ML20066C380

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

ML20066C380
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	11/03/1982
From:	Jeffrey Reed REED, J.G.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211090483
Download: ML20066C380 (8)

Text

--

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' NUCLEAR REX;ULATORY COMMISSION 00CHETED USNRC BEFORE THE A'N)MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) '82 NOV -8 A11 :2'/

)

UNION ELECTRIC COHPANY -

Docket No. STN 50'483 -a OL cECRLTARv xuCCMEllf4G & SERVIC"E (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) ) BRANCH REED'S REBUTTAL TO STAFF RESPONSE RELATING TO CCNTENTIONS FILED 01 OCTOBER 1982 On 25 October, the NRC Staff filed its response to Reed's amended contentions, objecting to the admission of Contentions 7, 11, 12, 14, and in part to Contentions 3, 13, and 15. The undersigned does not agree with Staff recommendations or-the basis for its actions. Mr.

Reed will explain his disagreement with Staff comments below using the same format used by Staff to sinplify identification of Contentions.,

3. - Staffing--Emergency Management Director Staff objects to the part of this contention on the basis that the undersigned has provided no reason to believe that volunteers will not, in fact, accept this position with all its responsibilities. Staff counsel has offered no viable information that challenges Mr. Reed's statements, except to call them,nothing but speculation, without basis!

Staff has offered " speculation" as its basis for recommendation to

! disallow this portion of the contention. It is a connon practice in our society for a person to receive remuneration for his or her services.

Mr. Reed's ccritenticn is based upon that premise, and has been supported.

ih part, by the recent resignation of the Gasconade County Emergency Management Director, who resigned because of the potential work-load of the position. If Staff can produce a list of names of " qualified" persons who are waiting to fill these positions in the four counties and will 8211090483 821103 PDR ADOCK 05000483 G PDR 3)$d3

3

- 2. -

t perform all of the duties enumerated in the proposed plans without pay, s; Mr. Reed'will have no further objections to Staff recommendation as regards this part of Contention 3.

7. Pre-Sited Decontamination Facilities Staff objects to this contention because it knows of no requirement that decantamination centers be pre-sited. The undersigned sees this

~

requirement embodied in 10 CFR, Part 50, section 50.47(b) which mandates at (1) that "(P)rimary responsibilities - - have been assigned, - - -

responsibilities - - have been specifically established - "; at (8) that

"(A)dequate emergency facilities and equipment - - are provided and maintained"; at (10) that "(A) range of protective actions have been developed for - - -the public"; at (11) (M)eans for controlling radio-logical exposures - - - are established - - "; and at (12) in that

" Arrangements are made for. medical services for contaminated injured individuals". The Commission has specified that the overall objective of emergency. response planning is to provide dose savings and in some cases life saving for a spectrum of nuclear plant accidents. Unless it is the intent of the Consnission to provide planning that excludes some consideration for the safety of those that are contaminated.(externally and internally) but who have no other physical injury; the pre-siting of decontamination facilities is necessary. Identification of shower units at schools acting as relocation centers for evacuees is simple and could serve as sites for simple external decontamination. For these reasons, it is felt that Mr. Reed's Contention 7 is valid, appropriate and should not be rejected by the Board.

)

e

~

11. ReentryAlecovery Staff objects to this contention as being without regulatory basis.

This is based upon the undersigned's use of the word " specific" in the preparation of the contention. The regulation, at 50.47(b)(13) does, in fact, call for (G)eneral plans; however, even " general plans" aust have some specificity or they are not plans, but merely a statement (s) that provides no direction to the accomplishment of a desired function.

Mr. Reed's contention is based upon the lack of direction which is provided by the proposed local plans. The Commission has established the criteria for plans by stating that they should make clear "what is I to be done in an emergency, how it is 'to be done and by whom". (NUREG 0654,J). Failure of the proposed plans to meet this criteria is due tospecificityregardingreentry/ recovery. It is understood that the

, NRC Staff may prefer not to litigate this issue for unspecified reasons, 4

but it has not provided a valid reason to reject this contention, other than to present Mr. Reed's use of the word " specific" as its basis for t

recommendation. The undersigned respectfully requests that the Board disregard the Staff recommendation as relates to this contention.

12. Funding The Staff objects to this contention based upon it being beyond the scope of this licensing proceeding. While Mr. Reed has refused to reword this contention so that it suits Staff Counsel, he feels it is suitably phrased to meet.the standards for a contention and will be the basis for his presentation of a case involving the " state of offsite emergency preparedness" as it relates to local governnents inpacted by the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.and an absence of adequate funding.

4

. l The Connaission recognises emergency planning as equivalent to, rather than as secondary to, siting and design in public protection and that such departs from its prior regulatory approach to such I

planning (see 44 FR 75167, Rationale for Change,19 Dec. '79) and must insist on the same degree of policy and regulat,ory compliance as it does in siting and design requirements. The Consnissica has recognized, repeatedly, that " funding" is an issue in providing and upgrading local government's radiological emergency response capabilities. The NRC's organic statutes provide it with an unique degree of discretion in the execution of its functions and Congress, when it enacted 42 USC 2236, nust have envisioned that licensing standards, especially in the areas of health and safety regulations, would vary over time as more was -

learned about the hazards of generating nuclear energy. Insofar as ,

those standards became more demanding, Congress surely would have wanted i

the new standards, if the Consnission deemed it appropriate. With such ,'

capability, the NRC has the internal power to expand, reduce or nullify j existingregulationand/orenactnewregulationswhichsuperscedethe i

previous ones. As such, emergency planning standards can:be discarded in the face of inadequate funding and an alternative of double containment could be required and be found fully ento.rceable by the NRC.

Mr. Reed is not interested in who provides funds, only that adequate funds are not availabl'e now. His contention is suitably framed to meet the legal standards of the Consnission, and permits the undersigned to present a simple case which proves funding inadequacies. As such it is within the scope of this hearing, though perhaps an embarrassment to Staff, and it is requested that Staff's recommendation be rejected.

._ _ __ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . -

r-13 Organizations Requiring SOP's Counsel objects to the part of this contention as relates to local governments and cites the requirement of NURED 0654, Planning Standard A.l.b as non-regulatory. The standards enumerated in NUREG 0654 are those specified in 10 CFR, Section 50.47(b) and are addressed by the specific criteria by which the standard was and is forslated (see footnote #1, Section 50.47(b) of 10 CFR). Under the authority of the basic regulation, the planning standards in NUREG 0654 have legal standing and met be deemed to be additional clarification of the basic, generalised standards listed in 50 47(b).

Local plans are being prepared by the Applicant (albeit without the formal permission of tne local governments involved) and the Applicant is controlling the detail in such plans in a manner which appears to be directed toward reducing any potential expense it might be; expected to

~

incur in the response efforts of local governments and encouraging local officials to accept such plans without ~ full knowledge of all of the actions included in maintenance and operations contained therein.

Said incorporated towns are legally constituted local governmental I

entities, under Missouri law, and met be included in the planning

(

process; as such, they met have some formal standard operating procedure l

by which they can be guided in protecting their citizens in the event of a radiological emergency at the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.

Additionally, a response capability is based upon the use of people, and said towns have that resource. Mr. Reed believes Staff comments and recommendations are not applicable and are in contradiction to Comission l

- 4 regulation and policy intent, thsrefore, this contention chould bs .

retained. -

~

14. Incorporated Cities. Towns and Villages Staff Counsel claims that this contention is without basis and should be rejected. His selective deterndnation that the incorporated towns of Mokane, Chamois, Morrison, Gasconade, and Rhineland can be eliminated from the p1maning process because of a lack of equipment and formally organized response forces is completely without basis. in Conadssion regulations. The regulations specifically call for the radiological emergency response plans of State and local movernmentd entities in the United States that are wholly or partially within the Plnis exposuse pathway EPZ (see 50 33(g)). Nowhere in regulations is a provision made to exclude a local governmental entity on the basis of:

lack of equipannt or response capability, quite to the contrary, the Commission has recognised that just such a situation may.have the potential to restrict plant operations (see 45 FR 55402)(- ' the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule through inaction of State and local' governments or an inability to comply with these rules.) Mr.

l .

Reed's contention is within the scope of this hearing and is supported by Commission regulation) it should be retained and Staff recommendations should be rejected as without legal basis, since all towns are legally ,

i incorporated local governmental entities as required by regulation.

15. Letters of Agreement j In regards to this contention, Staff claims it it not supported by regulation. Staff give no indication of how participation by any person or group of individuals will be assured, if letters of agreement

(the generally accepted method of validating an agreement to perform an t

t

act) are not required during the planning process. Staff is taking the same stance as has the Applicant, in past meetings) that in the U:lW '%.., ,

i ,Ni, event of an ad,ual emergency, a large number of people will magically appear (all fully trained and equipped to function within a radiole gical environment, if needed) to fulfill the many tasks required by the plans.

Staff has failed to indicate what force exists in law to give civil /

government ecplcyers the powers to make an employee perform duties outsida the functions of the job for which the person was hired or in an environment that is dangerous to said enployees health and safety.

In the absence of such force in law, or an effective alternate to the personnel availability count provided by letters of agreement; Staff recommendation to dmp this contentim has neither basis in law or' fact.and should be rejected by the Board.

- Additionally, Staff has not indicated how personnel to be trained in specific response roles will be identified, or how evaluations of

, plans can be adequately performed without accurate manning figures.

Instead, he relies upon a nebulous belief that a trained response j

force will sprout from the earth, like nushrooms, to fulfill all of the

( tasks incident to an emergency response effort if there is an accident at the nuclear power plant. Such concepts indicate a blindness to facts and a n m-professional approach to an effective planning effort.

pectfully sub tt o ,

Dated this 03 day / ohn G. Reed " -

of November, 1982 Citizen of the United States at Kingdom City,10. of America RFD #1 Kingdom City, Missouri 65262 tels (314) 642-2769

T 3

8 UNITED STATES OF AIERICA NUCLEAR REGULA70RY CO!O2SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFE 7Y.AND LICENSING BOARD UDh

" C In the Matter of ) g .8 $ N UNIQi ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. S1N 50-483 Ag

) cmCE af SELy)vICE (Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

DCDU[d[CH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

I hereby certify that the document attached hereto was served this M3d ay d of Ymd,1982 by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class posta6e prepaid upon the following:

James P. Gleascn, Erquire 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 Corrrission 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 o

• hand delivered John G. Reed Citizen of the United States l of America l

l 4