ML20027D566

Advises That Author Unable to Attend 821103-04 Prehearing Conference.Ltr Should Be Considered State of Ny Response to Submissions on Scheduling of Emergency Planning Issues

ML20027D566
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/29/1982
From:	Feinberg J NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Gleason J, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8211080061
Download: ML20027D566 (3)

Text

Q4 ., . .

2 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUB-lG gw SERVICE

. THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY 12223 82 W 4 i PUBLIC SERVICE CoMMISSloN . ,, R PAC L. GIOI A w,

()l DAVID E. BLASEY Cns6rmsn

{g EDWA7.0 P. LARKIN -

SAMUEL R. MADISON

'CUIMEL CARRINGTON M.m R R H.CCLD A. J ER R Y, J R.

Q Secretary APINE F. MCAD RICHARD E. SCHULER cosEuaRy s. PootER October 29, 1982

/

James P.I Gleason, Esq. Frederick J. Shon Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Silver Springs, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar B. Paris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Dicensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Re: In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Inoian Point, Unit 2) Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, Unit 3) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP ano l 50-286-SP l

Dear Administrative Judges:

By order cateo Octooer 12, 1982 you scheduleo a pre-hearing conference for Novemoer 3rd ano 4th, 1982 in the aoove-captioned proceecing. Various sucmissions have sought to raise the scheduling of emergency testimon-1 as an issue for l

discussion at the pre-hearing conference. The New York State

[

l

/ Radiological Emergency Prepareoness Group (REPG) believes t, hat consideration of the scheduling of emergency planning testimony clearly shoulo not be done at this time. However the press of other opsiness makes it difficult for me to travel to White Plains to speak at a conference at which I believe emergency planning will be, at best, a peripheral issue. Other representatives of (REPG) knowledgeable about emergency planning are heavily engaged in I respectfully responoing to the institution of the 120-cay clock.

request that the Boaro excuse my absence and that of my colleagues ano consider this letter as New York State'.s response to the ll. submissions on the sn Jiuling of emergency planning issues, l~

- 8211080061 821029 PDR ADOCK 05000247 -

G PDR

.DS63

- ~

Aaministrativo Juogos

'y Octocar 29, 1982 1 Page 2 l

In your October 1, 1982 Order you concludea, after reflecting on arguments by Con Edison ana NRC Staff, that your time would be wasted by formulating contentions on emergency planning prior to the expi ration of the 120-day clock. Intervenors, by counsel for the Union of Concerned Scientists, request ,

reconsideration of the Board's October 1 decision, arguing that concentions on emergency planning should be drafted prior to the expiration of the 120-day clock. Intervenors claim that even those contentions arguably affected by the 120-aay clock will not change and that the Board can therefore proceed to reformulate emergency planning contentions without even knowing what the expiration of the 120-day c. lock will bring.

Commission Question Three anticipates contentions on the compliance of emergency planning with NRC/ FEMA requirements.

Question Four anticipates contentions as to what additional emergency planning measures are necessary. The Commission's July 27, 1982 Memorandum ano Order requires (pg. 12) that contentions shoulo be offered with a statement of bases and stated with reasonable specificity and should thereafter be screened for importance by the Board. The Board cannot follow the Commission's instructions without , knowing FEMA's evaluation of the efforts during the 120-day period to re-evaluate offsite planning. Any crafting of contentions on emergency planning must therefore be delayed until a[ter the 120-day clock expires.'

Intervenors also propose a schedule for the taking of testimony on emergency planning. It is incorrect to set a schedule for testimony without first knowing what contentions will be addressed. It is even more incorrect to set a scheoule for testimony without knowing the Commission's determination at the end of the 120-day perica. The Commission's decision may range the gamut from approval of the offsite plans to a requirement that the Indian Point plants be closeo. The situation coula very possibly remain in a flux that precludes any scheculing of testimony on emergency planning.

l Since the emergency planning situation very possibly will remain uncertain it is impossible for me to comment now upon Intervenors' proposal that the State of New York and the Licensees should file testimony two weeks af ter the expiration of the 120-cay clock. I can state that two weeks may possibly not be sufficienc time to appraise the results of the 120 day period. I do wish however to correct Intervenors' statement that the testimony of Interesteo States, incluaing New York State, does not depend upon contentions and therefore the presentation of the Interested States' testimony shoula not be delayed for The reformulation of contentions State of New York recognizes (pg. 9 of Intervenors' response).

its responsibility to assist the Boaro in providing a record that

i - ~

• j Aaministrative Judges l Octooer 29, 1982 i Pago 3 j focuses on the Commission's questions. In preparing its first set  ;

of pre-filed testimony REPG attempted to discuss the Commission's contentions as fully as the available time and the specificity of those contentions would allow. I expect that the supplemental testimony on emergency planning, if any, filed by New York State in this proceeding will be responsive to the directions the Board embodies in its contentions.- Ther. lore I do not believe our testimony should be presented or even filed pri~or to the drafting of contentions.

/ Rocklano and Westchester Counties propose that their testimony be heard immediately af ter the cocclusion of the 120 day clock. Rockland County apparently does not wish to consider any changes due to the 120 day clock while Westchester believes that new developments could be reflected in oral modifications of its testimony. Rockland's withdrawal from the planning process was one of the reasons why offsite planning was found to be deficient. We suggest that Rockland should consider how that withdrawal is treated by the offsite emergency planners at the conclusion of the 120 day period. Westchester's proposal that it can be allowed to change its position without prefiling testimony is unfair to the other parties ano should be rejected. Moreover, Westchester is also mistaken in arguing that the reformation of contentions would not affect its testimony. The Licensing Board could, for instance, request Westchester and Rockland to supply further information on county resources, if necessary. The most appropriate action is to defer any consideration as to when the Counties' testimony shoulo be heard until after the 120-day clock has run.

I thank the Board for considering my response. Again I must request.the Board to excuse my absence.

l Respectfully submitted,

^

9' " k ~ r~sW JONATHAN D. FEINBERG Assistant Counsel New York State Department

=

of Public Service l

- Appearing for Stanley Klimberg l Counsel New York State Energy Office cc: Service List i

1 r w +~