ML19332B378
| ML19332B378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-573, CLI-80-31, NUDOCS 8009260639 | |
| Download: ML19332B378 (3) | |
Text
-
E>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A-
,K NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f sj-
/
,/@?./
.,,.m D.\\
/
gesmC COMMISSIONERS:
Iw 5
W n
- c:u*-
cifice of the!!c:TW John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky
\\ p Cocketij g jer a 4 6Y Joseph M. Hendrie Q
-3Af Peter A.
Bradford
'w-
-/
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA
)
Docket Nos.
50-556
)
50-557
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2
)
j
)
i CORRECTION NOTICE ON MEMORANDUM ON CERTIFIED QUESTION l
An unedited version of the Dissenting Views of Chairman Ahearne was inadvertently attached to the Commission's Memorandum on Certified Question dated September 22, 1980.
A corrected version is attached to this order and the Commission's Memorandum is modified accordingly.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission j
I
-i
.)
r
'n L
iLu. ~.-
\\
..h LT Samuel
}.
Chilk Secretary of the Cox.missicn Dated at Washington, D.C.
this D day of September, 1980.
g 47[/
\\
50/
8009260
~
s t,
4 x
tcc:mre f
';c u c r'.
jm
.!N 3:3 m,..,
C Q, M,,[ ' a *=cu >
is;;;vE' Chairman Ahearne's dissenting views:
'f ha
^y
,y
. 'M I believe we should have responded to the certified question by deciding that health effects fron normal operation of plants, meeting Appendix I, should not be litigated in individual proceedings.
Basically, I can see no reason to litigate the health effects under these circumstances, and I object to what would be allowing litigation simply for the sake of litigation.
NEPA requires us to take into account environmental impacts in making decisions.
Potential health effects of radioactive effluents are an impact which we have recognized an obligation to consider.
There are two ways in which these impacts could influence our decision:
we could require additional measures to reduce the effluent, and we could consider any unavoidable impacts in deciding whether or not to reject an application.
With respect to effluents which qeet the objectives of Appendix I, these decisions have already been made.
The Commission put a considerable amount of time and effort into developing the numercial limits found in Appendix I.
Its decision was based on an EIS and an extensive hearing record.
The objective of the entire exercise was to define levels at which no further measures would be justified.
.The Commission explicitly sta'ted:
^
"The numerical guidelines were chosen on the basis that the record shows these limits to be practicably achievable for almost all cases to which we consider them applicable.
Furthermore, in view of the elements of conservatism and realism inherent in the evalu-ations presented in the hearing, we believe the record supports the conclusion that the maximum individual exposure likely to ensue from cperation of nuclear power reactors 'in conformance with Appendix I is sufficientiy small that no additional expense could be justifed for reducing the exposure of an individual further than required by Appendix I.
It must be understood in discussing the matters of calculational conservatism and realism that Appendix I means, implicitly, that any facility that confoms to the numerical and other conditions tnereof is accectable without further cuestion with respect to Section 50.3"a.
It is just as essential that Appendix I be under-s: cod as not implying, conversely, that any facility not conforming is necessarily unacceptable.
The numerical guidelines are, in :nis sense, a conservative set of requirements and are indeed based upon conservative evaluations."
blemaking Hearing:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Ccncitions for Oceration to Yeet the Criterien 'As Low as Practicable" for Racicactive v erial in Ligh -Water-Cooled Nuclear Pcwer Reactor Effluents, a
1 NRC 277, 333 (1975).
Thus clearly a 3 card snould not require additional easures c recuce the effluent.
9pa a g
,4 -
b
_AJ o
o
s -
p '
2 If there is no justification for imposing additional measures to reduce the effluent, then there will be no detectable impact on the overall cost / benefit balance.
Theoretical arguments that this might be that final minute cost which tips the balance are just that--totally theoretical.
Given the imprecision of the judgments being made, this cost is clearly not going to be determinative.
Finally, the most recent BEIR report has reduced the estimate of health impacts from those of the 1972 BEIR study, which was part of the basis for Appendix 1.
Thus, to the extent that new information would require a change in Appendix I objectives, a reexamination should produce higher rather than lower acceptance levels.
We should focus staff resources on some of the real problems facing this agency, rather than devote resources to an issue whose resolution is obvious.
l
.