Text

Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors 850624 Proposed Contentions on Emergency Response Plans.Notice of Appearance of DA Ridgway & Certificate of Svc Encl
	ML20128K056
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/05/1985
From:	Churchill B; GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	CON-#385-747 OL, NUDOCS 8507100469
	Download: ML20128K056 (52)
	v • d • e

-

dD July 5, 1985 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LXETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 15 JR. -9 A10:34 In the Matter of

)

0FFICE OF SEcr;tiAn 4 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket No. 50-42400CHETING & SERVICf BRANCH

)

50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

(OL)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO JOINT INTERVENORS' PROPOSED CONTENTIONS ON EMEPGENCY RESPONSE PLANS I.

INTRODUCTION

" Joint Intervenors' Revised Contention Relating To Emer-gency Response"

(" Revised Contention") was filed on June 24, 1985.

As discussed below, Joint Intervenors actually advance some 20 separate proposed contentions in the June 24 filing --

all assertedly based on the offsite emergency plans for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("VEGP") provided to Joint In-tervenors by letter dated May 3, 1985.

Applicants respond herein to Joint Intervenors' proposed contentions.

In Section II, Applicants oppose the admission of the proposed contentions on the ground that they are untimely' filed, given the availability of the emergency plans, and the Board's September 5, 1984 Memorandum and Order.

In Section III, Appli-cants address the existing standards for the admissibility of 8507100469 850705 gDR ADOCM 05000424 4

PDR J

l)

e proposed con'tentions; and, in Section IV, Applicants apply those standards to each of Joint Intervenors' proposed con-tentions, opposing the admission of all twenty.

II.

AVAILABILITY OF PLANS AND UNTIMELINESS OF PROPOSED CONTENTIONS By letter to the Licensing Board, dated June 24, 1985, Joint Intervenors filed their " Revised Contention" on emergency response.

The revised contention is untimely and contravenes the Board's September 5, 1984 Memorandum and Order.

Joint In-tervenors have made no showing of good cause for filing nearly three weeks late, and the contention should therefore be re-jected.

Prior to the May 30, 1984 special prehearing conference, Applicants and Joint Intervenors agreed that a revised con-tention on emergency planning (Contention 13) would be refiled after the filing of the emergency plans.

The Board adopted this agreement and specified that the Joint Intervenors would have 30 days after filing of the plans to submit a revised emergency planning contention.

See LBP-84-35, 20 N.R.C.

887, 910-11 (1984).

By letter dated October 5, 1984, Applicants' counsel notified the Board that Applicants' onsite plans were expected to be filed in December 1984, and that the offsite plans were expected to be filed in May 1985., The letter also reported an agreement betwe'en Applicants and Joint Intervenors that

-e 6

l contentions relating to the onsite and offsite plans would be due within 30 days after the filing of either draft or final i

i copies of the respective plans.

Applicants' onsite emergency plan ("Vogtle Plan") was filed with the NRC and served on Joint Intervenors on November 30, 1984.

Joint Intervenors filed no onsite emergency plan contentions within the prescribed 30 days.

The Vogtle-specific portion of the Georgia state offsite plan,1/

which included the Burke County Plan (" County Plan"), was filed with the NRC on May 3, 1985, with copies served on Joint Inter-venors by Federal Express on the same date.2/

Joint Interve-nors' June 24 filing of its revised Contention 13 is therefore untimely.

Joint Intervenors have provided no showing of good cause for the untimeliness of their filing, and have not even at-tempted to address the other provisions of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a) pertaining to tardy filings.

They allege, instead, that the 30-day period did not begin to run when the offsite plans were filed because the plans were marked draft, and that the Board had specified that the contention was to have been based on the 1/

Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan, Georgia Power Company Plant Vogtle, Annex D (" Annex D").

The Georgia Base Plan itself (" Base Plan"), non-specific to Plant.Vogtle, had been previously available.

2/

Also included in the May 3, 1985 service was the " South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan

-- SCORERP-84" ("SCORERP").

b filing of " final" plans.

Their argument is that the 30-day time period began to run when Applicants notified them by tele-phone on June 21 that the " final" Burke County plans had been submitted.3/

" Revised Contention," at 2.

Such a position is clearly contradicted by the record.

Nowhere, in either the Board's September 5, 1984 Order or during the course of the prehearing conference (Tr. 95-98), did the Board or any of the parties specify that the time for fil-ing the revised contention would be triggered by the filing of

" final" plans.

T'o the contrary, counsel for the NRC staff explained at the prehearing conference that "we are talking about offsite emergency plans and frequently there are a number of drafts that are produced."

Tr. at 95.

Moreover, Appli-cants' October 5, 1984 letter to the Board reporting on the agreement between the two parties clearly stated that

"[c]ontentions related to the State and county emergency plans would be due within 30 days after filing of same, or if draft 3/

Applicants did not tell Joint Intervenors that the draft Burke County plans were in fact the " final" plans.

Appli-cants informed Joint Intervenors that there was no requirement to wait for the " final" plans, that such plans are typically not finalized before completing the NRC and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) review process, and that in some instances a " final" plan is not clearly designated as such because the plans are often considered to be organic documents which are subject to updating and improvement with time.

See generally Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-808, 21 N.R.C.

(June 11, 1985) (slip op. at 6-7).

l plans are provided, within 30 days after furnishing of the draft."

Joint Intervenors' argument that their time did not I

begin to run until they were informed verbally by Applicants that the " final" plan had been submitted is therefore clearly contrary to the unambiguous record in this proceeding.4/

In addition, Joint Intervenors' argument is inconsistent with the Commission's directive that offsite emergency planning issues should be raised as early as possible on the basis of information available.

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C.

1041, 1050 (1983).

Joint Intervenors' failure to heed this requirement is exacer-bated by their initial attempt to ignore the Burke County Plan simply because it was marked as a draft, quite aside from their failure to abide by the Board's Order.

The Commission has also reaffirmed that the Licensing Board should apply the factors set out in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1) when confronted with a late-filed contention, which procedural requirements are " con-sistent with a petitioner's obligation to examine the publi-cally available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question with sufficient care to enable it to uncover any 4/

Joint Intervenors also note that a Richmond County plan has not been submitted.

No portion of Richmond County lies within the ten-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ), however, and Joint Intervenors have not advanced the absence of a Richmond County plan as an argu-ment in support of their late-filed contention.

They in-stead concede that their due date is based on the filing of the Burke County Plan.

" Revised Contention," at 2..

7 4

information that could serve as the foundation for a specific contention."

Id. at 1045.

Because Joint Intervenors have failed to comply with the specific Order of the Board, have failed to address the specific requirements of 10 C.F.R.

$ 2.714(a)(1), and have not complied with the requirements of the Commission as set out in Catawba, Joint Intervenors' late-filed Contention 13 should be rejected.

III.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS Applicants have previously summarized the general legal standards (e.g., " specificity" and " basis") governing the ad-missibility of proposed contentions in an NRC licensing pro-ceeding.

See, e.g.,

" Applicants' Response to GANE and CPG Sup-plements to Petitions For Leave to Intervene" (May 7, 1984).

Accordingly, Applicants here simply elaborate upon those prin-ciples which are particularly applicable to Joint Intervenors' proposed emergency response contentions.

A.

Bases with Reasonable Specificity The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R.

$ 2.714(b), recuire that an intervenor include with proposed contentions "the bases for each contention set forth with rea-sonable specificity."

There are several purposes which underlie ni s-Commissic7.'s standard in section 2.714(b):

A purpose of the basis-for-contention requirement in Section 2.714 is to help as-sure at the pleading stage that the hearing process is not improperly invoked.

For ex-ample,_ a licensing proceeding before this agency is plainly not the proper forum for an attack on applicable requirements or for challenges to the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process.

Another purpose is to help assure that other par-ties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose.

Still another purpose is to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular proceeding.

In the final analysis, there must ultimately be strict observance of the requirements governing intervention, in order that the adjudica-tory process is invoked only by those per-sons who have real interests at stake and who seek resolution of concrete issues.

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.

13, 20-21 (1974) (footnotes omitted).

The notice aspect of the " bases with reasonable specif-icity" requirement is a natural outgrowth of fundamental no-tions of fairness applied to the party with the burden of proof.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has ob-served:

The applicant is entitled to a fair chance to defend.

It is therefore entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being asked.

So is the Board below.

.It should not be necessary to speculate about what a pleading is supposed to mean.

6 4

Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, i

Unit No. 1),-ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C.

559, 576 (1975) (emphasis supplied; footnote omitted).

Moreover, the Licensing Board is entitled to adequate notice of a petitioner's specific con-tentions to enable it to guard against the obstruction of its processes.

As the Supreme Court has noted, in NRC proceedings,

*

it is incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their par-ticipation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the interve-nors' position and contention.* *

Indeed, administrative proceedings should not be a game or forum to engage in un-justified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to matters that "ought to be" considered * * *.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978).

Yet, important as the notice aspect of the standard is, the requirement for bases with reasonable specificity goes be-yond the " notice pleading" allowed in the federal courts, which has been found to be insufficient for NRC licensing proceed-ings.

See Wolf Creek, supra, ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C.

at 575, n.32 (1975).

On the other hand, the regulation does not require the intervenor to detail the evidence which will be offered in sup-port of each proposed contention.

Peach Bottom, supra, ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.

at 20 (1974); see also Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-130, 6 A.E.C. 423, 426 (1973); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 548-49 (1980).

In short, the" standard falls somewhere in between, and "[t]he degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged initially involves the exercise of judgment on a case-by-case basis."

Peach Bottom, supra, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974).

To establish relevance, an intervenor, in setting forth the basis for its proposed contention, should establish a nexus between the substance of the contention and the statutory and regulatory scope of the Board's jurisdiction.

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C.

1649, 1654 (1982).

With respect to any safety issue (such as emergency planning), the intervenor must specify a regulation with which applicant is allegedly not com-plying, and must provide sufficient detail to permit the Board to determine how the regulation is being violated; or the in-tervenor should allege with particularity the existence and de-tail of a substantial safety issue on which the regulations are silent.

Id. at 1656.

This requirement is often referred to as the " legal basis" for a contention.

To establish materiality, the proposed contention must provide a foundation sufficient to warrant further exploration.

Peach Bottom, supra, ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.

at 21; Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 A.E.C. 243, 246 (1973).

See also Vogtle.

/

Plan, App. 3.

The proposed contention therefore should be re-jected for lack of specificity, due to Joint Intervenors' fail-ure to specifically address the relevant documentation.

Moreover, because the tone alert system is the primary means for notification of all residents within the plume EPZ, siren vehicles and door-to-door contact are merely back-up means of notification for that segment of the population.

See County Plan, at 52-53.

There is no explicit regulatory requirement for such means of back-up notification to a primary system (such as tone alert radios or sirens).

See, e.g.,

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-14, 21 N.R.C.

(May 2, 1985) (slip op. at 216).

Thus, since the County is not even required to provide a back-up means of notification, Joint Intervenors cannot be heard to allege that the County lacks the resources to imple-ment such a system.

Accordingly, to the extent that the pro-posed contention refers to notification of the public residing within the EPZ, the proposed contention lacks any legal basis.

Finally, Joint Intervenors have failed to provide any fac-tual basis whatsoever to support their allegations.

As dis-cussed above, the available plans detail the resources avail-able for notification of both the general public and transients within the plume EPE.

See, e.g.,

County Plan, at 11-31, 47-49, 52-53; Vogtle Plan, App. 3.

See also Vogtle Plan, App. 3, at 3-2 and App.

6, at 5-2, 5-5 (specifically addressing transient i i L

notification).

Joint Intervenors have neither acknowledged the availability of these resources for public notification, nor offered any indication why the listed resources would be inade-i quate.

Under these circumstances, the proposed contention must be rejected for lack of basis in fact.

For all these reasons, proposed Contention EP-2(e) is not admissible.

In EP-2(f), Intervenors claim that "An adequate county-wide siren warning system * *

would require installa-tion of a minimum of 200 sirens for $5,000 each, totalling

$1,000,000.

The County has lacked the funds to install such a system in the past."

Intervenors cite Pam Smith as a basis for their assertions.12/

However, as noted above in proposed Con-tention EP-2(b), Pam Smith is the Emergency Management Agency Director for Richmond County.

Since Richmond County is outside the Vogtle plume EPZ (see, e.g.,

Vogtle Plan, App. 11), provi-sions for alert and notification of Richmond County residents are not required.

Within the EPZ, residents are being notified via tone alert radios, not sirens.

See discussion in response to proposed Contentions EP-2(c) and EP-2(d).

Thus, EP-2(f) must also be rejected for lack of basis.

EP-2(g) contends that "The plan also fails to address how sirens will operate in the event of a power failure."

As 12/ This language is included virtually word-for-word from GANE's 4/11/84 Supplement, at 31, and CPG's 5/25/84 Sup-plement,,at 27.

explained elsewhere, sirens are not used for notification of the public within the Vogtle EPZ.

Therefore, there is no fac-tual basis for Joint Intervenors' concern about the operability of sirens in the event of a power failure, and proposed Con-tantion EP-2(g) must be rejected.

As an aside, Applicants note that, even if sirens were employed as part of the public alert and notification system, back-up power for such sirens is not required.

See, e.g.,

Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 N.R.C.

(April 17, 1985) (slip op. at 172).

Thus, the proposed con-

.tention would also fail for lack of legal basis.

EP-2(h) alleges that " Applicants provide no assurance that transients who are unfamiliar with the area will understand the implications of a warning signal in the event they are able to hear it."

To the contrary, as discussed immediately below, the plans specifically address the provision of such information to transients; Joint Intervenors simply have failed to identify and discuss the relevant portions of the plans.

The proposed contention should therefore be rejected for lack of specif-icity.

The proposed contention is also objectionable for lack of basis.

NUREG-0654 Criterion G.2 governs the provision of pre-emergency public information to transients..That criterion provides, in relevant part:

e Signs or other measures * *

shall * *

be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume * *

EPZ appropriate information that would be help-ful if an emergency or accident occurs.

[ emphasis supplied]

The only significant transient population in the Vogtle EPZ is the hunters and fishermen along the banks of the Savannah River.13/

See County Plan, at 45; Vogtle Plan, App. 6, at 3-4.

The emergency plans unequivocally provide for the placement of

" appropriate posters and signs" along the Savannah River, to advise hunters and fishermen of actions to be taken if notified of an emergency, e.g.,

by emergency vehicles with PA systems and/or sirens.

See, e.g.,

County Plan, at 63; Vogtle Plan, at G-2; Vogtle Plan, App. 8, at 19.

Joint Intervenors have failed to distinguish this case from others approving the use of such means to provide notification to transients under similar cir-cumstances.

See, e.g., Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 N.R.C.

53, 68, 96 (1984).

For this reason, too, EP-2(h) must be rejected.

EP-2(i) claims that " Applicants fail to provide adequately for notification and evacuation of hearing impaired and other 13/

Though Vogtle plant workers are generally considered

" transients" for purposes of evacuation planning, they are not " transients who are unfamiliar with the area," and it cannot be seriously contended that they would not under-stand the significance of an emergency warning signal.

See, e.g.,

Vogtle Plan, at E-2,(pre-emergency training for all plant personnel concerning appropriate actions in emergency).

l

! l l

t

handicapped persons."

However, Joint Intervenors have not even referenced the relevant sections of the emergency plans; cer-tainly they have not alleged any specific inadequacies in the applicable provisions.

The plans expressly provide for special, personal notifi-cation of hearing-impaired residents, pursuant to Standard Operating Procedures maintained by the Burke County Emergency Management Agency and the Health and Social Service Departments of Burke County.

See County Plan, at 53.

No particular spe-cial resources are needed for such a service.

Thus, Joint In-tervenors cannot distinguish this case from others approving similar plans for the notification of the hearing-impaired in the event of a radiological emergency.

See, e.g.,

Wolf Creek, supra, LBP-84-26, 20 N.R.C.

at 67, 94-95.

Accordingly, that portion of EP-2(i) relating to notification of the hearing-impaired must be rejected for lack of basis and specif-icity.

The plans also address the special problems of evacuating the mobility-impaired and non-ambulatory residents of the EPZ.

Specifically, the plan provides:

Special equipped vehicles will be dis-patched directly to the homes of handi-capped and/or non-ambulatory individuals requiring.special transportation means.

A roster of these individuals is maintained in the Burke County EOC and the EMA Direc-tor maintains coordination with the Burke County Health Department and Burke County Department of Family and Children Services on maintenance of the roster and use of their emergency service vans.

County Plan, at 55.

See also County Plan, at 53 (evacuation procedures for handicapped are maintained by Burke County Emer-gency Management Agency and Health and Social Service Depart-ments of Burke County), 48-49 (listing emergency medical vehi-cles available within Burke County, and noting that " emergency medical non-radiological service support" is available from ad-jacent " mutual aid" jurisdictions); Annex D, at 52 (identifying ambulance services and " Military Assistance to Safety and Traf-fic" (" MAST") resources available to assist with evacuation).

Joint Intervenors have neither distinguished this case from others approving similar plans for the evacuation of the mobility-impaired, see, e.g., Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 N.R.C. 53, 70-72, 100-01 (1984), nor have they offered any indication why the listed resources would be insufficient (particularly given the absence of hospitals and. nursing homes in the EPZ).

Under these circumstances, that portion of EP-2(1) relating to evaucation of the handicapped must also be rejected for lack of basis and specificity.

9

I o

t EP-3 1

Applicants fail to show that they have the capa-bilities to notify responsible state and local I

governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency as required by 10 CFR Ap-pendix E(10)(D)(3) because they rely upon the same unreliable means of communication (dedi-cated and commercial phone lines and radio) as described above (in EP-2(a)).

Joint Intervenors' proposed Contention EP-3 refers to, and is virtually identical in substance to, proposed Contention EP-2(a); both proposed contentions postulate that phone lines and radio bands will "become overloaded" in the event of a ra-diological emergency.

The sole distinction between the two proposed contentions is that EP-3 refers to initial notifica-tion of an emergency from the plant site to the State and local emergency response organizations, while EP-2 (a) challenges the ability of the onsite and offsite authorities to communicate during an emergency.

But this distinction is an important one; for, since the " initial notification" from the plant site to offsite authorities -- the subject of EP-3 -- must be an onsite function, Joint Intervenors were required to raise any con-tentions relating to " initial notification" (such as proposed Contention EP-3) within thirty days of the availability of the onsite plan (which was served on November 30, 1984).

See, e.g.,

Vogtle Plan, at E-2 to E-3, Figure E-1 (discussing "ini-tial notification" of offsite emergency response authorities).

This the Intervenors failed to d'o.

Accordingly, EP-3, an "onsite emergency planning" contention, is untimely in the ex-treme -- more than five months late -- and should be rejected for that reason alone.

Moreover, as explained in the response to proposed Con-tention EP-2(a) above, " dedicated" phone lines are by defini-tion not subject to overloading.

Further, Joint Intervenors have offered no explanation why even commercial phone lines or other non-dedicated means of communication might be overloaded at the time of initial notification.

In other words, while some non-dedicated means of communication may become "over-loaded" after offsite authorities and the general public have been notified of an emergency, there is no reason whatsoever to expect that they would be overloaded at the time the site makes its initial contact with offsite authorities, to advise them of the declaration of an emergency.

See Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Three Mile Island, Unit No. 1), ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C.

1265, 1269-72 (1982) (approving onsite plan using commercial phone lines for " initial notification" of offsite authorities, noting lack of reason to expect phone overloading at " initial notifi-cation" stage).

Thus, proposed Contention 3 is particularly objectionable for lack of basis.

Finally, given the substantive similarity of the two con-tentions, EP-3 must be rejected for the reasons advanced in op-position to EP-2(a), which need not be restated here.

See

also, e.g.,

Vogtle Plan, at E-2 to E-3, F-1; County Plan, at 50, 53; Base Plan, at 19-20; (concerning radio back-up for ini-tial notification).

For all these reasons, Applicants oppose the admission of proposed Contention EP-3 to this proceeding.

EP-4 Applicants fail to show that adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergen-cy response are provided and maintained by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8).

For example, the Burke County plan shows the county has only four emergency medical response vehicles.

The Burke County Hospital, which the Plan says will handle the treatment of both radiation-contaminated and noncontaminated injuries, has a bed capacity of only 52.

Such facilities are unlikely to be sufficient to service a large number of injured in the event of a fairly serious radiological accident or of an accident external to the plant which results in injury to the plant, such as an earthquake or a nuclear attack, where non-plant related injuries will also be rampant.14/

To the extent Joint Intervenors' proposed Contention EP-4 challenges the capability of area medical service providers to care for "a large number of injured in the event of a fairly serious radiological accident," litigation of the proposed con-l tention is precluded by the Commission's decision in Southern California Edison Co; (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, l

. Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528 (1983), the Commis-sion's " Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 14/

Joint Intervenors erroneously cite 10 C.F.R'. I 50.47(b)(8) in the body of their proposed contention.

Their expressed concerns are more appropriately addressed under 10 C.F.R.

I 50.47(b)(12) and the case law interpreting that regula-tion.

See discussion, infra.

l,

CFR 50.47(b)(12)," 50 Fed. Req. 20892 (May 21, 1985) [ issued in response to the partial reversal of the Commission's San onofre decision in GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985)], and the pending petition for rulemaking on the need for provision of medical services in the event of a radiological emergency (see 50 Fed. Reg. 20799 (May 20, 1985)].

Briefly, Southern California Edison Co., (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528 (1983), expressly held that 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(b)(12) does not require special medical arrangements or extensive advance planning for injuries to members of the general public in the event of a nuclear plant accident:

With respect to individuals who become in-jured and are also contaminated, the ar-rangements that are currently required for on-site personnel and emergency workers provide emergency capabilities which should be adequate for treatment of members of the general public.

Therefore, no additional medical facilities or capabilities are re-quired for the general public.

However, facilities with which prior arrangements are made or which have the capability to treat contaminated injured individuals should be identified.

With respect to individuals who may be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, treatment requires a lesser degree of advance planning and can be arranged for on an as-needed basis dur-ing an emergency.

Emergency plans should, however, identify those local or regional medical facilities which have the capabili-ties to provide appropriate medical treat-ment for radiation exposure.

No contractu-al agreements are necessary and no additional hospitals or other facilities need be constructed.

Id. at 536-37 (footnote omitted).

GUARD v. NRC vacated and re-manded that portion of the Commission's San Onofre decision which stated that a list of treatment facilities constitutes adequate arrangements for medical services for members of the public who might be exposed to high levels of radiation in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant.

The Court's de-cision in GUARD v. NRC specifically contemplates further Com-mission action on this subject.

In its recent Statement of Policy in response to the GUARD 1

decision, the Commission provides procedural Interim Guidance to all licensing and appeal boards, pending its substantive re-sponse to the GUARD decision.

The Commission expressly holds that, "until the Commission concludes its GUARD remand and in-structs its boards and its staff differently," it is reasonable to limit contentions on this subject "to issues which could have been heard before the Court's decision in GUARD v. NRC" that is, to whether the plans identify (50 Fed. Reg. 20894) the existing appropriate medical facilities.

But Intervenors do not quarrel with whether the existing facilities are identi-fied in the plans; rather, they assert that the existing facil-ities are not sufficient to care for the "large number of in-jured" they postulate.

Litigation of this issue is clearly precluded by the Commission's ruling in San Onofre.

Further, as discussed above in Section III.B, Commission policy state-ments are binding on the Boards.

Accordingly, because.

1

--_.m..-.

mmw

.-c.

_y

..~..-..---m.__,,_._.._,_,_,,,,,.m_,

Intervenors have offered no indication why this Board should depart from the persuasive reasoning of the Commission's recent Statement of Policy on this subject, the Board should reject that portion of EP-4 relating to injuries resulting from "a fairly serious radiological accident."

In addition, as noted above, the Commission has recently published for comment a petition for rulemaking on the subject, which would amend the emergency planning regulations to clarify that emergency plans need only include medical arrangements for persons who are both contaminated and traumatically injured in some manner requiring emergency medical treatment.

50 Fed.

Reg. 20799 (May 20, 1985).

As discussed earlier in Section III.B, contentions are not appropriate for litigation where the matter at issue is or is about to become the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission.

For this reason, too, the part of proposed Contention EP-4 postulating injuries re-sulting from "a fairly serious radiological accident" must be rejected.

The second part of proposed Contention EP-4 challenges the ability of existing medical facilities to accomodate radiation-related injuries resulting from "an accident external to the plant, which results in injury to the plant, such as an earthquake or a nuclear attack."

To the extent that Joint In-tervenors seek to litigate unspecified " accidents external to the plant," their proposed contention fails for lack of specificity.

Moreover, litigation of Intervenors' concerns about earthquakes is expressly barred by the pending Commission rulemaking on the subject.

To briefly summarize the proposed rule:

The Commission has ruled in previous adjudications that its regulations do not require the consideration of potential impacts of earthquakes on emergency planning for nuclear reactor sites.

The Commission now proposes to provide explic-itly through amendment of its regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 that such consideration need not be given.

Pending completion of this rulemaking, the interpretation of its rules set out in the adjudications remains in effect.

49 Fed. Reg. 49640 (December 21, 1984) (emphasis supplied).

See also Section III.B, supra (contention not admissible where matter at issue is subject of rulemaking).

Finally, litigation of Joint Intervenors' concerns about nuclear attack is precluded as a challenge to 10 C.F.R.

l 50.13, and associated case law.

Section 50.13 provides, in relevant part:

An applicant for a license * *

is not re-quired to provide for design features or other measures for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of (a) at-tacks and destructive acts, including sabo-tage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a for-eign government or other person, or (b) use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S.

defense activities.

See also Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units No. 3 and No. 4), 4 A.E.C.

9, 13 (1967)

(Commission emphasizes that "neither our regulations nor our decisions indicate any requirement that an applicant p'rovide for special design features or other measures for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of enemy attacks and destructive acts), aff'd, Siegel v. AEC, 400 F.2d 778 (1968).

As discussed in Section III.B above, proposed contentions which constitute attacks on existing regulations are not admissible.

Accordingly, because the part of EP-4 which postulates " nuclear attack" effectively challenges 10 C.F.R. $ 50.13 and associated Commission decisions, that part of EP-4 must be rejected.15/

In addition, Applicants note that the language of EP-4 is taken virtually word-for-word from Joint Intervenors' earlier contention.

See GANE's 4/11/84 Supplement, at 30-31, and CPG's 5/25/84 Supplement, at 26.

Thus, Intervenors initially drafted EP-4 in the absence of the emergency plans, but have failed to provide any further specification although all the relevant plans are now available.

Indeed, the plans include much de-tailed information on available medical and public health sup-port resources -- none of which Intervenors have even acknowl-edged.

See, e.g.,

Annex D, at 51-59; Base Plan, at 95, and App. 3 at 4; County Plan, at 49.

See also Vogtle Plan, at L-2 (describing capabilities of Burke County Hospital and Humana 15/

Note that the State of Georgia maintains a separate emer-gency plan for nuclear war.

See " Nuclear Emergency Opera-tions Plan" (1978).,_

r Hospital).

The available information completely discredits In-tervenors' assertions that the Burke County emergency medical response vehicles and the Burke County Hospital are the only

. medical facilities available for use in the event of a ra-diological emergency.

The proposed contention is therefore also objectionable for lack of specificity -- for failure to specifically address the relevant documentation.

For all these reasons, the Board must reject Joint Inter-venors' proposed Contention EP-4.

EP-5 The Plan does not specify whether the designated Peception Center, the Burke County Comprehensive High School has developed an adequate plan for early evacuation.

Proposed Contention EP-5 must be rejected for lack of basis.

Burke County Comprehensive High School is outside the Vogtle plume EPZ.

See,'e.g.,

County Plan, at 61 (high school is located more than 15 miles from Vogtle plant).

There is therefore no requirement for any plan for " evacuation" of that high school, let alone a plan for "early evacuation."

Further, to the extent the proposed contention can be read to mean "early dismissal" of the high school students in attendance there (e.g.,

to accomodate evacuees), Joint Intervenors have failed to demonstrate -- and, indeed, cannot demonstrate --

that those students must be released in order to accomodate the evacuees.

As the plans indicate, evacuees generally will be L

f~

9 accomodated in the common areas of the high school (e.g.,

the gymnasium, auditorium, etc.), and the old high school and an elementary school are available as back-up facilities, if needed.

See, e.g.,

County Plan, at 61-62.

Thus, there is no basis for concern about the capacity of the designated facili-ties to accomodate evacuees.

For these reasons, the Board should reject EP-5.

EP-6 Applicants have not shown, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, IV D.2 and 50.47(b)(7) that adequate and credible education and notification procedures will be followed during normal plant operation and in the event of an accident at Vogtle.

These requirements include " basic emer-gency planning information," " general informa-tion as to the nature and effects of radiation,"

" signs or other measures

. helpful if an accident occurs."

10 CFR Appendix E, IV, D.2.

Contrary to proposed Contention EF-6, the plans include detailed provisions addressing both the distribution of pre-emergency public information and the dissemination of addi-tional, specific information at the time of an actual emergen-cy.

See generally Base Plan, at 62-71; Annex D, at 7; County Plan, at 63-66; Vogtle Plan, at G-1 to G-3; Vogtle Plan, App.

8.

Thece provisions address all the public information program elements required by the Commission's regulations and regula-tory guidance, including those recited by Joint kntervenors in their proposed contention.

In short, the pre-emergency public information program in-cludes a printed brochure for distribution to EPZ residents (Base Plan, at 63; County Plan, at 55, 63; Vogtle Plan, at G-1; Vogtle Plan, App. 8, at 19), as well as a telephone directory ad providing basic emergency information (Vogtle Plan, at G-1, G-2; Vogtle Plan, App. 8, at 19), and -- as discussed in re-sponse to EP-2(h) above -- signs on the banks of the Savannah River, to advise hunters and fishermen of appropriate actions in an emergency (County Plan, at 63; Vogtle Plan, at G-2; Vogtle Plan, App. 8, at 19).

Detailed, situation-specific information will be broadcast to the public at the time of an emergency via the EBS system (Base Plan, at 65-71; Annex D, at 7; County Plan, at 63-66), and extensive plans have been made to provide for rumor control, and to assure that the news media are kept up-to-date in the event of an accident (Base Plan, at 64-65; Annex D, at 7; County Plan, at 63, 66; Vogtle Plan, at G-2 to G-3; Vogtle Plan, App. 8, at 1-4, 14-15).

Thus, there is no basis whatsoever for proposed Contention EP-6.

Moreover, EP-6 is also objectionable for its failure to address the particularly detailed provisions of the plans on the subject of public information and education.

Further, Applicants note that this proposed contention is taken virtu-ally word-for-word from Intervenors' earlier filings.

See GANE's 4/11/84 Supplement, at 33, and CPG's 5/25/84 Supplement, at 28-29.

Thus, Intervenors in'itially drafted the proposed contention in the absence of the emergency plans.

Neverthe-less, despite the availability of all relevant emergency plans, Intervenors have failed to further specify their sweeping con-tention.

Indeed, there is no indication whatsoever that Inter-venors even skimmed the particularly detailed provisions of the plans on the subject of public information and education.

Ac-cordingly, the Board should reject EP-6 both for lack of basis and lack of specificity -- that is, failure to specifically address the relevant documentation.

EP-7 Applicants claim that the Department of Energy (Savannah River Plant Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina) will provide radiological assis-tance (advice and emergency action essential for the control of immediate hazards to health and safety) in the event of an emergency at Vogtle.

It fails to address the possibility that an emergency situation (for example, an earthquake) which threatens the safe operation of Vogtle might also endanger operations at Savannah River Plant.

In this event, not only would Department of Energy offices be prevented from providing aid to Vogtle, other federal, state and local assistance resources would be divided between the two sites.

Applicants do not address the impacts of simultaneous evacuation from both plants, or overload of medical facilities and emergency vehicles in the event of injury to persons by the operation of both plants.

Nor do Applicants adequately discuss coordination of activities of Georgia and South Carolina's agen-cies.16/

16/

This proposed contention is largely lifted word-for-word from GANE's 4/11/84 Supplement, at 33, and CPG's 5/25/84 Supplement, at 29.

l !

t

The only scenario which Joint Intervenors postulate to

" threaten [] the safe operation" of both Vogtle and the* Savannah River Plant is an earthquake.

But, as explained above in re-sponse to proposed Contention EP-4, litigation of the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning is expressly barred by the Commission's pending proposed rule on the subject.

See 49 Fed.

Reg. 49640 (December 21, 1984).

Further, to the extent that Joint Intervenors seek to litigate other, unspecif..ed "emergen-cy situations" which might affect both Vogtle and the Savannah River Plant, their proposed contention is impermissibly vague.

EP-7 must therefore be rejected because its subject matter is at issue in a pending rulemaking, and because it lacks the spe-cificity required by the Commission's regulations.

EP-8 The evacuation of the 145,000 citizens of Augusta who live within 26 miles of Plant Vogtle is not addressed in the Emergency Plan though Applicants should be prepared for the displace-ment of a significant number of the population outside the EPZ due to predictable public re-sponse to a limited evacuation.

For example, during the accident at Three Mile Island-2, over 30% of the people living within a fifteen mile radius of the plant evacuated though only a pre-cautionary warning to pregnant women and small children within a five-mile radius of the plant had been issued.

(J. H. Johnson, " Planning for Spontaneous Evacuation During a Radiological Emergency," Nuclear Safety, Vol. 25, No.

2,.

March-April 1984).

Nor is the likelihood that people will disregard official orders and in-structions during a nuclear power plant acci-dent.

(Ibid.)12/

12/

This proposed contention is lifted essentially from GANE's 4/11/84 Supplement, at 31, and CPG's 5/25/84 Supplement, at 27. -

The thrust of proposed Contention EP-8 is that the popula-tion of Augusta will evacuate in the event of an emergency at

{

i Vogtle, despite the absence of any official order or instruc-l tion to do so.

However, any such relocation is immaterial un-less it would impede the evacuation of those inside the plume EPZ.

Because any evacuating Augusta residents would be moving away from the plant rather than toward it, and because (as In-tervenors concede) Augusta is approximately 26 miles from Vogtle, any relocation of Augusta residents would not impede the evacuation of those within the plume EPZ.

Accordingly, EP-8 must be rejected for lack of any reasonable basis in logic.

EP-9 Applicants have failed to plan for a situation where emergency response is hampered by an earthquake and resulting structural damage to roads.

The Plan also fails to address ~the fact that in the event of an earthquake, sheltering is not possible as residents are directed to re-main outside houses and other buildings.

Litigation of_ proposed Contention EP-9 is precluded by the pendency of the Commission's rulemaking on the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning for fixed nuclear facilities.

See 49 Fed. Reg. 49640 (December 21, 1984).

See also Section III.B, supra (contention not admissible where matter at issue is subject of rulemaking).

Proposed Contention EP-9 therefore must be rejected. _ - - _ -.

EP-10 Applicants have also failed to provide a com-plete list of the orchards and farms within the ingestion pathway.

Proposed Contention EP-10 fails for lack of legal basis.

The applicable regulatory guidance provides, in relevant part:

Up-to-date lists of the name and location of all facilities which regularly process milk products and other large amounts of food or agricultural products * *

shall be maintained.

NUREG-0654, Criterion J.11.

However, Joint Intervenors do not contend that the plans fail to include the required provisions for milk and food processors; nor could they so contend.

See, e.g.,

Annex D, at 37-38, 40-44; SCORERP, at 29.

Rather, Joint Intervenors assert that the plans do not include "a complete list of the orchards and farms within the ingestion pathway."

Thus, because there is no regulatory requirement for the listing of such individual farms and orchards, proposed Con-tention EP-10 must be rejected by the Board.18/

18/

Planning for the ingestion pathway EPZ does contemplate the use of the Emergency Broadcast System, if necessary, to advise the public of any restrictive measures on the use of crops and animal by-products for food, as well,as any other restrictions imposed by the Departments of Agri-culture, Human Resources, and Natural Resources.

See, e.g.,

County Plan, at 66. _

EP-ll Applicants fail to address the effects on evacu-ation of the many thousand construction workers at Unit 2 of Plant Vogtle if an accident should occur at Unit 1 before completion of construc-tion at Unit 2.

Joint Intervenors' allegation that Unit 2 construction workers have not been considered in evacuation planning is flatly disproven by the plans themselves.

See, e.g.,

County Plan, at 54, 59-60; Vogtle Plan, App.

6, at 2-1.

The plans in-dicate that evacuation planning assumes an onsite work force with Unit 1 in operation and Unit 2 under construction.

Thus, proposed Contention EP-11 is totally lacking in basis.

EP-ll is also objectionable because of its failure to address the specific provisions of the available plans.

Fur-ther, Joint Intervenors have not indicated the particular "ef-fects on evacuation" with which they are concerned.

Therefore, EP-11 also lacks the specificity required by the Commission's regulations.

Finally, the proposed contention is untimely in the ex-treme.

The evacuation time estimate study -- Appendix 6 to the Vogtle Plan, served on Joint Intervenors on November 30, 1984

-- specifically addressed the effects on evacuation of the Unit 2 construction, force (see, e.g.,

Vogtle Plan, App. 6, at 2-1), and thus should have triggered any content' ions reflecting Intervenors' concerns on this subject.

The instant contention is therefore more than five months late, and could be rejected for that reason alone.

For all these reasons, Applicants op-pose the admission of EP-11.

1 I

i l

V.

CONCLUSION Joint Intervenors' proposed emergency planning contentions are late-filed, in violation of Board order and Commission directive, and without the requisite showing of good cause.

~

All are at least three weeks late -- some more than five months late.

The proposed contentions should therefore be rejected as untimely.

Moreover, the proposed contentions are substantively de-fective.

As discussed above, they variously fail to address the relevant documentation and lacx the required specificity, are without legal and factual bases, attack the Commission's regulations, contravene official NRC statements of policy, and seek to raise matters which are currently the subject of gener-ic rulemaking by the Commission.

Accordingly, the Board should reject Joint Intervenors' twenty proposed emergency planning contentions, both because they are late-filed and because they fail to meet the Commis-sion's established standards for admissible contentions.

Respectfully submitted, L1 q

n i)

GeoYge F. Trowbridge, P.C.

Bruce W. Churchill, P.C.

David R.

Lewis Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i

James E. Joiner, P.C.

Charles W.

Whitney Kevin C.

Greene Hugh M. Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN

& ASHMORE Counsel for Applicants Dated:

July 5, 1985.

July 5, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0

TH'

.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s

15 Jll-9 A10:34 In the Matter of

)

f GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-424 O0C kT NG & S fl((.

)

50-425 BRANCH (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

(OL)

Units 1,and 2)

)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned, being an attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before the Courts of the District

~

of Columbia, hereby enters her appearance as counsel on behalf of Applicants in proceedings related to the above-captioned matter.

a Ri'd T SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 202/822-1000 Dated:

July 5, 1985 O

n

I

\\

July 5, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIEMETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 15 JM. -9. MO :34 In the Matter of

)

0FflCE OF SECHU;c. <

)

00CXETING & SE8vict' BRANCH GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-424

)

50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

(OL)

Units 1 and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Answer to Joint Intervenors' Proposed Contentions on Emergency Response Plans," and " Notice of Appearance" of Delissa A.

Ridgway, both dated July 5, 1985, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of July, 1985, except that Laurie Fowler has been served by deposit with Federal Express (Saturday delivery).

In addition, the three members of the Li-censing Board have been served with the following documents (already available to the other parties to.the proceeding):

(a)

" State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan -- Base Plan";

(b)

" Annex D, Plant Vogtle to The Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan" (April 1985);

(c)

" Burke County Emergency Management Agency Ra-t diological Emergency Plan" (April 1985);

t' (d)

"Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 Emergency Plan" (in two volumes); and

V (e)

" South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan -- SCORERP-84."

1 AA g4N VTklissiK.lRid@way 1

Dated:

July 5, 1985 4

4 i

e 1,--,*.

l

't

\\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-424

)

50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

SERVICE LIST Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Douglas C. Teper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1253 Lenox Circle U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, GA 30306 Washington, D.C.

20555 Laurie Fowler Mr. Gustave A.

Linenberger, Jr.

Legal Environmental Assistance Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Foundation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 218 Flora. Avenue, N.E.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Atlanta, GA 30307 Dr. Oscar H.

Paris Tim Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Campaign for a Prosperous U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Georgia Washington, D.C.

20555 175 Trinity Avenue, S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30303 Bernard M.

Bordenick, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.

20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bradley Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20555 Regional Counsel U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Panel Suite 3100 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Washington, D.C.

20555 Atlanta, GA 30303 l

l i

.

ML20128K056

Text

Navigation menu

Search