ML20115A268
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1.
'$k A
[ +,, }q**4
~
-[Au1Deeember 23,-1970-g SECY-R 113-r m
Yi 0b,
- Rh,,,,,,,
?
p,e 5 / ".
Ch-' (.{
h?2-CONSOLIDATED EDIMt; COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC-.
(INDIAN FUlNT biiMMWahAT1NU UNIT #2) qc [ ~
BM:T no. 50-a47 y
Note by the Secretary
- 1. The attached _ Answer of Applicant-to Petition of_' Hudson Fiver Fishermants Association-for Leave to Intervene and Answer of-AEC Regulatory Staff to Petition of the Hudson River _ Fisherman's'
^
Association to Intervene is circulated for the information of-.the Commission.
[
- 2. Related documents in this matter'have'been issued as SECY-R 99 and SECY-R 109.
L'. B. - McCool Secretary of the Commission NO. _ OF-NO.
OF DISTRIBUTION COPIES DISTRIBUTION:
COPE 5 Secretary 7
General Counsel 6'
i Chairman Seabcrg 2-Compliance 6,
- Cornissioner Ramey 1
Congressional-Relations 1!
Commissioner Johnson 1:
Environmental. Affairs :
l' Commissioner Larson 1-Inspection
-1 Commistloner-1-
Materials Licensing 2, -
General Manager 2
Operational-. Safety 2;
Deputy Gen. Mgr.
1 Public Information 2
- Dir of Regulation 3
Rad. Prot._ Standards-2! -
Deputy Dir. -.of Regulation 1
Reactor Dev. & Tech, Asst.Dir.of Reg.for Admin.
1 Reactor' Licensing _
2l -
1 Tech. Adv.to the Dir.of Reg.
1
-Reactor Standards 2
Asst.Dir.of Reg.for-Reactors 1-StateL& Lic.LRelations 2'
-Asst. Gen. Mgr.
1-New York Operations 1:
Exec. Asst. to GM 1
Chairman, AS&LBP 2
Special Asst. to'GM 1
I t
9210140191 920520
_PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR f,1
- 1
+ 1
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
\\
in the Matter of
)
)
Consolidated Edison Company of )
Docket No. 50-247 New York, Inc.
)
(Indian Point Unit l'o. 2 )
)
ANSWER OF APPL: CANT TO PETITION OF HUDSON RIVER FISHIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR L : AVE
O INTERVENE By a peti: ion 'iated December 14, 1970 Hudson River Fishermen's Association seeks to intervene in the 4
above-captioned proceeding.
Applicant does not object to the participation of HRFA as a party with respect to the issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing governing this proceeding.
Applicant wiFheS to point out that many of the matters alleged by HRFA in.ts patition (including those contentions concerning the then cal, thermal, and other nonradiological e f fects of Unit No. 2) do not relate to such issues and are not proper subjects for consideration under the Commission's regulations applicable to this proceeding.
(Nevertheles s,
Applicant notes that it is taking steps reasonably calculated p_
w 4
3 y
e
-y
-2 to eliminate or minimize any-adverse nonradiological ef fects which might occur with operation of Unit No. 2.
On matters of water quality, including thermal effects, there have been extensive studies and design efforts, and Applicant has submitted to the Commission a certifica-tion by the S' tate of New York that there is reasonable a: :urance that the combined effluent from Units 1 anel 2 will not contravene applicable water quality standards for the Hudson River.)
With respect to RREA's contentions concerning.
radioactive liquid waste releases, Applicant states that such releases will comply with Part 20 of the Commission's regulations and denies that they will adversely affect fish and other aquatic life.
HRFA contends that the Commission is required to fila a detailed statement of environmental impact of Unit No.. under the -National Environmental Policy Act.
It further contends that the comments of certain -specified Federal and State agencies should be included.
Applicant wishes 'to point cut that a detailed statement was filed in this proceeding on Noyember 20, 1970, and that the
.. comments of each of the agencies listed by HRFA were i
sought, obtained, and included either directly or indirectly.
'In addition, the comments of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior on the Unit No. 2 application have been separately sought and obtained-by the AEC; they are contained in a letter dated October 16, 1970, which is attached as Appendix G to the-safety
^
Evalt" tion of the regulatory staff in this proceeding.
With respect to the contentions contained in the second full paragraph of the fourth page of the petition, the Applicant den tes that the design of Unit No. 2 is inadcquate and states that an Atomic Energy Commission license should be granted if the requirements of the Atomic Enercy Act and Commission regulations are satisfied.
Applicant also denies the contentions of the thir'd full paragraph on the fourth page of the petition.
i On pages 5 and 6 of its petition HRFA outlines a number of subjects on which it plans to examine witnesses and present testimony.
Applicant notes again that many of r ubjects are not proper for consideration in\\
these this
4
-4 proceeding and reserves the right to object to such examination or testimony during the course of the proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE Attorneys for Applice.it
's
/
By
~
/>
Arvin E. Upton '/
j j
Partner
//
4 Dated:
December 21, 1970 i
4 l
n W
L n
n 6
4 i
ew r-e?
4e- = -
rg=
-wv--
e