ML20055B432

Forwards Commission Policy Statement,Providing Guidance to Boards to Which Psychological Stress Contentions Have Been Presented.Impact Must Consist of post-traumatic Anxieties Accompanied by Physical Effects

ML20055B432
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/19/1982
From:	Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Clark H, Ferguson G, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207220254
Download: ML20055B432 (2)

Text

.

July 19,1982 Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge .

P.O. Box 127A School of Engineering Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Howard University 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Illinois Power Company, et al. -

(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-461 OL

Dear Administrative Judges:

Enclosed is the Commission's policy statement providing guidance to boards which have been presented psychological stress contentions as a result of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in People Against Nuclear Energy (PANEL v. NRC, No. 81-1131. As the Comission states, contentions alleging psychological stress resulting from Commission licensed activities must meet three criteria:

First, the impacts must consist of " post-traumatic-anxieties," as distinguished from mere dissatisfaction with agency proposals or policies. Second, the impacts must be accompanied by physical effects. Third, the

" post-traumatic anxieties" must have been caused by

" fears of recurring catastrophe." This third element means that some kind of nuclear accident must already have occurred at the site in question, since the l majority's holding was directed to " post-traumatic" anxieties and by fears of a " recurring" catastrophe.

Statement of Policy at 4.

t h SO7

~ ~~

8207220254 820719 PDR ADOCK 05000461 0 , PDR

u,,

-2 Prairie Alliance's proposed supplemental contention No. 7 does not allege

" post-traumatic anxieties," accompanied by physical effects. Indeed, there '

has not been any kind of nuclear accident at the site in question, a pre-requisite to admitting a psychological stress contention. Accordingly, Prairie Alliance's proposed supplemental _ contention No. 7 should be denied.

Sincerely, Jay M. Gutierrez Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosure:

As Stated DISTRIBUTION Gutierrez cc: (w/ enclosure) Goddard (s)c w - De Prairie Alliance Patterson Sheldon A. Zabel, Esq. Reis William van Susteren, Esq. J. Miller 216 Dhilip L. Willman, Esq. J.H. Williams 340 Mr. Herbert H. Livermore Christenbury/Scinto Jeff Urish Cunningham/Murray Reed Neuman, Esq. FF (2)

Atomic Safety and Licensing NRC Docket File: PDR/LPDR Board Panel Docketing and Service Section Jan L. Kodner, Esq.

Gary N. Wright Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel 1

l I,

i

[.

i r' L 07 i UFt :0 ELD O

__ f_g

0 t ,g : _________________.__________________.________________

j ,

NAME

JGut' err /dkw

EReis [ .__._________________.__________________.________________

/ :  :  :

DATE:07//[82 :07///f82 I

I Or m /b/G tm

's . .

J 7 /C9 . .

/ [7590-01]

. ... .. v. e - ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 CONSIDERATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS ISSUES ,

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

ACTION: Statement of Policy *

SUMMARY

On May 4, 1982, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) v. NRC, No. 81-1131. By a divided vote, the court ruled that the National Environmental Po3 icy Act requires the Commission to evaluate the effects on psychological health of opercting the Thrco Mile Island Unit I facility. The

Commission is directed to determine whether "significant new circumstances or information have arisen with respect to the potential psychological health effects of operating the TMI-l facility," and if it answers that question affirmatively, to preparc a " supplemental environmental impact statement which considers not only effects on psychological health but also effects on the well-being of the communitics surrounding Three Mile Island. "

The time within which the Commission may seek further review of the court's decision by a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari has not yet expired. Irrespective of its plans with respect to further judicial review of the decision, however, it is necessary for the Commission to provide guidance o nn7s ; y c # # + +v _s t u r

/*

~

2 [7590-01] k on the applicability of the decision to NEPA issues raised in proceedings other than the Three Mile Island Unit 1 restart proceeding, since the court did not provide explicit instructions ,

(Indeed, the court stated to the Commission on that issue.

expressly that it saw no need to attempt in its decisicn to " draw a bright line" between cognizable and non-cognizable psychological stress effects under NEPA.) The purpose of this Policy Statement is to furnish that guidanco for NRC staff's own NEPA analyses, for proceedings in which NEPA psychological stress contentions have been or may be raised and for any petitions which may be submitted under 10 CFR 2.206 requesting relief on the basis of NEPA psychological stress issues.

The court's opinion states that the " issue of first inpression" which it addresses is "the cognizability of post-traumatic psychological health cffects under NEPA." Slip op.

p. 13. Elsewhere, the court states its holding that while NEPA

• does not encompass mere dissatisfactions arising from social opinions, economic concerns, or political disagreements with acency policies," the statute "does apply to post-traumatic anxieties, accompanied by physical effects and caused by fears of recurring catastrophe." Slip op. pp. 16-17. The court underlines thic point with a reference to the " unique and traumatic nuclear accident" which gave rise to the fears alleged by PANE. Slip op. p. 16. The court also stated:

4 6

3 [7590-01] 1 We need not attempt to draw a bright line in this case. Three Mile Island is, at least so far, the only event of its kind in the American experience, We cannot believe that the psychological aftermath of the March 1979 accident falls outside the broad scope of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Slip op., p. 17.

The majority opinion thus stands for the proposition that an evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA includes evcluation of " post-traumatic anxieties, accompanied by physical effects and caused by fears of recurring catastrophe." As the Commission roads the opinion, the cognirability of psychological stress impacts under NEPA thus hinges on three elements. First, the impacts must consist of " post-traumatic anxiotics", as distinguished from mere dissatisfaction with agency proposals or

~

policies. Second, the impacts must be accompanied by physical effects. Third, the " post-traumatic anxieties" must have been caused by " fears of recurring catastrophe". This third element means that some kind of nuclear accident must already have occurred at the site in question, since the majority's holding was directed to " post-traumatic" anxietics and by fears of a

" recurring" catastrophe. Moreover, the majority clearly had only serious accidents in mind, because of the use of the word

" catastrophe" and its references to the " unique" Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident in the opinion. In the Commission's view, the only nuclear plant accident that has occurred to date that is sufficiently serious to trigger consideration of psychological

4 [7590-01]

stress under NEPA is the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident.

Accordingly, only this accident can currently serve as a basis for raising NEPA psychological stress issues.

It is therefore the Commission's policy that adjudicatory boards, in ruling on NEPA contentions alleging psychological stress resulting from Commission-licensed activities, should assure that all of the elements described above are present.

Psychological stress contentions which do not satisfy these criterie should be held inadmissible. For contentions which

! allege the elements described above, usual standards will apply for weighing the sufficiency of the initial filing. The NRC l

staff should apply the same tests in conducting its own NEPA analyses and in weighing requests for relief, filed under 10 CFR 2.206, which allege psychological harm resulting from ongoing Commission-licensed activities. The Commission believes that by adopting this approach, it can fully comply with the court's l specific holding that the " psychological aftermath" of " unique i

and traumatic nuclear accidents" be cognizable in NRC proceedings, without at the same time so broadening the court's holding as to make the litigation of psychological stress l

contentions available virtually on demand in any licensing proceeding.

By adopting a literal reading of the court's decision, as far as other proceedings are concerned, the Commission believes l

it is serving the public interest. In the conduct of licensing reviews and proceedings involving numerous complex technical issues, the Commission's resources should be devoted primarily to l

I 5 17590-01]

addressing the safety issues which are or might be the causes of psychological stress on the part of some members of the public, rather than to addressing the nature and extent of the stress itself.

Dated at b'ashington, D.C. this (b@~dayofJuly,1982.

For the C ission

/ \

f

% e 'C >

SIJ1UEIT. CHILK Secretary of the Commission k