ML20054J122
| ML20054J122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1982 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Morgan C 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 8206280149 | |
| Download: ML20054J122 (22) | |
Text
_
/
p - ry :,
'l 20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
x In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Docket Nos.
INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) 50-247 SP 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
June 22, 1982
_-------------------------------------x LICENSEES' RESPONSE TO UCS/NYPIRG REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Brent L. Brandenburg Charles Morgan, Jr.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC.
1899 L Street, N.W.
4 Irving Place Washington, D.C.
20036 New York, New York 10003 (202) 466-7000 (212) 460-4600 s206280149 e20622 dfC3 PDR ADOCK 05000247 J
PEit
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Qonsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(" Con Edison"), licensee of Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2, and Power Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"),
licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (collectively the " licensees"), submit these responses to UCS/NYPIRG Requests for Admissions.
Licensees have made every effort to respond to the UCS/NYPIRG requests.
Several requests, however, could not be responded to because they are vague or seek information outside of licensees' control.
UCS/NYPIRG appears in some instances to misunder-stand the nature of requests for admissions pursuant to 10 CFR S2.742.
Many UCS/NYPIRG requests seek admission of facts which are obviously beyond licensees' knowledge.*
Indeed, the first two requests, which relate to precise details surrounding the Three Mile Island accident, typify such requests.
Response to such requests would require speculation or burdensome and oppressive research which would, in any event, likely require reconciliation of various scholarly viewpoints.
Accordingly, licensees have responded to such improper requests for admissions by denying having knowledge or 10 CFR S2.742 does not require a party to admit facts which are not within its knowledge.
information suf ficient to form a belief as to the truth of the l
l statements.
LICENSEES' RESPONSES 1.
REQUEST:
The only radiological emergency involving a commer-cial nuclear power reactor in U.S.
history in which any pro-tective responso Lecommendation, advisory, or order was given to the general public was the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 from March 28, 1979 to April 9, 1979.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information suf-ficient to form a belief as to the trath of this statement.
2.
REQUEST:
The population within 15 miles of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor did not follow the protective response recommendations made by the Governor of Pennsylvania during the TMI-2 accident in that despite the fact that only pregnant women and pre-school age children within 5 miles of the plant were advised to evacuate, and persons within 10 miles of the plant were advised to shelter, the following actually occurred:
A.
Instead of the evacuation being limited to the 2,500 pregnant women and pre-school age children within 5 miles of the TMI-2 reactor, 144,000 of the 370,000 persons living within 15 miles of the TMI-2 reactor evacuated.
B.
Approximately 14% of the evacuees (about 20,000) evacuated refore any protective response recommendation was issued.
C.
Despite the fact that the evacuation advisory was in effect for 10 days, the median evacua-tion period was 5 days. -
l l
D.
Persons beyond 5 miles but within 10 miles evacuated rather than sheltering as recommended by the Governor.
E.
Persons beyond 10 miles evacuated (32% of the population between 10 and 15 miles) despite receiving no recommendation to do so.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
3.
REQUEST:
Meteorology of the site and the Indian Point region waa not considered in the establishment of the areal extent of the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for Indian Point.
RESPONSE
Licensees object to this request on the ground that it is unduly vague.
Not withstanding this objection, licensees note that while site-specific meteorology was not considered in establishing the contours of the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (" plume EPZ") for Indian Point, the meteorology of various sites was considered in determining the generic requirement that a plume EPZ be about 10 miles in radius.
4.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that a release of radioactivity from Indian Point Units 2 or 3, in combination with weather conditions at.-- - -
the time of the release, will cause radiation doses to the general public in excess of the EPA Protective Action Guide levels beyond the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for Indian Point.
RESPONSE
Licensees object to this request on the grounds that it is immaterial, irrelevant and outside the scope of any of the Commission's Questions.
Any accident scenario that can be imagined has, in theory, a possibility greater than zero.
Mere reference to a possibility " greater than zero" is therefore immaterial, and contributes nothing toward resolving the Commission's Questions.*
Indeed, UCS/NYPIRG's reference to a standard of " possibility greater than zero" completely ignores a long line of cases holding that every conceivable radiological risk need not be mitigated.
- See, e.g.,
Citizens for Safe Power, Inc. v.
HRC, 524 F. 2d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ("[a]bsolute or perfect assurances are not required by [the Atomic Energy ActJ, and neither present technology nor public policy admit of such a standard"); In re Honicker Petition, N.R.C.
46 Fed. Reg. 39,573, 39,580 (1981) (footnote omitted) ("it is reasonable to conclude that such a standard, as distin-guished for example from ' absolute' protection, left room for some degree of health impact on the public commensurate with the benefits of having a nuclear power program....
A country that builds highways, that licenses airplanes, that regulates coal mines, has clearly not established 'zero risk' or 'zero deaths' as a legal or moral absolute"); see also, Power Reactor Development Co. v.
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, et al.,
367 U.S. 396 (1961).
In addition, the Commission has directed that there be no consideration of consequences without equivalent consider-ation of the probability of such consequences. _
5.
REQUEST:
Any exposure to ionizing radiation carries with it an increased risk of cancer.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
6.
REQUEST:
There is no level of radiation exposure below which there is no increased risk of cancer.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
7.
REQUEST:
There exist circumstances in which it will not be possible to recognize that a core melt accident sequence has been entered until fuel melting actually starts to occur.
RESPONSE
Licensees object to this request as improper, inter-nally inconsistent, and incomprehensible.
It is not possible to conclude that an actual core melt sequence has been entered into prior to fuel melting.
8.
REQUEST:
A whole-body exposure of 50 Rems corresponds to the radiation dose at which early radiation illnesses begin to be observed in the general population...,..-
RESPONSE
Licensees object to this request on the ground that radiation dose effects are highly time dependent.
9.
REQUEST:
A whole-body exposure of 200 Rems corresponds to the radiation dose at which early fatalities begin to be observed in the general population.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information suf-ficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
- 10. REQUEST:
Other than the radiological emergency plans for Rockland, Westchester, Putnam, and Orange counties, no other county radiological emergency plans have been devised for responding to accidents at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny this assertion.
Dutchess County has undertaken efforts to plan for its role as a host county and participated in the March 3, 1982 exercise.
On information and belief, Bergen County, New Jersey, has also undertaken efforts to plan for its role as a host county..
11.
REQUEST:
The Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station does not cover the full areal extent of the areas which could be impacted in the event of a worst-case accident at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (i.e., a core melt accident with containment failure); specifi-cally, the Plume EPZ does not cover the full areal extent of areas in which residents could be exposed to radiation causing early fatalities, early injuries, fatal and non-fatal cancers, thyroid nodules, and genetic ef fects.
RESPONSE
Licensees admit the truth of this statement.
12.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR1 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
13.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a po=sibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR2 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
J
14.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR3 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4,
- above, s
15.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR4 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4,
above.
16.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR5 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4,
above.
17.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian.
I
= :.-..=. - : : - -..= - : -.
Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR6 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
18.
REQUEST:
j There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of a magnitude equal to that described in WASH-1400 for a PWR7 release category.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
I 19.
REQUEST:
The population and population density surrounding the Indian Point site is greater at 10, 30, and 50 miles than at any other nuclear power plant site in the U.S.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information suf-I ficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
20.
REQUEST:
There is a finite possibility (i.e., a possibility greater than zero) that an accident will occur at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3 which will result in a release of radioactivity to the environment that in combination with prevailing weather at the time of and subsequent to the release i.- -
~
will result in radiation doses to the general public outside the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone which are sufficiently high so as to require the implementation of some form of protective response from the general public.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
21.
REQUEST:
There are no studies, surveys, or any type of evalua-tion for the Indian Point Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone which is directed at determining or predicting the degree of conformance of the general public to protective action recommendations, advisories, or orders for the Indian Point Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
22.
REQUEST:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York does not rely in any way upon the evacuation time estimates prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation.
RESPONSE
Licensee Con Edison objects to this request on the ground that it is too vague for response.
In particular, Con Edison objects to the phrase "does not rely in any way...."*
Without waiving this objection, Con Edison notes that the CONSAD estimates were reviewed, but were not used in draf t-ing the county evacuation plans..
<m 23.
REQUEST:
The Power Authority of the State of New York does not rely in any way upon the evacuation time estimates prepared by CONhAD Research Corporation.
RESPONSE
Licensee Power Authority objects to this request on the ground that it is too vague for response.
In particular, the Power Authority objects to the phrase "does not rely in_any way...."*
29.
REQUEST:
New York City could not be evacuated in less than one week.
RESPONSE
Li.. insees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
30.
REQUEST:
The Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for Indian Point cannot be evacuated in less than four hours under favorable conditions.
Without waiving this objection, the Power Authority notes that the CONSAD estimates were reviewed, but were not used in drafting the county evaccation plans.
I i
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ = _ -
i l
RESPONSE
Licensees deny this assertion.
31.
REQUEST:
Sheltering is useful in limiting inhalation doses for only about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
j
RESPONSE
Licensees object to this request as unduly vague.
In particular, the request fails to specify the type of sheltering and the extent of tne doses.
33.
REQUEST:
The use of Emergency Action Level Criteria by Con-solidated Edison Company of New York and/or the Power Authority of the State of New York cannot guarantee that an accident sequence involving core melt and containment failure will be recognized in sufficient time to permit notification and evacuation by the residents of the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone before plume arrival.
RESPONSE
See licensees' response to request 4, above.
Licensees object to the term " guarantee" for the reasons underlying their objection to the term " possibility greater than zero."
35.
REQUEST:
There are no written agreements between individual bus drivers or groups of bus drivers which indicate that the bus drivers upon which the County Radiological Emergency Response Plans for Rockland, Westchester, Orange, and Putnam depend will be available to drive buses into and out of the Indian Point Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone in
- = - - - - - ' -
the event of a radiological emergency at Indian Point Unit 2 or Unit 3.
RESPONSE
Licensees deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this statement.
I.....
As to Answers:
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
r By YYG v/t f iG - 2 J/iv i
Ri' chard P.
Remshaw Project Manager - Indian Point Hearings POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK By 62e Y[
Herschel Specter /
Project Manager - Indian Point Hearings As to Objections:
CONSOLIDATBDEISONgMPAN'qO6NEWYORKINC.
r By a
Brent L.
Brfndenburg Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE S TE OF NEW YORK MORGAN, ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED f;fi s
By N
NWdv /\\
Joseph.J. Levin,(Jr..
i,j Y
(
SHEA & GOULD f
/ //
'Y By IY/h # 7/
3-,
David H. Pikus Attorneys for Power Authority of the State of New York
VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK
)
SS.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
RICHARD P. REMSHAW, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the Project Manager - Indian Point Hearings for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., licensee of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2; that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said corporation; and that the foregoing answers to interrogatories were prepared under his direction and supervision and are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
l r, / s/f t ff'
Y,.
/
' j i J -d. s
' RICHARD P. REMSHAW Sworn to before me this 22nd day of June, 1982.
p' llQ /
Q i r / L.i.
!.gT/ /
~ Notary Public DAVID H. PHIUG Nctary Febt;c. E!:ta cf [Ic^' Ycrk No. 21-47CCD)
Quchfied in N2w Ycrk CovMY 3 MM h 03 I" "
Commission Ex::it:
e i
l VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK
)
SS.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
HERSCHEL SPECTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the Manager, Indian Point 3 Hearings, Technical Support for Power Authority of the State of New York, licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant; that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said Authority; and that the foregoing answers to interrogatories were prepared under his direction and supervision and are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
t ' '. u
! /
.-l-HERSCHEL SPECTER Sworn to before me this
- 22nd day of June, 1982.
-x/p h.
/
4
/. <
vr Notary Public DAVID H PIKUS Nctary Public. E:::e cf New YcA No. 31472C30G Quc!!fied in New York Cow.ty Commission E>pires March :D,1203
Respectfully submitted, lad /w 0 kJk Charles Morgan, Jr."
Brent C.~ Branb'6nbu'~rg '
/
Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
Paul Colarulli 1899 L Street, N.W.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Washington, D.C.
20036 OF NEW YORK, INC.
(202) 466-7000 Licensee of Indian Point Unit 2 Thomas R.
Frey 4 Irving Place General Counsel New York, New York 10003 Charles M.
Pratt (212) 460-4600 Assistant General Counsel 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 MORGAN ASSOCI ATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washing ton,
D.C.
20036 SHEA & GOULD f
330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle i
New York, New York 10019 Dated:
June 22, 1982 l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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)
)
June 22, 1982
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of LICENSEES' RESPONSE TO UCS/NYPIRG REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 22nd day of June, 1982.
l l
Docketing and Service Branch Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Office of the Secretary William S.
Jordan, III, Esq.
I 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 i
Board Research Group 7300 City Line Avenue 9 Murray Street I
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151 New York, N.Y.
10007 I
t I
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 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
Brent L.
Brandenburg, Esq.
New York University Law Assistant General Counsel School Consolidated Edison Co.
423 Vanderbilt Hall of New York, Inc.
40 Washington Square South 4 Irving Place New York, N.Y.
10012 New York, N.Y.
10003 Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
Eric Thorson, Esq.
Litigation Division County Attorney The Port Authority of County of Rockland New York and New Jersey 11 New Hemstead Road One World Trade Center New City, N.Y.
10956 New York, N.Y.
10048 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Joan Miles Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Indian Point Coordinator Enviromental Protection Bureau New York City Audubon Society New York State Attorney 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 General's Office New York, N.Y.
10010 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10047 Greater New York Council on Alfred B.
Del Bello Energy Westchester County Executive c/o Dean R. Corren, Westchester County Director 148 Martine Avenue New York University White Plains, N.Y.
10601 26 Stuyvesant Street New York, N.Y.
10003 -
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 Washing ton,
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 Paul Chessin, Esq.
Parents Concerned About Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
Indian Point Margaret Oppel, Esq.
P.O. Box 125 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 200 Park Avenue 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 Richard M.
Hartzman, Esq.
Zipporah S.
Fleisher Lorna Salzman West Branch Conservation Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Association 208 West 13th Street 443 Buena Vista Road New York, N.Y.
10011 New City, N.Y.
10956.
l l
l l
Mayor George V.
Begany Judith Kessler, Coordinator l
Village of Buchanan Rockland Citizens for Safe 236 Tate Avenue Energy Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10956 Ms. Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
P.O.
Box 384 Atomic Safety and Licensing Village Station Board Panel New York, New York 10014 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire State Plaza Tower Building, RM 1750 Albany, New York 12237 (l) b4<S 0 David H. Pikus "