ML20010D116
| ML20010D116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108240025 | |
| Download: ML20010D116 (5) | |
Text
/
bf Staff 8/20/81 UNITED STATES OF NiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BE_ FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the !!atter of
)
M
/Q
%N SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS Docket No. 50j39
[G COMPANY
)
/' b ol' / /
O (ViroilC.SummerNuclearStation,l M
[3 Unii.1)
)
\\d'%, +s
,Q p
NRC STAFF REPLY BRIEF CONCERNIdG W
PROFERRED TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHIO KAKU I.
INTRODUCTION On August 7,1981,, the parties to the captioned proceeding filed briefs relative to receipt of the Intervenor's proferred written testimony of Dr. Michio Kaku on Contention 8.
Contention 8 questions the adequacy of the Applicant's preparations to implement its emergency plan in thote areas in which the assistance and cooperation of offsite agencies are required.
To the best of the Staff's understanding, the proferred testimony of Dr. Kaku was intended to demonstrate that the emergency plans cannot adequately cope with some hypothetical Class 9 accident scenario devised by Dr. Kaku.
The Staff brief detailed the several objections, including relevancy, which either individually or collectively should bar the admission of the proferred testimony.
l The Intervenor filed a short brief in support of the admission of Dr. Kaku's prefiled testimony.
The sole purpose attributed to the testimony is to " enlighten" the local emergency planning officials about the consequences of major nuclear accidents, which is purportedly go7 essential to the performance of their responsibilities.
s
/ !l 1
l 8108240025 810820 l
PDR ADOCK 05000395 j
G PDR
. While the Staff addressed this concept in its direct brief (at p.
9), it offers the following brief additional comments in the way of a reply, as permitted by, and in accordance with, the Board's ruling that reply briefs may be filed. (Tr. 3878).
II.
DISCUS $f0N The Intervenor's brief makes it abundantly clear that Dr. Kaku's prefiled testimony is being offered for a pu'rpose irrelevant to, and outside the scope of, Contention 8.
Contention 8, which has never been amended, simply questions the adequacy of preparations to implement the Applicant's emergency plan in some respects.
The adequacy of state and local emergency planning, favorably evaluated by the Federal Emergency
!!anrjement Agency (FEMA) in its findings and determinations, is not at is,ue.
Nor is this the appropriate forum on which to " educate" local efficials on the consequences of nuclear accidents.
Moreover, Dr. Kaku's expertise in fairly portraying the consequences of core f. cit accidents (as opposed to relying on studies done by others, e.g., WASH-740, WASli-1400), has never been established.
Furthermore,-if the purpose of the prefiltd testimony is to describe the consequences k:f serious nuclear accidents, this has already been accomplished through the discussion of the site-specific consequences of such accidents in Chapter 6 of the Final Environmental Statement.
All of the local emergency planning l
officials asked indicated some familiarity with that information.
Aside from relevancy considerations, the premise that it is incumbent upon all emergency planning officials to fully comprehend the consequences of a major nuclear accident finds no support in the I
I l
Comission's emergency planning regulations or the expert testimony of
. record. The Staff made this point in its earlier brief.
In fact, the t'
cimony is to the contrary.
Both the liRC Staff (Tr. 3381-3) and FEIM (Tr. 3385) testified that those involved in emergency planning should have a knowledge of the overall level of emergency preparedness cornaensurate with their role in the emergency planning scheme.
The role of the local emergency planning officials is not a " scientific" one.
Generally, it is to coordinate and implement a prescribed range of pro:2ctive actions (e.g. sheltering, evacuation) in the event of an emergency.
In the State of South Carolina, the Department of Health and Environmental Control has been denominated the primary state agency with technical knowledge about the impacts of nuclear accidents in order to apprise and counsel the other emergency response organizations in indicating the appropriate level of protective action in a given emergency situation. As Staff witness Kevern testified on this point:
j "It is not the position of the liRC that every individual involved in the l
preparedness and planning must be knowledgeable of all levels of radiological consequences and the levels of potential of hypothetcial accidents associated with a nuclear plant."
(Tr. 3312).
FEl% witness Richardson agreed (Tr. 3385).
Their testimony is uncontroverted.
Finally, the Intervenor alludes to sorae unidentified Commission policy statement regarding the consideration of post-TMI operating license requirements for the proposition that flVREG-0654 M and the 1/
Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of fluclear Power Plants (revised flovember,1980).
l
. Comission emergency planning rules in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 may be challenged in this proceeding.
The Intervenor is presumably referring to the Commission's most recent Statement of Policy published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1980 U explaining the treatment of the post-Tl11 operating license requirements contained in fiUREG-07a/E in the adjudicatory process.
That policy statement does not concern or address 11UREG-0654 or the Commission's emergency planning requirements in 10 C.F.R. 9 30.47 at all.
For purposes of the evidentiary issue before the Board in this matter, this policy statement in no way alters the normal procedure which a party seeking to challenge a Comission regulation in
~~ '
an adjudicatory proceeding must follow pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758.
The Intervenor has not pursued his challenge to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 in accordance with that prov'sion.
III.
C0riCLUSION In light of the foregoing arguments, and those contained in its August 7 brief on the subject, the Staff objects to the admission of Dr.
K3ku's prefiled testimony on Contention 8.
The record on Contention 8 should be closed at this time.
L mectfully submitted, e
1 e
oun, el for C S aff Dated at Bethesda, llaryland this 20tiday of August,1981.
1 2]
y Clarification of Tiil Action Plan Requirements (October,1980).
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Watter SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS Docket No. 50-395 COMPANY
)
)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF REPLY BRIEF CONCERNING PROFERRED TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHIO KAKU", dated August 20, 1981 in thezbove-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, or as indicated by an asterisk though deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission's internal mail system, this 20th day of August, 'i981:
Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Brett Allen Bursey Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Route 1, Box 93-C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Little Mountain, South Carolina 29076 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper Debevoise & Liberman School of Natural Resources 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
University of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20036 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Randolph R. Mahan, Esq.
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger S.C. Electric & Gas Company Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P.O. Box 764 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia, S.C.
29218 i
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George Fischer, Esq.
Panel Vice President and General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiss'on South Carolina Electric and Gas Washington, D.C.
20555
- Company l
P.O. Box 764 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Assistant Attorney General S.C. Attorney General's Office Docketing and Service Section l
P.O. Box 11549 Office of the Secretary l
Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission j
llashington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. John Ruoff P.O. Box 96 Jenkinsville, S.C.
29065 W
- n o
C ff
-,,