April 27, 1982, for a period of 3' days or tne grounds of newly discovered material evidence. In support of this motion the Intervenor states that she very recently discovered this evidence; that the Applicant and it's Associate, The Salt That

~

River Project, have known of the evidence for a long time.

the evidence has been material to the construction and operating license Applicants; and that the very seroius problem raised by this evidence was concealed by the Applicant. The problem sug-gested by this evidence cannot responsibly be either ignored er belittled by rushing to a hearing before it can be developed in a fair and proper way. --

- t THE NEW EVIDENCE I. 6

1. The Intevenor has learned that at least fifteen, years ago the Salt River Project (SRP) asserted in a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix that sewage effluent from the City's' water treatment plant was reclamation project water so that the City was not legally entitled to sell it fo use outside the Salt

[O 8204140173 820407  :

PDR ADOCK 05000528 .

G PDR $8 '

4

River Project boundaries. A copy of that lawsuit is attached as Exhibit A. SRP filed a legal brief in this suit explaining i

why the City could not sell the water.. This brief is attached as Exhibit B. SRP later dropped the suit voluntarily.

2. On January 22, 1971, the Regional Director of the U.S.

~

Bureau of Reclamation wrote a memo to the Commissioner of Reclamation on this issue. It discussed the reason why SRP e dropped it's lawsuit against Phoenix and discusses a 1969 i agreement regarding the sewage effluent and says that this water is " return flow".ar.d is subject to Bureau of Reclamation control.

It says that: "The (Senate Interior) committee clearly states in Senate Report No. 408 that the United States should not abandon its rights to return flows from the Central Arizona i Project or from any water stored er developed by any Reclamation Project." A copy of this memorandum is attached as Exhibit C.

3 In a bond prospectus dated March 1, 1980, the SRP stated that the lawyers for the Interior Department were study-ing the legality of using Salt River Project water for Palo i

i Verde Nuclear Generating Station. A copy of the front page and page 15 of this prospectus are attached as Exhibit D.

4. By letter dated Februaary 25, 1980, the Solicitor of the Depqrtment of Interior told the Justice Deaprtment about the proposed sale of effluent to the Palo Verde Plant'and says flatly that he believes that the United States has priority over this Reclamation Project water. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit E.

i

- =_ . - . _ _ _ .. ._ - _ __ -  : . . - _ - - .-

J These documents prove that the Salt River Project and the i

Interior Department have long known that Phoenix cannot sell effluent to Palo Verde. -

The question now is whether the Intervenor should have found out about this matter a long time ago or whether APS'and SRP should have disclosed this prelem to the-Commission a long time ago.

II. The Applicant and Salt River Project know about this matter but they insist that the Board refuse to allow us to take dis-covery on it. The Staff apparently has failed to make even superficial inquiry with the Interior Department about this problem.

Respectfully Submitted this 7th day of April, 1982, g' J li tuL : k:s d%U b a.^

By Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 South 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 i

't A

N i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. m n- r

" ' 37 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND L-TCENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE }

COMPANY, et al. J Docket Nos. STN 50-523

) STN 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) STN 50-530 ,

Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) (

) l t

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE {

I hereby certify that copies of The Motion to Postpone 1 2

Hearing and The Motion for Order Requiring Admission and Pre-duction of Documents in Ten Days, submitted by the Intervencr,  ;

have been served on the following individuals by deposit in -he United States mail, properly addressed and with postage prepaid, this 7th day of April, 1982.

Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 111 South Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel /

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s;i el: % r i.

Robert M. Lazo, Esq. -

Chairman. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 29555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~, - . -

/ .

Dr. Dixon Callahan Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Lee Scott Dewey, Esq. W /4d M'"'~* b Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. ' '" #'

Charles Bischoff, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Rand L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

l

_ .RiL T- W N Patricia Lee Hourihan i

.