ML20045E183
| ML20045E183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/17/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-007, SECY-A-80-7, NUDOCS 9307010223 | |
| Download: ML20045E183 (65) | |
Text
UNITED 17ATES
.j p
N M EAR REGRATORY COMSSION SECY-A-80-7_
January 17, I980 t..
ADJUDICATORY ITEM CONSENT CALEND AR ITEM The Commission For:
From:
James A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel REVIEU OF ALAB-573 (MATTER OF PUBLIC
Subject:
SERVICE COMPANY OF OF.LAliOMA, El AL. )
Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility:
7 Puroose:
Ey (~
I in'our
]
- ypinion, Review Time Expires:
February 15, 1980 (as extended by Secretary Order)
The Appeal Board decision in ALAB-573 Discussion:
affirmed with some major exceptions the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization for the Black Fox Station.
The deci-sion was circulated to the Commission because we anticipated that pe ti'tions for review of the issues raised in the~ ~
decision.could.be~ filed.
SECY-A-79-92, -
December-12, 1979.
'llo pet'itions for review have been received..
For purposes of discussion ue have broken the issues into three areas:
(1) certified ques-tion on the interpretation of 10 CFR C,'
Part 50, Appendix I ((which we believe (2) Class 9 issue arising out_od~0ffshEre Pouer (which we
. and O _ '
~
believe (3) ell other ! s sues ih ' tfre~ Ta3egahich 1
-Oniv L-we believe ~
~
the pertinent portions 6f ~ALXB-573 are ~
attached.
1.
Interpretation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Before the Licensing Board, the :appli-cants moved for summary disposition of
Contact:
Mark E. Chopko, GC Information in this ret rd ym deleted n accc.rdance with the#eedom ci informatio X-43224 fr Act, enmjtions 9307010223 930317 f01A-72-fM k
'l
s v
2 an intervenor contention on'the environ-mental impact of genetic and somatic (i.e., health) ef fects of gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents from Black Fox Station When the station is in normal operation.
In the applicants' view, those effects were implicitly determined to be acceptable in the Com-mission's adoption of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
The Appendix provides a
" quantitative expression of the meaning of the requirement that radioactive material in ef fluents released to un-restricted areas from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors be kept 'as low as [is reasonably achievable (ALARA)).'"
Marter of Rulemaking Hearing RM-50!2 (Nunerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Condi-tions), CLI-75-5, 1 NRC 277, 279 (1975).
The Licensing Board, at the urging of the staff and the intervenors, denied i
that motion and permitted the conten-tion.
Af ter a hearing on the issue, the Board decided in the applicants' favor on this issue but not on applicants'-
theory.
Intervenors raised that same
~
issue on appeal, and applicants were able to take exception to the Licensing Board's decision to deny them summary disposition based on their theory of Appendix I.
One of the Board menbers having resigned be-f fore decision on this matter, the two remain-ing Appeal Board members divided on the proper interpretation of Appendix 1.
Mr.
Salzman agreed with-the staff that litigation of the health ef fects associated with re-Icases from the plant may be permitted as part of the UEFA cost-benefit analysis for the facility.
Dr. Johnson,.however, agreed licant that compliance with.
with the app' establishes and. quantifies the Appendix I radiological environmental impact (e.g.,
health effects) of normal plant effluents such that these somatic and genetic effects are unassailable in individual licensing hearings by virtue of 10 CFR 2.758(a)."
Concurring opinion, ALAB-573 slip op, at 72-73.
5 T
L l
F JD
~~J 2.
Consideration.of Class 9 Events at Black Fox.
The Appeal Board ordered the parties to file views before the Commission on the need to consider Class 9 accidents at Black Fox.
The' Appeal Board decision follows from their interpretation of the Commission's order in Offshore Power Systems, in which the Con -
mission directed the staff to " bring to (its) attention, any individual cases in which (staf f] believes the environmental conse-quences of Class 9 accidents should be con-sidered."
CLI-79-9, 10 NRC
, slip-op, at 10 (September 14, 1979).
The Board found that Offshore Power did not specify when such views ought to be supplied and that it was
" unfortunate that the staff has not yet furnished that advice in this case."
ALAB-573, slip op. at'32.
hefind tie had i
interpretec L'
~
~
1/
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(d), the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO), applicant at Comanche Peak, seeks leave to file an amicus _brief on this issue if the certified question is accepted.
L' I ls'
~~ __
. ~...
We
,..p.e=e-e.
t f-5 The staff has already filed its views (Attach-ment 2).
For the most part the staff con-t..e s t s the Ap pe al Board's interpretation.
c /, f -
......i 3.
Other issues.
8-t 4
3/
.c B
i 4
6 i.
y
'i z
6 i- /. -
P 4'
i
)
i
]is l
r.
Recommendation:
f 0~m, Fi}tzgerald
,.l James A.
u Assistant General Counsel Attachments:
1.
ALAB-573 (pp. 22-32, 68-94 2.
Staff Position 3.
TUGC0 Motion 4
Proposed Order
4 4
7 Commissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, January 31, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners 24, 1980, with an informtion copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If tilt January the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when co rents may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the r
Week of February 11, 1980.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTI0tl Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Secretariat I
e p.-
-.7ny--.
n
-n-7 c.
r-
-~
-.-n.,
,tw...
4 n-b-
n
.x m
a
.m a.
-.w.*
- h 1
.. j i
4 1
i i
5 a
i i
+
l 9
8 l
ATTACHMENT 1 1
k
- I
)
i.
,J 3
g9, 3
t 4
9 t
l i
i l
l I
i 4
)
1
- -..-.... ~
~ -.-.
9 p
Ce,
\\
UNIT!" STATES OF M'. ERICA 4'
l'DCLFJ_;. REGUI.ATO?.? CO.9'I SSION o \\B,g Y A'NEIC SAFETY AND LICENSING AP?rJ.L BOARD 7
Qh s* /p G
Richarc S. S a.1:re n, Chairca.n Dr. W. Reed Johnson 1/
\\,
o, m
= n.
)
D C3D'it,s
~
~
v.
In the t'.atter of
)
).
PU3LIC SERVICE CO.U ANY OF 073.305'>.
) Docket Nos. STN 50-556 et al.
)
STN 50-557
)
(Black Fcx Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
aw.aa, O). ' a.. w..,
- e. C -
,. ' e
.v
. r_. ; e y
-3,--
a_e,
.. a
.w..
~
c7 c' C _#
- _ e..e.,
.. e _. e v.
._.. w,. _,,
-c
. e.... z. _u.e'_-,
w_
c... _e e
ca e ne c..",
4.... e - v e..a - s.
e T.
w Messrs. P.ichael I.
Miller and Paul M. Mu-chy, Chicaco,
_1 n: s (Messrs. Jcseph Galle, Wasn nc en, D.
C.,
and Alan P.
Zielawsk_, Cnicago, Illinois,- en the brief s) ior Purlic Service Company of Oklahc:.a, Associated --
Electric Cooperatives,
~nc.,
and Western Fam.ers Electric Cooperative, Inc., applic ant s.
i c.
- a..v. e.
- r. c.. e. n
_.s..
, a s. _e _
- v. _.
O., _. c. e,.. (.e
..,__a..
e
.v e.. _.c.
e.e _ _. c c _.. a
_. ~. c... c ' exce7 e
~.
s u_
_.. C C......'..c.c #_C..
.c
- e
. s
.m...u. g c.-
v c
r.._c.w i
I I
I
-...V4 Dece..ber 7, 1979 1
g
- --h (r
._-J
- O /.3 J
-*r e < >,
--,e v
m e,
s--
s-,
s
-r
4 5 6.
Eealth Effects of Low Level Emissions.
Light-water-cooled nucicar power reactors like Black Tcx must be designed and built so that during norr.a1 operation the release of radio-active effluents is "as' low as is reasonably achievable."
10 C.F.R. E50.34a.
That standard is explained and quantified in
-Commission guidelines published as Appendix I to 10 C.F.R.
Part-49/
50.
Applications to construct a plant of this type must describe t.he equipment to be installed to control-radioactive effluents and identify the design objectives and the means to be employed to meet the standards.
Ibid.
In addition, section I cf Appendix I provides that nuclear power reactor "[d]esign objectives and limiting conditions for cperation conforming to the guidelines cf this Appendix shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the 'as-low as is reasonably achiev-able' recuirements of 10 CIT.R. !! 5 0. 3 4 a
- Where it applies,i 1
k Appendix I is a binding Ccmmiss!cn regulation notwithstandine SC/
its den minatien as e2 appendix.~
j 1
(a)
Ir the hearing belew, inte rver. ors challenged the repre-sentation that Black Fox wou' d comply with the recuire:nents of Appendix I (Contention 11).
Intervenors also asserted that neithei i
i i
4?
liereinafter cited as Appendix I.
i i
50/
Rulemaking Hearing (Docket No. RM-5 0-2 ), CLI-7 5-5, 1 NRC j
277, 328 (1975).
l 1
1 1
i i
9 i
I
,e m.
.... -. _,... -,,....._. ~,
4 -
the applicants nor the staff had adecuately assessed the somatic and genetic ef fects of low-level gaseous 'and liquid i
radioactive discharges expected to be emitted during normal operation of the nuclear plant (Contention 36).
With the staff's backing, the applicants moved for sum-mary disposition of Contention 11.
The motion was supported l
51/
~
with affidavits evidencing ec=pliance with Appendix I.
The 1
Soard granted it on the ground that intervenors' response failed to raise a cenuine issue of material fact for trial 1
I cm/
on this contention.ri l
l Applicants also sought surr.ary disposition of Contention 36.
They pointed out that the Cor dssion itself had deter-rined the somatic and genetic consecuences of low-level erds-l sions in the rulemaking proceeding that led to its promulgation cf Appendix I.53 /
Trom this pre-ise they reasoned that once com-pliance with that Appendix had been demonstrated, no occasion rer.ained to litigate the nature and extent of health ef fects re-sulting from endssions at these levels.
The applicants acknowl-51/
Co:rdssion Rules of Practice governing metions for sum-mary cisposition, 10 C.F.R. 52.749, are modelled on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (sum-mary judgment).
52/
LBP-77-46, 6 NRC 167, 168-69 (1977) (rulings on summary disposition motions).
53 /
Docket Nc. PP.- 5 0 - 2, supra fn. 50.
_ _ _ _. - - - -, - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - _ -. _. _ _. _ - _ - _. _ _ _ _ - - - -.. -. _ - - _. - -. _ _ -. - - _ - _ _ _ _. - _ ~ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _. - - - - - _.. _ _...
]
1 24 edged that the impact of anticipated health effects must be factored into the NEPA cost / benefit balance for the plant.
Bowever, they insisted that the Commission's determinations should be used for that purpose.
The applicants told the Board that those determinations form an integral part of Appendix I and that the proposed reconsideration of them would challenge the validity of the Appendix in violation of 10 C.F.R. 62.75E (a), the rule prohibiting attacks on Commis-54/
sion regulations in ind:.vidual
.3. censing proceecings.
The other parties opposed applicants' motion for summary dispositic. of Centention 3 6 a,s resting on a misconception laf55/
Appendix 1.
Che Licensing Board agreed and denied the motion 7 Instead, it heard witnesses, took evidence and made its own deter.ination of the health ~and~envircnmental~c~orsequences of routine icw-level emissions.
Finding those releases so small i
that any adverse health effects (if detectable at all) wculd be miniscule and substantially less than would be created by the alternative of a coal-fired plant of comparable size, the Board-concluded that these health effects would not " weigh strongly against Black Fox either in the envircamental balance or in
)
the comparison with alternatives."
8 NRC at 147.
j i
54/
10 C.T.R. B2. 758 (a) provides in pertinent part that "any rule or regulation of the Commission, or any pro-vision thereof, issued in its program for the licensing and regulatien of production and utilization f acilities,
shall not be subject to attack by way of discovery, prcof, argument er other means in any adjudicatory pro-ceeding involving initial licensing * * *."
55/
6 NRC at 169-70.
25 -
(b)
Intervenors excepted to the Licensing Board's rulings on both contentions.
With respect to Contention 11 (compliance with Appendix I), their brief is mainly devoted to a generalized discussion of the legal standards applicable to summary dispo-sition motions.
But intervenors do not specify how the Board departed fron those standards.
Neither do they point to evidence suggesting the existence of a genuine issue of material fact 56/
that should have caused the Board to deny the action.-
As in judicial proceedings, there is no occasion to conduct a trial 57/
in these circumstances.
Summary disposition of the contention
-~
was therefore appropriate.~~58/
Intervenors make even less cf an attempt to persuade us that the Licensing Board erred in ruling that the health effects of routine enissions would be necligible.
The decision below explains the basis for that ruling at scre length.
Intervenors' exceptions challenge virtually all the 5 card's findings en the 56/
Intervenors' argnment that the applicants' affidasits were ansufficient because based only "on information and belief" is not well taken. _ It is clear from examin-ing those documents that each affiant was " competent to testify about the matters stated therein" as contenplated by the summary disposition rule, 10 C.F.R.
- 82. 74 9 (b).
57/
We have, nevertheless, reviewed the record on our own initiative for compliance with Appendix ! and we are
~~
satisfied that this has been established.
SE/
Intervenors also object to the Licensing. Board's summary disposition of a number of ether unspecified contentions.
~~
We af fir the 3:ard's actions for the sare reasons we have apprcve its disposition of Contentien 11.
I point.
Never theles s, here, as elsewhere, they simply fail to
" flesh out the bare bones of their exceptions" with informa-tion and discussion adequate to allow an intelligent disposi-tion of their arguments. 5_p/
Notwithstanding the lack of as-sistance from intervenors, we have explored the basis for these findings on our own initiative.
For purposes of decid-ing this appeal, we think it sufficient to state that the findings reflect the record made before the Board and we per-ceive no reasons to disturb its conclusions based upon that record.
'- )
As we noted, the Licensing Board disagreed with the
\\
applicants' interpretation of Arpendix I and nade a de novo determination cf the health ef fects of low level emissions --
albeit reaching a result in the applicants' favor.
The appli-cants, however, were not satis ied; they would pref er to have the peint rescived en their own theory.
Applicants therefore exceptef to the ruling in order to seek our review not of the result but of the rationale employed in reaching it.
--59/
See, Censumers ?ower Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAF-17 0, 1 rRC 473, 475 (1975). By way cf illustration, the Board found the health ef fects of low level emissions from neraal operation of Black Fox to amount to no more than "an indistinguishably small fraction of those occur-ring without the plant."
The finding was made in the course of an extensive exploration of the subject with appropriate citations to the record, including testimony of two indisputably qualified medical radiobiologists with broad research experience in this area.
8 NRC 145-147.
In the face of this, intervenors assert without sutoorting references or further elucidation that "It]here is'imple evidence that low levels of radiation cause and centribute to adverse health effects now and for future genera icas."
(3rief at 35-3 9. ) An ipse dixit is no sub-stitute for reasoned discourse based on the record of the case.
9 27 -
The intervenors responded, The short answer to Appli-cants' position is that, having won the ultimate issue, they i
are not an aggrieved party. "
The staff agrees with the inter-venors that the applicants as the prevailing party may not
' appeal from a ruling in their favor, citing, inter alia, our decision in Public Service Co. cf Indiana (Marble Hill Station, Units 1 ;, 2), ALA3-459, 7 NRC 17 9, 202 (1978).
r It is correct that parties satisfied with the result on an issue may not themselves appeal.
But if the other side appeals they are free to defend a result in their f avor cn any gro=d presented in the reccrd, including one rejected below.
Censumers Power Co.
(Midland Plant, Units 1 t,.2),
AU.5-2E2, 2 NRC 9, 10 fn.
l' (1975);'Niacara Mohawk Power Corp.
(Sine P.ile Point Station, Unit 2), ALA3-264, 1 NRC 347, 357 (1975).
The role of Appendix was litigated in this case and the intervencrs as well as the applicants excepted to the Licensing icard's decisien o.. the ef fects of rcutine icw-leve; enissions.
The applicants consequently may def end the result-by renewing on a peal their arguments about the intendment of r
Appendix I.
?
I
,,. +
4 We therefore ray reach the question and Dr. Johnson would do so.
For reasons explained in his concurring opinion (pp. 6Efi. infra), he:would basically adopt the appli-cants' interpretation of Appendix I.
Mr. Sal: man, however, is not of like mind.
Without rehearsing all the counter arguments here, he notes that the staf f carshalled substan-tial reasons why the Appendix I guidelines should not be understooc to bar the litigation in incivicual licensing cases cf the anticipated health ef f ects c f routine emissions.
Because an alternate ground of decision requires affirmance cf the ruling below en this point in any event (see pp. 25-26 supra), it is unnecessary to construe Appendix I in this appeal: Mr. Salzman believes it the wiser course to refrain from doing so.
The Appcndix issue acccrdingly is net decided by this Ecard. However, whether to proceed by generic rule applicable to all power reacters or to allow case-by-case adjudication of the health ef fects of routine low-level emis sions is a 60/
policy judg:aenET In our view,it is a significant one for the conduct of future proceedings and one that will undoubtedly recur unless it is authoritatively resolvei These circumstances 60 /
Cf., offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants),
CL:-79-E, 10 NRC __ (September 14, 1979) (slip opinion
~~
at 7-5).
4' 29 -
61/
make its certification in order under 10 C.F.R.
E 2. 7 8 5 (d) ~~
l and we submit the following cuestion to the Commission:
"Where_ routine radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant will be kept 'as low as is reasonably achievable' in accordance with Appendix I,
is litigation of the health effects of those emissions in an ac3ucicatory proceecing involving initial licensing barred by 10 C.F.R. 52.758 as an impernissible attack on Commission regulations?"~~62/
7.
Consideration of " class 9 Accidents."
_63/.
Wita our permission, interveners f a. lec. a supplemental brief raising as an adcitional ground for reversal the Licensing
.Ecard's f ailure to consider the consequences of a "_ Class 9
. 1 61/
10 C.I.R. 82.7E5(d) provides that an " Appeal Board may, e ther in_its discretion or on direction of the Commissien, certify to the Commission for its deter-minatien major er novel cuestiens of pclicy, law or procedure."
See, Of f shere Power Syster3 (Floating Suelear Plants), ALA3-500, 5 NRC 323, 324-25 (197E),
en certification, CLI-77-9, 10 NRC __ (see fn.
60,. supra).
62/
10 C.F. R. _ E 2. 7 5 E (a) provides in pertinent part that, i
with exceptions not applicable to this case, "any rule er regulation of the Commission, or any provision thereof, issued in its program f or the licensing and regulation of production and utilization facilities * *
- s.all not be subject to attack by way of discovery, proof, argument, or other means in any adjudicatory proceeding involving Appendix initial licensing subject to this subpart I is a binding Commission regulation where it applies.' See fn. 50, supra.
_6_3/ App. Ed. Tr. 136.
4
30 -
accident."
Eriefly, that term of art refers to certain potentially severe but extremely unlikely events.
Because of their improbability, plants need not be designed to guard For a more complete description, against their occurrence..
see Offshore Power Systems, supra, ALA3-489, 8 NRC at 209-25.
The staff's response was essentially twcfold:
- First, that the appeal was premature because the hearing below concerned only !ZFA and site suitability issues and the place for consideration of Class 9 accident contention vould be in the radiological health and safety phase of the proceeding still to ecme.
Seccnd, thcugh we held in offshcre Power that consideratier of Class 9 events at float-ing plants was permis sible, we had also ruled in that case that Ccamission policy precluded taking cognicance of such matters in individual licensing cases invciving land-based reactors.
The applicants joined in the latter argurent.
Events have overtaken such arguments, whatever their nerits at the tine they were made.
Since then, on our 64/
referra17~ the Commissicn has reviewed the Offshore Power decisien.
While it confirmed our holding that Class 9 acci-dents may be censidered in licensing proceedings concerning 64/
ALA3-5 0 0, 8 NRC 328 (1978).
. plants, it went on to indicate-that.it is rethinking the policy (initially formulated in 1971 by the Alcmic Energy Co= mission) against taking up such matters in cases in-volving land-based plants.
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), CLI-79-9, 10 NRC __ (September 14, 1979).
The existing policy on Class 9 accidents was not set aside, however.
The Commission 2nsteaa. announcec its intentien to conduct a formal rulemaking proceeding to aid in that re-evaluation.
In the interim, it directed the staf f to " bring to our attention, any individcal cases in which it believes.
the environmental consecuences of Class 9. accidents should be considered."
c.
at (slip ccinion
.c. 10).
This leads us to two conclusions:
First, that the Board below acted in accordance with existing Commission policy in not considering Class 9 accidents at that tire.
Seccnd, that the Commissic has reserved to itself the right to decide whether such natters are to be considered in any given case until it adopts a new general policy.
Our actions must of ES/
ccurse be guided by the Commission's latest instructions.
i l
65/
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Station, Units 1 anc 2), ALAS-21E, 8 AIC 79, E2-83 (1974); Ducuesne Licht Co. (Seaver Valley Station, Unit 1), ALA3-310, 3 ERC 133,34 I
TI976); Duke. Power Co. (Catawba Station, Units 1 and-2),
ALA3-355, 4 HRC 397, 417, af firmed, CLI-76-28, 4 NRC 618 (1976).
32 -
Those instructions, however, do not specify when the staff is to render its advice on the need to consider Class 9 accidents in individual licensing proceedings.
It is ur. fortunate that the staff has not yet furnished that advice in this case.
The proceeding before the Li-censing Board is now half completed.
Manifestly, if that Board is to eynmi ne the ramifications of Class 9 events, the tire to instruct it to de so is now, not af ter the record closes and its decision issues.
In this vein, we note that the Conaission has previously expressed dissat-isfaction when issues important to it are brought to its attentien late.
- See, e.g.,
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-78-1, 7 SRC 1, 6-7 (1975).
Accordingly, we direct the staff to advise the Com-nissien prc= tly (within 30 days) of the reasons why it believes the consequences of Class 9 accidents should er 66/
snculd not be considered in this case.
Within 30 days thereafter, the other parties may submit their own views on the question to the Cc= mission.
Ihe Licensing Board shall not consider the consequences of a Class 9 accident a: the Black Tox site unless the Commission instructs it to do so.
{f/
Ee of cetrse intimate ne view on the position the staf f
~~
shculd take.
)
68 -
Concurring Opinion of Dr. Johnson on the Appendix I Issue:
4 The applicants except to the Licensing Board 's failure j
i l
to grant their notions for summary disposition of inter-venors' Contention 36, which questioned the effect on the i
health of the general public cf radioactive effluents emitted during normal operation of a nuclear power plant.
The applicants argue that this ccntention amounted to a challenge to Appendix I of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and therefore was prohibited by 10 C.F.R. E 2.75E (a). --1/
After hearing the issue en the merits, the Licensing Board ruled in the applicants' favor and we have upheld that ruling (see p.
25 supra).
Nevertheless, in_ vi ew of t_h e_ i..s.,su e.'s significance and the likelihood of its recurrence in future cases, I believe that we should resolve the questien raised by the applicants: whether Appendix I precludes, in individual licensing cases, litigation cf the health effects cf radio-active trissicns.
I set forth below a discussion of this issue and y reascns for concluding that the applicants' position en appeal is correct.
1/ Section 2.75E(a) provides generally that any rule or regulation of the Commission shall not be subject to attacr.
n any ac3ucicatory proceeding involving licensing.
At this juncture it is appropriate to point out the remedy available to any party in a licensing proceeding who is dissatisfied with a Commission rule.
10 C.F.R. 52.758(b) precidas that a party to an adfudicatory hearing.may petiti:n the Ccanission for a waiver er exception te a rule.
Such a petition must set out with particularity the c:rcumstances being relied upon as the bases for such a waiver or excepticr.
m w
- Intervenors ' Contention 36 states that the Applicant and the Regulatory Staff have not adequately assessed the somatic and genetic. ef f ects of the low level gaseous and liquid radioactive discharges which will result from the neraal operation of Black Fox, (Units) 1 and 2 on humans, including but not limited to, persons engaged in shipping o.perations on the McClellan-Kerr Navi9a-tion' Channel, as well as the plants, fish, waterfowl and wildlife.__2/
After hearing evidence on this question from all parties, the Licensing Board found that the applicants and staff had adec.uatel.v assessed the health effects of radioactive ef-fluents. --3/
The 3 card explained:
Even were the estimates too low by a f actor of ten or more,..* *.*. the somatic effects would be miniscule.
We see no reason why the genetic effects anticipated should weigh strongly against-Eleck Fox either in the enviren, ental balance er in the ecmparisc.- with alter-na:ives.__4/
__2/ E GEC at 144.
3/ Id. at 144-47.
4/ Id. at 147, !! 135, 139.
l i
l i
I I
A
' Despite this favorable ruling, applicants " appeal" the Board's f ailure summarily to discuss Contention 36.--5/
Anticipating a potentially significant impact on future NRC proceedings, they argue that i
it is never appropriate.in an individual licensing proceeding to adjudicate the J
genetic and somatic effects of the routine releases of radioactive naterials in the licuid and gaseous effluents from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
An applicant f or a Cerr.ission license mus*
always demonstrate corpliance with Appendix I,
and to require more undermines the j
validity cf Appendix I.
__6/
l
.I l
Commissicn regulations re:uire the use of design cbjectives and technical specifications to keep releases.of radioactive materials in' effluents 'and to unhes~tricted areas
~
~
~
~
ef nuclear power plants during ncrmal operatiens "as icw as is
)
7/
reascnably achievable."--
Secause wher read in isolation 1
i/ For reasons explained in our main opinien, pp. 25-25 supra, the issue is f airly before us should we choose
~~
to reach it.
l
_6/ Applicants' Erief at 7.
--7/ 10 C.F.R. Es50.34a and
- 50. 3 6 a, respectively.
An
" unrestricted area" is "any area access to which is not controlled by. the licensee f or purposes of pro-tection of individuals fron exposure to radiation and radioactive materials, and any area used for resi-dential cuarters."
10 C.F.R. s20.3(17).
i i
+ +
-r-"
-7+
71 -
this standard is susceptible to dif f ering interpretations, the Com 4ssion initiated a rulemaking proceeding to provide additional guidance in the form of cuantitative values.
Following that proceeding, the Commission pro =ulgated Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which sets forth numerical guides for meeting the "as low as is reasonably achievable"
__E/
criterion.
Early in the proceedings below, it became. apparent that the Black Tex station would meet the provisions of Aro.endix !.
Thus1 the Licensing Board grantef the ac.cli-cants ' motion for summary disposition cf intervenors '
Centention 11, which questienef the adequacy cf applicants' 9/
~-
showing that Black Fox would satisfy _thqhe_requiregients.
Throughout these proceedings, the Licensing Board's view cf applicants' position seems rv have differed from that of the applicants themselves.
The applicants maintain that
[ulnfortunately, the Licensing Board con-sistently misinterpreted Applicants' notion to dispose of Contention 36 as an attempt to preclude l
l E/ Fer additional discussion of the provisions of Appendix I,
s e e t..o. 83-86 infra.
i 9/ L3?-77-46, 6 NRC 167, 168-69 (1977) (ruling on motions fer st= mary disposition).
We have affirmed that ruling.
~~
See p. 25 supra.
h
' the Licensing Board from considering the health ef fects of routine releases of radioactive materials in the cost benefit balance of the Black Fox Station or' in the Board 's consideration of alternatives to the Black Fox Station (See: [ Partial Initial Decision), pp. 68-69 and " Order Ruling on Motions for Sun: mary Disposition and Listing Board Questions, " dated July 20, 1977,- pp. 4-6).
Applicants have never taken such a position.
Applicants have expressly stated their belief that [the National Environmental Policy'Act) requires that the Licensing Board consider the inpacts of the routine release of radioactive r.aterial frc= the Black Fox Station in con-sidering the ecst/ benefit balance for the Station and in considering alternatives to the station [ citations omitted).
Applicants simply disagree with the Licensing Board 's apparent belief that be-cause it must consider a partii:ular environ-mental impact it nust of necessity permit the nagnituce of that impact :c be litigated in an incivicual licensing proceecing.
Con-ten:1cn 36 cuestions the cetermination of the magnitude of those ' health effects. 10/
Ccrpliance with the provisions of Appendix I is deemed a conclusive showing that radiation doses resulting f rc= normal licuid and gaseous ef fluents f rom a nuclear 11/
pcwer plant are as low as reascnably achievable.~-
- Thus, applicants ' appeal presents the issue whether such com-pliance establishes and cuantifies the radiological environ-mental impact (e.g.,
health ef fects) of normal plant l
10/ Applicants' Brief at 19-20 (emphasis added).
11/ 10 C.F.R.
Fart 50, Appendix I,Section I.
73 -
ef fluents such that these somatic and genetic ef fects are unassailable in individual licensing hearings by virtue of 10 C.F.R. 22.758(a).
Before addressing the specific matters presented by the applicants' interpretation of Appendix I, it would be helpful to outline the secuence of operations that cdght be followed in assessing the environmental impact of any e-4 e e ; ons to the envirentent.
Using radioactive effluents from a nue: ear power plant during normal operation as an 12/
example, the sequence wcu_3c consist c:. : s.e : c _,l o w i n e. s t er. s :
A.
Determine the nagnitufe of radicactive effluents.
E.
Determine the expected human exposure to those effluents.
C.
Calculate the human health effects resulting frc this exp sure.
D.
Cuantify these health ef f ects in terms which facilitate comparison with other impacts and benefits.
12/ This sequential approach was also fellcwed in section 5.4 cf the Slack Fox Final Environmental Statement (Staff Exhibit 1, pp. 5-14 et-sec.), which outlines the radio.
locical imcact calculations mace for tnat plant.
Rac.io-active effluents from normal operations are listed in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 of that document, and Appendix C gives an outline of the "NEPA population Dose Assessment."
Eegulatory Guides 1.111 and 1.109 are cited for details of i
l the atmospheric dispersion model and dose models respec-tivelv.
For an example of the use of this same basic se-cuence' in another context, see " Impact Assessment of High-ievel Wastes," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office f Radiatien Programs, pp. 113-140, at 12~, published in n2 clear Easte Management: Hearings Sefere the Succomm. on Inergy and :ne Env;renment of :ne F. cuss c:r_.. cn Inter:cr and :ns u.ar Af f a:rs, 9 6:.- Cong., 1st Sess. (JEnuary 25 and 26, 1979)(Jc;n: Statement cf Dr. James I.
y.artin and
= c,c-
,.~.. ).
e._
--..g.
1
- 74.-
In Step A, the expected radioactive releases from a nuclear plant are calculated in te.m.s of curies. per year of va-ious isotopes found in licuid or gaseous effluents (see fn. 12 supra).
Through the use of analytical models, these isotopes can be traced through various environmental " pathways" until they reach humans either through ingestion or by direct exposu e to external radiation.
These models include factors to represent specific plant and site character-istics in the calculations.
From these results, the Step B deter.inaticn of radiation exposure (dose) can be calculated for various organs of the body (see, e.g.,
Reculatcry Guide 1.109).
~. -..
At this point, the. accuracy of the^ calculated results - -
crgan doses -- is limited by the validity cf assumptiens and estinates which must be made regarding such variable factors as isotope release rate, wind directicn fre-cuency, rainfall, and population density, among others.
Severtheless, during normal plant cperations t.he radio-logical monitoring progran can be relied upon to verify calculations of concentrations of radioactive material e
= - -
. i and the resulting radiation exposures._1_3/
i i
Step C involves predicting the health effects attri-butable to the radiation exposures calculated in Step 3.
This process is less well-suited to direct analytical modeling than that of the first two steps.
The staff
)
i alluded to this difficulty in the environmental statement i
~~13/ In this regard, the Licensing Board made the fol-lowing findings with respect to the proposed radio-logical monitcring prograns at the Elack Fox Station (B NRC at 149-50):
The Board finds that the proposed pre and post-cperational radiclogical monitcring programs consider the mest likely pathways to humans and that tne intermediate media are ones most apt to affect concentration in the food. chain.
The Board sees ne' objection 'to' using-date; from- -
c:her plants in other locations in the-design of monitoring programs.
The Board finds that'the preoperatienal and cperational programs prepcsed are adecuate and meet NEC regulatory guideltnes.
Initiation cf the preoperational moniroring at least 2 years prior to startup is sufficient time to establish baseline environmental conditions to evaluate the influence of Elack Fox.
The various media samples prcposed appear to be suf ficient even though the plan does not include every conceivable item of food that may be consumed.
The Board finds that monitoring food and other media vill provide data that can be used to modify c.oerations quick 1v shocid any concentrations appear in these items that would cause concern, and thus prevent unac-ceptable exposure to people.
16 -
14/
-~
prepared for the Commission's promulgation of Appendix I.
With regard to estimates of biological rish, the staff co=mented :
The levels of radiation doses resulting from releases of radioactivity in effluents from nuclear power stations discussed in this Statement are substantially below the levels where biological damage-has been observed in humans.
This is not to say that there is no ef f ect at these dose levels.
However, if there is an effect at these levels, it is such that it has net been detected and measured with existing techniques.
Studies of large groups of humans who have received doses cf radiation hundreds of times higher than dose limits recommended by the ICRP, NCRP, and TRC for individual nenbers of the public at very high dose rates have shown a statistical increase in the incidence of leukemia and other malignant diseases.
Thus,.while it is known that ionizing radiation =can induce genetic and scratic effects at high doses and dose rates, the evidence:at the pre-s ent time is insufficient to :.ustif y precise concitsions on the nature cf the fcse-effect relationship at low deses and icse rates.
Fcr the induction cf some diseares such as cataract of the lens of the eye and i=,:airment of f ertility, there is evidence that implies little or no risk of inducing such ef f ects at doses and dose rates in the range of natural background radiation and recommended dose limits.
14/ Final Environmental Statement, WASE-1258 (July 1973).
l r
-_77 _.
4 For the induction of cancer, however, existing evidence does not permit the exclusion of a linear non-threshold dose-effect relationship even to-the lowest dose levels.
It is. prudent to assume for purposes of radiation protection, i
therefore,. a direct linear relationship between biological effect and the amount of dose.
Proceeding from this premise, very low doses can then be related through extrapolation of data frem'high doses to an assumed biological ef fect even though it is not detectable.
The estimates of somatic effects in humans set forth in Table 1-1 are htses on the BEIR Report- /
15 which uses this conservative assumption.
This assumption may lead to overestimates of the incidence of ef f ects f ren chronic low-level doses in the range cf the Accenfix I guides. 16/
As the staff indicates, the values set forth in the EEIR Co==ittee report f crm a basis f or the dose-to-health i
effects conversion.
Although this report was published in 1972 and an updated edition is soon due for publication, the 1972 versien is still widely usef fcr health effects assessments.
Staff witness Goldr.an's testimony on Cen-tention 36, which the Licensing Board seems to have f ound 15/ The Effects en Populatiens cf Exposure to Low Levels o: Icn;:ing Aaciation, Repcrt c: :ne Acvisory Committee on Eiclogical Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Division of Medical Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (BEIR Report) November 1972.
16/ WAS*d-1258,_fn. 14 supra, pp. 1-17 through 1-19 (citation for BEIR report omitted; see fn. 15 supra).
~~
i l
i i
78 -
17/
persuasive, ~ was based largely on the BEIR Committee
_IS/
report.
Finally, Step D in the environmental assessment re-quires trans forming the impact -- here, radiation-induced health effects -- to a common unit (e.c.,
dollars) to
.- a enable comparison or cor.bination with other impacts in the hEFA balancing process.
In actuality, this step is seldom perfo =ed and the balancing is eften accomplished b.v s ub-i e c ti v elv. assessine. various in.nacts ex.cressed in cuite different terms (see, for instance, the Black Fox FIS, Table 10.13 at p. 10-35).
Cc=.is sion rul es, however, contain ene instance of a facter for converting an environmental impact, calculated 5
as a populatien dose in man-ren, to a c..1ar amount.
As e;
noted above, p.
70 supra, section 50. 34 (a } requires the use cf design objectives fer equipment :c centrol radic-ac:_ve releases from nuclear pcwer plants in crder te keep levels of radioactive material in such effluents "as low as is reasonably achievable" (AI.AFJ.).
The section 1
_17/ E NRC at 145-47.
l 1S/ Goldman at 4-7, fol. Tr. 1022.
Dr. Goldre.n, however,
~
cnaracterized the health effects estimates of the BEIR report as conservative.
also explains that the values set out in Appendix I' pro-vide numerical guicance on design objectives tx) meet the' ALARA requirement.
As used in Part 50, the latter means as icw as is reasonably achievable taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to the public health and safety and other societal and socio-economic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest. _1_9/
e The Cc =ission adopted the guidelines of Appendix I
" quantitative e$:pression cf the meaning of the re-as a cuirement that radioactive material in ef fluents be kept as low as [is reasonably achievable). "--20/ Enhanced effluent treatment systems must-be empicyed if reduced deses te the popula' tion located within 50 miles of - the plant can be achieved at a cost of less than 51000 per.
_2_1/
ran-rem.
_1._9 / 10 C. T. R. ESO.34(a).
20/ CL 5, 1 NRC 275, 279 (1975).
The original wording, in section 50:34a and the Commission opinion, was "as low as practicable."
Later in its opinion, the Com-mission explicitly adopted the revised wording (i.e.,
"as low as is reasonably achievable") recommendec Ey the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Id. at 280-81.
21/ 10 C.T.R.
Part 50, Appendix I,Section II D.
30 -
By the terms of its definition, the ALARA standard necessarily invokes a cost-benefit balancing process.
The Commission recognized that in order to f acilitate this balancing, there must be some means of expressing the dose unit, m an-r em, in monetary terms.
To that end, the values
$1000 per man-rem and $1000 per man-rem thyroid were 22/
chosen.--
With this introduction in mind, I turn to the question the applicants sought to raise: whether, in light of their com-pliance with Appendix I, that rule establishes the quantum cf environnental impact associated with routine radiological releases; thus leading to the conclusien that 10 C.F.R.
E2.75E(a) precludes, in a.7y pa ticulag licensing proceeding, litiga:icn of the health cense:uences of those releases.
The staf f opposes the app'icants ' position.
It main-tains, in effect, that despite an applicant's showing of cc=pliance with the provisiens cf Appendix I, the magnitude 22/ 1 NEC at 2S2-54, 315-18.
The Commission expressly noted
]
that the hearing record provided no clear guidance as to what the dellar per man-ren should be, and adopted the 51000 value as an interim neasure.
Because this value was slightly higher than any proposed at the hearings (suggestions ranged from 510 to S980), the Commission characterized it as conservative.
_I _d. at 284.
l l
l I
81 -
of health ef f ects due to routine radioactive releases is not explicitly prescribed by that rule.
Thus, it centends
.that these effects.are open to challenge in individual 23/
cases.
The staff also argues that the health effects considerations appearing in WASH-1258 (the environmental state =ent prepared in conjunction with the Appendix I Rulemaking, in. 14 supra) may not be incorporated by reference in the rule because specific nctice to that effect'was not given as required by 5 U.S.C. EE552(a) and 553, provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. --24/
Finally, the staff contends that centrary to the appli-c ants ' argument, our ruling in Potomac Electric Power Cc.
(Douglas Point Station, Units 11 & 2), ALAE-218, 8 AIC 79 (1974), is not applicable to.this' case.
In Douglas point we held that a challenge to the data unferlying a Cennission rule is a challenge to the rule itself. --25/
The rule ir cuestion was Table S-3, which when first published codified 23/ Staff Respense to Applicants' Brief in Support cf Exception 2,
at 10.
24/ Id. at 11.
_2_5/ 8 AIC at 89.
. 4 the environmental costs t.- the uranium fuel cycle attri-butable to each nuclear plant.
We explained that the environmental values assigned in Table S-3 reflect the Commission's con-sidered evaluation and quantification of the adverse environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle attributable to indi-vidual reactors.
The figures were de-veloped in public rulemaking proceedings convened by the Commission specifically to consider such matters.
37 F.R.
24191 (1972).
They form an integral part of the new regulation.
To go behind the.
and challenge the basis en whien :ney rest is in effect a challenge to the regulation itself.
It may well ne that these values rest on unfirm footing. The Licensing Board, however, is not the proper forum for consideration of such matters.
The Commission's regulations provide that "any rule or regulation of the Commission, or any provision thereof, shall not be subject to attack. _.
in any adjudicatory proceeding involving
~
initial licensing.
10 C.F.R.
s2.758 (1974 rev.) _2_6/
~
The staff cites significant differences between Douclas Point and thi case.
It argues that whereas the underlying " raw data used to quantify values ultimately became part cf Table S-3," the Final Enviren-mental Statement which sets forth health effects for 1
l 26/ Ibid. (footnote omitted, emphasis added).
1 l
1 i
l l
l 1
83 -
l Appendix I (WASE-1258, fn. 14 supra) is not the underlying 27/
basis for that Appendix.
The staff also notes that the clarifying amendment to Table S-3 expressly provides that
~
health effects are not considered in the Table itself 28/
and may be dealt with in individual 11censin7 cases.
~
Notwithstanding the staf f 's arguments, I believe that our Douglas Point decision is apposite in this instance, and in fact provides precedential support for applicants' position that intervenors' contention 36 should have been summarily dismissed.
To be sure, there are differences between Table S-3 and Appendix I.
But, in my view, these l
dif ferences tend to support rather than detract from the pertinence of Douglas Point to this case.
I The Appendix I rule, promulgated after a lengthy rulemaking hearinc, ' quant _fies the "as law as is reasonably acnievable" requirement f or power reacter ef fluents.
And 21/ Staf f 7.esponse at 12-13.
--2E/ 43 red. Reg. 15613 (April 14, 157E).
Also see 10 C.F.R.
!51.20, Table S-3, Note 1.
that requirement is explicitly defined in terms of a balance which involves, inter alia, "the public health 29/
and safety."
Appendix I requires that the annual
~-
radiation exposure to the naximally exposed individual, as well as to the entire population surrounding the nuclear powcr plant, be calculated using effluent rates and other data pertinent to the f acility and proposed site.
For individuals, these calculated exposures 30/
~~
must be within certain limits.
For the population as a whole, steps.must be taken to reduce calculated 29/ See p. 79 supra.
Here it might be noted that while the pnrase "public health and saf ety" is
~~
most often usec :n ecnnection with radiation releases resulting frcm nuclear plant accidents, in 5 50.34 (a) these words contemplate the effects of radioactive ef fluents during normal plart operation (i.e., health effects).
i
~~3C/ Table 5.12 cf the 51ack Fox FIS (Staff Exhibit
- 1) is reproduced here to demonstrate the extent to which the calculated doses to individuals predicted for Black Fox comply with the guide-line values.
- n. r...: :
C,,.
- u... :h,e-:
I I
85 -
.~
i I
doses if the cost of doinc so falls within the-S1000 per l
l
_30/ (FCKVINOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
I 1
Tatie 5.1*. Co.arison of Calcula ted Deses t a Maxime Individual frm l
0;.eration of Ea:h Unit cf Bla:k Tex 5tatien with A;pendix !
a Design 0:jectives A;;endix I talculated Criterien Design 0:je::ives Dese i
Licuid Ef fluer.:s 0:se :: ::tal becy fr:-
3 rrem/yr 0.016 ere:/yr all cath-ays kse 1: any crgen fr:-
10 e-em/y-1.6 m em/ c all pain-ays h::le Gas Effluents Ga r.e c:se ir. air 10 e-ad/yr C.75 mra d/yr Ee:a ecse in air 20 erac/yr 0.50 mrad /yr Use ** ::*al b:Sy Cf an 5 f.re-/yr 0.49..
tr.c vi:,ai Cret/yr nie :: skin of a-15 ere-fy-i.:
ere /y-n:tvi: 41 I-ac1 Cit: ire and Parti:Ula:es Mse :: a~y :~ gar. f rc ali it : e.!y-5.2 cr e r./y *
- n-tys
'4:;en:in 1 Desige 0:,*e::ives f-:. See:1cns :1.1, : 1.1, *:.C c' a::endia 1, 10 CTE Tar: 50; c:.sice-s c:ses :: e.axi.s-incivicual see reac:ce uni:, fro-Feeeral Re gister V. 40, c.19442, r.ay 5,1575.
.*;a
- Den-14 a nd tri
- iuf" have beer. added 10 *his CategCry.
I I
l I
I l
m
66 -
31/
man-rem ratio.
I can conceive of no purpose for the Com=ission's promulgating Appendix I other than that of 31/ At oral argument before us, staff counsel emphasized
~~
that in satisfying Appendix I, applicants availed themselves of an option provided by Section II D of l
the appendix.
Under that eption, the cost balancing l
of population doses against augmented ef fluent treat-ment system is not recuired if the applicants' pro-jected maximum individual doses f all within more restrictive limits set forth in the Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staf f
( Do ck e t-RM-5 0 - 2 ), which is annexed to Appendix I.
While it is true that the ap.:licants used this option, their II.vironmental Reper: for the Black Fox Station clearly indicates that human population doses (as well as doses to other biota) within 50 miles of the plant were indeed calculated fer conditions releva.n: to the Black Fox plant and site.
Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-14 of the Repor: sunmarize these re-sults, which indicate that the pcpulation whole body dose due to licuid and caseous effluents would be about 1 man-dem'per~ year.
Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage, Black Fox Station (Units 1& 2), Vol. IV, pp. 5.2-25 and 5.2-26 (see 10 C.F.R. 551.20). Che staff's estimate of the 50-mile population dose is 1.6.an-rem.
Emch, fol. Tr. 1022 at 1.
Therefore, while the balancing called for by Appendix : was not performed, the populaticn doses were calculated for the Black Tex Station.
As expected, meeting the very restrictive limits on individual doses resulted in very low doses to the entire surrounding population.
In comparison, it is shown by the staff's estimate that the annual dose to the population within 50 miles of Black Fox due to j
natural background radiation is 110,000 man-rem. Ibid.
j
\\
i g-1 1
minimizino the radiation-induced health ef fects resultin9 from the operation of nuclear power plants by limiting the direct cause of such ef f ects -- radiation exposure.
While it is true that the Appendix I guides are phrased in terms of units of radiation exposure -- re=s or man-rems --
rather than a myriad of specific somatic and genetic eff ects,
three points emerge from the Con =ission decision regarding 32/
their prc=ulgation.-
First, the health eff ects of ra-diation exposu e are funfasental to Appendix I.
- Second, the Cc=tission believed that the health ef f ects attri-butabic :c implementation cf the Appendix I guidelines wculd be minimal.
Fina'.ly, and of' considerable signifi-cance to the matter at issue, the Corr.ission clearly believed that the relationships expressed in the BEIR Cerrittee Report, which were used by the Staff in the Environmental Impact State:ent for Rulemaking (1,'ASE-125E, fn. M supra), provided the connecting links between ra-diarien exp:sure and health ef f ects.
The Corr.ission began its opinion with a discussion i
1 of the scope of the Appendix I guides, noting that they l
1 32/ Rulemakinc Hearine (Docket No. RM-50-2), CI,I-75-5,
)
-"~
1 NRC 277 (1975).
2
---~*1
. 1 l
i were not radiation protection standards.
The Commission explained :
The Co= mission's radiation protection i
standards, which are based on recom-mendations of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) as approved by the President, are contained in 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards f or Protection Against Radiation," and remain un-changed by this Commission decision.
As in the case of parallel recommen-dations of the National Council on Radiation Trotection and. Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radio 1cgical Protection (ICRP), these TEC standards which have been previously adopted give appropriate censideration to the overall requirements of health protection and the beneficial use of radiation and atomic energy.
The Com-mission believes that the record clearly indicates that any biological effects that might occur at the low levels of these standards have such low probability of cccurrence that they would escape de-tecticn by present-day methods of obser-vation and reasurement. _3_3/
That the health effects resulting fror effluents of plants which meet Appendix I are expected to be minimal is evident in the Commission's opinion.
Following a discussion of the fact that persons living closer to the 23/ Id. at 279-80 (footnotes omitted).
The discussion at tnts peint pertains to radiation protection standards issued by varicus groups; health ef f ects to populations exposed at these levels would be unmeasurable.
Radiation exposure levels established by the Appendix I guidelines are even lower than those standards.
_r
plant might receive somewhat larger radiation exposures than those f arther away, the Commissioners expressed the judgment that total equality of risk, however desirable, can seldom be realized in our modern indus-trial society.
Wherever power plants, either nuclear er non-nuclear, are constructed, persons living near those plants will be exposed to marginally greater amounts of emissions than those residing f arther away, and the same situation obtains in regard to other types of industrial f acilities.
We believe, however, that the desien-objecETve quices vn:cn we acept assure that even tnose indivacuals iving closest te nuclear f acilities will be expose: to emissions at exceedingly low levels, with consecuent risks which are accept-a le irem a soc 1a1 as well as legal s tan cpoint. _3_4 /
Later in the decision, the Commission specifically.re-35/
~-
fers to the EEIR' Committee Report.
In discussing the cost-benefi: balancing required to deteriine whether ad-ditienal radwaste systems are needed and how to evaluate the cost cf dose reductions, the Commissicners state:
A recent and generally accepted evaluation
[the SEIR Report) cf the ef fects of ionizing radiation is available; it was used by the Regulatory Staf f in preparation of its Final Environmental Statement.
It is accordingly 34/ Id. at 300 (emphasis added).
35/ Id. at 311 fn, 72.
(The Report is cited in fn. 15, supra).
90 -
possible to estimate in a straight-forward and almost certainly conservative way the benefits to the public health obtained by decreasing the radiation doses to the popu-lation.
The casting of these benefits into monetary terms -- as the dollar value of decreasing by a total-body man-rem and by a man-thyroid-rem (or other essentially equivalent quantities) the dosage to the population -- is, therefore, the only.
missing information required to strike the cost-benefit bal anc e. 3._6./
Thus, there remains little doubt that the Commission intended to adopt the SEIR Committee 's recommendations as a means of evaluating health effects.
In terms of the four-step sequence outlined earlier (p. 73 supra), the Commission had at this point proceeded through Steps A, E,
and C; it was then seeking the conversion factor for Step D which would allow radiological releases to be evaluated in monetary terms.
In my opinion, the Appendix I decision indicates quite clearly the Commission's view that implementation cf these guidelines would reduce the health effects of radicactive effluents to acceptably low values.
Further,.
-)
I believe the decision firmly incorporates in Appendix I 36/ Id. at 311 (footnotes omitted).
-i J
91 -
- ~
i the values for converting doses to health effects set 37/
~'"
out in the BEIR Co=rdttee Report.
l There is at hand yet another example of the Commissions '
view of the environmental impact of radiation.- To recall a
.po nt made in the staff 's argument, pp. 82-83 supra, the Com-i missien has expressly permitted litigation in individual cases of health ef fects due to radioactive effluents pre-scribed in Table 5-3 (see p.
83 supra).
In that table the radiological impact of the uranium fuel cycle is set forth merely in terms of the cuantity of radioactive material released, with no assessment of how these materials would or could affect humans.
Thus, Table S-3 accomplishes only the first step of the four-step environmental impact evaluation discussed above.
In contrast,-the Commission. --
has nct included a similar proviso te allow case-by-case litigation cf health ef f ects in relaticn tc Table S-4, which established the " Environmental Impact of Transper-tation of Teel and Waste To and Frcr One Light-Water-cooled
--37/ As mentioned previously (fn. 1 supra), a party to an-adjudicatory proceeding who is dissatisfied with a Commissicn rule may petition for a waiver or excep-tion.
The alleged existence of information tending to refute data which pro-vided the underlying basis for the rule (in the case of Appendix I, the BEIR Committee Report on health effects) would surely provide grounds for such a petitior.
6 i
b t
e
--e,
,c-e m
,e.
38/
~~
Nuclear Power Reactor "
The difference between the two tables is significant; whereas Table S-3 establishes only the amount of' material released, Table S-4 expresses the radiological environmental impact of fuel and waste ship-ments in units of man-rems -- i.e., dose to humans.
One reasonably may surmise that in the Commission 's view, such specification of impact necessarily embodies the health l
effects estimates of radiation exposure expressed in the BEIR Report, thus alleviating the need to litigate such effects in individual licensing proceedings.
I therefore conclude that while the guideline values of Appendix I are set fort'r in units of radiological dose (i.e., rems and man-rems),.it is r,easonable to assume that the Comrdssion intended these dose guidelines to. limit i
resulting health effects as determined by the re2atienships i
set forth in the EEIR Repcrt.
I am also of the opinion that the C:mmission's characterization cf the magnitude of.these effects as ver.v icw should at.:.1v in deliberations under the National Invironmental Policy Act as well as in evaluations i
l 1
38/ 10 C.F.R.
!51.20, Summary Table S-4.
4 i
I
. 39/
of reactor systems.
There is no question that these
~
effects should be considered on the cost side in the environmental balance..Bowever, when a nuclear plant meets the "as low as is reasonably achievable" require-ment of Appendix I, the magnitude of population radiation doses and their resultant health effects is small enough that the cost / benefit balance would indeed have to be in 40/
"sirtual equipoise"-
before the impact of releases of radioactive effluents would be sufficient to require abandonment of the plant.
To be sure, if = ore recent data or changed circum-stances should quesuion the validity of either the Appendix I guidelines or the relationships used to 39/ The Licensing Board's findings in this case respect-ing the health ef f ects of nor.a1 ef fluents are in essence those of the Co:=issicn at the conclusion of its Appendix I rulenaking.
This is not surprising as both bodies were dealing with the same sets of facts -- Appendix ! dose guidelines and the EEIR Committee Repert.
I believe this case provides a 1
good example of how generic rules, established in an effective rulemaking proceeding, could reduce litigation time and expense in individual pro-ceedings and why contentions that challenge such i
rules should not be allowed in such cases, 40/ public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unr:s
.L
& 2), ALA5-422, 6 NRC 33, 104 (1977).
l l
l 1
i
l
~
=
94 -
i evaluate their resultant health ef fects, Commission regulations provide an immediate source of re=edy.
Any arty to a licensing proceeding may petition for a waiver or exception if special circumstances exist such that application of a Comnission rule would not i
l serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted.
l l
l 10 C.F.R. f2.758(b).
If the petitioner makes a prima j
facie showing that a vaiver or exception is justified, the presiding of ficer certifies the matter directly to the Commission f or determination.
Id. at 2.75S(d).
Regardless of the availability of a waiver, a party 1
l to an initial licensing proceeding may also petition f
for rule making pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
E2.802.
Id. at
(
{
- 2. 7 5E (e).
i
)
1 Thus, the regulations provide adequate means for challenging Cc==ission rules in appropriate circumstances.
I would hcid that in individual licensing cases, Appendix I precludes litigation cf the health effects cf radioactive emissions fron a nuclear plant whose liquid and gaseous effluents are in compliance with the Appendix I guide--
lines.
4 J
a6
,.-4 4
4-c.4_-
=.e-J 4
1st -4 5--a h
i 9
9 0
P 4
1 6
I a
?
i F
=
t I
t 4
ATTACHMENT 2 h
O f'
a hwe amm i
'L
. 8
+
4 4
)
r
?
e t
7 I
I F
6 t
i I
e i
b t
4 I
1/7/80 gg.,,
/?;Nh Nh
,...g::
- j. ~f
~.g.3
!d e GIS, -,
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\.Y. TM N,.
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\l~.g f r s
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
! %. f In the Matter of
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA,
)
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )
Docket Nos.
STN 50-556 AND
)
STN 50-557 WESTEPJi FAR",ERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, )
INC.
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
STAFF STATEMENT OF POSITION ON NEED TO CONSIDER CLASS 9 i
EVENTS PURSUANT TO DIRECTION IN ALAB-573 STATEMENT l
l ine Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (R. Salz.an, Chairman) issued a Decision ( ALAS-573) on De: ember 7,1979, in the natter of Public Service-l Conoany of Oklahoma, et al., (Black Fox, Units 1 and 2).
The Decision was rendered as a result of Applicants' and Intervenors' appeals taken from a Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision, LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 102, Modified 8 NRC 281 (1979), supporting the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) subject to certain conditions for the protection of the environment.
In its Decision, the Appeal Board affimed the Licensing Board's Decision on all substantive issues but certified an Appendix I question, not relevant here, to the Cortaission.
j? { lt t. 0
1 In addition, the Appeal Board ruled upon an issue raised by the Intervenors for the grst time during the c'>urse of the appeal, which asserted that the e
.i Commissioii's recently issued policy statement ("... Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study and Review by Lewis Panel") had withdrawn the rationale for refusing to consider Class 9 events, and thus the Licensing Board's Decision which failed to consider such events was defective.1/
In its ruling upon this issue, the Appeal Board noted that the Commission's OfShore Poaer Systems Cecision had confir ed that the existing policy on Class 9 accidents had not been set aside by that Decision, but that the Comission was nonetheless " rethinking the policy," and that in the interim tne Staff was directed to " bring to [the C c. mission's] attention any indi-vidual cases in which [the Staff] believe[c] the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents _ should be considered." /
In addition, observing that the Comission had " reserved to itself the right to decide wh' ether such metters are to be considered in any given case until it adopts a new general policy," the Appeal Board directed the NR Staff to advise the Comission within 30 deys of its position on whether the " consequences of Class 9 accidents should or should not be considered in this case."
Id. at 31-32.
1/
Supplemental Motion and Brief of Intervenors (March 6,1979).
2/
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), CLI-79-9,
~
10 NRG (Septembe r 14, 1979).
l 3/
ALAB-573, slip, op at 31.
l
. 4 The Commission's directive in the Offshore Power System Decision does re-quire thsEStaff to bring to the Commission's attention any individual cases H[,.
_3 in which the Staf f believes the environmental consequences of Class 9 acci-dents should be considered. The Commission's decision, however, does not require the Staff to inform the Commission of individual cases in which the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents need not be considered.
However, since this present matter involves evolving Commission policy of substantial inportance, the Staff has chosen to respend with this Statement of Position rather than to raise procedural issues of this nature in a petition for review pursuant to 10 C.F.R. @ 2.786. The Staff c'oes believe, however, that because of the difference in understanding between the Staff and the Appeal Board as to specifically what information the Commission was requesting in its Offshore Power Systems Decision,bIand the role that the Commission desires to play in the consideration of Class 9 issues, that it would be helpful for the Commission to pro /ide the Staff and the Boards with further guidance on the treat.ent of Class 9 consequences in ongoing licen-sing procedures pending the co.pletion of rulemaking.
DISCUSSION In Of fshore Power Systems, the Commission stated, "It follows from our existing rules that [ Class 9 issues) may be placed in contention at the hearing and that the Board may thereaf ter impose whatever license conditions In its opinion, the Commission stated that: "In the interim, pendin i
completion of the rulemaking on this subject, [we ask our Staf 4/
bring to our attention, any individual cases in which it believes the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents should be considered."
Of fshore Power Sys tems, suora at 10.
w
4 are proven to be necessary or appropriate to fulfill our responsibilities under th5 National Environmental Policy Act."El The Commission also noted that "..
at the very least, it is far from certain that the Annex and the policy deriving from it absolutely proscribe any consideration of Class 9 accidents at an FNP."5/ Thus, the Commission specifically found that there were situations under existing rules where Class 9 accidents might be con-side red.E Moreover, existing Ccamission policy and caselaw permit consideration of events whicn previously may have been considered in the Class 9 category where a party can demonstrate the event has a suf ficiently high probability to require consideration.E'l For example, a proper contention might be that the Three Mile Island accident is a Class 9 sequence whose environmental consequences should be considered.E 5/
Slip op, at 2.
6/
Id. at 7 In Offshore Power, the NRC Staff identified four separate reasons for 7/
consicering Class 9 accidents in a particular case which the Staff
~
believed were consistent with existing Ccomission Policy embodied in The Comnission found it necessary to address only one of the Annex.
that the Annex is not controlling on the issue of those arguments :
consideration of Class 9 accidents for an FNP since FNPs were not The within the Commission's contemplation when the Annex was issued.
Conaission did not consider or reject the Staff's other three argu-Presumably, those situations are among those that the Commis-ments.
sion wanted the Staff to bring to its attention if the Staff thought the environnental consequences of Class 9 accidents should be considered.
See e.a., Consumers Power Comoany (Midland Units 1 and 2), ACAB-123, 8/
6 AEC 331, 347 (1973).
See Interim Statement of Policy and Procedure, 44 Fed. Repa. 58559 9/
(Octobe r 10, 1979).
9
)
t l
- )
This approach has recently been permitted by a Licensing Board in Susouehanna and seemr6 consistent with the Annex and current Commission policy regarding 4:
idents at land-based reactor sites.1El Of course, in Black Fox, Class 9 at Intervenors have not attempted such a showing.
Alt 50 ugh the Commission's Offshore Power Systems _ decision does not require the NRC Staff to inform the Commission of the results of its Black Fox review, the Staff has reviewed the design of the proposed Black Fox Station, the additional requirements that are expected to be imposed on Black Fox as a result of the Three Mile Island evaluation, the population characteristics of the' site, and the site characteristic limiting the potential groundwater contamination and has concluded that Black Fox presents no special circun-stances under current Commission' policy which would warrant consideration of the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents in the ongoing pro-ceedinc.
The attached affidavits of D. Cecil 0. Thomas, Jr., the Licensing Project Manager, and of Mr. Jan A. Norris, the Environmental Project Manager attest to these conclusions.
3 10/ Fennsylvania Power and Licht Company (Susquehanna Units 1 and 2),
iBP-79-29 HRC
, slip op, at 11-13 (October 19, 1979).
~~~
6
---c---
._p.,_
I
.E-i CONCLUSION L.
e A
i For the f regoing reasons the NRC Staff does not believe special considera-tion needs to be given to the consequences of Class 9 accidents at Black Fox.
Respectfully Submitted,
)om v a_ -
L. Dow Davis, IV Counsel for NR: Sta f f l
Y l LE w ;,i{ f,..'LJc '(
William J. 0}cstead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Marlyand
'~
this 7th dej of January,1980 i
I l
i i
i j
l 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMliiSS10N A'
BEFORE THE COMMISSION in the Matter of
)
)-
PUBLIC SERVICE C0".?ANY OF OKLAHOM/,
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
STN 50-557 AND
)
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )
)
(Black FC) Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAYli 0F CECIL 0. THOMAS, JR. ON THE CONS] DERAIL 0N OF CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS FOR THE FRDPOSED ELACK-FOX ST ATION, UN 15 1 AND 2
- , Cecil 0. Thomas, Jr., being duly sworn and deposed, hereby state that I am emoloyed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Project Manager in the Division of project Management.
Among my responsibilities, is the management of the NRC Staff's safety evaluation of the proposed Black Fox Station, Jnits 1 and 2.
The puroose of this affidavit is to accress the consideration of Class 9 accidents for tne orcposed Eleck Fox Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed Elack Fox Station will utilize two General Electric Company BWE/6 boiling water reactor nuclear steam supply systems and Mark III pressure-suppression containment systems. On the bases of (1) the Staff's evaluation of the design of the proposed Black Fox Station, (2) the Staff's evaluation to date of the Three Mile Island acticent, and
,3 (3) the additional-requirements that the Staff is expected to imoose on the proposed Black Fox Station as a result of its evaluation of the Three Mile Island accident,
2 ne novel features or special circumstances associated with the design of the proposed Bjack Fox Station are presently foreseen that would distinguish it from i
other land-based light water reactor plants to the extent that consideration M
r of Class 9 accidents is warranted under present policy.
I have read the foregoing affidavit and swear that it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
L
.,' ; 3..
- y ~
Cecil 0. inemas, Jr.
Subs.:ribed anc sw:rn to before me this'O day of January 1980.
,/
/
'U 4 '.'
O Notary Futlic
/-l'2 My Cor=ission Expires
.)
i e
w
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the 14atter of the Application of
)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
)
AssociatGd Electric Corg rative, Inc. )
Docket tios. STt 50-556 and
)
STN 50-557 M
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JAN A. t,'0ERIS 1
Jan A. Norris, havint first been duly sworn, hereby states as follows:
I 1.
I a-the Environnental Project Manager for tne Elack Fox Station, Units 1 and 2.
2.
This affidavit addresses consideration of envircnnental consecuences cf Class 9 accidents for the prcposed Black Fox Station, Units I and 2, 3.
On the bases of:
a Staff's evaluation of population characteristics of the site, and b) Staff's evaluation of the site: characteristic limiting the,
]
potential groundwater contamination tne Staff concludes that there are no unusual features or special circum-stances with regarc to the population and groundwater conta,ination ir.terdiction characteristics of this site that would distinguish it from other land,-based light water reactor sites to the extent that, unoer the present Co mission policy, warrant consiceration of environmental conse:;uences cf Class 9 accidents.
/
N A
N,
'}
,.,1
)..
Jan A. korris 9
Sworn ano subscribed before me
_, 1980.
this E Yay of 7 s.
m j3-i
. / /,; v *.
lIA d
.I<otary Public for ano in the founty of Montgomery, State of Maryland P
I 6
E
- ((
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
,, j r,-b In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAH0t%,
)
ASSOCI ATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-555 AND
)
STN 50-557 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC CODPERATIVE,
)
INC.
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIF]CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STAFF STATEMENT OF PD3: TION ON NEED TO CONSIDER CLASS 9 EVEliTS PURSUANT TO DIRECTI0'i IN AL AS-573" AND' A FIDAVIT OF CECIL AND " AFFIDAVIT OF JAN A. NORRIS" ON THE CONSIDERATION OF CLASS 9 ACCIDEN PROPOSED BLACK FOX STATION, UNITS 1 and 2 dated January 7,1980 in the above-captione:
proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 7tn day of January,1980.
- John F. Ahearne, Chairran
- Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nu: lear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C.
20555 Boa rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
- Dr. Victor Gilinsky Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Jerore E. Sharfman, Esq.
A:oric Safety and Licensing Appeal
- Mr Richard T. Kennedy B;a-c U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. hu: lear Regulatory Comission Was hington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie
- Sheld0n J. Wolfe, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. huclear Regulatory Commissior.
Weshirgton. D. C.
20555
- Peter A. 5radford l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- Richard S. -Salzman, Chairman Washington, D. C.
20555 4
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 9f-l i
Board Dr. Paul W. Purdom U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Director, Environmental Studies Groul Washington, D. C.
20555 Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Street Fniladelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
2 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Isham, Lincoln & Beale Public Service Company of Oklahoma 1050 17th Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 201 Washington, D. C.
20036 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 i
Michael I Miller, Esq.
Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
'/
Isham, Lincoln & Beale John R. Woodard III, Esq.
One'ist National Plaza Feldman, Hall, Franden, Reed Suite 2400 and Woodard Chicago, Illinois 60605 816 Enterprise Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens Action for Safe Engery, Inc.
Alan P. Bielawski P.O. Etx 924 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Claremore, Oklahoma 74107 One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Jan Eric Cartwricht, Esq. &
Chicago, Illinois 60603 Charles S. Rogers Mr. Gerald F. Diddle Attorney General State of Oklahoma General Manager 112 State Capitol Building Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 P. O. Box 754 Springfield, Missouri 65801 Mr. Clyde Wisner NRC Recion 4 Mr. Maynard Hunan Public Affairs Officer General Manager 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Western Farmers Coop., Inc.
Suite 1000 P.O. Box 429 Arlington, Texas 76011 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Andrew T. Dalton, Jr., Esq.
- Atomic Safety ind Licensing Appeal Ec U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney at Law 1437 South Main Street, Rm. 302 Washington, D. C.
20555 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Fa-Mrs. Ilene H. Younchein U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3900 Cashion Place Washingten, D. C.
20555 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
- Docketing and Service Section Martha E. Gibbs, Esc.
Office of the Secretary 1 sham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Dr. M. J. Robinson Black & Veatch Lawrence Burrell P. O. Box B405 Route 1, Eox 197 Kansas City, Missouri 64114 l
Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Mr. T. N. Ewing Acting Director
{)LM
\\W Black Fox Station Nuclear Project Public Service Company of Oklahoma L.'Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
4 1
l l
ATTACHMENT 3 N % y 9
9 9
es 4
I t
I i
l t
)
~
i
)
4 4
9 I
~~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j,
n BEFORE THE COMMISSION c
?Ni-
.?
%~,p*
- In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556
)
STN 50-557
_e t _a l.
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.715 (d), Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO") hereby moves the Nuc. lear Regulatory Commis-
)
sion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in the captioned proceeding in the event the Commission accepts review of the i
Appendix I issue which was certified to the Commission by The the Appeal Board in ALAB-573 datedi. December' 7,-1979.
Appeal Board's decision was docketed in the Office of the ~
~
.l l
Secretary on December 10, 1979.
Specifically, the issue certified to the Commission is as follows:
1 i
"Where routine radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant will be kept 'as low as is reasonably achievable' in accordance with Appendix I, is litigation of the health effects of those emissions in an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing barred by 10 C.F.R. 52.758 as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations?"
[
Ed>b
i.
l TUGCO has a significant interest in the outcome of this certificacion action.
TUGCO is the holder of construc-tion permits for its Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, and is an applicant for operating licenses for those facilities.
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446.
By Order 4'ted June 27, 1979, the Licensing Board in Peak granted three petitions for leave to inter-Comanche vene in that operating license proceeding, and found that the three petitioners had raised a common contention (relating to cuality assurance) which was sufficient to support intervention.
The Licensing Board deferred ruling on the admissibility of the remaining contentions pending negotiations by the parties.
Two of the-petitioners;have raised contentions celating.
to consideration -by TUGCO.;and the NRC Staf f of.,the. health effects of icw-level radiation on the population surrounding Comanche Peak.
As noted, the Licensing Board has not as yet l
TUGCO ruled on the admissibility of these contentions.
believes that these contentions constitute impermissible challenges to NRC regulations (10 CFR 52.758(a)).
Accordingly, s
TUGCO has an obvious interest in the outcome of the instant certification to the Commission.
TUGCO believes that this issue is a significant one which will have far-reaching implications for it as well as for the nuclear industry in general.
If leave is granted, 2-m.m.
n TUGCO will advocate that 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I precludes litigation of the health effects of radioactive emissions from a nuclear plant whose liquid and gaseous effluents are in compliance with Appendix I guidelines.
Such a determina-
)
tion by the Commission would relieve TUGCO (and others) from 1
a substantial and unnecessary litigation burden.
TUGCO will of fer a viewpoint independent of that offered by the parties
- /
~
in the Black Fox proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, TUGCO respectfully requests that it be permitted to file a brief amicus curiae in the captioned proceeding if the Commission accepts review of the certified question.
If leave to do so-is granted, TUGCO of course would file its brief within the time limits prescribed by the Commission.
Also, in the event the Commission accepts' review but.does'not permit the parties in Black Fox to file briefs (relying instead on the ple'adings filed below), TUGCO respectfully requests that it neverthe-less be permitted to submit a brief amicus curiae.
A
}
Respectfu dy su mitted,
!b i
Nichola S. Reynolds Counse fo Texas Utilities Generati g Company January 4, 1980
- / Black Fox is a construction permit proceeding and Comanche Peak is an operating license proceeding.
~
e
e' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE COMMISSION a
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556
)
STN 50-557
_e t _a l.
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the " Motion of Texas Utilities Generating Company For Leave To File A Brief Amicus Curiae" has on this day been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on the following:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
L.
Dow Davis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington,.D.C..
20555._
.,., ~
~ ~ T.-.- '
u~
i-Washington, D.C.
- 20555,
_- Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Feldman, Hall, Franden, Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing
& Woodard 816 Enterprise Building Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Andrew T.
Dalton, Esq.
1437 South Main Street Dr. Paul'W. Purdom Suite 302 Chairman, Department of Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Civil Engineering Drexel University.-
Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein 32nd and Chestnut Streets 3800 Cashion Place Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 Atomic Safety and Licensing Joseph Gallo, Esq.
_ Appeal Board Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1050 - 17th Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20036 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 e
m a
.----,,v--_.9 9 9
J' 2'-
Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Maynard Human General Manager j
Board Panel Western Farmers Electric U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cooperative Washington, D.C.
20555 Post Office Box 429 Andarko, Oklahoma 73005 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary of Dr. M. J.
Robinson Black & Veatch the Commission Post Office Box 8405 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory K'ansas City, Missouri 64114 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Paul M. ?!urphy, Esq.
(20 copies)
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Lawrence Burrell Alan'P. Bielawski, Esq.-
Route 1, Box 197 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 One 1st National Plaza Suite 2400 Mr. Gerald F.
Diddle Chicago, Illinois 60606 General Manager Associated Electric Lawrence J.
Chandler, Esq.
Office of the Executive Cooperative, Inc.
Post Office Box 754 Legal Director Springfield, Missouri 65801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jan Eric Cartwright, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Attorney General of Oklahoma Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Charles S.
Rogers, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
State of Oklahoma 2001 Bryan Tower 112 State Capitol Building Dallas, Texas 75201 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
\\
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Mr.
T. N. Ewing Public Service Company of Oklahoma Post Office Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens Action for Safe l
Energy, Inc.
Post Office Box 924 i
Claremore, Oklahoma 74107
)
Reynolds
'plicholasS. Counsel for Texas Utilities i
Generating Company Dated:
January 4, 1980 I
s n
,n._s-,
++-g
-Ob=
A.
N$
l-h*
4 n
W.L, 6
w4+,1
_^ 4 4
y n
4 9m.A_b b
@ w
.k r.1r y
1i I
1 l
l
, O
)
, 1 1
I t
. I 1
a I
a i
l I
i 1
9 4
.I s
ATTACHMENT 4 i
6
+
-4 I
l
.I 4
-.I s
l l
4 i
P
. - -... -