ML20032D960

Revised Contentions of Mentor,Ky.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20032D960
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	11/13/1981
From:	Reder D, Reder M MENTOR, KY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111190359
Download: ML20032D960 (19)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:' y'- ~ q): ' ~ &[jj' .j . l.Wf(!l.1ffi py -- m DOLKETED* " h, % USNRC . t. R,c. a. ' i f *Q.' UNITcD STATES OF AFERIC%1 M 16 P3:21 NUCLEAR RECULATORY CONJ.:1S'UIONN.. [I .c ~ FTTCE OF SECRETARY iM"N - s A?OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGEDWGHS & SERVICE' 1 '"#2 i ~' ~ BRANCH p1 ~ Before Adminis trative Judges: 6 '.4 /N ,../. ,:ke. K$E / { John H. Frye, III Chairman J r p. //0 y 2 3.IS81r t-v Dr. Frank F. Hooper '9 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston - y"gg.4 [ g ~~ /, N / +[$N 4 In the Natter of k=y

m CINCINNATI GAS &. ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No7 50-358-OL^

.9 (William h. Zimmer Nuclear l'ower Station,-

x'.

Unit 1) .e , +, HE1 SED CON'PENTIONS OF ' life Cl+Y OF f.EN'I OH In the prehearing conference in Cincinnati on October 29 and '30, 1981, and by its order of November 5,1981, this Board directed the City of Kentor to review its contentions and to re-write any which the City thinks might be improved by revision. 3 'The following revised contentions are Nnt or's ' attempt to' comply a with the lioard's wishes. It is appropriate to point out that the City places. full.. - :_ C. faith in NRC's.' regulations and regulatory machinery;- t hat i-is l': D, ,.yy 7.;..p.) e ; ( the NHC?toL - it expects the, Fegulations to mean what-they sp*y 'and - .,1 ~ v m cpply and enforce its regulations dilir,enily. inu'NllC "regards:',[ all of the planning standards. identified and. contained heroin as ~ [., 5

t. ' '~se -

i = 4 8111190359 811113 .Y PDR ADOCK 05000358 94, \\ o PDR ? .rq e

i..;.s., p id,::(sML;..IM,t5p v.L. '

.y... y N p W.. n ;< ~d s

N.5 c.;,,L ~ %x a. g 49 .s?' essential 1or an adequate radiological emergency plan"-(emphases ..,m q added) (liU!M.-0654/PEMA-REP-1 I-C, p. 5) ar.d Mentor's partici-.., #..g. .s ' . ',. r.., y v : g e. c, to assist this Board iri 'thisi.M pation in these proceedings is meant . <',M9'.y ; J 'f G .~ regard. Mentor's concerns are not, or should not be limitedflto ',f ..7.d those aspects of emergency planning and response that are directly q 4 ~ O*J related to the City, nor does or should the City have the burden 'm N of showing such direct relhtionships. It was alarming, there- .-U fore,'at the prehearing conference to hear an NRC staff lawyer, ' in what seemed to be an adversarial manner, state to the effect . 7 c .n that identor had no business. offering contentions about the 50-Y mile EPZ in Indiana or the protection of distant water supplies Nevertheless, ,c,.f because these are outside Mentor's city limits. ..g since this Board made no comment on the appropriateness of those. .:5 at least somei remarks and kentor has no guidance in this respect, of the revised contentions that follow show a direct relationship between Mentor and the outside world. Although Mentor has not in detail the radiological emorrency response plans for reviewed Kentucky's Pendleton and Bracken Counties, thcae plans were de-veloped in the same atmoshpore and it is probable that they con-tain the same general deficiencies that Mentor points to in the Kentucky and Campbell County plans. .,[ if the plans for Kentucky and its affected counties had been* .f ~ developedwiththefullconsiderationandparticipatio'nofilocal,[,1- ._l ,-it:is governmental entities that is discussed in Contenti~on.l' u in the other con-Y t likely tha t many or most of the deficiencies . 3. y r g e ..y g g m.m-, ~ u.

yg ; gvg N :' ' ' r, yW',7 t T.. l ' fi f..%, g l e,

, (

.s .. p: -m ,,. m. ..w - c.-an m .w.,,. .p.: rn ;;. i t t'entions could have been eliminated beforehand. There are.so'.many w ,.J; m,-e ~Cm specific instances of bad planning and inadequate resources '.that. } :. ' +ce ..w w... -: ca s it is beyond Mentor's ability to write them concisely,and cin sh' art a 4. . v..u v s noticeincontengions: indeed, it is Mentor's view that the NRC's 7 . ml: insistenceonfull'localparticipationinplanningeffortsisde'~~K U 'W ' [, - signed to preclude such a task. For example, Contention 4D deals ' }u. J with a particular hazard in a particular roadway and is meant to' r ,' exemplify several hazards in several roadways. Mentor had th.ought, ~ afid still does, that c'alling attention to one deficiency in one); - ' roadway micht initiate a thorough review of the capabilities-and. c.., limitations of the entire evac'uat,lon roadway network, with' parti '.# ) .s.. cipation by local people who know the roads and their permanent g and intermittent hazards and who must perforce use the roads, 8 weather permitting, during an evacuation. Whether the City chose the best example is a matter of conjecture, but the health, safety, and lives of many people might very well depend upon it. In any event, Mentor's abilities, or lack thereof, to draw comprehensive conter ,ns or to compete with legal experts should not be factors in devermining the adequacy of emergency response plans. Pursuant to the Board's desire, the City of Mentor met with the applicant on November 10, 1981, and discuused the City's con-At that' time the applicant gave the City a NUREG-0654/. I tentions.

Aal.

-.w. FEMA-REP-1 cross' reference to the Campbell County plan and provided.;;- , z 9.mn g an interpre tation of a. table in the Stone and Webster evacifation. i m time study. Mentor has not had time to study these 'and itsere-~ > f. = ~ }; },

s

'1 .;,,e ~ _ ) ' g_. ,3 , [. ' e dp a ~ ~ .e. '.."**W { ~ .. " ~. ,- } ..w .; ~. -

.w n, 1 a t e.1 eon a :o.16uu re.ir.a j in 14 :a i Lui e l' s t. thiu t.is.a:. Io viuw of the-i ppl i...in I 's i I. 4;l:e t a pprov.41 oT t he })ropteues! l-l ::na..au t.h u y u 1,u n d, ~ t 1.6 i i :.y is n.6.1p t itui u1. ic I!ast i urI her iiiucou. ior::: conlil be Iruit- ..-. l'ul but - is wi13inP to uneei vihunever uno applicant i hinku-the City's --n. connerna mi.t.1 have isome trna'l l.. 7;. !J.d C I'n*Y OF i.d.h i s., i. 4.1. liC ;Y yy,- @ 4 y h 4 s gg W f f..ary Hedur/. onu i el 2: tour u., A

• 'i.. d.i l i.'

.'4. I... a.y. '11007, .i e pi en; u n I a I.*i u ot I. l a i:i i y o l' l.le n 1.o r I i a p' '~ 1: e, k .s. 9 .g W e 'w-6*b T 4 _ wm~ ._ ~.. _.,. ~. ,k. . f w v L-. _, -.?

• 69

.. -r p w u_~ <.h ,_'._-a b ', :,a

..m

__t w_

y; ,.. s - + CONTENTIONS 1. The proposed Kentucky and Campbell County radiological.,, n - -. x.' 1 emergency response plans are null and void and without effect be- -- ^ ~ cause. they are not the product. of the cooperation, mutual agree -Ty( '~ .1 i T ment and partnershih of and between state and local government - as anticipated and required.by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~;' J an'd the' Federal Emergency Management Agency in 45 Federal Reg ' ~ 55402-55405: 10 C.F.R. 9'50 33(g): 10C.JjR.650,- _ ister 162, pp. 47; in 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix Es and in NUREG-0654/ FEMA- - REP-1. I, pp. 1-36 and Apper[ dix,5, p. 5-2. ...t'he. applicant shall submit radiological emergency- .~ response plans of State and local governmental enti-ties in the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning-Zone (EPZ), as well as the plans of State governments wholly or partially)]within the ingestion pathway EPZ. [10 C.F.R. 9 50 33 (g l The City of Mentor is located in Campbell County, Kentucky-, about two miles from the Zimmer station, is within the 10 and 50-mile EPZs (as defined in 10 C.F.R. 950 33(g): 10 C.F.R. 9 50.47 l (c)(2): and NUREG-0654 I-D-2, pp.10-13) and is clearly a govern-i mental entity in the above context. While the texts of 45 Federal Register 162, pp. 55402-55405, and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, pp.1-30 make frequent reference to local governments, local emergency plans,; - -- ' ~ and local' official's and authorities, neither gives the. barest d f, l .. -.a. .a.. = - ~ x., ~ ',i hint, either 'explicitl[~or. implicitly, that.~ a larger. 6i Sijher'N!" M... ..a::m,m,,- ~ level government may pre-empt, bypass or exclude a smaller"or?lowerf h', level government -(or' vice versa)' 'in any stage' or par.t of tthe P6.16; 7 ~ Jf.y. J y. g; 3:.:,; s u.;, 3 l. + i = * - e y

w >.s y..

w i

N QQ, -{ _: e-res-m-

m ,y ...there'isah* emergency planning process. On the contrary, immediate need to address fixed nuclear facility planning at all y;

n. ::,

. levels of government, beginning at the lowest and going to. the".i t-f?,; ~ 4 ,-' ~ highest." (45 Federal Register 162,. p. 55405). The..following ..c.i,; references underscore this point. ",;p [J . j;, ,.,c w ~ The concept of Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) neces-sarily implies mutually supportive emergency planning-and preparedness arrangements by several levels of. government: Federal, State and local governments, in - 4 s cluding counties, townships pnd even villages. (NUREG. 0654, I-E, p. 19) J~' In some situations several county-level governments and municipal or township governments will have jurisdic-tional authority within the EPZ and these separate. "' governmental entities will control-their own emergency. r response organizations and resources....The response organizations and resources of municipal or township governments can be integrated -- by nutual agreement -- into the overall multi-county emergency response plan. (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. I-E, pp. 19-20) Local government plans and response mechanisms are particularly important for the 10-mile EPZ.... Local government plans should b6 made a part of the State emergency plan. (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, I-E, pp. 20-21) The 50-mile EPZ for the ingestion (agricultural con-sumption) exposure pathway may encompass one or several States, as well as many local government, municipal or township jurisdictions. Planning for the implementing of protective measures associated with the ingestion exposure pathway is best handled by the State govern-ment, with support from local governments, particularly at the county level, with backup from the Federal G6vern-ment. (NUREG-0654/FEFA-REP-1, I-E, pp. 21-22) ...an ini;egrr.ted approach to the development of response plans to radiological hazards is most likely to provide the best protection of the health and safety of the pub ' 5 ~ lic. NRC and FEMA-recognize that, plans of licensees,',,d State and local governments should not be developed-in 'W a vacuum or in isolation from one another. Should an d ~ accident occur, the public can be best protected when-1 3 [.h( 'A v,& m i[?,7'

• ;,44

~ yf. b. .. :t 6-G; n.f. .,1 .c ; z m c-n,e-e s.

w ~: the response by all parties is fully integrated. Each party involved must have a clear understanding of what the overall level of preparedness-must be and what role it will play in the. event of a. nuclear. accident. ; i.5 3.. This understanding can be achieved best if there is an?.f " 2? integrated development and evaluation of plans. .There' " must also be.an acceptance by the parties and a clear m-recognition of the responsibility.they share for safe?, C 7 . s. _.. . d. - - guarding public health and safety. (NUREG-0654/ FEMA 3-r _. i REP-1, I-E, pp.,23-24) .lUL.j '[} a.d.,, ~ n ' Nor is it possible to define the particular roles,- function and responsibilities of " principal organi-zations" and "sub-organizations". This is a matter. that is best defined by the various parties involved in developing plans and prephredness for each. nuclear site. Where'the guidance indicates a function that-must be performed, emergency planners at all levels, must decide and agree among themselyes, which organi-zation is to perform such function. (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Appendix 5

p. 5-2)

The Commission believes, based on the record created by the public workshops, that State and local officials as partners in this undertaking will endeavor to pro-vide fully for public protection. (45 Federal Register 162, Rationale for the Final Rules, p. 55404) 'the City of Mentor had no involvement whatsoever in the production of the proposed Kentucky and Campbell County radio-logical emergency response plans. There is no evidence within or without the plans that the City participated, had opportunity, to participate, or refused to participate in the designation of a local lead agency or in the formulation of any State or local plans or that the City had or has any supportive role in the plan-ning or in an emergency response. Further, the radiological emer-gency response plans of the City of Mentor are not included in, .s. 'integrat'ed with, or appended to'e'ither pian';; and the CityfoYf a a s Mer. tor has not approved or given any indication of approval of _ ~~ u ~ - ~ qi.p,= gl-1N. W.

__u ".2:. = 3

= ~

m u.: . p-w wvem n rv ~- / cc,p. 4 .y w. a. e .h. . + . n. .v. ;. ;jy;,g;~rc:L L,. .m 7 ' ' D&;, 4 :.?,

3.rr. ~.

either plan, nor does'either plan imply or make provis~ ion"foh D..v' W n, . m,,, ~ .-m.. 9 . d'Z'1I. i - ..n..:,...

l. 'i. -.

such approval. .: m p:... n:2.,

,m. t.p. r.,,.

. ne.g.my2 ' - Also,-the City of Alexandria, the~ City.of California,'.and;.ff~N'7 g;g. ..., w.- .. m. ..a c .4.m 3. 4.- . : e. yg@,,nh"W,ME9,1 tie's ;in Ken'tucki] a....:S the", h[L ' Cam ..<. : - +5% . ~. ~ A.M,E .. ;:r.y

3.,s

s. g c

.r: .~. i. s!. defined in ;10ic.F.R.t% 50 33(g)'and.Lthery%.gj)%, ; a.- .v Ym w + '~ + m.. w.. 3., ..; 2.,. _ F.:~ has~ been no partnership, mutual agreement or cooperation betweenr ~ '. ~-

g,, - - 1

. :-,. c s T them, either individually or collectively, and the City of Mentor oi Campbell County'or Kentucky in any radiological' emergency? W ^' ~. '~ ,S !;.; planning. The authors.of the proposed, Kentucky and Campbell County plans have gratuitously excluded Mentor and other local govern 1' ments from the planning. Therefore, the proposed plans are specious and invalid and can not be evaluated by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REF-1, whose planning standards, evaluation criteria and appendices are predicated on the necessity of involvement, co-operation and agreement among all levels of government. This Board must deny an operating license because the applicants have not submitted State and local radiological emergency response. plans, as required by 10 C.F.R. 9 50 33(g). To hold these pro-posed plans valid or acceptable would be to deny the City of Mentor and other local governmental entities the protection J;,. established by NRC, and FEMA regulations. 7.+, . ~ _.. ..QL The proposed Kentucky and Campbell County radiologicale.4 %.x. ~, 2. .r.ny.m y y . :.,:; w. a -. .c n,,

c.

i.v q) . response plans invalidate'themselves as' responses:to'the: require-b 4 ,..+-.v.....,; . u.. ?p M, ments ~ for plans'in.10 C.F.R. 9 50 33(g),10 C.F,R. @ 50.47 (a(,3(br.ppj 23 ?

m...

[.-. A ?7-e ? .} 3 g s ,g

• r

'y[ .n.,==

• a,

n,... - - ~ -. "]

s or

. m g.wcrg 7 aq e

4 3- ,.re. 4 .k 3 s . ' ~3. r. ] ';d? m. ? ,c un k.y;g.,.- -g ~\\' ? 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-06524 because they're " % ' -. u.- . ;g ; pudiate their own use during an emergency. The Campbell Countyri;. J,9 m vv.n + w .s.gf,;- @i[.:,:. plan.'[p. V. Pian'Organi:dat. ion $) contains the f f ollowin 1 * . % :~ . m,Y.

.'. g.Qaf, "During -an emergency,- Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS).. dej[

.n y,. ...w. '9M;gi veloped.- from the; plan, will be employed to respond ; to.the emer "[M,,@% g ~ n .m.m ~ -~ m.ww-3: - - w c. p,:gy y w h.W ;f gency'rather than-this planning document". This statement is es-...d .n o g, g o sentia11y repeated in the Campbell County Basic Plan, Appendix 8 [ [

p. VII-8-1, and twice in the Kentucky, plan:

Plan Organization, ~ ' . ? ?:. SOPS are not included ' a 4

p. VI and Basic Plan, Appendix 5, P. 5 in the plans and have not been submitted separately.

s.., -.,

e ..w Since the. plans disavow themselves and establish SOPS as. thesinehuanonofemergencyplanningduringanemergency,and n since no SOPS ale contained in the proposed plans or have been ... w:,w y otherwise cubmitted, the people of Mentor, of Campbell County," and of Kentucky have no plan to protect their health, safety. and interests during a radiological emergency at the Zimmer plant. As they stand, the so-called plans are, by self-description and by objective inspection, simply statements of intentions or, at best, plans for plans. To conside;' them in any other light would deny Mentor its right to make a timely evaluation of plans that would actually be used during an emergency, those that, if they exist, are hidden in the undisclosed SOPS. 3 Although-the'-50-mile ingestion pathway for~the Zimmer % @ m.:'.- ' PG O WN

p,

- ;3 .;n; - ~:j_ Station; EPZ includes; about 700 squaru miles of southeast' Indiana'm ;;.f4 a - ,p j ,.., = .,.gwe :n y ~ ea $ 3_ ' th'er'e'arenoradiol'dgl{cafemergencyplansbyoronbehalfoftheh..g', M q.3 1- - 3_ . g.4.w,,.. gg:, p... .g ey:< .u ..g- .. y.s,, ?A

5. -

- ~ ~ 4., y + I' ,w y

• t..

51

• r. ' A ** j 6

'* l 7 %~ : ~~'T O. R L... ~ t%%'_.- .M ;., L.,. -,f.. ~. s")~ ;., ;g,, L - ~

~.A

. I"> [. J' MTif-l r. '~ W r[:.a p ~1: ..g c;j..; w. 4 m

qqq +; y .v; 9"" .~ f, . v This ~ State of Indiana or the affected local Indiana governments. omission endangers the health, safety, and interests, not only.of, a m x._ .. ~. . (f[% the peop5e of'Incianit, but 'also $If'$he peoplN ' of Mentorf Campbell'.f ' ' $ ne-c. County, Kentucky, and Ohio, and is in violation of 10 C.F.R. Part,QO, .. w E .AppendixfE, 10 C.F.R.6 50 33 (g) e.10 C.F.R. 9 50.47, NUREG,0654/FEMAki.- .[T, REP-1, II-J-ll,[p[.79 (and'all' other criteria for state plans whYch $ '-- .u. are related to ingestion pathway planning).

p 1

The people of Mentor, of Campbell County, and of Kentucky m. (and of Indiana and Ohio) do not live in a vacuums political bound ries are of no significance here. Parts of Kentucky (in-o cluding Mentor),' Indiana and 0hio f'orm a tri-s' tate area within which there is prodt:ction, distribution and consumption of milk and other foodstuffs with little or no regard to point of origin. The people of Mentor buy their food in this tri-state market and must not be exposed to the hazards of contaminated food from the unprotacted Indiana part of the 50-mile EPZ. Simple humanitar-ianism extends this concern to all people who might be similarly exposed.

4. The proposed radiological emergency response plans for Kentucky or Campbell County, or both, do not respond, or respond inappropriately, inaccurately, incompletely, or vaguely to sev-eral elements in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and to 10 C.F.R.

50.47. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, or to their rationales. 7 A) Neither plan is' cross-referenced to tue evaluation h/ criteriE, as required by 'NUREc-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 I-J, p. 29 and II-P-8, p. 79 72-- o J e g g P,

..1

d )'g Q 'n.g Q

& '?- =

• A ; g Q S ;5.

, m- .[. fp / ~.w +: .p ; l6 :. n' L, k.w ;.,.w,, g&s. e ;,&. ^ ', - t, ~ t ter evacuation time study."(KentuckyN.? i ,7 E Plan Annex F, Appendix F-5 and.. campbell County plan: Annex F. Ap-df.h AQY,.,.&Bgy Q g, c.ia?y'}1 %..t pe,ndix~F-18) is' deficient in several respects _and givesia falself %.g-: Gy. y:. A t~... Li ;.w, y. a. +. :- v -ae 'i .q; i.:w w W m' -+ ' f. " ' optimistic impression. of! the ability-of thelp:eople W6 vacua'teNiinT W .gm te [i ;- .a safe and timely manner during a radiological emergency,.(5n ;the;s'. # ^ ~ 2 i b

n...,

.;~x,4;. :..y~g Tg

w

~,. - M ".F -. following recitation the parenthetical citings after sub-parts i,. ~ - u,. _ viii, and x refer.to clarifying addenda that follow these conten,w. tions: all others refer to requirements in Appendix 4. of NUREG-- ~ e ~ 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 -by seetion, part, and page number. The study: ~, 4; :.b -z w ~ i) grossly underestimates _ evacuation times and the conclusions are not supported by the assumptions (Addendum 1) ii) does not give estimates of evacuation times for the segment of the non-car-owning population dependent upon public trans-port (IV-B, p. 4-9) lii) does not indicate the critical assumptions which underlie the time estimates (e.g., day versus night, workday versus week-end, peak transient versus off-peak transient, and evacuation on adjacent sectors versus nonevacuation) (IV-A, p. 4-7) iv) does not address the relative significance of alternative assumptions (IV-A, p. 4-7) v) does not make evacuation time estimates for each special facility on an individual basis (II-C, p. 4-3: IV-B, p. 4-10)! 't p .,. p vi) do'es not consider the,; impact of peak populations. including; y g .g: 1 behavioral aspects (IV-B,..p..4-10) ~ .a -.. m; - s,5 p

9. r.

n ~. m.. .s ., ' q. . p:. c -h ~. 5 <s. r_. ~ hi G N 4.. ,~ ' - ' 7_ e- .. x m m. % C._..,.. ; e .,s -. m s. w % @ g t. c 7: 7 3 --s w

my .y e e..y .~s

jg

~.

4 .s, w -

3

.. w. c . :. n s.pi 1 % ;: . a j f..::S_.. A. vii)'doesnotmakespecificrecommendationsforactions;thaty.,p[h.f ~... a .. $1.,, ..could be taken to significantly improve evacuation time (V, p. h-10)"yj contains' errors' in measurements of road, widths. that coul'd.g W-F-Wg ':a *.. a n:.. ~"~ -., nk T} - viii)- ,A ~ ,. m. "^ g ' - .5 -: u.. p w- = _m y .9 .., g M 'r;" influence calculationsi'of ? road capacities and result:12i additional Q W @. ~ - $ ; c Q@ .w.. 2 ~ r.T 7 ~xc.t,T(~ ~ unde.r.mestimati.7ons' of -evacuation times. ( Adden,dum 2),.. d.s 497;76 2,g .g eg f.p,c.c. M ix)f]ioes' not'contain" comments by the principal organiza,tionsursh ~ W~ ~ , x. m..- sulting from their review-of a draft submittal of the study (,

x_

p. 4-10)

~ x) contains unresolved conflicts of_ great proportions between M evacuation time estimates by Stone and Websyer and those,by the- ~ Kentucky Disaster and Emergen'cy Services, the Ohio Disaster Services Agency, and 'the Clermont County Disaster Se: vices Agency (Ad-dendum 3) C) There are no provisions for alternate evacuation routes or for evacuation in opposite directions en the provided routes in consideration of different radioactive plume directions, traffic congestions, or impassable roadways. Maps in Annex F of both plans have arrowheads pointed inexorably in fixed directions and the Kentucky Division of Disaster and Emergency Services has pub-licly stated that no consideration whatsoever will be given to changing the plans in this respect. Since Appendix 2 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 'is 'davoted entirely to meteorlogical measurements . i and predictions o# atmosphericeffluen_ttransport.anddiffusionh,. w:6n. e ,+ a:kL- - W. and criterion J-2 provides alternate evacuation routes for"6nsite'T l '.L Gi - a ' individuals,1 the., regulations clearly imply, and comm,on ' sense - ]4 1 a. ;. w mes,a 2- - - en,,

x..;

1 . m. a. ? d ;.,. 'i; ' 7 , :) '-~ . + s e ,,v, g J $.. I !.C ~ hl.=%.~Q:::; a .h n _ g,,., ~._ prew. m;#- cc t o... m+.+. n.._ - m sm,t,g .3 %

r y.

- a-y. - : ;,,,....

p-u: _g :

g,y -

w,:i 3, t c ~. w.} _ . m. a 1 - 2 . ' e ' M;;-} ""*A-dictates, that the general'public should be able to' flee away.. 5._;ju4 from a radioactive. plume rather than be forced tofpas's.through it. u. .x. n.. .m-n. ^,NMAh;' C.7Mi)) ' A de5[gn'akN ma$or evadifftlon Foute, Keniiud$:7.RciuY$87b'h ~ q:. ,y z.< ~ 3 - 7 y 9 4 @,3 is' dangerous 'in places'.for ordinary uce and cbviously. unfith, d,j., cm y

3. _ -

g

-. = m i.. - emergency evacuation; purposes..~In-particular, south.of... Twelve ~- . M:: Mile Creek the roa'd'is built into the side of a steep hillFand is - @y .r .: ~ e yy-;,2, M 2^ n g .,...m ~ m'C.J ~. ~ .m ~ - frequently subject to slippages, some of them so severe that'the ,3 '.~ north bound lane has been practically unusable for weeks at a c time. ' Piles have bee'n driven recently in an effort to support ~ " ~ ' the roadway, but the' road surface is dangero,usly irregular and convoluted and would be particul rly hazardous during emergency = evacuation conditions. E) The several schools, public and priva te, located within the 10-mile EPZ in Kentucky lack sufficient buet.c and drivers to evacuate the school children in a fast, safe and orderly manner the buses do not have communications equipment for use during an evacuation or for notification and instructions to drivers in the event of a radiological emergency during the picking up or deliv-ering of school children to and from schools or during the use of buses in school activitiesi there is no radio communications system for warning (first alert) or for use during an evacuation between the schoo'ls and the Zimmer plant, and the various local, state and federal response agencies: there iu no internal tele-j ., x m. > -- 7 phone bystem of dedicated lines"between the central officef and .[8 .u n.p y- ,3 .c ~ several schools ~.and.there is no agreement between the local .i. 7 ::.,. ; ; y. n ; a

c -

. n = = ~s 3 ...w-- e---' --i..,** *.. s..

j.

k -e +. '- ~ ~ -9~- ..u .v ~ f.Y.. l ; L.. : 4a.,. ...,' b, : S t?. _ y._

,;

?

~ ,W;$ -Q:.}m;__ik fi-L.v A.. _m .m

p. ..g:m v - n.. c s -- - i ~X -. m. "r 'm . ?: .y s F & ' ; ;-bn. : C.'..in .. %p. > boards of education and the state ~and local radiologica1Lresponse"~'.N M-m l, ' # planners and agencies that the schools or the response' agencies..,~,,., m.4, s,.1.u W, :.2 mi.gy:b.y i_ s quie gg, , t have the procedures,1 equipment or; manpower.to ensure"a'fastraafewgf m f N.# m y.,;. .. m._ v. .. m ,n....~ ~ ' ~'" ' and orderly evacuation.of' school [ chi}dren.' yif% j.'y ${fy .;- 7 7,y;;: .g. e~ m.c ?.1. SThe Kentucky. Division of' Disaster ' and Emergency.;S,ervices hasl ;;,], x, . u.. -:. : afGepiF. . a,g,.;;.; g - 3 7; p... .p _, - t/," publicly stated that.'neither '~it nor 'its Campbell County.. counter- ;, 74d v- _ -y e _c part has written cr will write-SOPS for the schools,#but that it-q n- .+ + ~ is the schools' responsibility;to wri,te them. There.is.no evidence;.9 that SOPS for schools have been. written or will be written inithe - foresneable future. x Despite the fact.that. the Campbell County school system does not'have enough buses to evacuate schoolchildren simultaneously (it daily uses 54 buses to accomodate 5800 children and about half of the buses are involved in shuttle, double, or triple runs), the proposed Campbell County plan says that the school system is the" primary agency for transportation" during an evacuation ( Annex M. IV-A, p. M-2) and assigns the system the additional duty of patroling the 10-mile EPZ and providing evacuation transportation for people without personal vehicles (Campbell County plans . Annex C, IV-D-1, p. C-4 Appendix F-6 Appendix F-9, II, p. F-9-1 Appendix F-9, III-A, p. F-9-2:. Appendix F-18, pp 324, p. 3-2, pp. 4-1 and 4-2, p. 5-6).. F) Although the plans acknowledge that it isfimportant ..fj g 44a --that, potassium iodi'del(KI) beladministered as early;as' possible, [ y a..; ~:s cy .w .. b

: - - w :.c;n

~ m n g <, ~' '3: _ J;,

~

after a radioactiveGelease and' that.it 1oses effe'etiveness-. T L; 7 u . _ + WLr ,y q. Os, @.y 4 "e ~ ." w / 2. _V_

• ^

=' + - yky E d *. [{' N5 - -y?'

• b_

a:

, o - ;; -L %m s *

• * ' l ;.r. '

o-kjEhS, Al $m] it y.,

w.; r. , c% 5:m...,, . y,

.py -

n , :.y. L; r quicklyoverashortperiodoftime,therearenoplansifor:.~the]p:..(('N = g; (. n u gy 1,' ~ storage or distribution'in Mentor or'in"the-immediate vicinity S h 3 f#wQ:'.,,25QQ:f.% . r-f c ~ % s. ,. e. Qf l. .. y Q; a. N of Mentor or within. the.10-mile EPZ of.KI~ f orj use byfthe general-y% ,4 +;sy.w2;:y : .c u w ,, w., r,,. -.2 r..,, _. 7 9, %.., public --(Campbell-County plan: Annex F,' IV-A-3, p. F.-4 sz1V-F,;2 Wu,;.O a .+;;.e4%. : - W%h.m ?' @Jgp_wy E T p.';F-7.3 Appendix F-11).. e n- +3 - 3-ev4 gy;> + Plans f'or"the. safe and timely evacuation off)b'~opl'e. 1 $ [ g jr[:ei I.If., G) ~ ~ y,.2;p p y;, . c.,, p.- without personal vehicles and for those who are elderly,thandi-j,l capped, confined or otherwise incapable of evacuating themselves are rudimentary, inadequate, undevelopad, and unworkable. The proposed Campbell County plan for such peoplg calls for their evacuation by school buses and t$ ough the assistance by the ~ Eastern Campbell County Volunteer Fire Department (Annex F, Appendix F-9, II, p. F-9-1 and III-C, p. F-9-3). The schools lack sufficient buses to evacuate school children (cce Contention 4-E, above) and can not provide buses for this purpoue; the fire department is not capable of providing this assistance (see Con-tention 4-H, below). H) The Eastern Campbell County Volunteer Fire Department is located about one-fourth mile outside Mentor and serves Kentor as well as an area in the southeast portion of Campbell County. The proposed Campbell County plans call for its participation in an emergency response (Annex f, Appendix F-6, p. F-6-1, Appendix F-9, III-C

p. F-9-3. Appendix F-10, III, p. F-10-1. Appendix.F-ll,

- 8. n'r II, p..F-11-1 ' AnnexLI,;pp. I-1-I-2, Appendix I-11 and Annex M,j e wm 'H. - A.J.i. , p. M-1, andTpo' sibly;IV-C

p. ' M-2, which refers ~ to' an 7 ; ~W.-r I-B-2~A s

n --.. i, .A.. ? '. y _, t Appendix I-2 which does -not exist). This fire department has no ~ s .7 n.- ,..v., 9. .y: r 9 j-a .I' 5 e 4j' s

J.y

• ..t

.f c... '-.

?- t' -ry '<.ni)4:L:= f~ *N i h : d :di,J-*[t;.,$ tK [. TW .. '-11. c 3 "I :.l[ ' $Rd

• • ~

(( 'M Il 4

_ w,, ~ t 43:;;g. ' T

d..',.QQQ..

. m.. $.s.. s plans for a radiological ~ emergency' response, has not participated "'".N , r.., w','in any state or local planning effort, has had no training for j % : 5 ? ' '.? '? 44 2 ? >,*k .. x... J:.9%v:s.v. zr n. ," p '. M M p.., w T MY ~:i - ?? fixed nuclear-f acilities radiological ' emerge.n'cies and'doed'not'O., y.yg'" g y $ Y< /p. p y.,,W anfi$ipate suchnraining,Shas inadequa,te or inappropriateira e. ,g y ~.. ~. m. %e n.- ..c v;f y logi6al. monitoring equipm'ent,t has rio radiological' protective ~geaQ2 Q ....~, u, - =... ~ .,, u. ,v c . and.has no radio communications with the Zimmer plant'and'inade- @y ;. _ _quate radio communications with other state and~ local' response j.G 9 y,_ agencies: and there is no_ evidence that the other fire depart- ^ ments within the 10-mile EPZ in Kentucky have adequate plans, training, and equipment to respond to a radiological emergency},' [ I) The prop 6 sed system for prompt' notification of the pub-- lic (Campbell County plan ( Annex C, I-A-1, p. C-1 IV-C, p. C 3, Appendix C-5) is inadequate and a burden to the people in that T 3 the siren system is designed to warn only 407, of the people with-in the 10-mile EPZ and has not been tested to ensure that it will achieve that design objective in any or all weather conditions l for people outside or inside their homes during all their various activities: -the radio system will not serve people who'are out - side their homes, farmers in; the field, or people in their. auto-mobiles and no arrangements, have been made to recompense the peo- ~ ple for the electricity.used by'the radios or for the rental of space in their homes and.the integrated siren and radio system. is not adequate to protect' those with. hearing or sight imparments"- ^ s,.wg u ~. or those who operate or aregnear loud or noiry equipment and, 'W' i l 9 - + y., being dependent upon electricity, will not functi6n dQring periods. 7,,,g w -lq g,- ~]:, ;~ ,y gf l = - '- .x,w[:;, ~. ..,s-l +y , ~

A e

r l --n,... py g ~ a i m .. :r .s .-v ,:_ w. h T v 4* e e -g 9- , - a_2 : c _12_ ;.. ym.t.;w ......~s OdisjdX kyNI.s *.lS'Xf[Sik. -G: ,e u

'a w"."C....., m.... s. ,., N.%.. ' ~ Sto,.9hE,. s-m m, i % (.Vi ~.w. ..-,. 7 ~ ,, s. . g.c. s .o w-m g, s. v. p[ . m,~, rx..w., s o m.. g. w w v. ~ ....a 4; ew. +. n. .. ;,w. v s,. c -

2. Wag < e

.,.q:n;:yg g@y, 'w g - w of electric power outage.'y;; h .v a.c. a -r i W. sImx . u.a. %g - JMb J)$.Prov.isions"for the etorage and subsequent usei uring Ti M M d T d 7 - g i $ 5 a.,'i M d. W T p u d Q M k.?,;^. = s k mir:w, 4 m,9 4 radiological O r_if or 'l_ive.4 _9, rE ) % ~~. s.% .~ m 4 .g..i,.., .w . g

e. #A.A...

.u ~ a g g %q.,;. ~ ;,. -. m%r-". stock and other ' domestic".w.manimals.,(Canpbell County plan.4..j,y, ., gg s .n .. <. _gs,,y ,.m,... s,. . 5.:.. a + =m. c,...w .w; w..n,. .=s. a.c w. ..m&:.-. ...c ,n=... 1 .s ~ s g..U a c.. x.. r v2+ s.. L we ~ y.... n Appendix,t F-12,;VI,'t p'.MF-12-2) Odo"ri~ot' ensure" that ample Tsupplios%WM a M $ T h. KM.. " exist on the sites '~of' or.'.~in the neighborhoo,ds~ of theirii xng g.wp

- c. g g-s

, 4,... o...,. gap ,.m ., ;.. e - p. .w.. ~ nn g y,.1, v. 0;, m - _~ .s. , -e - -s , <.w s ..n t s. es% _l~b . use~ or[that the.aniinals' Mill have a3rompt and continudus. supplyf q of uncontaminated feed.and water during an emergency.. s K) Provisions for the monitoring, control and regulation of public water supplies,.or f'or the availability of uncontam ~. inated water to the public, bef' ore and during a radiological emergency (Campbell County plan Annex D, Appendix D-3 Annex-F.'G,

p. F-8, pp. F-ll, F-12, and F-13 Appendix F-12 IV, p. F-12-1 Annex H, IV-B, p. H-2: Annex P, Appendix F) are not ade-quate to protect the health and safety of the people of' Mentor or for a large population within the 10 and 50-mile EPZs in Kantucky becauce there is no radio communicationi system between the Zimmer plant or state or local response agencies and the water treatment and supply facilities:

the water treatment and supply facilities do not have the equipment or trained personnel for continuous monitoring of water befor.e and during a radiological emergency: the present plans are too; undeveloped and too c11.mcy and time- ~2: - consuming to ensure'that promptfan'd appropriate protective action ~ f .o c, ...y. . ny.. .. ~.. c .u. ' m can be.taken: and,ifurther,uthe' people of the City of; Mentor.1and-1 G., q.;- K, - ?;;. y.c ,m.

n

% ;.;T a large populatio..~ q. g<$the 10'. .n. a s. n and.50-mile:EPZs, whcifre.ceiveSe. c?y % n;within u %. s.%. a y % v..4 v,+ 9 n u.,

s.. w... 7, g, e wp-p.~ n ~

y-13 e e~r ~; .%y,s :' r*.

m. e -

u.. 4 . e, g. 0, +* g, i .e , j ; *y[. _, s .1 t:

j._

• '?.'*

3. l (.y.,

• 3,

_.4 w 'Ne s A- ~ ,[ ;; ' n y-tA jW # <. ~ - - h- '

• N

.EM k+1T [..'N.,2~;.t ...,. 1.N

• 5 Wh 8 '
• S U '"
• ,.i ny'f e

. ;. g }' }, ?.f.- x.s.2-.~:;q,p.an.- w n w.g,N _y n u. $$NN55ikN$NN[2s $irN D' ,j4 W u

. g.,, c-7 ;. w , m. v- +,.6- + .3 n., m- ~ ~ g.y. 4.- a. c ,.a _ y i... ' ' ' ' _ t ~;. ; '~ 7_ (f' 2.V W l & ? j Q 2 k their water from~ treatment and supply. facilities that are situat'ed N. ~ w;M, near and are not unlike those.of the' city of Cincinnati, have.not t _ o .-4.4 ,-..,..,s w.y; ~- _,._x... ~ -received consideration and: potential. protection similarfor equal.;.g'h,.&

~

r* 1 - uy.%....p '.:3 ' : q -..m dMT . ;e.n.-

. _ a.,; a,b. :: :

w..

~ m- . %.m w -;. cpm - to. that. given the people ~ of Cincinnati as evidenced -.by;the' recent;n.v,4 3;ygn. mm. m-n a,3.._.. aettlemen t between.ths. applicant. and C.incinnati in a. mat.t.er,:of.,"@.;. 6m.b,r.:.,., 2... ...v.w w.&p, ~ tQ 2.if: . e 2. r e _ w,. ,p u, en mn - .T.;; :* "?"T,. c.I.CF@. ~ radiolo'gical protection?" " + C ~ 7.. .y,y -.- ~ L) The City of Mentor, being wholly or partially within,2., two. miles of the Zimmer plant and thus,being particularly vulner. able and sensitive'to a~ radiological accident at~Zimmer-and havingi g . g.g. wc..: =.m..

y..

g j,- , g.,;.,, [ e.,,. 5 ~ ~ p special and unique response problems, is unable to protect its ~ citizens adequately because it doe's not have a radio communications system for communications between the City and the Zimmer plant (first alert), state and local response agencies (Campbell County plan: Annex B). M) The City of' Mentor has and has demonstrated a special, active and knowledgeable interest in the spectrum of responses to a radiological accident at Zimmer, yet it has no role, nor has it been offered 'one, as an observer or critic of any exercise or drill by state and local response agencies (Campbell Coumty plan Annex S, IV-E, p. 5-4). '. e .= g D' ,%..4 ..S, e-,, =,, f*j $5j G # -4 ;4 ;, '- + .Q , i,,*". .."d [ .+ ~.i ~ y v < 4,.. .t4 a " :..,. s p.. m., 9 [ q ' '] -9 2< cy 4. p. ~ .s n f "'yr 5+ 9.i ,,. ;f,,.3..,A*..-- .g __- ~.':.. - 'e: g g, .,b ~ l. . - n.. r. py w j c.: w n ~...,,.y.,w.,- ~ .*t ( *.. [ f h-

cn4 .s ,3 .e

^

7 :..g g.; .y m r.g .. g. g .,.z., y, 3 7 -- ~ ~. .rc u.:: : a .t- .a..a ~,, n .m, _ J,:. 3

g. 9.gL :;g-p ;g...

v M c D M. N.. 1.'.Y. M,. W. 6 M-r - 7 ADDENDA.U.. yg , 9. w.s. g..g,,g.m. /t m t.. w, e, .,,7 s,a.. c . n. . 1 , m, .....,.,m . # ; _ l'g.. 7,f.l5., l's)l* .;lfy ~,%f <.".~..a .jyl

• t:

. ~..w r " &r. ' N.'?'k, **jj %*l h}:. fEdMy ?. .] D%* { ' INH 1) At the prehearing. conference. K.,entor used the f ollowing.TW..": ~.,~ j ,.n.~,,,. w . n

a...,., --

t. ..a,,g.. g; . _ - _,,,.:; c ; K,,$ s. : g, 4 m.

• 4 uu. A? A...w 2..

c. WTf ' example.1 - The bestcestimate evacuation = time with prompt noti-y%g.;..jg m2u&M 2 ,x m. m. - _. ~~J ~.n. : 3- . ~.. w.n.m"A .a.. -. Y.. s. r,. ..;%,e:.- fica. ion f or. the:_0. 2'~' mile's~ zone in,' Se~ctor 'II ~ is given.as ~1. ON?m... _.,...) =- 2 ..i. :. t , s.... M&,.n r. - hours (Table 3--1). : An evacuation. time is the sum of the' noti ;g.,. w. .,, e u = ' x-" c w..c" y

1. ication, preparation, and travel times-(p. 4-1) for the 0-2 v...+.c.'

n1 miles zone in Sector II: notification' time is.25 hours (Table 3-1) and preparation time is.50 hours (p. 5-7), whose sum is, 75 hours. This leaves a trave 1 time (not given) of.25 houra (1 hour evacuation time minus 75 hours preparation and mobili-zation). Assuming an evacuee must travel 8 miles to get out- ' side the plume exposure EPZ, he aust travel at 32 miles per hour (8 miles in.25 hours). The study, however, assumes a rate of only 25 miles.per hour (p. 5-7). The study further as-sumes a distance of twice the radial distance to the edge of the evacuation zone (p. 4-1). The evacuee, then must travel at 64 miles per hour rather than 25 miles per hour to reach the edge of the plume exposure pathway. The applicant has since then interpreted." edge of the evac-l uation zone" to mean " edge of the 0-2 miles zone" rather than " edge of the 10 miles evacuation zone" which Mentor had assumed. f: .w ~ _. _. Under this interpretation';the above. calculations are;obviously' ~w ?. .n,.: ~..- However),$ enause the' City has not had time'to Y. ibE ib l . not correct. Q o. ~ Ja.bw., id M } 6%%%'^ ^%& *., ^ ~ study " the rest 4 of1.Tuble~;3 -l' with this' interpretationi in; mind: " @ *...' gT g Q- .., 4 &p. p m.. l;,

pi &..

l L-s: .w. n r.c y-**- ') ,f ( ,* d.[ $ i x.. s _. s -~ ^

g.

- i i. !( ^J,f. 1 .;I ^ DiW .- c h., h;, u...~,,- y, w=; v. %...;.*..;. +m...: C.Q L,. lc,..gg:. ;;@u. 1., im tu -:s5

m. a.,. -

~p,.-., e ~. %.s;;y..U;, ;. .n -g+,,,s ..y ..w. ,y , 7' m

. a myy ~- .g r s '.. 2 +. ., ~ g.,. _,,.m x. ..v- .3., c v and because this interpretation raises new problems ab'out warning ' - y ._.g times, plume speeds, road capacities, etc.,'that influence. evac-f*. ~ x..:... 4 qt

1. ,; _. gg..

gg.. ,,. g g %.gg 3 . Qc.;L n;. uation. times, the; City is not ready to withdi'aw this part of thie'.aj,.,d,j ~ i:i x. ..hw AM [ E5ks7-$i,[y z m ; ;+hp ' sw ...m [~ +- -m= Y N contention.

.-m..37 L'.) ~. ?? m a;:xxp.M 1

k b0{U.,,..:,) :. ..l N:b - O.h F.w -

n.,O,j '.

l= ~ wp. .g,,.a m ..m,~.. ,,n;.

c...

TTt'(( 2) ~ i'I'able 5-1 (p9. "5-9.tP5-ll) names ' evacuation routes and' giv~es.19 p. a .~ _c ~ ~" the number of 'linies,' widtli of lanes, and the average capacity'in . :.= vehicles per hour of each road. A spot check of road widths in. x Campbell County (SR 8, SR 10, US 27, and CRll21) revealed that not one of them is as wide as'the table indicates. Evacuation Width Implied Actual Width ~ Route by Table 5-1 by Spot Check (ft.) (ft.) SR 8 24 20 SR 10 20 17 NS 27 24 22 CR 1121 20 151 Table 5-1 gives the average capacity as 1000 vehicles per hour for each of these roads, but does not indicate whether this figure is for volume in one direction or both directions, and cites Trancportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook as an authority. If 1000 vehicles per hour averace capacity is for travel in one dire'ction (a reasonable assumption, since the discussion is about evacuation-in one direction), a cursory look '9 4;. . y.. at the ' reference shows:that this. figure is pure fantasy. Table. ', m.- ..~y . ~. ~ 8 9 (p. 331) giv'es the maximum-s'eivice volume in both dire ~cti'ons . ld under ideal condi$ioits two-me rural highways asE2000. vehicles: [k A.: n. .,.?f% '.1[ .,. p' 3 2T ,~ 17

-}..g y'

W'pj6:

E ;N. f ;, ~q.-4,- _.~, ~. <._. m F ~ G[. _ _}f R <.Q'c;,gg E :,; g '. g . a. ~ x.. G G.x y, ib. g - ; -, =~y..a ; -. N'IdfI l_$_IMMM: ?

, ggve n -. '.} u, g.,I. , \\' ~ sj 1 g .g+.. n ~ - s 't . J.z-:; - ~ m-y., -, y-- x, :g,.y.m +., , >.^ n. +.. _,. ui, ht dic tances, low averat;erhighway d' ~ - n. s.agm -'f ,.q, per hour. Chort passing. .R' n. T design speeds, narrow lane aidths.and smal1~3ateral;clearancos,7 - . pg,, _ _ a,,. - zp... .. s . i. .J',.~,.the combination orilow' performance veh c es and grade ~s,','.au wel1.X,. l ure - a7.f~ ' Eas' driver luychology are ;among the factors ithat reduce.servicg.3li_; ,.w. ..s.. V ;.,.Pso.lumes: considerablyl.e,'If the 1000 vehicles per hour' ' average 9.5 ~~ 1 ff, o.. Y W K,. mqJ .m ~ s o m.... -m .~ g t.-p.-. ' ~- - :w.. - .~ w. ~ -~.. capacity is for traver. iii both directions, t, hen that qualifia.n. ~ 1:T ' cation is inapplicable and inappropriate in tiar context of one-- .:t way evacuation and the-figure is sti}1 inflated and subject..to., modifying factors. 3) Sable 3-2 (p. 3-7) compares Stone and Jobut.or evacuation time estin.att.; and those of KyDE3, OD3A, and CCidA. With two exceptions the Stone and Webster times are invariably lower than Differences between Stone and Uebater and KyDES with the other.. prompt notif ication considered range from.25 hours to ',.85 hours. Differences between Stone and Webster and ODUA and CCDSA without prompt not i"ica tion ran6e from.7 houru to 60.> Louru. In a "run

t. hose differences be-for your life situation when minutes count, tween plc.nr.ere raise the question of the veracity o; raa iol or.rical emergency response plans written by the same p.ople.

b ![h Inarf'Reder ~ + ' -1, ..( ,s, g,.w..-7 jl ,.s i i .p g ..- y Donald Reder %,- m u.,,...- ~ .w ... z. ;._ .;r a - ~ ~ 4 d 48' 6 "9 g_ w m - 4 s b# } ~,g b - -17 a ' fEWlU?:: *Q. n._-i.h h~y&,_.y.; _ c: - u.. u ~

v:

iS_sY.QQ 4:Ql~ r ?: i t g'~~T : - l- . s, ;,q.

..-..h.,i h. ,fd f ~ >..n. 3-o.:,4. ,c N:,c, g, -. :, 4 e 00tKETED W . ~,. t USNRC w. v. ? *

• f
• p-h M :

p.,, g

. g n.Q,.QQ3.yg[g

~ ' : @'d:./d}M.'S, M*% i.,'.ra. ;, .,.a.- g. ' C,l'irl'_1 V I */g.g g; op g g gy y gg _, g gg p.,, ,~. d '.' ~ ' -

J[g;,,

h in m o h m y M..~. [..: .. ~ s. w7 . y. _ <I. hereby e.. : t i l'y a t.h o t e >. i.. or-the w,pe. pgcgggver: y, y . !..ulion a l 1 (fa r t i en i.. ( l i a g.,,t.,,;.d i n o isy di.h,h[ h'" [ k' h m. ,y, Were... - 8 e. e, i.,, - '.v T, : t. fl} ' &&T. l i bN -? .y q;py. the, Un i ted.S ta t.eu uia t i this thirteenth day o'f NovembeE,$.- ,f s s s,..,. o,.ya? " n.-y ;.irew=J. .y& ... n .,c - l . ;, L. . 4 4 w:w..,a.pp,,g

a. -

.sygq -QT W u .4 ..,m. .~. .q y c ~ i._,....m,:a;_; -._ 3gy ;

a. v., e p.

m,.,. gy _q .p n x 5,:, cr x- . m o.m,.c..n.. -., r

s.,y z.:

n-x e r. Mary Redbr m -John H. Frye, 111, Esq. Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles , ' Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomi'c Safety and Lieunsing, y .,.y, and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Conuu i aui on ", Conuniss ion Wa s h i n y t.o n s 'D. C. - 20 55 5% e. NetAwdf. . Was hing ton', D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank P. Iloope r, Member

• Chairman, Atomic Salet.y and At.omic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Hoard Panel ll. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board

.-School of Natural Resources Conuni s si on University of Michigan Wash i nit t tin, D.C. 20555 Ann Arbor, Mienigan 48109 Dr. M. S t.a n l e y 1.1vingston Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic S.stely and Licensing Li ce ns i nq ilua rd Panel U.S. Nuc lea r l.' a. m. 7., +

m ; -..q 9

18 yF g " f., % 4--f

r.

r

f % %, i :..'-.:... ~ '

.z A ...A .g f ~{:. f ,3',_. W [. - - - A. d.: y g m.

2':' gf,. ft.T.,ti4%k,' .., a.: .? - s n.*- .. e <c,,,

n. 9;,

. >,+ 3.:,..~'. :.. [~ c e s t - ~ .w. . y.._ ...:.y;: D; o.,. '

. n r

John D. Wo j ive r, - Esq. -o.*.: 41A.9~d.n ' 1 .i m,%y. ...~t~,. w. -~ ~

2...:

Cl ermont: County ConununityS. h...eQ A. li .0 ~ - %.. m ~..

1. fw. ' '....

Counell' s .,.,. : n. - a ;n Box 181 . 2.. ;... N ' hA,. s,,.. '..-. f; +4 ,. :.:1 ,e...,. s Itatavia,. Ohio 45103: a .p JV - m. y Q. ?TE.N.? h Mo ra n, y,. Es q. p%.. 1_.iOC.._..... =.. -N. -.. -a^?

-1..$v ea.h.

l;

~D~ '. e' Dennison, Esq.

• W111 tam J.

m

• Andrew D.

W:QWR & Electric *gj#g A g4 Attorney.at. Law., ._ Genera 1 Counsel.n:234 ;; c .. a... t' dEIN p. wedicf W 200-Main 1 Street" W "=tfSh**~ " -Cincinnati. Gas MEM.b Company:". 7:e .T.- Batavia,s. Ohio 45103~~ ~.c,..-<,- Post' Office Box 960 w r Wg'R ' ~-n m. - < w... * ~ ~ - _.j g..,r. f. -w ..m...m. -~.g._

• p..

CinciunaLIi Ohio ^45201i'jid 9 ', M F' Conner Moorb ~=*Ci3nn'eh["EE F _ ^ .Tr y B.. e and Corber , siv'.. -. -:w u 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 . e... ' David K. Martin, E sq. s Assistant Attorney General Acting Director Division of Environmertal Law Office of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 George Pattison Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio 402 Main Street Datavia, Ohiv 45103

• lland-delivered

_ is P

m. f -

s s - %,l { ' y ~~ - ( ): , 1 2 , ;,.l s. 4 j ' ~. =.Lg p 4- [' h -, W,1 u, s pi b f t. N 4U b +. 19 ..#. _..a. ~- 3.~s n l w m W. ; n!%.*I;'- M [ h [ O Y'*2.-~ t'...; f.. - "2. m. > 1 ~ T G.' M. Y- ., 5 IN.f bh ' - -w.. ~ . ~.;.[; 2 . M, - v, :tpek A.% W: ~..}}