ML20032B003

Motion Submitting Specific Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20032B003
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	10/30/1981
From:	Reder D, Reder M MENTOR, KY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111040263
Download: ML20032B003 (11)

Text

'

o:,

. fd ~

7 DOCKETED USNRC 8

IET 30 PI:07 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g'

0FFICE OF SECRETARv ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKEidG a SERVIC$

ERAriCH Before Administrative Judges:

k John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Frank F.

Hooper et Dr. M. Stanley Livingston

/\\

/

u:',

\\

gI e7 In the Matter of.

4~

j-Docket INgy5g3f30TQ3'3-h CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY EuY Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, (William H.

Unit 1) a j s,.[f" a

f, -

CITY OF MENTOR'S MOTION TO SUBMIT INTERVENOR SPECIFIC CONTENTICNS OR MATTER OF PARTICIPATION In its petition for admission as a participant in these i

the city of Mentor expressed its general concern proceedings, about the adequacy of emergency planning and preparedness.

the city has waited patiently with the hope and Since then, expectation,that satisfactory plans and preparations would i

i l}

-j However, events of recent months, particularly the evolve.

4 emergence of radiological emergency plans proposed by.

have dashed those Kentucky and several Kentucky counties, Consequently, the City of Mentor hopes and expectations.

follow and moves that the Board submits the contentions that DSD3

$/!/

admit them.

THE CITY OF MENTOR, KENTUCKY By %4% h/o l him elclhTCol.bs OhKOhohhfg a

Donald Reder Route

'2 Box 270, California, Ky. 41I PDR h,_

Representatives of City of' Mentor

h-

~

8

? d-

's '

CONTENTIONS

.i g['

~,

""7 1

The proposed Kentucky and Campbell County radiological ty:

emergency response plans are not valid and are null and void

{g,

Skj and without effect because they are not the product of the

@a i

cooperation, mutual agreement, and partnership of and.between L

1.

Q' a

state and local governments as anticipated by the Nuclear 3_-7 -.

gjbj.,

Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Ql v r'

Agency in 45 Federal Register 162, pp. 55402 - 55404, 10'C.F.R.

SSO, 47, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and in NUREG-0654/

~

g@{}

FEMA-REP-1, I, pp. 1-30, (especially I-E, pp. 19-22).

Since

-.~

pb the planning standards, evaluation criteria, and appendices gl:

in NUREG-0654 are predicated on these assumptions and since

-; p eyh it '

the authors of the plans gratuitously disregarded these assumptions, the plans do not satisfy any of the evaluation criteria, or their amplifications in the appendices, for state and local organizations in NUREG-0654.

~

(: > 9 The concept of Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) p.9 l necessarily implies mutually supportive emergency H".~?i planning and preparedness arrangements by several 1

levels of government:

Fe'deral, State'and local f'i governments, including counties, townships and H

even villages.

(NUREG-0654, I-E, p.

19)

The City of Mentor is located about two miles from the Zimmer station and is the closest city in Kentucky to the station, yet there is no evidence within or without the plans that the city participated, had opportunity to participate,

v D,N-

'9 m

e

'or

• syQ or refused to participate in the designation of a local lead 7,77 m.

agency or in the formulation of any State or local plans;

6.,O[.

ppg 73.~-

or that the City had or has any supportive role in the planning '

r, w Zdibu ~

5 ',,.

Further, the radiological

=

's '

or in an emergency response.

(Q emergency and preparation plans of the City of Mentor are not ph

~

-included in,-integrated with, or appended to the Kentucky plan or theicampbell County plant and the City of Mentor has not

$u n;p approved or given any indication of approval of either plan,

.jg;i Ov zh nor does-either plan imply or make provision for such approval.

! (. e. -. l.

Gtf'jn*'

Also, with reference to the above aspects of cooperation, mutua

g. :d Y-agreement and partnership among the various governmental entit

• i' e

'h %;*.

in a planning effort the involvement and participation of other

~ 2rv m cities in Campbell County within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone have been similarly non-existent or negligible.

The proposed Kentucky and Campbell County radiological

.. w, 2.

response plans invalidate themselves as responses to the re-L

.35% J '

quirements for plans in 10 C.F.R. S 50.33 (g), 10 C.F.R.

S50.47

,e (a), (b), 10 C.F.R. Part.50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654 4 2;"..

1 -(.,

because they repudiate their own use during an emergency.

The Campbell County <Tp. (p.V, Plan Organization) contains the "During an emergency, Standard Operating following statement:

developed from the plan, will be employed Procedures (SOPS ),

C to respond to the emergency rather than this planning document M s

+

9

_1 7;

-"Q.'.~.

C' "y.

4.-

This state.mant is essentially repeated in the Campbell County if 8-1, and cwice in the Kentucky Basic PlEn, Appendix 8, p.VII -

Plan Organization, p.VI and Basic Plan, Appendix 5, p.5.

l?E.

plan:

M r

SOPS are not included in the plans and have not been sithmitted

? _ (M

'h :

N.,e.T J

separately.

. ~.

Since the plans disavow themselves and establish SOPS

'~

of emer.gency planning during an emergency, i-as the sine qua non

'g -

and since no SOPS are contained in the proposed plansuor

[$N have been otherwise submitted,the people of Mentor, of Campbell n;,

.yfJ r County, and of.:entucky have no plan to protect their health, e.

h;. t o;;

safety, and interests during a radiological emergency at the

&#dp?

. ' u.

c6 Zimmer plant.

750 Although the 50-mile ingestion pathway for the Zimmer 3.

AF".

Station EPZ includes about 700 square miles of southeast Indiano R

Uh37/.'

h there are no radiological emergency plans by or on behalf of t G O'4 Nf'f Thf State of Indiana or the affected local Indiana governments.

1 :.

kt'P'-

omission endangers the health, safety, and interests, not only TC

~

]

but also of the people of Mentor, of the people of Indiana,

?n and is in violation of aff u and Ohio, Campbell County, Kentucky, Ag-

'Fi Part 50, Appendix E and NUREG-06S4/

h' 10 C.F.R.550.47, 10 C.F.R.

y FEMA-1.

A The proposed radiological emergency response plans le 4.

j0 for Kentucky or Campbell County, or both, do not respond, or inaccurately, incompldtely, or vaguely respond inappropriately, S'O. 47, to several elements in NUREG-0654 and to 10 C.F.R.

r

~

4-

~-

0.

bjf' 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, or to their rationales.

1 k l0.

Specifica] ly:

g.7 R2 Q,(.,qj a)

Neither plan is cross-referenced to the eval ation

{d:

jf criteria in NUREG-Od54.

2fy "

b)

The evacuation time study grossly underestimates D"

,p;iZi

., clusions), does not give estimates of evacuation times for the i

evacuation times (and the assumptions do not support the con-in

.q.

segment of the non-car-owning population dependent upon public Lit;.

~

(.p, transport, does not indicate the critical assumptions which m

underlie, the. time estimates (e.g., day versus night, workday

?ff.i'i kn ; k,

1lhh.

versus weekend, peak transient versus off" peak transient, and g

d$1'i evacuation on adjacent sectors versus nonevacuation), does not q.=

.ik.

' address the relative significance of alternative assumptions, o,.

does not make evacuation time estimates for each special v.

.[y facility on an individual basis, does not consider.the impact 3

Y. -

of" peak populations including behavioral aspects, does not make

~

l specific recommendations for actions that could be-taken to 6

p,,1 significantly improve evacuation cime, contains errors in

{:py measurements of road widths t' hat 'could influence calculations

.g-

~~

of road capacities and result in additional underestimations of C

b-evacuation times, does not contain comments by the principal organizations resulting from their review of a draf t submittal of the study, and contains unresolved conflicts of great pro-p5rticns between evacuation time estimates by Stone and Webster and those by the Kentucky Disaster and Emergency Services, the e

.s.','..

g.I.

Ohio Disaster. Services Agency, and the Clermont County Disaster Services Agency.

There are no provisions for alternate evacuation routes-br c;

L_~

or for traffic flow in the opposite direction on the providcd f 'z routes in consideration of different radioactive plume directions,

?-

This inflexibility' traffic congestions, or impassable roadways.

%e e.

could result in people evacuating through rather rather than away js. fi

.y from an avoidable radioactive plume or in unreasonable or un-bearably long evacuation times.

A designated major evacuation route, Kentucky Route 8, d) is dangerous in places for ordinary use and is obviously tot' ally unfit for emergency evacuation purposes.

located within The severa'l schools, public and private, e) the 10 mile EPZ in Kentucky lack suf ficient buses and drivers to s

safe aad orderly manner; evacuate the school children in a fast, the buses do not have ccmmunications equi,rment for use during an evacuation or for notification and instructions to drivers in

[

the event of a radiological emergency during the picking up or

]~~, -

delivering of school children to and.from schools or during the 2

3P there is no radio communica-j use of buses in school activities; tions system for warning or for use during an evacuation between and the various local, state

' the schools and the Zimmer plant, and federal response agencies; thare is no internal telephone system of dedicated lines between the central office and the several schools; and there is no agreement between the local s

J. v s

mr*

+

y

• 'a o

,.+..-me*

- ' ~ ~

__.@w-gw

+

boards of education and the state and local radiological response planners and agencies that the schools or the responsd m0 -

WI!T;';

agencies have the procedures, equipment or manpower to ensure

g)3g;Y a fast,. safe and order 3j evacuation of school children.

j(p?;c.

Sh[:

f)

Although the plans acknowledge that it is important

,3{jg, that potassits iodide (KI) be administered as early as possibl

. n-:.m e.

af ter a radioactive release and that it loses effectiveness fjj

("[ i.y[). J quickly over a short period of time, there are no plans for th?

storage or distribution in Mentor or in the immediate vicinity-

}l7}

E of Mentar or within the 10 mile EPZ of KI for use by the generl m: c d':D-((((

public.

g)

Plans for the safe and timely evacuation of people

~.,.

without personal vehicles and for those who are elderly, handii copped, confined or otherwise incapable of evacuating themselm are rudimentary, inadequate, undeveloped, and unvcrkable.

h)

The local fire department that serves the city of Mea a.

has no plans for a radiological emergency response, has not 1

has had no participated in any state or local planning effort, S #

4 3

training for fixed nuclear facilities radiological emergencieG

[

and does not anticipate such training, has inadequate or in-

~

has no radiolog appropriate radiological monitoring equipment, protective gear, and has no rrdio commanications with the Zina plant and inadequate radio communications with other state and local response agencies; and there is no evidence that the ott fire departments within the 10 mile EPZ in Kentucky have adegt

~

trai ning and equipmerat to respond to a radiological

plans, emergency.

v

.y. -.. ' ~

w....

i)

The proposed system for promot notification of the public is inadequate and a burden to the people in that the M~

q sire'n system is designed to warn only 40% of the people within w

t(

the 10 mile EPZ and has not been tested to ensure that it will d

achieve that design objective in any or all weather conditions 4

N.

their homes during all their 9-J for people outside or inside y~_

the radio system will not serve people who various activities; A~

farmers in the field, or people in l

are outside their homes, their automobiles and no arrangements have been made to Ji~

?;

~ * ~

recompense,the_ people for the electricity used by the radios y.

and the integrated or for the rental of space in their homes; siren and radio system is not adequate to protect those with 3

hearing or sight impcirments or those who operate or are near i.y

.]

loud or noisy equipment and, being dependent upon electricity, W

will not function during periods of electric power outage.

Provisions for the storage and subsequent use during

~

3 j) a radiological emergency of uncontaminated feed and water for livestock dnd other domestic animals do not ensure that ample qj supplies exist on the sites of or im the neighborhoods of their g-intended use or that the animals will have a prompt and con-

'M f.

tinuous supply of uncontaminated feed and water during an

. s emergency.

k)

Provisions for the monitoring, control and regulation of public water supplies, or for the availability of uncon-i before and during a radiological taminated water to the public, i

emergency are not adequate to protect the health and safety of j

the people of Mentor or for a large population within the 10

-7

f., a

[

-~

Ne.m

---me--

A

~

1 I.

R.

Iq-and 50 mile EPZs in Kentucky because there is no radio communs f_'.? -.

~

EW

-M

,f cations system between the Zimmer plant or state or local l:;h9ep:.

g response agencies and the water treatment and supply facilitiG J Ai L the water treatment and supply facilities do not have the

[.' 7 y

rf.:?T,

equipment or trained personnel for continuous monitoring of k;,;.

F'7;'

water before and during a radiological emergency; the present

.;ce

.w x3 plans are too undeveloped and too clumsy and tinte-consuming tGi

,y ry.p U32U..*

ensure that prompt and appropriate protective action can be qp.

w. -

gjp,..

taken; and, further, the people of the city of Mentor and a e.:.

ycc a large, population within the 10 and 50 mile EPZs, who receive hkf.h N$

their water from treatment and supply facilities that are

. v.

33 7.

situated near and are not unlike those of the city of Cincinns W: Ti '

$?M' have not received consideration and potential protaction simi-

.%p-;

. ~

or equal to that given the people of Cincinnati as evidenced @

the recent settlement between the applicant and Cincinnati in'

~

matter of radiological protection.

1)

The city of Mentor, being wholly or partially within II.

two miles 'of the Zimmer plant and thus being particularly e{Ef}

fh.'?

vulnerable and sensitive to a radiological. accident at Zimmer-

~

and having special and unique response problems, is unable to protect its citizens adequately because it does not have a radio communications system for communications between the cit and the Zimmer plant, state and local response agencies.

m)

The city of Mentor has and has demonstrated a specia active and knowledgeable interest in the spectrum of response O&

3 ?' *T

~,.

to a radiological accident at Zimmer, yet it has no role, nor -

h has it been offered one, as an observer or critic of any exercise or drill by-state and local response agencies.

+

". rl e

~:;

mas cle.1, _

(. t.-

Ma g Reder g? :

3.p-C73-26 0l NfL

- ~~J.

Donald Reder

--n' p

e 4

8 a

+

e.y, D

e

=

="

lt.

)

D0gETED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE M

N

$. ~'

I hereby cerdfy that copies of the foregoing uvvN E R I M

2

-gRANCH

,~c;

2. ' ' +. -

were served upon all parties to this proceeding by deposit in pg& WC the. United States mail this 2&th day of October,1981.

w' y -.:, -

• x

. a..

^ ff p hh l.

)

w...

s i g.

Marygeder

yg n

~-p-Ay--3,s VJohn H..Frye,.III, Esq.

Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles dQ' ' @

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

"~

Commission Commission Washington, 6.C 20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 aj

ap) -

WDr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and

' ~ ' '

'N Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission m

University of Michigan Washington, D 20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

~^

4 4 Dr. M.

Stanley Livingston Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Panel.

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1005 Calle Largo Commission Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Washington, D.C.

20555 u.

W Richard S.

Salzman, Esq.

Q Charles A. Barth, Esq.

rr ~ '

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Counsel for the NRC Staff Licensing Appeal Board Dffice of the Executive Legal J

'~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Chase R.

Stephens Docketing and Service Branch

• James Feldman, Esq.

Office of the Secretary Attorney at Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 216 East Ninth Street Commission Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Washington, D.C.

20555 9

b i*.

3 l

.s.

- s

~

1 William Peter Heile, Esq.

• John D.

Woliver, Esq.

Assistar t City Solicitor Clermont County Community City of ~ Cincinnati Council Box 214 Box 181 m

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Batavia, Ohio 45103 i-2"

• Andrew B.

Dennison, Esq.

• William J. Moran, Esq.

T5 ;,2..

Attorney at Law General Counsel

$~{ ;:J '

200 Main Street Cincinnati Gas & Electric'

J3 2r -

Batavia, Ohio 45103 Company

}.

Post Office Box 960 1

Troy-B. Conner, Esq.

Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Conner, Moore and Corber tR 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

hff' r Washington, D.C. 20006 xviM:

2[

David K. Martin, E sq.

[1(

Assistant Attorney General

[-

Acting Director

^

Division of Environmental Law s-CE.

Office of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street

=?

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

• George Pattison Prosecuting Attorney.of Clerment County, Ohio 462 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103

• Hand-delivered t

t 9.

,