ML19296B960

Reply to Util & NRC Responses to s Laudig 791229 Ltr. Expresses Intention Not to Intervene.Urges Stay of CP Due Evacuation Planning Problems

ML19296B960
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	02/05/1980
From:	Lauding S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002220459
Download: ML19296B960 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i

                                                                                             '

k f n

                                                                                             ',

I

                                                                                                        ,

,

                                                                                 -
                                                                           ,         .
                                                                                                       'I
                                                                                       %=              1 U:!ITED STATES OF AMERICA                       . -    ,4

."JCLCAR REGULATORY CO"?.ISSION i s N '[[

Tit: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICITSIUri BOARD

                                                                                               '

1 In the natter of Northern Indiana Public

                                                      ]
                                                      ]

M .'  ;

                                                                                                         -

2 Service Company ] Docket No. 50-367 4

                                                      ]  (Construction Permit Extension:      ..

f 3 (::ailly Generating Station I Nuclear 1) ] 3l; 4 1 ty

'                        REPLY TO NIPSCO AND MRC STAFF'S RESPONSC                                      3 d

6 7 I wish to make clear that I have no " interest" in interven- If

• 3 g ing in your proceedings with recpect to whether or not MIPSCO

                                                                                                \

t 9 receives either a new permit to build or a renewal. q, 10 I merely wished to put my comnents and positions on record j

                                                                                                        '

o I can say to myself I actively opposed what I knew to be wrong 11 must address statements of the NRC staff which argue for 12 p licies which are incorrect. Also, I must address NIPSCO's 13 , g attorneys' unjustified and undignified connents directed my way. ( g The NRC staff, at page 17 of NRC Staff Pesponse to Separate

                                                                                                  ~

Petitions for Intervention filed by George Schultz: Steven Laudig g (sic); and George and Anna Grabowski (hereinafter Mac Response),

            *

• 18 r "As a matter of sound adninistrative policy, a 19 construction pernit amendment should not be '

utilized as an occasion to embark upon a fresh 20 assessment of iscues already thoroughly considered and decided in prior construction permit hearings." The NRC has adopted a shortsighted narrowly legalistic policy. It seems to me that the Licensing Peoard would be foolish to license the construction of a plant when it is clear there are

 '

major,,perhaps insurmountable, problems of evacuation planning.

*
 .                  The Board should take chis factor into consideration as the                           ,
                                                                                                           ,
                                                                                                           '

i State of Illinois has requested it do.~ Cne suggested solution

        .                                                                      .
                                                                                                           ,

i would be to stay the construction permit renewal hearings pending a decision on the evacuation planning question. ]

                                                                                                    -

30 1 j, 31 32  ; 1 i a

                                                                                          )
 .

8002220 ,

                                                                                                         ;

• l

                                                                .
 -

ki o

                                                                               .

i

                                                                           ,

1 NIPSCO's response, although revealing policy determinations . l-2 similar to NRC Staff's, takes a particularly nasty and unseemly I 3 tone showing both a narrowness of nind and meanness of spirit. t'J { 4 As I stated earlier, I did not request intervention in my lf i 5 8 letter of December 29, 1979, nor do I now. Fj;* 6 E: Sincerely your ,

• r j 7

8 Step Laudig q { r 9 k ' rebruary 5, 1930 g 10 I r b 11 ', 12 13 il 14

                                                                          '
                                                                              ;

15 1 i 16 17 18 19 , d 20 21

                                                                              !

22 1 23 24 1 i, ' 15 - 26 i .

                                                                            ;

27 l* L I l 29 'l 30 3

                                                                                       '
 .

31 , 32 3 d ll' . ,

 '

I t ' l}}