ML20076K755
| ML20076K755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1983 |
| From: | WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076K750 | List: |
| References | |
| 81-466-03-SP, 81-466-3-SP, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8307180074 | |
| Download: ML20076K755 (37) | |
Text
-
\\ 5II s I
%,,\\
/
~
T f;'
,p y
>~
,y y
go,
.~:
+-
j
[
'#
- 7 WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-j
.-.f PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
$ s,
,3,,
.g n
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC, SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P.
Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon
x In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK 50-286-SP (ASLBP 81-466-03 SP)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
x e
4 s
e G
'S 8307180074 830711 PDR ADOCK 050002]4 o..
=
s TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS.........................................
2 JURISDICTION AND PARTIES......................................
4 PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES..........
5 STATEMENT OF COMMISSION QUESTIONS 3 and 4.....................
6 LIST OF WITNESSES.............................................
7 COMMISSION QUESTION 3........................................
13 COMMISSION QUESTION 4........................................
15 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT....................................
18 CONTENTION 3.1......................................
19 CO NTE NTIO N 3. 2...................................... 2 3 CONTENTION 3.3......................................
24 CONTENTION 3.4......................................
24 CO N T E N T I O N 3. 6...................................... 2 5 CONTENTION.3.7...................................... 25 CONTENTION-3.9......................................
26 CO N T E NT IO N 3.10..................................... 2 7 CONTENTION 4.l......................................
29 l
C O N T E N T I O N 4. 2.......... '............................ 2 9 l
i CONTENTION 4.2(a)......................'.............
29 t
I l
CONTENTION 4.2(b)................................... 30 l
CONTENTION 4.2(c)...................................
30 CONTENTION 4.2(d)...................................
31 CONTENTION 4.7......................................
32 CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................
33
.n.
2,_
a m
~
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS By petition dated September 17, 1979, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested, among other things, that this Commission suspend operations at Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
In'a. decision datqd February 11, 1980, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) issued a decision pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 which denied that part of the petition requesting the suspension of operations at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 but required the licensees to implement certain interim measures with regard to those units.
On May 30, 1980, the commission issued an order establishing a four-pronged approach for resolution of the issues raised by the UCS petition, and the decision of the NRR denying that petition.
The order announced the Commission's intention to hold a discretionary adjudication for the
~
resolution of safety issues concerning the units; initiated an informal proceeding to define the questions to be answered in that adjudication; announced the Commission's plan to address the gene.ric question of the operation of nuclear reactors in s
areas of high population density through a generic proceeding to be decided at a future date; directed the Commission's General Counsel and Director, Office of Policy Evaluation, to establish a task force to deal with the question of the status of the E,
O 4
A- - -
J
reactors during the pendency of the planned adjudication; and, in September, 1981, appointed a Licensing Board to take testimony on the issues raised.
The hearing before the Licensing Board was commenced in June, 1982.
During the course of the hearings testimony was received in writing and orally from the Indian Point. Licensees, the State of New York, public officials and private individuals and organizations regarding the status of emergency planning and preparedness at Indian Point.
4 S
4 e
9 e
e O
w I
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES This proceeding was initiated pursuant to the
. Commission's Orders dated May 30, 1980; January 8, 1981; and
. September 18, 1981.
A notice of hearing was published in the
. Federal Register on October 7,.1981 (46 Federal Reg 49,688).
'The hearing was a discretionary adjudication for the resolution of safety issues concerning the Indian Point plants.
4 b
e e
e 4
- 4
.9.-
- s I h.,
.2 m
m.
7 l
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES s
The parties and participants to the Indian"Puint units 2and3specialinvestigativeproceedind-are:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Power Authority of the State of New York NRC Staff
~
Honorable Richard L.
Brodsky*
- Greater New York Council on Energy
- New York City Audubon Society
- Parents. Concerned About Indian Point
- Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy
- Union of Concerned Scientists and New York Public Interest.Research Group
- West Branch Conservation Association
- Westchester Peoples. Action Coalition *
~
Attorney General of the State of Nbw York
- New York State Energy Office *
/
County of Westchester*
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Council of the City o'f New York
- Port Authority of New York and.tfew Jersey * '
~
County of Rockland c
/,
r ~
New York State Assembly and Its Spe'cial Committee on Nuclear Power Safety Village of Buchanan *
[-
- - These p'rties filed petitions to intervene.
a e -
g r
STATEMENT OF COMMISSION OUESTIONS 3 and 4 Westchester County, as an interested State in the instant proceeding, has been asked to respond to Commission Questions 3 and 4 which read as follows:
~
Commission Question 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 hours warning for an effective evacuation of a 10-mile quadrant at Indian Point would be.
The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
commission Question 4 What improvememts in the level of emergency planning can be expected in the near future, and on what time schedule, and are there other specific off-site emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
D 4
e e
G G
-M-
~
i LIST OF WITNESSES l
Altschuler, Richard Ancona, Helga Anderson, Samuel W.
Awalt, Charles Baff, Shareane Bergman, Betsy Beyea, John Bohlander, Frank C.
Bower, Richard Bowles, Raymond Brons, Jack Brooker, Stanley G.
Brown, Monya Berg.
Burger, Gladys Burnham, Helen Capon, Jane Carney,-Gregory A..
. Castorina, Joseph
~
Churchill,-David Co, Linda-Cohen,.Lester A.
4
. g
, O
~
Cohen, Oscar C611 ins, William Conklin, Clelan Conklin, Lucien H.
Connelly, Ed Cormican, Alma Corwin, Seth Courtney, Jane Craig,~Agata Curran, Anita-Czech, Lawrence Davidoff, Donald DelBello, Alfred D.
Della Rocca, Michael Del Pilar, Luis DeWard, Sylvia G.
Doughty, Lynn Dynes, Dr. Russell Ellefsdn, Earle Elliot, Nancy s
Erikson, Kai T.
Everhart, A.
Glen _
i Flicker, Bernard Ford, Karen s
t l.
L A
n.
i
. Freedman, Joel.
Ghldore, Jannelice Gdanski, Sam Z.
Gersony, Toby Gochman, Barbara Gohring, Mary Lou Goldfarb, Ronald A.
Gromack, Alex Guido, Daniel P.
Gunn, Shirley Gurin, David-
'Gutman, Daniel Hare, Reverend Robert W.
Hastings, Donald Helbraun, Phyllis Holland, Michael
-Holzer, Marc Husar, Ihor W.
Indusi, Joan 4
Iurato, John s
Jackson, Charles W.
Jessup, Lois Johnson, Albert A.
. Johnson,: Reverend Frederick F.
1 Jurkowski, Raymond S.
Khhn, Eleanor I
Kaminsky,. Michael Keller, Joseph H.
Kesselman,-Judy King, Joan Harding Kinoy, Susan K.
Kowieski, Roger Kralik, James F.
Lavelle, Myles Lecker, Dr. Sidney LeMoullec, Robert Liebler, George Lifton, Dr. Robert Jay Littlejohn, Inspector Robert Lomonaco,. Linda-Marasco, Anthony R.
McCarthy, Robert McGuir5, Donald' 4
McGuire, James F.
. w McIntire, Philip H.
'Melbin, Murray Monti, Willian I.
_ Morris, Robert L.
o g."
. - =.
Murphy, Agnes Murphy, James Narod-Shiek, Fern 4
Northrup, Ruth O'Brien, Maureen O' Lear,. George O'Rourke, Andrew P.
Palenik, Brian Petterson,. Jack Podwal, Bruce Puglisi, Linda Quinn, Dennis Reisman, Herbert Richter, Pat Roden, John Rosenblatt,fPeggy Rowley, Clifford Rowley, Nancy Rubeo, Vincent J.
'Saunders, Kathe s
Scalpi, Michael Scharf, Leonard Schmer, Philip
' Schwartz, Sheldon A.*
O d
d.
m___
N
m Scurti, Stephen S'ars, John-R.
e Seasonwein, Roger Sekelsky, Elizabeth Seley, Dr. John E Shultz,. Richard Siegal, David Simon, Susan Smith, Donald D.
Solnit, Albert J.
Solon, Dr. Leonard Spiegel, Leonard Spohn, Robert R.
Tompkins, Marie Urbanik, Thomas II
~
Uard, Benjamin
. Waterfall, Beth Wayne, Reverend David B.-
- Hein Rdth Wishnie, Richard Ziegler,_ Sally
. 4 a
9.
COMMISSION QUESTION 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 the 10-mile quadrant _at Indian Point would be.
The FEMA position should be taken as a rebuttable presumption for this estimate.
Westchester County's position is that because the Indian Point plants are operating, it has an obligation to its residents to do the utmost to protect their health and safety.
Off-site emergency planning for Indian Point has made enormous progress toward full c~onformance with the NRC/ FEMA guidelines.
In FEMA's April 14, 1983 findings only one deficiency was identified in Westchester County.
The deficiency cited was that there were no formal committments for buses and drivers.in Westchester County to participate in the emergency evacuation process.
In the three-months since the FEMA findings, the new O'Rourke administration has helped to galvanize efforts to bring off-site emergency planning for Indian Point into full conform-ance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines.
Those efforts - especially the County Executive's breakthrough in bringing the bus companies, unions-and licensees together to address transportation matters
- were instrumental in resolving the significant deficiencies i
cited by FEMA.
(See, Proposed Findings of Fact, paragraphs 2-4, l
.6, Infra).
~
The evacuation travel time estimates provided by PEMA and Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas constitute the best evidence of warning time now available.
Westchester County expects that the.TSPG transportation study now underway will provide future guidance upon which the County can depend for purposes of emergency,, planning..
(See, Proposed Findings of Fact, paragraph 11, Infra).
1 l
9 8
e t
9 9-
>l'.
e-
~
COMMISSION QUESTION 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 off-site emergency procedures that are feasible and should be taken to protect the public?
Future improvemenus in the level of emergency planning scheduled by WestchesEer County include:
1.
The County Executive's County / Municipal task force on Indian Point, comprised of the ten municipalities within ten miles of Indian Point was formed in late May, 1983 and meets regularly to determine the needs and remedies for problems at the Indian Point plant.
2.
The subcommittIee on police matters has met and is currently in the process of establishing a comprehensive list of all police requirements.
Paramount to this effort is a planned County-wide police communications system.
The County has requested partial funding from the state and the two licensees so that the communications system can be implemented.
3.
A task force subcommittee on schools will be created in the near future to correct the problems associated with busing school children either out of the EPZ or from their s
homes.
Pursuant to the New York State Education Department
~
"Early Release" Program, Westchester County recently adopted a plan change that will permit school children to be sent home in the early stages of an emergency.
V
r 4.
The school subcommittee of the County Executive's task force on Indian Point will be asking the State Education Department to conduct a full-scale inquiry into our schools' ability to carry out the "Early Release" Plan in the fall of 1983, including a test of every school in the EPZ in this respect.
In the_next two months, Westchester County will be contacting every school to ask for a copy of the school's emergency information card for students.
l l
S.
A revised emergency planning brochure has been l
l completed and has been distributed to residents and businesses within the ten-mile EPZ.
6.
Emergency planning informational inserts will be distributed in Westchester County telephone books beginning in the fall of 1983.
7.
Emergency response training is an on-going activity in Westchester County.
~
8.
Installation of two-way radios in all Westchester County buses is planned for December 1983.
9.
New York State is continuing to distribute dosimeters to the County.
10.
Fun'ds have been appropriated f'or the hiring of a full-time radiological emergency planning coordinator and a full time radiological emergency planning instructor in Westchester County.
Those positions will be filled by September, 1983.
-+::
i
~
t i
I l
L 11.
TSPG is performing a complete transportation study which will consist of actual driving of buses on all bus evacuation routes, time-study exercises, route corrections and alternatives to street bus pick-up points, and which is scheduled to be completed by February, 1984.
12.
Letters of intent from bus companies will be replaced by long-term binding contracts.
O 9
D 9
e G'
e l
- l
- 0
-v e
n
u>
1 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Bef6re Admini5trative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J.
Shon
x In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK 50-286-SP (ASLBP 81-466-03 SP)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 9
(Indian Point,' Unit No. 3)
x 1
4 l
s PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT CONTENTION 3.1 Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the present plans do not meet any of the sixteen mandatory standards of 10 C.F.R.
S50.47(b), nor do they meet the standards of Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. part 50.
1.
Westchester County was not required to address most' of the emergency planning activities on site.
Licensees have extended invitations to County Officials to tour the plant (curran, Tr. 5083-84), established an emergency operations facility near the plant (Curran, Tr. 5051-54) and have provided the County Emergency Operation Center with a computer terminal for access to plant data (Curran, Tr. 5085-86).
2.
Increased efforts have been made over the last few months to meet the NRC/ FEMA guidelines.
The off site state and' local emergency planning at Indian Point has made such progress towards full conformance with the NRC/ FEMA guidelines that only
' two deficiencies were identified at the time of FEMA's April 14, 1983 report.
The def.iciencies cited in that report were (1) that there were no formal commitments from bus drivers in Westchester County to' participate in the emergency evacuation process and (2).that Rockland County apparently did not intend to complete an evacuation plan in the foreseeable future and that the State had not deveJapec specific plans.to step in for Rockland.
(FEMA Testimony Post Exercise Assessment at ix-xii).
e i
L.__h
3.
Since the indentification of these deficiencies, Westchester County Executive Andrew O'Rourke ("O'Rourke") has personally supervised and participated in a concerted effort to overcome these inadequacies.
(O'Rourke, Pre-filed Testimony, at
- p. 5) 4.
Lack of q.ommitments for bus transportation was the only significant deficiency sighted by FEMA in Westchester County.
To resolve that deficiency O'Rourke has made efforts to
- obtain commitments for buses and drivers.
To that end he has arranged numerous meetings with utilities, bus company officials, bus union leaders, county officials and state officials which have resulted in several significant breakthroughs including:
signed letters of intent to help insure the availability of buses in the event they are needed for evacuation and training programs to insure the availability of trained bus drivers.1 (Commission Order, June 10, 1983 at 11).
1 A commitment has been received from unions representing the majerity of union bus drivers to fully support a two-hour orientation course,on radiological emergency response procedures for all bus drivers in Westchester County; (2) the unions have agreed to include maintenance workers with Class 2 driver's license,s in the course, a move tha.t brings the pool from which to~ draw potential volunteers to more than fifteen hundred bus drivers; (3) bus drivers and mechanics have completed an orientation course on radiation, including an examination of the bus drivers role in a radiological emergency and the use of protective measures in radiological emergencies; (4) Westchester County has secured " letters of intent for interid contracts" from three major bus companies in the area between Consolidated Edison and the New York State Power Authority to provide up to one thousand buses for an evacuation - twice the number expected to be needed in a
" worst case" accident.
e
- mil _
~
5.
Rockland County's failure to complete an evacuation plan is largely outside of the jurisdiction of Westchester County to resolve.
We draw your attention to the fact, however, that the State of New York has submitted a revised emergency response plan that explicitly provides for a State take over of the emergency. functions for Rockland County in the event that Rockland County is unable or unwilling to provide for itself.2 (Commission Order June 10, 1983, at pp. 9-11).
6.
Westchester County has made efforts to obtain equipment and training that might be necessary in the event of a radiological emergency.
The County has secured a commitment from'New York State to. provide bus companies with training, 1,000 dosimeters and 1,000 bottles of potassium iodide tablets for the use of emergency workers in Westchester County.3 (Tr.
11,435-36).
7.
Evacuation is only one component of an overall radiological emergency plan.
Most of Westchester County's emergency plan is devoted to organization, mobilization, and identification of key, personnel and resources.
(New York State Exhibit 3)
FEMA did not cite any significant deficiencies in s
2.The Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York has been appointed to oversee this procedure and insure adequately trained personnel.
3 The County has also secured a commitment from New York State to provide 1,000 copies of the bus evacuation route directions for drivers and 96 bus route evacuation maps for bus managerial and supervisory personnel.
In addition the County will be providing the bus companies with 1,000 TLDs (film badges).
n-1
. _m Westchester in these areas.
Indeed, FEMA found that Westchester County officials performed very well in alerting and mobilization emergency operations management, public alert and notification, media relations in the joint media center, rumor control, accident assessment, health, medical and exposure control, and recovery..and re-entry.
(FEMA Supplemental Testimony, Post-Exercise Assessment, April 14, 1983, at pp.
25-33).
FEMA lauded County Executive O'Rourke for his excellent management of the EOC and praised his staff and commissioners for their performance.
In several instances, O'Rourke demonstrated independent leadership in anticipatory management of decisions involving the evacuation of parks, EBS messages, declaration of the emergency, public evacuation and theft control.
(Id,.,
at 26).
8.
Moreover, improvements have been made in the current evacuation plan and a transportation study is currently being conducted which will result in further improvements.
A consulting group, the Transportation Safety Planning Group
("TSPG#) has been hired to help indentify and correct I
deficiencies in the public transportation segment of the emergency response pl'an.4 (Id,.,
at 30).
~
4 TSPG is working on ? review of the transportation segment l
of the emergency plan.
Their study consists of the actual i
driving of buses on all bus evacuation routes, time study l
exercises and route directions.
Progress reports from TSPG l
will be made at several intervals during their study.
I-
- MR -
9.
Training is an ongoing process and, to date, police have been trained and bus driver training has been accelerated.
The County has continued and will continue to work on further improvements on evacuation plans for the safety of the plant, and the residents of Westchester County. (O'Rourke, Pre-Filed Testimony at pp. 3 and 5; Commission Order, June 10, 1983 at p.
11).
CONTENTION 3.2 Emergency planning for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is inadequate in that the plans make erroneous assumptions about the response of the public and of utility employees during radiological emergencies.
10.
Based on past experience in emergency situations where Westchester County employees, emergency workers and volunteers have been asked to respond and have proven dependable, we believe that they will continue to respond in the event of a radiological emergency.
Westchester County's Director of Emergency Planning, Anthony 'Marasco, testified that, in his opinion, based on his experience, he believes that his staff and emergency p'ersonnel will appear and perform their assigned tasks'in the, event of-a radiological em,ergency.
(Marasco, Tr. 5493).
e d
9
-73L-
____--__--_--_-__--__i
-=
CONTENTION 3.3 The present estimates of evacuation times, based on NUREG-0654 and studies by CONSAD Research Corporation and by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade &
Douglas, Inc. are unreliable.
They are based on unproven assumptions, utilized unverified methodologies and do not reflect the actual emergency plans.
11.
Westchester County has not done its own analysis or calculation of time estimate for evacuation.
However, most experts agree that the Parsons, Brinkerhoff methodology is, in fact, sound.
(Urbanik Testimony, Tr. 1863; New York State Pre-Filed Testimony at p. 9).
The TSPG transportation study currently underway will address many of these issues and resolve any problems that might exist.
CONTENTION 3.4 The administrative control of notification procedures at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is so deficient that the Licensees cannot be depended on to notify the proper authorities of an emergency promptly and accurately enough to assure effective response.
12.
Requirements for notification of the authorities have been made-in th'e NRC regulations.
(10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E).
In addition, the licensees have en,tered into a special agreement with Westchester County to provide notification beyond the.NRC's-requirements.
As a result, Westchester County
. receives telephone notice and written confirmation of any non-routine occurrences at all three units.
To date, the licensees have honored this agreement.
(Sears Testimony, Tr. 12, 376).
e
m.,__.
CONTENTION 3.6 The emergency plans and proposed protective actions
'do not adequately take into account meteorological conditions for Indian Point Units 1 and 2.
13.
The meteorological area around Indian Point is relatively stable and is not given to extreme or unpredictable weather conditions.
In addition, Westchester County has an outstanding public works department which is prepared for and experienced in handling snowstorms or other extreme weather conditions.
(Bohlander, Tr. 5743, 5747, and 5764).
14.
Westchester~ County's emergency plans contain procedures for dealing with adverse weather conditions.
(New York State Exhibit 3).
In addition, the licensees have provided the County with a computer which allows the County direct access to meteorological data which will insure a prompt and effective response.
(Curran, Tr 5085-86).
15.
Lastly, Dr. Anita Curran, Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Health; recognizes and endorses sheltering as an alternative to evacuation in the event of a radiological emergency.
(Curran, Tr 5157-58).
CONTENTION 3.7
~
The problems of evacuating children from threatened areas have not been adequately addressed in the present emergency plans.
.16.
State law requires that all schools must have generic early dismissal plans.
Schools also have lists of. adult 4
-R-
u
.2 custodians for children whose parents may not be home.
The j
Westchester County Executive has developed a plan which has come to be known as the "O'Rourke Plan" and which has resolved the most controversial aspect of emergency planning for school children.
The O'Rourke plan provides for the dismissal of school children during the alert stage, or the beginning stages of any potentially serious accident at Indian Point.
County Executive O'Rourke testified that the early dismissal concept, endorsed by the Putnam-Northern Westchester Chief School Officers Association, lessens the psychological stress problems relating to the separation of parents and children in the event of an emergency and also mitigates anticipated traffic flow problems that could be created by parents going to the schools to pick-up their children.
(O'Rourke, Pre-Filed Testimony at p.
2).
17.
Tone alert radios have been distributed to schools in the Westchester County portion of the EPZ, and worked well during the March, 1983 exercise drill.
(FEMA, Supplemental Testim 6ny, April 14, 1983, Post Exercise Assessment at p. 27).
t CONTENTION 3.9 The road system in the vicinity of the Indian' Point plant is inadequate for timely evacuation.
18.
Westchester County _ relies on the opinion of experts from the State and FEMA who have concluded that the road e
-X-
system in Westchester County is adequate for evacuation p'rposes (New York State Pre-Filed Testimony at p. 14; FEMA u
e Pre-Filed Testimony at p. 39).
19.
The County roads are used daily for transporting large percentages of the population traveling during rush hour, holidays, etc. and have proven adequate.
We have no evidence to indicate that the roads would prove to be inadequate if, in the event of an evacuation, a large percentage of the population traveled the roads.
(See, generally, Jurkowski, Tr. 5313-5316).
20.
The transportation study that is currently being conducted will suggest optimum uses of the existing road system.
Evacuation will be ordered by ERPA rather than by the entire EPZ.'
(Husar, Tr. 1539).
There is no way to determine the actual number of people who would evacuate.
Many residents in the ten-mile EPZ may shelter.
CONTENTION 3.10 The emergency plan fails to conform to NUREG-0654 in that, contrary to Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.d., proper means for protecting persons whose mo.bility may be' impaired have not been developed.
Specifically, adequate provisions have not been made for groups named in the bases submitte,d by the following contentions; WESPAC 6; Parents I, basis (22) and II, basis (7); UCS/NYPIRG I (B) (2), basis (6) and I (A), basis (7),
21.
Westchester County Executive O'Rourke is committed to meeting the needs'of the deaf, blind, handicapped, " mobility impaired" and other residents of Westchester County not only in e
e
u..
- - - a.- -..
~
the context of radiological emergency planning but in other areas as well.
(O'Rourke Cross-Examination, Tr. 11,602-03).
This ongoing concern has resulted in inprovements throughout the County and efforts that will benefit all Westchester County residents.
22.
The O'Rourke administration took an active role in designing a revised emergency planning brochure that provides return address postcards and toll free information telephone numbers.
The post cards serve as a means of self identification and the toll-free numbers are an important information source.
(FEMA Supplemental Testimony, Petrone Letter at p. 2).
23.
The resources and resourcefulness of " mobility impaired" individuals has also been considered.
It is recognized that these people have learned to cope with their handicaps and that they have organizations, family and friends to rely upon on a daily basis as well as in emergency
~
situations.
(New York State Supplemental Pre-Filed Testimony at
- p. 13).
24.
Lastly,. it is noted that special facilities for people with limited or zero mobility could either self-evacuate s
or shelter.
As an example, prisons in Westchester County have already opted for sheltering in the event of an emergency at Indian Point.
(New York State Exhibit 3, Westchester County Plan, Volume I at ppl 8-17).
CONTENTION 4.1 The plume exposure pathway EPZ should be expanded from its present 10-mile radius in order to meet local emergency needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes and jurisdictional boundaries.
25.
Westchester County participated in designing the present EPZ.
(Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Pre-Filed Testimony at p. 15).
The map of this ten-mile area has been submitted and become part of the record as Con Edison Exhibit 8, 26.
The regulations allow for only minimal expansion to provide for such local conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
(Commission Order, July 27, 1982 at p.
15).
These peculiarities were taken into account when the ten-mile EPZ was designed and the irregular shape confirms that factors other then the ten-mile radius were taken into consideration.
(Con Edison Exhibit 8).
There is no evidence of any local conditions necessitating expansion of the plume exposure pathway EPZ at.
this time.
s CONTENTION 4.2 The following specific, feasible off-site procedures should be taken to protect the public; CONTENTION 4.2(a)
Potassium iodide should be provided in an appropriate form for all residents in the EPZ.
4 n
em
m =.;..- _.._;_
. _ m_
i 27.
The distribution of potassium iodide tablets is g6verned by New York State regulations.
(New York State Exhibit 6, p. III-55).
The County is bound.by the State's determination that potassium iodide may be distributated only to emergency workers and certain non-evacuating segments of the population on the direct order of th,e County or State Health Commissioner.
(I_d_.)
CONTENTION 4.2(b)
Adequate sheltering capabilities should be provided for all residents in the EPZ.
28.
Westchester County relies on the expert opinions of the State and FEMA that such' capabilities exist.
(FEMA Pre-F. led Testimony at p. 38; New York State Pre-Filed Testimony at pp. 16 and 17).
The County favors greater emphasis on sheltering including studying this alternative and educating the residents of Westchester County regarding the sheltering option.
Almost every home could serve as an adequate sheltering facility if people remained indoors and closed windows and doors cutting off all exter'nal ventilation.
(curran, Tr. 5157-58; New York. State Pre-Filed, Testimony at p.
16).
CONTENTION 4.2(c)
License conditions should prohibit power operation of units 2 and 3 when the roadway network becomes degraded because of adverse weather' conditions.
e c
El -
m 4
i 29.
Total shut-down of units 2 and 3 in the event of adverse weather conditions could pose great danger and have significant adverse effects on Westchester County.
The County gets its power from Indian Point and is concerned about the effect on electric grid reliability if the plants were constantly shut down in storms.. (NRC Staff Pre-Filed Testimony on Questions 3 and 4 at p.
5).
30.
Extremely adverse weather which would make roads impassable is rare in this meteorological area.
In the event of such conditions, however, sheltering would be the alternative.
(Curran, Tr. 5157-58; New York State Exhibit 3, Westchester County Plan SIII H; Keller, Tr. 15,119).
CONTENTION 4.2(d)
The roadway network should be upgraded to permit successful evacuation of all residents in the EPZ before the plume arrival time.
31.
Westchester County relies,on the judgment of the State and FEMA regarding the adequacy of the road network.
The TSPG transportation study referred'to, supra, and which is currently being conducted will examine issues related to the
~
roadways in Westchester County.
It is also noted that evacuation would be conducted by ERPA rather than by evacuation of the entire EPZ.
(See, paragraphs 18-20, supra).
e e
e
.N
.-.w.=.-
CONTENTION 4.7 The emergency plan should be upgraded to provide more adequate methods for alerting and informing persons who are deaf, blind, too young to understand the instructions, or who do not speak English.
32.
The emergency plan currently in effect has considered the aforementioned situations and therefore provided return address postcards for self-identification, tone alerts for schools and special facilities and instructions for parents.
Toll-free information numbers have been established, the emergency broadcast systems can be utilized and special housing facilities are available.
33.
There is no evidence to indicate that there are significant numbers of unsupported non-English speaking persons
~
in Westchester County.
(UCS Exhibit 16).
Nonetheless, efforts are underway to identify any such people and meet their needs through civic and religious leaders.
(NRC Staff testimony on Questions 3 and 4 at p. 58).
e 4
e 0
MS m
,w, m
m CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
~
Westchester County Executive O'Rourkejs-primary concern is for the safety and well-being of the. residents of Westchester County.
This includes not only'the safety of the Indian Point Plantsthemselves,butawellthought[outandthroughlyworkable emergency response plan as well.
The benefits our' County derives from Indian Point are recognized by the O'Rourke administrat, ion 7 Therefore it is the conclusion and recommendation'of Westchester County that, as long as the Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are operating in a safe and efficient manner, they should remain operational.
Lastly, Westchestei' County strongly recommends that,the Federal Government, explore the possibility of creating a
- military unit within the current emergency military group c'alled the Readiness Command, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the United States Army or some other unit of the federal military to be _
trained under a federal plan to respond to a nuclear power plant emergency anywhere in the United States but particularly at
- Indian Point.
We propose that these specific federal troops, be trained, equipped and ready to help this County or any other area - that has a nuclear' emergency.
~
4 e
+
D" e
~
,, \\ M r
^*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7
,gg
@y NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mISSI e
3
\\
' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING D
h 4
~
@6
~
Before Administrative Judge's A 4/
James P. Gleason, Chairman %
Frederick J. Shon
\\
V M' y [
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
In'the Matter of Docket Nos.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY'0F NEW YORi(,
50-247 SP INC..(Indian Point, Unit No. 2).
50
, -286 SP.
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK July 11,1983
-(Indian Point, Unit No.-3)
)
--..-________________.)
CERTIFICATE-0F SERVICE I hereby certify that copies 'of WESTCHESTER COUNTY'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this lith day of July, 1983.
Docketing and-Service Branch Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Office of the Secretary William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon & Weiss Washington, D.C.
20555 1725 I Street, N.W.~, Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 James P. Gleason, Esq.. Chairman.-
Joan Holt, Project Director Administretive Judge Indian Point Project Atomic Safety & Licensing Board New York Public Interest Research Group 513 Gilmoure Drive-9 Murray Street-
~
Silver Spring,'Md.
20901 New York,-N.Y.
10007 Brent-L. Brandenburg, Esq.
Charles H. Pratt,'Esq.
.-Assistant General Counsel Stephen L.~Baum, Esq.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
Power Authority'of the State of New York-4?Irving. Place
- 10. Columbus Circle-New York, N.Y.1 10003 New York, N.Y.
10019 J'nathon D. Feinberg:.
Litigation Division o
Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
N.Y.S. Public Service Commission 3' Empire State Plaza The Port Authority of New York &~New Jersey.
1_2223 One:World Trade Center Albany, N.Y.
New York,.N.Y.' '10008_
s
~,
.n, r,,
r---
m,
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 Paul L.
Colorulli, Esq.
Administrative Judge Joseph J.
Levis, Jr.,Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Pamela S. Horowitz Board Charles Morgan, Jr..,Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Morgan Associates, Chartered Commission 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
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 l
New York,.N.Y.
10012 New. York, N.Y.
10048 Marc L. Parris, Esq.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
i.
Eric Thorsen, Esq.
Steve Leipsig, Esq.
County Attorney Enviromental Protection Bureau County of Rockland New York State Attorney E
11 New Hemstead Road General's Office New City, N.Y.
10956 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10047 I
^
Joan Miles Andrew P. O'Rourke Indian' Point Coordinator Westchester County Executive New York City Audub'on Society 148 Martine Avenue 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828, White Plains, N.Y.
10601 New York, N.Y.
100,10 s
Greater New York Council on David M. Pikus, Esq.
Energy Richard F.
Czaja, Esq.
c/o Dean R.
Corren,.
Shea and Gould Director 330 Madison Ave.
.New York University New York, N.Y.
10017 26 Stuyvesant Stredt New York, N.Y.
10003
- Craig Kaplan, Esq.
National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Ave., Suite 712 New York, N.Y.
10010-I
[
-2~
e L_
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regu,latory Ccmmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
Hon. Richard L. Brodsky l
N:w York State Assembly NYS Assembly Albany, N.Y.'
12248 Legislative Office Building, Rm 429 Albany, N.Y.
12248 l
Renee Schwartz, Esq.
. Charles A. Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Paul Chessin, Esq.
Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
PO Box 488 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
White Plains, N.Y.
10602 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg 200 Park Ave.
Alan Latman, Esq.
New York, N.Y. 10166 44 Sunset Dr.
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.10520 Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesper_on Stanley B. Klimberg Parents Concerned About Indian Point General Counsel PO Box 125 New York State Energy Office Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany, N.Y.
12223 Hon. Ruth Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the City Lorna Salzman of New York Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Dist. No. 4 208 W. 13th St.
City Hall New York, N.Y. 10011 New York, N.Y.
10007 Zipporah'S. Fleisher Mayor F. Webster Pierce West Branch Conservation Assoc.
Village of Buchanan 443 Buena Vist Rd.
236 Tate Ave.
New City, N.Y. 10956 Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 Judith Kessler, Coord.
David R. Lewis, Esq.
Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 300 New Hempstead Rd.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New City, N.Y. 10956 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Donald Davidoff, Dir.
Stewart M. Glass, Regional Counsel Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Federal' Emergency Management Agency
' Empire State Plaza 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1349 Yower Bldg.,'Rm 1750 New York, N.Y.
10278 Al ba ny, N.Y.
12237 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Melvin Goldberg, Staff Attorney New York Public Interest Research Group,Inc.
New York Public Interest Research Group 9 Murray St., 3rd fir.
9 Murray St.
New York, N.Y.
10007 New York, N.Y. 10007 Steven C. Sholly Spence W. Perry Union of Concerned Scientists Office of General Counsel 1346 Connectic9t Ave., N.W., Suite 1101 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20036 500 C. St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20472
~
c Y"6{f~ i < r%
GLORI SHERWOOD