ML20070J040

Response Supporting Coalition for Safe Power 821209 Motion for 1-wk Delay of Prehearing Conference Scheduled for 830119-20.Applicant Does Not Concede That Basis for Request Constitutes Good Cause.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20070J040
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/22/1982
From:	Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8212270326
Download: ML20070J040 (6)

Text

+--

s 00LKETED U%FC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CgI@f17 A10:07 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD rf;[;ilif,[bNUE BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-397-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) )

Applicant's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Delay of Prehearing Conference Scheduled for January 19 and 20, 1983.

On December 9, 1982, the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Applicant") was served with a motion by the Coalition for Safe Power (" petitioner") requesting that the date of the Prehearing Conference and the dead-line by which it must submit a supplement to its petition to intervene pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2. 714 ( b) be extended "at least one week."1 In support of its motion, peti-tioner asserted that (1) as a result of the holiday per-iod, a total of four days are lost in which to prepare its supplemental petition; (2) because Applicant has refused to provide it with a copy of the applicable Environmental Report ( "ER") and Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR"),

it must rely on the local public document room, which will be closed for two days as a result of the holidays; (3) 1 " Motion for Delay of Prehearing Conference Scheduled for January 19 and 20, 1983," (" motion"), December 9, 198 2 at p. 2.

T'EI21'2'2703'26 821222 '

05000397 6

[.PDR Q. ADOCK

_ _PDR

s i

the U.S. Postal Service will not guarantee next-day ser-vice using Express Mail from Portland, Oregon to Washington, D.C.; and (4) mail to its " experts" who will be relied upon in framing contentions will be slowed as a result of the holidays. Petitioner also advanced the argument that its request will not unduly delay the pro-ceedings.

Applicant submits that the allegations set forth by petitioner do not constitute " good cause" within the mean- l ing of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.711(a) such that an extension of time is warranted. Nevertheless, Applicant does not object to a one week extension of the date on which the Prehearing l Conference will be held. The supplemental petition to intervene would, therefore, have to be received by counsel for the Applicant and NRC Staff by January 11, 1983 (15 days before the Prehearing Conference) and responses to such Supplement would have to be delivered to the Board in the morning of January 24, 1983.

Although Applicant does not object to rescheduling the Prehearing Conference, a number of points must be

emphasized. First, the mere fact that a holiday occurs or that the mails are slow hardly constitutes good cause to change the date of the Prehearing Conference. The Board Order scheduling that Conference was served on December 1,

1982. Presumably, petitioner received it on December 6,2 thus providing about four weeks in which to prepare its Supplemental Petition. Further, given petitioner's pur-ported past experience in NRC licensing proceedings, we find it disturbing that petitioner did nothing to prepare its Supplemental Petition pending issuance of the Board Order scheduling the Prehearing Conference. All parties have an obligation to devote seasonably the resources necessary to meet deadlines set by the Board, and this petitioner should be aware of that obligation from the outset.

Second, petitioner stated in its Request for a Hear-ing that it intended to file contentions on a number of issues.3 Applicant presumes that those representations were based on something more than mere assertions and that petitioner made such claims with at least some knowledge of the issue it seeks to raise. Consequently, the task of preparing a Supplemental Petition should not be as time-consuming as petitioner suggests.

Third, whether the Applicant has declined to provide petitioner with its own copy of the FSAR and ER has no bearing on whether petitioner has demonstrated good cause 2 Cf. 10 C.F.R. $2.710 (when service of notice requiring response is by mail, five days are added to period pro-vided for response) .

3 See February 22, 1982 " Request for a Hearing" at

p. 3 4.

i I

l

+ s t

in support of its motion. Petitioner may use the FSAR and ER available in the local public document room established by the NRC.or in the offices of the Bonneville Power Administration in Portland, Oregon. Moreover, the Appli-cant advised petitioner in response to its request that, in accordance with Applicant's established policy govern-ing such document requests by members of the public, the Applicant would be willing to provide both the FSAR and ER, provided petitioner reimbursed the Applicant for doing so.

In sum, while Applicant does not object to a one week extension of the date on which the Prehearing Conference will be held, it does not concede that the basis for peti-tioner's request constitutes " good cause" within the mean-ing of 10 C.F.R. $ 2. 711.

/

Respectful y submitted,

\'

1 Nicholas S.f Reynolds Sanford H DEBEVOI .k)artman LIBERMAN 1200 Se nteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel for the Applicant Dated: December 22, 1982 l

l l

00LKETEI'

'/d M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'82 DEC 23 N0:07 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD m i nt ite Yll."0CN b N b ,SEbviCE In the Matter of ) BRANCH

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket No. 50-397-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )

)

(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Appli-cant's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Delay of Pre-hearing Conference Scheduled for January 19 and 20, 1983" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the follow-ing persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid this 22nd day of December, 1982:

Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William D. Paton, Esq.

Glenn O. bright Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

4 . o Mr. Eugene Rosolie Mr. Scott W. Stucky Coalition for Safe Power Docketing & Service Branch Suite 527 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 408 South West 2nd Commission Portland, Oregon 97204 Gerald C. Sorensen Manager of Licensing Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352

/

... i

.L. .

Sanford L. Hartman l

l l

l l

)

_- _.