ML20039F841
| ML20039F841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1982 |
| From: | Salzman L FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| *RS-01, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201130454 | |
| Download: ML20039F841 (4) | |
Text
..
January 7, 1932 T
.,.--, J o,,.-,, C,r u.sRICn.
c.u is in ua IrJCLEAR REGU'.TCR'i CC:0:ISSICN d
m-
==c.===..=,-
g
_m.S.~.m
.=.C A no a n.
In the :.:atter of nEg7gg
'62 Julli P3*0 3
g CC::SOLIDATED EDISCN CO.
I
, r-. v.t.a __r..u-,:...m J M 1 gjgggso. 1 UA
.u
. " p-qg r,r31 CDCLOk 17.os. SC-d
-cr
.._O -'.-
n.- '.;
WscJa So_ogg 3e M-
- r#.
.~2 ~r..:x.p r.
C.=
~..:~= a~ ~a n -.
n u.c s..
CF NE4 YCRK (Indian Foint III) n 2
y OT
..py :- v.. ita Cm.ns : n.~. A n.m rC,- a.a s T, O d*
r.
-,n-L STAFF RESPONSE TO CCNTE';TICNS NRC scaff states that FCE/:ric Audubon contentien 1 "does not appear to raise matters which would co: ' ribute caterially to answer any questica posed by the Connicsion's order with adequate specificity".
petitieners for intervenor status are not required at this stage in the proceedings to provide the factual or technical basis for their contentiens beyond what is required in the Co rissien's order. This order (question 1) asks parties to address the question of the ris'r. frc: sericus accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in the plants' design basis. _=etitioners' contentien 1 has not cade any nu=erical or epidemiological calculations since these will fore part of their direct cace. Instead, petitioners have enumerated the potential scope of a beyond-design-basis accident in teres of early fatalities, illnesses, genetic effects, as well as environ-cental effects en soil, food, water, buildings, etc. Tnis is strictly in accordance with Questica 1 of the Cc=ission's order which states that the answer to this question does not require preparation of an W~ironmental Impact Statement, which of ccurse would be the proper feru for numerical esticates er findings.
'dith respect to Licensees' objections that petitioners have not dealt with the issue of probability of accidents, we beg to differ. By inference, discussion of. potential consequencas frc: accidents within or beycnd design basis infers that the probrbility of accident is greater than nero; were this not true, there would be no need to discuss accident centequences or emergency planning at all. Since licensees themselves have (Initial Statement of position regarding questiens) at this time no details or evidence regarding accident probabilities, then there is no obligation on the part of petitioners to produce such infor:.atien either. Therefore, we request that when licensees' probability studies are ccepleted, that they be it ediately provided to all parties for study; at this tire, however, we believe we have dealt with theissue of prchability as best we can under the circu= stances, and are in compliance with the Order re6arding attentien to probability and consequences of accidents.
' lith respect to the foregoing and also with respect to the Staff claim that the oortien of the FCE/tifC Audubon contention regarding " interim" protection ceasures does 8201130454 820107 d
{DRADOCK05000 (pier) y g
j
j y
not " relate" to the Cc==ission's emergency planning questions and is " vague", we believe that in both these instances Staff is asking petitioners to, in effect, present their 8
direct case which is ::. ore appropriately reserved for the hearing process proper. The Co==ission's question 3 asks: "What is the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/FEG guidelines of state and local e=ergency planning within a 10 mile radius of the site #and (to the extent it is relevant) beyond that radius? petitioners
- response S ves specifies on this part of the contention and Staff is urged to re-i clarifies and read it. Petitioners'. statecent that no feasible interim protective measures can be takenisbasedonContentionbaseshnpp.3-4ofitsContentions nacely that existing medical facilities are inadequate, that cany vulnerable people are at risk who would be unable to even profit from protective ceasures, that no emer6ency plans for the larger area cutside the lO-cile radius, specifically New York City, exist or can be developed to provide any significant proteci; ion. The fact that New York City, or other areas beyond the 1Ceile zone are not required to prepare e=ergency plans ic in itself proof that there are no future or interim protective measures which could feaaibly protect the-health of the public; that the people and the environment in these areas will in fact be affected by a sericus reactor accident will be proven in the direct case, in direct response to the Co==issicn's question 3, which asks for the status and degree of confomance with NRC/FEG guidelines within and beyond the 10-cile radius; it is precisely the narrow li=its of these requirements which place these people and areas at risk.
C.h regard to Staff's objection to Contention 2, we believe there is no doubt whatsoever that land, water, food, etc. within the 50-mile radius would be affected by accidents at Indian point, and that petitioners' direct case will detail this.
The Cc=: Lssion's questions were not intended as guidelines for framing contentions but for seeking info mation and anssers within the hearing process; thus question 6 asks: "What would be the energy, environmental, ecbrocie or other consequences of a shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 3?" Fetiticners' case will in part attempt to ccapare,for various parameters,the cost of losing some electric capacity vs. the i==ediate and lone-tern costs (environmental, health, social, economic, etc.) associated with an accident, which is of course the most meaningful kind of comparison possible.
Conclusion Staff is willing to Erant Contention 1 or part thereof if petitioners provide core specific reasons for believing no future protective measures are feasible to protect public health and safety. We believe that by pointing out the potential consequences of beyond-design-basis accidents, coupled with the fact that no emergency planning has been candated for the 50-mile zone or beyond, combined with the current inadequacy of emergency plans in the view of Westchester County, we have in fact provided sufficient basis and specificity to litigate this contention and fully qualify as a party.
Respectfully suba 'to L
Jan. 7, 1982, NYC Iorna Salzman, FO
I!
m;ITED STAT 3 CF AMERICA
- U;L2AR REGUIATCRY CC
of New York (Indian Point II)
Docket Hos. 50-247m,?
30-286-SP Fower Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point III)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies o.r N. ends o# +he Earth Response to NRC Staff eekingslavebeencervedonthefollowing Response to Contentions J. *e or attached list by first class U.S. cail, this 7th day of January,1982.
5s gn W
Mrna S
=an Mid-Atlantic Rep., FCE i
1 La. h J. Ca rt e r, E sq., Cha i r Lan
.)
Hon.. Ruth Msssinger I
Ad:inistrative Judge
')'
Member cf th* Council of ths City of New York
)
Atortic Sa fety and : Licens ing ' Boa rd District #4
)
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
U. S. Nuclear Rrgulatory Cocnission
)
+.
Administrative Judge
)
Washingten. D. C. 20555 Hon. Miria c Friedlander
)
Member of the Council of the City of New York
)
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
)
District s*2 Administrative Judge
)
Hon. Carol Creitzer
)
Member of the Council of the City -f New York District 43
)
Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Hon. Stanley E. Michels
)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
Environ = ental Protection Bureau Member of the Council of the City of New York 4 Irvind Place.
N.Y. State Atty. Gene ral's.Of fice District d6
)
i New York, New Yerk 10003 Ivo World Trade Center New-York, New York 10047 Hon. Susan Alter
)
Paul F. Colaralli, Esq.
Me=ber of the Council of the City Of New York Jese ph. J. Levin, Jr., Esq.
Alf red B. Dal Bello District a32
)
Facela S. Horowitz, Esq.
We stche ste r County Executive' Charles Mergsn, Jr., Esq.
Westchester Cointy Hon. Edward C. Wallace
)
yorgan Asscciated, Chartered 149 Martine Avenae Member of the Ceuccil of the City of New Ycrk
~
'1599 L. Street N.W.
White Plains, N.Y.
10601 Council Merte r at La rge, Manhattan
)
Washingten. D. C. 20036 Andrew S. Rof fe, Esq.
Hon. Mary Finkett
)
Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
New York State Asse nbly Me=ber of the Council of the City c: New Ycrk l
. hoca s R. F rey, E s q.
Albany, New York 12248 District =2d
)
l Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Hon. Mary T. Codd
)
New York, New Ycrk 10019 Betein, Hays, Sklar 6. Herzbarg Member of the Council of the City cf New York Attys. for Metropolitan Tra.s.
Council Mc:ber at Large, Staten Island
)
Ellyn R. Weis Esq.
Authority l
I tillia?.'S. Jordan, III, Esq.
200 Park Avenue
~4on. Gilberto Cerana-vc:entin
)
Ha::en & Weiss New York, New York 10166 Member of the Council of the City of New York 1725 I Street, N.W. Suite 506 District all
)
Washingt n, D. C. 20006.
Stanlev B. Klimberg'
/
Cencral Counsel Pen. Arthur J, Katz:an
)
i Joan Holt, Proj e c t Di re c tor N. Y. State Ene rgy Of fice Member cf the Council of the City of New Yerk Indi n Point.PrCect 2 Rockefeller State Plaza District 422
)
N. Y. Public Interest Re search Group Albany, New York 12223 5 Seek.an Street 9
New York, New Ycrk 1003s Marc L. Parris Geoffrey Ccbb rm-y; Countv Attornev Conse rva t i., C :
'ttee Chair-an, Director, F,
John Girov, Westchester Coor
- Mator Ceunty cf Reckland New Ycrk City.t _.' bon Society C
Indian Point Prcject 11 New He stead Read 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828
..Y. Public Interest Research Creup New City, New Yer> 10956 New York,-New York 10010
,C, 2;.0 Cent r il Avsrae White Plains, New York 10t'f Jcnathan L. Levin
- Esq.
9 ater N.Y. Cecnell en Encrgy C
L iklan
- Citizens f or Safe Energy Dean R. Corr.n. Directer
,P.
C ?
Je f f rey - M.
Blu, Esq.
P. O. B n 74 I". ' YC#A OTU 'Y N. Y. University Law School
- ew City, New Y.ek 10956
.2t Stuyvesant street 423 Vanderbuilt Hall arles J, Maikish, Esq.
[
{.
S,
,a th s
g Litigation Divn. Port Authority y g ge, e ga g;. t v an3 I f ce-ns tre Board Panel C r; cf Ne. Ycrk and New Jersey C.S. Nuclear ~Rc;ub terv Cornission Mayer Gecrge V. Begany.
One Wcrld Trade Center Washington
- D* C* 20553 L
- iilla :e of 9uchanan, 236 Tate Ave.
New York,'New York 1".048 vp I?uchanan, New York 10511 t
v ce Sntion
- At nic Safety and Liegnsing Board Panel fr leish U.s. Nuclear Regulatory \\Cocnission 3rA'nc Conse ation Assn.
biuNe5 R NM-Washington, D. C. 20555 N'
443 Saena Vista Road Washington, D. C. 20553.oest.
' p;ew City, New York 10956
cue:.
..o 2 -
Attyc. for 1%;NY l
330 hadiser. twe.
l 1:Y 10017
. Rich: d 3rodsky
)
- lcr tchester Cour.ty.cciclature
- lhite Plainn,
".Y.
j t
1 1
l l
l l
CITY HA LL 3
i t
I EW Y0RK, S Y 1GC'?
I i,
' 1( e ', f" '
f I
2 11Il 11 P3:41 0FF o, DCCht,,:d,-(U, re. 3:
D Ii 5 l,'
j f 4
a
?csner, Sp ekc s pe r s :r.
- s Cer c,o med Abc.t In. Ft.
1 n.,...s
- .-:n-H dsen, NY 1052:
j irt+s 2 Sc'eim r, Co-C airp.
1:e'nes:er ;-eeple's A ti.n
- l i t i ~., Inc.
O.
E ::,25 i
- .s
.c i..w..
- ., s,
4 h La
..an, Esq.
B r. s e : 3 rive t'a-:
- 'h
- Y 10 220 5
14 $ si ll.T.d n
!At la :lc Repr.-sent s tive tads of the E arth, Inc.
[
- *r a t 13th 5: eet N
h rk, Net. Ycen 10011) 8 3
m
_ _. -. ?
2