ML20054M234
| ML20054M234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1982 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER & WETTERHAHN |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M235 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207120143 | |
| Download: ML20054M234 (5) | |
Text
..
e o
.(
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric
)
Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.
)
)
(Wm. H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
APPLICANTS' EXCEPTIONS RELATING TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'S JUNE 21, 1982 INITIAL DECISION AND MOTION TO TOLL THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 52.762, The Cincinnati Gas
& Electric Company, et al.,
Applicants in the captioned proceeding, hereby appeal the Initial Decision (hereinafter "I.D.")
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board")
dated June 21, 1982 by filing the following exceptions thereto:
1.
The Board erred in finding that "all of the population within five miles of the Station is to be notified within 15 minutes of the declaration of a site emergengy" (I.D. at 32, 68).
2.
The Board erred in finding that " plans have not been developed to mobilize school bus drivers and buses and other school personnel if telephone service is curtailed or eliminated" (I.D. at 27, 32, 71, 72).
3.
The Board erred in finding that plans have not been developed to deal with the problems presented if buses are 8207120143 820707
~'
gDRADOCK 05000358 31dj PDR j
in the process of transporting students when the decision to evacuate is made (I.D. at 27, 32, 71, 72).
4.
The Board erred in holding that the capability to evacuate school children simultaneously, i.e.,
without return trips, is required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC") regulations or NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (I.D.
at 32-33, 73).
5.
The Board erred in finding that sufficient buses are not available to evacuate all the students in the New Richmond School District within the EPZ
" simultaneously" (I.D. at 33, 73).
6.
The Board erred in finding that two-way communication between all schools and public school emergency resource response agencies is necessary under the NRC regulations and NUREG-0654 to implement emergency procedures (I.D. at 68-69).
7.
The Board erred in finding that two-way communication among school officers and personnel during a Zimmer emergency is presently limited to the use of commercial telephones (I.D. at 67, 70).
8.
The Board erred in not making specific findings and articulating the legal basis as to the criteria it chose for determining " untimeliness" as related to its conclusions regarding evacuation of the schools within the plume EPZ (I.D. at 73, 75).
9.
The Board erred in finding that school officers in the Ohio districts of the plume exposure area of the EPZ have not kept parents advised of their planning for a Zimmer emergency or that there is NRC or NUREG-0654 requirement to do so (I.D. at 75).
10.
The Board erred in finding that the correction of deficiencies it found related to evacuation of Campbell and Clermont County schools within the EPZ are not amenable to final resolution by verification by the NRC Staff (I.D. at 48).
11.
The Board erred in holding that the present record is not adequate and further proceedings are necessary with regard to the evacuation of the Clermont and Campbell County schools before it would authorize the issuance of an operating license (I.D. at 48).
12.
The Board erred in holding that the legal proceeding before the Board must consider the " final FEMA findings" relating to contentions and the Staff's supplement j
to the Safety Evaluation Report thereon before it can j
legally authorize the issuance of an operating license (I.D.
i at 50).
f 13.
The Board erred in holding that the parties to the i
proceeding must have a reasonable opportunity to assess the impact of the final FEMA findings that relate to the contention admitted on November 25, 1981, and the Staff's supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report related to those
-4 findings on the admitted contentions and Initial Decision prior to authorizing an operating license.
14.
The Board erred in failing to articulate the legal basis for its holdings described in Exceptions 12 and 13.
15.
The Board erred in not authorizing the issuance of an operating license of at least 5% of rated power even based on its findings with regard to evacuation of the Clermont and Campbell County schools the matters raised in Exceptions 12 and 13, above (I.D. at 48, 49-50),
16.
The Board erred in its conclusion of law that the state of offsite emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency (I.D. at 96).
17.
The Board erred in not authorizing an operating license at power levels of up to 5% of rated power based upon its consideration of all issues to date.
18.
The Board erred in not authorizing an operating license at power levels of up to 100% of rated power based upon its consideration of all issues to date.
The Applicants move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to toll the period for filing briefs related to Applicants' above stated exceptions until the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has ruled on " Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Licensing Board's Initial Decision dated June 21, 1981" which is being filed today.
Applicants request that they,
l as well as any other party who has filed timely exceptions, be permitted until five days after service of the Licensing Board's disposition of Applicants' pending motion to revise such exceptions and/or to file new exceptions to the extent that the InitiaI Decision is changed by such ruling.
The briefing schedule would then follow that contained in 10 C.F.R. 52.762(b) and Section IV of the -Initial Decision.
Such relief is consistent with the Appeal Board's previous i
practice.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power I
Station, Units 1 and 2), 14 NRC 983 (1981).
See also Duke I
Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,
2 and 3),
i 11 NRC 870 (1980).
A Respectfully submitted, j
CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
m kv gN.
7W//
].
Tro b f Conner, Jr.
i Mark J. Wetterhahn l
Counsel for the Applicants L
July 7, 1982 4
I A
d I
i
\\
i I
i
~,.
.. - -