ML20065R669

Response of West Valley Agricultural Protection Council to Joint Applicants 821022 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Council Petition to intervene.Ten-day Extension Should Be Granted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065R669
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/26/1982
From:	Berlin K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8210290297
Download: ML20065R669 (6)

Text

.

c. -

DOCKETED U3NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD EE C.itTAR Y

' ..."f;G to A SEftVlCE

. :.M:CH 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) )

RESPONSE OF WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC. TO MOTION BY JOINT APPLICANTS SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER PETITION TO INTERVENE Petitioner West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. (" West Valley"), hereby responds to the " Motion Seeking Extension of Time Within Which to Answer Petition to Intervene,"

filed on October 22, 1982, by Arizona Public Service Company,

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, El Paso Electric Company, and Southern California Public Power Authority (" Joint Applicants").

l In their Motion, Joint Applicants claim that they have not yet received complete copies of West Valley's " Petition to Intervene and Request for Preparation of Supplemental or Revised Environmental Impact Statement, Hearing and Other Relief"

(" Petition to Intervene") and related documents, and, for this reason, request a 14 day time extension from the Board.

West Valley filed its Petition to Intervene and related documents with the Commission on October 14, 1982. On that same 8210290297 821026 PDR ADOCK 05000528 PDR gg

2 .

date, as recited in the various certificates of service accompanying the Petition to Intervene, and the related Memorandum of Law and Notice of Appearance, complete copies of all documents filed with the Commission were mailed, first class postage prepaid, to counsel for Joint Applicants, at the addresses recited on the certificates. West Valley has no reason to believe that complete copies of these documents were not properly forwarded by the U.S. Mails to counsel for Joint Applicants.

It appears, however, that, due to some unknown cause, counsel for Joint Applicants did not receive complete copies of all of the above documents.*./ For this reason and in the interest of fairness to all parties, West Valley does not oppose an order by the Board granting Joint Applicants additional time

to answer West Valley's Petition to Intervene. West Valley submits, however, that Joint Applicants should receive an extension of 10 days, rather than the 14 day extension requested in their Motion.

Grant of a 14' day extension under the circumstances presented in Joint Applicants' motion would be inconsistent with Commission rules regarding intervention. 10 C.F.R. S2.714(c)

(1981) (party has 10 days to respond to petition to intervene).

The sole ground for an extension presented in Joint Applicants'

• / Complete copies of all of the above documents were delivered by hand to counsel for Joint Applicants on October 25, 1982--the date on which West Valley received Joint Applicants' Motion.

3 .

Motion is that Joint Applicants have not yet received all documents related to the Petition to Intervene. Now that this situation has been corrected and Joint Applicants have received proper service, there is no reason why Joint Applicants should receive more than the 10 day period prescribed by the rules.

Since Joint Applicants have presented no further grounds for the additional extension of 4 days, their request for this additional time should be denied.

Moreover, grant of a 14 day extension to the Joint Applicants is not justified in light of the substantial information which Joint Applicants have already received. Joint Applicants acknowledge that, on October 15, 1982, their consultants received a copy of the Petition to Intervene from West Valley. This shortened version of the Petition to Intervene

contained virtually all of the factual information supporting the Petition, including the extensive experts' reports and a complete summary of all of the factual information contained in each of Petitioner's 24 affidavits. Joint Applicants could have prepared most, if not all, of' their answer on the basis of this information. Clearly, they do not require an additional 14 days to review those few documents that they have not already received.

Finally, Joint Applicants have not acted with reasonable diligence to remedy this situation by informal means.

They were obviously aware that the Petition to Intervene had been filed--counsel for Joint Applicants telephoned counsel for West Valley on October 15, 1982, and requested that a copy be sent to

4 their consultants. In spite of this knowledge, Joint Applicants never telephoned West Valley to inform them that service copies of the Petition had not arrived. If such a call had been made, complete copies of all documents could have been hand delivered to counsel for Joint Applicants by the Phoenix office of Winston

& Strawn within a matter of hours. In light of this lack of reasonable cooperation, Joint Applicants should not be granted a 14 day extension.

For all of the above reasons, West Valley requests that the Board deny Joint Applicants' request for a 14 day extension of their time to answer the Petition to Intervene. West Valley respectfully submits that if the Board grants any such extension, it should be limited to 10 days.

j Respectfully submitted,-

Dated: W Z By # +s. D b hm Kenneth Berlin Edward F. Gerwin, Jr.

Winston & Strawn 2550 M Street, N.W.

I Suite 500 l Washington, D.C. 20037 Attorneys for West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.

m COLKETED ryinnC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .qi{.f, (([y^[h SRANCH In the Matter of )

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )

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

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

Units 1, 2 and 3) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Response of West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. to Motion by Joint Applicants Seeking Extension of Time Within Which to Answer Petition to Intervene" have been served upon the following listed l persons by deposit in the United States mail, properly addressed

( ,

I and with postage prepaid, this 26th day of October, 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 Atcmic 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 t

~

Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Dixon Callihan 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, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Rand L. Greenfield, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley' Bank Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 Charles A. Bischoff Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, AZ 85073

~)

Edward F. Gerwin,fr.

.