ML20023A831
| ML20023A831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1982 |
| From: | Mcgurren H, Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8210200059 | |
| Download: ML20023A831 (9) | |
Text
_____- -
0310 4
g pis1GB ft[
'#^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 0F NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) )
50-286-SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)
)
October 15, 1982 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF OCTOBER 1,1982 I.
INTR 0bUCTION The Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) is responding to the order issued on October 1,1982, by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) established to preside over the above-captioned proceeding. As set forth below, the Staff requests that the Licensing Board narrow the language of Board Question 1.1.
The Staff also responds to the Licensing Board's invitation to propose a schedule for continuation of this proceeding.
II. BACKGROUND By order dated July 27, 1982, the Commission instructed the Licensing Board to reconsider its rulings on the contentions which had been admitted as matters in controversy in this special investigative proceeding.
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2) and Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point,
/
Unit 3),CLI-82-15, NRC
, slip op. at 17 (July 27, 1982). The Licensing Board by a document da'ed August 9, 1982, asked the Commission
=
g,,e 8210200057
,o,
for further guidance with regard to:
- 1) the method for presentation of testimony concerning accident probabilities and consequences; and 2) on the consideration of emergency planning contentions in light of the com-mencement by the Staff of the 120-day clock pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.54(s)(2)(ii) of the Commission's regulations. Memorandum and Certi-fication (Seeking Further Comission Guidance) (August 9,1982).
The Comission furnished this guidance in an order dated September 17, 1982.
In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2), and Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, Unit 3),
CLI-82-25, _ NRC (September 17,1982).
In its order of October 1,1982, the Licensing Board has reformu-lated several contentions, rejected certain contentions, and retained other contentions without modification. The Board has also asked some questions of its own. The Board invited the submission of the views of the parties on this order by October 15, 1982. Memorandum and Order (Restating contentions and establishing procedures based on Comission guidance) at 42 (October 1,1982)
(hereinafter Order Restating Contentions). The Board also invited the parties to submit a schedule for the future conduct of this proceeding.1/
_Id. at 39. The Staff's response to this order is set forth below.
1/ By Order dated October 14, 1982, the Board granted Licensees' request Tor an extension of time for submission of parties' views and proposed schedules from October 15, 1982 until October 19, 1982.
III. DISCUSSION A.
Staff Comments The Staff only wishes to address one aspect of the Licensing Board order. The Board has reformulated contention 1.1, and has asked certain additional board questions relating to the Comission's first question.
_Id. at 7-11.
Board Question 1.1 states:
What are the consequences of serious accidents at Indian Point and what is the probability of occurrence of such accidents?
{
l In answering this question the parties shall address at least the following documents: (a) the Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study (IPPSS) prepared by the Licensees; (b) any reviews or studies of the IPPSS prepared by or for the Licensees, the NRC Staff, or the Intervenors, or any other document which addresses the accuracy of the IPPSS.
_Id. at 9-10.
The Staff believes that this directive is too broad in its current form. An identification of the documents which the Board wishes addressed is necessary in order that they may be responded to in the parties' direct testimony. The parties should be prepared to identify documents which they believe to be relevent to this Board Question at the Prehearing Conference. Otherwise, the only way to determine if there are any documents reviewing or studying the IPPSS in the possession of the Intervenors or Licensees would be through discovery. This process would not leave time, however, for parties to analyze and address these documents in their prefiled testimony if such documents are uncovered. Therefore, it is important for the Licensing Board, using the information gained from the parties at the Prehearing Conference to identify which documents it wishes the parties to address in their direct testimony so that the Board can be provided with the information it seeks in a timely manner.
l.-
The Staff has no comments on the remaining portions of the Licensing Board's order of October 1, 1982.
B.
Proposed Schedule for the Continuation of the Indian Point Special Proceeding.
The Staff has been in the process of reviewing the IPPSS since its submittal in March, 1982. We have preliminary views on the IPPSS and on the indication it provides of the risk posed by Indian Point facilities. The Staff can be prepared to present testimony on its initial views of IPPSS and the risk associated with the Indian Point facilities (Questions 1, 2 and 5) within four weeks after the Board so orders. 2_/
For our comprehensive assessment we are in part employing the services of consultants from Sandia National Laboratories. Their preliminary views on issues relating to events leading to core melt probability estimates (an essential first step in risk estimation) were made available, in the form of a draft letter report, at the end of August. The letter report was provided to the Board and the parties on September 1, 1982.
Sandia's initial views are currently undergoing discussion with the Staff. Moreover, additional information developed by the Licensees since IPPSS is also to be taken into account in developing a finalized assessment of core melt probability estimates. These estimates will be used by the Staff in estimating the risk associated with the Indian Point facilities. The Sandia work is currently scheduled to be completed
'-2/
Some aspects of Question 6 can be considered separately from risk assessment considerations. We could provide testimony on such aspects shortly after the Board so orders.
. 4 by December 15, 1982.
We could be prepared to supplement the testimony on our initial views to take into account the Sandia work by the end of January 1983.
With regard to discovery, the Staff recommends that discovery on 1
contentions related to Commission Questions 1, 2, 5 and 6 be completed 14 days following the issuance of the Board's prehearing conference order. This schedule would allow the parties sufficient time to complete their answers to interrogatories and requests for documents filed pursuant to the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Setting Forth Rules Governing Discovery) dated July 6,1982.3/ Completion of such discovery was interrupted on July 28, 1982 when the Board issued an order suspending all scheduled filing deadlines "pending further order of the Board."
The Staff does not believe that any time should be allowed for additional interrogatories or document requests since the October 1, 1982 Order restating contentions did not allow any new contentions. The Board did reformulate two contentions (Contention 1.1 and Contention 2.2(b)),
but such reformulation was to narrow the focus of each contention.
Order Restating Contentions at 7-9 and 20-21. Accordingly, additional discovery on contentions related to Comission Questions 1, 2, 5 and 6 should not be allowed, i
3/ In that Memorandum and Order the Board ruled that interrogatories and requests for production of documents on contentions related to l
Commission Questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 be delivered on July 19, 1982, j
and that answers to such interrogatories and requests be filed by August 2, 1982.
]
l l
. y IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above the Staff concludes that: Board Question 1.1 should be modified to identify the specific documents pertaining to the IPPSS which the Board wishes the parties to address in their direct testimony; and recommends that the Board adopt a schedule which takes into account the factors discussed above.
Respectfully submitted, T D NG t. Vf 7 @C Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff ug enr' J. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of October, 1982
S 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-247-SP.
OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2 50-286-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
')
October 19, 1982
- NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I he'reby certify that copies of "NRC. STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 1982" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the.following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 19th day of October, 1982.
e James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Paul F. Colarulli, Esq.
Administrative Judge Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L Street, N.W.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D.C.
20036 Administrative Judge' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas R. Frey, Esq.
Power Authority of the State l
Washington, D.C.
20555
- l of New York Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge-New York, N.Y.
10019 Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Washingtor; D.C.
20555
- Harmon & Weiss Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Assistant General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20006 l:
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
Jonathan D. Feinberg 4 Irving Place New York State Public Service New York, N.Y.
10003 Commission Three Empire State Plaza Mayor George V. Begany Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanen, N.Y.
10511
-ig
.I *
, John Gilroy, Westchester Coordinator Stanley B. Klimberg Indian Point Project General Counsel New York Public Interest New York State Energy Office Research Group 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 240 Central Avenue Albany, N.Y.
12223 White Plains, N.Y.
10606 Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
Eric Thorsen, Esq.
4 New York University Law School County Attorney, County of Rockland 423 Vanderbilt ' Hall 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y.
10956 New York, N.Y.
10012 L
ioI)
[1 n
a o nt Coordinator The Port Authority of New York City Audubon Society New York and New Jersey 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 One World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10010 New York, N.Y.
10048 Greater New York Council on Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Energy Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
c/o Dean R. Corren, Director Environmental Protection bureau New York University New York State Attorney 26 Stuyvesant Street General's Office New York, N.Y.
10003 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10047 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Alfred B. Del Bello Member of the County Legislature Wes e
r County Executive Co c
u ding Westchester County
,.1 White Plains, N.Y.
10601 ht ns e York 10601 P ner, o s r n en 9
Andrew S. Roffe Esq.
Indian Point New York State Assembly P.O. Box 125 Albany, N.Y.
12248 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Charles A. Scheiner, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Co-Chairperson Panel Westchester People's Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coalition, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y.
10602
- Honorable Ru'th Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the Lorna Salzman City of New York Friends of the Earth, Inc.
I District #4 208 West 13th Street City Hall New York, N.Y.
10011 New York, N.Y.
10007 l.
b Donald Davidoff Director Radiological Emergency Alan Latman, Esq.
Preparedness Group 44 Sunset Drive Empire State Plaza Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Zipporah S. F'ieisher West Branch Conservation Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Association Paul Chessin, Esq.
443 Buena Vista Road Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
New City, N.Y.
10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
Botein, Hays, Sklar & Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator.
200 Park Avenue Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York, NY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10956 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Joan Holt, Project Director David H. Pikus, Esq.
New York Public Interest Research Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
Group, Inc.
330 Madison Avenue 9 Murray Street New York, N.Y.
10017 New York, New York 10007 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- estch ster Peoples' Action Coalition:
25 r
A omi Safety and Licensing Appeal Plai
, NY 10601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Craig Kaplan, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- National Emergency Civil Committee Docketing and Service Section 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 New York, NY 10010 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- i DD lM.MINfh0 Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff 9