ML20207E409

Memorandum & Order Ruling on Applicant 860310 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention EP-5 Re Emergency Response Plans.Motion for Summary Disposition Granted & Contention Dismissed.Served on 860718

ML20207E409
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/17/1986
From:	Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#386-031, CON-#386-31 84-499-01-OL, 84-499-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8607220325
Download: ML20207E409 (7)

Text

") ,.

SNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~ .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR AO Before Administrative Judges:h0hkr SEcagn, BR i,bc- N'^

Morton B'. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. -- ---

M N J U I. h E

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-424-OL

) 50-425-OL GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

- )

) (ASLBPNo. 84-499-01-OL)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) July 17, 1986

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention EP-5)

Sumary By motion dated March 10, 1986, Applicants seek sumary disposition of Contention EP-5. In an unpublished Memorandum and Order dated August 12, 1985, we admitted Contention EP-5 for litigation. The contention alleges that the emergency response plans for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate reception centers will be readily available for use in the event of a radiological emergency at the plant. Following approval by the Licensing Board of a requested

• delay'in responding, NRC Staff (Staff), on May 16, 1986, filed an answer supporting Applicants' motion for sumary disposition. The Board on May 29, 1986 notified Applicants of missing information, which

' was submitted by them on June 16, 1986. Based on the additional i

D AD 0500 G4 Q PDR 1s02_

2 information submitted, Staff on June 23, 1986 again took the position that the motion should be granted and the contention dismissed.

Intervenor Georgians Against Nuclear Energy filed no response to Applicants' motion. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the motion.

Discussion Contention EP-5 provides as follows:

The offsite emergency response plans for VEGP do not meet the requirement of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) because the plans do not reasonably assure that adequate emergency facilities, namely reception centers, will be readily available for use in the event of a radiological emergency at VEGP.

Three schools in Burke County, Georgia had been designated as reception centers to be immediately available in an emergency at VEGP, as required by 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(8) to provide facilities to support the emergency response. It was alleged that the Burke County emergency plan was inadequate because it was not shcwn that the reception centers were of adequate capacity to meet the needs of those evacuees who could be expected to make use of the schools. The emergency plan provisions were silent as to the need to release students from the schools to accommodate evacuees during an emergency. It was on this basis that the contention was admitted for litigation.

In their motion, Applicants assert that the motion complained of in Contention EP-5 has been corrected. Movants state that Burke County has established four schools as reception centers in Burke County. Under differing scenarios the number of evacuees who can be expected to evacuate to the reception centers has been calculated and all evacuees u

- . . , . - - , -. - ,,r.- , - -

_ , -, . , , ,- - , - . . , . - - , .-,a, . - --n. .,,-- .- -, , . - - . - - - - - , ,

3 can be accommodated within the facilities whether or not the students are released during the emergency. The same situation as to accommodating evacuees was reported for the two schools that are to serve as reception centers for Aiken County, South Carolina and the two schools in Allendale County, South Carolina that are to serve as reception centers for Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina.

Applicants further stated th;*. no genuine issue exists to be heard as to 4

any material fact with respect to the contention and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor as a matter of law, as provided in 10 CFR 2.749.

Affidavits were submitted in support of the motion. The affidavit of the Director of the Burke County Emergency Management Agency j designated four schools in Waynesboro, Georgia as reception centers.

The maximum number of evacuees who might use the schools was calculated, and it was determined that each of the schools has adequate space to accommodate simultaneously the evacuees and pupils in the school. The Burke County emergency plan is to be amended to list the specific schools as reception centers and will state that the schools have sufficient capacity, even with students present, to accommodate the maximum number of evacuees that can be expected from the Burke County portion of, the Vogtle Plume EPZ.

The affidavit of the Emergency Coordinator for the Aiken Department of Emergency Services stated that the two schools designated in the emergency plan as reception centers in Aiken, South Carolina, have the capacity to accommodate the approximately 200 persons who can be

.i

4 l

l expected to use the facilities, from the Aiken County portion of the plume EPZ, even with the students present in the schools.

The affidavit of the Director of the Allendale County Disaster Preparedness Agency stated that a maximum of approximately 235 persons would be evacuated from that part of the Vogtle plume EP7. within Allendale and Barnwell Counties. They can be accomodated in the Allendale and Fairfax, South Carolina schools designated in the plans as the reception centers for the areas, with the student body in

attendance.

Staff, on April 15, 1986, requested a deferral from responding to the motion to permit the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Management Specialist to make a field verification of the relocation centers on April 30 and May 1, 1986. Approval was granted by the Board i

and a field verification was made. An affidavit by the Emergency 6

l Management Specialist stated that based on the visual inspection of the facilities conducted on April 30 and May 1, 1986 it was concluded that the reception centers would be readily available for use and able to c

accomodate the evacuees in the event of a radiological emergency at i

! Plant Vogtle. It was Staff's position that no material issue of fact l

has been raised as to Contention EP-5 and that the motion for sumary i disposition should be granted.

f Intervenor Georgians Against Nuclear Energy filed no response to I

the motion for sumary disposition.

It is the Board's opinion that contention EP-5 extends to all of I

l the reception centers within the plume EPZ and not just to the schools

_ .._ _ _. _ ,__.__., _ _ .._ _ . _ _ _ _ ,._ __ _ . . _ , _ . _ _ , . . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ . ._,__ _ _ _ _ m _

5 designated as reception centers in Burke, Aiken and Allendale Counties.

The Savannah River Plant federal reservation within the plume EPZ for Vogtle has its own emergency preparedness plan for the facility and designates its own reception centers. Although the Savannah River Plant's reception centers are not schools, the Board wanted assurance that they conformed to the requirements cited in the contention. The Board, therefore, wrote to Applicants on May 29, 1986, inquiring about the matter.

A response was received un June 16, 1986 containing an affidavit of Kevin P. Twine, employed by Ebasco Services, Inc. as Manager, Resources Planning. Mr. Twine has been retained by Georgia Power Company to coordinate offsite emergency planning activities for VEGP, including coordination with the Savannah River Plant. He reports that the Savannah River Plant has designated buildings in four areas that are to serve as reception centers for evacuees. The facilities are located on the reservation outside of the Vogtle plume EPZ. Each of the four designated sites can accommodate the maximum of 2,500 evacuees that can be expected to use the Savannah River Plant reception centers. The Twine affidavit prompted Staff on June 23, 1986 to restate its position that the unopposed motion should be granted.

Conclusion The Board concludes that the motion for summary disposition of Contention EP-5 should be granted.

We find that Applicants' motion was supported by affidavits submitted by persons qualified to discuss the matters presented. The l

l i

6 uncontroverted affidavits establish that those responsible for local emergency response in the plume EPZ will provide reception centers in

~

the plume EPZ that will be readily available for use of evacuees in the event of a radiological emergency at the plant. In the case of the schools to be employed in Burke County, Georgia and Aiken and Allendale Counties South Carolina, they will be of sufficient capacity to accommodate the number of evacuees that can be expected to use the facilities. As to the Savannah River Plant it has buildings to be used as reception centers, each of which with its grounds can accommodate all the evacuees that can be expected to use reception centers from the Savannah River Plant reservation.

The FEMA representative, upon whose expertise we rely, c'onfirmed the adequacy of the school reception centers after a visual inspection.

Absent contradictory evidence, the Board is convinced that the plans provide reasonable assurance that adequate emergency reception centers will be readily available for use in the event of a radiological emergency at VEGP, and thus the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) are met. There is no genuine issue to be heard as to any material fact with respect to the contention. The matter complained of has been corrected, and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor as a matter of law.

What remains to be accomplished is to assure that the changes are made in the written plans, where that has not already occurred. These are implementing details. The ministerial act of inspecting the plans 4

to assure that the changes are incorporated should be given to Staff and

7 FEMA for verification. See Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford ElectricStation, Unit 3),ALAB-732,17NRC1076,1103-04,1106-07 (1983); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-808, 21 NRC 1595, 1600 (1985). The verification should be accomplished within 30 days of the next full revising of the state and local plans for the Vogtle EPZ. The Board and the parties were advised by letter from Applicants of June 30, 1986, that this revision is scheduled to occur in early Fall 1986.

OJOE_R Based upon all of the foregoing, the Board hereby orders:

1. That Applicants' Motion for Sumary Disposition of Contention EP-5 is granted and the contention is dismissed;

2. That the described changes be made in the emergency plans, where they have not already been incorporated; and

3. That the Staff and FEMA shall verify, within 30 days following the next full revision of the state and local plans for the Vogtle EPZ, that the changes in the plans have been made THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W

%rton B. Ma'rgulfet , Ctfjirman' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUD8E W ~

MS Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE GE

/ w a 01 -

Gusiave A. Linenberger Jr.

M NISTRATIVE JUDG Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of July,1986.