ML20054H898
| ML20054H898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1982 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206250153 | |
| Download: ML20054H898 (19) | |
Text
__
DESICNATE ORIGIN COMified By "r:T 2 N kh/ A -
'DEC )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE CO M ISSION and I
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-247-SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 50-286-SP NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF '
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO UCS-NYPIRG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION RULING ALLOWING INTERIM OPERATION, AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE o
Henry J. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff June 24, 1982 820625015G 920624 PDR ADOCK 05000247 C PDR
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 4
IV. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .-. . . . . .
A. The "New Evidence" Put Forward By UCS-NYPIRG Is Neither Entirely New, Nor Relevant To The Commission's Determination That 4 Interim Operation Should Be Permitted . . . . . . .
B. The Issue UCS-NYPIRG Is Seeking To Address In A Show Cause Proceeding - Whether Or Not Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Should Be Shut down Or Other Ac' ' ' Taken - Is The Issue Already. Before nission And Accordingly
' Is An Improper .e for A Request Pursuant 7
'To 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
10 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
h i
1
i
, i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page ADMINISTRbTIVE DECISIONS Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Unit 2),
- Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, Unit 3), CLI-81-1, 13 NRC 1 (1981), as revised, CLI-81-23, 14 NRC 610 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 5, 6,
- 8, 9 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear PowerPlant, Units 1and2),CLI-81-6,13NRC443(1981)... 8 Virginia Electric Power Company (Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-4, 11 NRC 405 (1980). . . . . 8 Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-579, 11 NRC 223 (1980) . . . . . . . . . 7 Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Uni 2 ), Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point, 4
Unit 3), 0D-80-5, 11 NRC 351 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REGULATIONS _
10 C.F.R. 9 2.202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7,8,9
. 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,8,9 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
, e.w "-
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of r
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-247-SP NEWYORK(IndianPoint, Unit 2) 50-286-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF June 24, 1982 NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO UCS-NYPIRG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION RULING ALLOWING INTERIM OPERATION, AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE I. INTRODUCTION On June 4, 1982. Intervenors, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and the New York Public Interest Research Group (UCS-NYPIRG) filed a document entitled "UCS-NYPIRG Motion for Reconsideration of Commission Ruling Allowing Interim Operation and for Issuance of a Show Cause Order Against the Licensees Prior to Commencement of the Evidentiary Hearings on the Safety of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants." (UCS-NYPIRG Motion). In its Motion UCS-NYPIRG requests that the Commission reconsider its decision allowing the Indian Point units to continue operating during the pendency of the special investigatory proceeding ordered by the Commis-sion. UCS-NYPIRG Motion at 5. UCS-NYPIRG also requests that the Commis-sion turn this investigatory proceeding into a show cause proceeding, so that the result of the proceeding would be enforcement actions rather than the prelude of another hearing. Id. The Staff opposes this motion in its entirety.
II. BACKGROUND On July 15, 1980, the Commission decided to allow the continued operation of the Indian Point Plants pending completion of the*investiga-tory proceedings which the Commission established by an unpublished order dated May 30, 1980. This decision was memoria,lized in the Commission's
. order of January 8,1981, setting forth the issues to be litigated and the procedures to be followed during the proceeding. In the matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, (Indian Point Unit No. 2) and Power Authority of the State of New York, (Indian Point Unit No. 3)
CLI-81-1, 13 NRC 1 (1981), as revised, CLI-81-23, 14 NRC 610, 611 (1981).
In that order the Commission also reaffirmed the nature of the proceeding to be conducted as that of a discretionary investigative proceeding to address certain enumerated issues. Id. at 5 n.4.
UCS-NYPIRG has now filed a Motion both with the Commission and the Licensing Board designated to preside over this investigatory proceeding making two requests. First UCS-NYPIRG asks the Commission to reconsider its decision concerning the interim operation of the Indian Point units and second, UCS-NYPIRG requests that the nature of the proceeding which has already commenced taking evidence be changed from an investigatory proceeding to a show cause proceeding. It bases this request on what it terms "new evidence," consisting first of a resolution passed by the Rockland County legislature on May 18, 1982. (Attached to the UCS-NYPIRG Motion as Appendix A.) This resolution prohibits the use of County employees and the expenditure of County funds for the further development of the Federally mandated radiological response plans for the Indian
Point Facility.1/ The resolution further states that in the event of a nuclear occurrence at the Indian Point Facilities, the Legislature of Rockland County hereby authorizes, empowers and directs its Chairman, notwithstanding this resolution, to take any and all action in coordi-nating and cooperating with any and all Federal and State agencies to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Rockland County.
UCS-NYPIRG also presents as "new evidence" deficiencies in the State and local plans reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in April and December of 1981.2_/ (Attached to the UCS-NYPIRG Motion as Appendices B and C.) UCS-NYPIRG argues that these two pieces of "evi-dence" render it necessary both to reconsider allowing the Indian Point units to continue operating, and to change the entire nature of the Commission's investigation into a show cause proceeding. The Hearings on Emergency Planning coninenced on June 22, 1982.
III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES UCS-NYPIRG's Motion presents the following issues:
A. Whether the documents attached to UCS-NYPIRG's Motion represent "new evidence" of the type making reconsideration of the decision to allow interim operation of the Indian Point Units necessary and;
-1/ The Rockland County Resolution also directs the County Office of Emergency S'ervices to develop a plan for responding to a potential nuclear accident at the Indian Point Facilities.
-2/
This so called " evidence" is in the form of excerpts from certain FEMA letters interspersed with what appear to be UCS-NYPIRG's comments concerning these excerpts.
B. Whether the pending proceeding should be changed into a show cause proceeding. ,
IV. ARGUMENT A. The "New Evidence" Put Forward By UCS-NYPIRG Is Neither Entirely New Nor Relevant To The Commission's Determination That Interim Operation Should Be Permitted.
Much of the "new evidence" attached to UCS-NYPIRG's Motion is, in fact, not new at all. The deficiencies noted in Appendix B and set forth in Appendix C to UCS-NYPIRG's Motion were contained in documents issued in April and December 1981. The Licensing Board has been presiding over this proceeding since September 1981. Therefore, UCS-NYPIRG has had ample opportunity to bring the existence of these deficiencies to the Board's attention for the purpose of requesting further consideration of the Commission's interim operation decision.
Furthermore, the deficiencies noted in these Appendices do not justify the relief requested.
The Commission in its order of January 8,1981 sets forth the bases for its determination that the Indian Point units could continue to operate pending completion of the Commission-ordered investigatory proceeding. These bases were: 1) the findings of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation presented in a decision on February 11, 1980. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Incorporated, (Indian Point, Unit 2) and Power Authority of the State of New York, (Indian Point, Unit 3) DD-80-5, 11 NRC 351 (1980); and 2) the findings of the Task Force formed by the Commission to review the risks posed by the
Indian Point facilities on a short term basis. As the Comission noted, the Director found that the interim risks posed by the Indian Point facilities did not warrant shutdown of the plants. CLI-81-1, supra at
- 2. The Task Force found, according to the Comission, that the overall risk posed by the Indian Point facilities is about the same as the risk posed by a typical reactor at a typical site. Id. at 2 and 3. Based on these findings the Comission concluded that "the risk posed by the operation of the Indian Point facilities did not warrant suspension of the operating licenses for these facilities during the adjudicatory proceedings." Id at 3. In its order the Comission stated: "In the event that the Licensing Board conducting the adjudication determines that new evidence warrants interim relief, it may at any time recommend a course of action to the Comission." CLI-81-1, supra at 3.3_/
UCS-NYPIRG now argues that emergency planning was considered by the Commission in making its interim operation decision, and that the Comission decided that an approved emergency plan was not necessary at the time because Indian Point was not unique in failing to have such an approved plan. UCS-NYPIRG Motion at 2-3. They use as a basis for this argument a portion of a sentance which states in its entirety: "While a successful plan for evacuation at Indian Point would probably reduce
-3/ The Comission clearly wishes the Licensing Board to determine in the first ins.ance t whether new evidence warrants interim relief concerning the Indian Point facilities. Therefore, that portion of UCS-NYPIRG's Motion concerning interim operation should be considered by the Licensing Board in the first instance and should not have been filed with the Comission.
overall risk, the fact is that most operating reactor sites do not yet have an approved plan and Indian Point is not different in this regard."
CLI-81-1, supra at 4. This sentence in the Commission's order does not support UCS-NYPIRG's contention that the Commission's decision on interim operation should be reconsidered. This statement was made by the
~
Commission in response to some comments made by various groups concerning interim operation. Id.. at 3. The Commission in no way indicated in its order that the fact that Indian Point and other reactors did not have an approved emergency plan played any role in its determination that the overall risk posed by the Indian Point facilities did not warrant suspen-sion of the operating license for these licenses. UCS-NYPIRG is attempt-ing to stretch the meaning of this sentence far beyond that apparent from the context of the January 8,1981 order.
UCS-NYPIRG has not attempted to set forth any changes in the status quo which have taken place since January 8, 1981 that would change the Commission's view of the overall risk posed by the Indian Point facilities. Even if there is still no approved emergency plan for those
. facilities, this situation is no different than the situation which existed at the time the Commission reached its decision to allow these facilities to operate during this discretionary investigative proceeding. Therefore, UCS-NYPIRG has failed to present any "new evidence" which would warrant reconsideration of the Commission's interim operation decision.
B. The Issue UCS-NYPIRG Is Seeking To Address In A Show Cause Proceeding - Whether Or Not Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Should Be Shut Down Or Other Action Taken - Is The Issue Already Before The Comission And Accordingly Is An Improper Issue For A Request Pursuant To 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 The Motion also requests that the Licensing Board and the Comission issue a show cause order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202 "against the
' Licensees" to, in essence, change the present proceeding into a show cause proceeding. UCS-NYPIRG Motion at 5.
If this request was treated as a 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 request to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for the institution of a proceed-ing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202, it must be denied since it is an attempt to institute an enforcement proceeding to consider the same issuenowbeforetheCommission.O The Comission has stated that the
-4/
The only mechanism by which a member of the public may request the institution of a show cause proceeding is pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.206.
Such request should be directed to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and not the Commission or Licensing Board. See Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit'7),
ALAB-579, 11 NRC 223, 226 (1980). For this reason, the filing of this request is procedurally defective.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.206(a) provides:
(a) Any person may file a request for the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, as appropriate, to institute a proceeding pursuant to 6 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper. Such a request shall be addressed to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, as apropriate and shall be filed either: (1) By delivery to t1e Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C., or (2) by mail or telegram addressed to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Director, Office of Inspection and (Continued)
central purpose of the Indian Point adjudicatory proceeding is "to take evidence and make recommended findings and conclusions on disputed issues ,
material to the question whether the Indian Point Units 2 and 3 plants should be shut down or other action taken." CLI-81-1, supra at 5 and 6.
The Commission also has made clear that while this adjudicatory proceeding is ongoing it has also retained jurisdiction over the issue of whether any new information warrants any interim action with regard to the operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The Commission stated:
In the event that the Licensing Board conducting the adjudication determines that new evidence warrants interim relief, it may at any time recommend a course of action to the Comission.
_Id. at 3.
In short, UCS-NYPIRG asks that the issue of continued operation of the Indian Point which is already before the Commission, become the issue in a 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202 enforcement proceeding.
The situation here is similar to that in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-6, 13 NRC 443 (1981). There Joint Intervenors in an NRC proceeding to decide 4_/ (Continued)
Enforcement, as appropriate, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. The requests shall specify the action requested and set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request. (Emphasisadded)
Once the proper mechanism for requesting issuance of a show cause order is inyoked by UCS-NYPIRG and a decision is made by the Director pursuant to 10 C.F.R. @ 2.206, a petition may be filed with the Commission for its sua sponte review of the Director's decision.
See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.2U5Tc)(1) and Virginia Electric Power Company (Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-4,11 NRC 405 (1980).
whether and on what conditions the power reactors at Diablo Canyon should operate filed a request under 10 C.F.R. % 2.206 with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to supplement the environmental record in that proceeding so as to include a detailed evaluation of the environmental consequences of a catastrophic accident at the Diablo site. The Director denied the requested relief, in part because the Joint Intervenors had raised the same issue before the Licensing Board and a decision had not yet been reached by the Board.
CLI-81-1, supra at 444 The Commission affirmed the Director's denial stating:
The Commission specifically endorses the principle that 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206 should not be used by a party to a licensing proceeding to request relief on a matter within the jurisdiction of the presiding officer in the proceeding.
Id.
The Comission added:
The Commission expressly adopts the view intimated six years ago in Indian Point that parties must be prevented from using 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 procedures for avoiding an existing forum in which the issues raised more logically should be presented.
(citation omitted.)
Id. at 446.
The Staff submits that the issue of need for corrective action with respect to continued operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is already before the Comission and Licensing Board in this special investigatory proceeding. Accordingly, the UCS-NYPIRG request for an enforcement proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.202 should be denied.
V. CONCLUSION UCS-NYPIRG has not presented any "new evidence" which would warrant reconsideration of the Commission's decision to allow continued operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 during the pendency of the special investi-gatory proceeding. Furthermore, UCS-NYPIRG's request to the Commission
- to issue a show cause order to change the entire nature of the Commission-ordered proceeding is inappropriate. Accordingly, the UCS-NYPIRG motion should be denied.
Respectfully sutmitted, fY NIA 3 'd'u de D.NcGurren Cou'nsfl for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of June, 1982 l
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
I RFFORF THF r0MMISSION ,
In the Matter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 0F NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2 ) 50-286-SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) )
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO UCS-NYPIRG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION RULING ALLOWING INTERIM OPERATION, AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE"in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of June, 1982.
Louis J. Carter, Esq., Chairman Paul F. Colarulli, 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.
Philadelphia, PA 19151-2291 Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L Street, N.W.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas R. Frey, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555
- Power Authority of the State of New York
. Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, N.Y. 10019 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555
- William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss
, Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 .;4 Assistant General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20006 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
4 Irving Place Joan Holt, Project Director
. New York, N.Y. 10003 New York Public Interest Research Group Mayor George V. Begany 9 Murray Street Village of Buchanan New Yor, New York 10007 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, N.Y. 10511
John Gilroy, Westchester Coordinator Stanley B. Klimberg Indian Point Project General Cuunsel New York Public Interest New York State Energy Office .
Research Group 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 240 Central Avenue Albany, N.Y. 12223 White Plains, N.Y. 10606 Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Eric Thorsen, Esq.
New York University Law School County Attorney, County of Rockland 423 Vanderbilt Hall 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y. 10956 New York, N.Y. 10012
- Charles J. Meikish, Esq. fnda oIntCoordinator Litigation Division The Port Authority of 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 1. Bialik, Esq. Energy Steve Leipsiz, Esq. c/o Dean R. Corren, Director Environmental Protection Bureau New York University New York State Attorney 26 Stuyvesant Street General's Office New York, N.Y. 10003 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10047 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Member of the County Legislature Alfred B. Del Bello ,
e c s he r County Executive fg t c u ding White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Westchester County h te s t York 10601 e Coric rn bo
. Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Indian Point New York State Assembly P.O. Box 125 Albany, N.Y. 12248 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 Charles A. Scheiner, Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq. Co-Chairperson Atomi; Safety and Licensing Westchester People's Action Board Panel Coalition, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
- P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y. 10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
Member of the Councii of the Lorna Salzman City of New York Friends of the Earth, Inc.
District #4 208 West 13th Street New York, N.Y. 10011 Y r , N.Y. 10007
Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological Emergency Alan Latman, Esq. Preparedness Group 44 Sunset Drive Empire State Plaza Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237
- - ~ -- ~ -
Zipporah S. Fleisher . ,
West Branch Conservation '
Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Association Paul Chessin, Esq.
443 Buena Vista Road Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
New City, N.Y. 10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
~
Botein, Hays, Sklar & Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator 200 Park Avenue
~
Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York,tiY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y. 10956 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk
- o Secretary of the Commission , ,
David H. Pikus, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard F. Czaja, Esq. Washington, DC 20555 330 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 Leonard Bickwit, Esq.*
General Counsel , ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,, DC 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C. 20555
- p y (C Henr$J. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ,
)
CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 0F NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2 ) 50-286-SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) )
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO UCS-NYPIRG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION RULING ALLOWING INTERIM OPERATION, AND FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory C0mmission's internal mail system, this 24th day of June, 1982.
Louis J. Carter, Esq. , Chairman Paul F. Colarulli, Esq.
Administrative Judge Joseph J. Levin, Jr. , Esq.
Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles 11 organ, Jr. , Esq.
7300 City Line Avenue Morgan Associates, Chartered Philadelphia, PA 19151-2291 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 .
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Thomas R. Frey, Esq.
t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Power Authority of the State Washington, D.C. 20555 of New York 10 Columbus Circle Mr. Frederick J. Shon New York, N.Y. 10019 Administrative Judge l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
!
- William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 l Harmon & Weiss l 1725 1 Street, N.W., Suite 506 Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. 20006 l Washington, D.C.
Assistant General Counsel .
Consolidated Edison Co. of '
New]ork',Inc. Jonathan D. Feinberg l New ae c Service e Yr, 10003 Commission Three Empire State Plaza l
l Mayor George V. Begany Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue i Buchanan, N.Y. 10511
John Gilroy, Westchester Coordinator Stanley B. Klimberg Indian Point Project General Counsel New York Public Interest New York State Energy Office Research Group 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 240 Central Avenue Albany, N.Y. 12223 White Plains, N.Y. 10606 Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Eric Thorsen, Esq.
New York University Law School County Attorney, County of Rockland 423 Vanderbilt Hall 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y. 10956 New York, N.Y. 10012 .
nd an o nt Coordinator t tion ;
The Port Authority of 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 1. Bialik, Esq. Energy Steve Leipsiz, Esq. c/o Dean R. Corren, Director Environmental Protection Bureau New York University New York State Attorney 26 Stuyvesant Street General's Office New York, N.Y. 10003 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10047 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Member of the County Legislature Alfred B. Del Bello .
West Westchester County Executive g n ce u ding Laurie Vetere d White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Westchester County *
, 148 thrtine Avenue Pat Posner, Spokesperson White. Plains, New York 10601 Parents Concerned About Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Indian Point New York State Assembly P.O. Box 125 Albany, N.Y. 12248 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
, . Charles A. Scheiner
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Co-Chairperson W t ter ople's Action U. I uclear Regulatory Comnission $a '
Washington, D.C. 20555
- P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y. 10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the Lorna Salzman City of New York Friends of the Earth, Inc.
District #4 208 West 13th Street City Hall New York, N.Y. 10011 .
New York, N.Y. 10007
k7ald Davidoff Director Radiological Emergency Alan Latman, Esq. Preparedness Group 44 Sunset Drive Empire State' Plaza Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Zipporah S. Fleisher - -
West Branch Conservation Renee Schwartz, Esg.
Association Paul Chessin, Esq. .
443 Buena Vista Road Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
New City, N.Y. 10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
Botein, Hays, Sklar & Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator. 200 Park Avenue Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York, NY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y. 10956 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Joan Holt, Project Director David H. Pikus, Esq. New York Public Interest Resear'ch Richard F. Czaja, Esq. Group, Inc.
330 Madison Avenue 9 Murray Street New York, N.Y. 10017 New York, New York 10007 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, David B. Duboff Washington, D.C. 20555
- Westchester Peoples'.. Action Coalition A m Safety and Licensing Appeal t ai NY 10601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 *
.i - -
' , " , ,i7 l-s /M%
HenryJ. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff
.