ML20028E860
| ML20028E860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1983 |
| From: | Fleisher Z WEST BRANCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301280241 | |
| Download: ML20028E860 (6) | |
Text
_ -
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD '83 JM127 P1 :40 Administrative Judges:
.: ..w..
Jamn .Oloason,. Chairman
't!g'"
In the Matter of Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick 3. Shon CONSOLIDATED (Indian Point, Unit 2) EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 50-256-SP POWER AUTHORITY (Indian Point, Unit 3) OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK January 24, 1983 WEST BRANCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION'S RESPONSE TO RE- 1 FORMULATED CONTENTIONS NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR.
The March 3, 1982 " Exercise" and FEMA's assessment -
f of it caused Rockland County to seek its own Radiological h
Emergency Response Plan and resulted in a rejection of the i FEMA deficiencies as inadequate, by Rockland County.
[
In June, 1982, before this ASLB a panel of FEMA wt- I nesses testified that FEMA would be satisfied if Rockland 5 had a paper plan despite the fact that the millions of dollars b g
needed to implement it was nowhere in sight. (The same state-h ments were made before the NYState Legislative Committee E M
hearings before State Assembly Speaker Fink's Committee.) M
{
WBCA stated both times that 44 CFR 350, under which FEMA :...
7 is obliged to approve only an implementable plan was not met. Ei In listing deficiencies after the March 3 " Exercise" ifi 5 ::.-
for West Branch Conservation Association d 443 Buena Virta Road New City, U.Y. j 914/634-2327 g.i by Zipporah S. Fleisher EEE Secretary ;"
B301200241 830124 w.=
PDR ADOCK 05000247 0 FDR a.=
o .
FEMA failed to include the biggest one, the road network despite our many efforts to have it included. We' testified before FEMA at its public meeting in Highland. Falls on July 27, 1982 specifically noting the failure on their part to come to terms with that deficiency as well as the difficulty withe moving 30,000 Rockland school children within an accep- '
table time frame.
FEMA has fai' led to address the t'wo most 1 important issues. i i
f
?
There seems to be no acknowledgement of this develop-
[
ment by this ASLB and no room for a contingency such as that .i which has arisen, namely Rockland's withdrawal. It is not [t E
trivial. ?
Some opportunity should be offered far us to address u
[
it instead of making a series of curtailments as made by the
[F n
Order of January 7, such as those on page 14, " Newly Proposed Contentions". ,
=_
M' WBCA did what was asked in the ASLB schedule of October E 1, it gave notice of intention to participate and uphold its E E
fi contentions under #3 and #4. We were not asked if we had any
[
suggestions for improvement ao we hoped the ASLB itself would bb I?
recognize the changed situation and offer an avenue to explore bi
?;5 what has led to the present' mutiny. Rockland is not going to SI6 particpate in the up-coming exercise an March 9. 52 El
. =
em The ASLB, if it feels it has no room under the pre-sent structures, ((
should call attention to this dewtopment to bb EM the Commissioners and request guidance as to the changes since m.m 55 55-the April 23 Order which did not provide for the abandonment
[.{."
by any County surrounding Indian Po$nt, of the evacuation "#2
=""
plan. a=9 2'a."
2T sh 55.~
um
S .
REMOVAL OF CONTENTION 3.2 Bge 5 of October 7 Order states that "it does not...
specify any lack of conformance with NRC/ FEMA emergency planning guidelines..." That is because those guidelines failed to con-sider what would. happen to those generating electricity within a ten mile EPZ during an evacuation. "As compared to the spec-trum of risks posed by other nuclear plants" the uniquely popu-lous environs of Indian Point" would be affected unlike at other plants because the generators for Orange, Rockland Counties and RECO in northern New Jersey and Pike County in Pennsylvania would be forced to shut down and cease generating electricity.
We have such testimony from Orange and Rockland Utilities and it is ready for delivery. Both the Lovett plant, situated in-mediately accross 'che Hudson River from Buchanan, and the Bow-line plant, 5 miles downstream, would shut down if an evacua-tion of other citizens from those areas was called. Nor is it likely, due to their proximity to each other, that only one of the two would shut down. That would make the two counties de-pend on the New York State Power Pool for electric service.
With Indian Point also out, the Pool would be strained to serve Coned's customers and PASNY's and ORU's. For these reasons Contention 3.2 should remain in the schedule.
CONTENT 70N 4.3 The crux of evacuation planning is surely the road configuration surrounding Indian Point. It is unique due to the burden of the density of the population in Westchester and l
o +
1 t
t Rockland Counties. The afteria cannot be met, as to how to I improve the roads because the presumption is financially.im-practical.
This contention, above all others deserves to be hea.ed. If*the guidelines are unable to cope with the major de- i l
1 ficiincy in the evacuation plans, then some exception has to be made to include the subject. Surely it is otherwise throwing out the baby with the bath water. 1 l
Westchester County witnesses have testified in Janu- C E
ary, 1983, witnesses Marasco, Guido and Jurkowski on the issue U g
of the roads. E Hon. Alfred DelBello stated that a 10 lane high-
- way would have to be built. It is only proper that'interve-nors be allowed to present their witnesses on the subject.
g Is there or isn't there a possibility to evacuate within the h
time frames due to the configuration of the roads? !
W FEMA's pro forma acceptance of plans offered by the 5 E.
Licensees designed by Parsons, Brinckerhoff has already been E proven insufficient by requiring the reworking of the road E E
52 maps for both Westchester and Rockland Counties. We have other testimony to offer. !!
,si
,=
The "new suggestions for improving emergency planning" !
would be to acknowledge that the population density around =
EF Indian Point is uniqe and to address it to see what, if any- ' 5 E:-
thing can be done to assure that the population can be pro- 5 tected.
This is an issue of utmost importance to the 109,020
[
-5
,5_5, ZE persons who live within the 10 mile EPZ in Rockland County. 55 T2 So, too, is our concern with the deliberate falsifi- ""
cation of the population figures as employed by FEMA.
, The :
W g._
n 1980 census figures show the population in Rockland to be 17h% higher than those FEMA persists in using despite the fact that we have called it to their attention innumerable times and as attested by George O' Lear on the witness stand before the ASLB in July, 1982. Mr. O' Lear is demographer for the Rockland County Planning Board. As late as December 21 FEMA testified before the NRC Commissioners that the popu-lation in the Rockland 10 mile EPZ was 92,000, despite O' Lear's sworn testimony on the record of this case. For the above and other reasons WBCA moves that 4.3 remain.
CONTENTION 4 4 WBCA shared as co-lead with WESPAC by Board Order of April 23 albeit no such contention had been filed but which was added at the prehearing conference of April 13-14, 1982.
Since WESPAC has been moved to 3.10 contention, WBCA respectfully requests that it be included as per page 15 of Order of April 23, 1982 "with respect to Rockland County," -
so that a more complete #$8esentation be permitted. WESPAC's province is Westchester County (sic!) and did not suggest that is wished to offer testimony about Rockland County.
l i Therefore, WBCA requests that it be included in contention i 3 10.
Respectfully subnitted, T dY
. S. Fleisher Secrp y" -
Cf' l
l
+ .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
00L n :,-
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 80ARO ' I '"
Before Administ rative Judges Janes Gleason , Chairman In the Matter of Frederick J. Shon 83 JM 27 P1 :40 Dr. Oscar H. Paris -
)
7 a5.,- . ._
- c. - ,
CONSOLIDATED NEW YORK, INC. EDISON COMPANY )OF
.c. a . a (Indian Poins, IhhiilhG 4 SEf<vlCE Unit No. 2) ) Bi<A NCH
)
) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP i'0WER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE NEW YORK, (Indian Point, ) OF 50-286-SP Unit No. 3) ) January 24, 1983 4
) ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that first class mail a copy to those shown below of Westhave this day pla Branch Conservation Association's Response to Reformulated Contentions the hearings in #3White and #4 and hand Plains, N.Y. delivered to those attending
- g g- g,,,'. Ch u t 3. 48 B.e. .
.--.-==C ,
Sa C p , .f Y 3 "
hMm
$ 8 Y 8 n= ~ r . = == k oA C n h
,E/ @, . =.g== -
'"" =
. u T'ef.t::l'ffi
...$:*:.:.";~:*l::;-
=A - - .=;p - =ll;; = :::;. i:: ,
- - =- a =.=
a a === .
m i
lll*'d =
- =t =w ra- L. - g
- :::::l. ::
- ll."." =lllll:1::: ::r,=a,;;;,-
~'an=,
=
=
.em usu ,
. =
' -v . ." r-"==,--= 2l::::,
a- a
., =
~v n =..
u.,,.,,,,,,.
. ,, , , ,, .=
a
. . , - = =
_, > iT-- =.t:::' C .'". 2 2 * ."EM
=
=,::.c=,,,,,,,,. a- ~,."~~
,u .
=. E: .*~.~. . m.._.
B
. w.'::t --- ,-
- = =u =
- 2.:'.'. ".'.'l: ::::- """"'"""
' m,.
- .1= ,,
- ,=,,.
., 2; r"C =
1.d. *.*.A h - c. l5
':::3:2.. ~ === 'll='en W" CM. E
- 'c::::.'.':: :.. -" :a ~, ?
"*;::'c4l:: '""" =i-s ir :::::: .,'llll'.'.'.
a.tlr . v.,
n.hr"f*f.^m:
- r.. e 2
L=,:.,:,., ,, ,v/'= = . ,
,,,,,, Ei[
tiii
.7,'" T '*"8" ' u"""," '"'," "* """"c.* 'U.'""' his
- ! '$"""'"."."."'.... ==
Ild 'mi::"*"" .'" '"'""T"'!4.
Davidoff '*'
"aa='*=*=*"-
a , !it'li.;"71::"' .
O ="."='":.'"I:*o n . . .n= cus.. .ae y
.re Stato Plaza ~
= =.s Jocn Miles =51
- r Building, RM 1750
.ny, Nsw York 12237
- a. ort c., a
.Cl" "."v!"rf.*** "
is ,
,a.,.,,,,,n,.,,
ec sv.tr = uem,,,
- ism e
';.hYd!'I.ENII7 '"""""mi '
h
=5 for West Branch Conservation Association MM 443 Buena Vista Road, New City, N.Y 56 55 914/634-2327 , '~-
/ $$
u 7<N)#/
EEEE by Zipporah 5. Fle.tsher ~ EEE Secretary hs "s""t'
~
Ei=2.
^1 - .
A.