ML20148D969: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:s ,.
              .                                                                W aan me              ap September 6, 1980      ,tNP05ED FULE
                                                                            --^Yj',kVe/el PRc                      .
          '                                              4327 Alconbury Lane #3                          l Mc;ston, Texas                                  l Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulator Commission Washington D. C. 20555                                                      W lm RE: A PUBLIC COMMENT WITHDRA7/AL OF THE PROPOSED AN:iEX T          h :,                  s APPENDIX T OF 10 CFR 50 AS ORDERED ON JULY 9,1930                ,
To the Honorable Commissions                                    ps          /7 John F.'Doherty, of Houston, Texas, ;.nd Interveno.              M et QA g in the Construction License troceedings for the Allens                    %-t-            1 Creek Nuclear Generating Station, (50 466) comments as                                    ;
                                                                                . ,^ ' I          $ s,y follows on the Withdrawal of the Proposed Annex to                              5 Appendix D of 10 CFR 50, as noticed in 45 Federal Register 40,103:
By 'his ruling, the ?ommission has excluded the Allens Cre n    iclear Generating Station (hereafter: ACNGS) from a new rule recuiring censrderation of Class 9 Accidents, because of a firm belief that its NEPA review has been completed. However, the Commission in the same Announce-ment indicates the NEFA review which the ACFGS' proceeding had completed is inadequate in several respects, one of which is, "The Annex does not give adequat / consideration to the detailed treat ent of .easures takrn to prevent and to mitigate the censeq'uences of accidents in the safety review of each application."
It appears the Commission has engaged in balancing the amount of delay that wculd be involved in adding this review against the value of it to the public safety. Mowever, it has not presented anywhere by what standards it has arrived at the conclusion that the amount of delay involved bears more heavily than the need to assess and make public the effects of the most serious accidents (Class 9) on the public health and safety, and the environi.ent. Indeed, the only clue we have is that the several plants are "near te_7 construc tion permit"(NTCP) plants. There is no indi-                                  ,
cation of any other consi,deration, such as the possibility l
_the utility might be unable ~to. supply its grid if the con-struction permit were kept away'.until after a class 9 accident                            l review and agency co ment analysis,                                                          j The failure to provide a basis for making the above de-
              *ermination to proceed without the Class 9 aralysis violates                                !
the Administr'tive Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. g 3;o, which                                    I cte+es in part, "All decisions, including ititial,..[c]e-                              ,f; cisiens, are a nart of the record and shall irclude s state-                      i  )W' ment of- (A) findings and conclusions the reascn or baM 9 1
therefor..."                                                                  /}l
                                                                                        ) $
                                              ~                                      /
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES g .,.            ,
 
Mence, I!urg~e the Commission to netc_Inat    tne                    ,
division' of the various 3icensings within the Agency.
c, ,
in this as yet unexplained raanner brings the decision nuclear to not consider Clase 5 Accidents for the six plants (the so called neer term construction permit plantst Allens Creek, Pilgrim-II, Black Fox I & II, Perkinc, Pebble Springs, and Skagit) within the ambit of Secretary of Acriculture v. United States, 347 U.S. 645                                ,
(1954) and Northeast Airlines v.InCivil'  Aeronnutics Poard, those cases, agency                                !
331 F.2d 579 (1st Cir. 1964).                                                            !
decisions for..which no standards or other basis were ar-                            '!
ticulated-were sent back for recenaideration.
Eecause it appears the Ccemission has not snown                                    !
why a licensing that is "near term" over-rides the public's                              !
right to knowledge of the environmental effects of Class                                i O accidents under NEFA, to say not).ing ^" their own 5ealth                            '
and safety, I believe it must take a couree of greater      re-If it does,                        !
view  or exulaination I believe 'in the casethan  it has demonstrated.
of ACNGS,    a review of Class 9 A :idents                        !
is proper through an Environmental Impact Supplement,                                  :
n.
Respectfully Submittdd, fA&Oo John F. Doherty s
b I
r i
6 l
i
                                                            ----:--..      .,. g::: :: ::- gg :gy.
L}}

Latest revision as of 16:38, 21 July 2020

Comments on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 51 Re Withdrawal of Proposed Annex to App D of 10CFR50.Commission Has Engaged in Balancing Amount of Delay That Would Be Involved in Adding Review Against Value to Public Safety
ML20148D969
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 09/06/1980
From: Doherty J
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-45FR40101, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 45FR40101-14, NUDOCS 8010140019
Download: ML20148D969 (2)
v • d • e


Text

s ,.

. W aan me ap September 6, 1980 ,tNP05ED FULE

--^Yj',kVe/el PRc .

' 4327 Alconbury Lane #3 l Mc;ston, Texas l Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulator Commission Washington D. C. 20555 W lm RE: A PUBLIC COMMENT WITHDRA7/AL OF THE PROPOSED AN:iEX T h :, s APPENDIX T OF 10 CFR 50 AS ORDERED ON JULY 9,1930 ,

To the Honorable Commissions ps /7 John F.'Doherty, of Houston, Texas, ;.nd Interveno. M et QA g in the Construction License troceedings for the Allens  %-t- 1 Creek Nuclear Generating Station, (50 466) comments as  ;

. ,^ ' I $ s,y follows on the Withdrawal of the Proposed Annex to 5 Appendix D of 10 CFR 50, as noticed in 45 Federal Register 40,103:

By 'his ruling, the ?ommission has excluded the Allens Cre n iclear Generating Station (hereafter: ACNGS) from a new rule recuiring censrderation of Class 9 Accidents, because of a firm belief that its NEPA review has been completed. However, the Commission in the same Announce-ment indicates the NEFA review which the ACFGS' proceeding had completed is inadequate in several respects, one of which is, "The Annex does not give adequat / consideration to the detailed treat ent of .easures takrn to prevent and to mitigate the censeq'uences of accidents in the safety review of each application."

It appears the Commission has engaged in balancing the amount of delay that wculd be involved in adding this review against the value of it to the public safety. Mowever, it has not presented anywhere by what standards it has arrived at the conclusion that the amount of delay involved bears more heavily than the need to assess and make public the effects of the most serious accidents (Class 9) on the public health and safety, and the environi.ent. Indeed, the only clue we have is that the several plants are "near te_7 construc tion permit"(NTCP) plants. There is no indi- ,

cation of any other consi,deration, such as the possibility l

_the utility might be unable ~to. supply its grid if the con-struction permit were kept away'.until after a class 9 accident l review and agency co ment analysis, j The failure to provide a basis for making the above de-

  • ermination to proceed without the Class 9 aralysis violates  !

the Administr'tive Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. g 3;o, which I cte+es in part, "All decisions, including ititial,..[c]e- ,f; cisiens, are a nart of the record and shall irclude s state- i )W' ment of- (A) findings and conclusions the reascn or baM 9 1

therefor..." /}l

) $

~ /

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES g .,. ,

Mence, I!urg~e the Commission to netc_Inat tne ,

division' of the various 3icensings within the Agency.

c, ,

in this as yet unexplained raanner brings the decision nuclear to not consider Clase 5 Accidents for the six plants (the so called neer term construction permit plantst Allens Creek, Pilgrim-II, Black Fox I & II, Perkinc, Pebble Springs, and Skagit) within the ambit of Secretary of Acriculture v. United States, 347 U.S. 645 ,

(1954) and Northeast Airlines v.InCivil' Aeronnutics Poard, those cases, agency  !

331 F.2d 579 (1st Cir. 1964).  !

decisions for..which no standards or other basis were ar- '!

ticulated-were sent back for recenaideration.

Eecause it appears the Ccemission has not snown  !

why a licensing that is "near term" over-rides the public's  !

right to knowledge of the environmental effects of Class i O accidents under NEFA, to say not).ing ^" their own 5ealth '

and safety, I believe it must take a couree of greater re-If it does,  !

view or exulaination I believe 'in the casethan it has demonstrated.

of ACNGS, a review of Class 9 A :idents  !

is proper through an Environmental Impact Supplement,  :

n.

Respectfully Submittdd, fA&Oo John F. Doherty s

b I

r i

6 l

i

:--.. .,. g::: :: ::- gg :gy.

L

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148D969&oldid=2913996"