ML20094A522

Joint Rept of Parties Re Discussion of ASLB 841019 Order & Possibility of Contending Settlement on Offsite Emergency Planning.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20094A522
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/01/1984
From:	Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
References
CON-#484-891 OL, NUDOCS 8411060454
Download: ML20094A522 (8)

Text

.

iM3'

.+

3

1. l RFJJJi; Ci. l I

1 00CKETEi: i USNRC

~

UNITED STATES OF AMEOkCA'0V -5 N0:58 l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,tr H:a ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Eic.,,rensingEBoard p ,w In-the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 0C

) 50-353 c; o (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE

-HEARING ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS As suggested in the letter from Applicant's counsel to the Licensing Board and parties, dated October 23, 1984, the parties concerned with offsite emergency planning con- .

tentions met in Philadelphia on October 30, 1984 to discuss the procedural matters covered by the Board's Order, dated October 19, 1984, relating to the resumption of evidentiary hearings on those issues. Present at the meeting were counsel for the Applicant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, Federal Emergency Management Agency, the City of Philadelphia and representa-tives of Limerick Ecology Action.

At that time, the parties discussed the order of hearing -the issues, order of presentation by the parties, various evidentiary matters, and the possibility of settle-ment of contentions. With regard to the latter item, Applicant's counsel restated Applicant's willingness to meet with any of the parties to discuss settlement and withdrawal 8411060454 841101 PDRADOCK05000g TJS03 l

l of-any of the admitted contentions.Y The representative for.' LEA stated that she did not expect any of the con-

-tentions to be withdrawn, except possibly LEA-26, relating

.to route alerting. LEA stated that it would advise the parties within a week.

With regard to the scheduling of the cententions, there was agreement, subject to the Board's approval, . that the hearings should commence with - LEA's . contentions. Counsel

~

. for the City stated that the City-will not be available the afternoon of November 20, November 21 or the week of Decem-ber 17 and therefore requests that its issues be scheduled for the week of December 3, 1984. FEMA indicated a willing-ness to address the City's contentions the week of December

3. The Commonwealth expressed no position on the matter.

LEA stated that it had no objection either way. The Staff stated that it had no objection. Applicant believes that the hearings on LEA's contentions should be over by December 3, 1984, but does not agree that the continuity of the hearing should be interrupted for reasons personal to the counsel and/or witnesses of the City if the LEA contentions have not been completed by that date.

At the time of the meeting, it was agreed by the parties to recommend for the Board's approval the following

-1/ Applicant's representatives will be meeting with representatives of the City of Philadelphia to discuss the City's contentions on Friday, November 2, 1984.

W '

, q,- l l

order _. of presentation for LEA's contentions: Applicant, LEA, Commonwealth and NRC/ FEMA. This order was based on the Commonwealth's-opinion that the Applicant should lead off, to'which Applicant agreed.

Following the meeting, LEA stated a preference to i

switch positions with PEMA, due to potential witness con-flicts. FEMA and the Commonwealth believe that the order of presentation agreed upon at the meeting should be followed.

The NRC Staff advised LEA that it-had no objection ~to LEA's proposal.

With regard to the City's contentions, the order agreed upon, again subject to Board approval, was as follows:

Applicant, Commonwealth, City of Philadelphia and NRC/ FEMA.

The question arose as to which county, municipal and school district plans might be offered in evidence, subject to the approval of the Board. The Applicant proposed for its panel to offer and to have received in evidence all of these documents in order that all might be in the record.

Only those portions of the documents adverted to by the parties in proposed findings would be considered. This approach was considered preferable to offering only des-ignated portions of each of the fifty-odd documents. The parties, of course, are prepared to present such evidence in whatever way the Board wishes.

The Commonwealth noted that its review, as well as that j of FEMA, was based upon the revisions to the county, munici-pal and school district plans submitted in October-November, 1

1

9 1983. The Commonwealth and FEMA tave not had the opportuni-ty ' to formally review _ subsequent revisions generated and furnished to the' parties thereafter. The Applicant, noting that the parties wanted it'to lead off, stated that it would offer in evidence, subject to the conditions noted above, the latest version of each plan for the convenience of.the i

Board. It further added ethat its testimony would be based upon the updated information which, in essence,.is reflected

'in the continuing revisions and developments in the plans over the past year.

Consistent with FEMA's letter to the Board. dated

January 30, 1984, it was understood that there will be no final FEMA approval of the plan until, inter alia, the 4

municipalities and counties have approved and adopted their respective plans and PEMA has approved the plans and trans-mitted them to FEMA for formal review and approval. See 44 C.F.R. Part 350. The Commonwealth reiterated its position that its testimony would be predicated on the plans October-November 1983, but observed that county coordinators 4

l 1

whose testimony it was sponsoring might testify to the more 4-recent changes in the plans.

In discussing the City's issues, the City requested a procedure whereby all interested parties file written j rebuttal testimony on November 15, 1984 in response to the j November 2 filing of testimony. The City suggested that this is the most efficient and effective way to present the issues in controversy to the Board. The City further stated

9' +

that technical experts can present coherent and -thoughtful responses to issues raised in direct testimony. Under the City's proposal, all cross-examination would occur during one hearing period. Applicant took the position that such written rebuttal testimony is.not ordinarily filed and would be unnecessary inasmuch as any party's witnesses may offer rebuttal testimony orally following cross-examination. The NRC Staff, the Commonwealth and FEMA took no position on the City's proposal.

As a final matter, PEMA reported that it expected a plan for Graterford to be available within approximately ten days. As required by the Board's previous order, the plan would be immediately furnished to counsel for the Graterford prisoners for his review and preparation of contentions.

Counsel for Ipplicant has read the foregoing to each of the counsel and representatives of the respective parties concerned with offsite emergency planning, who have au-thorized the filing of this Joint Report on their behalf.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

s Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant November 1, 1984

a .

I topETED rhu UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '84 KCV -5 N1 :00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f'h 5 $N. "

In the Matter of ) 3RMiCW

.)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Transmittal of Testimony Relating to LEA and . FOE Offsite Emergency Plan Coantentions and City of Philadelphia Contentions City-18 and City-19" and " Joint Report of the Parties With Respect to the Hearing on Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions dated November 1, 1984 in the captioned matter have been. served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 1st day of November, 1984: *

• Helen F. Hoyt, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary

• Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Ann P . Hodgdon, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive

• Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

?

Hand Delivery on November 2, 1984

,-m Atomic Safety and Licensing *

• Angus Love, Esq.

Board Panel 107 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory- Norristown, PA 19401 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert'J. Sugarman, Esq.

Sugarman, Denworth &

Philadelphia Electric Company Hellegers ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. 16th Floor, Center Plaza Vice President & 101 North Broad Street General Counsel Philadelphia, PA 19107 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Mr. Frank R. Romano Basement, Transportation 61 Forest Avenue and Safety Building Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Robert'L.' Anthony.

• Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Friends of the Earth of Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

the Delaware Valley City of Philadelphia 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Municipal Services Bldg.

Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 15th and JFK Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 Charles W. Elliott, Esq. ,

Brose and Postwistilo

• Spence W. Perry, Esq.

1101 Building Associate General Counsel lith & Northampton Streets Federal Emergency Easton, PA 18042 Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840

• • Miss Phyllis Zitzer Washington, DC 20472 Limerick Ecology Action P.O. Box 761 Thomas Gerusky, Director 762 Queen Street Bureau of Radiation Pottstown, PA 19464 Protection Department of Environmental

• • Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. Resources Assistant Counsel 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Third and Locust Streets Governor's Energy Council Harrisburg, PA 17120 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Hand Delivery on November 2, 1984

• • Federal Express

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

James Wiggins Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

' Commission.  :

P.O. Box 47 l Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S.. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380

• • Mr. Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency B151 - Transportation Safety Building '

Harrisburg, PA 17120 T s k Robert M.-Rader

• • Federal Express

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