ML20054C309

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054C309
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	04/13/1982
From:	Webb D MENTOR, KY
To:
Shared Package
ML20054C307	List: ML20054C306 ML20054C309
References
NUDOCS 8204200339
Download: ML20054C309 (10)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF A.G3ICA NiJCLEAR REGULATORY CO.9'.ISSION t/ fl3Jg $, , , . . _ . .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  : ., , - .- ,. ..;

t >_ - I CINCINNATI CAS & EIECI?,IC  : Aw " "

COMPANY, et al.  :

T NO. 50-358 7 (Willia H. Zimmer Nuclear  :

Power Station)  : APPLICATICN FOR AN C'PERATINO LICENSE PROPOSED FINDINOS OF FACT AND CCNCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Applicant, Cincinrati Gas and Electric Company,139 East Fourth Street, Cincin*ati, Ohio, seeks an operatir4 ~1icense for the William H. Zinner Nuclear Power Station located in Moscow, Clermont County, Ohio.

2. ZAC-ZACK, an intervenor in this proceedire, is a non-profit crgani-zatien of citizens livir{ in the Zinner area in both Ohio and Kentucky.

3 The City of Mentor, an intervenor in this proceedire, is a govern-mental entity in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Ca:pbell County and is located approritately 2 miles from the Zinner Nuclear Power Station at Moscow, Ohio.

4 Evidentiary hearings were held on January 25-29, 1982, February 2-5, 19S2,and March 1-4,19S2,in Cincinnati, Chio by this Board pursuant to cen-tentions filed by Zinner Area Citizens-Zinner Area Citizens of Kentucky and the City of Mentor.

5 By the Board's Order of December 3,1981,similar contentions which were raised by both intervenors were consolidated and ZAC-ZACE was appointed lead intervenor for those contentions.

6.. The' City of Mentor had four (4) separate issues which were not con-solidated. Those issues dealt with standad operating procedures, plans for

~

A 5 the State of InrMam , the pro:pt notification system and plans regarding the w

5t protection of the public water supply.

Em .,

s..

04200339 820413 .

h.; PDR ADOCK 05000358 ^

O PDR

7 id w

Contention 34 objected to the issuance of an operatin6 license based E

7. u, a

on draft plans which disavow themselves as the plans and refer to Standard a The Standard Openting Procedures $

Opentin6 Procedures as the inplenentin6 plans. :t (hereinafter SOPS) were still unwritten as of the closing of the record.

5. Contention 35 objected to the issuance of an operating license based on the fact that the State of Indiana has no plan.

1

9. Contentions 36 I and K raised questions concerning the adequacy of the prong notification systen and plans reEardinE the protection of the public water supply. For these reasons and pursuant to the Board's wish (Tr. 7979-16) the City of Kentor is subnitting Findin6s of Fact on these four issues only.

10. The City of Kentor seeks an order from this Board denying the Applicant an oprating license.

CONTENTION 34 Standard Operatin6 Procedures

11. The Carpbell County and Kentucky Radiological Ener6ency Plans contain the following statement: "Darin6 an ener6ency, Standard Operatin6 Procedures (SOPS),developedfro: the plan, will be enployed to respond to the ener6ency zuther than this planning docunent" (Board Exhibit 5, Plan Organization, p. Y and 3 card Exhibit 3, Plan Organization, p. VI). The plans therefore disavow themselves and establish S0?s as the plans to be used instead.

12. There are no conpleted SOPS (Tr. 6140). General Buntin testif$ed that the plan was fer exercise purposes only (Tr. 6141) and that there were de-ficienciesintheplan(Tr.6145).

13 "The plans should make clear what is to be done in an ener6ency, how it is to be done and by whon" (NUREc 0654, p. 29). There is no reference point in the plan to indicate to a user of the plan that an SOP is to be enployed at any particular point (Tr. 6134). The Kentucky panel of planners indicated that i

. I, 1

they did not have an answer as to how they would communicate with school bus drivers if an evacuation were ordered while children were enroute to hose or j to school. This was a probles that would be addressed later in an SOP (Tr. 6160). f l

In fact the panel testified that the plan does not deal with any aspect of a l school evacuation (Tr. 60u3). S0?s are to be developed to deal with the following topics amon6 otherc.

1) notification cf bus drivers (Tr. 6071)

2) evacuation of pecple without transportation (Tr. 6102) 3 where children in school should be evacuated to and how parents are to locate their children (Tr. 61C4)

4) an individual 50? for each schooci and one for the superinten-dent's office (Tr. 6157) 14 The panel could not agree whether fire personnel needed an SOF. One planner stated they would not have one (Tr. 6137). Another planner indicated that there should be a separate SOF for fire personnel in part because he felt that it was unrealistic to expect emergency personnel to respond if those per-sonnel were unsure that their fanilies were bein6 takencareof(Tr.7946).

Another planner felt that it may be necessary to develop an S07 for the dis-tribution of KI, or maybe those plans wculd go into the actual plan (Tr. 6180).

Obviously these problems are not mere details, but areas for inclusion in the plan if that plan is to state what is to be done in an emer6ency, how it is to be done and by whom it is to be done.

l 15 Mr. Grimes testified that the NRO makes a recommendation as to whether or not a license should be issued based on a FEMA finding that there is a reason-

^

ableassurancethattheplancanbei=plemented(Tr.7416). The witness for _

FEMA testified that FEMA has not made such a finding and cannot make such a

finding until the S0?s are provided because the plans as they stand are incom-plete and incapable of bein6 implemented (Tr. 7311). In fact, counsel for the w

M

• m.

T Applicant stipulated that the plan canne . be inplemented without the SOPS (Tr. 7954).

16. The Board therefore has no choice but te fini that the radiological ener-gency plans for the State of Kentucky cannot be it;1enented as they now stand and therefore the Icard fuMher finds that these pins do not provide that ade-quate protective reasures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological energency.

CONTENTION 35 Indiara Plan

17. Planners from the State of Ohic stated that they had a copy of a radio-logical enerEency plan, dated May,1950, revision I", fro: the State of Indiara presu Ably written for the Marble Hill Nuclear Power facility (Tr.5150). Planners frc: the State of Kentucky had likewise seen such a docunent (Tr. 6174-75). Mcw-ever, these planners had no knowledge as to which Iniiana officials would be re-sponsible for carryin6 out the provisions of that plan designed to protect the public from the consumption of contaninated foodstuffs (Tr. 5156).

! 18. More importantly, FEMA had no knowled6 e of the Indiana Plan whatsoever (Tr. 7620). Counsel for FEMA stated that the plan had not been submitted to FEMA for review (Tr. 7823-13). Counsel for FEYJ, further s.ated that it was his under-e standing that the Indiana Plan was in the process of being developed (Tr. 7825-12).

19. Therefore, this Board is unable to make a finding that the State of Indiana has a plan for the ingestion pathway capable of implementation or that the State of Indiana has a plan which will prevent contatinated foodstuffs from 4

being shipped into the Northern Kentucky-Mentor area which would be consumed by i

the public.

CONTEN ION 36 I Prompt Notification Syste

20. The Prompt Notification System had not been installed as of the hearing w

w

---

^-,--+".y-r ..ii --.e y., .__ , _ , . . _ _ _%, ,--, ,em ,a y-,-,w ,iv,., ,,y, em,-.e yr,-- ------n,,.-.i,. w- -mv,,,--

, o and therefore had not been tested (Tr. 7827).

21. FEFJ, testified that at the present there $s n; review or evaluation of the prompt notification syster (Tr. 7835). The FUJ. witness did state that wind direction on any given day would effect the results of a test and that it mi5ht be necessary to do several tests (Tr. 7836). However the FEIG witness had no idea if several tests would be made (Tr. 7837). N:r did the witness know if the testing would specifically test whether persons within brick structures could also hear the sirens as well as those in wood frate structures (Tr. 7834).

The FEEA witness could not state what percentage of the test population would have to hear the sirens to indicate whether or not the system was properly de-signed (Tr. 7835).

22 NUREG c654, Appendix 3, p. 3-6 states that "Tne systen should be able to 1

function notwithstandin6 adverse environmental conditions, such as floods and power outages". The F.ayor of Mentor is a local public official who could order an evacuation (Tr. 7962). There is no notification ; ocess for the Mayor of Mentor or any other city public official in the event of a radiolo61 cal ac cident at the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station (Tr. 7960). Notification would be by the prompt notification systen or by contercial telephone (Tr. 7961).

i

23. The Kentucky state and county radiological energency plans do not pro-vide for any back-up power supply for the prompt notification system (Tr. 7840).

It takes only 1(TA of the subscribers to overload the 635 telephone exchange ,

i  !

(Tr.6542). The 635 telephone exchan6e is alnost coincidental with the 10.-mile EFZ and is subject to overloadin6 (Tr. 7964-5).

24 The prompt notification system then does not comply with the section of NUREG 0554 cited above.

25 In light of the foregoing the Board is unable to find that the prompt l

t i

L

notification systen untested and not installed will meet the requirements of NUREG 0654 and therefore this Board cannot say that adequate protective measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the event of a radiological ac-cident at the Zinner Nuclear Power Station.

CONTENTION 36 K Water Supply

26. There are two ways in which a public water supply could become contan-inated with radioactive materials; the first being a release of radioactive material directly into the Ohio River and the secend bein6 an airborne release of radicactive material with radioactive particulates, settlin6 back into the water, thereby contatinating it (Tr. 6170). Contamination under either scenario could be inmediate (Tr. 7883).

27. It is inportant that uncontaninated water be available to the general public in the event of an accident at Zinmer (Tr. 7560). The State cf Kentue'ry has no water monitorin6 equipment, only air monitorin6 equipment (Tr. 7550). It is the State's responsibility to plan for L.ie regulation of public and private water supplies in the event of a radiological accident (Tr. 6173), althou6h the witness for FEFA stated that he did not know who had the responsibility for this particular function (Tr. 7862).

28. NUREG 0654 on page 10 in a discussion for the plannin6 basis for the in6estion exposure pathway states "For the in6estion expe. ure pathway, the planning effort involves the identification of major exposure pathways from con-taminated food and water and the associated control and interdiction points and methods". The witness for FEFA stated that the Kentucky Radiological Ecergency Plan does not identify what methods are to be used in meeting the re-quirements of NUREG 0554 (Tr. 7862). For instance, the State of Kentucky has no specific procedure for notifyin6 the public whether or not the water is safe

i to drink (Tr. 7579). Kentucky has no plan for the t-snsportation of uneen-tatinated drinPi g water (Tr. 7357) nor does the State have a plan for the rationing of une:ntaninated water (Tr. 755*). The state Flan nakes no provision for the monitoring of well or cistern water (Tr. 7855) nor does it address stat procedures a wa:er. corks is to follow to insure that contaminated water is n -

sold to cisten users or that contatirated water does not reach the general public (Tr. 756L-5). The car; bell county Radiologiesi Energency Plan likewise does not add- ess these topics (Tr. 7865).

29. Moreover, the FEMI. witness was u cble to identify what other types Of beverages could be substituted for water, or what the source of any other type of beverage nigh; be (Tr. 7375). The plan does state that water monitorire teams fro Frara ~ ort should be nobilized and in the field within 3 to 4 hou s of notification (Tr. 76M). Tne plan does have a list of monitorire sites, how-ever the witness stated that since he was not frc the area, he had no knowledge about the roads or places sited, nor did he make any inquiry as to whether monitors fro: Fn nkfort would be faciliar enough wi;h the area to identify :.he sites (Tr. 787 C,. After the samples are ta ken they are to be returned to Fal-couth, Kentue?y fer testing (Tr. 7849). Falmouth is an hour to an hour and ene-half away fro: ':entor and Newport respectively (Tr, 7549-7850). Therefore it would take the Etate anywhere from 5 to 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> just to find out whether er net some water supplies were contaminated (Tr. 755C:. In light of the fore-going, FD'.A was urable to rake a finding that the State of Kentucky is capable of implementire its protective action guides with regard to the protection cf the public water supply (Tr. 7878).

30. The Scird also is urable to make a findir4 that the Kentucky Radiological Emergency Plan, as written, is capacle of being ir;1erented or that it provides a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected from drinkir4 contatinated 6

"A water in the event of a release of radicactive material fron the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.

CON 50LIDA2 3 CON 2 N!iONE

31. The City of Kenter hereby adepts and incorperates by reference the l findiris of fact as prcpounded by ZAC-2A':K.

CONCLUE:ONS OF Lrn'

32. The City of Kenter hereby ad pts ard incorporates by reference the con-clusions of law as propounded by ZAC-2 ACE.

33 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (a)(1) this Board finds as a matter of law that the offsite Radiological Energency Plans for the State of Kentucky, counties of Pendleton, Eracken, and Carpbell are incon;1ete documents, as they are in draft fort and refer to S0.:s as the inplenentin6 plans. The SOPS which are not yet written deal with tcpics such as the evacuation of school children, evacuation of those without transportation and the distribution of EI. The plans in their present state do not provide a reasonatie assurance that adequate protective measures will and can be taken in the event of a ra:iiological emergency.

3h, Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (a)(2) this Board finds as a matter of law that FEMA has determined that the Radiological Emergency Plans for the State of Kentucky, counties of Pendleton, Bracken, and Campbell are not capable of beirg implecented as they are presently constituted.

35 The Bmrd finds as a matter of law pesuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (b)(5) that the means to provide early notification are not yet in place and ? Eve not been tested and therefore have not been established.

36. 'Ibe Board finds as a matter of law pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5) that l'ocal city officials have the power 42 order an evacuation but no. yrocedures have been established for hetifying ar.y local officials of an accident.

37. The Board finds as a matter of . Law pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (t)(9)

l l

1 that the State of Kentucky does not have adequate methods, systems or equipment for assessing or monitoring public or private water supplies and that this onnission endangers the public's health and safety in the event of a ndiological emerEency.

33.

The Board finds as a natter of law that the Applicant has net subnitted ,

any radiological energency plans for the State of Indiara as is required by 10 C.F.R. 50 33 (g).

Tne application is therefore deficient and the application for a liscense is hereby denied.

39.

FEMA has not seen the Radiological Emergency Plan for the State of Indiana

( -

and therefore FEMA cannot nake a findin5 that said plan is adequate and capable of h

implementation. Neither can this Board.

Tne Board therefore finds as a matter of law pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (a)(2) that the Radiological Emer6ency Plan for the

a State of Indiana is inadequate and is not capable of inplementation. 5

=

.n.

Respectfully submitted, a p . ==

(kR b'. m ,_{ '

Debom h Faber ilebb Z Attorney for the Intervenor J City of Mentor 7967 Alenndria Pike  ?

Alexandria, KentucPy 41001 =

i 1

.=.(

E.

E

=

=_

5

=::

GG=

_m_ _--

UNTU D STA"TS 'CF UCRICA RUCLCAR RECULATO..! C27.!SSION A"CF.IC SArrTY AND L!C M*.NC 3 CARD In the F.atter cf a CDCINNATI CAS & EIETRIC  : DCCET NO. 50-353 -

- 17 m*

C0KPANY, et al.

(Villie H. *i=er Nuclear s >_Y CATION FC AN CFERATINC I' CENSE Power Station)

CESTL'IC A"'E 07 E*!CE It is certified that the prcposei fir.iings cf fact and conclusions of law for the City of Kentor was posted by _.E. r.111 to the persons indicated below, and where asterisk is noted, personally de2 .sred, this 13th day cf April, 1932.

John H. Tr/e, III, Esq. Tr y F. Conner, Esq.

Chair-an, Atenic Safety & Licensing Board Cc=e . Moore & Cerbet 17-7 -e=sylvania Avenue, N.V .

U.S. Nu: lear Beralat:ri 00=ission Vashir.c en, D.C. 2002 Vashirgton, D.' C. 20535

• V'"

• an J. Moran, E q.

Dr. Frank F. Hooper Gene .1 Counsel, Cin'ti Cas & Electric Cc.

Atenic St.fety & Licensir4 3 card School of Natural Resources P.O. 3:x 950 Univer:ity cf Michigan Cinci ati, Ohio 45201 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 + .

Jeh . 2. Veliver, Esq.

7,0. h x 47 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Atcr.ic Safety & Licensirq Sca:d 55C F1.1cere Street Ea tav a , 0-d o 45103 1005 Calle Iargo Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501 .

Cecrce E. Pattisen, Esq.

L62 I. Pain Street Docketir4 and Service Section Esta.ta, 0.io 45103 Office cf the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regalaterf Ce=ission , Jere E. Feldren Jr. , Esq.

Vashiraton, D. C. 20555 Fiftt Level Chsrles A. Barth, Esq. 216 Eaat Ninth Street U.S. Nucitar Regulatcry C =ission Cin: : .sti, Ohio '5202 Roon 12:55 9606 Ihvid K. Martin, Esq.

7735 Old CecrCetown Road Offi:e of the Attorney General Bethesda, Maryland 20014 2C9 h. Clair Street Atenic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Frankf:rt, Kentucky 40501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatorj Co=1ssion Vnshincton, D. C. 20555

• A.-d ev 2. Dennison 200 Fain Street Ator.ie Safety & Licensing Board Panel Eatavia, Ohio , 45103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cenission Vashir,gton, D.C. 20555 tac L FA h J ( t0 L Deborah Faber Vebb 7957 Alexardria Pike Alexandria, Kentucky 41001 Attorney fer Intervener City of Mentor

.