ML19344D787
| ML19344D787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000447, Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1980 |
| From: | Philips M, Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004280189 | |
| Download: ML19344D787 (21) | |
Text
,
~
,9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556
_e t _al.
)
STN 50-557 (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ON CERTIFICATION ISSUE Submitted on Behalf of Texas Utilities Generating I
Company By:
Nicholas S. Reynolds Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.
Their Attorneys DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9800 DATED:
April 7, 1980 800428ot% $ ;
i
--.BLE OF CONTENTS TA Table of Cases, Statutes, Regulations and i
Other Authorities.
ii l
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ON CERTIFICATION ISSUE 1
I I
I.
Statement of the Case.
1 i
II.
Issue Presented For Review 2
l III. Summary of Argument.
2 IV.
Argument 5
l A.
The Concept Of ALARA Encompasses Favorable Findings Regarding Health Effects 5
B.
The Commission Assessed The Health Effects Of Radioactive Release l
Levels Prescribed In Appendix I i
To 10 CFR Part 50 10 C.
Case-By-Case Litigation Of The Health Effects Of Radioactive Release Levels Prescribed In Appendix I Constitutes An Impermissible Attack on Commission ALARA And Appendix I Regulations 12 v.
Conclusion 13 i
TABLE OF CASES, STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND OTHER AUTHOETTIES Cases Citizens For Safe Power, Inc. v. NRC, 524 F.2d 12 291, 1291-1300 (D.C. Cir. 1975) i Duke Power Company (William 3. McGuire Nuclear 8
Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 544 (1979)
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3) LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470, 499 (1978) 8 Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island 8
l Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) LBP-77-70, 6 NRC 1185, 1219 (1977)
Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy, 8
Unit 1) LBP-77-71, 6 NRC 1232, 1240 (1977)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo 8
Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-19, 7 NRC 989, 1026-7 (1978)
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point 13 Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-89 (1974)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black 9
Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-26, 8 NRC 102, 147 (1978)
Rulemaking Hearing:
Numerical Guides For Design 4, 7, Objectives and Limited Conditions For Operations 11, 12 To Meet The Criteriora "As Low As Practicable" For l
Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear i
Power Reactor Effluents, CLI-75-5, 1 NRC 277, 279-l 280 (1975)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear 8
Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-7, 7 NRC 215, 227 (1978)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 488 F.2d 1069 13 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear 8
Project No. 4) LBP-78-8, 7 NRC 254, 267 (1978) 11 t
f Statutes t
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.A.
l S S552 (a) and 553 13 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 12 42 U.S.C.
S2011, et seg.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 10 42 U.S.C S4321, et seg.
Regulations 2, 4, 13, 14 10 CFR S2.758 3, 5 10 CFR 520.106 10 CFR 550.34(a) 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 3, 4, 5, 10 CFR 550.36 (a) 10, 11 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 2, 3,4,6 9, 10, 13 e
lii J
f l
l Other Authorities 35 Fed. Reg. 5414 (April 1,1970) 13 35 Fed. Reg. 18385, 18386 (December 3, 1970) 3, 5, i
6, 13 36 Fed. Reg. 11113, 11114 (June 9, 1971) 4, 6, 13 40 Fed. Reg. 19439, 19440 (May 5, 1975) 4, 7, 13 40 Fed. Reg. 33029 (August 6,1975) 5 42 Fed. Reg. 2858 (January 13, 1977) 11 Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements 9
For Normal Operations Of Acti'ities In The Uranium Fuel Cycle:
Final Environmental Statement, EPA 520/4-76-016, Vol. 1, p. B-3 (November 1, 1976)
WASH-1258:
Final Environmental Statement 10, 11 Concerning Proposed Rule Makino Action:
Numerical Guides For Desion Obiectives And Limitina Conditions For Ooeration To Meet a
The Criterion "As Low As Practicable" For Radioactive Material In Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents (July 1973) t P
iv-
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 OKLAHOMA, et al.
)
STN 50-557
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ON CERTIFICATION ISSUE I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case raises on certification the issue of whether the litigation of health effects of radioactive releases during normal reactor operations is precluded as a matter of law in individual licensing cases.
The issue was certified to the Commission by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in its decision dated December 7, 1979 (ALAB-573).
By order of February 20, 1980, the Commission accepted the certified question and granted Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO") 1/ leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the issue.
By order of March 11, 1980, the Commission extended the time for all parties to file briefs to April 7, 1980.
1/
TUGCO is the holder of construction 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).
. II.
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The certified question accepted by the Commission is as follows:
"Where routine radioactive emissions from a nuclear power plant will be kept 'as low as is reasonably achievable' in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, is litigation of the health effects of those emissions in an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing barred by 10 CFR 2.758 as an impermissible attack on Commission regulations?"
In order to assure that the issue presented is evaluated in the proper context, this Commission should interpret the design and intent of the 1970 Atomic Energy Commission which promulgate (
he "as low as practicable" criterion ("ALAP"),
which later became the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion ("ALARA").
Likewise, this Commission should interpret the design and intent of the 1975 NRC which promulgated Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
It is the thought processses of those earlier Commissions which will establish the actual scope of these regulations and therefore whether litigation of the health effects of Appendix I emissions constitutes an impermissible attack on NRC Regulations.
III.
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT The routine release of radioactive material in the liquid and gaseous effluents of light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors subject to the licensing requirements of the Nuclear l
l I
Regulatory Commission is governed by, inter alia, the "as low as is reasonably achievabl.e" criterion set forth in 10 CFR SS50.34a and 50.36a.
Thi latter regulation requires that applicants for operating licenses document the means to be employed to assure that radioactivity in effluents released to unrestricted areas will be "as low as is reasonably achievable." 2/
rne Commission noted in 10 CFR 550.36a(b) that the means employed to meet the ALARA criterion "will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents at small percentages of the limits specified in i
520.106 of this chapter.
" 3/
The Commission included as an integral part of the ALARA concept the assumption that any biological effects which might occur due to releases in compliance with ALARA (i.e., at small percentages of the 520.106 limits) have such a low probability of occurrence that they are undetectable and thus, inconsequential from the standpoint of public health a'd safety. 35 Fed. Reg. at 18385.
In order to provide definitive numerical guidance for implementation of the ALARA criterion, the Commission later promulgated Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
In Appendix I the t
i 2/
ALARA is defined to mean "as low a3 is reasonably achievable taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public. interest." 10 CFR 550.34a(a) (1979).
3/
Such releases would result in exposures wh'_ch are but small fractions of exposures due to natural background.
35 Fed. Reg. 18385, 18386 (Dec. 3, 1970).
~
commission noted that, as a matter of law, "[d]esign objec-I tives and limiting conditions for operation conforming to i
a the guidelines in this Appendix shall be deemed a con-l clusive showing of compliance with the 'as low as is reasonably achievable' requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a."
10 i
CFR Part 50, Appendix I,Section I.
The Commission also t
reaffirmed that any biological effects due to releases in l
i compliance with Appendix I (and therefore ALARA) are incon-sequential.
40 Fed. Reg. 19439, 19440 (May 5, 1975); 36 j
Fed. Reg. 11113, 11114-(June 9, 1971); CLI-75-5, l'NRC 277, l,
300 (1975) (see n. 9, infra). 4/
Thus, the Commission f
concluded on a generic basis that the probability of occur-t rence of health effects resulting from compliance with the Appendix I numerical guides (and therefore ALARA) is so low that-none are expected, and, in any event, if any such
~
health effects occurred, they would be undetectable and thus l
inconsequential.from the' standpoint of public health and safety. 5/
It follows that any attempt to litigate the health effects of such effluent releases in individual
]
licensing cases, absent a showing of'special circumstances i
pursuant to 10 CFR-52.758, constitutes an impermissible j
l attack on the Commission's ALARA and Appendix I regulations.-
l
\\
l The Commiss'on stated that compliance with Appendix I 4/
i would~ result in levels.of exposures which-are'"indis-tinguishable from exposures due to variation in natural.
I background radiation...."
36 Fed. Reg. at 11114.
5/
The wisdom of this conclusion has been affirmed i
repeatedly where.the issue has been litigated in' individual licensing cases (see n. 10, infra).
1 I
. I IV.
ARGUMENT A.
The Concept Of ALARA Encompasses Favorable Findings Regarding Health Effects.
On recember 3, 1970, the Commission issued new regula-i tions, 10 CFR 550.34a and 10 CFR 550.36a, which required design objectives and limiting conditions for operations to keep levels of radioactivity in effluents released to unrestricted areas "as low as practicable". 6/
35 Fed.
Reg. at 18385.
These regulations were the forerunners of the ALARA criterion. 7/ While the regulations did not contain specific numerical requirements for determining when reactor operations complied with the ALAP criterion, they did indicate that meeting the criterion through, inter alia, state-of-the-art radioactive waste system design would i
assure that. average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents would be "small percentages of the limits specified in [10 CFR] S20.106.
(1971).
The Commission reasoned that since the radiation e
standards and guides in Part 20 were set "well below the 6/
Section 50.34a (1971) defined this term as meaning "as low as practicably achievable taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest."
7/
By notice.of August 6, 1975, the Commission changed the terminology from ALAP to ALARA, and modified its definition to that currently used (40 Fed. Reg. 33029) (see note 2, supra).
, level at which detectable biological effects from exposure to radiation (were] expected to occur", doses associated
~
I with reactor operation in compliance with the ALAP criterion (and therefore well below Part 20 limits) should result in no detectable health effects. 35 Fed. Reg. at 18385. 8/
The Commission pronouncement that doses associated with reactor operations in compliance with ALAP criterion should result in no detectable health effects was reaffirmed in the next Commission action on this matter, vie., the June 9, 1971 Commission notice of proposed rulemaking supplementing the ALAP criterion by providing a new Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 which would specify numerical guides for design objectives and operations of nuclear power reactors. 36 Fed. Reg. 11113.
The Commission stated in that notice that such ALAP-associated doses "would be indistinguishable from f
exposures due to variations in natural background radiation.
" 36 Fed. Reg. at 11114.
Significantly, the Commission stated that if any biological effects occur at these levels of exposure, they " occur so infrequently that they cannot be detected with existing techniques."
36 Fed. Reg. at 11114.
-8/
The Commission further reflected on the level of doses and their effects by stating that " radiation exposure to the public resulting from normal operations of nuclear power reactors will not exceed small percentages of exposure from natural background radiation."
35 Fed.
Reg. at 18385-86.
In promulgating the final Appendix I rule, the Commission expressly reiterated the integral relationship between the ALAP (now ALARA) criterion doses, Commission radiation protection standards, and the expected occurrence and detectability of any health effect resulting from routine low-level radioactivity releases:
i The Commission 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 occurrence that they would escape detection by present day methods of observation and l
measurement."
(40 Fed. Reg. at 19440 j
(May 5, 1975)]. 9/
i Thus, an examination of the development of Commission l
regulations governing low-level releases establishes that the definition of ALARA reflects the Commission's conclusion that doses resulting from effluents meeting the l
l ALARA criterion are so low that no health effects are j
expected and, in any event, that any such health effects experienced would be undetectable. This conclusion has been f
confirmed repeatedly in NRC individual licensing _ cases in which the health effects of the general population resulting from normal plant operation have been litigated (we submit b
l 9/
Rulemaking Hearing:
Numerical Guides For Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions For Operations To Meet The Criterion "As Low As Practicable" For Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, CLI-75-5, 1 NRC 277, 279-280 (1975), ("RM-50-2").
l t
+
9 s
9 r
e
unnecessarily as a matter of law). 10/
The common thread i
in these cases is the consistent factual finding that if any l
health effects result they are not detectable. 11/ Indeed, i
in the Black Fox licensing proceeding which gave rise to 10/
E.g., Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-79-13, 9 NRC 489, 544 (1979)
(Appendix I doses are " inconsequential when compared to natural background radiation"); Duke Power Company l
(Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3) LBP-78-34, 8
{
NRC 470, 499 (1978) (Appendix I doses "to individuals will be very small compared to background."); Pacific l
Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-19, 7 NRC 989,1026-7 (1978)
(Increase in cancer incidents is " impossible to detect."
l There will be no " increase in genetic defect incidents.");
l TVA (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-77-60, 6 NRC 647, 655 (1977) (Individual doses are small fractions of 10 CFR Part 20, and population doses are small fractions of natural background, thus no measurable radiological impact from routine operations.); Metro-
{
politan Edison Company,(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) LBP-77-70, 6 NRC 1185, 1219 (1977)
{
(Maximum annual individual dose will be a small fraction i
of 10 CFR Part 20, and population dose will be a small fraction of natural background, thus no unacceptable i
radiological impact on man from routine operation.);
i Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy, Unit 1)
LBP-77-71, 6 NRC 1232, 1240 (1977) (Doses are extremely minor contributions to background and represent no measurable radiological impact.)
Accord, TVA (Yellow l
Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-78-7, 7 NRC 215, 227 (1978); Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 4), LBP-78-8, 7 NRC 254, 267 (1978).
11/
This position is also supported by the Environmental l
Protection Agency:
)
the Agency recognizes the inherent uncertainties that exist in estimating health impact at the low levels of exposure and exposure rates expected to be present in the environment due to human activities (including
. normal operations of power reactors], and i
(footnote continued on following page)
)
u
5 -
P this certification, the Licensing Board after hearing the differing testimony regarding low level radiation from effluents meeting the ALARA criterion concluded simply that if any health effects resulted from such normal operations they would be miniscule and "an indistinguishably small fraction of those occurring without the plant."
Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and
In sum, we submit that health effects were clearly a consideration in the Commission's deliberations which lead to promulgation of the ALAP (ALARA) criterion and, subse-quently, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and in this regard, the Commission expressly concluded that an integral part of that criterion is the conclusion that releases associated with compliance are so low that no health effects are expected, that, in any event, any such health effects experienced should be undetectable, and therefore that such effects are acceptable.
_/
(footnote continued from previous page) that at these levels the actual health impact wi'l not be distinguishable from natural occurrent'er af ill health, either statistically or in the f...s of ill health present. [ Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements For Normal Operations Of Activities In The Uranium Fuel Cycle: Final Environmental Statement, EPA 520/4-76-016, Vol. 1, p. B-3 (November 1, 1976).]
l
~_
I B.
The Commission Assessed The Health Effects Of j
Radioactive Release Levels Prescribed In Appendix I To 10 CFR Part 50.
i Appendix I provides specific numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operations to i
meet the ALARA criterion in 10 CFR 550.34a and 10 CFR 550.36a.
Prior to promulgation of the final Appendix I, the i
NRC Staff prepared an Environmental Impact Statement l
("EIS"), pursuant to the provisions of the National Environ-l mental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), to " evaluate the i
practicality and environmental impact of releasing radioactive materials in effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power stations within the levels set forth in the proposed Appendix I guides.
." 12/
This EIS accompanied the proposed Appendix I regulations through the agency review process in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. S4332.
I In the EIS the Staff identified and analyzed doses from l
all identified exposure pathways in the vicinity of the station and within 50 miles or more of the station, 13/ and made detailed estimates of the health effects which might l
12/
WASH-1258:
Final Environmental Statement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action:
Numerical Guides For-
)
Design Objectives And Limiting Conditions For Operation To Meet The Criterion "As Low As Practicable" For Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, p. 1-6 (July 1973)
(" WASH-1258").
JL.L/
WASH-1258, supra, p. 1-11.
L L
m
. result. 14/
The EIS was incorporated into the hearing record and was carefully considered by the Commission in its deliberations regarding adoption of Appendix I.
RM-50-2, supra, 1 NRC at 278-80 and 311.
After extensive hearings and testimony on all health, safety, and environmental issues, the Commission concluded that the guides set forth in Appendix I, if met, provided one acceptable method of compliance with the ALAP/ALARA requirements of 10 CFR 550.34a and 10 CFR 550.36a.
RM-50-2, supra, 1 NRC at 278. 15/
The Commission also concluded on the basis of the hearing record that health effects of Appendix I releases 14/
For example, if an individual were to receive an annual whole-body dose of 5 millirem for 70 years, "the additional probability of contracting leukemia may be about 0.00001 during his lifetime."
WASH-1258, supra,
- p. 1-19.
"If the entire population of the United States in the year 2000 (assumed for this study to be i
about 321,000,000 persons) were to receive a per capita totel-body dose of about 0.1 millirem annually, as has been calculated if the proposed Appendix I guideline values are met, one may calculate that less than one additional death from leukemia and from 1 to 2 deaths from other fatal neoplasms per year attributable to radiation.
. may occur.
WASH-1258, supra, p. 1-22.
See generally, WASH-1258, supra, pp. 1-17, 1-23.
15/
Under the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA")
is responsible for establishing generally applicable environmental radiation standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive materials.
Subsequent to promulgation of Appendix I, the EPA promulgated environmental radiation standards (40 CFR Part 190) in which EPA endorsed the Appendix I guides "as the basis for realistic implementation of [the Part 190] standards."
42 Fed. Reg. 2858, (Jan. 13, 1977).
are acceptably low.
The Commission expressed this conclusion, as follows:
The Commission 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 occurrence that they would i
escape detection by present-day methods of observation and measurement.
t Wherever power plants, either nuclear or non-nuclear, are constructed, persons living near i
those plants will be exposed to marginally i
greater amounts of emissions than those residing further away, and the same situation l
obtains in regard to other types of industrial l
facilities.
We believe, however, that the i
design objective guides which we adopt assure that even those individuals living closest to nuclear facilities will be exposed to emissions of exceedingly low levels, with consequent risks which are acceptable from a social as well as legal standpoint.
[Rm-50-2, supra, 1 NRC at 280, 300.]
t C.
Case-By-Case Litigation Of The Health Effects Of f
Radioactive Release Levels Prescribed In Appendix I Constitutes An Impermissible Attack On Commission j
ALARA And Appendix I Regulations.
As discussed in Part IV. A, supra, the ALARA criterion is founded upon, inter alia, the Commission pronouncement f
that radioactive releases meeting this criterion will result in health effects of such a low probability of occurrence i.
l that they would escape detection and are.thus inconsequential from a public health and safety standpoint. 16/
As discussed in 16/
Findings made in regard-to public health and safety issues 1
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 are clearly applicable to NEPA.
Citizens For Safe Power, Inc. v.
NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1299-1300 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
. Part IV. B, supra, the Commission in promulgating Appendix I, mandated that compliance with the guides contained in Appendix I constitutes compliance with the ALARA criterion (consistent with the pronouncement regarding health effects).
It follows that any attempt to litigate the issue of the health effects associated with Appendix I releases is a direct attack on the Commission's regulations defining and imple-menting compliance with ALARA. 17/
Absent a showing of special circumstances, such litigation is barred by 10 CFR S2.758 from consideration in individual licensing proceedings.
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 88-89 (1974).
See also Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
t V.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, he Commission should resolve the certified issue by holding that (1) Commission 17/
The Commission's conclusion regarding the health effects associated with ALARA releases is contained in j
every Federal Register notice regarding a proposed j
rule or final rule with respect to ALAP, ALARA or Appendix I (E.g., 35 Fed. Reg. 5414, April 1, 1970; 35 Fed. Reg. 18385, Dec. 3, 1970; 35 Fed. Reg. 11113, June 9, 1971; 40 Fed. Reg. 12439, May 5, 1975).
- Thus, there was adequate notice of the scope and substance of the proposed rulemakings and the contents of any final rule, in full compliance with Sections 552(a) and 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.
SS552(a) and 553.
1
)
- regulations include the specific determination that effluents released in compliance with Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (and therefore with the ALARA criterion) are not expected to i
result in any adverse health effects, that, in any event, any such health effects experienced should be undetectable, and therefore that such effects are acceptable, ar.d (2) therefore, litigation of this health effects issue in individual licensing cases is barred by 10 CFR S2.758 (in the absence of a showing of special circumstances).18/
4 Respectfully submitted, Nichola JS Reynolds u
/$
5
./
Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 I
(202) 857-9800 April 7, 1980 l
i l
18/
If the Commission rules that case-by-case litigation of health effects is not barred, we believe that the appropriate course from the standpoints of admini-strative efficiency and public policy is for the Commission to initiate notice and comment rulemaking to generically establish the magnitude of such health effects (or conclude that they are undetectable) and other issues, leading to the proscription as a matter of law of such inefficient case-by-case-litigation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
)
i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 et al.
)
STN 50-557
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t
I hereby certify that copies of "Brief Amicus Curiae Of Texas Utilities. Generating Company On CertJ.fication Issue,"
dated April 7, 1980, in the captioned matter, have been j
served on the following by Unites States mail, postage pre-
[
paid, this 7th day of April, 1980:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
L. Dow Davis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff i
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
l Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Feldman, Hall, Franden, Reed Atomic Safety and Licensing
& Wcedard Board Panel 816 Enterprise Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Andrew T. Dalton, Esq.
1437 South Main Street Dr Paul W. Purdem Suite 302 I
l Chairman, Department of Tulsa, Oklahcma 74119 Civil Engineering Drexel University Mrs. Ilene H. Yourighein 32nd and Chestnut Streets 3800 Cashion Place Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
' Oklahoma City, Oklahema 73112 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale~
Appeal Board Panel 1050 - 17th Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Reg.11atory Washington, D.C.
20036 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
-.. Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Maynard Human Board Panel General Manage-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Western Farmers Electric 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 the Commission Black & Veatch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post Office Box 8405 Commission Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Washington, D.C.
20555 (20 copies)
Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Lawrence Burrell Alan P. Bielawski, Esq.
Route 1, Box 197 Isham, Lincoln &.Beale Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 One 1st National Placa Suite 2400 Mr. Gerald F. Diddle Chicago, Illinois 60606 General Manager Associated Electric Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Cooperative, In Office of the Exacutive Post Office Box 7 4 Legal Director Springfield, Missouri 65801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jan Eric Cartwright, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Attorney General of Oklahoma Charles S. Rogers, Esq.
Mr. Ecmer C. Schmidt Assistant Attorney General Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
l State of Oklahcma 2001 Bryan Tower i
112 State capitol Building Dallas, Texas 75201 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels l
Mr. T. N. Ewing 2500 - 2001 Bryan Tower Public Service Ccmpany of Dallas, Texas 75201 Oklahoma Post Office Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 i
Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citi= ens Action for safe Energy, Inc.
l Post office Box 924 l
If Claremore, Oklahema 74107 A
Iv
}&
Nicholas S. %eynolds Counsel o
Texas Utilities Gener i g Company I
4
-,