ML20039E016

Statement of Position on Six Questions Raised in Commission 810108 & 0918 Orders.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20039E016
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/31/1981
From:	Morgan C MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201060434
Download: ML20039E016 (12)

Text

--

'o DOCKETED US!PC

'82 JAN -4 A!i :i5

(.AA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r _ ,,.3 _ _. y .,.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. f,1,:l; ,'l ~

' x.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD as Before Administrative Judges: c Ch Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon S Dr. Oscar H. Paris s CEIVED ..

{ .y NO 198gm, .

) y In the Matter of )

) 4 /

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY )

OF N EW YO RK, INC. ) Docke t Nos.

(Indian Point, Unit No. 2). )30-247 SP

) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE )

OF NEW YORK ) December 31, 1981 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

POWER AUTHORITY'S STATEMENT ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMMISSION'S JANUARY 8, 1981 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 1981 ORDERS The Power Authority of the State of New York (Authority) hereby provides notice of its position on six of the seven issues specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) . The intervenors seek to recast the issues in their language rather than in the language of the Commission. They also seek to alter the order of the presentation of the issues to the Board so that emergency planning would be first on the agenda and the emergency to _

()Y 8201060434 811235' PDR ADOCK 05000247 G PDR y/l

kh $$1 $b$Y$Wh$$

y be planned for, last. If there is logic in recasting and .

reordering, it can only be understood in the context of the private interest needs of the intervenors. To plunge into organizing and f und-raising issues prior to ascertaining the nature of the emergency to be planned for may provide the intervenors immediate economic gains. That, however, clearly is not what the Commission had in mind. Neither the quest for survival "[i]n the public-interest jungle"1 or the nature of the private economic desires of the intervenors--

the UCS "is dependent upon its sponsorship contributions for its survival"2--should be allowed to alter the logical order of these proceedings.

I. What Risk May Be Posed By Serious Accidents At Indian Point 2 and 3, Including Accidents Not Considered in the Plants' De s ig n Ba s is , Pending and After Any Improvements De sc ribed in (2) and (4) Below? Although not requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the 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).

1. Response of the Greater New York Council on Energy to NRC Staff and Licensee Answers to the GNYCE Petition for Leave to Intervene and to Prehearing Memoranda at 10 ( De c .

9, 1981).

2. Amendment to UCS' Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Response to NRC Staf f, Consolidated Edison, and PASNY Challenges to UCS Standing to Intervene at 6 n.3 ( De c . 10, 1981).

The Authority's position. The level of safety of Indian Point Unit 3 is currently the subject of a two-year study being conducted for the Authority. Consistent with the Commission's intent, this study will address both "'the probability of occurrences of releases and . . . the environmental consequences of such releases,'" and it "'will take into account significant site and plant-specific features.'" NRC Memorandum and Order at 3 n.5 (Sept. 18, 1981), quoting 44 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980). This study will be provided to the Commission when it is available, which the Authority anticipates will be prior to the presentation of witnesses and evidence in this proceeding.

II. What Improvements in the Level of Safety Will Result From Measures Required or Referenced in the Director's Order to the Licensee, Da ted 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 inquiry if, according to the Licensing Board, admission of the contention seems likely to be important to resolving whether (a) there exists a significant risk to public health and safety, notwithstanding the Director's I

measures, and (b) the additional proposed measures would result in a significant reduction in that risk.)

The Authority's position. Certain improvements required or referenced in the Director's Order to the Power Authority, dated February 11, 1980, did increase the level of safety of Indian Point Unit 3. See Report of the Task

. 3,

, _4_

Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point (NUREG-0715)

(1980).

Additionally, the Authority in its Objections and Answers to Contentions of Intervenors addresses contentions dealing with suggested additional safety measures. Specifi-cally, potential intervenors argue that the installation of a filtered, vented containment system, " core-catcher," and a separate containment structure is required for the Indian Point units. The Authority and the NRC are currently conducting independent assessments of mitigative features.

l l

An evaluation of such features must be based on an accurate assessment of both the existing level of safety and the area in which significant mitigation or prevention is meaningful.

III. That is the Current Status and Degree of Conformance With NRC/ FEMA Guidelines of State and Local Eme rg ency 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.

The Authority's Position: The Authority, together with Unit 2 licensee Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ediso n) has submitted multi-volume plans to the Commission for responding to a radiological emergency at Indian Point. The state and county plans have been officially submitted to FEMA by New York State. The plans contain i

MCiN$NUMMTf5M9WWC:IV extensive details for responses by the licensees, the local, county, state, and federal governments, and various private and charitable organizations such as the American Red Cross. We have been informed that FEMA has concluded that the present state of emergency planning for Indian Point is adequate.

These emergency plans provide more than adequate assurance that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

The evacuation time estimates incorporated into the emergency plans are accurate.

The Indian Point evacuation time estimates have been cited by FEMA as among the five best submitted by nuclear reactor licensees throughout the nation. These time esti-mates include both evacuation and warning time estimates which correspond with the estimates developed for FEMA by CONSAD Research Corporation. The CONSAD estimates have been endorsed by FEMA.

IV. What Improvements in the Level of Emergency Planning 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?

The Authority's Position: The Authority, in conjunction with Con Edison and appropriate governmental authorities, intends to ef fectuate the following improvements in the level of emergency planning:

1

!!#NIAEiM9 RN t

, -d -

(1) An extensive public information brochure, which details procedures to be followed in the event of a radio-logical emergency, will be publicly distriouted.

(2) In conformance with requirements of Chapter 708 of the Laws of New York State of 1981, the Authority and Con Edison will provide directly to the state and other governmental authorities:

site meteorology information; airborne radioactive effluent information; 4 offsite radiation measurements; and containment building pressure, temperature, and radiation.

In addition, the Authority and Con Edison provide an annual fee to support state and local governmental responsibilities under accepted radiological emergency preparedness plans.

(3) The Authority is presently scheduled to conduct an excrcise of the emergency plans on March 2, 1982. Efforts will be made to ef fectuate as promptly as possible, in cooperation with state and local government officials, any feasible improvements in the level of emergency planning found necessary as a result of the exercise.

The Authority and its consultants have extensively reviewed all levels of emergency planning, and have determined that the plans provide more than adequate assurance that appropriate protective measures can ar.d will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. The

+. .,.

e

, 7-determination whether'"other.offsite emergency procedures-

. . . are feasible" is obviously within the jurisdiction of the appropriate offsite governmental authorities.

The. Authority has already provided and will continue'to provide substantial financial assistance to those governmental' authorities. The Authority will continue to extend our full cooperation to these authorities in-considering what, if any , additional emergency procedures

~

are feasible.

V. 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.)

The studies being conducted for the Authority (and referred to in response to Issue No. 1, supra,) will ascer-tain the levels of safety and the required planning for emergencies at Indian Point Unit 3. Thereafter, that level of safety will be compared to the levels of safety'at other plants. The Authority believes that the level of safety at Indian Point Unit 3 is similar to the safety levels of other nuclear power plants licensed to operate by the Commission.

An earlier study concluded that the level of safety at Indian Point Unit 3 is similar to that of "a typical reactor

,g:ks W M

. on a typical site." Report of the Task Force on Interim Operation of Indian Point (NUREG-0715) at 40 (1980).

VI. What Would Be the Energy, Environmental, Economic or Other Consequences of a Shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 3?

The Authority's Position. The Indian Point plants play a major role in meeting the energy needs of the New York City metropolitan area. The unavailability of the units would result in higher rates to the people who already pay the highest electric rates in the United States. The resulting higher costs would have an especially severe impact on the New York City metropolitan area's transit system. In addition, any cessation of operations at these plants would further increase New York's already heavy reliance on Middle Eastern and other foreign oil for electric generation, and would increase air pollution somewhat.

The increased electric production costs to consumers as a result of a shutdown of Indian Point units including inventory and working capital costs and taxes have been estimated to be very substantial. In addition to the annual direct electric production cost increases, inventory and working capital expenses as a result of additional residual oil requirements will be af fected. Taxes will also increase. A study is underway to document these costs. The

~~ ' .4 4 .'~ ,. . .m E ' *

._..}

r ._ . * , __

?_'.; .-, . . _ , _ .  ;'  ?

, . unavailability of the Indian Point units would also have an immediate and lasting impact on residual oil prices as a result of increased demand.

The impact of increased economic and environmental costs resulting from a shutdown of Indian Point is not expected to be borne equally by all members of society, but may be particularly significant for people less able to offset the increased costs.

VII. Does the Governor of the State of New York Wish to Express an Official Position With Regard to the Long-Term Operation of the Units?

The Authority takes no position on this issue.

Respectfully submitted, Charles Morgan, Jr.

S / / ,

MORGAN ASSOCIATES, Paul F. Colarulli CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W. 1899 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000 SHEA & GOULD Thomas R. Frey 330 Madison Avenue General Counsel New Yo rk , New Yo rk 10017 Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE 10 Columbus Circle STATE OF NEW YORK New York, New York 10019 Licensee of Indian Point (212) 397-6200 Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Dated: December 31, 1981

~'

D D" I h%fh 1%khhl '

, ([h w

C O L K E T E.~-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UR::

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'82 JA!1 -4 A11 :15 dAO Before Administrative Judges:

Louis J. Carter, Chairman hy,_g ,.M} , _ _hi.. g Frederick J. Shon ERAT:CH Dr. Oscar H. Paris

)

In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos.

OF NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE )

OF NEW YORK )

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) ) December 31, 1981

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 31st day of December, 1981, I caused a copy of the following documents:

1. Power Authority's and Consolidated Edison's Reply to Petitioners' Opposition to Licensees' Motion for a Stay of Commission's Orders of January 8, 1981 and September 18, 1981 or for Dismissal of this Proceeding or, in the Alternative, Certification to the Commission;

2. Power Authority's Motion for Leave to File the Following Reply to Potential Intervenors' Responses to Power Authority's Motion to Exclude Fear as an Issue in this Proceeding; and

3. Power Authority's Statement on the Issues Raised in the Commission's January 8, 1981 and September 18, 1981 Orders to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid on:

I

Louis J. Carter, Esq. Mr. Frederick J. Shon 23 Wiltshire Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

^

United States Nuclear 19151 Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' Office of the Executive United States Nuclear Legal Director Regulatory Commission United States Muclear Washington, D.C. 20555 Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq.

Consolidated Edison Company General Counsel of New York, Inc. The Port Authority of New York 4 Irving Place and New Jersey New York, New York 10003 One World Trade Center, 66S New York, New York 10048 Consolidated Edison Company of Mr. John Gilroy New York, Inc. Westchester Coordinator ATTN: Mr. John D. O'Toole India,n Point Project Vice President New York Public Interest Research 4 Irving Place Group New York, New York 10003 240 Central Avenue White Plains, New York 10606 Mr. Richard P. Remshaw West Branch Conservation Project Manager Association Cons >1idated Edison Company 443 Buena Vista Road cf New York, Inc. New City, New York 10956 4 Irving Place - Room 749S New York, New York 10003 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Westchester People's Action New York University Law School Coalition, Inc.

4 23 Vanderbilt Hall P.O. Box 488 40 Washington Square South White Plains, New York 10602 New Yo rk , New York 10012 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Mayor George V. Begany Harmon and Weiss Village of Buchanan 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 236 Tate Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 Buchanan, New York 10511 Ms. Joan Holt Alan Latman, Esq.

New York Public Interest Research 44 Sunset Drive Group Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 5 Beekman Street New York, New York 10038

e ..

e-Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. Andrew S. Rof'e, .Esq.

Steve Leipzig , Esq. New York Stat Assembly Environmental Protection Bureau Albany, New ' ark 12248 New York State Attorney General's Office Two World Trade Center New York,-New York 10047 Ms. Pat Posner, Spoke sperson Marc L. Parris,'Esq.

Parents Concerned About_ Indian County Attorney Point County of Rockland P.O. Box 125 11 New Hempstead Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 New City, New York- 10956 Jonathan L. Levine, Esq. Renee Schwartz, Esq.

P.O. Box 280 Botein, Hays, Sklar .and Herzberg New City, New York 10956 200 Park Avenue New York, New York -10166' Greater New York Council Honorable Ruth W. Messinger-on Energy. Council Member c/o Dean R. Corren 4th District, Manhattan New York University City Hall 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, New York 10007 New York, New York 10003 Mr. Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Mrs. Lorna Salzman Conservation Committee Chairman Friends of the Earth Director, New York City 208 West 13th Street-Audubon Society New York, New York 10011.

71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, New York 10010 ,

Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Mr. Alfred B. Del Bello General Counsel Westchester County Executive New York State Energy Office Westchester County 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 148 Martine - Avenue Albany, New York 12223 New York, New York 10601 Ms. Judith Kessler, Coordinator Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy 9th Legislative District 300 New Hempstead Road Westchester County New City, New York 10956 county Office Building White Plains, New York 10601 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Chief, Docketing and ,(

Service Section \

b 0w>AA dseph J.T Levin, 'Urk