ML19340D081
| ML19340D081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340D080 | List: |
| References | |
| CLI-80-39, NUDOCS 8012290031 | |
| Download: ML19340D081 (1) | |
Text
.- _ -
i Consecuen:1y, I agree with the Licensing Scard that we are not recuired 4
to consicer psychological stress.
I agree that the test way te cecrease such stress is to insure the plant is safe if it is ap; roved for operation.
I believe the NRC (Cc=issicn and staff) must insure clear anc accurate infermatien is previded regarding what is being done.
And I believe the Licensing Scard, t *;; ' En-d, and the Cc=ission should play their proper roles in assuring that safe operation be the appropriate requirement.
I do not agree with the separate views of Cc=issioners Gilinsky and Bradford.
Basically I believe their analyses present the issues as being much simpler than they really are.
For example, in commenting on the approach I have advocated Cemissioner Gilinsky states:
" Ironically, in its only ruling to date on safety issues in this case, the Cc=ission took the narrowest possible view of its safety responsibilities to preserve the discredited assumptions of
^
the hydrogen control rule." The Commission's " view of its safety responsibilities" is mere complicated than ene would be led to believe frem reading Cc=f ssioner Gilinsky's ce=ent. The Cemission has made no final decision concerning the issues related to hydrogen contr:1.
It hts alreacy taken s,eme actions and is actively censidering additienal,; steps.
Similarly, an example of Cemissioner Bradford's failure to address the complexities inherent in this issue is his assertien that "The Comission has the authority, at least under NEpA, to consider psychological facters and to take actiens necessary to mitigate them." To suppert his proposition Cc=issioner Eradford cites a case in which the Cc=ission was found to haye jurisdiction to mitigate the environmental impacts of transmission lines.1/ While this case may have some relevance, it is hardly conclusive.
Although I have additional disagreements with the views of Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford, including disagreements with views which the reader of Cc=missioner Bradford's opinion might believe belong to those who disagree with Comissioner Bradferd, e.g., to me, past experience s cws that reasoned arguments are of little interest to these whose cines are made up.
a 1/
Although the Court described the Licensing Board decision (which was based in part on visual impacts of the transmission lines and in part on the more traditional consideration of impact on waterfowl) in the
" Background" discussion, it did not focus en the need for or propricty of considering various types of impacts. There was no reason for it to address the ouestion since petitioners had conceded the preposed routes were superior.
Public Service Cemeany of NN Hamoshire
- v. NRC, 582 F.2d 77, 85 n.15 (1st Cir.1978).
Soloo90-03l
~~
-