ML20049H541
| ML20049H541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1982 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Levin J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8203030278 | |
| Download: ML20049H541 (25) | |
Text
s-1 CypETED s
'32 "7 -2 c4 r3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J.
Carter,' Chairman Freaerick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
_________________________________________x 4
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, )
50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) 50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OE THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
February 24, 1982
)
x LICENSEES' ANSWER TO UCS-NYPIRG MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND IN CONTROL OF THE LICENSEES AND INTERESTED STATES l
L~
ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Brent L.. Brandenburg MOPGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED CONSOLIDATED EDISON 1859 L' Street, N.W.
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
Washington, D.C.
20036 4 Irving Place (202) 466-7000 New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4600 0\\
8203030278 820224 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G
PDR t
---,m
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.
3 THE LICENSEES' OBJECTIONS.
(1) UCS-NYPIRG's application is beyond 3
The Board's jurisdiction.
7 (2) The motion is premature.
(3) UCS-NYPIRC seeks discovery against 9
non-parties.
(4) There is no proper basis for 12 UCS-NYPIRG's request.
A. UCS-NYPIRG distorts the 13 purpose of 52.741.
B. UCS-NYPIRG should not be permitted entry to secure 14 facilities.
C. UCS-NYPIRG will not be prejudiced by denial of 17 its motion.
t
_1_
o PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(" Con Edison"), licensee of Indian Point Station, Unit No.
2, and Power licensee of Authority of the State of New York
(" Authority"),
Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (collectively the " licensees"),
submit this memorandum, pursuant to 10 CFR S2.730(c), in opposi-tion to the motion filed February 9, 1982 by potentia: joint intervenors Union of Concerned Scientists and the New ' fork Public Interest Research Group, Inc. (collectively "UCS-NYPIRG") for Discovery and to Permit Entry Upon Land in Control of the Li-censees and Interested States.*
UCS-NYPIRG broadly requests permission to observe the Indian Point emergency planning exercise scheduled for we note that UCS-NYPIRG's motion is pre-At the outset.,
mature since it fails to follow the Code's procedures for Section 2.741 of 10 CFR explicitly directs that discovery.
discovery by entry upon land be sought by service of a request upon the appropriate party. That party then has 30 Only after such days to respond or object to the request.
response do the Commission's rules allow an intervenor to The instant motion move the Board to compel discovery.
While attempts to circumvent these clear procedures.
UCS-NYPIRG claims to have notified the counties and FEMA
"[a]s a matter of courtesy" on February 9 of this discovery it failed to make the request upon the licensees
- request, which is explicitly required by S 2.741.
The emergency planning exercise which is the subject of the motion has long been scheduled--any urgency in the instant applic-ation is due to UCS-NYPIRG's unexplained delay in pre-viously seeking discovery pursuant to proper procedure. \\
1982 from a number of facilities under the control, March 3, variously, of the licensees, state and local governments, and UCS-NYPIRG further requests permission to attend pre-others.
and post-exercise meetings between the licensees and govern-mental authorities.
The licensees oppose UCS-NYPIRG's motion on the grounds that:
(1) UCS-NYPIRG's application is beyond the Board's jurisdiction; (2) the motion is premature; (3) UCS-NYPIRG seeks discovery against non-parties; and (4) there is no proper basis for UCS-NYPIRG's request.
THE LICENSEES' OBJECTIONS UCS-NYPIRG's application is beyond the Board's (1) jurisdiction.
UCS-NYPIRG treats the upcoming exercise as if it and therefore were part of this investigatory proceeding, UCS-NYPIRG is plainly subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
Even the most cursory reading of the Commission's wrong.
is nothing more regulations demonstrates that the exercise than an ongoing generic regulatory requirement of the Commis-sion and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA"), i
Pursuant to 10 CFR S50.54(q), each " licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in 550.47(b) of this part and the requirements in Appendix E to this part."
Section 50.47(b), in turn, requires all licensees to conduct periodic exercises "to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities" and periodic drills "to develop and maintain key skills."
Appendix E, Part F pro-vides more detailed guidance for accomplishing these objectives.
Thus, the upcoming exercise is no more related to this proceeding than any other of the hundreds of tasks the licensees perform each day to comply with Commission regulations.
UCS-NYPIRG could not suggest that by ordering this investigatory the Com-proceeding to examine seven narrowly-drawn questions, mission intended the Board to assume jurisdiction over every aspect of the licensees' operations which may somehow be examined herein.*
Apparently recognizing the weakness cf its jurisdictional position, UCS-NYPIRG argues that the Commission Staff and issue the licensees have themselves placed the exercise at herein in their respective statements of position on the Commission's Issue 3.
(UCS-NYPIRG motion at p. 2.)
UCS-NYPIRG virtually concedes, however, that the Authority made no reference to the exercise.
Con Edison and the Staff merely made factual reference to the exercise, along with numerous other references to Commission regulations with which the licensees must comply.
Such reference does not provide sufficient basis for the relief requested. - - - -
Few elements of Commission procedure are as well-settled as the principle that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board possesses only the jurisdiction delegated to it by the Commission.
- See, e.g., 10 CFR S2.721(a) ("[t]he Commission or the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel may from time to time establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards...to preside in such proceedings for granting, suspending, revoking, or amending licenses or authorizations as'the Commission may designate, and to perform such other ad-judicatory functions as the Commission deems appropriate")
(emphasis added); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2), 3 N.R.C. 167 (1976)
(" licensing boards are delegates of the Commission and exercise t
only those powers which the Commission has given (them]");
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), 5 N.R.C. 1290 (1977) (licensing board denied applicant's motion for an exemption from property control regulations on the ground that the Commission had not delegated to'the board the power to grant exemptions).
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.
(Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), 1 N.R.C. 436 (1975) establishes beyond any doubt that the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain UCS-NYPIRG's motion.
Under strikingly similar circumstances, that Board denied a request by interested states and intervenors to attend meetings between the staff and licensees or to receive verbatim transcripts thereof.
These meetings related both to ww w-
issues raised in petitions to intervene and to the preparation of certain safety reports to be released to the public'upon completion.
The Board denied the requests on grounds which apply equally herein:
Under the Commission's regulatory scheme, j
the Staff is given the duty of reviewing appli-t cations for licenses (Section 2.102).
This re-view results in at least two important products, che Safety Evaluation Report and the Draft En-vironmental Statement.
The regulations do not give the Licensing Board a part in this review or in the preparation of the resulting reports.
The Commission has delegated to the Licensing Boards power and duties with respect only to the hearing process (2.104 and 2.718).
The Staff's review and reporting function is largely com-pleted in a setting outside the hearing process and therefore without the purview of the Licensing Board.
The fact that the two areas of activity may proceed, for a time, concurrently, does not extend to the Board any supervisory authority over that part of the process that has been en-trusted to the Staff.
If the parties here argue that such a trust is unwise or that the Staff should perform it in a dif ferent way, then that argument is an attack on the regulations which is beyond the cognizance of this Board.
Moreover, the Staff by specific reculation has the authority to confer privately with any party (Section 2.102(a)).
New Hampshire argues that this regulation does not apply to contested cases, but the Board is unable to so read the section.
(Emphasis added.)
Id. at 437.
The emergency planning exercise, like the preparation and review of the safety reports in Northeast Nuclear, is simply one of hundreds of required functions performed by the licensees in the course of their normal operations, under the jurisdiction of the Commission and Staff.
Thus, just as in Northeast Nuclear, the " regulations do not give the Licensing Board a part in this review" since the " Commission has delegated to the Licensing Board [ } power and duties with respect only to the hearing process" even though the hearing and the regulated activity may proceed concurrently.
Any argument that the Commission has made such a delegation is belied by the January 8, 1981 and September 18, 1981 Orders, which contain not a single word about emergency planning exercises.
Since the Board lacks jurisdiction, UCS-NYPIRG's motion must be denied.
(2) The motion is premature.
UCS-NYPIRG moves for discovery as if it had already its contentions had been granted intervenor status and all of been admitted.
However, no party has yet been granted inter-venor status and no contentions have been admitted.* Indeed, replies to responses to objections to contentions were just served on February 11, 1982.
The Authority, Con Edison, and the Staff have all made valid and well-supported objections to most of the petitions to intervene and the contentions, Further, discovery may not be used in the framing of con-tentions.
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), 6 A.E.C. 188, aff'd, 6 A.E.C. 241 (1973).
including those upon which the instant discovery motion is based.
The licensees submit that discovery cannot proceed before these two issues are resolved.
Prior to admission of the potential intervenors as parties to this proceeding, they have no standing to take discovery.
This argument is based not only upon compelling logic, but upon the clear dictates of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Appendix A (IV)(a) to 10 CFR Part 2 states:
Once the key issues in controversy are identified in the special pre-hearing conference order (S2.751a.(d)),
discovery may proceed and will be limited to those matters. (Emphasis added.)
Indeed, 10 CFR S2.740(b)(1)--the very section relied upon by UCS-NYPIRG in its instant discovery request--also states that discovery shall begin only after the prehearing conference...and shall re-late only to those matters in contro-versy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer
}E the prehearing order entered at the conclusion of that prehearing conference.
(Emphasis added.)*
Thus, UCS-NYPIRG's motion is clearly premature, since the prehearing conference has yet to be held, and no prehearing Although Appendix A and 10 CPR S2.740 appear in a portion of the Rules relating to construction permit and operating license proceedings, it is well-settled that this rule applies equally to all Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceedings.
Allied-General Duclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), 5 N.R.C.
489, 491 n. 1 (1977).
- Indeed, UCS-NYPIRG itself relies on S 2.740.,
\\
order has been issued.*
(3) UCS-NYPIRG seeks discovery against non-parties.
Section 2.741 expressly limits discovery by entry upon land to discovery against parties to the proceeding:
(a) Request for discovery.
Any party may serve on any other party a request to:
(2) Permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the re-quest is served for the purpose of in-spection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon, within the scope of S2.740.
(Emphasis added.)
Thus S2.741 contains two requirements in addition to the rule that discovery be made by a party:
(1) that discovery be made only against a party, and (2) that the subject property be in the " possession or control" of that party.
The instant case falls squarely within the holding of Santa Fe International Corp. v.
Potashnick, 83 F.R.D.
299 UCS-NYPIRG cites two instances in which intervenor represent-atives were permitted to observe emergency planning exercises.
Neither instance is controlling herein.
At Three Mile Island, the reactor was not operating and a very limited number of observers were voluntarily admitted by the licensee.
At Big Rock Point, the jurisdictional (pp. 3-7) and other questions herein were not raised.
In that case, intervenor status had already been granted and relevant contentions admitted.
More-over, intervenors were not permitted entry to the control room, certain off-site facilities, or briefings.
(E.D.La. 1979).*
Plaintiff had been a pipe laying subcontractor on a construction project in which defendant was the general contractor.
Plaintiff sought to enter upon property, a barge owned by a non-party (Netherlands Offshore Co.) for the pur-pose of inspection of pipe.
Recognizing that the barge owner was not a party and therefore not subject to Rule 34(b), plaintiff argued that defendant was in " possession or control" of the barge.
The Court observed that defendant retained the right to enter upon the premises of the barge owner for the purposes of ensuring that the work performed by the barge owner was accept-able under the subcontract.
But the Court went on to hold:
However, our conclusion that Potashnick has the legal right to enter upon the barge for the purposes of inspecting the work of Netherlands does not necessarily resolve the central issue here.
While such right to enter upon the barge for the limited purpose of inspecting for contract compliance nay be spoken of as a species of control, we seriously doubt Santa Fe was decided under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a), which con-tains language indentical to 10 CFR S2.741 regarding entry upon land.
The Commission and Licensing Boards have repeatedly noted that in situations where the Commission's Rules track the Federal Rules, " Federal court decisions involving [the Federal Rule] illuminate, and provide appropriate guidelines for interpreting, the discovery I
standards set forth in the Commission's rules."
Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station),
5 N.R.C. 489 (1977).
We note that Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(c) allows the entry upon the land of non-parties by connencement of an independent action against such non-parties.
Such a provision is conspicuously absent from the Commission's Rules.
that it may be equated with the control required by Rule 34(a).
It appears from our review of the subcontract between Potashnick and Netherlands that Potashnick's right to control the barge, if it may be so designated, is a right to enter upon the barge to inspect the completed work only.
It is not a right to general access to the barge or a right to permit access by persons whose presence is unnecessary to the limited purpose of Potashnick's deter-mination of whether there has been compli-ance by Netherlands with the contract.
Id. at 301.
Accord, Humphries v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.,
14 F.R.D. 177 (N.D. Ohio, 1953) (motion to enter premises denied because there was "no showing that defendant has
' possession or control' of the premises as required"); see also Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
5 A.E.C. 142 (1972), where the Licensing Board held pur-suant to 10 CFR S2.741:
The interrogatories were served on the Association, which has neither posses-sion, custody, or control of the data needed to answer them.
Thus, an essential requirement for discovery is missing.
The " land" upon which UCS-NYPIRG seeks entry includes inter alia, the control rooms of the licensees' reactors; the licensees' near-site emergency operations facility
(" EOF");
operations centers owned by various governmental authorities; and schools and reception centers.
Of these, only the control rooms and EOF are within the " possession or control" of a party..
The State of New York and Rockland County have expressly chosen not to participate as parties, but instead to appear under the
" interested State" rule of 10 CFR S2.715(c)* ; Orange and Putnam Counties have not applied to participate in any manner.
- Hence, they are not parties and cannot be subject to S2.741.
The Staff, although a party, has neither possession nor control of any of the facilities at issue.**
Indeed the licensees and the Staff have even less possession and control over the non-licensee fac-ilities herein than the defendant in Santa Fe had over the barge.
Hence, UCS-NYPIRG's motion must necessarily be limited to the two control rooms and the EOF, the only three facilities under the control'of " parties."
And for the reasons set forth elsewhere in this document, even those requests must be denied.
(4) There is no proper basis for UCS-NYPIRG's request.
Even beyond the aforementioned procedural infirmities, UCS-NYPIRG has incorrectly assumed that a S2.741 motion for entry upon land is proper herein.
For several reasons, this assumption is misplaced.
l l
Westchester's County Executive has applied to appear as an " interested State."
Further, UCS-NYPIRG has not even attempted to comply with the special provisions of the Code governing dis-covery of the Staf f.
- See, e.g.,
10 CFR SS 2.720, 2.744, 2.790.
l.
A.
UCS-NYPIRG distorts the purpose of S2.741.
Contrary to UCS-NYPIRG's assumption, a motion for entry upon land is not designed for use every time a party wishes to enter prc nerty for any reason.
Rather, the purpose of the rule is generally to inspect machinery or ongoing operations in the context of a negligence or other action.
In the case of the Commission's regulations, its evident purpose is to permit inspection of hardware and material which is frequently the subject of licensing proceedings.
This reading of the discovery rule finds firm support in Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., 588 F.2d 904 (4th Cir. 1978).
In that employment discrimination case, plaintiffs also sought to expand the " entry upon land" rule beyond its proper limit.
They requested an unbridled inspec-tion of defendant's plants on the mere assertion that it "might reveal 'significant' evidence not discernible through a review of documents alone.
What that 'significant' evidence might be was unspecified."
Id. at 907.
These are strikingly similar to the vague, unspecified assertions of need raised by UCS-NYPIRG.
In denying plaintiff's motion, the court expressly noted the limited applicability of the rule:
Neither counsel's directions nor our own research has led us to compelling precedent for the type of inspection sought here. __
Most cases involving on-site inspections concern a given object on the premises which is the subject matter of the action, as, for example, a particular machine in a personal injury or patent infringement case.
(Footnote omitted.)
Id. at 910.
The emergency exercise herein is certainly not an " object on the premises," and is not even the subject matter of this proceeding (see pp.
3-7, above).
Hence, it is not a proper subject for S2.741 discovery.
B.
UCS-NYPI.;G should not be permitted entry to secure facilities.
UCS-NYPIRG's motion obscures the fact that Indian Point 3 is a licensed, fully-operational nuclear power plant which will in fact be operating on the day of the exercise, and its request to send unidentified observers into the highly sensitive control room and EOF is improper for this additional reason.
Commission regulations and licensee procedures man-dated thereunder require that access to these facilities be tightly controlled even under normal circumstances, and that non-essential personnel be excluded.
See 10 CFR S 50.54(p);
It is especially critical that non-essential personnel l
be excluded during the exercise.
Duty personnel will not only be preoccupied with their normal, sensitive task of operating the reactor, but must also participate in the exercise.
All l !
~
licensee personnel trained and qualified to enter the control room and EOF have already been connitted to emergency exercise functions and to escort essential visitors to these facilities.
The objectives of the exercise include simulating ac-tual accident conditions to the greatest extent possible.
Of intervenor observers would not be present in sensitive
- course, facilities during an actual emergency.
Hence, the UCS-NYPIRG request is inconsistent with the aims of the exercise.
The licensees are determined to do their part to make the exercise succeed.
It is clear that the potential intervenors do not share this desire.*
The licensees should not be forced to divert essential personnel from their assigned tasks in order to Potential intervenors have frequently made statements suggesting that they have no constructive interest in energency planning, but instead seek to disparage it, as a means of closing the plants.
NYPIRG's representative, Joan Holt, has claimed that the " emergency preparedness scheme of the NRC is a criminal sham."
Consumer Group Raps Carey on Indian Point, Daily News, Nov. 18, 1980 at 10.
Her organization's true intentions are further revealed in the following testimony before the Conmission:
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
[I] f I was tracking what some of your initial connents were tell me if this impression is wrong.
The impression I got was that if a number of changes are made in the operator improvements, procedural improvements and in short and long term safeguards that there are really no set of those that would meet your concerns.
MS. HOLT:
That's right.
(Footnote continued) escort and monitor non-essential (and concededly, hostile)
" observers."*
Certain of UCS-NYPIRG's discovery requests will also jeopardize the success of the exercise.
The potential intervenor demands access to all pre-exercise meetings and briefings as well as scripts and/or outlines.
A major require-(Footnote continued)
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That your concerns really would only be met when the plant is being shutdown.
MS. HOLT:
Yes, because of the site.
That's my personal view, yes.
And that's the view of my organization.
We feel that there is no way because you cannot guarantee that accidents cannot happen.
You can debate probabilities all day but they can happen, and if they happen our region is in double jeopardy because of the dense population.
Transcript of NRC Public Meeting, presentation by Commenters in UCS 2.206 Petition on Indian Point at 71-72 (Feb. 5, 1980).
The presence of such individuals at highly sensitive facilities could serve no constructive purpose and, indeed, would hinder the licensees' efforts to conduct a successful, unobstructed exercise and promote public confidence in the safe operation of the plants.
The licensees are additionally concerned that UCS-NYPIRG has not identified any of its
" observers" or their qualifications and intentions.
UCS-NYPIRG also ignores yet another additional influx of personnel that its request would entail.
If UCS-NYPIRG is l
granted access to these f acilities, the licensees--as is customary in discovery--will want to have counsel present.
Staff, interested states, and perhaps other intervenors may also wish to be present.
The facili-ties in question are small, and not designed to accom-modate non-essential personnel.
USC-NYPIRG's request i
could effectively transform a control room into a i
court room in the midst of an important exercise. l l
ment of the exercise, however, is to tightly control the circulation of information prior to the exercise so as to assure the most realistic simulation possible.
Consequently, the licensees oppose this request as well.
As to post-exercise briefings, FEMA will hold a public hearing pursuant to Proposed 44 CFR S 350.10 (currently followed by FEMA) (45 Fed. Reg. 42,341, 42,346 (June 24, 1980)),* in which UCS-NYPIRG will have ample opportunity to participate.
Further participation is unnecessary and not sanctioned either as discovery or as part of Commission or FEMA regulations.
C.
UCS-NYPIRG will not be preju-diced by denial of its motion UCS-NYPIRG exaggerates the importance of attending the emergency exercise.
Without any support or explanation, it concludes that "this method is the most appropriate."
(Motion at p.
3.)
UCS-NYPIRG totally ignores the burden upon the licensees, and the alternative methods of discovery available to intervenors.
This was a major consideration in denying entry j
Bassett Furniture, supra.
The upon property in Belcher v.
Although still formally a " proposed" rule, FEMA treats l
the rule as a final rule.
45 Fed. Reg. at 42,343. -
Court noted that "[ijt is clear that the right to discovery is a qualified right that does not extend to making unnecessary and unwarranted excursions onto the property of another under the guise of supportable litigative need."
588 F.2d at 908 n.
12.
The Court further observed thet an uncontrolled physical inspection of defendant's property would allow plair tif f to circumvent certain procedural safeguards to which defendant would be entitled through proper discovery devices.
As the Court held, "one method cannot arbitrarily be demanded over another simply because it is less burdensome to the moving party." Id. at 910.
UCS-NYPIRG, if granted intervenor status, will have ample access to other effective discovery devices.
Reports will be prepared, records will be made, and discovery of Staff, FEMA, and licensee witnesses will undoubtedly be requested.
Moreover, as noted above, FEMA rules expressly to the exercise.
See provide for a public hearing subsequent Proposed 44 CFR S350.10, 45 Fed. Reg. 42,341, 42,346 (June 24, Potential intervenors will have every opportunity to 1980).
attend and participate.
FEMA has thus chosen to allow public participation through those means, not by actual attendance at exercises.
Finally UCS-NYPIRG has f ailed to demonstrate how its unidentified " observers" will generate any reliable discovery at the exercise.
FEMA, on the other hand, is a public agency with special competence in emergency planning, and is charged with evaluation of the exercise.
Its reports are public documents which will, of course, be available to potential intervenors.
Thus, UCS-NYPIRG would not be prejudiced by denial of its motion.
WHEREFORE, the licensees respectfully urge that UCS-NYPIRG's Motion for Discovery and to Permit Entry Upon Land be denied in all respects.
l l
Respectfully submitted, n
hi>L Bde'nt L.
Brandenbur
[fapjles Morgan,'J r.T Pauy F.
Colarulli Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
CONSOLIDATED EDIbON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC.
1899 L Street, N.W.
Licensee of Indian Point Wash ington, D.C.
20036 Unit 2 (202) 466-7000 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4600 Thomas R.
Frey General Counsel Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indiai; Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D.
Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H.
Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated :
February 24, 1982
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J.
Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, )
50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
February 24, 1982
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LICENSEES' ANSWER TO UCS-NYPIRG MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON LAND IN CONTROL OF LICENSEES AND INTERESTED STATES in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 24th day of February, 1982.
Docketing and Service Branch Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William S.
Jordan, III, Esq.
Office of the Secretary U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Harmon & Weiss Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Louis J.
Carter, Esq., Chairman Joan Holt, Project Director Administrative Judge Indian Point Project Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Interest Research Group Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Deekman Street Commission New York, N.Y.
10038 Washington, D.C.
20555
O Dr. Oscar H. Paris John Gilroy, Westchester Administrative Judge Coordinator Atomic Safety and Licensing Indian Point Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory New York Public Interest Commission Research Group Washington, D.C.
20555 240 Central Avenue White Plains, New York 10606 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Janice Moore, Esq.
Administrative Judge Counsel for NRC Staff 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 Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
New York University Law County Attorney School County of Rockland 11 New Hemstead Road 423 Vanderbuilt Hall New City, N.Y.
10956 40 Washington Square South New York, N.Y.
10012 Charles J. Malkish, Esq.
Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Conservation Committee Litigation Division The Port Authority of Chairman, Director New York City Audubon Society New York and New Jersey 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 One World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10010 New York, N.Y.
10048 Greater New York Council on Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Energy Enviromental Protection Bureau c/o Dean R.
- Corren, New York State Attorney Director General's Office New York University Two World Trade Center 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, N.Y.
10003 New York, N.Y.
10047 Alfred B. Del Bello Westchester County Executive Westchester County 148 Martine Avenue New York, N.Y.
10601 __
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
Honorable Richard L.
Brodsky New York State Assembly Member of the County Albany, N.Y.
12248 Legislature Westchester County County Office Building White Plains, N.Y.
10601 Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Pat Posner, Spokesperson Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Parents Concerned About Attorneys for Metropolitan Indian Point Transportation Authority P. O. Box 125 200 Park Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 New York, N.Y.
10166 Stanley B.
Klimberg Charles A. Scheiner, Co-General Counsel Chairperson New York State Energy Office Westchester People's Action 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Coalition, Inc.
Albany, New York 12223 P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y.
10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Alan Latman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the 44 Sunset Drive City of New York Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 District No. 4 City Hall New York, New York 10007 Lorna Salzman Zipporah S.
Fleisher
(
Mid-Atlantic Representative West Branch Conservation i
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Association 208 West 13th Street 443 Buena Vista Road i
New York, N.Y.
10011 New City, N.Y.
10956 i
l l
l 1 l
e 4
Mayor George V. Begany Judith Kessler, Coordinator Village of Buchanan Rockland Citizens for Safe 236 Tate Avenue Energy Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10956 4
David H.
Pikus f
i
_4_
-