ML20070F109: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.
{{#Wiki_filter:.
o 000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'82 DEC 16 Pl2:09 Before the Commission Irr 'i 0F SECRdiAhY GGCKEinG & SERV!CE BRANCH In the Matter of                                             )
o 000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'82 DEC 16 Pl2:09 Before the Commission Irr 'i 0F SECRdiAhY GGCKEinG & SERV!CE BRANCH In the Matter of
                                                                  )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric                               )     Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.                                           )
)
                                                                  )
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power                               )
)
Station)                                                 )
Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.
)
)
(Wm. H.
Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S
                " PETITION TO ESTABLISH A DETAILED STRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE AUDIT" On November 30, 1982, the Miami Valley Power Project
" PETITION TO ESTABLISH A DETAILED STRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE AUDIT" On November 30, 1982, the Miami Valley Power Project
("MVPP"), an intervenor in this proceeding, filed a document entitled " Miami Valley Power Project's Response in Support of Zimmer Area Citizens - Zimmer Area cloir                                       .s of Kentucky and     the         City of Mentor               Petition       for   Appointment           of       a Consultant to Monitor the Third Party Audit and Petition to Establish a Detailed                       Structure     for Public               Participation Throughout           the   Audit."             As part       of   its         response     to       a petition           filed by     the         Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer                       Area Citizens of Kentucky ("ZAC/ZACK") dated November 19, 1982, MVPP petitions             the           Commission   "to       adopt         the monitoring structure           described           in (its}   brief       in   order         tc   insure meaningful public participation in the                                 selection of all e
("MVPP"), an intervenor in this proceeding, filed a document entitled " Miami Valley Power Project's Response in Support of Zimmer Area Citizens - Zimmer Area cloir
I 8212200089 821216 PDR ADOCK 05000358 g                       PDR
.s of Kentucky and the City of Mentor Petition for Appointment of a
* outside     organizations     implementing         the     Commission's Order."
Consultant to Monitor the Third Party Audit and Petition to Establish a Detailed Structure for Public Participation Throughout the Audit."
While asking for slightly more specific actions,'the basic premise of the MVPP petition is the same as                   the original ZAC/ZACK petition,     i.e.,     the Applicants cannot be trusted   and   the   Commission's       Staff   is   incapable of performing its role without rigid guidelines and scrutiny by the   intervenors. Thus,   the     reasons     for   denying the additional relief requested by MVPP are already fully set forth in " Applicants' Answer to Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky ' Petition for the Appointment of a Consulting     Firm Nominated   by   Intervenors       to Review and Monitor the Third Party Audit                   '"
As part of its response to a
                                        . . . .          dated December 6, 1982 (" Applicants' Answer") which, for the sake of brevity, is incorporated herein by reference.           Only a few additional points need be made.
petition filed by the Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky ("ZAC/ZACK") dated November 19, 1982, MVPP petitions the Commission "to adopt the monitoring structure described in (its}
MVPP proposes a detailed and complicated structure for participation     by   intervenor   and       other   groups   in the selection     of the   independent       organization     conducting the   review of   the management of         the   Zimmer project as   ~
brief in order tc insure meaningful public participation in the selection of all e
I 8212200089 821216 PDR ADOCK 05000358 g
PDR
 
outside organizations implementing the Commission's Order."
While asking for slightly more specific actions,'the basic premise of the MVPP petition is the same as the original ZAC/ZACK petition, i.e.,
the Applicants cannot be trusted and the Commission's Staff is incapable of performing its role without rigid guidelines and scrutiny by the intervenors.
: Thus, the reasons for denying the additional relief requested by MVPP are already fully set forth in " Applicants' Answer to Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky ' Petition for the Appointment of a Consulting Firm Nominated by Intervenors to Review and Monitor the Third Party Audit dated December 6, 1982
(" Applicants' Answer") which, for the sake of brevity, is incorporated herein by reference.
Only a few additional points need be made.
MVPP proposes a detailed and complicated structure for participation by intervenor and other groups in the selection of the independent organization conducting the review of the management of the Zimmer project as
~
required by the Commission's Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending Construction dated November 12, 1982
required by the Commission's Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending Construction dated November 12, 1982
(" Order to Show Cause"). MVPP has not demonstrated that 1/ Applicants will only respond to the new matters raised by petition and will not comment upon this pleading to the extent that it purports to respond to the ZAC/ZACK petition. 10 C.F.R. S2.373(c).
(" Order to Show Cause").
MVPP has not demonstrated that 1/
Applicants will only respond to the new matters raised by petition and will not comment upon this pleading to the extent that it purports to respond to the ZAC/ZACK petition.
10 C.F.R. S2.373(c).


such process is necessary to carry out the goals of the Commission as set forth in its Order to Show Cause or that the procedure which has been         initiated by the     Regic7al Administrator   to   whom the   Commission     has   looked   for implementation of its Order to Show Cause is in any way ineffective. 2/     The broad implication that the Staff is incapable of performing its function under the Order to Show Cause unless the process is institutionalized and oversight responsibility given to intervenors should be rejected by the Commission.
such process is necessary to carry out the goals of the Commission as set forth in its Order to Show Cause or that the procedure which has been initiated by the Regic7al Administrator to whom the Commission has looked for implementation of its Order to Show Cause is in any way ineffective. 2/
Aside   from   repetition   of   its   litany   of   charges regarding a breakdown in the quality assurance at the Zimmer Station, the petition gives no good reason why the present procedure is not effective and must be supplemented in this case.
The broad implication that the Staff is incapable of performing its function under the Order to Show Cause unless the process is institutionalized and oversight responsibility given to intervenors should be rejected by the Commission.
3 /   Furthernore,     all   the   procedure     suggested 2/   See Applicants' Answer at 7-8.
Aside from repetition of its litany of charges regarding a breakdown in the quality assurance at the Zimmer Station, the petition gives no good reason why the present procedure is not effective and must be supplemented in this case.
          -3/   MVPP continues to make unsubstantiated charges           such that the " selection process is tainted" (MVPP Petition at 2) and there exists "CG&E's comprehensive violation of the public trust." Id. at 4. MVPP also continues to imply that because there is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation of the Zimmer project, CG&E management has   already   been   found   guilty   of   " intentional wrongdoing."   MVPP Brief at 4, n.3.       Such allegations are counterproductive in that they tend to diminish public confidence in the actions of the Commission.
/
Furthernore, all the procedure suggested 3
2/
See Applicants' Answer at 7-8.
-3/
MVPP continues to make unsubstantiated charges such that the " selection process is tainted" (MVPP Petition at 2) and there exists "CG&E's comprehensive violation of the public trust."
Id. at 4.
MVPP also continues to imply that because there is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation of the Zimmer project, CG&E management has already been found guilty of
" intentional wrongdoing."
MVPP Brief at 4,
n.3.
Such allegations are counterproductive in that they tend to diminish public confidence in the actions of the Commission.
Certainly an intervenor organization making these accusations should not be permitted to dictate to the Commission or Staff the courses of action which should be taken in this matter.
Certainly an intervenor organization making these accusations should not be permitted to dictate to the Commission or Staff the courses of action which should be taken in this matter.
l
l


_4-by MVPP     does   do   is   to   lead   to   additional     delays and complications which will undoubtedly lead to delay in the resumption of the work halted by the Cc,mmission's Order to Show Cause.
_4-by MVPP does do is to lead to additional delays and complications which will undoubtedly lead to delay in the resumption of the work halted by the Cc,mmission's Order to Show Cause.
As explained in Applicants' Answer to ZAC/ZACK,                 the organization conducting the independent review under the Order to Show Cause is not performing the same function as an independent auditor as was utilized in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. 4/     The principal purpose of Section IV.B of the Order   to   Show   Cause     is   to   assist       the   Company   in strengthening     the   management       of   the     Zimmer   project.
As explained in Applicants' Answer to ZAC/ZACK, the organization conducting the independent review under the Order to Show Cause is not performing the same function as an independent auditor as was utilized in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. 4/
Therefore, there are significant reasons why the Applicants should have a greater say in the selection process than with a third party auditor inasmuch as such organization, once selected,     will   become     their   agent     to     implement   the comprehensive plan for the continuation of construction.
The principal purpose of Section IV.B of the Order to Show Cause is to assist the Company in strengthening the management of the Zimmer project.
Applic_nts are required to evaluate these recommendations and, with the approval of the Regional Administrator, choose a particular alternative.           This   is   a   far cry     from the functions of an independent auditor as utilized at Diablo                       -
Therefore, there are significant reasons why the Applicants should have a greater say in the selection process than with a third party auditor inasmuch as such organization, once
Canyon.
: selected, will become their agent to implement the comprehensive plan for the continuation of construction.
4/   Applicants' Answer at 1-2, n.l.
Applic_nts are required to evaluate these recommendations and, with the approval of the Regional Administrator, choose a particular alternative.
This is a
far cry from the functions of an independent auditor as utilized at Diablo Canyon.
4/
Applicants' Answer at 1-2, n.l.


For these reasons, the additional relief requested by MVPP should be denied.
For these reasons, the additional relief requested by MVPP should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN                                         P.C.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN P.C.
                                                                              *AA[
*AA[
                                                                              )Y, Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants December 16, 1982 I
) Y Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants December 16, 1982 I
i l
i l
i 1
i 1


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                     )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
                                          )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric )         Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.                   )
)
                                          )
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric )
(Wm. H . Zimmer Nuclear Power       )
Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.
Station)                         )
)
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Miami Valley Power Project's ' Petition to Establish a Detailed Structure for Public Participation Through the Audit,'" dated December 16, 1982 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 16th day of December, 1982:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Miami Valley Power Project's ' Petition to Establish a Detailed Structure for Public Participation Through the Audit,'" dated December 16, 1982 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 16th day of December, 1982:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman               Dr. Frank F. Hooper 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 Howard A. Wilber                             and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and                             Board Panel Licensing Appeal Board                 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                       Commission Commission                             Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.       20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety Judge John H. Frye, III                       and Licensing Board     i Chairman, Atomic Safety and                   Panel Licensing Board                         U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                       Commission Commission                             Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.       20555 t
Alan S.
l l
Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. Frank F.
Hooper 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 Howard A. Wilber and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Board Panel Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety Judge John H. Frye, III and Licensing Board i
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 t
l l
l l


1 8                                     Charles A. Barth, Esq.           David K. Martin, Esq.
8 Charles A. Barth, 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.
David K. Martin, Esq.
7967 Alexandria Pike             George E. Pattison, 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.
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.
20555 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Deborah Faber Webb, Esq.
Vice President and Lynne Bernabei, Esq.                   General Counsel Government Accountability         The Cincinnati Gas &
7967 Alexandria Pike George E.
Project /IPS                         Electric Company 1901 Q Street, N.W.             P.O. Box 960 Washington, D.C. 20009         Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 John D. Woliver, Esq.
Pattison, 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.
Alexandria, Kentucky 41001 Prosecuting Attorney of Clermont County, Ohio Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I John W. McCormick POCH Boston, MA   02109
462 Main Street Attorney at Law Batavia, Ohio 45103 200 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 William J. Moran, Esq.
                                                                ,1 Matt J. Wetterhahn l
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 John W. McCormick POCH Boston, MA 02109
,1 Matt J. Wetterhahn l
l I
l I
cc:   Robert F. Warnick Director, Enforcement and Investigation NRC Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
cc:
Robert F. Warnick Director, Enforcement and Investigation NRC Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
* Hand Delivery
* Hand Delivery
_ .}}
.}}

Latest revision as of 09:46, 16 December 2024

Answer Opposing Miami Valley Power Project 821130 Petition to Establish Detailed Structure for Public Participation Through Audit.Intervenor Fails to Demonstrate Process Necessary to Carry Out NRC Goals.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20070F109
Person / Time
Site: Zimmer
Issue date: 12/16/1982
From: Wetterhahn M
CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER & WETTERHAHN
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8212200089
Download: ML20070F109 (7)


Text

.

o 000KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'82 DEC 16 Pl2:09 Before the Commission Irr 'i 0F SECRdiAhY GGCKEinG & SERV!CE BRANCH In the Matter of

)

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric

)

Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.

)

)

(Wm. H.

Zimmer Nuclear Power

)

Station)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT'S

" PETITION TO ESTABLISH A DETAILED STRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE AUDIT" On November 30, 1982, the Miami Valley Power Project

("MVPP"), an intervenor in this proceeding, filed a document entitled " Miami Valley Power Project's Response in Support of Zimmer Area Citizens - Zimmer Area cloir

.s of Kentucky and the City of Mentor Petition for Appointment of a

Consultant to Monitor the Third Party Audit and Petition to Establish a Detailed Structure for Public Participation Throughout the Audit."

As part of its response to a

petition filed by the Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky ("ZAC/ZACK") dated November 19, 1982, MVPP petitions the Commission "to adopt the monitoring structure described in (its}

brief in order tc insure meaningful public participation in the selection of all e

I 8212200089 821216 PDR ADOCK 05000358 g

PDR

outside organizations implementing the Commission's Order."

While asking for slightly more specific actions,'the basic premise of the MVPP petition is the same as the original ZAC/ZACK petition, i.e.,

the Applicants cannot be trusted and the Commission's Staff is incapable of performing its role without rigid guidelines and scrutiny by the intervenors.

Thus, the reasons for denying the additional relief requested by MVPP are already fully set forth in " Applicants' Answer to Zimmer Area Citizens /Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky ' Petition for the Appointment of a Consulting Firm Nominated by Intervenors to Review and Monitor the Third Party Audit dated December 6, 1982

(" Applicants' Answer") which, for the sake of brevity, is incorporated herein by reference.

Only a few additional points need be made.

MVPP proposes a detailed and complicated structure for participation by intervenor and other groups in the selection of the independent organization conducting the review of the management of the Zimmer project as

~

required by the Commission's Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending Construction dated November 12, 1982

(" Order to Show Cause").

MVPP has not demonstrated that 1/

Applicants will only respond to the new matters raised by petition and will not comment upon this pleading to the extent that it purports to respond to the ZAC/ZACK petition.

10 C.F.R. S2.373(c).

such process is necessary to carry out the goals of the Commission as set forth in its Order to Show Cause or that the procedure which has been initiated by the Regic7al Administrator to whom the Commission has looked for implementation of its Order to Show Cause is in any way ineffective. 2/

The broad implication that the Staff is incapable of performing its function under the Order to Show Cause unless the process is institutionalized and oversight responsibility given to intervenors should be rejected by the Commission.

Aside from repetition of its litany of charges regarding a breakdown in the quality assurance at the Zimmer Station, the petition gives no good reason why the present procedure is not effective and must be supplemented in this case.

/

Furthernore, all the procedure suggested 3

2/

See Applicants' Answer at 7-8.

-3/

MVPP continues to make unsubstantiated charges such that the " selection process is tainted" (MVPP Petition at 2) and there exists "CG&E's comprehensive violation of the public trust."

Id. at 4.

MVPP also continues to imply that because there is an ongoing Grand Jury investigation of the Zimmer project, CG&E management has already been found guilty of

" intentional wrongdoing."

MVPP Brief at 4,

n.3.

Such allegations are counterproductive in that they tend to diminish public confidence in the actions of the Commission.

Certainly an intervenor organization making these accusations should not be permitted to dictate to the Commission or Staff the courses of action which should be taken in this matter.

l

_4-by MVPP does do is to lead to additional delays and complications which will undoubtedly lead to delay in the resumption of the work halted by the Cc,mmission's Order to Show Cause.

As explained in Applicants' Answer to ZAC/ZACK, the organization conducting the independent review under the Order to Show Cause is not performing the same function as an independent auditor as was utilized in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. 4/

The principal purpose of Section IV.B of the Order to Show Cause is to assist the Company in strengthening the management of the Zimmer project.

Therefore, there are significant reasons why the Applicants should have a greater say in the selection process than with a third party auditor inasmuch as such organization, once

selected, will become their agent to implement the comprehensive plan for the continuation of construction.

Applic_nts are required to evaluate these recommendations and, with the approval of the Regional Administrator, choose a particular alternative.

This is a

far cry from the functions of an independent auditor as utilized at Diablo Canyon.

4/

Applicants' Answer at 1-2, n.l.

For these reasons, the additional relief requested by MVPP should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN P.C.

  • AA[

) Y Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicants December 16, 1982 I

i l

i 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

The Cincinnati Gas & Electric )

Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al.

)

)

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power

)

Station)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Miami Valley Power Project's ' Petition to Establish a Detailed Structure for Public Participation Through the Audit,'" dated December 16, 1982 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 16th day of December, 1982:

Alan S.

Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. Frank F.

Hooper 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 Howard A. Wilber and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Board Panel Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety Judge John H. Frye, III and Licensing Board i

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 t

l l

8 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 John W. McCormick POCH Boston, MA 02109

,1 Matt J. Wetterhahn l

l I

cc:

Robert F. Warnick Director, Enforcement and Investigation NRC Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

  • Hand Delivery

.