ML19256F941

Comments on Kemeny Commission Rept.Forwards Supplementary Arguments to Contentions 1 Through 11.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19256F941
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/10/1979
From:	Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Jordan W, Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
7912010, NUDOCS 7912270095
Download: ML19256F941 (7)

Text

_.

Marvin I Lewis ' c-~

D""D *D'9' 6504 Bradford Terrace ,-

o# w 1b  :=

Phila. PA 19149 sf

,N 12-10-79. ] ;w Ivan W. Smith,2sq. '

}

Dr. Walter H. Jordan 1".

dl3f f

,, , .I\ . 7,0 ,$

Dr. Linda W. Little2 r , , ,. ._

,, ,@, ,9, D .,_ 'q-y

Dear Members of the Board:

The Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island arrived four days a6o. I have been r eading at it ever since. '

I have not finished it.

I know now that I have erroneously accepted unchallenged many incorrect directions and circumlocutions of the Board and the Staff. My error in accepting too many things is not the Board's or the Staff's fault.

It is my fault alone add I accept it as such.

I wish , nonetheless, to repair the record. The record needs repair because my errors can eventually lead to omissions and commissions thru orders of the Board-based upon a flawed record ~which can and will endanger the health and safety of the public.

P$rst , my interlast. wasdiared by the President's t!ammission. I phrased iny interset in a very shortened form as "my own life. . . endangered by a Class 9 accident with deaths to 150 IM. "

The President's Commission phrased this interest and concern much more appropriately:

" We have not found a magic formula that would guarantee that there will be no serious future nuclear accidents." -

I submit and this is really a pas of my interest that there is no such magic formula. I submit that unless the Three Mile Island No 1 reactor is shit down permanently that there will be a" serious future nuclear accident " at this most dangerous reactor at this most dangerous nuclear reactor site.

I have also mischaracterized my interest as " narrow. " This was my sistake add it needs correcting. I will not be so stiff necked that I will not admit mistakes which can flaw the record and which can eventually cause the Board to err in its findings. The destiny of non add women throughout the World can hinge upon the decisions made in these hearings. An error in the Board's findings can eventually

ause unfathomable suffering to the people of the future and maybe aven the present.

Oo9S 79122 70 G

1645 149

- _ . m vm vamu. u~

2. .

I characterized my interest as a narrow a My interset is not narrow. I

' purposely mischaracterized my interest as narronsin answer to the Staff's objection that my interest was " general." I feared that if my interest were to be found to be general that my interest could not be admitted herein. IbelkvethattheStaffpurposelyputthatmisconception a in 2s objections to my participation. I also belhva that'the Board's 3 ruling & do also show a bias to reduce my participation by ang legal means. Mr Tourtelotte has also demonstrated that inaccuracies and 3 gross attempts at insult are also within the purview of the Sedor -

Staff Lawyer to discourage participation by intervenor.  ;

Of Course , my intenst is general . Everyone 3 of sound mind, is 4 concernsd abnut their life. However, that general concern has a very

[l specific element,"aClass 9 accident at Three Mile Island Number 1 with ]

deaths out to 150 EM." l a

This specificity allows me to petition my interest to be an intervenor y

in the Restart Hearings for Three Mile Island #1. .

I pointed out that I also did not go the traditional route to intervention :I by forming a group and getting affadavits from members Sof that group stating that they have property , family , personal and monetary interests within the immediat's vicinity of TMI#1. I did not present my interest ,

in that traditional format because I wanted the Board to take a hard look at the Class 9 accident and especially the way Class 9 has been y, handled within the NRC. t Again , the Kemeny Commission expresses my interest and concern: ,I; "However, the evidence indicates that labeling of a problem as S

' generic' may provide a convenient way of postponing decisionen a y difficult question." Page 20. "

Further , "We therefore conclude that there is no well-thought-out ]

integratedsytemfortheassu$ceo~fnuclearsafetywithintheNRC."Page21.  ;

I further point out tat a refusal by the Board to look at some, all, i or any Class 9 accidents in these hearings does not provide a basis or reason to disallow my interest because it is related to Class 9 accidents.

There are many reasons for not disallowing my interest which is based on Class 9 accidents even 12 Otsa 9 accidentr are not allowed in as part of the contentions in these haarings.

First, it would be unfair to the suspended licensee. If the NRC hand-ling i of Class 9 accidents changesdue to the accident at TMI, the offshore Power Systems decision, the criticism of the Kemeny Commission above or the apparent dirention tat the revised NRC Chdman is taking, the Board might find itself forced to reconsider my previously rejected interest. 1645 150

, , p q- - -

J d d Ju W Ju s . -'

J 3.

This/would cause delays and perhaps even the hearing clock being turned back.y Therefore , a decision to exclude me at this time and in the light -

o4.the changing regulatory posture on Class 9 accidents would place a n unfair -but only potential - burden of delay upon the suspended licensee.

Second, there is a principle espoused in the amendments to the Constitution called"due process.' The nrrY NRC and its Boards must no't only accept the delivery of petitions; but also the handle thase petitionsin a fair '

manner.

Although,under the rules of the NRC, a safety issue can be sidetracked for many yeard, safety issues in the for-m of contentions do have different status than' interest. Part 2 Para 2.714. The inviolability -

of interest is embodied in Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act: '

"(t)he Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding , and shall admit i

any such person as a party to such proceeding."

Although the NRC has seen fit to reduce the right of in&ernanors to }!

argue safety contentions in particular hearings (OL,C? ETC), the NRC l has not yet sean fit to over-rule the mandates of the Cokstitution

. +

and Part 189 of the AEA. .

In a nutshell, even the NRC cannot put out rules where the only reason -

is reducing citizen participation,. (2.715a) In evidence of this obvious point of law, I note that the Chairman who objected to the l First Amendment has just been fired.

Another error of mine was fthat I did not answer obviously wrong  :

statements by the Staff and licensee. I did not want to appear argumentative '

for no good reason. I did not understand that statemnts , uncontested l on the record , carry great det,ht desA 4 the fact that they are wrong. i I point particularly to the Staff's statement on Page 8 of their 10-31-79 filing: "(o)n the theoretical consequences of some undescribed accident i at Three Mile Island with no identificationcf a credible mechanism whio.h I could cause an accident with the theoretical consequences he relies spon." l a ot to Thisisanobviouslyfalsostatement,butIwasstillrNm andwer it and point ott the errors. 1 51 ,

The accident is described in magnificent and stunning detail in the fash 740 and 7 ash 740 Update to which I refer in my submittals many t times. I see no reason to spppnd the entire documents to my submittal because they exist in the reading rooms of the NRC in Washington D.C.

and Bethesda MD. As far as a credible mechanism , Wash 740 provides a very credible mechanism. Now as far as theoretical consequences, I cannot agree that the consequences are theoretical. If you can break loose the information from the CIA about the acc& dent at ITSHTU

4.

in the urals, I am sure that yuu will find my theoretical consequences to be not theoretical but actual. I would like to be able to present Russian emigres who would be willing to enlighten the Board along this line. I was not going to suggest this because I did not know that it I was within the scope of the hearing. Since the Staff suggests it, I 3 must have been wrong to think it was not within the scope of the hearing.

Mea culpa, Finally, I want to point out a real bit of rationalization on the past of the Stafff ,

heinjuryistobeparticularisedtoanindividual,not"sharedin substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens."/'

How in the World can my own life be " shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.?" Does that mean if I ,

die that 10 other people will keel over dead? Does that mean that {

everybody in Phila. is going around today worried that I might not j survive til tomorrow? {

I think it is a pleasent thought that the other residents of PhSaaelp his are so concerned about me, but I think the staff is exagerrating my  ;

importance to my fellow Philadelphians. j There is no doubt on mytpart that my life is a very particular enncern f to me only. }

To say that the Accident at TMI f2 did not cause me injury in fact'is {

to say that the accident at TMI#2 did not cause me fear, worry, loss of time from my own hterests, fear for my acquaintances and real concern for the future.

To say that the Accident at TMI#2 did not cause me injury in fact is  ;

to say a lie. l' To say that the resumption of operations at TMIf1 will not increase ,

my a real and admitted concern for a Class 9 accident at that site is again to say a lie.

om o g- -

5. ' ** *^A '

Added argument to my contentions in the light of the Kament CommissionRepoW.~

')

I again admit and plead that I be allowed to correct my own mistake on the record. My mistake was that I believed the Staff and Board.

Contention number 1. I wish to have the Board reconsider acts and vacate its previous judgement of Contention number 1 , which I erroneously requested as beyond the scope of the hearing.

I was wrong. The attitudes aitz and organication of the Board and the s

NRC does have a strong safety related impact on the present hearings. +

1 Again the Ismeny Commission stated this succinctly .,

Page.56 at 12. "71th its present organization, staff, and attitudes, i the NRC is unable to fullfill its responsibility for providing an4 f acep9 table level of safety for nuclear power plants. " e I also seek this relief. If the Board cannot after hearing the evidence  !

\

proceed in good faith that it has the capability to provide an acceptable g level of safety for nuclear plants,then the Board must find for continuing i suspension of operations at TMI#1 until and if at some future time an  ;

organization is developed which is able to provide an acceptable level of, safety.

contentions 2 and 3. The NRC is not a power unto itself . It must work within the law of the land. It must not brrak any laws. No decision of the NRC can be legal if some Federal Statute must be broken to enforce it or if some State Statute (which is not overriden by a Federal Law) must be broken to enforce the NRC Decision.

I wish to present argument and evidence that the restart of TMI#1 will break whn Federal and State Law. Th e Specifica are given in .

my previous subsittals.

Contention 4, 5, and 6 No Staff objections.

Contention 7 The Statements on Page 8 do not refer specifically and only to the front end of the fuel cycle. Table S-3 has been recently re-release with the following Proposed Narrative .See 44 Fed Reg 45362 (August 2,1979.)

The new Table and unpublished preposed narrative leave many questions about allowed releases up to the imagination. These questions must be settled before TMI#1 may resume operation for the attainment of the proper level of safety and health for the public.

Contention 8 and 9. My contentions with specifica are strongly substantiated by the Zemeny Commission on pages entitled Commission Findingst

$. The Utility sitz and Its Suppliers F. Training of operating personn1 . ,

G. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. j645 )}3 Content' ion 10 See next page.

~

6.

Contention Number 10 Again the Kemony "ommission points out)(f that Pepe cracking did play f apartinincreasingtheseverityofthisaccidentatT[IJ2. I Page 31 513 d. "The header was known to have aleak. " '

Page 103 'Some of the radioactivity ultimately released into the '

atmosphere occured after isolation from leaks in the let down system. ..

l Further this accident is a small break LOCA which was originally l designsd far in the FSAR as an accident which originated from a pipe '

}

crack. The nexus is clear atx and xxaxu++rhwh unavoidable. .  !

The action of mitidit cladding and fuel is an inexorable part of the i accident at TMIfi. At the very minimun , the fuel and cladding must $

meet the required Quality Assurance and- Quality Control standards.  !

set by the NRC, supplier and utility.

Contention Number 11. Te have a lot of radioactive waste coming out '

of TMIf2. If this waste inundates all the radwaste systems available  ; I f&r handling it, then the radwasle from TMIf1 will be even harder to get rid of safely . We must look at this question before EfI81 .

goes back on line, and we find ourselves in the very situation which I am describing. ~~

Too often, we have l'espt before we have looked. .

Marvin I. Lewis.

1 A LAST POINT. l The Board had a right to protect itself.

Let's assume that the unthinkable happens. Let's imagine that TMI#1 goes back on line , and has a Class 9 accident with deaths out to 150 IM.

Justly of unjustly, the Members of the Board would be viewed as Adolph Eichman was viewed in Israel or Lt Calley would be viewed byihe relatives of those killed in the MaLai Massacre.

I maan this as no personal threat from me. I shall not raise my hand against any of you if this horrible speculation comes to pass. I only ask you to protect yourselves. If you protect yourselves , you will be protecting me and mine also.

Tour best protection would be not to allow this dangerous reactor to restart.

@ 1645 154 0

e 1

4

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 .

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the ( was[Mdb MMb b/

' mailed first class postage

//./ 47' this prepaid OF ggg,p y gg1979 to the following parties:

f 2../1 79 Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Chi ef , Docketing and Service Section , -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was hington , D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was hing to n , D. C. 20555 g I W,y N Dr. Walter H. Jordan g g*

p*e#g*

4 881 W. Outer Drive f

Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 gQC \

.JN ]' .

'l Dr. Linda W. Little

/

5000 Hermitage Drive g Y'a'MY. s C Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 e il ',

George F. Trowbridge, Esquire shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 James Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Directoi ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

• 1 0.4 j . .

/& usk3 -

/2 1645 155

> > .)f.

op