ML19309G014
| ML19309G014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1980 |
| From: | Grabowski A, Grabowski G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G012 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005020172 | |
| Download: ML19309G014 (16) | |
Text
'
0006020 ,
(;~a
(,]
f G..A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -h p p.3 C EEO > 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION go-c.. y /[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'f
.x n
- Sg.ylJ r
(
In the Matter of ) Docket No.
)
Northern Indiana Public ) 50-367 Service Company ) (Construction Permit
)
(Bailly Generating Station, ) Extension)
Nuclear 1) )
April 2, 1980 Second Supplement to Petition of George and Anna Grabowski, Private Citizens Introduction Neither NIPSCO nor the NRC staff have adequately refuted our petition. We should be admitted as intervenors, a hearing should be held, the scope of the hearing should include all of our con-tentions, and the Construction Permit for Bailly should not be extended.
Even though we believe all this is obvious, we have here en-deavored to elaborate. First we will explain why we should have standing. Then we will discuss the scope of the hearing and our contentions.
Before we get started with standing, scope and contentions, we would humbly remind the Board of their moral responsibility as human beings to care for and protect their fellow humans. We hope t ha t this plea will not fall upon dear ears. We are afraid. We would not be involved in this if it were otherwise. If there were an accident like Three Mile Island or worse at Bailly, we could probably not iet out in time. We don't want that to happen here.
We are not asking you to do anything illegal we're just asking you to let your conscience be your guide in the cany matters which are lef t open to your interpretation and discretion. We ask you to be honest with yourselves about what this proceeding we are in-volved in here really signifies. We don't mean to judge the Board membersi although we pray that your decision will be wise, we don't judge you.
We would like to thank the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and his staff for serving this supplemental petition for
2 us. We deeply appreciate their consideration and the efforts they are making to protect us and the people of Illinois from Bailly.
Standing Stress is a real, physical, injury that is covered by NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act.
Stress is not just psychological in nature. Stress has many negative physical effects. This is one very important point which NIPSCO and the NRC staff apparently don't understand.
According to. Gary E. Schwartz, professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University and Director of the Psychophysiology I Laboratory and Research Clinic, stress related disorders include l
~
ulcers, asthma, heart disease, " essential" hypertension (high blood j l
pressure with no apparent physical cause). ( "The Brain: Undelivered !
l Warnings" Psychology Today, March 1980, p.ii6)
Many studies have demonstrated links between psychological stress and illness. Even normally healthy people when suffering from stress "run a significantly higher risk than most people of 1
developing serious health problems". (Science News, Vol. 116, p. l 406, " Study pinpoints stress-illness link") Other physical problems that can be brcught on or sever &ly aggravated by stress a re headaches.._ stomachaches, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, palpitations, diarrhea and choking sensations. Stress has also been linked to diabetes, arthritis, dental problems, viral diseases,
("What Stress can Do To Mind And Body" Good and even cancer.
Housekeeping, February 1979, p.248 ) The experience of so-called
" psychological stress", especially severe stress such as wohld be caused by continued construction of the Bailly Nuclear Plant, causes physical reactions in the body which culminate in physical diseases and shortened life.
3 Of special importance to this case is the finding that the worst stress occurs before the actual endangering event occurs.
Therefore, stress- related injury will be greater before the nuclear plant is completed. The long period of waitirig and anticipating the threat will be severely stressful to us.
" Stress is highest just before an anticipated threat takes place.
Tha t is, most stress is anticipatory; it precedes rather than follows the threatening event." (Ncmikos,M.S., E.M. Opton,Jr., J.R. Averill, a nd R .S . La za rus . " Surprise Versus Suspense in the Production of Stress Reaction" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1968), 204-208)
What causes strers? Different degrees of stress are brought en by events of varying danger. "According to Lazarus , the xey to i
whether a situation is appraised as stressful is whether it arouses an anticipation of harm. Thus, stress is virtually equivalent to l I
t hrea t , the belief that a situation endangers psychological organization. Lazarus described threat in terms of motive thwarting.
A mild threat attacks a weak motive; a severe threat attacks a strong motive. Some situations threaten basic motives that are common to all people reSardless of culture (threat of death, injury, bereave-ment, and the like); these situations are universally stressful."
(Franklin C. Shontz, The Psychological Ascects of Physical Illness and Di sability, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., NY, 1975)
Continued construction of the Bailly Nuclear Plant will be a severe threat to us. It would provoke severe stress which wculd result in some physical expression such as those previously listed. i Therefore eight more years of construction of Bailly will mean eight more years of injury to us.
4 Continued construction of the Bailly nuclear plant will be seen as a direct and severe threat by people (including us) who are aware of such things as the history of the NRC, nuclear power accident studies, low-level radiation studies, proposed siting guidelines which Bailly fails, etc. The number of people who are aware of these things is rapidly growing, and the reality of it has been brought home by the accident and continuing events at Three Mile Island. As we learn more, we feel even more threatened by continued construction on Bailly.
We would like to ask the Board not to rely on their own personal feelings about nuclear power in trying to gauge the extent of the t hres t , stress and injury caused us by continued construction of Ba illy . We believe that there is probably some sort of " cognitive dissonance" mechanism at work in the minds of NRC officials.
This threat would be very real to us. We could cite all of the reasons for this, but that would take many pages. If more reasons are desired, we will need more time to completely explain why we will feel threatened and why it will be stressful.
The answer which the NRC staff / NIPSCO might give here is that we shouldn't feel stress because any danger to the environment l
and health will be litigated at the operating permit hearing or i taken core of by the NRC. This is of no value in relieving our j stress. We know how well the NRC handled the TMI accident. We see how well the NRC staff tries to protect the public. We know how every other operating permit hearing has gone. We know that this "two-step" licensing has been attacked repeatedly as unsound and i l
ineffective (most recently by the Rogovin Report and the Kemeny Comcissicn). The ' operating permit hearing' doesn't provide one whit of relief frce the stress and threat and injury caused by continued construction of Ea111y. This supposed ' relief' is far t
5:
too attenuated to have any effect on the stress we will feel. It may look good in writing, but we can't fool ourselves into thinking it's true. If this permit is renewed, we will have eight more years of living in fear and stress which causes physical injury.
This injury is within the zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. i According to NIPSCC (p.13, NIPSCO Response to Supplemented Petiticna to Intervene, March 7,1980), " The purpose of the Act was to protect the public only against hazards from radiation. "
The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, section 12 " granted various kinds of authority to the Commission, the Senate Report described one of the grants as to establish safety and health regulations for the possession and use of fissionable and byproduct materials to minimize the danger from explosion, radioactivity, and other harmful or toxic effects incident to the presence of such materials.7" l
(p.5, Brief of NRC Staff on Psychological Distress Issues, Oct.
l 31,1979) j Stress (which is a mental and physical injury) should fall under "other harmful or toxic effects incident to the presence of such materials." Stress is a radiation hazard. Radiation is the cause of the stress. If the Bailly Generating Station were not to contain radioactive material, the stress would not be there. l The reason that the continued construction of the Bailly Nuclear Plant causes such great scress is that our lives, our loved ones, our homes and our environment will be endangered by release of radioactive isotopes and the grim possibility of a catastrophic accident releasing huge amounts of deadly radiation. The stress
6 (which means physical injury) is a direct result of the radiation, therefore it is a radiation haz ard and should be covered by the Atomic Energy Act.
Extreme stress brought on by the continued construction of the Bailly nuclear plant is a direct result of the well justified fear of radiation f rom the neclear plant. Our stress is real, physical injury from such stress is real, the stress is a hazard which is <
caused by the radioactive materials, and therefore we have an interest in the outcome of this proceeding- we will sustain injury if the construction permit is renewed- and our interest is protected by the Atomic Energy Act.
Our interest is also "within the zone of interest" protected by the National Environmental Policy Act. For a lengthy discussion which shows that stress is an interest which is protected by the NEPA we refer the Board to pages 31-46 of "Brief of NRC Staff on Psychological Distress Issues" October 31,1979 This document was prepared to try to refute the need for consideration of stress in an Environmental Impact Statement. We are not asking for an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared on stress at this time.
We are just saying that NEPA was intended to protect us from undue stress due to dangers to our health and environment. Many of the references given by the NRC staff in this document demonstrate that stress is within the zone of interest of NEPA. Among the interests to be protected by NEPA are " man's social and psychological well-being" and " radiation hazards," (p.33, Brief of NRC Staff on Psychological Distress Issues)
Stress (which' is a mental and physical injury in this case caused by radiation) is an interest protected oy NEPA. The
7 following quotation is taken from page 42 of the NRC Staff Brief on Distress.
One relevant phrase recurs several times in the legislative history, expressing a concern with conditions which detract from " man's social and psychological well-being."44 Similarly, Senat-or Jackson, primary author and floor manager of the# legislation, commented in the course of Senate debate:
The purpose of this legislation is to lay the framework for a continuing program of research and study which will insure that present and future generations of Americ-ans will be able to live in and enjoy an environment free of hazards to cental and physical well-being.
Since stress is a mental and physical injury which is a radiation hazard and will endanger our psycholcgical well-being, it is an interest which should be protected by NEPA and therefore we should have standing in this proceeding.
Also, if dewatering continues due to continued construction it will be an injury to us because we use the Indiana Cunes National Lakeshore for recreation and because it is very important to us end has bec.. for a long time. Since the Indiana Dunes cannot speak for itself to protect itself from this injury, we who love the Dunes must speak for it.
4
8 !
Scope A hearing should be held to decide whether or not the renewal of NIPSCO's construction permit for Eailly is justified. If a hearing is not held at this construction permit extension stage in the Bailly case, it will be a mockery of the entire regulatory process, such as it may be, and of the NRC. If the NRC does not judge whether to gran t this extension on the totality of the merits of the case, the NRC might as well be replaced by a simple rubber stamp lef t at NIPSCO headquarters. The entire " Construction Permit" process, especially the deadlines, might as well have never been ena c t ed.
The decision on the scope of the construction permit renewal hearing will be the one which will show whether the NRC really has become more responsive, sensitive, and responsible to the public.
It will show whether or not the NRC has any common sense at all.
It will demonstrate whom the NRC is really interested in protecting-the people of northern Indiana or NIPSCO.
We believe that the scope of the hearing should be determined accordir.g to the real significance that the outcome of the hearing will have. Since NIPSCO has only got about 1% of Eailly done, what you are really deciding here is whether or not Bailly will be built.
In this case at least " good cause" should be interpreted to mean
" good cause to construct the plant at this time" not just " good cause for not having completed construction." Granted, a construction permit hearing was held several years ago, but in the intervening years the conditions which warranted the granting of the permit at that time have not remained static.
With 99% of Eailly left to be done, and with the changes in such
,j...
9 topics as consideraticn of class 9 accidents, need for the electricity from Bailly, economics of constructing Eailly as opposed to alternat-ives , and evacua tion planning, relying on a decision made years ago is definitely not common sense. If this were not the case, why would NIPSCO be so adamantly opposed to holding a comprehensive hearing?
They knou that the Bailly construction permit would not stand a chance if it were held up to complete scrutiny in 1980. The need for Eailly is not there, the economics of Eailly are not competitive, there is no possible means of accomplishing timely evacuation, in short, Bailly would fail the test in 1980. Is it common sense to not even give the test? To ignore events which have occurred, changes in demand and cost, research and recommendations made since Bailly was first authorized would be to callously disregard the public interest.
The scope of the hearing should be to determine not only whether NIPSCO has good reasons for not getting more than 1% of Eailly done, it should also be to determine whether there is " good cause" for i
constructing Bailly at this time, the time that NIPSCO wants to construct 99% of it.
Just because some decisions have been made that say you don't need to always consider all health, safety and environmental issues at this time, they don't say that you can't consider them. According to the Cook decision, the Board is supposed to decide on good cause and scope on the basis of the facts pertaining to each individual, particula r case. The Board is supposed to consider the " totality of the circumstances," not try to fit a decision made about another plant to a completely different situation.
We think a very important point was made by Mr. Vollen at the pre-hearing conference which appears on page 99 of the tIsnscript of that conference. The Board can and should include in the scope of
10 the hearing more than just the reasons construction wasn't completed. You have the legal authority and direction to do so.
The scope of the proceeding, based on the totality of the circumstances involved, should be to determine if Eailly should still be constructed. Does good enough reason exist at this time to construct 99% of a nuclear plant at the Bailly site? NIPSCO should have to prove that electricity frcm Bailly will be needed.
They should have to show that it is economically more advantageous than alternatives if it is somehou found that it is needed. They should be required to prove that it is possible to accomplish timely evacuation..
We believe that the scope of this hearing should include everything that is normally included at a construction permit hea ring, because that is essentially what this would be. We're not saying that it is a construction permit hearing, but that if you look at the totality of the circumstances it is oce in essence. Why should NIPSCO's constructicn permit be renewed without evaluating the reasons it was given, especially when almost no work has been done on the plant and especially since it is well known that points which were essential to their receiving the permit are now ccmpletely changed? To ignore these changes and to renew what should be an invalid permit would just make the whole construction permit hearings into a farce. Why even hold them, why make decisions based on current fa cts , if the facts can change and the permit remains unquestione'd even when construction has barely begun?
When deciding what the scope of the hearing should be, we hope that the Board will take the time to look at the legal points
11 that have been made by the lawyers for the intervenors. Because if you'll even bother to look at them you will have to be convinced.
Contentions We believe that the NRC staff is correct when they say that we have met the contention requirement of 10 C.F.R. Section 2 714.
Eut they are wrong about many things, especially our contention
- 4. That is the most important of all our contentions, though we apologize for its lack of specificity. Contention #4 is not beyond the scope of the hearing. It should be the main part of the hearing as we have tried to explain in the section on scope.
Contentions should not all have to be related to reasons given by NIPSCO for not finishin6 99% of*the plant. That would be ridiculous.
If that were adhered to, NIPSCO could say, "We didn't get the plant finished because our dog ate the blueprints" and that would be all we could respond to.
The NRC staff is wrong about the proper scope of the hearing ;
1 end therefore they are also wrong about just having contentions l l
that answer what NIPSCO wants them to. Wno's running this thing anyway, the NRC or NIPSC07 The NRC should require NIPSCO to supply reasons and evidence as to why Bailly should be built at this time. Then we should be able to raise contentions about that.
Here is some more specificity about our contention #4:
- 1. Bailly s hould not be constructed because it - is not needed.
- 2. Bailly is not. worth the risk involved because timely evacuation is not possible. We all know that a meltdcwn is possible, even though NIPSCO denies it, and that people up to 50 miles from the i
12
, plant might have to be evacuated. This is not possible. There-fore, Bailly should not be allowed to be completed. We are especially concerned becGuse George works at U.S. Steel's Gary Works. Once last winter during an ice storm, it took over ant
? hour and a half to get from U.S. Steel in Gary to our grama's house in Highland. And that still wouldn't have been far enough if there were an impending meltdoun, and it would take a lot longer because everyone would be on the road. We are als~o very worried about the prisoners at the Michigan City Prison, and we tha nk Dr. Schultz for bringing it to our attention. How would these men be evacuated in time? Maybe NIPSCO and the NRC do not care about what happens to them, but we do.
3 The cost-benefit analysis and ccmparison to alternatives should be redone in light of the new cost figures, accident probablility, need, etc. All of the costs should be considered, including the ones we will pay for through taxes and will pay for later.
f Conclusion
- 1. Hold a hearing.
- 2. Admit us as intervenors.
3 Scope of the hearing should covers
- a. Why Eailly is still only 1% complete b, Why Bailly shouldn't be built
- 4. Contentions about why Bailly shouldn't be built , why the construction permit should not te renewed, should be admitted.
4
. ~ .. - - - . .- - - - _ _ _ _
I 13 4
5 Deny construction permit renewal.
4 That is what we believe you should do. It is legal, sensible, logical and moral. To do otherwise would be insensitive , unwise, illogical, and immoral.
3 Respectfully submitted, i
h ) La .e - ll 'La.x. t. a d/L ,
],A C /r ) } .c 4. n ~ .%
i
/ ' 7
,/
April 2, 1980 i Cedar Lake, Ind$.ana 2
i a
O i
i i
J.
4 i
1
.i i
1 j e k **
a t
. 4 .y . e -, r "-r --+ y --
+ +-
I, JESSIE GIBSON, hereby certify that I have served copies of the Request to File Document Late and Citizens upon each of the following persons by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 7th day of April, 1980.
Herbert Grossman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Glenn O. Bright U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1
Steven Goldberg, Esquire l Office of the Executive Legal Director i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 a
- YI D-Dr. George Schultz c1 '
110 California .
Michigan City, Indiana 46360 p ccer ra 4
.?s
~t ca.u:
William H. Eichorn, Esq. 7; Apg a 5243 Hohman Avenue - c tSbO >
' ~
Hammond, Indiana 46320 - 0"in of the ste.my [
cc,e umC mu ,
,s.
\s I
,? , .
Willian J. Scott, Esquire Dean Eansell, Esquire Assistan: A::orney General Enrironmental Control Division 135 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Robert J. Vclien, Esquire '
c/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Street Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esquire One IBM Plaza Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Rcaat: t L. Grahan, Esquire One ISM Plaza 44th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mr. Mike Olszanski Mr. Clifford Me o United Steelworkers of America 3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 Diane 3. Cohn, Esquire William 3. Schultz, Esquire Suite 700 2000 P Street, N.W. .
20036 Washington, D.C.
Richard L. Robbins, Esquire 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 l
Mr. George Grabowski Ms. Anna Grabowski i 7413 W. 136th Lane i Cedar Lake, Indiana 46303 Stephen Laudig, Esquire 445 N. Pennsylvania Street Suite 815-816 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 I
l
\
l l
4 4
Maurice Axelrad 4 Kathleen Shea l
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
3 Washington, D.C. 20036 t Robert W. Hammesfahr, Esq.
200 E. Randolph Street
, Suite 7300 Chicago, Illinois. 60601 i.
j>
a 1
4 ,
b *
'I 4
d e
l
. . - . , -