ML20071G643

Informs of Agreement to Develop Acceptable Statement of Contentions & Resolution of All But One Objection to Proposed Issues for Litigation,Per Applicant 830503 Objections

ML20071G643
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/19/1983
From:	Silberg J KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Anderson G, Laurenson J, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8305240313
Download: ML20071G643 (5)

Text

,

% BP .

v SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHep OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1600 M STRE ET N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 /M N

hfLEcopiER 8202 eaa @ & saa-nee

/

May 19, 1983 "}fWLW w. ,

{% 'Mgp 8 yf p' ee-aeo cAeL AWLAW"

]% A D d, Yk [hg '?, i nONE JAY E. SILBERG, P.C. 'c g 12 9 a-eOe3 o

A, y, .

James A. Laurenson, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Re: Kansas Gas and Electric Company

-(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1)

Docket'No. STN 50-482 Gentlemen:

. During my May 16, 1983 telephone conversation with Chairman Laurenson, it was agreed that the parties would attempt to nego-tiate an acceptable statement of contentions. As a result of discussions among the parties on May 16 and 18, the parties have agreed upon a process for developing an acceptable statement of contentions and have agreed upon a resolution of all but one of the "other objections to the proposed issues for litigation" identified in Applicants' Objections to Certain Proposed Issues and Motion for Adoption of Interrogatory Responses as Statement of Issues for Litigation, dated May 3,1983 The process for developing an acceptable statement of conten-tions will involve collating Intervenors' interrogatory responses identified in paragraph 6(a)-(h) of Intervenors' Response to Applicants Objections, dated May 12, 1983, in a coherent, non-repetitive format. Applicants are undertaking this effort and estimate that it will take several weeks to complete. The parties believe that they have adequate understanding of the issues to continue their testimony preparation in the interim period.

r 8305240313 830519 PDR ADOCK 05000482 o PDR 1

SHAw, PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

' A PARTNERSwip OF pmOFEsssONAL CompORATIONS i t

May 19, 1983

, Page Two As for Applicants ' objections, the parties have agreed as follows:

1. The scope of the issues to be litigated does not extend to protective actions other than evacuation. The IIstervenors are not raising the issue of sheltering transients at John i Redmond Reservoir. Nor are the Intervenors raising the issue of the use of potassium iodide. (See Applicants' Objections, pp.

11-12.)

2. The scope of the issues to be litigated

excludes the ability to evacuate or shelter the people living outside the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ but inside Coffey County. The scope includes the effect on evacuation of the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ of an order to evacuate the entire County. (See Applicants' Objections, pp. 12-13.)

3. The scope of the issues to be litigated excludes whether the length of time to conduct a particular activity is too long (apart from the notification times set by

/ regulation), but includes the accuracy of the time e'stimated to conduct the activity.

(See Applicants' Objections, pp. 17-18.)

4. The frequency of drills and exercises is set by NRC regulation and is not appropriate for j litigation. (See Applicants' Objections, pp. 19-20.)

The parties have not been able to agree on the issue of medical treatment. Specifically, Intervenors believe that the issues set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8 of their May 12, 1983 Response (p. 5) should be litigated. These paragraphs state:

7. Coffey County has not arranged for trans-porting radiologically exposed, radiologically l contaminated, or radiologically injured l persons to medical support facilities.

l

9 SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMep OF pmOFESSION% CompONATIONS May 19, 1983 Page Three

8. The State and Coffey County have not adequately identified local or regional medical facilities which have the capabilities to provide appropriate medical treatment for persons with dangerous radiation exposure or who are contaminated, injured individuals, and they have not made a determination to what extent those facilities can provide such treatment.

The plan should set forth the number and location of medical personnel trained in radiation treatment and should specify the arrangements that have been made with medical facilities about the treatment they will provide.

Applicants and Staff believe that paragraphs 7 and 8 are excluded from the appropriate scope of the issues to be litigated by the Commission's decision in Southern California Edison Co.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10 (April 4, 1983), except that Intervenors may litigate the absence from emergency plans of an identification of those local or regional medical facilities which are capable of providing appro-priate medical treatment for radiation exposure. Intervenors believe that the issue of transportation of contaminated injured members of the public is not excluded by San Onofre and that the capability of local or regional medical facilities to handle contaminated injured people may also be litigated under San Onofre.

The parties respectfully request that the Licensing Board resolve thic disputed issue, Counsel for the Intervenors and counsel for the Staff have authorized me to file this letter as jointly representing the views of all parties. Counsel for FEMA has authorized counsel for the Staff to represent its views.

l

! Very truly yours, drq b p JA E ,i LBERG h Coufse.ljfor Applicants JES: lam cc: Service List

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4

In the Matter of )

)

- KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. STN 50-482

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, )

Unit No. 1) )

i SERVICE LIST James A. Laurenson Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. George C. Anderson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Department of Oceanography Washington,_D.C. 20555 University of Washington .

4 Seattle, Washington 98195 Kent M. Ragsdale General Counsel Dr. Hugh C. Paxton , Missouri Public Service Commission 1229'- 41st Street Post Office Box 360 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Myron Karman, Esquire A. Scott Cauger, Esquire I ' Deputy Assistant Chief' Assistant General Counsel l Hearing Counsel Missouri Public Service Commission Office of the Executive Post Office Box 360 Legal Director- Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Eric A. Eisen, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

r U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 I

Washington, D.C. 20555 C. Edward Peterson, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Kansas Corporation Commission Appeal Board State Office Building - 4th-Floor

[ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Topeka, Kansas 66612 Washington, D.C. 20555

e Service List Page Two Dr. John H. Buck

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J. W. McCormack POCH Boston, Massachusetts 02109 John M. Simpson, Esquire 4350 Johnson Drive, Suite 120 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l i

i

~

_ ._- _ _ _ _ _ ________a