ML20154D546
| ML20154D546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1986 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D547 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#186-300 OL, NUDOCS 8603060245 | |
| Download: ML20154D546 (4) | |
Text
YOb March 3,1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[NC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 MR -5 Pl2 :03
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CTFICE :
00Cht;om'.
In the Matter of
)
Mr.J ' ' +
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 et al.
)
50-425
)
(OL)
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,
)
Units i and 2)
)
FPC STAFF RESPONSE TO " APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION EP-7 (EMERGENCY PLANNING IN SOUTH CAROLINA)"
l I.
In troduction On February 10,
- 1986, Applicants filed a Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-7.
This contention involves an asserted lack of information concerning energency planning in the State of South Carolina. O For the reasons presented below and in the attcched Stovall Affidavit, the NRC Staff submits that Applicants' Motion should be granted.
I II.
Legal Standards Government Summary Disposition The Staff has previourly set forth the applicable legal standards governing motions for summary disposition in its July 26,1985 " Response
'-1/
The text of the Intervenors' Revised Contention EP-7, filed on June 24, 1985, is set out in full at page 2 of Applicants' Motion and at 12 of the attached Affidavit of Cheryl L. Stovall, an Emergency Management Program Specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Stovall Affidavit).
oho P
i 3 07
to Applicants' Slotion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10.3 (Cables in alulticonductor Configurations)" (at pp.
1-3).
In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, that discussion is incorporated by reference herein.
III. Applicants' hiotion A.
Background
The Licensing Board in admitting Contention EP-7 stated the concern that the emergency planning materlat submitted by Applicants lacked information relating to emergency planring for that portion of the Vogtle emergency planning zone (EPZ) with;n the State of South Carolina.
Pfemorandum and Order of August 12, 1985.
The Board ruled, based on the information before it, that the emergency planning materials provided by the Applicants were incomplete and that Contention EP-7 was cdmissible. M.at33-34.
Fubsequently, in response to a hiotion for Reconsideration and Clarification filed by Applicants, the Doard issued a Bfemorandum and Order dated October 1, 1985 providing a further elaboration of its prior ruling admitting Contention EP-7.
The Board again emphasized the lack of planning materials for that portion of the Vogtle plume EPZ lying within Soutb Carolina and concluded that "the litigable 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. "
(Order of October 1,1985 at 8.)
As a result of its finding that more information concerning energency planning in South Carolina was required, the Board ruled that at such time as the Applicants provided additional information concerning emergency planning in South I
i I
e O i Carolina Intervenors wouhi have thirty days to submit proposed contentions relating to this new informtion. M.
On February 7 and 20,
- 1986, FEMA received response plans apparently developed to deal with emergencies arising at Vogtle.
Stovall Affidavit at f 5.
Those plans were prepared by the State of South Carolina, end the United States Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah Iliver Operations Office, respectively.
Id. at 1 5.
The plans, which have not yet been reviewed by FEMA, ostensibly establish the framework within which the different governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the areas in South Carolina within the Vogtle plume EPZ would respond to an emergency at Vortle.
D.
Basis for Staff's Support of Applicants Motion for Summary Disposition The Staff supports Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition for the reasons set out in the motion and in Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard Regarding Contention EP-7," the " Affidavit of Jean M. DiLuzio on Contention EP-7."
which ere attached to the motion, and in the attached Stovall Affidavit.
In sum, since the " litigable 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 in South Carolina" (Order of October 1, 1985 at 8), Staff believes that the Applicants' submission of these emergency plans to the Board and the other parties on February 5, 1986 factually resolves the contention in ouestion.
Stovall Affidavit at t 6.
It may well be that Intervenors will challenge the efficacy of the recently submitted South Carolina and DOE plans.
However, pursuant to the Board's Order of October 1,1985, any challenge by the Intervenors
r to the substance of these recently submitted emergency plans must be made within 30 days thereafter in the form of specific proposed contentions together with statements of bases.
Order of October 1,1985 at 8.
The current availability of emergency response plans for those portions of the Vogtle plume EPZ lying within South Carolina, however, satisfies the only issue raised by Contention EP-7, as defined by the Board, and warrants the granting of summary disposition in favor of the Applicants on Contention EP-7.
IV.
Conclusion For the reasons presented above, the Staff submits that Applicants' motion and supporting papers, and the attached Stovall Affidavit, establish that the Joint Intervenors have raised no genuine issue of fact as regards Contention EP-7. U The Staff therefore submits that the Motion for Sunnary Disposition of Contention EP-7 should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, WM Ol Bernard M. Bor enick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated 3t Bethesda, Maryland this3 "'Uay of March,1986
-2/
Staff has reviewed " A pplicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which no Genuine Issue Exists to be IIeard (ete]" and is in agreement with the Statenent in question.
o