ML19350E168
| ML19350E168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1980 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML100541398 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-155 NUDOCS 8106170079 | |
| Download: ML19350E168 (2) | |
Text
-
- O
? *.
'A
^f,,
UfJITED STATES
- ?"
g, g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b **
- *E
"'ASHINGTON. D. C. 20$55 o
January 19, 198l
+
MEMORMIDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor ReguYa' tion
- ROM:
Howard X. Shapar Executive i.egal Director
SUBJECT:
CONilSSION MEMORN1DUM MiD ORDER OM INDIAN POINT On January 8,1981, the Comission issued an Order directing that a discretionary proceeding be conducted in the vicinity of Indian Point.
In addition, the Comission directed the Staff to prepare a paper, as a matter of high priority, setting forth options for addressing the generic issue of reactor operation in areas of high population density.
The Comission has posed the issue in the adjudicatory proceeding as:
whether Indian Point 2 and 3 should be shut down or other action should be taken.
The Commission has directed that the following seven (7) questions be addressed:
1.
What risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in the plants' design basis, pending and after any improvements described in (2) and (4) below?
2.
What improvements in the level of safety will result from measures required or referenced in the Director's Order to the licensee, dated February 11, 19807 (A contention by a party that one or more specific safety measures, in addition to those identified or referenced by the Director, should be required as a condition of operation of the facility or facilities, would be within the scope of this inquiry.)
3.
What is the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines of state and local emergency planning within a 10-mile radius of the site and, of the extent that it is relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond a 10-mile radius?
In this context.
an effort should be made to establish what the minimum number of hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point would be.
The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
'8'.10 617 OCn9-d
>.i.'q 4.
What improvements in the level of emergency planning can be expected in the near future, and on what time schedule, and are there other i
specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
~
5.
Based on the foregoing, how do the risks posed by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 compare with the range of risks posed by other nuc1 car power plants licensed to operate by the Comission?
(The Board should limit its inquiry to generic examination of the range of risks and not go into any site-specific examination other than for Indian Point itself, except to the extent raised by the Task Force. )
i 6.
What would be the energy, environmental, economic or other. consequences of a shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 37 l
- 7.. Does the Governor of the State of New York wish to express an official position with regard to the long-term operation of the units?
The Comission is also interested in resolving the specific contentions in the UCS petition to the effect that some of the NRC regulations are not being met in one or both Indian Point units.
In discussing risk the Comission pointed to the following meances as useful for the comparison it wishes to make:
individual risk--the probabilities of e2rly effects and long-term effects; societal risk--early effects, long-term effects, and property damage and costs in terms of interdiction, decontamination, and crop and milk losses and the possibility that some areas affected by an accident might be uninhabitable for long periods.
The Comission stated that the Staff will be a party to the proceeding.
The Order also stated that the Commission would like to receive the Licensing Board's recommendations no later than one year from January 8, 1981.
_/
I
/
Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
Attachment:
Memorandum and Order, dated January 8,1981 cc:
W. Dircks O
m
.(.... _
g M;'y y UNITED STATES OF A! ERICA C-
'O p 7
3 % ek$fa.k A
NUCLEAR REGiftATORY COMMISSION d
1.,
tv C0i'MISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chaiman k
%p0 Victor Gilinsky Joseph M. H2ndrie Jg Peter A. Bradford g
EL P00R BRIG NAL CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit No. 2)
Docket Hos.
50-247 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF HEW 50-286 YCRK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) e, q
56
.a
. J mbt 0RANDUM AND ORDER Backaround E On l'ay 30,1980, the Commission issued an order establishing a_four-pronged approach for resolving the issues raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists' petition regarding the Indian P,oint nuclear facilities, and by the decision of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
granting in part and denying in part that petition.
The order announced the Commission's intention to hold a discretionary adjudication for the resolution of safety issues concerning the plants', (nitiated an infomal proceeding for the purpose of defining the questions to be answered in that The Commission has received a motion from the Union of Concerned Scientists, dated June 23, 1980, requesting the disqualification of Conmissioner Hendrie from participation in this matter.
In its Diablo Canyon decision (In the Patter of Pacific Gas and Electric, 11 NRC 411 (1980), the Commission, with Commissioner Bradford dis-senting, stated that requests for the disqualification of a Commis-sioner would not be entertained by the Commission as a whole but would be referred to the Commissioner whose disqualification was requested.
By amorandum of April 23, 1980 Commissioner Hendrie has denied the request for his disoualification, ff/0/Y** gpg
's >
J.
I::.rch 30,19S1 i
h at'.1 Ccstreve. Esq.
t.: s t s t e nt Ce ra rs) Cc.cr.r el rt.! crc 1 Er trg:r.:y f:tne cr r.t f.p.. y
{
0:.'tca ef cerier:1 Cctr.:21 17:5 I 5tr::t. f:4 i
V::r.tn; ton, D.C.
2002 F
C::r Pan:
Ibrte.;r.t to our dttect,stes of te'ay, plcaso find caclosed a ccpy cf thi te=1csten's crcr in tha Ir.'try rotnt ccse.
I will etk hetes Kr. r to it:p reJ t;;rtsed of cry deselc.ver.ts in this estter.
Str.ccmly,
/
/
[C.ted 5. Christer.tery CB,tef l*::rtn2 tour.:e1 Offico of the Executtvo legs) Otrcctor Er.:1:t::ra : E10 d'.d 1/0/81. Indian Pt. ?t3 i
Ir terra 1 L!strttattest f.'.0 Central CRD C::dtr.3
,3, I gio TO;;1?.ar.'t/!!Shep,r
,, s\\ \\
Al
,u
... m,.
00:.rtsttr.bry
/3
,[ m '
e...O f h,,
.,I
\\g 6, a, %,
'%,.';y a %,.
j 1
s A
v,'
s u p~
wl.r
Lm pg P00R ORIGINM.
ov u
s
,...[
t LD Wl
_., ui.mt.gg
,