ML20054G197

Resubmittal of Proposed Supplemental Contention 7. Psychological Stress Should Have Been Considered in Environ Rept & NRC & Applicant Studies.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20054G197
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	06/16/1982
From:	Kodner J PRAIRIE ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206210246
Download: ML20054G197 (7)

Text

.

I O.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING', BOARD D I IN Tile MATTliR OF: ) '

)

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, e_t _a_1

) Docket No. 50-461 01,

)

(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 )

PRAIRIE ALLIANCE RESUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTION NO. 7 INTRODUCTION On March 26, 1982, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE submitted eight pro-posed supplemental contentions (PSC) to this Board, including:

"7. PSYC110 LOGICAL STRESS The Applicant and the NRC Staff fail to adequately consider the psychological stress and trauma, and mitigation thereto, which will be experienced by persons residing in DeWitt and surrounding counties caused by: (a) the operation of the Clinton Plant; (b) emissions of radio-activity, accidental and planned, by the. plant; (c) transportation of spent nuclear fuel from the plan through said communities; (d) on site stor -

age of spent nuclear fuel; (c) possibility of future accidents involving occurrences, design basis accidents and beyond design basis accidents, including, but not limited to, events such as the 1979 TMI near meltdown; and (f) emergency and/or evacuation planning."

In its urief in Support of Supplemental Contentions filed April 12, 1982, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE withdrew PSC No. 7 "without

'^ "

Turr[ND ODNER S N k 173 W. M ADisON STREET cuivaioo4 final 1st} Circuit decision in the People Against Nuclear Energy CHICA1LO, ILt 80802 vaut*Hoa r case". The Appellate Court has now rendered a final decision Cit /2C31SJS therein, holding that potential harms to psychological health 8206210246 820616 PDR ADOCK 05000461 G PDR 1 Should be D.C. Circuit. 7y

i I

e and community well being are indeed environmental impacts which

! are cognizabic under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

42 U.S.C., Section 4321 et seq. (1976). Peopic Against Nuclear Energy vs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al, F 2d (D.C. Cir., 1982) (No. 81-1131) (0 pinions filed May 14, 1982). PRAIRIE ALLIANCE accordingly now resubmits PSC No. 7 for this Board's consideration.

ARGUMENT A. Applicability of People Against Nuclear Energy Decision In People Against Nucicar Energy, the Court considered two contentions filed by the above-mentioned intervenors in the TMI-1 proposed restart proceedings.

"Thus PANE'S first contention deals with individual (psychological) health; its second addresses the social and economic impacts that perceived nuclear hazards might create in the communities in the vicinity of Three Mile Island.

Both contentions allege environmental effects within the meaning of NEPA". Opinion at Page 10.

The Court then examined the scope of NEPA and the responsibilities of federal agencies relative thereto:

"In the National Environmental Policy Act, Congress accorded prominence to the effects of government actions on health and safety. NEPA was designed to ' promote efforts which will pre-vent or eliminate damage to the environment and d'i*,jb"g'*'o(cn o biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare

w. u oitou .u ary' of man'. 42 U.S.C., Section 4321 (1976). The cuirs ioo4 Act declared a national environmental policy of "c^ao. iu **o2 'encourag(ing) productive and enjoyable harmony Tci trHoN'x between man and his environment,' id., and ex-plicitly recognized that each person 'should enjoy a healthful environment,' id., Section 4331(c). In its regulations implementing NEPA'S h

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.____..____.________L__

procedural requirements, the Council on Environ-mental Quality required agencies to consider

'the degree to which the proposed action affects

. public health and safety' as a factor in deciding whether a federal action 'significantly affected the human environment'. 40 C.F.R., Section 1508, 27(b)(2) (1981). In short, 'no subject to be "

covered by an EIS can be more important than the potential ef fects of a federal program upon the health of human beings.' (Citation omitted)

We conclude that, in the context of NEPA,  :

health encompasses psychological health." -

,Id., pages 12-13. (emphasis supplied). The Court repeated this conclusion again at page 16 ("In our view, Congress intended to  :

,, include psychological health within the meaning of " health" for purposes of NEPA"). The Court remanded the case to the Commis-sion to determine whether to prepare a supplemental EIS.

U It cannot be said that the Court intended its holding to be limited to the TMI-1 restart proceedings. This is indicated by the above broad language of the meaning of health under NEPA, "and elsewhere: "We need not attempt to draw a bright line in this case". Id., page 17. _

Psychological stress should have been, but was not, 4 considered in the environmental reports and studies of Applicant and Staff. PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S PSC No. 7 therefore states a good contention, and should be admitted.

B. Admissibility of PSC No. 7 i

LAW OFFICEB l

[ ,^,"o ,*,

everEioo.

""((

,,, I PRAIRIE ALLIANCE offered all PSCs i the basis of newly aicroo. iLL. .o.on l discovered information or the contents of the Staff's SER and TELEPHONE ,

8 ' */ 2 * * ' * *

• DES. The admissibility of all PSCs under 10 C.F.R., Section n

1 h, n

i 4

, 2.714(a)(1) has been discussed at length in the March 26, 1982,

.[and April 12, 1982, memorandum and brief of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, and i

gneed not be repeated here.

As was noted in the earlier filing, recent judicial deci-e a sions may provide good cause for late or subsequently filed 1'j

contentions. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom), ALAB-389 h

[(1977).

This Board did deny a differently worded contention on the same subject in its May 29, 1981, Order; however, because of I

ythe Commission's December 5, 1980, announcement, the Board was t

I not permitted to entertain such a contention regardless of its lt j specificity. CL1-80-39, 12 NRC 607 (1980). This situation is n

[closelyakintoonewhereacourt is presented with jurisdic-a htional and substantive questions. In such a case, the court must j

j first examine the jurisdictional matter. Whether a complaint ystates a cause of action must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction. Bell vs llood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 a

I(1946). This a priori requirement of finding jurisdiction be-L

[ for rendering a final decree on the merits is one of the high 9

H commands of our jurisprudential system. Opelika Nursing Home vs N

Richardson, 448 F. 2d 658, 667 (5th Cir., 1971). Any order, ex-

, cept dismissal, entered in the cause is improper. Id. EK Carey 1

" Drilling Co. vs Murphy, 113 F. Supp. 226 (1953). In the instant case, the NRC'S directive on psychological stress contentions

" [I I

TurYEND K%o'NER . y p oad of M power or jdsOCWn M 973 W. M ADISON STREET cuirsiOO4 consider same. Therefore, the question of the specificity of CHICAGO. ILL. 40403 K' H O N E PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S differently worded contention on psychological cit /asaisis 1

i stress should not have been considered by this Board, and should b

l not prejudice PRAIRIE ALLIANCE'S submittal of PSC No. 7 I

I '

l l

l .  :

!{ CONCLUSION il For reason above stated, PRAIRIE ALLIANCE respectfully 1

!! resubmits PSC No. 7 to this Board and requests that it be l'

i admitted to these proceedings.

't f

il y

f)/ /

~

vu p PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, by its attorney,

,JAN L. K0DNER i

il o

hDATED: June 16, 1982 U

a o

al H

I.

il i

'}

d e

'I i

i i

-l

$I i'

l I

LAW OFFICES UTT AND KODNER l 0 W. M ADisON STREErg cusT31o04 '

SMICAGO. ILL. 40608 j TACPHON E j CIS/SSSless y a

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN Tile MATTI:R OF: )

)

ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et al ) Docket No. 50-461 OL

)

(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1) )

NOTICE OF FILING TO: SEli ATTACllED Sl!RVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date, June 16, 1982 ,

I am filing on behalf of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC., an original and two copies of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE RESUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTION NO. 7 with the Secretary of the United States of America Nuclear Regu-latory Commission, a copy of which is attached hereto and is herewith served upon you.

JAN L. KODNER, Attorney for PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC.

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

COUNTY OF COOK )

PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that he caused a copy of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE RESUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENTION NO. 7 filed on behalf of PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, INC., to be served upon:

SEE ATTACllED SERVICE LIST by depositing in the U.S. Mail at 173 West Madison Street, l Chicago, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid, on June 16, _ , 19S2.

LAW OFFICES TT AND KODNER w,e4n.on eiaaar cuirs ioo4  : Subscribed and Sworn to be fore mc 2' c ^ " ' * * *

• o

• this 16th day of June , 1982.

T uiPHONE C1*23CS 192a Notary Public -l

e

• I SERVICli LIST -

llugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Sheldon Zabel, Esq.

L Administrative Judge Schif f, liardin G Waite P. O. Box 127A 7200 Sears Tower Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 233 South Wacker Drive p Chicago, IL 60606 ii Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Philip L. Willman, Esq.

School of Engineering Assistant Attorney General illoward University Environmental Control 2300 Sixth Street, N.W. Division

! Washington, DC 20059 188 W. Randolph St.,

Suite 2315 3 Dr. Oscar 11. Paris Chicago, IL 60601 6 Administrative Judge

.; Atomic Safety and Licensing Dick Goddard, Esq.

.. Board Office of the Executive

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director L, Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

' Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Prairie Alliance P. O. Box 2424 Atomic Safety and Licensing Station A Appeal Board Panel a Champaign, IL 61820 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory J Commission Atomic Safety and Licens, g Washington, DC 20555 Board Panc1 i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service 1

Commission Section Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary b U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 lierbert 11. Livermore Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Clinton Nuclear Power Station R.R. 3, Box 229 A

, Clinton, IL 61727

,I h

LAW OFFICES TT AND KODNER b W. M ADISON Ef FLEET !

SUITE 1004 I ICAGO. ILL. 60602 TELEPHONE I 352/243 1833 'g 4

1 1

II i

n U _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _