NRC-2011-0201, Comment (14) of Marv Lewis on New Hire Requesting a Independent Source to Evaluate the Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the United States: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==Dear Commissioners,== | ==Dear Commissioners,== | ||
The NRC and I have a long history. I have submitted over 500 comments and won a contention (Lewis Contention) before the NRC Hearing Board at the Three Mile Island #1 Restart Hearings.1 have done these actions because I believe that nuclear power is dangerous and that the NRC does not meet its chartered criteria to protect the health and safety of the public adequately. | The NRC and I have a long history. I have submitted over 500 comments and won a contention (Lewis Contention) before the NRC Hearing Board at the Three Mile Island #1 Restart Hearings.1 have done these actions because I believe that nuclear power is dangerous and that the NRC does not meet its chartered criteria to protect the health and safety of the public adequately. | ||
I offer a few examples which should demonstrate the lack of adequacey of the NRC's efforts.1. The reactors at Fukushima use the Mark designs. Several reactors failed in a manner which has endangered and contaminated a large area of Japan. Many reactors in the U S use the same design, and are susceptible to the deficiencies.(NR-2011-0196-0002.) | I offer a few examples which should demonstrate the lack of adequacey of the NRC's efforts.1. The reactors at Fukushima use the Mark designs. Several reactors failed in a manner which has endangered and contaminated a large area of Japan. Many reactors in the U S use the same design, and are susceptible to the deficiencies.(NR-2011-0196-0002.) | ||
: 2. The NRC uses the same assumptions that lead to insufficient design basis for ground movement. | : 2. The NRC uses the same assumptions that lead to insufficient design basis for ground movement. | ||
There are many earthquake areas in the U S that have displayed larger ground movements than would have been calculated using common assumptions of plate techtonics.(A Shock to the Heartland, Discover Magazine, 10-2011, Page 10 and 11.) 3. Presently a petition has been accepted by the NRC re the explosivity of zirconium. | There are many earthquake areas in the U S that have displayed larger ground movements than would have been calculated using common assumptions of plate techtonics.(A Shock to the Heartland, Discover Magazine, 10-2011, Page 10 and 11.) 3. Presently a petition has been accepted by the NRC re the explosivity of zirconium. | ||
Revision as of 09:45, 30 April 2019
| ML11264A025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/2011 |
| From: | Lewis M I - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Gallagher C A Division of Administrative Services |
| References | |
| NRC-2011-0201 | |
| Download: ML11264A025 (1) | |
Text
Gallagher, Carol From: Marv Lewis [marvlewis@juno.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:29 AM To: Gallagher, Carol
Subject:
Comments on NRC-2011-0201 461- tO/ / L
Dear Sir or Ms,
Please forward these comments to interested parties as the regulations.gov site refuses to email this comment.United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dear Commissioners,
The NRC and I have a long history. I have submitted over 500 comments and won a contention (Lewis Contention) before the NRC Hearing Board at the Three Mile Island #1 Restart Hearings.1 have done these actions because I believe that nuclear power is dangerous and that the NRC does not meet its chartered criteria to protect the health and safety of the public adequately.
I offer a few examples which should demonstrate the lack of adequacey of the NRC's efforts.1. The reactors at Fukushima use the Mark designs. Several reactors failed in a manner which has endangered and contaminated a large area of Japan. Many reactors in the U S use the same design, and are susceptible to the deficiencies.(NR-2011-0196-0002.)
- 2. The NRC uses the same assumptions that lead to insufficient design basis for ground movement.
There are many earthquake areas in the U S that have displayed larger ground movements than would have been calculated using common assumptions of plate techtonics.(A Shock to the Heartland, Discover Magazine, 10-2011, Page 10 and 11.) 3. Presently a petition has been accepted by the NRC re the explosivity of zirconium.
I tried to get a contention accepted on the explosivity of zirxconium in the TMI#1 Restart Hearings beck in 1979. Wince this issue only took 32 years for the NRC to look at it, I shall state no more on this issue.4. The Single Failure Criteria requires that in an accident scenario if one safety related structure or device fails, only one other safety related device need be considered to fail. This SFC means that most accident scenarios need not be considered.
This leaves many accident scenarios in limbo without considering many accident scenarios which may occur such as an 8.0 earthquake followed by a 33 foot tsunami.The NRC continues to avoid its charter in that 'the health and safety of the public" comes up behind, instead of in front of, the push to license. I respectfully suggest that the NRC hire a truly independent source to evaluate the safety of nuclear power reactors in the United States.I wish that I could say, respectfully submitted, Marvin I. Lewis, R. P. E. (Retired)
-- -3133 Fairfield St.Philadelphia, PA 19136 215 676 1291 -: .marvlewis~ciuno.com D.7 79CIO 6 rc,sz O'Df6/ -7O LLctd-'(, io-r&o(eo2 1o