ML20028A349

Statement on Socioeconomic Impact of Crbr.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028A349
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	11/12/1982
From:	Lantrip W OAK RIDGE, TN
To:
Shared Package
ML20028A347	List: ML20028A346 ML20028A349
References
NUDOCS 8211180408
Download: ML20028A349 (8)

Text

.

Uyv:T(re

.Jcjfe, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

m.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

1

- W i f-ic;C,

p';j,5~

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

).

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

/

g THE CITY OF OAK RIDGE'S STATEMENT RELATIVE TO THE SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT The' City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee wishes to advise the Board of the City's posi-tion with respect to the impact of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) on our community. The City has been and remains a strong advocate of l

the development of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

It is an important project for the nation's energy future and should be constructed. Oak Ridge is proud to be considered a suitable site and welcomes the construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor within its boundaries.

Although the City of Oak Ridge is a strong proponent of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the City is of the opinion that the issue of in-lieu-of-tax payments to the City should also be addressed in this proceeding. The local tax impact of l

the development of the CRBRP as a federal project with tax immunity, compared to such a development if it were privately owned, should be monitored.

Mit,igation l

l of 1mpacts should'be required in the form of appropriate payments in lieu of taxes by the Department of Energy, (DOE), under the provisions of congressional authorization. Such required monitoring and mitigation should be incorporated into and made a part of the CRBRP's construction and operating license.

kB211180408821112 DR ADOCK 0500053 i

l 2

For many years, the City has reported the difficulties encountered by a munici-pality deprived of a normal resource base because of federal tax immunity for the major portion of local industry. The City has repeatedly expressed its desire that no such immunity be provided to the Clinch River Breeder Reactor or, if technically immune, that payments in lieu of taxes be made as if the project were developed privately.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC), staff has recognized the nature of the problem, but has noted NRC's inability to require DOE payments of any specific amount and appears willing to assume that the matter' will be resolved equitably upon DOE's own initiative within the flexibi-lity provided by 42 USC S 2391. As stated in the Suppleper to Final Environ-mental Statement, " A public project would not be subject to either local property or sales and use taxes.

These two taxes would represent the majority of public revenues attributable to a private project. On the other hand, DOE 1

has' the statutory authority to make financial assistance payments to affected bjurisdictions and has expressed to NRC its intent to exercise this authority in the case of the CRBRP."1

' Although Congress provided guidance to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954 which would suggest considerable limitations regarding payments in lieu of taxes to states and localities, it specified that "such payments may be in the amounts, the times, and upon the terms the Commission deems appropriate...."2 Subse-at quent legislative action has given the Secretary of Energy the authority to pay fust and reasonable sums to af f ected local governments in lieu of taxes, with one of the primary considerations being:

"the approximate real property taxes and assessments for local improvements which would be paid to the gover' -

n mental entity upon property within the community if such property were not exempt fro = taxation by reason of Federal ownership."3 1

~

3

~

The City of Oak Ridge has three major objections regarding the treatment of the ta" equity question in the socioeconomic impact analysis of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which underlie the need for monitoring and mitigation. First, although the problem of tax Lumunity is recognized, its treatment is super-ficial.

The nature of the CRBRP as a federal project, granted tax immunity, has a dramatic socioeconomic impact on the taxpayers of the community--industrial, commercikl, and residential--compared to the circumstances if it were a private T

4 development or developed under a plan for in-lieu-of-tax payments based on full I

tax equivalency. The differences in the share of the municipal burden which must be borne by local taxpayers is a significant socioeconomic impact. The dif ference in municipal support between public and private development has been recognized in NRC staff reports on the CRBRP,4 but it has not been addressed in the proposed monitoring of impacts to be mitigated.

Second, the City expresses grave douets regarding the ability of any entity to comprehensively monitor all of the socioeconomic impacts of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor in terms of individual service categories. The costs of actually monit'oring the use of all municipal services and facilities by employees who are residents, those who are not, their relatives, and their friends would be prohibitive. Multiple, unanticipated social impacts will go unmonitored, unrecorded, and, unless proper mitigation measures are instituted, 4

uncompensated.

1 Third, the existing financial assistance agreement between the City and DOE does I

constitute a realistic, legally binding, or dependable method for assuring not either mitigation of identifiable impacts or continued financial assistance payments in lieu of taxes to the City. This is apparent when one considers i

l 1

L r

,,.,-ye_.,

ww-y-,

-~

er m__-

4 p-y,,-m

,7 9

-9 9

y

I that, while DOE has the statutory authority to continua assistance payments, subaect to congressional appropriation, at the amounts and in the manner it determines appropriate, the existing financial assistance agreement is short term and will expire in 1984; and there exists no assurance that any payments I

will be received after that date. The NRC staff has recognized that the City precently receives in-lieu-of-tax payments, has apparently assumed that these payments will continue to be received, and to this end has attempted to compare CRBRP with a privately constructed facility.

However, the NRC staff has not attempted to quantify the difference in revenues which would be received by the City if the CRBRP was privately constructed. For this reason, monitoring is essential.

\\

The NRC staf f has suggested that monitoring be undertaken with respect to service impacts associated with the construction and operation of the CRBRP.

The applicant has agreed that this is appropriate.

In addition to the moni-tgring of these impacts, the City requests that monitoring of the fiscal impact of the development of the CRBRP as a federal project be required and that such monitoring compare the municipal revenues generated by the CRBRP with those which would have been generated under taxable status. Mitigation of impacts should be in the form of appropriate payments in lieu of taxes by the Department of Energy under the provisions of congressional authorization. While the City of Oak Ridge recognizes that financial assistance payments are made to the City pursuant to congressional authorization and in the manner set forth in such statyte; and furth,er recognizes that funds made available are subject to co n-tinuing appropriation, DOE as an Applicant for licensing of a facility under the NRC's jurisdiction should nevertheless be required to declare its intent to pro-vide mitigation as herein prescribed.

j Respectfully submitted, b9

-r.CA.on j

William E. Lantrip h[

City Attorney i

City of Oak Ridge

Endno tes 1.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Supplement to Final Environmental U

Statement (October 1982), p. 4-20.

2August 30, 1954, c. 1073, ch. 14, section 168, 68 Stat. 952. Emphasis

~

added.

342 USCS S 2391 (a)(1).

Ag,3( Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement Related to ConstPuction and Operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (February 1977), pp. 4-7, 4-14, 4-15; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Supplement to Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction and Operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (Supplement #1; October 1982), p. 4-21.

e h

e 4

t DOCKETED nym:

~

~82 NOV 16 P1 :10 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t-

. [. 51 EEIAB1 E

IC'

!>CLUj!f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

i

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

)

Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

\\

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, on this date, the 12th of November 1982, to the following:

Narshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Mr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 i

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i

U.S. Nuclear Regu,latory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Mr. Daniel Swanson, Esquire Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20545

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtdn, D.C. 20545 I

T The Honorable William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General The Honorable Wiliam B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General i

The Honorable Lee Breckenridge, Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Cak Rige Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Thomas Cochran Ms. Barbara A. Finamore Natural Resources Defense Council h6

'a ingto DC I

Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harrlban, Tennessee 37748 Ms. Ellyn R. Weies Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

-. - a I

• Geary S. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 4

i George L. Edgar, Esquire

~

{

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius j

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washing ton, D.C. 20036 Leon Silverstrom, Esquire Warren E. Bergholz, Esquire U.S. Department of Energy l

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Room 6B-256 j

Washington, D.C. 20036

\\

Eldon V.C. Greenberg, Esquire Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 805 j

. Washington, D.C. 20036 i

Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and p

Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 j

Nashville, Tennessee 37219 4

1 i

w C24 William E. Lantrip h/

j Attorney for the City of j

Oak Ridge I

f i

)

E A

,