ML20028D480
| ML20028D480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1983 |
| From: | Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301190177 | |
| Download: ML20028D480 (3) | |
Text
SERVED MN 1 v 1983 o
UhgETEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JNI N g *.46 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.g3 Before Administrative Judges:
-inhSE;r].7g James P. Gleason, Chairman 29 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shan E'#~ MO In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK
)
50-286-SP
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
0F NEW YORK
)
)
January 17, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
ERRATA The attached pages 16 and 17 of the Memorandum and Order of January 7,1983 have been corrected and should be used to replace the original pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
W M kAt'atshd M dhdy James P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland 8301190177 830117 PDR ADOCK 05000 0
SO '2_
' Evaluation Criterion II( A)(3) has not been complied with, the contentions are covered under previously admitted Contention 3.1 (See especially UCS/NYPIRG I( A) basis 3). To the extent the contentions propose new measures not required by FEMA or NRC, they are a challenge to the emergency planning regulations. While such a challenge is allowed under Commission Question 4, parties must provide a souno basis for such a contention and such a basis must be connected to the unique situation at Indian Point. NYPIRG and Parents have failed to snow why such a requirement would be more necessary at Indian Point than at other nuclear power plants, and therefore, have failed to provide the sound basis required.
Upon consideration of the foregoing and tne entire record in this i
l matter, it is this 7th day of January,1983, ORDERED 1.
Tnat the following contentions set forth in our Order of April 23,1982, sha'11 be retained and litigated in this proceeding:
Under Commission Question 3 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9 Under Cownission Question 4 4.2 2.
That Contentions 4.1, 4.4 and 4.7 shall be reformulated. As l
reformulated, old Contention 4.4 will be litigated under Commission Question 3 as Contention 3.10.
Old Contentions 4.1 and 4.7, as reformulated, retains their original numbers and will be litigated under Commission Question 4.
i l
o,
o 3.
That Contentions 3.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 shall be eliminated from the proceeding.
4.
That the motions by NYPIRG and Parents for the admission of new contentions and formulation of a new Board Question are denied.
F0t< THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W
W\\ S Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE f.r.) y E
- ,N
,/"d,o. 4 c <T6.
- . _,. t Freaerick J. So ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 7,
%y
!u-u
/
ames P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
_.