ML19242B814

Forwads Ny Daily News 790621 Article Re Tmi.Article Refers to AEC 690905 Rept in Which Design of Plant Was Reviewed

ML19242B814
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/06/1979
From:	Hand R REILLY & LIKE
To:	Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7908090433
Download: ML19242B814 (2)

Text

7: g,,

illnt anid be

/

amTED connEsPoNDENcs yhn__,aL.

200 Yat dam $tml 0 0 $a til

$ Q, J foon f1702 J-r W -

Z4a

$fe)

Rf14 y

4' A O M 3-2000 h

~f-cf J,s R;-.

w W JYJ

-y Yl ~' F 8 t_ ] Ym

,4 o

.e

. "gf

'7 A d 9 +7 3

July 6, 1979 l.a c sc s-

? :c

..,->4 f-l a.

?.)

,y V"

_ '.k b,?

N'Oy,

/

s Richard Hoefling, Esq.

Staff Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Shoreham - Case 50-322

Dear Dick:

Enclosed is a copy of a recent news report which refers to a September 5, 1969 AEC report in which the design of the Three Mile Icland plant was reviewed. Would you kindly forward a copy of this report.

Please consider this in the nature of an informal discovery request arising under County Contentions 3a, 5b and lla.

Si

erely,

/ /U([ bc

.cnard C. Han RCH/ jag CC:

To all parties (with enclosure) 7908090 m 5ecec3

na-m3

%RMsposDEggg

,\\ Dt s

s e

A*

s9 4

y.#

e

~

M4{#s r,

~D~

p su sA A y C

. f 1 _ } 1F3 Q\\

es f

~

\\

d c3R m.

~

. :.=

=

9 %

EWh M. he 'Sn2Fris.eA..,

., n, l_

7 c-

.5 v.

w

.u s_ L3..Jh.l& Island,s. /.-.

ga

- -.;. ~..

c ceptabre.

of controlling the-hydrogen ac 1 concentration....w 3 -e,1abusheer to

~+ M m

THydr iN Bu, bleb.

bth'e: operatforr bi M 2.";- @auffes%..

WW ogen:-~

i o

mweucameeormirun a,ahd:

N.sWashingtone-ThiiNfrightening l." hydro' gen D.a hpical.WashinW solutiansG idelines P. bubble" that:nearly blew tee lid off the Three twere 2ssued ettin

$:mac%rs' emmency;r strict. sta6dards fo OMile Island power hant4cd the nuclear power l

core-ccohng systems.-And m -

findustry along wit it-was expfained away by ptember,e 19'6; a gew safety..evaluatzorr

" red faced federal officials as "pomething that had

.;nree Mile Island c_oncluded that everytiung w.ofj fudtebeen foreseeniwhen the /reactorg was.

as-

,hneQecause ee plant's, emergency system was idesigned," W-y".n;.g Or G ;;:pme$;J.

E This is~si= ply not E5Y.+r%-Ed Lconsistent with tne-gtudelmes "/s;i-hM A:.O

[.'".2The caly trouble,was, the theoretical guess.

EdWe have-uncovered / evidence'fhidr# 'h'e' gov.

gork.on which the gtudelmes were Based. turned -

t C ernment'a'oun fl!es:that makes:it< clear'that.

gut to-bc cockey.ed. --::;5.y w.g.p;m4 Catomic safe.ty experts.:were worried ab6ut'the '

G 6% ontmnent and industry experts agreed,'for -

[ possibility of.hyaregen, gas problemsCa' Three

tion of'hydrog;en gas in the contmmnt ve

.bMile Island Nucleai Station UniitNo12a decade.

B ago;'even before the Erst. concrete was p6ured for twduld noemch a h-ale explosive leyel un--

ithe foundations of:the. cooling towersW": -;- :

til"aoproximately 25 days"after theloss cf cool..

P&It-is'also clear freci'the near-atstro'pha last.

gant.Thus there_would be plenty of time.to take-

%Iarch'that the response to the expressed fehrs of e=erpncrmeasunsgw a.My-5.r.

! theierperts-.wa.va ' bureatteratie solution;-one' win Pomt of fad, unfortunately; thereias 2 7 ithitlooked' good oh' paper but proved whoDy.in -

!hydror

the.ac en gas explosiorr less than 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> after '

tadequate wheri the emergency struck 92'.:S. j cident at nree Mile Island ~:.1...m.y,

~NBefore a const:uction permit could beissued; I

=ct ncredible asat.may seem, the NRC's Adviso '

Crdr.'the.Three'MileIsla:id'plantisafetylexperts of ry Cocumttee on Reactor: Safeguards-assured Kthe Atomic Er.ergy Cohbiort (AECT, predeces--

(Congress m January /19'787that hydrogen con-isor to the Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission, ctml.was one of a number-ofinherent proble=s O

Ip(NRC),.made a'requied evaluation of the design

that had_ been " resolved."x -1;. ;f'bureau

-c..:.g:

lans;.Their report, dated SeptJ5,1969, was both i MBut tn,the pecuhar jargorr o deandid -nd e.:plicits-M:

Cres lved is m no way the same.'as? solved."y,

%*' Hydrogen gas w7uld be~p#t-im$# vc f '.As a memo accompanying the NRC report ex-rodu' etf As a conse-'

c

~'que: ice'of a. loss-of-coolant accidest,"-thetreporta Mamed:

s Ind m, "In.some, cases an ttent has been re.

Awarned~"We~are Szrrentif reviewirig th robe Ilem of'hYdregen'predtiction and'several m@ethodsJ an ahmtrative sense."..Ini ether <.

N" #d'dth" pr blent had been resolved only Ufor#controLot the hydrogen'concentratfort for<all-paper..not.at the reactors, where it counts.",on-Greactdrs'.and:have not yet sstablished the{meth..

..- Th h the official explanation that the hy-.

.p.oug 6cds:which wilf be" acceptable."im ~ :/N~rh.-

gen problem popped out of a clear blue sky is.

z%Having.' posed:theyproblem3.diid n6fe'dnhat; jn*@c'h$

"*b 7 N " dI'Iats "we*v '

h dhey didn't have an answerto it--the' safety.ofE, 3a Ycials6 incredibly decided it was 6kay to letthings iThe NRC assured us the-d*

'ylide_M.QM@~.M8?WF]'GEPN3.

?: evaluatsd; -- ' A:,A - *Srobi.m ** beI"J/*'

n#We' conclude ".the expsrtss~afety evalTation

"'NS6;the near.disastler in'ay hav5 had's

~

egood effect;after alf:-perhaps it win change the mad.

Meport said/that. the'(utility;companiesT.com,

f.mit=ent to. study'oths!meansof controlling the Tdenihg' "WhatfMe worry >* attitude of the nucle-ilaipower indtistry^and the bureaucrats who are yhydroge'n~ provide (reasonabla.~assurancethat an.

i Aippdidd.td%fM_irrdiths:public; t

New York g g $i Daily :Tews

_ 1m ece