ML19220B155
| ML19220B155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1974 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904250485 | |
| Download: ML19220B155 (6) | |
Text
_
m.
A, 1
1
' ( )
g,7 Q n/
7/3/74 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320 l
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 2)
-)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION FILED BY THE CITIZENS FOR A SAFE ENVIR0iC1ENT AND THE YORK COW 1ITTEE FOR A SAFE EINIR0i! MENT I
e 1.
On May 28, 1974, the United States Atomic Energy Comission published a
~ Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Application for Facility Operating Li-cense and a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing with respect to wnetner tne provisional construction pennit should be continued, modified or s
terminated to protect environmental values in accordance with Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50.
2.
On June 20, 1974, Mr. Chauncey R. Kepford filed a timely petition to intervene on behalf of the Citizens for a Safe Environment and the York Comittee for a Safe Environrent 'hereinaf ter referred to as "CSE" and "YCSE", respectively).
3.
The Regulatory Staff believes the petition to intervene generally satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 8 2.714 with recard to CSE.
However, the Staff believes the octi tion '.o intervene is defective with respect to the YCSE because there is no authorization by YCSE for Mr. Kepford to act on their behalf.
Likewise, the petition
~
'd 7904250485 72 308 h
.j N
g
\\
i i
is void of any identification by name and address of actual members of YCSE.
It will be necessary for proper compliance with the i
Comission's rules and decisions thereunder for an identification of i
actual members of YCSE with an interest inthe facility and the l
authorization referred to above.y We believe the YCSE should be given an coportunity to amend the petition to correct the deficiencies noted above so that they can properly be admitted as a party to the proceeding.
4.
Except as noted below, the Regulatory Staff believes the contentions are generally stated with sufficient particularity to meet the i
requirements of 10 CFR 9 2.714.
s (a) The Staff has no objection to conter. tion 3 except tar tha nortion which states that in the event th 4t the cooling towers wou'.d not withstand an earthquake, then che " state water quality criteria would be violated and severe environmental impacts would ensue"if once-through coolir.; were utilized.
Such state-ment is a legal conclusion which does not contain a factual allegation in dispute which would be an appropriate contention in this proceeding.
s O
See e.g., Wisconsin Electric Power Comcany, et al. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), fiemorandum and Order of Cor: mission (December 26,1972);
Duque_sne Lignt Conaany, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit "o.1),
ALAB-109, RAl-73-4 243, 244 (April 2,1973); Public Service Electric and Gas CcEcany_ (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units i and 2),
. ALAB-136. RAI-73-7 487, 489 (July 12,1973).
ria2CN 7
33; l
w.
" l (b) Contention 10 asserts that the Applicant has failed to consider and evaluate pressure vessel integrity.
The Commission has made it clear, however, that such matters need not automatically i
.be considered by a licensing board and should become an appropriate area of inquiry only upon a showing of "special circumstances." Consolidated Edison Co. of f'ew York (Indian Point 2), Docket tio. 50-247, Commission Memorandum and Order I
(October 26,1972), TID-26300, p. 20.
This contention asserts no "spe-
_[
cial circumstances" and is merely a challenge to an AEC regulation which has "no substantial or prima facie basis." As such, the contention is not appropriate for consideration in this proceeding.
t (c) The Regulatory Staff believes that contention 12 is uncl' ear with respect to the' indemnity insurance and the effect of the liability ceiling.
It is the Staff's position that any costs in excess of annual insurance premiums and indemnity fees payable in accordance witt. the Price-Anderson Act are too remote for consideraticu by the Board. A similar contention in the proceeding of Metropolitan Edison Comoany, et al.
(Three Mile Island fluclear Station, Unit 1), Docket flo. 50-289, resulted in an Atomic Sataty and Licensing Board Order dated October 16, 1973, which stated that such excess costs would be impossible to quantify and "any attempt to do so would be conjectural in the extreme and so spaculative as to be of no practical use."
(p. 5 of Order dated October 16,1973).
The vm o..s q (e2 t..
r,
)
Y e
Board reframed the Intervenors' contention to allow as an issue in the NEPA review concerning cost / benefit analysis and alternatives only those insurance costs payable in accordance with the Price-Anderson Act.
Accordingly, it is the Staff's position that any analysis of the in-direct costs of insurance in excess of those payable under the Price-l Anderson Act would be too remote to be considered in this proceeding.
4 The statement in Contention 12 with respect to the gaseous diffusion plants i.e concerned with a portion of the reactor l
fuel cycle which is outside the scope of this proceeding.
Such statement involves the cost / benefit analysis of the. indirect costs of maintaining gaseous diffusion plants to make enriched uranium.
This cost / benefit analysis has been the subject of a recent rulemaking proceeding (RM-50-3).
Environmental Effects of the Urenium Fuel Cycle, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 37 F.R. 24191 (November 15,1972). As a result of this rulemaking proceeding, the Atomic Energy Commission has published a rule (39 F.R.14188) which became effective on. June 6,1974. The rule i
sets forth certain environmental effects to be considered in the environmental reports with respect to the uranium fuel cycle for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors.
To the extent that
"/3 311
N th r.
- Dmi
~.
i
)
,)
5-j this contention concerns itself with the indirect costs, i.e., the environmental impact, of maintaining gasecas dif-I fusion plants to make enriched uranium, the Staff believes that such costs are included in the above-mentioned rule and any further consideration would be outside the scope of this l
proceeding.
l Respectfully submitted, Y's / 'nl
/k/
Richard L. Black Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff f'
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of July,1974.,
f t
'<3 312
^
i W1
\\ )
)
I UNITED STATEJ OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIO:1 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LIC NSING BOARD l
l 1
In the Matter of
~
METROPOLITAN EDISON C0ftPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
j I hereby certify that copies of "AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO PETITION FILED BY THE CITIZENS FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND THE YORK C0fc1ITTEE FOR A SAFE ENVIR0ts1ENT", dated July 3,1974, in the above captioned matter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mil, first class or air mail, this 3rd day of July, 1974:
Mr. Sidney -G. Kingsley, Chairman Atomic Safet;/ and Licensing 8
Atomic :>arety and Licensing Board Board vanei U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545.
Washington, D. C.
20545 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licen:ing Board Appeal Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, F.
C.
20545 Dr. Fred 2 rick P. Cowan Mr. Frank W. Karas 22 Brow.is Lane Chief, Public Proceedings Staff Bellport, New York 11713 Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mr. Chruney R. Kepford U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Citizens for a Safe Environment Washington, D. C.
20545 108 N. Pershing Avenue York, Pennsylvania 17403 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts t. Trowbridge Barr Building 910 - 17th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 p
n-m!..',/ 'l f, :(,',r Richard L. Black
- 99A, Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
,.y du s- -