ML20115A317
| ML20115A317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1971 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210140215 | |
| Download: ML20115A317 (3) | |
Text
jil%
i' ftc J ~j b.n '
m e c.
I XPb c, u nn n7'89,&
J GT Files UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION W AS HIN GTON 20145 G1 LICCTO CCPT Date Perch 12. 1971 NOTE IDR THE COM?CSSIO!ERS Re: Consolidated FAison rec eny of New York (Indien Point 2)
Docket No 50 247 The attached filing is for your inforr.ation. - The matter is presently before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
W. b. McCool Secretary of the Cdssion Attachment 921014021S 920520 PDR ORG NRCHIST PDR
OLE 1 hJMbik tim. A ulu. lac. bD-N1 u
p gettiilt Wilt C
p-,
MAN 12 I97l
- n0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
- p. e a, ucruis1 f e" * *'*
//
h BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN'; BOARD
'b A
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
)
Docket No. 50-247
)
(Indian Point Station Unit No. 2 )
)
AEC REGUIATORY STAFF ANSVER TO MOTION or HUDSON RIVER FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR A DETERMINATION OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVtRONMEb7AL ISSUES Introduction In a motion dated March 2, 1971, an intervenor in this proceeding, Hudson River Fishermen's Association (Association) requested the presiding atomic safety and licensing board (board)to rule that
- 1) the board will consider all aspects of the environmental impact of the operation of Indian Point Unit No. 2 prior to the issuance cf a decision as allegedly required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and 2) the board, at its own initiative will explore and consider all aspects of such environmental impact, regardless of whether the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, (applicant) has submitted certificates of compliance with federal, Inc.
state or regional environmental requirements, and regardless of whether or not intervenors raise any environmental issues.
A memo-I s
n\\gt-.M f-D
~~
yx
~
4
..~
=. -
. o' 1 -
L 1/
randum in support of the motion was attached thereto.
L i
Discussion The-arguments. presented by the Association in-support of its motion are' contained in the supporting memorandum, our review.of this memo-rendum indicates that the arguments made by'the Association are es-sentially. identical to-those made by--intervenor Environmental Defense t
Fund, Inc. (EDF) in its motion, dated February 3,
1971, and supporting memorandum for a determination of environmental issues.
The Associ-l ation contends that 1) NEPA requires the board to consider fully Lthe total environmental impact of the facility before the. issuance of a I
decision, 2) there is no' legal justification for limiting such. review to hearings noticed af ter March 7, - 1971-and 3), the board has authority l
to disregard the Commission's regulations in Appendix D to 10 CFR~
Part 50 which they allege are unlawful.
c I
We have rebutted essentially these smae arguments 'in our Answer to 1/L the EDF motion which we filed on March 10, 1971, ik) usef ul 'purpos e -
~
will be served in repeating -them in thisi Answer. Accordingly, we adopt as our response-to this motion,-our Answer.to the EDF motion filed
- 1/.
~
It should be noted that: although; the motion was dated March 2.1971, the AEC: regulatory staff has not, as of the date of this Answer,-
- been served with a copy by the moving intervenor.
It was only through chance that we were informed of.the existence of the motion. We were subsequently provided with a copy of the motion by the Public Pro =
ceedings Branch of the Office of the Secretary of the Commission.
i
_._.-.-.m_,
-.,m.
m,...,_.,,,,,....-..-,,,..,-,,_,,4m,_..~,.,..,--.,,_
_. -.,,,, _....,, - -., ~.,. _,,, _..
4 3-on March 10, 1971.
4 Conclusion For the reasons stated above, and included in the Government's reply brief in the case of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Cotamittee v. AEC (CA D.C. No. 24,871) which will soon be provided to the board and 4
parties, we are opposed to the Association's motion, and request that it be denied in all respects.
Respectfrally sulunitted,
)
/
A'
}4 *
,{ }
Hyro Karman Counsc1 for AEC Regulatory Staff 3
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of March, 1971 1
a
,,..m.
.n n.
o
/
n
!N b ~,
(b f /$ SQ Y
fccc 1
L h2b}w'k g
No.
16 Date 3/17/T1 pf 5 M-2._
DIVISION OF COMPLIAUCE G1 E02 800
[.3 kN A'IOMIC ENERGY COW.ISSION NOTIFICATION OF AN 171CIDENT OR OCCURRENCE
~{ ? % clIC Facility CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPAlb (DiDIAN PODiT 2)
Problem Our inspector was informed by the licensee on March 15, 1971, that one of the four pedestals for the polar crane had been damaged during the contain-nent leak rate test.
The polar crane is located within the containment and is used for all major lifts (e.g., lifting the reactor vessel head).
The pedestals, hollow rectangular support columns, were fabricated from fcar steel plates that were velded together at the corners. Apparently, t.he high containment air pressure during the containment leak rate test (54 psig) caused one of the hollow pedestals to buckle.
Se licensee stated that it vill take five to six'veeks to repair and inspect she polar crane. The unavailability of the polar crane directly affects the critical path schedule.
Action Further action by CO vill be based on the results of the licensees's investigation.
The JCAE has been notified by telephone. There has been no press release.
Contact Further information on this problem can be obtained from:
F. J. Nolan
- X7h21 L P. O'Reilly - X7421 h
R. H. Engelken - X7356 sb Distribution - See page 2 N-
\\
\\
)
i 2-Distribution Chair =an Seaborg (2)
'L. D. Lov, 00 Coc=issioner Ramey F. Schroeder, DE Commissioner Johnson A. Giambusso, CO Coe.missioner Larson R. C. DeYourg, DE GeneralManager(2)
L. Kornblith, Jr., CO General Counsel (2)
J. Fouchard, PI seGretary (2)
R. D. O'Faill, 00:1 (2)
O. M. Kavana6, AGMR M. Shav, RITI h
H. L. Price, DR J. A. Harris, PI C. K. ' Beck, DR J. D. Anderson, INS M. M. Mann, DR R. F. Fraley, ACRS (3)
C. L. Henderson, DR D. Muller, DE S. H. Hansuer, DR CO Regions I, II, III, IV, V P. A. Morris, DE DE Reading File E. G. Case, DRS REG Central File
~'
- 6
.a lr
- '\\
. tj,. - e.
4 5
I f
J t
. et
.g 8
f.
e
^1
- -og
. 44 I
'wi 3
.s,
t
- I If r,* P' ?. ra$
9 1
\\
-