ML20065U018

Rebuttal to Util 821018 Objections to Contentions 11 & 12. Commission Has Interest in Assuring re-entry or Recovery Accomplished by Protecting Public Health & Safety. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065U018
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	10/23/1982
From:	Jeffrey Reed REED, J.G.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211030341
Download: ML20065U018 (9)

Text

g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- NUCLEAR RMULAT0lY COMMISSION OLKETED BEF(RE 'lHE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 1RC In the Matter of )

) '82 OCT 29 m1:23 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483 OL

) . ,,. - - cRETAR#

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) ) f0 bli[I SERVICE ERM!CH M1. REED'S REBUTTAL TO APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTIONS 11 AND 12 On 18 October 1982, Applicant submitted objections to Mr. Reed's contentions numbered 11 and 12 The undersigned disagrees with the Applicant's basis for objection and its purported defenses for the following reasons:

CONTENTION 11 Applicant's objection to Contention 11, is based upon the fact that 10 CFR, Section 50.47(b)(13) requires that (g)eneral plans for recovery and reentry are developed. Further, that Contention 11 lacks any legal or factual basis (see Applicant's objection, page 2).

Mr. Reed agrees with Applicant that the objective of NRC's emergency preparedness requirements is to protect the public health and gafety, and he, also, concurs with the Applicant that NUREG 0654 does specify that the overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs). Mr. Reed, however, does not agree that the Connission has no interest in assuring that reentry or recovery is accomplished without reguard to the assurance of protecting the public health and safety. The Commission has, for just such a reason, included reentry and recovery as a part of its regulations and a distinct part of its emergency planning standards.

8211030341 821023 PDR ADOCK 050C0483

4 Reentrf'(defined as the return into a previously evacuated area by the residents / land-owners thereof) nust be based upon three phases G. ' fs og f v..

or stages. The first' stage involves reentry, on an extremely limited basis by residents / land-owners, for the purpose of feeding, watering, or otherwise protecting live-stock. This may occur well before existing radiation levels are low enough to permit return of residents on a routine basis and will involve radio-protective measures be taken by entrants. The second phase involves reentry for the purpose of area decontamination,(buildings and grounds, etc.) so that occupancy of said area by radio-sensitive persons (women, pregnant women, children and babies) may take place without endangering their health and safety.

The third phase is the reentry for the purpose of plowing under or otherwise removing surface contamination so tnat such radionuclide contamination is precluded from being resuspended or concentrated by actions of the weather (wind and rain).

Recovery (defined as the return of the area to its pre-accident socio-economic status and.the final reduction of all health problems caused during the accident period) is the period which includes the return of all radio-sensitive persons evacuated from the area, and can such may be ordered selectively by zones within the EPZ or for the entire EPZ as radiological safety may dictate.

The above concepts are general enough to permit lattitude of action, yet they form a basis for a plan. Additionally, they are within the framework of the guidance supplied in NUREG 0654, II, M, 1, which clearly states:

l "Each organization, as appropriate, shall develop ,

general plans and procedures for reentry and recovery l and describe the means by which decisions to relax

. ._--- -. - _- _ _-__.._ ._--____ .- _.._,-,.____m . _ , - ,

protective measures (e.g. allow roentry into an evacuated area) are reached. This process should consider both existing and potential conditims."

Existing local plans are verbose, but lack real guidance.

Applicant's claim that existing plans contain " precise radiological contamination limits" that " ensure that emergency workers and the public do not endanger their health and safety be reentering an evacuated area before it is appropriate to do so" is based upon data so erronerous that even a high school physica student can detect the fault. This type of error is precisely why the undersigned feels that a basic ground contamination level, a reentry time frame, and/or a standard of acceptable radioactive contamination be established in the reentry and recovery portion of the local emergency plans / SOPS. Applicant's error is based upon data;in the local SOPS, Attachment 14.1, CRITERIA Fm CONTAMINATION ZONES (Occupancy Standards), Airborne Radioactivity Concentration (uCi/cc). The airborne radio-concentration is established at 3 nanocuries per cubic centimeter (3 X 10-9) for Beta - Gamma radiation.

This is the equivilent of measuring water by the " loaf" and is an error in standards, since particle / photon emissions from radio-nuclides are not measured in curies or submeasurements of curies. The curic is the special unit of activity (3 7 I 1010 transformations /disintegrationspersecond) and is used to measure the quantity of radio-elements. Its use as a measure of particle / photon activity or intensity is inappropriati. The I

term " disintegrations per second" is not synonymous with particle / photon i

emissions by a radio-isotope. In the case of a pure beta emitter, one curie (3 7 X 1010 dps) does result in 3 7 X 1010 beta emissions per second.

However, in a more comples radio-isotope, Cobalt 60, each disintegration l

is accompanied by the emission of me beta particle and two ganna rays l

_4-or 3'I 3.7 I 1010 (11.1 I 1010) emissions per second.

The Applicant's use of such measurements as a defense of its stand I

is inane and frivilous, since no " precise radiological contamination limit"  !

can be established using erroneous data or measurements.

Applicant's flat statement, on page 4 of its objection, that "-

pose absolutely no health or safety hazard " (emphasis added) is both igroper and without foundation, since use of the word absolutely when applied to human biological effects of exposure to or ingestion of radioactive elements is without merit. The issue of biological effects to moderate and low levels of radiation are being ccntested in the field of medicine and in the courts of this country. ' Additionally, because of the variance in radio-sensitivity of each individual, no absolute rule can be established, because Applicant has not presented medical proof that all individuals who enter (reenter) an area evacuated because of radiological contamination can sustain exposures to any given radiation level without tegorary or permanent injury or long term adverse health effect; its argument is without merit and should be disregarded.

Applicant's footnote "2j" on page 4 of its objections, indicates that local officials will rely heavily on recommendations and information from the State of Missouri Division of Health and Callaway Plant personnel.

Reliance on information provided by such persons is appropriate only if such persons are obtaining field measurements and providing update data regarding radiological conditions within the igacted area. However, to fail, in the planning process, to establish mav4== exposure levels to radiation which will serve as " guide posts" by whi:h local officials can guage their actions is to circumvent the purpose c f th planning process. If reentry is to be accoglished, there naast he some level of contamination at which limited reentry is permissible, at which routine

contamination at which limited reentry is permissible, at which routine reentry can be authorized, and at which rehabitation of the area by the more radio-sensitive members of the public can be accomplished. Since these limits must be established before reentry can begin, it appears, to the undersigned, that their inclusion in the local emergency plans is both appropriate and necessary for the protection of the public health and safety.

The determination of a permissible dose level by officials is a sinple matter of establishing what limits of whole body exposure to the l persons reentering the evacuated area are acceptable, having accurate information as to the intensity of the radiological field to be entered, and by use of the " TIME X FIELD INTENSITY : DOSE" formula, such official can make an informed judgement on his or her own. If such official wants a supportive opinion, he may request such, but does not have to rely solely upon others and become a rubber-stanp for their decisions. The purpose of a plan is to clarify what is to be done, how i' to be done, '

and by whom at some period of time within the context of the plan concept.

To cloak exposure guidelines in local plans or SOPS in terms of meeting l standards set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 (see Montgomery County SOP, Procedure i

1. 14, 5.6 Recovery, 5.6.1,1), as attached to Applicant's objections) is akin to deceit and is meaningless unless the Presiding Judge (in this case) has a copy of the document and understands which measurements apply to a given situation. This is further justification for the retentation of Mr. Reed's Contention number 11.

Because of the failure of the Applicant to present a valid reason for the action it seeks, it is respectfully requested that Applicant's objections be overruled and Mr. Reed's Contention 11 be included in the

i forth coadng hearing in this matter.

CONTENTIN 12 Applicant objects to this emtention because it claims that such is outside the scope of this operating license proceeding. It cites an excerpt from the Licensing Board in the TMI-l restart proceeding which only says thats j (T)he natter of funding for emergency response,

! whether it be funding for the state, the counties or nunicipalities, appears to be a matter beyond the scope and the reach of the NRC's emergency i planning regulations. - - .

Mr. Reed recognizes.that the Applicant is desireous of reducing the number of contentions with which it nust deal, for financial reasons if no other; also, that Contention 12 involves an area that the NRC would perfer to leave unmolested because of possible embarrassment if it is discussed publically. The issue of whether the local (and State) radiological emergency response plans will be capable of being implemented (to which the Applicant did not object) is circumscribed by this contention. A problem was created by the Connission when it adopted emergency planning as a part of it's regulations, because such emergency planning inpacted on entities (States and local govemments) over which the Commission has no control. Additionally, the location of consnercial nuclear power plants in low population areas, increased the problem, because of the limitsd resources available in such areas to provide public services and coincidently meet the standards set by the Comnissica to protect the public health and safety.

If the Commission is to fulfill its primary function to provide for the public health and safety in matters of radiation management, it nust be held accountable for the resolution of problems it creates.

_7

. l The Comission has, in NUREG 0654, created a publication which, if inplemented without mitigation or equivication, will result in emergecy plans (utility's, State's, and local government's) that are l

fully capable of providing for the public health and safety. Such l implementation can be acconplished only with " full funding" at the time such standards are established and over time so that the standard does not atrophy.

When local (or State) governments do not have funds to build or upgrade an existing response capability, their; recourse issoither to -

hold the nuclear utility accountable for supplying needed money or to refuse to upgrade their emergency response capabilities and leave the matter in the hands of the Commission.

In the latter case, the Comission may deny the nuclear utility an operating license or find a reason to issue such a license despite the absence of an emergency response capability. In such a case, the Commission would be in contravention of its own regulations; since the Commission can not violate its own regulations. and must seek to

" bend the regulations" if an operating license is to be issued. In such a case, the provisions of NUREG 0654 could be interpreted by NRC/ FEMA planners as they saw fit, so that emergency planning did not actually interfere with the issuance of a nuclear power plant operating license.

Local governmasts (Callaway, Montgomery, Gasconade and Osage counties and the municipalities within the geographical 10 mile EPZ) are currently being faced with the funding problem. The utility is attenpting to get local officials to acc3pt standards below those specified in NUREG 0654 or to get such officials to agree that a particular standard or criteria does not apply to their county / town. It is becoming a matter of getting

8-just enough of a capability to successfully get through a limited exercise (so that the letter of the regulation is met) and obtaining the consent of the local official that the plans will be signed and accepted.

It will only be possible to prove the validity of this contention by presenting a case at a hearing wherein the absence of " full funding" for the emergency planning effort has resulted in a substandard ability to respond to a nuclear accident and protect the public health and safety.

For the above reasons, it is requested that Mr. Reed's Contention 12 be retained for litigation in this matter.

Respectfully submitted;

,Y d.

Dated this 23rd day John G. Reed of October 1982 in Citizen of the United Statee Kingdom City, M. of America RFD #1 Kingdom City, E. 65262 tel (314) 642-2769

(

l l

l

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00t.gTED BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING"DOARD In the Matter of )

3 m 23 UNICN ELECTRIC CO)PANY ) Docket No. S1W 50-483 (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) [0CNI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

I hereby certify that the document attached hereto was served this

.75 ^ day of Ce/,$,r ,1982 by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid upon the following:

James P. Gleason, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board Panel Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert G. Perlis, 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, MO. 63102 Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• hand delivered A b

/ J ohn G. Reed Citizen of the United States of America

- - - __ _