ML20050N762
| ML20050N762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1982 |
| From: | Bischoff C BISCHOFF, C.A., JOINT APPLICANTS - PALO VERDE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204140430 | |
| Download: ML20050N762 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'62 fP" 12 !U1 M3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Arizona Public Service
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528 Company, et al.
)
STN 50-529
)
STN 50-5 (Palo Verde Nuclear
)
m Generating Station,
)
Units 1, 2 and 3
)
./
}
,ch ?
JOINT APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO INTERVENOR S~
~ib', %' b;f l
9-
?
cf' ',.:h:p (y,.
c
( l U
+4; AMENDMENT TO CONTENTION NO. 7 DUE TO 9 V
[ ';
NEW INFORMATION On April 1, 1982, Joint Applicants receiv y3 mail Intervenor's " Amendment to Contention No. 7 Due to New Information," dated March 29, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as " Amendment").
In her Amendment Intervenor moves to amend Contention No. 7 "due to new information regarding the esti-mated costs of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,
2 and 3."
Intervenor includes several attachments with her Amendment, including a portion of the testimony pre-sumably given by a David Nichols of the Energy Systems l
Research Group, Inc.
("ESRG") in a rate proceeding before 1
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving Arizona Public Service Company.
A review of that testimony reveals it to be concerned primarily with conservation and alterna-tives to Palo Verde.
In the text of her Amendment, however, C3
%y Intervenor seems to be saying that she would have ESRG per-8204140430 820408 PDR ADOCK 05000528 G
PDR l
A form an independent analysis of the construction costs of Palo Verde.
During the April 6, 1982, telephone conference call among Judges Lazo and Cole, and the parties to this proceeding, arguments were made respecting Intervenor's Amendment.
At the conclusion of the arguments, Judge Lazo stated that the Licensing Board was " rejecting" the Amend-ment.
In order that the record might be complete, Joint Applicants are setting forth herein their arguments in op-position to the Amendment.
1.
Contention No. 7 is not subject to amendment because it is no longer part of this proceeding.
Contention No.
7, which was originally accepted for litigation in this proceeding by the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of April 16, 1981, provided that Joint Applicants had failed to demonstrate their financial qualifications because they had inadequately figured decommissioning costs.
By Memorandum and Order dated March 17, 1982, the Licensing Board granted Joint Applicants' January 29, 1982, Motion for Summary Dis-position of Intervenor's Contention No. 7.
Because judgment has been granted in Joint Applicants' favor, Contention No.
7 is no longer part of this proceeding and is not subject to amendment by Intervenor.
2.
Intervenor has not set forth a contention for the Licensing Board and parties to consider.
In her Amend-ment Intervenor simply states that she wishes to amend Con-tention No. 7 due to new information.
Even assuming Con-tention No. 7 were still part of this proceeding, Intervenor nowhere sets forth the amended contention.
That is, she has failed to state the contention that she wishes to have liti-gated.
The burden to frame contentions obviously rests with the party who wishes to introduce the contention to the pro-ceeding.
Because Intervenor has not offered an amended con-tention, there is nothing for the Licensing Board and the other parties to this proceeding to consider.
3.
Intervenor has not met the requirements of the Commission's regulations.
The hearing in this proceed-ing is set for April 27, 1982.
Accordingly, if Intervenor wishes to introduce a new or amended contention at this late stage, it is incumbent upon her to make a very strong show-ing as to why the Licensing Board should accept her late-filed contention.
In her Amendment Intervenor discusses the factors to be considered in deciding whether to accept un-timely contentions which are otherwise suitable for litiga-tion.
Such factors are set forth at 10 CFR $2.714(a)(1).
A simple reading of Intervenor's discussion reveals that con-sideration of such factors weighs heavily against permitting Intervenor to file a new or amended contention.
For example, as to factor (i) relating to good cause for the late filing, Intervenor states that "this new information was not avail-able until December 10, 1981."
Intervenor offers no explana-tion as to why she waited until March 29, 1982, to file the.
Amendment.
In addition, as to factor (v) relating to the extent to which the amended contention will broaden the is-sues or delay the proceeding, Intervenor readily admits that
"[t]his amendment to contention #7 will broaden the pro-ceedings in many ways."
Based on the foregoing, Intervenor has not made the showing required by 10 CFR 52.714(a)(1),
and her Amendment should be denied on such grounds.
4.
Intervenor is foreclosed from litigating in this proceedinq issues related to need for power or finan-cial qualifications.
As set forth at the outset of this answer, it is somewhat unclear whether Intervenor desires her amended contention to deal with conservation and al-ternative energy sources, or with financial qualifications.
In either event, the Commission recently has adopted final rules respecting such matters which eliminate such issues from operating license proceedings, including ongoing pro-ceedings.
On March 26, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Register (47 Fed. Reg. 12940) an amendment to its regulations to provide that need for power and alternative energy source issues will not be considered in operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants.
The Commis-sion stated that the rule, which becomes effective on April 26, 1982, "will apply to pending operating license proceedings." (Id. at 12941.) _
~
On March 31, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Register (47 Fed. Reg. 13750) amendments to its reg-ulations which eliminated entirely requirements for finan-cial qualifications review and findings for electric utili-ties that are applying for construction permits or operating licenses.
The amendments are stated to be effective March 31, 1982.
Because the Commission has determined that need for power, alternative energy source and financial qualifi-cations issues are no longer to be considered as part of an operating license proceeding, Intervenor is foreclosed from having any contention related to such matters litigated in this proceeding.
Based on the foregoing, Joint Applicants submit that the Licensing Board properly ruled in rejecting Inter-venor's Amendment.
Respectfully submitted, By Arthur C. Gehr' f//
Charles A. Bischoft7v 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for Joint Applicants Dated:
April 8, 1982
~
f r'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 22 t"o 12
'I"1 :43 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Arizona Public Service
)
Company, et al.
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528
)
STN 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear
)
STN 50-530 Generating Station,
)
Units 1, 2 and 3
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Joint Applicants' Answer to Intervenor's Amendment to Contention No. 7 Due to New Information" were mailed to the following individuals, properly addressed and with postage prepaid, this 8th 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, AZ 85004 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert M.
Lazo, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
n r'
Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Dixon Callahan Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J.
Reis Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S.
26th Street Phoenix, AZ 85040 Rand L. Greenfield, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 4/d Charles K Bisc I
l --.
.-