ML20066H042
| ML20066H042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1991 |
| From: | Newman J ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR, NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066G959 | List: |
| References | |
| 91-632-04-OLA, 91-632-4-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102200152 | |
| Download: ML20066H042 (19) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - - . - .. ... -
*"1 1 ) p e e... .
,s.....,,,,,
( . : j Ae ., ; , ; m Y I fh. Imthfil 0 1 February 8, 1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA wuCLEAn REcuLATORY coMNISSzoN 91 ITC -8 P A :04
)
In the Matter of )
) Nos. 50-528-OLA, 50-529-OLA, ARIEONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) and 50-530-OLA COMPANY, et al. )
) (Shutdown Cooling riowrate)
(Falo Verde Nuclear Generating ) Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) ASL3P No. 91-632-04-OLA
)
LICENSEES' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVEME AND _ REQUEETSE]LMMG Arizona Public Service Company, et al. ("APS" or
" Licensees") 1/ file this Anower in opposition to both a
" Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing" submitted by Myron L. Scott, Barbara S. Bush and the Coalition for Responsible Energy Education (" CREE") and bearing the date January 22, 1991 (" Petition No. 1"), and also to a similarly i entitled document submitted by Allan L. Mitchell and Linda E.
Mitchell bearing the date January 21, 1991 (" Petition No. 2"). l Both Petitions relate to a proposed amendment to each of the 1/ This Answer is being flied by APS on its nun behalf and on behalf of the other licensees of the Palo Norde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVHGS"), Units 1, 2 and 3: Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, El Pasc Electric Company, Southern California Edison company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Public Power Authority. 9102200102 910206 PDR ADOCK 05000520-G PDR
.I
I : operating licenses 2/ for the three Palo Verde units which was noticed in the Federal Register at 55 Fed. Reg. 52,337 (Dec. 21, 1990). 3/ Each proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications relating to the minimum required shutdown cooling flowrate. The amendment would reduce the required floweate from 4000 gpm to 3780 gpm to provide additional margin for preventing air entrainment while the reactor coolant system is partially drained. Id. 2/ For PVNGS Unit 1, Facility Operating License No. NPF-41; for PVNGS Unit 2, Facility Operating License No. NPF-51; and for PVNGS Unit 3, Facility Operating License No. NPF-74. 3/ The two sets of petitioners have each also filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing with respect to an entirely different operating license amendment requested for each of the Palo Verde Units which was noticed at 55 Fed. Reg. 53,220 (Dec. 27, 1990). Except for the references to different Federal Register Notices, the two Petitions flied by Mr. Scott, Ms. Bush and CREE are identical. The two petitions filed by Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell are also identical in language except for the references to different Federal Register Notices and one additional sentence in paragraph numbered 6 of their second Petition which, in our view, is substantively insignificant. By orders dated January 29, 1991, one Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established to rule on the Petitions relating to-the amendment noticed on December 21, 1990, end to preside over the proceeding in the event that a hearing is ordered and another Licensing Board was established for the same purposes with respect to the amendment noticed on December 27, 1990. Consequently, Licensees are filing separate answers to the Petitions. This Answer responds to the Petitions filed with respect to the amendment request noticed on December 21, 1990. The other Answer responds to the Petitions filed with respect to the amendment request noticed on December 27, 1990. However, because of the identical and rote nature of each set of petitioners'
- leadings, both answere are also substantially similar in language.
. The Federal Register Notice clearly explains that 20 CFR $ 2.714 (1990) requires that a petition for leave to . intervene . shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons Nhy intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following inctorst (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;-(2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the-proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
-entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of.the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
SSLFed. Reg, at 52,338. As_ demonstrated below, both Petitions fail to meet these requirements. I i Petitioners who have submitted Petition No. I have not set,forth, as required, their interest in the proceeding, nor i have they demonstrated how the results of the proceeding will affect that interest, i e , their standing. Petitioners on whose behalf Petition No. 2 has been submitted may have shown the plausibility of their having an affected interest by virtue of-residence.in proximity to:PVNGS and employment at the plant. < However, they have failed to establish standing because they have not demonstrated how the proposed amendment will affect their interests. Additionally, both Petitions have failed to meet the requirement to set forth the specific aspect or aspects of the l
4-proceeding as to which Petitioners wish to intervene. Consequently, both Petitions should be denied. 1/ 1/ Should the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which has been designated to act on the Petitions decide, nevertheless, not to deny the Petitions forthwith and to conduct a prehearing conference, Licensees respectfully request that the Board promptly issue an order (1) scheduling that conference, not later than 30 days after the issuance of the order, to consider and rule upon the adequacy of the Petitions and (ii) directing the Petitioners to file not later than fifteen days prior to the prehearing conference any appropriate amendments and supplements to their respective Petitions to establish the adequacy of those petitions and to set forth the contentions that they seek to have litigated and the bases therefor, as required by 10 CPR S 2.714(b) (1990). This request is based upon a number of considerations. First, a petitioner seeking intervention must not only satisfy the standing and aspect requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714(a)(2), but must also advance at least one acceptable contention before he or she may be admitted as a party to the proceeding. 10 CFR S 2.714(b); Philadelphia _ Electric Ca (Limerick Generating Station), LBP-86-6A, 23 NRC 165, 171 (1986). 10 CFR S 2.714(b) requires that the contentions which the petitioners seek to have litigated muct be set forth in a supplement to their respective petitions not later than fifteen days prior to the holding of the first prehearing conference in this proceeding. Second, the Licensees' application for amendment of the licenses for the Palo Verde units is complete in all respects. The description, purpose and need for the amendments, together with the supporting safety analysis and environmental considerations, have been set forth fully in the' application. All the notics and other procedural requirements of 10 CPR SS 50.91 and 50.92 have been satisfied. Accordingly, there is no impediment that hinders the petitioners in formulating their respective contentions in a timely manner nor reason that the issues of interest, aspect and contentions should not be dealt with concurrently. Finally, the request for rulings on the acceptability of the contentions is in keeping with the established practices of Licensing Boards in dealing with interventions in applications for operating license amendments. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont (continued...)
~
g - t. INTEREST AMD ATAMDIMG Petition Me. 1. Petition No. 1 merely states (p. 2, para. 1)'.that Petitioners Scott and Bush and-the' members of CREE 5/ "are domiciled in the City of Tempo, County of Maricopa, State of Arisona;" 1/ are property owners within that
' County; 2/ are-" customers of utility members of-the Palo Verde ownership corsortium;" are citizens of Arizona and the United
~
States; and'havn'an interest in their-own public health and safety and that of the public. They also state
~
- 10. Petitioners' health, safety,: property, and utility rates, and those of tr.e public, could i
also.be affected by an order granting the requested amendment.
.._1/ ( . . continued)
Yankee-Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6, 31 NRC 85'(1990);- Limerick,zLBP-86-6A,-23 NRC 165. Those rulings, whether they be in, favor of-either the petitioners or the-Licensees, 1~ willeexpedite the resolution of this proceeding and constitute-sound adjudicatory practice. 5/L The-legal or organisational status of CREE is unclear.. Petition No. I describes 1 CREE merely as "a project of j Arizonans for a Better Environment (fABEf), a not-for-profit n organization incorporated under the laws of the State of Arizona."- (p. 1, para. 2). E6/ -Petition-No. 1 also states.that the majority of CRPS's Board
'of Directors and: members reside in that county "at-carying
. distances;from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 4 (which is:also located in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona)."- (p. 1, pare. 2).
- b. L 2/L .InLa footnote it is stated that "Mr. Scott and Ms.--Bush are husband and wife and that Tempe, Arizona, is their permanent-home.- Mr. Scott _is temporarily employed on a one-year academic fellowship in Portland, Oregon, and temporarily i resides in Portland."
e 1
t 6 These assertions are insufficient to meet Petitioners'
' affirmative burden to fulfill the requirements of 30 CFR $ 2.714, 10 CPR $ 2.732; Metropolitan Edimen co.. et al. (Three Mile "
. Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 331 (1983). . i Petitioners have failed to state with particularity the location of their residence and therefore have f ailed to 3 establish any standing on the basis of residence within close ; geographic proximity to Palo Verde. So far as Licensees are l aware, " standing based on residence alone has never been extended beyond fifty miles." Ph11adelphia' Electric Co. (Limerick l Generating' Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1433 (1982).- The mailing address listed for Petitioner Bush and/or
' ABE is in.Tempe,-Arizona, approximately fifty-two miles from Palo Verde. - If this-address is the residence-of Petitioners Bush and ,
4 -
' Scott and/or ABE's headquarterw, it is , nevertheless,.beyond the .
L distance ordinarily considered within close proximity for purposes of establishing standing. Id. A/ Petitioners attempt to bolster their argument for
-standing by virtue of their status as owners of property located Even if Petitioners hadLshown that they-resided within fifty
~
s A/ miles of Palo Verde, this fact alone would be insufficient to confer standing in a license amendment proceeding. Saa . Boston Edison co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-85 . I 24, 22 NRC 97, 98-99, aff'd on other grounds, ALAB-816, 22 '
' NRC 461-(1985).
For example, in Pilgrim the Board held that residence forty-three miles from the power plant was insufficient to confer standing in that license amendment proceeding without a further showing. Id. - y .r- wM %,'n cm w. . - , , --w- we- ,v=mpvw-+---.,.,-+----,y -ge-=-
- w - =.-rww--w-m-, ,,we,_.. ,wwe--..we,-=_-.v4, wyow '
t
)
t
- 7- :
at an unspecified distance from Palo Verde. However, mere ownership of land--even if within close proximity to a licensee's - t facility--is not sufficient to establish an interest in proceedings affecting the facility. Esa Washington Public Power j supply syntam (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), LBP-79-7, 9 NRC 330, , 333, 337-38 (1979). In WPPss,-the board determined that an individual who owned--and leased to tenants--land and two residences within: ten-to fifteen miles of the facility, did not establish an interest in the proceeding even though he alleged- f potential adverse effects to the value of his property. Id. , Petitioners Bush and Scott also allege an interest as ; ratepayers and as~ citizens of Arizona and the United States. It-is well-established that the economic interests of ratepayers do
- not confer standing. Three Mile Island, CLI-83-25, 18 NRC at 332 n.4.-~Further, citizenship itself confers no standing, since the , . Atomic Energy:Act only confers a right to participate in hearings based upon an " interest (that) may be affected by the proceeding" - --
and not upon citizenship. 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a)(1).(1988).
- Nor- has Petition No.1 established _ any basis for l
standing to be granted to CREE. We are aware of no basis for_
. granting. standing to-a " project" of~an organization,=as. 3 I (differentiated:from the organization itself. And even an ,
organization seeking standing on the basis of injury to the I interests of its members must identify at least one member whose interests are to be protected, provide a description of the harm
-.e .,w.-., ,w-.-,--, - - , . ---;,,-..,,4w g.-,yo m-,- ,,mi. , v.mw...,,,3-. ewe,-,_ .-w-,- c-.y--ny,-.gw..,- ww y r e er+-+q,.wq.yy=+..ypm-wrir---">-
y
8 t to those interects, and show authorization for the organization to represent the individual. Limerick, LBP-82 43A, 15 NRC at 1437 (citing Egusten Lighting and Power co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390-96 (1976)). The only members of CREE identified in Petition No. 1 are Ms. Bush and Mr. Scott, neither of whom meet the necessary interest and-injury requirements to establish standing. In addition to failing to allege an interest sufficient to confer standing, Petition No. 1 fails to articulate, as required,.any palpable harm or.sp6cific ainjury in fact" to Petitioners
- interests. -Portland General Elmetric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976). .To be sure, as. indicated above, Petition No. I states that.the Petitioners'L" health, safety, property, and-utility rates," as well as those of-the public, "could be affected by an order granting the requested amendment."- However, it-does not indicate.what Petitioners think the impact upon then,will.be, and
.this conditional ~ recitation _obviously fails to meet tho requirements, imposed by-10 CFR S 2.714(a)(2) that a petition-for leave to intervene " set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, [and) hnx that interest may be affected_by the results of the proceeding." (emphasis supplied).
Further, 10 CFR S 2.714(a)(2) also requires that the petition shall. include "the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors l l
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section." The latter provision requires a licensing board or other body ruling on petitions to intervene to consider, among other factors, (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's ; interest. ' Obviously, the bare assertion that Petitioners' interests "could be affected" makes it impossible to consider that factor. Moreover, that bare assertion wholly fails to meet the i Commission's recent admonition that,-except in situations involving an obvious potential for offsite consequences, "a 4
. petitioner must allege some specific ' injury in fact' that will result from the action taken." Florida Power & Light Co. (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989). That requirement is particularly applicable here, where, after describing the change in the required shutdown
-cooling flowrate that the amendment would effect, the Federal !
Register Notice states that the. proposed change "actually enhances-the safety of operation of'the shutdown cooling system." 55 Fed. Reg, at 52,337. Eatition No. 2. Petition No. 2 states that Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell are " residents of the City of, Buckeye, County of
;Maricopa, State of Arizona;" that they reside and own property f
within five miles of Palo Verde; that Mrs. Mitchell is employed as an associate electrical engineer at Palo Verde; that in the
.past Mr. Mitchell had oversight responsibilities relating to the
. , , , , . - . . . . . . . . . . - _ _ _ . ..-----=_n.--- . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' = - - - = = = = = - = - - - - - - - - - " -
^ ~
--. operation of Palo Verde as a former staff engineer for the Arisona Corporation Commission; and that_they have an interest in the proceedings because of where they live and own property.
"Also,Eas a Palo Verde employee, Kra. Mitchell has a financial interestLinithe: operation of the plant." (p. 2, para. 7). They asserts- .i 4
Petitioners' health and safety as well as the value of their property could be affected by-an order granting the request for' amendment, .!
;particularly_in the event of an accident during plant shutdown.
(p.-2, para. 9). As recognised_above, these Petitioners may have demonstrated the; plausibility of their interest.in the current proceedings by virtue of geographic proximity to the plant because of their residence tiear Palo verde and.Mrs.:Mitchell's Lemployment at_the plant.- Nevertheless,-they;have not met the; burden to identify specific injury in-fact 1oriharm to their interests as a result of this proceeding. The nearest they come
'l to;thislare the assertions-contained in paragraph-9. Howaver,- 1 all that is said there is that their health and: safety and the j value of their property neould be affneted . ...-, particularly.
in the-event of an accident during-plant 1 shutdown." ~(emphasis-added).. These generalised health and safety concerns do not provide'any linkage between those concerns _and pote,ntial harm that might be caused by the proposed amendments. As such,-they q are: inadequate. I 1
, Similarly, Petition No. 2 fails to demonstrate any nexus between the proposed amendment and how the value of their property might be affected. Their allegation concerning property values is also insufficient to confer stunding, because such
'" interest is based primarily on speculative financial loss and does not have merit." WPPES, LBP-79-7, 9 NRC at 337-38.
Finally, like Petition No. 1, Petition No. 2 should be denied because it also has failed to meet the burden to " allege some specific ' injury in fact' which will result from the action taken" in the proposed amendments. St. Lucie, CLI-89-21, 30 NRC
.at 330.
THE ASPECT REQUIREMENT Section 2.714(a)(2) requires a petition to intervene to set.forth "the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter
.of.the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene."
The' burden is on the petitioner to satisfy'this requirement. 10 CFR S 2a732 (1990); Three' Mile Island, CLI-83-25, 18 NRC at 331. Neither Petition meets these requirements. Petition No. 1 merely refers, without describing the L proposed amendment in any way or any change it would effect, to the fact tF:t the-proposal was noticed in the= Federal Register.
.It is true that "[t]here is.little guidance in NRC case law concerning the' meaning ef ' aspect' as the term is used in 10 CFR S 2.714." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 89 (1990). It has i
L-l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - ._ _ _
N"' . , ( been suggested "that an ' aspect' is probably broader than a .
- contention' but narrower than a general reference to our operating statutes." consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 278 (1978). However, at a minimum, the requirement ~that the petitioner set forth a specific aspect or specific-aspects-of the proceeding must mean that the petitioner has an obligation to identify " general potential effects of the licensing action or areas of concern that are g I
within-the scope of matters that may be considered in the i proceeding," a g , aging of equipment, Vermont Yank ., LBP-90-6, 31 NRC at 89-90; the applicant's qualifications to construct a
-reactor, viroinia Electric and power co. (North Anna Power a
Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-146, 6 AEC'631, 633 (1973); or the effects of. time extensions for testing' instrumentation 11'nes, ! Philadelphia Electric co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-66-6A, 23 NRC 165,l169-70 (1986). Petition No. 1' wholly fails to meet this requirement. Nowhere from within_the1four
~
-corners'of'the document can the specific " aspect" or " aspects" of the proceeding be discerned, however liberally:those phrases are-defined.
. Petition No. 2.does little more-to meet the aspect i requirement than does Petition No. 1._ Petition'No. 2 also refers only to the' Federal: Register Notice of the proposed amendment
- without describing any change that would be made. It does express a general concern related to "the event of a plant
t I y 1
-t13 -
D accident'during-shutdown." .However. no effort is made to indicate:in what respects _the amendme'nt-will affoct the
;-likelihood ^or11mpact;of accidents:*during plant. shutdown.* 1/
Indeed, it is unclecr whether.or not the Mitchells4 concern is v with plant shutdown- as a generic: 1ssue rather -than with this particular amendment or any-pending' amendment. - This is i, particularly so sint.e exactly _the_same language as is used in Paragraph 7 of Petition No._2, including concern about "the event ofi-an' accident.-during plant shutdown," is;_ employed in'the L Petition; for -Letve to:Lintervene and Request ft t a: Hearing y submitted =on: behalf of the Mitchelle with respect to the wholly unrelated: amendment' request; noticed in the Federal Register on December- 27,= 1990.J 3 f consequently, Petition No. 2 also. falls'to meet-the requirements:of the regulation'. u , CONCLUSION The failure-of each Petition:to meet the basic minimum-p requirementsnof 10-CFR S 2._714 is not-merely:-. technical.- Those-V ~ requirements are not burdensome. To the: contrary,-they are
/ liberaljand permissive'ana.do not operate as obstacles to I
> ; 2/; ;TheLTechnical Specifications sought;to be, amended are all
.: applicable--only during plant shutdown ~(i.e.,.l Modes:5 and.6)) .
j therefore, "a. plant. accident during-shutdown" identifies the- .
, entire proceeding-and-not-.a specific' aspect of the. 1
_proceedingk
.H[ The amendment there involved relates to,-.among other things, allowable setpoint. tolerances-for the pressurizer safety valves and the main steam safety valves.
.1 l
l
'l
.. e s- I participation-in the licensing process by truly interested members of-the public'with legally-cognizable concerns.
Correlatively, however, the objective of the regulation is, at a minimum,_to prevent the unnecessary initiation of expensive, ;
-time-consuming-and-diversionary burdens both upon licensees and the-Commission.
Here,_ Licensees have requested two operating license amendments involving significantly_different. technical subjects. Yet each set of Petitioners has wholly ignored the subject matter of the requested amendments.- Instead, they have employed identical, rote language in their Petitions-in an attempt to
. initiate hearings without-advising either the Commission or the Licensees in'even-the most, general-way of-the' nature of their concerns orainterest.
Accordlagly, both Petitions _should be denied. Respectfully submitted, February 6,11991 a} y. ack R. Newmhn-
- Harold-F.-Reis Alvin H. Gutterman ,
John E. Matthews a
~
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Licensees i l
, c.ed ;i it Febrdhh 6, 1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E E -8 P4 :04
) $lcN;iiNg i In the Matter of- )
WHW
) Nos. 50-528-01A, 50-529-OLA, ARI2ONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) and 50-530-OLA COMPANY, et al. )
) (Shutdown Cooling Flowrate)
-(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating )
Station, Units 1,.2 and 3) ) ASLBP No. 91-632-OL-OLA
)
blQUCE OF APPEARANCE OF.. COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that Jack R. Newman enters er
' appearance as counsel for Arizona Public Service Company, er. al.
in the above-captioned proceeding. Name: Jack R. Newman Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street,- N.W. Suite 1000 Wcshington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-6600 Admissions: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Arizona Public Service Company, et-al. P.O. 53999 Mail Station 9068 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 Jack R. Npwman Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washingtan, D.C. 20036 Date: February 6, 1991
ae= l
= = E a ti :l_ i, Febiruary 6,1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGUMTORY COMxISsI691 FEB -8 P4 :05 crtg! y :. aa I A,
) DOChili% .*!i\iff In tha Matter of ) i* te
) Nos. 50-528-OLA, 50-529-OLA, ARIEONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) and 50-530-OLA COMPANY, et al. )
) (Shutdown Cooling Flowrate)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) ASLBP No. 91-632-04-OLA
)
NOTICE OF APPEABANCEE._C01DISEL Notice is hereby given that Harold F. Reis enters an appearance as. counsel for Arizona Public Service Company, et al. in the above-captioned proceeding. Names Harold F. Reis Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
- 1615 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-6600 Admissions: United States Court of' Appeals for the District ~of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Arizona Public Service Company, et al. P.O. 53999 Mail Station 9068 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 k h Harold F. Rei's Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: February 5, 1991 l
DiPUCATE GiliGINA. _ February 6, 1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI g FEB -8 P4 :05
,s s e ; ua its '
) bgy 6w i.^ . :::' I In the Matter of ) IN
) Nos. 50-528-OLA, 50-529-OLA, ARIEONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) and 50-530-OLA COMPANY, et al. )
) (Shutdown Cooling Flowrate)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) ASLBP No. 91-632-04-OLA
)
unnct or apprxnxwcr or couwszt i Notice is hereby given that John E. Matthews enters an appearance as counsel for Arizona Public Service Company, et al. in the above-captioned proceeding-Name: John E. Matthews Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephones (202) 955-6600 Admissions: Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Name of Party: Arizona Public Service Company, et al. P.O. 53999 Mail Statio 8 Phoen A1 n 8 07 -3999
/
/ -
J 'hn E. Mft' thews ) ewman & Holtzinger, P.C. 1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: February 6, 1991
__m , c DllPUCATE ORIGINAL. . .
! ink February 6, 1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 91 FEB -8 P4 :05 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
;;:N!C ' 'i' #
DUL w: ,- 'i Li,n ;w '
) + NAM"
- In-the Matter of )
) Nos. 50-528-OLA, 50-529-OLA, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE ) and 50-530-OLA COMPANY, et al. )
) (Shutdown Cooling Flowrate)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) ) ASLBP No. 91-632-04-OLA
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I nereby certify that copies of " Licensees' Answer in Opposition to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Requests for Hearing" in the above captioned proceeding, together with three
" Notice (s) of Appearance of Counsel," were served on the following by deposit in the t iited States . nail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C. 20555 (two copies) Office'of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washir Jton, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Original plus two copies)
, Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Peter A. Morris
! -Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i 10825 South Glen Road l Potomac, MD 20854 l l- _ __e
I ad li' ; 1o
-Administrative Judge _ r Frank F. Hooper . ,
Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board 26993 McLaughlin Boulevard Bonita Springs, FL 33923 1
, Edwin'J. Reis, Esq.- -{
Lisa-B.' Clark, Esq - Office'of General Counsel U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5: Washington, D;C. 20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
.Snell and Wilmer 3100 valley Center Phoeniz, AZ- 85073 David K. Colapinto, Esq.
Counsel for-Allen 1& Linda Mitchell Kohn, Kohn'& Colapinto, P.C.= 517 Florida Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. . 20001
- Nyron L.~ Scott,_Esq.
o Lewis-&-Clark Northwestern School of Law Natural Resources-Law Institute 10015 S.W. Terwilliger_ Boulevard Portland, OR- 97219
, Barbara 2S. Bush
-Arizonans.for a Better Environment-315 W. Riviera Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85282- <
-February'6, 1991-1 i
, l pf Harbid F. Reis ~
, .. Newman &'Holtzinger,.P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 11000'
-Washington, D.C. 20036-I}}