ML20076E976

Forwards Argument Vs Current Nuclear Power Generation Based on Experiences of Engineer

ML20076E976
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/10/1983
From:	Markowitz G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20076E979	List: ML20076E976 ML20076E985
References
NUDOCS 8308250161
Download: ML20076E976 (1)

Text

. .

fleckoning, '80s 49 FRANKLIN ST.

ANNAPOLIS, MD. 21401 June 10, 1983 Mr. Eldon J..Brunner US NRC Region 1' 631 Park Ave.

King Of Prussia, Pa 19406

Dear Mr. 3 runner:

I am a mechanical engineer and I have done nuclear power plant re-lated engineering for three employers. I am inclosine some accounts of these experiences and related documentation which I have entitled "An Argument 7ersus Current Nuclear Power Generation Based on the ZI-perience of an Engineer." Parts of an ASME Section III seismic stress report and related correspondence, as well as materials involving a power plant stack retrofit are included with this report. I think that I present a diverse and, also, a detailed look at typical atti-tudes and the state of affairs that I have witnessed in the =anu-facturing, design, and retrofit sectors of the industry. Both the traditional power industry psyche and its evolutien need to be ob-jectively examined from within the industry. La a few cases , new pro-cedural requirements can be adequate solutions. But, the six pro-blems listed in zy introduction are manifestations of the ethical lapse of our society, and they can not be solved by procedural meas-ures, solely.

Please pay special attention to the following which sieht warrant changes Dr existing installations and procedures : 1) " fudged" ventilation system capacity, and lack of design consideration for air-borne pollution gradients (page 2); 2) care taken in the design and operation of radiation measuring devices (pages 2, 3, 11, and 12);

3) valve model LCT-11(pages 3 through 5 and 8 through to); and A) precautions for entering a ventilation exhaust stack while the plant is in operation (pages 10 through 13).

Ms. Billie Garde,of the Government Accountability Project in Wash-ington, D.C., has copies of my first and second proposals of the above mentioned seismic stress report. The second proposal was accepted to my knowledge and I was not permitted to proof read it. I have retained most of the rough draft, however, which includes the United Engineers and Constructors suggested treatment of the ICT-11 compres-sion endtload analysis. The relevant parts of the second proposal are incorporated with the inclosed report.

If you have any questions, I shoul'd be able to receive mail at the above address. ' Unfortunately, this is not certain. Perhaps, one of the ethical organizations will be kind enough to provide some aid. I will try to get back with you.

Sincerely, -

,s / 1

_ , /1 ... % . .j l George T. Markowitz, P.E.

8309250161 830823 PDR ADOCK 05000443 A PDR

_ -_ _ _ -