ML20133B140

Memorandum & Order Ruling on Applicant 850905 Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification of ASLB Ruling Admitting Contentions EP-6 & EP-7.Addl Info Needed.Served on 851002

ML20133B140
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	10/01/1985
From:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
CON-#485-664 84-499-01-OL, 84-499-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8510030043
Download: ML20133B140 (9)

Text

_ _ - __

s f!y > 'r

'd UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC

\

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAD 00T -2 A10 :14 Before Administrative Judges:

CmCE WEEcetw.

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 10CETWG x SERV : r .

Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. "H Dr. Oscar H. Paris Zi.hD20i" sit 6 I

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-424-OL 50-425-0L GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (ASLBP No. 84-499-01-0L (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) October 1, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of September 5, 1985 for Reconsideration and Clarification)

I. INTRODUCTION By an unpublished Memorandum and Order of August 12, 1985, the Board admitted for litigation in whole or part six of 11 contentions on the issue of offsite emergency planning submitted by Joint Intervenors Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy. '

i Applicants on September 5,198G moved for reconsideration ana/or clarification of the Board's rulings admitting Contentions EP-6 and i

EP-7. NRC Staff (Staff) filed a response on September 15, 1985, in which it concluded that the admission ~of Contention EP-6 is premature and that Contention EP-7 is admissible in part.. Intervenors did not file a response.

i y

G -

\

II. DISCUSSION The Board admitted Contention EP-6 which provides:

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 operations and in the event of an accident at Vogtle.

These requirements include " basic emergency planning information," " general information as to the nature and effects of radiation," " signs or other measures . . . helpful if an accident occurs." 10 CFR Appendix E, IV, 0.2.

In admitting the contention the Board found that Applicants' plans

-provide for the distribution of a printed infonnational brochure to all EPZ residents, for the placing of an advertisement in the telephone

. directory containing basic emergency information and for signs to be put on the banks of the Savannah River to advise hunters and fishermen of appropriate actions in an emergency. This is all to be done to provide the public with essential infonnation called for by the Comission's regulatory requirements. We also found that Applicants have not made known the contents of the printed brochure, the advertisement, and the warning notices. The Board stated, "Whether the infonnation to be contained therein will meet the regulatory requirements cannot be 4 determined at this time. Absent knowing what information is to be provided to the public, there is no way to reach a conclusion as to its adequacy and credibility. It is.on the' foregoing basis alone that we find the proposed contention admissible." The Board's admission of l

Contention EP-6 was to the extent that it inherently alleges that the

plan is defective in that Applicants have not made known the information that is to be given to the public as provided for in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7)-

J and Part 50 App. E, IV. D.2., to be contained in the described brochure, advertisement, and warning notices Applicants are to furnish. In sumary, Applicants are charged with failing to put forth a complete emergency response plan in the area of education and information, and it is this that was found litigable.

Applicants assert that the contention challenges only the procedures that are to be employed for providing public education and

~

information. To arrive at this conclusion one must read only the first sentence of the contention and ignore the remainder and the cited 1

regulatory provisions. The contention must be read and analyzed as a totality. In so doing, it is a reasonable conclusion that Applicants are faulted for providing an incomplete. plan in regard to required public education and information.

' Applicants incorrectly indicate that the Board found that the contention challenges the substantive content of Applicants' vario_us

~

means for providing public education and information. To the contrary, the Board expressly stated that the contents of' the brochure, j advertisement, and warning notices.are unknown, and consequently, it is not possible to reach a conclusion as to their adequacy.

We agree with Applicants.that should Joint Intervenors wish to i challenge the adequacy of the content of the public' education and informational materials, then Joint Intervenors are to file specific proposed contentions with statements of bases within a reasonable time 1

O after the contents of.each of the three specified types of public educational and informational materials are made known to the parties.

Applicants and Staff are corrcct that in circumstances such as these, the Commission requires an intervenor to address the five factors listed in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1), when submitting the proposed contentions supported by bases. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,' 17 NRC 1041, 1045-47 (1983), reversing ALAB-687, 1

16 NRC 460(1982).

Applicants request that Joint Intervenors be given ten days to make the above discussed filing because of the limited matter involved.

Staff considers 30 days to be reasonable. The Board finds Applicants' proposal unacceptable. We previously have given 30 days for filing contentions,'after new information'is first made available because of its reasonableness. Further, cognizance must be taken of the continuing slippage of the time in which Applicants are to file a complete emergency response plan. Hence, the timing in which the filing will be made is within the control of Applicants. Furthermore, Intervenors must simultaneously meet the Catawba provisions. As of this time, we find an individual 30-day period to be reasonable for responding to the adequacy of the contents of each of the specified types of public education and I informational materials as they become available. If the parties can reach some other accommodation in the matter, we will take any action l

required upon'being so notified.

The Board finds no basis to reconsider and alter our prior ruling on Contention EP-6.

l l

i

The Board admitted Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-7, which states:

Applicants claim that the Department of Energy (Savannah River Plant Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina) will provide radiological assistance (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. Applicarts 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.

Applicants' motion of September 5,1985 requested the Board to reconsider its prior ruling admitting the above contention and to reject

.it because its subject matter is an issue in a pending rulemaking and because it lacks the specificity required by the. Commission's regulations. On September 25, 1985, the Staff filed a response in part supportive of and in part in opposition to the position of Applicants.

Applicants' request is grounded upon the following:

o Earthquakes and tornadoes are both proscribed from consideration because of the proposed rulemaking previously announced (49 Fed. Reg. 49640 (December 21,1984)).

o The Board's postulation of an example (tornado) beyond that offered by the contention is not appropriate.

o The Board's observation that the last sentence of the l

c

contention had been ignored overlooks the need to read that sentence in the context of the entire contention; and that standing by itself that sentence lacks specificity and basis, o The Vogtle plume EPZ includes no land in South Carolina other than a portion of a federal reservation occupied by a portion of the Savannah River Plant (SRP), which is operated by the U.S. Depa'rtment of Energy (00E).

The Staff's response opposes consideration by the contention of any low probability occurrence that simultaneously adversely impacts VEGP and SRP at a time when emergency response measures would be needed as

.the result of an accident at VEGP. The Staff concurs, however, that the Board has identified significant deficiencies in existing planning materials with regard to how emergency planning will be carried out in South Carolina and how actions by South C&rolina and Georgia will be coordinated. -Thus, the Staff would have litigation of EP-7 include only the question of whether Applicants have cured the deficiencies in the emergency planning materials identified by us.

With respect to Applicants' concerns, we note that the cited rulemaking announcement left open the matter of whether tornadoes are to be included, stating:

The Commission is also considering whether to include in this rulemaking tornadoes and other low-frequency natural events.

49 Fed. Rjpg. 49642.

Whether such inclusion obtains is not known to us at this time.

The Board's inclusion of an example not contained in the contention is illustrative of our inability to discern, from the me+.erials before us, L

whether it is practical to plan in a manner that copes with " temporary adverse conditions resulting from natural phenomena such as rain, snow, floodinos or by activities in the vicinity of the plant such as major road repair." Id_ at 49641. We agree with Applicants that the last sentence cannot meaningfully stand alone, nor did we view it in that light. The planning-materials before us do not permit our deciding whether there are mechanisms within Georgia and South Carolina to obviate the concerns of the contention. The last of the above noted comments of Applicants can only be'seen at this time as a ' proposal (in an as yet unapproved plan) to excise from the Vogtle plume EPZ any portion of the State of South Carolina not within the federal reservation. For that matter, the materials before us do not show where in South Carolina the Vogtle plume EPZ extends. See Memorandum and Order of August 12, 1985, at pp. 24-25. Granted for sake of discussion that the State of South Carolina need not assist with any evacuation or sheltering within its border (excluding the federal reservation) as the result of a Vogtle accidental radiation release, we see evidence to the i

l I

contrary with respect to the DOE. Planning materials explicitly specify assistance from DOE, but without explaining what is to be provided and i

l how that assistance is to be summoned and coordinated. Within the ambit of the contention, the existence of the DOE operation within the state l

border of the State of South Carolina constitutes a South Carolina resource that must be coordinated into the emergency plan if that resource is to be called upon.

L-

Applicants and Staff have presented substantive reasons why this contention should not include low probability occurrences that might simultaneously and adversely impact VEGP and SRP at a time when emergency response measures would be needed because of an accident at VEGP. Absent Applicants' submittal of a basic emergency response plan for that part of the plume EPZ within South Carolina, it is premature to consider the complex occurrence postulated by Joint Intervenors and Applicants'- and Staff's objections. Under these circumstances, we find that the litigible issue extant in EP-7 is Applicants' alleged failure to provide an emergency response plan for the VEGP which encompasses that part of the plume EPZ within South Carolina.

Without being too repetitive of our comments regarding EP-6, supra, the Board sees the need for more emergency planning information than has been provided. When such information is made available, Joint Intervenors are to be afforded the same opportunity to challenge the submission, to be done in accordance with the Catawba guidelines and within the same time period as stated in the EP-6 discussion.

I e

i

s e

9 It is so Ordered.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Mbrton B. Margulies,Shairman ADMINISTRATIV LAW JUDGE

.. +% w Bus 4 ave A. _inenberger, Jr.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE N

Dr. Oscar H. Paris 6Y\ $

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of October, 1985.

i

!