• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

v . , . A , LNITED EE' TES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CDMISSICN BEEORE THE CQHISSICNERS Q i N-E'E0 v - 6. ; - T * Nunzio J. PallaM no, Chairman Victor Gi1insky John F. Ahearne * p' ,. y _ 7 AjQ ;j 8 Thcznas M. Roberts j James Asselstine d/[//-- , . .: ; ~:. :.. ;;- ; : and ~- __D-p''-- BEEDRE THE ATtMIC SAFmY AND T.TPFNSING BOARD . Iouis J. Carter, Chairman Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shan ______________________) In the Matter of ) ) CCNSni.TTWTED EDISCN COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 ) POWER AlmMITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ) (Indian Point Unit 3) ) ______________________ ) UCS/NYPE M7fICN EOR REXXNSIDERATICN OF CQHISSICN RULING AIJIMING INTERIM OPERTJICN AND FOR ISSUANCE OF A SHOW CAUSE ORDER AGAINST THE LICENSEES PRIOR TO COMENCEMENT OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING G4 THE SAFELY OF THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR POWER PIR7fS . In support of their motion for reconsideration of the Ccmnission's ruling permitting interim operation of Indian Point Units ! and 3 pending the outome of the Atcrnic Safety and Ilcensing Board investigation and for the issuance of a show cause order against the Licensees prior to ccmnence- ment of the evidentiary px tion of the investigation, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. (NYPIRG), in acco.h with the Ccmrission Order of January 8,1981, present herein new evidence of deficiencies in mergency planning for the Indian Point nuclear pcrer plants. D5o3 8206090152 820604 DR ADOCK 05000247 - PDR V ' page z * - . 1. In its Order of January 8,1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission rn1ra that the Indian Point nuclear power plants would be permitted to operate ? during the prr m dings that had been ordered on May 30,_1980 to investigate safety issues concerning the plants. The Ccmnission's decision was based upon the finding of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on February ll, 1980 that the interim risk of the continued operation of the plants did not warrant their shutdown and upon the June 1980 reccmnendations of the Task Force on Interim Operations of Irvhan Point. The Task Force had been established by the Carmission two weeks earlier to conduct a preliminary review of information available at the time bearing on the question of interim operation of Indian Point II and III. Order of January 8, 1981, at p. 3. 2. The Ccmnission stressed that its ruling on interim operation of the plants was not a final judgment and invited the subnission to the Ccmnission of "new evidence" warranting interim relief. Ibid. Both units have been operating during the seventeen nonths since the January 8,1981 order, apart frcm the periodic shutdowns that are ccmton at Irviinn Point. One half of the operating life of Unit 3 and one third of the operating life - of Unit 2 have pasned since the filing of the petition of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Septanber,1979. There is still no resolution of the issues raised in the petition. 3. The decision permitting interim operation of the plants was supported, at least in part, by the Ccmnission's observation that the absence- of an approved energency plan at Irviian Point was not an unusual situation, but applied to many of the plants across the country. Order of January 8, 1981, at p. 4. UCS and NYPIBG subnit that new evidence exists that renders . .. ..._ _ ._.. _ ., _ ,. - , - page 3 * . lack of preparedness at Indian Point uniquely grave: 1) the fomal , rejection on May 18, 1982 of the Rockland County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (CRERP) by resolution of the Iagislature of Rockland County (see Appendix A), a major part of whose territory is within the plum exposure mergency planning zone; and 2) the continuing deficiencies in the Indian Point energency plans as noted by the Regional Assistance Conmittee (RAC) of the Federal Emergency Managenent Agency in April and Der ,1981, including the refusal of the County Executives of Westchester;=Orancje, and~Putnam{to ' sign onto (endorse) the Radiological Hmrgency Response Plans prepared for their counties by the Licensees' consultants. 4. These two categories of new evidence warrant a reconsideration by the Catmission of its ruling allowing interim operation pending the outcame of the safety investigation. Further, the lack of preparedness at Indian Point cmpels the issuance of a show cause order against the Licensees pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202, so that the outcate of the forthcaning evidentiary hearings can be a definitive order fran the Ca: mission rather than merely an |. invitation for another hearing. The new evidence described in this notion - , indicates that public health and safety require the present proceedings to | | contain at least the potential for remdial action. The description of the j emrgency planning process at Indian Point found below (see Appendix B), I nukes it clear that no effective mechanism exists, apart fran a show cause order, to enforce at Indian Point the Catmission's regulations on emrgency planning. The so-called 120-day clock has proven to be a hopeless and hapless tool for correction of emrgency planning deficiencies at Indian Point where, as the Ccrmission knows wil, the density of prpulation in the surrounding area and the particularly acute problens of evacuation canbine to enhance the i ! dangers of operating the plant . | , - page 4 . , The Rejection of the County Radiological Emergency Response Plan by the Rockland County Iagislature Makes the Plan Incapable of Inpleentation. , 5. On May 18, 1982, after the occurrence of the March 3,1982 emergency planning exercises and seventeen nonths after the first draft of the County Radiological Emergency Response Plans was subnitted, the Rockland County Iegislature formally rejected the Rockland Radiological Dnergency Response Plan. prepared by consultants to the Licensees. A copy of the resolution is annexed as Appendix A. Regardless of how the Camission interprets the April 1,1981 inplsentation annaline for the Indian Point emergency plans, there can be no further pretense that a plan is in effect in Rockland County, or that one is , likely to be capable of implementation before December 31, 1982. See resolu- tion of Rockland County Iagislature. The Indian Point plants cannot be permitted to operate during the m ergency preparedness vacuum brought to light by the Rockland County Iagislature. Even if Rockland County Had Not Rejected the County Radiological Diergency Response Plans, the Deficiencies in the Indian Point Plans and in the Planning Process are Continuing and are So Severe as to Warrant Inwodinte Action by the Camission. 6. The regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission mandated that mergency plans "shall'be implsented" by April 1,1981, over a year ago. 10 C.F.R. g50.54 (j) (2) . Off-site emergency plans are still not inplsented or implemntable. If an accident occurred at Indian Point today, the plans would not provide even a minimum of workable procedures to protect the public health and safety. 7. A description of the pattern of problens in the mergency planning process at Indian Point is annexed as Appendix B. In Appendix C are quotations fran the Deh 31, 1981 Review by the Regional Assistance Camittee (RAC) of - __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - page 5 . the nore serious criticisms of the CRERPs for Indian Point and the New York State Radiological Bergency Preparedness Plan . (REPP) . Unless otherwise noted, , these criticisms were also made in the April 1981 RAC review. The criticisms have been grouped into mergency planning categories: I. Areas of Responsibili- ties, Including Intters of Agrement; II. Dmrgency Cam:unications Capabilitieu; III. Dguipient Needs Beyond Camunications; IV. Public Information and Notification; V. Protective Actions, Including Tine Estimates for Evacuation; VI. Training and Drills. The specific citation to the RAC's coments is the guidance elment, consisting of a letter followed by a number and occasionally other subsections, which corresponds to the outline of the NRC/fHR sergency planning guidel.ines in NUREG 0654, REP I, Rev.1, used by the RAC as the outline for its reviews. Wherefore, on the basis of the new evidence presented herein, UCS and NYPIRG nove the Camtission to reconsider its January 1981 ruling permitting operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 pending the empletion of the investi- gation of Indian Point and request the issuance of a show cause order against the Licensees to provide for the possibility that the result of the current proceedings be enforceable corrective action rather than simply another i hearing. UCS and NYPIRG do not seek by this notion any delay in the camence- nunt of the evidentiary hearings scheduled to begin June 22, 1982. i l 1 ) . _ .. - . [1 , ' J 10LT, PIO7TI DIRTIOR Public Interest Research Group, Inc. 9 Street New York, New York 10007 ( ) 349-646 _hb f mu , e k AMANDA Purniena.D, ESQ. d- )d Counsel for New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. Box 384 Village Station New York, New York 10014 (212) 227-0265 . Q p = ELL M WEISS, ESQUIRE Counsel for the Union of Concerned Scientists HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W. Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 I (202) 833-9070 h Date: June 4, 1982 | | - - - - .__ , .-- . _ _ . - . ___ * 2 A-- . e_ a_ m a a v _ u m.. _. _ m h n 9 6 e i f , 1 APPENDzx y . 2 I i - . , _- _. _ ._. __ . _ . .., _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . __ . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . - - . _ _ _ . _ --. _ _ . _.. * ' . APPE2OIX A ,. 9C1 . Introduced by: Referrol No. 667S Hon. Herbert Reismon May 18, !cB2 Hon. Kenneth Ingenito Hon. Som Zalmon Gdanski Hon. Edward Gormon RESOLUTION NO.

Load more

  40

Copy Link