ML20154B807
| ML20154B807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1986 |
| From: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-250 LRP, NUDOCS 8603040398 | |
| Download: ML20154B807 (4) | |
Text
.,.
s 1
""D UNITED STATESiOF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
00CMETED USNRC BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD.,
% WR 28 An :20 In the Matter of 0FFICE G v INQUIRY INTO THE TMI#2 Docket No. L$METW;
- 6 p ON# N' Leak Rate Data falsification RESPONSE OF MARVIN I. LEUIS TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF FEBRUARY 14,1986.
BOARD DIRECTIONS:
The Presiding Board,in its M &O of February 14, 1986, directed this pet'tioner to file a i
response by March 3,1986, to the " Numerous Employee" opposition and to respond to the Board's concern about his interest.
petitioner responds to the issuetof interest by reference to the elements in 10CFR 2.714(d)(1) thru (4).
- e.,
the Petitione,I's right under the Act (1) The nature of r
to be made a party to the proceeding.
Myinterestinthis-proceedingh.erives from the fact.
that my health life and livelihood uere endangered by the actions of these employees,that only fortuitous circumstances staved off a
/
tragedy, and that many of these dangerous circumstances remain to endanger me.
The Act repeatedly assures that-the health and safety of the public will be protected. The petitioner is a member of the public and has not been so protected by the Licensee,
-employees or NRC. The petitioner seeks to bring the many dangerous circumstances to the record in hopes that elucidation uill lead to a cure or elimination of these dangerous circumstances.
My health life and livelihood were endangered by the TMI#2 reactor being operated beyond the capabilities of its design.
By being operated outside the capabilities o
of its design,the TMI#2 reactor was steaming toward m$$
a greater than design base acident which endangered much
@gt of Pennsylvania.
oo Petitioner live,s in Pennsylvania then and now.
An accident beyon2 the design base that endangered much of Pennsylvania would have endangered me in Philadelphia.
'Further the danger remains.
0<
v Dangerous practices related to leak rate testing continue at TMI#1.
They are substantially similar to those leak mac rate falsifications performed at TMI#2.
Some of these actions have not been ferreted out and provide a very dangerous circum-stance at TMI#1 which can truly endanger all of Pennsylvania.
Many of these dangerous practices were performed by theGPU employees at TMI#2 previous
[)dj7 to and during the accident, but these practices have J
k.
2.
remained cloaked in secrecy.
TMI#2 was operating outside of design base in many aspects:
excessive leak rate, reactor pressure temperature boundary had areas that were not safety grade; cr acked manifold allowed radioactive gases to' escape.
The above examples are only a partial list of the many ways that TMI#2 was operating outside of the design bases uhile under the control of the "thellicensee and many of?the employees in this proceeding. The NRC was also privy to these operations outside of the design base, and concurred with the Licensee in some of these operations.
For instance, The NRC staff concurred with GpU that the combination of p0RV and block valve provided sufficient assurance that neither were required to be safety grade.
Consequently an area in the reactor temperature boundary
~
was not safety grade as required by the General Design Criteria 14 and others.
A cracked waste gas manifold allowed leakage of radioactive gas.
Cmissions of radioactive gas remain a matter of speculdtion for the first nine days of the accident because of the lack of knowledge concerning the leakage thru this cracked manifold.
Six years later increased reports of ill health and cancer _in areas dounuinq or doun stream of the TMI reactor make a strong case that exposures and emissions uere greater than estimated by, GPU and NRC for the TMI accident.
The excessive leak rate is especially significant. The actionsofor Gpu and its employees in response to anthe excessive leak rate allowed the operation of the TMI#2 reactor when it should have been in cold shutdown.
If the reactor had been in cold shutdoun,the accident could not have occurred at that time.
Some of the actions, involved in allowing /; the reactor to operate with excessive leakage,have not been fully explored on the record and involve many dangerous practices which could have caused breach of containment complicating the accident far a
beyond any design base.
The particular actions that couldrhevecleadtto's breach of containment relate to adding hydrogen to the make up tank to mask an excessive leak rate.
Under normal conditions and added in the manner provided by procedures,Hadditions do not constitute a major dangerl Obviously normal _ conditions and proper precedures were lacking in the hydrogen additions involved in the leak rate falsification. In fact, the means of adding ' hydrogen was "juryrigged"(Hartman )
and GpU has pleaded guilty to one couht involving procedures and "no contest " to several others some of'/bhich involve improper procedures or lack of written procedures.
Under these conditions or lack of conditions, hydrogen migrated into the containment and endangered its integrity.
im 3.
Subcaquent detonations in the containment building produced high pressures beyond those designed for explosions in the containment building.
The containment and the piping remained intact despite these explosions.
The actions involving hydrogen additions outside of the design caused the reactor to experience an accident that endangered much of the State of Pennsylvania, in uhich pettitioner lives,far beyond any design base.
The actions of the Licenses and the NRC have not reached a public record and also endangered the State of pennsylvania far beyond any design base.due to actions that have not been investigated on a public record.
The operation of TMI#1 with individuals who performed these actions or had knowledge of these actions,uould again endanger the pettioner with an accident in excess of any design base.
Allowing these individuals to return would put a stamp of approval upon all and any actions that they wish to take in the future or have taken in the p&st no matter how dangerous or in violation of any regulation of the NRC. and the Adt.
(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's rpcoperty financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
The petitioner has investigated an'd intervened in the TMI Hearing for six years at his aun expense to protect his life and property from another accident at TMI'uhich could easily affect the entire State of Pennsylvania.
He has provided money to researchers, scientists, and environmental groups to aid him in this endeavor.
His interest far exceeds"More(sic) intellectual curiousity."
His interest involves protection of his fortune his life and justaabout everything else he holds dear. The pet $ioner5s researches have lead him to the conclusion that the actions of the Gpu and the NRC during the TMI accident directly endangered his life and theoctions could easily and aru being repeated at TMI#1 which is again endangering his life (Inspection Report 50-289/85-28 Jan 17, 1986 page 10)and that this proceeding should bring these past and present actions to the public record for correction and cure.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
A record which does not fully explore the issues will invite their repetition no matter hou dangerous.
A finding that exonerates the perpetrators will be a rubber stamp for the rest of the nuclear industry to perform in a similarly deficient and dangerous manner.
Conversely, a proper airing will deter any repitition of dangerous practicos, provide an adequate record and uphold the dignity of this Board the NRC and an industry that has lost much of its publio.
anse
w
- 4. ;
}
RESPONSE TO " NUMEROUS EMPLOYEE"0PPOSITION.
The crux of the " Numerous Em#1oyye " opposition to this petitioner is "None of the issues set for hearing in the Commision's Order addresses a currently significant safety issue."
The "nu,merous employees" assert that there is a lack of safety issue out of ignorance.
Petitioner has explained hou the past and present actions do have great safety significance that have not reached a public record, that elucidation on a public record uould provide a means to a cure, and that the practices continue today at TMI#1.
These practices are of direct and immediate significance to all reactors which use hydrogen or leak rate testing in a similar manner to TMI#1 or 2 and especially care of significance to TMI#1 presently. Petitioner continues the methods used to provide to claim that much of "
leak rate falsification is still in use " and endangers TMI#1 with another major accident.
Petitioner needs this proceeding to place his evidence on the record.
Also Petitioner disagrees with the finding of the Third Circuit because of material which he has only recently unearthed thru the efforts of a researcher.
Petitioner baljevan that he has answered the opposition of the " Numerous Employees."
Petitioner nonetheless, wishes to offer an alternative which may be more acceptable to all concerned.
Prior Intervention.
Petitioner was valuable to the Board in the TMI#1 Restart hearings in the development of an adequate record.
Petitioner intervened at the descretion of the Board only on those matters that the Board deemed not brought out by other parties.
petitioner suggests a similar intervention.
Just as the Board has suggested that there might be a conflict
)
of interest in the representation of the " Numerous Employees,"
ThiJ Peti.tioner sugges@ that the Hearing could easily fall into a category wherein all participants would be biased toward not fully exploring all aspects of the record.
ihe Staff, Gpu and the " Numerous Employees "
are all human and have human faults. Nobody wants to air their dirty laundry in public even if that mistake is an honest one.
Pet' itioner has no such. compunction about airing GPU and NRC errors and could be a value in developing an adequate record.
The Petitioner again respectfully repeats his petitiod 2/uj/g j
to join these proceedings for all the above reasons and A4. l. LEviis the reasons stated in the previous petition.
g I certify that I sent this to; entire distribution list.
PHNJL, PA.19149 d
___..._..._.~. -.... -..,___
. _ _ _ _ _. _. - -