ML19305E174

Statements of Position Re Certified Question of App 1 of 10CFR50 Concerning Litigation of Health Effects of Routine Radioactive Emissions.Urges Dismissal of Inquiry.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19305E174
Person / Time
Site:	Black Fox
Issue date:	04/01/1980
From:	Dalton A DALTON, A.T.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8004230082
Download: ML19305E174 (7)

Text

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RE : APPLICATION OF )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA ) STN 50-556

) 50-557 BLACK FOX STATION Units 1 & 2 )

STATEMENTS OF INTERVENORS CONCERNING CERTIFIED ISSUE RELATING TO APPENDIX I, 10 CFR 50 The Commission has accepted for consideration the followirig question:

"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 CFR S2.758 as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations ?"

Prior to making specific comments, the Commission is reminded that this question has been brought before them by appeal by Applicant from a decision favorable to.it at the licensing stage on the question of whether there were such u.fects such that they would adversely affect the licensing.

And again on appeal before the Appeal Board the question was resolved favorably to Applicant. Applicant has not shown any prejudice whatsoever. About all that could be said about Applicant's position was said in the concurring opinion of Dr. Johnson at page 70, " [ Applicant] Anticipating a potentially significant impact on future NRC proceedings... " it made its argument. ALAB - 573

, In summary the issue was brought this far absent any party with standing to raise the point. Intervenors are not 8004230ny

deluded into believing that if[ they had presented a contention based upon some unstated impact on some undefined NRC proceeding they would be summarily dismissed from the case. This Commission should, therefore, dismiss this inquiry as improvidently started. If a generic inquiry is required or desired procedure exists to accomplish that process.

Next, Intervenors assume that this is an abstract review of the issue and not simply a review of *.;hether this specific case and these specific facts involvo a situation where these Intervenors challenged a regulation or rule.

The simple point is that these Intervenors did not challenge the "as low as reasonably achievable" rule. In fact the Intervenors' witness stated that she agreed with the rule.

(Tr. p. 790).

Next it would appear that no party asserts that there are no effects. The issue was the magnitude of those effects and the implications for licensing this facility.

Finally the argument against the consideration of these effects is simply that the development of the rule considered the effects. All must concede that if the rule does not incorporate the effects then, until it or another does so, consideration must be given in order to comply with the law.

This Commission has before it an abstract question and which is being urged by a party (Applicant) which is without standing. Furthermore the Applicant has no demonstrated interest in " future" NRC proceedings wherein this type of issue may come into play.

The result is that the Commission is about to engage in a policy review process absent the involvement of the widest range of public participation. In short the Commission is being asked to say t .st the effects of radioactive releases shall be ignored under the guise that a rule which defines a phrase is a rule which establishes the effects of the '

applications of the meaning of that phrase.

Thc attack on the rule is not an examination of the ef fects which the rule permits - effects which, in some degree or another, all concur happen. The attack on the rule is to call it what it is: A callous disregard for life which has been justified in the name of money. There may be no cure for the pervasive sickness which produces a rule which justifies itself upon monetary considerations rather than the effect upon people but it is improper to make the rule something - ,

it is not. It is not an assessment of the effects of radioactive relsases.

The concurring opinion, beginning at page 73, sets put a sequence of analysis as a prelude to the conclusion that the rule made and incorporated such an analysis. The opinion argues that the four step process both results in the required analysis and that it was in fact accomplished in the Appendix I proceedings.

liowever, the references in the opinion show, for example, that the Step C, " predicting the health effects" was not performed. The, quoted Staff Comments (Opinion p. 76) reveal that the Staff conceded effects but made no predicti ns. It did make assumptions but qualified them (BIER Report p. 97) as being either over- or under-estimated.

Thus the Report's own qualifications preclude it from being the predictive model which the concurring opinion seems to feel to be a necessary element of the analysis.

Step D involves transforming the effects into some from so as to make comparisons. The opinion acknowledges that this was done, albeit subjectively, by the Licensing Board and Staff. The concurring opinion jumps to the conclusion, however, that the development of Appendix I invokes the analysis because such analysis is necessary to the definition in Appendix I.

Although it did not, the opinion of the Commission should have dissuaded the writer of the concurring opinion in this cause. On page 279 (I NRC 277, 279) the Commission

~

" emphasized" that the guides were not protection standards but rather a " quantitative expression of the meaning of the requirement that radioactive material in effluents released to unrestricted areas from light-water-cooled nuclear reactors

~

be kept 'as low as practicable'". No doubt the Commission could have characterized the ruling also as an evaluation of the effects of the rule but it did not.

The Commission opinion, 1 NRC at 311, acknowledged the absence of that which the concurring opinion found necessary, i.e., means to strike the cost-benefit balance. In Part 5(c)

(1 NRC 315) the commission repeatedly said that the record provided an insufficient basis for a decision concerning the worth of reduction in dosage. This result obtained also in the face of one participant's statement that the Commission could not " duck the issue" and had to " bite the bullet" to make a meaningful cost-benefit analysis. It did not happen and the Commission proposed to " initiate further rulemaking" to address the issue. 1 NRC at 317.

It is apparent that all that Appendix I does is to establish a design objective. No doubt the Commission hopes that the design objective will result in minimal exposure and that effects will have a low probability of occurrence.

Even the concurring opinion has difficulty in finding that the " Step D" analysis and comparision was made for Appendix I. On page 90 the assertion is made that the first three steps in the process had been accomplished.

Curiously, then the opinion says that the Commission "was then seeking the conversion factor for Step D..." but the opinion.does not say that this quest was accomplished.

The Staff has also contended that examination of the consequences is proper in an individual proceeding. These arguments are summarized in the concurring opinion at pages 81-83. These arguments are additional reasons why the question should be answered in the negative.

In conclusion, Intervenors ask that this inquiry be dismissed. In the alternative, Intervenors ask that the question's answer be that the examination of the effects is not an attack on the rule.

\ '

~ a d A% An ANDREW T. DALTON,*JR."

One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Dated April 1, 1980.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLA110MA, )

ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-556 AND ) STN 50-557 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, )

INC. )

)

(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "INTERVENORS' COMMENTS dated April 1, 1980 in the above-captioned proceeding, has been served on the following, by deposit in.the United States mail, first class, this 2nd day of Apri1), 1980.

John F. Ahearne, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Dr. Victor Gilinsky Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. Richard T. Kennedy Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Peter A. Bradford U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick J. Shon Washington, D. C. 20555 Stomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard S. Salzman, Chairman Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dr. Paul W. Purdom U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Director, Environmental Studies Group Washington, D. C. 20555 Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

.. * ~

Joseph Gallo, Esq." Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Isham, Lincoln & Beale Public Service Company of Oklahoma 1050 17th Straet, N.W. P.O. Box 201 Wachington, D. C. 20036 Tulsa, OK 74102 Michael I. Miller,'Esq. Joseph R. Farris, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale John R. WoodardII, Esq.

One 1st National Plaza Feldman, Hall, Franden, Reed ,

Suite 2400 and Woodard Chicago, Illinois 60606 816 Enterprise Building Tulsa, OK 74103 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens' Action for Safe Energy, Inc. Alan P. Bielawski P. O. Box 924 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Claremore, OK 74017 One First National Plaza Suite 4300 Jan Eric Cartwright, Esq. & Chicago, Illinois 60603 Charles S. Rogers Attorney General Mr. Gerald F. Diddle 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 Region 4 Mr. Maynard Human .

Public Affairs Officer Cencral Manager 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Western Farmers Coop., Inc.

Suite 1000 P.O. Box 429 Arlington, Texas 76011 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 L. Dow Davis Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein Office of the Secretary 3900 Cashion Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 Washington, D. C. 20555 Margha E. Gibbs, Esq. Dr. M. J. Robinson Isham, Lincoln & Beale Black & Veatch One First National Plaza P. O. Box 8405 Suite 4200 Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Lawrence Burrell U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 197 Washington, D. C. 20555 Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Mr. T. N. Ewing Acting Director Black Fox Station Nuclear Project s/

Public Service Company of Oklahoma Andrew T. ' Dalton, Jr.

P.O. Box 201 Counsel for Intervenors Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102

-