ML20062M630

Commentary on Rc Deyoung 811130 Supplemental Decision. Decision Lacks Candor Re Prior Commentary of Ofc of Policy Evaluation.Nrc Established Procedure Extremely Biased. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20062M630
Person / Time
Site:	Marble Hill
Issue date:	12/11/1981
From:	Dattilo T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 8112170374
Download: ML20062M630 (4)

Text

, w ,

. . . BErORE TiiE IIUCLEAR REGULATORY COIi!;I3SION WASHINGTON, D. C.

TO THE HONORABLE CO!OilSSIOf!ERS: UUUZIO J. PALLADINO, CHAIRMAti COMIIISSIONER VICTOR GILENSKI CO!GtISSIONER PETER A. BRADFORD SAVE THE VALLEY'% % .. COMMISSIONER JOHN F. AHERNE P_LRTEi CO!GII3SIONER THOMAS ROBERTS COfiMENTARY ',TM) .

e 4 LLM IN RE THE MATTER'OF MARBLE HILL-g r$ NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION .

h9 7 DOCKET NOS: STN-50-546

\ u.h 1 STN-50-547 4 g This writer has received on 12/8/81 Richard C. DeYoung's Supplemental Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 purportedly dated 11/30/81.

Said decision is lacking in car.dcr regarding the prior commentary of the Office of Policy Evaluation; it states numerous times that "the OPE has .

. . determined that the results of the testing program performed achieved the desired assurance (95%

assurance of 95% reliability) that the concrete quality meets NRC requirements." The OPE made no such determination.

The procedure established by the tIRC was extremely biased; i.e.; one can only Eind out the test's hie., hest and optimum results, not vice versa. Also, one can never accept a single microseismic reading from a test rite; the examiner needs to take a large number of such microseismic readings at one test site. Still, only 60 tests were being performed, not 1400 as Mr.

DeYoung w: ty- ants you to

, .,. ,. E T,E D be2icve.

l

'81 EC 15 P4:14 1

. 4%. I 8 '

Ij

.::G & SERVICE I$ +

M0 j 1Ci Y 49 ,

\

8112170374 8112f3 PDR ADOCK 05000546 G PDR

m : .. .

o Thara cro two rudimantary points of statistical practico that Mr. DeYoung must understand. There is an error of proper ' evaluation

.which ' error may become negligible af ter repeated testing of certain.

specific areas. There is also a failure to detect'the flaw, which error is the human error or qualification test; said failure to 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.

From the literature offered by Dr. Suraj Alexander, it is evident that the type of human error in most situations is' by no means negligible. In fact, at its extreme, the error level can reach 50%.

Mr. DeYoung states that had a single-stage sampling been implemented, the observed results would have provided the required 95% assurance of 95% reliability. That is absolutely incorrect; one need place a specific value on the failure to detect the flaw; this, obviously has not been done.

"In light of all information known with respect to the quali'ty 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 cor. crete.

This was the point of Dr. Cassaro's memoranda.

2. ,

- -A a

S condly, n h0ering is.the perfcet vehicle by which the

' Commission may grant Mr. DeYoung the privilege to demonstrate the actual quality and credibility of his statistics. C'an Mr. DeYoung's conclusions stand the test of -logic and the syllogistic process?

~

Mr. DeYoung has cited People of State of Illinois vs. NRC 591 F.2d 12 (7C)(1979), in an effort to sway the Commission from. holding a hearing concerning this matter. Illinois vs. NRC also includes within its reasoning Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978), which declared in " extremely compelling circumstances", the administrative agencies should grant a hearing. The record in this matter would seem to contain extremely compelling circumstances since OPE has specifically found "that the required reliability and confidence is not fully supportable since S & L's statistical methodology for selecting random

- samples . . . . was incorrect . . . .

The Commission should grant a hearing pecause the actions of the Office of Inspection & Enforcement in allowing resumption of concrete placement violated the Commission's stated criteria for the reopening of the plant and were on the surface actions that were arbitrary and capricious. See Illinois vs. NRC,. supra, 16. Also, one may attempt ,

to analogize Sholly vs. NRC, 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. .

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SAVE THE VALLEY BY:

THOMAS M. DATTILO, ATTORNEY FOR SAVE THE VALLEY .

3.

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 Thomas Roberts, NRC, Washington, D. C. 20555 James Keppler,- NRC 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Ill. 60137 James Pope, Public Service Company of Indiana, 1000 E. Main St.

Plainfield, Indiana 46168 Harry H. Voigt, Esq., LeBouer, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 133 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 NRC Docketing Section, Washington, D. C. 20555

.T. M.;DATTILO

[ 6- 4 D

6 6

deb \

i: omu.l 019hr , =e k:l.:; . . ', ' ': qy jgl E:E::

Q d' ]45:e //

d5 d