ML20071C393
| ML20071C393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1983 |
| From: | Morgan C MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8303020026 | |
| Download: ML20071C393 (25) | |
Text
0
. 00CKETED 4
tutiTED C011RESPONDENCB U'iHEC
'83 tiAR -1 A10 :14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris James A. Laurenson
x In the Matter of ) Docket Nos.
50-247 SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ) 50-286 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
) February 25, 1983 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )
x POWER AUTHORITY'S MEfiORANDUM REGARDING SCHEDULING OF TESTIMONY UNDER COMMISSION OUESTIONS 3 AND 4 l
l l
l ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
( Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000
~
8303020026 030225 gDRADOCK 05000247 PDR
@so?
Preliminary Statement Power Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"), licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, submits this memorandum addressing the issues to be discussed at the Conforence on scheduling testimony under Commission Questions 3 and 4 ccheduled for February 28,'1983.
History of the Proceeding A. Origins The instant hearings were ordered in response to a Petition filed by intervenor Union of Concerned Scientists
( "lL* S " ) in September, 1979. The Petition sought, inter alia, the decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1, the sus-pension of operations of Units 2 and 3, and various changes to be made at Units 2 and 3.
B. The Special Proceeding The Ce nmission, although denying much of the relief sought by UCS, ordered the iristant proceeding, which it labeled a " discretionary adjudication." January 8, 1981 Memorandum and Order (CLI-81-1) (" January 8 Order") at 2. The Commission made clear that its " primary concern is the extent to which the population around Indian Point affects the risk posed by Indian Point as compared to the spectrum of risks posed by other nuclear plants." Id. at 6. The proceeding was not designed as an operating-license type proceeding in which the applicant / licensee has the burder. of proof, and all regulations are potentially at issue. Rather, it is a relatively narrow, " focused" proceeding
designed to obtain specific answers to seven questions.*
"No party [has] the ' burden of persuasion.'"
- The questions read as follows:
- 1. What risks 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?
- 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 addition to those identified or referenced by the Director, should be required as a condition of operation of the facility or facilities, would be within the scope of this inquiry.)
- 3. What is the current status and degree of conformance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines of state and local emergency planning within a 10-mile radius of the site and, of the extent that it is relevant to risks posed by the two plants, beyond a 10-mile radius? In this context, an effort should be made to establish what the minimum number of hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point v.ould be. The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
- 4. What improvements in the level of emergency planning can be expected in the near future, and on what time schedule, and are there other specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
- 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.)
- 6. What would be the energy, environmental, economic or other consequences of a shutdown of Indian Point Unit 2 and/or Unit 3?
- 7. Does the Governor of the State of New York wish to express an official position with regard to the long-term operation of the units?
The Commission would like to receive the Board's recom-mendations no later than one year from this date.
~
(Id. at 5, n. 4.) The two questions concerning emergency planning are scheduled to be addressed in 12 hearing days in March, 1983.
C. The Witness Problem Following the conclusion of pre-hearing matters nnd an abbreviated discovery period, the hearings commenced on Questions 3 and 4 on June 22, 1982. Approximately two weeks prior to that date, most participants filed their original Question 3 and 4 direct testimony.* The licensees filed testimony for 12 witnesses, the State of New York filed 2 witnesses' *estimony, and the Commission Staff and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA") filed testimony for 6 witnesses.
By contrast, the intervenors filed testimony for over 170 witnesses (including clergymen, parents, school-teachers and politicians) most of which was conclusory, non-expert, and generally of the form normally offered as limited i
appearance statements under l^ CFR S2.715.** Numerous govern-l The New York City Council testimony was belatedly filed i many weeks after this deadline, and some intervenor and govern-mental witnesses' testimony was also filed late.
- WBCA witness Marie R. Tomkins is a good example. Most
(
- of her testimony is devoted to conclusory political statements and concludes
l l Incidentally, even if we could all be removed by some magic carpet, could we ever return to our homes?
(footnote continued on next page) l
mental units appearing as " interested states" also submitted testimony for approximately 20 additional witnesses.
Prior Efforts to Address the Witness Problem In view of the immateriality of such testimony and the months that would be necessary co hear it, the Power Authority -- supported by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison"), licensee of Unit 2 -- moved to strike all of the intervenor testimony. (See Licensees' Motion for an Order Striking Direct Testimony, dated June 14, 1982.) Our objective was not in any way designed to limit public participation in the hearings, but simply to have the intervenors return with a reformulated, reasonable number of material witnesses who could be cross-examined within the available hearing time.
The Board did not grant the specific relief requested by licensees, bu did direct the intervenors to develop a more manageable presentation of testimony:
(footnote continued)
What would we have when we returned? Will our wells be contaminated? Our uninsurable houses? The vegeta-tion? Our land?
Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying that all of the people can't be fooled all of the time, and therein lies our hope . . . that reality will prevail among those entrusted with and responsible for our common safety.
Plainly, such testimony is immaterial and unrespon- )
sive to the Commission's Questions. There are numerous other examples of such conclusory testimony. l I
l
JUDGE CARTER: Now, with regard to the UCS-
-NYPIRG request for an extension of time to file testimony, and for the Licensing Board to set a date by which UCS-NYPIRG's reque st for admission must be answered, and with regard to the issue-raised concerning the 171 witnesses, the following is the Board's culing.
UCS-NYPIRG is to prepare a classification of the subject matter of the evidence to be adduced by the 157 plus or minus witnesses. The classifi-cation is to include the name and number of the witnesses under each class or subclass. This is not to be a listing by contention. It should consider the geographical area where. applicable.
By 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, June 18th, UCS-NYPIRG shall provide copies for all parties.
This filing will also include a proposal as to which witnesses they consider to [ sic] essen-tial, with a view to and with the object of paring, p-a-r-i-n-g,-the list. Absent such proposal, the Board will perform that paring job.
(T: 1064.)
When the intervenors' filing failed to meet the Board's requirements, the Board ruled that "the intervenors e
l will be permitted to present for formal filing in the record the testimony of 50 witnesses." (T: 1191.) But the Board qualified this limitation by allowing the intervenors to present multiple witnesses as panels, which would be treated as one witness. (T: 1198.) This resulted in the collapse j of efforts to manage the presentation of evidence, since I
the intervenors simply grouped all their witnesses into so-called panels.
With the introduction of the first " panel," it immediately became obvious that the panel system could not,
, in most cases, reduce hearing time, since the individually
O filed direct testi.nony required the same amount of cross-examination tim 6, whether the witnesses appeared as panels or individually.* Indeed, the first panel was quickly disbanded, and the witnesses appeared individually.
The July 27 Order on April 20, 1982, the Power Authority moved for directed certification by the Commission, inter alia, of the issue whether the Board misconstrued the Commission's instructions in its admission of contentions. In particular, the Power Authority argued that the Board had expanded the scope of the hearings well beyond the Commission's intention to conduct a brief, focused proceeding.
On July 27, 1982, the Commission issued a new Memo-randum and -Order (the " July 27 Order") providing further guidance as to the scope of the proceeding. The July 27 Order
, dispels any doubt that this is a focused proceeding, designed principally to address "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 12-13):
It has become clear to us that our instruc-l tions are not being applied by the Licensing l Board. Our intent was not that the require-l ments of 10 CFR S 2.714 be dispensed with or
- The first panel consisted of police chiefs sponsored l
l by WBCA.
i
a >
to encourage contentions challenging the
. Commission's-regulations, but that additional
! requirements be applied to admission of '
contentions to assure a focused proceeding.
, In particular, we'had in mind that the Board would, first, assure itself that proffered contentions included a statement of bases and that both the contentions and bases were '
! stated with' reasonable specificity, and second, further screen out those contentions
- ' which, while complying with 5 2.714, did not seem likely to be important in answering our questions. In this latter regard, we had in mind that the Board would itself redraft
! the contentions, screening out those issues which, in its judgment,.would_not contribute
! materially to the resolution of the Commis-l sion questions in light of the stated purpose t l
-of the proceeding, i.e., the extent to which
- nearby population affects the risk posed by i
. Indian Point as compared to the spectrum of i risks posed by other nuclear power plants.
, In light of this purpose, the Board is expec-ted to screen out those' issues which, in its 4 judgment, would make only a minor contribution to the Commission's goal, incommensurate with the time and resources required to address them.[*]
The hearings were suspended for several months while contentions were reformulated. The hearings resumed in January, 4
! 1983 with one week of Question 3 and 4 testimony. sponsored by i the Westchester County Executive. Over licensees' objections,
, the Board imposed stri ct time limits on cross-examination, in l
- While the July 27 Order speaks in terms of screening i out issues and contentions, a fortiori this guidance should j .
apply to presentation of evidence. The Commission's obvious objective is to avoid wasting hearing time on matters beyond
! - its primary concerns. To screen out issues and contentionse 4
but then to allow the presentation of evidence without regard
, to the Commission's guidance, would make no sense, contravene the Commission's objectives, and waste time.
4
,,-c. - , , . - - - - ,--%-. , . . . . , , , - - .._.,_--,.._....,,.-..-,--.,-,+,--e ..-em,.,,,...-m.m..,m-- - - - - , ,,---,-,,-,w, . - - , _ - , . - - , , . _ , . - . , , - , . , , -
order to accommodate 10 witnesses in five days. In several instances, these limits prevented licensees and others from completing their cross-examination. (See, e.g., T: 5510, 5607.)
The following weeks were devoted to hearings under Questions 1 and 2, which involved a far smaller number of intervenor witnesses than proposed under Questions 3 and 4.
Although several contentions under Questions 3 and 4 were eliminated and others narrowed in the Board's February 7, 1983 Memorandum and order, intervenors still propose to present over 170 witnesses in 12 hearing days. (These 12 days must also accommodate some 30 additional witnesses spon-sored by other participants.)* Indeed, the intervenors have added even more witnesses since the hearings were suspended last July. As the Board correctly recognizes, "[t]here is no way in our handling of this issue that we are going ic be able to accommodate that large number of [intervenor] witnesses."
(T: 6933.) Plainly, major steps must be taken to manage the
- presentation of testimony.
l Prior measures have not worked. The panel system l has proven itself incapable of solving the problen, and, as l
In the four weeks of Question 3 and 4 hearing time held to date. approximately 25 witnesses have testified. The 200 l
remaining witnesses include such key individuals as PEMA, New York State- the on-site emergency planning witnesses, and the experts who designed the basic evacuation plan. Most of the remaining witnesses, however, are the intervenors' original l witnesses, whose testimony is conclusory, repetitive and has
! not been updated to reflect the major improvements in emergency planning accomplished over the past year. In addition, certain testimony may no longer be admissible in light of the recent
- reformulation and deletion of certain contentions. A pending l
proposal by intervenors to withdraw a small fraction of their l witnesses (see Intervenor Proposal for Fair and Efficient
! Method for Receiving Evidence dated February 7, 1983 at 3) would do little to resolve the overall problem.
l .. - ,
the Board recently noted, has only further frustrated attempts to reach an adequate accommodation:
MR. BLUM: The other thing the Board had done before when it was talking about the number of 50 was to say that where witnesses logically constitute a panel, where their testimony is closely related to one another, they could go up as a panel and the panel would count as one witness.
JUDGE GLEASON [ sic]: I think that is the thing that broke it down in the past, if I recall, Mr. Blum.
(T: 6938.)
Limitations on cross-examination have not worked, since testimony must be given varying scrutiny, in accordance with its length and content. As a result, relevant and neces-sary cross-examination has frequently been curtailed by the Board. (See, e.g., T: 5607.) The Power Authority has a stand-ing objection to limitations on cross-examination which would prejudice the parties.
- The addition of further hearing days is impractical in light of the Commission's July 29, 1983 deadline for the Board's recommendations, and the need to accommodate Questions 5 and 6 testimony and preparation of proposed findings of fact by May 27, 1983.
i Accordingly, the Power Authority has proposed a l
l third solution, which would allocate hearing time among the parties. Our proposal is contained in Power Authority's Motion
to Establish Schedule and Limit Scope of New York City Council Testimony Under Commission Questions 3 and 4, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The proposal affords the intervenors more time than any other party, and is fair, efficient, and consistent with the Commission's orders and due process.
We respectfully urge that the Power Authority's proposal be adopted, and that all participants be required to submit a schedule of proposed witnesses and anticipated cross-examination time for each, no later than March 2.
4
A 1 . ,
Respectfully submitted, W O W ta ,
CharlesMorgan,J{/ -
Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000 Stephen L. Baum 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 i
David H. Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 l
l Dated: February 25, 1933 i
\-
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFET'l AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
x In the Matter of : Dccket 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, : February 7, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
x POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE AND LIMIT SCOPE OF NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL TESTI-MONY UNDER COMMISSION OUESTIONS 3 AND 4 ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000
Preliminary Statement Power Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"), licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, hereby moves the Bnerd for an Order (1) establishing a schedule and time allocation for the hearing of witnesses under Commis-sion Questions 3 and 4; and (2) limiting the scope of the testimony to be presented by the New York City Council Members (the " City Council").
The Board correctly recognizes that "[t]here is no way in our handling of this issue that we are going to be able to accommodate that large number [over 170] of [intervenor) witnesses." (T:6933.) We respectfully submit, however, that the Board has substantially underestimated the nearing time necessary to accommodate even 47 intervenor witnesses, as the Board has proposed, and the host of additional witnesses to be presented by the Commission Staff, FEMA, New York State, the licensees, and the City Council. Even with reasonable limits placed on cross-examination time, we estimate that it would take at least double the number of hearing weeks presently allocated to hear this testimony.
Thus, rather than establish limits on the number of individual witnesses, the Power Authority submits that it would be more fair, efficient, and consistent with the
i Commission's orders and due process to allocate existing hearing time to the-various parties and interested states. We also
, believe that the Board should limit the scope of the City Council testimony in order to further the above goal of properly managing limited hearing time, as well as to comply with the Commission's orders herein.
Hearing Time Should Be Allocated Among the Parties i
The Commission's July 27, 1982 Memorandum and Order (CLI-82-15) (" July 27 Order") strongly reaffirms the Commission's directive to focus this proceed.'.ng and to screen out evidence that would not contribute materially to addressing the stated purpose.of the proceeding, namely the comparative risk posed by Indian Point.
Obviously, some witnesses will present testimony which is more material than others'. FEMA, the Commission Staff, and New York State, for example, are in a position to
- While the July 27 Order speaks in terms of screening out issues and contentions, a fortiori this guidance should ap-ply to presentation of evidence. The Commission's obvious objective is to avoid wasting hearing time on matters beyond its primary concerns. To screen out issues and contentions, but then to allow the presentation of evidence without regard to the Commission's guidance, would make no sense, contravene the Commission's objectives, and waste time.
l
L compare emergency planning at Indian Point with planning at other sites. Licensees' on-site panels and the Commission i Staff are the only witnesses to have filed testimony on the most important aspect of radiological emergency preparedness --
the on" site response.
A_ full opportunity must be given, of course, to hear and cross-examina witnesses presented by all parties, ,
intervonors, and interested states. A limitation on the number of witnesses has proven all but impossible to effect in the past, and the Power Authority has a standing due process objection to arbitrary limits placed upon cross-examination time which would prejudice the parties. Accordingly, we propose the following schedule within which the parties, interested states, and intervenors must present their direct testimony and accommodate reasonably anticipated cross-examination:
(1) Lead intervenors (2 days).
(2) Contributing intervenors (1 day).
(3) City Council (1 day).
(4) Licensees (2 1/2 days).
(5) Commission Staff (2 days).
(6) State of New York (2 1/2 days).
(7) FEMA (2 days).
n--------------
- Further, New York State should be allowed additional time to respond to the testimony of Rockland and Westchester County witnesses, who were allotteo two full weeks of testimony during which they made repeated allegations concerning the State's role and participation in emergency planning.
- But see objections at pp. 4 - 6, infra.
t .
)
This schedule affords the intervenors more time han any other party, and rdflects the Power Authority's expectations regarding time necessary to reasonably cross-s b
> examine material witnesses. The Board should require all o ,
parties, intervenors, and interested states to submit a sche-dule of proposed witnesses and anticipated cross-examination time for each, no later than February 15. ,The Board can then, in consultation with_the participants, determine whether such schedules are reasonable and, if not, make its own modifications.
1 The Scope of Thd City Council Testimony should Be Limited
/ The Power Authority has no objection to the City Council presenting material evidence < t regarding the 50-mile plume ingebtion pathway emergency planning zone (" ingestion
- EPZ"). Most of the City Council's pre-filed testimony, however, concerns issues irrelevant to the ingestion EPZ and instead deals with the possible evacuation of New York City (which includes areas nearly 60 miles from Indian Point).
The Commission has provided explicit guidance, in its orders herein and its. regulations, regarding the extent to which emergency planning issues beyond the 10-mile plume s
> exposure pathway EPZ (" plume EPZ") may be considered in this s
proceeding. First, the Commission has stated that issues t
u' - yw- V- -
-- g
th / 4 relating to the exact size of the plume EPZ must be determined under Question 3.* (Julyp 27 Order atil5.) Second, the Cor.: mission has proscribed challenges to the Commission's
- s regulations under Question 3. (Id.) Third, while the Com-mission's regulations permit " minor adjustments" to the size of r . /'
A' I" the plume EPZ to account for local conditio,ns, the plume - s EPZ' '-
,(July'Z7.drder at ih Southern must still be "about 10 miles."
California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nucle r Genera.ing_ Stat [on, .
Units 2 and 3), 14 NRC 6,91, 698 (1981).) Pourth, the Commission i
regulations provide for a 50 mitic ingestion EPZ, which would include portions of New YorkjCity. But evacuation planning is not required beyond the plume EP3. (NUREG-0654 at 59-65.)
- Thus, the City Council coul proherlypresEnt testimony relating to protective measures requId'ed for the ingestion EPZ, ,
/e which principally deal with "protectiag the publke from consump-tion of contaminated foodstuffs." (Id. at 64.) ,The, bulk of
~
the City Council's testimony, concerning/ evacuation planning
' ' I, and a vast expansion of the) plume EFZ, is both irrelevant, r.nd
.. ? ~
a direct challenge to the regulations proscribed by 10 CFR
- We noted in the Power Authority's Response to Reformulated Contentions Under Questions 3 and '4' dated Ja,nuary 24, 1983 (at 11, n.(*)) that the contention regarding the size of the plume EPZ was erroneously designated under Question 4. ~
If the City Council testimony were, in fact, proper under ,
Ouestion 4, it would be required to mqet the special requirements set forth below, a,t page 6, , n.(*).
i
- 5'- ,
i e
i
e i
- 4
- . j .*
), .' >
~ #
S 2.758 and the July 27 Order.
y-Y Accordingly, the Board should limit the scope of i the City Council testimony to matters relating to the inges-tion EPZ, and, inter alia, strike all testimony concerning
-})e 'eh5cuation r planning and expansion of the plume EPZ to include New York City. This will assure compliance with the Commis-sion's orders, and assist in managing the proceeding within its tight schedule.
t
- Moreover, Commission Ouestion 4 asks whether there are additional " specific offsite emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public." Even assuming that the evacuation of New York City is somehow relevant under Question 4, the City Council testimony consists mainly of conclusions by politicians and others that evacuation is unfeasible there. It contains no recom-mendations var specific, feasible procedures, and does not contain any " sound basis" or any demonstration whatsoever that New York City is at risk from Indian Point any more than it is at risk from Shoreham, Oyster Creek, or any other nuclear plant. Thus, it manifestly fails to satisfy the requirements stressed in the July 27 Order and is unimportant in answering the Commission's Questions.
- In the event that the Board denies our motion regarding the City Council, the Power Authority alternatively requests leave to take the depositions of the City Council witnesses.
These witnesses raise issues clearly beyond the axisting regulations, with wnich the' Power Authority is generally unfamiliar, and upon which we have not pre-filed testimony.
Such depositions are imperative in order to avoid prejudice.
L Respectfully submitted, A %
Charles Norgan, Jr. G m h" Paul F. Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000 Stephen L. Baum 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: February 7, 1983 i
I
e
<=
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, 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 00 THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) February 25, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of POWER AUTHORITY'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING SCHEDULING OF TESTIMONY UNDER COMMISSION QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 25th day of February, 1983.
Docketing and Service Branch Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Office of the Secretary William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Harmon & Weiss Commission 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Joan Holt, Project Director Administrative Judge Indian Point Project Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Interest Board Research Group 513 Gilmoure Drive 9 Murray Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 New York, N.Y. 10007
\(
t o
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Janice Moore, Esq.
Administrative Judge Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Consolidated Edison Co.
Board of New York, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Irving Place Commission New York, N.Y. 10003 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
New York University Law Litigation Division School The Port Authority of 423 Vanderbilt Hall New York and New Jersey 40 Washington Square South One World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10012 New York, N.Y. 10048 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Marc L. Parris, Esq. Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Eric Thorsen, Esq. Enviromental Protection Bureau County Attorney New York State Attorney County of Rockland General's Office 11 New Hemstead Road Two World Trade Center New City, N.Y. 10956 New York, N.Y. 10047 Joan Miles Alfred B. Del Bello Indian Point Coordinator Westchester County Executive New York City Audubon Society Westchester County 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 148 Martine Avenue New York, M.Y. 10010 White Plains, N.Y. 10601 i
t i Greater New York Council on l
Energy c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street
, New York, N.Y. 10003 1
1 . - , -., ., -. - ..
1 C
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, 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, 3ays, 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 2 i
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
t
,C
.)
Mayor. George V. Begany Judith Kessler, Coordinator Village of Buchanan Rockland Citizens for Safe 236 Tate Avenue Energy Buchanan, N.Y. 10511 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y. 10956 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq. Mr. Donald Davidoff Atomic Safety and Licensing Director, Radiological Board Panel Emergency Preparedness U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Tower Building, RM 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Steward M. Glass Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Regional Counsel Johnson & George, Attys at Law Room 1349 528 Iowa Avenue Federal Emergency Management Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Steven C. Sholly Staff Attorney Union of Concerned Scientists New York Public Interest 1346. Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Research Group Suite 1101 9 Murray Street Washington, D.C. 20036 New York, New York 10007 Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management l
Agency l
500 C Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20472 i
f David H. Pikus'*
l.
t l
l' l
- . __ - - - _ _ _