ML20038B345
| ML20038B345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | Frye J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112080048 | |
| Download: ML20038B345 (27) | |
Text
(.
s d
UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA.XE1ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$YOff ATOMIC SAFETY AND'LIC@lf@gB0MS10:26 Before Administrative Judges:
~ ?m;Tf.7; John H Frye, III, Chairman
- "~
M. Stanley Livingston Frank F. Hooper SERVED DEC 41981 Ir
.e Matter of Docket No. 50-358-OL CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
(Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Decem 19 41
& q^/[%
PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER O
O J
4,, pC;>
(Ruling o.1 Revised Contentions q
Relating to Emergency Planning)
'g Y %g~
C g
A.
E.
f 4
In its Prehearing Conference Order cf November 5,1981, entered fol. lowing the prehearing conference conducted in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 29 and 30, 1981, this Board prescribed a schedule for the filing of revised emergency plan-ning contentions.
Revised contentions were filed pursuant to that Order, by ZAC-ZACK on November 12 and by Dr. Fankhauser, Clermont County, and the City of Mentor on November 13.
Applicant and Staff responded to these contentions on November 20 in accord with that schedule.
Applicant filed a single " Response" while Staff filed a separate "Rejoinde " to each of the filings.
The Board met on November 23 and S
Q$O
.r ll(
8112080048 811203 PDR ADOCK 05000350 0
~
)
' 24 to consider the revise 5' cont 4ntions and responses, and on November 25 advised i
the parties of its ruling in a conference call. The purpose of this Order is to memoralize those rulings and to set a schedule for the evidentiary hearings.
On November 30, 1981, Counsel for Staff kindly furnished the Board and parties with a compilation of the contentions admitted by the Board on November 25. _ The Board will revise the compilation to reflect contentions which have been consoi-idated and, in view of the fact that the compilation includes only the specific ZAC-ZACK contentions admitted, include the basic contentions which serve to put the specific contentions in context.
This revised compilation will be served separately.
Revised Contentions of ZAC-ZACK l
ZAC-ZACK's presentation of its revised contentions is preceded by an argu-ment for the inclusion of Brown County, Ohio, in the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
ZAC-ZACK alleges that Brown County is 10-1/8 miles from the Zimmer Station, is in excess of 400-ft higher than the Zimmer Station, and shares certain access routes with Clermont County. A number of ZAC-ZACK's contentions attack the lack of an emergency plan for Brown County.
Applicant views this position as a challenge to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), while Staff takes the position that, although 50.47(c)(2) provides for a flexible approach to the setting of the plume exposure pathway EPZ, ZAC-ZACK has failed
.Tg
. to "show any special circumstances which would require the need for a Brown County emergency plan."
(Staff Rejoinder, p. 4.)
l Section 50.47(c)(2) cleariy contemplates that the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway may be adjusted to take into account " local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries."
The proximity of the terminus of the 10-mile radius to the Brown County boundary raises the question of whether this Board should consider the inclusion of por-tions of Brown County in the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
Section 50.47(c)(2) specifies a radius of "about" ten miles as a general proposition. A distance of 10.125 miles is clearly within the contemplation of the regulation.
Further, the Board is of the opinion that ZAC-ZACK's reference to some of 4
the factors specified in the regulation (topography and access routes) as dic-tating the inclusion cf Brown County in the plume exposure pathway EPZ provides the necessary specificity.
Consequently, the Board will permit ZAC-ZACK to pre-sent evidence on the question whether portions of Brown County should be so included.
9 The Board emphasizes that this contention is to be limited to a considera-tion of the factors enumerated in 50.47(c)(2).
Questions appropriate to the content of a Brown County emergency plan must await the determination that such
O.
j a plan must be prepared.
Thus the specific contentions advanced by ZAC-ZACK dealing with Brown County are denied without prejudice to their resubmittal if it is determined to include portions of Brown County within the plume exposure j
' pathway EPZ.
The Board recognizes that there may be some overlap between ZAC-ZACK's 1
l specific Brown County contentions and the question whether to include portions i
of Brown County in the p.lume exposure pathway EPZ. However, we are confident
]
that the parties can keep the distinction between the two inquires in' mind and 50.47(c)(2), are relevant to the 1
address only those matters which, under latter question.
Contentions 20(a)(1) throug'n (3), 20(b)(1) through (3), 20(c)(4), and.20(e)
(1) and (2) therefore are denied without prejudice to their later resubmittal in
' the event it is determined that Brown County shculd be included in the plume exposure pt.thway EPZ.
l Contention 20(b)(4) deals with alleged difficulties in radio communications in the vicinity of the site.
Applicants assert that inadequate basis is 1
asserted for this contention (Response, p.17).
The Board finds that the basis and specificity requirements of 2.714 have been met.
The contention is admitted.
,7
. Contentions 20(b)(5) through (8) deal with communications in the event of an emergency. Applicants (Response, pp. 16-17) and Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 4-6) generally attack the bases of these contentions, and their arguments often go to the merits.
The Board finds that the bases and specificity requirements of 2.714 have been satisfied.
The contentions are admitted.
The Board notes that apparently a line has been dropped from Contention 20(b)(7)(vi).
ZAC-ZACK is requested to supply this.
Contentions 20(c)(1) through (3) and (5) through (14) deal with the ade-quacy of the road systems which would need to be used in an evacuation. Appli-cants (Response, pp.12-13) and Staf f -(Rejoinder, p. 6) attack the bases and specificity of the contentions.
Their objections go to the merits of the con-tentions.
The contentions are admitted.
The Board notes that there are two contentions (c)(9).
The second contention is designated (c)(9A).
Contention 20(d) was withdrawn by ZAC-ZACK.
Contentions 20(e)(3) through (15) deal with the adequacy of personnel resources to deal with emergencies. Applicants (Rasponse, pp.17-18) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 7) again object to bases and specificity; their arguments again go to the merits.
The contentions are admitted, t
Contention 20(f)(1) deals with the effect of flooding of the Ohio River on roads in the vicinity to the station.
Applicants (Response, p.14) and Staff 4
w-
+e--
e+.g-
=y
=
,w-9 y
,,,e,
,grg w-v
-e-y w,y--y ry-w--
y---
ww---
---y,---,--
7 m
ir-u-----
E j-i (Rejoinder, p. 7) again object to the contention on the merits. The contention is admitted.
In its submission ZAC-ZACK indicates that' Contention 20(g) was omitted
~
from the original cententions and proceeds to 20(h)(1) dealing with the impact of adverse weather conditions on evacuation.
Contention 20(h)(1) is redesig-
]
nated Contention 20(g)(1).
Applicants (Response, pp. 14-15) and Staff (Rejoin-der, p. 7) again object to the merits of the contention.
The contention is admitted.
Contention 21(a) was withdrawn.
Contention 21(b) deals with the qualifications of school personnel to care for school children in an emergency and to administer potassium iodide.
Sub-section (1) states:
i l
"l].
Each of affected school districts have only one nurse on staff. No member of any school district staff is trained to deal with emotional shock or trauma occasioned by evacuation and separation,
}
especially of young children, from parent.
[No plan provision]."
Applicants take the position that this contention is barred by the-Comis-sion's decision in Petropolitan Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-39,12 NRC 607 (1980); CLI-81-20,14 NRC (1981) (Response, pp. 11-12).
Staf f does not, address the issue.
.....m.
'q-Although the issue is not free from doubt, Applicants' position appears correct.
In the cited decisions, the Comission voted not to accept issues concerning psychological stress in the ongoing Three Mile Island Unit i restart proceeding. The Comission acted on a Licensing Board certification which concluded that psychological stress is probably not a cognizable health effect of reactor operation under the Atomic Energy Act, although the Board noted that
"[c]ommunity fears may be a factor in evaluating the effectiveness of the licensee's e,:ergency response plan." LBP-80-8, 11 NRC 297 at 303 (1980).
The Board also concluded that NEPA permitted consideration of comunity fears and recommended that it be allowed to include such issues in order to reduce psychological stress.
s In CLI-80-39, the Comission elected by a two-two vote not ?9 include such issues in the hearing. Apparently, the Comission believed that its jurisdic-tion to consider psychological stress would have to arise under the National Environmental Policy Act rather than the Atomic Energy Act. Then Chairman i
Ahearne agreed with the Licensing Board's statement as to jurisdiction under the Atomic Energy Act (12 NRC at 609-610).
Comissioner Hendrie considered the I
issue clearly outside the Comission's Atomic Energy Act jurisdiction (12 NRC l
at 613 - 615).
Comissioner Gilinsky (12 NRC at 619) and Comissioner Bradford (12 NRC at 621) did not directly address the question, although the latter noted l
l that jurisdiction existed "... at least under NEPA..." (12 NRC at 622).
On 1
reconsideration of the issue when the Comission reached full strength, "... a I
l l
t
, majority of Commissioners voted to adhere to the result previously reached..."
(CLI-81-20, 14 NRC
[1981]).
While we recognize the importance of the issue raised by this contention, we believe that the above decisions dictate that it be-excluded. -In passing on
- the adequacy of emergency plans, this Board acts under the authority of the Atomic-Energy Act. No Commissioner took issue with Commissioner Hendrie's reasoning in CLI-80-39 that the Atomic Energy Act does not confer jurisdiction to consider' psychological stress as a health effect of reactor. operation.
While it is difficult to tell, we believe the majority of Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Hendrie on that point and were concerned with the Commission's NEPA jurisdiction.
l While we agree with the Three Mile Island Board's conclusion that community fears may be relevant in evaluating the effectiveness of emergency plans, this contention does not go to that point. Rather, it clearly raises the question whether, under the Atomic Energy Act, steps must be taken to mitigate psycholog-ical stress in school children caused by separation from their parents as a result of a radiological emergency. We believe that, under Commissioner Hen-drie's view which appears controlling, we cannot order such relief.
Therefore Contention 21(b)(1) is denied.
Contention 21(b)(2) concerns provisions for the administration of potassium iodide to school children. Applicants assert that this is a matter exclusively
. for the states to decide (Response, p. 16).
Staff does not address this conten-tion.
The Board believes a litigable issue has been raised. The contention is admitted.
Contention 21(c)(1) through (4) concern the adequacy of the number of school buses to evacuate the school population. Applicants (Response, p. 15) ar.d Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 7-8) attack the merits of the contentions. The con-tentions are admitted.
Contentions 21(d)(1) through (4) concern special problems which would arise in the evacuation of school children during the periods when they are travelling to or from schools. Applicants do not address these contentions directly.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 7-8) attacks the language and bases of the contentions.
The Board believes litigable issues have been stated and the contentions are admitted.
Contentions 21(e)(1) through (3) concern the difficulty in conducting an evacuation during school hours because of difficulties summoning buses to the schools. Applicants (Response, pp.15-16) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) attack the merits of the contentions.
The contentions are admitted.
Content.on 22 was withdrawn.
, Contentions 23(1) through (5) concern difficulties in educating the public
~
with respect to a radiological emergency.
Appifcants (Response, pp. 18-19) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) attack the bases for these contentions.
The ' Board believes adequate b m s have been set forth.
Mc contentions are admitted.
Contentions 24(1) through (10) concern the adequacy of medical facilities and treatment for radiological injuries.
Applicants (Response, pp. 19-20) i assert that no deficiencies or litigable issues are presented.
Staff (Rejoin-1 der, pp. 8-9) attacks the bases for the contentions and indicates its opinion 4
that Contentions 24(2) and (4) do not state issues.
The Board believes the contentions adequate; they are admitted.
Contention 25(1) concerns the fact that nothing in the agreement between Applicants and the City of Cincinnati provides for the disclosure to Clermont County of the information furnished the City. Applicants (Response, p. 20) note that their agreement with the City does not affect the adequacy of the Clermont County emergency plan.
Similarly, Staff (Rejoinder, p. 9) asserts that this agreement has nothing to do with the emergency plan.
The Board agrees.
The f
contention is denied.
Contention 25(2) concerns monitoring requirements which ZAC-ZACK asserts should be undertaken by the Clermont County Health Department. Applicants (Response, p. 21) assert that no failure to meet NRC requirements has been alleged.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 9) finds the contention beyond the scope of the
i
, original contention and unrelated to emergency planning.
The Board is unaware of any regulatory requirement which would obligate the Clermont County Health Department to undertake these monitoring requiremdnts. The contention is denied.
Contentions 25(3) and (4) concern monitoring and evaluating the impact of radiological releases on farm _ products and livestock. Applicants (Response,
- p. 22) offer 'an explanation which concerns the merits of this contention.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 9-10) attacks the requirement for and bases of these conten-tions. The Board agrees that much of these contentions is beyond the scope of regulatery requirements.
However 50.47(b)(9) regr: ires adequate assessment y
and monitoring of offsite radiological consequences in an emergency.
Clearly this includes monitoring of agricultural products.
To this extent the conten-tions are admitted.
Contentions 26(1), 27(1), and 28(1) all concern monitoring. T:1ese conten-tiens seek to establish as a condition precedent to the issuance of an operating license that various state and local officials be provided with equipment to perform radiological monitoring so as to provide an independent source of infor-mation concerning plant effluents to facilitate the initiation of protective actions on an independent basis.
Applicants (Response, pp. 22-24) assert that much of Contention 26(1) has no basis in fact and that, in any event, there is'no legal basis for imposing
, the requirements sought by Contentions 26(1), 27(1), and 28(1).
Staff (Rejoin-der, pp. 10-11) finds no legal requirement for Contention 26(1) and finds Con-tentions 27(1) and 28(1) beyond the scope of emergency planning.
The Board can find no basis in the regulations for imposing the conditions sought by these contentions.
Consequently they are denied.
Contention 29 was withdrawn.
Contention 30(1) seeks to require the distribution to the population in the plume exposure pathway of protective equipment identical to that issued to emer-gency workers.
Applicants (Response, p. 24) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 11) take the position that the regulations provide no basis for such a requirement.
The Board agrees.
The contention is denied.
Contention 31(1) takes the position that the counties in the plume exposure pathway do not have the requisite funds to provide adequate protection of the health anJ safety of the public and that consequently applicants must foot the bill.
Applicants (Response, p. 25) attack the basis and specificity of this contention.
Staff (Rejoinder, p.11) argues that the contention must specify why particular items of equipment are necessary to an acceptable plan.
The Board has no authority to require Applicants to pay costs incurred by local go'vernments in establishing and implementing emergency plans.
The Board
~
13-can only determine whether particular equipment, training, or personnel are necessary to an acceptable plan.
Consequently this contention is denied.
9 Contention 32(1) would require certain participation by the public in an exercise-drill.
This contention would require at least partial evacuation of the public during the drill. Applicants (Response, pp. 25-26) oppose this con-tention, citing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, F.1 as authority for the proposi-
~
tion that the public need not participate.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 12) finds the contention beyond the scope of original Contention 32 and lacking basis and specificity.
The Board agrees with Applicant that Appendix E, F.1 is appli-cable and does not require mandatory public participation.
Consequently, the contention is denied.
Certain of the ZAC-1ACK contentions raise questions of Ohio law.
Applf-cants (Response, pp.10-11) take the position that this Board may not decide questions of Ohio law, citing Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 748 (1977).
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 6-7) takes the same position, citing Northern States Power Com-pany (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), ALAS-464, 7 NRC 372, 385 (1978).
The Board recognizes that it may be precluded from consideri1g questions of Ohio law.
However,. rather than ruling on Applicants' and Staff's position now, the Board prefers to develop an evidentiary record on the contentions involving these questions (Contentions 20(c)(5) and 20(e)(6)).
After the record is comoiled, t
t3 q
- e y
yeT--*
ge+-*
- . - - - - - -g e
yp.
- r--%-
py w-g
-u-m-
c
the parties and the Board will be in a better' position to evaluate the implica-tions which interpretations of Ohio law may have for the emergency plans.
Contentions of Dr. Fankhauser Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 4 was originally accepted for litigation on March 19, 1976.
The contention remained unchanged until Dr. Fankhauser,-
pursuant to Board order, filed a revision on November 13, 1981.
The Board's purpose in permitting the revision _was to allow the contention to be updated to reflect the current status of offsite emergency planning. While little has.
changed with respect to onsite emergency planning, new regulatory requirements were imposed with respect to offsite planning in November, 1980, and state and-local government emergency plans were filed in October,1981.
With respect to j
offsite planning, events had overtaken the contentions as originally presented; they no longer reflected a reasonably specific attack on the offsite emergency plans so as to be litigable.
J Dr. Fankhauser included with his revised contentions (1) a request for additional time in which to review both onsite and offsite emergency plans and further revise his contentions, and (2) a statement that the submitted revised contentions were not to be regarded as a voluntary withdrawal of any of the originally filed contentions.
I u
w.m
. Applicants (Response, pp. 27-29) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 2) oppose the request for additional time, pointing out that under the circumstances, Dr.
Fankhauser has made no showing which would entitle him to favorable considera-tion.
The Board agrees.
In its Policy Statement on the Conduct of Licensing Proceedings (46 FR 28533, May 27, 1931), the Commission emphasized that Boards are to assurc that the " good r.ause" standard of 2.711 has been met before altering schedules.
ZAC-ZACK, the City of Mentor, and Clermont County have filed substantial, specific revisions to their offsite emergency planning con-tentions within the time provided.
Dr. Fankhauser has neither shown why good cause exists to permit him more time or why the schedule set by the Board was unreasonable as to him.
His request for additional time in which to review both onsite and offsite emergency plans and further revise his contentions is therefore denied.
Nor can the Board permit the reservation of the originally admitted con-tentions.
As noted above, with respect to offsite emergency planning, these no longer constituted reasonably specific attacks on the existing plans.
The Commission's rules of practice contemplate that the issues will be subject to simplification, clarification and specification after discovery and prior to hearing (10 CFR 2.752).
In light of the events which occurred after the filing of the original contentions, this step was essential prior to hearing the'offsite emergency planning contentions.
Consequently, the originally filed contentions must be considered replaced by the revised contentions.
O
, o In revising his contentions, Dr. Fankhauser has reorganized and renumbered them.
The Board permitted revision of original Contentions 4(a) through (h).
The revised contentions are numbered 1 through 16. All of these 'except Conten-tions 1, 7, 9, and 16 are cross-referenced to the original contentions.
Contention 1 asserts that certain heavily-populated areas in proximity to the plume exposure pathway EPZ need to be included in that EPZ. Applicants (Response, p. 30) attack the specificity of the contention and view it.as an attack on the regulations.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 5-3) objects on a number of grounds, including that Contention 1 is beyond the ' scope of Contentions 4(a)
~
through (h) as originally filed.
The Board agrees with Staff on this point and notes that no showing under 2.714 to justify late filing of this contention has been made.
Consequently, it is denied.
Contention 2 attacks the capability of the Clermont County Commissioners to.
financially suport the County's emergency response responsibilities.
Applicants (Response, pp. 30-31) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 6) attack the basis and specif-icity of the contention.
The Board agrees that the contention is entirely too vague to be litigated.
It is denied.
Contention 3 asserts that the Clermont County Sheriff has inadequate train-ing and equipment.
Applicants (Response, pp. 31-32) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 6) again attack specificity and bases. The Board agrees.
The contention is denied.
t
-.---.-,----n..-
. Contention 4 makes the same assertion as Contention 3 with regard to the Clermont County Disaster Services Agency. Applicants' (Response, pp. 31-32) and Staff's (Rejoinder, p. 6) responses are the same as their responses to Contention 3.
The contention is denied as being too vague.
Contention 5 attacks the responsibility given two amateur radio clubs for monitoring public exposure and alleges that the Clermont Extension Agent has inadequate response capabilities to institute protective actions for agricul-ture. Applicants (Response, p. 32) and Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 6-7) attack spe-cificity and bases.
The Board agrees; the contention is denied.
Contention 6 concerns agriculture.
It alleges inadequate protection in both the 10- and 50-mile zones, inadequate response capabilities of the Clermont County Extension Service and Board of Health to monitor radiologic effects on farm products and livestock, and the lack of a census of livestock and farm products.
Applicants (Response, pp. 32-33) offer an explanation of the appli-cable emergency plan provisions while Staff (Rejoinder, p. 7) attacks specific-ity and alleges that this contention is outside the scope of the original con-tentions.
The Board finds a lack of specificity; the contention is denied.
Contention 7 asserts the inability to transport those whose nobility is impaired in the event of evacuation, and the lack of a census of such indi-viduals. Applicants (Response, p. 33) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) basically attack specificity and bases.
Additionally, Staff' believes this contention is G
I outside the scope of the original contentions. The Board agrees with the latter reason and notes that no showing has been made under 2.714.
Further, this matter to a large extent-is covered by an admitted ZAC-ZACK contention. The contention is denied.
Contention 8 attacks the capability of Clermont County Hospital to provide medical treatment in the event of a radiological emergency. Applicants' and i
Staff's opposition is the same as that given for Contention 7; the Board's reasons for danying the contention.are also the same.
4 Contention 9 attacks the Clermont plan for failing to consider the proposed eliminaticn of the Department of Energy. Applicants (Response, p. 34) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 7) find this contention to be speculative and without foundation.
The Board agrees; the contention is denied.
i l
Contention 10 attacks the emergency classification system as overly vague and asserts the lack of a timetable for notification of unusual events. Appli-cants (Response, pp. 34-35) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 7) find this contention l
l overly vague.
The Board agrees; the contention is denied.
Contention 11 attacks the public notification system and the information available to Clermont County for accident assecsment.
Applicants (Response, pp.
35-36) attack the specificity and bases for this contention.
Staff (Rejoinder, l
l L
1
. p.11) finds no relaitonship to the original contentions.
The Board agrees with Staff.. The contention, unsuppported by a proper showing, is denied.
Contention 12 attacks the document, " Circle of Safety," and seeks to attack other matters referred to in that document but otherwise unrelated to it.
Applicants (Response, ca. 36-37) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) attack specificity and bases.
Insofar as the contention 5ttacks the document, it is admitted and consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 23(3).
Contentions 13 through 16 involve, respectively, public disobedience to emergency instructions, reliance on volunteers, evacuation of school children I
from schools, and the adequacy of roads to support evacuation. Applicants (Response, pp. 37-38) object to specificity and bases, while Staff (Rejoinder,
- p. 8) believes these contentions outside the scope of the original contentions.
The Board agrees with Staff; the contentions are denied.
i l
City of Mentor's Contentions l
i 2.715(c), responded to the l
The City of Mentor, participating pursuant to l
l Board's invitation by filing revised contentions on November 13, 1981.
l Contention 1 asserts the invalidity of the Campbell County, Kentucky, and l
Kentucky emergency response plans because they were formulated without the par-l ticipation of Mentor.
Mentor cites various provisions of NUREG-0654 in support 1
i
, of its position that it was wrongfully excluded from the formulation of the plans. Applicants (Response, p. 49) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 4), in essence, demur. They find no violation of any NRC requirement as a result of this lack of consultation.
The Board agrees.
While it m!ght have been better had Mentor been con-sulted, the Board lacks the authority to direct Kentucky and Campbell County to engage in such consultation.
The Board can and will pass on whether Mentor is correct in its admitted contentions regarding the adequacy of the emergency plans. Any defects resulting from the lack of consultation will be taken into account in that manner.
The contention is denied.
1 Contention 2 attacks the stated intent in the Kentucky and Campbell County i
plans to use Standard Operatng Procedures in. lieu of the emergency plans in the event of radiological emergency.
These SOPS are not included with the plans.
Thus Mentor regards the plans as no more than " simply statements of intentions, i
or, at best, plans for plans." Applicants (Response, pp. 50-51) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 5) generally attack the merits of this contention.
The conten-tion is admitted 4
Contention 3 asserts the nonexistence of an emergency plan for Indiana despite the f act that portions of that state are within the 50-mile ingestion i
exposure pathway. Mentor asserts that this omission poses a threat to its citizens. and others in the area of the Zimmer station. Applicants (Response,
~
pp. 48-49, 51) and Staff (Rejoinder, p. 5) question Mentor's standing to assert this contention.
The Board disagrees with Applicants and Staff. For purposes of considering this contention, the Board believes it would be unreasonable to assume that no food produced in Indiana within 50 miles of the Zimmer facility would find it way to the citizens of Mentor.
For purposes of this contention, Mentor cannot be considered isolated from Indiana. The contention is admitted.
Contention 4 attacks the Kentucky and/or Campbell County emergency plans on several grounds.
Contention 4A asserts that neither plan is cross-referenced to the evalua-tion criteria as required by NUREG-0654.
This is simply incorrect.
In its filing, Mentor acknowledges receipt of the cross-reference.
The contention is denied.
Contention 4B challenges the evacuation time estimates prepared by Stone and Webster on ten enumerated grounds. Applicants (Response, pp. 51-52) assert that the contention does not raise any substantive problems.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 5-6) finds no basis in the regulations for the contention.
The Board believes the contention raises legitimate issues which should be investigated at the hearing.
The contention is admitted and consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 23(c)(10).
, Applicants do not respond directly to Contentions 4C through 4H.
- Rather, they cite similarities between these contentions and the ZAC-ZACK contentions and assert that these contentions should be denied for the same reason as the ZAC-ZACK contentions.
Contention 4C attacks the lack of alternate evacuation routes.
Staff a
(Rejoinder, p. 6) asserts a lack of basis and that the contention is beyond Mentor's interest.
The contention is admitted and consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 20(c)(7).
Contention 4D alleges that Kentucky Route 8 is unfit for emergency evacua-tion purposes.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 6-7) attacks the merits of the contention end Mentor's interest in it. The contention is admitted and will be consoli-dated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 20(c)(8).
l Contention 4E alleges difficulties in evacuating school children from the schools.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 7) offers an explanation of the Campbell County plan provisions.
The contention is admitted and will be consolidated with ZAC-i ZACK Contention 20(c)(9).
1 l
Contention 4F attacks the lack of plans for storage and distribution of l
l potassium iodide in Mentor or the vicinity of Mentor.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) l l
asserts that the contention is without merit or basis.
The contention is admitted and will be consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 24(8)..
Contention 4G attacks the plan's provisions for evacuating persons without personal vehicles and those in need of assistance.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) asserts a lack of specificity.
The contention is admitted and consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 20(c)(9).
Contention 4H alleges the inability, for various reasons, of the Fastern i
Campbell County Volunteer Fire Department to assist in the event of an emer-gency.
Staf"s response is the same as that to Contention 4G.
The contention is admitted and consolidated with ZAC-ZACK Contention 20(e)(7).
Contention 4I alleges the inadequacy of system'for notifying the public of an emergency.
Applicants (Response, p. 53) view the contention as misleading because it fails to state all the facts.
Staff's response is the scrae as that to Contention 4G.
The contention is admitted with the deletion of the follow-ing language:
and no arrangements have been made to recompense the people for the electricity used by the radios or for the rental of space in their homes...".
Contention 4J asserts a lack of adequate planning for the provision of uncontaminated food and water for livestock and domestic animals.
Applicants did not respond to this contention.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 8) asserts the lack
-e
-a.
-m
,y..
,,,9-y_.
yn,
,e p,.,w,,
---+g..%,y.,,y-m-.,-
n
,y%c+w.
,.,y.,-,
---..-r
, of any requirement for the provisions of uncontaminated feed and water.
The Board agrees; the contention is denied.
Contention 4K asserts the lack of adequate provisions regarding public water supplies during a radiological emergency.
The contention alleges inade-quate monitoring and control of existing sources of supply and inadequate pro-visions for uncontaminated sources. Applicants (Response, pp. 53-54) offer an explanation of some of the plan provisions.
Staff (Rejoinder, pp. 8-9) asserts that the contention is without merit. The contention is admitted.
Contention 4L asserts that, because of "special and unique response prob-lems," radio communications are needed between the Zim>.r station and Mentor.
Applicants (Response, pp. 54-55) take the position that the contention is frivo-lous.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 9) notes that the contention f ails to specify any defect in the plans.
The Board agrees that the contention is too vague.
The contention is denied.
Contention 4M cites Mentor's special interest in emergency planning and that it has not been given a role in any exercise or drill by state and local response agencies. Applicants (Response, p. 55) notes that Mentor has not iden-tified any requirement that it be included.
Staff (Rejoinder, p. 9) finds no defect alleged in the emergency plans.
The Board agrees with Applicant and Staff; the contention is denied.
P Contentions of Clermont County In its Prehearing Conference Order of November 5, Clermont County and Applicants were directed to continue their ongoing settlement negotiations.
Were these parties unable to resolve the remainia; points in issue between them, Clermont County was to serve contentions directed to those specific points by November 13, 1981.
Clermont County did so.
Clermont County's filing and the Applicants' response indicates that nego-tiations are still ongoing between these parties.
In these circumstances, the Board defers ruling on the County's contentions so as to permit the negotiations to continue.
The Board therefore will withhold a ruling until January 8,1982.
The County and the Applicants are to advise the Board by that date of the status of the negotiations.
If matters remain outstanding between them at that time, the County is to advise the Board which of its filed contentions it desires to pursue.
The Board will then rule promptly on these contentions.
In this con-nection, the Board draws the County's attention to its ruling on ZAC-ZACK Con-tention 31(1).
t Hearing Schedule and Miscellaneous Matters In the conference call of November 25, the schedule for the hear.ing was discussed.
In the course of that discussion, it became evident that it was not practical to schedule a hearing session for the week of December 14, as the h
-26 Board had contemplated in its Order of October 9, 1981.
However, the Board indicated 1% availability that week, should the pa'rties desire a prehearing or settlement conference.
The hearing is schedule for the weeks of January 25 and February 1,1982.
The Board will hold available the week of February 23, 1982, should additional hearing days be necessary.
Intervenors' prepared direct testimony is to be filed on January 8, 1982. Applicants' and Staff's prepared direct testimony is to be filed on January 15, 1982.
The parties agreed to engage in voluntary discovery in accord with their earlier agreement on the cutoff date for formal discovery.
In this connection, it was agreed that witnesses are to be identified as soon as possible and that all witnesses are to be identified and all interrogatories are to be filed by December 15, and all depositions noticed by December 30, 1981.
In view of the predominant role which ZAC-ZACK has taken with regard to the contentions admitted by this Order, it is appointed lead intervenor.
It will therefore have the responsibility for coordinating the presentation of Intervenors' direct case and conducting all cross-examination on these conten-tions.
Intervenors (including the City of Mentor) with affirmative evidence to introduce and specific points which they desire inquired into on cross should make these matters known to counsel for ZAC-ZACK.
,--rc---
-.%-,.,,a*,,
-re_,---.,_
. -.----.-.s----
...,w,-m-v-,
g y.--~.
9,
4..
h 1 At the hearing, the Board will hear Intervenors' affirmative' case, followed by Applicants' and Staff's affirmative case and Intervencrs' rebuttal evidence, in that order.
Judges Livingston and Hooper concur in the results but did not participate in the preparation of this Order.
IT IS 50 ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Johrt
- Fry, III, Chairman ADMI4ISTRAT VE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 3rd day of December, 1981.
1 i
't 1
y r(e--g7r-tv-7+v-gve p
ryy,,---y--ym--,,-w-vwr v y--v'wi---Wyw
-wir-ww w -y
-tm*-
yy7 t y -g w*y-.wr**q,g--Nv etaMy-y q-g% wpw'wy 3 vw wwtwvp. phF9M4&
&M-en+y9
-.N-=7g (N'Wgy