|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7881983-11-23023 November 1983 Withdrawal of OL Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20023C6971983-05-12012 May 1983 Affidavit of DB Goldstein Supporting NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Need for Power.Four Forecasts for Energy Needs Refute Need for Power Justification Developed by Util.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20071A6671983-02-10010 February 1983 Certifies Svc of Intervenor Motion to Suspend Safety & Health Schedule on 830210 ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N8101983-01-31031 January 1983 New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20028F1831983-01-25025 January 1983 Notification of Intent to File New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028E9701983-01-19019 January 1983 Reply to NRC & Applicant Response to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council,Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission & Coalition for Safe Power 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Certain Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20028C3221983-01-0303 January 1983 Suppl to DOE 821126 Limited Appearance Statement.Doe Position Is That Hanford Site Is Not Open,Unclaimed Land as Defined in 1855 Treaty W/Yakima Indian Nation,Article Iii. ASLB Is Wrong Forum for Resolving Issue ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20070L4901982-12-27027 December 1982 Affidavit of Mv Stimac Supporting Applicant Answer to Yakima Indian Nation Motion for Reconsideration.Describes Plant Site & Location of Casements.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J6021982-12-23023 December 1982 Response Supporting Intervenor 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Quantification of Environ Impacts Not Practicable Due to Subjective Nature.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023B3081982-12-20020 December 1982 Response to 821201 Discovery Requests.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H3711982-12-13013 December 1982 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Contentions Should Be Reorganized to Facilitate Coordinated Evidentiary Presentations for Environ Matters ASLB Set Out as Contentions 4,7 & 8.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070D1181982-12-10010 December 1982 Affidavit of R Jim Supporting Yakima Indian Nation Brief on Admissibility of Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10 & Motion for Reconsideration.Nation Has Right to Pasture Horses & Gather Roots Even Though Us Holds Title to Land ML20070C9121982-12-10010 December 1982 Notice of Counsel New Law Firm Affiliation,As of 820901 ML20070C8181982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Yakima Indian Nation Contentions 7,8 & 9.Nation Right to Enjoy Reservation Peacefully Given by 1855 Treaty Should Be Protected by ASLB ML20070C7981982-12-10010 December 1982 Brief Supporting Admissibility of Yakima Indian Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10.Attempt to Terminate Reserved Rights of Yakima Indian Nation Violates Fifth Amend.Land Cannot Be Taken by Inverse Condemnation ML20070C7691982-12-10010 December 1982 Certifies Svc of Brief on Admissibility of Reworded Proposed Contention 10,motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order,R Jim Affidavit & Notice of Counsel Law Firm Change on 821210 ML20028B9251982-12-0101 December 1982 Brief Re Admissibility of Yaking Indian Nation Proposed Contention 10.Clarification Needed on Procedural Rule of Commission & Scope of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028B8971982-12-0101 December 1982 Request for Production of Documents & Interrogatories,Per 10CFR2.740(b) & 10CFR2.741.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20028B2631982-11-26026 November 1982 Limited Appearance Statement.Hanford Site Is Not Part of Yakima Indian Nation Reservation Established by 1855 Treaty. Indian Privilege of Hunting,Gathering Roots & Berries & Grazing Animals Does Not Extend to Hanford Site ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20023A8301982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to 820910 First Set of Production Requests. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8141982-10-14014 October 1982 Response to Yakima Indian Nation 820930 Suppl to Petition to Intervene,Containing List of Contentions.Objects to Contentions 4-10.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027C1591982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to 820917 First Set of Interrogatories ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20071N3791982-10-0404 October 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H5481982-09-29029 September 1982 Applicant Response to Coalition for Safe Power 820910 First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20065H5451982-09-29029 September 1982 Supplement to Petition to Intervene,Consisting of Contentions & Bases for Contentions ML20065J1601982-09-28028 September 1982 Responds to Util 820917 First Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20069F9491982-09-23023 September 1982 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Brief Encl ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20137F8001982-09-17017 September 1982 Amended Subagreement 2 Between State of Wa Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council & NRC Re Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings on Facility Project ML20027B5661982-09-17017 September 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027B5631982-09-17017 September 1982 First Set of Interrogatories ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl 1983-09-28
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063M6211982-09-10010 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820923 to File Responses to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.Staff Will Be Absent from Ofc 820911-23.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20063M2351982-09-0101 September 1982 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue on Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26 ML20063M2291982-09-0101 September 1982 Motion for Summary Disposition of Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists.Basis for Contention Was PSAR Section 3.10 Which Has Subsequently Been Amended.Related Correspondence ML20063A5051982-08-19019 August 1982 Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant 820730 Response Opposing Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Question of Standing Raised.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062D5201982-08-0505 August 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Shown for Contention 4.Other Factors Favor Admission of Contention 5.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058D5401982-07-21021 July 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820706 Memorandum & Order.Contentions 3E & 5 Should Be Accepted as Litigatable Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063H1141982-07-16016 July 1982 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene ML20053D0651982-05-27027 May 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820611 to Answer Coalition for Safe Power 820527 Amended Contentions. Washington co-counsel Has Not Received Contention & Document Is Lengthy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D0561982-04-28028 April 1982 Response Opposing Deposition of MT Dana.Discovery Premature & Does Not Relate to Matters in Controversy.Reasonable Notice Not Given & Allowing Deposition Would Amount to Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20054E1511982-04-20020 April 1982 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Addl Contentions Since Portions of PSAR & Amend 5 to Application for Site Certificate/Environ Rept Received on 820416,4 Days Before Contentions Due ML20005B7061981-08-18018 August 1981 Motion,In Ltr Form,For Order That All Parties Fully Serve All Documents on Coalition for Safe Power & Forelaws on Board,Pending Renoticing & Rulings on Petitions to Intervene.Impractical to Gain Access to Documents at Lpdr ML19332A8871980-09-11011 September 1980 Statement Suggesting That Full Commission Review of Orders & Opinions Below Not Necessary Due to Mootness.Aslb 800827 Order Indicates Proceeding Has Terminated ML19321A6291980-07-16016 July 1980 Motion for Order Evidencing Current Status & Setting Schedule for Further Proceeding.Amend to Application Will Be Filed by 800930.Anticipated Schedule for Environ Rept & PSAR Amends May Be Filed on Same Date.W/Draft Order & Release ML19323J2211980-06-0404 June 1980 Reply Withdrawing 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application. Applicant Response to Motion & Mecca Affidavit Provided Detailed Info Re Applicant 800414 Rept.Progress Rept Must Be Filed by 800601 by Applicant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19312E9291980-05-23023 May 1980 Reply in Opposition to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice Due to Lack of Diligent Pursuit.Applicants Are Engaged in Extensive Program to Locate Suitable Site ML19310A2181980-05-0808 May 1980 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice.Applicants Took No Steps to Pursue Application Despite Opportunity Given at 800122 Conference to Address Pending Geology & Seismology Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19323A9731980-04-17017 April 1980 Pleading in Lieu of Brief Amicus Curiae Re Untimely Petition of Three Indian Tribes.Urges Admittance of Tribes as Full Parties Except for Fully Addressed Issues Where Serious Gaps in Existing Record Must Be Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296D5061980-02-22022 February 1980 Response in Opposition to Doi 800215 Motion for Extension Until 800414 to File Brief Amicus Curiae.Motion Filed at Last Day of Permitted Period.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296C8801980-02-15015 February 1980 Motion for Extension Until 800114 to File Brief Amicus Curiae Re Whether Indian Tribes Status Gives Sufficient Cause for Late Intervention.Nrc Does Not Object to Such Extension.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296B1471980-02-0101 February 1980 Answer in Opposition to Skagitonians Against Nuclear Power 800122 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories.Motion Untimely & Questions Re Seismic Profile Outside Scope of Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260D5181980-01-21021 January 1980 Motion in Opposition to NRC 791102 Motion to Postpone Hearings on Geology & Seismology Issues.Proposed Evidence Twice Rejected as Inconclusive.Applicants Have Failed to Carry Burden of Proof Re Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML19262C3001980-01-18018 January 1980 Motion to Compel Applicant Answers to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re San Juan Islands Seismic Profiles.Interpretation of Atomic Energy Act Holds Applicant Liable for Matl False Statements ML19257A3971979-12-12012 December 1979 Objection to Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re Seismic Profiles of San Juan Islands.Western Geophysical Seismic Profiles Not Discovered by Util Until 1979.No False Statements Made ML19256F8401979-12-0505 December 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791109 Proposed Findings on Financial Qualifications.Intervenor Adopted short-term View Rather than long-term Considerations Re Inflation Rates & Market Ratios.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1121979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791112 Proposed Findings of Fact.Fes & Fes Final Suppl Addressed Environ Impacts & Whole Population Issues Indiscriminately Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1071979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to NRC 791005 Proposed Findings of Fact.Urges Board to Reject Recommendation 3 Contained in Finding 44,Pages 27-28. Condition Re Environ Evaluation Prior to Commencement of Const Activities Is Not Authorized by NEPA & NRC Rules ML19211A0881979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply in Opposition to Intervenor Forelaws on Board/Citizens for Safe Power Findings of Fact Re Alternative Sites & Postulated Accidents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19262A7481979-11-20020 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Indian Tribes 791105 Supplemental Petition for ALAB-552 & ALAB-559 Review.Petitioner Failed to Raise Good Cause Re Alleged ASLB Misapplication of Late Intervention Factor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8911979-11-0909 November 1979 Pleading Re Applicants' Financial Qualifications.Total Cost of Project Exceeds Applicants' Figures.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260B1681979-11-0808 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Skagitonions Concerned About Nuclear Power 791116 Motion to Direct Certification,Stay Proceedings & Review ASLB Actions.Detriment to Public Interest as Basis for Interlocutory Review Not Established 1983-09-28
[Table view] |
Text
- .
/, - ,.
<
, v ,,
Q P-
~ , . T~~.
U
- - 9}
+ 3 .y
., y .;.-
%. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
PUGET SOUND POWER & aIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) November 20, 1979 Units 1 and 2) ,
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PETITIONER TRIBES' SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REVIEW Introduction On November 5, 1979, the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish Tribes ("Tr ibe s ") filed a Supplemental Petition for Review. This pleading by the Tribes is the most recent step in a lengthy procedural history, which is as follows:
January 29, 1979 In ALAB-523, the Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board's grant of interven-tion to Tribes and remanded the matter
- for proper consideration.
February 20, 1979 The Tribes filed a petition for review of ALAB-523. Both the NRC Staff and Appli-cants later filed answers in opposition.
March 8, 1979 The Commission deferred action on the petition for review pending completion of action on the remanded issue by the 1526 337 g 912100 eF 73 T
~ .
Licensing Board and any subsequent review of it by the Appeal Board.
June 1, 1979 The Licensing Board denied the Tribes' petition for intervention.
July 9, 1979 In ALAB-552, the Appeal Board noted substantial deficiencies in the Tribes' excuses for the extreme tardiness of their petition to intervene, but gave them an opportunity to file a supplemen-tal memorandum to cure the deficiencies.
August 31, 1979 Following review and consideration of the Tribes' supplemental memorandum, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-559, affirming the denial of the petition to intervene.
October 1, 1979 The Commission extended until October 15, 1979 the time in which it may determine whether to review ALAB-559.
October 15, 1979 The Commission issued an order allowing the Tribes 15 days to file a supplemental petition for review on ALABs -552 and
-559.
October 29, 1979 The Tribes petitioned the United Sta tes Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of ALA3s
-523, ~552 and -559 and the Appeal Board's unpublished order of January 12, 1979.
November 5, 1979 The Tribes filed a supplemental petition for review with the Commission, seeking review of ALABs -552 and -559.
Timeliness of Supplemental Petition for Review In their supplemental petition for review, the Tribes seek review by the Commission of ALAB-552 and ALAB-559 pursuant to 10 CFR 2. 786 (b) . Section 2.786 (b) (1) provides, in pertinent part:
1526 338
. .
Within fifteen (15) days after service of a decision or action by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board under S 2.785 . . . a party may file a petition for review with the Commission on the ground that the decision or action is erroneous with respect to an important question of fact, law, or policy.
ALABs -552 and -559 were served on July 10, 1979 and August 31, 1979, respectively. The Tribes did not file a petition for review of either Appeal Board decision within the 15-day period required by the regulation. Neither did they request an exten-sion of time within which to file such a petition for review.
In fact, the Tribes' first action, two months after issuance of ALAB-559, was to file a petition for review, not here, but in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the supplemental petition for review should be denied for the f ailure to file it within the 15-day per iod of Sec tion 2. 786 (b) (1) .
In Applicants' view, the lateness of the supplemental petition for review is not excused by the Commission's order of October 16, 1979. The Commission's order, which granted the Tribes an opportunity to file a supplemental petition for review, was made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.772 and 10 CFR 2.786.
Order, p. 2. Section 2.786, however, contains no authority for extending the time for filing a petition for review. Section 2.772(e) authorizes the Commission to extend the time for rulinkonapetition for review, but is inapplicable to ex-tending the time for filing a petition for review. Section 1526 339
. .
2.772(a) authorizes the Commission to prescribe schedules for the " filing of briefs, motions or other pleadings where such schedules may differ from those elsewhere prescribed in these rules." Here, the Commission's order of October 16, 1979 was issued one month after the Tribes should have petitioned under Section 2.786 (b) (1) . Regulatory time limits are not usually extended after the fact, _i..e., after expiration of the time limit, aspecially where as here there has been no good cause shown for extension of the time limit. The Tribes should be bound by the 15-day requirement of Section 2.786 (b) (1) ; there-fore, the supplemental petition for review should be denied as untimely.
Response to Tribes' Statements of Error The Tribes contend that the Appeal Board made numerous errors in its application of various factors listed in 10 CFR
- 2. 714 (a) (1) . Supplemental Petition, p. 4. The Section
- 2. 714 (a) (1) factors present issues that are largely factual in nature. The resolution of these factual questions did not differ in the decisions of the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board. Therefore, several of the Tribes' contentions are deficient under Section 2.786 (b) (4) (ii) . These deficiencies will be detailed below.
7g 34Q
.
-
The first alleged misapplication of the late intervention facturs concerned the " good cause" factor (S 2. 714 (a) (1) (i) ) .
The Tribes claim that the Appeal Board placed inordinately great weight on this factor in comparison with the other four f actors of Section 2.714 (a) (1) . Supplemental Petition, p. 4.
The Tribes' claim is deficient in several respects. First, the Tribes f ailed to raise the alleged error before the Appeal Board, even though the Appeal Board had earlier announced its view of the relation between the good cause factor and the four other factors. See, Memorandum and Order (unpublished), pp. 2, 3 (January 12, 1979); ALAB-523, p. 12. The failure to raise before the Appeal Board their arguments on the good cause factor means that the supplemental petition for review must be denied, as required by Section 2.786 (b) (4) (iii) . Second, ALABs
-552 and -559 are fully consistent with existing decisional law, particularly where, as hece, the petition for intervention is very late. See, ALAB-552, pp. 7, 8; ALAB-559, pp. 2, 3.
Finally, the Tribes offer no record citations for their allega-tions, especially those that the Appeal Board made the good cause factor into a " threshold" or " barrier". To the contrary, the Appeal Board analyzed and weighed all five Section
- 2. 714 (a) (1) factors in its review. ALAB-559, pp. 21-22.
The Tribes' second allegation of error by the Appeal Board ic equally groundless. That allegation concerns the Appeal
-5_
1526 54I
.
Board 's treatment of the third f actor under Section 2.714 (a) (1)
(the likelihood of assisting in the development of a sound record). In the Appeal Board 's evaluation, the Tribes' ability to contribute to an already extensive record was conjectural.
ALAB-559, pp. 18-20. The Licensing Board reached a similar factual conclusion. 9 NRC (slip opinion, pp. 14, 15).
Pursuant to Section 2.786 (b) (4) (iii) , a petition for review of this factual issue must be denied.
The Tribes also contend that the Appeal Board misstated the test under the third factor, by requiring a " substantial con-tribution" from a late intervenor. The Appeal Board's state-ment, on which the Tribes rely, is a general observation, not a restatement of the regulation. See, ALAB-559, p. 19. More to the point, the Appeal Board expressly weighed the extent of the Tr'.bes' possible contribution, as is required by the regula-tion. ALAB-559, pp. 21, 22.
The Tribes offer a number of studies and revi:.ws on a variety of subjects. Supplemental Petition, pp. 5, 6. How-ever, these sabjects have been considered in detail in the present record. In fact, the record has been closed and findings of fact submitted on these subjects. Since the par-ticular information that the Tribes' studies might contain has yet to be msJe available, the Tribes' contribution remains as speculative as it was during the evaluations by the Licensing 1526 342
,
. ._
m
.
Board and Appeal Board. Allowing the Tribes to intervene for the purpose of introducing their studies and reviews would cause the relitigation of a substantial portion of the now closed record. Such duplication should not be condoned, except under the most extreme conditions, which are not present here.
The Tribes also contend that the Appeal Board erroneously considered the fourth f actor of Section 2.714 (a) (1) , which is the extent to which the Tribes' interests are represented by existing parties. They claim that they should be recognized as local governments. Supplemental Petition, pp. 4, 6. Pre-sumedly, the Tribes are now seeking to participate as an "in-terested State, county, or municipality" under Section
- 2. 715 (c ) , which has no timeliness requirement. However, they have previously sought to intervene only pursuant to Section 2.714. Their " local government" argument was not made in either their petition to intervene or their appeal. They belatedly raised the matter in a supplemental memorandum filed with the Appeal Board following ALAB-552. Petitioner Tribes' Supplemental Memorandum, dated July 30, 1979, pp. 2, 3. While they now claim to be entitled to the same treatment afforded Skagit County (a participant in this proceeding), they gloss over the obvious fact that they are neither a county nor a municipality and, hence, are not within the scope of Section 2.715(c).
1526 343
. _ _ _ .
_
.
The Tribes also assert that the Appeal Board failed to consider the extent of representation of their interests by other parties. Supplemental Petition, p. 6. That characteri-zation of the Appeal Board's decisions is erroneous. See, ALAB-559, pp. 16-18 22. Furthermore, the extent of represen-tation is a factual matter which has been similarily decided by the Appeal Board and the Licensing Board. Hence, this portion of the supplemental petition for review should be denied pur-suant to Section 2.786 (b) (4) (ii' .
The Tribes further allege that the Appeal Board misapplied the fif th f actor of Section 2.714 (a) (1) . They mistakenly and without citation claim that the Appeal Board did not focus on the extent of delay. Supplemental Petition, p. 6. Quite clearly, what the Tribes seek to present as evidence would inevitably and extensively delay the licensing proceeding. The Appeal Board did assess the extent of delay, agreeing with the Licensing Board. ALAB-559, p. 3, fn. 2, p. 20. The Tribes also argue that the delay question should be based upon circum-stances as of the time of filing their petition to intervene, and not at the time of appellate consideration. This position is inconsistent with the Tribes' attempts elsewhere in the supplemental petition for review to exploit developments which have occurred since the filing of their petition to intervene.
See, e.g., Supplemental Petition, pp. 4-6. The Appeal Board
-
.
was consistent, and in Applicants' view correct, in deciding based uoon the status of the case chen before it. ALAB-559,
- p. 20. The Tribes finally claim that their intervention would not unduly " broaden the issues." Supplemental Letition, p. 7.
Ignored in this argument is the Tribes' attempt to raise a new issue (genetic and somatic impacts of radiological releases on Indian receptors), which was recognized and weighed by the Appeal Board. ALAB-559, pp. 7, 8, 20.
The Tribes' final statement of error is that the Appeal Board majority neglected to take into account the factors set forth in Section 2.714 (d) . These factors, which must be con-s:dered with respect to every petition to intervene, were resolved by the Appeal Board f avorably to the Tribes.
ALAB-559, p. 14, En. 10. Hence, these factors were taken into account. The Appeal Board's and the parties' emphasis was appropriately concentrated upon the five (5) factors of Sec-tion 2.714 (a) (1) that pertain only to late filed petitions to intervene.
Why Commission Review Should Not Be Exercised The Tribes seek to review an inherently factual determina-tion, i.e., the application of Section 2.714 (a) (1) factors to the Tribes' extremely late filed petition to intervene. The Appeal Board and Licensing Board have consistently and res-ponsibly resolved the factual issues raised in the supplemental 1526 545
.
petition for review. To allow the Tribes to intervene at this time, almost five (5) years after the deadline for filing petitions to intervene, would make a shambles of the adminis-trative process. Such an action would be unprecedented. It should not be taken. The supplemental petition for review should be denied.
DATED: November 20, 1979 Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WILLIAMS By ['
\J D6dglas S. Little Attorneys for Applicant 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 Of Counsel:
Lowenstein, Newman Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Nashington, D. C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 1526 346
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,) DOCKET NOS.
et al. )
) 50-522 (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SER7 ICE I hereby certify that the followingt APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PETITIONER TRIBES' SUPPLEhtNTAL PETITION FOR REVIEW in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail on November 20, 1979 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.
DATED: November 20, 1979
// '
,As Su d . A ouglg/ S.'Little C 1sel for Puget Sound Power &
Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 1526 347
- .
Date: November 20, 1979 Valentine B. Deale, Chairman Robert C. Schofield, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Skagit County Planning Department 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 218 County Administcaticn Building Washington, D. C. 20036 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Chairman of Resource, Ecology, Assistant Attorney General Fisheries and Wildlife 500 Pacific Building University of Michigan 520 S.W. Yamhill School of Natural Resources Portland, OR 97204 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Roger M. Leed, Esq.
Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Room 610 Atomic Safety and Licenning Board 1411 Fourth Avenue Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, WA 98101 Washington, D. C. 20555 CFSP and FOB Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Eric Stacnon Atomic Safety and Licer sing 2345 S.E. Yamhill Appeal Board Portland, OR 97214 U.S. Nuclear Regulator:r Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Dr. John H. Buck, Memb'er Axelrad & Toll Atomic Safety and Licensing 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Appeal Board Washington, D. C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20:555 Warren Hastings, Esq.
Associate Corporate Counsel Michael C. Farrar, Meimber Portland General Electric Compani Atomic Safety and Litjensing 121 S.W. Salmon Street Appeal Board ' Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulatbry Commission Washington, D. C. 2!0555 James W. Durham
! Portland General Electric Company Docketing and Servi @e Section 121 S.W. Salmon Street Office of the Secrei:ary Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regulaitory Commission s Washington, D. C. !20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
(original and 20 cd'oies) Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser and Wyse Richard L. Bi_ack, sq. 2300 Georgia Pacific Blda.
Counsel for NRC Stlaff 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 U.S. Nuclear Regu?.atory Commission Office of the Exe;!:utive Legal Canadian Consulate General Director , Donald Martens, Consul Washington, D. C .l' 20555 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Nicholas D. Lewi?, Chairman Seattle, WA 98101 Energy Facility ite Evaluation Council Patrick R. McMullen, Esq.
820 East Fifth Akenue Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney Olympia, WA 98504 Courthouse Annex
'
Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Thomas F. Carr, $sq.
Assistant Attorney General Temple of Justice Olympia, WA 98504 1526 348 8/22/79