ML20065B935

Response in Opposition to Licensee 830207 Motions Objecting to Ny City Council Member Testimony Re Commission Questions 3 & 4.Licensees Fail to Make Specific Objections to Specific Proffered Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065B935
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/18/1983
From:	Kaplan C NATIONAL EMERGENCY CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20065B892	List: ML20065B888 ML20065B917 ML20065B921 ML20065B935
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8302230572
Download: ML20065B935 (10)

Text

.

4

^ ^: nETEr a,

'83 Qg pp 477 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Q f~ -

Before Administrative Judges James P.

Gleason, Chair Frederick J.

Shon Dr. Oscar H.

Paris

_________________________________________x In the Matter of:

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos.

IiC.

(Indian Point, Unit No. 2),

50-247 S" POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :

50-286 SP (Indian Point,' Unit No. 3)

February 18,1983

---

x NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OPPOSITION TO LICENSEES' MOTIONS REGARDING COUNCIL MEMBER WITNESSES UNDER COMMISSION QUESTIONS 3 & 4 In its Memorandum and Order of April 2, 1982 admitting New York City Council Members, an interested state, as a party to the proceedings, in the above captioned matter, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board stated:

We believe that the N.Y.C. Council will be more familiar that other petitioners with problems that might develop in New York City in the event of an emergency associated with an accident at Indian Point; therefore, the Council's partici-pation can reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record (at 8).

8302230572 830218 PDR ADOCK 05000247 0

PDR A

6

. At no time have Licensees requested the Commission to review this de;ermination, though Licensees have requested such re-view of other matters.

Purluant to the Board's April 2, 1982 determination and with the Board's leave, Council Members pre-filed testi-mony respc.nsive to Commission Questions 3 & 4 on July 23, 1982.

At no time prior to February 7, 1983 has there been an objection to the relevance or thrust of this testimony.

On February 7, 1983 this Board, in response to Council Members request of January 14, 1983, determined that hearings be held in New York City during the week of March 1, 1983 and that during this week Council Member witnesses under Commission Questions 3 & 4 be heard.

In separate motions, each dated February 7, 1983, Licensees appear to object to this Board hearing all or part of the testimony that has been offered by New York City Council Members.

They assert, inter alia, that New York City i

l Council testimony should be limited to that concerning only the ingestion pathway (PASNY, Motion, Feb.

7, 1983, at 4 et seq.); or that this Board provide a briefing schedule for the submittal of briefs on the admissibility of Lthe7 testimony..." (Con Ed, Motion, Feb. 10, 1983, at 10).

Both Licensees rely on the Commission's July 27, 1982 order.

I l

l At this writing, Council Members intend to offe_- the following witnesses on Commission questions 3 & 4:

David l

i

-3 Gurin, et. al., Roberta Spohn and Susan Kinoy (a panel),

Benjamin Ward, Howard Berliner, Judianne Densen-Gerber, Nicholas Freudenberg, Kim Hopper, 'obert Jorgan, Steven Meshnick, John Seley, Alexander Simos, Leonard Solon and Robert Littlejohn.*

Other pre-filed testimony is hereby formally withdrawn; although those who prepared such testimony may wish to make limited appearances before the Board.

Argument In their motions, which might accurately be styled general motions to strike, Licensees fail to make specif-ic objections to specific proffered witnesses.

For this reason alone, Council Members submit, these motions should be denied.

The Commission and the Board have repeatedly assert-ed that the basic goal of these hearings is to accurate-l ly evaluate whether the conditions resulting from siting and structure at Indian Point are so distinctive from conditions at other nuclear facilities so as to warrent j

special precautions, or at best (or worst depending upon one's point of view) the closing of the plants.

This jus-tification is both implicit and explicit in, among others, the Commission Memoranda and Orders of January 8, 1981, and of July 27, 1982, as well as Board Memoranda and Orders of

• New York City Council members have requested a subpoena for witness Littlejohn.

i 1

-..=.a

. _ _ - - _ _ =

a 1

)

! l April 2, 1982 and February 7, 1983.

It is painfully ob-vious, ab initio, that the reason for posing such a ques-tion is the existence of Times Square and the surrounding City with its large and dense population, a mere.20 to 60 miles from Indian Point.

To decide, then, not to receive testimony on the state of emergency planning and prepar-l ation, such as it is, in New York City would be, Council members submit, to refuse to address one of the crucial issues before this Board.

Moreover, Licensees arguments are at best disingenu-ous and at worst examples of harassment designed to inhib-it the creation of a complete and sound record.

Licensees have had Council Members testimony in their possession for over six months.

Their failure to make any objections be-fore this may suggest their prime moti,vation.

It is surprising that Licensees now claim that a con-sideration by this Board of the size of the EPZ is somehow forbidden.

Not only does such an assertion fly in the face i

of this Board's position (Memoranda and Order, February 7, 1

1 1983 at 12) bat the Licensees have, in fact, squarely placed the issue before the Board. (Bley, Potter, Walker testimony at 25, 130).

The argument that this consideration is appro-priate under Commission Question 1 and not under Questions

(

3 and 4 is clearly put to rest by the Licenseed own understand-ing of the overlapping nature of the questions (T. at 7631)as exhibited in their arguments made in response to a motion to strike the Bley, Potter, Walker testimony.

It should be noted that the motion to strike was denied by this Board (T. at 7633).

l

,,---,-,.,,,_n..

+.,-,.,,,..,,,,--v.-.-

---

,-,,,n,,..,-.,,-,,,-,,--,..,,,--.,---,,,-e-

-,.,-.n.,

g The Board is invited by the Power Authority to consider Council Member testimony under Commission Question 4 (Power Authority motion, FN at 6).

Power Authority asserts, however, that Council Member testimony is inadmissible under this head because it lacks "... recommendations for specific, feasible procedures, and does not contain any ' sound basis'...".

Council Members contend that there is already in the record a " sound basis" for this further explanation (commis-sion Memoradum and Order July 27, 1982 at 16).

Licensees have conceded that in the event of an accident New York City will suffer consequences.

Note, for example, that Potter, Bley, Walker panel state "...that we could exceed the early fatality dose limit out as far as 60 miles." (T. at 7642).

The Staff also adds to the " sound basis".

Dr. Achar-ya, for example, charts the impact of an accident upon those in New York City (Acharya Testimony at, for example, Fig. III.

c. 26).

Witnesses Rowsome,and Blond also assert that un-der certain conditions "early injury could occur out to a-bout 50 miles."

(Rowsome, Bley testimony, #12, at IIX).

Witnesses Beyea and Palinick provide only additional support for the materiality and relevance of Council Member testimony when they project serious health consequences to those who live and work in New York City in the event of an accident; and further warn of the possibility of long-term evacuation (T. at

).

Without belaboring the point, Council Members, therefore, submit that a " sound basis" clearly exists for the admissibility

s

. of the proffered testimony under Commission Question 4.

This is done without conceding the argument that other heads may be available as well.

Wherefore, Council Members urge this Board to deny the Licensee motions.

Respectfully submit d',.

.4 gl raig Ka 1 n,/

for the ers of the New Yo City Council I

I l

m

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

)

)

CONSOLICATED EDISON COMPANY

)

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

50 - ?. 8 6-S P

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF

)

NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Council Members Upposition to Licensees Motions Regarding Council Member Witnesses Under Comission Questions 3 and 4" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, this \\bbday of February 1983.

Paul F. Colarulli, Esq.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.

James P. Gleason Administrative Judge Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.

513 Gilmour Drive Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq.

Silver Springs, Maryland 20901 Morgan Associates, Chartered 1899 L Street, N.W.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D.C.

20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles M. Pratt. Eso.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Stephen L. Baum, Esq.

Power Authority of the State Washington, D.C.

20555

• of New York Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, N.Y.

10019 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

l William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555

• Hamon & Weiss i

Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.

1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Assistant General Counsel Washington, D.C.

20006 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Jonathan D. Feinberg 4 Irving Place New York State Public Service l

New York, N.Y.

10003 Comission Three Empire State Plaza Mayor George V. Begany' Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, N.Y.

10511 i

l

o

_2_

Melvin Goldberg, Staff Attorney Joan Holt, Project Director Stanley B. Klimberg New York Public Interest Research General Counsel Group, Inc.

New York. State Energy Office 9 Murray Street 2 Rockefeller State Plaza New York, N.Y.

10007 A1bany, N.Y.

i2223 Marc L. Parris, Esq.

Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.

Eric Thorsen, Esq.

New York University Law School 423 Vanderbilt Hall County Attorney, County of Rockland 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y.

10956 New York, N.Y.

10012 Charles J. Maikish, Esq.

Joan Miles Litigation Division Indian Point Coordinator The Port Authority of New York City Audubon Society New York and New Jersey' 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 One World Trade Center New York, N.Y.

10010 New York, N.Y.

10048 Greater New York Council on Ezra 1. Bialik, Esq.

Energy Steve Leipsiz, Esq.

c/o Dean R. Corren, Director Environmental Protection Bureau New York University New York State Attorney 26 Stuyvesant Street General's Office New York, N.Y.

10003 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.

10047 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Alfred B. Del Bello Member of tne County Legislature st Westchester County Executive un ce ding s

e r ounty White Plains, N.Y.

10601 148 Martine Avenue White. Plains, New York 10601 Pat Posner, Spokesperson Parents Concerned About Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.

Indian Point New York State Assembly P.O. Box 125 Albany, N.Y.

12248 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

10520 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.

i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles A. Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Panel Westchester People's Action U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Coalition, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

20555

• P.O. Box.488 l

White Plains, N.Y.

10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.

Member of the Council of the Lorna Salzman City of New York Friends of the Earth, Inc.

District #4 208 West 13th Street City Hall New York, N.Y.

10011 New York, N.Y.

10007 1

Donald Davidoff Director Radiological Emergency Alan Latman, Esq.

Preparedness Group 44 Sunset Drive Empire State Plaza Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

10520 Tower Building, Rm. 1750 l

Albany, New York 12237 Zipporah S. Fleisher l

West Branch Conservation Renee Schwartz, Esq.

Association Paul Chessin, Esq.

{

443 Buena Vista Road Laurens R.' Schwartz, Esq.

New City, N.Y..

10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.

Botein, Hays, Sklar & Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator.

200 Park Avenue Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York, NY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.

10956 Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel David H. Pikus, Esq.

Richard F. Czaja, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C. Street Southwest 330 Madison Avenue Washington, D.C.

20472 New York, N.Y.

10017 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D vbd h Dubo f Washington, D.C.

20555

• es At'omic Safety and Licensing Appeal hte ai

, NY 10601 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555

• Mr. Samuel J.

Chilk Se retary of the Commission Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555

• Leonard Bickwit, Esq.

~

General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Washington, D.C.

20555

' Conservation Commission, l

Chair, Director Ms Amanda Potterfield, Esq.

NYC Audubon Society Johnston & George, Attys. At Law I

71 W.

23 St. Suite 1828 528 Iowa Avenue New York, New York 10010 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ruthanne G.

Miller, Esq.

Alan S.

Rosenthal, Esq. Chair.

l Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 l

l Janice Moore, Esq.

Stewart M. Glass Counsel for Nuclear Regula-Regional Counsel tory Commission Staff 4

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Commission 26 Federal Plaza Washington, D.C.

20555 New York, N.Y.

10278

StOvun C. Sholly Unicn of Ccncarnsd Scicntietc

<1346 Connecticut Ave. N.W.

WOchington, D.C.

20036 odik buh Nancy El Anderson b

i G

i 1

- - - - -