ML20058E235
| ML20058E235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1982 |
| From: | Perlis R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207280104 | |
| Download: ML20058E235 (23) | |
Text
-
07/23/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPfilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. STN 50-483 OL
)
(Callaway Plant, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO FINAL PARTICULARIZATION OF REED'S EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 I.
INTRODUCTION In a Special Prehearing Conference Order of April 21, 1981, the Board admitted John Reed's Contention 2, and admitted Mr. Reed's Contentions 1 and 3 subject to later specificity.
In an Order dated June 9, 1982, the Board required Mr. Reed to provide the specificity to his Emergency Planning Contentions 1 and 3 by June 30, 1982. On June 29, Mr. Reed filed a document entitled " Final Particularization of Reed's Contentions 1, 2, and 3" (hereinafter " Reed Particularization"). On July 14, Applicant filed a lengthy response to Mr.. Reed's document. The Staff herein responds to both filings.
II.
CONTENTIONS REQUIREMENTS As a general matter, for the contentions proposed to be admissible, they must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the Federal DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Certified By 8207280104 820723
/, )
PDR ADOCK 05000483 dO,7 G
l Register Notice of Hearing in this proceeding and comply with the re-quirements of 10 C.F.R. s 2.714(b) and applicable Comission case law.
See, e.g., Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley, Units No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 245 (1973); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island, Unit Nos. I and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 194 (1973), aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 10 C.F.R.
% 2.714(b) requires that a list of contentions which petitioners seek to have litigated be filed along with the bases for those contentions set forth with reasonable specificity. A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies ought to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2
& 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).
The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 is to assure that the contention in question does not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above, to establish sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry of the subject matter in the proceeding,.and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against
. or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. From the standpoint of basis, it is unnecessary for the petition "to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power & Light Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
However, the degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged involves the Board's judgment on a case by case basis.
Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. Finally, in examining the contentions and the bases therefore, a licensing board is not to reach the merits of the contentions. Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 -
Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra, at 20; Grand Gulf, supra, at 426.
In Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980), the Appeal Board applied the principles described above governing the admissibility of contentions.
The Allens Creek decision emphasized that in ruling on the admissibility of a contention, a licensing board is not to venture beyond the contention and its stated basis into the merits of the contention. Any question concerning the validity of the contention or of its basis must be left for consideration when the merits of the controversy are reached, i.e.,
through summary disposition or in the evidentiary hearing.
Id. at 546-551.
In this case, Mr. Reed's contentions (for the most part) are directed at litigable issues. However, these contentions are often totally devoid of any basis or specificity whatsoever. Mr. Reed has essentially lifted regulatory checklists from 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 and NUREG-0654 and alleged,
. without providing accompanying specifics, that the emergency planriing for Callaway failed to satisfy the applicable requirement.
It should be noted that Mr. Reed's failure to provide specifics cannot be attributed to a lack of available documentation; before formulating his "specificiations,"
Mr. Reed was provided with copies of all the relevant planning documents.
III. REED'S CONTENTIONS A.
Contention No. 1 Mr. Reed's Contention No. I alleges a failure on Applicant's part to make sufficient arrangements with local governments, agencies, and organizations to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b).
In his
" Discussion" under this contention, Mr. Reed comences with a number of general, conclusory statements. See Reed Particularization, pp. 1-3 (Parts 1, 2 and 3). The Staff submits that these statements do not present any litigable issues and should be disregarded. Similarly, Part 5 of Mr. Reed's Discussion (Reed Particularization, p. 9) should also be dis-regarded because of the absence of anything approaching a litigable issue.
Under Part 4, Mr. Reed provides a " delineation of inadequacies or lack of sufficient arrangements."
It is these inadequacies that will be the focus of the Staff's comments under Contention 1.
Before discussing the " inadequacies" individually, a few general comments are in order. Under Contention 1, Mr. Reed has tracked the 16 j
subparts of Section 50.47(b).
In his list of " Planning Inadequacies" under Contention 3, Mr. Reed tracked the planning standards and criteria
. in NUREG-0654.
(Reed Particularization, pp. 16-22). While Contention 1 refers to " sufficient arrangements with local governments" and Contention 3 refers to an alleged lack of " adequate definition of the allocation of responsibilities," the specific inadequacies listed under the two con-tentians often raise the same issue. The Staff believes that for liti-gat'an purposes, each inadequacy should be treated as a separate contention.
Where contentions raise the same issue, consolidation would be appropriate.
The Staff has a number of difficulties with Mr. Reed's proposed contentions. Almost all are hopelessly devoid of specifics. They rarely reference specific parts of the various plans.
In some instances, Mr. Reed seems to be suggesting additional requirements be imposed upon the Applicant, yet he provides no bases for his views.
Perhaps most troubling, in many instances Mr. Reed has alleged that a matter is lacking in the plans when, in fact, that matter is discussed. The Staff takes the position that if Mr. Reed wishes to allege inadequacies in the plans' treatment of an issue, and the plans do treat the issue, Mr. Reed must assert specific defects in the plans and provide a basis for his assertion. As will be clear from our discussion of the individual contentions, this has rarely been done.
Contention 1(a)(1)1/ acks both specificity and basis. Mr. Reed l
has not identified the local organizations which he contends must be included in letters of agreement, nor has he provided his basis therefor. Mr. Reed
-1/
For the sake of convenience, the Staff herein uses the same notation for contentions used in Applicant's Response.
. also failed to reference the use of letters of agreement in the various plans. This contention should be rejected.
The Staff does not understand Contention 1(a)(2).
If Mr. Reed is asserting that every individual given a role in a plan must sign a letter of agreement, the Staff is aware of no such requirement.
If Mr. Reed is concerned with specific individuals, he should have identified them. The Staff opposes this contention.
Contention 1(a)(3) lacks specification and basis. We are not told which organizations lack adequate staffing. No reference is made to the plans. The contention fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714 and should be rejected.
Contention 1(b)(1) is vague. The plans are not referenced, no specifics are given, and no basis for the allegation is provided. The Staff objects to admission of this contention.
Contention 1(c)(1) is vague and lacks specificity and basis. The Staff cannot decipher what Mr. Reed means by the statement: "All local assistance has not been identified, nor have arrangements been made for their cooperation and participation in emergency response activities."
Although Mr. Reed asserts that local response forces lack certain specified equipment, he again makes no reference to the plans and provides no basis for the assertion.
Staff does not know which response forces he is referring to, nor do we know which pieces of equipment they allegedly lack. The contention should be rejected.
Contention 1(c)(2) lacks basis. Mr. Reed has not explained why the communications facilities available to agents in the field are inadequate.
. Again, there are no references to the plans. This contention should be rejected.
Contention 1(d)(1) alleges a f411ure of the 50P's to include specific emergency actions to be taken. The 50P's are filled with descriptions of actions to be taken in an emergency.
See,jt.l., Callaway/Fulton SOP, j
Procedure 1 (general actions), Procedure 6 (public information action),
Procedure 11 (Traffic Control), etc. Mr. Reed has not asserted any specific inadequacies in the SOP's treatment of emergency actions. The contention has no basis and should be dismissed.
Contention 1(d)(2) suffers from the same flaw as Contention 1(d)(1).
It should be rejected for the same reason.
Contention 1(e)(1) lacks basis. The S0P's specifically designate alternates. See. e.g., Callaway/Fulton SOP, Page 1-1.
If Mr. Reed believes the designation of alternatives is inadequate to insure that someone be notified, he must provide a basis for the assertion. He has not done so.
Contention 1(e)(2) is objectionable for the same reason. Mr. Reed again fails to reference notification procedures in the plan and explain why they are inadequate. This contention should be rejected.
Contention 1(f)(1) lacks both specificity and basis. We are left guessing at what communications Mr. Reed is talking about and why he believes the communications facilities are inadequate. This contention should be rejected.
Applicant accepted Contention 1(f)(1)(a) for litigation. The Staff agrees only in part.
Insofar as Mr. Reed is contending that the Sheriff's radio net will be unable to handle the combination of transmission of
- normal law enforcement traffic and emergency traffic, the Staff does not object to the contention. However, such a contention would be litigable only to the extent it relates to inadequacies in the transmission of emergency-related traffic. The Staff submits that possible interference with "the primary mission for which the net was intended" is not a proper subject for litigation in an NRC proceeding.
Contention 1(f)(2) is vague and lacks specifics. We are not told what units Mr. Reed is talking about, what equipment he is concerned with, the inadequacies he perceives, and his bases therefor. The con-tention should be rejected.
TheStaffagreeswiththeApplicantthatContention1(f)(2)(a)is acceptable.
The first sentence of Contention 1(g) is confusing.
It is not clear whether Mr. Reed is refering to inadequacies in the informational link for every local government or for some local governments.
If the latter, Mr. Reed must specify which local governments must be included.
In either case, no reference is made to the plans and no basis is provided for the assertion. As for the assertion in the contention that "no letters of agreement have been signed by media personnel," Mr. Reed points to no regulatory requirement for such letters, nor does he provide a basis for the institution of such a requirement. Like the first part of the contention, the second part is completely without basis.
In Contention 1(h)(1), Mr. Reed asserts the lack of local E0C's.
If his contention is that there are, in fact, no provision for local E0C's, he is factually mistaken. See, e_._g., Callaway County /Fulton SOP, Procedure 2.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Reed is alleging inadequacies in
. the treatment of county E0C's, he has provided no specifics or bases to support the contention. The Staff objects to this contention.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention1(h)(2).
The Staff objects to Contention 1(1)(1). The State Plan addresses the monitoring that will be done at the State level. State Plan, Attachment A.2.B.
Mr. Reed has not asserted any inadequacy in that plan's treatment of this subject. Thu contention is without basis and should be dismissed.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention1(i)(2),althoughitsuggests that the Board request Mr. Reed to explain why this contention could not beconsolidatedwithContention1(h)(2).
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention1(i)(3).
The Staff does not object to Contention 1(i)(4).
The Staff does not object to Contention 1(i)(5).
The Staff does not object to a combination of Contentions 1(j)(1) and 1(j)(3) alleging that the emergency plans should, but do not, provide for the use of Potassium Iodide for emergency workers and the general population.
The Staff objects to Contention 1(j)(2) only insofar as it contains vague references to 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and appears to take Page C21 of the State's RERP out of context. The Staff would not object to a contention stated as follows:
. The Draft EBS Announcement for Personal Respiratory Protection on Page C21 of the Missouri RERP improperly recommends the use of a folded man's handkerchief held over the nose for respiratory protection if a person must venture outside during a radiological emergency.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention1(j)(4).
Contention 1(k)(1)isacombinationofContentions1(1)(1)and1(i)(2).
The Staff has previously objected to the fonner and accepted the latter.
TheStaffobjectstoContentions1(1)(1)and1(1)(2)onthegrounds that both contentions are without basis. Mr. Reed does not explain why he feels such agreements are necessary and the Staff knows of no (and Mr. Reed points to no) regulatory requirement that such agreements exist.
Contentions 1(1)(3) and 1(1)(4) are identical to Contentions 1(1)(4) and 1(1)(5), both of which the Staff has accepted for litigation.
The Staff objects to Contention 1(m)(1). Mr. Reed provides no basis for his assertion that detailed, step by step procedures are necessary for recovery and reentry, nor does he explain why the coverage of recovery and reentry in the plans is inadequate. This contention is merely Mr. Reed's unsubstantiated view as to what should be required for recovery and reentry.
It should not be admitted.
The Staff does not object to the admission of Contention 1(n). The Staff wishes to make clear, however, that it does not view this contention as anything more than a statement that no commitment to participate in drills has yet been made. Once such commitments are made, the Staff will request that the contention be dismissed as moot.
TheStaffobjectstoContention1(o)asvagueandlackingspecificity and basis. We don't know what type of training Mr. Reed believes is l
. required, nor do we know to whom the training must be given. More important, Mr. Reed has failed to identify any defects in the training called for in the State's and Applicant's Plans. This contention should be rejected.
Contention 1(p) refers to local planning. Again Mr. Reed provides no specifics or bases to support his views. Section50.47(b)(16),which Mr. Reed cites, is silent on the subject of planning at the local level.
We are not told why training is needed, who needs it, or why the provisions for training contained in the plans are inadequate. This contention should be rejected.
B.
Contention No. 2 This contention was admitted by the Board in its Order of April 21, 1981. As the Board wrote in its Order (at p. 6, emphasis added):
"This contention addresses the issue of funding or the lack thereof for local emergency responses plans.
It reflects an allegation that this consid-eration has not received adequate attention and that as a consequence, public health and safety will be adversely affected." The Staff assumed that this contention was directed towards the issue of whether, in the absence of financing, the plans were capable of being implemented. So viewed, the Staff believes the contention to be acceptable for litigation.
The Applicant argues in its Response (at pp. 30-32) that Mr. Reed is instead directing this contention towards the issue of who should finance the plan. A look at Mr. Reed's Particularization (at pp.11-13) fails to shed much light on this matter. The Staff agrees with the Applicant that
- a contention addressing who should finance the plan is impermissible.
Rather than dismiss the contention, the Staff suggests that the Board rephrase 1t. as follows to remove any ambiguities:
Local response capabilities in the event of a radiological emergency are inadequate because of a lack of funding.
C.
Contention No. 3 Mr. Reed's Contention 3 tracks the planning standards and criteria of NUREG-0654.
In his Discussion (Reed Particularization, pp.13-16) under this contention, Mr. Reed provides a lengthy discourse on what he believes to be the correct interpretation of NUREG-0654. As Mr. Reed is well aware, the Staff disagrees with his interpretation of NUREG-0654.
The Staff would not object to a properly worded contention advancing Mr. Reed's interpretation, but it does not see such a contention in the discussion.
Similarly, the Staff sees no contention in Mr. Reed's con-clusion to Contention 3 on p. 22 of his Particularization. The Staff addresses the planning inadequacies a;1eged by Mr. Reed on pp. 16-22 of his Particularization as follows:
Contention 3(1)isvague. We have no idea what agencies Mr. Reed believes must be identified, nor is any basis provided for this vague allegation. No specific inadequacies in the plans are alleged. This contention should be rejected.
Contention 3(2) is similarly vague. We don't know what organi-zations Mr. Reed is referring to, nor do we know the level of detail he believes is required. Mr. Reed has been provided copies
. 1 of the planning documents; if he has found speicfic inadequacies in this area, he should have made them known. This contention should be rejected.
Mr. Reed's Contention 3(3) lacks specificity.
If Mr. Reed has found organizations in the planning documents that do not fulfill Criterion A.1.d (not A.1.c., as identified in the contention), he should identify those organizations.
In the absence of such specifics, the contention should be rejected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(4) again on the ground of lack of specificity. Mr. Reed should identify the authorities which he believes are missing.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(5) on the same ground. The plans have been made available to Mr. Reed.
If he perceives specific inade-quacies in the plans, including omissions in the plans, he should provide such specifics and the bases for his conclusion. This contention is also similar to Contention 1(a)(1) to which the Staff previously objected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(6) on the same ground as its objection to Contention 3(5).
In addition, neither specific information nor any basis whatsoever is provided for the assertion that volunteer organizations cannot provide individuals on other than short term operations. This contention is similar to Contention 1(a)(3) to which the Staff previously objected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(7) on the same ground. No specifics are provided, no references to the plans are made. This con-tention is in parts similar to Contentions 1(a)(2) and 1(c)(1) to which the Staff has previously objected.
i
. The Staff objects to Contention 3(8) on the same grounds.
If Mr. Reed is contending that the provisions in the plans are not specific enough, specific references should have been made and his basis for the assertion provided.
Contention 3(9) is the same as Contentions 1(e)(1) and 1(e)(2) (not 1(a)(2) as indicated in Applicant's Response at p. 38). The Staff relies on its previous objections to those two contentions.
Contention 3(10) includes no specific allegation of inadequacies (nor any basis therefor). Again, the plans are available to Mr. Reed.
In the absence of his pointing to specific inadequacies in the plans, the Staff objects to this contention.
Contention 3(11) is the same as Contentions 1(f)(1) and 1(f)(2) to which the Staff previously responded.
Contention 3(12) suffers from the same inadequacies as Contentions 3(1)through3(8). Without specifics, we have no idea what Mr. Reed is contending. Nor can we guess at Mr. Reed's basis for his position. The contention must be rejected.
Contention 3(13)alsolacksnecessaryspecificationandbasis. We don't know which governments Mr. Reed is talking about, nor do we know why Mr. Reed finds the existing comunications lacking. This contention should be rejected.
Contention 3(14) is similar to Contention 1(h)(1) to which the Staff has already responded.
Contention 3(15) is similar to Contention 1(i)(1) to which the Staff has already responded. The Staff would add that NUREG-0654 Criterion H.7 does not require local monitoring capacity.
- The Staff does not understand Contention 3(16).
If Mr. Reed is asserting that no provisions for reserve equipment as provided for by Criterion H.10 have been made, he is in error. See Callaway Plant RERP,
- p. 8-8.
If he objects to specific provisions in the plans or claims that they are insufficient, he must specify his objection and provide a basis therefor. He has not done so. The contention should be rejected.
Contention 3(17) also challenges provisions in the plans without alleging specific inadequacies. Lists of communications, and emergency supplies are included in local plans. See, ed., Callaway County /Fulton SOP, pp. 7-2 through 7-4 (communications), p. 14-10 (emergency supplies),
p.10-5(lawenforcement). Mr. Reed offers no indication of why these provisions are inadequate. Radiation monitoring is not included in local plans, but Mr. Reed does not explain why this is necessary. The Staff reiterates the views it expressed in responding to Contention 1(i)(1),
supra. Contention 3(17) should be rejected.
The Staff finds Contention 3(18) vague. The State Plan (at p. BRH-10) indicates that local EOC's will receive radiological data. We don't know whether Mr. Reed objects to the type of data called for, or whether his objection lies someplace else. The contention should be rejected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(19). Criterion I.7 does not require that local capability for field monitoring exist.
Since Mr. Reed does not identify any objections to the field monitoring that is called for in the State Plan, his contention does not present any litigable issue.
The Staff response to Contention 3(20) as it relates to local capability is the same as its response for Contention 3(19). There is no
. requirement that the local capabiilty called for in the contention exist, nor does Mr. Reed provide any basis for the imposition of such a requirement.
The State Plan does provide for radiological monitoring.
If Mr. Reed wishes to assert specific defects regarding the State's capability, he should do so. The contention should be rejected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(21) as lacking basis. The State has indicated that iodine monitoring will be performed "by the DOE through implementation of IRAP." State RERP, p. A2-B2. Mr. Reed has not indicated why he believes the State's reliance on the Department of Energy will be inadequate. The contention should be rejected.
In Contention 3(22), Mr. Reed asserts that no " separate procedures" are included in the State Plan to meet the requirements of Criterion I.10.
The State Plan addresses Criterion I.10 at pages B12-B16.
Instead of including " separate procedures" to explain how to use the provisions for calculating exposure, the State Plan uses example problems and solutions.
Mr. Reed does not explain why this is inadequate in any way.
Contention 3(22) has no basis and should be rejected.
The Staff has no objection to Contention 3(23).
The Staff does object to Contention 3(24). Mr. Reed provides no basis for the assertion that such information must be included in State or local plans. Mr. Reed does not challenge the provisions in Applicant's plan in this regard. The contention is without basis and should be rejected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(25). The Applicant's plan addresses this requirement at pp. 5-8 through 5-11.
If Mr. Reed objects to this section of the plan, he should address specific inadequacies and provide his bases therefor. A vague contention such as this that ignores material
. in the plans intended to cover the subject of the contention is simply unacceptable.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(26). There is no requirement that local capability exist to take protective measures regarding human and animal food. While Mr. Reed alleges that no " specific actions" are defined in the State RERP, he fails to address the material in the State Plan designed to meet Criterion J.9.
Again, if Mr. Reed has specific complaints about inadequacies in a plan, he should address the relevant provisions of the plan and explain why they are inadequate. He has not done so here. The contention should be rejected.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention3(27).
TheStaffobjectstoContention3(28). Provisions for transportation of persons with impaired mobility are included in local plans. See, eg., Callaway/Fulton SOP, pp. 9-1 through 9-4.
If Mr. Reed finds the transportation measures insufficient or wishes to assert that other pro-tective measures are required, he must so state and provide a basis therefor. He has not done so.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention3(29),justasitdidnot objecttoContentions1(j)(1)and1(j)(3).
It does suggest that Contention 3(29) be consolidated with the other two contentions.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(30). Again, Mr. Reed has not referenced the section in the plans that deal with this matter (Callaway Off-Site Plan, p. 9-4).
He does not explain why this section is in-adequate in any way in fulfilling the requirements of Criterion J.10.k.
The contention has no basis and should be rejected.
. The Staff does not object to the admission of Contention 3(31) ad-dressing the lack of time estimates in State and local plans. However, the Staff notes that such estimates are part of Applicant's Plari (Appendix I) and Mr. Reed has not objected to the contents of such estimates.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(32). Again, Mr. Reed ignores the section of the State Plan (pp. B6 through Bil) that deals with this matter.
If he has specific criticisms, he should have provided them. The contention should be rejected.
The Staff poses a similar objection to Contention 3(33). These matters are covered in the plans, and no specific inadequacies are pin-pointed by Mr. Reed.
TheStaffobjectstoContention3(34). The State plan does in fact provide for dose measuring capability (pp. BRH-5, D-4), as does the Callaway Offsite Plan (p. 10-1). No specific inadequacies are alleged, nor does Mr. Reed provide any basis for the assertion that local capability is needed as well. The contention has no basis and must be rejected.
The Staff does not object to Contention 3(35).
The Staff does not object to Contention 3(36).
The Staff does not object to Conention 3(37), but suggests that it be merged with Contention 1(i)(4).
The Staff objects to Contention 3(38). This matter is addressed in the Callaway Offsite Plan, pp. 11-1 through 11-5. Mr. Reed has not ad-dressed this coverage and does not explain why (or even assert that) it is inadequate. The contention lacks basis and should be rejected.
. The Staff objects to Contention 3(39) on the same grounds as its earlier objection to Contention 1(m)(1).
The Staff objects to Contention 3(40). Criterion M.3 requires that plans "specify means for informing members of the response organizations that a recovery operation is to be initiated, and of any changes in the organizational structure that may occur." It does not require an assess-ment of "what radiation levels recovery response is possible/ practical" asallegedinContention3(40). The State Plan does provide the infor-mation required by Criterion M.3.
See State Plan at p. 13. Again, Mr. Reed has not challenged the provisions of the State Plan. The con-tention should be rejected as lacking basis.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(41). The State Plan addresses this matter at Page B2. Mr. Reed does not explain why the State's treatment of the matter is inadequate, or why local estimates are required. This contention lacks basis and should be rejected.
Contention 3(42) is the same as Contention 1(n). The Staff does not object to this contention.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(43). The matter of exercises is covered in Section 16 of the SOP's. Mr. Reed has not questioned this treatment. His contention is without basis and is factually incorrect.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(44). Criterion N.4 does not require that observers be identified by name or title. Observers are provided for at Page 13-2 of the Offsite Plan. Again Mr. Reed has ignored specific provisions in the plans. This contention is without basis and should be rejected.
L.
l
- i The Staff objects to Contention 3(45) for the same reason. See Page 13-2 of the Offsite Plan.
Contention 3(46) is identical to Contention 1(o) to which the Staff previously objected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(47) on the same grounds as its objection to most of the alleged planning inadequacies. Mr. Reed has again ignored the plans. The contention is without basis and should be rejected.
The Staff objects to Contention 3(48). Nothing on page 2-4, Appendix 2 of NUREG-0654 can be construed as requiring local or State capability for remote interrogation of meteorological data and effluent transport and diffusion estimates. This contention has no basis and should be rejected.
TheStaffdoesnotobjecttoContention3(49).
TheStaffobjectstoContention3(50). As is the case with Contention 3(48), Mr. Reed is misinterpreting the cited portion of Appendix 5 to NUREG-0654.
In fact, there is no such requirement as the one asserted in this contention. The contention has no basis and should be rejected.
In conclusion, the Staff accepts (in whole or in part) Reed Contentions 1(f)(1)(a),1(f)(2)(a),1(h)(2),1(i)(2),1(i)(3),1(i)(4),
1(i)(5),1(j)(1),1(j)(2),1(j)(3),1(j)(4),1(k)(1),1(1)(3),1(1)(4),
i
. 1(n),2,3(23),3(27),3(29),3(31),3(35),3(36),3(37),3(42),and3(49).
It objects to the remainder of Mr. Reed's contentions.
Respectfully submitted, w 4-Robert G. Perlis Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of July, 1982.
i i
i i
..__._.,_m...__..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
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 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO FINAL PARTICULARIZATION OF REED'S EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States j
mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 23rd day of July, 1982.
James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Barbara Shull Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lenore Loeb 513 Gilmoure Drive League of Women Voters of Missouri Silver Spring, MD 20901 2138 Woodson Road St. Louis, M0 63114 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Marjorie Reilly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Energy Chairman of the League of Washington, DC 20555 Women Voters of Univ. City, MO 7065 Pershing Avenue Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
University City, MO 63130 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. John G. Reed 1800 M Street, N.W.
Rt. 1 Washington, DC 20036 Kingdom City, M0 65262 Dan I. Bolef A. Scott Cauger, Esq.
President, Board of Directors Assistant General Counsel for the Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Public Service Commission St. Louis Region P.O. Box 360 6267 Delmar Boulevard Jefferson City, M0 65101 University City, MO 63130
Donald Bollinger, Member Rose Levering, Member Missourians for Safe Energy Crawdad Alliance 6267 Delmar Boulevard 7370a Dale Avenue University City, M0 63130 St. Louis, MO 63117 Mr. Fred Luekey Kenneth M. Chackes Presiding Judge, Montgomery County Chackes and Hoare Rural Route Attorney for Joint Intervenors Rhineland, MO 65069 314 N. Broadway St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Mayor Howard Steffen Chamois, MO 65024 Professor William H. Miller Mr. Earl Brown Missouri Kansas Section, School District Superintendent American Nuclear Society P.O. Box 9 Department of Nuclear Engineering Kingdom City, MO 65262 1026 Engineering Building University of Missouri Mr. Samuel J. Birk Columbia, MO 65211 R.R. #1, Box 243 Morrison, MO 65061 Mr. Harold Lottman Presiding Judge, Dasconade County Robert G. Wright Rt. 1 Associate Judge, Eastern District Owensville, M0 65066 County Court, Callaway County, Missouri Eric A. Eisen, Esq.
Route #1 Birch, Horton, Bittner and Monroe Fulton, MO 65251 Suite 1100 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20036 Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Docketing and Service Section*
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 h
Robert G. Perlis Cou/isel for NRC Staff
/
l l
j