ML20054H784

Reply Supporting Motion to Add Two late-filed Contentions on Psychological Stress.People Against Nuclear Energy Vs NRC Clearly Held That Commission Required to Consider Such Issues Under Nepa.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20054H784
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/21/1982
From:	Wilt D SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, WILT, D.D.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206240430
Download: ML20054H784 (9)

Text

~~'P.$

"~

. United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7,3gg In the Matter of ) Docket Nos 50-440-OL

- I 50-441-oL Clevefand Electric Illuminating Co) et al ) June 21, 1982 (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units )

I and II) )

Reply Brier of Sunflower Alliance Inc. in Support of Motion to Add Two Late Filed Contentions.

Sunflower believes that on the basis of the decision People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) vs. NRC, No. 81-1131 (1982), this licensing board must admit the psychological stress issue as a contention and not defer it as suggested by the Staff or reject it as suggested by the Applicant.

The Court clearly held that the Commission is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.

54321 et seq. (1976) to consider potential harms to psychological health and community well-being. Thus, before the license is granted, if ever, to Applicant, these consid-erations must be reviewed. To defer this issue, would simply mean the NRC would be violating the express statutory requirements of NEPA. Judge Wright wrote:

We conclude that , in the context of NEPA, health encompasses psychological health. To implement a national policy based on 'the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality j

to the overall welfare and development of man. . .

Congress required each federal agency to utilize a ' systematic, interdisciplinary approach which l

i will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sicences and the environmental design l arts. . . ' . Slip op of Judge Wright , pg 13 Judge Wright also said:

1 NEPA, moreover, does not authorize federal agencies to deal with intangible factors by ignoring them.

It expressly instructs all federal agencies to l

identify and develop methods and procedures l 'which will insure that presently unqualified

• environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate considerations in decision l making along with economic and technical considerations' . Slip op of Judge Wright, Pg 14.

i I

B206240430 gDRADOCKOhhok4o l .

PDR

[0}

It is clear that under federal law the NRC must consider psychological stress. The issue cannot legally be deferred.

Attached to this Brief is a statement based on a survey performed by Sunflower relative to psychological stress.

The results of the survey are self explanatory.

Sunflower urges that this contention be admitted pursuant to thE requirments of NEPA.

Respectfully submitted, f I b yaniel D. Milt, Esq.

Attorney for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.

7301 Chippewa Rd.

Brecksv111e, Ohio 44141 (216) 526-2350 Proof of Service A copy of this Reply Brief has been sent to_all persons on the service list on this 21st day of June,1982.

hin,,SA r1A

,~ E s ci .

/KhielDfWilt Attorney for Sunflower Alliance, Inc.

O e ,

In response to Applicant's assertion that Intervenor Sunflower Alliance et al. has not demonstrated that persons living near.the Perry Nuclear Power Plant have experienced any stress (Applicant's Answer at 6), Sunflower Alliance sent out the attached questionnaire to approximately 150 people, most of whom are members of Sunflower Alliance or North Shore Alert ,

(and thus are having their interests represented by this Inter-venor), living in Lake, Geauga, and Ashtabula Counties. Forty-six of these questionnaires were returned. The results have been l/

tabulated on the sample questionnaire.

Sunflower Alliance would note that 98% of those responding have experienced stress because of PNPP; 58% consider this stress severe or extremely severe and intense; 69% experience this stress often or very frequently. 91% have considered moving away from tne area to avoid the risks inherent in nuclear power. Most people indicated that this stress has resulted in physical symptoms. In fact, only 28% reported no symptoms. Similarly, only 15% indicated that this stress has not caused or aggravated various personal or

• emotional problems. Note also that people ranked the risk of catastrophic accidents (the same cause of stress around Three Mile l.

I

_1/ The responses to questions 1-7 and 10 are presented as the raw data (actual numbers of those indicating that particular response). The numbers do not all total 46 because not all persons answered all questions. The rankings in question 8 were obtained l

by averaging 'the ranks El ven to each category bf all respondents, l

and then ranking the factors in order of increasing magnitude of the averaged values. hesponses to question 9 were too lengthy and diverse to include therein; some responses are quoted later in the text of this brief.

.7 ._, - - _ _ . _ ,_. . - _ .

Island) as the Number 1 contributor to their stress.

More powerful than these numbers are the personal testi-monies written by tne respondcats in answer to question 9.

Some of- the'se are quoted below.

"My wife and I were fishing near the Perry Nuclear Power Plant during the summer of 1981. As our boat neared the shore, the cooling towers appeared in the misting fog.

We experienced an ominous feeling as though we were witnessing the end of the world.

Since that day, the same scene has been in my nightmares.

Drastic changes have been made in my wife's religious beliefs.

She has changed from a devoted Catholic to a Born Again Christian and is constantly reading the Book of Revelations.

I would sign this statemsnt if it were not for my wife.

She stated that she would dery the above allegations. Even the mention of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, including this questionnaire, has caused hostility in my family.

Has the nuclear plant already affected our lives? Yes, definitely."

"I am personally opposed to the plant, and know of many local residents who are also opposed. All that we see that we will get out of it, is a plant tnat we feel we do not need, radiation contamination, lots of worry about its safety (it's already had a lot of problems with the quality of how it's being built), and higher electric bills.

The worst part is that, as local citizens, we have no say whatsoever in what CEI and the others are forcing upon us.

I thought we lived in a democracy."

"The fact that the plant is being built and the possibility that it may open is frightening to me. The fact that they use the 'by-product' of the plants in the maaufacture of nuclear weapons makes me question who is pushing for all of this nuke stuff. Why can't we put more effort into solar power or use the money to develop cleaner ways'of burning coal."

"The presence of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant has made me very reluctant to make some needed long range capital improvements to my farm; since a major plant accident could force me to move uway with no financial compensation for my loss. This forces me to maintain a reserve in my accounts to pay for my family's possible relocation and loss of my livelihood."

" Concern for safety of children (& pets) and frustration

- in ability to have my concerns taken seriously.

Polarization of community, either for or against the plant, and hostile responses by some pro-nuclear people.

Thinking seriously of leaving Perry, where my children are 3rd generation natives, leaving church, school friends, because of concern over safety and monitoring /repor, ting facilities, and the 'ever-present threat of emergency evacuation or other problems."

"It makes me think that I should not have my children

& grandchildren come to Lake County to visit me because tney might be exposed to radiation while they are here.

I This makes me very sad.

I grieve for the thousands of young families & children who do live in this area and will possibly have the major part of their lives damaged by a nuclear accident or low-level radiation. I wish they could escape."

"I have had trouble making commitments to my job due to the fact that we will move when (if) the plant starts up."

"If the plant should become active, I would have mis-givings about conceiving or raising children even on our ancestral farm in Windsor, Ohio.

The cooling tower is visible for many miles. I often wecp at the sight of it. It is shocking to realize the actuality of the project. At otner times I choose to ignore its existence and force myself to believe it's not true."

"I shudder wnen I see the tower--visible from the Madison Library, Rt. 84, and even the Geneva beach where I go to relax

& then see that ominous structure threatening my existence and the existence of my children--I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. If I would have known they were building that suicide machine, I would never have moved here ten years ago.

If I nad a good job offer, I'd move out of the area. But then I'd lose my friends & my new roots. It just isn't fair. I never asked for it to be built. And where are the benefits?

The electricity isn't even needed right now. I am terribly resentful of the whole situation."

"The fact that I have had to spend hundreds of bours opposing something that I should not have to do--due to the fact that one of our (supposedly) 4' freedoms is-- Freedom from Fear. With a nuclear power plant'in our vicinity, there is no way I can have that freedom."

"I object strongly to leaving the curse of nuclear waste to future generations. I have always tried to pick up after myself. Until we have the proven ability to handle nuclear,

waste, I find nuclear power plants to be intolerable--

it goes against the most basic fiber of my beinE. IT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE -- 0F RESPECT FOR OTHERS."

" Basic feeling of wanting to remove myself & family f: s these so-called experts & energy makers. If only there

.2s some place to run & hide from this increase in radiation exposure to my children. The sense of not being able to protect them from this danger; I. can say no to medical and dental X-rays that I feel are unnecessary but how do I stop the winds from blowing the radiation releases, that will occur, from this nuclear power plant. I feel that if the plant goes into a meltdown that I cannot depend on CEI or our evacuation plans to notify us & get us out in time. This lack of trust in a private industry is leading me to Cet the kids & go even when a site emergency happens. Each day that passes the time gets closer & closer to when these decisions and plans will have to be made. I have already made one decision and pur-chased kelp pills to give to all of us because they are supposed to rcmove the ionizing radiation from our systems. This sense of loss of freedom & hopelecaness will never stop me from saying

& fighting for no nukes."

"We keep hoping the nuclear power plant won't open. We plan on moving away if it does and we' ve lived in this area all of our lives. My husband has a secure job he'll have to give up and we'll miss our families who all live in Painesville, Mentor, and Perry. Je're also concerned about our families staying.

I hate to think that our children ages 4 cnd 1 month will ever be hurt in some way by our Generation. It scares us terribly."

Sunflower Alliance maintains tnat the results of this questionnaire indicate that persons are suffering from stress due to the ferry plant. The construction of this facility has already disrupted the lives of residents in the surrounding area. If PNPP begins operation this stress and resultant adverse effects on mental and physical health will multiply. It is thus evident that psychological stress around Perry must be thoroughly evaluated and incorporated into the NEPA cost / benefit analysis in order to determine the desiraollity of plant operation.

e

. QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Have you ever cxperienced any stress, snxiety, tension, fear, or concern reEarding the construction or operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant?

46 yes I no

Note: if you answered #1 no, do not answer any further-questions, except for #9 and-#10.

2. Cnaracterize this stress as (check one):

3 extremely severe and intense

L3 severe -

/5 moderate 4' mild

3. Approximately how often do you experience stress or anxiety aoout the Perry plant?

/1 very frequently

/T often

/3 occasionally f seldom

4. Have you ever considered moving awhy from the Perry vicinity specifically to avoid the risk of nuclear accidents or radiation injury?

MO yes 4 no

5. Has your stress concerning Perry caused or aggravated any of the physical symptoms indicated below? Check as many as appropriate.

If headaches I ulcers

/ 7 insomnia 3 skin rashes 4 skeletal and muscular problems ja sexual dysfunction i

4

4 S. continued 6 other blSORIENTA1md. *6L " F#ftSJ5: &NSicW HVAne- '

g fvypf:# s ta m x th % C H t S

/3 no symptoms

6. Has your stress aoout Perry caused or contributed to any of -the ' problems listed below? Check as many as appropriate.

23 depression 3 drug or alcohol abuse

/ / discord in family or marital life I difficulty in seeking or sustaining employment 8 difficulty in forming or sustaining friendships or personal relationships lO other ant lET4. FAuSTP 4ticM, HoPElssAlasV Mtmmn&Es..

y ' Mo SMAn$) aHcew Advr FvwRC,

7. das living near the Ferry plant influenced decisions on family planning (due.to genetic effects of radiation on future generations)?

9 yes 8 to 20 not applicable 12 so, how? Hex c ra.wJ RcM: Paw 1 CA17JS ? kos1*f Sn Hrm PLMT.

VMN PR cGrtAM7',

8. Rank the factors listed below (risks of living near the Perry plant) in the order of tneir importance in contributing to your stress (rank from 1 to 13; 1 is most important, 13 is least important).

/I declining real estate property values 3 unsolved problem of' nuclear waste disposal

, 7 reactor decommissioning l 6 nuclear waste transport-

/ catastrophic accidents

h continuous low-level radiation emissions 4 forced evacuation 9 rate hikes in electric bills

/0 sabotage / terrorism 6 foodstuff contamination

t

8. continued

/1 lack of adequate insurance in event of nuclear accident 8 effects on nuclear proliferation and world

- security frNetot OcYana.wrtapf l0 other N<rtMttDEb t FovG11 CoMs1RtxTnd c Ato esvAcvMroM Pt.M13 FArntW ins 4tverW) paneiNA AtwT'vml THNAL Por.wrewJ

9. Plsase describe in detail any other effects the Perry Nuclear Power Plant has had on your life.

10. Do you favor or oppose the licensing (for operation) of Perry as a nuclcar facility?

' O favor 46 oppose

. ---- - .. .- -- - - - . , , - . , ,. _ , . , , _ - - . . - . _ -