ML20032D927
| ML20032D927 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Woliver J CLERMONT COUNTY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, FRANKHAUSER, D.D. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111180439 | |
| Download: ML20032D927 (8) | |
Text
,
00tKETED USSRC UN!TED STATES OF AMERICA Hay 16 P3i03 81 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
Qfg
' #,3
/\\
-r cECPETARY ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD. ay;(f& SERVI
' " Tg;ma {S- [{,,Nj NOV 171981" 3
\\.
u.s. so t o *"" *
^
In the Matter of Docket No.
50-358'-tL O
f CONTENTIONS AND REQUEST Dr. FANKHAUSER'S REVISED' THE CINCINNATI CAS & ELECTRIO COMPANY, et al.
ADDITIONAL TIME WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT REVISED CONTENTIONS (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station) s Pursuant to the Board's Pre-hearing Conference Order of November 5,1981, Dr. Fankhauser is submitting his revised contentions herein. Furthermore, Dr.
Fankhauser states as he so stated at the Pre-hearing Conference that he needs additional time to review the relevant on-site and of f-site radiological emer-gency response plans and submit revised contentions. Absent this Board's permission to provide Dr. Fankhauser with an adequate and reasonable time to review these emergency response plans, Dr. Fankhauser submits the following revised contentions based upon his review of portions of the Clermont County Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
These revised cantentions are not to be interpretted as a voluntary withdrawal of any of his still existing contentions.
4 However, where appropriate, applicable designated sections of Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 4 are contained in brackets [] subsequent to each revised contention.
Dgg3 s
/
I n111100A39 a11113" '
PDR ADOCK 050003Sy G
t For purposes of clarification, Dr. Fankhauser again states that the phrase-ology contained in his Contentions 2 and 4 which reads "The Applicants' plans..." connotes all [ monitoring and emergency) plans pertaining to the proposed Zimmer Power Station.
REVISED CONTENTIONS 1.
The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is inadequate because it does not contain the heavily populated areas which are immediately proximate to a ten mile radius from the proposed Zimmer Power Station.
These heavily populated areas include but are not limited to the Village of Amelia, portions of Union Township, and an area immediately west of Amelia known as Cherry Grove.
2.
There is no ressonable assurance that the Clermont County Commissioners do not have the capability to provide fiscal support for the Clermont County emergency response as set forth in Section II(A)(2)(a) of the Clermont County Radiological Response Plan. [4( f)].
3.
The Clermont County Sheriff does not have adequate training nor equip-ment to carry out the functions delineated in Section II(A)(2)(b) of the Cler-mont County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (CCRERP).
[4(e) and (f)].
4.
The Clennont County Disaster Services Agency does not have adequate training nor equipment to carry out its functions delineated in Section II(A)(2)
(c) of the CCRERP.
[4(d), (e) and (f)].
5.
The Agency Responsibility Matrix (Table A-1) of the CCRERP is wholly inaaequate for reasons including but not limited to the fact that the Milford,
Amateur Radio Club and the Bethel Amateur Radio Club are given responsibility-for monitoring public exposure.
The Clermont Extension Agent has inadequate capabilities to asaume responsibility for protective actions involving food, water, livestock control and feed.
[4(d), (e) and (f)).
6.
There is no assurance that the food pathway exposure will be protected within a fifty mile radius of the proposed Zimmer Power Station and no or inadequate provisions exist for insuring that livestock within a ten mile radius of Zimmer will have available feed in the event of a general emergency.
, Specifically, the Clermont County board of Health, and the County Cooperative Extension Service do not have the training nor the capabilities for the monitor-ing and evaluation of the impact of radiation upon local farm products and livestock. No survey as to the numbers and amount of local livestock and farm products to be protected exists.
[4(c), (e) and (f)).
7.
There is no reasonable assurance which would indicate that CAPH/DD and CART have the knowledge and capability, including equipment, to transport the
" mobility impaired" from areas in which an evacuation has bee'n ordered.
Similarly, other agencies do not have such capabilities.
Specificallj, no reliable survey of the population has been taken in order to ascertain the number and location of persons needing evacuation assistance.
8.
Clermont County Hospital does not have the capability to provide radiation exposure treatment if there is a general emergency. Additionally, no provisions have been made to insure the continued operation of the Clermont County Hoepital in the event of a general emergency resulting in the evacuation of many of its personnel who may reside in areas to be evacuated.
[4 (e)].
-3
- ~..
y
9.
Attachment B-1 of the CCRERP does not anticipate the proposed clinina-tion of the Department of Energy.
10.
The classifications of the Emergency Classification System of the CCRERP are vague and, therefore, provide no understanding of the nature of a particular event occuring at Zimmer. No timetable for notification of " unusual events" to local authorities is provided.
[4(a) and (b)].
11.
There is no reasonable assurance that the public notification system described in Section II(D)(4) will be sufficient to previde a fifteen minute warning time to 100% of the population within a five mile radius of Zimmer.
No tests nor drills have been completed necessary to verify the accuracy of the conclusory statements concerning public notification contained in the CCRERP.Section II(D)(5) of the CCRERP f ails to provide a clear statement of the inforr.ation that the Clennont County EOC will receive for purposes of accident accessment.
[4(a), (b), (c), (e), (f) anJ (g)].
12.
The document known as the " Circle of Safety" is written in vague language and language not calculated to insure that the populace will take the appropriate protective measures in the event of a general emergency. The siren system described in the " Circle of Safety" is not presently in place nor has it I
been tested. Furthermore, several other aspects concerning notification and evacuation contained in the " Circle of Safety" have not been tested to insure that proper and smely notification and evacuation will occur when needed.
I Specifically, there is no assurance that the information provided to the local populace will be disseminated in a manner so that it will be readily available when needed. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the population will l
l I l l
l l
understar.d and make appropriate use of the "I have been notified" signs.
[4(c)].
- 13. No provisions have been made for estimating the numbers of persons who will intentionally or otherwise not fcilow the appropriate response instructions in the event protective action must be taken by the populace. Furthermore, no plans have been adopted to deal with such persons. No consideration nor plan-ning has been made to calculate the effect of the possible public disobedience or indifference to evacuation instructions upon the effectiveness of the overall CCRERP. Finally, there is no reasonable assurance that the data and evacuation or other instructions provided the public during the time of a general emergency or otherwise will be presented in a crcdible manner and from a source who will possess a high degree of credibility with the public to be informed and evacuated. Specifically the lessons of Three Mile Island demonstrate that the public in that locale had and continue to hr.ve a low level of confidence in the accuracy of information provided by both utility and public officials.
[4(c),
(e) and (f)].
14.
Th roughout the CCRERP reliance upon many volunteers' actions is presumed. Our example is the local volunteer fire and emergency rescue squads.
There is no reasonable assurance that voluntects will not act according tc the CCRERP when faced with a radiological emergency, particularly when many will have families residing within the EPZ.
[4(e} and (f}].
15.
The CCRERP provide no reasonable assurance that the school attending children will be safely and timely evacuated during school hours because:
(1) there are an insufficient number of buses; (2) tne buses are not kept on the '
~-
school grounds; (3) school personnel lack sufficient training to handle a radiological emergency; and (4) school bus drivers may not be readily available during school'aours.
[4(c), (e), (f) and (g)].
16.
Many of the evacuation routes in Clermont County are impassable or difficult to navigate during time of inclement weather including rain, snow and flooding and in all sections where there are only 2 lanes during even good weather assuming the volume of traffic necessary du, ring times of evacuation.
Respectfully submitted, f.
C ohn Woliver Attorney for Intervenor Dr. Fankbauser Clermont County Legal Aid Society P.O. Box #47, 550 Kilgore Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 (513) 732-2422 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was personally delivered to the offices of the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company located at Fourth & Main -
ii
.s e
Streets in Cincinnati, Ohio on November 13, 1981, and other copies of the foregoing were mailed to the following on the 13th day of November,1981.
John H. Frye III Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Chairmar, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensirg Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C.
20555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Er. M. Stanley Livingston Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1005 Calle La go Commission Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Chairman,' Atomic Safety and Of fice of the Executive Legal Licensing Appeal Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens James Feldman, Esq.
Docketing and Service Branch Attorney at Law Office of the Secretary 216 East Ninth Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Commicsion Washington, D.C.
20555 William Peter Heile, Esq.
David K. Martin, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor Assistant Attorney General City of Cincinnati Acting Director Box 214 Division of Environmental Law Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Of fice of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 N1'VIr'
/,
4 01 DoCynto I tyJ"^
F MOV 1 6 G g.
, ~
-3
~
...... ~y
..n.
Ib
Mrs. Mary Reder George Pattison Box 270 Prosecuting Attorney of Route 2 Clermont County, Ohio
-California, Kentucky 41007 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
Attorney at Law 200 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Troy B. Conner, Esq.
Conner, Moore and Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 I 1
/'t s) l-ohn Woliver.,..
.... _..-.