ML20039C964
| ML20039C964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1981 |
| From: | Brandenburg B CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8112310152 | |
| Download: ML20039C964 (46) | |
Text
,
.. . . ~.,., ,
s ..
C ~ '2, U:IITED STATES OF A:tERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMitISSION l,;
3 .: _..
,' , ; .{,_' _
L ATOMIC SAFETY AtID LICENSING BOARD N/
"w Before Administrative Judges: .
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar 1. Paris
)
In the iatter of )
)
COMSOLIDATED EDISON COMPAtIY OF )
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
- !EN YORK, (Indian Point, )
Unit :fo . 3) )
@\
s 4
)
,Q ' c' Q
". .ECi?tygn~r,
.~ h COti EDISOti'S FIRST PRE-HEARING- 4:
DECs 07937;s;2 MEMORANDU!! AND PROPOSED ORDERC T~/
~'
. l. . u
. . : \ ,' Z/
Pursuant to the Atomic, Safety and Licensing-Bo'ard's
!!emorandum and Order dated November 9, 1991, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ( " Con Ed ison" ) , licensee of Indian Point Unit No. 2, submits its first pre-hearing memo-randum and proposed order herein, addressing those subjects set forth in the Licensing Board's Tovember 9 order.
Y3
)/
$bb SbObA*Offf8@( PDR
D_ackground _of_ This_ Proceeding The genesis of this proceeding is a 10 CFR 52.206 "show cause" petition brought before the Commission by the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") in September, 1979. The peti-tion urged the Commission to order: (1) the decommissioning of Indian Point Unit tio. 1; (2) the immediate suspension of commercial operations at Indian Point Units 2 and 3; and (3) the commencement of a study to determine the suitability of Indian Point as a nuclear reactor site. The petition asked the Commission to empanel an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in order to grant the above relief. .
The petition was accompanied by an affidavit of Robert D. Pollard which did not allege that the Indian Point units were any less safe than other nuclear power plants.
The UCS petition was essentially based upon two claims:
(1) that relatively high population levels in the vicinity of Indian Point made necessary " specific added safety fea-tures and off-site emergency measures," (petition at p. 25),
and (2) that the tiRC "backfitting" practices should be changed to require a demonstration "that specific design fea-tures in each plant provide a degree of protection equivalent to that which would be provided by . . . new pressurized water reactors." (Id. at pp. 3-4) The petition alleged that des-pite " rigorous tests" for new operating licenses, "the NRC failed to formally face up to the existence of numerous safety problems in currently operating plants." (Id. at p. 19).
The petition itself recognized that the safety issues it ,
raised were generic in nature.
On October 26, 1979, the Commission referred the UCS' petition to the NRC Staff for consideration pursuant to 10 CFR 52.206. A notice to this effect was published in- the Federal Register on November 23, 1979, 44 Fed. Reg. 67251. On February 5, 1980, the Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation briefed the Commission, and on February 11, 1980 issued a " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206" in response to the UCS petition.
The Director, after reviewing the petition, the res-ponses of licensees, and a number of comments received from the public, granted the UCS' petition in part and denied it in part. With regard to Indian Point Unit 1, the Director di-rected an order to show cause to Con Edison requiring it to show why the operating provisions of the provisional license for Unit 1 should not be revoked.
t With regard to Units 2 and 3, the Director, after i considering the efforts of the NRC staff and licensees to review the operation of the units in light of the Three Mile Island (TMI) incident, addressed each of the allegations i These post-TMI efforts included-contained in the UCS petition.
an in depth review of emergency preparedness plans by licensees with the assistance of MRC Staff, local and state officials.
The Director's Decision referred to a number of
" extraordinary interim measures . . . that will significantly
increase the level of safety at the indian Point Station",*
and noted that both licensees had indicated their agreement to adopt certain interim measures intended to reduce the risk from operation of the units.** The Director's decision was accompanied by confirmatory orders directed to each of the licensees, confirming their respective commitments to undertake the interim measures.
The Director's decision also identified a. number of significant " compensating features"*** in the design of the units which were found to further increase their margin of safety. The Director's decision concluded that . . .
considering these existing engineered safety features, the emergency plans already in effect, and the extraordinary interim measures identified in the Confirmatory Order . . .
Indian Point Station Units 2 and 3 are suitable for continued operation..."****
The Director's decision considered each of the alle-gations offered by the UCS petition as a ground for shutting down Units 2 and 3 and found that none of them offered any
- Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 dated February 11, 19 8 0, a t 9.
- This commitment is found in February 1, 1980 letters to the Director from William J. Cahill, Jr. of Con Edison and George T. Berry of PASNY.
- Director's Decision at 10.
- Id. at 2
_4_
~
basis.for ending operations at either of the plants. The Director's decision represented a thorough review of the I adequacy of t'he Indian Point Units Nos. 2 and 3 in light of on-going NRC programs. The decision carefully reviewed and rejected each of the allegations of the UCS petition,'and concluded as follows:
"The petition alleges that Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are ' relics of the past' and the 'NRC has-marched resolutely " eyes front" not applying t,he lessons learned about safety to Indian Point.'
i This is not_so. Both plants have been sig-nificantly modified to meet NRC safety and se-curity requirements.
Because of the interim measures imposed by the Confirmatory Orders and in light of the discussion in this decision of the safety issues raised by the UCS, I have determined not to order the shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and
- 3. For these same reasons, I have not recom- '
mended to the Commission that it institute a hearing on all of the matters touched upon in' the UCS petition."*
On February 15, 1980, the NRC issued a notice requesting comments from the members of the public on the Director's decision.
l The notice, which was published in the February 22, 1980, Federal l
Req,is ter (45 Fed. Reg. 11969), requested that members of the public submit their views regarding the merits of the Director's decision as well as a proposed course of action.regarding the Commission's response to it.
- Id. at 30-31 L___..--_. _ _ __ . _ _ _ . , _, - __ _ - _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
In their March 10, 1980 responses to the Commis-sion's Solicitation of Comment on the Director's Decision, Con Edison and the Power Authority of the State of New York
(" Power Authority"), licensee of Indian Point Unit No. 3, urged that the Commission accept the Director's recommendation
, and decline review of the Director's decision. The licensees noted that the test to determine whether a decision under 10 CFR S 2.206 should be subject to review by the full Commission was whether the Director's decision amounted to an abuse of discretion,* and that clearly no such finding regarding the
' Director's decision could reasonably be made.
On May 31, 1980 the Commission issued an order dealing with its proposed future course of action regarding the UCS petition. In its order, the Commission adopted a "four pronged approach" to the petition:
(1) The appointment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on " safety issues related speci-fically to Indian Point Units 2 and 3", with the decision on the' merits to be made by the full Commission.
(2) The institution of an informal proceeding which would decide on "an expedited basis" the is-sues which the ad,'udicatory proceeding would ad .
dress.
- In a separate statement accompanying the Commission's February 15, 1980 notice, Commissioner Gilinsky noted that since the Commission chose to continue to treat the UCS petition as a petition under 10 CFR S 2.206 the stand-ard for Commission review is ". . . whether the Director abused his discretion." (45 Fed. Reg. 11970)
,_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ - - - - - - ~ .. _ - . _ _ . . - - _ ~
(3) The institution after the conclusion of the informal proceeding of a generic proceeding to consider the question of the operation of reactors in areas of high population density.
(4) The appointment of a Task Force on Interim Operations to consider the question of continued operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 pend.tg the completion of the adjudi-catory proc . ding.
On June 12, 1980, the Task Force appointed by the May 30 order issued a report to the Commission entitled
" Report of the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point" (NUREG-0715). Based upon a review of Indian Point and other plants, the Task Force concluded that: (1) the overall societal risk of an Indian Point reactor was about the same as a typi-cal reactor on a typical site; (2) the risk to individuals from an Indian Point reactor was some 30 times less than the ,
risk to individuals posed by a typical reactor; and (3) the population density surrounding Indian Point was not materially dissimilar from numerous other reactor sites.
The basic conclusion of the " Task Force on Interim Operations" was consistent with that of the Director's Deci-sion of February 11 -- operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3
, - does not pose a significant safety risk to the public.*
l l
- The Task Force corrected a major oversight in the Director's decision which caused the Director to overstate the societal risk posed by the Indian Point Units. The Director, in es-timating the societal risk posed by the Indian Point Units did not account for the actual design of the two units, but rather assumed that a typical unit was located at the site.
The Interim Task Force reported to the Commission on June 26, 1980 that the approach taken to societal risk in the Direc-tor's decision "is wrong."
By motion dated July 25, 1980, licensees requested that the Commission reconsider that portion of its May 30, 1980 order which directed that adjudicatory hearings be con-vened. In their motion licensees showed that the only possible basis for singling out the Indian Point reactors for adjudica-tory hearings, that is, that they pose a risk significantly different from other reactors, was clearly rejected by the report of the Interim Operations Task Force. It was also noted that the conclusior;s of this report were generally consistent with another study entitled " Westinghouse /
Offshore Power System Report on the Evaluation of Residual Risk for the Indian Point Power Plants" which was submitted to the Commission by licensees on May 23, 1980. The licensees' motion argued that attempting to resolve generic issues through an adjudicatory hearing which would deal with the Indian Point units was inherently discriminatory and counter-productive.
On January 8, 1981 the Commission issued an order which denied the licensees' motion for reconsideration. The order also permitted the plants to remain in operation while the proceeding continued, and directed that discretionary hear-ings be conducted in the vicinity of Indian Point by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The order provided that the Li-censing Board utilize "the full procedural format of a trial-type adj.udication, including discovery and cross-examination"*
- January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 6.
1 The January 8 order directed the Board to consider seven questions which were-stated by the order as follows: ,
- 1. What risk may be. posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in i the plants' design basis, pending and after.any improvements described in (2) and (4) below?
- 2. What improvements in the level of safety will result
, from measures required or referenced in the Director's Order to the licensee, dated February 11, 1980? (A contention by a party that one or more specific safety measures, in addition to those identified or referenced by the Director, should be required as a condition of operation of the facility or facilities, would be within the scope of this inquicy.)
- 3. What is the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines of state and local emergency planning within a 10-mile radius of the site and, of the extent that it is relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond a 10-mile radius? In this context, an effort should be made to establish what the minimum number of hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point would be. The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
- 4. What improvements in the level of emergency plan-ning can be expected in the near future, and on what time schedule, and are there other specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
]
- 5. Based on the foregoing, how do the risks posed by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 compare with the range of risks posed by other nuclear power plants licensed to operate by the Commission? (The Board should limit its inquiry to generic examination of the range of risks and not go into any site-specific examination other than for Indian Point itself, except to the extent raised by the Task Force.
- 6. What would be the energy, environmental, economic or other consequences of a shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 37 Does the Governor of the State of New York wish to
- 7. . express an official position with regard to the long-term operation of the units?
The hearings directed by the January 8 order, though
styled by the order as adjudicatory.in form, were to serve only as an investigation. The Commission referred to "the investiga-tive nature of the proceeding" as the basis for a number of deviations from the Commission's standard rules of procedure.
i The Commission also noted that the hearings are not to be "on
- the record."*
The unusual nature of the proceeding mandated by the i
- May 30, 1980 and January 3, 1981 orders was a matter of concern to the Commiss,on i during its public discussions considering how to structure the hearings. It was recognized that given the unusual inves?igatory nature of the hearings, Licensees 4
would be entitled to a second adjudication (which would fully comply with the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act) if the initial investigatory proceeding re-sulted in a Commission decision urging the shutdown or modification of one or both Indian Point units. This was made clear during the Commission's discussions which led up t.
i to the May 30, 1980 order.
The Commission also expressed its intent that these hearings.txt strictly confined to Indian Point-specific issues, and not to generic issues which were to be considered under " prong 3" of the May 30 order. With the hearings so 4 limited, the Commission directed that they be completed
- within a year. The January 8 order stated that [iln view of the complexity of this proceeding, and in order that the
- Id., at 5 n.4
. . . - . . . * . -r .. . - , . ,m, .-.-,o _ , , ,,__,,,..w.,,...,-, .,.e _ y,..r,., , , . ..-.~_-,--------+c.e -,-
Commission may make its decision within a reasonable period of time, we stress that the Board should focus clearly upon the questions asked by the Commission."*
On September 18, 1931 the Commission issued an order appointing the present Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board. In addition, the order made a number of significant changes in order to clarify the scope of the proceeding. Question 1 in the list of seven questions in the January 8 order was amended to read as follows:
"What risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in the plants' design basis, pending and after any improvements described in (2) and (4) below? Although not requiring the prepara-tion of an Environmental Impact Statement, :he Commission intends that the review with respect to this question be conducted consistent with the guidance provided the staff in the Statement of Interim Policy on ' Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under.the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.' 44 FR 40101 (June 13, 1980)"**
Question 2 was amended to read as follows:
"What improvements in the level of safety will result from measures required or referenced in the Director's Order to the licensee, dated February 11, 1980? (A contention by a party that one or more specific safety measures, in addition to those identified or referenced by the Director, should be required as a condition of operation would be within the scope of this in-l quiry if, according to the Licensing Board, admis-sion of the contention seems likely to be important
- Id. at 7.
- September 18, 1981 order at 3.
l l
l
+v--% , _m,_ __., _,,__
to resolving whether (a) there exists a signifi-cant risk to public health and safety, notwith-standing the Director's measures, and (b) the ad-ditional proposed measures would result in a sig-nificant reduction in that risk.T"*
4 The Commission's September 18 order relieved the Board from the constraints normally imposed by Part 2 of the Rules of Practice regarding contentions. The purpose stated by the Commission was to enable the Board to more nar-rowly focus the issues in the proceeding than would.otherwise be possible. The Commission directed that accepted conten-tions " contribute materially" to answering the seven ques-tions enumerated in the order. The Commission emphasized that:
" ...its purpose [in freeing the Board from 10 CFR Part 2 regarding contentions] is to ensure that the Board is empowered only to accept and formulate . . . those contentions which seem likely to be important in resolving the Commission's ques-tions . . . .
The Septemoer 18 order also stated that the Commission would like to receive the Board's recommendation no later than September 18, 1982, one year from the date of its order.
suance of the September 18, 1981 order.
i
- Id_.
at 4.
- Id. at 2.
I THIS BOARD SiiOULD ESTABLISH A
, SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL PRE-I! EARING PHASES OF Tile PROCEEDING ON A TIMETABLE WHICH WILL PERMIT COMPLETION OF THE OVERALL PROCEEDING WITHIN Tile TIME PERIOD SET BY
- THE COMMISSION _
The task before this Board is a dif ficult one. This proceeding is unprecedented in nature, involving as it does an investigation into the co,ntinued operation of already licensed reactors. This proceeding, although generally to be conducted
, according to adjudicatory rules, is in fact intended by the Commission to be an investigatory proceeding to gather evidence regarding the safety of the Indian Point units.
The unusual nature of this case was reflected in the Commission's public sessions which considered how to deal with and resolve certain matters raised by the UCS petition. These transcripts show that the Commissioners
- were greatly concerned with finding a means to address site population characteristics spocific to the Indian Point plants in as expeditiously a manner as possible.
i The Commissioners' desire to provide a procedural l .
framework for the prompt resolution of the UCS petition is reflected in the January 8 and September 18, 1931 orders, which relax the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's rules in a number of significant respects.*
I
\
- These orders invite the Board to seek further dispensation from the constraints of Part 2 if it deems it necessary. See l
January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 7, n. 4; September 13, l
1981 Memorandum and Order at 2.
_. . ___ __ _- _ .~ _.___ __ , _ _- ., ._ . _ . . _ , , _ , - . -
The Commission took this extraordinary procedural step to permit a rapid pace for the ultimate Commission con-sideration of the issues raised. The January 8 order states in pertinent part that:
"In view of the complexity of this proceeding, and in order that the Commission may make its
- decision within a reasonable period of time, we stress that the Board should focus clearly upon the questions asked by the Commission."
(January 8 order at 7) f In furtherance of this objective, in its September 18 order the Commission asked the Board to make its recommendations "no later than one year from the date of this Order," viz., by September 18, 1982.
Thus two principal " case management" objectives emerge from the Commission's orders: greater than usual attention should be paid to the narrowing and importance of contentions ultimately accepted by the Board, and a pre-hearing schedule should be set which will permit completion of the proceeding by' September 1982.*
l l
- In its January 8, 1981 order the Commission stated its in-tent that the Board complete its work by January 8, 1982.
In its September 18, 1981 order, tne Commission recognized that in light of the delay in the appointment of this Board, completion of the Board's work by January 8, 1982 was no longer feasible. The September 18 order requires that the Board present its recommendations to the Commission by September 18, 1982. Although there was discussion in the Commission's public sessions that the one year time frame i for the completion of the Board's work established by the January 8,1981 order required expeditious Board treatment, the Commission determined to retain this deadline in order to permit it to act in a timely manner.
l
)
I
A concidera'.cu c of ;he Goven quectiono po:Gd by
~
the Commission (see pp. 9, 11-12 above) will require a compre-hensive site-specific examination of the risks posed by the Indian Point plants, and a comparison of the risk of these
. plants with other operating plants. Unlike a typical licensing proceeding where the issues to be addressed by a Licensing Board are fashioned and limited by the Commission's licens-ing regulations (and thus understood, for the most part, by the applicant, staff and other participants), the issues in this proceeding are more difficult to anticipate. Given this, it is essential that this Board exercise its authority to focus the attention of the participants on matters "which seem likely to be important to resolving the Commission's questions" (September 18, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 2).
The Board must take care that it develops a record which will help the Commission in answering these questions. The Board must also ensure that it adopts procedures that result in the development of.a record which will support its recommendations to the Commission. The development of what the Commission called a " focused proceeding" (Id. at 2) is essential given the nature of the questions to be addressed by the Board.
This Board's recommendations are expected to be received by the Commission in less than ten months. Although the relatively short time period available to the Board might ordinarily be seen as an additional burden which makes the task before it even more difficult, in this instance it should be looked upon as an advantage. By having an established target date, the Board will be able to develop a firm schedule for the comp.letion of its work. The September 1982 requirement will serve to spur the Board and parties to pursue matters expeditiously and to devote their efforts to issues which '
are of primary importance. The Board and the parties will
^
be forced to take steps to avoid the delays which have come -
to plague the Commission's licensing proceedings.
Con Edison believes that the one year time period which has been reaffirmed by the Commission's September 18 order is a realistic one, which will permit the Commission to have a fully developed record on the questions it has put forth.
If the Board is to complete its work within the allotted time, it is desirable for the Board to establish a firm and detailed schedule for the pre-hearing phases of the proceeding at this time. Establishing a schedule now will permit the parties to allocate their resources and thus be prepared to meet various procedural milestones. Failure to establish a firm schedule now is likely to result in an unfocused proceeding with a mad dash for completion as September 1982 nears.
In order to accomplish the foregoing objectives, Con l
Edison proposes that this Board establish the following schedule at this time:
Contentions filed December 2, 1981 Discovery ends respecting December 23, 1991 factual issues raised by' petitions for leave to intervene L. -
~
File answers to licensees' December 11, 1981
, motion for a stay of the Commission's January 8 and September 18 orders File motions objecting December 30, 1981 I to admission of contentions l l
Evidentiary hearing on January 6, 1982 I factual issues raised by l petitions for leave to intervene File responses to motions January 11, 1982 objecting to contentions i
File memoranda relating January 14, 1982 l 4 to evidentiary hearing l j on petitions for leave !
to intervene l Pre-hearing order on con- January 21, 1982 l tentions and petitions
, for leave to intervene j l
Discovery begins January 22, 1982 :
i File objections to order February 2, 1982 of January 21 respect-ing contentions and petitions for leave to intervene File responses.to objec- February 16, 1982 tions to order of January 21 Order on contentions February 25, 1982 l and petitions for leave to intervene
' Discovery ends March 12, 1982 File motions for March 26, 1982 summary disposition File answers to motions April 15, 1982 for summary disposition File replies to answers April 30, 1982 i opposing motions for I summary disposition l
i l
Pre-hearing conference May 6, 1982 Order on motions for May 13, 1982 ;
summary disposition Because numerous factual issues have been raised by the petitions for leave to intervene and the Staff and li-censees' answers thereto, the proposed timetable provides for discovery and an evidentiary hearing to aid in resolving stand-ing issaes. The proposed timetable also provides for exten-sive briefing and scheduling on contentions and intervention petitions, including a round of briefing objecting to the Board's initial determinations, in furtherance of the Commis-sin's desire to employ atypical contention practice in order i to " clearly focus" the pr'oceeding. A summary disposition pro-cedure is also suggested for this purpose. The suggested time-table provides for almost two months of discovery, starting with ,
the Board's initial ruling on intervention and contentions.
After a pre-hearing conference on May 6, the pre-testimonial phase of the proceeding would be completed under the proposed timetable by May 13. Con Edison submits that this timetable provides adequate tine for the extraordinary issue-narrowing activity desired by the Commission, while pro-viding ample fairness and opportunities for discovery to all parties. -
Equally important, the proposed timetable is in our-
7 _ _
y n, 's
. ?
N+
judgment sufficient to permit thereafter the t11i'ng of testi-s mony, cross-examination, post-hearing briefing, and formulation ('
of Board recommendations by the September 18, 1982 date set d -
7e forth by-the Commission. At the pre-hearing conference proposed for May 6, Con Edison anticipates that the Boar'd ,,
/,: s
~
would then be in a position to establish dates for the filing (
of testimony and cross-examination. -
7 $
As indicated in Point II-below, Con Edison believes
~
that the proceeding can remain focused, and the l'icensees> e freed of surprise and given an adequate opportunity to re-spond, only if the proponents of the investigation initially s file their testimony setting forth their claims of site specific safety deficiencies at the Indian Point plants. _
.. l&- -,
m
- ? . -
- 9 e {
4 i
4-
\
- 4 t
i i
i 1
~_ ; . _ ,
) 'e .
~~
A 7
.. v . .
% '. , ~ ~
, s% " , " " ,---* , .
y'x s s . ; 'y7 7, s ,
THIS BOARD'SHOULD ESTABLISH.AN ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF- EVIDENCE
' WHICll REQUIRES T!!E' PROPONENTS-OF THIS INVESTIGATION [ '* i N- INITIALLY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE -- - -- -
,- . s. _,-
%J
], . n-2,
- _ The Jaruary 8 and September 18, II81 Orders permit
~
I.
n_ ,
ems Board "to establish whatever order of presentation (of s s ,
s x '
x s .. . < ,
_s .
stvidencel it de, ems bcst suited to the peqceeding's investiga-s f" ' ' %Eive prup60es . " s - . .
(January.8, 1981 order' at 7, n.4. ; September 18, s _
+ x-
/ 198D crder at 2 ) .- Becauses the purpos4(oflthis proceeding is s
,u ,
solely to investigate claims regarding the' safety of the In-
~
s ,,'y.
s -
P.7 s dian Point units originally asserted'by the September 1979 Unionof;ConcernedScientist'spek.t. ion,7ConEdisonsubmits W
. - ~, ,
,' that these ossentially invest gative purposes can only.be < . ,
Ms v acrved,if those parties asserting 4 ack'o'f adequate safety e m
- 1
~ , s %
at clie-Indla'n_Pointi> plants first.,corhe, ,~
forward with the specific bases'fortheirclains. Such interven' ors should accord-
, ,,\'
./ ingly be' required to file their-testimony in advance or. the N - -
.' s_.C.N 's othe( parties, the Staff and licensees.
.< g .
Con Edison believes th,'5t this, order of presentation
,+
of evidence -- with intervenors-presenting I their testimony first 1
-- will best serve the Comm.ission's stated " investigative pur-
^ poses," while insuring ths, at the Commission's goal of "a focused
' 1
,, proceeding" is attained. The licensees could not possibly anti-
' ~. ,
'cipate all of the theories which may be advanced as to inadequate
. t safety levels'at the plants. Thus, testimony responding to safety i
deficiency claims simply cannot be prepared until after these
~
by Indian Point as compared to the spectrum of risks posed by other nuclear plants." (January 8 Order at pp. 6-7)
The first question iin the January 8 and September 18 orders addresses this primary concern by asking what risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3 including accidents not considered in the plant's design basis pending and after any improvements described in ques-tions 2 and 4. Questions 2 and 4 respectively deal with safety measures required in the February 11, 1980 order and other " specific safety measures" and with possible " improve-ments in the level of emergency planning." In dealing with Question 1 some intervenors will presuma'bly prescnt conten-tions alleging that the risk posed by these plants-is excess-ive for some particular reason. It is likely that those contentions will allege the possible occurrence of accidents of different sorts or that emergency planning is deficient in certain respects. It is obviously essential that the sponsors of such contentions be required to offer evidence supporting them before licensees can either understand or respond to them.
Similarly, with regard to Question 2, the sponsors of " specific safety measures" should be required to offer evidence establishing the need for these measures. Licensees do not believe that their plants pose a. threat to the public.
They could not possibly be expected to initially offer testimony supporting specific safety measures. Nor can the licensees fairly be expected to argue that certain measures are not needed until the sponsors of these measures describe them and fully state their rationale for offering them.
The third and fourth questions relate to emergency planning in the area surrounding Indian Point. The sources of information of the sort looked for by these questions will be the intervenors, which include state agencies with the responsibility for developing *and maintaining off-site emergency plans. Similarly, the fifth question inquiring into how the risks posed by the Indian Point compare with the' range of risks posed by other nuclear power plants is not one which the licensees can fully address until they re-view the intervenor's testimony as_to why Indian Point is less safe than other plants due to site-specific characteristics.
It would be anomalous for the licensees to address i
initially the sixth question, which asks what are the " energy, environmental, economic or other consequences of a shutdown."
Licensees are not proposing a shutdown of their plants. Those urging a shutdown must, of necessity, weigh the costs of the type sought by this question against their perception of the risk of continued operation. That is, parties seeking a
. shutdown must first reach a conclusion as to the first four questions in order to arrive at a conclusion as to the risk from continued operation, weigh that risk against-the conse-quences of the type mentioned in the sixth question, and then determine that the risks outweigh any possible adverse consequences from a shutdown. Those parties seeking a shut-down should be required initially to fully state the bases
t'or their conclusion that a shutdown is justified. Since a conclusion as to the consequences of a shutdown is neJessarily implied in the overall conclusion supporting a shutdown, this part of the " equation" should be fully stated in order that the Board may properly weigh the overall reasonableness of the claims for a shutdown.
The seventh question, inquiring whether the Governor of tiew York wishes to express an of ficial position with regard to the long term operation of the units, is one which neither licensees nor Staff may predict.
The order for the presentation of evidence suggested here clearly comports with established legal. precedent. The Commission has asked this Board to consider a number of arear in determining the overall risk at Indian Point and how this-risk compares with other plants. This inquiry involves a consideration of accident scenarios not considered by licensees, safety measures proposed by persons other than the licensees, possible improvements to emergency plans which are not the responsibility of licensees, and an assessment of the " spectrum of risks" posed by plants not owned by the licensees. The sources of information on these points are obviously persons other than the licensees. Therefore, licensees cannot possibly offer initial testimony on these issues.
Basic fairness thus requires that those seeking a shutdown or modification of the plants must attempt to inake The Supreme Court stated in United __ States
~
their case first.
- v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R..~..Co., 355 U.S. 253, 2
L. Ed. 2d 247 (1954), that "[tlhe ordincry rule, bnetd on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiacly within the knowledge of his adversary." 355 U.S. at 256, n.5.
Again, it is important to emphasize the licensees' posture in this proceeding to date. The Indian. Point plants are fully licensed and in compliance with all applicable !!RC regulations, and there is thus no licensing purpose served by this proceeding. In apparent recognition of this fact and of the fact that before the Commission could take any action shutting down these plants or modifying their licenses a li-censing hearing would be required, the January 8 and Septem-
'ber 18 orders provided that licensees need not take part in this procee_ ding. On the other hand, there are intervenors who have sought out this proceeding to persuade this Board to recommend a specific course of action to the Commission.
In Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. SEC, 127 F.2d 378, 382 (9th Cir. 1942), it was recognized that in cases in which a statute is silent on the order of presentation of evidence, the proponent or sponsor of agency action must first present its case:
"If ... a hearing is held it is only common-sense which requires the company to present its evidence, since'it seeks a particular declaration."
Although the Commission has determined that this is not an "on the record proceeding"* and that therefore January 8, 1981 order at 6, n.4; September 18, 1981 order at 1.
l l
the provisions of Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C S 551 et seq.) do not apply to this proceeding, it is important to remember that the APA requires the proponent of a rule or or-der to have the burden of proof unless otherwise provided by statute (5 U.S.C. S 556(d)). Thus, as the Supreme Court re-cently noted:
" Ordinarily, it is the proponent of a rule or order who has the burden of proof in administrative proceedings." Industrial Union v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 653, 65 L.Ed 2d 10,(1980)
The " burden of proof" provision has been interpreted as requiring the proponents of a rule or order to initially come forward with evidence in support of their position.
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 548 Fed. 2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 53 L.Ed. 2d 239 (1977). Although APA does not apply to this proceeding there is no reason to depart from the obvious commonsensical reasoning underlying this requirement. The reasons for this statutory requirement are obvious -- basic fairness mandates that the proponent of a change should first fully present his or her reasoning for a particular regulatory action be-fore an agcncy or others are required to respond to the pro-posal. In the instant proceeding this reasoning requires that those who initiated the proceeding, and who are seeking either a shutdown of the plants or specific modifications, should come forward with their evidence first; that this evidence should then be cross-examined; and that Staff and licensees should then offer testimony in response.
III THE KEY ISSUES IN THIS PROCE80ING CAN ONLY BE IDENTIFIED AND CLARIFIED AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE I_NVESTIGATION'S PROPONENT _S ,,,_
The Commission's seven questions as set forth in the January 8 and September 18 orders supply clear limita-tions upon the permissible scope of inquiry in this investi-gation into the safety of the Indian Point units. However, the seven questions do not themselves permit the licensees
- or tne Staff to determine what the key issues will be. The que'stions generally relate to the site and plant-specific f risks posed by the Indian Point plants, but exactly what these risks might be, or how they supposedly differ from other plants, cannot be considered until they are first advanced by the proponents of the investigation.
As set forth in Part II above, the licensees will remain in the dark as to what the key issues in the proceeding will be until after they have had an opportunity to review intervenors' testimony. The licensees are accordingly unable to contribute to the process of narrowing and clarifying the j key issues until this has occurred.
The Board does have an avenue open to it to identify in advance of the actual hearings those issues I which prospective " interested state" partic.:. pants may wish to raise.* As noted in the licensees' respective answers l
The licensees oppose interested state status for certain applicants. See Con Edison's answer to petitions for leave to intervene dated November 24, 1981 at pp. 2-8, and the Power Authority's answer at pp. 35-38.
to petitions for leave to intervene, the Board is empowered to require issue specification from interested states under 10 CFR $ 2.715(c). That section provides that:
"The presiding officer may require such [" inter-ested state"] representative to indicate with reasonable specificity, in advance of the hear-ing, the subject matters on which he desires to participate."
Such a procedure was employed successfully in Gulf StatesJUt_ili_ty_ Company (River Bend Station, Units 1.and 2),
ALAB 329, 3 NRC.607 (1976). In that case, the Licensing Board directed that an interested state apprise it and all parties within seven days from a prehearing conference of issues which it wished to raise. The Board directed that the interested state-issue specifications "need not be in the form of specific contentions, but they must be issues that are relevant, material and narrow enough to permit evidentiary determination in an adjudicatory setting." (3 URC at 609) .The Board order provided that:-
" (Il f a ' state chooses to [ introduce issues of its own), it must do so in [a] timely and specific manner, The issues raised must be narrow and spe-cific enough to be amenable to adjudication in a licensing proceeding and'give a fair opportunity to other parties to know precisely what the limited issues, exactly what proof, evidence or testimony is required to meet that issue and exactly what I support the State intends to adduce for its alle-l gations." (3 NRC at 610)
Con Edison submits that an order similar to that entered in Gulf States should be entered in this proceeding I to avoid surprise and to permit a prompt identification and l
clarification of all issues proposec. cy .s.iterested state participants, IV THE BOARD SHOULD TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ASSURE THAT PARTIES NOT BE PERMITTED TO EXPAND UPON THE ISSUES DELINEATED BY THE COMMISSION FOR COtJSIDERATION IN THIS
. --PROCEEDING -- ._
In its " Answer to Petitions for Leave to Inter-vene ," Con Edison noted its concern that many of the parties seeking intervention to the proceeding have proposed issues .
which would inevitably expand the scope of,this proceeding beyond plant-specific consideration of the Commission's -
seven enumerated questions. Potential intervonors apparently sculd have the Board consider generic questions such as the desirability of nuclear power in general, possible psycho-logical stress on individuals from the siting of reactors, and the appropriateness of siting reactors in higher popula-tion density areas. Other potential intervenors seek a review of issues not encompassed within the Commission's seven questions, such as the potential rate treatment of a reactor shutdown. Con Edison believes that any such expansion would be contrary to the Commission's stated aim in institut-ing this proceeding.
Nothing in either the January 8 or September 18 orders can justify any sort of consideration of generic questions such as the desirability of nuclear power or the Commission's policy of locating nuclear plants. The Commis-sion in its January 8, 1980 order expressly advised the Board that it should not consider questions beyond the seven which s
n , =. .- ~* - ---- ,
it listed:
"In view of the complexity of this proceeding, and in order that the Commission may make its decisions within a reasonable period of time, we stress that the Board should focus clearly upon the questions asked by the Commission."*
^
Also indicative of a Commission concern that the Board clearly focus on the seven questions is the treatment of contention practice. In its January 8 order the Commis-sion stated that:
"Because the Commission itself is designating by .
this Order the issues it wishes addressed in the adjudication, it is particularly important that the Licensing Board have discretion to formulate contentions and sub-issues.**
In order that the Board have this discretion, the January 8 order provided that the Board would not be bound by the Commission's standard contention practice which re-quired the acceptance of even marginally relevant contentions:
"In admitting and formulating contentions and sub-issues, therefore, the Licensing Board will not be bound by the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2."***
Further evidence of Commission concern that the -
specific questions in the January 8 order not be expanded upon by the contentions of intervenors is found in the January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 7.
- Id . at 7, n. 4.
- *
- I _d .
September 18, 1981 order. As already noted, this order modified a number of the seven questions to further limit their scope. Question 1 was modified to require that a consideration of risks also conclude a consideration of the probability of such risks at the Indian Point units. Thus, a party mast not only hypothecate accident scenarios, but must also state the probability of the. occurrence of such accidents at these particular plants. Question 2 was modi-fied to require that contentions addressing additional safety measures be admitted only if admission of the conten-tion seems likely to aid in resolving whether "(a) there exists a significant risk to public health and safety" and (b) "the additional proposed measure would result in a signi-ficant reduction in that risk."* In addition to the above changes, the Septemoer 13 order modified the " procedural" footnote of the January 8, 1981 order to more clearly state the Board's responsibility to require that contentions fall within the bounds of the Commission's~seven questions. The September 18 order modifies this footnote to provide in I
relevant part that:
l "it is important that contentions raised by parties and contention sub-issues raised by the Board in this proceeding contribute materially to answering those designated issues. . . . The Board will not be bound by the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2 with regard to l
==
- September 18 cemorandum and order at 4.
the admission and formulation of . . . contentions.
In granting this discretion to the Board, the Com-mission emphasizes its purpose is to ensure that the Board is empowered only to accept and formulate those contentions which seem likely to be important to resolving the Commission's questions on pages 9-10, and thereby to assure that the proceeding re-mains clearly focused on the issues set forth in this order."*
The September order also directs the Board to exercise its existing authority under Part 2 to assure the relevance of discovery and cross-examination "in the interest of a focused proceeding."** ,
From all of the above it is clear that the Commission is concerned that the breadth of its seven questions not be used as an excuse to expand this proceeding. The Commission recognized this as a possible problem when it referred in the January order to the " complexity" of this proceeding and the need "to focus clearly upon the questions asked by the Com-mission."*** In the September 18 order the Commission high-lighted this-concern even further by. revising certain of its questions, and admonishing the Board to take care that it conducts a " focused proceeding."
Although the Licensees have not yet had an Id,. at 1-2.
- Id.
- *
- January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order at 2.
opportunity to review the contentions filed by parties seek-ing intervention, it is obvious, upon a reading of the peti-tions to intervene, that many of those seeking intervention wish to expand this proceeding to include consideration of
' issues not within the Commission's seven questions. Con Edison believes such expansion to be improper and urges the Board to take note of the-Commission's admonitions to it on this point.
i l
i l
T
.1
'_>,.-- __ . _ - - , . . . - ~ . . - - . . , - . _ - m 1 --_. ,_ ..- .
V IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS PROCEEDING WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED BY THE COMMISSION, THIS BOARD SHOULD ACTIVELY PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSOLIDATE INTERVENORS There have been eight petitions for leave to inter-vene in this proceeding which were filed by associational organizations.* Each of these petitioners. expresses an inter-est in raising issues relat.ing to emergency planning, for example, and the focus of several petitions is exclusively upon emergency planning. There also appears to be substantial overlap among petitioner's issues in the area of socioeconomics.
Under these circumstances, the Board is presented with substantial opportunities to consolidate intervenors in accordance with the Rules of Practice, 10 CFR $2.715a. The Commission issued a " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licens-ing Proceedings" on May 20, 1981 which construed and encouraged consolidation practice in Licensing Board proceedings. The Commission policy statement stated that:
"In accordance with 10 CFR 2.715a, intervenors should be consolidated and a lead intervenor designated who has 'substantially the same interest that may be af-fected by the proceedings and who raise [s] substantially the same questions ....' Obviously, no consolidation should be ordered that would prejudice the rights of any intervenor.
- Petitions for leave to intervene were filed by West Branch Conservation Association, Friends of the Earth, Inc., Rock-land Citizens for Safe Energy, Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc., New York City Audubon Society, Greater New York Council on Energy, Parents Concerned About Indian Point, and the Union of Concerned Scientists joined with the New York Public Interest Research-Group.
I
"However, consonant with that condition, single, lead intervenors should be designated to present evidence, to conduct cross-examination, to submit briefs, and to propose findings of fact, conclu-sions of law, and argument. Where such consolida-tion has taken place, those functions should not be performed by other intervenors except upon a showing of prejudice to such other intervenors'
- interest or upon a showing to the satisfaction of the board that the record would otherwise be incomplete." (CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452)
Con Edison submits that this Board should liber-ally construe its powers under 10 CFR S 2.715a, subsequent to its initial rulings on contentions. Unlike the typical licensing proceeding, the Board is here under a special mandate from the Commission to focus the proceeding on spe-cific subjects, and to complete the proceeding by a certain date. With the great number of prospective interveno'rs who have filed petitio$s, these objectives can only be met by the broad application of the consolidation rules. Indeed, consolidation of intervenors has been strongly encouraged by the Commission in other complex proceedings. In The Matter o_f Metropo_ lit _a_n_ Edis_o_n__ Compa_n_y_ (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141, 147 (1979), the Commission instructed the Licensing Board "to consolidate participation of parties pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.715a to the maximum extent practicable. . . .
The Board should direct the organizational peti -
tions to propose a consolidation program shortly after the submission of contentions, or failing agreement among the or-ganizational petitioners, direct consolidation on its own af-ter receiving the views of the other parties to the proceeding.
VI THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF CERTAIN DOCUME11TS BY_ EXPRESS MAIL The Commission's deadline for the completion of this proceeding necessitates that both the Board and the parties take great efforts to ensure that the Board presents its recommendations to the Commission by September 18, 1982, and that the recommendations be supported by a fully developed record. This short time frame, the nature of the questions to be examined by the Board, and the large number of prospective parties to this proceeding, all argue strongly in favor of the adoption of all reasonable procedural measures which would make the task before the Board and the parties more manageable.
Con Edison believes that requiring service of testimony and documents reuqiring or permitting a response by express (next
. day delivery) mail or by personal service is such a measure.
The increasing problems suffered by the Postal Service are common knowledge. Documents mailed by the Com-mission from Washington have taken up to nine days to be received. Given these problems, the number of parties to this proceeding, and the very compressed time frame for all activities, it would be unreasonable to permit parties to regularly serve documents by ordinary first class mail.
We note that the Commission as part of its over-all re-examination of its hearing process has currently before it a proposal which would expressly authorize Boards
to require service of documents by express mait. On June 8, 1981 the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding " Modifications to the NRC Hearing Process" (46 Fed.
Reg. 30349). The Commission noted that the modifications were the product of.its efforts in " examining (thel hearing process to determine if there are means to expedite the hearing pro-cess without reducing its quality or fairness." (46 Fed. Reg. 30349). The Commission stated that it would expect express mail to be required in circumstances where " expedition is es-pecially 1mportant"-(46 Fed. Reg. 30351). Obviously, th'is pro-ceeding is clearly one where " expedition is especially im-portant."
Con Edison does not believe that the fact that the Commission is considering amending its general rules on ser-vice to explicitly refer to express mail precludes this Board from now requiring express mail service of certain documents.
10 CFR $ 2.721(d) provides that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board shall have all of the powers of a presiding officer under 10 CFR S 2.718. The latter section provides that:
"A presiding officer has the duty to conduct a fair and impartial hearing according to law, to take
. appropriate action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. He has all powers necessary to those ends, including powers to (e) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants.
(f) Dispose of procedural matters or similar requests." (Emphasis supplied)
Subdivisions (e) and (f), as well as the provision in the opening clause of S 2.718 giving the Board "all powers necessary" to avoid delay, empower this Board to order the service of documents by express mail. Should the Board dis-agree with this view, licensees request that for the reasons stated, the Board request, pursuant to footnote 4 on page 7 of the January 8 order, authorization from the Ccmmission to require such service as being "necessary for the efficient conduct of the hearing."
Respectfully submitted, 1
0 ;W !(/
- J $ $V r BRENT L. BRANDENBURG Assistant General Counsel Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4333 Of Counsel, Thomas J. Farrelly Dated: New York, New York December 2, 1981 l
i l
1 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
In the Matter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF: ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, ) 50-286 SP Unit No. 2) )
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK, (Indian Point, )
Unit No. 3) )
)
ORDER On December 2, 1981, this Board convened a pre-hearing conference at the Springvale Inn, Croton-on-Hudson, New York, pursuant to Order dated No'vember 9, 1981. At the conference, the Board received and consi'dered various pre-hearing memoranda submitted by the parties and formal peti-tioners herein. After having considered the positions expressed in the memoranda, and after having heard the. views of the parties and petitioners as stated at the pre-hearing conference, it is this day of December, 1981 ORDERED-
- 1. That contentions filed on or before December 2, 1981 shall be entertained by the Board', but that' contentions
filed after that date shall not be considered.
- 2. That a time for limited appearance statements shall be scheduled at a later date.
- 3. That the following schedule is established by the Board with respect to contentions, discovery, participation t
, in the proceeding, and further actions, as follows (unless otherwise indicated, the date stated is the last date on which the referenced activity may occur):
Contentions filed December 2, 1981 Discovery ends respecting December 23, 1981 factual issues raised by petitions for leave to intervene File answers to licensees' December 11, 1981 motion for a stay of the Commission's January 8 and September 18 orders File motions objecting to December 30, 1981 admission of contentions Evidentiary hearing on January 6, 1982 factual issues raised by petitions for leave to intervene File responses to motions January 11, 1982 objecting to contentions File memoranda relating to January 14, 1982 evidentiary hearing on petitions for leave to intervene
, Pre-hearing order on con- January 21, 1982 tentions and petitions for I leave to intervene l
Discovery begins January 22, 1982 File objections to order of February 2, 1982 January 21 respecting-con-tentions and petitions for leave to intervene
File responses to objections February 16, 1982 to order of January 21 Order on contentions and February 25, 1982 petitions for leave to intervene Discovery ends March 12, 1982 File motions for summary March 26, 1982 disposition File answers to motions April 15, 1982 for summary disposition File replies to answers April'30, 1982 opposing motions for '
summary disposition Prehearing conference May 6, 1982 Order on motions for May 13, 1982 summary disposition
- 4. That a schedule for further actions in the pro-ceeding will be issued at the conclusion of the schedule set forth above.
- 5. That in order to complete the proceedings with-
-in the time period directed by the Commission, to insure the expeditious service of all filings upon all parties and pros-pective intervenors, and to aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding, this Board finds it necessary that all testi-mony and documents requiring or permitting a response herein shall be served by Express Mail.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
Louis J. Carter, Chairman.
Administrative Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 'N
.v ' .
.L '
fg'y 1 i.2 # .g Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman ~
.1,$I!
Frederick J. Shon .<* -
Dr. Oscar H. Paris .
I ,/
~ .., - $",7 In the. Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Unit Docket Nos. 50-247 SP
) 50-286 SP No. 2)
I POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have served copies of the annexed "First Pre-hearing Memorandum and Proposed Order" on the fol-lowing parties by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 2nd day of December, 1981:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Docketing and Service U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Branch Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Louis J. Carter, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Board Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
Oscar H. Paris, Member Thomas R. Frey, Esq.,.
Atomic Safety and Licensing General Counsel Board Power Authority of the
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State of New York Commission' 10 Columbus Circle Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10019 Frederick J. Shon, Member Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant General Counsel Board Power Authority of.the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State of New York Commission 10 Columbus' Circle Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10019 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Joan Holt, Director William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Indian Point Project, '
Harmon & Weiss, Suite 506 NY Public Interest Research 1725 I Street Group washington, D.C. 20006 5 Beekman Street New York, New York 10038 Ruth Messinger, et al Members'of the Council of Lorna Salzman the City of New York Mid-Atlantic Representative City Hall Friends of the Earth New York, New York 10007 208 West 13th Street New York, New York 10011 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Attorneys for the Metropolitan Paul F. Colarulli, Esq.
Transportation Authority Morgan-Associates, Chartered 200 Park Avenue 1899 L. Street, N.W.
New York, New York 10166 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles Morgan, Jr,., Esq. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.
Morgan Associates, Chartered Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L. Street, N.W. 1899 L. Street, N.W.
! Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 Andrew S, Roffe, Esq. Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
. Executive Counsel to the Morgan Associates, Chartered Speaker, New York State 1899 L. Street, N.W.
Assembly Chair, Special Washington, D.C. 20036 Committee on Nuclear Power Safety Charles A. Scheiner
. State Capitol Co-chairperson, WESPAC Albany, New York 12248 Westchester People's Action
- Coalition, Inc.
Alan Latman, Esq. P. O. Box 488 44 Sunset Drive White Plains, New York 10602 Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 6 m
Zipporah S. Fleisher, Secretary Environmental Protection West Branch Conservation Bureau Association New York State Attorney 443 Buena Vista Road General's Office New York, New York 10956 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General General Counsel Steve Leipzig, Esq.
The Port Authority of New York Deputy Assistant Attorney and New Jersey General One World Trade Center, 665 2.World. Trade Center New York, New York 10048 New York, New York.10047 Attention: Charles J. Maikish,.Esq.
- Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Jonathan L. Levine, Esq. County Attorney
-Rockland Citizens For Safe Energy The County of Rockland P.O. Box 74 11 New Hempstead Road New York, New York New City, New York 10956 Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Greater New York Council on
~
Conservation Committee Chairman Energy Director, New York City Audubon Dean R. Corren, Director Society New York University
, 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 28 Stuyvesant Street New York, New York 10010 New York, New York 10003 Pat Possner, Spokesperson John Gilroy, Westchester 4 Parent Concerned About Indian Coordinator, Point Indian Point Project P.O. Box 125 New York Public Interest Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Research Group-240 Central Avenue
, Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. White Plains, New York'10606 New York University Law School 423 Vanderbilt Hall Alfred B. Del Bello, 40 Washington Square South Executive of the County of New York, New York 10012 Westchester Westchester County Stanley B. Klimberg 148 Martine Avenue General Counsel New York, New York 10601 New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Clerk's Office
. Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchahan l 36 Tate Avenue Buchanan, New York 10511-p Dated: December 2, 1981 New York, New York N
/ // .'
[
f 4
h) ' luh'&
e BRENT L. BRANDENBURG 3 -
. - - . ,. _- _., _. - . . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ , . . . . . _. _ ..,. _ , __ _