ML20038C032
| ML20038C032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Scheiner C WESTCHESTER PEOPLES ACTION COALITION, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038C033 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8112090442 | |
| Download: ML20038C032 (8) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DM KETED Louis J. Carter, Chairman E
Mr. Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris egl EtC -7 P4:50 December 1, 1981 N
~
~ c ' U U.E n u
- ;Q QERViCC In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of Docket Number 50-247SP New York (Indian Point Unit 2)
Power Authority of the State of Docket Number 50-286SP New York (Indian Point Unit 3)
,i
'9,'
s WESPAC'S PRE-HEARING ME'@RANDUM AND/
\\L RESPONSE TO STAFF AND UTILITY ANSWERS
(
b
\\gS\\" ^~
>=
TO PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENED g C3
~
o> TJ E
~/
INTRODUCTION Gw@
On November 5, 1981, the Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
(WESPAC), on behalf of itself and its members, filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding.
The petition was received.by the Atomic Safe,ty and Licensing Board and distributed to all parties in a _ timely fashion.
On November-9,Mhe -Board-issued anc order scheduling a pre-hearing---
conference for tomorrow (December 2,1981), and requesting each party to file a pre-hearing memoran'dum and proposal to identify key issues in the proceeding, amend pleadings if necessary or desirable, and establish a schedule.
On November 13, the Board issued another order, acknowledging receipt of petitions, inviting the Staff and Licensees to respond to
~3
. petitions, and requiring contentions -to be filed by December 2.
Subse N quently, the Staff, Con Edison, and State Power Authority have filed voluminous answers challenging the standing and/or aspect of each
/
petitioning party.
This Response is WESPAC's response to questions relating to the pre-hearing conference and to our petition for leave to intervene.
We are filing contentions in 3.eparate document; those contentions address 8112090442 811201 PDR ADOCK 05000247 0
- ~.
e some of the major issues in this proceeding.
They all fall under the seven points enumerated by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission in its January 8 and September 18, 1981, orders.
Of course, we would also like issues falling within the Commission guidlines which are raised by any othei' intervenor to be fully considered.
WESPAC received (by mail) the Staff and Licensee answers to peti-tions for leave to intervene only this morning, the day before the pre-hearing conference.
Consequently, we have not had a great deal of time to prepare this response.
Fortunately, the " issues" raised in the answers are not worthy of a great deal of time.
Pre-Hearing Memoran&m We have not prepared an in-depth memorandum or a draft order relating to key issues in this proceeding, amendment. of pleadings, or scheduling the proceeding.
The following is a summary of our positions, which we believe are shared by many petitoners:
a.
The issues which should be considered have been delineated by Orders issued by the Comission earlier this year.
From our review of the filed petitions, every prospective intervenor raised questions which fall within those delineations.
Furthermore, we feel it premature and arbit'rary to disqualify issues which some parties may find objectionable at this stage of l
the procteding After contentions-are-filed, the Board and.the,
Parties will have an opportunity to review them and consolidate or disqualify issues' which are not deemed relevant.
At this stage, t
however, it is unnecessary.
The NRC has initiated this proceeding "for the resolution of safety issues concerning the plants" (January 8, 1981 order, page 1).
If these issues are to be truly resolved, and not just papered over, the fullest possible consideration of substantive matters is necessary.
We urge the Board not to rule out issues before they have been considered on their merits -- and thereby not to cast a shadow cvar this proceeding in the eyes of the public.
That public, after all, elects the Congrest which gives the NRC its power.
That is the public in whose " interest, convenience, and necessity" utilities like Consolidated Edison are supposed to operate.
That public gives the State Power autho ity its franchise.
And that e
u-g 3
e 1
public, at least in theory, holds supreme power in our democratic form of government.
The Board must avoid even the appearance of prejudice.
b.
The question of amaidment of pleadings will be discussed in more depth below, when we respond to specific allegaticas against WES-PAC's petition.
At present we nerely state the obvious: the purpose of this proceeding is to ensure Indian Point's safe operation, and not to provide work for attorneys (salaried for the NRC and Licen-sees, volunteer for most of the intervenors).
The more procedural obstacles can be avoided, the more likely we will have a timely and full resolution of the real issues in this case.
c.
The schedule proposed by the Staff in their November 27 Memoran-dum, which is the only one we have received, has similar problems --
placing priority on procedure instead of on improving Indian Point safety.
More time is allowed for avoiding issues (objections to petitioners, objections to contentions, motions for sumary disposi-tion) than for dealing with them.
No provision is made for Reply Findings of Fact.
Rather ~than propose our own schedule in this Response, we urge the Board to adopt a schedule which places priorities on digging out f
l facts, not on papering them over.
We understand *.ha; UCS/NYPIRG is submitting a proposed schedule; we concur with the general approach Ethey are.taking. _...
j d.
Staff claims (pages 9-11) some sort of imunity from discovery proceedings.
We strenuously object.
Since all staff work is accessable to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, we see no rationale for hindering that access.
The existence of an NRC Public Documents Room in Washington has no bearing on a proceeding that tFe Commission has ordered be held "in the vicinity of Indian
~
Point."
Furthermore, previous staff decisions (i.e. the licensing of Indian Point 2 and 3) are the most basic questions at issue in this case.
If anything, Staff should be held to a higher standard of discovery than any other party.
They are, after all, public employees whose sole charter is to represent the interests of the American people who pay their salaries.
l e
{
- - W r
. ~
,t-ATTACKS ON OUR PETIT [0N FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE The three " defendants" in this proceeding, Consolidated Edison, the
~
State Power Authority, and the NRC staff, seem determined to avoid. issues wherever possible.
In addit, ion, they seekfto bury intervenors under an avalanche of paper and le'galisms'.. While a.certain amount of procedural formality is' essential.to the orderly and effective proceeding of this case, an excess of, legalistic-technicalities will smother any hopes of reaching a recomendation and decision based on ' facts.
Perhaps that is what the Staff and Licensees wish, but it is not in the interests of the people most directly affected -- the neighbors of Indian Point -- and it is directly contradictory to Orders by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission throughout this proceeding.
It is imperative that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board set a proper tone early in this proceeding.
As' NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford i
has stated, intervenors should be given "exqui, site [presedural courtesy."
The Staff and Licensees:should 'be directed to confine their efforts to helping to reach a reso'lution of:this cas[ based',on substance, and not to frustrate the intent of_the NRC.and the.ASLB.through. obfuscation....
It is doubly ironic _ th'at the public, as federal and state taxpayers, and as Con Edison ratepayers, is paying for Staff, PASNY, and Con Ed legal beagles.
At the same time, those of us who are intervening on behalf of-neighbors-or_-others with.a-personalconcern_.about. Indian Point l
safety,must rely on ' volunteer * ~ lawyers' and our - own, often d6nated, " '
personal time.
Bearing in mind that the allegations of the " defendants" do not really dignify a response, and that by-responding to them we are falling into their trap and ignoring ' substantive issues, we offer the following brief answers to specific objections to WESPAC's petition:
r a.
Anti-nuclear viewpoints PASNY (page 11) alleges that WESPAC and other parties des'iN t.o, '
^
"close down the nuclear power industry."
We do not take exception to the allegation, but simply point out that it has nothing whatever t.o do with this case. *Each human being and every organization has
~
desires for utopias; these idealistic visions generally do not stand '
in the way of working for interim, partial, improvements.
I a
,r 4.__
,,._.,....-._.,~..m-,
--__v._-
--e ma.-.--
Yes, we would like to close down 'the industry --.we believe it represents an unconscionable threat to the health, safety, and financial well-being of people living in areas populated by nuclear plants and other components of the fuel cycle.
Furthermore, we would like to end the nuclear weapons industry -- a connection being increasingly recognized by the NRC in the past week -- and free the world's people from the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.
But we are even more concerned about our own lives, homes, families, and countryside -- we live in the shadow of Indian Point
-- and of the 20 million others near that shadow. We would like to
~
close Indian Point; it is the most dangerous nuclear power plant site in the country.
Even if we can't close it today, we would like to see it operated in the safest manner possible.
And that, after all, is the purpose of this proceeding -- as much as the Staff and Licensees would like to avoid it.
b.
Membership All three " defendants" make various noises about membership, affidavits, standing, etc.
We stand on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for our standing.
As citizens, taxpayers, voters, ratepayers, and human beings whose lives and property are endangered by unsafe operation of Indian Point, WESPAC's members are directly, I
personally, immediately, and deepl'y affected by the plants' future and the outcome of this case.
We would -have-noWouble obtaining 7ffidavits-from-the-six-people listed in our petition; in fact we could obtain affidavits from over a thousand WESPAC members within the endangered terri-tory.
We will provide such papers if the Board. requires, but we object to the tone and the precedent -- putting paperwork higher th'an substantive issues.
/
PASNY further alleges, through a selective reading of WESPAC's bylaws, that WESPAC's " Board.of ' Directors decides what policies and
~
~
i /
procedures WESPAC will follow, and ' members' have no active voice in
~
management of the groups's affairs." (page 19-20).
In fact, uur bylaws state that the Board of Directors is elected annually by the membership, which consis'ts of many hundreds of people, the vast majority of whom live within the Indian Point area.
f i
--.n.,,
,_-n
-,,-..,-_,.,..--,_...-._n.
-.s,
m Furthermore WESPAC's corporate structure does not truly deter-mine how program-related decisions are made. WESPAC has an Adminis-trative Connittee, open to all members, which meets monthly and is
' frequently polled by telephone to make decisions.
Several of the people mentioned in our petition are active participants in the Adminietrative Committee, which has formally authorized, indeed urged, WESPAC's participatien in this case.
All members of WESPAC's Board of Directors and of our Adminis-trative Connittcb reside within the 50-mile radius the staff deems
^
acceptable.
Therefore even if our broader " membership" does not a
give us standing, our executive bodies themselves could intervene.
The Staff's attack on our petition is contained on pages 14-16 of their November 24 response (received this morning).
Page 16 is c
missing in all copies I have been able to examine.
It is therefore' i
difficult to respond to allegations we have not seen.
c.
Interest This allegation (PASNY, page 24) does not merit a response.
The answer is contained in PASNY's own manifesto at page 29, and in our Statement of Purpose, which includes improving the quality of life, preserving and expanding individual rights, and improving the envir-onment and comunity of Westchester County as primary goals.
Each of these goals would be directly devastated by a serious accident at Indian-Point.
d.
Breadth of Concern PASNY alleges (page 30) that WESPAC's attention to issues other than nuclear power invalidates our participation in this proceeding.
If this basis is accepted, PASNY and Con Edison must their primary concerns are fulfilling also be disqualified
~
contracts with bondholders and making the maximum rate of return for shareholders.
For each, nuclear power is only an intermittent means to that end.
Unfortunatly, their profits often conflict with our
~
physical and economic health and well-being.
It is up to the ASLB and the Commission to try to help resolve that conflict.
WESPAC's broad range of concerns makes us more, not less, qualified to participate in this proceeding.
4
. e
.e e.
"Value" PASNY (page 35) and Con Ed (page 21) allege that WESPAC has not proven that we can make a valuable contribution to this proceeding.
While it seems premature to reach a judgement even before conten-tions are filed, perhaps what they mean is that our contribution will not be of value to their stockholders and bondholders.
WESPAC has been an active participant, if not a legal inter-venor, in this case since its inception, filing comments or letters with the NRC on February 5, March 6, and June 18, 1980, and at other times.
We have testified before numerous NRC Boards and met with
~
the Comissioners and/or Staff several times.
WESPAC has also been a legal intervenor in a number of cases before the New York State Public Service Comission relating to Indian Point.
In 1981, we were granted $1000. by the New York State Consumer Protection Board for expenses relating to our participation in PSC Case 27869, relating to replacement fuel costs for the October 1980-June 1981 Indian Point Unit 2 outage.
Our record speaks for itself -- and it is a far better record than the Licensees' evasion, delays, and obfuscation which have plagued this case.from its inception'.
f.
Representation Staff (page 15,-- we didnLt-get. page_l6)_ charges _that=.the. Joint-representation ~~eflESPAC by' an officer ~(myself, Charles Scheiner, as co-chairperson) and an attorney (Alan Latman) is a problem, The staff and the utilities are represented by numerous attorneys, all paid and full-time, and that seems OK.
Neither Mr. Latman (who is a Professor of Law at NYU Law School and a Partner in Cowan, Liebo-witz, and Latman, P.C.), nor myself (a Principal Systems Engineer
~
i with Electronics for Medicine /Honeywell) are being paid for working on this case; each of has employment which demands enore than full-time attention, as well_ as other interests.
By working together, spelling each other at different stages of the proceeding, we hope to match,1% of the legal and personnel resources available, at taxpayerandratepayereEpense,totheStaffandtheLicensees.
e e
i LICENSEES' MOTION FOR STAY OR DISMISSAL On November 25. Con Ed and PASNY. filed a Motion for a stay of the Coinmission"s January 8 and September 18 order or for dismissal of this proceeding, or for direct certification to this Comission.
This motion, contrary to its claims, does directly " seek to hinder... the examination by the Commission into the safety of the Indian Point units."
The NRC's task force on interim operation was specifically designated to do a quick evaluation in advance of an in-depth investigation of Indian Point safety.
Its conclusions should in no way prejudice this proceeding.
Constitutional issues raised about compensation for pecperty can be raised when and,if the NRC makes a determinatio.n which involves shutdown
-- not before issues are even considered.
The Licensee's motion is wholly without merit and should be denied sumarily.
CONCLUSION We urge _the Board to mget _. past the, obstacles-and=get~on with -the timely resolution of the life-and-death issues in this case
-- the acceptability and/or improvement of the safety of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
s
, Respectfully submitted,
=
Charles A. Scheiner Co-chairperson, WESPAC Dated:
December 1, 1981 Served at the pre-hearing conference in Croton, NY 12/2/81.
Westchester People's Action Coalition, Inc.
~
P.O. Box 488 White Plains, New York 1060L 914/682-0488 Of Counsel:
Alan Latman, Esquire 44 Sunset Crive Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ -...