ML20065P031
| ML20065P031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1982 |
| From: | Toscani K PARENTS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIAN POINT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8210220389 | |
| Download: ML20065P031 (2) | |
Text
'-
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y,
y NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COFNISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00{ hf 4
~
In the Matter of g 20 E2
Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Unit 2)
Y 50-247-SP MTU E
Power Authority of the State of New York 50-286-SP LO M CB (Indian Point Unit 3) i PARENTS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIAN POIhT Pre-Hearing }btion PARENTS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIAN POINT respectfully submits the fo c mments in response to the Atomic Safety and 1.ic.ensing toard Memorandum and Or dated October 1,1982:
Wo move that:
(1)
The Board issue reformulated conten':fons on Commission questions 3 and 4 by November 15, 1982.
(2). That the Hearings commence with testimony from Westchester County [and other Interested States on matters relating to Commission questions 3 and 4 on Dscember 75 1982.
f (3)
Contention 6.2, "The physical and psychological environment of children 3
5 will be improved by permanently shutting down the Indian Point Nuclear Power
~
is g
Station," be restored to the proceedings, at least to the extent of " physical environment."
The decision to delay reformulation of contentions on Commission questions 3 bbg and 4 is unsound.
Emergency planning is the bottom line safety measure for people in the affected area.
{
The probability of a serious accident at Indian Point Eig involving a 'significant release of radiation is greater than zero.
5 Therefore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires a demnnstrated emergency respon 75 se
}
capability from nuclear reactor licenscos, and indirectly, the governments that W
M Parents Conecrned About Indian Point I
fff P. O. Box 125
/ 7J ES l
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 8210220389 821015 l
N PDR ADDCK 05000247 t
October 15, 1982 G
Pcgo 2
~
P o-Henring Motten ~~
e t
serve them.
To date, such acceptable capability has not been shown.
1 If any emeygency plan can be made to work, witnesses called.by PAREhTS and cther intervenors are the ones who can do it.
The changes, if any, of the testimony of our witnesses frna the time it was submitted until the time they are called to the stand will be a true measure of the status of emergency planning, and the degree to which plann1ng conforms to. preparedness.
These people should be heard before other issues in the hearings are addressed.
Otherwise serious defects will go uncorrected.
o The Board order of October 1' misses a crucial point regarding contention 6.2.
If this contention is eliminated, PARENTS will be denied an opportunity to compare radiation releases at Indian Point with releases at other nuclear power plants, ocpecially as a function of deys in aperation and population density.
Radiation is THE issue for PARENT!
.s certainly one of the most serious environmental offects of Indian Point.
It may well be that radiation releases at Indian Point pose a greater health risk because of the greater number of children living near these plants.
I hereby certify that copies of PARENTST I
socion have been mailed to the attached Respectfully submitted, Service List on this day of October 15.19b2 5athleen Toscani 7-PARENTS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIAN POIN q
s P. O. Box 105 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.10520 6
9 b
%.h W
,3, m