ML20010C203
| ML20010C203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1981 |
| From: | Barth C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108190242 | |
| Download: ML20010C203 (7) | |
Text
08/17/81 UNITED STATES OF Af! ERICA ilVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.j BEFORE THE AT0llIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-358 cgirQ'f'S CINCINHATI GAS AND ELECTRIC
)I COMPANY, et al.
)
j
/
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
- )l j
g
,1_.
5 e
v Station, Unit No. 1 t
l N
6 l
kRC STAFF RESP 0!lSE TO APPLICANT'S NOTION C
TO BEGIN HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND W'
O Yg 3/
M0i41TORING A!iD FOR OTHER SUPPORTIVE RELIEF
/
On July 9, 1981, the Applicants filed a motion (1) to have t
/ SIP Licensing Board convene an evidentiary hearing on certain enumerated monitoring and emergency planning contentions; (2) to consolidate all Intervenors for issues now remaining to be heard; (3) to require each of the Intervenors to identify which emergency planning and monitoring contentions Intervenors no longer intend to pursue in view of the publication of the Commission's final rules on emergency planning and NOREG-0654 (Rev.1); to identify witnesses and the contentions they will address, to identify all sources and calculations which fann the basis of their testimony and to permit depositions to be noticed five days after such identification; and to specify the portion of the NRC regulations with
.which Intervenors allege compliance is not achieved; and (4) to require testimony be in the hands of the parties 15 days prior to the beginning of an evidentiary hearing.
i Intervenors Fankhauser, ZAC-ZACK and Miami Valley Power Project (MVPP) each filed responses which oppose the requests contained in Applicants' motion in, toto. The City of Cincinnati, by telephone motion dated July 20, 1981, requested an extension of time until July 31, 1981 o7 to respond to the motion based on the ongoing settlement negotiations
.5 II 8103190'242 810817 l
PDR ADOCK 05000358 O
$}
2 betweenitandtheApplicants.3/ To date, the Staff has not received any response fraa the City of Cincinnati. The position of the NRC Staff on the varinuc rannosts contained in Applicants' motion is set forth below.
DISCUSSION The Applicoiits' move the Board to convene an evidentiary hearing in the near future to consider certain enumerated monitoring and emergency planning contentions (Motion at 2,3). The NRC Staff has considered each of the enuuereled contentions and can provide the Board with the following information. Staff testimony for evidentiary hearings on Fankhauser contentions (2 a-g), 3, and on City of Cincinnati contentions 7,9,10, 18 and 19 can be ready t) be filed on September 1, 1981. These contentions do not involve NRC-Fb3 review or approval of the ApplicanM,'
and states' emergency p'ans.
ZAC Contentions 22,25,25,29 and 32 which the Applicants propose as being ripe for hearing have not been admitted as issues in controversy as of this date of this filing. However, assuming that they were admitted f
as issues in controversy, these contentions and Dr. Fankhauser's contentions 4(a)(b)(g) and (h) and the City of Cincinnati's contention number 8 and ZAC's contention 27 all involve the adequacy of state or local or offsite emergency preparedness. The Applicants have
]
I submitted their energency plan to NRC which is now being reviewed by tre Staff.
Final state and local emergency plans have not yet been submitttd 1
to F04A. Until FEMA and the Staff have completed their review of the l
emergency plans, the Staff cannot take a position on their adequacy or on J/
This motion was granted by Order dated July 20, 1981.
In the Order, the NRC Staff was permitted to file its response by August 17, 1981.
3 1
M 1
the merits of the contentions dealing with emergency planning.
In view of the Applicants readiness to put on their direct case and the suggestion that this may assist in expedition of the proceedings, the e
Staff has no objection to scheduling an evidentiary hearing on all the enumerated contentions of Applicants' motion. The Staff will be able to file testimony on September 1,1981 on those contentions not involving state and local emergency preparedness and a hearing could convene as early as September 20, 1981. Staff participation on those contentions identified above as involving state and local emergency preparedness would, of necessity, be limited.
The Applicants' request that the Board consolidate the remaining contentions on the emergency plan / monitoring issue and that a single intervenor should be selected to act in all respects on behalf on Intervenors (Motion at 4,5) is governed by the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
5 2.715(a). That regulation pr, ides that the prasiding officer may consolidate parties who have substantially the same interest and who raise substantially the same questions. Applicants have not shown in its motion how this criteria is met with the remaining contentions on emergency planning and monitoring. While it is true the broad issue of emergency preparedness is involved in all the contentions, it is not apparent to the Staff that each of the contentions " raise substantially the same questions" as they relate to different aspects of emergency preparedness. Further, it is not apparent that the City of Cincinnati has "substantially the same interest" as the other Intervenors.
Accordingly, the Staff opposes this request at this time because we do not believe that Applicants have made the necessary showings under 10 C.F.R. G 2.710(a) to consolidate parties.
However, the Staff does agree that provisions should be made by the Board pursuant to its authority to control the conduct of the proceeding to prevent repetitive or cumulative cross-examination by Intervenors who have not themselves raised the cmitention. See Northern States Power CA (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-75-1, 1 NRC 161 (1975) affirming ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857 (1974).
The requests contained in Applicants' motion to require each of the Intervenors to identify which emergency planning and monitoring contention Intervenors no longer intend to pursue in view of the publication of the Commission's final rules on emergency planning and HUREG-0654 (Rev.1); to identify witnesses; the basis for each contention; and to specify the portion of the NP,C regulations with which compliance is alleged not to be achieved (Motion at 3,5,6), seem best left to discovery by way of interrogatories or deposition. The Staff does believe that discovery should commence epon the Licensing Board's ruling upon Applicant's motion.
The Applicant's motion contains the request that testimony be in the hands of the parties 15 days prior to the beginning of the evidenti?ry hearing (Motion at 6). The Commission's rules of practice requires that proposed written testimony be served at least 15 days in advance of the session of the hearing at which its testimony is to be presented.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(b),. While Applicants' request varies slightly from the
~
Commission's rules, the Staff has no objection to this request.
CONCLUSION The Board should rule on the requests contained in Applicants motion in accordance with the discussion, supra.
Respectfully subraitted, f/US Charles A. Barth 4
. Counsel for NRC S aff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of August,1981.
i l
e w
.r.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of p
i CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC Docket No. 50-358 COMPANY, g,a_l,.
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1
~
~ ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION TO BEGIN HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING AND MONITORING AND FOR OTHER SUPPORTIVE RELIEF in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 17th day of August, 1981.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Timothy S. Hogan, Jr., Chairman Administrative Judge Board of Commissioners Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 50 Market Street, Clermont County U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Batavia, Ohio 45103 Washington, D.C.
20555
- John D. Woliver, Esq.
Dr. Frank F.. Hooper Legal Aid Society Administrative Judge P.O. Box #47 School of Natural Resources 550 Kilgore Street University of Michigan Batavia, Ohio 45103 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 William J. Moran, Esq.
M. Stanley Livingston General Counsel Administrative Judge Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 1005 Calle Largo P.O. Box 960 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Troy B. Conner, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conner & Moore Panel 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20006 Washington, D.C.
20555
- James H. Feldman, Jr., Esq.
David Martin, Esq.
216 East 9th Street Office.of the Attorney General Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 209 St. Clair Street First Floor W. Peter Heile, Esq.
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Assistant City Solicitor Room 214, City Hall George E. Pattison, Esq.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney 462 Main Street Mrs. Mary Reder Batavia, Ohio 45103 Box 270, Rt. 2 California, Kentucky 41007 l
Lawrence R. Fisse, Esq.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 462 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bcard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
200 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Mr. Samuel H. Porter Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 37 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 f
OWk h Stuart A. Treby Assistant Chief He ing Counsel s
4
-