ML20138P788

Petition of D Davenport to Join in Petition of Mi Lewis for New or Expanded Contention Re Hartman Leak Rate Allegations

ML20138P788
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/04/1985
From:	Davenport D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20138P787	List: ML20138P785 ML20138P788
References
SP, NUDOCS 8511120076
Download: ML20138P788 (5)

Text

_

i raf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0l#Dy In the matter of (

Metrpolitain Edison Company ( c.cg[$$:

( Docket no. 50-289 (TMI Nuclear Station (Restart)

Unit No. 1)

Re. Deborah Davenport"s Request to Join In the Petition of Marvin I. Lewis, Intervenor, for a New or Expanded Contention doncerning the Hartman Leak Rate Allerations.

Having read both Mr. Lewis's initial petition asking for new and expanded leak rate hearings, and his response to Licensee's response to his petition, and fully agreeing with !!r. Lewis's request, this petitioner, Deborah Davenport,

~~~

asks to " join" in_the contention.

This petitioner resides in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, in a location not much more than ten miles from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. And this petitioner has friends, and relatives who reside here for whom increasin6 health and safety concerns,regarding the operation of TMI No.1, she knows must be raised. This petitioner having M.S. , usu. ally considered to

'be an auto-immune disease, also would be affected by less radiatiot and sooner than some citizens in the general population. Extra radioactive releases from the TMI plant could negatively affect the course of the disease, accelerating and increasing this petitioner's neurological symptoms. Fetitioner feels that unsafe 9 5~!d 2co m,

P 2.

proceedures and practices continuing , in any way , at TMI#1 would result in increased releases to the environment, radioactive releases, which could negatively af fect the course of this petioner's disease; In all possible aspects then, this petitioner's interesta could be negatively affected by the continued operation of TMI#1 unless , during its operation that plant is fully and . adequately regulated.

Learning from Marvin 1. Lewis's petition for expanded leak rate hearings, that new evidence has come to light indicating that proceedures for measuring leak rates in B.&W. plants could be faulty, evapaghive loss incorrectly having been factored into leak rate calculations, this petitioner concurs that full and careful consideration should be given to this matter. As previously stated, I therefore request to " join" in this contention.

This petitioner is also familiar with some other evidence regarding' leak rate measurement practices at T: I#2, . which she feels must be weighed re. the contiued operation of TMI1, particularly re. its safe operation.

While this petitioner is opposed to nuclear power, because

- she fee'ls that current technology has not yet come up with a safe and econczically viable method of producing electricity

, she is pragmatic enough to know that such methods , and plants may still continue despite objections raised against them.

This petitioner also knows; however, that despite having raised objections to current nuclear technology, particularly in regards to TMI Units #1 and #2, neither this petitioner, nor any citizens who have done the same , should be excluded from expressing concerns

< that are valid regarding those plants.

a.

i 3

Some objections were given to Mr. Lewis's acting as a petitioner of limited status, on a prior appeal, or contention. The prior

$Rsus given certainly should not -affect his being eard now ,

as an intervenor on an entirely different subject. Only the positive outcome of that intervention with the NRC should be given weight in such an issue. It would seem foolish to refuse a contention from someone whose technical advise has resulted in improvements . in Nuclear Plants that clearly improved the health and safety chances of citizens' surviving their opeeration.

Excluding Mr. Lewis because he did not live in this immediate area would seem equally remiss. Radiation from the accident was was measured at distances much further tham Philadelphia where T

he. resides, and a major accident could affect an area about the size of the state of Pennsylvania, The entire Eastern seaboard, might have been, and still could be af fected by the TMI _ Nuclear Plants.

Excluding anyone with the specific, and complex knowledge needed to follow, weigh, and suggest corrections to the operation" of any nuclear plants or facilities, because of distance from those sites, would appear to be an attempt to shut out constuctive criticism ,(that could also benefit those industries in a sense).

Obviously the technical knowledge required for intervention before-the NRC, would be, in some matters a long, and complex wisdom to acquire. Not every member of our society in total, not to mention the THI area in particular will have trained for, or long studied some of the technical issues which could be addressed. It would be an injustice to shut them off from such expertise.

6 4.

I should add here that this petitioner does not think that lack of technical training in any area of knowled6e that might apply to the nuclear industry should ever exclude any citizen for consideration as an intervenor, however, in certain areas of knowledge , specific technical knowledge should' be considred c3 a qualifying factor in intervening before the ASLB or the HRC.

The residence of the person with specific technical expertise should be of small concern in such matters, particularly if the full ciring of the matters the intervenor might address would result in improvements in the nuclear industry, that would improve its technical functioning, and thus benefit the health and safety interests of citizens living in areas that might be affected by .

thct? industry. And while the Contention / Intervention prccess' ceems an adversarial one between citizens and a nquiatory agency, and the nuclear industry, it is a means of exchanging valuable

, and so:ctimes productive information. between those parties.

Such an exchan6e should not be cut off for any reason.

Finally, it would seem important to consider all evidence that Such might appear re6arding the operation of Three Mile Island.

evidence, particularly in reference to measurin6 leak rates at Unit 12 prior to the Three Mile Accident, would be important to prevent the repeat of such an event, or lar6e releases of radioactive materials from THI#1 during its now renewed operation. It would seem more logical on the part of the industry , and the NRC to try ht affect to productively and completely address all matters that mu6 the safe operation of Thtce Mile Island's Unit #1

7..

t 5

s Tne Three t:11e. Accident is thus far termed, "The worst accident in the history of the Iluclear Industry". Reportedly there has been a great effort on the part of that idustry, and the various interest 6roups that might be called pro-nuclear, to restart Unit #1 at Three ::11e Island. Somehow this event'was seen as the needed event from which the industry would emerge reborn. This petitioner does not think that will be the case ,

if another serious, life-threatenin6 event occurs at THI, or even a series of lar6e radioactive releases. TMI will not be the Golden Phoenix, it will be what it always had been. . . ,

A HUCLEAR EDSEL' Responsible industrialism this is not!

This petitioner feels that some appearance is given , when all facts are not heard regarding technical matters relating to public health and safety, that the short-term profits of a few are being taken over the long. term interests of many, including , oddly enough , the nuclear industry. This petitioner , as stated, does not have great trust in the nuclear industry as it currently operates, but that does not preclude this petitioner, and her fellow citizens in this area from having every r16 ht to expect that industry to be carefully run and re6ulated, IN EVERY DETAIL. Not hearin6 a contention such as !!r. Lewis's would , in my jud6emef,t ,be re fusin6 us that right.

Sinc e rely ,

s[,(yvll ),4 F f .,r' n l Deborah Davenport 1802 r.arket street Camp 11111, P*nna. 17011 1-717-1{ ?

• i '. *  ;

q

-