ML19269E352

State of CA & CA Public Utils Commission Motion for Extension Until 790701 for Latter to File Formal Comments Re Des.Des Not Received Until 790507;Commission Needs Addl Time for Evaluation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19269E352
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/16/1979
From:	Mackenzie V CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906270253
Download: ML19269E352 (7)

Text

u . . .

^

.g,g 26 glB Nun conanp g.,,

gt $* 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ) Dockets Nos. STN 50-592

_et _al. ) STN 50-593

)

(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating )

Station, Units 4 and 5) ,

) g

) p  %

N oGl0 MOTION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME  %

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE COMMENTS TO @ 3g 1\3Ny- j DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  ; g-g\ #7' c ^ 6 I , p The People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC), a participant in the above-captioned proceeding under Section 2.715 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Rules of Practice, hereby request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) or (" Board") to grant an extension of time until July 1, 1979, within which the CPUC may file its formal comments with c

the NRC regarding the " Draft Environmental Impact Statement relating to the construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 and 5 - Arizona Public Service Company, et al.

... published April, 1979" (DEIS) by the NRC, Office of N'uclear Reactor Regulation.

II 2131 202 The besis for the CPUC Motion requesting an extension of time beyond June 4, 1979, which was announced in the Federal 7906270 6 8

. . Jy ,

Registcr of April 23, 1979 as,the due date for filing formal comments on the DEIS, is as follows: ,

The CPUC did not receive a copy of the DEIS from the NRC until Monday, May 7, 1979 despite several telephone communica-tions to the NRC Staff raising this issue. CPUC had received one copy from Arizona Public Service Co. (APS) which was received on Thursday, May 3 By virtue of the fact the DEIS was not formally received until May 7, although one copy had been received 4 days earlier from APS, CPUC has been severely con-strained in its ability to properly and adequately evaluate and submit appropriate comments on the DEIS to the NRC following review of a document which could have far-reaching implications on the outcome of this matter. Affording the CPUC only thirty-one calendar days, or twenty working days to analyze, evaluate, and prepare comments of a hignly technical and complex nature does not appear to be a reasonable or adequate length of time.

III 2131 203 Existing federal regulations afford this Board with dis-cretion to extend the time within which to comment for a period in addition to 15 days beyond the 45 day period afforded by law.

The regulatory Guidelines of the Council of Environmental Quality fof the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements

~

1(TitlhI40 CFR 1500, 1500.9(f)) prescribes that a " party" con-sulted by a federal agency requesting comments on a federal EIS may " request a specified extension of time" within which to make comments. Moreover, the regulation goes on to state

1 that federal agencies should grant extensions of up to 15 days, (beyond the 45 day period), implying that fifteen days should be granted upon a request as a matter of course. The regulation does not state or imply that a federal agency cannot grant an extension of more than 15 days, only that 15 days would be a minimally acceptable extension of time. It is also significant that the section does not require " good cause" to be shown or spell out the criteria for a federal agency to grant a fifteen day or longer extension. Nevertheless the CPUC submits that there is good cause for affording it an extension of time based on the fact the CPUC was not provided a copy of the DEIS in a reasonable time despite repeated efforts beginning April 23 to obtain copies.

IV The CEQ Guidelines (1500.9(f)) further indicates CEQ's intent that a federal agency has discretion to grant an extension of time to comment in addition to a 15 day period by stating that an agency may determine an " appropriate period for comment" considering the " magnitude and the complexity of the [DEIS]

' statement and the extent of citizen interest in the proposed action." Ar. " appropriate period" would obviously vary by the circumstances of the matter. Using the term " appropriate period" indicates CEQ's suggestion that it may be more or less than 15 day's depending upon the circumstances of the case.

This matter without doubt is certainly of sufficient " magnitude and complexity" and " citizen interest", at least insofar as Califor a s concerned.

2131 20)

. p.

Y The NRC rules also afford the Board basis for extending the period to comment on the DEIS beyond May 4. The NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and the CEQ Guidelines authorize an extension of time for a period longer than 60 days from the date of " publication" or

" availability." Although Section 51.25 of Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in implementation of 40 CFR 1500 9(f), initially prescribes inter alia that the NRC's DEIS will request comments within forty-five (45) days from date of publication of the Federal Register notice, the NRC is given discretion by the section to allow comments,

. . . within such lonr,er period as the Commission may specify."

This section is complimentary to the CEQ Guidelines in 40 CFR 1500.9(f) which permits an agency to grant extensions beyond a 45 or 60 day period.

The request by CPUC for an extension of time from June 4 to July 1 would be, in effect, an extension from 45 days to 71 days from publication and his wholly reasonable under the circumstances.

VI The CPUC submits tha't the requested relief may be granted without detrimentally affecting the hearing schedule established e/i '

2131'205

s .

by the Board following the Prehearing Conference held on February 21, 1979, and would not appear to jeopardize any party to this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ VINCENT V. MacKENZIE Vincent V. MacKenzie Counsel for the People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California May 16, 1979 e

2131 206 v ;. 7

..  :  : . . g

%. . [/ t t ,

% D ll; gisv g 3@ n'&. 6s c....

. ,, ep.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE D '

V) 03 I hereby certify that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, with business address at 5066 State Building, San Francisco, California, and am not a party to nor interested in Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5), Dockets Nos. STN 50-592 and STN 50-593 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

--On May 16, 1979, in San Fran, sco, California, I personally deposited in the United States ma21 copies of MOTION SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE COMMENTS TO DRAFT ENVIRON-MENTAL IMPACT REPORT, addresse'd as follows:

Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. Dr. Stanley L. Dolins Snell & Wilmer Assistant Director Energy Progra 3100 Valley Center Office of the Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85073 1700 West Washington Executive Tower - Room 507 Charles S. Pierson, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol Tom Diamond, Esq.

1700 West Washington 1208 First City National Bank B1 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 El Paso, Texas 79901 Donald G. Gilbert Kathryn Burkett Dickson, Esq.

Executive Director Mark J. Urban, Esq.

Arizona Atomic Energy Commission Counsel for the California 2929 Indian School Road '

Energy Commission Phoenix, Arizona 85017 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 George Campbell, Chairman Maricopa County Board of Michael M. Grant, Esq.

Supervisors Assistant Attorney General 111 South Third Avenue 200 State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona 85003 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Larry Bard P.O. Box 793 Steven Schinki, Esq.

Tempe, Arizona 85281 NRC Legal Staff .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi A.f'(

'ii Washington, D.C. 20555

. " - ?, .

/

2131 207

s -

Each copy was enclosed in a sealed envelope and all postage thereon fully prepaid.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ IDA MacDONALD Ida MacDonald 2131 208