ML19210A083
| ML19210A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1973 |
| From: | Olson D, Wilchins H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910240788 | |
| Download: ML19210A083 (7) | |
Text
.
,V QNC3%%)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09/07/73 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, Et A1.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
COMMENTS BY THE AEC REGULATORY STAFF REGARDING REVISED CONTENTIONS OF INTERVENOR
- 1. On kugust 28, 1973, Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power ("Intervenors") submitted Revised Contentions for consideration at the Prehearing Conference held on the same date in the above captioned proceeding.
- 2. During the Conference, Mr. Gallo, appearing on behalf of the AEC Regu-latory Staff as a substitute for the regularly assigned Staff Counsel, requested an opportunity for the regularly assigned Staff Counsel to file additior.a1 comments with the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") as necessary to more fully relate the Staff position on certain revised contentions. (Tr.136; 199-200). By order dated August 30, 1973, the Board granted an opportunity to file comments on or before September 7,1973. Other parties were permitted to respond to these comments on or before September 14, 1973.
1476 049 7910240 Mfb G'
- 3. Referring to Contention 3, the Board requested information as to whether it is appropriate to consider issues involving the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the facility in view of an ongoing rulemaking proceeding which is in part related to this matter (Tr.150). The Atomic Safety and Li-censing Appeal Board has held, prior to the noticing of the rulemaking pro-ceeding that a Board may consider the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste from a facility in an individual licensing proceeding. In the Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Memorandum and Order, Page 6,1972 ASLAB, Issuance through June 1972, p. 398-399. On February 5,1.973, the Commission noticed a rulemaking proceeding relating to this area (38 F.R. 3334) which stated in ;elevant part that "Nothing... shall be construed as affecting the validity of the holding by the Appeal Board in the Vermont Yankee proceeding." (38 F.R. 3336)
In addition, although this rulemaking proceeding does not explicitly refer to the transportation of fuel to a facility, it is implicitly clear the Vermont Yankee decision considered transportation issues of this nature to be relevant for consideration in an inciividual licensing proceeding. The Regulatory Staff concludes that Contention 3 is appropriate in its entirety and should be accepted by the Board.
- 4. It is the understanding of the Regulatory Staff that Revised Contention 10 reads as follows and our discussion is based on tius understanding:
1476 050
s
. It is contended that the NEPA review concerning cost / bene-fit analysis and alternatives is not complete in that the costs of administration and regulation by governmental agencies and the insurance costs have not been fully analyzed or in-cluded, the costs of water consumption has not been dealt with, capacity factors are incorrect, the cost of the containment repouring has not been established or included in the cost analysis, the health costs from low level radiation has not been included, the adverse economic costs resulting from limitations, reasonably directly related, in development in the area of the facility has not [been] included, the cost of this facility as' opposed to alternate facilities to rate payers has not been fully considered.
The Staff has difficulty with two aspects of this contention, specifically, the costs of administrat' ion and regulation by governmental agencies and the costs of insurance, and the adverse economic costs resulting from limitations
... in development in the area of the facility. To the extent that the phrase
~
" costs of administration and regulation by governmental agencies" relates to the licensing fees payable by the Applicant to the Atomic Energy Commission in connection with this Dr.ility, Staff has no objection. If, however, this phrase is interpreted to encompass other costs, we believe these costs are too remote to be considered in this proceeding for reasons set 1/
forth infra.
We further believe that the costs of insurance, including annual insurance premiums and indemnity fees payable in accordance with the Price Anderson Act, are legitimate areas of contention in this proceeding. Any costs lj We note that Intervenors have stated that this contention is not intended to relate to costs incurred through government nuclear reserach and experimentation (Tr.185).
j
4 T which may be theorized beyond these premium costs, however, are too remote for consideration by the Board.
Referring to the effects the facility may have on development in the area, we likewise consider these costs to be too remote for consideration. As the Diatrict of Columbia Circuit noted in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F. 2d 827 (D.C. Cir.,1972) the directness or remoteness of an issue cannot be determined in a mechanistic manner. Rather, it stated that "A rule of reason applies" (at 837). The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board supported this position in the recent Point Beach decision where it stated, " Broad social questions... cannot be productively considered in a licensing proceeding involving an individual facility." Wisconsin Electric P_ower Company, et. al (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) ALAB-13?, RAI-73-7 at p. 498. We believe that an application of the rule of reason in the manner suggested by the Appeal Board would dictate striking the aforementioned aspects of contention 10 from consideratior. in this proceeding.
The Regulatory Staff believes that all other aspects of'this contention are appropriate for consideration by the Board.
1476 052
- 5. Based on the above analysis, the Regulatory Staff believes that the revised contentions in question should be admitted by the Board with the exception of the parts of contention 10 to which we have objected.
Respectfully submitted, LG Howard M. Wilchins Douglas K. Olson.
Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of September,1973.
I It
[;
F E
[
1476 053 r
e as I
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Comments by the AEC Regulatory Staff Regard-ing Revised Contentions of Intervenor," dated September 7,1973, in the cap-tioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 7th day of September,1973:
Charles H. Haskins, Esq.
Lawrence Sager, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 45 High Street Windy Hill Farm Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Bluemont, Virginia 22012 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Max D. Paglin, Eaq.
Special Assistant Attorney
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Room 219 Washington, D.C.
20545 Towne House Apartments Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Mr. M.. Stanley Livingston 1005 Calle Largo W. W. Anderson, Esq.
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501 Theodore Adler, Esq.
vffice of the Attorney General Dr. John R. Lyman Department of Justice Department of 2nvironmental 2nd Floor, Old Museum Building Sciences and Engineering Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, I: orth Carolina 27514 Herbert C. Goldstein, Esq.
133 State Street Mr. Ralph S. Decker Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Route 1, Box 190D p
Cambridge Maryland 2113 1A76 054
N George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Miss Mary V. Southard Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Chairman, Citizens for a Safe Barr Building, 910 - 17th Street)N.W.
Environment Washington, D.C.
20006 P.O. Box 405 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Mr. Douglas Baker Environmental Coalition on Atomic Safety and Licensing Nuclear Power Appeal Board 1919 Sandy Hill Road U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 Washington, D.C. 20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Frank W. Karas Board Panel Chief, Public Proceedings Staff U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of the Secretary of the Washington, D.C.
20545 Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545
+^-
U@
(
Howard M. Wilchins Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff l
b t
4 1
i 1476 055 i
.