ML20115B945
| ML20115B945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1966 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210190036 | |
| Download: ML20115B945 (5) | |
Text
-.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A70MIC ENERGY C0!h1SSION COMMI3SIONERS:
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Vilfrid E. Johnson Samuel M. Nabrit Jamea T. Ramey Gerald F. Tape
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORY, INC.
(Indian Point Station Unit No. 2)
)
MEM3RANDUM AND ORDER On October 3, 1966, an atomic safety and licensing board, by initial decision, directect the issuance of a provisional construction permit to Consolidated Edison Company of New York for Indian Point Station Unit No. 2, a pressurized water reactor facility to be loct%d in the Town of Euchanan, Westchester County, New York.
On October 21, 1966, the Com-mission received an " Appeal From Initial Decision, Dteeptions and Brief in Suppart Thereof" from the Conservation Center, Inc. The Conservation Center objects to the board's denial of its petition for intervention a;i states certain exceptions to the s bstance of the board's initial decision.
The Conservation Center's petition to intervene was denied by the board for failure to comply with the Rules of Fractice of the Commission.
See 10 CFR $ 2 714.
The Center, in its appeal, " assume [s] that untime-9210190036 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR M
.... - ; a... -..
- u. ;, -
l
\\
-2 linesc in the presentation of the petition was nu a basis for denial i
since the decision makes no reference thereto." We need only note here i
that the Center's petition was not properly filed and served upon the parties until the second day of the hearings; that it was opposed, inter alia, on 6rounir of non-tineliness without adequate justification for late filin6; and that, based on the record presented, denial for this reason was within the ambit of a board's authority under our Rules.
Even if we view the petition as timely filed, its very general state-ment of organizational purpose does not set forth an interest of the petitioner in the proceeding which may be affected by Commission action, as required by our Rules.
Petitioner asks that we now consider in support of its interest additional matters presented for the first time in an affidavit appended to its appeal.
We cannot accede to this request.
One seeking intervention should in the first instance set forth before the 1
j atomic safety and licensing board the matters on which he relies for a 1
shoving of interest. Maintenance of an :<rderly hearing process and a due regani for the rights of the parties to a proceeding point to this
]
as the proper course. We see no compelling reason for departing from this course in the present case.
Petitioner, in its appeal, emphasizes the importance of public
]
participation in this proceedinB and seemingly concludes that this is i
l foreclosed by denial of its petition tv intervene.
The hi6h degree of importance ve attach to appropriate public participation is reu.ected in our Rules and in our " Statement of General Policy" explaining the procedures the Co= mission expects to be followed by atomic safety and licensing boards in the conduct of theac proceedinss.
(31 F. R. iR774, September 30,1966).
In the present proceeding we note that there was i
m.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,..,... ~. ~.. -..
. 1 participation by representatives of cognizant State and local official bodies. The State of New York participated as a party throu6h its Office of Atomic and Space Develoinent and supp rted the application.
Limited appearances in supNrt of the application vere made by the Mayor of Buchanan, the Westchester County Executive and the Council on Science and Technology of the City of New York.
Several private persons and organi-zations also =ade limited appearances, either for or agaznst the application.
We think it further vorth observing that when, at the hearing, the deficiencies in the Center's petition vere objected to by the parties - the Commission's regulatory staff, the applicant and the State of New York - counsel for the petitioner stated that intervention was only for the purpose of asking an occasional question in the event the proceedings did not cover some of the questions that occurred to the Center's spokesman from the standpoint of representing the public. While each of the prties responded that it vould have no objection to the Center's making a limited appearance (see 10 CFR
$ 2 715) to acco=modate this stated purpose, the Center tos no action in this regard.
Since the Center is not a party to this proceeding, it has no standing to file exceptions to the board's initial decision.
Matter of Pacific Gas e.nd Electric Compary, 2 AEC 172, and 2 AEC 173; Mattel of Elk River power Demonstration Reactor program Project, 2 AEC 245 We believe, in any-event, that the record supports the board's findings and conclusions under 10 CFR Section 50 35(a) and that issuance of a provisional construction permit was proper.
petitioner's exceptions appear premised in large measure upon a lack of understanding of our two-stage licensing procedure, the scope of infor:ation required for a construction M rmit as contrasted to an operating i
i l, -
licence, and the function of an atomic safety and licensing board at the construction permit stage. As we stated in our decision of May 6, 1965 in Matter of Jersey Central Power & Lis;bt_ Company, 3 AEC
"* *
- Section 50 35 does not require that all design details of the facility must be supplied, nor that at the construction g rmit stage every safety question shall actually have been satisfactorily resolved.
"The board considers the expert analyses, notes any safety questions that remain unresolved, evaluates-the research and developnent program proposed to resolve them, and thereupon comes -.to an over-all judgment as to -
whether there is reabonable assurance that the safety issues vill be resolved and the proposed facility can be constructed and operated safely."
The foregoing reflects the long-standing approach of the Commission's regulatory process.
This approach has received judicial sanction (Power Reactor Develoinent Co. v. International Union, et al., 367 v. S. 396) and has also been reviewed in depth by the Joint Committee on AtomL Energy.
(See, Pover Reactor Developnent Co.
- v. International Uaion, et al.,
supra, at pp. 408-k09; see also, Improving the AEC Regulatory Process, Joint Cocnittee Print, 87th Congress,1st Session, March,1961.) We are satisfied from our review here that the proceedings below meet the cited standard.
It is ORDERED that the appal be denied in all respects.
I Dated:
By the Co= mission.
I l
W. B. McCool Secretary
1 -
Dear Mr. Bogart:
In my letter to you of October 13, 1966, I advised that 1
the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Meersing baard
't on the construction permit application for Indian ibint Station Unit No. 2 vould be personally reviewed by all members of the Com:nission.
As you knov the Co=mt.3sion issued its decision in this P
matter on Decem.
1966.
I ac, w.: - you vill appreciate e,
that in reaching our decision vc 3er-t:- entire proceeding our and personal cttention.
i We ar, I can assure you, fully ~indful of the n'terest A
t'at you have shown here.
If you vould find it helpful, I will be happy to arrange for members of our regulatory staff to meet with you to explain both the staff's safety evaluation in this matter and the AEC regulatory program in gen:ral.
Sincerely yours, Chair =an I
s f.
'l 0 EUDSurVnlinn CU d nr 866' UNITED NATIONS PLAZA NEW YORK, N. Y.10017-October 4 1966.
i Dr. Glenn T. Scaborg, ' Chairman Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Scaborg 4
Vc have received the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Dockut No.
50-247. As the document notes, the Conservat. ion Center which had requested a postponement on August 13, was unfairly denied the right to intcrvene. Counsel requested and ceceived, as the record of-the Public Hearing should show, an acknowledgement of his objection and exception to the decision of the Board with respect to the Conservation Center's position to be allow-i ed in behalf of the public to intervene. If, s
Indeed, there are no undue risks to the health and safety of the'public as the decision states, there should be'no hesita' tion in allowing this modern equivalent of the office of ombutsnam ani opportunity to record its Objections to the Safety Evaluation and roccive detailed answers and assurance.
4 4
Ve request your personal review of this Initial Decision before it becomes effective on October
- 14. It seems clear that the law and the procedures ~
werk against the safety of the public, and tht-the plight of power-short~ Con Edison shoula..ot be allowed to influence the Commission. It is obvious that this is a highly experimental p1r..t and there will be severo pressures to give approv,il i
to steps in advance of knowing with any degree of certainty whether presently unsolved problens can be resolved. The.potentially lethal. nature of giant nuclear reactors does not permit
- y assumptions.
The New York Times of -eptcuber 21 in an editorial Atomic Danger urged the public, safety-fac, tor bc
,given more attenticn.
Vo w 11 appreciate your personal assurance that you have pondered this Initial Decision, which could set a precedent for many proposed -large scale nuc1 car pever plants. N,
Sinc er.cly,
'N'W b,pC$'
Lt/jd Larry Bogart, Director.
i o
l
.< v v I
v V
'a 944 w-i n
~
w c-+"-
4 i -.
UNITED STATES
- ,Q@' g),
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISGION
+M W ASHIN GToN. D.C.
2G54$
l OCT 13155s
^
Dear Mr. Bogart:
3 This-is in response to your 1ctter of October 4, 1966, requesting my-i.ersonal review of the Initial-Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board en-the con-
- struction permic application of Consolidated Edison s
- Company for Indian. Point Station Unit No - 2.
Thank you for your letter. I can assure you that, in accordance with Comission practice, the Board's Initial Decision vill be. personally reviewed by all members of 4
the Commission.
j Sin.s rely yours 9 Chairman Mr. Ltrry Bogart, Director The Conservation Center 866 United bations Plaza New York, N. Y.
10017 b
b j
r 4
.r k
D \\ ' \\ \\] U y -p i
l' o
y gc.
A
'A".,
1
.yq y; yv
,n, g r74
~.
,. c TW Y g )
1.w.w.m y u yuu g
(,0 I /'2-6 6/.?, / k' v
tocket No. 50-747 DEC 161966 Honorable Aichard L. Ottinger House of tapresaatatives Dear Mr. Ottingern This is in respos:A co yor: referral of Novest.er 21, im.
which enclosed the statement, 'The Time-Boob at Indian.*oint, "
s by Mary Hays Welk, escratary of the Comunittee to Fad Radio-logical Hasards, New Yere City.
This statement was presented by Hies Welk on September 14, 1966, at Buchanan, Moe York, La a Itaited sppearance before a
the atomic safety and itesesing board dertug its public bear-ing in the matter of the Consolidated Edisco Company's appli-(
cation for authority to constroce its Indian Point TNelaar Pcuer Station Unit No. 2.
Mac stataisest was incorporated in the *ransertpt of the proceeding.
The board aloo heard fur-ther atrolifying remarks which stma presented orally on the record.
During the course of the hearing, the board referred to Miss Weik's statenest in asking quaseirrns of the partien.
3 Following its consideration of all the evidence and tertiscoy presented in the proceeding, the board on October 3, IW.
s Lesued an initial decistee granting the requent for s' pro-visional construction pruit.
A copy of the decision is en-closed for your inforraattaa.
The permit vss issued by the AIC on Oc t che r 14, 1964.
Cn October 14, 1966, the Con servat ten Can ter. Inc., filed an
" Appeal from Initial Decision. F.zeeptions and Rrief in Sup-port Thereof."
ItesponMa were filed by the applicant and the regulatcry staff opposing the appeal.
The inatt-r is nce pend-ins d+-1 si w be f cra the comenis:ioa.
In keeping vitt
. AEC's rules in licensing proceedings -
t
?.
j fl
[
j
. _ ~
. ~. ~.. _ -.
t 4
. s.p. a s
?
}-
Ponorshle etic hard L. Ot t inger ;
r-f i
copine the Ocamission's Nblic Documentof your letter and of this reply have Room Weik La returned herewith, as you requ. The statement by Hise ested.
1
-stae. rely yours, i
l' T signed ) Haro!d C Price Enreld L. Price Direeter of tegnlation Enclosurest
- 1. Init.ial decisico on Indian Point-2. October 3, 1966 i
- 2. ;1ary Mays..'aik's
(
atateament i
cc: SECY (2) i OGC (2)
OCR (2) bec: Docket File i
Suppl. Docket File HLPrice h
CKBeck MMMann CL11enderson
{.
PMorzin WGDooly l
JShafer t
i' 3-4 NOTE:
See attached sheet for concurrences.
.~ x 1
i l
4 4
k 4
a-
<. 7.,.-.,,,-...-~. ~-~, ~
.-...,., _. _,. ~ _.,,,..., _ -
.