ML20076G856
| ML20076G856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1983 |
| From: | Berlin K BERLIN, K., WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076G859 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309010148 | |
| Download: ML20076G856 (3) | |
Text
__
00CNETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD *83 RG 30 PR M1 Administrative Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
~
Howard A. Wilber, Member f
In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Docket Nos. STN 50-529 et al.
STN 50-530
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
)
I l
WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC.'S MOTION GEEKING DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL l
On December 30, 1982, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.'s
(" West Valley") Petition to Intervene and reopened the record in the operating license proceedings for Units 2 and 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVNGS").
The Board agreed f
with West Valley's assertion that the potential effects of aerosol salt deposition on area crops presents a significant and serious environmental question which neither the Final Environmental Statement on the Construction Permit ("FES-CP")
l nor the Final Environmental Statement-Operating License ("FES-OL")
(collectively referred to as EIS) adequately addrese.
See Memorandum and Order at 9, 13.
The Board accordingly admitted 9309010148 830827 PDR ADOCK 05000529 G
<. West Valley's contention number 3 ("the salt deposition from the pVNGS will reduce the productivity of agricultural lands owned I
by West Valley members").
The Board deferred ruling on West Valley's remaining contentions and other relief sought pending a prehearing conference.
Shortly thereafter, West Valley filed a motion seeking a declaration that the EIS was inadequate and for continuance of l
the proceeding.
While West Valley agreed to proceed with some discovery prior to the preparation of a new or supplemental EIS, it objected to the Board holding a hearing on its contentions until a valid EIS had been prepared.
On July 11, 1983, four months after the hearing on West Valley's motion, the Board denied West Valley's motion on the grounds that (a) any defects in the EIS could be cured by a hearing; (b) it could not tell whether the EIS was inadequate until a hearing had been held; and (c) it did not have the power to order the preparation of a new EIS.
On July 22, 1983, West Valle> filed a motion with the Appeal Board seeking stay of decision permitting hearing to proceed with inadequate EIS and with the Licensing Board seeking certification to file an interlocutory appeal.
On August 15, 1983,the Appeal Board denied West Valley's motion as premature, stating that it may be renewed if (1) the Licensing Board refers the July 11 order to it under 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f); or (2) West Valley petitions for directed certification of the order under 2.718(i).
- On August 17, the Licensing Board denied West Valley's request for certification of an appeal.
This motion, therefore, seeks an order from the Licensing Board directing the Commission to certify such an appeal.
As pointed out in West Valley's memorandum, the Licensing Board ruling finds no support law.
The Licensing Board itself, in its opinion granting West Valley's petition to intervene, found the EIS inadquate.
In such a situation, a hearing cannot proceed until the NRC prepares an adequate EIS.
Allowing it to proceed would constitute a fundamental perversion of the EIS process.
Failure to grant West Valley's motion would cause West Valley irreparable injury because it will insure that the NRC staff does not perform an impartial full analysis of potential harm caused by the PVNGS.
Failure to perform that analysis violates the procedures mandated by the National Environmental protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 8 4321 at seq.
l West Valley thus requests that this Appeal Board, i
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 8 2.718(1), direct the Licensing Board to certify an appeal from the Board's July 11, 1983 ruling.
Respectfully submitted, By Dated:
Kenneth Berlin
(
2550 M Street, N.W.
Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20037 (202)429-8501 Attorney for Petitioner West Valley Agricultural f
Protection Council, Inc.
i I