ML20054F659
| ML20054F659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1982 |
| From: | Jeffrey Reed REED, J.G. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206170196 | |
| Download: ML20054F659 (5) | |
Text
I 07 Jiane 882 e
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RMULATWY CONMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of UNION ELECTRIC COPPANY
)
Docket No STN $0-4H3 l.
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
JOHN REED'S REPLY TO STAFF RESPCNSE OF $4 JUNE 1982 RELATING TO ESTABLISHIE!;T OF HEARING SCHEDULE CN E) ERG & ICY PLANNING ISSUES I.
INTRODUCTIN In Mr. Reed's Answer to Applicant's Motion to Establist. Schedule for
/
Conduct of Hearing, dated 21 May 1982 and P.r. Reed's Conteition No. 4, it was stated that no plan was felt to exist until it had been accepted by the local governments involved; such is still Mr. Reed's view and is supported by Mr. Baxter's statements as contained in the tranceript of the First Pre-hearing Conference, dated 24 March 1981.
II.
DISCUS 9Im The fonnation of contentions relate directly to a fifteen (15) day period after the emergency response plan is prepared and made available. Contention 1
No.1 concerns local plans, while Contention No. 3 involves local plans and 3
State / utility plans; see pages 5, 6, and 7 of Special Prehearing Conference e
Order, dated 21 April 1981.
The undersigned has requested that such conditions exist before he is required to submit additional particularizaticr1 of his contentions. This view was supported by Mr. Baxter at the prehearing conference when he shid, 8206170196 820607 PDR ADOCK 05000483 G
-2 I.
"But I've tried to take into recognition of the fact that these emergency
~
response plans for local organizations have not yet been prepared and submitted to the Federal Enerr(Emergency) Management Agency for review.
So at this point it doesn't seem to be productive or realistic to say 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 centance of his contention for the purposes of discovery, with the understanding that once the local plans and Applicant's revised plans are filed and made available to Mr.
Reed, that at that time then he should amend his contention with specific allegations of deficiencies or, if he's happy, withdraw the contention."
(emphasis added by the undersigned)(see page 36, lines 12 thru 25 and page 37, lines 1 thru 3 of the transcript of First Prehearing Conference, March 1981)
The delay in preparation of local radiological emergency response plans which are acceptable to all local governments rests with the Applicant 1
who has hired the NUS Corporation of Rockville, Maryland to develope such I
plans.
Pr. Reed is advised by Mr. Milt Stiller of ' Union Electric that initial plans were taken from those of the Surry 1 plant in Virginia. It was noted that in some cases the name Surry 1 was left in the original drafts. While NUS was originally " hired to work for the State of Missouri" such linkage has been dropped and local goverrments get status reports on plans and other information directly from the Applicmt (Union Electric).
The workmanship of the planning process, according to Mr. Stiller, is so poor that U.E. is considering firing NUS and attempting to complete the local plans themselves. Such statements were made to the undersigned by l
Mr. Stiller in Kingdom City on 15 April 1982 Add to this reported situation the fact that no local govemnysnt has accepted any proposed or revised proposed local plan and we are basical.ly at the same state in the planning process that existed at the time of the first prehearing conference. It
l 1,
doesn't seem to be productive or realistic to expect the undersigned to specify now, in detail, *.at he thinks the inadequacies are in the plans.
As regards Staff comraents relati'ig to Mr. Roed's Contention No. 4 and its timeliness; Chairinan Gloason stated in the prehearing con ference (see page 38, lines 8 thru 13 of said transcript) that it was possible for Mr.
Reed to frame a different or new contention based upon different circumstances. Such comment clearly permits the submission of Contention No. 4,and/or other contentions as future situations may dictate.
III.
SUl%RY While some draft copies of radiological emergency response plans and revisions thereto have been provided to the undersigned for study, none of these plans / revisions have been tentatively accepted by any county or city / town located wholly or partially within the 10 mile E.P.Z. nor have they been filed with the F.E.H.A. as indicated by Mr. Baxter, above.
Until all local governants accept these plans /reviolons as their own, how can the Applicant or Staff say that "the plan" exista? Without a plan, acceptable to local governmento in exiutance, Mr. Reed cannot, with fairness, be expected to identify faults or inadequacies. To expect such woula put him in the position of identifying technical errors in a plan which has no relation to facts or situations as exist within the 10 milo E.P.Z. of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
Because of the delay in plans preparation, es experienced by Union Electric's er:ployee NUSb any delay in netting a date for a hearing on emergency planning, must bo bome by the Apr licant, not Mr. Reed.
l l
-h-l-
/
It is therefore, resnectfully, requested that the Board find in favor of Mr. Reed's request for a hearing schedule based upon the date that local plans are sufficiently fd reed to be subr.itted to the F.E.M.A. for preliminary review and that appliennt's 21 May,1902 Mot. ion be rejected despite Staff's approval.
/ Respectfully submitted,
~
Dated at Kingdom City,
/ John G. Reed Missouri, this 07th day Citizen of the Un'.ted States of June 1982 of Aiacrica F.FD //1 Kingdom City, MD. 65262 tol: (314) 642-2769
l
~.
UNITED STATES OF AERICA t!UCLF.AR REGULATC RY CollilSSJON BEFORE Ti!E ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNIm ELECTRIC COMPANY
) Docket Non STN 50-683
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE Of St.RVICE I certify that Jeh. deed's Reply to Staff Response of $4 June 1982 Relating to Establishment of Hearing Schedule on Emergency Planning issues was served on the following by deposit in the U.S. mail, first D7 class postage prepaid, this W} day of June 1982.
James P. Gleason, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Bonni Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, bryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licenaing Office of t.he Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
Roy P. Lessy, J r., Esquire Kenneth M. Chaches, Esquire Office af the Executive Legal Director Chackes and Hoare U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 316 N. Broadway Washington, D.C. 20555 St. Louis, Mo. 63102 A. Scott Cauger Thomas A. Baxter, Esqui re Assistant General Counsel Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge MO. Public Service Com.dssion 1800 M. St reet, N.W.
P.O. Box 3/0 3
Washington, D.C. 20036 Jeffersen City, MO. 6$102 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (hs /
g' dw _, /
/
U.S. Nuclear Remlat ory Con nission
, A.
Washington, D.C. 205%
/ 'J ilih G. Rhr.D Citizen of the United States of America N'.-
I e; '.,
,