ML20053A469
| ML20053A469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1982 |
| From: | Jeffrey Reed REED, J.G. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205260128 | |
| Download: ML20053A469 (5) | |
Text
l li 0
g UNI"ED STATES OF A! ERICA 14UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIT BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of'
)
)
UNICH ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
DocketNo. SIN 50-lh3-OL j'
)
gfif (Canaway Plant,' Unit 1)
)
Mt. REED'S ANSWER TO' A"oLICANT'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCT
~
OP HEARING, DATED 21 NAY 1982
'AND FR. REED'S CONTENTION NO. 4
'I.'
.e IN7RODUCTIM In Mr. Reed's au> tion of 15 May 1982 (Motion to Establish Hearing Schedule) it was requested that formal} requirements for his contentions be withheld until.the local.pians were su'b'stantially. fomulated in a form acceptable to local govemments (this being continned by their submission to F.E.M.A.
for initial ieview). It is,' felt that no plan is in existance prior to such acceptance.by local governments, regardless of the number of proposed plans that may be submitted to such local governments by the Applicante employee, the NUS Corporation of Rockville, Maryland.
~H.
~
DISCUSSION
(
At this stage in the planning process, the Applicant's employee, NUS has j
l submitted a proposed plan, dated September 1981, a pencil marked revision was proposed by the undersigned on or about 08 October 1981, this plarming concept was changed and a brief plan supported by Standard Operating Procedures was substituted on or about April 1982 Many of the same problems existed in the new plan and S.O.P.s as were present in the old original plan, other items were simply dropped and not addressed in the D563 820526olegh G r
O
/
~
new planning concept. Two weeks after receipt of a S.O.P. for Callaway County and an S.O.P. for Fulten, a new revision was presented for a combined S.O.P. for Callaway County /Fulton. This concept for planning has not been-approved by either the full County Court or the City Council of Fulton.
Mr. Reed is advised that a June revision is planned for all plans /S.O.P.s.
In light of these rapid changes, the push by the Appli cant for Mr. Reed to form contentions relating to unapproved local plans is an attempt to emesh him in a series of contentions based upon a proposed plan that does not exist except within the bowels of a computer at NUS in Rockville, Maryland. Mr. Baxter was specifically asked if a new revision to the plans was on the drawing board during his meeting in Kingdom City, Missouri on 14 F.ay 1982 He did not answer this question directly, but stated that "I can't say that there won't be revisions to the plan", or words to that effect. It is known by the undersigned that Counsel had reascnable knowledge that such revisions were in fact on the board at NUS, and this places Mr. Baxter in a possible position of withholding information by evasion.
Mr. Reed will not lodge a formal ccc: plaint at 4
this time, but any repetition of this conduct will be formally noted.
No local government has approved any plan or portion thereof, as of this 1
date.
Mr. Reed has it on direct authority that no plan will be accepted as it currently exists and until. full funding of all costs are resolved.
Testimony of county administrative Judges and city mayors will validate this contention.
Mr. Reed has submitted further particularizat. ion of his first three contentions (see FURTH:R PARTICUIARIt.ATION OF Ri.ED'S C'Cin:.NTION 1 JNi)
CONTwTION 3, dated 01 June 1981); additionally, Mr. Reed responded to
r APPLICANTS INTERROGAKEIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS (SET 1) on 01 June 1981, in which he responded to questions concerning all three original contentions. Nons of the specifications, as outlined b;. Mr.
Reed in these two documents, has appreciably altered during the intervening time. Mr. Reed will stand on the previously documented facts in any hearing scheduled and will add the following contention to those subritted earlier:
REED'S CONTENTION No. 4 No radiolo5 cal emergency response plans exist for the local governments i
of Callaway County, Montgomery County, Gasconade County, Osage County, the incorporated cities and towns of Fulton, Mokane, Chamois, Morrison, Gasconade, and Rhineland. Applicant cannot forward local radiological emergency response plans of governments that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway as required by 10 CFR, Part 50, Section 50.33(g); it. precludes Applicant's compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.47(b) and Part 50, Appendix "E" of 10 CFR.
End of Contention This contention is valid and has been uncontested by either Applicant or Staff. Insistance of Applicant on rushing a hearing data will reduce its time frame to alter this situation. The undersigned would prefer to litigate or negotiate issues as relate to plans, not necessarily the absence of such plans, but is prepared to go to trial in either case.
SUEMARY The undersigned has met with the Applicant, Staff and en.bers of the Board in an attempt to fairly and completely discuss the issues and frame valid
O /
contentions as relate to emergency planning for Callaway Number 1.
He has agreed to meet standanie of conduct and time that curing such meetings was agreed to as equitable and fair. Applicant's attempt to redefine such agreements t'o' serve its purposes,' while within the law, does not maintain those standards 'of fairnese. The absence of any local plan that has been tentatively approved by all local governments, in whole or part, should be viewed as a reason for a ruling in favor of Mr. Reed, in this matter.
The more proposal of a planning concept or draft of a plan (regardless of the number of revisions to such plan) does not create the plan. Based upon the absence of the plan, Applicant's motion, dated 21 May 1982, should be denied and a schedule for the hearing set based upon a more realistic time table; that being when a suitably framed plan has been accepted by all of the local governments and submitted to F.E.M.A. for preliminary review. Said submission to F.E.M.A. 'oeing the confirmation that local governments have approved such planning approach and the contents of the plan.
Respectfully submitted, e
Dated this 21st John G. Reed day of May 1982 Citizen of the United States in Kingdom City, of America Fdssouri RFD #1
, Kingdom City, MO 65262 (314) 642-2769
a s-UNITED STA17,S OF AM.RICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY C0}2HSS10N BEFORE THE ATO)GC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.3 NS In the Matter of
)
)
UNICE ELECTRIC COMPANY
) Docket Nos STN 50-483
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Et. REED'S ANSWER TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FDR CONDUCT OF HEARING, DATED 21 MAY 1982 AND MR.
REED'S CONTENTION NO. 4 was served this day of May 1982 by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid on the following:
Jan.es P. Gleason, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chainnan, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drl.ve U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conaninnion Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Kenneth M. Chackes, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Chackes and Hoare U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314 N. Broadway Washington, D.C. 20555 St. Louis, No. 63102 A. Scott Cauger F.tuire Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Assistant Generd C unsel Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge MO. Public Service Commission 1800 H. Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 360 Washington, D.C. 20036 Jefferson City, !!O. 6$102 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board g
U.S. Nuclear hegulato:y Comission
,L Washington, D.C. 20555
/ JUiiN G. hhr.D Cit,izen of the United States of An. erica