ML20072B779

Memorandum Re Scheduling of Testimony on Commission Questions 3 & 4

ML20072B779
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/28/1983
From:	Potterfield A PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK
To:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8303070161
Download: ML20072B779 (48)

Text

. c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION UF" METED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LkCENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK February 28, 1983 (Indian Point Unit 3) )

INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM RELATING TO TESTIMONY ON COMMISSION QUESTIONS THREE AND FOUR The following information is provided by Intervenors to Administrative Law Judge James A. Laurenson and to the members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and to all parties to facilitate the discussion of the scheduling of testimony on Commission Questions three and four, to take place on Monday, February 28, 1983.

I. RELEVANT AND RECENT HISTORY On January 29, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its written order, requesting all parties to submit proposals for a " fair and efficient method for receiving evidence" on Commission Questions three and four. The intervenors, striving to eliminate duplication of paper and time, worked together to submit their joint proposal of February 7, 1983, a copy of which is annexed hereto as l

l l

1 8305070161 830229 PDR ADOCK 05000247 I O PDR l l

Exhibit A. In their proposal, the intervenors included twenty-five l

proposed stipulations to cover the testimony of forty-one intervenor witnesses, the withdrawal of the testimony of seven witnesses, the submittion of the testimony of six witnesses as Limited Appearance 4

j statements, the release of four witnesses to be sponsored by Rockland 1

County as part of its case as an interested state, and by consolidating 94 witnesses into 21 panels.

The Licensees and the Staff also submitted proposals.

On February 11, 1983, the Intervenors submitted the only detailed a proposal submitted by any party to date for the scheduling of individual witnesses and panels testifying on Commission Questions three and four, and for scheduling the remainder of the proceeding. This proposed i

schedule, admittedly including an extension of the dumber of hearing

, days on Questions three and four, is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.

j In respouse to the Board's Order of February 17,1983, b2tervenors 1

organized a meeting among the intervenors, licensees, the staff and 1

j the State of New York Energy Office to attempt to come to some agreement

! concerning the receipt of evidence on Questions three and four. The meeting took place at the offices of Shea and Gould on the morning l of Friday, February 25, 1983, at which time, intervenors submitted proposals for six additional stipulations of testimony, along with j

proposals for the time and place of the hearing on questions three i

and four. A copy of that proposal is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.

1 The status of intervenors' proposals, as negotiated at the meeting follows, in the order the proposals are listed on pages 4 and 5 of I Exhibit C. Every effort has been made to insure that the following information accurately reflects the consensus of the parties at that i meeting, although intervenors have not been able, under the constraints l

l  ;

, , 1 of the weekend, to double-check the accuracy with the other parties.

II. INTERVENORS' PROPOSED STIPULATIONS The parties present at the meeting of February 25, 1983 came to agreement on eighteen out of thirty-one p'r oposed stipulations, covering the testimony of twenty- fdve witnesses who need not be called to testify as a result of the stipulations. The witnesses are:

5. Teralyn Woods Stipulation 3

6. Mabel Cronk Stipulations 1, and.3

13. Patsy Chazen Stipulations 1,4,13 and 27

14. Gertrude and Henry Stipulations 1 and 3 Gillette

37. Reginald Lambruschi Stipulation 10 i

62. Seymour Greenbaum Stipulation 23 1

101. Michael Robinson Stipulation 15 (also included in Proposed Stipulation 12, for which

intervenors are willing to rely on 1

other witnesses) j

109. Sister Colleen Murphy Stipulations 17 and 25 113. Becky Catherall Stipulation 5 116. Barbara Hirschman Stipulations 6 and 13 117. Ruth R. Isaacs Stipulation 25 118. Breda Curran Stipulation 5  !

1 119..Fbggie North Stipulations 5 and 6 122. Betty Doepken Stipulation 18 123. Susan Scheffel Stipulations 1, 6 and 25 132. Sheilah Rechtschaffer Stipulation 13 137. Myra Spiegelman Stipulation 6

3- -

142. Kathy Pierpont Stipulations 3, 6 and 13 143. Sari Eklund Stipulations 6 and 13 146. Sherry Horowitz Stipulation 6 158. Paula Myers Stipulations 5 and 13 160. Joyce Zern Stipulation 20 162. Charlyn Appollonio Stipulation 5 163, Nkrgaret Davis Stipulations 1 and 5 166. Linda Brown Stipulation 21 At the February 25, 1983 meeting, agreement to a compromise version of Proposed Stipulation #9 was made dependent upon agreement by Intervenors to a companion stipulation, to be denominated Stipulation 9-B. Intervenors are now willing to agree to Stipulation 9-B, resulting in the elimination of another three witnesses:

91. Eleonore Bronzo Stipulation 9-A

92. Arlene Tift Stipulation 9-A I

93. Lynn Kauderer Stipulation 9-A l

A copy of the stipulations, as yet unsigned, is annexed hereto as Exhibit D.

Of the twelve proposed stipulation on which agreement was not reached, five were acceptable to all parties except PASNY. If agreement could be reached on these five proposed stipulations, #7, #8, #29, #30, and #31, the testimony of an additional ten witnesses would be covered.

The compromise versions of proposed stipulations #7 and #8, as negotiated among the parties and as acceptable to all but PASNY, appear below.

__ - _ .. ._ _ , _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ - . _ - ~ _ - _ . ,

PROPOSED STlPULATION #7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that they are parents who work or who for other reasons occasionally leave their children home alone, and who do not believe they have been given sufficient inofraation as to what to tell their children to do in case a radiological emergency is announced when the children are home alone.

Karen Henes, #9 Helen Balgooyan, #72 Daniela Misch, #129 Barbara Hickernell, #7 Elise Lentz, #136 Lillian Moore, #130 PROPOSED STIPULATION #8 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that they live in homes without underground basements and that they believe their homes are not effective for sheltering.

Jamie Greene, #12 A'gata Craig, #11 A compromise version of proposed stipulation #12 gained some acceptance, amone all parties except PASNY. Ihat version appears' below:

PROPOSED STIPULATION #12 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that they have received the public Laformation about emergency planning that has been distributed to the general public, and that they believe they do

not have sufficient information to answer their practical questions about the preparations which have or have not been made to assure attention to the needs and safety of their children, their relatives, or of other persons for whom they are responsible.

Loretta Brundage, #55 Lynn Gunzenhauser, #8 Michael Robinson, #101 Joan Livingston, #114 Phyllis Mendelsohn, #155 Judith Glass, #157 Katherine Feit, #167 I

j As to these three proposed stipulations, PASNY's counter-offer is to j

l depose come of the witnesses to determine whether the cross-examination of those i

j witnesses could be stipulated to be the same as cross-examination of others.

a

,, Other proposed stipulations on which there was agreement apart from PASNY

! are numbers 29, 30 and 31, which were accepted by other parties in the language i proposed in Intervenors' Additional Proposed Stipulations of February 24, 1983.

i As to the remaining six stipulations on which agreement was not reached, Proposed Stipulations 2, 11, 16, 19, 22 and 28, negotiations were not productive.

III. PRESENTATION OF INTERVENOR WITNESSES THE WEEK OF MARCH 1 - 4, 1983 i

! As indicated on page 4 of Intervenors Additional Proposed Stipulations, i

j six witnesses have been offered by intervenors to testify during the week of March 1-4, 1983, to ensure that time during that week allocated to the New York City Council will be productive. A seventh witness originally offered by intervenors, Roger Seasonwein, was not included for discussion 4

. ct the Fabruary 25th me2 ting becrucs furth2r nsgntiations on the cubjset i

of Mr. S2cecnwein's tastimony did not cppnar to be hop 2ful of co2promica.

The Licensees maintained their position on the presentation of these witnesses: agreement to the testimony of Christopher Maxwell and Samuel Anderson on Thursday, March 3rd and to the presentation of testimony of Dr. Robert Jay Lifton on Friday afternoon, March 4th.

Intervenors insist that the presentation of Richard'Altschuler is not prejudicial to Licensees, who discovered the data for Mr. Altschuler's f

testimony on June 25, 1982, seven months ago, in anticipation for his testimony, then scheduled tentatively for that day. (T. 2053 ) To further ease negotiations, intervenors offered to withdraw Mr. Altschuler's report, which had been submitted as supplemental testimony as a courtesy to all parties, although it contains no new information. The presentation of Mr. Altschuler is still opposed.

j Intervenors requested that special consideration be given to the offer to present the testimony of James Murphy, who is moving away from New York and otherwise will have to return to testify at a later date. Mr.

Murphy has submitted supplemental testimony which is , however, very much I

of the same substance as his original testimony.

i Intervenors appreciate taat Licensees attorneys are unwilling to face Dr. Erikson on the witness stand without much preparation f6r his testimony, both original and supplemental. However, Dr. Erikson's schedule is full.

If Dr. Erikson cannot be heard the week of March 1-4, Intervenors now give notice that his next available date is March 15, 1983, after which time he will not be able to schedule time during the remainder of the i hearing dates en questions three and fcur.

In an effort to ensure the best use of all hearing dates, Intervenors I

requested the Licensees and the Staff to consider presentation of one or more of their witnesses, and particularly their on-site witnesses, during the week of March 1-4. Our response from the Staff is that their witness will not be available; the Licensees have yet to respond definitively.

IV. SEQUENCE OF EVIDENCE ON COMMISSION QUESTIONS IHREE AND FOUR The consensus at the February 25, 1983 meeting was that Intervenors l l

should present their testimony on Questions three and four first, beginning on March 15, 1983, V. NUMBER OF HEARING DAYS REQUIRED FOR INTERVENOR TESTIMONY ON QUESTIONS THREE'AND FOUR Intervenors request that ten hearing days and two evenings be allocated to the Intervenors' joint direct case on emergency planning. Intervenors recognize that the result would be an extension of the hearing schedule, See Exhibit A, pp. 9-10, and Exhibit B. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Bosrd has orally granted Intervenors' request to authorize Judge Laurenson to consider the extension of the hearing as an option. (T. 8004-5.)

Without the additional hearing days, Intervenors will be prevented from presenting their joint direct case on emergency planning,,and the record will not be complete. The critical nature of the emergency planning issues at Indian Point is demonstrated by the history of deficiencies already acknowledge, resulting in the imposition of two 120-day clocks, the community interest in the emergency planning issues, the actions taken by the Rbckland County Legislature , and, finally, by recent events at Shoreham nuclear power station on nearby Long Island.

VI. LOCATION OF THE HEARINGS IN CROTON-ON-HUDSON THE WEEK OF MARCH 15-18, 1983 3

Intervenors support the request of Parents Concerned About Indian Point that the hearing of March 15 through 18 be held at a temple reserved for that purpose in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, within the ten-mile EPZ.

At the meeting of February 25, 1983, the suggestion was met with approval by the representative of Consolidated Edison, and was not opposed by the representatives of the NRC Staff and the State of New York Energy Office.

PASNY took no position on the proposal.

i' , ,

VII. RESTRICTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION The response to Intervenors' proposal to accept any reasonable restrictions

. on cross-examination as a method to expedite the taking of testimony was that the parties each had submitted their positions on this issue and would argue for adoption of that position.

VIII. STIPULATION TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE STATE AND COUNTY PORTIONS OF THE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AS REVISED All parties at the February 25, 1982 meeting were agreeable to the stipulation of the admission Lato evidence of the emergency plans as revised on March 15, 1983.

IX. REBUTTAL TESTIMONY TO BE OFFERED BY INTERVENORS There was notagreement on Intervenors' proposal to reserve three days of hearing for rebuttal testimony on questions three and four, particularly with respect to testimony relating to the exercise of March 9,1983 and to testimony relating to the new transportation study to be undertaken as a result of new plan revisions.

Dated: February 28, 1983 Submitted on Behalf of Intervenors NYPIRG/UCS, Parents Concerned About Indian Point, West Branch Conservation  ;

Association, Rockland Citizens for i Safe Energy, Westchester Peoples Actio Coalition 4

u. h Amanda Potterfield, Esq. V New York Public Interest Research l Group, Inc.

9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 212-349-646-

~\

• 0 *%. ,. %

m

' ~~

. .. . m ,.. . . ... . . - _

J_.

.- J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' ~ _ _ _ _ - -' .__... "- ~ l O., - . _ _ . . - NUCLEAR REGULATORY

-- CO_PE..IS_S,IO..N._.

g _ . - _ _ . -_

' ' ^ ~~

~

. . _ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

. _ - . . . - - , - ..._..m.- m.--

, .. e 2."' J'* ... ~ . T : ,-' - - ' - ' --- -

~.. - ...;.___.

-) - - -

- ~~

In the Matter of -

)

CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) - . .

50-286 SP

~

'~%

))..]ejruary 7,1983 [ _ ,

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - - . . _

-(Indian Point Unit 3) -

INTERVEN0R-PROPOSAL. FOR-

~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

FAIR AND EFFICIENT METHOD

• ---- -- -~ -~~-

.FOR RECEIVING EEIDEN & M - l - ~

QUESTIONS 3 and 4 .

. l ..x

_ . , , _ _y - --

Intervenors have jointly _ prepared the followingsubmfag,gn in'

~

response to the Board oral order as memorialized in the Mailgrad'o'f January 29, 1983. .

' ' ~

INTRODUCTION The intervenors have complied with the Board's order to propose a " fair and. efficient , method for receiving evidence" on Commission Questions 3 and 4 by withdrawing the testimony of seven witnesses; by putting the testimony of six witnesses in the category of Limite,d. Appearance Statement;,,,,,, ,

~

__,_ by releasing _four witnesses to be sponsored,by_ Roc]tland c County;,.by,gr,ouping' 94 witnesses into 21 panels; and by preparing 26 Proposed Stipulations of i Fact .to deal with the testimony presented by 41 witnesses. All the witnesses ~.-

, . _.. _.._ . ~ . .. -..

l we retain, on panels and as individual witnesses, are vital to our case. We l canno.t eliminate any others without severly prejudicing ourselves.

I _. - a. .

Intervenors' testimony on Questions 3 and 4 is organized accordin'g ,

to general subject matter and the experience and knowledge of each witness .

Each witness-offered by the intervenors'~ testifies to facts relevant to niore 3,_,,-- -

than one contention. We do not propose to recall these witnesses. We u -

s "~ .w',.,e; .A. ~~~'*- ' ~ ~ ' ~

_~

l

/ ... : ..

-_ 'J3 .,, .

O 4._ _ .

_ .. _ propose .to allow each witness to present his or her entire testimony at one

~

. sitting, add.ressing Quest.i.qns 3 and 4,as a whole%.,. _ ,. _.

, ,_ 9 mI-M -

WITNESSES GROUPED IN PANELS . - . _ _ . _ _ _ ._.

~

Intervenors have organized testimony on Questions 3.and 4. accord- _ _ .

ing to the role each witness is expected to play in the emergency response. plan ~

or the p~ersonEl

=r - - knowledge - _

or professional

m. Expertise of the witnesses.. . - Wherever

_ -.~ m .:-- - . .--

~~~

__ possible we have group'e'd witnesses into panel's._ The Tollowing dre tlie subject matter of the panels and the number of witnesses we expect to offer in each

~~

Panel: _ _ _ . ,_. . _ . ,_

>*- r - . * .*. ---m : .ys.a _, +

- -. q

...w--.,..a.

~'

--- ; - PANEL .

___ . . _ _ . __. NUMBER __OF-_ WITNESSES --

School Administrators: CET School -

4..._. ._

Schuol-' Administrators: Other Schools 6 - - -

School Recegtion Centers- 4

"-u ~ 9,3che'Es "_- -

- - - - -1 -+ -- 'I - ~~ *

-' ~ - -- --

O~ ~ rriv Public t- Recreation Progr_a,m Administrators

~ -

=-

ecre cioa eroar ^a iai er ter- -

~ ' - -

_. Nursery School ~~and.Da~y Care 7 Special Needs Populations 5 -

Deaf ' -

~~4 - -. ' .

~ ' ~

~ ~' ~

Senior Citizens ' ~~~

E ' '4 ~~

g g.. 0 f fic ial's " -

~

-'4~ '~"' - "^ ~ - ~

Police Chiefs' "

2 --

~ -

._ Communications Professionals -

2 Notification 3 Ambulance Personnel. .

4~

?5- . -

Transportation - -

~~

Pastors ~ 3~

Nature and Condition of Local Roads 3 ArbitraryNatureof10$11eEPZ 3

~~

'_ Parents. - -

10 Observation of Medical Support: March 3, 1.982 Exercise 2

r - . . . - - - . . . . . . . . .

Intervenors expect -that each witness on a panel will be gifen an

-~ ~ .

~~ I

..._...s - e . n_. 1 opportunity to summarize his or her own testimbay* Since the testim 6ny of each of these sitnesses is extremely brief, cross examination which is efficient and )

to the point will not take much time. l

. . .. 1

.-- . . . - - l

-r-- _ _ _ . _ _

d

~ .

• • ~ **

.,g .A s

y

- . . ~ - - . - - . . - - . _ . - _

- -3 -

.___ __ .__- -- _., = -.----r-- --.--z..--_;.._-

_ . . . . . ~ 2 - _ - . _ _

- ~ ~ -

, INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES .

.-a ,.... - -_. -

1

. The .following .iritn'essea_~ ill not be presented as part of a panel, ,but ~ -

w l

~ ~ ~

__ _ u411 e n k <- rhe sennd. individuallyi . . . . _ . . . . _ . . _

..- ~ . ... . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ - - . _. - , . _ .

-- Dr. . Donald Pizearello.- '

1. 2 *- ---- -- - -- - - - - - - . - - -

Richard Altschuler - . #3 r- 4 Donald D." Smith #20 Thomas Ryder , g #28' __ ,

James Murphy . _ _ _ _ #40 -

Robert Morris #44

= ~;~ -

Gladys Burger t - - # 63- - - -~

- Samuel Anderton . #67 . _

' #103

-~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~

Jerome Kagan

1. 128 T. Berry Brazelton Kai T. Erikson .. #148 ._ ._ ._ .-

~' ~~^~

1. ~~

~ R'6bliiii'h Jay Lif ton' -

1. 149

~"'_. -P

- --- -.lber.t J. Solnit A .n... .

1. 154 .

.Chri.qtopher Maxwell , #152 .

Julie~ Palmer, M.D. #153

~

Murray Melbin . #168 - -

Stanley G. Bonker #151 -

. .-. . ( _s u -

WITHDRAWN TESTIMONY - - r~"-" ' C C --

..a:n . . -_..--- . ;~: . .,,....c. ,-

_ . _.. ; _- ~~

The testimdny,ofsche following witnesses has been withdrawn:

Thomas P.'.nrdd --

1. 15 -- ---

Lawrence Kaagan

1. 18

~~' -

Dr. Philip Wolfe #48 - -

Inez Janger #57 David Elkind #104 - ~

Victor W. Sidel '

1. 170

' ' " ' "~

Daniel M. Pisello and Richard G. Piccioni #171 Since the following witnesses are active members of Parents Concerned About Indian Point, they have decided as a matter of courtesy to present their ,

~~

testimddy~at E LimitET ppeEance Hearing: ,, _. . . , _ _ ,_.

.. PhyllWRodrigtrer -^--- - '"# 76 - - - - - * - -

N T - -

Myra Speigelman  ; #137 --

Kathleen Toscani . . . #139 _

Ervine Kimmerling ^

1. 145 Sherry Horowitz #146 ..~. ' ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~

Katherine Feit .

-#167 ..

( -- ,.

O

• Numbers refer to the "Index of Witnesses Presenting Testimony on Emergency Planning Issues on Behalf of the Intervenors: UCS, NYPIRG, RCSE, WBCA, Parents, WESPAC, F0E l

I and Audubon; and on Behalf of the Attorney General of the State of New York,"

l June 7, 1982 .

~

\

COUNTY WITNESSES The following witnesses are elected officials or employees of Rockland County. Intervenors propose to delete them from the list of intervenor witnesses, providing that approval is obtained for them to be presented by the attorney for Rockland County:

Kenneth Ingenito #22 Stephen Scurti #25 Fred Seeger #26 Gregory Carney #30 STIPULATIONS .

If all parties will stipulate in writing to the facts contained in the pre 4 filed testimony of the following witnesses, the intervenors will agree to the presentation of their testimony at a Limited Appearance Hearing. We have prepared sample stipulations based on the information contained in the testimony of witnesses in this category.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #1:

On March 3, 1982, the exercise of the prompt notification system (sirens) showed an inadequacy in the system in that the sirens were not heard, were barely audible, or were not distinguishable from other types of sirens in the locations reported by the following witnesses: Mabel Cronk #6; Jamie Greene #12; Patsy Chazen #13; Arlene Tift #92; Susan Scheffel #123; Phyllis Mendelson #155; Margaret' Davis #163.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #2:

The Frjr; readability formula is,widely~.used by test book publi'shers and others in the field of education in order to determine suitability of reading".

material for a particular grade level. By applying this formula, Amy Kriveloff,

1. 4, concluded that the emergency planning brochure " Indian Point, Emergency Plannning and You," is appropriate reading for those who read on a college level.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #3:

The distribution system for the emergency planning brochure,

' Indian Point, Emergency Planning and You" is inadequate in that the following witnesses did not receive the brochure, or received the wrong brochure, or did not receive a timely response to a request for a brochure: Kathy Pierpont #142; Teralyn Woods #5; Mabel Cronk #6; Lynn Gunzenhauser #8; Myles Lavelle #24. .

PROPOSED STIPULATION #4:

Whether or not they have been informed not to use the telephone during a radiological emergency, a significant number of people will use the q telephone to try to get information about the development of the emergency or

':. to make personal arrangements or to locate and reunite family members. This J stipulation is based on the testimony of Barbara Hickernell #7; Patsy Chazen #13; Loretta Brundage #55; Phyllis Mendelson #155;.

o - , . _ - .

. . . I I

b PROPOSED STIPULATION #5:

)

i The intervenor witnerses listed below are teachers working within I the currently defined plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. They are familiar with the eargency plans for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station and w'ith the provisions that require teachers to accompany school children on evacuation buses. Each of the witnesses listed below has admitted that she will be in severe conflict about the priority of duty to the school children in her care as opposed to the primary duty to her family, and may decide to attend to the needs of family first: Breda Curran #118; Maggie North #119; Paula Myers #158; Charlyn Appollonio #162; Margaret Davis #163; Becky Catherall #113.

1 i

PROPOSED STIPULATION #6:

An :unknowri. number.cf parents within tha. currently defined emergency planning zone, whether or not they are familiar with current plans to bus . children to reception centers directly from school, have given their children instructions not.co leave .on evacuation buses. Many of.these parents plan to go to their children's schools to pick up the ch'ildren before evacuating themselves. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Barbara Hirschman #116; Maggie North #119; Myra Speigelman #137; Kathy Pierpont #142; Sari Eklund #143; Sherry Horowitz #146 Susan Scheffel #123.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #7:

(] Parents who work, or who for other reasons occasionally leave their

( ':

children home alone, have not been given adequate information as to what to tell their children to do in case a~ radiological emergency is announced when the children are home alone. T is stipulation is based on the testimony of Karen Henes #9; Helen Balgooyan #72; Daniela Misch #129; Barbara Hickernell #7; Elise Lentz #136; Lillian Moore #130. -

PROPOSED STIPULATION #8: -

. n Sone residents in the currently defined emergency planning zone live in frame homes without underground basements. Such structures are not effective for sheltering. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Jamie Greene #12. -

PROPOSED STIPULATION #9:

Between January 21, 1982 and June 7, 1982, repeated attempts by 1

' teachers and parents of students at the Croton Montessori School to get the school included in the Radiological Emergency Response Plans were ignored. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Eleonore Bronzo #91; Arlene Tift #92; Lynn Kauderer #93.

i PROPOSED STIPULATION #10:

! As of June 7,1982, the Police Department in the Villaga of Croton-on-i Hudson, which is located within 5 miles of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station,

,l had only six dosimeters, no protective clothing, and no back up cocmunication

) system if the telephone " hot line" should fail. The Police Department of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson does not intend to arrest or to prevent ingress of people attempting to enter the ten mile EPZ during an evacuation. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Reginald Lambruschi, Chief of Police, Village of Croton-on-Hudson, #37.

1 i

[) PROPOSED STIPULATION #11:

(. .According to the~ evacuation plan, 10 group of evacuees from 10 feeder

! routes' travelling south on Route 9 will be joined by evacuees from 3 feeder routes i travelling on Route 9A; at a narrow road which has no shoulders, curves sharply, l

and goes under a bridge. At the underpass, Route 9A has a " volume / capacity ratio"

] of .8, where a " volume / capacity ratio" of 1 denotes a standstill. This stipulation -

4 is based on the testimony of Linda Berker #45.

4

PROPOSED STIPULATION #12

i i Many residents of. the 10 mile EPZ have not been given sufficent

.information regarding the Radiological Emergency Response Plan to satisfy their serious, practical questions about the preparations which have or have f not been made to assure attention to the needs and safety of evacuees. This

stipulation is based on the testimony of Loretta Brundage #55; Lynn Gunzenhauser

1. 8; Michael Robinson #101; Joan Livingston #114; Phyllis Mendelson #155; Judith Glass #157; Katherine Feit #167.

! PROPOSED STIPULATION #13:

1 The mistakes attending the preparation and distribution of

, information about the emergency response plans, including the failure of many sirens to be heard on March 3,1982, has increased the anxiety of children living i

within the affected area, and has increased the lack of confidence adults have

. c) the the nuclear facility operators. This stipulation is based on the testimony

m) of Barbara Hickernell #7; Lynn Gunzenhauser #8; Karen Henes #9; Patsy Chazen #13; Helen Balgooyen #72; Barbara Hirschman #116; Daniela Misch #129; Kathy Pierpont #142; Sari Eklund #143; Sheila Rechtshaffer #132; Phyllis Mendelson #155; Paula Myers #158 ;

Elise Lentz #136; Lynn Kauderer #93.

I PROPOSED STIPULATION #14:

Parents and teachers living and working within the currently defined EPZ have.not.been given adequate information concerning the protection of children who are away from school during school hours (on field trips or i at special instructional facilities.) This stipulation is based on the testimony

, of Helen Balgooyen #72.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #I$ 5

At T9 e I, "sel, Glengary Road, Croton-on-Hudson, there are 125 children in attmd p e ,, SSbbath School on Saturday and Sunday mornings, 30 children in a Yo%h Ptc,Am on Sunday night, and 80 children at Religious  ;

School on Monday night. Ihere are not enough vehicles for evacuation of these children at the disposal of the Temple staff; there is no destination for their l evacuation; parents are frequently unavailable during the hours their children are lef t at Religious School; and no radios or T.V. sets are on during Religious School hours. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Rabbi Michael Aaron Robinson #101.

l J

l

4_ , )

() PROPOSED STIPULATION #16:

( '[

~

Drivers employed by Vanguard Tours, Inc., are part time employees, largely local residents with families. There are at present no contracts requiring these drivers to participate in a radiological emergency evacuation. Vanguard is 1

relying on volunteers. The drivers have not been trained and there is one dosimeter on Vanguard property. The Assistant General Manager of Vanguard Tours, Inc., does i not know how many children would require the assistance of Vanguard buses. The Assistant General Manager of Vanguard Tours, Inc. expects to be notified four times i before an actual evacuation were ordered: once to prepare a list of voluntary drivers; again to contact drivers en the premises and to refuel buses; again to contact other drivers; and a fourth time when the evacuation is ordered. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Tom Turner, Assistant General Manager, Vanguard Tours Inc.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #17:

The Holy Name of Mary School in Croton-on-Hudson, New York has been assigned buses to handle 140 students while their actual enrollment is 190. There are no contracts between HNM and the bus companies assigned to transport HNM students.

The administrators of HNM have not been given instructions about how to prepare

, if sheltering is ordered. There are children attending school who take medication.

Generally these children do not have a three day supply of medication on hand at i school. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Sister Colleen Murray,#109.

l i PROPOSED STIPULATION #18:

The Yorktown PTA is obliged to point out inadequacies and questions pertaining to the Radiological Emergency Response Plan relating to schools because

~

of its committment to " promote the welfare of children and youth" and to " secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth." This stipulation is based on the testimony of Betsy Doepken #122.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #19; Some children who live within the currently dsfined EPZ have indicated their intention to respond in a way not called for in the plan, and in a way which may be inimical to the smooth functioning df the official emergency response plan.

This stipulation is based on the testimony of Helen Balgooyen #72 and Daniela Misch i

1. 129.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #20:

Teachers who are concerned about their own families but who remain

(

co accompany their students during a radiological emergency evacuation, will trans-mit feelings of anxiety and despair to the children in their care. This stipulation l is based on the testimony of Joyce Zern #160.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #2 :

The Tappan Zee Nursery School should be assigned one van for evacuation 3 rather than two as proposed in the Radiological Emergency Response Plan. If the 1 'Dappan Zee Nursery School is evacuated in two vans, one van will be without a

) teacher to accompany the children and driver. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Linda Brown #166.

) PROPOSED STIPULATION #22:

.)

i Carmfully prepared evacution plans broke down in European towns and villages during World War II because of inadequate communications and transportation facilities. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Bela and Inge Cseh #169.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #23:

In the Town of Cortlandt there is a population of 1200-1500 homebound senior citizens. Transportation of' seniors under normal circumstances, as for a recreation program, is a problem because of a lack of suitable vehicles. Reloca-tion of frail elderly people requires help from known trusted assistants and extensive advance planning in the form of direct communication with the individual involved.

The Board of Directors of the Shepherd Center of Cortlandt, a voluntary organization for senior citizens, has:.not 'been informed :of'any special provisions to plan for and communicate with the senior citizens of Cortlandt. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Seymour Greenbaum #62.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #24: ,

The rapidly dividing cells of fetuses, infants, and children are more susceptible to the damaging effects of radiation than the more slowly changing cells of an adult. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Helen Balgooyen #72.

• PROPOSED STIPULATION #25: *

(s.

In case of an evacuation due to'a radiological emergency, the teachers who accompany children with special medical needs will not be equipped to minister to the medical needs of their students. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Ruth Isaacs #117; Susan Scheffel #123; Sister Colleen Murray

1. 109; Joan Livingston #114.

Intervenors will be pleased to consider any other stipulations based on intervenor testimony proposed by the licensees or the NRC staff in the interest of a " fair and efficient method for receiving evidence" on Com-I mission Questions 3 and 4.

ORDER OF PRESENTATION Intervenors ' propose that the evidence on Commission Questions 3 and 4 be heard in the following order:

New York City Counci1* l Licensees On-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Intervenors' .0ff-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Interested States' Off-Site Emergency Planning Testimony

, Licensees' Off-Site Emergency Planning Testimony NRC Staff Testimony Testimony on the Results of the March 9,1983 Exercise:  !

~

i

)

i s

[

(; NRC (Including FEMA)

Intervenors

Interested States Licensees ORAL ARGUMENT Intervenors request that oral argument. on the Proposals received i by the Board be heard on Friday, February 11, at the end of the day of hearings.

The intervenors' lead attorney on Commission Questions 3 and 4 is Amanda Potter-i field, and we make this request because Ms. Potterfield cannot come to New York on any other day before the presentation of evidence on Questions 3 and 4 in March.

CONCLUSION It has been more than three years since the Union of Concerned

) Scientists (UCS) filed a petition on September 17, 1979, seeking a hearing j on the grave safety issues surrounding the continued operation of the Indian i Point Nuclear Power Station. The Commission issued an order on May 30, 1980, i

announcing its intention to hold a discretionary adjudication on the matters

( ) raised in the UCS petition. The order defining the questions to be answered in this adjudication was issued on January 8,1981, but the order appointing an

] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hear the evidence was not forthcoming until September 18, 1981. The Board order formulating contentions was issued on April 23,1982, and the hearings were interrupted by the Commission on July 27, 1982. The intervenors have not been responsible for any delay in the onset or interrupt, ions of the hearings. Indeed, intervenors believe it is in the interest of the public to have their concerns about Indian Point resolved as soon as possible, but not at the sacrifice of a complete and thorough record.

The Indian Point Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, have

! been operating without implementable emergency response plans since April 1,1931, contrary to 10 C.F.R. 50.54(s)(2) and contrary to the best interests of the people within the affected area. These hearings provide an opportunity for the affected communities to prove that "the state of emergency planning does not provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency," and that af ter two four month periods, "the deficiencies are not corrected." The evidence presented by the community witnesses will be a striking contrast to the FEMA review of paper plans.

3., , (" * *

.C o

This Board has not suggested that 28 presentations by the licensees and the NRC staff on Connaission Question 1, adding up to 54 witnesses, (including some who will take the stand twice), is excessive or burdensome.

Each of the witnesses on Question 1 presents lengthy, complex testimony on an arcane technological subject matter, and intervenors have had only 11 days from in-hand receipt of this material to prepare cross examination. .Although inter-venors have sponsored the testimony of a relatively large number of witnesses, on the emergency planning questions, the total number of pages of testimony ,

presented is no greater than the total number of pages of testimony submitted by the NRC staff on Question 1. Most of the intervenor witnesses on Questions 3 and 4 testify to a few simple facts relating to his or her role in the emergency plan, and the licensees and staff have had this testimony since June, 1982. _ . . _

Considerations of fairness, due process, and the necessity for a complete record require that the intervenors' case on Questions 3 and 4 not be restricted because of arbitrary time constraints.

(

Dated: New York, New York Submitted on Behalf of Intervenors:

February 7, 1983 NYPIRG/UCS Parents Concerned About Indian Point West Branch Conservation Association Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy Westche er Peop es Action ~ Coalition ,

J J%

NtPosner Jo Holt Member Pridject Direct.or Parents Concerned About Indian Point New York Public Interest Research Group P.O. Box 125 9 Murray Street l Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 New York, New York 10007 (212) 349-6460

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP

. )

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) February 11, 1983 (Indian Point Unit 3) )

INTERVENORS' PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR TESTIMONY ON COMMISSION QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 AND MODIFIED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINDER OF SPECIAL PROCEEDING In the interest of a " fair and efficient method for receiving evidence" during the remainder of this proceeding, and in order to provide the Board and the Commission with a full and balanced record, Intervenors propose the following schedule for testimony on Commission Questions 3 and 4 and for the remainder of this special investigation. We hope that this will assist the Board in resolving dif ferences amongst parties reflected in the various proposals submitted in response to the Board's January 29, 1983 mailgram.

We are proposing to include in the schedule 12 additional hearing days on Commission Questions 3 and 4. We are optimistic that the Board and the Commission will agree that the single additional month we are thus proposing to extend this proceeding--af ter waiting more than three and a half years to present our concerns--provides a fair and reasonable way to permit the public "its day in court." We have done everythyng we can to streamline the presentation of our testimony. ,

JopHolt, NYPIRG Sdbmitted on Behalf of Intervenors February 11, 1983 '

New York, New York G.YN k

INTERVENORS' PROPOSED SCHEDULE March 1-4 New York City Council Members testimony on Commission Questions 3 and 4 Intervenors propose to present three of its witnesses during this week as well: Dr. Donald Pizzarello (#2),

Dr. Samuel W. Anderson (#67), and Dr. Robert J. Lif ton (#149) .

In order to accomodate members of the public who may wish to make Limited Appearance Statements, Intervenors urge the Board to schedule one or more evening sessions for this purpose.

March 15 Licensees On-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Panel: Lester A. Cohen Charles W. Jackson George Liebler William A. Monti

~~

NRC Staff On-Site Emergency Planning Testimony John R. Sears March 16 Intervenors Off-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Pastors (Panel of 3 witnesses: #32, #96, #97)

Richard J. Altschuler (#3)

March 17 Donald D. Smith (#20)

Deaf (Panel of 4 witnesses: #58, #58A, #59, #60)

Notification (Panel of 3 witnesses: #16, #17, #126)

Communications Professionals (Panel: witnesses #19 & #21)

March 18 Thomas Ryder (#28)

Robert Morris (#44)

Nature and Condition of' Local Roads (Panel of 3 witnesses:

Murray Melbit (#168) #14, #46, #47)

March 22 Local Officials (Panel of 4: #23, #33, #36, #38)

Police Chiefs (Panel of 2: #27 & #34)

Stanley Booker (#151)

Evening Session:

Ambulance Personnel (Panel of 4: #35, #43, #108, #150) 23 School Administrators: CET School (Panel of 4: #81, #87, March #88 & #110)

School Administrators: Other Schools (Panel of 6: #71, #80,

1. 82, #90, #95, #121)

Reception Centers (Panel of 3: #17, #51, #89)

Late Af ternoon or Evening Teachers (Panel of 6: #84, #86, #115, #124, #125, #127 24 Jerome Kagan (#103)

. March Private Recreation Program Administrators (Panel of 6:

i i

1. 74, #75, #77, #79, #94, #111)

Public Recreation Program Administrators (Panel of 5:

1. 68, #69, #70, #73, #102)

Late Af ternoon or Evening Nursery School and Day Care (Panel of 7: #99, #100, #156,

1. 159, #161, #164, #165)

1 March 25 Gladys Burger (#63) 1 I

- Senior Citizens (Panel of 4: #61, #64, #65, #78)

~Special Needs Populations (Panel of 5: #49, #50, #52, #53, #54)

April 5 Christopher Maxwell (#152)

Observation of Medical Support: March 3, 1982 Exercise I (Panel of 2: #41 & #42)

Dr.'Julie Palmer (#153)

James Murphy (#40)

April 6 Kai T. Erikson (#148)

Dr. Albert J. Solnit (#154)

Transportation (Panel of 5: #39, #83, #98, #105, #106)

April 7 Arbitrary Nature of 10 Mile EPZ (Panel of 5: #56, #85, #120,

1. 135, & #138)

Dr. T. Berry Brazelton (#128) _

Parents (Parents Panel I: those able to come during the day)_

c Evening Session Parents (Parents Panel II: those unable to come during the day)

(Witnesses who will be included in Parents Panels I & II: #10, ill, #112, #131, #133, #134, #136, #140, #141, #144, #147)

April 8 Limited Appearance Session - for those witnesses whose testimony shas been stipula.ted to and other members of the public wishing to make limited appearances.

e i

April 12 - 14 Intgrested States Of f-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Rockland County April 15 'New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group:

Donald B. Davidoff & Lawrence B. Czech April 26 Licensees Off-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Dr. Russell Dynes & Dr. Sidney Lecker Bruce E. Podwal, Michael Della Rocca, & Peggy L. Rosenblatt April 27 NRC Staff Off-Site Emergency Planning Testimony Brian Grimes Dr. Thomas Urbanik April 28 NRC (FEMA) Testimony on March 9,1983 Exercise Licensees Testimony on Exercise April 29 Intervenor Testimony on Exercise Interested State Testimony on Exercise i

I

.__ . _ . ~ - _ _ _ . - _ _ . - _ . _ . , . _ . _ . . . _ - -

~

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS IN SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION

. QUESTIONS 5 AND 6 April 5 Final day for noticing depositions on Commission Question 5 April 19 Final day for depositions on Commission Question 5 April 26 Last day for noticing depositions on Commission Question 5 April 26 Final day for testimony from Licensees, Staff and parties on Commission Question 5 May 10-13 Hearings on Commission Question 5. One week Allotted May 10 - Last day for depositions on Commission Question 6 May 17 Final day for testimony from Licensees, Staff and parties on Commission Question 6 May 24-27 Hearings on Commission Question 6. One week allotted June 24 Due Date for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law August 26 Date for Board recommendations to the Commission.

4

)

l l

o .-

s UNITED STATES OF AERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) February 24, 1983 (Indian Point Unit 3) )

INTERVENORS' ADDITIONAL PROPOSED STIPULATIONS OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS THREE AND FOUR To further promote a fair and efficient method for receiving evidence on Commission Questions three and four, intervenors, working togetaer on this problem, propose the following additional stipulations:

PROPOSED STIPULATION # 26 The location of pick-up points for public transportation within the 10-mile EPZ, designated in the Indian Point emergency plans, require transportation-dependent persons, such as older personsiliving in Peekskill, persons living in the woods of the Town of Cortlandt and dn Mountain Trail in Croton-on-Hudson, to walk considerable distances before reaching bus stops. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Mabel Cronk, #6, Karen Henes, #9 and Agata Craig, #11.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #27 Whenever a commuter train arrives and departs at the Croton train station, the traffic makes it difficult to get out of Benedict Boulevard

, .. . - - . _ hk Ehd - b -------______ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _

and onto South Riverside street in Croton-on-Hudson. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Patsy Chazen, #13.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #28 Routes 202 and 6 in Peekskill, New York, are small, two-lane roads with no shoulders, within the ten-mile EPZ, which are designated evacuation routes in the Indian Point emergency plans. Between the rush hours of 5 to 6 p.m. on any weekday, rt. 202 is so congested that it can take one-half hour to dtive two miles. On Saturday afternoons, traffic on route 6 moves similarly slowly. This stipulation is based on the testimony of Eileen L. Vinci, #46.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #29 Rosetown Road in Tomkins Cove, Rockland County, within the ten-mile EPZ around Lndian Point, is a narrow twisting hilly country road, seventeen feet wide at its widest point. Two cars cannot pass each other around a curve on Rosetown Road unless one of the cars backs into a drivenay to allow room for the other to pass. Several driveways along this road are long and steep, and must;be plowed and sanded in snow weather before any car can be moved. This stivalation is based upon the testimony of Marie R. Tomkins, #47.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #30 Buckberg Mountain Road, in Tdmkins Cove, Rockland County, within the ten-mile EPZ is steep and curving, with an elevation of 1000 feets and difficulteto drive under the best of circumstances. ,

This stipulation is based upon the testimony of Marie R. Tomkins, #47.

1 l _.

PROPOSED STIPULATION #31 A history of aborted highway projects in Rockland County include the following:

Maple Avenue Extension

~

Recommended in Clarkstown Town Development Plan - Aug.1966 Res. 714 -- 12/17/68 -- Authorization to angage engineer for feasibility study.

Res. 200A -- 3/20/72 -- Denial of placement on County Official Map PhilIios Hili Road Connection Recommended in Clarkstown Town Development Plan -- Aug.1966 Proposed by Legislative Res. 143 -- 3/5/68 Res.454 -- 7/2/68 -- Placed on County Official Map Res. 271 - 3/18/74 - Deleted from County Official Map portion from Stark's Corner to New Rte. 304.

Route 45/59 Bypass

^

Appeared in'Ramapv Town Development Plan -- July 1966 and in Clarkstown Town Development Plan -- Aug. 1966 Res. 371 -- 6/21/67 -- County called for change in design Gilbert Avenue, Extension .

Appeared in Orangetown Town Development Plan Res. 778 - 10/21/74 -- Deleated from County Official Map. .

This stipulation is based upon the testimony of William M. Chase, #31.

In addition to these six new proposed stipdlatiodsr.intervenors offerato

, expand? the. scope of some of the original proposed stipulations to include the testimony of even more witnesses, as follows:

Proposed Stipulation #1 could include the testimony of Agata Craig, #11, and Gertrude and Henry Gillette, #14.

1 I

_a_ l

W w ==

4 Proposed Stipulation #3 could include the testimony of Gertrude and Henry Gillette, #14.

Proposed Stipulation #4 could include the testimony of Agata Craig,

1. 11.

Proposed Stipulation #8 could include the testimony of Agata Craig,

1. 11.

Intervenors' proposals include:

1) the elimination of the need to cross-examine witnesses named in the proposed stipulation by agreement to stipulate on the part of the Licens'ees and the NRC Staff; o

2) the presentation during the week of March 1-4, 1983 of the following e

Intervenors' witnesses: a 6

Christopher Maxwell, #152 Richard Jay Altschuler, #3 '

James L. Murphy, #40 l Samuel W. Anderson, #67 Robert Jay Lifton, #149 - i Kai T. Erikson, #148.

If agreement can be reached on these proposals, Intervenors offer to i complete their .testimodycon Qdestions 3 and 4 in 10 hearing days, and  ;

two evening sessions, beginning the week of March 15, 1983.  !

l Intervenors support the request ofoParents Concerned about Indian Point I i

that the hearing of the week of March 15 be held in Croton-on-Hudson.

, _ - ____-4-_--_____-_.______.. , _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _

.o Intervenors support any reasonable restriction on cross-examination.

Intervenors request the other parties to stipulate to the admission into evidence of the Statenandiccunty portions of the New York State radiological Preparedness Plan, as revised, on March 15, 1983.

Intervenors request three days of rebuttal testimony, in light of the late-breaking develo,nments of plan revisions and the March 9th exercise.

February 24, 1983 New York, New York N_

AMANDA POTTERFIELD, ESQ.F New York Public Interest Research r Group, Inc.

Submitted on Behalf of Intervenors e

I

-S-

__, . - _ - _ t , - - - . ,-

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY OF NEW YORK )

Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )

(Indian Point Unit 3) ) February 28, 1983 STIPULATION TO TESTIMONY OF INTERVENORS' WITNESSES The undersigned attorneys for Intervenors, the NRC Staff, Con Edison, PASNY, and the State of New York Energy Office, hereby stipulate to the admission of the testimony of intervenor witnesses as set forth in the attached Stipulations #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #10,

1. 13, #14, #15, #17, #18, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26 and #27.

all subject to objections as to relevance and materiality.

Dated this 28th day of February, 1983.

AMANDA POTTERFIELD, ESQ. DAVID H. PIKUS, ESQ.

For the Intervenors RICHARD F. CZAJA, ESQ.

For PASNY DONALD F. HASSELL, ESQ. BRENT L. BRANDENBURG, ESQ.

For the N.R.C. Staff For Con Edison JONATHAN FEINBERG, ESQ.

For the State of New York Energy Energy Office dh ///S / 7'

s l

STIPULATION #1: Relating to Contention 3.1 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that the; prompt notification system sirens were not heard, were barely audible, or were not distinguishable from other types of sirens during the exercise of March 3,1982 in the locations specified by each witness .and identified below opposite the name of the witness:

Mabel Cronk, #6 801 South Main Street Peekskill, New York Jamie Green, #12 40 Riverview Trail Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

Patsy Chazen, #13 7 Truesdale Drive Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

Atlene Tift,'#92 153 Cortlandt Street Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

Susan Scheffel,7#123 Adult Career Guidance Center Pinesbridge Road Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

Phyllis Mendelsohn, #155 Croton Community Nursery School 25 Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

Margaret Davis, #163 Croton Community Nursery School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Agata Craig, #11 25 Mountain Trail Croton-on-Hudson, New York Gertrude & Henry 33 Battery Place Gillette, #14 Crugers, New York 1

1

STIPULATION #3: Relating to Contention 4.7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that he or she did not receive the brochure, or received the wrong brochure, or, in the case of Lynn Gunzenhauser,rreceived the proper brochure from the Four County Nuclear Safety Ccamittee two months after it was requested:

Kathy Pierpont, #142 Finney Farm Road, .

Croton-on-Hudson, New York Teralyn Woods, #5 1115 Howard Street Peekskill, New York Mabel Cronk, #6 801 South Main Street Peekskill, New York Lynn Gunzenhauser, #8 Quaker Ridge Road Croton-on-Hudson,.New York Gertrude & Henry 33 Battery Place s Gillette, #14 Crugers, New York i

i i

1

d STIPULATION #4: Relating to Contention 3.1 If called to testify, the'intervenor witnesses Admed below would testify that she would use the telephone to try to get infortation about the development of the emergency or to make personal arrangements or to locate and reunite family members:

Barbara Hickernell, #7 12 Terrich Court Ossining, New York Patsy Chazen, #13 7 Truesdale Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Phyllis Mendelsohn, #155 Croton Community Nursery School i 25 Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, New York Agata Craig, #11 25 Mountain Trail Croton-on-Hudson, New York I

G

STIPULATION #5: Relating to Contentions 3.2, 3.7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that she is a teacher working within the currently defined plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone, and are familiar wich the emergency plans for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station and with the provisions that require teachers to accompany school children on evacuation buses. Each of these witnesses further would testify that she will be in a severe codflict about the priority of duty to the school children in her care as opposed to her duty to her family, which she considers to.be primary, and that she may decide to attend to the needs of her family first.

Breda Curran, #118 Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Maggie North, #119 Carrie E. Tompkins Eledentary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Paula Myers, #158 Carrie E. Tompkins Elefentary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Charlyn Appollonio, #162 Our Montessori School ,

Yorktown, New York Margaret Davis, #163 Croton Community Nursery School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Becky Catherall, #113 Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York l

s

. . 1 STIPULATION #6: Relating to Contentions 3.2, 3.7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that an unknown number of parents within the currently defined emergency planning zone, whether or not they are familiar with the plans to bus children to reception centers directly from school, have given their children Lastructions not to leave on evacuation buses. These parents would go to their children's schools to pick up the children before evacuating themselves:

Barbara Hirschman, #116 294 Weaver Street Larchmont, New York Maggie North, #119 114 North Highland Place Croten-on-Hudson, New York Myra Spiegelman, #137 100 Radnor Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, New York Kathy Pierpont, #142 Finney Farm Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York Sari Eklund, #143 109 Grand Street Croton-on-Hudson, New York Sherry Horowitz, #146 42 Sunset Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York Susan Scheffel, #123 45 Orchard Drive Ossining, New York J

_ _ _ , . - y. .--, , , - ., -,, .

STIPULATION #9-A: Relating to Contentions '3.7,. 4.7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that .between January 21, 1982 and June 7, 1982, repeated attempts were made by teachers and parents of students at the Croton Montessori School to get the school included in the Radiological Emergency Response Plans. These witnesses would testify further that, to their knowledge, they received no response to there attempts.

Eleonore Bronzo, #91 Arlene Tift, #92 Lynn Kauderer, #93 STIPULATION #9-B: Relating to Contentions 3.7, 4.7 The Croton Montessori School was included in the public information brochure,

" Indian Point, Emergency Planning, and You", version #1, which was released in February 1982. Inclusion of the Croton Montessori School in the Radiological Emergency Response Plans for Westchester County is suggested in the " Update Guidelines" of April,1982.

l

)

l l

i e . - , , - _ . - , y -

,-_y - , , --

1 l

STIPULATION #10: Relating to Contention 3.1 j If called to testify, intervenor witness #37, Reginald Lambruschi, would I

testify that he is the Chief of Police of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, which is located within 5 miles of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.

Chief Lambruschi would testify that the Police Department of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, as of June 7,1982, had only six dosimeters, no protective clothing, and no back-up communications system to use if both the dedicated

and regular phone lines should fail, apart from a radio frequency that only reaches Briarcliff, Ossining and Croton, and does not reach Buchanan, the State Police, Peekskill and Yorktown. Chief Lambruschi would testify further that the Police Department of Croton-on-Hudson would warn people not to enter a contarinated area during an. avacuation.

J

)

l STIPULATION #13: Relating to Contention 3.4, 3.7 If called to testify, the intervenor witnesses named below would testify that they lack confidence in the nuclear facility operators and that their children are anxious about the operation of the Indian Point nuclear power station:

Barbara Hickernell, #7 12 Terrich Court Ossining, New York Lynn Gunzenhauser, #8 Quaker Ridge Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York Karen Henes, #9 Bramblebush RFD #1 Croton-on-Hudson, New York Patsy Chazen, #13 7 Truesdale Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York Helen Balgooyen, #72 Journey's End Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York Barbara Hirschman, #116 294 Weaver Street Larchmont, New York Daniela Misch, #129 East Mount Airy Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York Kathy Pierpont, #142 Finney Farm Road Croton-on-Hudson, New York Sari Eklund, #143 109 Grand Street Croton-on-Hudson, New York Sheila Rechtshaffer, 71 Old Post Road North

1. 132 Croton-on-Hudson, New York Phyllis Mendelsohn, #155 Oak Place

Croton-on-Hudson, New York Paula Myers, #158 124 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York Elise Lentz, #138 131 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York l

l Lynn Kauderer, #93 222 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, New York 1

i STIPULATION #14: Relating to Contentions 3'.7,- 4.'7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #72, Helen Balgooyen, would testify that she is familiar with the emergency plans for the area surrounding the Indian Point nuclear power plants, and that she is concerned about.what provisions have or have not been made for what she believes to be a large number of children who are away from school on class trips on many days.

G 1

1 -

STIPULATION #15: Relating to Contention 3.7 d

If called to testify, intervenor witness #101, Rabbi Michael Aaron Robinson, would testify that, .at Temple Israel, Glengary Road, Croton-on-Hudson, New York, there are 125 children in attendance at Sabbath School

~

o'n Saturday and Sunday mornings, 30 children in a Youth Program on Sunday nights, and 80 children at Religious School on Monday nights. Rabbi Robinson would tastify further that there are not enough vehicles at the disposal of the Temple staff for evacuation of these children. Rabbi Robinson believes that parents are frequently unavailable during the hours their children are l

left at Religious School. Further, Rabbi Robinson would testify that no radios or T.V. sets are on during Religious School hours.

t 4

a

~

STIPUIJLTION #17: Relating to Contention 3.7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #109, Sister Colleen Murray, would testify that the Holy Name of Mary School in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, has been assigned buses to handle 140 students, in the event of an evacuation, while their actual enrollment is 190. Sister Murray further would testify that there are no contracts between Holy Name of Mary School and the bus companies assigned to transport Holy Name of Mary students in the event of an evacuation. Further, j Sister Murray would testify that the administrators of Holy Name of Mary have not been given instructions about how to prepare if sheltering is ordered.

4 Further, Sister Murray would testify that there are children attending school who take medication and that, generally, these children do not have a three day supply of medication on hand at school. (Sister Murray sould testify on l

the basis of her' understanding of the emergency plans for Indian Point as it was in effect in June, 1982.)

l J

l i

w , _ _ _ - ,y- + m 7 - - , .-.- - - - --,_ , , . _ , _ - g .--

STIPULATION #18: Relating to Contention 3.7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #122, Betty Doepken, would testify that she is President of the Yorktown PTA.which has a commitment to " promote the welfare of children and youth" and to " secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth". As a result of this commitment, Ms. Doepken i

would testify, she Believes she is obliged to point out what she perceives as inadequacies add questions pertaining to the Radiological Emergency Response Plan relating to schools.

J 4

t

1

. . . i l

l STIPITLATION #20: Relating to Contentions 3.2, 3.7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #160, Joyce Zern, would testify that she is a nursery school teacher who is concerned about her own family; that, if she remains to accompany her students during a radiological emergency evacuation, she is concerned that she ill transmit feelings of despair to the children in her care.

en l

l l

~

- ' ~

r - ' . -- m - --,, n-_,. .c

STIPUTATION #21: Relating to Contention 3.7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #166, Linda Brown, would testify that the Tappan Zee Nursery School should be assigned one van for evacuation rather than two as proposed in the Radiological Emergency Response Plan. If the Tappan Zee Nursery School is evacuated in two vans, one van will be without a teacher to accompany the children and driver.

STIPULATION #23: Relating to Contentions 3.1, 3.10, 4.7 If called to testify, intervenor witness #62, Seymour Greenbaum, would testify that he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Shepherd Center of Cortlandt, a voluntary organization, and that he estimates that, in the r

town of Cortlandt, there are 1200 to 1500 senior citizens who are frail, have handicapping conditions, or who have no accessible meand, of transportation.

3 Mr..Greenbaum.wodle testify that, in his experience, transportation of these senior citizens is a problem under normal circumstances, as for a recreational program. Mr. Greenbaum wd41dttestify further that relocation

!i of these frail, elderly people should be accomplished with the help of

! known, trusted assistants and with individual planning and communication.

Mr. Greenbaum would testify further that, to his knowledge, the Board of Directors of the Shepherd Center has not been informed of any special provisions to plan for and communicate with the denior citizens of Cortlandt.

l

. . 2 STIPUIATION #24: Relating to Contentions 3.'7, 3.10 If called to testify, intervenor witness #72, Helen Balgooyen, would testify that she is a registered nurse an!4 that, in her opinion, the rapidly dividing cells of fetuses, infants and children are more susceptible to environmental factors than the more slowly changing cells of an adult.

l l

l l

1 l

l 9

l l

c 1

...o STIPULATION #25: Relating to Contentions 3.7, 3.10 If called to testify, the intervanordwitnesses named below would testify l

that they are school teachers or school administrators who are expected to accompany children with special medical needs in case of an evacuation due to a radiological emergency, and that they believe they would not be equipped to minister to the medical needs of their students.

Ruth Isases, #117 Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York Susan Scheffel, #123 Putnam/Northerh.Westchester BOCES Yorktown Heights, New York Sister Colleen Murray, Holy Name of Mary School

1. 109 Croton-on-Hudson Joan Livingston, #114 Carrie E. Tompkins EJ ementary School Croton-on-Hudson, New York 1

1

...s 1

i STIPULATION #26: Relating to Contentions 3.1, 3.10 If called to testify, intervenor witnesses #9 and ill, Karen Henes and Agata Craig, would testify that.they reside in the woods of the Town of Cortlandt and on Mouatain Trail in Croton-on-Hudson, respectively, and that if an evacuation were ordered at a time when they had no personal transportation nor access to transportation from others in the near vicinity, they would be required to walk as many as one and one-half miles before reaching the nearest bus stops.

I

.I e

l l

- - . - - -- , -- - - - _ _ . - , - , _ . - - - ,w.

F eueo STIPULATION #27: Relatingtto Cententions 3.1, 3.3 If called to testify, intervenor witness #13 Patsy Chazen, would testify that, whenever a commuter train arrives and departs at the Croton train station, the traffic makes it difficult to get out of Benedict Boulevard and onto S6uth Riverside street in Croton-on-Hudson.

e 0

6 l

l i