ML18192A686
| ML18192A686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1975 |
| From: | Norton B Arizona Public Service Co, Snell & Wilmer |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A686 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVXCE
- COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-528 50-529 50-530 APPLICANTS'ESPONSE TO
'CARDAMONE CONTENTION RE ALTERNATIVE REACTOR TYPES Pursuant to this Board's Second Prehearing Conference Order, Intervenor Cardamone has filed an additional contention entitled Alternative Reactor Types.
Applicants respectfully
'submit, for the reasons set forth below, that the contention should be excluded from these proceedings.
The Cardamone proposed contention boils down to the allegation that the chances of a class nine accident occurring vary with alternative reactor types and therefore a cost-benefit analysis of various reactor types is necessary to adequately protect the health and safety, and the environment.
Such an analysis is not required under either NEPA nor the Commission's rules and regulations.
As stated by the D. C. Circuit, Court of Appeals, the "rule of reason" must be applied to NEPA statements.
NRDC v.
- Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
Xntervenor would have
Applicants, in their environmental report, and staff, in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, analyze the
- costs, and environmental and safety effects of every conceiv-able type of nuclear reactor as it would apply to the prospec-tive site.
Such analyses, if at all humanly possible, would cost more than the building of a nuclear facility.
Using the "rule of reason,"
the role of NEPA in this instance is obvious.
The test must be whether the reactor type selected by Applicants is, from a cost-benefit analysis, acceptable.
To decide otherwise would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Boards to
\\
engage in the practice of dictating which manufacturers, an appli.-
cant must deal with, etc.
Nothing in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Commission's regulations nor case law even suggest that such a course is warranted or desirable.
From a safety standpoint Intervenor Cardamone is once again attempting to interject the probability and. consequence of class nine accidents into these proceedings.
As this Board has previously ruled in its Second Prehearing Conference Order that, consideration of class nine accidents is outside the scope of this licensing proceeding, Applicant simply cites the following authorities in accord with that ruling.
Carolina Envi'ronmental Stud Grou
- v. U.S., Appeal No. 73-1869, '.2d.
(D.C.
Cir. 1975);
Lon Island Li htin Com an (Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
g ALAB 156 g RAX 73 10 g 831 g 834 36 (October 26 g 1973)
P
f
- Further, however, even if one construes Intervenor's contention as simply alleging that. Applicant's ER fails to adequately assess the risk of any accident, vis-a-vis alternative reactor types, such a contention is outside the scope of these proceedings.
Again, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the sub-sequent regulations of the Commission, require no more than a
demonstration that the reactor type selected meets the design and safety criteria established by the Commission.
Intervenor cites no authority to the contrary for the obvious reason that there is none.
For. the reasons set forth above, Applicant requests that, the Board exclude the proposed "Alternative Reactor Types" contention.
Respectfully submitted, SNELL 6 NILMER By Bruce Norton 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for Applicant Dated at Phoenix, Arizona this 4th day of June, 1975.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It, is hereby certified that true and correct copies of the foregoing Applicants'esponse to Cardamone Contention Re Alternative Reactor Types have been placed in the United States Mails, postage prepaid, this 5th day of June, 1975, to the following:
Daniel M. Head, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Technical Advisor
'tomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Research Assoc. Professor Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington
- Seattle, Washington 98195 Thomas M. Bruen, Esq.
Michael W. Grainey, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Barbara E. Fisher, Esq.
Arizona Public Law Advocates 201 North Stone Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Andrew W. Bettwy Assistant Attorney General 159 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007
r,l 1
Mr. Carmine F. Cardamone, Jr.
1415 North Third Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85705 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 SNELL
& WILMER By Bruce Norton
e