ML20114E628
| ML20114E628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1968 |
| From: | Engelhardt T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210120225 | |
| Download: ML20114E628 (4) | |
Text
.
l
.L. -
1 mm FROD & UE, MS. 50-37 l i'
i j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
i j
ATO:11C ENERGY CC 011SSION i
In the Matter of
)
i I
)
I
{
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR PO'.CR
)
Docket No. 50-271 CORPORATION
)
)
l (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
)
N
}
Station)
)
e e'
ANSIER OF THE AEC REOUIATORY STAFF IN
(
D 0 0 E I,2 0 g
i OPPOSITION TO THE STA~E OF NEN HAMPSHIRE'S m
PETITION FCR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
{
COMMISSION'S MEMORAN31?d AND ORDER f ' APR 23 '2958> g!
i g...
t&: Per L ;s
//
3 C,
Cim i
GA 8,
Introduction 4
On* /.pril 8,1968, the Atomic Energy Co=aission (Cor:nission) is:,ued a Memorandum and Order in this proceeding disposing of 1/
exceptions which were filed by the State of New Hampshire and others to an Initial Decision of an atomic safety and licensing board (board) dated December 8, 1967, which authorized the
\\'
issuance of a provisional construction permit to the Vermont
'\\
Yankee Nuclear Pouer Corporation (Vermont Yankee) to construct a
nuclear power reactor at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pouer Station.
The Memorandura and Order of the Conraission denf ed the State's exceptions to the Initial Decision, all of which related to the State's contentions that the Commission had jurisdiction over matters relating to thermal effects of, e proposed facility on 1/ " State of New Hampshire's Bill of Exceptions", December 27, 1967.
9210120225 920520 PDR DRG NRCHIST-PDR
^^~~
~~
O O
2 the Connecticut 1tiver.
On f.pril 12, 1963, the State of 1:<:w 11ampshire filed a pott. tion for Co. mission reconsideration of its Memorandum and Order and requested specif _,rd relief.
The State's petition for reconsideration is essentially a repetition r the exceptions it took to the Initial Decision.
11
/,rrument In its petition for reconsideration, the State of New 11ampshire has offered no new arguments or presented any evidence in support of its contentions that the Comission raust assume jurisdiction over matters relating to thermal effects of nucicar
~~
power.h nts. The Commission's Memorandum and Order makes cicar I,
that it carefully considered the arguments of the State, Vermont Yankee and the AEC regulatory staff in reaching its conclusion that:
"It. sum, it is our view that the Co:m-ission's regulatory jurisdiction under the Atomic Energy Act respecting health and safety does not in-i clude control over thermal effects of a naclear facility and that no enlargement of our jurisdiction is effected by the Water Q, ality Act of 1965 or Executive Order 11288." jf 2/
Commission tjemorandum and Order, p. 11 (April 8, 1968) e
O O
In effect, the Secte of New 1'impshire's petition for re-consideration rcercly presents statements as to why it is dissatisfied with the Comaission's P.cmorandum cnd Order. Tne fact that the State finds the result unsctisfactory to it does not provide a basis upen ahich it can expect the Comission to 2/
reconsider the !!emortudu:a and Order.
Since no neu argunents or evidence in support of its contentions cre presented by the il State, the Commission should deny the petition for reconsideration.
The State of Neu llampshire has contended in its petition for reconsideration that the factual and legal banis for the Comission's !!cmorcndum cnd Order were improper in that the legal precedents relied upon are "scif-scrving". Although the State does not define its mecning of the term "self-serving",
its use appears to relate to the Comission's reliance on prior Comission decisions as precedents for the denial of the State's exceptions concerning thermal effects.
It is a well-established v principle of administrative law that interpretations'of an act of Congress by the agency charged with the recponsibility for its administration, including the promul;;ation of rules cnd regulations reflecting such interpretations, are entitled to very great weight and should be rejected only if plainly contradicted by explicit statutory provisions or utterly inconsistent with 3/ North Central Airlines v.
C.A.B., 281 F.2d 18 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
~
4/ City _of Dalles v.
C.A.B., 221 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
I
O O
4 the demonstrated intention of Congrens manifested by the legis-5/
1stive history of the cet.
The State has made no showing that the Commission has incorrectly interpreted the law nor hasit made any case regarding the alleged scif-serving nature of the legal precedent relied upon by the Cemmission.
Thus, this argument must i
be rejected by the Commission as a basis for reconsidering its
~
d Memorandum and Order.
III Conclusion For the recsons set forth above, the petition for re-consideration of the Commission's Memorandum and Order filed by the State of New Hampshire and its specific rc' quests for relief should be icnied.
Respectfully submitted,
,ff.woh.
b
.A Thomas F. Engelhardt Counsel AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 22nd day of April,1968.
~/ Power Reactor Develoorent Co. v. Electric Union, 367 U.S. 396 5
TY961);
Ascociated industries v. Ickes,134 F.2d 694 (1943)
... _