ML20063E449
| ML20063E449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1982 |
| From: | Pratt C POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | GREATER NEW YORK COUNCIL ON ENERGY |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8207130426 | |
| Download: ML20063E449 (21) | |
Text
'
- REEATED CORRESPONDENCB
., - r-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD " , ' ?_ ' " '~U 8efore Administrative Judges: '
k Louis-J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
(
-- ----------------------------------------x In the Matter of :
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, :
INC. (Indian Point, Unit No.2) :
j POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK : Docket Nos.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) :
- 50-247 SP
- GC['020SP 5( d8G-
- July 6, 1982
x ,
POWER AUTHORITY'S RESP'ONSES TO GNYCE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ON COMMISSON QUESTION #6 l
l i
ATTORNEY FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 466-7000
$2gQgoNhg G
1503
e i
INTERROGATORY #1. The current planned maintenance schedule as far as it has been determined, including specification of fuel-reloading periods.
RESPONSE The Power Authority's " Responses to Interrogatories and Document Requests Propounded by the NRC Staff" provides the s information which is relevant to this Interrogatory in the response i to Interrogatory #2(A) concerning the Cooling Tower Agreement ;
approved by the New York Public Service Commission. However, it I
- must be recognized that this response would probably be tempered by- -l
- actual operating events such as the ability to perform rekuired -
maintenance during an unscheduled outage, and the ability to control 4
the length of t'h'e'~n'ucleir" fuel cycle, which is nominally on an ;
18-month cycle. To this end, the scheduled maintenance of Indian i Point Unit No. 3 was normalized to a yearly 8-week cycle during i November and December for purposes of production cost simulation i with respect to these hearings. The norm'lization a of the scheduled maintenance of Indian Point Unit No. 2, coupled with the expected .
forced outages of Units No.2 and No. 3 within the simulation, are in compliance with the above-referenced cooling tower settlement.
j INTERROGATORY #2. Descriptions of and estimates of the cost of ;
extraordinary repairs or capital improvements to be made in the ,
- future for any reason, including meeting new NRC safety standards. !
l :
I ;
RESPONSE The following is the current list of major nuclear improvements which are expected to be made:
- I l
- 1) Secondary System Reliability - The Authority plans to make those secondary side equipment improvements which industry-f.
, wide research and testing have ipdicated are instrumental j in improving steam generator performance. Replacement of !
feedwater heater tube bundles and moisture separator ,
reheater bundles as well as retubing of the main condenser
+
4 and installation of a condensate polisher are the considered recommendations of many years of_ industry-sponsored research aimed at improving steam generator operation. Such component replacements have virtually prevented future steam generator degradation at many PWR's, both domestic and international. It is estimated that these improvements will cost about $55 million. Other repairs to the steam generators, which include sleeving, may cost up to $25 mil 31on. Furthermore, should steam generator replacement be necessary, costs for this have been estimated at approx. $132 million (1982 doll'ars) The -
repairs and costs stated above are merely speculative, as the Power Authority Trustee Board has not voted to approve all of these items.
- 2) NUREG-0737 Modifications - Following the accident at TMI, the NRC required and the Authority recognized the need for certain procedure revisions and plant design changes. The majority of these recommendations have been incorporated into the plant design and operation at Indian Point 3.
The Authority has continued to fund and to proceed with the design and installation of all TMI related plant improve-ments and a schedule for completing these tasks has been l provided to the NRC. The cost of these modifications is
! about $2.4 million.
- 3) Cooling Tower Settlement - As part of the settlement with the Hudson River Fisherman's Association and others, the Authority and other Hudson River utilities agreed to certain plant design modifications. The Authority's capital improvement program includes such modifications as the replacement of existing circulating water pumps and motors and the use of angled intake screens. These modifications as well as an agreement to shutdown IP-3 or I
IP-2 for an average of 6 weeks during each of the next 10 summers are designed to operate the facility with as little impact on the fish and environment of the Hudson River as possible. The Authority's share of these costs is $16 million.
The other aspects of the Authority capital improvement program are designed to improve plant availability and capacity by the prudent purchasing of spare equipement which experience has indicated are cost-effective.
- 4) Other Major Improvement Projects:
a) Fire protection improvements, approx. $1 million; b) Radwaste storage buildings, about $8 million; and c) Major spare parts, including spare main transformer, approx. $4.6 million.
The improvement projects and costs are merely speculative, as the Power Authority Trustee Board has not voted to approve all of l these items.
l l .
i INTERROGATORY #3. Expected normal O&M expenses for each year of remaining unit lifetime.
RESPONSE The Power Authority has not prepared any estimate of normal O&M expenses over the remaining lifetime of the unit.
However, the " Official Statement" prepared in connection with the issuance of the Authority's General Purpose Bonds, Series M, includes an exhibit showing the Authority's estimated " Generation Sources and Operating Expenses" for the period 1982 - 1992. The
(
1982 estimate of IP3 0 & M expenses represents the original 0 & M I budget for'the unit. 1983 assumes an average annual increase of 10 1/2 percent. Each succeeding year after 1983, the average annual i
increase percentage was 0.5 percent lower than the previous year l until only a 7 percent increase was used in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
A copy of the '" Official Statement" is available for review at the Power Authority Of fice,10 ' Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y.
INTERROGATORY #4. Expected-fuel costs per'kwh for each year of the remaining life; explain how these costs areJhetermined once the presentfuelcontractsrunout'anddescribe)he.secontractsandhow they determine the cost of fuel.
RESPONSE The expected fuel cost (direct front end and spent fuel disposal) and future escalation rates are as follows:
Year mils /kwh 1983 6.90
. s escalation rates ,
1984-5 .
8;0 1986-9~ 7.5 1990-4 ' 7.0 1995-9 6.5 's 2000-on '6. 5 The fuel cost is based on a heat rate of 10;950 BTU per kwh.
The nuclear fuel escalation rates are.ba' sed on studies (latest revision 2/2/82) conducted by the New York Power Pool for use by the member utilities.
The Power Authority's past U 0 38 and UF 6 contracts have expired. All previously delivered material is' stored in inventory as natural UF 6. Additional material will be' secured in 1984 or 1985 to cover subsequent reload requirements depending on cycle energy plans. If the material is. obtained 'as U 0 38 then a new conversion contract would also have to be entered into.
-4 -
4
The contract for enriching the fuel material is with the U.S.
Department of Energy and is a " Requirements" type contract which runs to the year 2002.
-The Power Authority also has a fabrication contract which covers nine (9) additional reloads of fuel. The energy content of the fuel cycles incorporating these reloads is not fixed and will depend upon Authority and System requirements.
The cost of the fuel resulting from these contracts is
~'
included directly in the rates as a front end cost.
- ~ . . . . _ . . .
INTERROGATORY #5. The cost of decommissioning the unit via dismantlement a) after the end of the next fuel reloading cycle (again be careful to use current dollars for the annual cost streams involved and give inflation assumptions), b) in 1985, and c) at the end of the expected lifetime. Describe the technologies used in detail.
RESPONSE The Power Authority has not performed a specific study for precature decommissioning of Indian Point No. 3. However, in the absence of a site-specific study, the Power Authority has used a study performed for Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation entitled " Analysis of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs," dated May 1981 as the basis for its rate treatment of decommissioning expense at the end of the plant's useful life. This study estimated a decommissioning cost for prompt removal and dismantling of $38.64 million (in 1980 dollars) for a single model 1160 MWe pressurized water reactor. This estimate did not include consideration of site-specific or plant-specific characteristics, regional (New York area)ilabor costs or contingencies.
{
INTERROGATORY #6.
- Explain in detail how decommissioning costs would be included in rates if the unit were retired at the end of the next fuel reloading cycle or at the end of its expected lifetime.
RESPONSE At the present time, the Power Authority has not determined the manner in which decommissioning costs would be included in rates if Indian Point No. 3 were retired at the end of the next fuel reloading cycle. However, the Power Authority has included in its Astoria/ Indian Point Annual Revenue Requirement a provision for estimated decommissioning costs of Indian Point 3 if the unit was retired at the end of its expected lifetime.
INTERROGATORY #7. What is the expected lifetime of the unit currently and what factors will determine this?
RESPONSE The design life of Indian Point 3 is forty (40) years.
The Authority is licensed to operate the plant until August 13,-
2009. At that time, the Authority will decide the appropriate action to be taken.
INTERROGATORY #8. What is the expected cost of temporary and permanent waste disposal of all fuel burned through the end of the next fuel reloading cycle? Indicate the extent to which these costs are currently included in O&M, and describe in detail the temporary and permanent waste disposal procedures assumed to be used.
RESPONSE The Power Authority has based its costs for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel on the Department of Energy document,
" Report on Fee for Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Disposal Services", (DOE /SR-0006, October 1980). The cost for disposal of fuel burned through the end of the next reloading cycle (initial core and reloads 1 to 3) is estimated to be $93.1 million in 1982 dollars. These costs are applied to the nuclear fuel rate and are 4
not included in O&M. There are no expected costs for temporary storage of spent fuel. Temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel is now accomplished using high density racks in the existing spent fuel l
pool. Plans for more permanent storage and waste disposal are now being developed by the U.S. Congress.
INTERROGATORY #9. What is the expected cost of temporary and
{
permanent waste disposal of all fuel burned through the end of the planned unit lifetime. Provide other information as in (8) for this case. -
RESPONSE There is no expected cost of temporary storage of spent fuel. Temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel is now accomplished through on-site storage in the spent fuel pool. Capacity is available to about 1994/95. The Power Authority is examining alternatives for the longer period until a government repository becomes available. This is currently stated by the U.S. Department of Energy as 2006. The cost of government waste storage and disposal is presented in the following table, which is based on the l Department of Energy document referenced in Interrogatory 8.
l l
l Storage and Disposal Cost Total Fuel Load Total Cost (1982$)
Initial Core and Reloads 1 to 3 $93.1 million Reloads 4 to 25 $362.8 million Total $455.9 million s
I l L r.
INTERROGATORY #10." How is the equivalent full forced outage rate for the unit expected to change over the remaining lifetime of the unit? Show deterioration with age if any is expected. How does this translate into the annual unit availability over the remaining lifetime?
l RESPONSE Annual Unit Availability Rates are composed of maintenance outage rates, planned control rates, forced outage rates and average daily unavailability. Over the remaining lifetime the forced outage rate for the Unit is expected to decrease with only normal deterioration for age expected. All factors considered, 'the mature '
capacity factor wh1ch is directly commensurate with unit availability for Indian Point Unit No. 3 is expected to average approximately 69% annually. This represents an increase over past results.
INTERROGATORY #11. To what extent is it expected that the condenser tubes and steam generators will have to be sealed off due to denting, corrosion, and other causes over the remaining unit lifetime? Will this cause the unit to be derated and to what extent for each future year? Will the steam generators and/or condenser have to be replaced, and if so, when and at what cost?
l RESPONSE Condenser tubes and steam generators can be repaired l either by sealing off or inserting sleeves. The repair to be made is to be determined following inspections. At this time, it is not i anticipated that sealing off of tubes will result in permanent plant derating. Engineering studies are being performed on the replacement of replace portions of the condenser and the replacement of the steam generators. Preliminary estimates for condenser replacement cost is approx. $11.7 million. Preliminary estimates for steam generator replacement are approx. $132 million (1982 dollars). Condenser replacement could occur within 3-5 years.
Steam generator replacement is contingent on results of future inspections.
INTERROGATORY #12. Is Indian Point #2 still capable of running at its MDC rating of 864 MW for 1cng periods of time? Is Indian Point
- 3 still capable of running at 965 MW for long periods of time?
RESPONSE Yes. Indian Point 3 is still capable of running at 965 MW for long periods of time.
INTERROGATORY #13. If the unit were permanently shut down at the end of the next fuel-loading cycle, what extraordinary costs and what O&M expenses would be incurred? Which of these costs would also be incurred at shutdown at the end of the plant lifetime, and in what amounts?
RESPONSE The Power Authority has not performed a specific study for premature decommissioning of Indian Point #3.
INTERROGATORY #14. How are nuclear fuel costs actually included in rates? Are the costs of nuclear fuel capitalized? What is the depreciation period, etc.?
RESPONSE The nuclear fuel costs associated with Indian Point No. 3 are included in the Astoria/ Indian Point Energy Related Revenue Requirement and consist of the estimated replacement cost of the nuclear fuel, waste disposal and financing expenses.
The amortization of nuclear fuel is provided on a unit of production basis. Amortization rates are determined and periodically revised to amortize the cost of nuclear fuel over its estimated useful life.
The Power Authority does not depreciate its property, as it is not subject to any taxation.
INTERROGATORY #15.* How are decommissioning costs currently being collected from ratepayers and how much is collected? How much is the decommissioning fund projected to be worth by unit shutdown?
RESPONSE The Power Authority has made provision in the Required Reserves component of its Astoria/ Indian Point Requirement to recover the expected decommissioning costs of Indian Point No 3.
The amount included for calendar year 1982 is $2.373 million.
The nonfunded reserves for decommissioning Indian Point No. 3 is projected to be worth $38.64 million in 1980 dollars at the nnd of -
the unit's useful life. The Authority anticipates the future costs of reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and of decommissioning its nuclear plant facilities will be met from revenues from operations allocated to nonfunded reserve accounts and from funds expected to be available in accounts established under the Resolution by the end of the useful lives of its nuclear plants.
INTERROGATORY #16. Since the start of commercial operation, list the date and causes of each plant shutdown.
RESPONSE This information is included in the Power Authority's operating report which is filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Commission's office in Washington D.C.
INTERROGATORY #17. Itemize all other costs associated with your nuclear effort including engineering, purchasing, personnel and other staffs, legal, research and development, regulatory, emergency planning, and any other costs which could be foregone if you were a non-nuclear utility.
I RESPONSE We object to Interrogatory 17 because it does not fall within the confines of Commission Question 6. Even if Indian Point were shutdown, the Power Authority would not become a "non-nuclear S
o utility." All direct costs associated with the unit are included in O&M expense. Other costs, such as those mentioned above, are accumulated and allocated to all projects by use of a formula based on each unit's generation. Under this system, it is impossible to isolate the amount of these costs nor the amounts which could be foregone if the Authority were a "non-nuclear utility."
INTERROGATORY #18. Estimate the insurance premium it would be necessary for you to remit appropriate to the liability involved in operating your Indian Point reactor were it not limited by the Price-Anderson -Act.
RESPONSE The Power Authority objects to this Interrogatory because it does not fall within the confines of Commission Question #6.
INTERROGATORY #19. List major plant components, e.g., fan cooler units, steam generators and steam turbine blades, which will need to be replaced during the expected operatin life of your plant.
RESPONSE The major plant components which are expected to be replaced are fan cooler units, feedwater heaters, main condenser, moisture separator / reheaters, turbine blades and circulating water pumps. Also, it is possible, but not expected, that the steam generators will have to be replaced.
INTERROGATORY #20. In that some of the equipment in (19) above may be replaced prior to the passage of one-third of the plant's life, i state when such equipment will need replacement again, and if no such replacement is anticipated, justify that finding.
RESPONSE Equipment proposed to be replaced is expected to be l
replaced with materials that are considered to be better than the original. equipment. It is not anticipated that this equipment will require subsequent replacement.
l l
INTERROGATORY #21.' State t., the storage and/or disposal of spent fuel and low-level waste from piant operation will be carried out throughout the life of the plant.
RESPONSE Spent fuel will be stored onsite until the federal government finalizes its plans for long-term storage of spent fuel.
Low-level waste is being shipped of fsite for disposal and will continue to be so shipped unless prohibited. As a contingency, onsite storage capability is being planned. -
INTERROGATORY #22. Howmbchmoneyhasbeencollectedtodateasa provision for spent fuel disposal cost? Is this money to be used for permanent disposal costs, costs of interim storage outside of the reactor storage pool, costs associated with current onsite storage pool, or some combination of these? Please specify.
RESPONSE Through 1981, the Power Authority has allocated from operating revenues a total of $12,632,000 as a provision for Spent Fuel Disposal Costs at IP-3 (nonfunded reserve account). It is currently intended that this money will be used for permanent disposal costs and costs of interim storage outside of the reactor storage pool, if this were to become necessary.
INTERROGATORY #23. What price does the Company currently pay for nuclear fuel? Please supply this price in $/Kgu and $/Kwh, and show the calculations used to compute each.
Please specify whether charges for miscellaneous items (such as fuel disposal) are. included in the prices, and show explicitly the assumptions implicit in the cost (capacity factor, fuel exposure, thermal efficiency, etc.).
RESPONSE The current nuclear fuel cost for fuel to be delivered in 1983 is approximately $74.4 million. Spent fuel disposal costs are
included as specified in response to Interrogatory 8. The design loading for this fuel reload is 36.5016 MTU. The price in $/KgU would therefore be $2,038/KgU. Assuming an energy content of 1.0291 x 10148TU for the fuel to be delivered in 1983 and a heat rate of 10,300 BTU /kw-br (33.1% efficiency) this results in a fuel cost component of 0.74d/kw-br.
INTERROGATORY #24. Is decontamination of the reactor likely to be required one or more times during the expected lifetime of the
)
plant? If decontamination is expected, please supply schedule and cost estimates. _ _ , , ,
RESPONSE There are no plans, at this time, to decontaminate the l l
reactor.
l 1
INTERROGATORY #25. Please supply estimates of the costs, past and planned, of expanding the capacity of the spent fuel storage pool.
Please indicate specifically what activities are currently underway or planned for the future.
RESPONSE Spent fuel will be stored onsite pending the federal government's decisions regarding long-term storage of spent fuel as well as defense-related nuclear waste. At Indian Point 3, suf ficient capacity exists to store spent fuel onsite until 1994/1995. It is expected that resolution of the nuclear waste issue will be finalized by that time. This is especially true since fuel reprocessing and long-term storage of waste is a reality in other countries with nuclear programs such as France and Germany.
t INTERROGATORY #26. Please provide a copy of the Company's annual report to FERC (Form 1) for the year ended 1981.
RESPONSE The Power Authority was not required by the Department of Energy to file Form 1-M (now Form ERA-412) for 1981.
INTERROGATORY #27. In the above form the section entitled " Steam Electric Generating Plant Statistics" (large plants), please describe in detail the development of the entry on line 21 for fuel used at your Indian Point unit. In particular, please indicate if the reported expense includes any allowance for plant decommissioning costs, spent fuel disposal, or return on investment in fuel assemblies RESPONSE The Power Authority was not required by the Department of Energy to file Form 1-M (now Form ERA-412) for 1981.
~
INTERROGATORY #25'.~ P1'edse describe the manner in which charges for spent fuel expense are reflected in annual required revenues. In addition,-please indicate for available future years the expected contribution from ratepayers for spent fuel expenditures, as well as charges made against this reserve account.
RESPONSE This question is responded to in Interrogatories 8 and 9.
No charges have been made against the reserve account. The Authority anticipates that future costs of reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and of decommissioning its nuclear plant facilities will be met from revenues from operations allocated to nonfunded reserve accounts and from funds expected to be available in accounts established under the Resolution by the end of the useful lives of its nuclear plants.
INTERROGATORY #40. How are the annual interest and amortization costs of Indian Point #3 determined? Please provide:
a) A description of the determination procedure; b) A schedule showing past and' future amortization; c) A schedule showing past and future interest costs.
RESPONSE
(a) Payments for bond retirement and bond interest are reported as Total Fixed Costs in Schedule I which is attached. These payments include (i) Bond Service, defined under the General Purpose Resolution as, "with respect to Bonds of any series, the ,
sum of interest accruing thereon and that portion of each principal installment for such series" and (ii) Bond Reserve, defined as "an
- a. mount equal to 15% of the amounts allocated to Bond Service."
Such payments are required by the Rate Covenant ,
included in the General Purpose Bond Resolution as follows:
"The Authority shall at all times maintain rates, fees or charges which will produce Revenues in each year sufficient, together with other moneys available therefore, (i) to pay the costs of operation and maintenance of all projects of the Authority, (ii) to pay the Bond Service in each year on all Bonds Outstanding as the same respectively become due and payable and (iii) to meet the requirements for reserves established by the Resolution, but in no event shall Revenues available for Bond Service for a calendar year be less than 1.15 times Aggregate Bond Service for such calendar year."
"In addition, the Authority shall annually determine, and shall certify to the Trustee, that it anticipates that it can meet the foregoing covenant. If the Authority is unable to so certify, it shall promptly adjust its rates, fees or charges, and take such other necessary action which will be sufficient to comply with the covenant." (Bond Res., Sec. 609; Seventh Supp. Res., Sec. 308)
The Rate Covenant also required the Power Authority to pass all operating and financing costs to rate payers.
(b) See Schedule I which is attached (c) See Schedule I which is attached INTERROGATORY # 41. Please provide the unamortized indebtedness due to Indian Point #3 for each year from cbmmercial operation through retirement.
RESPONSE See Schedule I in Interrogatory 40. The information for years 1976 through 1979 was not available at the time required to answer this interrogatory. However, the requested information will be provided as soon as it becomes available.
INTERROGATORY #42. For any capital improvements which were financed through bonds, please respond to items (40) and (41) above.
RESPONSE See Schedule I in Interrogatory 40. Note that Schedule I
~
takes into account bond proceeds used to pay for IP-3 Construction' and Improvement costs as of December 31, 1981.
INTERROGATORY #43. Is PASNY responsible for any property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes for Indian Point #37 If so, please provide past annual expenses and any projections of future expenses.
RESPONSE Power Authority property is exempt from taxation; however, there is a state fund which substitutes for Power Authority payments in lieu of property taxes.
The payments made by New York State during the year 1980 are as follows:
Village of Buchanan - $153,400 Town of Cortlandt - $43,080 County of Westchester - $385,600 Hendrick-Hudson School District - $1,178,875 In addition the Power Authority made a donation of $150,000 to the Village of Buchanan for the construction of recreational facilities and $75,000 to the Verplanck Fire Department to assist in the enlargement of its fire hall.
S
INTERROGATORY #44. Is PASNY responsible for any other taxes? If so, please describe briefly.
RESPONSE Properties and income of the Power Authority are exempt from taxation.
INTERROGATORY I45. What annual insurance costs are associated with the unit?
RESPONSE The annual charges for insurance in 1980 and 1981 are .
presented in the following table.
INDIAN POINT - 3 ANNUAL CHARGES FOR INSURANCE 1980 1981 Nuclear Property Insurance $2,372,775 $2,814,475 Nuclear Liability Insurance 389,334 453,144 (Less) Shutdown credits (16,625)
- Exclusive of any credit which may 372,709 453,144 be issued by the Nuclear Liability Pools for shutdown in 1981 as such credits are undetermined at this time.
Non-Nuclear Liability:
Automobile liability 2,514 3,100 General liability 15,770 26,019
$18,284 $29,119 Respectfully Su itted, l
1
\ k ,ff CHARLES M. PRATT
. Assistant General Counsel FOWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK l'0 Columbus Circle New York, NY 10019 (212) 397-6200
- ' ~
UNITED STATES OF.AMEEICA '
,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!*J41SS10N
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY At:D LICENSING BOARD, ,. , , - g in the Matter of , ) hj[
C0!!SOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY )
0F NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2 Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 50-285-$P ,
POUER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit J) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~
I hereby certify that copies of the POWER AUTHORITY'S RESPONSES TO GNYCE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ON COMMISSION QUESTION 6 in the above-captioned-proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, this 7th day of July, 1982.
Louis J. Carter, Esq. , Chairman Paul F. Colarul.li, Esq.
Acministrative Judge Joseph J. Levin, Jr. , Esq. .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
7300 City Line Avenue Charles Morgan, Jr. , Esq.
- Philadelphia, PA 19151-2291 14 organ Associates, Chartered 1899 L Street, N.W.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris . Washington, D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomi'c Safety and Licensing Board Charl.es M. Pratt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas R. Frey, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Power Authority of the State
. of New York -
Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, N.Y. 20019
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. 1725 I Street, N.W. , Suite 506
, Assistant General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20005
. Consolidated Edison Co. of New Jonathan D. Feiriberg f, ,r {orkP , Inc. 't w York State Public Service 0003 ,
Comnission Three Empire State Plaza Mayor George V. Begany Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan 235 Tate Avenue Euch? nan, N.Y. 10511
- ~~- - - . ,
John Gilroy, Westchester Coordinator Indian Point Project Donald Davideff New York Public Interest Director, Radiological Emergency Preparednesc Group Research Group r.=pire state Plaza Tower 31dg. R=. 1750 240 Central Avenue Albany, New York 12223 White Plains, N.Y. 10506 Marc L. Parris, Esq.
~
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq. Eric Thorsen, Esq.
New York University Law Sch61 County Attorney, County of Rockland 423 Vanderbilt Hall 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y. 10956 New York, N.Y. 10012 Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
Litigation Division fndan oIntCoordinator 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 I. 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 Member of the County Legislature Alfred B. Del Bello Westchester County Westchester County Executive County Office Building l Westchester County White Plains, N.Y. 10501 148 Martine Avenue l White Pla. ins, NY 10501 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. 30520 Renee Schwartz, Esq. Charles A. Scheiner,
.Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Co-Chairperson Attorneys for Metropolitan Westchester People's Action Transportation Authority Coalition, Inc.
200 Park Avenue P.O. Box 488 New York, N.Y. 10155 White Plains, N.Y. 10602 l
Honorable Ruth Messinger F.erber of the Council of the Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
! City of New York Lorni Salzman District !4 Friends of the Earth, Inc.
208 ' West 13th Street Yr , N.Y. 10007 New r , N. . 0011
. -3 -
Alan Latmani Esq.
44 Sunset Drive -
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10520 ,
Zipporah S. Fleisher Renee Schwartz, Esq.
West Branch Conservation Paul Chessin, Esq. ~
Association Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq:
443 Buena Vista Road 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 Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
New City, N.Y. 10956 Joan Holt, Project Director David H. Pikus, Esq. New York Public Interest Resear'ch '
Richard F. Czaja,.E.sq. Group, Inc.
330 Madison Avenue
.. ~ '
9 Murray Street New York, N.Y. 10017 New York, New York 10007 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, 3 nice goore, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory,.Co:r.ission. Counse.1 for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 office of the Executive Legal Director
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C. 20555
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co: mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mayor F. Webster Pierce Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, N.Y. 10511 Stanley B. Klimberg New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany, New York 12221 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .3 Commission >
Washington, D.C. 20555
' [
Jennifer G. Tolson Attorney Power Authority of the State of New York a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _