ML19309G032
| ML19309G032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1980 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005020235 | |
| Download: ML19309G032 (5) | |
Text
DD[
8015020 O
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY,
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARVIN I. LEWIS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On April 3,1980, the Licensing Board in this proceeding issued a Memorandum and Order which, among other things, stated that Mr. Lewis' only admitted contention was limited to filters and preheaters on TMI-1, Units 1 and 2.
Mr. Lewis filed a pleading on April 11, 1980 entitled, " Objections to; Request for Clarification of; Motion for Reconsideration of; M + 0 on March 19, 1980 Lewis Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Answer Interrogatories" (Motion).
In i
his Motion, Mr. Lewis asks why his contention was limited, objects to the limitation, and requests the Board to reconsider its decision.
Insofar as Mr. Lewis asks for reconsideration, the Staff believes his Motion should be i
denied for the reasons set forth below.E
-1/ The Staff does not believe that the Board's April 3,1980 Order needs clarification.
Both the request for clarification and Mr. Lewis's j
objections raise the same issue which is central to his motion for l
reconsideration and are redundant.
4
', The Board, as a matter of discretion, admitted Mr. Lewis as an intervenor on a limited basis. He was allowed to advance one contention.
(First Special Prehearing Conference Order (December 18,1979) at 59.) The Lewis contention states:
Filters:
There are New filters on the auxiliary building of THI#2.
There are no similar structures on the auxiliary building of TNI#1. Further, preheaters must be placed on the filters of the auxiliary building because they got wet during the accident on 3/28/79 in TMI#2. To mitigate a similar accident in TMI#1, preheaters on the filters in the auxiliary building of TMI#1 are necessary. There are many design errors in the filter system and design of same.
I am presenting the above as examples of a larger problem.
Although the Board reproduced the contention in its entirety, it is clear from discussion at the First Special Prehearing Conference that the contention relates only to filters and preheaters at TMI and not to an unstated and unexplained " larger problem."
(Tr.782).U The Board, when it admitted Mr. Lewis and his contention, indicated that the contention concerned " filters and preheaters" but did not state that this was only an example of a " larger problem."
(First Special Prehearing Conference Order (December 18, 1979) at 59.) Mr. Lewis did not object to the Board's Prehearing Conference Order which apparently focused only upon filters and preheaters.E Moreover, Mr. Lewis has never attempted to explain what is the " larger problem" to which he refers and he should not be able, at this late date, to claim it is an important part of his contention.
~2/ In its "Brief in Response to Contentions" dated October 31, 1979, the Staff indicated that this particular contention "related to filters and preheaters for filters in the Unit I auxiliary building." Brief at 18.
With this understanding, the Staff had no objection to the contention.
-3/ Mr. Lewis did file a motion for correction of the Board's December 18, 1979 First Special Prehearing Conference Order on December 27, 1979. He did not object to the Board's ruling on his admitted contention at that time, i
l
~
l
t
- The Staff has interpreted Mr. Lewis' contention to mean:
(1) there are no filters on the TMI-l auxiliary building, (2) there should be filters on the TMI-l auxiliary building prior to restart, (3) the filters should be equipped with preheaters, and (4) there are certain unspecified errors in the designofthefiltersystemforTMI-2.b/ This interpretation also seems to be the one adopted by the Board in its April 3,1980 Order and does not, in the Staff's view, restrict Mr. Lewis' contention any more than it was in the Board's original ruling nor does it " completely [ destroy] any chance for any meaningful discovery and testimony." Motion at 4.
For the reasons stated above the Staff believes Mr. Lewis' Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.
The Board's April 3,1980 Order which Mr. Lewis questions does not " truncate" his contention as it was understood by the Staff and accepted by the Board.
Respectfully submitted, e
Lucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of April, 1980.
-4/ See, "NRC Staff Objections to Intervenor Lewis' Interrogatories to the NRC Staff", dated March 7,1980, at 2.
This has been the interpretation l
used by the Staff in responding to Mr. Lewis' interrogatories.
l t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, Docket No. 50-289 ET AL.
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MARVIN I. LEWIS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION", dated April 29, 1980, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 29th day of April, 1980 1
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Mr. Steven C. Sholly Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 304., South Market Street U.S. Muclear Regulatory Commission Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Protection 881 W. Outer Drive Dept. of Environmental Resources Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 i
Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Metropolitan Edison Company j
1800 M Street, N.W.
Attn: J.G. Herbein, Vice President Washington, D. C.
20006 P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Karin W. Carter, Esq.
505 Executive House Ms. Jane Lee P.O. Box 2357 R.D. 3; Box 3521 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Honorable Mark Cohen Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate i
512 D-3 Main Capital Building Department of Justice Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Strawberry Square,14th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127
. t John Levin, Esq.
I Pennsylvania Public Utilities Com.
~
Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Allen R. Carter, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunninoham Joint Legislative Committee on Energy 2320 North 2nd Street Post Office Box 142 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Suite 513 Senate Gressette Building Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Columbia, South Carolina 29202 WID0FF REAGER SELK0WITZ & ADLER Post Office Box 1547
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1725 I Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20006
- Docketing and Service Section Ms. Karen Sheldon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss Washington, D. C.
20555 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Robert Q. Pollard Washington, D. C.
20006 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ms. Marj,orie M. Aamodt R.D. #5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801
[
AIAAN W].
Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant t.
5 Postponement Counsel for NRC Staff 2610 Grendon Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Holly S. Keck Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 W. Philadelphia Street-York, Pennsylvania 17404 l