ML19296B960
| ML19296B960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1980 |
| From: | Lauding S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220459 | |
| Download: ML19296B960 (2) | |
Text
i k
f I
n
'I
.%=
1 N '((
,4 U:!ITED STATES OF AMERICA
- ."JCLCAR REGULATORY CO"?.ISSION i
s Tit: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICITSIUri BOARD 1
In the natter of
]
M.'
Northern Indiana Public
]
4 2
Service Company
] Docket No. 50-367
]
(Construction Permit Extension:
f 3
(::ailly Generating Station I 3l Nuclear 1)
]
4 1
ty REPLY TO NIPSCO AND MRC STAFF'S RESPONSC 3
d 6
If I wish to make clear that I have no " interest" in interven-7 3
ing in your proceedings with recpect to whether or not MIPSCO g
t
\\
receives either a new permit to build or a renewal.
q, 9
I merely wished to put my comnents and positions on record j
10 o I can say to myself I actively opposed what I knew to be wrong 11 must address statements of the NRC staff which argue for 12 p licies which are incorrect. Also, I must address NIPSCO's 13 attorneys' unjustified and undignified connents directed my way.
(
g The NRC staff, at page 17 of NRC Staff Pesponse to Separate g
Petitions for Intervention filed by George Schultz: Steven Laudig
~
(sic); and George and Anna Grabowski (hereinafter Mac Response),
g 18 r
"As a matter of sound adninistrative policy, a 19 construction pernit amendment should not be utilized as an occasion to embark upon a fresh 20 assessment of iscues already thoroughly considered and decided in prior construction permit hearings."
The NRC has adopted a shortsighted narrowly legalistic policy. It seems to me that the Licensing Peoard would be foolish to license the construction of a plant when it is clear there are major,,perhaps insurmountable, problems of evacuation planning.
The Board should take chis factor into consideration as the i
State of Illinois has requested it do.~
Cne suggested solution would be to stay the construction permit renewal hearings pending i
a decision on the evacuation planning question.
]
30 1
j, 31 32 1i
)
a 8002220 l
oki i
1 NIPSCO's response, although revealing policy determinations
. l-2 similar to NRC Staff's, takes a particularly nasty and unseemly I
t'J {
3 tone showing both a narrowness of nind and meanness of spirit.
lf 4
As I stated earlier, I did not request intervention in my i
5 letter of December 29, 1979, nor do I now.
Fj;*
8 6
E:
Sincerely your j
r 7
Step Laudig q
{
8 rk 9
rebruary 5, 1930 g
10 I
r b 11 12 13 il 14 15 1
i 16 17 18 19 d
20 21 22 1
23 24 1 i, 15 26 i
27 l*
L I
l
'l 29 30 3
31 32 3
d ll' I
t l
'