ML19308B225
| ML19308B225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1967 |
| From: | Harris J, Reeder S, Tally J PIEDMONT CITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912160139 | |
| Download: ML19308B225 (6) | |
Text
_. _
W
&L l.s.
Cw di IWi1DE3 l
t P80D. & UTIL, EAC.704,f,2,70,gf'/
/
../.
. M.:a s'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN Tile MAe A6R OF
'. )
s[y.,-[ #y,
- )
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
DOCKET *NOS. 50-269 (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION
)
50-270
)
S0-287 UNITS 1, 2 and 3)
)
'l
\\gg)1 0 f c.
SUPPLEMENT TO'
' 6,., '
((@..([.!)h [
INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION
' ( 1 '. '.- -
OF
.cd, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N[N a-l AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i' 'N Cities of Statesville,'lligh Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle, and tho S
Towns'of Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, D00IEIID Newton, and Lincolnton, all in North Carolina, 151EC A
gj, Intervenors NOV221967 > b
'b h
Off!Cs af fte Sa Ct;;ry 13:ls PrGC:tCags.
unca-Jack R. IIstris ega Suite-207 i
Stimpson-Wagner Building Statesville, North Carolina
~
J. O. Tally, Jr.
P. O. Drawer 1660
~
Fayetteville, North Carolina Spencer W. Reeder Spencer Building St. Michaels,' Maryland Attorneys for Intervenors
~
November 22, 1967 ink $ I6013h:
f.
m l
l ONITED STATES OF AMERICA t,
/
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/
I I
IN THE MATTER OF
,)
)
DUKE POWER COMPAN'l
)
Docket Nos. 50-269
)
50-270 50-287 (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION )
)
UNITS.1, 2 and 3
)
i SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Intervenors, Cities of Statesville, High Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle and Towns of i
i Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, Newton, and Lincolnton, l-all in North Carolina, hereby, in apt time, supplement the t'
grounds for their "Intervenors' Exceptions to Initial
\\
Decision of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Request for Oral Argument " filed November 21, 1967, by the addition there,
to of the following-paragraphs for insortion therein at the l
places indicated, and request oral argument thereon, as.
l
.followss' l
l l
i i
l
/
i.
1
'O E
f 6
~
l I
t
____---.__z____
_..__i_,,_
.s
~
i f
4 I
SUPPLEMENT A TO GROUNDS FOE INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION 1 i
(To be inserted on p. 8 of Intervenors ' Exceptions afte.
i the words "The grounds for this exception...are:"
!l
/
l The Board's attempt to treat the "proj ect" rather than the " reactors" as the " utilization facility" to be
- i il licensed is unauthorized by law and contrary to law. The.
utilization facility involved is the reactor, and not 1
the entire Oconee Nuclear Station, or any part thereof, other than the reactor.
Section 11 cc of the Act de-fines " utilization facility" as "any equipment or device except an atomic weapon, determined by rule of the ccm-
.i I,
mission to be capable of making use of special nuclear
, material... ; or (2) any important ccmponent part es-pecially designed for such equipment or device as, deter-
_ mined by the, Commission."
But, by the Commission's Rules and Regulations,10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.2(b), the T
l term " utilization facility" is limited to "any nuclear reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the.
)
'l formation of plutonium or U-233."
The Commissio'n has
/
Y
,f never even determined that any ccmponent.part 'of the re-actor especially designed for such equipment is capable i
of making use o: speciaA nuclear material and therefore j
t l
"a utilization facility" within the meaning of Sec.11 cc (2) of the Act, supra.
Therefore,.the, Board's attempt to treat the " project" rather than the " reactor" as the"uti-
.l lization facility" to be licensed is unauthorized by law and contrary to law.
i 6
i b
r
.. - - ~. -
._.,,s,..
.m.
i I
~.
s s
SUPPLEMENT B TO GROUNDS FOR INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION 6 (For insertion following page 15 of Intervenors' Exceptions.)
The Board's extension of the statutory definition of l
"Research and Development" goes so far that if applied to l
the research and development activities which the Commission j
is authorized to conduct in its own utilization facilities j
i.
or by contract with others under Section 31 of the Act, it i.
would justify the building of the Oconee Nuclear Station by I
the commission.
But Section 44 of the.Act expressly forbids the " Commission to engage in the. sale or distribution of -
energy for coinmercial use except such energy as may be
, produced by the Commission incident to the operation of
!research and development facilities of the, Commission, or i
of production facilities o'f the Commission."
Similarl.y, the Congress by simultaneous amendment of Sections 101 and 103 (P.L. 84-1006, 7 Stat. 1069, Sections 11 and 12) has i
forbidden the "use" of any utilization facility without a license, has authorized by express words the J.icensing of the "use" of any utilization facility only under Section 103, and has not expressly nor by implication authorized the i
licensing of the "use" of any utilization facility under i
Section 104.
So, Co,ngress, under the doctrine of exeressio l
unius exclusio alterius, by expressly requiring the licensing of " commercial" utilization facilities under Section 103 of 1
I l
(
- = =
m-+
=--,,-e
-e
,==
l
s.
i f e I
the Act has prohibited the licensing of utilization facilities for commercial use by " noncommercial" license t
i under Section 104.of the Act.
l.
i I
E t
.e
.E 9
~
i t
o i
I y
s
'1
(
g 1,
t 1s s
s
~
..'t*<*
r
...n o
i l ;'
5 I
g 1
a i
- 4 4
,/
o e
e
.L
'[+
.. 6.
2.
g q
r y
N k'
e.go qgepegy, ee,
.g.es
.+av.**-
.s'e'*.n o me."-*-
em.W" eM*"**""*---
1 I...
j
- +
as herein supplemented, h'!!EREFORE the Intervonors pray thaMhc Commission sus-tain each and all of the abovo listed exceptions; and, as to each j
and all, overrule the Board; and that the Commission dismiss the application of Duke Power Company as unjurisdictionally submitted.
under Section 104(b) of the Act; and direct the resubmission of an I
application by Duko, if Duko so wishes, undoi Section 103 of tho Act; and that the Commission allow and order oral argument upon these exceptions'an' this appeal from the Board to the Commiss h a.
d r
Respectfully Submittod, l
1 City of Shelby City of Statesville City of High Point City of Lexington City of Monroe City of Albemarlo Town of Cornelius Town of Drexo1 Town of Granito Falls Town of Newton Town of Lincolaton, North Carolina BY:
- /t.h (Jack R. liarris I
Suite 207, Stimps.on-Wagner Building esville.,A' orth arolina.'
'l l
(
{
/
. j ^. ) L. N.s @ M &.,,
Jy% Tally, Jr./f
,i
ga'j.Drawcr'1630 p'. 0 yotteville, North Caro 1 S a
~.... -
- i M.w.au !. j GAA Sppncor W. Reeder V
(
, Spencer Building...
,d"-
' 5 6t. Michac,1s, Marylan 22 November 1967 e
-.Their Attornoys i
(
s V,
{......-..-...==i=s=-------
" - - ~ ~
~
-- -