ML20053E574
| ML20053E574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1982 |
| From: | Feinberg J NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | ROCKLAND CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053E570 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206090031 | |
| Download: ML20053E574 (19) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
( -
?
UNI.TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!! MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAPETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the !!atter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY )
OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP
) 50-286-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3 )
June 2,1982 ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS PROPOUNDED BY RCSE TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK Sometime after May 3, Rockland Committee on Safe Energy (RCSE) mailed interrogatories directed to the State of New York.
The Staie of New York hereby responds with its answers to the interrcgat3 ries and document requests propounded by RCSE.
not a party te this proceeding since it is participating as an interested state persuant to 10 CFR S 2.715(c). Interrogatories such as those served upon the State of New York can be filed by parties on parties under S2.7406. The production of documents can only be requested by parties from parties under 52.741. The State is not a party and therefore is not bound to answer these discovery requests. However the State recognizes that it should, as part of the exercise of its emergency planning function participate in this proceeding and cooperate with reasonable inquiries related to emergency planning. The State therefore F206090031 B20602 PDR ADOCK 05000247 O N PDR
., 2 responds below to RCSE's interrogatories and document requests.
By responding, the state.does not relinquish any protection against discovery it has as an " interested state" in this or other contexts, such as access to. state facilities during emergency exercises. All answers.were prepared by Donald Davidoff and an affirmation to that affect is attached.
Respectfully submitted, STANLEY KLIMBERG General Counsel NYS Energy Office g f% .*
xJ,-,u.7 b - /.). i / W h -
il
- e By J'NATHAN D. FEINBERG Staft Counsel NYS Department of Public Service l l
\
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY )
OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP
) 50-286-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3 )
AFFIDAVIT OF' CORRECTNESS OF INTERROGATORIES I, Donald B. Davidoff, Director of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, being duly sworn, hereby swear and affirm that the attached additional answers to the Interrogatories filed upon the State of New York by the Rockland Committee on Safe Energy are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
M D4na).d B. av' f Sworn to before me this 2nd day of June 1982 i
WOen Notary Public k s MARION Z. ZRELAK wery Pubst State of No* V8'k quesit.ed in Alteny County Commmen tamres March 418-
l
- 1. Please state the party's position with respect to each of the RCSE's contentions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.2, and 4.7. .
3.1. Emergency planning for ' Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the present plans do not meet any of the sixteen mandatory standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b), nor do they meet the standards set forth in Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
Emergency planning is a'dequate. The present plans do meet the 16 mandatory Federal standards.
3.3. The present estimates of evacuation times, based on NUREG-0654 and studies by CONSAD Research Corporation and by Parsens, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., are unreliable. They are based on unproven assumptions, utilize unverified methodologies, and do not reflect to the actual emergency plans.
The present estimates are reliable. They are based on proven assumptions. They utilize verified methodologies. They conform to actual plans.
3.4. The Licensees cannot be depended upon to notify the proper authorities of an emergency promptly and accurately enough to assure effective response.
The Licensees can be depended upon.
4.2. The following specific, feasible offsite procedures should be taken to protect the public:
a) Potassium iodide should be provided in an appropriate form for all residents in the EPZ.
b) Adequate sheltering capability should be provided for all residents in the EPZ.
c) License conditions should prohibit power operation of Units 2 and 3 when the roadway network becomes degraded because of adverse weather conditions.
d) The roadway network should be upgraded to permit successful evacuation of all residents in the EPZ before the plume arrival time.
a) Potassium iodide should not'beprovided to all residents I in the EPZ. .
- -b) Adequate sheltering should be provided.
c) License conditions should not' prohibit power operation when adverse weather conditions exist.
d) Successful evacuation of all affected residents can occur with current roads.
4.7. The present emergency planning brochures and present means of alerting and informing the population of an emergency do not give
, adequate attention to problems associated with persons who are deaf, blind, too young to understand the instructions, or wt) do not speak English.
The present brochures and means of alerting and informing the population are adequate, although improvements are planned to upgrade these items.
I l
l l
I
?
- 2. With respect to each of RCSE's contentions, please ,
,[a) identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness concerning the contention; (b) state the subject matter on which the expert witness is expected to testify; (c) state the substance of the fact and opinion to which the expert witness is expected to testify and summarize the grounds for each opinion; -
(d) identify all documents relied upon or examined by the expert witness in answering (c) abov'e ;
(e) identify all documents not identified in response to (d) above which the expert witness expects to put into evidence or to rely upon in support of his or her testimony in this proceeding.
a) Donald B. Davidoff and Lawrence B. Czech will be witnesses for the State of New York on RCSE's contentions, b) Radiological emergency planning c) The witnesses will testify as to the conformance of the State's Plan with the applicable Federal regulations and show that the Plan is in substantial compliance with those regulations.
d) The witnesses will rely upon the Plan and NUREG-0654.
e) None 6
l
?
- 3. Please identify all other persons whom the party expects to call as witnesses concerning the issues raised by the RCSE contentions and in response to Commission questions 3 and 4. Please answer intdrrogatory 2 (a) through (e) with respect to each potential witness identified by the party in response .to this interrogatory.
No other witnesses will be called beyond those specified in response to Question #2 above.
- 4. With respect to all persons identified by the party in response to interrogatory 2 and 3 above, please
. ('a) provide a complete bibliography of all articles, books or scholarly works published or. presented by each person, including a brief description of the substance of each;
. (b) identify and provide appropriate citations for all proceedings' in which the person has previously appeared as a witness.
a) Neither persen;has published any articles on emergency planning.
b) Donald B. Davidoff has not appeared as a witness on emergency planning in any adjudicatory hearings.
Lawrence B. Czech appeared as a witness on emergency planning in the NRC proceeding on licensing of the Fitzpatrick plant, and in proceedings before the State Siting Board on the certification of the Jamesport and Sterling plants.
i 1
I
?
- 5. Identify all documents that the party expects to introduce into evidence or to use for impeachment or other cross-examination purposes in this proceeding other than those identified in response to other interrogatories. , ,
The State does not intend to introduce into evidence or to use, for impeachment or other cross-examination purposes any documents other than those identified in response to these and other interrogatories.
i 9
l
- 6. What equipment, manpower and training shortfalls does Rockland County have with respect to compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50.47b(6) and (7) and NUREG 0654 Sec. II F and II G? Please identify any and all def,1ciencies in complying with the evaluation criteria of NUREG 0654 Sec. II F and II G with respe,ct to Rockland County.
Rockland County has supplied a list of its equipment, manpower and training needs for the purposes of being able to carry out the requirements of the New York ' State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan. A copy of the County's list of requests is attached. The State has not accepted all the items requested by the County, and has been in negotiation with the County concerning this important matter. Agreement in principle has been reached on approximately six hundred and some thousand dollars worth of requests, subject to the availability of funds.
~
- A more precise measure of shortfall may be available in the form of the FEMA official critique of the four county Indian Point Exercise of the Plan.
As stated in response to several UCS/NYPIRG questions, the State intends to work closely with each county on the important matter of training. Costs related to training can be borne directly by the State without a direct cost to the county.
k t
i
?
- 7. With respect to contention 3.3, please provide a listing of all evacuation plan estimate studies done by CONSAD Res2 arch Corporation and Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., and any other time estimate studies done for the Indian Point site, any working papers and documents pertaining to these studies, and updates of the studies, incl'uding the date of all such documents and updates. The NRC staff is requested to provide a cop:r of the aforementioned documents to RCSE without charge.
The consultants mentioned above were not hired by the State of New York, and any questions on studies done by them should be addressed to their employers, FEMA for CONSAD Research Corporation and the
- licensees for Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. The State of New York has not done any independent studies of evacuation time estimates for the Indian Point site.
i.
- 8. Please identify which version, if any, of the Rockland County Radiological Emergency Response Plan was relied upon in each of the studies or updates. Please identify what studies were made of trifYic patterns immediately outside of the 10 mile EPZ and of their effects upon traffic egress from the.'10 mile EPZ. Please identify the
" level of' service" assumptions used in computing the evacuation time estimates in any known studies and the reasoning for selection of those levels of service in Rockland County.
To the best of our knowledge, the August 1981 version of the Rockland County Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan and Procedures was used by all parties as the basis for the documentation which was ;
ultimately certified to FEMA by the State. The remainder of this question is not applicable to the State.
l l
?
- 9. Please identify all hottlenecks revealed by any evacuation time estimate studies done for Rockland. State any time estimates that havb leen computed regarding traffic flow that does not progress in the optimal manner according to the plan.
Questions about evacuation time estimate studies should be addressed to the entities hiring consultants to do evacaation time estimate studies. Appendix H of the Reckland County Plan provides i evacuation time estimates in conditions ranging from optimum to adverse.
l l
- 10. Please state the date and time f any.and all events which would be classified as unusual events, site alerts, site emergencies or ~
general emergencies under carrent regulations in the operating history of pnits 2 and 3. For each of the preceding events, state whether and at what exact time Rockland County and others were notified officially of the e. vent and of its nat6re. Please supply all. documents pertaining to the NRC investigation of the October 1980 fan cooler leak accident.
The State has received no reports of events classified of the licensee as unusual events ht Indian Point #3 Plant. Reports have been received of events classified by the licensee as unusual events of the Indian Point #3 Plant. The times stated are of notification of the State of New York since the State began keeping a log of licensee notification.
Events Classified as Unusual Events by Indian Point #3 ,
9/4/80 Microseismic Event 10/16/80 Microseismic Event 12/13/80 Microseismic Event 1/20/81 Bomb Threat 1/24/81 Bomb Threat 2/25/81 Bomb Threat 5/18/81 Microseismic Event 6/20/81 Bomb Threat 6/21/81 Microseismic Event 7/22/81 Domb Threat 10/21/81 Microseismic Event 3/10/82 Microseismic Event 11:12 a.m.
3/14/82 Microseismic Event 3:22 p.m. (15th) 3/24/82 Primary to Secondary Leak 11:58 p.m.
The best source for documents portaining to the NRC investigation of the October 1980 fan coller leak is the NRC.
( . .
~
\
l
- 11. Please identify any studies on sheltering capability within the .
EPZ in Rockland County. Please identify any standards known for sheltering factors in radiological emergencies. It is requested that the NRC staff provide any documents- and testimony related to sheltering and air turnover rates in buildings.
There have been no specific studies of the sheltering capability of the EPZ. We have assumed,that the EPZ contains enough dwellings or other buildings to provide adequate pr'tection o for the population.
Sheltering as a protective action refers to getting the population into a structure such as their' homes to provide protection from a gaseous release. A sheltering directive would include recommendation for ventilation control such as closing doors and windows, turning off air conditioners, etc. Sheltering in this context does not necessarily refer to the civil defense / nuclear attacks shelter with blast and fallout protection. The county offices of civil defense /
emergency services have information on fallout shelter spaces identified' by the US Corps of Engineers shelter surveys. County plans can incorporate use of the public fallout shelters to supplement sheltering in houses, places of work, schools, etc.
l 1
P .
- 12. What proportion of the population within the Rockland County EPZ is known to be deaf, blind, too young to understand instructions in the Emergency Planning brochures or unable to speak English? What special provisions have been'taken to inform these populations of an emergency?
The State has no information which would permit it to answer with certainty as to the proportidn of the population within the Rockland County EPZ known to be deaf, blind, too young to understand instructions in the Emergency Planning brochures or unable to speak English. However, the Plan calls for the general public to come forward and identify those with special needs. Once that information is in the hands of a county, it would become the responsibility of the county to work out appropriate emergency plans with the families or other responsible persons.
UNITED STKTES OF AMERICA NUCLEKR REGUIATOEY CCMMISSION h . .
.s
? BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .
'52 J : -7 A10 :13
-In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. '50-24~7-SP'? '-
OF NEW YORK (I.ndian Point, Unit 2 ) .50-2 86--SP'." ~
)
POWER ADTHORITY OF THE STATE OF :1 ,
4 NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) )
CERuriCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that.I mailed copies of the Answers and Objections of the State of New York to Interrogatories and Document Requests propounded by Friends of the' Earth /Audubon Society of New York City and the Rockland Committee on Safe Energy to the following parties on or before June 3, 1982. .
l Louis J. Carter, Esq., Chairman Paul T. Colarnlli, Esq.
Administrative Judge Joseph J., Levin., Jr., Esq.,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pamela.S.. Horowitz, Esq.
7300 City Line Avenue Charles Morgan, Jr , Esq.
Philadelph.ia, .PA 191.51-2291 Morgan Associates, Chartered
.1899 L Street, N.W.
Dr. Oscar H.. Paris Washington, D.C '20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing -Board c'harles M.. Pratt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cenni ssion Thomas R. Frey, Esq.
Washington,:D.C. 20555 Power Authority of the State i .cf New York l Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, NY 10019 Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellyn 'R. Weiss , Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 William S. Jordan , III, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss l Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 l Assistant General Counsel Washington D.C. 20006 Consolidated Edison Ccznpany of Joan Holt, Project Director l New York, Inc.
j 4 Irving Place Indian Point Project New York, NY 10003 New York Public Interest Research Group Mayor George V. Begany 5 Beekman Street --
Village of Buchanan New York, NY 10038 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511
-+ --, -,,-r - - _ . , . . , , , . , . , ,
John Gilroy, Westchester Coordinator- ~
Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Indian Point Project 'Eric Thorsen,~Esq.
New York Public Interest County Attorney, County o'f
-Research Group Rockland -
- 240 Central Avenue 11 New Hempstead Road White Plains, NY 10606
- New City, NY 10956 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Geoffrey Cobb Ryan New York University Law School Conservation Cmmittee 423 vanderbilt Hall Chairman rDirector 40 Washington Square South New York City Alidubon Society New York, NY 10012 -
71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, NY 10010 Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
Litigation Division Greater New York Council on The Port Authority of Energy New York and New Jersey c/o Dean R. Corren, Director One World Trade Center New York University New York, NY 10048 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, NY 10003 Ezra.1. Bialik, Esq.
Steve Leipsiz, Esq. Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Environmental Brotection Bureau Member of the County Legislatura New York State Attorney Westchester County General's Office County Office Btiilding Two World Trade Cent!er White Plains, NY 10601 New York, NY,10047 Pat Posner, Spokesperson Alfred B. Del Bello Parents Concerned About Westchester ~ County Executive Indian Point Westchester s County P .O. Box 125 148 Martin Avenue. Croton-onMindson, NY 10520 White Plains, NY 10601- '
Ch rles A. Scheiner, Andrew S. Raffe,'Esq. Co-Chairperson New York State Assembly Westchester People's Action Albany, NY 12248 Coalition, Inc.
P.O. Box 488 Renee Swartz, Esq. White ' Plains, NY 10602 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzherg Attorneys-for, Metropolitan Lorna Salzman Transporation- Alithcrity Mid-Atlantic Representative 200 Park Avenue Friends of the Earth, Inc.
New York, NY 10166 208 West 13th Street
" ' New York, NY 10011 Ecnorable Ruth Messinged Member of the Council of the City of New York District 64 Ci.ty Hall -
New York,riY 10007 1
.,N ,
,3 $>
4
,_ ^ n :(sy; g; .. . .
_ .) . ; fy [ }_ . c :. : j i
, :. .g
O e
Alan Lat: nan, Isq. Es. Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
e P.O.' Box 384 44 Sunset Drice -
Croton-on-Endson , NY 10520 village Station New York, NY.10014 d.p~porah 3. Fleisher
- Renee Schwart=, Esq.
West Branch Conservation .
Paul. Chessin, Esq.
Association Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
443 Buena Vista Road New City, NY 10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
Botein , Rays , Sica T r E ' Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator 200 Park Avenue Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York, NY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road -
New City, NY 10956 David H. Pikus, Esq.
Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
330 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cce: mission Washington , D.C. 2DS55 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C i ssion -
Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission Washington, D.C. 20555 bsA t '
JO'IATHRT D. ft.LNdERG Staff Counsel NYS Public Service Commission
-- . _ _