ML20063M342

Revised Exceptions to ASLB 820621 Initial Decision & ASLB 820824 Memorandum & Order on Reconsideration.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20063M342
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	09/03/1982
From:	Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER & WETTERHAHN
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8209100266
Download: ML20063M342 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7. j .

00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES O 1 I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF SECRETARv 00CKETitlG & SERVICf.

In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

)

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )

Station) )

APPLICANTS' REVISED EXCEPTIONS RELATING TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'S JUNE 21, 1982 INITIAL DECISION In accordance with the July 15, 1982 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") ,

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., Applicants in the captioned proceeding, hereby file the following revised exceptions to the Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") dated June 21, 1982 and the Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Licensing Board's Initial Decision Dated June 21, 1982) (" Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration") dated August 24, 1982.

The Appeal Board's July 15, 1982 Order granted Applicants' request that the parties to the proceeding be permitted until five days after service of the Licensing Board's disposition of Applicants' Motion for Reconsideration to revise previously filed exceptions and to file new exceptions to the extent that the Initial Decision was changed by such ruling. The Applicants were the only 8209100266 820903 PDR ADOCK 05000358 G PDR g

party to file exceptions to the Initial Decision. The only changes to " Applicants' Exceptions Relating To The Atomic Safety And Licensing Board's June 21, 1982 Initial Decision And Motion To Toli The Briefing Schedule" relating to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration are the elimination of Exception Numbers 15

and 17 as moot, the modification of Exception Numbers 11, 12 and 13 to reflect the fact that the Licensing Board has authorized the issuance of a license to operate at up to five percent power, and the addition of references to the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration following certain of the contentions. The Applicants' exceptions as thus modified and renumbered are stated below:

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 emergency " (I.D. at 32, 68).

I

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 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

. . - . . . - . . . , , _ , ,-..e, _ , - . . . - . , . _ _ - . . . , . - , . . - . , , _ , . - . . . . _ , , . . . . . . , , ,

0

• return trips, is required by-Nuclear Regulatory Commission j ("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, 75).

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

_ _. . - _ _ --. - _ _ . _ _ _ , _ - , _ _ _ , ~ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . - - . -

1

, 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 tinal resolution by verification by the NRC Staff (I.D. at 48; Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration at 11-12).

11. The Board erred in holding that the present-record

, is not adequate and further proceedings are necessary with a

regard to the evacuation of the Clermont and Campbell County-schools before it would authorize operation at power levels of greater than 5% rated (I.D. at 48; Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration at 11-12).

12. The Board erred in holding that the legal l, proceeding before the Board must consider the " final FEMA findings" relating to contentions and the Staff's supplement to _the Safety Evaluation Report thereon before it can

! legally authorize operation at power levels greater than 5%

of rated (I.D. at 50; Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration at 3-11).

13. The Board erred in holding that the parties to the 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 I

supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report related to those findings on the admitted contentions and Initial Decision 2

i i

j

O .

prior to authorizing operation at power levels greater than 5% of rated (Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration at 3-11).

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 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).

16. 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.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

fh Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants September 3, 1982

i.

1 l

1 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket-No. 50-358 Company, et al. )

4

)

.(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )

l Station) )

i_

~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Revised 4

Exceptions Relating to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's June 21, 1982 Initial Decision," dated September 3, j 1982 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the

! following by deposit in the United States mail this 3rd day of September, 1982:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. Frank F. Hooper l Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman of Resource Appeal Board Ecology Program.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Commission. Resources Washington, D.C. 20555 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Stephen F. Eilperin Atomic Safety and Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. 1005 Calle Largo Commission Sante Fe, NM 87501 Washington, D.C. 20555

, Chairman, Atomic Safety l Howard A. Wilber and Licensing Appeal

! Atomic Safety and Board Panel f Lic?nsing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

Chairman, Atomic Safety i Judge John H. Frye, III and Licensing Board Chairman, Atomic Safety and Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l Washington, D.C. 20555 1

._ ._.---__1_ -___ . ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ ._ _ _ . , _

Charles A. Barth, Esq. David K. Martin, Esq.

Counsel for the NRC Staff. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Executive Acting Director Legal Director Division of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Law Commission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Deborah Faber Webb, Esq.

7967 Alexandria Pike George E. Pattison,- Esq.

Alexandria, Kentucky 41001 Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio Andrew B. Dennison, Esq. 462 Main Street Attorney at Law Batavia, Ohio 45103 200 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 William J. Moran, Esq.

Vice President and Lynne Bernabei, Esq. General Counsel Government Accountability The Cincinnati Gas &

Project /IPS .

Electric Company 1901 Q Street, N.W. P.O. Box 960 Washington, D.C. 20009 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 John D. Woliver, Esq. Docketing and Service Clermont County Branch Office of the Community Council Secretary U.S. Nuclear Box 181 Regulatory Batavia, Ohio 45103 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Brian Cassidy, Esq.

Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 4

John W. McCormick POCH Boston, MA 02109 A =

R6bert M. Rader 1

- _. .