ML19308B225

Suppl to Intervenors Exceptions to Initial Decision of ASLB & Request for Oral Argument

ML19308B225
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	11/22/1967
From:	Harris J, Reeder S, Tally J PIEDMONT CITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7912160139
Download: ML19308B225 (6)

Text

_. _ _ _ _ __

W l.s. -

&L .

. Cw di IWi1DE3 ,, l t

P80D. & UTIL, EAC.704,f,2,70,gf'/

/ . .

s'

. ./ .

. M.:a -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 1

'. *))

IN Tile MAe A6R OF -

s[y.,-[ #y , l DUKE POWER COMPANY ) -

) DOCKET *NOS. 50-269*

l (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION ) 50-270

) S0-287 -

UNITS 1, 2 and 3) ) . 'l 0f

\gg)1

c. SUPPLEMENT TO' ' 6, ., '

INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION OF

((@..([.!)h

.cd,

' ( 1 ' . '.- -

a-

[ .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AND N[N l*

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i' 'N .-

Cities of Statesville,'lligh Point, Lexington, '

Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle, and tho & S Towns'of Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, D00IEIID Newton, and Lincolnton, all in North Carolina, gj, 151EC A Intervenors b

NOV221967 >

h Off!Cs af fte Sa Ct;;ry 'b

- 13:ls PrGC:tCags.

unca-Jack R. IIstris ega .

Suite-207 '

i Stimpson-Wagner Building ,

Statesville, North Carolina *' .

~

J. O. Tally, Jr. .

P. O. Drawer 1660

- ~

Fayetteville, North Carolina ,

Spencer W. Reeder

_,- Spencer Building .

St. Michaels,' Maryland

. .- Attorneys for Intervenors

~

November 22, 1967 -

ink $ I6013h:

f. .

m -

l .. ., '

l , ,

ONITED STATES OF AMERICA .

t,

/

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

/-

I I

IN THE MATTER OF .

,) .

)

DUKE POWER COMPAN'l ) Docket Nos. 50-269  :

) 50-270  :

50-287 (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION ) '

)

UNITS.1, 2 and 3 ) i

., SUPPLEMENT TO .

INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO INITIAL DECISION .

OF . .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

AND "

. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ,

The Intervenors, Cities of Statesville, High Point, Lexington, Monroe, Shelby, and Albemarle and Towns of . i i

Cornelius, Drexel, Granite Falls, Newton, and Lincolnton, l-all in North Carolina, hereby, in apt time, supplement the t' grounds for their "Intervenors' Exceptions to Initial '

\

Decision of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Request for Oral Argument " filed November 21, 1967, by the addition there , .

to of the following-paragraphs for insortion therein at the l places indicated, and request oral argument thereon, as. , ,

l, .

l .followss' ,

l

.. . , ., . l l

l l .

i '

i

/

l .,

i.

1

'O E f

. . 6

~

l ,. .

I t .

. _ ____---.__z____ _..__i_,,_ ;_ _ , , _ _ _ ,

.s

~

i f  ;

4 i

I SUPPLEMENT A TO GROUNDS FOE INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION 1 (To be inserted on p. 8 of Intervenors ' Exceptions afte.  ; i the words "The grounds for this exception...are:"

!l

. l The Board's attempt to treat the "proj ect" rather / l than the " reactors" as the " utilization facility" to be ;i licensed is unauthorized by law and contrary to law. The . ill utilization facility involved is the reactor, and not ,

1

. the entire Oconee Nuclear Station, or any part thereof, .

other than the reactor. Section 11 cc of the Act de-fines " utilization facility" as "any equipment or device except an atomic weapon, determined by rule of the ccm- .i I,

mission to be capable of making use of special nuclear

, material. . . ; or (2) any important ccmponent part es- '

pecially designed for such equipment or device as, deter-

_ mined by the, Commission." But, by the Commission's Rules .

and Regulations,10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.2(b), the T '

l term " utilization facility" is limited to "any nuclear ,

I reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the. )

'l The Commissio'n has

/ formation of plutonium or U-233." - .

Y .

,f

< never even determined that any ccmponent .part 'of the re- ,.

actor especially designed for such equipment is capable '

i j

of making use o: speciaA nuclear material and therefore t . .

l "a utilization facility" within the meaning of Sec.11 cc (2) of the Act, supra. Therefore,.the, Board's attempt to treat the " project" rather than the " reactor" as the"uti- .l lization facility" to be licensed is unauthorized by law ,.

and contrary to law. ,

• i 6 ,

• i

. b

- - - - -- . .. r . . . - - ~ . - ._.,,s,.. .m. .% . . ., - .

i .

I

. ., ~. s s -- .

SUPPLEMENT B TO GROUNDS FOR INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION 6  !

(For insertion following page 15 of Intervenors' Exceptions.) .

The Board's extension of the statutory definition of .

l "Research and Development" goes so far that if applied to

. l the research and development activities which the Commission j is authorized to conduct in its own utilization facilities ,

j i.

. or by contract with others under Section 31 of the Act, it .

i.

would justify the building of the Oconee Nuclear Station by  ; .'

I the commission. But Section 44 of the.Act expressly forbids .

the " Commission to engage in the . sale or distribution of -

energy for coinmercial use except such energy as may be

, produced by the Commission incident to the operation of -

. !research and development facilities of the , Commission, or i

of production facilities o'f the Commission." Similarl.y, .

the Congress by simultaneous amendment of Sections 101 and  ;

103 (P.L. 84-1006, 7 Stat. 1069, Sections 11 and 12) has i forbidden the "use" of any utilization facility without a license, has authorized by express words the J.icensing of .

the "use" of any utilization facility only under Section 103, *.

and has not expressly nor by implication authorized the i ,

licensing of the "use" of any utilization facility under i l Section 104. So, Co,ngress, under the doctrine of exeressio l unius exclusio alterius, by expressly requiring the licensing of " commercial" utilization facilities under Section , 103 of 1 . .

I . - ,

. l

,==

( * = =  %-

• m-+ =--,,-e -- - -. . , - -e --

l

s.

i f

e ,

I the Act has prohibited the licensing of utilization facilities for commercial use by " noncommercial" license  !

t

.. i under Section 104.of the Act. . l.

i I

E t

.e

, .E 9

. ~  ;

i . .

. t o

i y .

., I

, , , s .

'1

(

g 1, . ;. - . . .

s s ,. , . .

t 1s * . r $ .

~

. . .n i

..'t*<* _

o

, l ;' , * .

' 5 I ,

. g 1

a .

i . .. ,

4 *4

• , ,/

. . o e

.L *

,- e

'[+ .

.. 6.

. g

• . ' . . 2.

• r q . '

y ,

. N e.go qgepegy, ee, .g.es .+av.**- .s'e'* .n o me."-*- em .W" eM*"**""*--- " - --

k'

1 I .. .

j - .  ;

+

as herein supplemented, ,

h'!!EREFORE the Intervonors pray thaMhc Commission sus-

• tain each and all of the abovo listed exceptions; and, as to each .

, , j and all, overrule the Board; and that the Commission dismiss the application of Duke Power Company as unjurisdictionally submitted . -

under Section 104(b) of the Act; and direct the resubmission of an '

I .

application by Duko, if Duko so wishes, undoi Section 103 of tho .

Act; and that the Commission allow and order oral argument upon

• these exceptions'an'd this appeal from the Board to the Commiss h a. -

.. . r Respectfully Submittod, 1 City of Shelby .

l City of Statesville ,

City of High Point -

City of Lexington .

.. City of Monroe

• City of Albemarlo '

Town of Cornelius .

Town of Drexo1 '

. Town of Granito Falls .

Town of Newton -

Town of Lincolaton, . .

. North Carolina ..' .

- -' BY: .

1. /t .h _ . .

I

• (Jack R. liarris Suite 207, Stimps.on-Wagner Building esville.,A' orth

' ,_' 'l

... arolina.'

l

( { /

. j ^ . ) L . N .s @ M & .,,  ;

Jy% Tally, Jr./f -

,i

p'. 0 ' '

~....-

• ga'j.Drawcr'1630 yotteville, North Caro 1 S a

i , _. .

M.w.au ! . j GAA -

<- Sppncor W. Reeder V *

' , .. (

,- , Spencer Building . ..

• 6t. Michac,1s, Marylan,d"-

' 5 22 November 1967

- .Their Attornoys .

. . e ,

i

( , . .

s I

{......-..-...==i=s=-------

V, . . .

~

" - - ~ ~