ML20065A132
| ML20065A132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1982 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209130142 | |
| Download: ML20065A132 (4) | |
Text
-
~e g
'f. E IIARMON & NEISS U R 172 S I STR EET, N.W.
Gall McGREEVY HARMON WASHINOT C.200o 202 a3 eO70 ELLY N R. WEISS WILLI AM S. JORD AN, til OF COUNSEL LEE L. BISHOP r-g-DIANC CURRAN L. THOM AS GALLOWAY LvwNE eERNaeE' September 9 1982 8
LUCI A S. ORTH Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman John Ahearne, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, commissioner Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission W ash ing ton,
D.C. 20555 RE:
Indi an Point Inves tig a t io n, Docket Nos.
50-247 SP, 50-286 SP Gentlemen :
I am enclosing a copy of a filing made to the ASLB by PASNY in this case dated last Wednesday, September 1.
You will note that PASNY reads your order of July 27, 1982 as calling for the excising of virtually all public par ticipation.
We continue to hope that that is not your intention, and that you will reconsider this course of action now that you have become aware of its eff ect.
We hope, in addition, that Judge Carter 's resignation will prompt the Commission to rethink its response to the ASLB 's questions of August 9, 1982.
When a man of Judge Carter 's wide experience concludes that he cannot in principle preside over a hearing under the restraints the Commission has mand ated, it behooves the Commission to reconsider its actions.
Judge Carter 's views on this matter can hardly be dismissed as those of a partisan.
The intervenors also renew our request to address you orally before you vote on the Secretary 's letter.
We cannot understand why, at this acture, the Commission would refuse to hear brief comments f.
m the public participan ts.
It is quite possible that Judge Carter 's resignation could have been avoided if the Commission had solicited the Board 's and the Intervenor 's views before now.
Very truly yours, 8209130142 820909 7lho PDR ADOCK 05000247
.o - -
G PDR E lyn
. Weiss ERW : cla cc :
w/o enclosure - Indian Point Service List
O UNITI:11 STATl:S Ol* Aillitt I CA NUCI.EAft Ill:CUI.AToltY COMMt!!SION UP.POni! Tile ATOHIC sal'l?TY AND 1.lCl;i4 ;1810 llOA14D In tho Matter of 1
)
CONS'Ot.IDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NI;W YOl(K
)
IJocks:t tion.
(Indian Point Unit 2)
)
)
50-247 POWER AUTH0!t1TY OF Tile STARE OP Ul;W Yol(K
)
5 0- 2 0 f, (Indian Point Unit. 3)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 9th' day of September, 1982, a copy of the letter to the Commissioners RE:
Indian Point Investigation, Docket Nos. 50-247 SP, 50286 SP was mailed to the tol, lowing parties by first-class mail, postage prepaid, and hand delivered to all Commissioners.
I.ouis J. Cart er, E::q.
. lei I r <*y M. Illum, Mcq.
Atomic Safet.y and I.icensing floarel New York tinivornit.y I.aw Schoc.
7300 City Line Avenue 12i V.inderbi!L llat 1 Philadelphia, PA.
19151 40 Wanliington !Iquaru South New York, New Yorl; 10012 i
Dr. Oscar 11. Pari 8 M3.
- ld" Il0I l Atomic Safety and I.icensing floard New YorI; Pulalic Intercut Rus0 United States Nuclear Group itegulat ory Committsion S lieckm.in st reet Washing ion, D.c. 20555 New Yor k, New York 100:10 Docketing 1. Servico (2)
Mr. I'rederick J. Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminuion Atomic Safet.y and 1.icensing {
ha8hing ton, D.C. 2 0555 linit ed States Nucicar llegulatory Commission Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Drent Brandenburg, lisq.
Richard P. nomshaw John D. O'Toolo
- .lani co Moore, 1:sel.
Consolidat ed Edison company 06Iico ol I.he I;xoc ut. i ve of New York, Inc.
l.cy al Di rec t.or 1 Irving Place lini t ed ::Lat en Nuclear N.v York, New York 1000.1 1:.51u l at or y Ce,mmi nu i on Wanhington, D.C. 2 0555
_O~~
1
,C" Char 1en
.I, Nasikinh. 1::al.
Ms. l'a t Po:;nes, ::pokeupt.rnd General Counsel P it esit as Concerned About The Port Authortty el New Yoa k I nel i an Pe. i n t.
and New Jersey P.O. Ito x 12's one World Trade eenter, hh8 Cro f on -on-linelson, New York i New iork, New York 1 018118 G r e.el "
flow York Council on Energy
- Michael D.
Diederich, Jr.
e/o I)"an it. Casrron Fitgerald, Lynch
- f. Diederich New Yo k tiniversiLy 24 Central Drive
- 'h
- ;l anyve n in1 :;tren l.
Stony Point, N.Y.
10980 Now York, il<:w York 10003 Hr.. Geofarey Cobb Ryan 7.jpporah S. I'leisher, i;ecret ary Connerv.it. inn CommitLeo Cha, West 11 ranch Conservation Associat. ion Direct.or, New York City 14 3 11uena Vin t a Road Aindnt>on Society New Cit y, New York, 10 % b 71 Wi :;t 2 ird St.rce t, Suite New York, New York 10010 Chatles A. Scheiner, Co-Clea t r person West chester People 's Action St anley B. Klimberg, Esq.
Coalition, Inc.
General Counsc1 p.0. Box 488 New York Statu Energy Of fit White Plains, New York 10602 2 Itockefuller Stato Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mayor Georgo V. Deg any
/ Richard P. Czaja, Esq.
V211 age of Buchanan David N. Pikun, Eng.
2Jb Tate Avenue
- shco (, Gould (PASNY)
Duchanan, New York 10511 330 Madison Avo.
New York, New York 10017 Alan Latman, Esq.
Westchester People 's Action
.Indith Kennlor, coordinato; Coalition, Inc.
Itockland citi zonn for Safo 41 Sunnet Drivo 300 New itempatcad Road cr ot on-On -lludson, New York 10520 New City, New York 10956 Andrew S. Rolfe, Esq.
Itich.ud f..
Ilroduky New York St ate Assembly County Otticc 11uilding Albany, New York 122.lu White Plains, Now York 1064 Ezra I. Dialik, Esq.
Marc I.. Parris, Esq.
Steve Leipzig, Esq.
Count.y Attorney l
Environmental Protection Bureau Eric Olu Thornem, Esq.
New York St ato Attorney General's County of Itockland Office 1I New flempstead Road Two World Trade Center 14ew CJt.y, New York 10956 New York, New York 10047 i
M:;. Amanda Potterfield, Esgi Renee Schwart2, E84 p,
g, pgx 3g4 13otoin, llay8, sklar anillier hero villayo Station 200 Park Avenu" New York, New York 10014 New York, New York I Ol Me lionorable Ruth W. Messtnger Mr. Donald I..
Sapir, Esquig Council Member
- 60 Hant Mount Airy Road 4th pistrict, Manhattan Ci o ton-on-thidson, N.Y.
102 City llall New York, New York 10007 Richard M.
Ila rtzman, Esq.
Ms. Lorna Salzman Atomic Safety and Licensin{
Priends of the Earth Doard 20e West 13th Street U.S. Nuclear Itogulatory New York, New York 10011 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Alfred D. Del llello Westchester County Executive Westchoster county Atomic Safety and Licensing 148 Martino Avenue Appeal Board New York, New York 10601 U.S. Nuc1 car Doard Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles Morgan, Jr.
Morgan Associates, Joan Miles Chartered Indian Point Coordinator 189 9 1.. S t., N.W.
New York City Audbon Societ Washing ton, D.C. 2003 6 71 West 23rd Street, Suite New York, NY 10010 David B.
Duboff
/ rhomas R. Prey, Esq.
Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
,Westchester Peoples' Action Coalition office of the General Counsel 255 Grove Street Power Authority of the state of New York 10 Columbus Circle White Plains, N.Y.
10601 New York, New York 10019 Craig Kaplan, Esq.
Ruthanne G.
Miller, Esq.
National Emergency Civil Atomic Safety and Licensing Committee Board Panel 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory New York, N.Y.
10010 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological
/ JONATilAN D.
FEINBERG Emergency NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE Preparedness Group COMMISSION Empire State Plaza, Tower TilREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA Bldg.
- Albany, N.Y.
12223 Room 1750 Albany, New York 12223
/}
[f '
M' 7
- lland Delivery Ellyn R. Weiss
"av e f
,;t s
d, RECEIVEDSEP 2 1982 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.
)
50-247 SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
)
50-286 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
September 1, 1982 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
__________________________________________)
POWER AUTHORITY'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE COMMISSION'S JULY 27, 1982 ORDER TO REFORMULATE CONTENTIONS ATTORNEY FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 466-7000 F2J'lv2J-lG f
_n
i TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
~
Preface.........................................
1 II.
Commission Question 1...........................
2 III.
Contentia.i 1.1..................................
2 IV.
Power Authority's Response to Contention 1.1....
2 V.
Commission Question 2...........................
3 VI.
Contention 2.1..................................
4 VII.
Contention 2.2..................................
4 VIII.
Power Authority's Response to Contentions Under Commission Question 2...........................
5 IX.
Power Authority's Response to Contentions Under Commission Questions 3 and 4....................
7 X.
Commission Question 5...........................
11 XI.
Contention 5.1..................................
11 XII.
Board Question on Commission Question 5.........
11 XIII.
Power Authority's Response to Contention Under commission Question 5...........................
11 XIV.
Commission Question 6...........................
12 r
XV.
Contention 6.1..................................
12 1'
XVI.
Contention 6.2..................................
12 XVII.
Contention 6.3..................................
12
.XVIII. Power Authority's Response to Contentions Under Commission Question 6.........................
13
?
P
PREFACE The Power Authority of the State of New York (Power Authority) hereby submits these comments on contentions under Questions 1 through 6 to aid the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) in the reformulation of contentions directed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commis-sion).
See Memorandum and Order at'17 (July 27, 1982) (July 27 Order).1 of general application to this reformulation process is the Power Authority's view that intervenors' written f actual bases must support the Board-formulated contentions and not the intervenors' underlying conten-tions.
Although the underlying contentions were considered subsumed by the Board's contentions for discovery purposes, the Board should now affirm that the only contentions at issue are those which it formulated, and that the bases in the record must support those contentions.
To proceed otherwise would add a dimension to the hearing which was clearly not contemplated by the Commission.
1.
The Power Authority incorporates by reference and reasserts its objections to contentions as stated in Power Authority's Objections and Answers to Contentions of Poten-tial Intervenors (Dec. 31, 1981), Authority's Reply to Responses to Objections to Contentions of Potential Intervenors (Feb. 11, 1982), and as stated at the Second Special Prehearing Conference on April 13 and 14, 1982.
The Power Authority also reserves the right to respond to the Board's reformulation of contentions under all the Com-mission's Questions.
n
. COMMISSION OUESTION 1 What risk may be posed by serious accidents at Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not considered in the plants' design basis, pending and after any improvements described in (2) and (4) below?
Although not requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, the Com-mission intends that the review with respect to this ques-tion be conducted consistent with the guidance provided the staff in the Statement of Interim Policy on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969;" 44 FR 40101 (June 13, 1980).
[ Footnote omitted.]
Contention 1.1
-.a The accident consequences that would be suffered by the public, even allowing for emergency planning measures, and their associated probabilities combine to produce high safety risks or risks of environmental damage including:
prompt fatalities, early fatalities, early and latent ill-nesses, fatal and non-fatal cancers, thyroid nodules, gene-tic effects, and contamination of buildings, soils, waters, agricultural lands, recreational lands, and wildlife areas.
Power Authority's Response Contention 1.1 as formulated by the Board must be I
struck unless each intervenor presents in the record written 1
(
underlying factual bases and direct testimony which include a discussion of the probability of a release as well as the consequences of such a release at Indian Point Unit 3.
Pursuant to the Commission's directive of August 23, 1982, UCS, NYPIRG, FOE /Audubon,andParent(eac must present witnesses who address both the probabilities and consequences of releases at Indian Point.1 Because these 1.
FOE /Audubon's contribution to Contention 1.1 with respect to probabilities and consequences concerns " effects
,- =, --
n-
-r-
-2
..e me--e
,,m
,,.e-,-n.n
--,r
- ---- n -,, -,. ~ - -
. intervenors were not consolidated,1 the co-sponsorship of witnesses does not satisfy the Commission's directive.
Specifically, the Commission intended that each party (or each group of parties consolidated by the Board) be required to include in any direct testi-mony and related contentions (and under-lying bases) that it may choose to file on accident consequences a discussion of the probability of the accidents leading to the alleged consequences.
It is clearly not sufficient for a party offering testimony and contentions on consequences to rely on the probability testimony (including cross-examination) or contentions and bases of another non-consolidated party.
Letter from Samuel J.
Chilk to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at 2 (Aug. 23, 1982) ( August 23 Letter) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original and added).
COMMISSION QUESTION 2 What improvements in the level of safety will result from measures required or referenced in the Director's Order to the licensee, dated February 11, 1980?
(A contention by a party that one or more specific safety measures, in addi-tion to those identified or referenced by the Director, on buildings, soils, waters, agricultural lands, recrea-tional lands, and wildlife areas."
Memorandum and Order (Formulating Contentions, Assigning Intervenors, and Setting Schedule) at 4 (Apr. 23, 1982).
Parents' contribution concerns "the special susceptibility of children to radia-tion."
Id.
UCS and NYPIRG, the lead intervenors, are responsi~5Te for the other consequences and associated prob-abilities listed in Contention 1.1.
Id.
H 1.
UCS and NYPIRG were not consolidated and thus are separate intervenors.
Each must present its own witnesses on probabilities and consequences if it wishes to address Contention 1.1.
. i should be required as a condition of operation would be within the scope of this inquiry if, according to the Licensing Board, admission of the contentionc seems likely to be important to resolving whether (a) there exists a significant risk to public health and safety, notwith-standing the Director's measures, and (b) the additional proposed measures would result in a significant reduction in that risk.)
Contention 2.1 The following additional specific safety measures should be required as conditions of operation:
a)
A filtered vented containment system for each unit must be installed.
b)
License conditions must be imposed to prohibit power operations with less than a fully operable com-plement of safety-grade and/or safety-related equipment.
c)
A " core-catcher" must be installed at each unit to provide additional protective action time in the event of a " melt-through" accident in which the reactor pressure vessel is breached by molten fuel.
d)
A separate containment structure must be pro-vided into which excess pressure from accidents and transients can be relieved without necessitating releases to the environment, thereby reducing the risk of containment failure by overpressurization.
Contention 2.2 The following additional specific safety measures should be required as conditions of operation:
a)
The cooling system at the plants should be changed so that it no longer uses brackish Hudson River water.
This change is needed to combat safety-related corrosion problems, b)
A solution to the radiation embrittlement problem in the units' reactor pressure vessels must be found and implemented.
c)
A solution to the problem of steam generator tube deterioration must be found and implemented.
E
~
s l
\\
. d)
A complete review of both plants must be undertaken to discover and correct flaws resulting from poor quality control in construction and in operation.
Power Authority's Response With respect to Commission Question 2, the Commission reaffirmed the necessity for the Board to require inter-venors to meet the two-prong threshold standard for presen-tation of contentions under this Question.
The Commission requires that in addition to assuring compliance with 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 before admitting such contentions, the Board must make a threshold finding for each such con-tention whether "(a) there exist a sig-nificant risk to public health and safety, not withstanding the Director's measures, and (b) the additional proposed measures would result in sig-nificant reduction in that risk."
This finding will be based on written material provided by the sponsor of the proposed measure.
July 27 Order at 13.
Accordingly, for each specific measure which is proposed by an intervenor, there must be in the record written documentation that a significant risk to public health and safety does exist and that the addition of the proposed measure would in fact significantly reduce that risk.
UCS and NYPIRG, the only intervenors on Contention 2.1, propose three specific safety measures, i,.et.,
a filtered vented containment system, a core catcher, and a separate containment structure.
These proposals, contentions 2.1(a),
(c), and (d), must be struck unless UCS and NYPIRG each can D
6-demonstrate that there exists a "significant risk to the public health and safety" and that each of these measures would "significantly reduce" the risk to the public.
Regarding Contention 2.1(b), the suggestion of UCS and NYPIRG that plant operations be prohibited unless there exists a " fully operable complement of.
. equipment" clearly is not the kind of " safety measure" envisioned by
's merely a veil for a the Commission.
Contention 2.l(b) i shutdown of Indian Point and must be struck.
WBCA, the only sponsor of Contention 2.2, urges in Subcontentions (b) through (d) a solution to the problems of radiation embrittlement and steam generator tube deteriora-tion, and a complete review of the plant's original design and construction.
These mere statements are patently inadmissible as " specific safety measures."
Those items clearly cannot satisfy the threshold standard of a demonstration that a given measure would significantly reduce the risk posed by the plant.
They are an agenda for study, not admissible contentions and, therefore, should be struck.
Contention 2.2(a), concerning the use of Hudson River water, may be an appropriate contention if WBCA can provide a written factual basis in the record of (1) the "significant risk" posed by Indian Point and (2) the reduction of risk that could result from this measure, u
. POWER AUTHORITY'S RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS UNDER COMMISSION OUESTIONS 3 AND 4 In light of the Commission's August 23, 1982 letter to this Board, the Power Authority is not providing detailed comments regarding each contention under Questions 3 and 4.
See August 23 Letter at 2-3.
Rather, the Power Authority suggests that the Board's reformulation of conten-tions under Questions 3 and 4 at least await the expiration of the so-called "120-day clock," 10 C.F.R. S 50.54(s)(2)(ii)
(1982), which was started on August 3,1982 for the correction of alleged emergency planning deficiencies.
The Commission's interim guidance in its August 23 letter on the four " certification" questions contained in the Board's Memorandum and Certification of August 9,1982, directs that consideration of contentions under Questions 3 and 4 be postponed:
the NRC staff has started the "120-day clock" pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.54(s)
(2)(11) and based upon the Com-mission's perception that to hear testi-mony regarding what is likely to be a rapidly changing situation would be wasteful of the time and resources of the Board and the parties, the Com-mission believes that the Board should (after reconsidering its rulings on the contentions and completing any necessary prehearing matters) proceed first to take evidence on Commission questions 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.
Then, if the concerns that prompted the Board to certify ques-tions 2a and 2b are resolved at the conclusion of the testimony on these other Commission questions, the Board is to proceed to take evidence on questions
~
m
. 3 and 4 under the Commission guidance previously provided.
If the concerns remain at this later date, then the Board should return to the Commission for further guidance.
August 23 Letter at 2-3 (emphasis added).
To avoid wasting the resources of the Board and the parties and further postponing the resumption of the hear-ings, the Board should delay its reformulation of the contentions under Questions 3 and 4'until this " rapidly changing situation" has been resolved.
A searching examination of these contentions and their factual bases, as required by the Commission, will require days and perhaps weeks of effort by the parties -- an effort which may well prove useless as a result of changed circumstances during the next four months.
Although the Power Authority believes that such a post-ponement is appropriate, the following comments, applying generally to the Board's actions on Questions 3 and 4, are submitted as an indication of some of the problems the Power Authority would address should the Board choose to reformulate contentions under Questions 3 and 4 at this time.
If the Board so decides, the Power Authority hereby requests the opportunity to provide detailed comments.
The Commission stated that the " purpose of the proceeding [is to determine] the extent to which nearby population affects the risk posed by Indian Point as compared to the spectrum of risks posed by other nuclear
. r power plants."
July 27 Order at 13 (emphasis added).
The contentions under Questions 3 and 4 do not relate to this purpose and, thus, do "not seem likely to be important in answering [the Commission's] questions," one of the
" additional requirements" beyond 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 imposed upon this proceeding by the Commission.
July 27 order at 12 (emphasis in original).
The " minor contribution" that these contentions would make to this proceeding is " incommensurate with the time and resources required to address them," and the Board should, therefore, " screen [them] out."
Id. at 13.
Moreover, the contentions do not meet the second addi-tional requirement for consideration in this proceeding because neither the contentions nor their bases are " stated with reasonable specificity."
Idl. a t 12.
The so-called " bases" for these proposed contentions were also conclusory and vague.
Intervenors did not specify deficiencies in the detail necessary to provide sufficient notice to the Board and to the Power Authority as to the actual provisions of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 which the intervenors claim are at issue.
Contention 3.1 provides an example of several of these l
l deficiencies:
l Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the present plans do not meet any of the I
sixteen mandatory standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b), nor do they meet the
m
, standards set forth in Appendix E to 10 C.F.R.
Part 50.
Memorandum and Order (Fonaulating Contentions, Assigning Interv,enors, and Setting Schedule) at 7 ( Apr. 23,1982)
(April 23 Order).
This contention is virtually identical to UCS' and NYPIRG's proposed contention I(A), to which the Power Authority originally objected because it was "so broad that the parties cannot reasonably respond."' Power Authority's objections and Answers to Contentions of Poten-tial Intervenors at 22 (Dec. 31, 1981).
The Power Authority also objected because UCS and NYPIRG had failed sufficiently to specify factual bases.
Id. at 23.
WESPAC's and RCSE's contentions were similarly broad and vague.
Id. at 35-41, 47-49.
As presently formulated, this contention does not ad-dress "the extent to which nearby population affects the risk posed by Indian Point as compared to the spectrum of risks posed by other nuclear power plants," July 27 Order at
{
13, but rather focuses upon a detailed examination of emer-gency planning.
Commissioner John Ahearne, one of the two present Commissioners who developed the original order establishing this proceeding, " expected emergency planning to be a relatively peripheral issue [and] did not expect a detailed examination of the current status of compliance with the current regulations."
Memorandum, Additional views of Commissioner Ahearne at 3 (Aug. 20, 1982) (Intervenors' n
, Request to Observe Emergency Planning Exercise) (emphasis added).
This contention will require reformulation at the expiration of the so-called "120-day clock."
COMMISSION QUESTION 5 Based on the foregoing, how do the risks posed by Indian Point Units 2 and 3 compare with the range of risks posed by other nuclear power plants licensed to operate by the Commission?
(The Board should limit its inquiry to generic examination of the range of risks and not go into any site-specific examination other than for Indian Point itself, except to the extent raised by the Task Force, '
contention 5.1 The risks associated with Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are greater than those associated with many other operating nuclear power plants.
These greater risks result from the design and operating conditions of the plants.
Board Question on Commission Question 5 What bearing does the fact that Indian Point has the highest population within 10, 30, and 50 miles of any nuclear plant site in the United States have on the relative risk of Indian Point compared to other plants?
Power Authority's Response Absent any written factual bases in the record for the proposition that Indian Point poses a greater risk because of its design and operation than the risk posed by many other nuclear power plants, Contention 5.1 should be struck.
Staff has been directed to reply to a Board-formulated question concerning the relative risk of Indian Point compared to other plants.
This question appears to be appropriate.
n
. COMMISSION OUESTION 6 What would be the energy, environmental, economic or other consequences of a shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 3?
Contention 6.1 An economic consequence of the shutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 would be a [ sic] economic benefit accruing to Rockland County through the sale of replacement power.
Contention 6.2 The physical and psychologicalIll environment of
~
children will be improved by permanently shutting down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.
Contention 6.3 Considering the savings in operating expense which would result from shutting down Indian Point Units 2 and 3, and allowing for the ways in which cogeneration and conser-vation can mitigate the costs of replacement power, the net costs of shutdown are small; in fact, they are smaller than previous studies by UCS, GAO, or Rand suggest, and are entirely acceptable.
1.
The Board stated:
The litigation of psychological aspects of this contention will be held in l
abeyance pending issuance of an opinion i
by the court in PANE v.
NRC, Docket No.
81-1131, D.C.
Court of Appeals, and any NRC policies or regulations issued as a result of that decision.
The reference to physical environment here relates to radiation released offsite by Indian Point Units 2 and 3, radiation spills during transportation of radioactive waste from the plants, and radioactive effluents released into the Hudson River.
Tr. 912-13.
April 23 Order at 19 n.3.
. Power Authority's Response Because the intervenors did not, and clearly cannot, provide any basis for distinguishing the " physical environ-ment 6f children" from that of other persons referred to in Contention 6.2, this aspect of the contention should be struck.
Additionally, the issues relating to the physical environment are generic in nature and therefore are not
"'likely to be important to resolving the Commission's ques-tions.'"
July 27 Order at 12, quoting Memorandum and Order at 4 (Sept. 18, 1981).
The remainder of Contention 6.2 pertaining to psycho-logical stress is inadmissible in this proceeding.
In con-struing People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) v. NRC, 678 F.2d 222 (D.C.Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 51 U.S.L.W.
3028 (U.S. Aug. 3, 1982), the Power Authority stated that the PANE analysis is not applicable to this proceeding because an accident has not occurred at Indian Point.
Letter from Charles Morgan, Jr. to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at 2 (May 27, 1982).
The Commission recently confirmed the Power Authority's position.
See Policy Statement on Consideration of Psycho-logical Stress Issues, 47 Fed. Reg. 31,762 (July 22, 1982).
Psychological stress contentions which do not satisfy the Commission's three-part test are inadmissible in this proceeding.
Id. at 31,763.
14 -
First, the [ psychological stress]
impacts must consist of " post-traumatic l
anxieties", as distinguished from mere dissatisfaction with agency proposals or policies.
Second, the impacts must be accompanied by physical effects.
- Third, the " post-traumatic anxieties" must have been caused by " fears of recurring catastrophe".
In the Commission's view, the only nuclear plant accident that has occurred to date that is suf-ficiently serious to trigger considera-tion of psychological stress under NEPA is the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident.
Id. a t 31,76 2-6 3 (emphasis added).
One licensing board, of which Judge Shon is a member, has already dismissed the issue of psychological stress in light of the Commission's policy statement.
Memorandum and order (Concerning Psycho-logical Stress Contention), In re Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
Nos. 50-440, -441 (July 19, 1982).
This Board, therefore, should strike Contention 6.2 in its entirety.
Additionally, Contentions 6.1 and 6.3 also should be
/
struck unless written factual bases exist in the record to support them.
~
l
~
. Respectfully submitted, JAA $S
/
Morgan, J r.
Paul F.
Colarulli Joseph J.
Levin, Jr MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 466-7000 Thomas R.
Frey General Counsel Charles M.
Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle.
New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D.
Fischman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated:
Septembe r 1, 15'8 2 e
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:
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
N EW YO RK, INC.
)
Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
)
50-247 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 1st day of September, 1982, I caused a copy of the Power Authority's Comments Regarding the Commission's July 27, 1982 Order to Reformulate Contentions to be hand delivered to the following parties marked with an asterisk, and served by first-class mail, postage prepaid on all others:
O
o
- Louis J.
Carter, Esq., Chairman Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Administrative Judge Thomas R.
Frey, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority of the 7300 City Line Avenue State of New York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019
- Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Janice Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staf f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C.
20555 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Brent L.
Brandenburg, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Docketing and Service Branch 4 Irving Place Office of the Secretary New York, New York 10003 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Joan Holt, Project Director Harmon and Weiss Indian Point Project 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 New York Public Interest Research Washington, D.C.
20006 Group 9 Hurray Street Charles A.
Scheiner, Co-Chairperson New York, New York 10007 Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
John Gilroy P.O. Box 488 Westchester Coordinator White Plains, New York 10602 Indian Point Project New York Public Interest Research Alan Latman, Esq.
Group 44 Sunset Drive 240 Central Avenue Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 White Plains, New York 10606 Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
Steve Leipzig, Esq.
New York University Law School Environmental Protection Bureau 423 Vanderbilt Hall New York State Attorney 40 Washington Square South General's Office New' York, New York 10012 Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Charles J.
Maikish, Esq.
Litigation Division Alfred B. Del Bello The Port Authority of New York Westchester County Executive and New Jersey Westchester County One World Trade Center 148 Martine Avenue New York, New York 10048 White Plains, New York 10601 Andrew S.
Roffe, Esq.
New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248
v Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.
Marc L. Parris, Esq.
General Counsel Eric Thorsen, Esq.
New York State Energy Office County Attorney 2 Rockefeller State Plaza County of Rockland Albany, New York 12223 11 New Hempstead Road New City, New York 10956 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Pat Posner, -Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About Indian Washington, D.C.
20555 Point P.O. Box 125 Atomic Safety and Licensing Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Paul Chessin, Esq.
Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Ma rgaret Oppel, Esq.
Member of the County Legislature Botein, Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg Westchester County 200 Park Avenue County Office Building New York, New York 10166 White Plains, New York 10601 Honoraole Ruth W. Messinger Zipporah S.
Fleisher Member of the Council of the West Branch Conservation City of New York Association District #4 443 Buena Vista Road City Hall New City, New York 10956 New York, New York 10007 Mayor George V.
Begany Greater New York Council Village of Buchanan on Energy 236 Tate Avenue c/o Dean R.
Corren, Director Buchanan, New York 10511 New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street Judith Kessler, Coordinator New York, New York 10003 Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy 300 New Hemstead Road Geoffrey Cobb Ryan New City, New York 10956 Conservation Committee Chairman Director, New York City David H.
Pikus, Esq.
Audubon Society Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010 New York, New York 10017 Lorna Salzman Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Mid-Atlantic Representative P.O.
Box 384 Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Village Station 208 West 13th Street New York, New York 10014 New York, New York 10011 l
l l
Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Atomic safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Donald Davidoff Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire State Plaza Towe r Building, RM 1750 Albany, New York 12237 1
} f A
PaGI F.
Colardlli -