ML20125A785

Responds to D Kiefer Re Case 80008.Applicant Opposes Request of League of Women Voters & Ecology Action of Tompkins County to Place Transcript in Library.Applicant Must Publish Notice Only on Facility Location

ML20125A785
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	07/11/1979
From:	Spindel N HUBER, MAGILL, LAWRENCE & FARRELL
To:	Matias T NEW YORK, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 7908170337
Download: ML20125A785 (3)

Text

- , - - - __ _ . . - . - - . . . . - .. _ -

, s .

U4 A Q1 Ota $

tp00.&GTR.f#. N 4 9Q $77

- . ~ e .-

MUSER MAGILL LAWRENCE G. PARRELL se sama awaseue

-. - , -. .e e  : . . . .. ,

..e.. .- . .e. ......co

... ..,, c.== . . %. .. -

.o- . -

e = =c. e..- . .=

.. . e-ms, ee ... ..e..o.

..e. . . . u . July 11, 1979 , . . . , . . . .

so...e m.

., a.

~e.

3onorable Thomas R. Matias / N Presiding Rwaminav- t 1

New York State Public N,tL3 a0

~

7.

service Cossaission $

Empire state Plaza  ;

g NgB ppn*p3jp I

Albany, New York 12223 Re Case 80008 - June 29, 1979 Letter from League of Women V -

voters and Ecology Action #

of Tompkins County

Dear Judge Matias:

This letter is written on behalf of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (the Applicant) in response to Mrs. Dooley Kiefer's letter to you of June 29, 1979.

Applicant opposes the request of the League of wcmen voters and Ecology Action of Tompkins County (LW-EA) that a transcript be placed in the Tompkins County Library.

The rules and regulations of the Public Service Consnission, 16 NYCRR Part 70, require Applicant to publish notice in and serve documents on those municipalities wherein the proposed facility would be located. In addition, the regulations governing Article VIII proceedings grant intervention to any person residing within a five mile radius of the proposed sites without requiring that such person indicate the interest he seeks to protect (16 NYCRR 70.6(b)]. Clearly, the intent of the regulations is to ensure that persons in proximity of the proposed facility locations be informed of the nature of the on-going proceeding and be given an opportunity to l participate if they so desire.

The regulations treat municipalities and persorts outside the five mile limit differently however. These j municipalities and persons are not served with an applicat. ten

[7 908170 is37 w w- e- - - --wT- P "' - ~ '" "-"

9  :

?

j = s  !

-vata noin 4=etnet a rannst' Page 2 l when it is filed with the Public Service Ccamission, nor are

they granted party status absent a showing of potential harm l and an interest in the proceeding [16 NYCRR 70.6(c)]. The j treatment of these municipalities and persons strikes the j proper balance between giving access to those who have a

legitimate and useful purpose in participating in the pro- ,

caeding, and denying y status to those who have nothing '

, to add to the proc .

1 I At this point in ti:ne, Applicant is unable to de-

' termine what interest LWV-EA represent and what their input in Case 80008 will be. Applicant is not in receipt of the ,

intervention petition required by 16 NYCRR 70.6(c) (2) of

! those outside of the five mile radius from the proposed i plant sites. Absent a declaration of the interest which j these groups represent, Applicant submits that these entities are not entitled to have local access to the transcript of the proceeding.* A representation that they are resident in NYSEG's service territory gives these groups no special status. In light of this, Applicant submits that the ex-pense of furnishing a transcript to the Tompkins County Public Library is burdensome and unjustified. Moreover, the precedential impact of such an action may lead to requests I

that transcripts be furnished in other locations which are not designated in the governing statutory or regulatory provisions.

l The Applicant is also troubled by the tone of Mrs. Kiefer's letter. The impression which Mrs. Kiefer see=s to wish to impart is that LWV-EA are not being kept informed and that her lack of information is the result of the action of others. While Applicant is serving these groups and wishes not to casunenc on the practice of others, Applicant would like to point out that the LWV-EA has been i less than diligent in their participation. As mentioned above, Applicant is unaware of the submission of a petitlen ,

to intervene. Nor did these groups appear at the s=ecial I pre-hearing conference of May 23, 1979.  ;

l Finally, Applicant takes issue with the contention l of the LWV-EA that early issue identification is prejudicial  ;

to lay intervenors. Mrs. Kiefer and many of the other interve-i nors in Case 50008 are veterans of other Article vn: and envirennental proceedings. These parties are not uneducated ncvices who are unable to understand and deal with the procedural and substantive issues at hand. If the preceeding l s to proceed in a reasonably expeditious =anner, there nust be i

• Even if an intervention petition is received, these groups would not be entitled, as of right, to have a transcript placed in the Tompkins County Library (Publ:.:

Service Law 5142(2) (a) (v)1

-usta waosu. uwet.* ct a ramans Page 3 identification of issues on the part of all parties. The procedure proposed will not limit the development of an adequate and useful record, it's purpose is to fac111:ste the generation of just such a record. .

Sincerely yours, f$swL U fY Norman W. Spindel g ,,

ec: Dr. Schwartz All parties ,

i l