|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20083Q3671984-04-18018 April 1984 Supplemental Contention Re Applicant Financial Qualification to Construct & Operate Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070M7081983-01-20020 January 1983 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Jg Reed Emergency Plan Contention 11(B)(2).Contention Lacks Basis,Is at Odds W/Nrc Regulation & Guidance on recovery/re-entry & Would Be Counterproductive to Public Protection.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066C3801982-11-0303 November 1982 Rebuttal to NRC 821025 Response to Jg Reed 821001 Amended Contentions.Disagrees W/Nrc Objections to Admission of Contentions 7,11,12 & 14 & Portions of 3,13 & 15.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065U0181982-10-23023 October 1982 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 ML20065M7041982-10-18018 October 1982 Objections to Jg Reed 821001 Particularization of Contentions 11 & 12.Contention 11 Seeks Greater Specificity Re Emergency Planning for re-entry & Recovery than Specified by Regulations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065J7621982-10-0101 October 1982 Final Particularization of J Reed Amended Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20064N9901982-09-0707 September 1982 Amend to 820714 Response to Intervenor Jg Reed Final Particularization of Reed Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20058E2351982-07-23023 July 1982 Response Accepting in Part & Objecting in Part,Final Particularization of J Reed Emergency Planning Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5281982-06-28028 June 1982 Final Particularization of Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004D0381981-06-0101 June 1981 Further Particularization of Intervenor Reed Contentions 1 & 3,per 810421 Special Prehearing Conference Order. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2401981-04-0707 April 1981 Amended Response to Intervenor Contention 2 on Facility Releases in Light of ASLB 810205 Order & 810325 Amends to 10CFR20.Inadequate Basis for Contention 2F Provided. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19341D7211981-03-24024 March 1981 Revises Joint Intervenors' 810306 Contentions 1 & 2. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G5891981-03-24024 March 1981 Response in Opposition to Joint Intervenors' Contention 2 Re Radioactive Release,Save for Portions Dealing W/Drinking Water & Deterioration of Spent Fuel Pool.Remainder of Contention Is Either Repetitious or Too General ML19350C6401981-03-20020 March 1981 Response to Intervenor Jg Reed 801023 & 810326 Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions.Contention 4 Is Acceptable. Contention 2 Is Impermissible Attack on Regulations. Contentions 1 & 3 Must Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347D3051981-03-0606 March 1981 Amended & Supplemental Joint Petition to Intervene, Originally Filed on 800925.Standing Requirements for K Drey & Contentions to Be Litigated Set Forth ML19340D3911980-12-19019 December 1980 Petition to Intervene,Submitted by ANS MO-KS Section,Re Issuance of Facility Ol.Soc Members Are Concerned as Citizens & Profs in Energy Matters & Are Aware of Current Natl Crisis.Resumes of Wh Miller & W Meyer Encl ML19340E9141980-12-0808 December 1980 Requests Intervenor Status in Proceeding ML19345B2901980-11-18018 November 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC 801110 Response to Jg Reed Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Review Contention 2 in Light of Change in 10CFR50.33(g) Re Emergency Plans. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339C3271980-11-10010 November 1980 Response in Opposition to Coalition for Environ,St Louis Region,Missourians for Safe Energy,Crawdad Alliance & K Drey 801025 Addendum to 800925 Joint Petition to Intervene.No New Info Presented Re Palpable Harm.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339B8501980-11-0505 November 1980 Response Stating No Objection to Jg Reed 801023 Amended Petition to Intervene Demonstrating Standing.Reserves Right to Contest 801023 Outlined Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19336A5631980-10-25025 October 1980 Addendum to 800925 Petition to Intervene.W/Certificate of Svc & Affidavits of Members of Coalition for Environ,Crawdad Alliance & Missourians for Safe Energy in Support of Intervention ML19338G4731980-10-22022 October 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Questioning Applicant Financial Capability to Implement Requirements.Nineteen Affidavits of Interested Citizens, Supporting Documents,Certificate of Svc & Appearance Encl ML19338F6051980-10-14014 October 1980 Response in Opposition to Jg Reed 800922 Petition to Intervene.Requirements of 10CFR2.714 Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19351C8791980-10-0303 October 1980 Response in Opposition to League of Women Voters 800918 & 19 Requests for Public Hearing.Requirements Re Standing & Interest Not Met.Purely Economic Interest as Taxpayers Not Sufficient Per ALAB-470.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347A9611980-09-25025 September 1980 Response in Opposition to Jg Reed Sept 1980 Petition Requesting Deferral of OL Issuance Until Local Emergency Response Is Adequately Operational.Intervention Defective, But Limited Appearance Feasible.Certificate of Svc Encl 1984-04-18
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20083Q3671984-04-18018 April 1984 Supplemental Contention Re Applicant Financial Qualification to Construct & Operate Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070M7081983-01-20020 January 1983 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Jg Reed Emergency Plan Contention 11(B)(2).Contention Lacks Basis,Is at Odds W/Nrc Regulation & Guidance on recovery/re-entry & Would Be Counterproductive to Public Protection.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066C3801982-11-0303 November 1982 Rebuttal to NRC 821025 Response to Jg Reed 821001 Amended Contentions.Disagrees W/Nrc Objections to Admission of Contentions 7,11,12 & 14 & Portions of 3,13 & 15.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065U0181982-10-23023 October 1982 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 ML20065M7041982-10-18018 October 1982 Objections to Jg Reed 821001 Particularization of Contentions 11 & 12.Contention 11 Seeks Greater Specificity Re Emergency Planning for re-entry & Recovery than Specified by Regulations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065J7621982-10-0101 October 1982 Final Particularization of J Reed Amended Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20064N9901982-09-0707 September 1982 Amend to 820714 Response to Intervenor Jg Reed Final Particularization of Reed Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20058E2351982-07-23023 July 1982 Response Accepting in Part & Objecting in Part,Final Particularization of J Reed Emergency Planning Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054L5281982-06-28028 June 1982 Final Particularization of Contentions 1,2 & 3.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20004D0381981-06-0101 June 1981 Further Particularization of Intervenor Reed Contentions 1 & 3,per 810421 Special Prehearing Conference Order. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19350D2401981-04-0707 April 1981 Amended Response to Intervenor Contention 2 on Facility Releases in Light of ASLB 810205 Order & 810325 Amends to 10CFR20.Inadequate Basis for Contention 2F Provided. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19341D7211981-03-24024 March 1981 Revises Joint Intervenors' 810306 Contentions 1 & 2. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19345G5891981-03-24024 March 1981 Response in Opposition to Joint Intervenors' Contention 2 Re Radioactive Release,Save for Portions Dealing W/Drinking Water & Deterioration of Spent Fuel Pool.Remainder of Contention Is Either Repetitious or Too General ML19350C6401981-03-20020 March 1981 Response to Intervenor Jg Reed 801023 & 810326 Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions.Contention 4 Is Acceptable. Contention 2 Is Impermissible Attack on Regulations. Contentions 1 & 3 Must Be Amended.W/Certificate of Svc ML19347D3051981-03-0606 March 1981 Amended & Supplemental Joint Petition to Intervene, Originally Filed on 800925.Standing Requirements for K Drey & Contentions to Be Litigated Set Forth ML19340D3911980-12-19019 December 1980 Petition to Intervene,Submitted by ANS MO-KS Section,Re Issuance of Facility Ol.Soc Members Are Concerned as Citizens & Profs in Energy Matters & Are Aware of Current Natl Crisis.Resumes of Wh Miller & W Meyer Encl ML19340E9141980-12-0808 December 1980 Requests Intervenor Status in Proceeding ML19345B2901980-11-18018 November 1980 Response in Opposition to NRC 801110 Response to Jg Reed Amended Petition to Intervene.Nrc Should Review Contention 2 in Light of Change in 10CFR50.33(g) Re Emergency Plans. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339C3271980-11-10010 November 1980 Response in Opposition to Coalition for Environ,St Louis Region,Missourians for Safe Energy,Crawdad Alliance & K Drey 801025 Addendum to 800925 Joint Petition to Intervene.No New Info Presented Re Palpable Harm.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19339B8501980-11-0505 November 1980 Response Stating No Objection to Jg Reed 801023 Amended Petition to Intervene Demonstrating Standing.Reserves Right to Contest 801023 Outlined Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19336A5631980-10-25025 October 1980 Addendum to 800925 Petition to Intervene.W/Certificate of Svc & Affidavits of Members of Coalition for Environ,Crawdad Alliance & Missourians for Safe Energy in Support of Intervention ML19338G4731980-10-22022 October 1980 Amended Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Questioning Applicant Financial Capability to Implement Requirements.Nineteen Affidavits of Interested Citizens, Supporting Documents,Certificate of Svc & Appearance Encl ML19338F6051980-10-14014 October 1980 Response in Opposition to Jg Reed 800922 Petition to Intervene.Requirements of 10CFR2.714 Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19351C8791980-10-0303 October 1980 Response in Opposition to League of Women Voters 800918 & 19 Requests for Public Hearing.Requirements Re Standing & Interest Not Met.Purely Economic Interest as Taxpayers Not Sufficient Per ALAB-470.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19347A9611980-09-25025 September 1980 Response in Opposition to Jg Reed Sept 1980 Petition Requesting Deferral of OL Issuance Until Local Emergency Response Is Adequately Operational.Intervention Defective, But Limited Appearance Feasible.Certificate of Svc Encl 1984-04-18
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20212K8711999-09-30030 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Elimination of Requirements for Noncombustible Fire Barriers Penetration Seal Matls ULNRC-04117, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines 10CFR50.72 & 50.731999-09-22022 September 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines 10CFR50.72 & 50.73 ML20217M2091998-03-19019 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds Amended Requirements. NRC Justification for Avoiding Backfit Analysis,Nonstantial.Backfit Analysis,As Required by Law as Mandatory for Proposed Rule Changes ML20217J9691997-10-16016 October 1997 Order Approving Application Re Corporate Merger Agreement Between Union Electric Co & Cipsco,Inc to Form Holding Company.Commission Ordered to Approve Subj Application ML20148N0511997-06-19019 June 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Bulletin 96-001,Suppl 1, CR Insertion Problems ML20140G1691997-06-0606 June 1997 Requests Extension of Comment Period Expiration Date from 970619 to 970719,for Comments on Control Rod Insertion Problems ML20077E9041994-12-0202 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re TS Improvements. Advises That PSA Portion of Fourth Criterion Should Be Clarified to Include Only Those Equipment Items Important to risk-significant Sequences as Defined in GL 88-20,App 2 ML20071L1951994-07-21021 July 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Changes to fitness-for-duty Requirements.Urges NRC to Revise Scope of 10CFR26 to Limit Random Drug & Alcohol Testing to Only Workers Who Have Unescorted Access to Vital Areas at NPP ML20065D3851994-03-22022 March 1994 Comment on Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Systems, 10CFR50.72 & 50.73 ML20113H4281992-07-23023 July 1992 Comment Commending Proposed Suppl One to GL 83-28 4.2.3 & 4.2.4 Closing All GL 83-28 Actions for Callaway But Staff Conclusion Should Be Expanded ML20101P4091992-06-26026 June 1992 Comment Supporting low-level Radwaste After Treatment to Reduce Volume & Represents Safest,Most Cost Effective Solution ML20091F9501991-12-0202 December 1991 Submits Comments Opposing Draft NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73. Licensee Feels That Changes to Intial NUREG-1022 Increases Util Expenses W/O Improving Public Health & Safety ML20058D2741990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20058N9891990-08-0101 August 1990 Comment Re Proposed Rules 10CFR20,30,40 & 70, Notifications of Incidents. Language of Rule Should Be Clarified by Referring to Applicable Reporting Requirements of 10CFR50.72 & 73 for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors ML20063Q1771990-07-0606 July 1990 Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to Fsar.Revs Should Be Driven by Circumstances Rather than by Arbitrary Time Schedule ML20235V9301989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Endorses NUMARC Comments.Major Concern Is Lack of Demonstrated Need for Rule Since Most Utils Already Have Effective Maint Programs ML20235T7901989-02-20020 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Establishment of Programs for Operators to Earn Degress Would Be Expensive ML20235T7011989-02-17017 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Which Require Degrees of Senior Operators & Shift Supervisors.Both Alternatives Would Contribute to Lower Morale Among Reactor Operators ML20195J3191988-11-25025 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Policy of Yearly Testing & Testing for Cause,Backed Up by Training for Drug Prevention Supported ML20195E8561988-10-28028 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Renewal of Licenses ML20133B7711985-08-0202 August 1985 Response to 850705 Petitioner Response in Opposition to Util Request That Show Cause Order Not Be Issued.Util Actions Demonstrate Dedication to QA & Safe Plant Operation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128K2111985-07-0505 July 1985 Response Opposing Util Request That Show Cause Order Not Be Issued.Requests NRC Independent Investigation & Suspension or Revocation of OL During Period of Investigation ML20129H7511985-06-0606 June 1985 Response to Missouri Coalition for Environ & K Drey 850325 Show Cause Petition Requesting Suspension or Revocation of OL Due to Questionable QC Inspector Certification.Denial of Petition Recommended.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20129H7741985-06-0505 June 1985 Affidavit of DF Schnell Re Issues Raised in Missouri Coalition for Environ & K Drey Petition to Show Cause Requesting Suspension or Revocation of Ol.Root Causes of Questionable QC Certifications Addressed ML20100F4301985-03-25025 March 1985 Show Cause Petition Requesting Suspension or Revocation of License NPF-30,due to Failure to Comply W/Qa Regulations & Guidelines Re Proper Training of QA Personnel ML20092H1141984-06-22022 June 1984 Answer Opposing Petitioners 840613 Instant Motion for Order Setting Aside or Staying Permit for Ol.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197H4321984-06-13013 June 1984 Motion for Commission Order Setting Aside Low Power Testing Permit Granted on 840611,or in Alternative,Stay to Permit & Prohibit Taking of Any Action.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20091R6401984-06-13013 June 1984 Request That Commission Enter Order Setting Aside Low Power Testing Permit Allegedly Granted on or About 840611,due to Joint Intervenors 840418 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Contention ML20084G1561984-05-0303 May 1984 Answer Opposing Coalition for Environ,Missourians for Safe Energy & Crawdad Alliance 840418 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Contention Re Financial Qualifications of Util. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084G1791984-05-0303 May 1984 Affidavit of Cw Mueller Re Financial Integrity of Util ML20084G1731984-05-0202 May 1984 Affidavit of DF Schnell Re Financial Stability of Util ML20083Q3671984-04-18018 April 1984 Supplemental Contention Re Applicant Financial Qualification to Construct & Operate Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083Q3521984-04-18018 April 1984 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Contention Re Financial Qualification of Applicant to Construct & Operate Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083Q2601984-04-18018 April 1984 Notice of Appearance of LC Green & Withdrawal of KM Chackes as Counsel for Intervenors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082A6631983-11-15015 November 1983 Comments on NRC & Applicant Responses to Aslab 831020 Order Requesting Addl Info.Responses Contain Nothing More than Description of Activities & Conclusion of No Safety Significance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082B4641983-11-15015 November 1983 Comments on Applicant & NRC Responses to Aslab 831020 Memorandum & Order Re Safety of Manually Welded Embedded Plates.Appointment of Independent Expert Requested. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078P7131983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Aslab 831020 Memorandum & Order for Addl Info on Observation 4-1 of Integrated Design Insp Program Rept Re Original Design Floor Response Spectra.Spectra Have No Safety Significance.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078P7251983-11-0303 November 1983 Affidavit of Ew Thomas Re Revised Design Response Spectra ML20081C3031983-10-27027 October 1983 Reply to Reed 831006 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Contention 6.Findings Mischaracterized Fda Recommendation & Position of Applicant & State of Mo. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078H1751983-10-12012 October 1983 Response to Joint Intervenors 830823 Petition for Reconsideration of ASLB 830914 Decision ALAB-740. Insufficient Showing Made to Justify Reopening Record. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080Q4471983-10-0606 October 1983 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080M6381983-09-29029 September 1983 Motion for Extension to File,W/Commission,Petition for Review of Aslab 830914 Decision ALAB-740.Extension Should Be Granted Until 15 Days After Aslab Rules on Joint Intervenors 830923 Reconsideration Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078B4981983-09-23023 September 1983 Petition for Reconsideration of 830914 Decision ALAB-740 in Light of New Evidence Re Adequacy of Applicant QA Program. Many Items Remain Open in Integrated Design Insp Program Rept.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078B8201983-09-23023 September 1983 Proposed Corrections to 830913 Evidentiary Hearing Transcript.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078B8151983-09-23023 September 1983 Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Proposed Initial Decision ML20024E8211983-08-31031 August 1983 Comments on Applicant Response to Aslab 830815 Order Re Failure to Provide Safe SA-312 Piping & Adequate QA Program.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080C6991983-08-24024 August 1983 Testimony of Ng Slaten in Response to Reed Contentions 6 & 16 Re Protective Actions Against Radioiodines & Messages W/Instructions for long-term Sheltering.Related Correspondence ML20080C7141983-08-24024 August 1983 Testimony of Kv Miller in Response to Reed Contention 6 Re Protective Actions Against Radioiodines.State of Mo Decided Not to Administer Potassium Iodide to General Public Based on Federal Guidance & Weighing of Advantages/Disadvantages ML20080C7121983-08-24024 August 1983 Testimony of Re Linnemann in Response to Reed Contentions 6 & 16 Re Protective Actions Against Radioiodines & Messages W/Instructions for long-term Sheltering.Related Correspondence ML20080C7061983-08-24024 August 1983 Testimony of DF Paddleford in Response to Reed Contentions 6 & 16 Re Protective Actions Against Radioiodines & Messages W/Instructions for long-term Sheltering.Related Correspondence 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
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
- 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
/ J ohn G. Reed Citizen of the United States of America
- - - __ _