ML20062M614
| ML20062M614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1981 |
| From: | Blum J, Blum J, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW YORK UNIV., NEW YORK, NY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8112170348 | |
| Download: ML20062M614 (26) | |
Text
T - .
=. . - -
-/
/6~[,4 ,N g 19B F U TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEOPRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.
. we .
$\ ,
81 EC 14 P2:46
)
In the Matter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit-No. 2) ) 50-247 SP
) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW )
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )
)
AMENDMENT TO UCS' PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND RESPONSE TO NRC-STAFF, CONSOLIDATED EDISON, AND PASNY CHALLENGES TO UCS STANDING TO INTERVENE The dRC Staff, Consolidated Edison (Con Ed), and tlie Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) have chal-
>1enged the st:anding of the Union of Concerned Scientists
~
(UCS) on several grounds.l_/ Most of their arguments, although e
not convincing, at least bear some relatio,nship to the law of standing and are consistent with good faith participation in the adversary process. Those arguments are:
- 1. Failure to demonstrate particularlized injury in fact or authorization from members represented by UCS.
- 2. Lack of organizational standing.
- 3. Lack of derivative standing due to representation of "sponsorc," rather than " members."
- 4. Inadequate specification of issues.
Regretfully, it cannot be said that PASNY's remaining arguments are consistent with good faith participation in this proceeding. PASNY suggests that UCS and other 1/ Since UCS and NY PIRG are challenged on separate grounds, we are responding separately.
8112170348 811250 DR ADOCK 05000 $gp j
COL '
_~ ., ._ _ ._ ___ _m- . _ . _
2 petitioners should be excluded from the proceeding because they are allegedly unalterably opposed to nuclear power and engaged in "scaremongering." Not only are PASNY's factual allegations in this regard inaccurate, its arguments have absolutely no legal basis. Rather, as we said in our pre ,
hearing memorandum, PASNY's. filing is an unseemly polemic whose apparent purpose is to prejudice the proceeding and to divert the Board's attention from the serious issues of reactor safety entrusted to it by the Commission.
Before reaching the specific arguments, however, we emphasize that the unique investigatory nature of this proceeding precludes the strict application of-traditional standing requirements. The fundamental goal of the Board here is to assure a thorough investigation of the questions raised by the Commission, which the Commission believed could best be achieved through the use of an adjudicatory format. There is no question that the Commission expected and intended UCS to participate since it was UCS' petition that led to the initiation of this proceeding, and since UCS is1both strongly interested in the outcome and well qualified to assist the Board. Indeed, the Commission, without knowing whether UCS could achieve standing with respect to Indian Point, went so far as to direct that contentions related to-the issues raised in UCS' petition should be admitted even if they did not respond to the Commission's questions.
There is absolutely no indication that the Commission intended 4
%L.r, . .- . .- -: . .- .: : . = - ~ - - - l
.- 3
.that UCS.or any other petitioner _that might be'able to (
provide useful information shoulc be denied the-right to participate based on the standing doctrines applicable toi
' judicial proceedings. While it-is-true-that the' Commission directed that 10 C.F.R. Part 2 should control, nowhere did it state that the standing requirements relating to licensing proceedings under Part 2 should control an investigatory hearing of an. utterly different purpose and character.
There also'is nothing wha ~tsoever in the language of Part 2 to require the application of these doctrines in this proceediag. Accordingly, we urge the Board to eschew sucht artificial obstructions and admit UCS and other petitioners-on the basis of the criteria contained in 10 C.F.R.S 2.714, taking into account the unique investigatory nature of this proceeding and the need for full and useful public participa-tion regardless of technical st.anding considerations.
I. UCS DEMONSTRATES PARTICULARIZED INJURY AND AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT ITS SPONSORS.
Several assertions concerning the standing of UCS were based on the fact that we did not provide the affidavits'of individual sponsors who wish to be represented, but simply identified those persons and reflected their authorization in an affidavit of a UCS staff member who had spoken to the sponsors in question. Although there is no legal requirement to do so, we are amending our Petition by providing ?,he affidavit of Elizabeth Czoniczer in order to simplify the Board's consideration ofIthese matters.3/
2 We are providing an unsigned' copy pending receipt of
_/ a notarized original-from Ms. Czoniczer.
W .. .-;..-~. . ~ ; ..- . . . .- . . . . --;...
4'
'.' e:
The affidavit demonstrates that the sponsor lives q
. within 50 miles.of.the reactors, is specifically concerned ,
6 ' about the hazards of .the plant to her personal health and safety,-and specificclly authorizes UCS to represent ~her interests in this proceeding. With the exception of the controversy concerning the' standing of sponsors, as opposed to members, this affidavit'is more than sufficient to establish derivative standing in NRC proceedings.
.In addition to the'above, the NRC Staff argues that UCS and NYPIRG must designate a single spokeperson pursuant
, to 10 C.F.R.S 2.713. Nothing in that section requires that we designate.a single spokesperson, just as nothing requires that any party designate a single lead attorney. 'The Notices of Appearance of William S. Jordan, III, and Jeffrey Blum, on behalf of UCS, comply with the requirement for written appearances.
l II. UCS HAS DEMONSTRATED STANDING TO INTERVENE AS AN AFFECTED ORGANIZATION.
UCS has standing to intervene as an organization independent of the standing it derives from its sponsors.
Its organizational standing is based on its fundamental interest'in carrying out its longstanding goal of assuring the safe operation of individual reactors, and on its financial stake in the protection of its New York sponsors from harm caused by a nuclear accident.
UCS has devoted years of research to the monitoring oF nuclear power plant safety and the development of safety measures for nuclear facilities. The organization has been
=
p - . . . . . . . . - - - . . - - . . _.-
5 an active participant in NRC rulemakings and proceedings throughout its existence, with the knowledge and support of its sponsors.
The issues raised in UCS petition to intervene are more than a matter of interest -- they are fundamental to UCS' goal of promoting the safe use of nuclear energy. An organization's interest in pursuing'the goals upon which is was founded has been deemed sufficient to confer standing. In Coles v.
Havens Realty Corp., 633 F.2d 384 (4th Cir. 1980), cert.
granted, 101 S.Ct. 1972 (1981), HOME, a housing organization, was found to have standing to sue a real estate agency for racial steering. Noting that the organization had " devoted significant resources" to identifying and counteracting the defendant's steering practices, the court found HOME had more than a " mere abstract concern about a problem of general ,
interest." Id., at 390.
Although HOME's goals cannot be equated with bricks and mortar, they are functional, requiring identifiable action and the expenditure of efforts and funds which may result in the success or failure in achieving its objectives.
Its " projects" therefore provides [ sic]
that " essential dimension of specificity that informs judicial decisionmaking."
Id. at 391, quoting Village of Arlington Heights.v. Metro- I politan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555 (1977)
Like HOME, UCS has made a considerable investment in achie',ing its objective of'affecting the technologies and e
~
practices of nuclear power plant operation, both on a generic
6 t
UCS' goal of promoting safe
~
and a' plant by-plant bacis.
nuclear technology for individual plants can only be achieved through theltTRC licensing process. To deny UCS permission to intervene in the above proceedings would close off the only forum in which it can make a meaningful contribution to the determination of safety qualifications at the Indian i
Point facility, thereby thwarting one of the fundamental purposes of the organization. 3 /_
~~
3/ Furthermore, UCS has a financial interest in assuring the safety of the Indian Point facility. As in Hunt
- v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 345 (1977), where standing was sustained based on the fact that the financial welfare of plaintiff apple ccamis'sion depended upon the apple sales of its member growers, so the Union of Concerned Scientists is dependent upon its sponsorship contributions for i.ts survival.
A nuclear accident in the New York metropolitan area could result in the loss of over $200,000 in revenues to UCS. A financial stake in agency proceedings was found to establish standing in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Goyan, 500 F. Supp. 770 (D. Md. 1980),
where an FDA rulemaking allowing reimbursement of witnesses in FDA proceedings would impose greater costs on the plaintiff organization for participating in lengthier proceedings. See, also, Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Costle. 630 F.2d 754 (10th Cir. 1980), '
where MSLF was found to lack standing to challenge a state air quality implementation plan. "There is no contention that Mountain States will suffer loss of membership, sustain financial loss or any other impairment as a result of'the actions of the EPA..." -Id. at 767. In contrast to MSLF, UCS stands to be directly and severely affected in its financial health and vitality if safety defects at Indian Point contribute to a nuclear accident that contaminates the New York metropolitan area. For this reason UCS has the reiqusite " personal stake" in the litigation of safety i'ssues at the facility. Id. at.
767.
mz= - -
7
~
'III.-UCS HAS DEMONSTRATED STANDING TO INTERVENE
-ON BEHALF OF ITS SPONSORS.
-. The NRC Staff, Con Ed, and PASNY all challenge the standing of UCS to represent named individuals on the ground that :those individuals are not voting members, but sponsors, who provide-financial support to the organization and guide UCS' actions through their communications. The challenge is based solely on a single District Court decision, Health Research Group v. Kennedy, 82 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C. 1979). None of the cited NRC decisions or any other authorities speaks to the question of whether sponsor-ship is sufficient to support derivative standing, and none of the cited authorities, including Health Research Group, addresses a factual situation comparable to UCS' representation of its sponsors.
In Health Research Group v. Kennedy,. supra, the Court denied standing to two plaintiff organizations, Public Citizen and the Health Research Group. The former was an organization of wide ranging interests that purported to i
represent the public and those who contributed to the organization on virtually the entire range of public issues.
It was controlled by an appointed Board of Directors and had no voting membership. Ir, addition, there was no indication that its contributors were particularly concerned with the health issues raised in that case or that they supported Public Citizen because of its activities in that area.
Health Research Group was a subsidiary' organization'cf -
Public Citizen whose role was to address health-related
+ . , - - a.z
- _ . -- - . . . - ~ . .-.- ..- .: . . - -
8 issues. .However, it had no members or contributors of its own, and'it relied' entirely upon Public Citizen for' support.
The Court held that'this degree of relationship was not
~
-sufficient-to assure that when the organization came before the court, -
it can reasonably be presumed that, in effect, it'is the injured party who is himself seeking review.
Id. at 26-27 (Emphasis in original) .
The reasoning that precluded standing in that case establishes it with respect to UCS here. As all of the cases reflect, the fundamental concern is that the organizational plaintiff have a sufficient direct stake in the proceeding to assure that it will be litigated to the same degree as if.the affected members had brought suit on their own behalfs. It should be noted, however, that the organization's stake in the proceeding need only ,
be direct, not substantial.
This view is confirmed by the Supreme Court's post-Sierra Club holding that the stake in the proceeding which must be demonstrated to .
acquire standing need only be a' slight stake. United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, (SCRAP), 412 U.S.
669 (1973). In specifically eschewing a
" significance" test, the Court there stated...
an identifiable trifle is enough for standing to fight out a question of principle; the trifle'is the basis for standing and the principle supplies the motivation." Id. at 689, fn. 14.
Houston Lighting and Power C'o., supra, 9 NRC at 448.
In the Court's words in Health Reserach Group, some very substantial nexus between the organization and the parties it purports
% T, . - . ..- .- - ; . - .. - -
9-to represent will be required where those parties are not.actually members.
pl. at 26.
That nexus exists in-the case of UCS and the sponsors w hom it is authorized to' represent in this proceeding.
Unlike Public CitizenLin Health Research Group', UCS is widely recognized'as an organization of substantial expertise I
and involvement in nuclear issues, to the degree that UCS may be presumed to represent the interests of,its supporters on these issues. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 536, 9 NRC 402, 404 n. 2 (1979).
Unlike the Health Research Group, UCS is directly supported by its sponsors and does not rely on donations to another, more broadly based organization. The attached UCS materials, which are sent to prospective UCS sponsors, establish-that anyone who becomes a sponsor of UCS does so
- with the specific understanding that he is supporting precisely the type of involvement in nuclear
- issues that is represented I by UCS' intervention in this' proceeding. Indeed, any UCS sponsor would reascnably expect the organization to represent his interests in NRC_ proceedings.' The nexus of simple sponsorship alone, therefore, is substantially greater than was the case in Health Research Group. Even in the absence-of membership-type control, sponsors join UCS specifically to assure that their voices are heard in NRC proceedings ,
't
- that may affect them. There is no question that they are,
- in-effect, before the court through this mechanism.
4
- w ,
~.-
10
~However, the Board need-not address the sponsorship-membership-argumentLin the abstract. Again unlike"the organizations in Health Research Group, UCS'~ sponsors here have specifically authorized the organization to represent their interests in this proceeding. Since they can withdraw that authorization at any time, they exercise a considerable degree of control, far more than mere voting membership in a large organization. .Such authorization would be sufficient to establish UCS' standing in NRC practice even in the absence of the sponsorship relationship. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC~481, 483 (1977). Accordingly, UCS is entitled to standing by virtue of its representation of those sponsors providing specific authorization to assure that their interests'are taken into uccount in this proceeding.
IV. UCS' STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON WHICH IT WISHES TO PARTICIPATE IS SUFFICIENT Consolidated Edison suggests that the petitions of various parties, including UCS, are inadequate for failure .
to set forth "the specific aspect or aspects'of the subject matter of the proceeding" as to which they wish to intervene.
Con Ed argues that the Commission's admonition that the Boe::d be careful in formulating contentions requires that prospective intervenors be very specific in their statement of issues even before contentions are filed. There is no
' basis for-this assertion. UCS identified five specific j 1
i I
s___ a_ c. -__
~
11 I
issues with respect to which it wishes to participate. The Commission's. concern with focusing the proceeding relates ,
to contentions, and since the adequacy of contentions will determine whether parties will be admitted as intervenors, I 'there is no need for further specificity in identifying aspects of interest.
V. PASNY SHOULD BE CHASTIZED FOR ITS ATTEMPTS TO, DISRUPT THE INVESTIGATION THROUGH UNFOUNDED AND IRRELEVANT POLEMIC. l The most unfortunate aspect of this proceeding to date is PASNY's apparent decision to attempt to avoid the serious substantive safety issues by casting unfounded and irrelevant ;
aspersions upon potential intervenors, including UCS, in a blatant attempt to prejudice the Board and disrupt the proceeding. We respond but briefly, and we have no-doubt s
that the Board will' summarily dispense with PASNY's arguments. 1 Citing various newspaper articles, testimony to Congress, and other so?lrces, PASNY argues that UCS, among others, should be denied the right to intervene because it is unalterably opposed to nuclear power, contrary to Congressional mandate, and because it has engaged in "scaremongering." Not I
surprisingly, PASNY cites no authorities that support this 7 l
remarkable proposition. Even assuming that all of PASNY's [
characterizations were true, there would still be absolutely no legal basis for denying intervention on those. grounds.
'Since UCS has met all of the requiremer.ts related to this proceeding and has cooperated fully with the Board's efforts, f
. 12 e
our opinions as expressed elsewhere cannot form the basis
_for denying our participation. -To do so would be 'to deny our fundamental First Amendment rights and would be flatly unconstitutional. It is, indeed, ironic that PASNY complains that UCS is before the_ wrong forum in this proceeding, whic.h was_ initiated pursuant to a petition filed by UCS, and then cites congressional testimony for the proposition that we should be elsewhere. Apparently PASNY believes that an organization's participation in legal proceedings can be restricted by the exercise c }that organization's First Amendment rights to petition Congress. Clearly PASNY is wrong.
Since PASNY's legal argument is frivolous on this
, point, it is clear that it has another motive, which appears to be to cast aspersions on several intervenors in order to prejudice the Board's view of their contributions.
However, a brief examination of PASNY's major assertions concerning UCS establishes that its attention to the truth is no greater than its attention to the law.
PASNY twice quotes Robert Pollard of UCS for the proposition that "A nuclear plant license is nothing more or less than a murder license." PASNY Answer at 4, 39.
This quotation is taken from the Boston Globe of May 7, 1979 at 1, col. 4. Mr. Pollard did not make that statement.
Dr. John Gofman has confirmed to us by telephone that he made the statement, and Mr. Pollard was misquoted. In fact,
is " ~. .. -... . :+ - . .:._-_..---..
.- . - - . - - . . L.
'13 had PASNY had.the slightest interest in presenting trut.h rather than polemic, it would have noticed that Mary McGrory's
- column in the Globe of the same day, while not quoting the sentence at issue, attributed the~ sentence that followed it to Dr. Gofman. PASNY failed to notice a conflict within the very source on which it relied. PASNY also ignored the UCS Petition that led-to this proceeding, in which UCS clearly indicated that it believed that Indian Point Units 1 and 2 should be shut down only until they are rendered safe,
.and UCS' basic position on nuclear power, which is to the same'effect., and which is' precisely consistent with the Congressional mandate to license nuclear reactors only if they do not threaten the public health and safety.
Regretfully, but realistically, we expect the same i
from PASNY throughout this proceeding. We urge the Board to dismiss these arguments forthwith and to make it quite clear to PASNY that PASNY will be expected to participate in good faith, to provide the information ne'cessary for this investigation, and to refrain from pursuing such dilatory tactics in the future.
l
U- -. , u_ . - _ . _. E T .i , ' i _... . . ___ _ _ ; ._11 '
.14 I l
CONCLUSION For the reasons statod.above, UCS urges that it'be admitted as an intervenor in this proceeding upon the adoption
-of at least one of its contentions.
Respectfully submitted, ,
&-brf g William S d ordah, III Harmon & Weiss Wa ing D'.C 006 (202) 833-9070
///h d4 ?W ,
c7effrey M. Blum /4g New York University Law School 423 Vanderbilt Hall 40 Washington Square, South
' New' York, New York 10012 (212) 598-3454 DATED: December 10, 1981 h
e e e
5 e
i . . .
- w. . ~. . - : - . . . . . . . . . .. . . : -- ' : : 4
<, su N
h' ~ ~ a -sy-l, l
[ Yy I
' t--
- DEC 141981 > g>l
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O!S d E S2Cd Di [
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION- B t: Nn-:; T.4 Smh ^
/
g Md '
411 \C/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK-) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point Unit 2) ) -
) 50-247 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK) 50-286 (Indian Point Unit'3) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF UCS Notice is hereby given that the undersigned will appear in this matter on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists :
Name : Will t am S. Jordan, III Address : Harmon & Weiss 1725 I St., N .W .
Suite 506 Washing ton , D .C . 2 0006 Telephone : (202} 833-9070 Admis sions : Suprcne Court of the State of Michigan District of Columbia Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
/swbl~.6C.,, /" ? - '
Williamg(Jordan', Til Dated : December 10, 1981 4
%, i a..~.. .-. .~. . -- -- . :-, T: .:. T- : :-- . L .~ -. - - . - .
00'KETED i L'1"3 C UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATO7Y COMMISSION '
'81 DEC 14 P2:46 A
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E RET.'?"
~ . ,$E G' In the Matter of -
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 (Indian Point, Unit 2) ) 50-286 i
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )
(Indian Point, Unit 3) )
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ELIZABETH CZONICZER
- 1. My name is Elizabeth Czoniczer. I live at 25 H Springvale Road, Croton-on-Hudson, New York, 10510, which is approximately three to four m'iles south-southeast of the site of the Indian Point reactors.
- 2. I am deeply concerned about the potential hazards of the Indian Point reactors to my health and safety in the event of an accident. -
- 3. I am a sponsor of the Union of Concerned Scientists because I am concerned about the health and safety hazards posed by nuclear power in general and by the Indian Point reactors in particular, and because the
. Union of Concerned Scientists .is an organization of substantial expertise and credibility whose interests
__." ~ S.T . . _ , . , _, , .li ,, _,__, , _ _ ,
" q:-.
2-
. are substantially- the same- as .mine in these matters.
- 4. I authorizeEthe Union of Concerned Scientists to represent ,
my interasts in the investigatory proceeding recently .
referred to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elizabeth Czoniczer Sworn and subscribed to before me.this day of , 1981.
1 Notary Public My commission expires I
i p -- g. - -- m - - . , _
s.3-._ .-
L_ .
canna Scientists' Dec aration
~81 DEC 14 P2i46 On mm Nuc ear Power M...ye From the Declaration presented to Congress and the President of the United States on the 30th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Iliroshima and signed by more than 2,000 biologists, chemists, engineers and other scientists . . .
". . . the country must recognize that it now appears impudent to move forward with a rapid'y expanding nuclear power plant construction program. The risks of doing so are altogether too great. We, therefore, urge a drastic reduction in new nuclear power plant construction starts before major progress is achieved in the required research and in resolving present controversies about safety, waste disposal, and plutonium safeguards. For similar reasons, we ufge the nation to suspend its program of exporting nuclear plants to other countries pending resolution of the national security questions associated with the use by these countries of the by-product phv enium from United States nuclear reactors."
Some of the signers of the declaration on nuclear power *-
DRITioN Cll ANCE - Direttor, Johnson Rewarch Foundation; IIRUCE M. ALBERTS - Professor of Biochemical Sciences.
Princeton t'nisersity; Psofnwr of Iliophvun, ifnisersity of Peninstvania; Naiinnal Medal of Ssti ns e u .nner (19 75);
liANNLS ALFVLN - Professor of Physics, University of California at $an Die;o, Nobel Laureate: SAUL ( Olli N - Prolewor and Ilcad of Dtrartment ol' Chemisity, lirand. n l'nnrnity; t ilRISilAN 11. ANIINSLN - Chief, Laboratory for theinical thology, United Stain National Institutes of IIcalth; Nobtl I anteate; .lAMI N llRY ANI CONAN'l . President I meriins of liarsard Um-weUts. i ha in.an. National Defense Re c.ut h Commitice during World D AVID ll AlllMoRI! - American Cancer Society Professor of Mkro- War ti. M n% r of Manhattan Project stecting Coinmitice; United biotop, M.machusetts instiente of Technology; States ll'rh ( oe. miuioner in Germany; General Aihi. ors Commince of 11p Al ( ; "3 mic Pmnect's Aw.nd" f rom Pir.idun Nnon, I It \RRY lt WRINGION - l'wsmisc Staff Dnctior and Sindy .unoon eth i hai.m s.
theccios, Naiion.d Rocarth Council'Naisonal Academy of Ricncn; llRl! Nil ( t iPl'l l'o*frwor of Phpits, M machu etts Institute of CARI Os G Int i I . IR. - Celanese Profosor of Cisil Enrin cring, i n imoloev; Unnesuty ot Noeth C.nohna .it Chaitone; CARI1.CORI- Vinting I'inicuor of lhotorisal ( humstry, ll ARRirT lil RNlli IMf R. M.D. - State te isersity n of Nca Yoik. II.inmil Moh, at % hool; Nobel 1 amrate; thmmiate Methcal tinter; I R AN A S. t R \WIIlith Poikwot of Phpits, linon ,ny ol Cahfotina as Itcentin; NIN A th 1:RS - Protosor of Phpks, U.C.I..A.;
1 ARl CTlIl'N - Psofosor of Phpin, American Unisersity; MilRR A) 1 til N l'rolcuni of I li stosal i nynnvimg, M;mai,hmetts Imtuute of leshnotory; RR 11 \RD I . CAspi RSON - Awociate Sientist, lhermal Reactor saf ets Onnion, Idaho National Engmecting 1.aturatosy (formerly JOllN 1. I DS si ! - PoiInsor of thos hemhtr> I meruns liars ard kn,mr as Atomic l ncrry Commioion National Reastor Toting Such leniusdn; Membre Naamnal Asadany of Wuso; Pte tJeni, Vi
I.
Y - ~~ ~ _ _. . .
Ni ANI.S. / J. l'ICK AR l - Prntewne end t hairman of the Physics annie 1:llHi 1C11 - Scenne 7esidene Anoebi P orlilatorv, isepar* ment, i f niversity of Rhn l: Islanst; Stanford Unnersity; I
P" ll RI O. lolli Piof rwn, of Phv.in, ( oe nd! I:nnce ar> ,
PAUL I ilRI ICil - Paolowr of tholory, Stanfond l'nisenity; l
Rlt II ARD I . PONI lo twie> Av n,i ac l hee, i,u. ,,nn.,II.,I I or inn 111 RNIAN N.1 ISFN - Ptofowr of lunmmology, Cents: to: Cancer Dnision et I awnwc 1 imnnur I alairanny and I'n.tes i.e m kc.ulence, Rocarsh, Maw.khments imtHule of inhnology; Iinistnitv ot :'abinima at D.nn; JAMLS A.17AY - Profowr of Mechanical 1 nrincering, Mawachmcits Rew.n h r,n.nr f rader , %:antoni Imtirnte of Technology; Chairman, Manachmetts Port Anthonty; littRION RfCllli P i utrJt Asu'Irf aitsi t 't-niti; MARION I"AY - President Fmerita, The Medical Collcre of 11II I AN SrilwIN(,I R Psof rent of Phs an. Unornit) of ('ahturma -
Penn9h ama; at I ns Anr.in: Nol= 1 1.um .nc, C. D. II A AGTN%I:N, M D. - Profcwor 1:merstm el Climcal Nmyc 3, ihn sine , I mn. nmsnial Name f :, tan an.s y ,
Co!!cte of Phpwiam and .Nmrcom Columbu linhenity; IRVIN(i 1. M I IM til Monnt Nmai %hnni of M .h* me ni th. ' ny linner aty ni Nea Ynrk; A. CARL llELMilOI.Z - Profeuor of Ph3 do, tinhersit) of ( h.nnn m ni the Ihninmal Divisum, Califoinu at iterkele3; HOlli R l ! . NINSIil IMI R Calitninia Instiente of Inhinhiry; ,
LDWIN C, kt: Mill.E - Pretowr of Phpeo I-meritus, llanard fini-s cr ut);
JI ROMI SlliII NS ( han penna, inhnnt. rv and %.wt> lhvmon, American hiety of Meshanical I nrinters; llENRY W. El NDAl L - Profows ol Phpics, Mawachmetts Imtituie holcant of I henn.n y, Dartmonth of Technology; WAl.11 R 11. Slf K KM AYI R College; KATE KIRBODOCKEN, PhD - Physicist, liarvard Smithsonian AI.fif'RT S7ENT.GYOPr1VI - Researsh llininyi t, Woods llole Marine Observai4 ry;
- fliolof cal i 1.nborator ; Nobel I aureatc; PAUL KIRKPATRICK - Profeuor of Physics Emeritus, Stanfoed liAROl.D C. UREY - Profewnr of Chemistry Emeritus. University Unisersity; of California at San Dicro; Manhattan Projett; Nn%I l.anreate; GEORGE B. KISTIAKOWSKY - Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, liarvar<t University; IIcad of the Esplosises Dnision of the Manhattan Gl:ORGli WAl D - Profeswr of fliolory, liarsard Unisenity; Nobel Project; former Vice.Picsident of the National Academy of Scienco; I amcate:
Science Adsisor to President Eisenhower; JAMI 511. WATSON - Profcwor of Iliology, liarvard Univenity; VERA KISTI AKOWSKY - Professor of Physics, M.I.T.; Director of Cold Spring liasbor I abnratory; Nobel 1.anreate; RAl.Pil WEYMOUTil - Vice AdmirallRet.), United States Nasy, l
WILLI AM N. LIPSCOMB - Abbott and James Lawrence Profcuor former Director of Rescarch, Doctopment, Test and Esaluation.
' of Chemistry,liarvard Uniservity; Office of the Chicf of Naval Operatiom; SALVATORE LURIA - Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute AR116UR S. WIGIITMAN - Profcwor of Mathematical Physics, of Technology; Nobel Laureate; Princeton University; BORis MAGAS ANIK - Professor and Chairman of the Biology llUi.EN ll Wil El AMS -'Profewor of Chemistry and Dean of the i
Department, Mauschusetts institute of Technology; College of Chemistry and Physics, Louluana State University; j KIRTLEY F. MATHER - Professor of Geology Emeritus, liarvard NORM AN D. /INDFP - Profewnr of Molecular Genetics, Rockefeller Unnersil);Iormer President of the American Academy of Arts and Unh ersit <.
Sciences; i
EDWIN E, MOISE - Distinguished Professor of Mathematies Queem College, City Unhersity of New York; PillllP MORSE - Professor of Physics Emeritus, Massachusetts institute of Technology; Past President of the American Physical Socies);
l L
- Orpnirational affiliation is for identirk stiin nnly.
i l
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1208 Massachusetts Avenuo . Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
% * * " *****-*ee. .e%- - - - . , , ,
1 l1 14
)
- e o
- Sy
' [f; >+p f Q.'4
. Ja .
y 9 l l
l i
~
. . .s .. .. .,
i d*, _
~
!, l t
- _. a rp
! i t....
l I c!r l .
&s i
I I (i 9,k ' W,
. .f.fh g' ,
- 2 '? - .
, ,, >- <o: v 1 . Ic 4 , . . . .A l
e A
i!
_ . - _ _ , , - , - - - - - - - - - , , , - - - - - , ---_---- - - - - - - - - - ,- _--w,
_q - . -. - .. - - - -
'""'d '4" " *'
The Controversy """ ""' '"" ' e 7 of the Store of I'nonsylvonio g the debate over nucleor power in Americo the emesgerKy core cochng sy. terns ( ECCT) continues to roge, although for mony it seems to is intended to prevent such o cotostrophe by be o question only for experts. But it is not o restonno conhori water to the hot cora. thus question just for experts - each citizen must orrestioq the rose meltefown the ECC5 is obsolutely basic to the sofety of o reottor, and
. make on informed choice. The nudeor deosior' will profoundly offect oil Amencons os energy yet the n.imbos of rino*. riom ribout it . r ffirory r, usen toxpoyers, and os individuols who core to staggenng it hm never been adequo.ely tested.
hv2 in o sole environment. The United States hos In open i.wtimony. many senior AfC ond fmC clieody emborkect on o major nuclear program n v on h .c inntr.ts hovo orprew d aris.<jvir y, if st continues os the nudeor industry hos planned. obout this coohng system. Internot govemment ;
it will be of unprecedented mognitude will cost docume nts suppressed by Ferfornt offerich but evei o tolhon d01106 omi shope eus futuie well obtuined I ay Ur.', inve,tigutivre., wtokig r.utti into the twenty first century. Dut research erous de"ects in current ECCS equipment. And yet conducted by the Union of Concerned Suentists (UW ond othei> ndicates thot ihn covoe may N"W '" hi1 P IMlub " " MI D LI!di'-
he d sostrous and that major uncertninties and mhs must be oddiened and resolved now. .'
before ncovy rekonce on nuclear power becomes
- j .(., 3
- gq2 .-c .r a lost .
Dangers .
7~ y.. i The sofety problems offecting nucleor plants -
~
om very senous. Nuclear plonts con have truly ce . tsophic ocudents, lhe donger is not o ,. '
nucleor explosion. but the sudden release of , {~ ,
lethol. rodioactive moteriot to the environment. ri, ,,, ,,,,,,i s,, m.,
Ihn o how the ocodent nsk onses. A nuclear
'"-*-"--" - i ,
reoctor produces power with the energy releosed '""",'f"','.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
- ltg~e
~
- --a"'--d by sphtting nudei of rodiooctive uronium located in the reoctor core. The donger lies in the fact * **";;', , , , , , , , , , , , , , , [
that in the event of o serious mishop, the nuclear is.
reoctions - which generote on opprecioble omount of heot even of ter the power producing this is the pivotolsofety system instotled in oil U.S.
chain reactors are shut down - con leod to distruction of the reactor ond the release of lorge nuclect pfonts. Doubts obout the sofety of nuclear quantities of toxic materiol. If o pipe carrying plants wem reflected in the refusol of power componies to develop riucleor energy until e====~
water to the reoctor should break, within seconds the temperature of the core could begin to rise to Congress possed the Price-Anderson Act ond g...,g ..
o point at which it would melt through its steel released them from full finoncial respomibility to , _- '
contoiner and discharge lorge omounts of radio- the victims of ony occidents. 6. '
I tion. Such o "mcitdown" is the most feared it is true that so for there have been no nuclear occident. A typicol lorge power plo.1t con- colomitous ocodents in the (.ountry's hmited com.
mercial nudeor powr( progrom. But only 72 of toins 100 nns of rodioactive materiot in sohd. the hundreds of reactors pionned have been hauid and gaseous forms, much of which if ieleased could be borne owoy by the wind or built ond ofready there have been o nurnber of could find its way into food and water supphes. It very sobering near misses. many pointing to inodequote desigm and poor supervision. The o estimated thot ds oth and birth defects could 1979 occident at Three Mile Island destroyed occur for penote exposed over 100 miles from the plant One study by the Atomic Eneigy much of the wie and come within on hour of 9 Commission concluded thot o mojor ocodent meltdown, according to ocodent reports. In
. . . . . . . . . . .1,.. ., . . . .. m i . :
t I e ,
. % -= a n -
D
Current!y. the rodiooctave waste is stored in 1975 many of the sofety systems #ncluding the several facilities throughout the country. ond ,
entue ECC5 weee knocked out fo< over 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> at snur h of it sits in tempomry imtollotiom of u-v ros one el the montiyilongest opcioring plants rn sites. The inodequocy of the foolities has been Browns Ferry Alobomo by o fire storted by O well demonstrated. In 1973. it was dncoverr-1 w othmon 3 condie. One IVA officol told investi thct 115.000 gollons of high level vodiov te gators thot o cotostrophe was ovo ded by " sheer waste hod leoked from o tank at the AFCs fochty luch ' The nucleor industry ond government cloims en Honford. Woshington Tho official in<e,tiquhon that the nsk f rom the nodear pioQiom is negle todmoted thot the took had been teoking foi _ , ,
gible ore colied into seoous question by events weeks. that no outomotir olo m sy . tom olortrai soin as ihn anyone. thot the masingernent in . fiott," elid nor And it a not just ocodents that oie couse for id review monitonng feports wiuch should hoe '
Concem Reactors Con be sobotoged with clerted them. und they had no formot nouur.q for (otostrophg comequences llepected studies by these responsibdities Addihonal I"ok'. of n r ho .
oove nment and othei sevieweis have wnduded octrve waste have occuned ot Honford ond oto.
tho. sofequcids against sobotage ore presently fochties in liew Yoik. Kenn e h f Ilobo.on1li inodequote ocean dumping off Cohfomn and Delouom There orn newer plans for woste '.tovoqo involving deep bunoi in theon rir oily stobre ,,
"The technologists clairn that if 9eologicot formanons. Such pwg< oms sound everything works occording to P'uniung. but oie vet to h" dornoosnond m" their blueprints, otomic energI first ottempt at burici had to be abandoned :
will be o safe and very attractive when it appeared that ground warenould solution to the energy needs of unexpectedly leak in. We are over 30 years ir.to the " nuclear oge' and. in spite of many claims the world. This.rnoy be correct. and promises, there is still no satisfactory. demon.
However, the real Issue is whether 5t'otedtech" l 9Y f ' d' h"9 *h ""(
- 5'"
their blueprints will work in the '" C "'id*"' "d 5 ' C' 'Y*"'-
real world and not only in a
'tc chnological parodise'." Terrorism and t;'gr.. c
~ -
Honnes Alfven, Nobel Loureate in Physics Nuclear Proliferation
- Acadental release of rodroactive material or waste is not the only kind of danger surrounding
""*'P*'^"'""'"""9"""""""""'""
duction of atomic bomb materiots. A typical plant Nuclear Woste produces 500 pounds of plutonium o year and it Aneihe donces of the nucleos power takes only 20 pounds to make a bomb. If. os the progrom lies in the nighly toxic radiooctave weste nuclear industry wishes. this materiot i. sepototed gencioted by ovcieor reactors. 5denosts have out and so becomes avoilable for theft. the pos Q.!"
descobed these os o grim legacy to future genee stbility of tenonst ocquisioon will be vostly ations -lhes waste. olthough relatively smoff in increased. To demonstrate the possib.lity of terror- ;j volume will continue to be deadly for tens of e ists building homemade horribs with stoten plu thousands of years Unkke chemtcol pollutonts, tonium. o pubhc television station comtruaioned theie is no way to render them hormless: they o college student to design o nudeos esplouve must be stored and guarded until the naturol using only reodify avoilabl" im hnir ol inf om.onon iodicottive decoy hos run its cou(se. If prehistonc Hn desiqn, orcording to onn enviewing expert covemen had generated nuclear westes. our would p obobly have worked The prw.e e.. ion of sooety would stili be contionted with contoining plutonium mecns power. treinendous poner so its lethof potency this material from nod"or inottor', wdf i" quae very extenswe and testly qt.ording and contal
'w .&,.,,...
~
e- ,
4 NMW
p _-
]
An addinanoi and foghicning d,mem' a o' Whot Should Wn Do)*
nuc: eor power comes from export soles of U(.5 ond,toony other concemed citizens are i
. recctors Nations not hoving nucleor weapons con ot denying the enerey potentiol thot nuclear tsuy reo<. tors and use theu nuc'ect progrom os o Power (.ould o(f or tho il 5 Our pminr>n simply stepping stone to nudeor expfosives. Indio recognaes that sote.foi tory sofety prec_outions demonstrated this when she surprised the world hove to be toten befrur losign s,o1,. node or .
by dc tonotnig o nu(feci explosive boift wuh power prodotuon ton br ol lowed the nua.leur motinol front'o vecctos turnished by Conodo industry has failed so for to do this. A moratorium ** '
Thus the numbe< of countnes hoving nudeor t'n the osmteni tion of new plants would olio u on weopens con giow leoding to o mshier and move ondeily cuewite?nt of the piublerns ond the tirne donge cus world Control over the reacto s that ") t o"y out "" ooi' h and devr'loprnent to we und other majoi toontue> sell abuwl n decir*ow the mhs This wu .ld help ovoid cmtly inodequote and so the pionfeichon of nor teor ond pouibly fotot netohm lhe hatory of it differ-weapons con conunue much too costly. ence. <ovel< v, ness. poor origineenng. r,cor oto dems omi s"nniesson of infamotion to ihe pubir BeyOOd DOOger to Economics obout nudeos safety problems demonstrates the lhe dieom J cheap obundont pow ei fiom needfu osidenable tightening of controls H oomry mi oHmd the pouw nuclom senctors hm continued to fodo os the eccaomic ieotoes emerge. Nucleor plants are "* n "O M nu& r power is used * '
. stiemely expemive to build. ond costs are nly im "( H y nd ut n uonal electnoty inoeosing at the rote of over 20 percent supply is obt odogt. Nationwide, our 1980 onnnolly forthos these ptonts. ore very complex v r. 33% greater than peck to run. ond f ove many inetfic.ences Commeicot demand. In on oaktly energy progrom the U.5 nt.cleo picots operate at obout 50% of their c co mo o greatly exponded commit-copooty foi below incimtry and government pro- '"""' "' '" """ ""*or finion p wer. This could j:cnons of 70480%. Nucleor generated elec- y n olor reduction in energy woste tooty now costs moie than that generated by 09 W' H Pi o"" Wigy C#ioency meosures.
cool an some ports of the country. ond olmost as by wise up vooon of domestic oil ond gos much as oil '" " '
' """ "# ""'"D'"9 I
- P*C COD # ""d lhe Amencon public is undesstandobly con- timely opp'ir anno. renewohle sources of energy {.qe..o.*
cerned about energy independence and freedom h m the sun. th<' wind, the oceans. bio-mass and fiom the threat of on OPEC oil emborgo. Nucleor n in the corth power en 1979 displaced the some omount of ott
' hot could be soved by consuming 3% less gaso ane Nudeos powei is len than o sottsfactory -
onswei to domestic energy needs. Our uranium .
supplies are h;chly uncertoin and possibly no moie obundant than the luiuted semoining oil h*
supplies One wlunon to this impending wonrum i fuel oisis n relionce on " breeder reactors." now req",q under development. fueled by plutonium gen- ;. . "
eioted t om u onium within the sections liow- [: .
eyes the effiuent use of uranium resources in bc eder reoctors is more than off set by their 9'eotly enhomed dangers. The fuel reprocessing procedure involves extracting plutonium from the wastes Also bieeder reactors compared to present recciois would be for more dongerous in then concenootion vi plutonium. more lethol in cose nf ocodent and possibly more atirottive to sobotoge
---e y a m. nav m nu . ....
c,,.,...i..
u .
N ,
I-- .
c.=c en e
y' +__ r - _= .u a w .
.1
'4
Ct.KET EL
'"WPC UNITED' STATES _OF AMERICA-
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
81 DEC 14 . P2:46 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING llOARD' 1,53 &EECRET/Kf SERV!Ct BRAT!CH In the ' Matter of )
~
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos.
(Indi an Point - Unit 2) )
)- 50-247 POWER AUTilORITY OF Tile STATE OF NEW YORK ) 50-286 (Indian Point. Unit 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby . certify that copies of Amendment to UCS ' Petition-For Leave To Intervene Response To NRC Staff, Consolidated
.Edidson , And PASNY Challenges to UCS Standing To Intervene dated December 10, 1981, have been served on the following individuals by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid on this 10th day of December 1981.
i Louis .J . Carter , Esq. Jef frey* M. Blum, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York University Law School United States Nuclear 423 Vanderbilt flall .
Regulatory Commission 40 Washington Square South Washing ton , D .C. 2 0555 New York, New York 10012 l
l Dr . Oscar H . Paris Ms. Joan liolt Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York Public In ter es t Research United States Nuclear Group Regulatory Commission 5 Beckman Street Washing ton , D .C . 2 0555 New York, New York 10038 l Docketing & Service (2) Mr. Frederick J. Shon l ,
U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Was hi ng ton , D .C . 2 055 5 United States Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D.C. 2 0555-Brent L . Brandenburg , Esq..
Richard P . Remshaw '
John D . O 'Toole Janice Moore , Esq.
Consolidated Edison Company Office of the Executive of New York, Inc. Leg al Director l
4 1rving Place United States Nuclear l l
l New York , New York 1000 3 Regulatory Commission "
Washington, D.C. 2 0555 l
- O
(
, ~2- .,
~
Char]cs J. Mailkish, .Esq. Ms. Pat Posner, Spokesperson
, General Counsel- Parents Concerned About i ThefPort Authority of New York Indian Point and New-Jersey P.O. Box 125 One World Trade Center, 66S Cro ton -On -lludson , New York 10520 New York,-Ncw York 1004<
Greater New York Council Mr . Jvhn Gilroy on Energy Westchester C;ordinator c/o Dean R. Corren Indian Point Project New York University New York Public Interest Research 26 Stuyvesant Street Group New York, New York 10003 240 Central Avenue i White Plains, New York 10606 l Mr. . Geof frey Cobb Ryan Zipporah S. Pleisher, Secretary Conservation Committee Chairman West Branch Conservation Association Director, New York City 443 Buena Vista Road Audubon Society-New City, New York, 10956 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, New York 10010 Charles A. Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Westchester People 's Action Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.
{ Coalition, Inc. General Counsel l P.O. Box 488 Now York State. Energy Office White plains, New York 10602 2 Rockefeller State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Mayor George V. Begany Vi l 1.uje o f lluch.in.in thiv i d 11 . l' i k on , Esq.
236 Tate Avenue Shea & Could (PASNY)
- su- hanan , New York 10511 330 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10017 Almn Latman, Esq.
We:n heat er Peopl e ':, Ael i oli Judii h Konn1or , Coordinator Coalition, Inc. Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy ;
j 44 Sunset Drive 100 New llempstead Road l
Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 New City, New York 10956 i
Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. Richard I.. Isrodsky New York Stare Assembly ('oun t y o f f i ce huiIdintj Albany, New York 12248 White Plains, New York 10601 i
i Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. Marc 1,. Parris, Esq.
Steve Leipzig , Esq. County Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau Eric Ole Thorsem, Esq.
~
l New York State Attorney General's County of Rockland ,
Office 11 New itempstead Road l Two World Trade Center New City, New York 10956 l
l i
-r- ,v- - ~ .- 4
e.- - .
.a ._
- ,1 _ _
c.
"'a;
' 3- -
_3... >
V
. ;Rence' Schwartz, Esq.
Bo tein , llays', - Sklar . and lier,zberg
, ~
200-Park Avenue-New. York ~,lNew York 10166 L- tionorable -Ru th W . .Messinger
' Council Member
- l. -4th District, Manhattan .
l Ci t y liall -
- Ms. Lorna Salzman Firends'of the Earth I '208 West 13th Street.
Now. York, New York 10011 Mr . Alfred B. . Del Bello -
.Westchester County Executive Westchester County 148 Mr r tine . Avenue New' York , New York 10601 v.
[. !! organ' Associates, Esq.
i i Chartered (PASNY)'
l- 1899 L.'St., N.W.
L Washing ton , D .C . 20036 .
j-Thomas.R. Prey, Esq.
l-Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
i offiec of Ihe-General Cou n:iel * '
l Power Authority of the State of New York i 10 Columbus Circle ~
l 4- d* C h Is . ,..
Wil1ia35if. Jo rilan , III 9
4 e
)
,. -,.n,+ - . . - e ...p.-,, , - - - , .