ML20070M708

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

ML20070M708
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	01/20/1983
From:	Baxter T SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301250305
Download: ML20070M708 (6)

Text

January 20, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U$K{TJO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "v BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 4 41:35 c 7, , , .

jgMio In the Matter of )

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483 OL

)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST CONCERNING REED CONTENTION ll(B) (2)

In its Order dated December 7,1982, the Board ruled on the admissibility of Intervenor John G. Reed's emergency plan-ning contentions. At that time, the Board deferred ruling on the admissibility of Reed Contention ll(B) (2) . Contention ll(B) (2) asserts that the guidelines set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 must be included as part of the applicable Montgomery County Standard Operating Procedure and must be clearly defined so that local officials will have an understanding of actual ground radiation at which recovery can begin. Before ruling on Contention 11(B) (2) , the Board has sought the comments of the parties on the applicability of Part 20 standards to reentry / recovery activities.

Applicant believes that reentry [ recovery decisionmaking probably would take into consideration Part 20's radiation standards for unrestricted areas in assessing the appropriate-ness of reentry by the general population after a reactor accident which had led to an evacuation. However, these criteria would not be controlling but, rather, would be F301250305 f'gDRADOCKOhh0kB3 1

PDR 3

among a number of factors which would be taken-into account after an accident in determining whether to permit general reentry into a previously evacuated area. The problem with i

Mr. Reed's Contention 11(B) (2) is not that the Part 20 standards are irrelevant in reentry / recovery decisionmaking, but that they ought not to be deemed determinative and, in fact, are not so considered in the NRC's regulations or in the NUREG-0654 guidelines.

As a practical matter, having deemeG an accident suf-ficiently serious to evacuate portions or all of the popula-tion in the emergency planning zone, the major consideration in determining whether to permit reentry is whether there is confidence among technically knowledgeable officials that the plant is now in a stable condition and that therefore people can reenter evacuated areas without risk. Many facts would be considered in reaching the decision whether to recommend reentry, including the possibility of reescalation of the accident, and whether the plant is operating within its Technical Specifications. See Missouri State Plan statement that " Recommendations relative to re-entry will be determined on a case-by-case basis and will be based on consideration of the remaining radiation risk and the un-desirable effects of continuing protective actions." State Plan (June, 1982) , Annex B at Bll. It would not serve the public int 2 rest to automatically permit reentry at specified radiation levels, as contemplated by Mr. Reed. While the

Part 20 limits, along with EPA's Protective Action Guides, would be considered in resolving this question because they are indicia of the plant's status, the ultimate decision whether to recommend reentry involves the balancing of a variety of factors and, accordingly, requires flexibility.

The need for flexibility in assessing the appropriateness of reentry is recognized in Part 50 by the unusual reference to the need for only " general" plans and procedures for reentry and recovery. See 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (13) ; see also NUREG-0654, Planning Standard M. Mr. Reed's contention as well as his Response to the Board's December 7, 1982 Order reflect Mr. Reed's determination to remove the needed flexibility of decisionmakers in evaluating the appropriateness of reentry and recovery. Mr. Reed also appears to believe that reentry /

recovery decisions must be capable of being made by lay persons without any reliance on the extensive federal, state and private expertise which would be involved in an event of this serious-ness. See Reed Deposition at Tr. 166-171 ("[Y]ou are starting off with no information on the local level except what's in these books . . . . And if they don't know it, they can't function"); Tr. 262 ("I would like to see a--the county have the ability to prove or disapprove whatever the Applicant says . . . . "). What Mr. Reed either ignores or rejects out of hand is that the offsite procedures contemplate that local officials would rely heavily on recommendations and information from knowledgeable personnel. SOP #14 at 5.3.2. Mr.

Reed's isolationist view is contrary to the intent of NUREG-0654,

. which is "that plans of licensees, State and local governments should not be developed in a vacuum or in isolation from one another. Should an accident occur, the public can be best protected when the response by all parties is fully integrated."

NUREG-0654 (Rev. 1), S I.F at 23. In addition to the available State and licensee assistance during an accident, there would also be extensive federal assistance available. Id., S I.I at 27-28.

In summary, Applicant believes that Reed Contention ll(B) (2) lacks any basis in that it is at odds with the Commission's regulation and guidance on recovery / reentry and would be counterproductive in providing for protection of the public in the event of an emergency at the Callaway Plant. Accordingly, Reed Contention ll(B) (2) should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Deborah B. Bauser Counsel for Applicant

, 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

. (202) 822-1000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 " Applicant's Response to Board Request Concerning Reed Contention ll(B) (2)" were served this 20th day of January, 1983, by deposit in the U.S.

mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.

'h - == l .<

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483 OL

)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

SERVICE LIST I James P. Gleason, Esquire IGenneth M. diackes, Esquire Chaiman d2ackes and Hoare Ah9mir- Safety and Licensing Board 314 N. Broadway 513 Gilucure Drive St. Icuis, Missouri 63102 Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Mr. Jchn G. Reed Mr. Glenn O. Bright Route 1 Atcznic Safety and Li-LT Kingdcm City, Missouri 65262 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ('=niemian Mr. Howard Steffen Wa=hington, D.C. 20555 diancis, Missouri 65024 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Harold Icttnann Atemic Safety and ti==4_m Ibute 1 Board Owensville, M4==M 65066 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ocumission Washingttm, D.C. 20555 Mr. Fred Luskey Rural leute Robert G. Perlis, Esquire mineland, Missouri 65069 l Office of the M*1ve Iagal Director l U.S. Nw-la=* Regulatory Ctanissicn Mr. h=1 J. Birk ,

l Washingtcri, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 243 mrrison, Missouri 65061 Docketing and Service Section l Office of the S m =Ukry Mr. Ibbert G. Wright i U.S. Nuclear Regulatorf Ccznnission Route 1 l Washingtcm, D.C. 20555 Fulton, Missouri 65251 l

. Joseph E. Birk, Esquire Eric A. Eisen, Esquire Assistant to the C e m l Counsel Birch, Hortcm, Bittner & ltnroe Union Electric Ctxtpany 1140 (bnnecticut Avenue, N.W. , #1100 P.O. Box 149 Wa=hington, D.C. 20036 St. Icuis, Misscuri 63166 A. Scott Cauger, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Missouri Pmlic Serrice Cc2tmission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City', Missouri 65102