ML19261D895

Applicant Response to City of Cincinnati Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene.New Contentions Broaden Issues & Should Not Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19261D895
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	06/04/1979
From:	Conner M, Wetterhahn M CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
To:
References
NUDOCS 7906280103
Download: ML19261D895 (8)

Text

t f'e ,Q v

. NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 6J. s" ,N'N' 7i d-1 '

y 'y,d) :h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hi.<V[,h,h'*[

s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y$&pf In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

)

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )

Station) )

APPLICANTS ' RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF CINCINNATI'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE INTRODUCTION In an undated and unsigned pleading entitled "Intervenor City of Cincinnati's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Petition for Leave to Intervene and Add Additional Contentions,"

which was received by counsel for the Applicants on May 21, 1979, the City of Cincinnati (" City"), an intervenor in the captioned proceeding, moved to admit two additional contentions related to transmission of data concerning airborne radio-active emissions fron the Zimmer Station to public agencies.

For the reasons discussed below, Applicants, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., oppose the motion for ad-mission of new contentions.

DISCUSSION Late tiled contentions such as the two submitted by the City must be judged against the standard of 10 C.F.R.

52. 714 (a) (3) . That section states that the presiding afficer 2209 310

7006280103

may only admit additional contentions based upon a balancing of the following five factors:

(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.

(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.

(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be ex-pected to assist in developing a sound record.

(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by exist-ing parties.

(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

As discussed below, based upon a balancing of these five factors, the City's two additional contentions should be denied.

I. The City Has Not Demonstrated Good Cause For Failure To File On Time The Commission has stressed that "[1] ate petitioners properly have a substantial burden in justifying their tardiness." Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. (West Valley Re-processing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975). This burden has not been met by the City. The only justification given for the addition of the two contentions is the incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station which the City '

asserts "provides convincing evidence that reactor malfunc-tions can occur in nuclear power plants which result in 220] 311

1/

discharg of radioactive contaminants into the air . . . .--

The City asserts that prior to that time it had not focused on air monitoring.

Applicants submit that substantial good cause has not been shown for the admission of these two contentions. In fact, the City has been aware of and taken an active role in matters relating to air monitoring and emergency planning during the course of the proceeding. For examplo, the City asked and the Applicants responded to a number of de-tailed questions concerning all phases of air monitoring and emergency planning regarding airborne releases. - Moreover, in accordance.with 10 C.F.R. Part 100, the NRC has, for many years, required the analysis of Design Basis Accidents with regard to their calculated hypothetical radiological releases.

These accident analyses appear in the Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report. From reports made public, there does not seem to be any question that releases during the Three Mile Island incident are well below the calculated values for the hypothetical Design Basis Accidents. There-fore, Applicants submit that inasmuch as accidents with calculated consequences bounding those resulting from the Three Mile Island incident appeared in the FSAR as sub-mitted, the Three Mile Island incident cannot constitute good cause for the submission of these contentions.

1. /

City's Motion at 1-2.

2/

--~

See Applicants' Responses to "Intervenor City of Cincinnati's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant."

2209 312

In addition, Applicants submit that, aside from generali-zation, no facts have been advanced by the City which show that added equipment suggested by the City for automatic continuous transmission of data to local officials was needed or would have served any purpose at Three Mile Island.

Thus, the Three Mile Island incident does not provide a basis for admission of these two contentions.

II. & IV. The City's Interest Will Otherwise Be Protected The City's Interest Will Be Represented By Other Parties The NRC is undertaking a painstakingly exhaustive review of the Three Mile Island incident and is reviewing the need for new or amended regulations as part of its review. Applicants submit that the NRC's investigation and rulemaking is the proper forum in which to consider the need for.the City's additional sweeping requirements on a generic basis. We thus submit that this Board should not admit the City's two new contentions unless the Commission acts to make them a requirement for all nuc. car power facilities.

The matter of environmenta] monitoring and emergency planning, the gravaman of the City's two contentions, are al-ready issues in this proceeding and to the extent the matters raised in the City's two contentions may be covered by other contentions, there are parties which can represent the City's interest. In any event, the public interest is always represented by the NRC Staff by means of its participation in this proceeding.

2209 313

III. The Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated That Its Participation May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist In Developing A Sound Record Aside from a bare statement that it will contribute to the development of a sound record, there is no basis for such an assertion. No specificity is given as to the expertise the City has with regard to the need for the ad-ditional monitoring equipment, and its design and operational aspects. We would note in this regard that the City's pleading regarding the two contentions lacks the affidavit required by 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (a) .

V. The New Contentions Will Broaden The Issues In This Proceeding It is undeniable that these contentions would require significant preparation and hearing time. Again, Applicants submit that this Board should not admit these contentions, unless the Commission, after considering the Three Mile Island situation on a generic basis, decides to amend the rules to require considera*. ion of whatever type of monitoring devices presumably would be proposed by the City. The Board should not begin an ad hoc consideration of these issues on its own.

2209 314

, CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the City's two new contentions should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER

/L M. 'b-Tro y nner, r.

//pkik Mark J. Wett rhahn

GS Counsel for the Applicants June 4, 1979 2209 315

, . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

)

(William H. ZLamer Nuclear Power )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to the City of Cincinnati's Motion for Leave to Amend its Petition for Leave to Intervene," dated June 4, 1979, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 4th day of June, 1979:

' ~

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Reg?'latory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dir-~ tor Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William J. Moran, Esq.

Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing '

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Appeal Board -

Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post Office Box 960 Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Washington, D.C. 20555 2209 316

~

Mr. Chase R. Stephens Leah S. Kosik, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section Attorney at Law Office of the Secretary 3454 Cornell Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John D. Woliver, Esq.

Clermont County Community William Peter Heile, Esq. Council Assistant City Solicitor Box 181 City of Cincinnati Batavia, Ohio 45103 Box 214 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

/)

- n !\ .

ij')

}hl -

Mar Netterhahn 22C T) 317