Revision as of 03:56, 14 December 2019

Text

Requests Commission Decision on Psychological Distress Issues.Suggests That Matter Be First Item of Business for New Chairman
	ML19321A151
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/16/1980
From:	Jordan W; PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY, SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS
To:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19321A150	List: ML19321A149; ML19321A151;
References
	NUDOCS 8007220530
	Download: ML19321A151 (7)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:PANE 7/16/80

   .        .
 ,o
 ?     )

V *

                                                                                     ..
                                                                                 ; t'% y...Qt y    D
                                                                               .5y: <
                                                                     .       /25# COOKETED               L     .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g U# [t g g g pg 3, BEFORE THE COMMISSION u',^ C -{$Er:*h M,

                                                                                 /             .D  4
                                             )                  ~

o, i 1 4'

0*]?

In the Matter of )

METROPOLITAN EDISON ) Docket No. 50-289 COMPANY, et al., ) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island ) Nuclear Station, Unit ) No. 1) )

PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY REQUEST FOR COMMISSION DECISION ON PSYCHOLOGICAL

     ,                                DISTRESS ISSUES I. Ir.troduction i                    Nearly one year ago, on August 9, 1979, the Commission issued the Order and Notice of Hearing that governs the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Restart proceedings.             At that time, the Commission stated that it had not yet been able to determine whether issues such as the psychological distress arising from the TMI Unit 2 accident could be considered in the Restart case, and it directed the Licensinc Board to certify the matter to the Commission before the Board' ; preheari g conference order.

Accordingly, the Board requested briefs from all interested parties on the rIuestion of th adm.srzbi.lity of psychclogicel distress contentionu. reop e ?ge.:.:.r: Mu .!. ear hergy (PANE)

                                                       .
                                                            '"

filed its main brie" .p :t ? '

                                          .          .
                                                            -      v. ,   de Orp1f tri? #

1 l

           ,8000
                                                                        .                      ._    .
                                                   .      .

Y

.

on November 7, 1979. Other parties, including the Licensee . and the NRC Staff, filed their briefs during the same period. On February 22, 1980, almost six months ago, the Licensing Board filed its Certification to the Commission on Psychological Distress Issues. There has, as yet, been no response from the Commission, and no indication that the Co= mission is consider-ing the issue. II. Recuest For Commission Decision The lack of a decision by the Commission concerning whether psychological distress is cognizable in this proceeding has left PANE in an uncertain limbo that beccmes increasinalv dif-ficult to withstand with each passina day. A.rosconse from the Commission is essential both to relieve a growing feeling of isolation and sense of Commission indifference to the public's concerns and to their psychological health and to allow PANE and the other parties to particpate in and prepare for this litigation in a practical manner. ;

In recommending that the Commission should undertake some l degree of consideration of psychcl.gical distress, the Board stated in its Certificgtion that, (T]o conclude summarily that these fears are baseless and therefore beyond NRC jurisdiction, as urged by the licensee, ray produce additional stress in that-the public may perceive an atti-tude that their fears are of no consequence, and thata-tharcEara, .hc*; N. :t :2c un. trol over 3r

         -      ,

voice in cha event'i M.fN' r.e, the.n. -

Board Certificatior at ~21 -11 S er - : i2cassic,5 al , m:mbers

cf PANE, it apr ee.r:e t '? r " " - ' -*- 7' -' crc - -f edict 2 2 b/

                                                            .
                            .

e , o a

                              .n   ..     .,                           *  *
                     .

Board is now developing as a result of the fact that the Commis-

sion has yet.to address the admissability of psychological distress contentions in this proceeding. As litigation on other contentions proceeds apace, anc political pressure to reopen TMI Unit 1 appears to be growing,' PANE's members feel forgotten and have begun to express substantial anger at the Commission and fear that they are being ignored. For these reasons alone, the Commission should attempt to reach a decision as soon as possible. In addition to engendering feelings of anger, insignifi-cance, and helplessness on the part of PANE's members, the lack of a Commission decision severely hampers and confuses PKNE's efforts to prepare for this litigation. An organization of . ordinary citizens of the Middletown area, PANE has minimal resources with which~to undertake this litigation. It has been able to obtain some limited financial assistance, but the Commission itself rejected PANE's request that it provide the funding necessary to litigate these issues effectively. As a result, PANE must shepherd every penny and must allow no unneces-

sary expenditures. Despite.its lack of'raaa E ces rnd despite the absence of a Commission ruling,' PANE.hir .procerAed 'with thd development of its case. It.has contacted.ani consulted at length with i recognized experts. It' has ytthe:-sJ rogether ~ and reviewed all of the relevant staidies, an2 ia - . .m i ea cae '.v_rge- or unc'er-takir.g in-depth ps ."fr:d oc. :' 'n" n. 6. t c=3 c testing.

                                                      .                               To J?te
     .

this td f: d. h?J. teen c: :."2:

                                              -     -         -
                                                                 -:-  r c : if :L'. *t ceu;J
                                   .
                                                                              ?
                   %v        de

.

      .
                                                                                                                                                       '

not be sustained in view of the likelihood that the Commission would reach a decision before the maior investment was made. However, that croundwork has now been completed, and the extremely expensive psychological and psychiatric interviews are about to begin. Yet there han been ru) Commission decision. PANE now finds itself in the difficult situation of being forced to choose between expending its resources for the most expensive and essential aspect of its trial preparation or orotectina those resources to allow for an aoneal of the Commis-sion's decision, if that is necessary. If PANE prepares its case, it may produce important information, but then be unable to acceal an adverse Commission decision. If PANE holds back so that it can apoeal if necessarv, it may not have time to creoare adequately in the event of a favorable decision. The situation is intolerable. On June 30, 1980, PANE sought guidance from the Board concerning its expectations. (Attachment 1) Al'though sympa-thetic to PANE's plight, the Board found itself in a similar quandary. In the .osence of a Commission decision, it could be of little help in indicating what sort of schedule PANE could reasonably expect. (Attachment 2) A ruling on the psychological distress issues is necessary not only to address PANE's concerns, but to allow the Board to direct this litigation in an orderly and efficient manner.

III. Comment 3 fp_ M r.p,rg, h ~.,q Q'.f1,q13.o_q i Tl i t.h w r; r - o .

s . c. ?n- n 's d':

i , .V t M Jeve 3 L coments na the Boz.li*c C" ,'*'c- .c' . iu: .4 J' - 2- T - Ti.=: n .W.i n imAir-t of reactor

^ na n:1ra >n.'. < . - - - . .: 1 ; s .L nn.?r a v s .
y , , . , .
_
& .
o
.
PANE's analysis in its main brief demonstrates, the term " health"
'
is universally acknowledged to encompass mental health, PANE Brief at 3-4, 7-13, Board Certification at A-92, A-96-102, and there is no question that significant health impacts require
~ .
NEPA analysis. In any case, the question that the Board has left open is not whether the psychological distress evidence should be heard under NEPA, which it should, but whether the distress is cuan-tifiable in such a way that it can be considered in a cost-benefit analysis. Board Certification at 15-16. PANE's response is twofold. First, the psychological distress is at least as quantifiable as the aesthetic impacts that apparently eliminated the proposed site for the Greene County Nuclear Plant. Board
Certification at 10-11. Second, NEPA establi'shes that it 13 the NRC's responsibility to
. . . insure that presently unquantifiable environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations.
42 USC 4332 (2) (B) . PANE has shown that psychological distress must be considered under.NEPA.in,this case and that it is recognized ~ as measurable fer legal purposes in;many forGms.
. -
PANE Brief at 7-13, Board Certification at A-96-102. Once that threshold has been reached, it. is the Staff's responsibility to quantify the impact so thatrit can be considered in the Commission's
.
u1Hmate decision 3 Where % Boa -d suggested that.. tid s is the
.caserbut.made nn 7a'cr r".n.' or i e'5 u.am; a h the Commission nu.n"- i.!.rnc~ .m ' :: 'r ~ .
4- .- 'q.:~~' ~ .ua'.ive " e f *e.-t.
' :,e =i ,- . .- . . - .
g %
=
. . - -7~ .
Conclusion
. For the reasons sthted above, PANE requests that the Commis-

sion consider and reach a favorable decision in the near future on the cognizability of psychological distress issues. 'We suggest that this be the first item of biasiness for the new Chairman, unless the issue can be resolved by a majority of the Commission before he is confirmed. I Respectfully submitted, 4Q/' fb jP William S." Jordan, III Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W. Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for People Against Nuclear Energy DATED: July 16, 1980
.
t s 5 e .e e s-- , - m
, ,
ve"** / PANE 6/30/80
. . -
a 1 ~- eq N
' T. . . ... ,w w t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .'
NUCLEAI4 REGULATORY COMMISSION -~
.T El 2 !980 * ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD q b'k: cf t.'se :~m7 6 :t:i.g g 3,,.ge, 4
% at -- . 'M:. s. J.g t \ )
In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON ) Docket No. 50-289 G . COMPANY, et al., ) (Restart) p "%,g., ,,k
) Q (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit ) )
k'R$1 D'4 fa No. 1) ) [ff
+-
f ,fg,7
-<- '
kB 7 r- Y. - f 7mg h ~ S
) O- - - ' , . {, -
s REQUEST FOR BOARD GUIDANCE ON SCHEDULING 'y.
'.
OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS ISSUES Wli (/ 9 People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) requests guidance from the Board concerning preparation for and scheduling of . . consideration of psychological distress issues in this pro-ceeding. As indicated to the Board during the prehearing conference on May 13, 1980, PANE has begun to prepare its case. However, it has been and remains reluctant to cor. nit the full resources that will be necessary until the Commission has ruled on whether and how psyc.'tclogical distress will be considered. With the i.scuence at a firm schedule through the final prehearing conference, PANE now seeks guidance
,
concerning what the Boccd r_xpecLs from PANE and the other parties in terns o, _,e? .- g.,..-- on in the absence of a Commis-
.*%=7RTWKXPKWTQQ"LGY [ '
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT FMUM'C '70 93 ' G , Entire document previously s
% g- - - ' - r,. ic.n r - li- : a- . , ' . . , '.
entered into system under: .
*] ANO g . ,, . -< n .stric? - ,_y",.
PM 'in G ' '
~ -') - . . .1 e, No. of pages: 8 y-w # ..
u- o. .. '..-}}

ML19321A151: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:56, 14 December 2019

Text

Navigation menu

ML19321A151: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:56, 14 December 2019

Text

Navigation menu

Search