ML20069D144

Motion to Compel West Branch Conservation Assoc & Parents Concerned About Indian Point Further Responses to Licensee First Set of Interrogatories Under Commission Question 6.W/ Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20069D144
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/14/1983
From:	Brandenburg B, Pratt C CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8303180277
Download: ML20069D144 (36)

Text

_

" & y;.TFh Ccp.ESPONDENC3

~"vgz .

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' NUCLEAR REGULATOkY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

before Acministrative Juages:

James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. 6non Dr. Oscar H. Paris

_____________________________x In the Matter of  :

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY  : Docket Nos.60-247 OF NEW YORK, INC. (Incian  : 50-286 Point, Unit No. 2)  :

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE :

OF NEW YORK (Indiah Point,  : March 14, 1983 Unit No. 3)  :

---

x LICENSEES' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Ph0m WBCA AND PARENTS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATOhIES anc DOCUMENT REQUESTS UNDER COMMISSION QUESTION 6 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (r) (1982), Consoliaateo Ecison Company of New York, Inc. ano Power Autnority of tne State of New Yorx, licensees, nereoy move to compel tne west Branch Conservation Association (WBCA) and Parents Concernec About Indian Point (Parents) to responc furtner to licensees' First Set of Interrogatories anc Document hequests Unuer 7*

Commission Question 6 (Attacnea as Appendix A) .

ATTORNEYS FILING THIS LOCUMENT:  ?

.F:

Brent L. Branaenourg Charles M. Pratt CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY, INC. POWER AUTHORITY OF THE 4 Irving Place STATE OF NEW YORK New York, New York 10003 10 Columous Circle (212) 460-4600 New York, New York 1UUA9 (212) 397-0200 8303180277 830314 PDR ADOCK 05000247 0 ppg

-- ~

ee .

GROUNDS FOR LICENSEES' h0TIuN e

I. WBCA Responses At least two WBCA responses require further answers as the responses given are incomplete or. evasive. Wn11e W8CA respondeo to Licensees' June 9, 1982 interrogatories on June 17, 1982, eight of tne interrogatories were inaaequately answerea.1 L_icensees have attemptea to ootain supplemental responses from WBCA.2 Another set of responses was receivec on Decemoer 24, 1982.3 However, Interrogatory Numoers 5 ano 8 require supplemental responses. Numoer 5 asks wnetner hocklano County or its customers will derive any economic Denerlt at tne expense of electricily consumers elsewhere in tne state.

WBCA's first response was evasive and incomplete, stating in full: "Tnis was not our assertion. We con't celleve tnat ORU

- has a license to print money." See Appenoix B.at 2.

Tne Commission's regulations expressly provice tnat "an evasive or incomplete answer or response snall oe treated as a failure to answer." 10 CFR S 2.740 (r) . Tne Commission nas stated that evasive or incomplete responses " amount to no more 1 See Reply from West Brancn Conservation Association to b Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories Question 6 (June 17, 1982) (Attacnea as Appenaix B).

2 See letter from Cnarles M. Pratt to Z1pporan Fleiscner dated Decemoer 10, 1982. (Appenaix C). Telepnone conversation with Walter Fleiscner, Decemuer 11,.19824 7 (Interrogatories Numbers 2, 5, 6, . 8, 9 and 121 were oiscussea.)

3 Letter from Walter L. Fleischer to Cnarles M.'Pratt, December 24, 1982 (Attacned as Appenclx b).

n A

than olatant refusals to answer." In re Pennsylvania Power &

Lignt Co. (Susquenanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 ano 2),

11 h.R.C. 559, 564 (1980); accord in re Houston Lignting h Power Co., 9 N.R.C. at 195 ("an evasive or incomplete answer shall ne treated as a failure to answer or respona") ; see In re Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 15 N.R.C. at 344 (" Language attempting to limit [a] response to ... Interrogatories to anytning less tnan a' full, good taitn response ... ooes not in any way reauce [tnej responsioility to comply witn" an oroer to respono to interrogatories).

Since WBCA claims tnat Rocklano County will uenerlt trom a shutdown of Inoian Point, licensees seek to laent1ry it otner customers will nave "to pay, inuirectly or alrectly, ror tne Denefit to.Rocklana County. an answer is necessary to rull ano fair examination of WBCA's contention under Commission guestion 6.1.4 Licensing Boaros have not hesitateu to apply tnese stancards. Intervenors' actions herein rully warrant, "on the basis of rules, preceaents, ano practice, [tneirj alsmissal."

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 11 NRC at bb5; see Puulic Service Electric & Gas Co. (Atlantic Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 ano 2), LBP-75-62, 2 NRC 702, 706 (1975) 4 Contention 6.1:  ?

An economic consequence or tne snutuown or Indian Point Units 2 ano 3 woulo ue an economic benerit accruing to Rocklano County through tne sale or j replacement power.

e .

(holaing that lu CFR S 2.707 0 "

... empowers tne Boaro to aismiss a recalcitrant party ror rerusing to comply witn a direct order of tne Board") ; accora, Nortnern dtates Power Co.

(Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP-77-37, S haC 1296, 1301 (1977) ; Of fshore Power Systems, LBP-75-67, 2 hac 813, 017 (1975). However, at this Juncture of tne proceeolng, licensees, altnougn reserving tneir right to ao so at some later date, ao not call for aismissal or tne intervenors out instead recommend tnat tne Boara compel WmCA to respono fully to licensees' interrogatories witnin five (5) aays or tne issuance of sucn an order.

Interrogatory NumDer 8 asks WBCA to state tne grounas ror its assertion that Ihcian Point 2 nas a 30% operating level.

WBCA's response is inadequate in rour respects. First, WBCA eitner faileo to reaa or ignorea cerinition section I

• which definea tne terms " grounds" and "casis".D Tne definition requires tnat WBCA "aescrice in aeta11 tne reasoning and facts l

l l 5 10 CFR S 2.707 provices in relevant part:

On failure of a party...to comply witn any prenearing order entereo pursuant to S2.715a or 8 2.752, or to comply witn any alscovery orcer entereo oy tne j presiding otficer pursuant to 5 2.740, tne Commission

' b or une presiding otricer may mane suen oroers in regard to the failure as are Just, incluulng among others, the rollowing:

(a) Proceea witnout furtner notihe, fina the tacts as to tne matters regaraing wulch-tne oraer was maae in accordance witn tne claim of tne party obtaining tne order, ano enter such oraer as may oe appropriate, or (b) Proceed without furtner notice to take proor on tne issues specified.

(footnote deletea; emphasis acaea) 6 See Appendix A at 4-5 l

-4 -

l L

.=. .,

s -

i .

anc to provice all cata ano calc'ulations", wnicn it claims support tne allegation or contention.7 hbCA's response, tnat tne answer may oe founu in the 1982 NYPP Report is insufficient, because it rails to provice tne calculations necessary to prove tne assertea fact. ,

Secondly, the WBCA response to a request for specitic information, simply mace general reterence to a large oocument in whicn the information allegeoly coulo oe founu. Tne report referenceo Dy WBCA contains two volumes wnich total tour hundreo and ten (410) pages. Sucn general answers are insurrl-f cient responses to specific interrogatories. Answers snoulo oe complete in enemselves. The interrogating party snoulo not need to sitt tnrough~oocuments or other material to outain a complete answer.

Third, WBCA promiseo to supply tne calculations tor each generating unit at a later cate.d As or tnis cate, WoCA nas not Kept its promise.

Finally, eacn party is unoer a-continuing outy to supplement its responses not only to responses wnicn were l

l accurate when mace, out also to supply current inrormation for responses whicn were insufficient when stateo previously.

Boaro Orcer, June 3, 1982.

b For tne aoove stateo reasons, WBCA snoulo De compelleo to l supplement its responses to licensee interyogatories.

l 1,y -%

7 16, 8 gee note 3, supra (Telepnone conversation netween Charles M. Pratt ano Walter Fleiscner, Decemoer ll, 1962).

l l

t

a .

II. Parents Responses Parents failea to rencer any response to licensees' June 9 interrogatories. A secono attempt to outain answers to tne interrogatories suomittea to Parents was maae on Decelacer 10, 1982.9 Parents submitted its responses to tne secono request on December 22, 1982.10 However, licensees fina responses to Interrogatory Numoers 13, 21 ano 121 to De insufricient.

Interrogatory 13 requires Parents to state tne grounas for the statement tnat the workers in tne plant are exposeo to unacceptaole levels of radiation. Parents not only rallea to follow licensees' instructions anc aetinitions, out also ralleu to provide a specific reference to requests for spec 1ric information. Parent's' answer in full, 1s: " Newspaper accounts of actions and statements oy Inaian Point workers ana Nhc 5- enforcement actions." Appenaix E at 1.

The definition of the woras " state tne grounas" requires that Parents "laentity all relevant accuments".11 Parents

-failed to proviae the cates or the newspaper accounts, tne names or the newspapers ano tne cyline or tne reporter ror tne l articles upon wnicn Enelr statement is casec. Parents also failea to provide the cates or any otner specifics ror NxC enforcement actions. This specitic inrormation must ce 9 See letter from Cnarles M. Pratt lo Pat Posner, l '

Sp.okesperson (Decemoer 10, 1982) (Attacnea as Appena1x E).

10 Parents Concernea About Inaian Point Response to Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories ana Document hequest Under Commission Question 6 (Decemoer 22, 1982) (Attacnea as Appendix E).

11 See Appendix A at 5.

6-

- - - - , Q -

provicea as the lacx of specitic racts improperly trustrates licensees' legitimate erforts to prepare ror cross-examination on Contention b.2.12, l

Interrogatory Number 21 asks Parents to loentify tne  !

i cifferences in nealtn effects trom tne years ot tne ,

construction permit or reviews (to the present]. Parents responceo ny saying tnat the interrogatory snoulo oe aooresseo to the New York State Department of Healen ano tne Departments of Health in each of tne counties surrouncing tne lnolan Point units. This response is evasive ano incomplete, cecause tne information requestea goes to tne neart or Parents' contentions under 6.2. If Parents nas no facts whicn inoicate tnat deleterious nealth etrects nave Deen experienceo 61nce the consstruction of tne plant, then its contention must De dismissed.

In aooition, by its own statements, Parents claimeo tnat they would inform licensees of any stuales wnicn nave Deen cone on the subject of tne nealtn effects or living near a nuclear plant, ano tne Inoian Point site in particular. see Appenoix E at 4. Because Parents contend tnat certain nealtn etfects are suffereo Irom living near a nuclear plant, it must use its resources to either perform its own stuales or contact those b

12 Contention 6.2:

7

+

..h :

A bener..it woula accrue from the snutoown or Inolan Point Units 2 ano 3 oecause tne environment or chiloren in tne vicinity woulo oe improveu oy a oecrease in the release or raoloactive material.

l t

l l .

(tne New York State Department of Healtn) wno nave perrormeo such stuaies. It is Parents' outy, not tnat of tne licensees, to supply tne facts wnicn support its assertions.

Interrogatory 121 requests Parents to suomit cetalleo information regarding each or its witnesses on Question o.2.

Parents stated tnat its response woulo De serveo at a later date. Because licensees neea this information to fully ano properly prepare tor the hearing on Question b ano oecause eacn party is unoer a continuing outy to suppletaent its answers, Parents must be compelled to serve its answer to Interrogatory 121 immeciately.

Respectfully suo tea,

~

n' ' .

ale A.Avs w a -

'Isr ent IV b anoenourg LNk MM Charles M. Prat [.

75 %

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Stepnen L. caum

~

OF NEW YORK, INC. General Counsel 4 Irving Place Charles M. Pratt New York, New York, 10003 Assistant General Counsei (212) 4b0-4600 -

POWER AUTHORITY OF ThE bTATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Inolan Point

Unit 33 l

10 Columous Circle l

New York, New York 10U19.

(212) 397-6200 l Charles horgan, Jr.

Paul F. Colaru111 l

Joseyn J. Levin, Jr.

MORGAN ASSOCIATED, CuhKTExED 1999#fi btreet, N.W.

Wasnington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 466-7000 0

,9-

6 bernaro D. Fiscnwan Micnael Curley Ricnarc F. Cza]a Davlo H. P1Kus

~

SHEA & GOULD 330 nacison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-6000 ,

l t

,~.4 ; ~ **

l l

_3 _

' 'f APPENDIX "A" i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris

---

x In the Matter of ,  :

Docket Nos.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,  :

INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)  : 50-247 SP

50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK  :

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)  : June 9, 1982

---

x

/

N- LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUEST UNDER COMMISSION OUESTION 6 AT7ORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:

Charles' Morgan, Jr. Brent L. Brandenburg Joseph J. Le vi n , Jr. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED OF NEW YORK, INC.

1899 L Street, N.W. 4 Irving Place Washington, D.C. 20036 New York, NY 10003 h (202) 466-7000 (212) 460-4600 L

• 8

-Q A* '

TABLE OF CONTENTS

\

lage PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................... 1 DEFINITIONS ..........****************...................... 2 INS'TRUCTIONS ..........................................,,,,, 5 INTERROGATORIES .....................................,,,,,,, y LICENSEES' DOCUMENT REQUEST ................................ 30 e

l l

t n

,.<.. - 'i.

O h

>* s >

r PRELIMINARY STATEMENT n

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2 and the Memorandum and Order (Formulating Contentions, Assigning Intervenors, and Setting Schedule) herein, dated April 23, 1982 (the " April 23, 1982

. Order"), Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison"), licensee of Indian Point Station,. Unit No. 2, and Power Authority of the State of New York (" Power Authority"),

licensee of Indian point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (collectively the

" licensees"), request that each of the intervenors specified below answer separately, fully, seriatim and on or before June 23, 1982, or, if this document has not been served upon you by personal delivery, on or before June 30, 1982,* under oath and otherwise in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2 and the April 23, 1982 Order, each of the following interrogatories.**

These interrogatories are directed to each of the following intervenors: Greater New York Council on Energy

("GNYCE"), West Branch Conservation Association ("WBCA"), and Parents Concerned About Indian Point (" Parents").

i l

9,

• Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.710 (as amended, 46 Fed. Reg. 58279 1 (Dec. 1, 19 81) -) , parties served by Express Mail must answer interrogatories on or before .

) ** Pursuant to footnote 3 to the April 23p 1982 Order, the

' Board has held the litigation of cert.ainTpsychological fear and stress issues in abeyance pending the issuance of an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in PANE v. NRC and further administrative guidance. Accordingly, the 11censees i reserve the right to serve further interrogatories on that subject upon such resolution.

. -1

-..D.

V

e. . . .

In its responses to these interrogatories, intervenor forth the interrogatory as posed by the licensee, then

'~'i shall set

'J set forth its response to the interrogatory.

With respect to each interrogatory, if a particular lead or contributing intervenor does not make a particular ,

allegation, claim, or contention, and has not been assigned lead or contributing intervenor status with respect to such allegation, claim or contention by the orders of the Board herein, said intervenor should so state. .

DEFINITIONS A. "or" shall mean and/or.

B. " Document" shall mean any kind of written or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, of any kind of description, whether sent or received or neither, including originals, copies and drafts and both sides thereof, and including, but not limited to: papers, books, correspondence, telegrams, cables, telex messages, memoranda, notes, notations, work papers, transcripts, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations, or of interviews, or of 1

conferences, or of other meetings (including, but not limited to, meetings of boards of directors or committees thereof),

affidavits, statements, summaries, opinions,  ?

reports, studies, analyses, evaluations, contracts, a"greiSents, journals, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, diaries,

' lists, tabulations, sound recordings, financial statements, computer printouts, data processing input and output,

('

'?. .

assumptions, microfilms, all other r'ecords kept by electronic, '

[Ds/ photographic or mechanical means, and things similar to any of the foregoing however denominated by intervenors.

C. " Identify" or " state the identity," when referring to a document shall mean to state:

1. The generic nature of the document (e . g . , letter, memorandum, telegram, etc.);

2. The date on which the document and each copy thereof was prepared;

3. The name of each author, addressor and addressee of the document;

4. The name of each past or present custodian of each copy of the document; and

5. A br,ief description of the contents of the document. (In lieu of such a description, you may append to your answer a true and complete copy of the document.)

e D. " Identify," when referring to an oral

~

ccmmunication, shall mean:

1. To state t'he date of such communications;

2. To identify each person participating therein and each person who was present;

3. To state what was said by each participant in the course of such communication, or, if not known as recalled, the substance; 9, 4. To state whether there are any documents which set forth, summarize or refer to any portion of such oral communication; and

5. If such documents eg.ist,,to identify each such document and each 'ber' son having custo6y of the document.

1 E. " Identify" or " state the identity", when referring

() to a person, shall mean to state:

-t .

~~'- 1. The Person's full name;

N. 2. The name of his employer; L] 3. His position with such employer;

4. His business address and telephone number; and

5. His present or last known home address and telephone number.

Once a person has been identified in response to any interrogatory and provided no requested information concerning such person is different from that provided for in the earlier

• identification it shall be sufficient thereafter to identify such person by name,only.

F. " Guidelines of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" shall mean all rules and regulations codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, all NUREG's and regulatory guides issued by

(~]

V and all conditions or provisions of both the Commission, licensees' operating licenses.

G. The word " person" as used herein, shall refer both to individuals and to any other legal entity.

H. "You" or "your" means the intervenors to whom these l

interrogatories are directed and agents, servants, employees, tg officers, directors and attorneys of any of them and all other on behalf of any of them.

persons acting or purporting to act I. To " state the grounds" or to r,< : - r.

? identify the grounds" for an allegation, claim, or contention means to describe in l

detail the reasoning and facts and to provide all data and calaculations, which you claim support the allegation, claim, O( b .

-t e.

or contention, and to identify all relev, ant documents, and h communications, and individual informants and to state the precise nature and source of your knowledge, infermation and belief that there is good ground to support such allegation, claim, or contention, and to specify any assumption on which the allegation, claim or contention is based. In the case of any assumption on which an allegation, claim, or contention is based, state the probability that such assumption will in f act occur, and the method of calculation of such probability. If any part of the grounds for an allegation, claim, or contention is a guideline of the NRC, cite said guideline with specificity. If a particular lead or contributing intervenor does not make a particular allegation, claim, or contention, w said intervenor should so state.

s I

INSTRUCTIONS A. References to the singular shall be deemed to include the plural, and references to the plural shall be deemed to include the singular. The use of the past tense in a verb shall be deemed to include the present, and the use of the present tense shall be deemed to include the past. The use of h

'any word in the masculine or feminine gender shall be deemed to includetheothergenderandtheneuter,an$whenthesenseso ra-

' indicates,wordsofneutergendershallbe"deemedtoreferto 1

l any gender.

B. All interrogatories recuesting identification of

! ,o

) ' documents shall be deemed to refer to documents in the l

a

. ._- .c .

. t.

v received, written possession of any intervenor that were sent, rx

(_) or otherwise generated during the relevant period (unless otherwise specified), and any other documents referred t'c or, relied upon in connee. tion with the preparation of the -

contentions or your answers to these interrogatories, regardless

" of whether they are in your possession or control.

C. Should you claim a privilege (including, Uithout limitation, the attorney-client or work product privilege) with respect to any part of any discussion, document or.o'ther

~

communication concerning which information is requested by any of the following interrogatories, you should answer the interrogatories in the manner above fadicated, except that you need not set forth a summary of the contents of the part deemed privileged, i.e., in the case of a document, you should supply b(~s items C (1)-C (4) , above, and in the case of an oral com-munication, you should supply items D(1) , D (2) , D (4 ) , and D(5) .

In addition to setting forth the above noted information concerning each such discussion, document or communication, you shall indicate that you claim privilege for such part and shall

' state the nature of the privilege claimed and the facts upon i which such claim is based.

I h '

Identify all your witnesses, ' areas of their

\

i D.

testimony, their cualifications, and all.-r,eports, studies, letters, graphs, and other documentY. t'hev olan to use in support of their testimony. Where documents are lengthy and a witness only plans to use portions of it, provide the page numbers of

)' these portions.

-G-

-t. .

a' .

s.

E. All terms should be defined, e.g., acceptance s

,) levels, massive. Measurable quantities should be provided for such terms, e.g., radiation exposure in man-rem.

. INTERROGATORIES

' contention 6.1

1. State the grounds for the assertion that a consequence of the chutdown of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 would be an economic benefit to Rockland County. Identify the entity or entities who will receive the benefit.

2. Identify the people (and/or entities) within Rockland County who own stocks or bonds of the licensees and owners of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

3. Identify who will pay for the benefits that are alleged to accrue to Rockland County. State the amount that each customer will pay annually.

4. Identify the environmental impacts of the increased generation of Orange & Rockland required to provide the alleged benefits.

5. Identify, any basis for asserting that any economic benefit I

to,Rockland County, or its customers will not result, I b directly or indirectly, from customers elsewhere in the state, including Westchester County and New York City, j

paying higher rates f or electric'1:ty;

6. State the grounds for the assertion that Orange and Rockiand Utility has 300 mW of excess capacity.

( ) _, Demonstrate that this 300 mW will be dedicated to the use i

of those customers now benefiting'from the electricity a

~~

presently generated by Indion. Points 2 and 3. Provido documents f rom the Orange and Rockland Utility where they

)

agree to dedicate this capacity to present Indian Point customers. State the period of time that this e;< cess capacity will be dedicated. Provide the projected excess capacity for the Orange and Rockland Utility over the next (a) 15 and (b) 25 years.

7. State whether you have considered the December 19, 1980 agreement concerning the Hudson River Cooling Tower Case (Index No. C/II-WP-77-01) in asserting that Orange and .

Rockland ' Utility has 300 mW of excess capacity.

8. State the grounds for your assertion that Indian Point 2 has a 30% operati'ng level. Define what is meant by

" operating level." State the period of time for which this .

7 operating level was calculated.

9. State the percentage of the power generated by Orange and Rockland Utility which is fossil-fueled. List the type of l

fuel, sulfur content, and percentage of use of the asserted l

l 300 mW of excess capacity.

10. In evaluating the alleged benefits to Rockland County from 1

sale of replacement power in the event of an Indian Point h

shutdown, state the assumptions, if any, you have made concerning each of the following items: (a) power from

\

increased Canadian imports over,4.the.1981 levels, (b) the existence of the Prattsville and Arthur Kill projects, (c) the existence of the Shoreham and Nine Mile Two plants, (d) l (~%

l \)- -

l l

l

-t. \

cogeneration and refuse fired plants (e) conversion to coal burning of any Orange and Rockland plants, and (f) other conventional and unconventional sources of power not presently available to the New York Power Pool over the next 15 years.

11. Should one or more of the sources identified in response to Interrogatory Number 10 not be available for environmental, financial, licensing, political or other reasons, state what assumptions were made concerning the impact on the economic benefits to Rockland County you have claimed. If no such assumptions were made in your studies, so state.

Contention 6.2 ,

12. Define what you mean by " physical environment."

) 13. State the grounds for the statement that the workers in the plant are exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation.

t

14. Identify environments or conditions that are used as t

reference points for the assertion in Interrogatory Number 13.

15. Identify and provide all documents that report on the f impact of a nuclear plant on the physical environment of j children.

16. With regard to the physical environment of adults and l children, state how living near the Indian Point site f

.4 - :-

• compares with.living near other industrial facilities (e.g. , chemical plants, fiberglass f actories) . Identify

'the health effects associated with the routine operation of D- all of the above facilities. Identify all those effects that you regard as acceptable.

-c.

.o

17. With regard to.the physical environment of adults and I children, identify and state how the health effects from living near the Indian Point site compare with the health effects of living near other power-generating facilities including, but not limited to, (a) coal-fired plants, Co) oil-fired plants, (c) hydroelectric stations, (d) windmills, (e) solar systems, (f) cogeneration plants, and (g) biomass conversion plants. Identify the health effects associated with the routine operation of all the above facilities. Identify all those effects that you regard as acceptable.

18. Compare the physical environment of children living in the vicinity of nuclear plants to that of children who do not live in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. Provide all r~S

'~' /

4 documents which substantiate your answer.

19. State the grounds for the statement that "the workers are at risk of disease and genetic damage to their offspring".

Provide all documents that substantiate your answer.

l 20. Define the age bracket that you associate with being considered a child.

21. Identify the differences in health effects from the years of the construction permit grant or reviews. I6entify studies which have been done on the subject of the health

.,(; , - 7.

effects of living near a nuclear plant. Identify such studies which have been done on the Indian Point site in particular.

/

. I

~~

"B" L- 3 APPENDIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:

Louis J. Carter, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Matter of Frederick 3. Shon CONSdLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos. 50-247-SP (Indian Poin:, Unit 2) 50-236-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF TF2 STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) ..

REPLY FROM WEST BRAUCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION TO LICENSEE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, QUESTION 6 Although Licensees have sent us a burdensome docu-ment we are only liable to answer those questions pertain-ing to G.1. Nor will we answer in the elaborate formre-quested. Instead, kindly read the reply side-by-side uith the. requests.

Reolv to #1 Customers of Orange and Rockland Utilities. ,

Reolv to #2 Irrelevant, WBCA never claimed such knowlegde.

Reolv to #3 Anybody that gets power f rom the NY Power Pool, p

g Roolv to #4 This is no part of our contention. To the best of o ur knowledge the plant opergtes within EPA standards.

,9 ..

I for West Branch Conservation Association .

443 Buena Vista Road, New City, N.Y.10956ggy,[{ $M 914/634-2327 by Zipporah S. Fleisher Secretary a 1-i

.O P Roolv t@ #5 This uns not our assertion. We don' t believe that ORU has a license to print money.

Reolv to #G Power is dispatched by That's not our contention.

the NYPP. If there were no power from Indian Point ORU could sell more to the pool.

- Reolv to #7 There are times when ORU has more than 300 mW excess.

We ref erred to selling energy, not peak demand.

Reolv to #8 See New York Power Pool report for 1982.

Reolv to #9 Irrelevant, not our contention. ..

Reolv to #10

a. 5% of ORU as we have been told.

b. Prattsville and Arthur Kill are not on line and may never be.

c. If new plants are built to ansuer energy needs See NYPP 1982, Vol. 1 they uill not affect it.

which predicts a declining percent of excess capa-

% city.

d. Have they EPA permits?

s

e. Yes. , , . .

f. No.

Reolv to #11 I

' None.

a n

5 0

a i  ;

L' 1 ~

st una acu .a a n s u vr face NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM15 SON l- .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:

Louis 3. Carter, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the klarter of Frederick J. Shon CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Docket Nos. 50-247-SP (Indian Point, Unit. 2) 50-236-SP POWER AUTH'ORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) , ,,

AFFIDAVIT OF REPLIES TO INTERROGATORIES '

FROM WEST BRANCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION I, Walter L. Fleisher, Vice-President of West Branch Conservation Association, New City, N.Y. , being duly sworn, hereby swear and affirm that the attached replies to' interrogatories from the NRC Staff and the

. Licensees in above docketed cases, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ,

Y k h lls W Walter L. Fleisher Suorn before me this 16th day of June, 1982 O -

h - potary PubliC NO Y P' E IC, ccr e York No. 44 6135730 Quotif ed en Rockicnd Ccunty Certd cete f.ted in Nc3 Corrwpinion Ear.;res Me -h "Yoek Coven gg

'ety ,

.' , Charlos Pr'att - Dac. 24 - paga 2

1. 8. The source for the statement for the 30% opera-ting level has been mislaid during the hiatus between January 11, 1982, when the statement was made, until November 19, 1982, when responses were'due. Our memory is that it was a newspaper article in the New York Times which stated that IP #2 had operated only 11 days average per month for a year after the flood in containment. We,will continue to search for the source but did not vish to delay the other replies.

1. 9. O&R's generation for 1981 was 3172 gWh, of which 116 gas. gW(h Sect. was hydro.

5-112, pr.The 42 andbalance 254) was The residual oil or percentage of non-fossil was 3.'66%. The residual oil is limited to 0.6%S and the natural gas is 0%. The mix varies from year to year depending on skles and availabi-lity of natural gas.

We have no knowledge as to what fuel would be used for the generators in furnishing excess capacity but would expect it to be nearly 100% residual. oil...

~

1. 121. A't the time of our telephone conversation of Dec-ember 14, PASNY was to advise us shether our an-swer to #2 to -the interrogatories of NRC Staff together with the resume of Walter Fleisher, both of which-are in your possession, would serve to answer your interrogatory #122. Not having heard to the contrary we assume #121 is answered.

1. 122. None.

1. 123. None.

Very truly yours, Walter L. Fleisher Vice-President s b

xc: NRC Staff Counse% Janice Noore Coned Counsel, Brent Brandenburg T,4, - i.

h

APPENDIX "E" POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 10 CoLuwsus CIRCLE NEW YORK. N. Y. f oof 9 4212) 397.6200 LEmoY w. ssNcL*en

.~." . *.'.," ! * .*."I','.

T;tusTsas

• A LTE,A,T,. KI,CINsKe dEMNB.oYSoM e aoe i in. Lt.

............ .. . .,, , ,. .,gg . .

niewano w. rLynn

,;*;;;, * ==-

STEPH EN L,.... S AU.M Goot:mT s. u LL'oNZl --... .......,

' ^ "

• 8 8- '^ "

• c c ^ December 10, 1982 Pat Posner, Spokesperson Parents Concerned About Indian Point P. O. Box 125 Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520

Dear Ms. Posner:

The Licensees t[ried, but failed to reach you by tele-phone on December 9 and December 10 in order to discuss interrogatories under Question 6. Con Edison and the Power Authority are attempting to obtain responses to Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Request under Commission Question 6 without resorting to a formal motion to compel. We ask that Parents voluntarily respond to the interrogatories filed on June 9, 1982. Ten questions, numbers 12 through 21 inclusive, were addressed specifically to Parents, while all intervenors whose contentions are encompassed under Question 6 were to answer interrogatories numbered 121, 122 and 123.

Please contact either Jennifer Tolson (212/397-7981) or me by 5:00 P.M. Friday, December 17, 1982 to advise whether you will voluntarily supply responses to the interrogatories.

If neither of us has been contacted by then, due to time ,

constraints, we will have no choice but to proceed with a b formal motion to compel.

Sgerely,' m UAakA 4I W

Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel CMP /pl cc: Brent L. Brandenburg

. 8' APPENDIX "F" -

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

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP

) 50-286 SP (Indian Point Unit 2)

)

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit 3) ) December 22, 1982 PARENTS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIAN POINT .

RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUEST UNDER COMMISSION QUESTION 6 INTERROGATORY f12 -

Define what you mean by " physical environment.

RESPONSE

.1 "Phvsical environment" .meahs the comliinatioh 6'f extefnal or' ex'trinsic conditions that affect the bodilj or material growtli and development of organisms.

INTERROGATORY #13 State the grounds f'or the statement that the workers in the ' *

.a -

plant are exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation.

RESPONSE

Ne'wspaper accounts of actions and statements by Indian Po, int wyker's and NRC enforcement actions.

INTERROGATORY #14 Identify environments or conditions that are used as

?

reference points for the assertion fn I.Idter rogatory Number 13..

RESPONSE

tools, Radioactive water in the storage pool; contaminated. rags, and other solid waste; radioactive dust; violation of safety procedures during maintenance work; broken and otherwise faulty monitoring devices; a practice of minimizing information to workers on the effects of radia-hand-tion; large numbers of repairs required on radioactive equipment; t

ling radioactive material"without proper protective gea'r; pressure on L

workers to reduca tha cmount of tima epant on refusling outagas; failure to inadequate maintenance of of employee h'ealth records; continuously monitor workers' radiation exposure.

INTERROGATORY #15 Identify and provide all documents that report on the l

impa:t of a nuclear plant on the physical environment of c;hildren..

RESPONSE In its Response to Parents knows of no such documents.

~

Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Under Licensees' First served on July 23, 1982, Commission Question 1 to ... Parents, Parents identified documents tihat report on the impact of radiation on children.

INTERROGATORY (16 '

With regard to the physical environment of adults and

' children, state how living near the Indian Point site compares with living n, ear other industrial facilities '

Identify (e . g . , chemical plants, fiberglass f actories) .

the health effects associated with the routine operation of Identify all those effects all of the above facilities.

th..at you regard as acceptable.

RESPONSE

Parents Objects to this interrogatory as' irrelevant and burdensome.

INTERROGATORY #17 7

~

h regard to the physical enviro 5inent of adults and children, identify and pe how the health effects from living near the Indian Point site compare with health effects of living near other power-generating facilities including, (c) hydroelectric not limited to.

(a) coal-fired plants, (b) oil-fjred plants,

~

' windmills, (e) solar systems, (?,) cdgeneration plants, and ,

ftions. (di associated with the; biomass conversion plants. Identify the, health effects tino operation of all ,he t above facilities. Identify all those effectsl 1: you regard as acceptable.

I .

RESPONSE

l Parents objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant and burdensome. ,

5% i .

INTERROGATORY (18 of children living in the Compare the physical environment vicinity of nuclear plants',to that of children who do not live in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. Provide all documents which substantiate your answer.

RESPONSE

The physical environment of children living in the vicinity of

~

nuclear plants contains more radioactivity than the environment of Nuclear children who do not. This answer is based on common sense:

vent radioactive material daily, plants, in particular Indian Point, some of which is long-lived radioisotopes which. accumulate in the environment.

INTERROGATORY #19 State the grounds for the statement that "the workers are at r'isk of disease and genetic damag'e to their of f spring".

Provide all documents tha't substantiate your answer.

RESPONSE

Workers at Indian Point are allowed to receive doses ten

~

times higher than the maximum all'owable exposure for members of the ,

ganeral public. Documents noted by Parents in the Response served by Parents.on July 23, 1982, report on diseases and genetic damage asso-

.ciated with exposure to radiatidE. Radiat' ion effects are cumulative and there is no safe threshold dose below which no effects are notic

! INTERROGATORY #20 that you associate with being considered a child.

l Define the age bracket

• RESPONSE .

A child is a person from birth to physical maturity.

h

. INTERROGATORY #21 Identify the dif ferences in health ef fpets f rom the years

..<- - c. Identify of the construction permit grant'of reviews.

of the health studies which have been done on the subject .

Identify such effects of living near a nuclear plant.

Indian Point site in

. studies which have been done on the particular. .

RESPONSE

addressed to the New York State-. - _ -~c-,

L . ,_  : .

Department $f Health' and the Departm2nts of Hasith in each of tha four counties surrounding Indian Point and pther counties downwind of Indian Point. 'When Parents discovers any such studies, it will inform the licensees. Because of the minimal latency periods for solid tumors and leukemia, these hedith effects may be starting to show up only now from the operation of Indian Point.- ,

INTERROGATORY #121 ,

Identify: .

each per on whom you expect to call as a witness

~

(a)

~ nt the evidentiary hearings re'lating to Commission Question 6 (including, without limitation, each such person's f ull name, present address, present employment or other professional affiliation, and qualifications) and annex a all his publications; copy of said person's resume and list (b) the subje t matter and Board contention and underlying intervenor contention on which the witness is .

expected to testify;  :-

(c) the substance of the facts and opinions to which ,

the witness is expected to testify and a summary of the

~

gro'unds for each opinion; each document (including', without limitation, each

.(d) .

treatise, book bulletin, accounting interpretation, regulation, report, article, or other literature or l 1

[ , writing) upon which the witness has based-Mir -testimony, .o.r,%

will so rely at the hearing, or will otherwisp refer to in

..(; ,- :.

support of his testimony; f

l (e) any relationship between the witness and any i

intervenor or party herein; and l

(f) any proceeding in which the witness ha's previously l

testified and the transcript pages of such testimony (you f I

should annex the transcript pages to your response).. .

l* -

f L n

RESPONSE

The response to .this interrogatory will be served at a lator date.

INTERROGATORY (122 ,

Identify all communications, written or oral, with federal, state, county, or local government officials, upon which you rely in responding to ay in.terrogatories.

None.

INTERROGATORY #123 Identify and provide all contracts and communications, written or oral, with consultants, contractors, employees or others upon whose testimony, written or oral, you rely RESPONSE in responding to any interrogatories.

None. '- - .

Respectful..y submitted,

/

/ ' /'bl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE About I d an Pb n I hareby certify that copies of this document have been served by hand to the New York offices of the

. licensees' attorneys and mailed to the rest of the minimal service list on December 23, 1982.

8 A ^

gj

,i j 9

O4

UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA10RY CohMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEhSING BOARD e6i3 b.,,17

.n A10 :51 In the Matter of )

) . - SL '

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. ) Docket hos. CH (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-247 SP

) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )

(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) ) March B , 1983 Certiticate of Service I hereby certify that I have served copies of MorION TO COMPEL FUkTHER RESPOhSES FROM PARENTS AND WBCA TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS UNLER COMMISSION QUESTION 6 to the service list below on this 14thday of March,1983 by depositing it in th) United States mail, first class.

P3ul P. Colarulli, Esq. John Gilroy, Stanely B. Klimberg Joreph J. Levin, Jr.Esq. Westchester Coorcinator General Counsel Pr ela S. Horowitz, Esq. . Indian Point Project New York State Charles Morgan, Jr. Esq. New York Public Interest Ene rgy Of fice Morgan Associates, Chartered Research Group 2 Rockefeller State Plaza 1899 L Street, N.W. 240 Central Avenue Albany, N.Y.12223 Waching ton, D.C. 20036 White Plains, N.Y. 10606 Ch rles M. Pratt, Esq. Jef f rey M. Blum, Esq. Marc L. Parris, Esq.

Stcphen L. Baum New York University Eric Thornsen, Esq.

Power Authority of the Law School County Attorney, State of New York 423 Vanderbilt Hall County of Rockland 10 Columbus Circle 40 Washington Square South 11 New Hempsteaa hoad New York, N.Y. 10019 New York, N.Y. 10012 New City, N.Y.10956 Ellyn R. heiss, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq. Geoffrey Cobb Ryan William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Litigation Division Conservation Committee Harmon & Weiss The Port Authority of Chairman, Director 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 New York & New Jersey New York City Audubon Wa3hington, D.C. 20006 One World Trade Center Society New York, N.Y. 10048 71 West 23rd Street, pg

' huite 1828 New Yo r k, N.Y. 10 010 Join Holt, Project Director Ez ra I. Bailik, Esq.  ? Greater New York Council Indian Point Project Steve Leipsiz, Es% ' T* on Energy New York Public Interest Environmental Protection c/o Dean r. Corren,

! Research Group Bureau Director 9 Mur ray Street New York State Attorney New York University Niw York, N.Y. 10038 General's Of fice 26 Stuyvesant Street Two World Trace Center New York, N.Y.10003 hew York, N.Y. 10047 l .

~

--6^ ~-- ~

Jtmes P. Gleason, Chairman

• Alfred B. Del Bello, Hon. Richard L. Brodsky Administrative Judge ,

Westchester County Executive Member of the County Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Westchester County Iagislature r 513 Gilmoure Drive 148 Martine Avenue Westchester County Silver Spring, Maryland 29091 White Plains, NY 10601 County Office Building White Plains N.Y. 10601 1

Dr. Oscar H. Paris

• Andrew S. Hoffe, Esq. Pat Posner, Spokesperson Ad2inistrative Judge New York State Assembly Parents Concernea About Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Albany, N.Y.12248 Indian Point U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. P.O. Box 125 W3ehington, D.C. 20555 Croton-on-hudson, N.Y.

10520 Mr. Frederick J. Shon* Renee Schwartz, Esq. Charles A. Scheiner, Adninistrative Judge ' Botein, Hays, Sklar & Co-Chairperson Atomic Safety & Licensing Herzberg Westchester People's Board Attorneys for Metropolitan Action Coalition, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Transit Authority P.O. box 488 Commission 200 Park Avenue White Plains, N.Y. 10602 W&chington, D.C. 20555 ,, New York, N.Y. 10166

! Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. Honorable Ruth Messinger Iorna Salzman Assistant General Counsel Member of the Council of Mid-Atlantic Consolidated Edison Co. the City of New York Representative of New York, Inc. District 64 Friends of the Earth, Inc.

4 Irving Place City Hall- 208 West 13th Street New York, N.Y. 10003 New York, N.Y. 10007 New York, N.Y.10011 Mayor George V. Begany Alan Latman, Esq. Amanda Potterfield, Esq.

Village of Buchanan 44 Sunset Drive Joan Holt, Project 236 Tate Avenue Croton-on-Budson, NY 10520 Director Buchanan, N.Y.10511 N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc.

9 Murray Street New York, h.Y.10007 i

Imonard Bickwit, Esq. New York City Council Zipporah S. Fleisher General Counsel c/o National Emergency West Branch Conservation U.g. Nuclear Regulatory Civil Liberties Committe.e Association dommission 175 Fifth Ave., Suite 712 443 Buena Vista Road Wtshington, D.C. 20555 New York, N.Y. 10010 New City, N.Y.10956 ATTN: Craig Kaplan t

'E Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Donald Davidoff W Judith Kessler, Sscretary of the Commission Director, REPG Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Empire State Plaza Rockland Citizens for Commission Tower Bldg., Rm 1750 Safety Energy Wrshington, D.C. 20555 Albany, N.Y. 12237 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y. 10956

• Asterisks indicate copies which were served with appendices attached.

1

St; wart h. Glass Renee Schwartz, Esq. Steven C. Sholly Regional Counsel Paul Chessin, Esq. Union of Concernec Room 1349 Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq. Scientists Fed ral Doergency Management Margaret Oppel, Esq. 1346 Connecticut Ave.,

Agency Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg N.W.

26 Federal Plaza 200 Park Avenue Suite 1101 New York, N.Y.10278 New York, N.Y. 10166 Washington, D.C. 20036 David H. Pikus, Esq. Ruthanne Miller, Esq. Ms. Janice Moore Richard F. Czaja, Esq. Iaw Clerk, AS & LB Office of Executive Legal 330 Madison Avenue U.S. N.R.C. Director New Yor k, N. Y. 10017 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Docketing & Service Section* Spence W. Perry Appeal Board Office of the Secretary Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal anergency Commission Commission Management Agency Wnshington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 500 C. Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety & Licensing Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Board Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Atomic Safety & Licensing WaChington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JEN

$ ~

v ER %.'TOLSON 8

2

,w. - :. '

• Asterisks indicate copies which were served with appendices attached.

4