ML20054F577

Advises That NRC Review of Liquid & Gaseous Emissions (Source Term) Resulting from Normal Plant Operation,Re Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environ Coalition Contentions 1 & 2, Will Be Included in SER

ML20054F577
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/15/1982
From:	Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Callihan D, Foster R, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8206170119
Download: ML20054F577 (2)

Text

- * *-~ -

J / p .,,, \ UNITED STATES YNU i

Q ~ NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COfvim.. I.v.T

"*- U" -

!j j g, .* / J. j WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 -

\..m /

... June 15, 1982 i

James L. Kelley, Chairman Dr. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Union Carbide Corporation ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box Y Washington, DC 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Richard F. Foster Administrative Judge P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, OR 97701 In the Matter of -

DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

(Catawba Nuclear, Station, Units 1 and 2)  !

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414

)

Dear Administrative Judges:

4 Dr. Kahtan Jabbour, NRC Staff Project Manager for the operating license review of the Catawba Nuclear Station, has informed me that the Staff's review of liquid and gaseous emissions (source term) resulting from normal operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, the subject of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition (CMEC) contentions 1 and 2, will be found in the Staff Safety Evaluation Report for Catawba. I draw this to your attention in view of the following statements in the Board's March 5, 1982 Order made with respect to CMEC contentions 1-4:

Should these contentions go to hearing, the focus will be on the Staff's impact statement, not the Applicants' Environmental Report, because the substantive NEPA obligation is discharged through the impact statement. Accordingly, CMEC shall review the Staff's draf t environmental impact statement promptly after it becomes available and revise these contentions, as appropriate, in light of that statement.

March 5, 1982 Order at 14. The foregoing statement accurately reflects that Staff review of the matters raised in CMEC contentions 3 and 4 will i be addressed in the Draft Environmental Statement. However, CMEC Contentions 1 and 2 address the methodology for calculating the source term of radioactive emissions, as distinguished from the impact of such emissions on the environment. While the source term serves as the base for dose calculations in the DES, the methodology for calculating the r

8206170119 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000413  % )

G PDR &, f, '

omer) orq 'I

! "" > fNb.k.I ..h..Ub....

om> . G. . .t. _z.-

(g W ..... .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... .. .. .. . . . . .

NRC FCsiM 318 00 8OI NRC M O240

, _ .O _F F K_l A_ L R_ E Q R._D Q W . _ _ .

______ _-umum,m __

, v3 ha "r  %% r n (

source term is a subject for the Staff SER. Thus, the Board may wish to recognize this fact in considering CMEC's obligations to revise its contentions 1 and 2 pursuant to the March 5, 1982 Order.

Sincerely, George E. Johnson cc: Service List t

l

"'"> . 0 El_D . 0 E.LD , ~

"""'"> .GJabns.on. . 3] Gray. .

' " > 6/.. ./a?.. . 6.t. /82.. .

~ ' " o-3" o nnc eowm ais oo eoisscu cuo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY