ML19350D240
| ML19350D240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1981 |
| From: | Baxter T SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104140440 | |
| Download: ML19350D240 (7) | |
Text
W
, gs April 7, 1981 x
vg A
.[
700'#%=>
s-C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA APR 91981.,b.)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1^njrylfl
'd
','I i\\
..[
^BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(
'Qt An the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. STN 50-483 OL
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
APPLICANT'S AMENDED RESPONSE TO CONTENTION 2 PROPOSED BY JOINT INTERVENORS In this Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Requests for Hearing, Petitions for Intervention and Order of Special Prehearing Conference), February 5, 1981, the Board granted the request for hearing and joint petition for leave to intervene under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 of:
Coalition for the Environment, St.
Louis Region; Missourians for Safe Energy; and Crawdad Alliance (hereafter " Joint Intervenors").
The Board has not yet ruled upon the admission for adjudication of any of the contentions proposed by Joint Intervenors and petitioner Kay Drey, which
~
were set forth originally in their " Amended and Supplemental Joint Petition to Intervene," March 6, 1981.
Applicant Union Electric Company responded in part to these proposed contentions i
in " Applicant's Response to Contention 2 Proposed by Joint Intervenors," March 24, 1981.
At the special prehearing conference held in this l
proceeding on March 24, 1981, in Jefferson City, Missouri, Joint Intervenors and petitione
- e. %
- ibuted the " Revised S
R$ !
df 2b =.
s m PQoAg
(
810.4140ffo h
N'
[$al y
t u.
. Contentions of Joint Intervenors," dated March 24, 1981.
This.
filing included a complete substitution for the original Con-tention 2, which is still entitled " Inadequate Environmental Protection from Radioactive Releases."
The Board heard argu-ment by the parties, at the special prehearing conference, on the admission of Joint Intervenors' revised, proposed Con-tention 2 for adjudication.
See Tr. 58-70.
Applicant had objected to the introductory paragraphs t
of Joint Intervenors' proposed Contention 2 to the extent that they set forth compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 190, as a benchmark for the liti-gation of the specific allegations in proposed Contention 2.
Based upon statements made by EPA when it proposed and adopted those environmental radiation protection standards for nuclear power operations, Applicant argued that compliance with NRC regulations implementing the EPA standard -- Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 -- is sufficient, and that Joint Intervenors essentially were attempting to challenge the Commission's regu-lations implementing the standard.
On the day after the special prehearing conference, i
however, the Commission adopted amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 20 which require compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 190.
See 46 Fed.
Reg. 18525 (March 25, 1981).
While Applicant continues to believe that compliance with Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 is adequate to demonstrate compliance with the EPA standard, it is no longer tenable, in light of the new Commission i
t
, regulation, to argue that the introductory paragraphs to Joint-Intervenors' Contention 2 challenge a Commission regulation.
Consequently, Applicant withdraws that objection.
Applicant also objected to paragraph 2.F, which states as follows:
f Planned releases of radioactive materials from three nuclear reactors upwind and upstream from the Callaway Plant on the Missouri River may also impact upon the local residents.
Residents of Metropolitan St. Louis may also be affected by gaseous emissions from a uranium fuel fabrication plant in Hematite, Missouri, 32 miles south of St. Louis.
Applicant's objection to proposed Contention 2.F is somewhat altered, but not eliminated, by the Commission's recent amendment of 10 C.F.R.
Part~20.
The EPA standards, embodied in 40 C.F.R.
Part 190, specify th( levels below which normal operations of the uranium fuel cycle are determined to be environmentally acceptable.
The standards have been expressed in terms of the dose to members of the public.
Applicant does not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate, in determining compliance with the EPA standards, to consider, as Joint Intervenors suggest here, nuclear power plant emissions from Nebraska and Colorado, or emissions from a distant fuel fabrication facility.
The EPA Administrator stated, upon promulgation of 40 C.F.R. Part 190, that it would be unnecessary for the l
NRC to reexamine license conditions for compatibility with these standards
. unless the nearest neighboring site covered by this standard is within ten miles.
In these latter cases small adjustments may be necessary.
However, in the vast majority of situations, the sum of all reasonably postulable centributions from sources other than the immediate site will be small com-pared to these standards and should be ignored in assessing compliance.
It would not be reasonable to attempt to incorporate into compliance assessment doses which are small fractions of the uncertainties associated with the determination of doses from the primary source of exposure.
The agency has also concluded that, except under highly improbable circumstances, conformance to these criteria (Appendix I to 10 C.F.R.
Part 50] should provide reasonable assurance of compliance with these standards for up to five units on a site.
42 Fed. Reg. 2858 (1977).
When it amended 10 C.F.R. Part 20, the Commission responded to a comment on the difficulty of determining compliance with a standard applied to the combined radiation doses from all fuel cycle facilities, by citing to these statements made by EPA.
46 Fed. Reg. 18525-6 (March 25, 1981).
In Applicant's view, while the allegation may now be marginally relevant, Joint Intervenors have not set forth an adequate basis for Contention 2.r, required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2. 714 (b), in light of the above conclusions by EPA and the Commission.
While the " basis" requirement for admitting con-tentions has not been rigidly construed or enforced, it has i
been held to require a petitioner at least to state his or her reasons for the contention.
See Houston Lichtina and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 12 N.R.C. 542, 548 (1980).
Here, Joint Intervenors and petitioner Drey have stated no reasons why
. four nuclear fuel cycle facilities well beyond ten miles from the Callaway Plant site, or why the residents of metropolitan St. Louis, should be considered in determining compliance of this plant with the EPA standard.
If the Board decides to admit contention 2.F, Appli-cant will move, at the conclusion of discovery, to dispose of the contention summarily under 10 C.F.R. S 2.749 unless Joint Intervenors have shown why the Callaway Plant should be treated any differently than any other nuclear power plant in the United States for the purposes of determining compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 190.-1/
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Thomas A.
Baxter Counsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1090 Dated:
April 7, 1981 1/
We also note that intervenors have been given the burden of going forward with evidence (not the burden of proof) on remote or marginal contentions.
See Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.
13, 26 (1974) (proponent of a contention that there are cumulative effects from facilities other than involved in a particular proceeding has the burden of going forward and making some showing that there are in fact such effects).
l l
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. STN 50-483 OL
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Appli-cant's Amended Response to Contention 2 Proposed by Joint Inter-venors" were served this 7th day of April, 1981 by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties identified on the attached Service List.
Thomas A.
Baxter l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. STN 50-483 OL
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ken mth M. Chackes, Esquire James P. Gleason, Esquire Chaiman Chackes and Hoare Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 314 N. Broadway 513 Gilnoure Drive St. Icuis, Missouri 63102 Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Mr. John G. Reed Mr. Glenn O. Bright Route 1 Atmic Safety and Licensing Kingdom City, Missouri 65262 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comrission Mr. Howard Steffen Washington, D.C.
20555 Chamois, Missouri 65024 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Harold Ictt:rann Atmic Safety and Licensing Poute 1 Board Panel Owensville, Missouri 65066 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Earl Brown P.O. Box 146 Poy P. Iessy, Jr., Esquire Auxvasse, Missouri 65231 Office of the Executive Iagal Director U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Chrmission Mr. Fred Luekey Washington, D.C.
20555 Rural Poute Rhineland, Missouri 65069 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Mr. Samuel J. Birk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission P.O. Box 243 Washington, D.C.
20555
.trrison, Missouri 65061
, Joseph E. Birk, Esquire Mr. Pcbert G. Wright Assistant to the General Counsel Pbute 1 Union Electric Capany Fulton, Missouri 65251 P.O. Box 149 St. Icuis, Missouri 62166 Treva J. Hearne, Esquire Deputy General Cbunsel Missouri Public Service Cmmission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
-,.,.