ML20138A589
| ML20138A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1986 |
| From: | Churchill B GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138A591 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-380 OL, NUDOCS 8603140324 | |
| Download: ML20138A589 (18) | |
Text
b .
- \
\ J D / , g(/
k \[9 Ma _ch 10, 1986 C C y \-
II Nf1M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p sS Q {i,0g h y
Ecr tac O PEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 4(4 s
~
In the Matter of )
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424et.
) 50-425 l (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
l Units 1 and 2) )
i APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION l
OF JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION EP-5 (RECEPTION CENTER CAPACITY)
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749, Applicants hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") for summary dispo-l l sition in Applicants' favor of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-5. Applicants base this motion on the grounds that no genu-ine issue exists to be heard as to any material fact with respect to Contesntion EP-5 and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor as a matter of law on this conten-tion.
In support of this motion for summary disposition of Con-tention EP-5, Applicants rely upon:
(1) " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which l
No Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard Regarding Contention EP-5";
(2) " Affidavit of Richard L. Bryant on Contention EP-5,"
dated March 10, 1986 ("Bryant Affidavit");
l Rs2'218882888862=4 Q PDR b
r (3) " Affidavit of Bobby R. Maunay on Contention EP-5,"
dated March 10, 1986 ("Maunay Affidavit");
(4) " Affidavit of Harold W. Awbrey on Contention EP-5," -
dated March 10, 1986 ("Awbrey Affidavit"); and (5) all filings in this proceeding, depositions, and an-swers to interrogatories, together with the statements of the <
parties.
I. Background As initially proposed by Joint Intervenors, Contention EP-5 asserted that "[t]he Plan does not specify whether the designated Reception Center, the Burke County Comprehensive
- High School, has developed an adequate plan for early evacua-l tion." See " Joint Intervenors' Revised Contention Relating To '
1 Emergency Response" (June 24, 1985), at 4.
In its August 12, 1985 " Memorandum and order (Ruling On Joint Intervenors' Proposed Contentions On Emergency Planning)"
(" August 12 Order"), the Board acknowledged that the proposed l
contention was "poorly drafted"; still, the Board discerned its thrust to be "the ready availability of the reception center for evacuees in case of a radiological emergency at VEGP."
l August 12 Order, at 28. Specifically, the Board noted:
The Burke County Plan provides no indica-l tion that the County has determined that l should a radiological emergency arise at l VEGP when school is in session, the recep-l tion centers are of sufficient capacity that pupils need not be dismissed and both ,
l 1
w a
they and the evacuees will be accommodated at the same time.
August 12 Order, at 28. The Board further observed:
The plan does not indicate the sizo of the facilities, and it is indicated that there is the potential that all of the residents within the Burke County portion of the EPZ may use the facilities. Irrespective of this, the plan itself should be specific as to the action the County will take that will acsure the ready availability of the reception centers for evacuees in case of a radiological emergency at VEGP. *** The plan should relate as to how it will pro-vide for the ready availability of the
! emergency centers for evacuees in case of an emergency. If it can be accomplished with the students remaining in attendance,
- the plan itself should so state. If stud /
has disclosed that it cannot be so accom-plished, the plan should provide another mechanism for it to be achieved, including the possibility of early dismissal of the students, and for its implementation.
August 12 Order, at 29. Accordingly, the Board admitted the following as contention EP-5:
The offsite emergency response plans for VEGP do not meet the requirement of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) because the plans do not rea-sonably assure that adequate emergency fa-cilities, namely reception centers, will be readily available for use in the event of a radiological emergency at VEGP.
August 12 Order, at 29.
Since the admission of Joint Inte . venors' Contention EP-5, the parties have undertaken discovery related to that conten-tion. The written discovery pursued by the parties has con-l sinted of r-e l .
" Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production of Documents on Emergency Planning Contentions" (September 20, 1985), at 19-21, 42-43; "NRC Staff's Emergency Planning Interroga-tories To Joint Intervenors Campaign For A Prosperous Georgia (CPG) and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE)" (October 7, 1985), at 10; "Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests To Produce Relating To Emer-gency Planning" (October 15, 1985), at 5; "Intervenors' Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests To Pro-duce Concerning Emergency Responso Conten-tions" (October 28, 1985) ("Intervenors' 10/28/85 Responsos"), at 6-7; 1
" Applicants' Response To Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production of Documents on Emergency Plan-ning Contentions" (November 13, 1985), at 38-39;
" Applicants' Second Set of Iaterrogatories and Requests For Production of Documents on Emergency Planning Contentions" (November 15, 1985), at 10-11; i
"Intervenors' Response To Applicants' Sec-ond Set of Discovery Re spor,se" (January 5,Relating To Emergency 1986) ("Intervenors 1/5/85 Responses"), at 2; and "Inte:rvenors' Response To NRC Staff's In-terrogatories Relating To Emergency Plan-nina" (January 24, 1986) ("Intervenors' 1/29/86 Responses"), at 3-4.
On January 6. 1986, Applicants deposed Mr. Seymour Shaye, whom Joint Intervenors had indicated would t9stify on the subject of emergency plenning. "Intervenors' 10/28/05 Responses," at Re-sponse to It ' errogatory 0-5(a) . In his deposition,11r. Shaye l
t stated that he would not be testifying on Contintion EP-5.
Deposition of Seymour Shaye at Tr. 54.
II. Legal Standards for Summary Disposition The admission of a contention for adjudication in a li-censing proceeding under the standards enunciated in 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.714 does not constitute an evaluation of the merits of that contention. Instead, such a ruling reflects merely the deter-mination that the contention satisfies the criteria of specif-icity, asserted basis, and relevance. The admission of a con-tention also does not dictate that a hearing be held on the issues raised. Section 2.749(a) of the NRC's Rules of Practice authorizes a licensing board to grant a party to the proceeding summary disposition of an admitted contention without proceed-ing to a hearing.
That section provides that "(alny party to a proceeding may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that party's favor as to all or part of the matters in the proceeding." 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749(a).
Delineating the standard to be applied by a licensing board in ruling upon such a motion, that section further states:
The presiding officer shall render the de-cision sought if the filings in the pro-ceeding, depositions, answers to interroga-tories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of Inw.
l i
1 w - __ . - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
s o
L l
10 C.F.R. $ 2.749(d).
The standards governing pummary disposition motions in an NRC licensing proceeding are quite similar to the standards applied by federal district courts to summary judgment motions l
l under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alabama
- Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
, ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 217 (1974); Tennessee Valley Authority f
(Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 N.R.C. 15, 20 n.17 (1979). Where, as here, a motion for l
l summary disposition is properly supported pursuant to the Com-mission's Rules of Practice, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its answers.
Rather, an opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of fact exists. 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(b).
! Where the movant has made a proper showing for summary disposi-l l tion and has supported his motion by affidavit, the opposing party must proffer countering evidentiary material or an affi-davit expla.aing why it is impractical to do so. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-83-32A, 17 N.R.C. 1170, 1174 n.4 (1983), citing Adickes v.
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160-61 (1970).
l The Commission and its adjudicatory boards have encouraged i l
, the use of the summary disposition process where the preponent !
- of a contention cannot establish that a genuine issue exists, l so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted
_--- _ _ _ _ __J
- )
to such issues. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 N.R.C. 432, 457 (1981); see also houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allons Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 550 (1980) ("[T]he Section 2.749 summary disposition procedures provide in reality as well as in theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unneces-sary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues ")
In the case of contested offsite emergency planning l issues, there is special reason to give the summary disposition process the diligent effort required to scrutinize the parties' pleadings and eliminate all matters as to which there is no 1
genuine issue to be heard. The expenditure of hearing time on 1
truly baseless allegations would be contrary to not only the interests of the public at large and the parties to the pro-ceeding, but also the numerous non-party State and local agency l personnel (and perhaps representatives of private response or-ganizations) whose participation would be required.
III. Argument The gravamen of EP-5, as admitted by the Board, is the availability of the schools identified as recoption centers 1/
l I
1/ Although the term ' shelter" is used in all South Carolina plans, tha generic torn " reception center" is used in this mo-tion to describe both the Georgia and South Carolina facilities i used to register (and, if necessary, monitor and decontaminate)
! evacuees in a Vogtle emergency.
l 1
to accommodate evacuees from the plume exposure pathway Fmor-gency Planning Zone ("EPZ") in a Vogtle emergency. In particu-lar, noting the lack of emergancy plan provisions for the re-lease of students from the schools to be used as reception centers, the Board questioned whether "the reception centers are of sufficient capacity that pupils need not be dismissed and both they and the evacuees will be accommodated at the same time." August 12 Order, at 28. As discussed more fully below, the four counties in the Vogtle EPZ have made a detailed l assessment of both the need for and the availability of recep-tion center capacity in a Vogtle accident, and have identified sufficient reception center capacity to accommodate evacuees without the dismissal of school students. Applying the Commis-l sion's summary disposition standards to the facts of this case, it is therefore clear that the instant motion for summary dis-position of EP-5 should be granted.
It is important to note that, in an actual evacuation, not all evacuees would arrive at reception centers at the same time. Rather, arrivals at reception centers would be stag-gered, so that many who arrive early in the evacuation would be processed and then permitted to leave the reception centers (for motels or homes of friende or family outside the EPZ) before the later evacuees arrive. !!evertheless, for purposes l of identifying reception center capacity, the four counties have conservatively assumed that all EPZ evacuees would arrive 1
i
f e
simultaneously, and have planned accordingly.2/ Bryant Affidavit at 1 6; Maunay Affidavit at V 3 Awbrey Affidavit at i
13.
l
- 1. Burke County l
Burke County has designated four Waynesboro schools as re-l ception centers: the Burke County Comprehensive High School l
l 1
(which would be available for use as a reception center by December 1986 and will be open to students no later than l September 1987); the "old" Waynesboro High School; Waynesboro Elementary School; and the Blakeney Elementary and Junior High Schools. Bryant Affidavit at 1 3. Because the available ca-pacity will vary depending on when Burke County Comprehensive ,
i i
High School is opened for use by students, and because the need for capecity will decrease over time (dropping dramatically l when Vogtle Unit 2 is completed), Burke County examined three l scenarios:
l 2/ Similarly, all Burde County analyses assume a need for Burke County to process the entire Vogtle work force at Burke County reception centers. This is a very conservative ascump-tion, since plant personnel will generally be processed onsite, and then released to go ta their homes. Therefore, in most ,
j emergencies -- where an evacuation occurs prior to the release I
of radiation offsite -- only those plant personnel who reside l
I within the EPZ would actually report to reception centers.
Bryant Affidavit at 1 7 n.1. !
l l
l
e Scenario A: The Burke County Comprehensive High School is available for evacuee recep-tion, but is not open for students (maximum time period of this scenario is December, 1986 to September, 1987).
Scenario B: The Burke County Comprehensive High School is in use as a school, with students present.
Scenario C: The same as Scenario B, except that construction has been completed at Vogtle, Unit 2.
In each scenario, it was assumed that school was in session.
Bryant Affidavit at 1 5.
Scenario A In Scenario A, the Burke County Comprehensive High School (not yet open to stadents) will accommodate 5,980 evacuees for processing. All students at the remaining schools can be accommodated in the classrooms of their schools, leaving the common.nreau immediately available to receive 2,850 evacuees.
Thus, the reception centers provide a combined capacity for 8,830 evacuees in Scenario A. Bryant Affidavit at Y 8. This compares with a total maximum of approximately 7,195 ovacuees from the Burke County portion of the EPZ.3/ Accordingly, there 3/ This figure (7,195) reflects a maximum resident population of 1,949 persons (after deducting the approximately 300 Vogtle workers who live in the EPZ and the approximately 230 high school students who attend school outside the EPZ), as well as a maximum transient population of 5,246 persons (including 4,940 non-essential Vogtle workers, an oscimated 50 non-EPZ residents attending Girard School, and an estimated 256 other transients). Bryant Affidavit at 1 9.
r O
O is sufficient capacity at Burke County reception centers under Scenario A -- even with stude.nts present, and even assuming that all evacuees arrive at reception centers simultaneously.
Bryant Affidavit at 11 9-10.
Scenario B In Scenario B, all Burke County Comprehensive High School students can be accommodated in the classrooms of the school, leaving the common areas immediately available to receive 4,675 evacuees. The remaining schools can accommodate 2,850 evacueen in common areas, with students present. Thus, the reception centers provide a combined capacity for 7,525 evacueen in Sce-nario B. Bryant Affidavit at 1 11. This compares with a total maximum of approximately 6,995 evacuees from the Burke County portion of the EPZ.4/ Therefore, there is sufficient capacity at Burke County reception centers under Scenario B -- even with students present, and even assuming that all evacuees arrive at reception centern simultaneously. Bryant Affidavit at 11 12-13.
4/ This figure (6,995) reflecto a maximum resident population of 1,799 persons (calculated as for Scenario A except for the exclusion of the 150 EPZ residents who attend Girard School under Scenario A but who would attend school outside the EPZ under Scenario B, since Girard School will clone upon the open-ing of Burke County comprehensive High School), as well as a maximum transient population of 5,196 persons (calculated as for Scenario A, except that the 50 students living outside the EPZ who presently attend Girard School will -- under Scenario B
-- be attending school outnide the EPZ). Dryant Affidavit at 11 7, 12.
f .
Scenario C Scenario C would be the same as Scenario B, except that only operating staff would be present at Plant Vogtle. This staff would number approximately 700, which in substantially less that the the estimated 4,940 plant workers who might re-quire reception if an emergency were to occur before construc-tion of Unit 2 is completed. Therefore, in Scenario C, the maximum number of evacuees to be processed at reception centers
! would drop dramatically, while the available capacity would i remain the same as for Scenario D. Bryant Affidavit at 1 14.
l Thua, there is sufficient capacity at Burke County reception centers under Scenario C -- even with studento prosent, and even assuming that all evacuees arrivo at reception centers ni-multaneously.
The above analyses demonstrato conclusively that the schools identified as reception centern by Burke County have sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum number of EPZ evacuees -- even with students present at the schools, and even assuming that all evacueen arrive at reception contors simulta-neously. Nevertheless, if still more capacity was desired, school 'fficials would dinmian students who were not residents of the evacuated area (a process estimated to require a total of approximately 1 1/2 hourn), providing capacity for approxi-mately 4,310 additional persons. Bryant Affidavit at i 15.
The " Burke County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan For Nuclear Incidents / Accidents Involving Vogtle Electric Generating Plant" is being amended to list the Blakeney schools as reception centers. In addition, the re-vised plan will specify the capacity of each of the schools identified as reception centers (with and without students present), and will s'.te that the schocis have sufficient ca-pacity (even with utudents present) to accommodato the maximum number of evacuees from the Burke County portion of the Vogtle EPZ. Thus, Burke County has given adequate consideration to l
l the re.dy availabilility of schools for use as reception cen-l ters in the event of a radiological emergency at Vogtle.
Bryant Affidavit at 1 16,
- 2. Aiken_ County l In the event of an emergen:y at Plant Vogtle during a ,
school day, a maximum of approximately 200 persons would be evacuated from that part of the Vogtle EP: which lies within Aiken County, South Carolina. This figure includes sportsmen l
and employees from the Cowden Plantation, and any Seabiard l Coast Line railroad crew operating in the area. There are no l residents within the Aiken County portion of the Vogtle EPZ.
l l Maunay Affidavit at 1 3.
" Annex Q, Part 2, Fixed Nuclear Facility (FNF) Ra-diological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) To The Aiken County i
_13 l
l
T.
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)" ("Aiken County Pinn") desig-nates South Aiken High School and Kennedy Middle School (both in Aiken, South Carolina) as the reception centers for evacuees from the Aiken County portion of the EPZ. Mauney Affidavit at 1 4. The entire student body of South Aiken High School can be accommodated in the classrooms of the school, leaving the gym-nasium area immediately available to accommodato approximately 100 evacuees. Similarly, the entire student body of Kennedy Middle School can be accommodated in the classrooms of that l school, leaving area immediately available in the gymnasium to accommodate approximately 100 evacuees. Mauney Affidavit at 1 6.
This analysis demonstrates conclusively that the schools identified as reception centers by Aiken County have sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum number of EPZ evacuees --
even with students premont at the schools, and even assuming that all evacuees arriva at shelteca simultaneously. Neverthe-less, if still more capacity was desired, school officials would dismiss students (a process estimated to require a total of approximately 30 minutes), providing capacity for approxi-mately 3,800 additional persons. These capacity figures for the schools identified as reception centers (with and without students present) are included in the Aiken County Plan. Thus, Aiken County has given adequate consideration to the ready availability of schools for uso as reception centerm in the A
[
- event of a radiological emergency at Vogtle. Mauney Affidavit '
at 11 7-8.
- 3. Allendale and Barnsell Counties In the event of an emargency at Plant Vogtle during a school day, a maximum of approximately 233 persons would be, ,
evacuated frorr. that part of the Vogtle EPZ which lies withi Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. This figure includes 35 residents from the Creek Plantation in Barnwell -
County, as well as visitors to the Creek Plantation, motorista /
on South Carolina Route 125, sportamea using Steel Creek Land-ing, and any Seaboard Coast Line railroad crew operating in the Allendale and Barnwell County portions of the EPZ. Awbrey Af-fidavit at 1 3.
Because Barnwell County evacueen would evacuate into Allendale County, Allendale and Barnwell County ovacueos would use the same reception centorn. Annex 0, Part 2, Fixed Nuclear Facility (FNF) Radiological Emergency Responso Plan (RERP) To The Allendale County Emergency operations Plan (EOP)"
("Allendale County Plan") and " Annex Q, Part 2, Fixed Huclear Facility (FHF) Radiological Emergency Renponse Plan (RERP) To The Barnwell County Emergency operations Plan (EOP)" ("Barnwall County Plan") designate Allendale Elementary School (in Allendale, South Carolina) and Fairfax Primary School (in Fairfax, South Carolina) as the reception centern for evacuses I
s
o from the Allendale and Barnwell County portions of the EPZ.
Awbrey Affidavit at 1 4. The entire student body of Allendale Elementary School can be accommodated in the classrooms of the school, leaving the gymnasium area immediately available to accommodate approximatley 250 evacuees. Similarly, the entire student body of Fairfax Primary School can be accommodated in the classrooms of that school, leaving area immediately avail-able in the gymnasium to accommodate apprcximately 250 evacuees. Awbrey Affidavit at 1 6.
This analysis demonstrates conclusively that the schools l identified as reception centers by Allendale and Barnwell Counties have sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum l number of EPZ evacuees -- even with students preaent at the schools, and even assuming that all evacuees arrive at shelters i simultaneously. Nevertheless, if still more capacity was de-sired, school officials would dismiss students (a process esti-mated to require a total of approximately 30 minutes), provid-ing capacity for approximately 700 additional persons. These capacity figures for the schools identified as rece,; tion cen-ters (with and without students present) are included in the Allendale and Barnwell County Plans. Thus, Allendale and Barawell Counties have given adequate consideration to the ready availability of schools for use as reception centers in the event of a radiological emergency at Vogtle. Awbrey Affi-l davit at 11 7-8.
i
. B
' . s In summary, the four counties in the Vogtle EPZ have eval-uated both the need for and the availability of reception cen-ter capacity'in a Vogtle accident. Their conservative analyses conclueively demonstrate that the schools identified as recep-tion centers have sufficient capacity to accommodate the maxi-mum number of EPZ evacuees, evenwithstbdentspresentatthe ochools and even' assuming that all evacuees arrive at reception centers simultaneously. Never'theless, they have also assessed the time needed ta dismiss students and the additional capacity which would then be available. Accordingly, all counties in the Vogtle EPZ have made da' equate provisions for the ready
. availability of schools for use as reception centers in the event of a radiological emergency at Vogtle.
Joint Intervenors' discovery responses make it abundantly clear that they have no factual basis for their challenge to the ability of the schools to simultaneously accommodate stu-dents and evacuees from the Vogtle EPZ. See, e.g., "Interve-nors' 10/28/85 Responses" at Response to Interrogatories EP-5-4 through EP-5-10; "Intervenors' 1/5/86 Responses" at Response to Interrogatorica EP-5-13 and EP-5-14; "Intervenors' 1/24/86 Re-sponsen" at Response to Interrogatory 8; (declining to specify either the number of evacuees to be accommodated or the capaci-ty of the identified reception centers). Accord, Deposition of Seymour Shaye (January 6, 1986), at Tr. 54-56. Intervenors cannot avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or
+
6 l i
~
h 1
4 -
suspicions, or en the hope that at the hearing Applicants' evi-dence ray be discredited or that "something may turn up." See Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, 248 (1975).
IV. Conclusion Because there is no genuine issue of material fpet to be heard on the issue of the ready availability of schools for use I
as reception centers for evacuees from the Vogtle EIZ, Appli-cants respectfully request that the Board grant thejr motion for summary disposition of Contention EP-5.
Respectfully submitted, f
t' b~% -
_V Fruce W! Churchill, P.C.
Delissa A. Ridgway David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 James E. Joiner, P.C.
Charles W. Whitney Kevin C. Greene i Hugh M. Davenport l
TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN l
& ASHMORE 1400 Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30043 (404) 658-8000 Counsel for Applicant 3 Dated: March 10, 1986 l
l
_ ._