ML20040E268

Statement of a Colasanto Speaking for Joint Labor/Mgt Board of Const Industry Re Economic Impact of Facility Shutdown

ML20040E268
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/21/1982
From:	Colasanto A BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
To:
References
NUDOCS 8202040100
Download: ML20040E268 (6)

Text

.

-er.----

Statement by Arthur Colasanto, President, Rt@i.ldih% add :Cpnstruction Trades Council AFL-CIO.

Speaking for the Joint Labor / Management Board of the construction industry which represents 17 building trade unions as well as the Building Trades Employers Associatiori e

'UY D

and the Builders Institute.

M,,.,N.b.dia p tj %,;'O,p

'I'$Q

'4 '\\

..j

• M sy,g

..a

. e.g.,,

.tpa 11

\\Y:n rQQ* w%

s/f

(

~

s o..,.t u.,..,y sp w-r

.re 5 0

.g g (, $ p I

b5o3 S

/ /

l 8202040100 820120 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G

PDR

Any discussion of the energy needs of our mu.st include the economic impact of i

area

\\

shutting down Indian Point II and III.

The impact of not having Indian Pointfin service was clearly felt in our pocket-2 books when consumers were forced to pay additional fuel ad-

\\

justment charges when the plant was out of service between i

many of October 1980 and May 1981.

It was ironic thatAthose seeking to have the plant shut down permanently were tho ones screaming the, loudest about the increased fuel adjustment charges because the plant w;gt out of service.

(gw3 M

\\

Neither I, nor any of my colleagues in the L= u '

are experts in nuclear plant safety.

It is wiser and more prudent to leave such important matters as risk assessment in the hands of the experts.

However, we are i

business men and women who represent labor and who are con-cerned with unemployment, with a slow-down in construction, with the rise in crime, and with people and businesses perhaps,

contemplating leaving the area.

In October 1973 when the Arab oil embargo placed a burden on our nation which will be felt forever, our efforts were directed towards supporting alternative sources of power --

coal, nuclear and gas.

W'e continue to support Con Edison's plan to generate electricity with coal, we support research and development programs, and we support continued use of nuclear power to generate electricity.

It is unconscionable for us not to continue to support programs and technologies which would reduce our dependence on foreign, expensive oil --

l not increase our dangerous reliance.

It is morally, politically l

and especially economically ridiculous for us to put ourselves atthemercyofma[oroil-producingcountriesintheMid-East

~

l who have forced high prices and threatened the survival of small businesses in our country and specifically our area.

Because of the incident at Indian Point in 1980, my electric bills increased substantially, as did those of all Westchester and New York City utility customers.

Without the Indian Point plants, the temporary increase we felt then would become permanent.

These higher costs would result in adding further to the burden for those of us who already pay the highest electricity rates in the nation.

Let us not forget the long gasoline lines. 'Let us not forget that what,we are trying to do is strengthen our economic and our social structures, not weaken them.

Nuclear power is essential, as is coal power and all other sources of -

energy.

Ist us not push ourselves backwards.

You can achieve the same results by mandating proper safety measures with proper management and oversight to maintain the integrity of the Indian Point plants.

We urge you to carefully weigh all the factors.

Keep the plants operating.

l 4

1 - - - - -

W'.-

. '.).h!.$'-

e '.,[,

f,: %..

(. [',, '. 'h,

[i deon.oac <c[ro, un,c.pape.i.;.y

, d..mrr s

.,y;Y;.k;.'.::L

.4 3 3.:

m. ;.s.....E.

%'et,y!hf q..Q? %,tW:

. w

. c '.5.'.Qh*p, 7i

1. d,,t.,,.%,pc. ".

47' j.hWA,.,d.,%.,cs i.);

Wh. W:.f: K, *..<

. s.;;:r',:L 6.*.. L ::!1:.*

@.,,;_w,p:...;'."' /.;.R,:.y}y; t W;,.. ;p.d.:, ~;.

t-

%. yp.:. p.?. -

.;:.:. : '.:. qc:.. ;,. _. c.fi.'

G,'.y@:j'

.n. ;).. ".. ;%.. u:

fi.,.

?',/.h. '. g:4.yW..., M.4Gyf4..

n..

.. c. ; ' ;,y c p :.g. 3,

q;. y,,...

.:e.

dk) %p: e.

. E s ". ?.. ". 3 i..(

.N+Q

, c }1:

n;;t u ~ 'n..L,,, q,. ;..

...y g'.m:

..w,.

@s.

.,.%19;Q' ;,Q,d;',Q,V.

'.'??v;9  ?.

'. m..

c.

• Y *\\)

. -c..

'. in;...;. :y;.,. :..)y;.ir.. :.

.r..:.. -> &e ' -

. g g..

i i.

m.

M-d i,4

'y0Wi-f.7

' ;. 7,m

. PETITION OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS h?&r.)&.:p:'<;.h@h,h@'~.UI.[':.f.f.;$:%

5N

% "'. ' i.

~~

[k '. M... 2 I

'/.4pllJ p, a. TO SHUT DOWN INDIAN POINT :f.syg.;i,

I;,.

g,j.,

/g..,

G,%%$d.V{.R 5 hW:

k,.f;

. :'!.W M & M e.? %N%.,tfq:g. UWM 3.h'

n.&'w& l.~ :?. P.. s r'

m.

(% T!..

< ;. d's. a -

T.In

.an

~

(UCS) petitioned the ' Nuclear' : W8/ 'i

)h/d;!N. h. 9 he ' Union of Concerned Sci ~entistsRegulat'ory Commissio'n c'

t R

th3M.Sh[MPoint Unit 2 and the Powed'. Authority of 'the ' State of New

?,tof> fy..t ;'.

fR.".J ? r.Jfeasibility of evacuation. from' the, vicinitiy 'de'termined

.! Unit 3 unti'l 'the' suitability of the sit' t

p,i.d.

b/h

.y12,

'!"# 4,... v%..,W.. :. 'l.'the units re trofitted 'with devices r. equired ',o,.n,'.:..n.ew

.< lants~the'n under cons'truction. Jm.v. 'lW W -~., q?'.h.4,.abij:$.Y..

t. ja.A.. m($$;h:I.Nh,k N

.jf..

sp u

/:".t.n.>.

.i&,b??. &,!Ji&.k.f$..'?'

?hh'hh :,h.'Ui.&N

-C'E.'.,'.hdy,:f o'n Edison' and the Power Authority vigorously ' opposed l,jhis ylyr,g..d,!h..

C r

! 2.h Ja?' :,fTeffort, both on ~ grounds that the, comprehensive'. safety program Mg"4 g'? c.0fa'.E..?l'..'lf of the NRC, '.-a.'nd.th. e.util'ities'. own saf e...ty e f forts,". pro.v..ide~?4.i';E

~

,M i.......

m yn 54.;;.-l cP., dequate protection.a. d because' of.the severe negative effect ' :.9.g

R. '..)[ ~ '.such a move would h' ave' on consumers of, electricity !in 'New York M,'y a

n M,g.sl"I.. " LCity and Westchesterf County. J. Operation of the'. Indian] Poi ~tnti'.%.h..;

R U a.',:.?.Y,.. units 'substantially reduces this area' f :

l:., ' ". '..

3 5.;

and unreliable supplies of foreign oil,-fand saves c6nsumers,1.'r.

' i} '.

, %';liO." in New' York LCity and Westchester County more than }$600 million M.,,

n 1 price s. '... ' ' ~.

g j,';

f, g ;l.lr f,.;' g.-

.,,.yfjl.-);p,;g.

,,'.,..") i ;.Y"",#

, f. I,

1,.

'f

> y:,. y.

t.- T

. cgu 54;. e..1.,.1

~, ' "

..g.....

l*e

f. *..

. / s.

.v

.a y

Q ;+e.}'.i y2.,. y. @>.n

• '8.

,e...~.

. g.. -.., u

[

v. J.y.... n: > c. M...,.. o,.v.a,.;.h

.. 3l;

,~.

6. -l., O.~,?.,.J :.v:...v.4.:/:

.n GP,(.

%, R..

.(.:

..ui:.

s.

., u..

s..

,y..w

,.:...m....(, d1 ants are Safe and Env'ironmenta1ly' r.,.. ~. s ;

.s.t.iM.'M...

p >.,. :

..z, r y. ?,,

!W s

( e.

...c

'..- g J.x, i.i.O.,,q:*;?m..7. q In addition '. '.to being the most economical ; power. plants. se

-l

./ U.

are the most. environmentally clean electric.genesatiing ' aciliEj.,.

h t

County, the IndianiPointJunits N

g'

.l.i;. ylr Q' 'n"..?;,New York ', City l and Westc es er

$ JQ.U '

f

c.,

1" T './, 1 ties'in,the area, producing no harmful emissions'.. Furthermore,Uys-

> nuclear. facilities have been operated safely at Indian Point

'Y/. '

Safety will continue to be the prithe?.M, c G'gY.'

1:

-f.

E:# s.

? v !:f,9; d for ne'arly 19 yea'rs.-

).

'f. 9.: ',

f,yg.<fG'jQ;H,nM'f f(

l7[J

.3[ consideration in the operation of these plants.

~

- r 1@n?..

,. ' s].. "...:.. : 2 Af ter reviewing the UCS petition' for more than four. mon...ths

'R N-n,:'~..

. W. n.'.R.c O

L.

s

~

V '. ' "/.

. e.

..J.s,ithe staff of the NRC decided that it was without merit / and

:> o' :

Yf[l-recommended that the petition not be pursued.- ~ On.May 30,.',19 80, ' [$'.

%[~::however, the Commission overruled the staf f decision.and..',,g.,l.7.

l't.....Jf./ announced its intention to designate an' Atomic Safety and~ T

.J toconducthearingsonsafety. issues.$.

n*

.;.M,..V ? Y Licensing Board (ASLB)Q '. relating to In. dian

.r-I r,w~. a.u l+.:. ~.,

c v, ; % :q; ::!yu.4.:;. : : p :.v,;

s n. ;; ~;.

.a

. 2.n

..r....

. r :..? ~... e

p-

...

. T,.;. ;.e,:..;; u......,.,:,,... ::;.4:.. ;n ; n>.; ~.

.;;:?.::.Q.

..v:f. :

y

. :,:.,?y : u...m ;.;i.::...

,. ' W.:.a;.:.._;m.. ;.

.. x 2.

!.W.y...n:

. :. ?. -

.... t..,r;...%.

w.,

..,e

n. 2., w, n ;-

.a ;;;.

o.

,., y...

tat,.; w.

+

g

,1

~.

i 4

f 90Mhll t

l l

..s.,

, /,,

,:,s.;,.., ;'.,7

..1.

!.'L, p ;...,,..

.x

~,.

p.g{e,,,, -

.s w

. i.

.% 'o ' '

"'l5 Q :.N '.U' )

'Th?.S..'yp..[/{#-

.K.,,, ~ j _ ;,

I.;:'[(, n ' Q.N.

4 ~.L'

(,.

n k.

l M/... M * [v.Q,i*,.

.- 3 e Q,;.,;?.'

0','

?

'" t

,;gly..

• p.,.)'

. f.;., f, p.1..' ?.

r

.3..c

../,'.-..

1;* ; * *.. f.f,:g.. .. '

.) 1,%. q *

• s.

w.

y c.-

• t,.f.f.;;

• .?

,., [. :Q '10.4. 2.. 3 o

s.

< *, ;. f$.*..,.

1, 7 **.

.' (<

.s p

..'g q'v,-.

. t.

.h,*

• *i:

..v.. r........ -. -

.h.

se s:

r *. q.v..r,p,;.,

m

. m...

~..

.t'.

c.n'

..s The Commission also ' began an;.. inquiry into the risks of.the 7;-

~.-

.dvi c..;..::n.

S@l,.+;.W,; ',FIndian Point units compared to other nuclear units' in the C.~.2.','.

i'i i

(.

.W.* i:'*

.J'bd hiN."..M~.5.countrytodeterminewhethertheIndianPointunits'sh

. permitted,to operate;during-the proceedings, a' move' opposed by Tj'.Mk Y

' W'

. ! C; '

v' ' 'MN Ti..T;d.c.P.5W A special NRC ' task force a Q.M.WM ' +' -..Y.h

• D ^

e' b' M

.'b

^ @,

D.l'[ -[/M.I[

J &..;n.

T "' ' ?'

kl.Mk.PhlN.),the

• UCS

o..

quiry re-,:

1. '!Ck,$

that.while the Indian Point.

M.#f.

%.- W[1 b. ported on. June ' 1.2,. ?l98 0,2 located i n relatively populous are Wim.,c",...r.%,b. features....Y#not found ~in many' 'other

.C.h e plan.ts M ?~

W c

.v a

e..

0...L

.G.jw..s

%w@@k.f($@4 u

h l Point units',ciU ab.out.th'e ;same.as. ati a typical site.'(';.The taiskf, M3%

}l'd'JV.[3 M,~ vicinity of;. Indian Point was a's much a force alsoifou'nd'that'the' risk'to'in'dividuals living3in"the.T2 -

p Q.dD NU 1!'c.

~

Q

%l I d..at'a typical'n.u' clear plan.t. X..O.n the basis o~f this report, the. S i.L.,W'h.f..

.6 3

M8 7. f 'l.-wh'ile.the :Atiomic.Sa fety 'h:-dM,.W

..'NRC decided on continuous o.peration of the ' Indian Point plants. '#.4 l..,, p....

~.

c 4..,-. :.;,...

and Licensin

[.W. 7 'llP..

iM A

Z9 % '

f. "@.?G3 N;W50lWMNNh i.i

&, ?.1 < :.p?.. 1 Vn d uc tel. 4%..a, IMd.N'* 6. :'::

% ;. y. Q u. m.,g.. y*.;es~t py. y.; &v : y

.u.nh m.::.],1 q- :. m. +.u u

.. h H.w

'.s 'A. ' x;:%)s. Yp :.x n.;

W.m 4o. c...; ?.

wtr

' :. M'.'.? &;r.'%., nd..dfrfM;::.;;

t.

. Q:..s,Y.-.

- c ::;. *. <...

rr s..

r e

=2:

n.<. :'

' ' th..L.  : '. '.

%;f,y. i,c?..t ?.;.*'3.* *;.' T

;

L-w

.H W

. r.u A, c

% g-

• ~ c+*.:\\-

".v m

- h h;;., D 4p.,6';g n

i 7'N J. m YO.Ml6:Th -

lf.{.D. Topics to Be Investigated l ff 8 'u ;% y,, ',., ',.,:y.,, j.,,5;"..'.

)'

f

~.s f '2 *.ph.,*[2{h:%$ gf the NRC' announced the specific topics to N.*q.; g.i['

,g

.,,e g a h!T.f.,'l{. mon' January 8, 1981, Er. 8,".n?F -be' investigated in the ASLB hearings.

These include the risks'7. W.f.%

I..i by serious accidents'at the Indian Point units, ' including.$T EEll0

.P l '. M r'.:' p o s e d. accidents!more severe than'those for which the units'were

.f...,Qff' 3, r.,..?

' : ; 1 designed; 'the current's.tatus.of and prospects for f uture -im

'.. St.

f)$E

.Nlf provement ;of emergency planning in the vicinity of Indian Point; @:.

P.Y...L 7

how risks posed by the operation of these units compare.with

i".g;0 :i.'.the risks posed by other. nuclear plants; and the energy, environ

.t::.

l :e,,. y,

9@I..

,,J..M;Pmental, ; economic and other consequences of shutting' do 1 %:.R, l ?d:',

f.T.y?);:.k.N; u ni ts... M.".S.s;p.S.'.".0.d.m '. O b,

• r

%..... :.~. < h. ;.-'... q..:. Q,,..

.- a

... :c;~ :

b%

.r

• Qtp;.g ".

Y.p v,..,'i',y n.t,

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

@$.3.1.W:ffr;/.; shortly, and the hearings -- which are to

.,'f/,J9..'.t,:

yjWn,9 i

'.. p#.$

'only -- would commence soon after.

The ASLB is to report its' In connection with gng::.W [,$ recommendations to the NRC by January 1982.

Q.f:.m,f K,7?.the UCS petition against Indian Point, the NRC has also directed % E

' y/J.n ? '

!.that'an industry-wide proceeding be conducted on appropriate ~ 4 ('?Z 2

.'k j *O populated northeast..* At that point,..l, safety standards for nuclea the NRC could accept,'re W Epc q l.: ),....' ' ',j 0; ject or modify the ' hearing board's recommendations, or could f.-?.g;..

.c S. n

, d even direct a further " adjudicatory" hearing on the future.g.7.4 7'

. operation of the Indian Point 2 and 3 units.

• 1.5....'.ilj J.c.. -.

p. _.. g _..

t.;~,

.s.

9-

. 4,....#..

'..s.

,...,,. w L..

m.... ;.

..n. '...,-

d o'

/. '.. 't"

.x.

h..

s

~

F% f J. ' ;y".

.si., ',q%es,

N.. T.

m.. W.N...is : f'.U 'I '

Support from Scientists and Engineers

...' ; T {$.. ;.,

,M..

. 9...

.v.

r v.:...

y M ' ' m ;.IThe Union'of Concerned Scientists', formed in 1971 for the express' T

~

' purpose of opposing nuclear power, has branded all nuclear power p1ntihn an tuinnfn.

In shnep rijnnyreement With the UCS l '1 W i t' H E i n t't l

==

{

<.-a

.. s..

..3... -..

........v,..

s:

e.

u m

• s.

.s

'. ~!.s :"..

,.' ' 4.:c'.

7;. %:

, w;;., y -i 4:lw..

....: u..\\..::g.n:,, n::

.a.

> ?>;;'4 Q

. i :.

i..

.;.n :,

w.q. ;,

s %v..

. : mt...

n e..

n.. ;

. g..%,.........,a.

.. t

.~

v s

.,n q;@.y..;..$

~

..t...,

/ { Edison's and PASNY's position on. operation of Indian Point.M.,q@

and Engineers for Secure ' Energy (SE-2), which supports Con; L :.f.tV,~b.

i H. rThis group, organized in 1976 by more than 100 faculty members U-$.'.;;j

.d.

T.!:".y.:.y:f"'.of American colleges' and universities -- i'ncluding seven' Nobel.'liy.}s;'

d.W f.

!.MP?.e. M.14-laureates - concluded af ter analyzing the 'UCS petition 'that the W

'd.M.k,:. S,'" petition has no merit and should be denied...." CThe group also".j,,

F.:7s?.Ni.I..'.';. commented "in a letter to.i he NRC that operation of.th t

lm,. :.T O,,W.M d oil and reduce the costi.lthe country's dependence on foreig 7.h..'w.. '

M

.T

. 2. :.' Point ' units "will' reduce of electricity use.d by the' City of New'.sbyJ.

~

~

..P ? ?,? N'.

At the,'same time SE-2 wishes.to ' express confidence,1.;;;MYi based on the ' expertise 'o[lf its members and the observed safety '.;'d.d!??

[',' %'7 WD M 'd4. York.

~

i J' r.

f M.... can opera te !s af ely. ev..e..n.,',a.. t. ' sit. es.like.,J t record of the" nuclear power option, Ethat' n'6 clear p'ower ' plants ':.M

~

~

i p.'... i.."g.

~

i

4.'I.

W. e...r.b.

t

-aw y.,,

l:f N.

h.

. : f.

k

.a..,..,

h..f;d($

l. f'*,

. -f ;$h.

Y ers for}' Secure, En,ergy.:p,4, *.

s..y q.y.s. y, J,gg

... : r

.\\..

dison. and the Scientists and, Engine..:,v.

- c

c..

.u ;...

.*o

~~.

[l.Q ' 3.w,:>.,_.j.y.;:Q, q.

y do not stand aloneTin regarding the ; Indian. Point funits'.'as.'la.'Q'M:

l;?? i :.W:OF d:. Con ' E

].,,9';;. ? 'Nreport followingan extensive study, t M

'M.?. W.cmeans to preserve our area'sf economy'.' 4'.In [a'Novemberl.7,M19 80,7.V!.?!

U

• 7;[

""'.R > Accounting Of fice ' concluded that if the~ ' Indian Point ' units 'were.?4 %

5.

J.'s..".' N,N.to close, it' could cost area rate payers $18 billion 'over'JEh QTj. s

.Q:::....

'ce, r.%.

. ~;47'.gp&l; p,:..Ey@G&Qn: @

fi[.

.;. AG.:next '15 years. ql9'X ':?:

W?n X :"':N

)

';O

?

-Q:

7:: - ~;'? 2:n. '

. In addition,"in' a review of Con Edison's ' Energy Strategy' for';Mi:

c.:...: ".': } -[~

~

45 h '. ;}.~ '.J'

c. 3.3 r.

f the 1980s, M the Energy Research. Center of Columbia ~ University.'l?.-ffi.%.

d. '.'9. ',e v

. and the Energy Laboratory of.the Massachusetts Institute of.. MW3.93,j.

Technology endorsed continued operation of the units at e.q M e t i

.. !y.;..e N T.y.;h -

Indian Point.. "Said the' Columbia group: <"These plants have

',V.7,.3,@ :

,using them reduces the service area's dependence on'. oil.'-

the lowest generation c.ost of a'ny plants'on the system,'and.

.,?.y.

T 3- ;. y 7

/6:.

....Further, by.a. voiding the use of fossil fuels, these plants

.' J.' 1 L c.y'Mru 7.fS.,"... the continuation 'of electrical power.

x..

in the words of the'MIT reviewers:'g,

'J.

~.l....

.T. protect air quality." - And, f

.'!.c y, i 4,.,.if.,.,~

.."c,< fission is important to minimize the costs.'.and. pol.lution,2.M.:..:s m..

.WV..

.n

~

6-m : associated with oil-and coal-fired plants and to reduce.

,t.w'*:

. / D1 '. >e. [?.a.5 '.;-

-.v.;d.* %... ;i...,yj '

. vulnerabili,ty ~to.u. eductions. in' oil supply."

..' N.

c r

v. N~.

.x<

~-

J -

.m

e..:., e.:n.; +,

. ',y, ".

..a,'.

. u. '.!. e.. ; ".3., - :rf 9 :

..;.... cQ,... ;p. X.,, %....:;.v, 3 -. ;

y.y y,~

.. 3Y;

.....,k.

r:

^c'

..i,..

n.

,,e.

y.

y..... e.,m.,<

.s..

.n.

i.. w; -,

.,.y.

-. p'r

.s

. >;s.

T.'-

.":i...,..~.':WS);p ' m g.gs w.

}..b.. Q.{f..Q; 'f. ?.. '

~...

W'.' '.. ;lQ; c. 6 ~ -.,.

.;... ; a-v -: -

.A'u*: :,,. y..

i

.. _.. ' *< ; 4...&. *%.,'.:

f..1, '.;..

.. g.

3.'21.%.u....nf.;.,:;y;,..'..

.~ '

..i. "', c.: '..

q-

• , r%...,..

s

,.- p,., ;,'.e= ?Q, r.

i.T

..y.

~

..,... ;% ;. '.,:. v;.E,. ugLVa. :.

1. u.

.'..c

..a G

, June 1981,. '

• l

.b......

, un:

v..._.v.

e. r.

?:

s

~~....y:.

~. ?s -

1..

i

,f

[r.,

?

w..

n...

w

,7

• w

. i.

.cI 9,.

.or..~..

.... ;. :.;....... 3.; :... n......y.e, a

... }. f.f, - '/.? 3* ' p.',

,, ?.,..

. i.

.i*'..',~.s... y'\\s...

.. ".,.Ys;f.G..L. 'O. ':, t t' a ',y.' T;. >... >..

d;;' a

.....e.-

....+a....,'...,...,.'y..','.-

.,.;.f..a y t

i1..<

y,

. J.3 m

. g:::y. : *..

.,. ;; 4 rp <.

e

..: u s.t.

• ~:

y ~.' t.ry;;; < : :..,.. Q.

.3.,..,' ; ~.;.,.

.....;3.,

~.r,..

.: ; ~,.

, ;. e.

.e,,.

.s.

~*',.c....

~. -.

. y, o

i..

c

'... z,.g...

..e n. ;

q :n.,r:t

.n.

, n;..

,..:..p'.

• v c

.,.. : y.... ;( - s..(;.,-

c

a;

• . **.. : :.~.

s

~

.,f-

[* ' W' '* *,

~.,.

s I

1 i

.