ML20039B742
| ML20039B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Dattilo T DATTILO, T.M., SAVE THE VALLEY - SAVE MARBLE HILL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112230507 | |
| Download: ML20039B742 (4) | |
Text
~
- a. z.at=xr.Tr.l.L..
- ~ _..
.[;
e BEFORE THE IRICLEAR REGULATORY CONUISSION l'2l H WASHINGTON, D. C.
TO THE. HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS: NUNZ'IO J..PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN h
I, COMMISSIONER VICTOR GILENSKI t
_SAVE THE VALLEY'S COMMISSIONER PETER A. BRADFORD COMMISSIONER ~ JOHN F..AHERNE COMMENTARY TO SUPPLEMENTAL COEISSIOER THOMS ROBERTS h
DECISION
[
/!I -
-N IN RE.THE MATTER OF MARB
' HILL-NUCLEAR GENERATING STAT M in
\\',
DOCKET NOS: STN-50-546 Bj.
~k STN-50-547 -4Og
\\.
A Lp This writer has received on 12/8/81 Richard C.
DeYo '
g Supplemental Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 purportedly' dated 2
~
=
11/30/81 p
Said decision is lacking in candor regarding the prior
?p commentary of the Office of Policy Evaluation; it states numerous times that "the OPE has
... determined that the results of the y
testing program performed achieved the desired assurance
=
(95c4 E.
assurance of 95'4 reliability) that the concrete quality meets NRC-
=
ill?.
'E:I requirements."
i35 The OPE made no.such determination.
t==:
'g The procedure established'by the NRC was extremely biased; i.e.;
one can only find out the test's highest and optimum results,
~=
not vice versa.
Also, one can never accept a single microseismic
- 5!..
.i:5 L
reading from a test site; the examiner needs to -take a large number m:1 na g5 of such microseismic reauinge at one test site.
i!E Still, only 60
{
(
tests were being performed, not.1400 as Mr. DeYcimg wants 'you to FEC imm believe.
. = = =
7 '.*:*Er fiGil5 1:;;D
.~
~
/
/"
p3 gig C
s...
r
,... '81 EC 21 >A8 :47.. ',,
=
YD.
==
$:.9 n
~
....a, :e : t.c..
.==-:
5i
_ :w;r:ri
==
811223050781121h
/
PDR ADOCK 05000546-JMSF
. G.
..PDR. '
5%:
~
2 J
Thereoare'two rudimentary points of statistical practice that Mr. DeYoung must understand.
There is an error of proper evaluation.
i which error may become negligible after repeated testing of'certain specific' areas.
There is also a failure to detect the flaw,'which i
error lis the human error or qu'alification test
- said failure-to f
detect' the flaw cannot be considered negligible since this has not been evaluated for the operator and his test procedure.
OPE's Mr. Remick commentary confuses the two above points into one point and thereby substantially invalidates the determination of any true results.
j From the literature offered by Dr. Suraj Alexander, it is g
evident that the type of human error in most situations is by no
't means negligible.
In fact, at its extreme, the error-level can
' !:i reach 50%.
[
il Mr. DeYoung states that had'a single-stage sampling been I
implemented, the observed results wouldfhave provided the required i
~l 95% assurance of 95% reliability.
That is absolutely incorrect;
[i one need place a specific value on the failure to detect the flaw; h
I this, obviously has not been done.
E "In light of all information known with respect to the quality i
of concrete in the-project" is a subterfuge; Mr. DeYoung has based-his " desired result" on insufficient information.
Gentlemen, the NRC does not know the quality of.this concrete.
5 This was.the point of Dr. Cassaro's memoranda.
E 5
2.
~
e
7~
Lj e.,
Secondly, a hearing is the perfect vehicle by which the Commission may grant'Mr. DeYoung the privilege to demonstrate the actual quality and credibility of his statistics.
Can Mr. DeYoung's j
conclusions stand the test of logic and the syllogistic process?
1 Mr. DeYoung has cited People of State of Illinois vs. NRC 591 F.2d 12-(7C)(1979), in an effoh't to sway the Commission from holding a hearing concerning this matter.
Illinois vs. NRC also includes h
I.
within its reasoning. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. vs. Natural E.
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978), which declared "I
in " extremely compelling circumstances", the administrative agencies should grant a hearing.
The record in this matter would seem to I
contain extremely compelling circumstances since' OPE has specifically
~
p; found "that the required reliability and confidence is not fully g
E supportable since S & L's statistical methodology for selecting random L.
E f
,hamples wao incorrect E
(
~
The Commission'should grant a hearing because the actions of the
[7 e
r..
,0fficie of Inspection & Enforcement in allowing resumption of concrete pr YE
,;.P -p'lacement violated the Commission's stated criteria -for the reopening
(
i::-
of the plant'and were on the surface actions that were arbitrary and fi.
r y
c apricious.-
See Illinois vs. NRC, supra, 16.
Also, one r ; attempt
[-f e
{
y to analogize Sholly vs. NRC, 5
NO. 80-1656 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19, 1980).
Everyday this plant goes forward is another day in which the abuse of discretion of first, Mr. Stello, and now Mr. DeYoung, becomes more and more manifest.
5;i a
(E k
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Bi h
SAVE THE VALLEY b
m BY:
2b g
THOMAS M. DATTILO, ATTORNEY FOR s
s' SAVE THE VALLEY
=
,E 5,
~~
?
h 3-ky p
h h
.Q.Q
- e. A
'd %.1 -.
t_
,,,e
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Commentary has been mailed to the following persons by regular U.S. Mail, (except where noted), postage prepaid, this lith day of December, 1981:
Nunzio J. Palladino, NRC, Washington, D. C.
20555 (CERTIFIED MAIL)
Victor Gilenski, NRC, Washington, D.
C.
20555 Peter A. Bradford, NRC, Washington, D.
C.
20555 John F. Aherne, NRC, Washington, D.
C.
20555 4
Thomas Ro'oerts, NRC, Washington, D.
C.
20555 n
James Keppler, NRC, 799, Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Ill. 60137 James Pope, Public Service Company of Indiana, 1000 E. Main St.
b Plainfield, Indiana 46168 L
Harry H. Voigt, Esq., LeBouef, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 133 New Hampshire f
E Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.
20036 c
r-NRC Docketing Section, Washington, D.
C.
20555 I
F:
?
=
T. M.
DATTILO I
Yp F
!=
l L
l y-l I
l 7
Lt is f.
v.
L..-
t
.J-