ML20076L601

Discusses Status of 830406 Proposed Stipulation of Contentions.No Agreement Reached Amongst Counsel at 830427 Conference Call.Fema Cannot Commit Resources to Preparing Testimony for 830830 Prefiling

ML20076L601
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	07/11/1983
From:	Cassidy B Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
References
NUDOCS 8307190248
Download: ML20076L601 (2)

Text

_._ _ __ _

~ . _ __ =

,3, A - .

T #

=.

Federal Emergency Management Agency l( .

I Region I J.W. McCormack Post Office and Coun House Boston, Massachusetts 02109 CD g

July 11, 1983 j'8 N O t .

97 JUL i 6 $83 > d1i Jay E. Si W rg, Esquire -

. A' mese:Name. /

Shaw, Pitt: man, Potts & Trowbridge ' bQ Q2* b' 1800 M Street N.W. '.

Washington, D.C. 20036 ' kM\ '

,, ~7 .,

Be: Matter of Kansas Gas & Electric Ocmpany (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1)

Ibcket No. S7N 50-482

Dear Mr. Silberg:

I am writing to you and to Mr. John M. Simpson to express my concern regarthng the current status of the p.W contentions. _

The Atcmic Safety and Timncirs Board (ASIB), in concert with the representation made by emnasd at the prehearing conference, ordercd ,

that 'bpecific objections to the energency plan in .the- form of a proposed stipulation of contentions" be fils.d on or before April 7, 1983. Mr.

. Simpson filed a proposede s in'lation of contenticus on April 6,1983.

The iu.vg stip'la* inn of contentions was the subject of a conference call amongst counsel cm ApH1 27, 1983. The MLLsn line of that conference was that there was no agrem ent to the proposed stipulation of contentians.

Subsequent to the conference call, there has been an an-going dialogue between ecunsel for the Applicant and Intervenors but no agreenent on the stipulation of contentions. During that time the number of proposed contentions has grown frcm twenty-one (21) filed by Mr. Simpson an April 6,1983 to a number in excess of three hundred (300), counting the subparts, sursed by you. -

It has. been my experience as a trial lawyer that if 'the parties cannot stipulate to issues .the trier of fact will resolve it in a 3.hrely manner.

I cartainly anticipated resoluticn of athe contentions in thibnutter long ago. Otwiously, neither the Applicant nor Intervenor has scoght resolution by ths ASIB. I think that resolution by the ASIB is long overdue and that the parties should seek such resolution.imnediately. .

It is my positicn that until there is a ruling en the admissibility of these proposed contentions that it is unreascnable to e @ my Agency to ccmrit resources to preparing test.urony for prah1mg an August 30, 1983.

It is also my position,that if the ASLB adnits three hundred or more contentions it may be nam enry, contrary-to tic representations made i 8307190248 830711 3 l PDR ADOCK 05000482 '

l. G PDR c i

S f#

, , 9

-=

~.,_, .

c. - -=. . . . -

n. l* l', _

g. a

_v s at the prehearing ccnference, to seek sininary disposition on scrne of these Inatters. I am sure you appreciate the effect of that on the current schedule.

Since FER is a non-party whose role is ciretrnscribed by the ASIS's pre-hearing order, I have limited control over the finalizaticn of these contentions. As I have stated here, I believe that it is the responsibility to the Applicant and Intervenors to resolve these matters as gaickly as possible in order that FDG may proceed to prepare de'ded and *J.mely responses to the legitimate concerns regarding the adeqacy of off-site mergency planning.

, c- ly l' Brian P. s* v e, -

oc: Service list .

Spence W. Perry, CXE Kenneth Green, SIeHI Frank Begley, '1E Regicn VII Stephen Ferris, HI Regicn VII 4

b e

e a w

o

. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .