ML20072H547

Responds to Applicant Collation of Intervenor Interrogatory Responses,Submitted in .Some Responses Will Be Amended.Listed Amends Not Agreed Upon.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20072H547
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	06/22/1983
From:	Simpson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SIMPSON, J.M.
To:	Anderson G, Laurenson J, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8306290522
Download: ML20072H547 (6)

Text

,

- . .RELATED ComtEFO:mENCE iss JOIIN M. SI>IPsox Y:#

ATTORNEY AT LAW m: , =i.. .si, ,i ,, , s m ,s ,,,m ,:

si,aws t:>: siissii,s. wassrs imos g

p2 .

v.ml #913e 3864-9144 of N June 22, 1983 James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Oceanography U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Washington Washington, DC 20555 Seattle, WA 98195 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. STN 50-482 Gentlemen:

1. This is the response of the Intervenors to the Applicants' Collation of Intervenors' Interrogatory Responses (Hereaf ter referred to as " Collation") which was submitted to the Board by the Applicants in a letter dated June 13, 1983.

2. The Intervenors and the Applicants have conferred about the Collation and have agreed to amend it in certain ways as will be specified in a separate letter from the Applicants to the Board. The Applicants and the Intervenors have not been able to agree upon certain amendments that the Intervenors have offered to the Collation, These amendments are specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 below. Additionally, the Intervenors believe that in the Collation the Applicants have interpreted too narrowly the agreement between the parties that relates to the effect of an evacuation of the entire County (as contemplated by the plan) upon the evacuation of the 10 Mlle EPZ. That agreement is set forth in the Applicants' letter to the Board dated May 19, 1983, page 2, paragraph 3. The Intervenors position on this issue is below.

3. The following should be added to the Collation as item 29.w, p. 37: "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 emer-8306290522 830622 PDR ADOCK 05000 8 o

0(

e gency." The language to be added was not included in the Collation. It was part of an answer to Interrogatory EP-8 which was included in the Amended and Supplemental Answers to Applicants' Interrogatories to Intervenors, dated April 6, 1983, p. 6, (Hereaf ter referred to as "Intervenors' April 6, answers"). While this is a broad contention, the Intervenors believe that it can be supported. There is no indication at this stage of the proceedings that any person is adequately trained to handle duties assigned to that person under the State or Coffey County plans. The state-ment is not vague or qualified. Rather, it is specific in that is includes all duties. In drafting the interrogatory answer referred to, the Intervenors chose to respond as indicated rather than to submit a lengthy " laundry list".

4. The following contention was an answer to Interrogatory EP-16, item 11, p. 11, Intervenors' April 6 answers, and was omitted from the Collation. It should be added to the Collation as item 32.c, p. 41 as follows: "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 these estimates can substantially effect the total number of dollars that will be required from Coffey County." This addition should be made in order to permit the Intervenors to raise questions about costs based on variables not used to prepare the specific interrogatory answers. It would not be fair to require the Intervenors to specify in advance of the hearing every possible cost based on the infinite number of variables that can possibly exist.

5. (a.) The Applicants' have agreed that the scope of issues to be litigated includes the effect on evacuation of the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ of an order to evacuate the entire County. See the Applicants' letter referred to in paragraph 2 above. In the Collation, the Applicants have acknowledged this by footnotes at certain items in the Collation. See for example page 20 of the Collaticn. In addition to the footnoted items, there are additional con-tentions made by the Intervenors that are based on the pro-visions in the Coffey County plan to evacuate the entire county. Even though these are not footnoted by the Applicants, the Intervenors should be permitted to litigate

.the effect of an evacuation of the entire county on these contentions which have not been footnoted in the Collation.

(b.) The County plan contemplates plans for the evacuation of the entire County. See Intervenors' Response to Applicants' Objections to Certain Proposed Issues and Motion for Adoption of Interrogatory Responses as Statement 2

c ,

of Issues for Litigation (May 12, 1983), Exhibit B. If the County is going to evacuate the entire County, then it must provide the personnel and resources to do so. If it does so, then this effects the evacuation of the 10 Mile EPZ because personnel and resources that would be available for use in evacuation of that zone might be used in the evacuation of the entire county. This makes it unlikely that a successful evacuation of the EPZ could be carried out. In ef fect, once the county commits itself to an evacuation of the entire County, it must have enough people and resources to evacuate both the 10 mile EPZ and the remainder of the County. Additionally, if the entire County is evacuated, this may increase the amount of time that it will take to evacuate the 10 mile EPZ because of greater congestion on the evacuation routes.

(c.) The following are examples of Intervenors' contentions that are ef fected by an evacuation of the entire county. The Intervenors contend that the sirens for making the initial warning will not be adequate to warn the entire County. See Intervenors' April 6 answers, at p. 27. If there is to be an evacuation of the entire County and people in all of the County are not warned, there will be confusion and this will effect the evacuation of the 10 mile EPZ. In item 24.d of the Collation the Intervenors contend that there are 62 people needed to confirm evacuation. This con-templates confirmation for the entire County. If Coffey County plans for such an evacuation, then that number of people must be available. If they are not, then the officials cannot decide when the time for evacuation comes to divert people from duties in the 10 mile EPZ to duties in the other parts of the County.

(d.) The following items in the collation are additional examples of contentions where the effect of an evacuation of the entire county would have a possible adverse effect upon the evacuation of the 10 mile EPZ: 1.1, 2.c, 3.a, 7.a, 9.c, 9.e, 10.a-10.d, 11.a-11.1, 12.e-12.g, 13.a, 13.b, 14.b, 15.n, 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.z, 18.aa, 19.k, 19.hh, 19.11, 20.d, 20.k, 20.1, 21.b, 22.b, 23.a, 23.b, 24.b, 24.c, 31.f, 31.j, 32.a, 32.b.

6. The Intervenors are willing to accept the Collation as their contentions in this proceeding if the contentions specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 above are added to the Collation and if the scope of litigation for the Intervenors' contentions includes the ef fect on evacuation of the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ of an order to evacuate the entire County as specified by the Intervenors' in para-graph 5 above. For purposes of this paragraph, the Collation includes the amendments thereto which the Applicants and the Intervenors have agreed upon as specified 3

a , .

in the letter sent to the Board by the Applicants and referred to in paragraph 2 above.

Very truly yours, W

i John M. Simpson i

JMS:djt cc: Service List I

1 1

}

1 1

l 4

^ #

4, JOHN M. St.\1P5hN a $

ATTORNEY AT LA ...

NL'ITM 120. 4:l%O JElllN 4.yl)RI V E y .M Mil AWNKK SilMNt(DN. K A. MAN 4Hi }h

' '{5.% (( 19138324 9144 g p;5

%g

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERIG '

.iUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, )

Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST James A. Laurenson, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Docketing and Service Section Department of Oceanography Office of the Secretary University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, WA 98195 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton 1229 - 41st Street Kent M. Ragsdale Los Alamos, NM 87544 General Counsel Missouri Public Service Com.

Myron Karman, Esquire P.O. Box 360 Deputy Assist. Chief Hearing Counsel Jefferson City, MO 65102 Office of the Executive Legal Director A. Scott Cauger, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 -

Missouri Public Service Com.

P.O. Box 360 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Jefferson City, MO 65102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

w

,..p,.

Eric A. Eisen, Esquire Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Atomic Safety and Licensing 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Appeal Board Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Washington, DC 20555 C. Edward Peterson, Esquire Dr. John H. Buck Assist. General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Kansas Corporation Commission Appeal Board State Office Bldg. - 4th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Topeka, KS 66612 Washington, DC 20555 Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Federal Emergency Management Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing Region I Appeal Board J.W. McCormick POCH U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.

Boston, MA 02109 Washington, DC 20555 Wanda Christy bbry Ellen Salava Route 3, Box 11 Route 1, Box 56 Burlington, KS 66839 Burlington, KS 66839 Kansans for Sensible Energy P.O. Box 3192 Wichita, KS 67201 Jay Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 2