ML20004D088
| ML20004D088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1981 |
| From: | Jeffrey Reed AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106080338 | |
| Download: ML20004D088 (14) | |
Text
'
e r/30/rt W ' p ossc5
/
/'s( b -- e t
.j'Q UNITED STATES OF AIM ICA
!;UCLEAR REGULATCRY C0!2ESSICN CCC:CTE3 $
y
$ JUN 31981. . p-BEFCP.E THE ATCfHC 3AFET? nND LICENSING BCARD ;- , ,,
,- t , _by. . .
4 -
- ca z.
. . . :.1 In the Patter of ) '3
) il j g,3,; $#
U::ICt1 ELECThIC CC'PANY ) Docket No. STri 50-123 OL
)
(Callawry Plant, Unit 1) )
JOHN REED'S RESPCtiSE TO APPLICANT'S INTERRCGATORIE3 A::D E'J:.3TS OF DOCUt:E:.TS (SET No. 1) DATED 26 f:;.Y 1981 Pursuant to Applicant's request, the following information is provided.
Mr. Reed's responses are based upon information that has been identified as current as of this date, or is assumed to be current, pending reccipt of requected changes to the Interim Missouri Nuclear Plan,1980 (hcre after identified as the MO. RERP) and information identified as current by Counsel for the Applicant (hereinafter identified as the U.E. REFS)
Responses of the undersigned shall be framed in the same format as the Applicant's querics and requests:
CCNTENTim 1 1-1 The 10. RERP (Appendix 7) contains no letters of agreement with local agencies who may bo involved in a response activity in the event of a nuclear accident at the Callaway Plant (identified as the Plant, hereafter) Further, the underuigned has read and studied the ID. RERP since its receipt on 30 April 1981 and in no part of the document is reference made to sufficient arrangerrents n
1-TBis DOCUMENT CONTAlN ,
'8106080 3- POOR @@ =
~
_2_
being rmule between Applicant and local governments, cr local agencies and organizations.
1-2 Throughout the -D. RE'4P, assignacnt of duties and responsibilities are conferred upon local officials and agencies without any indication that said officials and agencies have voluntarily accepted such duty or responsibility or that such agencies are,
, in fact, properly manned to perform under a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 7 day a week schedule for an extended time as required by NUREG 0654 and 10 CFR, Part 50, Section 50.47(b)(1). '&.e primary County / Cit /
organization responsible for planning and emergency response in Callaway County is the Callaway County-Fulton Emergency Fanagement Agency. The testimony of the Director of this organization and the ,
absence of documentation of " sufficient arrangements" should provide needed support for this contention.
l-3 Appendix C of the U.E. RERP contains letters of agreement with the Callaway Sheriff's Office, dated 18 July 1979; the Callaway Memorial Hospital, dated 22 August 1979; and the Callaway County Ambulance District, dated 29 August 1979. All of these documents are over one year old and in some cases signatories are no longer in positions of authority to make agreements. (Copies of these letters are available to the Applicant in its ccpy of the U.E. RERP). The letter from the Sheriff's office does not include information in a
. referenced " letter of October 11, 1978" which sets forth unidentified aid to the Plant. A staterent in the final paragraph of the Sheriff's July 18 letter is an abrogation of his office. No law enforcement agent can turn over his authority to " plant management" as is done i
. . . , _ . _ , _ . . . _ ~ . . . _ , . .
3-in sentance four and the first word in sentance five of the final paragrapn of said la July letter. The letter from the Callaway Memorial Hospital of August 22, 1979 sinply expresses a wi? Ling-noss to provide emergency or non-emergency care to U.S. empigces.
There 'is no agreement to accept or treat radiologically contaminated injured individuals as is regulred by 10 CFR, Section 50.47 (b)(12).
The letter from the Callaway County Ambulance District is invalid because of a change in Chairmanship of the District and failure of the Applicant to renew this agreement. No letter of agreement is filed from the Callaway County-Fulton Emergency Management agency which is the primary County / City organicati,n responsible for all resoonse activities of local agencies in the event of a nuclear accident at the Plant.
1-5 The absence of documentation and the testimony of the Director, Callaway Ccunty-Fulton Emergency Management Agency shall support Contention 1.
1-6 The names and addresses of witnesses or potential witnesses:
John G. Reed, RFD #1, Kingdom City, MC. 65262: Director, Callaway County-Fulton Emergency Management Agency Robert G. Wright, RFD #1, Fulton, Missouri 65251: Associate Judge, Callaway County Court Howard Steffen, Chamois, Masouri 65024: Mayor of Chamois Harold Lottman, RFD #1, Owcasville, Missouri 65066: Presiding Judge, Gascenade County Court Fred Luekey, RFD, Rhineland, Missouri 65069: l' residing Judge, Montgomery County Court Mr. Samuel J. Birk, PO Box 243, Morrison, Missouri 65061: Mayor of Morrison, Mo.
Vollie C. Salmons, Jr., RFD #1, Fulton, Missouri 65251: Sheriff of Callaway County
Sharon R. Heinlen, RFD #5, Fulton, Missouri 65251: Chief
. Executive Officer of the Callaway Memorial Hospital James Gravemann, 200 Jefferson St., Fulton, Missouri 65251:
President of the Board; Callaway Ambulance District George L. Oestreich,103 Collier Lane, Fulton, Missouri 65251: -
. Mayor.of the City of Fulton James Crowe, c/o Sheriff's Office, County Courthouse, Linn, Missouri 65051: Osage County Deputy Sheriff and Director of Osage County Civil Defense Agency Tom Mitchell, RFD N.W., New Florence, Missouri 63363: Director Montgomery County Civil Defense Agency CCNTENTIN 2 2-1 The undersigned, having read and studied an unchanged copy of the FO. PIRP can find no provisions for funding assistance to local government (s) in said 10. RERP by the NRC, FEMA, or other Federal assacies whereby local financial resources can be increased
. syfficiently to meet operational expenses involved in a response to a nuclear accident.
2-2 Assignment of duties and responsibilitics in the FD. RERP are conferred by the DPOO without regard to costs involved in the meeting and perfomance of said duties and responsibilities on a continuous bcsis (see 10 CFR, Section 50.47 (b)(1). The testimony of local mayors and county judges shall support this contention. Copies of Annual tax records of each municipality and governmental jurisdiction may be utilized,.'if needed, to support testimony.
2-3 Dr. Stephen N. Salomon, Office of State Programs, U.S. NRC, presented an in-depth ana]ysis of existing funding approaches for radiological emergency response planning and operations in NUREG 0553, October 1979,
- titled: Beyond Defense-In-Depth: Cost and Funding of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Commercial Nuclear Power Stations. Over the past several
years, the International Advisory Committee (ICAC) has made many Federal funding recommendations which include funds from Federal sources for State and Local staff tt uning, development and publication of radiological response plans, attai . ment of specific or unique resources not nomally available to States or local governments, the testing and exercising of RERPs. The preferred approach of Di .
Salomon (see NUREG 0553, Part III) appears to the undersigned to be reasonable and appropriate.
2-4 Answer is provided in 2-3, above.
2-5 The undersigned, having read the U.E. RERP can find no portion of said document which provides for funding support to all local governments involved in a response to a nuclear accident at the Plant. Abse. ., of such provisions will substantiate this claim.
2-6 Applicant abrogates responsibility for emergency response outside its fence and places said responsibility on the Missouri Disaster Plannin5 and Operations Office (see U.E. RERP Sections 6.4.1.lt and 6.4.1.2) except for the initial alert and warning of the populace within the 10 mile EPZ. Acceptance of the responsibility for alert and warning place a pecuniary liability upon the Applicant and the refusal to accept further responsibility places the financial burden on who-so-tver accepts that responsibility.
2-7 See NUREG ' 553, Pert I, Executive Summary; ABSTRACT, Pg. i; Part II, Findings and Analyses; Part IIA, Preferred Approach;.and Appendices, thereto. See NUREG 0654, Part I, Introduction, Section G, Funding and Technical Assistance. See 10 CFR, Part 50, Statements of Consid-eration at 45 FR 55402, Effective 11/3/80, Issue L: Funding (pg 50-SC-
, 62) and paragraph IX. Funding (pg 50-6C-65).
-6.
2-8 See names and addresses contained in 1-6, above.
.2-9 The local level of government and the government jurisdictions referenced are: (a) and (b):
Callaway County, Missouri; Montgomery County, Missouri; Gasconade County, Missouri; Osage Coanty, dissouri; the City of Fulton, Callaway County, Missouri; the town of Mokane, Callaway County, Missouri; the town of Morrison, Gasconade County, Missouri and the town of Chamois, Osage County, Missouri. Included are Hospital Boards, School Boards, Ambulance District Boards and Fire Protection Districts located within the boundaries of the four afore-mentioned counties.
(c) See 10 ~CFR, Part 20. Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Part 50, Section 50.47 Emergency Plans; Part 50,
- Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities; and Part 100. Reactor Site Criteria; additionally, included are applicable Me.nos of Understanding, Policy Staterents and Statements of Consideration as deal with the subject of public health and safety contained in 10 CFR and all supplements up to number 13, issued on April 21, 1981 (all of which are available in documentation already in the possession of the Applicant or are available to it at Public Document Rooms in St. Louis, Missouri (the Olin Library of Washington University, Skinner and Lindell Boulevards) and in Washington, D.C. (NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.).
2-10 Except in a totalitarian governmental environment, workers receive a junt compensation for their professional services. An emergency
,wy , --
resoonse capabilitc, including planning, requires the use of manpower and equipment. Such use requires expenditures of money or some equivelent item of value. Dollars are the medium of exchange used in this country; utilization of an individual's talent's is compensated for by payment of wages in dollars. !!o organization can operate for an extended period of time without paying its workers, not even Shav, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge..
To assign duties to an individual without financial compensation and demand performance of those duties is slavey and illegal in this country. To take and use equipment without just conpensation for such use is called theft and is, also, illegal in ,the U.S.A.
The mere placing of requirements for actions or use of equipment on local governments does not bind said government to perform as implied by said requirements. Local governments have no requirement in law to upgrade their current levels of emergency response capabilities, nor support commercial nuclear power plants. If such conclusion is in error, request Counsel for Applicant provide applicable statutes.
to the contrary. To impose work loads or equipment usage in excess of the current norm without the added funding to support such expense will ultimately bankrupt the government involved and destroy any provision for public health and safety in existance before the increase in responsibilities. The Federal and State governments pay wages to maintain an emergency response capability, as does Union Electric Co.
If volunteers are the answer to an effective emergency response capability, why does U.E., the Federal and State governments have to pay for an ability to react in a crisis situation? The addition of functions to an existing workload will cause an increasc in the i
E
'8 r
time required to perform such duties. This will require over-time on the part of the employce, thus an increase in funds ,
available for his or her weckly, monthly or annual pay. When the workload exceeds the individuals ability to complete within a spedified period of time, and the time limit must be met, .an additional employec munt be hired; this requires additional funds.
If the funds are not available to pay for the added services, the added responsibilities can not be acccoted by the employer (the named 6overnments). No documentation needed, if common sense is used.
2-11 ~Nt. contact with the executive officers or other officials have been made _by the Applicent, as of this date, to the knowledge of :
1 the undersigned, to discuss funding needed by local gour ents in upgrading and maintaining a radiological emergency responco .
cacability for the forty year period of time that Applicant has' requested a licence to operate the Plent. Testimony of local officicls will verify this contention.
CC?:TENTICN 3 3-1 The undersigned having read and studied the unchanged copy of the FO. FIRP has noted functional assignments and responsibilities have been placed upon local govemments, yet nowhere in said document is there an indication that such local governments have accepted and will or can nerform such activities involved. The assignment of responsibilitics by the DPOO upon severign entitics (local governments) does not have a standing in law. If such conclusion is in error, request counsel for the Applicant provido evidence of such legal standing.
3-2 See.3-1, above.
.- '- 9.-
3-3_ Uhile the U.E. RERP contains numerous references to joint operations involvingLthe Plant, the State of 111scouri, and local authorities or local governments, nowhere in the U.S. T6.RP is there documente.tien to substantiato the fact that each and every. local government impacted by the 10 mila iPZ has agreed to participate in 'such operations. The
_ absence of docunentation of agreen.ent to support joint ' operations by local governc.ents will be sufficient to support this contention. The inclusion of lecc1 governments in operations involring rcdiological
, emergency response activitics ' s no standing in law without a formrl agreccent signed by the partice con.cerned. If this conclusion is -in error, request the Counsel for the Applicant provide information on c::inting laws,which are applicable to the eight governmental entities, proving the contrary.
3-4 See,3-3, above. .
3-5 see twaSG 0654, II. Plannir.g Standards and Evaluation Critoria, A.
Assir,nmeat of Responsibility (Org nizational Control) through P.
Responsibility for the Planning hffort. Referenced standards show Licensee, State, Local, indicating (as applies to the matter identified by docket number S"':! 50-463) Union Electric, the State of Irissouri, and all local covernments identified in 2-9, above. Responsibility to nerform or corply with the data contained in the colu.~n labled ivaluatica Criteria is design 9ted by the letter "X". 't. hen the letter 1'
"Z" is prcnont in both State and Local colun.ns, the underaigned interprets that to mean that a dual encability muct exist at both
- St$.to t.r.d- Local government (which includes cach governr,.antal entiety impacted by the 10 mile EPZ, unicas a joint operations adreenent has been eatcred into b/ cnid covernments. ' hcre a local gcVernment does not agree to. Join 1 joird, or orations org:ni:.at inn, it, r:nnt developo
P 4
an independent cacability so that the provisions of EUPI.G 0654, as identified above, are met). Under no 'circumstmaces .cnn local governcents be placed in a position wherein they ccnnot . effectively
- react to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Local covernments are recognized by the Federal and State covernments as
' the first lino of defence in the protection of public health and safety.
3-6 Sec HURbG 0654, Pcrt I, Section E. Contiguous - Jurisdiction Coverrzental Emergency Pltr.ning.
Oce EI.Td.G 0654, isppendix 5, page 5-2:
- i.hore cuidance in this document indicates a function that
- nmt be perfor::ed, ercrgency planners at all levels, cust decida end agree areng themselves, which organization is to perform such function. As a minimum, one_ lead agency at the State level and one leon local covernsent agency hcvir.g 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> ranning ic recuired." (ecphasis adacd) 3'-7 See NUEEG 0553, Part I. Executive Su: mary, Part IV A Preferred Approach, A. Rationale,1. Rick. Also, see Chapter 4, p$ge II-69, Independent' Capability. The independent capability is an option available to local covernments if they so demand since there is no requirement in law for them tc support commercial nuclear power ,
plants. If this conclusion is in error, request the Counsel for the Applicant provide a legal basis for the contrary.
3-8 See 1-6, above. Note: If there is a change in the identity of any witness or potential witness or an addition to the names in 1-6, above, formal notice will be provided tc all named on the attached service lict.
EZD OF CONTENTIONS The above comments are frar.cd, based upon information that may have changed or will be changed in the immediate future, therefore; l'r. Reed reserves the right to change or further define his answers
W .
4 to the queries made by Counsel for the Applicant on 26 May 1981.
If any answer fails to meet with the specificity expected or demanded by Counsel, it must be recalled that at the First Pre-hearing Conference, held on 24 March 1981, Counsel stated that l "it doesn't seem to me to be productive or realistic to cay to Mr. Reed he should be specifying now in detail what he thinks the inadequacies are in the arrangement Applicant has with local organizations who would be involved in emergency planning. So we propose that the Board admit the first sentance of his contention for the purposes of discovery, with the understanding that once the local plans (emphasin added by the undersigned) and Applicant's revised plans are filed and made available to Pr. Reed, that at that time then he should amend his contention with specific allegations of deficiencies or, if he's happy, withdraw the contention". Responding to Applicants queries necessitates the romation of contentions, if inadequacies or deficiencies are to be identified. Mr. Reed has attempted to properly respond to the Applicants requesto c.espite the fact that local plans have yet to be developped. Additionally, Mr. Reed has received information from FEMA, Region VII (Kansas City) that the M0. RERP is, now, undergoing ch ange. A copy of that letter is enclosed in a motion mailed this date, under separate cover.
., e ct fully subm
- t ted, Dated: 30 May 1981 0101 G. REED f- _
Citizen of the United States of America RFD #1 Kingdom City, MO. 65.'62 (314) 6!.2-2769 i
Uti1TED STATES OF A!'LTtICA ITUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f0tISSICf1 BEFCRe, TliE ATOMIC SAFETY ,J!D LICE ISIf G BO,dlD In the Matter of )
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPldlY ) Docket No STil 50-483
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )
AFFIRMATION I, John G. Reed, solemnly affirm that the responses contained in " John Reed's Response to Applicant's Interrogar.ories and Requests of Documents (Set No.1) Dat.ed 26 May 1981 are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. No further saith affiant.
Dated: 01 June 1981 Signed: e n/ a__% -
/ John G. fteed
- Citizen of the United -States of America 1
S'..'ORN aND SUBSCRIBED before me this 1st day of June 1981, at the~
-Callaway Count,y Courthouse, Fulten, " . away County,l'isaouri
./ .d.
'<11away County Glcrk -
Il6 ce-lk&-
SEAL f
De +44 e66an
,a UNITED STATES OF AFIRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIQi BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ,J!D LICENSING BOARD
. In the Matter of )
)
. UNION ELECTRIC CONPANY ) Docket No STN 50-483
)
_ (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " John Reed's Response
. to Applicant's Interrogatories and Requests of Documents (Set No.1)
Dated 26 May 1981" were served this 1si day of June,1981, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, to the parties named on the attached Service List.
~
/ John G. Reed ,
Citizen of the United States of America
~
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
. In the Matter of )
)
UNIN ELECTRIC CONPANY- ) Docket No STN 50-483
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )
SERVICE LIST James P. Gleason, Esquire Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Chaimon Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1800 M Street, Nd 513 Gilmoure Drive . klashington, D.C. 20036 Silver Spring, MD. 20901 Kenneth M. Chackes, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chackes and Hoare Atomic Safety and Licensing 314 N. Broadway Board Panel St. Louis, FD. 63102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission klashington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Dir.
Dr. Jerry R. Kline US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing klashington, D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. ?!uclear Regulatory Cornission Docketing and Service 3ection
'dasnington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Treva J. Hearne, Esquire 'dashington, D.C. 20555 Deputy General Counsel Missouri Public Service Commission Mr. Howard Steffen P.O. Box 360 Chamois, 1:0, 65024 Jefferson City, LD. 65102 Mr. Harold Lottman I:r. Fred Luckey Route 1 Rural Route Caensville, MC. 65066 Rhineland, LD. 65069 Mr. Samuel J. Birk Mr. Robert G. 'dright Box 243 Route 1 Morrison, MO. 65061 Fulton, SD. 65251 Mr. Earl Brown Box 146 Auxvasse, TD. 65231 7