ML20070R091
| ML20070R091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1983 |
| From: | Dupont R POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070R032 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8301270279 | |
| Download: ML20070R091 (37) | |
Text
--. :
v-o-
Uhifk50 UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA
26 Eh:49
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P.
Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
N EW YORK, INC.
)
50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
NEW YORS y
January 24, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
.)
. POWER AUTHORITY'S TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L.
- DuPONT, M.D.,
ON COMMISSION QUESTION 1 ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F.
Colarulli Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 466-7000 8301270279 830124 PDR ADOCK 05000247 T
' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
INTRODUCTION......................................
1 II.
THE NATURE OF THE FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER...........
3 III.
THE MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES BEHIND FENR OF NUCLEAR POWER................................. 12
- IV.
THE POTENTIAL FOR OVERCOMING FEAR OF
- N UC L EAR POWE R.................................... 18 V.
CONCLUSIONS......................................
20 REFERENCES.......................................
23 4
I_
r
. POWER AUTHORITY'S TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L.
DuPONT, M. D.,
ON OUESTIOe? 12 RISK OF MUCLEAR POWER IN PERSPECTIVE Myiname is' Robert L.
DuPont.
I am a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown' University Medical School, Pres-ident of.the Phobia Society of America, Inc., Prer,ident of the Institute.for Behavior and Health, Inc., and from 1973-
-1978 was the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
In 1978, 1979, and 1980, I chaired Special Sessions
' on the " Treatment 'of Phobias" at annual meetings of the l
American Psychiatric Association.
In 1979, I was asked by the'non-profit. Media Institute to review network television news coverage of nuclear power between 1968 and 1979.
This 4
led to publication of " Nuclear Phobia -- Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power."
In October 1981, I participated in an
-~
international ~ conference at Ditekley Par, England, on the media coverage of nuclear power..
A. statement of my profes-sional qualifications.is attached.
-I.
Introduction This testimony _ addresses Commission Question 1, which states:
What risk may be posed by serious acci-dents at Indian Point'2:and-3, including accidents not considered in the plants'
- design basis, pending and after any improvements descriaed in (2) and (4-)
below?ll}
?
1.
Memorandum and Order, Appendix at 1 (Nov. 15, 1982) (the d
w
-- --~
-,,w.,,
-w w
w
,,--m----*-
n----er
--ew-
~ ~ ~ -
'---e
+
. The evaluation of the risks of Indian Point should be based not-only upon quantitative analysis, but also upon an examination of the risk perceived by some residents of the area surrounding the~ plants.
This testimony presents a qualitative analysis of the bases for this perception.
A complete. understanding of these bases a'ds a useful
[
-perspective for decisionmaking on issues of risk in this ptoceeding.
For over 25 years, nuclear power has been used to pro-duce electricity in the United States.
There are now 73 nuclear power plants producing about 12.5 percent of the electricity in this country (Ref. 1).
Nuclear power is also
- an important producer of' electricity around the world, with a total of almost 200 nuclear plante operating in 22 coun-tries on five continents (Ref. 2).
While the electricity proditced by nuclear power plants is na different from that produced oy coal, oil, or hydro-electric plants, there is one product of nuclear power plants which is different:
fear.
This wideapread public fear exists despite the fact that during these 25 years of commercial nuclear generation of electricity, no member of the public and no nuclear worker has been killed as a result of a radiation or other
" nuclear" accident anywhere in the United States.
This is a f ull text of Question 1 is not reproduced here).
1
. u l
paradox which bedevils nuclear power:
a crippling public fear in the face of verifiable evidence of.an excellent safety. record.
This. paradox is especially striking con-sidering the f act that many people fear a means of generat-ing power -- nuclear -- and yet do not fear the product --
electricity.
This is despite the fact that in 1981, in upstate New York alone, 25 people were electrocuted (Ref.
3).
While I.will not review the evidence of the safety of nuclear power as it has actually operated -- including acci-dents such as the costly and well-studied one at Three Mile Island in 1979 -- I will examine the paradox of fear in the presence of relative safety, because I am convinced, after three years of study of this specific problem, that the paradox can be explained on the basis of accepted psycho-i logical prinelples.
I will also relate the operation of these basic psychol;gical principles to the political oppo-sition to nuclear power and sketch some ways in which this unrealistic faar of nuclear power could be reduced.
i II.
The Nature of the Fear of Nuclear Power The most striking aspect of the fear of nuclear power is the contrast between the perceived risk on the one hand 1
and the actual safety record on the other hand.
Because i
both the fear and the safety record are well-known, how i.-
l I
it possible that the public did not long ago correct its l
l
~
i
_4-misperception?
To answer this question, one must know more about fear, especially the irrational aspects of fear.
For-the last five years, I have specialized in studying phobic thinking and in treating people with phobic fears.
These fears are often severely crippling and are resistant to rational arguments.
These phobic fears include fears of
' bridges, tunnels, elevators, and airplanes.
In most cases, there is some danger (bridsas do collapse, elevators do get stuck, planes do crash), but the risks in these everyday settings are so low that most of us accept them as a matter of course.
Not the phobic person.
For the phobic person, the recitation of the actual safecy record of bridges or airplanes is not reassuring.
I want to make it clear that these people with phobic fears do not.have a mental illness in the sense that they are not psychotic, " disturbed," or " crazy."
Rather, they
-are normal people who have an exaggerated and specific fear tnat is out of proportion to the actual danger or risk that exists.
They "think phobically" about things that either do not frighten most people or merely make the prudent person nervous.
For example, many people are nervous when taking an airplane flight.
The phobic person is so frightened of flying, despite the excellent safety record of the airline industry, that he will not fly.
The prudent person will not put his hand in a snake's mouth.
The phobic person will not cross a field because there could be a snake in the grass,
- s
. the snake could be poisonous, and he could be bitten by the snake.
Additionally, we cannot guarantee the phobic person that this will not happen.
Phobic thinking.can thus be disruptive, even crippling, in comeone's life..This kind of thinking can override the phobic person's ability to make balanced, prudent assess-t ments of the actual risks in his life.
It is my experience that when a person thinks phobically, this thinking stands in marked contrast to the sensible, rational manner in which such a person typically makes other decisions in his life.
The chief characteristic of these " phobias" is "what if" thinking.rather than "what is" thinking.
For example, can I, as a psychiatrist, tell my patient who fears getting on an airplane that it is totally certain that HIS plane will not crash?' No, I cannot.
He can always say, "But it could crash," and be-is right.
If no airplane crashed for the next 50 years, the phobic ("what if") argument still holds -ecause it is not based on actual e:..perience, but on what could. happen.
Even with 50 years of complete safety in the air, the fearf ul non-flyer cannot be completely reas-sured:
the one plane he steps onto might crash.
Actual experience is no' reassuring to many. fearful people.
They shift the argument from "what is" (or what has been) to "what if" (or what might be).
Once that shift.ias taken place, rational arguments are irrelevant because the source
. of the fear is the fearful person's own inner terrors, not the actual risk t'o physical safety.
While I am drawing on my clinical' experience with pho-bic people in considering the fear of r.uclear power, I do not think that all people who either fear or oppose nuclear power are phobic.
Understanding phobic thinking, however,
-provides a helpful basis for-explaining why some people fear nuclear power.
Such people are very afraid of nuclear power (a "what if" risk) and yet, without fear, travel in their cars (a "what is" risk) to protest it.
The fear they feel is out of proportion to the actual risks, which are in many cases known to these people.
This is phobic thinking.
Understanding the widespread fear of nuclear power is made easier by recognizing the analogy of phobic fear.
There is another, related paradox in the fearful avoid-ance routinely seen in the behavior of phobic people:
their fear is less the fear of physical danger (such as the fear that the elevator may gtt stuck or that the airplane may crash) than it is the fear of the feelings the fearful person experiences when exposed to the fear-provoking sti-mulus (the elevator or the airplane, for example), or even the thought of this stimulus.
Thus, while the phobic person may be convinced that the frequency of the elevator getting 4
stuck ot the airplane crashing is low, the frequency of the fearful feeling is high.
Every time the phobic person con-fronts or thinks about his phobic stimulus, ht. feels great l
distress, even'if he is in no actual danger. -Thus, the underlying threat is often less the threat of physical harm
~
than the threat of painful feelings. !These feelings can sometimes be so severe.ttat they are called " phobic panic."
Although those who fear airplanes are often poorly I
informed about'the scientific facts of airline safety
'(including such issues as design, manufacture, maintenance, and operation-of the airplanes, as well as management and regulatory controls), these facts are available and are sometimes brought into the argument (as wah the case when a DC10. crashed in Chicejo three years ago and much sophis-ticated discussion went into supporting the fear of flying
=on.that particular plane).
In the' nuclear power debate, the existence of a political opposition to nuclear power, an opposition which is often-technically sophisticated, makes it_ appear that the risk of nuclear power is greater than we rationally know it to be.
That is, these opponents can often discuss the~ mechanics of nuclear reactors and the!2 poseible accidents in a technically competent manner.
This does not mean, however, that such accidents are likely to happen.
,er In any event, whether the fearful person fears air-planes or nuclear power plants, and whether he is techni-L L
cally sophistica'ted or not, the central argument holds:
as i
.long as the discussion of health hazard is restricted to 1.
actual experience (and not to "what if" thinking), then the
w paradox I am exploring is unmistakable because fear is wide-spread _despite an excellent safety record.
It is essential to our understanding of the fear of nuclear power to recognize-that +.he prob 1cm the fearful person has, in the end, is not the external stimuli asso-
'iated with the fear -- it is not-the airplane or the bridge-c or the nuclear power _ plant.
Although the fearful person knows that the situation he fears is highly unlikely, the fear can be so intense as to seem unbearable.
This is the problem.
This is critical to understanding both prevention of fear and treatment of phobias:
to overcome a pnobia, the phobic person needs to recognize that the fundamental prob-lem.is inside himself and not in his environment.
It is not possible to entirely solve the problem of fear of airplanes by avoiding airplanes, by promoting a greater understanding of how airplanes work or by enforcing more stringent regu-
-lation on'the airlines.
The fearful person will still be afraid of aitplanes because the "what if" thinking will still exist.
The plane could still crash.
(Planes can even crash and kill' people on the ground -- at least 17 people were killed in this manner in 1982-(Ref. 4).
Yet, despite this "what is" danger, few people who fear nuclear power scan the sky to see if a plane is about to fall on them.)
That the problem of the f(arful person is inside him-self is illustrated by the fact that phobic people often report that they spend hours every day worrying about an
--9_
event'they know to be unlikely.
.They especially worry about
-how they will act_in a situation they fear.
I have_ spoken to-many people who are afraid to fly.
They tell me that they are afraid they will panic on an airplane, that they will lose' control of themselves, perhaps faint, scream or in some -ill-defined way simply "go berserk."
They know that airplanes do not crash very frequently.
They are afraid of their own fear.
Similarly, people who are inordinately fearful of nuclear power are often afraid of how they, or people like themselves, will react should a nuclear accident occur.
They fear that people who are sensible and responsible, es they are, will behave in a senseless and irresponsible manner.
Such fears are groundless.
For example, when airplane phobics are"able to actually take a flight on a plane, none has panicked.
While there has never been a nuclear accident requiring prompt public action, I am convinced that fears that people will behave callously or irresponsibly are just
. tha t:
fears only.
Experience has taught us that, when dealing with emergencies, people behave competently, respon-r sibly, and sensibly.
In fact, in an actual emergency, when even the phobic person must face his fear to ensure his own personal safety or to help another person in distress, the phobic person, unlike the psychotically disturbed person, will behava
._ 10 -
rationally ru3 ef fectively.
It is a commonplace observation in the t'reatmer,t of phobic people that they will, in a crisis, do what needs t<
be done, even if that means tempor-arily overcoming their fear.
The mother who does not drive n
because of a phobia will not hesitate to drive an injured child ~to a hospital.
In rea:-life emergencies, phobic people do not panic or beheve irrationally.
Their fear of loss of control is one more "what if" fear.
It does not happen -- phobic people do not act panicky or irrationally -- even thuugh they feel that they "might."
This is a vitally important point in the treatment of phobic people.
Those who fear driving do not lose control in a car, for example, even when they feel their full-blown phobic panic feelings after years of not d riving.
Similarly, phobic non-flyers often fear they eill panic and lose control of themselves in an. airplane if they fly.
This does not happen.
What does happen, especia]ly early in treatment, is the phobic person may leave the air-plane prior to take-off.
However, once the door is closed, despite feelings and anticipation to the contrary, phobic people do not panic or act irraticaally.
Note that many phobic fears involve technologies.
As new technologies have been introduced, each producer wide-spread public fears.
Cars, trains, airplanes, natural gas, and electricit; brought into the home, for instance, all produced widespread fears when they were introduced.
The
_ 11 _
initial fears soon subsided for most people as the technolo-gies became moreffamiliar.
.This reduction occurred almost-
-without regard to the actuel danger of the technologies
-involved.
For example, riding in an automobile is not
" safe," in any absolute sense, but few people are afraid to J
ride in a car in America today.
Sad to say, there is so little fear that more than 80 percent of Americans do not use seat belts, which could save at Jeast 25,000 lives _a
. year (Ref. 5).
This observation makes clear the often irrational aspect of fears and the' extent to which they are not based on real risks to' health or even to life itself.
While the vast majority of the public quickly learns to accept new and potentially dangerous technologies, this process is not universal:
fear of flying in airplanes remains common --
.cbout 25,000,000 Americans are afraid to fly -- despite the excellent saftety record of commercial aviation (Ref. 6).
I will return to this example later because it has'majc; par-allels to the fear of nuclear power.
There are several factors, however, which combine to make fear of nuclear power uniquc.
The first is that it is
.a relatively.new technology.
Second, nuclear power is asso-ciated'in many people's minds with deadly nuclear weapora.
Third, the dangers of nuclear power seem mysterious because radiation cannot be sensed directly and because if harmful exposure has occurred, effects can be delayed and uncer-
w.
~..
^
tain.
Fourth' the'"what-if" risk of. nuclear. power.is seen-as " imposed," rather:than voluntarily accepted:
thus, one
~
.may,Las an individual, choose to get on an-airplane.or to.
L avoid iti while -potential risks 'from~ nuclear power, - however -
small they mayLbe, are not.always chosen by the individual
.on;whom theyffall. TFearlof nuclear power has also proved
- more1 persistent than many other. fears because,1 in contrast
-to such phobicistimuliLas bridges, automobiles or airplanes, few gaop1. come in contact'with nuclear power plants pre-i:
Lcisely because there are relatively few of them and because
-federal. regulations. restrict public: visiting of.the.
+
-plants.
Fear of nuclear' power, in contrast to most other.
phobic' fears of_ technology,.is spread and reinforcedLby-l political and~ media voices.
To recap:
.The. fear of' nuclear power has phobic ele-Jments because it is a "what if" fear.
Like the fear of most
-new technologies, it is widespread.'
Severul factors make i-fear of nuclaar power more common, more severe, and more persistent than fears of other technologies.
III.
The Major Psychological Fcrces Behind Fear of Nuclear Power
.There.are four easily understood, but 1" rational, psy-chological factors at work distorting the public perception j
of risk from nuclear power.
The first is whether the risk
- appears to be from one single big event or from many smaller l
- ~
- events spread out.over time and space.
The risks associated with single, big events seem worse than t' hose associated with1 distributed risks.
To understand chis f actor, compare the: fear produced in the.public by an airplane crash with that produced by an automobile crash.
On January 13, 1982,
- a plane crashed into the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.,
producing front-page news all over the world, not just for that day, but day af ter day.
Even.the Federal Aviation Administration hearing into the causes of the crash was widely reported, and much of it was carried live on National Public Radio.
A total of 78 people died in that tragic accident (Ref. 7).
On that same day, approximrtely 134 people died equally tragically in car crashes in the United States (Ref. 8).
What was the news value of the story about the highway
! deaths on January 13, 1982?
Think about it:
134 died the next day and the next day and the next.
The only way high-way safety hits the headlines is if many people or many cars l
are involved in a single accident-and, even then, the media coverage is minimal and usually local, as compared to that of plane crashes.
It is, therefore, not surprising that 25,000,000 Americans are so afraid to fly that they either do not fly at all, or severely curtail their flights.
It is also not surprising that An.ericans do not fear driving a car and most do not wear seat belts, although some public health experts
_ 14 _
believe this would reduce their risk of death and injury by at lea'st 50 parcent (Ref. 9).
The manner -in which the media report stories about risks refnforces this exaggeration of one kind of risk and the minimization of the other.
In reporting on nuclear power, in contrast to reporting on both airplanes and auto-mobiles,-there have been no deaths at.all to write about.
The nuclear news is about conflict, controversy, and acci-dents.
These are often relatively minor industrial acci-dents. -In over 25 years, there has never been an accident which has harmed the public and yet they are big news.
The news is the "what if" element of the story.
This kind of news reporting perpetuates the irrational fear of nuclear power.
In reporting on accidents at nuclear power plants, it is common for the media to report reassuring statements from the operators of the plants or from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the absence of health dangers.
Thase reassurances are then " balanced," directly or by implica-1 tion, with fear-inducing quotes from the opponents of nuclear power, who are of ten identified as "public interest" groups.
These "public interest" quotes are generally "uhat if" messages that reinforce the fearful person's "what if" fears.
One particularly egregious example of this rein-t forcemet.t is 'he sponsorship or distribution by the New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. of the pamphlet and
_ 35 _
. survey 1 discussed in the Power Authority's Mation to Exclude Fear As An IssuefIn This Proceeding ( De c. 1, 19 81 ).
As I said in myfaffidavit in support of that motion, these docu-ments "are' explicitly designed to generate a fear reaction rin the reader.
These documents promote phobic thinking about nuclear power. "
Affidavit of Dr. Robert L.
DuPont In Support-of the-Power Authority's Motion to Exclude Fear As An Issue In This Proceeding 1 6 (Dec. 1, 1981).
The second factor in the public's perception of risk which deeply affects attitudes toward nuclear power is the distinction between risks that the individual personally-controls or thinks he controls and risks perceived to be controlled by others.
We tolerate with relative ease those risks which ue feel we can control; but, when risks appear
.to be imposed by others, we find them intolerable.
Driving
-a car is a risky activity, but it is comfortably done by millions of Americans.
The anti-nuclear political movement l
is based'on the' idea that nuclear power is an " imposed" risk:
the ordinary ci tizen does not choose this risk and, therefore, it is unacceptable.
Ration =.1 discussion of how big the risk itself is, or how it compares to other, more familiar risks, is thus avoided.
In modern life, it is the issue of who controls the risk which activates political reactions to dangers of all kinds.
Think about an anti-nuc. ear demonstration -- about the mass of people blocking the gate te a nuclear power plant,
~
- - for example.
Then think about-when you last waw a group of protesters : blocking the gate to a distillery.
Nuclear power plant accidents have killed no one; alcohol kills about 200,000 Americans a year, over 500 each day (Ref.10).
Why not protest drinking alcohol?
When was the last time a political movement got up a head of steam about the 90 per-cent of Americans who do not wear seat belts when driving or riding in their cars?
This is one of the factors that distinguishes fear of nuc.'. ear power from fear of airplane crashes.
Because the passenger voluntarily chooses tu fly, there is no political opposition to flying.
The fear of flying is not reinforced by a vocal and visible group of experts and political activists lending the fear an appear-ance of scientific anc po.itical legitimacy.
Note that nuclear power is not really an " imposed" risk at all, even though the anti-nuclear movement exploits the appearance that it is " imposed." -The reality is that the existence of nuclear power in the United States is the result of an open, democratic political process involving the national political will.
The risks of nuclear power are entered into by such shared decision-making.
The third ractor in the public's perception of risk is whether the risk is familiar or unfamiliar.
Familiar risks seem smaller, and unfamiliar risks seem greater.
This prin-ciple underpins successful treatment of phobias.
The eleva-tor phobic, for example, is cured only by the sufferer's
"epeated exposure tcr an elevator.
The challenge is to get the phobic person into the elevator -- that is the hard work of treatment.
Once the exposure' occurs and is repeated, the fear: diminishes, and elevator riding becomes easier.
When considering this third factor in the public's per-ception of risk, recall that most Americans have never know-ingly seen a nuclear power plant, even at a distance.. Also
-recall'that'duclear Regulatory Commission regulations restrict access _to nuclear power plants.
These regulations J
are an example of the extraordinary caution exercised by the Commission to ensure public safety.
An. unfortunate side e"fect.of these well-meaning regulations, however, is that the public remains unfamiliar with nuclear power plante.
Thus, 'in contrast to most other fear-producing technologies, such as cars and airplanes, the increasing familiarity that would help to reduce the fear of nuclear power has not occurred.
L l
Fourth, and finally, fears are exaggerated if the feared stimulus is thought of as unnecessary and/or unplea-sant.
By contrast, when the feared experience is considered
(
necessary or pleasant, it is rarely feared, regardless of the actual risk involved.
Alcohol consumption, particularly when combined with driving, another risky venture, is a good exaLple of this.
Ever though nuclear power provides about 12 percent of all AmerJ.can electricity, many Americans are convinced that nuclear power is an unnecessary source of i
18 -
electricipower generation.
Given this appearance of-being unnecessary, - the anti-nuclert argument - goes, "Why. put up
- with the tear?"-
The. psychological deck is stacked against' nuclear power.- All four of these factors work to heighten irra-tional fears:of nuclear power.
I To recap, nuclear power is seen by many Americans as posing a " single, ' big threat" and is,.therefore, excessively feared.
This fear is reinforced by the media.
Nuclear power is seen as controlled by "others" and, therefore, the fear.is' exaggerated.
Nuclear power is unf amiliar at:d,
.therefore, the fear persists.
Nuclear power is seen as unnecessary and, therefore, the fear is not confronted, but permitted to flourish.
IV.
The Potential for Overcoming Fear of Nuclear Power There are' two major lessons from understanding the psy-
.chological roots of the fear of nuclear power which have direct. applicability to overcoming the fear.
The first is putting the health risk of nuclear power into a realistic, "what is" perspective.
It is essential
.that the' discussion of health risks be presented to the public in a clear, realistic way.
The dangers of nuclear power need to be understood in relationship to the dangers of other ways of generating electricity and also in rela-tionship to other, more familiar, h7alth risks.
Once the
leap.is made to "what if" thinking in considering health risks, that leap needs to be clearly labeled and the related "what is" risks need to be similarly explored.
The phenomenon of "what if" thinking must-be under-stood.
Those in pe;itions to make decisions for their fel-low citizens and to educate and influence the public must be "what is" thinkers.
Only then can the risks of nuclear-power, and the health hazards of modern life which are truly menacing, be rationally evaluated.
While facts alone will not overcome irrational, phobic fears, f act a are impor-tant.
l' hey will reduce the likelihood of fear reactions developing and, once they.:agin to develop, facts about safety will help the fearful person accurately identify the source of the problem:
inside himself and not in the fear-provoking stimulus.
Facts also help those around the fear-ful person identify the problem as irrational fear, thus facilitating effective response to the problem.
Second, and I speak now as a practicing physician, it is important to address the needs of the fearful person.
The first step in ov'ercoming any excessive or irrational
[
i j
fear, including fear of nu. clear power, is to face the real-ity that the fear is the problem (not the nuclear power i
plant) and that the fenr is inside the frightenc3 person.
This concept may cound simple, but it is difficult because the fearful person attributes his fear to external stimuli
-- in this case, a nuclear power plant.
I wish that people l-i
who are afraid of nuclear power could visit a nuclear power plant, as I have done.
In the' course of visits I have made, my own initial fears were reduced by seeing how work-a-day the plants actually are.
I also found it reassuring to meet the people who work in nuclear power plants.
They appeared
'to me to be well-trained, " good," and unafraid people.
I also enjoyed' spending time in the visitors' centers, which most of the nuclear power plants now have.
There I learned a good deal about nu lear power and about energy.
Additionally, school children should be educated about nuclear power and the energy problems facing our modern world.
This must, however, be a "what is" education.
It is
'the responsibility of our educators to contribute to the development of tomorrow's rational decision-makers, rather than-to promote a generation of voters who can only think in a "what if" manner.
V.-
Conclusions While nuclear power tends to generate fear, there is nothing unique about the fear itself. 'The psychological principles involved in this fear, as well as the impact of the media and politicians, are not unique.
The major lesson from understanding the widespread public fear of nuclear power is that, as our world changes ever more rapidly, we need to think twice about our innate, automatic f ear reac-tions.
We also need to recognize the ways our fears are
J-21 -
W wittingly and unwittingly affected by voices from the polit-ical urena and from'the mefia.
We need to be able to re-
- focus on the most serious dangers to our health, individu-ally and collectively, and to take sensible actions to re-duce those threats.
When we come against fears which are not well-founded on scientifically proven facts, we need to use specific techniques for overcoming these fears by fac a9 them dfrectly.
It is especially important that the media and our political leaders become better educated about where risks to health are_loceted so they can help solve these problems, rather than distorting them further, as often happens
'today.
To let our fears, themselves separated froa realis-tic assessments of de.nger, dominate our actions as individ-uals-or as a nation would be a real tragedy, posing a grave threat to our health, our happiness, and our productivity.
l While incree. sed familiarity and knowledge regarding nuclear power may help to reduce unrealistic fears, the encouragement of "what if" thinking about events with a remote probability of occurrence will certainly heighten those.fuars.
Just because an event has a probability of L
occurrence that is " greater than zero" does not mean people should be fearful.
Any event, whether tragic or desirable, has a probability of occurring that is " greater than zero."
We must rationally assess the "what is" concerning risk in' order to reassure the community that decisions are
. 4 being mada in a prudent, rather than an irrational manner.
' Even_ people who are excessively frightened of nuclear. power conduct other aspects of their lives based on "what is" thinking.
.Let me turn now to "what if":
what if there were ar.
accident at Indian Point that required public protective action?.There has never been an accident at a nuclear power plant necessitating a prompt or general public response, a
record which speaks well for the nuclear industry and its regulatots.
Despite the lack of direct data regarding
" nuclear" evacuations, I believe that during such an evacu-ation people would behave responsibly and com"etently.
They did just that (and without the benefit of an evacuation plan) in February 1981, when approximately 3000 people were evacuated in Port Jervis, Orange County, New York, due to river flooding (Ref. 11), and in November 1979, when approx-imately 250,000' people were evacuated in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, due to a chc71 cal spil.1 ( Re f. 11).
Based on my experience with human behavior, parti'cu-larly_ behavior under stress, I believe that elected offi-cials will be cooperative and competent, that school offi-cials and teachers will be sensible and responsible, and that neighbors will be helpful and humane.
If this were not the case ~, we would long ago have ceasej trusting the public officials who we know, our personal physicians, our chil-dren's teachers, our neighbors, and ourselves.
~
~.
S l
- 1
-.- 2 3 -
REFERENCES c
7 1.
~ Nuclear Power-Plants in the United States, Atomic Industrial Forum Public Affairs and Information Program, Jan. 1, 1983, at 9; The Nuclear-Industry in
'1982:
Staying tne Curse and swaying the Course,
-Atomic. Industrial Forum News Release, Jan. 12, 1983, at 3.
2.
AIF Releases International Survey:
France Continues to Dominate Foreign Nuclear Electricity Growth, Atomic Industrial Forum News Release, Mar.- 19, 1982, at 3,
-Attachment at 2-12.
s 3.
Personal Communication from Timothy Smith, Senior-Biostatistician, "ew York State Health Department, Office of Health-Etatistics, to Morgan Associates, Chartered (Jan. 21, 1983).
4.
Burgess, Physical Effects of Crash Being Erased, But Memories Remain, Wash. Post, Jul. 14, 1982, at A13, col.-1; Panel Studying Efficacy of Rescue Efforts, Wash. Post, Jan. 27, 1982, at C5, col.
1.
'5.
Public Health Service, U.S. Dep't of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, Pub. No. 79-55071, Healthy Feople:
The Surgeon General's Report on Health l_
Promotion and-Disease Prevention 111 (1979) (here-inafter Surgeon General's Report).
6.
R._ Dean &'K. Whituher, Boeing Pub. No. BCS-D009-RD/DM, Fear of Flying--Impact on the U.S. Travel Industry, at
[
1 (1980).
l 7.
Iced Wings Eyed in Crash of Jet, Wash. Post, Jan. 15, l
1982, at A, col.
5.
8.
Surgeon General's Report at 111.
I 9.
S'.rgeon General's Report at 111.
1 l
10.
Surgeon General's Report at 125.
11.
Rodan, 'It could have been worse,' Port Jervis Union-Gazette, Feb. 13, 1981, at 11, cel. 1.
l 12, Canada's lesson on train derailments, Bus. Wk., Dec.
3, 1979, at 43; 8 Fir'emen Overcome, Wash. Post, Nov.
16, 1979, at A28, col. 1.
l.
I l
l
.x m November, 1960.
j
.c ROBERT L DUPONT, M. D.
BIOGRAPHICAL ~ SKETCH Robbrt L OuPont, M. D.', is a practicing psychiatrist and President
- ofLthe non-profit Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (IBH). As part of his practice of psychiatry, he directs Washington's first phobia treat-ment program.
In addition, he is President of the American Council on Marijuana and contributes to local' and national TV, radio, magazines, and newspapers on a ariety of health topics.
v The American Council on Marijuana is the nation'E leading private organization linking scientists to comunity action programs. It interprets
- the -latest scientific research for the public and offers leadership on mari-juana policy. The Anerican Coacil 'on Marijuana and Other Psychoactive Drugs was founded in 1977.. ACM has offices in New York City and Rockville, Maryland.
Dr. OuPont has a special interest in substance abuse prevention pro-grams-in the schcols and in the workplace. The Institute for Behavior and
~
Health conducts research and demonstration programs aimed at preventing drug and alcohel abuse,:as well as more broadly tar 5eted health promotion efforts.
~
The Phobia Program of Wasnington is a' structured 20-week program which helps phobic people overcome agoraphobia, fear of flying, fear of driving on major highways, claustrophobia, and other phobias. The program, which was founded in 1977, also includes self-help meetings for former program members, and outreach services for housebound agoraphobics.
In Mty, 1978, Dr. OuPont chaired a Special. Session at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Atlanta on the " Treatment of Phobias." He chaired a similar Spe-cial Session at the 1979 APA meeting in. Chicago and the 1950 APA meeting in
' San Francisco.
In'1980 he led the second annual National Phobia Conference held in Washington, D. C.
In addition to his work as -a health commentator en ABC-TV's Good Morning, Merica, Dr. DuPcnt has appeared on many network TV shows, including The Phil Donahue Shcw, The David Suskind Shcw, and The Dick Cavett Show. He is a frequent guest talk-shew hest on WRC-NBC radio in Washington, D. C.
He
- has been quoted in U. S. News and'World Reoort, Time and Newsweek, and has appeared on the evening network news, tne Today Snow, and many TV documentaries.
Dr.- OuPont was the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse from its creation in September,1973, until July,1978.
In June, 1973, he was appointed by the President and confimed by the Senate to direct the White House Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, a position he held until the office teminated in June,1975. As SACDAP Director with a staff of L
more than 100, he designed and coordinated tfie entire $1 billion a year feceral drug abuse prevention program.
In his role as Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuta, he directed the Federal Government's majer drug abuse treatment, research and preventien effort with a staff of 400 and a budget of $280 millien a year.
From 197C to 1972, Dr. DuPont served as Administrater of the Narcotics Treatment Administratien (NTA) of the District of Colur.bia Cepartment of il Y
p w
v w
-w r-
,,;,y-.
.-2--
~
~.
+
Human Resources.
NTA'was a comprehensive city-wide'multimadality heroin
- addiction treatment program which t eated 15,000 people with a st.aff of 500 working in 20 facilities dur:ng those years.
As a 'research psychiatrist and Acting Associate Director for Community Services of the District of Columbia. Department of Corrections from 1968 to
- 1970, he directed the city's parole and halfway bcuse programs and developed
- a. pilot narcotics - treatmsnt program.
0
' Dr. DuPont has writtan more than 100 professional articles and one book _ on a' variety of topics _in the fields of health promotion, drug abuse preventien, and criminal-justice. He holds:the faculty positions of Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical School, and Visiting Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Eat Harvard Medical School.
He'is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association,. and a member of many pro-
~
fessional organizations, including the Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research,
- the Behhvioral Medicine Special Interest Group, the American Public Health Association, the World Psychiatric Association, the Pan American Medical Asso-ciation, the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of the State of Maryland, and
- the Montgomery County Medical-Society.
Dr. DuPont was Chairman of the Drug Cependence Section of the World Psychiatric Association, from 1974 through 1979.
'Dr. DuPont is listed in Who's Who in America and has received honors,
. including being chosen the Outstancing Yc,ung Mar. in the District of Columbia Government'in 1972 by the-Ocwntown Jaycees.
In-1973, he was given the Mari-torious Service Award by the Mayor of the District of Columbia. He was awarded the highest honor in the U. S. Public Health" Service, the Superior
. Service Award, by the Surgeon General in 1978. He has also been honored by several' local and naticnal drug abuse and alcohol abuse prevention organiza-ti ons.
Sorn on March 25, 1936, in Toledo, Ohio, he attended public high school
-in_ Denver, Colorado; received a 3. A. from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1958; and an M. D. fr-m Harvard Medical Schcol in Ecston, Massa-
.chusetts, in 1963. - His postgraduate training includes: Medical Intern, Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, Western Reserve Medical School (1963-1964); psychiatric resident and teaching fellcw, Massachusetts' Mental Health Center, Harvard Medical School (1964-1966); and clinical associate, National Institutes of Health (1966-1968).
l e
e
\\
f 1
6'm
=y e
7 June 1, 1982 ROBERT L. DUPONT, M.
D.
SUPPLEMENTAL BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Material Pertaining to Fears of Nuclear Power:
In 1979, because of his experience with public policy and his expertise in fear, Dr. De N t was asked by the non-protit Media Institute co review network TV news coverage of nuclear power between-1966 and 1979.
This led to publication of the influential rionograph,
"Nucler Phobia Phobic Thinking About Nuclear L
Power."
lf Subsequently, Dr.
DuPont visited nuclear power plants at Three Mile Island, and Peach-Bottom in Pennsylvania, and Diablo Canyon in_ California, as well as England, Canada and France.
In addition
-to talking.to employees at these nuclear power
- plants, he interviewed neighbors and county and regional leaders, including physicians and politicians.
He has consulted with numerous utilities, public interest groups, medical groups, and government agencies about public reactions to nuclear power.
In October of 1981, Dr. DuPont participated in an international Conference at Ditchley Park in England dealing with the media coverage of energy in five countries:
England, France, Germany, the United States and Japan.
His publications on the psychology of nuclear power include the following:
- DuPont, R. L.:
" Phobic Fear as a Nuclear Health Hazard."
The Mashington Star, July 20, 1980.
- DuPont, R. L.:
Nuclear Power -- Photic _ Thinking About Nuclear i
Power.
The Media Institute, March, 1980.
- DuPont, R. L.:
" Nuclear Phobia:
Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power," in Nuclear Power in American Thought, Decisionmakers, Vol. 8, Edison Electric'IWstitute, 23-41, 1981.
DuPont R. L.:
" Fifty Million Frenchmen Have Few Nuclear Fears,"
Electric Perspectives, Edison Electric Institute, 33-36, Fall, 1981.
DuPont, R. L.:
"The Nuclear Power Phobia."
Business Week, 14-16, September 7, 1981.
(Reprinted, Congressional Record, September 15, 1981.)
- DuPont, R..L. :
"The Psychology of Phobic Fear of Nuclear Energy,"
in Phobia:
A Comarehensive Summary of Modern Treatments.
Edited by Robert L..
DuPont, M.
D.,
Brunner/ Mazel, 1982.
Edited by Robert L. DuPont, M.
D.,
Brunner/huzel, 1982.
DuPont, R. L.:
" Psychological Trauma and Nuclear Emergency Planning:
The-Value of Confronting Fears," in Are Current Emergency Plan-ning Requirements Justi fied, (Workshop Proceedings J, Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, presented January 13, 1982.
~
2 Congressional Hearing:
Statement of Robert L. DuPont, M.
D.,
before the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production, U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December' 15, 1981.
Unpublished Manuscripts:
- DuPont, R. L.:
" Understanding Faar of Nuclear Power."
Presented at the International Conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., November 18, 1980, Washington, DC.
- DuPont, R. L.:
" Lessons from France:. Fears of Nuclear Power."
May 4, 1981.
DuPont, R. L.:
" Perspectives of Nuclear Risk:
The Role of the Media."
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Association, June 9, 1981, Ottawa, Canada.
DuPont, R. L.:
" Phobic Fear of Nuclear Energy -- Why Don't the French Have It?"
June 12, 1981.
- DuPont, R. L.:
"The Press Isn't to Blame for Nuclear's Problems!"
December 20, 1981.
es e
0 4
e
~ T9'?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P..Gleason, Chairman-Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED-EDISON COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
N Di YORK, INC.
)
50-247 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP I
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
)
Jan. 24, 1983 NEW YORK
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 24th day of January, 1983, I caused a copy of Power Authority's Testimony of Robert L.
- DuPont, M.D.,
on Commission Question 1 to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:
1 l
l l^
l
James P. Gleason, Chairman Charles it. Pratt, Esq.
Administrative Judge Stephen L.
Baum, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority of the 513 Gilmoure Drive State of dew York Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Janice Moore, Esq.
Atomic safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.. Oscar H.
Paris Administrative Judge Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company Commission of New York, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Mr. Ernest E.
Hill Administrative Judge Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Lawrence Livermore National William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Laboratory Harmon and Weiss University of California 1725 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 P. O.
Box 808, L-123 Washington, D.C.
20006 Livermore, CA 94550 Charles A.
Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Docketing and Service Branch Westchester People's Action Office of the Secretary Coalition, Inc.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 488 Washington, D.C.
20555 White Plains, New York 10602 Joan Holt, Project Director Alan Latman, Esq.
Indian Point Project 44 Sunset Drive New York Public Interest Research Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 Group 9 Murray Street Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
New York, New York 10007 Steve Leipzig, Esq.
Environmental Protection Bureau Jeffrey M.
Blum, Esq.
New York State Attorney New York University Law School General's Office 423 Vanderbilt' Hall Two World Trade Center 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10047 New York, New York 10012 Alfred B.
Del Bello Charles J.
Maikish, Esq.
Westchester County Executive
. Litigation Division Westchester County The Port Authority of New York 148 Martine Avenue and:New Jersey White Plains, New York 10601 One World Trade Center New York, New York 10048 Andrew S.
Roffe, Esq.
New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248) * < ~ ' Marc ~L.JParris, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing LEric',Thorsen, Esq. Board Panel County' Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regu.latory Commission. County of Rockland Wanhington, D.C. 20555 u ,11 New Hempstead Road New City', New York 10956 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal. Board Panel Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About. Indian Washington, D.C. 20555 Point ~P.O. Box.125 10520 Member of the County Legislature Honorable Richard'L. Bradsky Croton-on-Hudson, New York Westchester County l _Renee Schwartz, Esq. County Office Building Paul Chessin,-Esq. White Plains, New York 10601 Laurens R. Schwartz', Esq. Margaret Oppel, Esq. Zipporah S. Fleisher Botein,. Hays,-Sklar and Hertzberg West Branch Conservation L 200-Park Avenue-Association New York, New York 10166 443 Buena Vista Road New City, New York 10956 Honorable Ruth W. Messinger 1 Member of the Council of the Mayor George _V. Begany City of-New York Village of Buchanan District #4 -236 Tate Avenue -City-. Hall Buchanan, New' York 10511 New York,'New York 10007 Judith Kessler, Coordinator Greater New York Council Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy -on Energy 300 New Hemstead Road -c/o Dean R.'Corren,LDirector New City, New York 10956 New York University -26 Stuyvesant Street David'H. Pikus, Esq. I New York, Ne>-York 10003-Richard F. Czaja, Esq. Shea &'Gould Joan-Miles 330 Madison. Avenue -Indian Point Coordinator New York, New York 10017 New York City Audubon Society ~ 71 Uest 23rd. Street, Suite-1828 Amanda Potterfield, Esq. 1 .New York,~New York 10010 Johnson & George 528 Iowa Avenue Richard M. Hart: man, Esq. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 .Lorna Salzman Mid-Atlantic Representative Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq. Friends of the Earth, Inc. Atomic Safety and 20?-West 13th Street Licensing Board Panel New York, New' York ~.100ll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stanley B; Klimberg, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 General Counsel. 1New-York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza . Albany, New York 12223-
o.., Mr. Donald Davidoff-Director, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire' State Plaza Tower Building,'Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Craig Kaplan, Esq. National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 Michael D. Diederich, Jr., Esq. Fitgerald, Lynch & Diederich 24 Central Drive Stony Point, New York 10980 Steven'C. Shelly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.V?. Suite 1101 . Washington, D.C. 20036 Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel . Room 1349 Federal Emergency' Management Agency' 26 Federcl Plaza .New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg i Staff Attorney New York Public Interest Research Group 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Jonathan L. Levine, Esq. P. O. Box 280 New City, New York 10958 1 \\& V_ !~ Paul F. Colarulli l [ l I
- .~.1 DGWETEO
.[ fUNITED! STATES OF ftMERICA LINM NUCLEAR REGULATORY COliMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-0 MI49 Before; Administrative Judges: ' 9E :C"7,:., C:' SE cq 7w James.P..Gleason, Chairman UNG !< SERvicg o NCH Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar. H. Paris In the Matter of ) ) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. NEW YORK, INC. ) 50-247 SP. '(Indian Point, Unit No. 2) ) 50-286 SP ) P_OW' R AUTHORITY OF THE -STATE OF ): Jan. 74, 1983-E NEW -YORK ) ~ (Indian' Point, Unit No. 3) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE o I hereby certify that. on the 24th day of January,1983,- i .I. caused a copy of (1) Licensees' Testimony of Dennis C. i. Richardson and-Dennis C. Bley on Board Question 1.4,-(2) Licensees' Testimony of Stanley Kaplan on Board Question 1.2, and (3) Licensees' Testimony of Thomas E. Potter on Board -Question 1.3 to be served by first class; mail, postage . prepaid on-the following: I- ~ l
.7.._. . -. _. ~
- fr p,
r James :P./Gleason, Chairman Charles _M. Pratt,-Esq. Administrative Judge-Stephen L. Baum,'Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Power Authority -of the 513'Gilmoure Drive State of-New York Silver. Spring, Maryland -20901 1-0oolumbus Circle New York, New York 10019 .Mr. Frederick J. Shon'- . Administrative Judge. Janice Moore, Esq. I - Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board _ Counsel for NRC Staf f - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission-Legal Director LWashington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission-Washington, D.C. 20555 ^ Dr.f0 scar H. Paris. Administrative Judge. Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Assistant General Counsel U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Consolidated Edison Company _ Commission. of.New York, Inc. . Washington, D.C. 20555-4 Irving Place ~ New York, New York 10003-Mr.-Ernest E.. Hill Administrative Judge. Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. ~ Lawrence Livermore National William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Laboratory Harmon and Weiss University of Califo;nia _ 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 P. O.. Box 808,_L-123 Washington, D.C.-20006 i 'Livermore, CA 94550 Charles-A.' Scheiner, Co-Chairperson-Docketing-and. Service Branch Westchester -People's Action Office of the Secretaqr Coaliti>n, Inc. L LU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 488 [ Washington, D.C. _.20555 White Plains, New York 10602 L Joan Holt, Project Director. Alan.Latman, Esq. l Indian Point Project 44 Sunset Drive L - New York Public Interest Research Croton-On-Hudson, New York 10520 -Group-l' .9 Murray Street ~ Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. New York, New York L10007 Steve Leipzig, Esq. Environmental Protection Bureau L JeffreyLM. Blum, Esq. -New York State Attorney New York. University Law School-General's Office 1 l -423 Vanderbilt Hall. Two World Trade Center l 40' Washington Square South New Yock, New York 10047 ' New York,-New: York 10012 Alfred B. Del Bello Charles'J. Maikish,.Esq. Westchester County Executive - Litiga tion ' Division Westchester County L The Port Authority of New York 148 Martine Avenue b ' a nd - New -' J e rsey Wnite Plains, New York 10601 i .One World Trade Center NewLYork, New York 10048 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq. New York State Assembly Albany, New York 12248 i
~ -Marc:L. Parris, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Eric Thoesen, Esq.- Board Tanel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Attorney _ ashington, D.C. 20555 -County of-Rockland W -11' Mew Hempstead Road ENew City, New York 10956 Atomic Safety a7d Licensing Appeal Board Panel Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parents Concerned About Indian Washington, D.C. 20555 Point x P.O. Box 125 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 Member of the' County Legislature Westchester County Renee Schwartz, Esq. County Office Building Paul Chessin, Esq. White Plains, New York 10601
- Laurens R.. Schwartz, Esq.
Margaret Oppel, Esq. Zipporah S. Fleisher Botein Hays, Sklar and Hertzberg West _ Branch Conservation e Association 200 Park Avenue -New York, New York 10166 443 Buena Vista Road New City, New York 10956 Honorable Ruth W. Messinger Member of the Council of the Mayor George V. Begany City of New York Village of Buchanan District #4 236 Tate Avenue City Hall Buchanan, New York' 10511 New York, New York 10007 Judith Kessler, Coordinator Greater New York Council Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy on Energy 300 New Hemstead Road c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New City, New York 10956 New York University 26 Stuyricant Street David H. Pikus, Esq. New York, New York 10003 Richard F. Czaja, Esq. Shea & Gould Joan Miles 330 Madison Avenue Indian Point Coordinator New York, New York 10017 New York City Audubon Society 71 West:23rd Street, Suite 1828 Amanda Potterfield, Esq. New York, New York 10010 Johnson & George 528 Iowa Avenue Richard M. Eartzman, Esq. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Lorna Salzman Mid-Atlantic Representative Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq. Friends of the Earth, Inc. Atomic Safety and 208 West 13th Street Licensing Board Panel New York, New Yerk 10011 U.S. Duclear Regulatory Commission Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 General Counsel New York State ' Energy Of fice 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i e ~c a
Mr. Donald Davidoff Director,-Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Empire Sthle' Plaza Tower Building, Km. 1750' Albany, New York 12237' Craig Kaplan, Esq. National Emergency Civil Liberties Coumittee 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 711 New York,- New York 10010 Michael D. Diederich, Jr., Esq. Fitgerald, Lynch & Diederich 24 Central Drive Stony Point, New York 10980 Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1346 Connecticut' Avenue, N.W. ._ Suite 1101 . Washington, D.C. 20036 -Spence W. Perry Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel Room 1349 Federal Emergency' Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York,.New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Staff-Attorney New York'Public Interest Research Group 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Jonathan L. Levine, Esq. P. O. Box 280 New City, New York 10958 7 6 Paul F. Colarulli t. .)}}