ML20115B229
| ML20115B229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1966 |
| From: | Lemov I CONSERVATION CENTER, LEMOV, I. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210150348 | |
| Download: ML20115B229 (17) | |
Text
.
l 2
+
MCMI NUMER PROD. 8 UTIE, FAC. f4 k2A a
oli
,' A G99ttitt-B
\\MLC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCT 211966 *
- 9 ema ns amtre ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
't,
- $J" f
N/
y y
p K1 In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-247 OF NSW YORK, INC.
(Indian Point Station Unit No. 2) i l
APPEAL FROM INITIAL DECISION, EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT TJ1EREOF.
NOTICE OF APPEAL l
Petitioner Conservation Center, Inc., hereby appeals i
+
L from the initial decision issued in this-proceeding by the l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to e
as "AS LD"), on October 3, 1966, granting a provisional construction permit to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for the construction of a pressurized water reactor designed to operate _at 2,758 MWT, located at Indian-Point, Westchester County, New York and petitioner further' I
appeals from the ruling and order of the ASLB denying peti-i i
tioner's application for leave to intervene.
I APPELLANT'S S PECIFIC7sTIONS ON APPEAL.
t
{_
Appellant herein specifically takes exception to the t -
a following portions of the initial decision of the ASLB:
9210150348 920520 i
\\
-. ~.. -,, -., - - - -.....,.., -,.....
1.
To the denial of' appellant 's petition for inter-vention (I. D.
- p. 4).
2.
The finding that the. petition to intervene did not comply with the Rules of Practice of the Commission (I.
D.
- p. 4).
3.
The finding that the petition to intervene did not set forth the interest of the petitioner in this proceeding; that it did net show its interest which may be affected by Commission action and'that it did not state petitioner's objections (I. D. p. 4).
4.
The assumption by ASLB that the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (hereinafter referred to as "ACRS ")
concluded, that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed racility can be constructed and operated without undue risk to health and safety of the public (I. D.
- p. 10).
5.
The assumption by ASLB, that ACRS concluded, that architectural and engineering-details can be developed during construction, so as to provide assurance (when and if the facility is ultimately authorized for operation), that it can be done without undue risk to health and sa fety of the public (I.
D.
- p. 14).
6.
The finding that Con Ed has supplied sufficient
=
information to warrant the inst nce of a provisional construc-tion permit (I. D.
- p. 17)...
l
}.
7.
The finding by ASLB that there is reasonable i
assurance that the' proposed facility can-be constructed.and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and its direction that a provisional construction pc mit j
issue pursuant to Section 104 b of the Act (I. D. p. 15, 17-19).
ARGUMENT l'N SUPPORT OF I
EXCEPTIONS 1 TO 3.
t Petitioner herein filed an af fidavit with the T.SLB i
alleging that it was a non-profit Delaware corporation, I
organized to help and protect the health, welfare and safety of the public in the Hudson River Valley Basin and other areas i
l of the United States, where blight and pollution are present i
j dangers; that Commission action in this proceeding permitting the construction and operation of the atomic reactor proposed l
l affects its interest.
Said affidavit did not in.-greater r
detail disclose that petitioner's members reside in - the immediate area of the proposed site.
Petitioner therefore appends hereto an affidavit of its director, identifying its members who reside in the area of the proposed construction site, whdek would be directly affected by Commission grant of l
the application to construct and operate said' facility and AL N I
begs leave that the appended af fidavit be made a part of the l
record-of this proceeding.
t 4
i.
~.
4 Denial of intervention in stated by ASLD to be because of the failure to comply with the Ru.les of Practice, witbout. specifying which Rules were not complied with.
We asauma that untimeliness in the presentation cf the petition was not a basis for denial since the decision maken no reference thereto.
The initial decision does point to the contentions of the participants, that there was no showing of petitioner's interest, how that interest was a1fected by Commission action and the failure to state the cententions of the petitioner.
PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN T11E PROCEEDING W111CII MAY BE AFFECTED DY COMMISSION ACTION IS ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED.
The Atomic Energy Act USCA Title 42 Section 2239 provides:
"In any proceeding, the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the reques: of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding."
Part 2 of the Rules of Practice of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Section 2.714 provides :
"(a)
Any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition * * *.
The petition shall set forth
_th e interest of the pet 1tioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by Commisnion action, an:1 the concentions of the petitioner. "
(underscoring ours)
_4-
i l
1 1
-t The petition, the oral contentions advanced by 1
)
{
counnel and tho supp2 erts,ntal af fidavit appenrind hereto, t
f discione adequate factual basis for a finding of existing 1
l interest.
t 3
i ne call attention of this commission to t*.e case i
j of in,ternational Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Morkers, 1
IJL-CIO, Otc. v. Atomic Enerqv Commission, et al, wherein this l
Commission granted the labor union leave to intervene, upon a i
t l
showing that some of its members liv A in the area of the pro -
posed site for che construction of an atomic reactor.
l'h e
+
i proceedings that followed thereafter culminated in the decision j
of the United States Supreme Court (Power Reactor etc.
v.
International Union of E & W, 01 Supreme Court, 1529; 367 i
j U.S. 396).
PetitioneJ herein, seeking intervention oncits own behalf and on behalf of its members _who live in the area of i-l the proposed site for constructiori, are in the position i
l similarly situated to those of the members of the 1. terna -
tional Union of Electrical Workers.
In any event, it is submitted that the Congressional j.
intent, as expressed in the Development and Control Act of i
Atomic Energy (USCA Title 42 Section 2239), is to permit j
any person.whose interest may be affected to become a party I "
1 1
y 2
I
?
to this proceeding.
if denial of intervention is beenuse the f
members of Connervation Ceutor, Inc. havo not personally and
)
individually petitioned for intervention, then it would seem to be inconsistent with well established principles of statutory and common law, that members of a class too numerous l
to be made parties to a litigation may sue or appear by one i
or several of thv class, and represent and bid. the clata.
It is respectfully submitted that the denial of the petition for intervention here is not supportable under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the Rules of this Commission; that it is contra to decision law applicable.
i Substantial justice requires that petitioner, representing a group of residents and property owners in the area af fected, be heard on the quection of undue risk to their health and safety.
ARGln1ENT IN SUPP, ORT OF-EXCEPTIONS 4 TO 7 i
j The findings,that there is reasonabic assurance that the facility can be constructed without undue risk to health and safety, is not supported by the record.
The initial decision finds that the site proposed is
~
a in the most dentely populated area of the United States; that it is adjacent to an operating atomic nuclear facility, that k
A
~6_
l l
i 4
it fronts on the 11udson River into which polluted 1iquid j
will be discharged from said facility as well as the exinting i
}
g e n e r a t i r.g.- l a n t.
It is recognized that in the event of a i
l nerious accident, radioactive material could be transported upstream as f ar as the New York City Chelsea Water Pumping 3
l Station and beyond.
The proposed pressurized water reactor i
is designed to operate at 2,750 MUT.
It is materially different j
in design construction and capacity from any other. nuclear plant 1
so far designed and constructed for ' peaceful use.
Thero is a i
1 1
lack of experience in the construction and operation of such
}
}
a reactor.
The report of ACRS and the findings of ASLB disclose l
the following innovations of the proposed reactor l-
"Most of these items are withis. the range of l
established technology and-engineering practico.
j-The others will be the. subject of a development program proposed by Con-Ed.
The-development of the final design of the containment-and the accident mit-gating components will be carefully followed by the AEC Staff as recommended by the ACRS."
[k The initial decision quotes and ndopts the report of ACRS relative to the safety injection systems for flooding the l
core in the event of a pipe rupture in the primary system, s
noting that an increase in - the flow capacity is a necessity; that changes and improvements of design and construction in other areas of the facility are called for and that the
\\~y
\\
\\
\\
N:.
. _. _ _ _ _... _..-._. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ __._ _ _ _ _ _ _. m i
1 i
t i
regulatory sto ff of TCC and ACRS would require review of finni l
proposed changes prior to irrevocable commitment on construction.
Both ACRS and ASLD recognize that it is required to further j
re<1uce the probability of rupture of the primary system and 4
l that applicant should engage in studios of new design. and i
l Cabrication of the entire primary system to provide for maximum i
1 protection'against accidents: all of which are to be reviewed i
i i
l l
The gravity of the foregoing proposals for changes 4
l and improvements is reficcted in the-following statement of the initial decisione "Those requcats by ACRS that further data, j
particularly in reference to emergency core cooling nystems and-portinent structural memborn within the-pressure vessel, be made availabic for its review
'... prior to irrevocab'.c commitments relative - to construction of these items.', reflect a concern
_not' heretofore expressed in ACRS reports."
4 (underscoring ours)
(I. D. p..12) 4 Notwithstanding the: foregoing, ASLB concludes that i
applicant will in the normal courso report as to its progress in developing _new design and technology;.that-it is the duty e
of.ASLB only to consider the technical design presented; that l
the recommended changes relating - co sa fety standards were not 4
under the Rules of the Commission relevant-in the determination-l t
i of the issue presented to ASLB.
4 1
i
-g.
. _.., ~. _
In making the ultimate finding that the proposed racility can be conntructed and operated without undue rish to health and safety of the public, ASLD completely ignored its findings and the report of ACRS, to the offect that architectural and design criteria involving construction of emergency core cooling systems, provision for an increase in the flow nystem and the safeguard of pertinent structural members within the pressurc vese.cl, the nee 6 for. providing new design and fabrication techniques for the entire primary system to reduce the possibility of primary system rupturer the need to design and to provide for in-service inspection methods to detect incipient trouble in the entire primary system during reactor operation and-to detect = leakage-and to otherwise provide for maximum protection against serious s
accidents, subject to review of all of these vital matters by AEC and ACRS.
In effect, the Board completely abdicated. its function of passing upon the safety element of the new design and techniquc3 to be developed by the applicant in the construction of the facility.
The Board justified its position-by engaging in an exercise of semantics in stating:
t-i i
"The review by the titomic Safety and
-Licensing Daard is limited to a consideration of thoso criteria and technical design features which have been presented and which in the nonrd's opinion are adequato to provide reason-able assurance that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.- The Rules of the commission permit theDoard, upon making that finding, to authorize in its initial-decision the issuance of a provisional conntruction permit."
(I. D. p. 13, 14)
It is_ clear that ASLB's findings of serious inadequacios in the design and construction of the facility relating to safety and its recommendat.. ins for study and submission of new design and techniques to overcome the probability of serious accidents, is wholly inconsistent with its ultimate finding that:
there is reasonable assurance that the proposed facility car. be constructed and operated without undue risk to health and safety of the public."
(I. D. p.
15)
(
1hc Atomic Energy Act imposes an affirrantive duty upon this Commission to regulate construction and operation of power reactors in a manner which will assure the health and safety of the public. - The Doard determined that issue impro-perly by misinterpreting its powers and functions.
This Commission, at this stage of the proceeding, has not sufficient proof that it has reasonable assurance that the reactor may be constructed and operated at the proposed site without unduc-risk to health and safety of the public.
\\
\\;
ieea maiung 4
4
)
CO:;3TEUCT1 W: li!D OP1" T IOM OF T:11:
PROPOSJD. 7sCTO1:, TMVOINE3 110U 3 U Ts i, -
II's '.?,ttn CO';:4 7 Di m tsT T O M F., Fnn '.l111C11 110 E"tO:"1.:UCl: T!IST3 T!!E COf'!Pf 0S TOM 210t f.D, TM Tile _T?iTURC3T OF l'UDI.IC 0U G TiFETY, PCiU1TT IMTijnV31' TION TdfD DIRECT FU'1THER !1E!. RINGS ON TsLTEPl!ATIVE GITES AMD TIIE CONSTRUCTIO!! OF THE REACTOR Ui1DERGROUND.
This f acility _ dif fers from any of the other reactors an uany respects.
It is the-largest reactor so far designed.
It is experitnantal and the sito is in a densely populated area.-
Under the circumstances, public interventioni in this
- >roceeding should not be lightly denied.
Unanticipated natural phenomenn st.ch as floods or other catastrophic incidents have not been considered as safety hazards.
Petitioner desires an opportunity to present proof on this _ phane of safct'i hazards.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor' Safeguards. recom -
rended in 1966 that sudden catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel previously classified as an incredible accident and one that need not be taken into account in reactor safety determina--
- tions, should be reclassified as a possible accideat hazard and that future nuclear power-station plans, design to provide
-against such possible consequences.
Pct itioner desires.an oppottunity to-present proof on this phase of safety hazards.
In view of the large population within--the area _of twenty-five _ miles. of the proposed - site. - exceeding _ ten million,
l 11 -
J
',u bi it not be proper to consider an arca with less density I
n:-population?
j As stated by Dr. Edward Teller, in the Journal of i
l cetroleum Technology, May 1965:
"A nucicar reactor could put its radioactive poison under a stabic inversion layer and concentrate onto a few hundred square miles in a truly deadly l
Tashion."
A major ator c plant accident at Indian Point 2, j
only twenty-five miles from the largest city in the world, i
would present untold loss of life and destruction of property.
Evacuation of the population could not be resorted to if i
New York City is within the impact arca.
[
Petitioner and others interested in the subject i
atter, lay and expert, point to a safety element-in con-t structing atomic reactors underground. - This alternative has I
not been considered or passed upon by the Board.
t l
{
The 1962 AEC Report to Congress, page 114, says:
"Nucicar power could also improve our
[
defense posture; it would not burden the trans-portation nystem during national emergenciest i
furthermore, the ' containment ' required for
-safety reasons could, Lif desired, be achieved at little, if any, extra cost by underground installation, thus ' hardening' the plants l
against nuclear attack. "
if It is the purpose of petitioner to offer expert proof 4
)
that underground construction sould constitute a-great safety i i
, \\-
measure in case.'of accident.
i 4
i i
{ -
To be nhut off from presentina this form of proof is completely inconsistent with the intant of the Congressional Act and the public needs of the situation.
It ocems that denial l
to intervene was seized upon, in order to foreclose public participation on this all important proposal, which af fects the health and uafety of no many peopic.
CONCLUSIOj],
T!!E I!7TERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE TilAT PETITIOMER DE GRANTED LEAVE TO Il1TERVENE Af10 TilAT IT BE PETU4ITTED TO OFFER SUCl!
PROOF 7.S IS PERTIMEUT TO Tile ISSUE OF WHETilER T!!E FACILITY CAN DE OPEP1sTED 11ITilOUT UNDUE RISK TO HEALT11 Af7D jiAFETY OF TIIE PUDLIC.
Respectfully submitted, IRVING LD10V Attorney for Petitioner-Appellant Conservation Center, Inc.
1350 Avenue of the Americas New York, N. Y.
10019 Circle 6-2060 i
l
\\
\\ -
i i
i i
i UliITED STATUS OF A!1 ERICA 3
4 I
ATO:4IC ENERGY CO:04ISSION 1
i i
l In the lihtter of AFFIDAVIT i
CO:130f,IDATED EDISON CO:4PAliY OF Dochet No. 50-247 l _
NCi YORK, INC.
i (Indian Point Station Unit No. 2) l STATE OF-NCi YORK _
)
l COUNTY OF NDi'YOPS
) ss.
i i
IARRY DOGART, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1 1.
I am the Director of the Conservation Center, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, petitioner for intervention herein.
i 1
l 2.
I make this affidavit in support of an appeal from i
l
-the initial decision rendered herein by the Atomic Safety and i
Licensing Doord.
[
3.
Petitioner has about 300 members, many of whom' l
I reside within an area of twenty miles from the site..of the i
Indian Point Station Unit No.
2.
A list of some members who l
l reside-in said area is attached.
Said personn and their f amilies occupy and own property in ? caid area.
4.
The nembership of Conservation Conter, Inc.,
l.
similarly situated, on whose behalf this petition is brought,-
j constitute a class too numerous to bi y all before_the Atomic Ener:;y Commission as intorvenors.
i I
.s
l 4
4 4
a 5.
Doponent herein was duly authorized to file the l
petition for intervention and is duly nuthorized to pronceute thin appeal from the initial decision.
Deponent resides at 77 11omcwood Avenue, Allendale, New Jersey, which is approxi-4
.mately twenty miles from the site involved, for the construction i
j of Unit No.
2.
W11EREFORE, deponent prays that this affidavit be l
accepted and considered upon this appeal.
f Sworn to before me this day of October, 1966.
- Wr 9h,"
i,9 ) [fp d h 4
H AaniD MICH 'LLS nonny rupitc. W.c of New Ye i
t49. 012688380
~
Quainicd m 0:ces County
{
-missi.m tipiies Martn 30. 1967 4
+
i l
4 1
i 1
M e
4 4
5 k'
r
I M..c. :ss o f
The Conservation Cer.tcr Members t
1.'illiam C. Mordwi n 730 Fifth Avenue New York City
)
Dr. and Mrs. Albert Lamb 301 Lydecker Englewood, N.J.
Mr. George D. Lamb 50 North Stretc Rye, New York i
Edgar Lansbury 1220 Park Avenue New York, N.Y.
Barbara Twycffort 224 Stratton Road New Rochelle, N.Y.
Syndor H. Wal'scr Sharon Tpke Millbrook, N.Y.
i Edwin M. Vess
- Upland Lane Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
l Herman Kahn Hudson Institute Harmon, N.Y.
Michael J. Treacy 3129 Kingsbridge Terrace D ro nx, N. Y.
Harvey Hauptner 110 Day Avenue Cit'y Island, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Albert Tibbets RFD 1 Drewster N.Y.
j Miss Anne Thornton c/o Read N. Mt. Drive Ardsley-on-Hudson N.Y.
l liss Pauline dierler Cornwall, N.Y.
Dr. Penelope She sod-Angola Road Cornwall, N.Y.
J.S. Satterthwaite 40 Grandview Terrace Tenafly, New Jersey Mrs. Ray Ruge Cornwall New York
}&. and Mrs. John Riordan 71 Flower Avenue Hastings-on-Hudson N.Y.
}!rs. Susan Reed North ).c.
Drive Ardsley-on-Hudson, N.Y.
l Irmarta Putnam Imperial House 150 East GSth Street New York, N.Y.
l Mrs. Helen B. Putnam 340 East 51st Street New York, N.Y.
l Dominick J. Pirene 120 The Esplanade Mt. Vernon, N.Y.
D.H. Pettit 122 Hoyt Street Stanford, Conn.
Robert Perkins 154 East Clinton Street Tenafly, N.J.
l Margaret Patterson Cold Spring on Hudson, "ew Y7rk Mr. Freccis Parkman Three Schools Foundation Englewood, N.J.
Mr. and Mrs. A. Olivieri 560 Riverside Drive New York, N.Y.
10027 Mrs. Coudert Nast Tappan Zee Terrace South Nyack, N.Y.
Mrs. }t.C.S. Miller 98 Hillside Avenue Englewood.,. N.J.
]
Dr. George R. Herriam, Jr.
635 West 165th Street New York, N.Y.
10032 H.E. McGrew M.D.
171 East 64th Street New York, N.Y.
10021 Edgar T. Mesd 1158 Pifth Avenue New York, N.Y.
10029 H.A. Mathews 129 Hichwood Avem e Tenafly, N.J.
Dudicy D. Martin North Broadway Upp er Nyac s, N.Y.-
2 I'rithjof Lunde 724 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y.
Carl S. Rowe 175 Drewster Road Scarsdale, N.Y.
David Lowentht.1 75 Itiverside Drive New York, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Vm Lewis RFD 4 Rtc 32 Dox 240 Newburgh, N.Y.
Mr. William E. Leuchtenburg 56 Duena Y!sta Drive Dobbs Ferry N.Y.
Dr. Harold J. Leonard 42 Round Hill Road Scarsdale, N.Y.
Mrs. Kent Leavitt Millbrook, New-York Mrs. Malcolm U. Alexander 465 Engic Street Engelwood, N.J.
Thomas 5. Andrew 10 Hyrtic Demarest, N.J.
Mrs. Davis Lee Baker 62 Hunter Avenue New RochcIle, N.Y.
Ethel L. Darton 72 Spring Lane Engewood, New Jersey Mrs. Eric I. Dolton 16 Storm Street Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.
Mrs. ' John D. Brooks 9 Cay Street New York, N.Y.
Au'is A. Callaway 20 Douglas Place Ea stches ter, N.Y.
Margaret C. Clark 303 Johnson Avenue Englewood, N.J.
Eveyln E. Clark RFD #2 Hillsdale, N.Y.,
Mrs. LeRoy Clark 267 Chestnut Englewocd, N.J. -
07611 Mr. Roland Clement National Audubon Society 3130 Fif th Ave,- New York, N.Y.
Helen C. Cole Masters School Dobbs Fercy, N.Y.
Mrs. Barclay Cooke 140 Linden Avenue Englewood, N.J.
Mr. and Mrs. J. Dennis ton 0tterkill Road Newburgh, N.Y. RD 4 t
Robert Duncan 15 Rochambeau Road Scarsdale, N.Y.
Douglas Elliott 10 Hillside Avenue Er.glewood, N.J.
Miriam Ennet 32 Lakeview North Tarrytown, N.Y.
Mrs. Loren A. Fay Snake Hill Road Carrison, N.Y.
Martha S. Fleisher ISO Riverside Drive New York, N.Y.
Lucy Kavaler 118 Riverside Drive New York, N.Y.
Richard U. Ford Stanwood Road RD #1 Dox 202 Mt. Kisco, N.Y.
Dr. Carmine Freda 85 River Road Grandview on -Hudson Nyack, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Henry P. Friend 102 Hillside Englewood. N.J.
Mrs.
C.E.
Greenwood 34 Axtell Drive Scarsdale, N.Y.
Ruth D. Griffiths 5555 Netherlands Avenue Riverdale, N.Y.
10471 Mrs. D.B. Hammond 15 Odell Strect-Yonkers, N.Y.
Frank Hilton Apt. 10B 780 Riverside Drive New York, N.Y.
10032 A.F. Kitchel Dinney Lanc
-Old Greenwicho Conn.
- 4
XCD MMBLR K
/
k, UMTEC 5TAtES N'
'4 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
^
/O'1(L. M.
t t
.i Q
W ASNINGTON. O C,
- Gt45 hnt a b Nm-k[}l s-L s
dudJw ()tk+ tl October.,8,
- 296o, i
d.:ith U. 3rockhcrt, Icq.
Councel for National Parks Association f
i 3reckhcrt, Eeckcr & Dorcey 1700 X Street, N.
'r.'.
Mac;sington, D. C.
2C?O5 solidated Edicen Ccapany of New York, 20.
In re.
in Foint Station Unit No. 2 1 u.et No. 50-2L/
' car Sir:
Ecceip 10 acknowledged of your letter dated October 13, 1966, in the cheve matter.
Tne Initial Lacision in this proceeding vac l
nade effective Cetober 14, the date upon which your letter van received. Your letter has been trancmitted to the Office of the Secretary for its further atttntion.
In reference to the ccamente made by you respecting the evi-dence in the record concerning the need by Consolidated Idiccn for further senere. ting capa:ity, your attention is directed to the s.atenents, representatienc cad evidence presented in the two pre-hearing ccnferences ab vel.1 ao at the evidenticry hearing held en September 14 At thic latter hearing, witnecces Cleary and Cravford testified in sc e de uil respecting these matters.
Che further reference made in your letter to sc=c cffer by F.iddle Atlantic Power Cc pany relates to a matter not properly a part of the record.
4 Very truly ycurc,
.& ~ Y v m, beduel W. Jensch, Chairman Atc ic Safety & Licensing Ecard cc:
Fr. Arvin L. Upton 9
FJ. Troy 3. Ccnner, Jr.
Fr. Jcceph F. Sci:..o 4
4 s
DOCIETED 9'.
MC s.
OCT1819S6 >-
f h.
/ Y,%
,(~
b CN4 ff St In 14*
Q&
exa mmm.
m l1 1 Cb SQ, g,p I
J
l i
LUITED STATES ATOPIC ENEALW COMMISSION i
DOCKET NO. 50 247 CONSULIDATO) EDISON COMPANY OP NEW YORK, INC.
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE 01 PROVISIONAL CONSTRtCTION PERMIT Please take notice that, pursunt to the Initial Lecision of the Atottic Safety and Licensing Board, dated Octcber 3,1965, the Director of the Division of Reactor Licensing has issued Provisional Construction Pertnit No. CPPR-21 to Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., for the construction of a pressurized water nuclear reactor, designated ar.
Indian Point Station thit No. 2, to be located at Consolidated Edison 1
Company's Indian Point site on the Hudson River in the Town of Buchanan, Westchester County, New York.
The construction permit is in the form set forth in Attachment 'B" to the Initial Decision e, cept that the allocation figure specified in paragraph 4 has born increased to reflect the greatest quantity of special nuclear materiel (24,325 kilogrems of uranium 235) outstanding during the term of the license, and a typographical error in line 1 of subparagraph 2.B.
has been corrected to change the work " operated" to " located".
A copy of the Initial Decision is on file in the Comission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N. V., Washington, D. C.
FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Orizinal,lgned by C, r Ca..
Peter A. ' Fbrris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Ated at Bethesda, Maryland j
this 14 of October, 1966.
d
- 1. h m
(J FL.
'T 4 d'/6
',I,llll Cil!!SurVillillIl Culll!!r
/&4d..rf.s c
's Lyrt< s. u sj L *
- _,,,
f!Y Y /f. -
866 UNITED NATIONS PL AZA NEW YORK. N. Y. h%th t* sf f
10017
(...., i, y 1/ >
(.f 6/?,f Y Octner 14 1966.
Dr. Glenn T. Senberr, CPcirncn Ato~ic Enerry Co.ission Wasbincter, D.C.
Dear Dr. Seaborr :
W Yle apprecitte your letter of October 13 nasoring us of the reviev: of the Initial Decisic on the construction opplication of Conso114ctet Edisor fer Indinr Point Unit 2.
In preporinr a propric te 1eral actior, I sour't to obtain o ecpy of the record of the proceedings of the Public Eectinr hold Sectember 14-1" at Buchanan
?:e-> York.
Counsel Irv$rr Lemov, vi o Pas b
been retained.iust recently, was not present at the hearinrs nr.d sPould know what in contained in the Of ficial deccrd.
I sourht ' tbrourh an associat e $ n 7'ashir rten to o'toin a copy but learn that it is availo'le only at S 8< cents per pare, or over $1WO for the trans-cript. This poses a bordsbip and on expense of a tr$ p to WasPineton for either myself or I.'r.
Lenov.
Could you possibly arrange for us to borrow a copy or censult a copy here in ycur !!e"> York cffice. We could pay a noninal price for the proceedings.
Sincarely, fcr N
Larry Ec M }3Q LE/jd Director e
r, -.
L,.
4
,.. 3 4
e 4
S \\ DN h _ {p~w.
UTf t
i (1
~
J
)
(d.o-f>w w. s! w.
) fr a
c s
- r.. :-
u 1
-FR cN 7:o cvAT:s
'h. J-x. -
n. m.. a,..N, _.- s.,
w-,,,....... _g. m.
~1
. ~, - _.
j
.w s
ww.ms es o.c. me
,f s,
s 4
k'Q.m Y+
007 2 0 1555 i
i 1
l
- .z::oaAw.7. 70n C:: Aire'/.:a SE.:.30as CO:CilSS10:0.R J00: SON CO:CGSSIO:CR SAEIT COD:ISE 0:CR R.02Y i
CO:7.ISSIO;CR 7/JE 1
SU3 JECT:
COSSCLIDr'SD EDISON STOC:CIOLLERS ' SUIT TO INJOIN CONSTRUCTION OF "IND1/U: POINT 2" RE/.CTOR 4
On October 21, 1966, a stockholder of Consolidated Edison filed a complaint (copy attached) in the New York Suprece 4
Court (a trial court, not an appc11 ate wourt) seeking an i
injunction " restraining Con Ed... from prosecutit.g the application (to AEC3 for the construction of a second atomic power plant at Indian Point, k'estchester County, New York;" and restraining Con Ed from constructing the i
plant.
The corplaint notes that obtaining a provicional construc-tion permit from AEC is no assurance, under /IC 's rules,
that an operatin3 licenca vill cver be granted by AEC aftcr the plant is actually constructed.
It then alleges that'it would be "grossiv improvident and waste'ul" for con Ed to go ahead and construct the plant under s'ch circumstances.
Tne cocplaint alleges that "the plant may be an operatin;
,~
f ail,.re by reason of ' buss ' in the now and untected design",
and points out that of "the eleven public utility atomic i
pcwcr plants through the.nited S 2*.es there have been vary-ing degrees of non-succost with tne greatest failure being Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant resulting in a $120,000,000 plcnt of dubious cerit not delivering power."
l
?
r'm
)
n s.-
r n
I
(
f 3
Commissioners 2-The complain; cllc;cs tact :he plcn: "ccnnot ba constructed cnd operated withou: undue rich to hccith cad scic:y of the populccc in one of the n:os doncely crecs [ sic) of the United States."
The plaintiff did not rcquest c temporcry rest.cinin; crder pending a hocring (which =cy not tckc plccc for sovercl vecks) on his compicint. Thus, subject to the proceedings presently pending before the Commission, Concolidc:cd 2dtson is free to procccd ct Indicn Poin:. The filin; of the si,it d^es not inter-Icre with the Cc==icsion preccedings and no such re'.icf is requested by the plaintiff.
Con Ed's cttorneys arc propcring to respond to the co;plcint.
1 vill follow develop =cnts closely cnd keep the Co=rtssion informed.
Signed Joseph F. Hennetsey Josepn F. Hennessey Gencrcl Counscl Attachrent:
Complaint cc: Director of Regulation Gencrcl 1:cnc;er S ecrctcry c.
N 01 ' " ' (tE"N "?"A
?-
. rj "j t G';
s. :..#
.:: re
'. tj g,,
i a
e ng l
i I
i t'
l s-
~,
/r E~ C 4 " q yy 4tt r pf 5Y '
-Q, () I,. )
- ~
(,6 ) 2 3 /W Bevesber 8, 1966
~
Irving Eamov, Eng.
1350 Awsme et the Americes New Test, Bow York 38019 Bea B e Mutter et h aa m ated Biteam o n.e eer et sov Tes t, Zee., B eekst an. 50-247 aser nr. sener
~
I en to year tagstry er Neventer 3.1966. Deer
~ W WE 3 b Omunisstem la its 41se're4 tem any ellow eral eremesst 'agen the regasst er e party ante la his esseyttees er trist, or its een taittative.' se party, has in ite Same er snee a regseet ser seal arposant. tamla
- c. <
~
~
$the,
schoede seal argummut am its sua taitiative, pes % et eeures,to M ' afviset.
'D *: m -
helseet is e esgr et the e===imatan's Rdes of Freeties.
f.".
b tye]{p
> ions w s
E.s.IkCod W. 3. Escent Secretary to the ammain h
~:
Bhtlosere $
t
. As stated above
.y bec:
D. C. Files
. Sta. Files 7 FWblic Proceedings Branch Docket No. 50-947
^
s t
$UltMARE W w
j.
11/-/66 g
12/7/66
-7 on.
y,_
.+.