ML19206B206
| ML19206B206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905080057 | |
| Download: ML19206B206 (12) | |
Text
'
p t om
%)\\
c et A
N
...w jg
.b2; sd,
,DId UNITID STAT 2S OF Al-32.ICA NUCI2AR 2ECULATCF. CCBIISSICU
.M~
o \\
~
,,.a*
'= % _ f '
Enfors the Nuclea-Rec : laten C.
-4ssien In the Eatter of
)
)
EETF.CPCLI"J' 3 ED!SQi CCH? INT, et al.
)
Dockat No. 50-320 (tree Mile Island Nuclear Osiarating Statien, Unit 2)
)
Dr"ZF.73(CP.S' A? PEAL TC ~~d CCMG35ICNZ3.S
?CR FITII*/ CF IN 1?":.Al, 3CA.3 DECISICI 5:is f"*
! 13 an appeal of an itc: tic Safety and Licei Appeal Board (Appeal Board) Oecision cf July 19,1978, (1LD-hS6) a=d is filed before the Ccmissim under Pan 2.736 of the Ccxxission's 2:les cf Practice.
The action sought by the laterveners in 'lis proceeding is a reversal, in part, of ALG-hS6 In this Decisien, the Appeal Board largely upheld the Licensing Board's I:1tial Decision of Dececher 19, 1977, except en tiro issues.
- he two ez:epticus ccccam (1) the icng-term health effects of the urani:2 fuel c7cle (including the raden problem) and (2) the speculaticas by the Staff and Applicant en the probability of a erash of a larger than design-basis aircraft (Wich is 200,000 lbs.) into the safety-ralsted s'r:cte.res of Sree Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2).
Se Appeal Board, in IIA 3-hSO, set up a procedure for obtuscating the raden problern, but this deficiency of AL13-bSO is not addressed or at issue here.
1 In ALG-h80, the Appeal Board created a precedural =ceste vhuse purpose is to f=ther deve_ the Interrenors and their neager rescurces, and to accenplish nothing whatsoever in the process to resolve the radca issco.
w problem addrssaed is the icng-term haalth (note eccM-- a4) 7*
919 t_ s i..
T 9050S0 6 Y
This appeal censiders only three issues frcm ALl3-hS6: the resolutien of the aircraft i= pact issue, the evacuation preparedness issue, and the issue of the conti=ing polic7 of the Ce-4 ssion to is-poverdsh these htervences. Wese issues vere disenssed hfore the Appeal kard en March 23,1978 (tr. h1-51, and tr. 38-kl, respectively).
In ALG-h86, the Apceal Board prebed deeply into the aircraft crash probability issue and cenelnded that the analyses of the Staff and Applicant were a=higucus and erreneous. Presu= ably to renedy these deficiencies, the Appeal Board crdered farther hearings en the subject.
Se aspect of this decisien which the htervencrs here appeal is the decision (a selit decisien, with cne ne-ber dissenting shapl7) to per_.it the continued cperation of ""E-2.
Eare, the Intervencrs :;-2=it, the Apocal Board deliberately confused natters for the solo purpose of allow-ing the centinued illegal operation of CC-2 vith its ccncenitant risk of unkncvn nagnitude to the public.
It is apparent that the Appeal Board studied ti.is ec=ple: probability issue deeply (See N -h86, pp. 31-82). As the Appea2 3 card stated
...the geestien to be answerad is whether the probability of a greater-than-design-baris crash ~ particularly, a crash of a plane veighing nore tha:; 2CO,CCO pcunds -- is g eater than appW,ntely 1 n 10-' per year), censidering both present traffic levels and poss ble increased levels.
[ALi3-h86, p. 61.
See also, pp. 33-35, h6-h7.]
To answer this questien, the Appeal Board folleved the analy.ical =ethod generally : sed by the Sta.ff and produced a series of crash probabilities for DC-2 based on three levels of heavy atreraft (greater thsn dard.gn-1 (centinued)i= pact of raden emissions fics tce =nclear faal cycle and the fact that the Staffhas utterly and ce=pletely shirked its res#.si-bilities under N71A on this issue.
"he 'solutien' =andated by ALl3-h80, though re:uirdr.g =ach paper work, possibly reopened hearings, and yet : acro paper verk, relieves the Staff et its legal obligations, throws the burden of proof on Int,erve.crs, tnd ignores ce=pletely the need to satis ^7 the Ccmissien's procedural !P.JA responsibilities.
2 See 'ntervenors' Acceal f c= an Anceal Soard Order en 'he Cm.ds of Fraud and en vther es, cofore t=a Gssion, dated June 12,197d.
19Q q.
L. ~
[t basis) usage at the 2C-2 end of the : nva7 at Harrisburg Internatic:al Lport (11A3-hS6, p. 66). It shculd be noted here 'lat alread7 the intent of the questien has been distorted.
"he ori,-inal questien =ade no reference tc M -2.
Tat the answer pertains enly to SC-2.
"ha critical i=portance of this matter is that OfI-2 decs not stand ale =a; 12xxediately adjacent to SCI-2 is its ccupanien reactor, treo }S.le Ialand, Unit 1 (2C-1).
Since DC-1 and O{I-2 are essentially identical in external di=ensiccs and are located in close proximity to one another (See Final Supplet to the Final Ecvirc== ental Statessent, E?r-0112, Dece=ber,1976, page App. 3-20 cf revised ?STES), de probab111:7 of an accident i=volving a heav7 aircraf t, with cr without consequences to the public, is therefers twice that listed en page 66 of 1Lt3-h86.
It is then seen that at the 1975 level of usage, and any higher level of usage, the probability of crash equals or e=ceeds the NF.C Staff's guideline level of a:prc=12.ately 1 x 10~I.
In short, the operatics of OC-2 adds an incr cental c ash erobability to the existing crash probability due to the presence cf SfI-1. As a r -sult, the eenelusicus reached en page 70 57 the Appeal Board are erronecus.
he record is deficient on the subject cf heavy aircraf t i=cact probability (sufficiently deficient in the unnn%us eninien of the Appeal Board to necessitate a hearing before the Appeal 3 card itself en this topic - see AIA3-h86, p. 71 -- and on a variety of related issues
-p. 93-95).
- he najority then neatly pirenettes around the inadecuacy of the crash probabilities, ignores the prohty of DC-1 and its additional centribution to the crash probability, and def tly assumes that it is safe to operate the plant pending a reopoced proceeding en this issue. In order to reach this astounding cenclusica, the sajority of the Appeal Board relied en the ver7 sano erash probabilities that it has decreed to be inadequate, in order to allev SfI-2 to ecn':1:2s to operate.
hither the Staff nor the Applicant has established that the crash probahtlitise ther calculated are applicabl or perti= mat to SC-2, er
,Na
~
ei i
4 even acer ate. Ihis peint was certainly understcod by the Appeal Board.
in its demand for =ch =cre basic date, en acraft crashes (see p. 71-76). Ecv, then, can these defective and gite prebabl7 irrelevant data then be used to justify centinuatic= of the operati g license.J Sis action by the Appeal Board has been taken by disregarding the applicable statutes, which are, in this case, the Atenic Energy Act of 19$h, as anended, Sectics 103 (d). Se Interveners rw-nest that the Cc issioners pa-r carticular attea.tien to the dissenti.? crinien in 11A3-h86, re.33-12h, Furth a re, the Intervencrs ask the C% Jssiclers to censider that the consecuences of a heavy aircraf t crash were not explorad in the Si..ff's FSFI3, as required by E?A.
The Intervenors suh=1t that r-vecation of the operating license for OfI-2 is essential to protect the health and safety of the public frcza this externally propagated ha:ard of presently unkscvn probability, and cer*a N7 of unknown consequences, until it has been finally dotd_ned whether er not this plant can ever be coerated safely. ne Staff and Applicant have failed to show that 24.I-2 does not ec=stitute a threat to the health and safety of the public, as they are rectired to do = der 10 C73 2.732. They shculd theradore be decied their avowed goal (the operation of "MI-2), just as the Interrencrs ars so ren'dnely denied their goals when in the views of the Lice = sing and Appeal Boards they f ail.h 3 As ner.tioned earlier, the raden problen also ec= rises an area w
where the p?. ant is aD.:ved to cperate in spite of the fact that the legal prerecuisi'e.i to the grsnting of an operati.:q license, namely, the nondiscretionary mandatory recuirements of E.PA, have been ignored and reni n unfulfilled. Sea footnotes 1 and 2, above.
h Eere again, e double standard applies. h'nen the htervenors fail, they receive either ao second chance or a heavy and illegal burden to go forward (see p. f 3 of alt 3-h86 and citations therein). Tet vten the Staff and/cr Applicant so fail, an entirely different sta-da-J applies:
the desired end is reached (OfI-2 operates) and no burden at all is i= posed = pen these :: ore favered partiss. (See f*14 g referenced in footnote 2, above, pp. 36-53.)
qDy n.
L, i n.
f.
O Se plans for protecting the health and safety of the public in the event of a najor accident at OC-2, such as a large airraf t crash, are based prbarily en bland and sweeping assrances that eve 70:e i=velvsd in protecting the p:blic vill do his job and ncbod7 vill fail. Se abysnal ignorance of a.y natters cence ing rsdiation and radiatien en-en the part of the. political appointee who heads *2e posure to '-
=n D=1phin Ccu.ty Civil Defense organisation is well established in the reccrd (tr. 813-lh, 837, 1355-6). Ha=7 of the other sweeping assrances 'lat the paper plans and self-earring praxises are adequate are cited by the Appeal Board ( ALL3-L86, pp. 6-25).
hhile by the=selves these assurances night be believabis, they = st b3 rieved in their cen+h totality: that is, hov ' ley apply *A the real world. For this reacter an ens =ple of the hollow natre of such sweeping assrances is readily available in the fc: 2 of events 1 avn fM the real world that involved the physical sec=1t7 of the OC facilit7 Beginning in June,1975, there has been a series of charges of la security and a series of actual instances of dmenstrably la security at CE.
Fines have been levied against the evners of OC 1 and 2 for secrit7 failros, in spite cf the barrage of self-cengratulater7 sta'mts fron mn:gs:ent that there is no securit7 problen at SC.
Ine C.
's-stoners therafere =nst asic: are scch statc=ents believable? Se ansvar, Intervenors sub=it, is that they cannot be believed, in the face of the repeated failres of '2e DC sec=1ty sys'a.
In July,1977, the EC ncunced rW-=ents for : mere stringent
'x physietl security at nuclear pever plants (See EC News ?dease 77-30, February 22,1977). Presunaoly these new r@e=ents would apply 'A The issue of physical sec=1t7 at 3C-2 is not raised in this proceeling. It is used here to illustrate the point that all the rules, replattens, precises, sweepi.g assurances, etc., that a precedure is verble are only as good as the procedure proves to be when cut in A practica. khen put to the simplest "real world" tests, the CC-2 secrity systes he failed repeatedly. "his issue is also raised here to call *A the Cc:::issteners' actention +2e lov estec: in which *2e A plicant holds E f rules and. regulations.
If the CC-2 operating license vere revoked until the aircraft issue and *2e EPA aspects of *2e raden pr0'cle are resolved, the Applicant ziight pay more at* action to Caa=1ssien ruleJ, n-q q _)
Li t.
W-1 and 2, su e both havs been g anted operatin;; licenses, and are intended to give sc=ething :2cre than a pa;:er er a public relatiens assurance of real security. Did thess scre strict r gulations, or the prsvicus fines, induce the ::anage=ent of M to actually and effectively tighten physical security at M 7 The answer provided by subsequent events is clearly no.
The attached newspaper report frem the Ear-ist-c.r:!;,
Pa., 2reninz News, July lh,1978, e==lains in detail: ene night very recently M was ".=vaded' by a stranded boater who had to sea ch c"t the security c:ards to obtain assistance. Cuce again the platitudinous assurances fail to corresperd with reality, and the public health and safety rested solely on the harmless intent of the
- invaders,' as in the past.
W.en the evacuatica rules, regulations, and 'prc=ises' are viewed in the centert of the physical security rules, regulations, and "prc=1ses,"
a =uch different picture is chiained of the reliability of the evacuation assurances supplied by the Ap;:licant, Staff, and Co:n ccvealth. *his is especially significant because the Cc=envealth witnessses h: llc 7 and
- m 4 a=sen, the political appointees whose testinct:7 was so crucial to a
the Appeal 3 card's view of the evacuation issue, ad=1tted and e=phasised their ignorance of the nature and nagni's.:de of the hasards which could result frc:a a sericus radiological accident at NI-2.
The reasening of the Appeal 3 card as applied to the evacuatica issue, therefore,veuldrequireacatasthhete
' cur at 3-2 in eccj=ction with a failure of evacuation in order to estah 7t, in the future, evacua-tion plans at M-2 =ust be de=enstrably verk.
.e.7 The fact that t.u Appeal Board has reopened the aircraft crash issue for further e=ploration establishes this occurrence as a credible event.
That radiation ex:osures to the public na7 exceed the 10 C7R 100 guidalines in the even' -f such an accider.' had previcusly been established (tr. 727-728).
1.'" ' en, the Civil tefense ergsni:atione xuat take disastars as 6 The Interrenors have never a m%ed that Ciril Cefense persc=e1 mast have 'eW" knculedge of the affects of radioactivity.
~he Appeal (footnotes centi =ne) n.
qqz di L.' i
9 they ec=e.
These organi ations cannot fail to respond - hevr+er ineffectually - in the sfent of a radiological energenc7 sinpl7 because '2st accident results in hasards or danas;es 2:ich enceed arbitrary guida'~ee, or because such an accident was not believed to bo
- credible' by the reeponsible authorities.
!st the Appeal Scard is v4d.g to ignore the unique exter-C '7 prei sted aircraf t hasard, which, in the case of 2C-2, nandates that the site specific evacuation plans be responsive to the possibility of such an accident (see A113-hc6, p.27). ?:rthemore, there is no assurance in the record that CC-2 can even -4.thstand a design-basis accident (tr. 621). E view of the prc i= icy of ~2C-2 to the airport, '2e evacratics preparedness recnited for CC-2 znst reflect the need to protect the public frca this additite..al hasard of as yet undete zineri u gY.tuds.
Se Inte-rencrs repeat their assertion that Mr. Sms Gerusky, Director, 3crea: of ?.adiological F.ealth cf the Cc= ccvealth of Penns71-vania, has stated publicly that neither he cce his staff are en 2h-hcur availahility, regardless of what his April. 26, 1973, affidavit sa7s.
Es Appeal Board action has precl:ded the Interrencrs f = advancing evidence to suppcrt this assertien, and the Appeal 3 card has taken no action to ascertain for itself the truth in this crucial matter.
S e Appeal 3 card has nn aged, in additien, to thercughly cloud and confuse the Price-Andersen Act issue raised b7 the Interveners (l'23-h86, pp. 26-30). 2:e 2C-2 record shcws conclusively that there is no nechanis:s for an individual who believes hinself, or herself,
'A have been injured in a nuclear accident at SC-2 to determine the ugmitude 6 (centinued)
Soard (p.13) aas therefore eczzpletely mischaracterised the Interrenors' position en 'lis subject.
7 In view of the repeated security violati x.s at.d failures at CC-2, wren this cenclusics may be opti=istic.
') ') f) n*
di i.
8 of his or her specific radiation enposure er other inju:7, fer use in a clab undar Section 170 of the Atenic Energy Act of 195h, as anended.
The fact that such infor= tics nay be ara.lable, for-mv or infor=117, d
fran the Applicant nakes no difference, if the individual is precluded frca using such infornatica as evidence in ecurt (See Section 190 ef the Atcmic Energy Act). Nor is there a=7 evidence or reason to assene, as the Apceal 3 card would have us believe (p. 30), '2at the report filed by the Ccs=1ssion under Section 170 (i) cf *1e itemic Energy Act, as anended, sculd be of any assistance at all to an individual, if and when
'21s reoort ever were to be released. Thus, as the Interrenors stated
- belev, C G ssion reliance upco the Applicant for in.fo m ation thns denies the, victiss of a nuclear accident the cppor-tunity to int: t bec 'nto : cart the only evidence likely
- . s-h - the Price-Andersen Act.
to establisc t.
m
[Interre.h r in % acJr of 2:ceptions to the n+ ler ly, ly77, p.16]
Initial
'c:
.re d Ihe Cdssiwc. por g. *nnding to the Intervenors insures in virtually ever7 T ne~ t.
Oi.s; en :xtraordina:7 financial inbalance vill appear a=cng the ;
J.
This proceeding is no exceptien. The Interrenors have been ha= cered at e ar7 step of this proceeding by the yoke of their indebtedness due to participation in past proceedings before the NF.C and their current inability to obtain funds.
Le result in this case was that sene 53 vimerses appeared for the Staff, Cc::non-wealth, and Applicant, as opposed to one witness for the Intarvenors.
Such an i= balance, however convenient to the Staff and Applicant, sinply
=eans that there is no cpportunity to create an evidentiary record which represents a just balance of info:..atien. The rights guaranteed to all parties under 10 CFF. 2.7h3 (a) and the due process and equal protectica guarantees of the Constitution are thus actually available only to the parties who can afford then. The Cor=:ission practice of denying funding to the Interrenors has effectively denied them the1.r rights under 2.7h3(a),
and this denial is all the scre inocrtant new because of *2e cenplex nature of, in this case, the remanded aircraft crash issue. Bis.^= ding decial insures thab the procosals, testinenies, and fm gs of Stdf and Applicant all receive -r',N1 cutside scrutiny.
1 ') (d o'(s La
O
.p.
Cc=:issicn review of these isstes is i_ crtant because Only the Cc:missicn can offer a review of the entire set of issues at hand.
Sis
,is dee=ed by h ervenors to be of the ut:: cst necessity, because it is only Wen these issues are all put tcgether and viewed as a whole tha.
the truth of t}.c situatics becc=es clear: M-2 is an accident just vait-ing to harpen, and when it does, the glib assurances *2at the p=blic health and safety are being crotected vill.:ot suffice; in the end, those injured vill be denied the ver7 infernaticn they need as evidence in ecurt, under Section 190 of the Ato=ic Icergy Act, as anended, and the Cc=sissien's policy of an'Acrising the Applicant to supervise the radiatica acnitoring, 7"=7, '2ese htervencrs request pernissien of the Cc==1ssicners to present their cwn case in -cral arg nent before the C* ssion, rather than again being sisrepresented by Staff counsel as in the February 23, 1978, oral presentation of '2e M-2 case. The htervences have a very high re-gard for this ability of the NEC Staff to distort, =iseenstrue, and toully nisrepresent the posittens, centent, purpose and substance of public-interest hterrenors' cases in order to gain approval fcr reactor licenses.
The issues raised is this appeal to the C* ssien are of such sie, ificance to the safety and health of ht' vencrs residing near the M -2 plant that their representative wishes to be certain that the Cc:s:issioners vd' be snabled to :r.nke a fair pdg-et 'Arengh su henest and accurate presentatien of 'he case.
Respectfully sch=itted,
,$ ^
- r ca' Channee7 3. Iepford Representative of the htervencrs h33 Crlando Avecue U***d 1 E*8t
- 1970 Shte College, Pa.
16601 81h-c37-39CO
.) 9 7 n.
L6 Lt
CZaTITICAT: CT SZ?.7ICI I hereb7 u-tify that Inte.N ers: Areeal
. the Cv.
issioners for R,rriew of an Acceal 3 card Cecisien has been serted upcn the parties to this proceedi=:; by deposit i:: the U.S. Mails, First Class, postage i
paid, this h day of August, 1978.
Edward Lutos, Eso., Ch airma n George T. Trewbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Ticensing Board Shav, Fittman, Fetta L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 1500 M S tree t, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Liceaniss Board Atomic Safety L Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc:s. mission Soard F'an el Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Reguntory Co=nianica Dr. Erses t O. Salo Washiagten, D.C. 2C555 Professor, Tiaheries Research Institute, WR-10 Atomic Safety and Licensing College of Fisheries Appeal Soard University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ka rin W.
Carter, Asst. Attorney General Office of Enforcement Docketing and Service Ire pa rtme nt of Eavironmental Resources Section 709 Health and Nelfare Su11 dins Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17120 CT.S. Nuclear Re ula tory Comminaion Washingten. D.C.
20555 Alan S. Rosenthal. Esq., Chairman, Atcmic Safety and Licensing Acpeal Panel ad ary J. : cGurrea U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regula tory Cosnasion Washington, D.C.
2C555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq., Mester i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel l
Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washing *wn 0.C. 20555 Or. Joseph M Hendrie, Chairman
~__.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Victor Gilinsky, Comissioner Nuclear Regulatory Comission
'[
7 A
Washington, D.C. 20555 dinUje Q.pf Mr. Peter A. Bradford, Ccmissioner Chauncey Xcpp/e of the Intervenors
~ rd /<
Nuclear Regulatory Comissicn Representa t.
433 Criando Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20555 State College, Pa.16801
}
Mr. Richard T. Kennedy, Ccemissioner Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washington, D.C. 20555 17p3 m*(s L-
~
_ F-mm.
.e.-.
. os.b.
WM.
s I
y o
a s
a' p ',
l n
t
^
e s
g
/
i Q
Y 3
l u
8 s
,1' e
n l
)
i a
t 4 9, d
r A
i I inc e latt l
rll d
nr t
. et t yk d ge e
t l
e a
r c
v e
n n n toa aI n a
e
.a ri r
r c nnc r
n r
oh a
a t
f gt u
l e
d yr I
.. e. A a
s t
N o
s a
et d
l r
g n r
a tod u
nni r
te a
r s n e
nol u
me v u
t e
d d
n r e a
1 sy.
s s r i
lb rdr mu aH m
g e
e u rhl r
t o
e s
rl s t
a i mI a
pt n 8
a iat s r
e t
y u
l so 7
i.
s ni r n
main dr s
pe a
h e W
ad h
yi g
- s. ht lp s r s 9
ra si dl t
ri r a
ndl e a e w u s
g iati i u r
a t.e 4
t y,'
o oic
- s. u uNt l
y o a
d gf e
4 a
f n n
tc r
c c
er o
(
n s i
g I
t c
r h
r a
vu ef towuCn yi ts ot cwt rpa et p
a pnd np l
mw m
lob P
Y.
ah p
r a
o v
s y I
e pi l S
e r
l or s nr eit. t r t R
U mt t
a s j
d nl n
a c n e s o E
J s
a g
bi eh o h
{.
,w.>~I s r i ooinigil t t dI inws ino l li m gna t
g T
v Y
ne s
e n
A a ric ri t
h n a r
oI,
O A
1 t
s 4
pr h r n
t a
a al e cf t i
h. u o
e nt t
y u. wp B
D a
i md o i' qs r
t n pm a
e r f I
r o me et w do
.h o o en oo e
n r r uI. C'6 t
nc t
e i
c r
ewt f
or os o g%
T t
t a%
m dwa ht lcr t n s ul
.e1 nhMt miuta c Koe lat s
l e
v on!
c r toq d r,
!nt s e
c r
A e
s r
u a
awi cur t
e e
mit I s c nr
.l d
miw P
i whMofodMn f
e r
- s. -
ludmr u
r naa h
r t o ui nt nf e I
r r u e G
r' u.u,**)
e e e ot y Ii e sd ue ns ye e.RrmMne H
i s
r pr n mnl s t t ior gt o
n a r reNeA3" l
g eh mCashT U
ambh yh e a e rKiod pM r aI i
t ms-h i
lum a
r i
i e a
p o
r oy a r y o
f t
t t
S os b
F r
, uh r
I mt c yCb pps ect t
o R
l l
7 t
A i
I sa I
f r
g tyea te s rh s
., s r.
.a s o f e oo.
e' ocnt nh e
t t u
i pn n
dd
r p
n
=
ou h mih l
s a hf hay ht l
t nb r
g al N
k c a t ud I
al eb
,t c
g u
ei nl n r ts o ppr n gi e
r t inMn o a l' e
s gv s e upf o
ur eT ei rmc n oerbt. oh t
c t
a sh ut anti ef h
.tt ent o o. l hz wit ly t osrM.
t w maa s
c r t e.w e
if d.
a r
at h os oa rl c n e
renh T esS et t
h wef r I e
1 c
I t
nng r
g ap ea a u ta 'c ea ir I
at r x h
e q ghb gI t ade m
t s s S
n N
t t
, i O
a l.
q,,,!'*
i l
.q
- i I
4 J.
r k;
T a.e I
I I
\\ }W T
S
'n
,p
\\
'R 2
D r
a
[l "E
'M C.
U t
^
3 "U
f 0]
=
.\\
M 8
4 6,
- M o
S t
(
I l,
F
,,f-l
[
f t'
L i' I"
g j N
8 r
m
's O -
hr 9'
s 4-El r EurttinD N eusa,7 wit N I.Fa fr 4 h*f 11.1111 f
f
]
s
,t Guards si l Boaters invade area A-plant areou4 by defen Froen Page One "I went to a second door, ahmiting. Silence. A third door was open and I walked in. t here were two guya IIONI.SD AIJ ( AP).
ness me. stom Inwer Paxton Twp.. returning from a sitting at a de k.
view Sinic Itospital guan j
dem.cr. poker party at a catdn owrud by llarry Farling.
"'rardon enc.* l said, as they hamprd up. I told them with assaulting a primmt l
across from lhrre Mile Inland. We usually get together of our predirament and that I had glamtwd their fer.ce.
ed other guards how to 1
there once a month.
'You did what? they skkrd, hmking amaird.
aggressive patients, acq l
"st was alwmt 12n10 m r- 'rburutay when we startrst "t)ne of the guys talled the scruelty thief and took testimony at thrir trist.
l bat k up the riser in a rumi.
. s, oat. m'nout 20 feet long, me to his of D(e. T he head guy startrd t alting all getra (m James Danilovitr, roe i
right fort wide, renopy-topped. We were t hugging a walkir talkie. lle took my name. l had noidenfihtstio't traimng prograrns at Fat I
along and then we must have hit reomething. Apparently on me. Ihree of them escorted me back to the hrsal.
1hursday that guard Jara the ruilder broke. We were thrat6ng, at the mercy of th'r boarded it and interviewed some of the othera, taking and former guard Pris I
t utrent. Therri a dam three or four miles twlow the names and addrensca.
were skilled in controlin spot. but we sheln't ant hot. We drif ted alumt Iwo hmars.
"1hry inaded us in van truck eight at a time and sive patients.
"lir. Marshall Ihmsc and I rank Huv.a 11 stripped to drove us to our parked cara. It was almut 113 a.m. whea f)anilovitz appeared a thrst imderwrar. dove in and nudred the imial to shore we rear hrd rmr tars."
witness for the two e against the tempimnd.-l ud we umid get help herr:
Miammert added that the thought wturred to him who are charged wl enavhe thrv'd e nti lover Hrstpc or drsve un to our tars.
afterward "with th of us acnttored all over the area.
swault, ar 1travated acnas parked sh<mt Ihere miles upriver.
what an elfrttive dry run it would have horn to test their spiracy 6n the alleged serturitv "
Widrow Scott Jr. on Ma}
"I said I'd < hmh up the frme and holler for help. No.
rtedn1 Ilunk I'd t>r shot; the entare area wna alllighted up.
TMI l bryon commerstal operation in September Ihe f 6 pal proscrutle T hrer wasn't a hvmg uml artHmd. "IlrlpI AnyIMwty 1974 and HGS a nel taplHity of 792.t:IIJ kilowatts. (Init 2 Hohert Young of Harrt brerr I he pl hollrrmx 1 e rawk d up the t rnter rule post, will hne a not capatif y of HHO.tlliO kilowatts when it l's guard for 25 years sal but below the hartwd were Ibc gate sprang apart and I put into full tsunnu naal oprrattor in the prxt arveral yellmg and thumping b w 6cyled through I'vr rol a IM im h want.
nmnt hs-room on the day of the h "I hollrrrd aga6n No respimuc. I wulked thtmigh the 1MIis operated by Mrt I d and owned )nintly by Mel When he entered i going on. l grounds and krpt hollrrmg. At the first imilding, the I d. Jersry Ibwer and Iight Co. and Pennsylvania Llet.
what was door was im krd. I kioked in, a;sw no one. 'Anylxxty in uit ( o, all wholly owned autmidtarles of Urneral Public Warnrr told him Stoll t thereT No resimnse.
IIllIlllf" C0rP-or6ne on him. "I fixed b g
quoted Warner sa asyle,3 i
CARTER WELCOMED cellist's plans aro un
~
'i QUIETLY IN GEaMANY Rosen enhances N
B rom rage Oss lhen the Carters and the l'
Schmidts r.ot into an American-Nr.W YORK ( AP)- Nathaniel Rosen and his the Tchalf i
S(hmidt was an unscheduled made armored I mmnine for the l$-
relio lias e udited a new dimension to Pittsbur gh's on Sundaj t
participant In OntlerN low.kry ar.
mile drive into llonn.
g e n.I.a e s..
s a.a n. o,.
a.
.e
.