ML20076L586

Responds to Intervenor Advancing,For ASLB Ruling, Mods & Expansions of Interrogatory Answers.List of Contentions & of Spec of Underlying Interrogatory Answer & Svc List Encl

ML20076L586
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	07/15/1983
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 8307190240
Download: ML20076L586 (9)

Text

, .~

a tul[ Bj vP

+

/

v t g SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE Y A PARTNER $Mep OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS '1 18o0 M STREET. N. W. ]

w AsweNGToN. O. C. 20036 CS * " N Sec. N L

• m & Ser. M' RAM SAv D. POTTS. P C. SMELDoN J. wEiSEL. P.C. (2o2) s22 ioco JErrERvLvAstom ~EDwASoe.vouNG.

st:UART L. PITTMAN. P C. JOMN A. McCULLouGM. P C. _ JACM McKAY ANDREW D. ELUS, GEORGE F. TROwSReDGE. P.C J. PATRICK MtCNEY. P C. THOMAS M. McCORMICm ' ReCMARQ A, P%

ETZPMEN D. POTTS. P C. J. THOM AS LENMART. P C. TZLECOPtE R JOHN L CARR.JR. ( . J R.

GERALD CHARNCFF. P C. STEVEN L MELTZER. P C PMlWPJ.MARVEY THOM WENDELWA AS % $. WM8TI PMitup D SOSTwsCn. P C. DEAN D. AUuCn. P C. (202) e22.aoss & sa2 nes ROmERT M. GORDON STANLET w'liaRG R. TIMOTHY MANLON. P C. JOMN ENGEL. P.C. _

SARGARA J. MORG E N LESUE n. SMtTM SCORGE M. ROG ERS. J R.. R.C. CMARLES s.TEMKIN. P C SONNat S. GOTTUES virginia S. RUTLgDGE FREM A. UTTLE. P C. STEPMEN S. MUTTLER. P.C. RAptFAX 600 MowARD M. SMAFFERMAN MATMERINE P. CMEE R JOMN S. RMONELANDER P.C. weNTHROP N. SROWN. P C. DERORAMS.SAUSER JANsCE LEMRER STEIN L RUCE w. CMURCMILL. P.C. JAMES S. MAMUN. P C (202)8226072 SCOTT A. ANENBERG TRAVIS T. SRowN, JR.

LE.*UE A. NBCMOLSON.J R., P C. RANDAL 5. MELL. P C. _

CAMPSELL MILLEFER RICHARDM.MMONTHAL M1RTIN D. MRALL. P.C. RCS E RT E. ZAMLE R. P C. PAUL M. TMOMAS STEPMEN 3. MEIMANN KICMARD J. RENDALL, P.C. ROBE RT 3. ROSS8NS. P.C. Tgggx SETH M. MOOGASIAN SA DRA E. BRU$CA*

JAY E. SILBERG. P.C. STEVEN M LUCAS.PC. SMEILA MCC. MARVEY EsLEEN L SROWNELL BAI BARA M. ROSSOTTI. P C. david M.RUSENSTEIN PC 89-2693 (SMAwLAW wSM) DEUSSA A. AlDGwAv PAMELA M. ANDERSON GEORGE V. ALLEN, J R., P.C. R*CMARD E. GALEN MENNETH J. MAUTMAN CASLE ..SM AwLAW DAVID LAwmENCE MILLER ALEXANDER D. TOMASZCZUn FRES DRASNER. P C. LvhN wMlTTLESEY wtLSON "'d O' R. K4NLY wtBSTER. P C. MATIAS F.TRAVeESO DIA2 FREDERICK L KLEIN NATMANIEL P. SREED JR., P C. VSCTORSA J. PERONS STEVE N P. PITLER' M'OMAEL A* E*'OK R MARM AUGE NSLICK. P C. JOMN M. O NEILL. J R R6CHA RD J. PARRINO ELLEN SHERIFF ERNIST L SLAKE. JR., P.C. Jay A. EPSTIEN , ELLEN A. FREDEL* ANITA J. F8NMELSTEIN

"" MANNAM E. M. yE SCRM AN EILEEN M, GLESMER CAOLETON 3. JONE S. P.C. RAND L ALLEN TMOMAS A. SaxTER. P.C. EUSASETM M. PENDLETON COWNSEL SANDRA E. FOLSOM DAVID R. SAMR JAMES M. SURGER. P C. MARRY M. GLASSPtEGEL JUDITH A. SANDLER C.. SowDOIN

m. TRAIN E.

WReTER S OtRECT NAL NUMBER (202) 822-1000 July 15, 1983 James A. Laurenson, Esq. Dr. George C. Anderson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography Board Panel University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, D.C. 20555-Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Administrative ~ Judge 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 I In the Matter of l

Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al.

L (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1)

! Docket No. Sa-482 Gentlemen:

In a June 13, 1983 letter, Applicants provided to the Board and the other parties a compilation of Intervenors' interrogatory answers which -- by agreement of the parties -- is to serve as the statement of issues for litigation in this proceeding. On June 20, l i

l l

8307190240 830715 PDRADOCK05000g Tso3 ,

i

. c i . -

-SHAW., PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE" l 4= c=... ,=ws um-==w .

l 1

July 15, 1983 l

, Page Two 1983, Intervenors' counsel conferred with Applicants' counsel

• to request modifications to the June 13 compilation of inter-rogatory answers. As a result of those discussions, Applicants agreed.to certain of the requested modifications, which are memorialized in Applicants' June 21 letter to the Board.. Counsel for Intervenors also proposed other modifications and expansions i of the designated interrogatory answers in the June 20 discussions, as to_which Intervenors and Applicants were unable to reach agree- ,

ment. By letter dated June 22, 1983, counsel for Intervenors

advances for Board ruling the modifications and expansions of interrogatory answers which Applicants oppose. Applicants respond herein to that June 22 letter.

In paragraph 3 of the June 22 letter, Intervenors propose that the following language be added to the compilation as Con-i tention 29.w [sicr 29.v]:

If a duty is assigned to a person that person is not adequately trained

to handle that duty and would not be able to adequately handle that duty in an emergency.

As Intervenors note, this language is.a reiteration of part of one j of their interrogatory answers. However, unlike the interrogatory ,

i answers which have been included in the compilation, the proposed '

language is overly broad in the extreme. This~is particularly true 4

in light of the advanced stage of the proceeding, where discovery has

~

long been completed and the date'for filing of testimony is only one

, and one-half months away. Under such circumstances, the Board and the

other parties are entitled to know precisely who Intervenors assert

must be trained and what Intervenors assert they must be trained in.

Indeed, Intervenors provided the requisite level of specificity on this issue in their interrogatory responses elsewhere, identifying a

very long " laundry list" of emergency workers alleged to need' training,

- along with an indication of the areas in which training is purportedly.

necessary. See, e.g. , Contentions 29.h (1) through 29.h (26) , at Compila-tion pp. 32-35, and Contentions 29.s (l) through 29.s (8) , at Compilatlon pp. 36-37, and Contentions 29.u(1) and 29.u (2) , at Compilation p.37.

i Nevertheless, apparently concerned that they may have neglected to list someone, Intervenors advance the profferred language in an 4

attempt to preserve their options to litigate at the hearing at the need i

for training-any-individuals they may have failed to include on their. i

-list. If Intervenors later find that.they have failed to raise the

need'for training of a particular group of. workers,-they are entitled 1 to amend their contentions to include that issue, upon the requisite

-showing. _See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stations, Units 1 and . 2) ,  ;

i

- - - - . .m,% = , , , , - ,,,- r,.- ,*m yw .- sy s'em*.p,.,,,. ., .ws -, -q .erve-,-+m-n-- -

+-rt wy+>w*---w-t-fir-g1**w-**

~. _ _ _ _

m

. L SHAW.- PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERS >etr OF P40FEgeaONAL CompORATaONS 3

-July 15, 1983 Page Three CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. (June 30, 1983). But, particularly in light of the advanced stage of the proceeding, the " catch-all" contention here proposed must be rejected.

• Paragraph.4 of the June 22 letter proposes that the follow-

. ing language be added to the compilation as Contention 32.c.:

1 The estimates of costs are very difficult to determine. For example,-we have assumed

that certain vehicles might be rented. Perhaps, they might actually be purchased. Also. it is very difficult to determine the number of days that evacuees _would need to be sheltered, and it is difficult to. estimate the number of serious injuries that can occur. Changes in i

these estimates can substantially effect [ sic]

the total number of dollars that will be required from Coffey County.

t This language is simply a. generalized statement of the assumptions i and uncertainties underlying Intervenors' estimates elsewhere of certain costs, and is not appropriate for' litigation.- Accordingly,-

. proposed Contention 32.c should be rejected:

1 Finally, Intervenors propose the expansion of approximately

65 o$ the interrogatory answers reflected.in.the June 13 compilation,

j. to include reference to the evacuation of the_ entirety'of coffey 4

County.*/ See June 22, 1983 letter, at 11'2, 5. As counsel'for

! Intervenors observes, all parties have agreed that:

_The scope of the issues to be litigated excludes-the ability to_ evacuate or shelter the people living outside the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ l 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) .

l~

-Letter, Counsel for Applicants to Board (May 19, 19 8 3)-, _ at 2. However, the cited _ agreement -- reached in the course of May-16 and-18 conference calls among the parties -- was in. resolution of Applicants' objection Eto-the inclusion in the compilationLof specified individual-inter-

~rogatory responses which' expressly raised'the issue of the evacuation l=

i of the entire;co'unty rather than of-only the plume EPZ.- The partiec

~

l did_not agree, in the.mid-May calls, that~ language expanding inter-l rogatory answers to : include the evacuation 'of uthe entire county could:

be added to interrogatory answers where--it has-never before appeared. '

Rather,'the parties agreed.only-that the languagefabout the entirety.of Coffey: County could remain in the interrogatory answers .where Inter-L venors had alreadyfincluded :it,- provided that the language was inter-

• / For the convenience of the' Board, Applicants'have correlated the contentions

' referenced by Intervenors with the underlying int =. w toxy answers. 'Ihis cor-

. , _ . . _ . - . _ ~ ~ . . - . . - - , - -- ._ . ,

SHAw, PITTMAN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE

• =an.. ..o, ore co .uo .

t

. - July 15, 1983

- Page:Four-

) preted consistent with the' scope of the hearing as noted. Certainly, in the May 16-and 18 conference calls, counsel for Intervenors did not advance his list of 65 additional interrogatory answers which

. he now proposes to expand to encompass an evacuation of the entire l . county.

i Conspicuously, and in contrast to their argument'on other

' proposed amendments to the compilation, Intervenors'do'not assert 1

that each of.the approximately-65 proposed changes reflects:an

omission from the compilation of language which was included in

!L interrogatory answers. . Nor could they make such an, assertion. The

following contentions are based on interrogatory responses (specified by Intervenors) , which responses include no reference whatsoever -to 1 the' entirety of Coffey County: 1.2, 2.c, 3.a, 7.a, 9.c, 9.e,110.a-10.d,

. ll.~c, ll.d, ll.f, ll.g, ll.i, ll.j, ll.k, 11.2, 12.f, 12.g, 13.a, 13.b, 14.b, 16.a-16.d, 16.f-16.h, 16.k-16.n, 18.c, 18.e, 18.h, 18.k, 18.q, 18.r, 18.y, 18.aa, 19.k, 19.hh, 19 44, 2 0. t, . 21.b , 2 2. b , 23.a, 23.b, 24.b, 24.c, 31.f, 31.j, 32.a and 32.b. Accordingly, Intervenors' request that these contentions be expanded to encompass evacuation.

i of the county beyond the EPZ should be-summarily. rejected.

Other contentions listed by Intervenors are based-on inter-

~

rogatory answers which do include some language which might be interpreted to raise the issue of-the evacuation of the entire' county, but.which are logically not litigable under the scope of the hearing as' '

agreed upon by the parties in the May 16 and 18 phone calls. These 1: contentions include 11.a,'11.b (also discussed in 1 5.c of June ' 22

! letter), 11.e, ll.h, 12.e, and 15.n. These contentions are addressed below.

i . .

l Contentions ll.a, ll.b, ll.e and ll.h are addressed to public

! - notification of an emergency, and the provisions for sirens-and tone-l alerts to effect such notification. The Commission's emergency plan-l ning regulations require only a capability for timely notification of the public'within the plume EPZ. See 10'C.F.R. SS 50.47 (b) (5) , 50.47 (c) (2) . Any contention to the contrary'would constitute an1 impermissible challenge to the regulations. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.758. And certainly.

l

-Intervenors have provided no indication how a failure to notify ~ County:

l residents outside the EPZ within the tim? limitstof 10 C.F.R. Part 50, K Appendix E, S IV.D.3 would in any way impede the evacuation'of residents inside the EPZ. For-theseTreasons, the proposed expansion of Conten-tions 11.a,fil.b, ll.e and ll.h must be rejected.

Contention 12.e challenges the provisions for the' dissemination l . of~ written emergency public education materials.to transients. Again, the Commission's regulations. require the dissemination-of such materials :

only within the plume EPZ, see.10 C.F.R. SS 50.47 (b) (7) , . 50.47.(c) (2) , andl the; litigation of any contention to the contrarylis barred as a challenge u

y

+

-g -

e--i-w tv-,q- *w*y,t -- gr*'m-t-t *ww*-vwme-Yvy---rir-r -wwu^i'r

O

'SHAW PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE 4

A pamT*eE51Sessp OF petOFESS408 SAL COftpostATIOess 4

July 15, 1983 Page Five to the regulations. Further, the proposed expansion lacks basis; Intervenors have failed to identify any concentrations of transients which are within the County but outside the plume EPZ. Moreover, Intervenors have not suggested how any failure to provide emergency

?

public education materials to transients outside the EPZ could

adversely affect the evacuation of individuals inside the EPZ.

Accordingly, Intervenors' proposed expansion of Contention 12.e must

. -be rejected.

Contention 15.n asserts _that the County Health Nurse has not compiled a list of shut-ins and others who may.need special evacuation i assistance. The Commission's regulations require emergency planning,

including provisions for protective actions, only within the plume EPZ.

See 10 C . F . :R. SS 50.47 (b) (10) , 50.47 (c) (2) . Thus, again, the litigation of evacuation assistance for County residents outside the EPZ is barred as a challenge to the regulations. Moreover, the preparation of such a list is a pre-emergency activity, and Intervenors have not explained how the advance preparation (or lack thereof) of a list of shut-ins outside.the EPZ would adversely affect the resources available at the time of an emergency for the evacuation of the population inside the J EPZ. Therefore, the proposed expansion of Contention 15.n must also be rejected.

i

s. Intervenors have also referenced Contentions 18.z, 20.d, 20.k,

! and 24.d in their June 22 letter. These contentions (as well as others i not listed by Intervenors) already incorporate language referring to the impact of order to evacuate the entire County on the evacuation of the plume EPZ, and thus need not be the subject of Board ruling.

Finally, in the concluding paragraph of.the June 22, 1983 letter, counsel for-Intervenors represents that Intervenors' concurrence in the June 13 compilation as the statement of issues for litigation 4

is dependent on a ruling'in Intervenors' favor on the additions and expansions requested in Intervenors' June-22 letter. The parties' agreement to accept the compilation, based on the mid-May and June 20 I -telephone conferences, was unconditional, though it was understood

that counsel for Intervenors might seek to amend the compilation,.

'= as reflected ~in the letters of counsel memorializing those conferences.

Sjg Letters Counsel for Applicants to Board, dated May 19, June-13 and

~

Jane 21,.1983. Counsel should not be permitted to repuduate his agreements of record.

4

'R,,

1 J l Si lberT' j- De .a Aq. Ridgway <

Counsel for Applicants Enclosure I- cc

Service List (w/ encl. including App. A).

l l

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

4 . J., .. . .. -

APPENDIX A Contention Specification of Underlying Interrogatory Answer l

1Z item 1 under S1.2.2 on p.14 2c item 1 under S4.2.1 on p.41 3a item 2 under EP-12 on p.7; item 10 under 51.2.2 on p.15; item 1 under S4.2.2. on p.41 7a item 3 under Table 3-5 on p.40 9c item 11 under S3.3 on p.29 9e Special Contention #4 on p.5 10a item 2 under S1.2.5 10b item 15 under EP-4 on p.3; EP-5 on p.4; item 6 under EP-5 p.4; item 4 under S1.2.5 on p.8 10c item 4 under EP-12 on p.7; item 4 under 51.2.5 on p.18 10d item 3 under S1.2.5 on p.18 lla item 8 under S3.2 on p.26 11b item 10 under S3.2 on p.27 llc item 3 under EP-12 on p.12 11d Special Contention 3 on p.5 11e item 10 under S3.2 on p. 27 11f item 2 under EP-4 on p.1; EP-5 on p.3 11g item 2 under EP-12 cn p.9 11h item 5 under S3.2 on p.26 11i item 12 under S3.2 on p.27 11j item 12 under S3.2 on p.27 lik item 7 under S3.2 on p.26 111 item 13 under S3.2 on p.27 12e item 3 under S5.3 on p.43 12f Special Contention 5 on p.5.

. 12g item 2 under SS.3 on p.43 13a item 8 under S3.3 on p.28 13b item 15 under EP-12 on p.9; item-l under Table 3-2 (Sheet 8 of 15) on p.38 14b item 10 under EP-12 on p.8; item 1 under S3.31 on p.29 15n item 6 under S1.2.7 on p.21 16a item 8 under S1.2.5 on p.18 16b EP-4 on p.2 16c item 12 under EP-5 on p.5 16d item 12 under EP-5 on p.5 16f item 5 under S3.5 on p.32 16g item 5 under 53.5 on p.32 16h item 9 under EP-4 on p.2; item 3 under EP-5 on p.3 16k item 5 under S3.5 on p.32 16& item 6'under EP-12 on p.8; item 2 under S3.5 on p.32 16m item 9 under S1.2.5 on p.19 16n item 6 under EP-12 on p.8; item 2 under S3.5 on p.32 l

.- i

. l Contention. Specification of Underlying Interrogatory Answer 18c item 4 under Table 1-1 on p.25 18e item 7 under EP-4 on p.2; EP-5 on p.4; item 2 under EP-5 on p.3 18h item 4 under Table 1-1 on p.25 4

18k item 2 under 53.3 on p.27 18q item 4 under S3.6 on p.33 18r item 2 under S3.6 on p.33 18y item'7 under 51.2.2 on p.15 18z item 4 under EP-5 on p.3 18aa item 7 under 51.2.2 on p.15 19k EP-4 on p.2; item 10 under EP-5 on pp.4-5; items

4,6,8 on p.34 19hh item 2 under S3.7 on p.33; item 1 under Tab K ..

on p.47 19EE item 5 under S3.7 on p.34 20d item 7 under EP-5 on p.4 20k item 7 under.51.1 on p.12 20s iten 8 under 53.8 on p.36 21b item 2 under S1.2.7 on p.20 22b Special Contention 7 on p.5 23a item 5 under Table 1-1 on p.25 23b EP-4 on p.2; item 11 under EP-5 on p 5 .

24b item 6 under S1.2.3 on p.16 24c item 9 under S3.3 on p.28 31f item 8 under EP-12 on p.10 31j item 3 under Tab A on p.44 32a EP-15 & 16 at 10-11; EP-15 & 16 at 10-11; 16 (g) at 7 _ .

32b. .EP-15 & 16 at 10-11; EP-15 & 16 at 10-11; 16 (g) at 7 l

, , e-- , + mw-y-g-. - - , -

--w- ~ ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, )

Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST i

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 j Wanhington, 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 Saattle, Washington 98195 Kent M. Ragsdale General Counsel Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Missouri Public Service Commission 1229 - 41st Street Post Office Box 360 Loc Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Myron Karman, Esquire A. Scott Cauger, Esquire Deputy Assistant Chief Assistant General Counsel Hearing Counsel Missouri Public Service Commission Office of the Executive Post Office Box 360 Legal Director Jefferson City, Missouri 65132 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.

U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 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 Wachington, D.C. 20555

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 I

i e

.,