ML19208A014
| ML19208A014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1979 |
| From: | Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120425 | |
| Download: ML19208A014 (6) | |
Text
.
VRC PLmLIC DCCLT"""';.dCOM SMA July 16, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIUN
/4 g{h BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN5ING BOARD r-s
- o
?
q -l
~%
~
In the Matter of
. e, '
x ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE Docket Nos. STN 50-592'-
],,
COMPANY, et al.
STN 50-593 s
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPUNSE 10 APPLICANTS' MOTION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIMt WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OF ISSUES FILED BY CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND REQUESTING BOARD TO SET DATE FOR SECOND PREHEARING CONFERENCE On June 20, 1979, both California agencies participating in the captioned proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 62.715(c) filed extensive lists of questions which they apparently believe should be considered at the hearings to be scheduled in this matter at a later time. The Joint Applicants, in seeking an extension of time within which to respond, appear to have acted in the belief that, for purposes ofrespondi[1gtoprofferedquestionsfromaninterestedstate,thequestionswere to be treated as contentions, and that a response was required pursuant to the time periods set forth in 10 CFR 92.714. There is no time period specified in the Rules of Practice for responding to questions raised by states or subdivisions thereof which intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 92.715(c).
This Board, in its March 6, 1979 " Order Following Prehearing Conference,"
made clear that each issue raised by the two California participants "must be framed with sufficient detail and preciseness to define a concrete issue which 1909,2a Q Gg
\\ l ')
e r
)
t ' 's l
. is appropriate for adjudication in this proceeding."
(Order, p. 5). This cautionary language echoes the requirements set fortn by the Appeal Board in 1
the River Bend proceeding, /in which the Board dealt with issues raised by the State of Louisiana under 62.715(c). The Appeal Board emphasized:
The State sought admittance to the proceeding as an
" interested state." LBP-7E-32, supra, 4 NRC at 296.
It accordingly was not required to set forth contentions as a precondition to its parcicipation.
10 CFR 62.715 (c); ALAB-317, suora, 3 NRC at 179 (1976). Once let in, however, an " interested state" must observe the procedural requirements applicable to oger participants.
See ALAB-317, 3 NRC at 180, n. 7.
It may--as they may--raise particular issues of interest or concern to it.
Project Manacement Coro.
(Clinch River Breeder Reacte,r Plant),
ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 392-93 (1976). The Board 1s entitled to insist, however, that any new issue raised be framed with sufficient detail and preciseness.
Cf. 10 CFR 62.714(a). A hearing participant "must be specific as to the focus of the desired hearing." BPI v. Atomic Eneray Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.1974).
And contentions (or their equivalent in the case of an
" interested state") serve the purpose of defining the
" concrete issues which are appropriate for adjudication in the proceeding." Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-107, 6 AEC 188, 191, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973, affirmed sub. nom. BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, suora.
$ This concept was recently endorsed by the Commission.
Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-77-25, 6 NRC 535, 537, n. 1 (October 14,1977).
Thus, issues raised by 62.715(c) participants must be narrow enough to permit evidentiary determination in an adjudicatory proceeding.
The Staff is currently examining the multitude of questions raised by the California participants.
Frankly: it appears to us that many of the questions raised do not meet the criteria set forth above and that requiring an evidentiary M Gulf States Utilities Comoany (Rivar Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768-769 (1977).
y
~
U
. presentation regarding many of these questions would not serve the purposes for which this adjudicatory proceeding has been convened. Given the volumnous nature of the State filings, the Staff has contacted counsel for both California agencies and expects to meet with them within the next several weeks to discuss the questions raised. Wibelievethatsuchdiscussions,heldinformallyand without involving the Board, may well result in a stipulated statement of issues to be litigated at the hearing in this matter. We urge the Board to delay any rulings regarding the proffered questions until the parties have had that opportunity to meet.
The Applicant has also requested in its motion that a prehearing conference be scheduled for July 23, 1979, or as soon thereafter as possible. While the Staff has no objection to the scheduling of such a conference for the purpose of hearing limited appearance statements, we believe that little else could be accomplished at this time.
The Board currently has before it two petitions for leave to intervene upon which it has yet to rule (Environmental Defense Fund ar.1 the Morongo Band of Indians). Further, as discussed above, meetings among the current parties informally are needed to attempt to resolve issues raised by the State submittals without involving the Board.
Therefore, the Board may wish to consider postponing such a conference until after the State participants, the Staff and the Applicant have had an opportunity to confer.
Respectfully submitted, i
Stephen M. Schinki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 16th day of July,1979.
O,'; }}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY CC*. MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARIZ0itA PUBLIC SERVICE Docket Nos. STN 50-592 COMPANY, et al. STN 50-593 (Palo Verde fluclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OF ISSUES FILED BY CALIF ENERGY COMMIdSION AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND REQUESTING BOARD TO SET DATE FOR SECOND PREHEARING CONFERENCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 16th day of July, 1979: Robert 11. Lazo, Esq., Chai nian
- Charles S. Pierson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission 200 State Capitol Washington, DC 20555 1700 West Washingten Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Victor Gilinsky Commissioner James D. Ucodburn, Chief Engineer U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Department Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 631 Burbank, CA 91503 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Research Associate Professor Samuel Gorlick, City Attorney Fisheries Research Institute P.O. Box 6459 University of Washington Burbank, CA 91510 400 Northeast 15th Avenue Seattle, Washington 93195 James L..Mulloy, Chief Electrical Engineer & Assistant Manager George Ccmpbell, Chairman Edward C. Farrell, Chief Assistant City Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Attorney for Water & Power 111 South Third Avenue P.O. Box 111 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Los Angeles, CA 90051 2 -7 m !b s PDDR BPML
s . R. E. York Gordon W. !!ovt Senior Vice President Utilities Director El Paso Electric Company City of Anaheim P. O. Box 982 P.O. Box 3222 El Paso, Texas 79999 Anaheim, CA 92803 David t!. Barry III, Esq. Mr. Ron U. Watkins James A. Beoletto, Esq. Vice President Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas & Electric Co. P.O. Box 800 P.O. Box 1831 Rosemead, CA 91770 San Diego, CA 92112 Byron L. Miller Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. Assistant Vice President Snell & Wilmer flevada Power Company 3100 Valley Center P.O. Box 230 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Las Vegas,t;evada 89151 Janice E. Kerr, Esq. Gary E. Craythorn, Engineer J. Calvin Simpson, Esq. City of Glendele Vincent flacKenzie, Esq. 119 f!arth Glendale Avenue California Public Utilities Glendale, CA 91206 Comiss ion 5066 State Building Ronald V. Stassi San Francisco, CA 94102 Engineer City of Pasadena Kathryn Burkett Dickson, Esq. 100 florth Garfield Avenue tiark J. Urban, Esq. Pasadena, CA 91109 Counsels for the California Energy Resources Conservation and Everett C. Ross Development Cc:rmission Public Utilities Director 1111 flo.e Avenue City of Riverside Sacramento, CA 95825 3900 t'ain Street Riverside, CA 92501 fir. Larry Bard P.O. Box 793 Atomic Safety and Licensing Tempe, Arizona 85281 Appeal :'oard U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission / tonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel + Washington, DC 20555 U.S. I!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section
- U.S. ?!uclear Regulatory Comission Dr. Stanley L. Dolins Washington, DC 20555 Assistant Dircctor Eneroy Prograns (0EPAD)
Tom Diamond, Esq. Office of the Governor 1208 First City National Bank Building 1700 West Washington El Paso, Texas 79901 Executive Tower - Rn. 507 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Ralph G. Wesson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051 ,r; o' PDDR BM
. David B. Roe David liastbaura Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Defense Fund 2606 Daight Way 1657 Pennsylvania Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Denver, Colorado 80203 California indian Legal Services Stephen V. Quesenberry Lester J. Marston~ George Forman 1860 So. Escondido Blvd. P.O. Box 2457 Escondido, CA 92025 / j., ft,f' teFlenji1. Sohinki /ounsel for NRC Staff C i C;,' l~ ) f '}}