ML20028E987

Response to ASLB 830107 Memorandum & Order Reformulating Contentions Under Commission Questions 3 & 4.Contention 3.2 Shows Clear Nexus to Central Point of ASLB Investigation. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028E987
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/24/1983
From:	Scheiner C WESTCHESTER PEOPLES ACTION COALITION, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301280321
Download: ML20028E987 (9)

Text

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AT0H1C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00thETED Before Administrative Judges: 'IM James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris ~

Fredrick J. Shon .O JM 27 P1 :46 kN2iii4[I'sTi[diht In the Matter of ) BRANCH

)

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 24, 1983

)

(Indian Point Unit No. 3) )

)

WESPAC RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF JANUARY 7,1983 (Reformulating Contentions Under Commission Questions 3 and 4)

I. Introduction On January 7, 1983 the Board issued a memorandum and order reformulating contentions under Commission Questions 3 and 4 Consistent with our original submission of contentions in December of 1981 and our January 6, 1983 submission regarding revised contentions on Commission Questions 3 and 4, and pursuant to the Board's designation of WESPAC as lead or contributing inter-venor on Board Contentions 3.9, 4.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 4.'3, and 4.7, WESPAC submits the following responses to portions of the January 7 Memorandum and Order.

8301280321 830124 PDR ADOCK 05000247 PDR G .

. nu,

?4 l-n.q:

II. Rosponsos.to Reformulations of Cantantions

(

Response to Elimination of Contention 3.2 't ,

rl Contention 3.2 does show a clear '... nexus to the central j7-point of the B'ard';

o investigation.' The Board has commented %p 3 That Contention 3.2's consideration of the response of the 'j.)

n:

public and of public and utility employees during radiolog- :S w

ical emergencies is not a factor which meets any test of

• 7E uniqueness to Indian Point.

However, the density of the m population surrounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station is one of the factors which makes this Power Station unique.

Predictions of reactions of this p,opulation will certainly be .

a key factor in assaring a workable evacuation plan. Thus, 4

, improvements in the emergency plan to correct deficiencies ;j represented'by fallacious assumptions concerning the react- 9; ions of emergency workers and evacuating populations also m

fall within the sphere of Commission Question 4. The test- -

imony of county witnesses including Sheriff Commissioner D. Guido and Deputy Commissioner of Transportation R. Jurkowski, have already identified deficiencies which fall under Con- .

tention 3.2. W5SPAC contends that it is essential that such ,I identified deficiencies including failure to consider the .

g,

.c ,

responses of emergency workers and the public which are i unique to radiological emergencies must be corrected, jy 4;

R'esponse to Deleti'on' ~of ' Cont'entio~n~ '4.3 . , ' ?l l

Considering this deletion WESPAC has no objection to the elimination of reference to our Contention 5, so long as Contention 5 is fully incorporated in Board Contention 3.9.

i

. .e

e Response to Referaulntien of Contantien 4.4 ns Cantantien 3.10 We do not object to this reformulation, based on our understanding that the " groups" referred to in Contention-3.10 include all groups originally identified in.WESPAC Contention 6.

Response to Reformulation of Contention 4.7 ,

We do not object to this reformulation.

Response to Board's Proposed Rej ecti'on of NYPIRG's New

• Contention 1 WESPAC supports NYPIRG's new Contention 1 regarding the adequacy of the exercise process for determining aspects of the emergency response capability. We object to the Board's proposed rej ection of that Contention. We note that the Con-tention is essentially the same as WESPAC's original Content-l ion 3. l Although the Board points out that NYPIRG's new Content-ion 1 would challenge the regulations and thus be inadnissible-under Commission Question 3, it is clearly within the scope of Commission Question 4: "What improvements in the level of emergency planning can be expected...and are there other specific offsite emergency measures that...should be taken to protect the public?"

As noted in the testimony of Lieutenant Governor Al-fred Dc1 Bello, the March 3, 1982 drill was not desig'ned t5 test many components of the emergency plan.I The March 9, 1983 exercise,.which will incorporate changes'in the emergency plan and test Unit 2 will undoubtedly leave a number of l

aspects untested as well as identify furher correctable def-iciencies.

i

of the emergency plans which ere identified by Westchester County, FEMA, and others following last year's drill.

The scenarios which are under consideration for March 9, 1983, as envisioned by FEMA and NRC regulations, do not provide the level or the extensiveness of testing necessary to identify all defects in the planand to proceed with their correction. The design of the drill, and not sim-ply its results (as discussed by the Board), must be admiss- i ible as an issue in this proceeding. i The drill process identifies improvements which can  !

be made. E Additionally, the process extends to specific  !

offsite emergency measures, the testing of which will help k

to protect the public by identifying needed improvements 5 in otner asp 6 cts of the plan. Also, the drill, as dem-  %

E E

onstrated last March 3, is an invaluable (perhaps the only) h method for determining whether the plans can work and of a

informing some of the plan's participants of their roles fi

??

and of problems they are likely to encounter in an actual E emergency. cm 5b-

=

W

?#

We reaffirm the Commission's observation that the is numbers of people and the population density in the area $

5w l

around Indian Point create site-specific, qualitatively kh different, problems with emergency planning. This is

?E Ei T

the motivation behind the Commission's original accept- $5 mz ance of the UCS petition and the entire conduct of this case, as regards Commission Questions 3 and 4 Since bb the problems with Emergency Response for Indian Point [.55 li f5W are of a more extreme magnitude than those for other plants, ,i_5 E

a higher level of exercise validation is clearly called for.  ??.'.'.2 5..'.

, n I

The contentions' relations to the drill are undeniably site-specific in that they require a more stringent level of testing of the Emergency Plan for Indian Point than for the average plant- due to the site-specific, unparalle13ed

. *s difficulties of planning for Indian Point emergency res- ,

ponse. The Contention and the bases submitted by WESPAC -

and NYPIRG should he admitted into this proceeding.

Response to Rej ection of NYPIRG's New Contention II and Parents' New Contention XIV WESPAC obj ects to the Board's proposed rej ection of the new contentions of Parents and NYPIRG regarding letters of agreement, etc. with organizations and individuals who have key roles to fulfill in the Emergency Plan. We note that our original contention 1, bases a,c,d,h, and i cover many of the same issues.

Since the Board has accepted the. bases of WESPAC con-tention 1 as an. element of Board. contention 3.1, we under-stand that testimony regarding the committment of emergency workers to fulfill their roles in the emergency response op-eration will be admitted. We hope that the Board refusal to formulate a new contention specifically regarding contractual agreements will in no way exclude the consideration of these issues in this proceeding.

The discussion.above regarding the unique nature of the Indian Point environs and the need for a higher level

of quality and assurance of the Indian Point emergency response plan, as compared with other nuclear power fac-ilities, applies equally to this contention. It should be admissible under Commission Question 4, as the securing of

1 t

E E

E F

V such assurance that emergency workers will be available {

to carry out the plan is clearly a " specific offsite emergen-E cy procedure (which is) feasible and should be taken to pro- r tect the public." ,

{

r

[

Respectfully submitted, E

charles A. Scheiner f i

l l

' I i

January 24, 1983 White Plains, New York i .

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY-AND. LICENSING BOARD

• n n= r In the Matter of 1

'93 JM 27 P1:46 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ) Decket Nos. 50-247-SP 50-286-SP

~,

OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2)

))t, 0 C..U.a0;.&tSEi<VICE ,, ,

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ) ERANCH NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) )

Janmary 2(,1983 i CERTIFICATB OF SERVICE l

i

' I hereby certify.that "opies of WESPAC SUBMISSION REGARDING REVISED CONTENTIONS ON COMMISSION QUESTIONS THREE AND FOUR h;ve been served by l first class mail on the following parties on January 24, 1983 4 l i

Jcmes P. Gleason Esq., Chairman faul L. Colarulli, Esq.

Administrative Judge Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.

513 Gilmoure Drive Charles Morgan Jr., Esq.

Sliver Spring, Maryland 20901 Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L. Street, N.W.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, DC 20036 Administrative. Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles M. Pratt, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen L. Baum Esq.

Woohington, DC 20555 Power Authority of the State of New York 1 Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, NY 10019 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ell:p R. Weiss, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Hanson & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, NW SuivrSeb Bront L. Brandenburg, Esq. Washington, DC 20006 Consolidated Edison Co.

of New York, Inc. Joan Holt, Project Director 4 Irving Place Indian Point Project N3w York, NY 10003 New York Public Interest Research Group Janice Moore, Esq. 9 Murray Street Counsel for NRC Staff New York, NY 10007 Office of The Executive Lsgal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C. 20555

, , _ . _ - . _ _ - - - . _ _ , . s . _ . _ , . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _

Molvin Goldber9 Laurie A. Vetere, Esq.

Stcff Attorney. .. . .- Legislative Assistant Naw York Public Interest '

office of the County Executive Raccorch Group cdunty office Building 9 Mury Street White Plains; NY 10601 Mcw York, New York 10007 Joffrey M. Blum, Esq.

Now York University Law School ;f .

423 Vanderbilt Hall Now York, N.Y. 10012 ,

Judith Kressler, Coordinator Reckland Citizens for Safe Energy Charles J. Maikish, Esq. 300 New Hempstead Road Litigation Division New City, New York 10956 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Eric Thorson, Esq. ,

One World Trade Center Marc L. Parris , Esq.

, N3w York, NY 10048 County Attorney l County of Rockland Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. 11 New Hempstead: Road Stovo Leipsiz, Esq. New City, New York 10956 Environmental Protection Bureau ,

i Now York State Attorney Donald Davidoff G3neral's Office Director Radiological Emergency Two World Trade Center Preparedness Group Naw York, NY 10047 Empire State Plaza Amanda Potterfield l Johnson and George, Attys At Law c/o Dean R. Corren Director l

528 Iowa Avenue N.Y. University Iowa City, Iowa 52240 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, New York 10003 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Ruthann G. Miller, Esq.

New York State Assembly Atomic Safesty and Licensing ,

Albany, New York 12248 Board Panel ,

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atcmic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington D.C 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stanley B. Klimberg W/chington, D.C. 20555 General Counsel New York, State Energy Honorable Ruth Messinger office Mmmbar of the Council of the 2 Rockefeller State Plaza City of N.Y. New York, New York 12223 District 64 City Hall Nsw York, New York 10007 .

G

v -

Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.

Lorno Salzman Pat Posner, S' pokesperson Mid-Atlantic Representative Parents Concerned About Indian Frionds of the Earth, Inc. Point '

208 Wast 13th Street P.O. Box 125 NSW York New York 120011 Croton-on-Hudson N.Y. 10520 Zipporah S. Fleisher Michael D. Diederich, Jr., Esq.

Wact Branch Conservation Association Fitgerald, Lynch & Diederich 443 Buena Vista Road 24 Central Drive Now City, NY 10956 Stony Point, New York 10980 Dccketing and Service Section Jonathan L. Levine, Esq.

Of fico of the Secretary

• P. O. Box 280 -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New City, New York 10958 Wachington, DC 20555 .

Craig Kaplan, Esq.

Mayor F. Webster Pierce National Emergency Civil .

Village of Buchanan Liberties Committee  !

,236 Tate Avenue 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712  !

' Buchanan, NY 10511 New York, New York 10010 i

i

@onorcble Richard L. Brodsky  !

25 N. Washington Avenue f

!!crtsdclo, NY 10530 i:

2 oavid H. Pikus , Esq. E

• ichard F. Czaja, Esq. 5

30 Madison Avenue $

$aw York, New York l 10017 Th ocn Miles 1;;;.'

iit

!ndien Point Coordinator ~".'

Et Dow York City Audubon Society I

!1 WEat 23rd Street, Suite 1828 E

ow York,New York 10010 ""~.

gl.-

sncthan D. Feinberg -

D ' ' t gji 9w York State Public Service e 4 E

f/nda Bei"Rer Emmission t;i Empiro State Plaza , y:

Ebany, New York 12223 ma

IS a3 y

:::.

January 24, 1983  :  %

White Plains, New York ' ~~$

imu h

h.I,}

l _..27 y:~::

h

.