ML20027B993

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Order Re Council of Nc Objection to Util Request for Exemption Per Revised NEPA Regulation to Perform Certain Site Preparation Work.Nepa Does Not Bar Preliminary Work.Site Preparation Work Properly Authorized
ML20027B993
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Harris
Issue date: 06/11/1974
From: Bender P
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20027A734 List:
References
FOIA-82-205 CLI-74-22, NUDOCS 8210120132
Download: ML20027B993 (8)
v • d • e


Text

b.:7 J.

5

3..

-3'i_'_%)..:n.'. '.'- Y ' -

s

. --. C '

a.-

. c y _.

C'4 M '-Ck"?.Iri~r=Lk GI -E b

-[

..... j

.. $~.

7

%-~..

v.

-g.c;z:.:; eXJCM:i.r,E--yQ

r.-& '

. O'$.5 $ ***

WU$$WQ1"&.~.'.Y;' A*:-&S-'.: 5, ' ~ ~ =.ll?.---;OIS'-gQ. 5'-*

-o.-

~

E " W y g g& W A i bb? R f 56 5 f.'s C L :~;. : l " D & *.'".-

T* W,-g,O ?l.$h 5,..

?& ~ 'd FW gp~-cy. =%-:Lwn "m;w:mmg;=cy3;ms.e::ggs ;.:pg,;_ggg w

N[

m! t L.

}l

' f !! W UNITED STATES Or AMERICA CLI 74 22

' f ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

}

q lN Ah 3

H ili i i COMMISSIONERS:

6 4

Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman 1

I Clarence E. Larson f

4 I

i 2. '

i -f f'

)

William E. Kriegsman

~-

William A. Anders i-

-;.,-.'..r.L,

..g

.~

yj !:8*4 "

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-400,50-401, i

=

.I I

50-402',50-403 l'

l THE CAR'OLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY June 11,1974 l

- k,.

_ 7'.l

  • L-(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, t

m-Units 1,2,3 and 4)

,M ay MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i g s ca.

7 t

j

@g

' s.

N, $ tY

=

An intervenor in this proceeding Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), challenges our power to authorize specific work at the site of a l,

@ M g

@ !s.W I

proposed reactor prior to adjudicatinE an application for a construction permit, iW

' r' asserting a conflict with the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental l

f M

Policy Act (NEPA). For the reasons below, we conclude that the Commission I

i has the requisite power.

.h i-

? s.-

.m BACKGROUND g

j The Atomic EnerD' Act prohibits the construction of a commercial nuclear reactor until this Commission. after hearing, issues a permit authorizing such I C

~

I l

%[ *'g work (42 U.S.C. @ { 2131. 2133, 2232, 2235, 2239). Nowhere in the Act or it's legislative history has Congress attempted to define construction. Instead.

jp f

Congress entrusted this Commission with the responsibility of determining what actually constitutes construction.

g i

l Accordingly,in 1960, after appropriate notice to the public. we prot!Eigated j

.f 2

{

regulations spelling out the precise activities which would. and would not, be i

considered to be a part of construction (25 Fed. Reg. 8712). Construction was j

determined to commence upon pouring the foundation fot or the installation ym g '

of. any portion of the permanent facility on the sitel The following activities.

. A : t.. f@.. <

etw j

3us,
mong others, were determined not to be within the :mbi of construction-i hr..

'g? i site exploration, site excavation; erecting non. nucle:r fzeilities (such as

[ 4

'g '::j x.d: '

f 939

!, f:.khWS

i. :

M lb.T $,2-d 8210120132 820712

.l

'4d r

PDR FOIA

'E**

UDELL82-205 PDR

.C._,..

l

,. =.-

~.

% *****"". ~ +

-+-

. - m -.

3 h 2'I --j;.N*

um-a - - '

~(-.

5-2 *-M,

'~ -

-iM D-

'( L.o

,. v _,.. - -.,.

~ * - - - - -

r

.- -- p c

?;g.;,,e :

s l

1.._w g' 4

E..P.--.Z.*.a_'

..I!I i

bl.

m.

9:$W.*.

i There M. : D..

tur bo-genera tors and turbine buildincs) and temporarv bu:Idmg5 (aus,

.c

-h constructich equipment storece sheds) tar use :n connection with the uhim -

Commissi

. 7

~0 i k. -@L g A J g:

~ L.

connruction of a nuclear facihty; and the bmlding of roadways. railroad spur.-

perform t M W

and transmission lines. Consequently, these activities could be pesformed

'ircumsta w c.e y g p

.c p,t without any authorization from the Co nmission.Th;.s settled practice remained t

permits f(

i environm in ef fect for over ten years.

substantia M_-

Following enactment of NEPA, the regulations were revised in 1972 so that which Cr

.J -

.,y

,/ this preliminary work could no longer be undertaken anytime at the choosing of Environm g;

'a utility. (37 fed. Reg. 5745). Rather than the prior blanket permission, a utilit}

based on

((

desiring to perform such site-preparation work had to Orst satisfy spe:iGi eranting

,,j, ;

criteria.idopted to assure that (1) signincant environmental harm would not preparatic

.q gj',

result and (2) the work would not innuence our NEPA cost. benefit analysis of

,,gg g the construction permit application. Moreover. such work would be allowed-forecl' 'se 4"

M i

by issuance of an exemption-only in the most compelling circumstances to o

j h.La

,oigd'Er U'

serve the public interest; and even then such authorizations would be granted O i' i

- The 1 l

sparingly. In essence, the same site preparation work that could be accomplished foundatio g

gj g

prior to NEPA could still be undertaken following enactment of that statute;but

]IgME niG3,h NEPA..such work (following promulgation of our revised regulations to

'above, be h build whereas the work could be performed anytime at the option of a utility prior to productio

'M implement NEPA) could only be undertaken after careful weighing and mem t

balancmg of relevant environmental factors.'

performe<

p

_ - - _ --m agency,.

4 i

y 7i !

FACTS OF THIS PROCEEDING CCNL_

action for

' D'_EMMl!

V T-M""'"

Against the above background. the present proceeding falls into proper was not i d

M gj perspective. In December 1973, Carolina Power & Iight Company-which had ts author

-E' w

' w'esecm edll l' earlier applied to the Commission for permits to construct the Shenron Harris

, i@.M.E--..ey I nuclear reactor-sought an exemption. pursuant to the revised regulations. to I

+i j

perform certain site-preparation work. The exemption request was supported oy a r.r-n- "W} g detailed facts setting forth the reasons for the request;it also contained Carolina iIE*"

4 g g p y tg Power,s views on what the environmental impact and,, cost savings, would be il..

.,The:-

4

)

gyW'"Mh t the site preparation work were allowed to be performed. Subsequently, in Pendin

. ] 6.Q response to extensive questions from the regulatory staff. Carolina Power

[""'

[

submitted ' additional information, includmg cost estimates of the proposed

, n,;, o -

U l y --_

g aenvin work.

!m,cac..bp

= a'e

,i

'The factors are (1) whether conduct or continuation of the activities will pive rise so a Licens.

~i !

(*

significant adverse impact on the environrnent and the nature and extent of such impact.if "Indec

]

any: (2) whether redress of any adverse environrsentalimpact from conduct or continuation granting th J, M.

O of the activities can reasonably be effected if necessary; (3) whether ccnduct cr

,'It ws?

j

't.~-

  • - r g[*

contmuation of the actmtses would foreclose subsequent adoption of alternauves; and 9:

sts months the effect of delay in conduct n; the activities on the pubhc interest, including the power Power nee-a b]

needs to be served by the proposed facihty, the availabilny of alternative sources. if an), to Storeos 3

meet those needs on a timely basis, and delay costs to the applicant and to consumers.10 reshzed by

H

~5 CFR !50.12.

i

g..

D J

940 f

., phs i

  • I w,

lb.-5 e !.

==m[ !

=

M S, n'hM'%iM~~

.N

p,5M cf.R;hD. E sW:"w-!W5:t. WO32.T,Ln"*".:

Fr-M" w s ~. w m + W-

-2 e. w~'mr~

-s +

m,.- -. W.. Q y, s.. a sm$;,.~,~ *-? :

r-

-2

^ f E**.~-l***"*fb,M*5 y -

-- w -

~-

- &-7 v-m

.*%.sm. % _,

.m.>*~~k

  • '*4

.r

~$_.,, m... u~? ;

.c w

  • ~-4 wA

- W.

,M,,_

- W."_'Q; -~. ~ ~ ?5;-;:*.4~#" igg.,,,.,,,

s,s..- ~-- :=g 8".. 6 *^. -a- ~5.*..r - - %..._-.f *.,*. 7 * *~ * ** G-g-L'.;'.~..;.;--J a,-ps:; %, e wN-

- - ~ - _ _

f M, e

.e.

4

~

-5

;:.: ~.*~ 5 ~~~. &~ C Y ? *' ' M ~ Q '* ~

.= (~~ ~

V' ~~

WA' I

~

z.

. _..m.

. - 3.

w.g u--

m...

n-W_.

~

x...w.: M.

y, k-$dk 5

.N.

,y,

,,,,wsnc.w c

s.,

...' ~3 --.- w r.. y :,

J.

- ~.

-w~

f =.~ y. $

==

??

w,-

~

(

m ll:t I dlhk i

.-l :l!!

!!, Ni,.

Thereafter..on January 14,.1974, the Duectorate of Licensing (the

?

I Commission's delegate for these purpose,), granted Carchna Power's request to !

perform the site preparation work.2 The grant was b,ased on a number of special 3

circumstances, including the following factors: (J) issuance of construction lil ij I

)

permits for the,Shearon-Harris reactor had earher been recommended m a fmal 1,', h-t emironmental statement issued by the staff; (2) thereafter, there had been a s

s substantial delay in the original Ucensing sche'dule caused by design revisions j '. j p'J f

which Carolina Power had to make to satisfy new requirements of the i

Emironmental Protection Agency; and (3) a draft emironmental statement l " q based on the revised plant had then been issued which also recommended j

y

+
}i p

N','

granting construction pe rmits.2 The gram also concluded that the site 8

t preparation work would not have a lignificant adverse environmental impact;

' il[$

redTess' could be achieved. if necessary; such.prelimmary_ work _ would..not foreclose subsequent. adoption, if necessary, of altematives; and such work

s>' t I 1.h w o'uldler,ve. the. p u blic.in terest.'

.t E.g*g

The authorized work included road construction; clearing, grading and h

foundation excavation for the plant area; relocation of certain railroad tracks; gh g

I-the building of temporary facilities, including a warehouse and concrete g

production plant; and the harvesting of timber en the reservoir site. As noted

~~

above, before we amended our regulations in 1972. this work could have been j

performed at the choosing of a utihty without any specific approval by this j

l l

\\

agency.

  • g g W p

CCNC was promptly notified of the authorization, and elected to take no

' $ T action for about one month. Meanwhile, work began and was well under way. It was not until February 11,1974 that

'NC asked the Commission to suspend

<g '

its authorization, claiming that the gr...

violated the Atomic Energy Act and l

$ 3 I.%,%

F

?

l&

Iw W

'.N h i Waed

'The authorization was conditioned as' folion 5:

.,e,-

l "O*'

Pending comp!etion of the full NEPA environmental review. Carolina Fower and Light 8 ~

Cornpany proceecs with site preparation of the Shearon. Harris site at sts own retk. Th' e j

des ussion and f encings herein co not precfwde the AEC, as a result of the ongoing NEPA h

i environmental review, f rom continuing modif ying, or terminating the site preparation h

anevitees oermitted by the exemption or f rom accropriately conditioning the esemattOn l - -

i to protect environmental

v. f v e s. l Discussion and Findenp' by the Directorate of Liter' Sing at page 12.1 h

, [g.

j, '{I***h :gg

'Indeed, since then a final envircnmental statement has been issued also recommendin; pantm; the permits.

'h un estimated that the sine preparation work would accelers:e plant construction by

)

,1lp 8 Q sis henths if construction permii. were uhsmately issued. thereby helpin; to meet electne g

power needs of the pubhc.

g;,.

4, !

\\fe: cover. n wn e<amated thst such w ork would a!!cu sut 5: anti.rl con min;s to bc wha d 4 the a;, bean; and ai rustome:- :ntalin; il10 miliicn.

{ h!,

t -9

  • q

., N

'b A-<

8 941 t,l' j '

i. _1 i

!;;n

's1

, - ~

ji.,[

[ **d H..- M i 11il;,, m L:' w 4p 6al, Nj=J=,

w

[

  • JM ed.

e me b-ee

.-c..,..

.5

.~

.:.,C.4:

o '.

..'SuiGri... E u @..

-t-r::=. d.:.am-mEna '- a6s._ M,=.c.-i$'@fddl

.x-y

_._ m mas _

mu-

.sc e - ~

o

~

. y D."p~ "

N 7

t!:

g V M.m_s,0 i::

yhN*

  • ~

%. : c.- = u~.,..

i

.q

(

j. g dg' NEPA.5 lt was CCNC's position that we could not authonze such work to beg:n untilissuance of a revised final environmental statement.

~

d On March 4.1974. m response to CCNC's challenge. we ordered that: 1Ii utho'

,_ @ q briefs should be filed with us by the parties addresting the question of our legal NR power to authorize such site preparation wor'k;(2) hearines should be' conducted

  • 'I"*~

0 l!

by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (which has jurisdiction over the A-P Shearon Harris construction perrnit proceedings) on the merits of the work J

i entrus -

l i,

authorized here; and the parties, if dissatisfied with the Licensing Board's

[

determinsuon, should file exceptions with the Atomic Safety and Licensing l

i i

I Ped 0r t.

r Appeal Board; and (3) the Licensing Board should promptly decide whether the e-.s.

.! l which site preparation work already under way should be suspended m. whole or in part

-]Tf pending the hearing on the merits; and any dissatisfied party should seek witho

' ~

immediate review of that suspension question before the Appeal Board.

.~

impie i

m=t Shortly thereafter, on March 11, 1974, the Licensing Board issued its j

~" '

decision suspending in part some of the previously authorized work pending the pursu 7

_ "i i outcome of the full hearing to be held soon on the merits. The Board allowed

.2_

t work.

,;g l

the 'following work to continue-grading on already-cleared and already level 7.. L. p' -" 1 land, as well as the construction of above-ground auxiliary structures, telephone show hnes and fences;' however it suspended any further excavation and. clearing of

,i men -

.# q p

trees.a Upon review, which CCNC requested, the Appeal Board affirmed.

Co Q

j ALAB-184, RAI 74 3 229. The Appeal Board also held that, because the J I gg

.;jpM exemption had been granted earlier without CCNC being given an opportunity 0-esd to oppose it, the applicant, Carolina Power, would have to assume the burden of P*i1 k

persuasion on every factual issue presented to the Licensing Board in the W

mil 21:

provit 9

torthcoming hearings on the merits of the exemption. ALAB 184 at RAI 74-3 at 238.

I that Subsequently, on April 3,1974, after conductmg hearings, the Licensine p.,_-

Board handed down its decision lifting the interim suspension, and finding that g,

the site preparation work was warranted in the circumstances of this case.

[,k ? ' M 3 Measuring the work by the environmental criteria set forth in our regulations,

-n j ' - ' _ '

..m I

the Board concluded that it was in the public interest to allow such work to be

.,,,,.c i ep performed here.

"~

CCNC then elected not to file exceptions with the Appeal Board, even j

7

'.t

]

though it had the opportunity to do so. Instead CCNC chose to rest on its brief

}

challenging our legal authority to permit such site preparation work.

g revisi

~

.I h

- 2 d,

e

-r p

. $= =.~l I

52ssW l

-?d ww;3 y

~ ^ ~

.. a*r.r#

' Letter from Thomas S. Erwm. Astorney for CCNC to L. Manning Munuing. Director

~~ d]

M of Regulation, February 11.1974.

q

  • /d. at p.1. A revised, final environrnental staterunt was issued on April 1.1974.

~ pd."

,i

' Initial Decision. LBP.74-12 in RAl-74-3 at p. 279.

[

'/d. at p. 274

. 4-

      1. DG

~. c+<,er.,c' 942 i

~

=

- ' *;.;'y _.

.:j 2r.c.*W,,"

z w pa t- - = - -:.r.,y q_ q'W:' X S5%$nt

-_..c_.:.w w,

..- n
c. s % _. q /;z.,$ W hi i~ l ; &

n

4 M-E C ~.: --~- -

6.=^t W hlf:n"ni?-C'"- ? M-a m

-L*.' *

%.s S & k~7. 3.+ - e 2:%.c~ hl:, # W ".*. W q ; ". 2::t.a H ':

t'7.

-- - m.c:~. s

.;-m.=

_c %#w

. e

'-% b.=:=.'..='

.h r_.==:t-

-' - :.~ r. - - - ?~.

22. :.~.9 =.w r..:. *:y C '.~4:l. ;-

a-

.-~~L=.,- [.

  • - -?

.r.-

'. [. ' -.'_.. g,

[

Y.

"Yp

~~

j. 4.- -

d.* a ~

f2W 1 $..d.t-1E.'.':6 '#

S--

N..

J.E R $....

v.

.3.-ww g&&

-kkb.d5Nbk[.'

.35DE -

2', M h M hN[kNbilf$~!NhkbN6N.Nk'5h.i

'\\ Nb'd-%

kkd[

~

lmi

\\

' i!)ii bi tt 1

11 7 1

. U!d 5

' ll!!!!

i CCNC first comends that the Atomic Energy Act bars this Commission from g

authorizing site preparation work until construction permiu are issued. That g"'

argument. however, erroneously assumes that such preliminary work constitutes g

construction of a reactor. As we described above, Congress never attempted to I,

i L

defme in the Act precisely what activities would constitute construction,

{

entrusting this Commission with that responsibility.

' l The site preparation work that Carolina Power has been authorized to perform here, could have been carried out pursuant to our prior regulations-

. f I

L which remained in effect for over ten years-at the option of the utility 4

without any specific approval by this agency. The regulations were revised in 1972. not because of any requirements of the Atomic Energy Act,but rather to implement the precepts of NEPA which had then recently been enacted.' And

  • lt pursuant to the revised regulations,it was found that Carolina Power had made a i

J compelling c2se warranting approval of iu request to perform the preliminary

~

work. In short, the same site-preparation work that could have been carried out prior to NEPA could still be undertaken thereafter, but only upon a strong

[i.

showint~ by a utihty-which was made here-satisfymt particular environ-pl

~

l mental criteria.

I CCNC points to nothing whatever in the Atomic Energy Act or itslegisl: tive "5

f-history indicating that site-preparation work is deemed to be tantamoum to 3

nstruction of a reactor. Nor has CCNC referred to any authority which bars 7

.iis Commission from executing its traditional duty of interpreting the provisions of the Act we are charged with administering. Our interpretation of 2

.what constitutes construction of a commercial nuclear reactor for purposes of IN

'.ifthat Act should therefore be entitled to great weight. United States v. City of W 5

~

Chicago, 400 U.S. 8,10 (1970); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S.

h h l

~

367, 38) (1969). This is particularly true where, as here, the Congressional Joint i

Committee on Atomic Energy has been kept informed of our evohing practice-Q jb r.

beso

}

'ill @ d $+ <

b i

' As ue explained in de statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed

}4g g I

j revisions:

The Commission considers tnat tne proposec amendments are consisteni with tne j

y g ;

, direction of the Congress, expressed on section 102 of the National Environmental

.h t g Pohey Act of 1969 that. to the f uhest extent possible. the pohcies, repstations and G

pubhc laws of the United States shaft De mterpreted and administered in accordance

, 'h N'

with tne pohcies set f orth in that Act. Since site preparation constitutes a key point.

h

' j@

from the standpoint of environmer t.1 empa ct. in connection with the hctnsing of I

]

r

,. t i

nuclear f acihties and materials, the proposed amenoments would enable consideration 49o balancing of a becader rangt or reahstic alternatives and provide a mcre significent l

f i

l mechanism f or protecting the environment during the earher stages cf a hcensed project.

i36 fec' Fep. 22B49. Decembe' 1.1971)

{.y., i'.]j i

=

943

$ q.

t Nl%GS $

IK."[

i m.'!i

'! h!';l 1-

_[,

.._g-R$1rSM

.- _--a.5 %~ :- -K p

.&.:.b, U.:. y m : _ ? --

~ ~ ~..

-e

..r.----

u 7,-v.

r-g 4 1; n EP9 l

m I."U concerning the authorization of site. preparation work. Power Recetur

('

? i&l.

Development Corp. v. International Union of Electrical h'orkers, 367 U.S. 396.

l f Qg%

409(1961).

y pg It should be Ormly understood that under our present regulations there is no 1E ir- ^ '- t blanket permission to perform site preparation work. To the contrary. an

~d, f

authorization to do such work under the regulationsis the excepuon rather than

" ~g

[

the general rule (which prohibits that work). It is manifestly in the public ird EW interest to have such an exception or exemption. See United States v.

f.

?fhl Allegheny-Ludlum Steel ' orp., 406 U.S. 742,755 (1972); Permian Basin Area C

1

- hC Rate Cases 390 U.S. 747,784-87 (1968); h'A/TRadio v.FCC,418 F.2d 1153, WV81 w

4 t

1159 (D.C. Cir.1969). This is true especially where, as here, benefits to the E%'

public will resuh from the site. preparation work that Carolina Power per[

6:':

i for ms.' '

. Rwinnen.

..q-e_.

  • =

_f hfj i 11 4e 3

I a

CCNC has shifted positions while' ar'guing that NEPA also prohibits this

. y.

1%

MrEE C i

agency from authorizing site. preparation work prior to adjudicating an applica-gILhC% !

tion for a construction permit. When it first attacked the grant here, CCNC

~ 'M

~ 6-i

  1. f l

asserted that the Commission could not authorize the work to begin until

" ~'.;

- " j!!!

j issuance of a revised final envuonmental statement on the proposed Shearon-

_, 7,"'* j i

Harris reactor. a However, apparently when it then saw that issuance of such a I

statement was immment,8 3 CCNC switched positions and argued that the y;:.wy-, we=.

I Commission could not authorize the work to begm until a later point in E,4 P

.-,.y-.4-3

--g W -;=-g time-namely, when the "NEPA review", including AEC hearings, initial

[

decisions intra agency appeals, etc., of the Shearon Harris reactor has been g j# gC aA completed.

~~- & -

The question presented here is whether NEPA bars altogether any

$y h

. preliminary work on a proposed project when an administrative agency-which carefully weighs and balances specific environmental criteria before allowing the Q'g g'- My a 7

7N'4 :MC work-has not yet completed its full environmental review of the entire project.

We find that NEPA contains no such prohibition, and that the site. preparation

--e d T:q=;;_.,

i

~

,_ C c_ _:

work was properly authorized in the circumstances of this case.

=... n

r. q

~

'C

.7 s:_

hQ* % Qm _

"See, e.g.. Heanngs Befort the JCAE on Indemnity and Reactor Safety, Apn126-27, (1960). pp.191196 IS6th Cong., 2d Sessien,: letter from Director of Regulation to th:

-d

'A

' --C.*7 Vice Chairrnan of the JCAE. dated May 8,1972.

~.;3 I.hM,

' ' See p. 941. supra.

?. T1)*

d'r&'

The revised tinal environrnental statement was issued on April 1.1974, the same day 1

'See p. 942. supra.

T7 M.L that CCNC filed its bnef with us chanpng posi ions and arguing that site preparation work

,~

z-'*--

Ai I

77-W N

could not bepn until the SEPA review of the Shearon Harris reactor had been completed

' 4 M..=, D. I (bne.t', p. 5).

"CCNC's brief pp. 5-6. filed with the Commission on April 1.1974.

ki

!;w~

d-444 7

N.

k

, i ~i.ti_ M_

.il

  • M
  1. -v

~-

~

y

.,\\:

k ;fy,-5;-:'~0~542 M. N C D N M I d @!' S h M

~

kk.. G h.5 N N ' M~8=%

.N. 41-N's_-> %.-

4.s$ ~~[&@-~"-

Z.

..-. gr..;.., -- Med.
--6.9. 5*EG=J-3I, h~J 3-22: 4 :-

c5d l'r? - -'~.--.- 6 #$ D-T-E""l17?s_%. b :

.1 tip* ~

E

5..j- : ;;=pt:-

s__

-X-- -4:p.,.'.

,..-ng~

,,- ;t-,,. w.._

' :-.i myr

-7.,r;;- - g.

~

c

. e_ m,-

.- n. n.. - - -,

w :..1....

.w

-..--,,y_...

=... -

~

..;- -:'.K j :,,

? s.. ~.

rd.

name m m

["a,;;;-

R*,

,m.._

r

-v

.n....

,s

&%;.~ ~.3.:N#=='.$2:.Q&-

- b N N.. ch,; N r -

g75.;':.It' 4 L J?r.So~O.n'iN -

-b h -

Er

-lDEU'k.:._ -- F I, ~ 5 q y (-y gig-Q.,q,,y?.=-y,y

>g l

..j it is settled that not every prelinunary action looking toward the eventual Miie :

construction of a nuclear reactor must be stayed merely because the Commission

ImmM~

g has not yet completed its NEPA review. Care v.AEC,479 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir.

,.. w.

1973): Cage v. Commenecalth Edison Co., 356 F. Supp. 80 (N.D.111.1972)

!!!!E (acquisition of land for nuclear plant sue is permissible before NEPA review).

'j [

I

.i Indeed. a Court of Appeals has approved our practice of allowing construction itself to continue in special circumstances. pendmg completion of full NEPA j,

review-after weighing and balanem; environmental criteria which were

{ y strikingly similar to the factors measured here. Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power 5

v. AEC. 463 F.2d 954 (D.C.Cir.1972). Certainly.ifland acquisition or,indeed, y

1 actual construction can go on pending completion of NEPA review, there is no ie reason why we cannot allow limited forms of site preparation work to be carried j

out in unique situations aftci thoroughly analyzing relevant environmental

(# -

factors. See alsolicarilk Apache Tribe v.Morron 471 F.2d 1275,1.284 (9th Cnr.

l

~

1973): Silva v.Romney. 473 F.2d 287,291 (1st Cir.1973).

$'g The regulations enable this Commission to determine what the environ.

IIh

=

b3 bseen l

mentalimpact of site-preparation work will be;whether redress can be achieved if necessary; whether the work will leave open the subsequent adoption of ahernatives if necessary;and whether that prelimmary work will serve the pubbe i

t --

mterest. In short. the regulations help us assess relevant environmental factors at I

the site preparation stage.

24!G j _,

h' g @

in the cucumstances of this case,it was particularly appropriate to authonze Carolina Power to perform such work. As explained above, even though the staff i d t

had issued a final environmental statement recommending a grant of construc-Fg @

s

\\

tion permits for the Shearon-Harns reactor, the original beensing schedule had g Q been substantially delayed because of design revisions which Carolina Power had l ny g l

to make to satisfy new requirements of the EPA. Moreover. a draft environ.

H M k

l

/

mental statement based on these revisions (recommending a grant of construc-

' g g l'..

tion permits) had been issued. And shortly after approval of the site-preparation hp.< %

i work, a f' al environmental statement of the revised plant was issued also NSW :C i

m recommending gran'ing the permits. In essence, this agency's environmental h'sM considerat on of the proposed reactor was far from incomplete at the time the 1

i site preparation wo'rk was authonzed.

I I'inally. not to be-ignored is the fact that CCNC's position. if sustained.

M., b w

could promote evasive tactics by utihues contrary to the pubhcinterest. Until a I I Im..

u utibty files an application with this Commission for a construction permit. we f

l; ghy g would have no jurisdiction to consider envuonmental factors or to 'bar site preparation work undertaken by a utility which gives no officir.liy m

g announced intention of building a nuclear reactor, as contrasted with a

[j,6.S.a*7

. ~~

N.

fossil. fuel plant. kather than encouragmg utihties to follow that stratagem.

t:S* ;

CCNC might well consider whether the public interest is not better served when i........ w i

i !., ;::ei Nf h.'d,

i ::

[f 945

'?

jr J

..d

, i!:

J c

n p;,..

. : rm 8

'V 2~

~%" W.

---_ L ~

r WW

':. *a g_~^> -

n _,

s=>

- - -T q

w

%W

%b g,dp %

S t'

-s.,E. U.;

.i. c C.' E.. =g.a

.3 @ *e

~ s.: i S W.y x- %b utilities are forthright and apply to this Commission for site preparatic.

P.

.w :5, L.

authorit.y -"isuant to regulations designed to weigh and balance environmentz!

r

. %.1 g -

values. See G je. supre..t79 F.2d at 1220 n.19.

n

'E,.,

i. s It is so ORDERED.

t

+s -

~ser.

L.

F

.M..Vn-a

5. ~-. - 3 9 h+4 $'"W.:ii By the Commission.

p.

2.-- f '

i :

Paul C. Bender y

Secretary of the Commission

. =.

i

si F* -.

4,~MN.

Dated at Germantown. Md.

,6 this 1Ith day of June,1974.

erg

~ $~~ MG %,epsE ^ nil

-~^ i -! t m

-kW

~

ll6 f.-. 41.

-.. L.

' ?

7 Il t 3Ii

  • ~ <- i '

f___'-

.. $^.!

. }.

'.3l sq r

_...a.

s

-=*-54'*9mn_

q s.]

.t

~;,

... = -.

m

~.

s.,-.

v.'

e i.,-.....,

'. n -v*ci

'g i

j.

x J.x

'll '.

e-a.4-*< g:..ML i

a&2

%qj

!.3.' :- ~5&. W;W-Ms v: '* Wm_ ol m.

{

w a

a' %-~]:. 5 1 %=:4

V~

.0

. zn ~. L_.

~ CCgm,,

., q. p ^--

.-.m

.1 g

.b.. r((-[

-E o..;-.d,

-:,.?

.. m

.it w

.....w,

...r.4 -.

g*,

~

~,~ 5 M ' -

..:. ->t.

i

- w

mers,

?.

-.l v..

.r

  • [

S1 z-

.7.MU g

5; 946

- w tm i;-..

?'

li

$ :.:.Q

&*m.tW,

. 2%%ti

  • --.. ~. rs.CQ 3

.-_ W, W*i*h h..-a.

.-.**.n

-s

--r.._'-;.~~.. ~~ ~.':-G %-

'_x. ' ' W.T* *.*?- #

.-n e L-

_. s~.M.. - ~ * *..... _

..': :x%.~. -A.9' - 4:a.. :y% >.:.nr.... --.'. - ---eM,,.. u..5

-;"T * *

.a

.<r-

.. -_ i.'C-r c, - -

,. f * -a- : &w-

.. _,.e s_.f ~.:. ;..--

,n.. - - - - > s:.. '- -i...f

.:+

car.e-- a

-y --

r - :...

- 2. "

=.. w g %. a-.. : x,,

a.: ~

.. --~.*.a...>.1....,.:..

.m..,-

3-,-g.~. g:.: -

. m-3.;

=.. -

~

m

..:F...***.,..+.~..---l..

. =.~.~ : -t.m.. ~: -d.v.., s; ~....

.C ~ ' : -. ";;.. " *

...-x-a~a-r.-

g e

~

  • y

. **g... '

.-. g..

_ _ _. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20027B993&oldid=4619781"