ML19208D516

Response Objecting to Applicant Supplemental Response Filed in Opposition to City of Cincinnati Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene.Urges Admittance of Contentions 18 & 19,as Amended.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19208D516
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	07/31/1979
From:	Heile W, Luebbers T CINCINNATI, OH
To:
References
NUDOCS 7909280527
Download: ML19208D516 (7)

Text

. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:  :

THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC : DOCKET NO. 50-358 COMPANY, et al.

(Williau H. Zi=mer Nuclear  : , ,

Power Station) j'<'

e - "

y; h a

/

7- .dbN T -

.. e a INTERVENCR, CITY OF CINCINNATI'S RESPONSE T0!t d. 4, APPLICANTS' SUFFLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO CITY OFl $ . br CINCINNATI'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS \ fE f[+V '

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE \'

c~

I

\ja v Argument Applicant s, in their response have stated as a principal basis for their oppo.71 tion to the City's proposed contentions on air, as amended, that the City fails to distinguish between " routine plant releases and any releases which might be associated with an accident."

The fact is, as stated in the hearings in Cincinnati, the City of Cincinnati is interested in the continuous monitoring of all releases from the Zi=mer Station having the potential for radioactive contamin-ation. We continue to be amazed at Applicants' opposition to the City's attempt to protect its citizens by an effective air and water monitoring system in the wake of the Three Mile Island Accident. Very simply stated, the City wants to know what is coming out of the plant into the air and water as it is being released, on a continuous basis, and the direction and concentration of any such airborne and waterborne radioactive emissions. Continuous monitoring data automatically trans-mitted to the City on a 24-hour basis is the only method of providing 1034 '") 7 900 2 80 T 2.7

this data, and the only real method of allowing some margin of safety to the inhabitants of the largest populated municipality within close proximity to the Zimmer Station. Applicants' argmment in this regard is simply irrelevant to the ad=1ssib111ty of the City's contention.

Applicants next argue that the basic premise of the City's proposed contentions on air " appears to be 'more is better.'" In fact our request for continuous transmission of air monitoring data is indeed the same as the City's contention on water monitoring advanced long before the incident at Three Mile Island occurred, and which con-tention Applicants did not see fit to characterize as "more is better."

In both cases, (air and water) the City is seeking to know what is being discharged from the plant as it is being discharged. If Applicants' characterization of the City's premise for these contentions means "more is better than no data at all," the City, the Board, and the Applicants themselves would all have to agree that this is so.

Applicants have not as yet agreed to furnish the transmission of any continuous radiological monitoring data, either air or water, of either routine or nonroutine plant releases, to the City of Cincinnati, or for that matter as best we can determine, to any other agency charged with the responsibility of protecting the local citizens within close promimity of the Station. Instead, rather than using their expertise to cooperate in the formation of a monitoring network which would enhance the safety of the surrounding environs, Applicants choose to exert their time and efforts towards making certain that evidence on these issues will not even be heard by this Board, an approach which the City views as demonstrative of an incredible lack of concern for the safety and welfare of its citizens, particularly in the wake of an accident which virtually assumes that at the very least continuous 1034~ fJ

accurate monitoring information is vital to the well being and safety of persons living in the proximity of any nuclear plant.

As to availability of the equipment necessary to accouplish the continuous monitoring of air effluent from the plant and communication of the data to the City, Applicants are already installing continuous ai monitoring equipment in the " air stack" at the Station as was noted at the Station tour conducted in advance of the hearings which the Board attended, and radio equipment to transmit and receive that data is readily available. Additional 1r, pressurized ion chambers are available for a surveillance system which could signal the direction of a radio-act',ve " cloud" or " plume" and these devices do, in fact, have the capacity of making a continuous record of their monitoring efforts.

But these issues are not even pertinent to the present question before the Board which is the admissibility of the City's proposed contentions into this proceeding; the availability, type, and cost of the equipment are matters to be resolved in an evidentiary hearing and not relevant to the admissibility of these contentions. If Applicants wish to get on with these matters, we submit that the quickest way is to cease arguing with the City about whether the contentions are admissible, and get to the business of determining the effective system of continuous air and water monitoring.

In footnote 5 of thier response, Applicants suggest that if the Board were inclined to grant the City's proposed contentions on air, it should await subsequent NRC action as a result of TMI. Up to this time, Applicants have chosen every opportunity to oppose delaying any aspect of these proceedings pending a determination of TMI's impact on the adequacy of presently proposed radiological monitoring, evacuation and emergency planning. Suddenly Applicants now argue that admission

_3_ \0b ' '

of the City's proposed contentions on air monitoring is premature.

But the NEC staff has already wholeheartedly supported the admission of the City's contentions on air, and in fact, it was mainly to accommodate the wishes of the staff that the City amended its originally proposed contentions. Evidence presented in this hearing could well be a mechanism for establishing future policy of the NRC staff as to the issue of water and air monitoring, and the City of Cincinnati as a major population at risk is entitled to be heard in the establishment of any such policy which would directly affect its population.

Finally, Applicants argue that since the City is "over 20 miles" from the Zinmer facility, it is only one of many "special interest groups" with no showing of a " unique position which would entitle it to the equipment and data it seeks." Apparently, Applicants chose to overlook the fact that the City of Cincinnati is the only intervenor in this proceeding which has advanced these contentions, that it's popu-lation approximates 450,000 inhabitants; that it is in close proximity, if not actually closer than 25 air miles in part from the Station; and that of course if the City is granted the relief sought, it would

'obviously share the data obtained therefrom, and contribute to the establishment of a sound communication network enhancing the saf'ety of a metropolitan area encompassing in excess of 1.3 million people.

Applicants' " floodgate" argument is at best a hollow attempt at blocking the admission of Cincinnati's proposed contentions on air and is with-out merit.

For these reasons, and those advanced in the City's original Motion for Leave to Amend its Petition to Intervene which the City incorporates herein, and arguments advanced oy the City at the hearing, the City urges the Board to admit proposed cententions 18 and

_a- ~'

1034

19, as amended, regarding provision for the transmission of continuous air monitoring data to Cincinnati.

Respectfully submitted, d

0. Q

~N % l?%Q am THOMAS A. LUEBSERS City Solicitor

;) ,/f W. PETER HEILE Assistant City Solicitor Attorneys for Intervenor City of Cincinnati Room 214 - City Hall Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 332-3337 7 4 V )',

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Intervenor, City of Cincinnati's Response to Applicants' Supplemental Response to City of Cincinnati's Motion for Leave to Amend its Petition for Leave to Intervene were sent, postage prepaid, by ordinary United States Mail to the following on this / c/ day of [/; - , 1979 d

Charles Bechoefer, Esq. William J. Moran, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and General Counsel Licensing Board Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post Office Box 960 Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission School of Natural Resources Washington D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.

Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Atomic Safety and Appeal Board Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq. Leah S. Kosik, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff Attorney at Law Office of the Executive 3454 Cornell Place Legal Director Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' N Commission # S g

Washington, D. C. 20555

// g#

W Y d

-, 2 @N  ?

Ib '

5 pfc (

s gv a.

John D. Woliver, Esq. Troy 3. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Clermont County Cot = unity Council Conner, Moore & Corber Scx 131 1727 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Batavia, Chio 45103 Washington, D. C. 20006 i

(; ,'b'

^

I: b 1

W. PETER HEILE Assistant City Solicitor O