ML20084L369
| ML20084L369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1995 |
| From: | Carroll G GEORGIANS AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#295-16752 95-704-01-REN, 95-704-1-REN, REN, NUDOCS 9506070188 | |
| Download: ML20084L369 (5) | |
Text
..
M7'5z DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 55 KMr 30 p3 :42 BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETAPv DOCKETl, G & sygyp4 N
~
f 50-160-Re b D Docket No.
)
\\
In the Matter of 1
ASLBP No. 95-704-01-Ren 2
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH REACTOR Atlanta, Georgia Fac311ty License No. R-97 GEORGIANS AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERG1 STAFF AND GEORGTA TECH APPEALS ON THE RESPONSE _TO NRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'S 26, 1995 EEfJJEARING CONFEREN9E ORDER OF APRIt Georgians Against Nuclear Ener'v (G ANE) respectfully submits these comments for the Commission's consideration in weighing the safety concerning the Georgia Tech Research Reactor issues brought before it in downtown Atlanta, Georgia.
Concerning the standing we have been granted to intervene in the Mr. Robert Johnson licensing proceeding of the Georgia Tech Reactor:
1 was a member of GANE prior to our initial filing of petition to He had participated in GANE intervene as supported by the record.
activities, meetings and voting responsibilities prior to our initial
" Membership is open to'anyone who filing. As stated in GANE's by-laws, accepts the stated goals of GANE." Membership records are a service we not a requirement for membership.
perform for our members, GANE takes this opportunity to clarify the statement made by Glenn Carroll at the pre-hearing conference as noted on page 7 of Georgia we don' t think you have to 2 eally be a member."
Tech's appeal, "Nah, intervenor, GANE had asked a friend for some legal As a pro se GANE has intervened before in a license the outset.
guidance at proceeding concerning Plant Vogtle and posed several questions to see an intervention for a non-if the model we had experienced would fit GANE was assured, In the course of the conversation, power reactor.
that we would have the right to amend our petition as long as
- first, t
9506070'38 950526
-1~
)
PDR ADOCK 05000160 h
O PDR
our initial filing was timely. We were confidently assured that l
from a person that we were representing would be showing an affidavit an allowable amendment. GANE felt that in such a high-population area, we would find a lot of with a disproportionately youthful population, for our intervention through circulating blank affidavits.
support Some of the volunteers circulating the affidavits were moved by great concern about the reactor, but were intimidated at asking friends and to join GANE in order to be able to show neighbors meet a requirement Licensing their saafety concerns before the NRC and the Safety &
said it would definitely be better to have a member Board. The lawyer, but it might not be a rigid criterion. So, we drew up a generic affidavit to circulate, erroneously believing that the NRC would be sheer number of citizens who live in close proximity impressed by the to the Georgia Tech Reactor and that they willing to sign a legal document attesting to their concern that the reactor at Georgia Tech is a personal danger.
Johnson was one of the members of GANE who was As it happens, Mr.
giving his contacts an opportunity to sign not only earnest about urged everyone to fill out membership forms in affidavits, but Jenason's keen instincts with addition. GANE failed to support Mr.
"I am a member la good affidavits containing the wording, proper standing." If you review the record you will see that Glenn Carroll and the was relating this same story to the pre-hearing conference, "Nah, we don't think you have to be a member" comment is not to Mr.
Johnson's personal membership, but to the perceived necessity of the GANE's intervention by getting scope of his effort to support commitments of membership from others.
We reiterate the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's citation of the (ALAB-549). That board concluded Appeal Board in the South Texas case is neither Congressional nor Commission policy to exclude parties "it Sounder because the niceties of pleading were imperfectly observed.
practice is to decide issues on their merits, not to avoid them on technicalities."
shown injury in fact to Mr.
Georgia Tech argues that GANE has not Robert Johnson sa his place of work lies outside a 100-meter danger zone around the reactor. GANE points out the discussion about The testimony that under no radioactive gas emissions from the stack.
circumstances will the Argon-41 emissions exceed legal limits aside, Ratib Karam stated in the record Georgia Tech Reactor Director Dr.
(TR. at 22-23) that under an incredible accident scenario, some noble gases may be released. GANE emphasizes that one of our contentions -.. -.
1 admitted by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board deals directly with
~
the increased likelihood of an incredible accident scenario, i.e.,
the increased security threat posed by the presence of the Georgia Tech Reactor in the center of the Olympic Village which will house 20,000 the 1996 Summer Olympic Games to be held in Atlanta in athletes at July 1996. Not only is the Olympic Village directly threatened by the Georgia Tech Reactor's proximity, but so is Atlanta, an international city of over 2,000,000 residents, which will be host to the world for the Olympic Games. We cite the terrorism at the Olympic Village in Munich as well as UCLA's decision to shut their reactor prior to Los Angeles' hosting the Olympics in 1984. Mr. Robert Boyd, former Radiation Safety Officer at the Georgia Tech Reactor has expressed his concern to the Commission as well. The 1996 Olympics provides a context for the kind of " incredible scenario" that could attend the release of amounts of radiation beyond " permissible levels." Given the extreme power we have witnessed of home-made bombs recently (the World GANE believes Trade Center and Oklahoma City incidents come to mind),
that an incident of terrorism or sabotage at the Georgia Tech Reactor has great potential to bring injury in fact to Mr. Robert Johnson. The Safety and Licensing Board has recognized this threat as put forth in their order dated April 26, 1995.
Georgia Tech has appealed the Safety and Licensing Board's admission of GANE's contention 5 concerning security for the Georgia Tech t
Reactor during the Olympic Games, citing a Title 10 CFR 50.13. This rule was passed in 1967 during the height of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis and reassured nuclear power plant licensees by limiting their responsibilities to protect facilities against certain types of security threats across the board. This responsibility was given to intelligence and other federal agencies.
GANE observes that the rule 10 CFR 73.60 (f) does not contradict CPR 50.13, but rather, is the exception to this broad rule.
The rule reads as follows:
573.60(f) In addition to the fixed-site requirements set forth in this section and in 573.67 ie Commission may require, depending on the individucl facility and site conditions, any alternate or aditional measures deemed necessary to protect against radiological sabotage at reactors licensed to operate at or above a power nonpower level of 2 megawatts thermal.
10 CPR 73.60 (f) clearly provides for the broad discretion of the Safety and Licensing Board to require additional measures to ensure r
security on a case-by-case basis. This law was written in 1993, and it is to be assumed that the law was written in full light of knowledge of 10 CFR 50.13 and in answer to a need for additional security from radiological mayhem in a changing world. Clearly the Olympics is the sort of special case where site conditions and security risks change.
The argument Georgia Tech makes that the issue of special security the measures to protect Atlanta and the Olympics from sabotage at Georgia Tech Reactor during the Olympics has already been heard and decided by the Commission in their response (or lack thereof) to Mr.
Robert Boyd's letter of December 3, 1993, misinterprets the context of Boyd's comments. Mr. Boyd's comments were of ferad during the Mr.
and were public comment period of an NRC security-related rulemaking, not dealt with in any depth as they were specific, tangential comments submitted in a broad rulemaking for nuclear about a non-power reactor power plants.
Finally, one comment concerning Contention 9, that management problems at the Georgia Tech Reactor are so great that safety for the public cannot be assured. The NRC staff remarks that the contention is 1987-88, not admissible because the serious episode cited by GANE in eight years ago, is ancient. GANE has the right, as has any litigant, GANE to raise an issue prior to knowing everything there is to know.
is entitled, as is any litigant, to discover the truth through due No. 2 The record contained in NRC Investigation Report process.
003, is shocking and provides a sufficient basis to explore an issue that has never been publicly adjudicated. This is noted by the Atomic 1995.
Safety and Licensing Board in their order of April 26, GANE trusts that you will preserve its earned place as party to this proceeding. GANE urges you to perceive the urgency of this importantas we must begin soon to secure the site. We beg you to help,
- matter, not hinder, a safe resolution to this matter by at least allowing our intervention to proceed.
Respectfully submitted, enn Carroll Representative for GAME Dated and signed May 26, 1995 in Decatur, Georgia P
~
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Docket No. (s) 50-160-REN Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Peter S. Lam Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R.
Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Susan S. Chikadel, Esq.
1 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Randy A. Nordin Manager - Legal Division Office of Contract Administration Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA 30332-0420 E. Gail Gunnells f
Deputy Chief Legal Advisor
)
Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0495 Ms. Pamela Blockey O'Brien D23 Golden Valley Douglasville, GA 30134 Ms. Patricia Guilday, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 40 Capitol Square NW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 J