ML060250281
| ML060250281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/2006 |
| From: | Webb R Studies of Nuclear Hazards & Constitutional Law |
| To: | Paperiello C Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| Shared Package | |
| ML060230218 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML060250281 (5) | |
Text
24-JAN-06 I8:27 DR.
R.WEBB
- 49 08262 960236 S.01 Studies of Nuclear Hazards and Constitutional Law Richard E. Webb. Ph D American Sc icntios (Physics)
R.lkacusensraIko
- 6aN Mitclneufnach Bavern (Bararia). Gnrmany Tdcphotic: 4V-9262-901236 (within Gernian} ( 862-960?1(3) c-mail: rchar&dw:bb(t1-onhlnc.dc wiwtvchshicti m org/eWbb 21 January 2006 Dr. Carl J. Paperiello, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Md.
by telefax, 301415-5153
Dear Gentlemen:
I have sent your office a series of three letters offering my notes and commeniaq on my conference with five of your colleagues, Messrs. Lauben, Meyer, Borjiack Voglewede, and Scott, held on January 9th - my letters dated January 13 (revision ol the original letter sent on Jan. 12th), and two postscripts, dated January 12th anard ;th My letters were addressed to each of those men as well as to you and Jim Wiggins I have phoned Norm Lauben to mention the result of a scoping calculation I made fEi a BWR Loss-of-Coolant Accident without a reactor scram, since I raised a questions about that accident in the conference: my question of whether or not that accident has ever been calculated for the potential course it could take. In my call'to Mr. Lilub:nr I learned that he has not seen my letters, and did not know that my letters are addressed to him as well as to you. He said that he has not been given to read my letters, no' a copy of them for his information, as was my intention by including his name among the addresses.
I request, therefore, that you make a copy of my three letters, and circulate the copy, including the drawings and other sheets that were sent with my letters,.md circulate the material to the others among the addressees, and that your secretary or you inform me by e-mail that this has been done -- richard.webbgt-online.de.
I sinrlly would like to pay due regard to each person who participated in the confere-le, considered as an individual.
As I mentioned in the conference, but rather impromptuously, I have found in my research of the UNITED SlATES CONSTITUTION, that the Atomic Energy Ac': is unconstiutiona-; and therefore, I do not recognize the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnis.-iti as a lawful entity.
However, 1 respect each individual who is employed in that government agency (NRC) as a fellow citizen or human being, and merely hope ihat each of you in your respective activities do what is right -- what you know to be right.
I have urged that each of you examine the CoNSI1rrn [ON, and especially Article VI, respecting the required oath to support the Constitution, and make your own study of
24-JAN-06 18z27 DR.
R. WEEB 27.49 08262 960236 5.02 the Constitution, and form your own judgment as to the conformance or nlIn-conformance of the Atomic Energy Act to the Constitution.
I mentioned in the conference that I took an oath to support the Constitution when I was commissioned as a U.S. naval officer (commissioned by President Johr F.
Kennedy in May 1963); and I acted to support the Constitution, when I opposed the Vietnam war as unconstitutional and otherwise wrong, by writing and issuing an esiayt on the Constitution, proving that the President Johnson's order to attack North Vietnam is unconstitutional -
the President not being vested by the Constiution with power to make War. That essay was delivered to the United States Senate in 1966, while I 'was on active duty in Washington. (I delivered that essay to the Chairman of the Commiltte on Foreign Relations, J. Williarn Fulbright in violation of the Navy Regulations, w. I determined that those regulations were also unconstitutional.) Later in 1968, 1 took the oath to support the Constitution again, when I received an Atomic Energy Commission fellowship to study for the doctorate in nuclear reactor phsycis and engineering at Ohio State University. True to that oath, I undertook at Ohio State Univ1ersity a shtdy of the Constituiton with respect to the Atomic Energy Act, after I began to suspect that tie Atomic Energy Act is also unconstitutional, and then concluded that the Act is ind ed unconstitutional -
the Congress of the United States not being vested with any powAer to promote industry or technology, nor any broader or general powers. I prompi ly wrote and published a treatise setting forth the proof of my conclusion, titled, !&s l/nconitutiotality of the 1954 Atontic Energy Act, toward fiulfilling my oath (sole mn promise) to support the Constitution of the United States of America My doctoiral dissertation in its Preface declares my conclusion that the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional. Soon after I issued my treatise on the Constitution and the I 9)i4 Atomic Energy Act, my Atomic Energy Commission fellowship was terminated; b it I never appealed to try to restore it, since I wanted not to receive any more mcrney expended on the basis of an unconstitutional law. I had to borrow money from a slate bank, in order to support my family and myself to complete my studies and research for the doctorate.)
Also, Chapter 13 of my book The Accident Hazardv of Nuclear PowerP/a.uis, titled, "Who should decide?", gives a short proof of the unconstitutionality of the Act.
In the conference I said that I have perfected my analysis of the Constitution, and Auill write up a treatise giving my final, perfected analysis, to prove my assertions. In the conference I urged that each of the NR.C officers study the Constitution, first by tea(; ig it, and then by studying the book by Samuel Pufendorf, The Law of Nature and Nat to.s (1729) that was the book used in the federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to farni and write the Constitution; for that book is necessary in order to learn the definition of all of the terms used in the Constitution; and then on the basis of such a study, form your judgment. Be careful, however, not to assume that the Constitution is what the Supra.ne Court says it is. We have to know what is the Judicial Power which is vested by the Constitution in the Courts of the United States.
As I have said, I must regard all of you as individls, and appeal to you te do what you honestly judge what is right with respect to my several requests, includ:ling2
24-JAN-06 18:28 DR.
R. WEBB 21+49 08262 960236 S.03 requests for documents that are set down in my letters. (And what is righl has to include to obey and support the Constitution of the United States; as well as to act, so as not to put the inhabitants of AmericA under any dangaer of nuclear catastrophes ) I do hope that you will provide the documents which I have specified; but also that flou undertake vigorous research of the various matters that I have mentioned in my letters in additional to what pressing safety issues which you know to be of pressing concA rn I have received the telefaxed letter of January 19th from Jim Wiggins, and I must say that my opinion about your office's response to my letters is mixed: On the Iole hand, it is good that Mr. Wiggins has provided me with some (but very Imilt J) information about documents that give data on the measurements of the c ore thermocouples in the Three Mile Island unit-2 reactor during the accident, but on the other hand, his/NRC letter is disappointing to me, as you have disregarded my concerns about the lack of mathematical calculations of various reactor accident potentiali :ies mentioned in the conference and in my letters, and the several other matters that I h.i'we asserted in my letters, such as whether or not the 42 kilograms of plutQniml that w.as produced in the TMI-2 reactor before the accident was ever investigated for its distribution in the reactor system at the final state of the reactor.
I can imagine that your office is swamped with works to undertake and to complete that pertain to the "pressing safety issues" of the NRC for which your of ice has been engaged. I find in my many years of research of the nuclear accident hazaris that every question requires an enormous research work of documentation acquisition.
analysis, mathematical modelling making, and developing, computer programming,.nd computer calculations, and the study of experimental data, etc. I can imagine icw difficult your work is, to research the "pressing safety issues" - issues which are ainred.
I think, at keeping the nuclear plants running without accidents, but also promoting t 4e further development and permanent use of nuclear energy in America, and theref:ine, imposing on the People of America continued risks of catastrophic nuclear accidnt.
(Do you just disregard the summaries of my analysis and estimations of the nuclear accident hazards that are given in the website which I have cited?
www.technidigmr.org/webb I know from my own nuclear engineering experience that nuclear power plants can be designed, made, operated, and maintained without accident, if all of the required procedures, specifications, training. qualifications, and other cares are obser. ed.
However, accidents can happened. I am happy that there has not been any ser. :us accident in America since TMI in 1979. 1 think that the NRC activities must have something to do with that fortunate experience Although I also think that the dedicated engineers of the companies that operate the nuclear power plants and that of the companies of the great multitude of industries that supply the nuclear plants, and the other workers and managers of the plants and suppliers, are to be credited primarily Jor the so-far accident free operations since TM!. But accidents can still happen.
24-JANF-06 1 8:29 DR.
R. WERE 149 08262 960236 S.04 An office of research in a government nuclear supervisory office is no1t imReditely concerned with the safe operation of nuclear power plants, for that is :lic province of another department. And io, the research office ought to study and reseav:h all that affects the safety of the public:, or the risks of catastrophic accidents which the people now live under. To not have any regard, for example, for my recommendat on to calculate the potential course of a EIWR loss-of-coolant accident with a failure o-. In automatic reactor scram, is to take chances with the health and security of the inhabitants of America, and all other forms of life besides the human For an analogy, your disregard of my recommendations (and requests that analyses be made) is like walking across the street without looking both ways - without caring for what could happen, if one does not look both ways for approacbing fast automobiles, trucks Or buses.
I should add that Mr. Wiggins letter does not offer one engineering justification for disregarding the various matters ass ezted in my letters - not one specific point -- not one technical point or argument. He even uses a ridicule of sorts by characterizing the data on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident as "30 year old data' and "histo:ic issues," as if I am a history "buff." I think I made it clear that the official analyses of the TMI accident are void of what happened after the first 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> of the accid.:ra' Reactor accidents can happen! In 1985 (June 9th or Sth), a repeat of the TNIf reai:t;)r accident happened in the Davis-Besse reactor: a complete loss of feedwater. And giin.
as in the TMI accident, the PORV stuck open! But unlike the TMI accident, the operators promptly shut offthePORV ventingbyclosing the block valve. But then ihat mishap took another course that was potentially more dangerous than TML: ric pressurizer nearly filled water solid befzre the auxiliary feedwater supply was finally irld fortunately activated-within about a minute or four before going water solid For tfe safety valves and the PORV at Davis-Besse (and all other nuclear power plantsO %ere (and still are) not designed to pass waiter! Had they been pressed to release water under excessive pressure, those valves could have been damaged and stuck closed, and the reactor system would then have suffered a rapid and potentially explosive pressure itse I refer to the graph of computer results that I included with my first letter showing tic potential rapid rise in pressure in such a condition!
I do not know what all mishaps have occurred since TMI; but if your think that you have not "sufficient resources to re-examine 30- year old data and information," as Mr. Wiggins has declared in his letter to me, then the NRC officers ought not to fe permitting the continued operation of nuclear power plants, for his statement means II at you do not know what could happen in each of the various accident possibilities that I have mentioned in my letters andin the conference, and also those defined in my book and other writings issued since 1976, and those also which are summarized in the website that I offered that gives a summary of my research as of 199' -
www.technidigm.orglwebb I request some cooperation to find and obtain docum entation related to the Tl ree Mile Accident. I refer to my letters. Besides the core thermocouple data, I wish to have a copy of the NRC and B&W reports on the Long-Term Cooling of the TMI Unii 2
24-JAN-06 18:30 DR.
R.WEBB
+49 08262 960236 S.05 reactor that was issued by the NRC in 1979 or perhaps a year or two later - a copy! of the original reports was given to me in my meeting with Dr. Roger Mattson on Aplil 26, 1979, the day before the reactor was (reportedly) put into natural circulation. I also request a copy of the documents dated 04/25/79, 04/28179, and 04/30179 on the lisi of document titles which Mr. Wiggins kindly attached to his letter. May I request that,ou telefax me those particular three documents on the core thermocouples" My telefax is 49 8262 960236.
Sincerely yours, Richard Webb P.S. Erraa: My Jan. 18th letter contains a typo error' the word "hold" should be changed to read "hole" - the postulated hole in the core banrel of my diasgiam supposition.