ML19296D789
| ML19296D789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Grabowski A, Grabowski G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130210 | |
| Download: ML19296D789 (6) | |
Text
-
.40
% p w. m
.5%?O, 6
~
9N N <3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gpeg
-9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION th THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
?!3.3 I 1330 1,
ter of
)
ho iern Indiana Public
)
Docket No. 50-367 G
era ing Station.
(Construct 1 it Nuclear 1)
)
Supplement to Petition to Intervene filed by George and Anna Grabowski, Private Citizens.
Filed this Q3 nd day of February, 1980.
" Woe to you lawyers also!
for you lead men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do net touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
Woe to yout for you tuild the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed."
(Luke 11: b6-47)
" Woe to you lawyers!
for you have taken away the key of knowledge s you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."
(Luke 11: 52)
We do not mean to impugn lawyers, really, just to point out some serious problems related to this case.
First, we appreciate the difficulty of the task which has been given to the NEC, and we hope that the NRC realizes the immensity of the burden which they seem anxious to load upon us.
We are the ones who are going to have to pay for this nuclear plant.
We will have to live with the inevitable danger if it is operated or with the gap in our region's energy supply if it isn't operated once it has been made part of the plan.
Either way, if the plant is built, we lose.
The logical answer would be to scrap plans for the nuclear plant now and plan accordingly.
But this will not be your worry.
Second, it seems very probable that in the process of interpreting legal nuances and picking nits, the real significance of what the intervenors are saying may be overlooked.
We hope that the NRC will not
~
miss seeing the whole forest because it..is too busy looking at a few trees.
So much of what is written in your regulations can be interpreted any way
{
8008130 21G
2 that you choose to interpret it. You could decide either way about holding hearings, and give all your legal justifications.
So what really matters is how you feel about it.
There are many important questions lef t unanswered about Bailly; the question here is whether you really want to find the answers or whether you will hinder those who want to enter.
Backeround We are not lawyers.
We would like to be able to hire a lawyer to represent us in this case, but that is not financially possible.
- Besides, it seems that we would need to hire the likes of F. Lee Bailey, Clarence Da rrow, or Perry Mason.
We feel that even though we can't afford a la wye r, it is our responsibility to try to defend ourselves in whatever manner we can.
Therefore, we wish to re-affirm our intent to intervene.
If we could hire a lawyer, we would stand a bette chance of picking our way through the mate of regulations and terminology.
We ask that the NRC allow us some lenience since we don't know all the exact correct ways of doing this.
For instance, NIPSCO pointed out that we didn't have a date on our first petition.
We hope that the lawyers who are on the board won't get hung up on such technicalities, but instead will seek to do what is right.
It would be easy for the NRC to delay having to make any real decisions about Bailly and the mounting evidence against it.
But we hope that the NRC will remember that 'the way is easy that leads to death.'
We have thirty two relatives (soon to be thirty four, God willing) within fifty miles of the Bailly site.
We have lived in Northwest Indiana a total of 43 years between us.
We havc many good friends within the 10 mile radius and many more within the fif ty mile radius.
George works at U.S. Steel in Gary.
We are very attached to Northwest Indiana.
We know, and you know, that if this plant is built, it's going to be opera t ed.
So why can't we brin u
anythin ertaining to operation of
3 the plant?
If you won't admit th t it's going to be operated if it is built, you can at least admit that there have been so many new developments since the original construction permit was granted that the original construction permit hearing is no longer completely valid and therefore another hearing should be held to update it.
That makes sense!
You could do that! You really should.
Since we really believe you must realize this, we can only conclude that you haven't figured out how to say it.
We have tried to figure out why you didn't accept our first petition.
We've tried to come up with what you want.
We believe there should be a hearing now, and we think that you must think so too.
So we've tried to amend our petition so well that you can accept it.
It's our best shot, with no lawyer, and we hope that you will see it the way we do.
" Standing" or " Interest" Why we have standing:
We don't want the permit extended because extending it is going to injure us.
Here is how it will injure us:
1.
If you extend the permit, the plant will be built.
If the plant is built, it will be operated.
You can say what you want about
" operating permit hearings" but only a fool would really believe that once NIPSCO spends all that money on the plant it might not get operated so we can pay for it.
So extending the time will lead to operating the plant which will endanger our lives because timely evacuation is impossible, among other problems.
We won't go into this because you won't allow it anyway; even though you should allow it, you don't have to.
2.
Extend the permit and we get eight more years of construction of the Bailly Nuclear plant.
This will definitely injure us.
We really can't sta_nd eight more years of this.
It causes serious tension, stress and strain to know that there is a uclear plant being built in the place you love and call home.
This fear and stress is justified since no operating permit has ever been denied and since even high-ranking NHC
4 officials have stated that a nuclear meltdown will happen sooner or later.
Tension and stress can actually take years off your life.
Anna's nerves can't take the stress and apprehension caused by this plant being built.
We have expert psychologists who can testify to this.
We don't want to live under the darkening cloud of an imminent nuclear plant.
Knowing that Nipsco is building that thing will cause us tension and stress.
Therefore, extending the permit for eight more years will cause us eigh years of injury.
3 If the construction permit is extended, Nipsco will be building and promoting the nuclear plant for eight more years.
That means eight more years of having to read articles in the paper in which Nipsco makes such outrageous statements it makes our blood boil.(See The Times, Hammond, IN: May 24,1979 " Nuclear Core Meltdown called Impossible" and The Times, May 25,1979 "NIPSCO Says Bailly Is No Threat" and Post-Tribune, Gary,IN:
December 28, 1979 "NIPSCO to comply with NRC regulation on evacuation plan" and Post-Tribune, July 29,1979 "N-Power more important than visitors for area growth" and Post-Tribune, September 19, 1979 "N-Plants called vital to area.")
We hate seeing all those biased and misleading statements, especially when they are accepted as gospel by a large metropolitan newspaper.
It makes us so angry that it causes stress and raises our blood pressure.
Eight more years of this would be very unhealthy and would definitely injure us.
4.
Extend the permit and it means we have to keep trying to defend ourselves for another eight years.
This injures us economically.
It means eight more years of subsribing to the Eailly Alliance News and doing whatever we can to stop this nuclear mistake.
We have to try to defend ourselves and our loved ones from this plant, but it is very expensive.
We can't afford to keep this up for eight more years, because it really hurts us financially, but we have to.
5 5
Eight more years of building Eailly will injure us by delaying realistic, safe energy plans for our region.
We want to continue living in Northwest Indiana and so we don't want to have incomplete energy planning.
This gap in our region's energy plan would certainly injure us to some degree.
This injury hinges on the assumption that the nuclear plant might not be allowed to operate.
But since Nipsco and the NRC intend to let it operate, you might as well disallow this point entirely.
Asnects of the Proceeding This is the part that really just depends on how the NRC feels.
Even thougn we' re not lawyers, we can tell that the NRC has got miles of leeway here.
You (the NRC) can either say "Nipsco has good causes" or "Nipsco might not have good causes" and that will be it.
- 1. The stay of construction by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is not a good cause for the requested extension.
It doesn't fit any of the reasons in that paragraph about what a good cause is except if the NRC wants to say it is an "among other things."
It isn't a good cause because it was due to Nipsco presenting false maps at the construction permit hearing in order to fall within the siting guidelines, and then when they were exposed, the NRC just changed the guidelines.
This is not a good cause for Nipsco to get another eight years.
Anyone with any sense could see that a legal proceeding which stemmed from Nipsco's own bad maps is not " good cause".
It was within the " control of the permit holder" to use good maps, but they didn't. (See testimony of H.
- Read, unrebutted by either Nipsco or NRC) 2.
The two year delay which was due to the pile installation review isn't a " good cause" either.
It's a bad cause.
It's not a " developmental problem attributable to the experimental nature of the facility."
It's a problem attributable to the fact that Nipsco really doesn't know what the heck they're doing.
They dont care what happens or how they do it so long as they get to build the plant.
All the " soft spots" aren't in the ground
6 under the Bailly site.
3 The installation of the slurry wall isn't a good cause either.
It just shows how damaging even the construction of this plant will be, let alone the operation of it.
It doesn't fit any of the causes in that paragraph about causes except for "among other things", which means you can let them get by with any old reason.
4.
The Good Causes for extending the construction permit that really should be considered are: Do we really need this plant?
In light of all the new evidence is it still a worthwhile risk?
Eas Nipsco shown that they can be trusted to tell the truth to the public?
Conclusion That's our interest and our particularity.
Our case for having a hearing is better than Nipsco's case for not having one.
It's really all up to the NRC now and how you (the NRC) feel about it and who you are going to agree with about the importance of this whole issue.
We're just private citizens, so logic tells us that you will go with the big company.
But hope tells us that maybe you will listen to reason and do the right thing.
Sincerely, peq.
[put,->%',
f:
.gc se:2j uwww-v