ML19274E656: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:'* | {{#Wiki_filter:'* | ||
PUBLIC Docy; o | PUBLIC Docy; o | ||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ) | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
W "~ ' | W "~ ' | ||
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,) . g3 p. 3 (Black Fox Station, Units ' | ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,) . g3 p. 3 (Black Fox Station, Units ' | ||
**j g 1 and 2) ; s ma | **j g 1 and 2) ; s ma SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF INTERVENORS Intervenors have raised issues concerning the Class Nine Category of events. In part, the consideration by the Appeal Board of the ASLB refusal to consider such events has been postponed. (Intervenors' Request to Defer Exception 113). | ||
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF INTERVENORS Intervenors have raised issues concerning the Class Nine Category of events. In part, the consideration by the Appeal Board of the ASLB refusal to consider such events has been postponed. (Intervenors' Request to Defer Exception 113). | |||
However, Intervenors also have contended that the ALAB has not complied with the requirements of Gulf States Utilities Company, ALAB-444, p. 2) . See Exception 112. | However, Intervenors also have contended that the ALAB has not complied with the requirements of Gulf States Utilities Company, ALAB-444, p. 2) . See Exception 112. | ||
The 'ES F and the environmental record do not consider Class Nine events. FES, Chap. 7. The apparent reason is that the matter is covered by WASH-1400. (FES, p. 7-2; FES, | The 'ES F and the environmental record do not consider Class Nine events. FES, Chap. 7. The apparent reason is that the matter is covered by WASH-1400. (FES, p. 7-2; FES, | ||
| Line 36: | Line 32: | ||
7904090Wf, | 7904090Wf, | ||
4 On page 7-2 of the FES, the following statement is made. | 4 On page 7-2 of the FES, the following statement is made. | ||
"As with all . Tow information developed which might have an effect or the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will be assessed on a timely basis within the Regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted." | "As with all . Tow information developed which might have an effect or the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will be assessed on a timely basis within the Regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted." | ||
| Line 45: | Line 39: | ||
The proposed annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 is insufficient to excuse compliance with NEPA. This proposed innex is merely a statement of what the Commission once proposed. | The proposed annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 is insufficient to excuse compliance with NEPA. This proposed innex is merely a statement of what the Commission once proposed. | ||
The proposal is only a general statement of intended policy. The policy itself has not been adopted through rule making or adjudication. Hence it does not have the force of law. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. F.P.C., 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974). | The proposal is only a general statement of intended policy. The policy itself has not been adopted through rule making or adjudication. Hence it does not have the force of law. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. F.P.C., 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974). | ||
The record is clearly inconsistent with NEPA's mandate to comply to "the fullest extent possible" with 1 | The record is clearly inconsistent with NEPA's mandate to comply to "the fullest extent possible" with 1 | ||
comprehen.^*ve and objective treatment of the issues. | comprehen.^*ve and objective treatment of the issues. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 47: | ||
No one disputes that the potential consequences of major accidents are enormous. No one would construct a nuclear facility if the risk of realizing these consequences is unacceptable. | No one disputes that the potential consequences of major accidents are enormous. No one would construct a nuclear facility if the risk of realizing these consequences is unacceptable. | ||
1 See, generally Intervenors' Brief, Proposition I. | 1 See, generally Intervenors' Brief, Proposition I. | ||
~ | ~ | ||
Regardless of what is any one person's or group's perception of what is " acceptable", we now know that the previously espoused probability of experiencing these consequences is " unreliable." There is no excuse for failure to consider Class Nine events. The admissions regarding WASH-1400, together with the fact that it alone is the basis for not considering Class Nine events, require consideration of Class Nine events. | Regardless of what is any one person's or group's perception of what is " acceptable", we now know that the previously espoused probability of experiencing these consequences is " unreliable." There is no excuse for failure to consider Class Nine events. The admissions regarding WASH-1400, together with the fact that it alone is the basis for not considering Class Nine events, require consideration of Class Nine events. | ||
# ,-1979. | # ,-1979. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 53: | ||
- y, l _ | - y, l _ | ||
ANDREW TM DA>LTON , JR. | ANDREW TM DA>LTON , JR. | ||
Attorney for CASE, Intervenor 1437 South Main Street, Room 302 Tulsa, OK 74119 | Attorney for CASE, Intervenor 1437 South Main Street, Room 302 Tulsa, OK 74119 J | ||
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was mail d, poet ge prepaid, to the following this ~7' day of , , . d A p, , 1978. | |||
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Mr. Joseph Gallo Attention: Mr. Paul Murphy 1050 ll7th S treet .N.W. | Isham, Lincoln & Beale Mr. Joseph Gallo Attention: Mr. Paul Murphy 1050 ll7th S treet .N.W. | ||
One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 I h n ton, D.C. 2003L Mrs. Carric Dickerson, Chairman, C.A.S.E. | One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 I h n ton, D.C. 2003L Mrs. Carric Dickerson, Chairman, C.A.S.E. | ||
P.O. Box 924 Claremore, OK 74017 Secretary Attention: Chief, Docketing & Service Section United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerome E. Sharfman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board | P.O. Box 924 Claremore, OK 74017 Secretary Attention: Chief, Docketing & Service Section United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerome E. Sharfman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. T. N. Ewing PSO, Box 201 Tulsa, OK 74102 Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Mr. Richard S. Salzman Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 ASLAB U. S. NRC Mr. Vaugh Conrad, PSO Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 | ||
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. T. N. Ewing PSO, Box 201 Tulsa, OK 74102 Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Mr. Richard S. Salzman Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 ASLAB U. S. NRC Mr. Vaugh Conrad, PSO Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 | |||
/td7 AN UIEW '1.SunUtva, Jh.}} | /td7 AN UIEW '1.SunUtva, Jh.}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:36, 1 February 2020
| ML19274E656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Dalton A DALTON, A.T. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904090416 | |
| Download: ML19274E656 (5) | |
Text
'*
PUBLIC Docy; o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF )
) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-556 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) STN 50-557 .
N f
OKLAHOMA, ASSOCIATED ELEC- )
TRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ) pop"my AND WESTERN FARMERS ) ,
W "~ '
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,) . g3 p. 3 (Black Fox Station, Units '
- j g 1 and 2) ; s ma SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF INTERVENORS Intervenors have raised issues concerning the Class Nine Category of events. In part, the consideration by the Appeal Board of the ASLB refusal to consider such events has been postponed. (Intervenors' Request to Defer Exception 113).
However, Intervenors also have contended that the ALAB has not complied with the requirements of Gulf States Utilities Company, ALAB-444, p. 2) . See Exception 112.
The 'ES F and the environmental record do not consider Class Nine events. FES, Chap. 7. The apparent reason is that the matter is covered by WASH-1400. (FES, p. 7-2; FES,
- p. 7-4, ref. 1& 2.) The WASH-1400 references are all that are given.
The Class Nine event is also referred to as a generic environmental issue. See, TAP A-33, NUREG-0510, and NUREG-0371.
7904090Wf,
4 On page 7-2 of the FES, the following statement is made.
"As with all . Tow information developed which might have an effect or the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will be assessed on a timely basis within the Regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted."
The state of the record is now that the ASLB has not considered, in the slightest, Class Nine events. Any rationale for this position has been withdrawn. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issues Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study and Review by Lewis Panel, U.S. - NRC, January 19, 1979.
The River Bend decision compels the ASLB to consider unresolved generic studies. This the ASLB has not done.
In summary, the basis, such as it was, for refusal to consider Class Nine events has been totally repudiated by the Commission. Second, the ASLB has failed to abide by this Board's order to consider unresolved generic issues.
The proposed annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 is insufficient to excuse compliance with NEPA. This proposed innex is merely a statement of what the Commission once proposed.
The proposal is only a general statement of intended policy. The policy itself has not been adopted through rule making or adjudication. Hence it does not have the force of law. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. F.P.C., 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
The record is clearly inconsistent with NEPA's mandate to comply to "the fullest extent possible" with 1
comprehen.^*ve and objective treatment of the issues.
It is impossible to claim compliance with NEPA in the face of Commission language such as, "It agrees that the peer review process followed^in publishing WASH-1400 was inadequate and that proper peer review is fundamental to making sound technical decisions."
"...In particular, in light of the Review Group's conclusions on accident probabilities, the Commission does not regard as reliable the Reactor Safety Study's numerical estimate of the overall risk of reactor accident."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issues Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study and Review by Lewis Panel, NRC, January 19, 1979.
Finally, there is no technical basis for concluding that the probability of a Class Nine accident is remote thereby justifying exclusion from review. The Annex to Appendix D simply deems the likelihood of a Class Nine event to be improbable. It is against this very attitude that NEPA is intended to operate.
No one disputes that the potential consequences of major accidents are enormous. No one would construct a nuclear facility if the risk of realizing these consequences is unacceptable.
1 See, generally Intervenors' Brief, Proposition I.
~
Regardless of what is any one person's or group's perception of what is " acceptable", we now know that the previously espoused probability of experiencing these consequences is " unreliable." There is no excuse for failure to consider Class Nine events. The admissions regarding WASH-1400, together with the fact that it alone is the basis for not considering Class Nine events, require consideration of Class Nine events.
- ,-1979.
Dated this day of
- y, l _
ANDREW TM DA>LTON , JR.
Attorney for CASE, Intervenor 1437 South Main Street, Room 302 Tulsa, OK 74119 J
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was mail d, poet ge prepaid, to the following this ~7' day of , , . d A p, , 1978.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Mr. Joseph Gallo Attention: Mr. Paul Murphy 1050 ll7th S treet .N.W.
One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 I h n ton, D.C. 2003L Mrs. Carric Dickerson, Chairman, C.A.S.E.
P.O. Box 924 Claremore, OK 74017 Secretary Attention: Chief, Docketing & Service Section United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Hearing Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerome E. Sharfman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. T. N. Ewing PSO, Box 201 Tulsa, OK 74102 Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Mr. Richard S. Salzman Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 ASLAB U. S. NRC Mr. Vaugh Conrad, PSO Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
/td7 AN UIEW '1.SunUtva, Jh.