ML20147H153

Motion by Applicants Psin for Reconsideration of Decision ALAB-509 Is Denied.Aslab Asserts That to Hear All 16 Cases Separately Would Result in an Unworkable Situation

ML20147H153
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	12/19/1978
From:	Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812270119
Download: ML20147H153 (3)

Text

- _ .- . _ _ _

NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM p.,, , ,

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '{

{ ;g 2' 7p r ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD {cC1 ,gye Richard S. Salzman, Chairman s ' _.

'# c.

id"* /

~

Dr. John H. Buck ( (y,\,3 Michael C. Farrar ,f @

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, ) Docket Nos. STN 50-546 INC. ) STN 50-547

)

(Marble Hill Nuclear Generatina )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)..

Mr. Harry H. Voiat, Washington, D. C., for the Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., et al., anolicants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER December 19, 1978 (ALAB-Sil)

For reasons we need not rehearse, the Commission directed the reopeninc of the records in pendina licensing proceedings to take evidence on the environmental consequences of radon emissions from the mining and millina of uranium to fuel these reactors. The conclusions drawn from such evidence must be factored into the NEPA cost-benefit balance for each of them.

78122701Ig C4

T The problem is manifestly a generic one. We resisted the suggestion, however, that all 16 cases involved be consolidated on the ground that the resultant proceeding would be too complex and unwieldy. Instead, as described 1/

in ALAB-480 and modified in ALAB-509, - we are attempting to use the flexibility available to us as an arm of an administrative agency to give the radon question the con-sideration it deserves without trying a large number of necessarily duplicative cases.

Now before us is applicants' motion to recensider ALAB-509. Their basic contention is that, for a number

- 2/

of reasons, their case merits specific attention now.--

No doubt the majority of the other applicants could come up with similar reasons why they, too, should be so sinaled out. The short of it is, however, that we are trying to steer between Scylla and Charybdis; to follow a course which treats all 16 proceedings fairly with reasonable expedition and minimum inconvenience. We are not surprised that our solution does not saticfy every litigant in every respect.

_1/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (May 30, 1978), and ALAB-509, 8 NRC (December 1, 1978).

_2/ But see ALAB-509, fn. 8 and accompanyina text (slip opinion at 7), 8 NRC at .

e J

In our judgment, however, to hear each case separately at this stage -- the result which would in all likelihood follow upon a grant of the relief recruested -- is a cure worse than the disease.

The motion to reconsider ALAB-509 is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Ws Margapt'E. Du Flo Secmtary to the Appeal Board