ML20198J934

Advises That Applicant 860310 Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors Contention EP-5 Re Reception Ctr Capacity Incomplete.Motion Fails to Satisfy Contention for Savannah River Reservation.Served on 860602

ML20198J934
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/29/1986
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
References
CON-#286-349 OL, NUDOCS 8606030256
Download: ML20198J934 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- *penouq

$ & UNITED STATES ]

[ M j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 6))

4

• g

<, W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 4 )

h

...** May 29, 1986 -7 '

cd OM 12 lY w@

[

\ .

Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 9 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 .

staved JUNSL 1986

• In the Matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,' UnTts 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-424 (0L) and 50-425 (OL)

Dear Mr. Churchill:

This is in reference to Applicants' Motion For Sumary Disposition Of Joint Intervenors' Contention EP-5 (Reception Center Capacity) that -

you filed on March 10, 1986. The Licensing Board has received NRC Staff's supplemental response to the motion, dated May 13, 1986, thereby readying the matter for review. As with the other motions for sumary disposition of emergency planning contentions, no intervenor response has been received. The purpose of this' letter is to apprise you that the Licensing Board views the motion for sumary disposition as incom-plete and to inquire as to how you intend to resolve the situation.

Contention EP-5 provides as follows:

The offsite emergency response plans for VEGP do not meet the requirements 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 j event of a radiological emergency at VEGP.

i ,

What gave rise to the contention was the allegation that the Burke j County Emergency Plan, which relies on schools for use as reception centers, was inadequate because the plan did not indicate the size of the facilities and their ready availability for serving the number of j evacuees who might use them. The admitted contention extends to all l of the emergency response plans for the Vogtle plant and was not limited to that for Burke County. All of the plans for the facility must satisfy 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8).

Applicants' motion for sumary judgment addresses how the Burke County Emergency Plan and the emergency plans for Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina would adequately meet reception center requirements within those jurisdictions. The motion is silent pg!6MRMQ4 o

350s

o 2

as to satisfying the contention for the Savannah River Plant federal reservation, which has its own emergency preparedness plan for Plant Vogtle. It is noted that the Savannah Riar Plant emergency plan, dated December 1985, on page III-9 mentions a reception area but does not identify the facility, the capacity and its ready availability for serving the number of evacuees who might use the area.

The Licensing Board requests that you give this matter your attention and advise us of your intentions.

Very tr ly yours, .

Morton B. Margulies, hairman

Administrative Law Judge For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l

cc: Service List l

l l

l l

l 1 na u w..- m m u-w,