ML20054F587
| ML20054F587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1982 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Morgan C CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino W NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206170130 | |
| Download: ML20054F587 (3) | |
Text
-
i g
i C Mi. TED W'
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE, !!EW YORK,t!Di YORK 10019 CONSOLIDATED EDISO!!' COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. d2 JUN 15 NO:05 4 IRVIt!G PLACE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003 D !CE F M
_,m June;15', 1982 ELEQNG & SE, SANCn-HAND DELIVERED Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino.
Commissioner John F.
Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts l
Commissioner James K.
Asselstine United States fluclear Regulatory Commission d
1717 H Street, !!. W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Re:
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
Docket Nos. 50-247 SP, 50-286 'SP 4
4
Dear Commissioners:
The Indian Point proceeding has reached a critical stage which requires your immediate intervention.
The final prehearing conference is scheduled for Thursday, June 17, 1982 with eviden-tiary hearings to begin on Tuesday, June 22.
Without imagdiate action on a pending licensees' petition for certificat which hasbeenstronglysupportedbytheCommission'sstaff,{onthe care-fully focused, limited inquiry ordered by this Commission will
(
become an administrative free-for-all.
On May 10, 1982, licensees filed a petition befure the Con-mission to direct certification of four questions relating to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Board's) order formulating contentions for the Indian Point proceeding:
(1) whether the Commission intended to relieve intervenors of the requirement to l
provide bases for contentions, (2) whether the Commission i
l l.
Licensees' Petition For Directed Certification Pursuant To 10 C.F.R.
S 2.718(i) And For Waiver of 10 C.F.R. S 9.103 j
( f tay 10, 1982).
i 2.
NRC Staf f Response to Support Licensees' Request for l
Certification and Gaiver of 10 C.F.R.
S 9.103 (June 1, 1982).
0
}6 8206170130 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000247 l
C PDR
i Commissioners
~
June 15, 1982 Page 2 intended to permit challenges to existing regulations without.
compliance with 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758, (3) whether the Board imper-missibly allowed contentions to address only the release conse-quences and not the probability of such releases, and (4) whether the proposal of additional safety features had to satisfy the Commission's two-pronged standard for this proceeding.
Licen-sees' Petition For Directed Certification Pursuant To 10 C.F.R.
S 2.713(i) And For Waiver Of 10. C.F.R.
S 9.103, at 2-3.
On June 1, 1982, the Commission staff joined the licensees in urging certification of these issues.
In so doing, staff noted that the Board " decided the subject of the first question incorrectiv," that the " Board also erred in its ruling on the applicability of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758 to the contentions in this proceeding," that the Board's ruling on the third question will cau.e "[t]he public interest [to] be dealt a disservice by a nisfocused proceeding," and that the " Board was in error in its resolution of the application of the two-pronged test for con-sideration of safety measures."
!!RC Staff Response to Support Licensees' Request for Certification and Waiver of 10 C.F.R.
S 9.103 at 14, 19, 22, 24 (emphasis added).
As staff warned, "The resolution of these issues will determine the tenor and content of the entire Indian Point special proceeding."
---Id.
at 26 (emphasis added).
Recent events underscore the necessity for the Commission's intervention in this proceeding.
In response to licensees' discovery requests, intervenors listed 36 witnesses who would testify on emergency planning con-tentions.
Then, on June 10, 1982, only one week before the final pre-hearing conference and only ten days before the start of the evidentiary hearing, the intervenors " supplemented" their response by serving a list of 171 witnesses who purportedly will contentions thereunder.phe Commission's six questions and the testify on only two of In addition, witnesses proposed by other parties will increase this number to more than 200.
Unless the Commission acts immediately, the Board will begin the evidentiary hearing by receiving testimony on contentions that both the staff and the licensees believe the Commission never intended for this special inquiry.
An unfocused proceeding with hundreds of witnesses could play havoc with the Septem-ber 18, 1982 deadline urged by the Commission for a final recom-mendation from the Board and will produce a result wholly l
l 1.
Intervenors also moved for an extension of the deadline for filing testimony for 13 of these witnesses.
2.
Licensees intend to argue before the Board that the number of witnesses should be circumscribed.
l l
L Commissioners June 15, 1982 Page 3 inconsistent with the Commission's purpose in ordering a limited proceeding.
4
-The Commission should reaf firm that this proceeding is a Commission-mandated inquiry and not a roving, unbounded forum by granting licensees' May 10, 1982 petition for directed certifica-tion and conforming this proceeding to the Commission's orders.
Sincerely, f
arles liorgan, Jr. W M[ $
_strent L. Brandenbur Counsel for Consolidated Edison Counsel for Power Authoritfj' Co. of tiew York, Inc.
of the State of Nhs York CriJ r. : lb cc:
Of ficial Service List (first class mail) i
- -