ML19220A426
| ML19220A426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904170580 | |
| Download: ML19220A426 (7) | |
Text
.
Q o
J-u A ry w,,c,ru A
A \\\\@r N
S v
42
%%s6
^\\
Dr. Joseph M. Eendrie, Ch airma n
%s Q v) gyp Or. 71c tor Gilissicr, Co==issiccer
[h Q
Mr. ? ster 3rstford, c==issioner A
O
~2
~~
=*
Mr. Richard T. Kennedy, Cc:=issioner
,,,, f '
U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Cc==issio:
CYe#$#
Tashington, D.C. 20555 Q'
g Re:
Th: e e Mile Isla:d C it 2 Operating License Proceed 1:4 Oceket =50-520 Oe ar Sirs :
I raise =y veice is outrsgs over the dishenest, deceitful, totally biased, illegal, and fraudulent behavior of the Nuclear Regula tory Cc==issio:
a:d its subordinates, the Ato:ic Safety and Lice = sing Board, the Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, a:d the Directer of Nuclear Reacter Regulatic=, is issuing the Initial Decisio: (Oec. 19, 1977), a: Appeal Scard decisic: (Jan. 27, 1978), anc Tinal Decisica (date unksew in the opera ting license preceeding for Three Mile Isla:d, Unit 2, leer.et No. 50-520.
In reaching these conclusic s, the decision =akers have estat:.ished very clearly throughout these preceedi=gs that go,informatie vill be considered by thes which sight cast any deubt whatsoever on the licensing of Three Mile Isla:d, Unit 2.
Nor will these gentle e igacre the seat unsupported opinie=, glaring precedural error, outright il?.egality, or the e c==issic:
of pure usadultersted fraud is covering up for the ince:petence of the Applicant or the 72C Staff is support of the lice: sing actic:.
These are streng words, but I ca: thi=k of no other applicable or see'arste t e r=::.
They result fro = as isti= ate knewledge o f the preceeding, fre= begi= ring to e=d.
1: this protest of these decisions, I will briefly describe just a few cf the sany issues a d facets of this totally biased proceeding, best described as a " kangaroo ceu-t."
1.
Three Mile Islacd U=it 2 is a 9C0 MW( e ) F#2 situa ted en a= is la n d is th e 3uscuehanna River is scuther: pennsylvania.
The reac ter itself is a rela tively short dis tance frem the glide path approach to Harrisburg Interna tic al Air:crt.
The largest aircra f t is the w:rld, th e icckheed C-5 A,
flies L: and out of this airport c= as alscat da127 b asis (tra script 337, 613).
The reactor contain=est and fuel handling structures wers designed to be t
)
(#
2 hardened to withstand the crash of a aircraft weighing 2CO,CCO lbs.
traveling at 200 knots; th e C-5 A c an weigh eve r 3CO,CCC lbs.
Th e NEC Itsff wit:ess testified tha t there is so certainty that the plant ca:
withstand the crash cf even a 2CO,0C0 lb. aircra f t, aisee =o cualifi-cat 10: testi g of rigid, steel reinforced cenerete structures has been de e si=ce shortly af ter World War !! ( tr. 24-5, 6312.
Yet, note Staff and Applica:t wit = esses relied on the use of unverified predictive sedels to predict that the C-5 A type crash was of tco lew a prebability of cc-currence to be censidered by the Board.
Both predictive =edels used to calculate the crash probabilities were, by their very es ture, not caly
- verified but also unverifiable (tr. 562, 653 AT.
The input data was acksewledged to be inapplicable to the situation a t ha:d (tr. 555-7).
Neither witness would place confidence limits on the i=;ut data (tr. 562, 607, 653 k).
The Board, L sanctioning full operatics of this plant, ultima tely relied upo: su=bers to which ec fidence limits es:not be assessed (tr. 562, 654), ob tained by inserting inappropriate nu=bers of unk=cwn sceuracy into unverifiable aircraf t crash :odels.
The 3 card refused to ec sider consequences to the public of such su aircraft crash.
Thus, as described in I:tervenors' filings in this case, the true risk to the public of an aircraf t crash into TMI-2 remains usk cwn.
2.
The heari g record shews conclusively that the largest scurces of radioactive e:issions is the entire nuclear fuel evele--trillions of curies of the rsdioactive gas redon-222--have yet to be eve a c k= cwle dge d by the NRC.
The envire==en tal i= pac ts of these e=issions have ot been censidered, as recuired by NEPA.
Ner has the health impact of these escr:cua quantities yet bee: assessed by the NRC.
As a result, the cest-benefit 3:al7 sis for TM!-2 is hopelessly ince:ple te and i= adequate si:ce the reccrd shews that the le=g-ters health effects from raden-222 dwarf the short-ters effects.
Any reliance by any Ccssission body upe the Tabis S-3 su=ber of 74.5 euries of raden-222, sew k:ev: to be a clearly deceptive a:d enor=ously inaccura te representa tion of rsdon-222 emissions,
c an only b e considered fraudulent.
Th e NRC haa no statutory authority to atte=pt to use its rules (Table S-3) to ecsceal such emerseus radioactive releases as this proceeding has revealed.
1: addition, the Final Supplese=t to the Final E=vire==estal S ta te ent
(?37Z3) issued by the NRC Staff in December,1976, was subsecuently =odified
3 agsis when the Staff introduced a further Supple =ect to the T3?IS c hay 21, 1977 (after tr. 1333, see also tr. 2C96 7).
Subsecuently, this docu=e:: " Supple =e=tal Testi:c=y 3egardi:g Eealth Iff ects Attributable to Csal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives," was submitted to o ther Federal Igencies on Sept. 29, 1977, for ce==ent, as required by NEPA, o=ly after th e interve: ors in this proceeding had =cted that the Oc =issic: had failed to circulate the docu=ent for ce==ent.
It has not yet bee issued is final for=.
Is a result, TMI-2 has been licensed to operate with an as yet in-co=plete final environ = ental state =ent.
3.
TMI-2 appears to have been licensed to operste in full knowledge of the fact tha t two parties to the proceeding--the Applica nt and the Cc==on-wealth of Fe::sylvania--had knowingly withheld infer =atics fre= the Licensing Board, as described in Intervencrs ' filings in this case.
This infor=ation revealed that the State is ine spab la ci responding is an acceptable manner to a reactor accident.
Despite this fact, the Appe al 3 card relies upon the State to so:itor radiatio: levels to deter =ine actual expcsure levels to the public cutside the Lew Populatic: Zone, k=owing that the State cannot do so.
4 The Licensing Board relied os a sadly deficient trs script upon which to concect its decision.
The record is deficient because the Interveners were denied the right by the Cc==ission to present ex;ert wit: esses and even to obtain the =isi:al protec tie of their rights by having legs 1 advice, let alene the expert legal advice w:ich was available to every other party.
Thus, culy the propencet's case is presented for each contentics, with the sole exception of the ce=parative health effects issue, where the I:terveners' representative in the proceeding offered west turned cut to be a f actually unchallenged and unrecutted testimony tha t rsdo -222 emissions fro = =ill tailings piles will cause = ore than one sillio fu tur e health effects per year of operstic: ef TMI-2.
This is = o t justice, it is :ot a fair proceeding, cr has there been any eve: faint hint of i: par-tiality in this proceeding.
5.
Bu t, the decision akers chese to delay the issua:ee of the ::itial Oecision so tha t the Applicant could ce=prain of imaginary damage t o th e Applicant if a full, fair Co==1ssion review of the decision were =ade 48w1
4 available to the I:terve ors--aided by the AppeiL3 card which also chese to further this injustice.
The s e decisio :akers have saved the crev=is?
i=sult, the ulti=s te injustice, for the end.
The Cc==1ssion's rules s ta te that a Fi al Decisic: can be appealed to the Cc==issics f or review within 10 days of issuance of the decision (10 CTR 2.771).
!= this preceeding, the rights of the Interveners have been further denied by the fact tha t this decision has :ot yet, af ter delivery of =sil c February 13, 1978, been served upon the I:terve= ors.
The only way the Interve ors have becc=e aware tha t a final decision has been issued is through a =ewspaper re pce ter5 recues ts f or I:terve= ors ' ce==e=ts on the decisieu.said to have bee: issu e d Feb rua ry 3, 1978.
The Licensing 3ca d has a= ply de=c=s trated tha t this 3 card has had so intenti:n of paying t he slightest a ttenties to any arpu=ents adva ced by the Intervencrs in this proceeding, nor of evc fulfilling its obliga-tion under the NRC rule s of practice to base its Decision on "the whole record... supported by feliable, pro b a tive, a:d substantial evidence".
(lo CFR 2.76c(e)).
The colicquialis=, "a bu='s rush," seems to apply here to the treat-
=ent given the public -in t eres t Interve crs.
The actions of these 3 cards s ee= e=presi'J desig=ed to ensure that this :uclear reactor will beco=e irreceverably radicactive, and thereby cause irreparable da= age to the Intervenors, trier to the lawful exhaus tion of ad=inistra tive reviews.
The Cc==ission has withheld delivery of the Final Decision, r t=ored to have been issued on February 3,1978, fre= the :sterveners.
The Interve:crs are entitled to a ti=ely deliverv is order to file th e ir pe titics f er reconsideration of the final decision within the te: davs after the date of the decisien, as required by the rules of practice (10 CFR 2.771(a)). The f ailure of the Co==issics, as of February 13, 1973, to serve the Final Decisic ce the I:terve: ors thus confir:s this apparent intent to ec= pro =ise all re=aising legsl and constitutic al rights due the laterve ors--those re=aining rights that have not already been denied.
This appeal for reversal of the Final Cecisic: is sect to you, the Cha ir s = a:d Cc==issic=ers of the Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission, beesuse of the de e:s trated refusal cf the Licensing Board and tre Appeal 3 card
~
apparently to even fully read, let alone fully respond to, the _ :terveners '
48 238
5 ti=ely sud de tailed findings of fact, exceptions a:d supporti:g briefs submitted since the closing of the ree:rd c: Oceke t No. 50-320 on July 5,1977.
With this request "er reversal of the Ti=al Oecisics, Interve crs also petitic the Co =issioners to review the full record, including ali filings subsitted by the Interve ors in the proceedi:g.
If, as th e Intervenors submit, the licensing and c;erstion of this reactor are illegal, this fact must be de ter:1:ed be fore the reactor beccmes radioac tive--a nd hecce radiosctive waste-- whi: will occur with achievement of the first fission reaction.
Intervenors reques t that the Cc::issioners of the NRC reverse these illegal Initial and Fi al Oecisions in Docket No. 50-320.
Jus tic e demands this actio=,
Respectfully submitted,
-/,
/ //
V,s:c.u
? x.s c:: v Chauncey Kepford Representa tive of the Intervenors 433 Criando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16c0I e
l ~)
Fr La
~
CERTIFICATE _OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of a letter of appeal to the Chairan and Ccemissioners of tne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmissien, dated FebrJary l3, 1978, have been served en the folicwing by deposit in the U.S. Fail, First Class, this N
th day of Feb"*Jary,1978.
Edward Lutos, Iso., CV ir sa n George T, Trowbrid e,
Esq.
Atemic Safety and !icensimT Ecard Sb:<, Fittssn, Fetts L U.S. : uclear Regula tory Co=missica Trowbridge Washizgton, D.C. 2C555 13C0 M Street, N.i.
Washington, D.C. 2C036 Mr. Gustave A. linenberger Ate:ic Safety and Lice. sing Josrd Atemic S a f e ty & Licensirg U.S. Nuclear RegulaNry Co:xsission Soard Fanel Washington, D.C.
c535 U.C. Nuclea r Regulh tery Co==issi:n Dr. Ernest C. salo Washington, D.C. 20555 Professor. Fisheries Researen Institute, W:I-10 Atemic Ca f e ty and Lic e :s ing College of Fisheries Appeal Soard Calversity o f Washisgton U.S, Nuclese Regulatory
' attle, Washington o8195 Cosnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Karis W. Carter, Asst. Atto ney General Cffice of Enforcement Docketing and Service repartment of Environmental Resources Section 709 Health and Velfsre 3uilding Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17120 U.S. Nucle ar Re;ula t ory Commi::s io n Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman, washington, D.C.
2C555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Henry J. McGurren Counsel for NRC 5taff Cr. Victer Gilinsky, Cccmissioner, Nuclear Regula tory Ce missica U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission w.331,ggan, c,c, 2c535 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Peter Bradford, Ccmissioner, de"me E. Sharfman, Ecq., Memcer U.S. Nuclear Regula. ry C.missicn Atena c Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccm1ssion
..ashington, D.C. 200:e n
.dashi ngton, D.C.
05:e-4 Mr. Richard T. Xennedy, Ccmissioner.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Comission 7
Washington, D.C. 20555 W/'%'4h./d'._;.Wh Chan cey Eer n:C e a
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman, ae:resentatije er the,2--ers Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel h33 C:lando 1re.
- p \\ n',7 Washington, D.C. 20555
/sCP q]
~
U.S.Nuc' ear Regulatory Ccemission state College, Pa.
m..
mc 47,
~
Y W
EE32Il373>C..
pul Dr. W. Reed Jchnson, Memcer, Atomic Safety and Licensing Acceal Panel C/
U.S. Naciear Regulatory Ccemissicn
> gi"" "
Qf Washington, D.C. 20555 g~ <31,()
p
/ vv \\
e.
e m w e
e "6
m
3 l
t I
i UNITED STATES OF /diERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY CC'OtISSION
{
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320 -0L
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Dr. Chauncey P. Kepfctd Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman 433 Criando Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State College, Tennsylvania 16E01 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Gustava A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Honorable Karin W. Carter U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 office of Enforce ent Department of Environmental Resources Dr. Ernest O. Salo 709 Health and Welfare Building Professor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries Miss Mary V. Southard University of Washington Citizens for a Safe Environment Seattle, Washington 98195 P.O. Box 405 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pitt an, Potts, Trowbridge Government Publication Section 1300 E Street, M. U.
State Library of Pennsylvania isohington, D. C.
20006 Education Building, Box 1601 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 Counsel for NRC btaff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission Washington, D. C. 20535 48 241
-