ML19322E621
| ML19322E621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1980 |
| From: | Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004020018 | |
| Download: ML19322E621 (12) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY,
)
)
)
'(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)'
)
NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR LEWIS' INTERROGATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF Intervenor Marvin I. Lewis has served four sets of interrogatories on the NRC Staff.
The first set dated January 6,1980, has been fully answered.
The second. set, dated January 29, 1980, has not yet beer answered but objections to Interrogatories NRC 14,15,19 and 19 were made by the Staff in its February 25, 1980 pleading entitled "NRC Staff Objections to Discovery Requests."
The Staff is working to complete the remainder of Mr. Lewis' second set of interrogatories.
Mr. Lewis has since served two additional sets of interrogatories. -The third set entitled "Further Discovery Requests and Interrogatories by Intervenor Lewis" was filed on February 15, 1980 and the fourth set entitled "Intervenor Lewis' Fcurth Set of Interrogatories and Further Discovery Requests to the NRC Staff", undated, was received February 27, 1980.
The Staff submits objections to certain of the questions. posed by Mr. Lewis in his third and fourth sets of interrogatories.
9 0
8004020 Of f 6 3
l The Licensing Board, as a matter of discretion, admitted Mr. Lewis as an intervenor on a strictly limited basis.
(First Special Prehearing Conference Order, December 18, 1979, at 59).
Unde" the Board's Order he is permitted to engage in discovery and present evidence on only one contention.
I_d.
The " Lewis contention" states:
Filters: There are new filters on the auxiliary. building of TMI-2. There are no similar structures on the auxiliary building of TMI-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-l are necessary.
There are many design errors in the filter system and design of same.
The Staff interprets this 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 design of the filter system for TMI-2.
Further, the regulations which govern NRC proceedings state that "[i]t is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(1).
It follows that a permissible ground for objection is that the information sought does not appear
" reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Because Mr. Lewis' participation in discovery and in the presentation of evidence is limited to the subject matter of his one contention, interrogatories which do not relate to his contention cannot lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9-Mr. Lewis does, however, ask several questions which do not pertain to his only admitted contention and thus are not " reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery" of evidence which Mr. Lewis could use in the presentation of his case.
For these reasons, the Staff objects to NRC 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 37.1/
The Staff also objects to NRC 27 and 28 which refer only to the design and operation of vent heaters and filters at TMI-2.
Such questior,s do not appear relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding as discussed above, and thus are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
This proceeding is concerned with the design and operation of TMI-l not TMI-2.
NRC 36 which asks for the Staff's opinion as to whether the Licensee's answers to Mr.
4 Lewis' interrogatories are accurate is also objectionable. The Staff will address t he licensee's compliance with restart requirements to the extent necessary and appropriate in its evaluation of the licensee's restart report and supplements.
The Staff's belief as to the accuracy of Licensee's responses to Mr. Lewis is irrelev' ant For the reasons set forth above, the NRC Staff objects to interrogatories numbered NRC 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36 and 37 which were submitted by Mr. Lewis in his third and fourth sets of interrogatories to the NRC Staff. The remainder
^
1/ The interrogatorieIs; to which the Staff objects are reproduced in the Appendix to this pleading.
i
4 f.. ;
of Mr. Lewis' interrogatories will be answered as soon as possible.
i Respectfully submitted, l
Lucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
'this 7th day of March, 1980 4
b 4
r T
i E-i z
5 4
4 L
t i
[
l
{
APPENDIX Intervenor Lewis Thir'd Set of Interrocatories to NRC Staff.
Does the NRC keep a dossier of file on intervenors and active anti-nuclear types?
Are the names Susan Barley or Marvin I Lewis on any files in the NRC researching our backrounds, criminal records, socall contacts, hearsay, or other information which is or can be used by investigative organications within and without the government?
Intervenor Lewis is especially interseted in the type of file recently disclosed as being kept by the Georgia Power Company on anti nuclear activists.
NRC 24. Loes ang other branch of government keep a file on antinuclear activists which is available to the NRC?
Hakethe names I,:arvin Lewis or Susan Barley; been added to these files a the request of or direction from the NRC or any of its employees, consultants or minions?
NRC 25. Send the cirriculum vitae or Professional Qualifi cations of Dr C Gallina,who made many statements to the press during the TMI ^ccident concerning releases.
/
I
NRC27.DidtheleakingventheaderandthehEPAandcharcoal filters meet the requirements of
- a. GDC 41
- b. GDC 60
J Rf any of the above are not applicable, please state why.
If these criteria were not met, state specifically how and why they were not met.
( Curies, dollars per Curie, release rate.)
- e. Include all the filters in your analysis ; not jus't the filters in the auxiliary building.
NRC 28 Why was the vent header leaking ? What materis.ls failed?
Vihare did they fail? how did they fail? Vihen did they fa61?
If no,t a material problem, be specific as to whst was the problem.
State who discovered leak, when, how, where. Who logged Icak and when? V/here is the work order to fix vent header leak?
^bove interrogatory refers to the vent header in TllI#2.NRC 27 refers to TMI#2 also.
/
Intervar.or Lewie 's FCET.Td SET O? Ill?i:R..03 ATORIES TO N!C S?AF?
i
~
l
- iF.C 29 The Status Report dated 1-11-80 is much greater than the 8 1/2 x 11" size ordered by the board in its first prehearing Conference. Intervenor Lewis does not re=etber Staff objected to that size at the time Chairman j
Smith specified it.
Obviously, the "taff received permiseion to use other than 6 1/2 x 11" fro: the Board. The Staff wculd not br eak or ignore a Board Order unilaterally.
Nonetheless, Intervenor Lewis has seen no guidance concerning sizes of paper for submitthis which are now allowed.
\\-
new
- ince Intervenor Lewis has very limited Ililing space, he requires to know what sizes of paper to expect from StaII
!l in their filings.
~s s
What sizes of paper will staff use in their future filin6s I
specifically with reference to Status Reports?
i NRC 30. Has so:e means been pro:oted for the NRC to obtain
,. anonymous tips fron infor= ants es to pcactices on the
{
~ construction and maintenance of the TY.If1 facility?
This concern is // especially pertinent to the Lewis.
Contention as the filters and vent header are deep within the facility and any adverse handling or practices would not j
casily be reported without the threat of anonymous tips.
11 ease note that the probic s El tecinghouse Turbine Cracking (Varga: Knight:BO,iSTx 1,16.) and concrete probic=s at Tolf Creek cod Summer were also brought to light thru anonymous tips.
/
i KRC 31.
The letters XRC /TMI 80-028 and Eisenhut:All Power Reactor Licencees -80.01.297 rdse several issues which are
~
explored in the following interrocatories.
A.
What provisions, if cny, are presently in place to i
guarantee
- hat the requirements specified in Eisenhut: All Power Renctor Lizeneces-80.01.29 can be met?
Anssar vita cpecificity for delay cnd decay tank botto=s,
{
spent charecel cnd HZrA filter cedia pertinent to the Lewis Contention.
3.
Vhat guarantees are in place to assure that spent filter ccdia can be moved off site to appro riate low level waste cites?
Are LLW sites available ne and in the futuce?
C.
Rcferring to Keneny Report, Pat 30, Item 11.
" Iodine. filters in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings did not 'perforn as designed because the charcoal filtering apparently partially, expended due to icproper capacity nas use befodethe accident. Required testing fxx of filter effectiveness for the fuel hand 14ng building had been valved by the NRC. There were no testing requirenents to verify auxiliary building filter effectiveness."
C-1 What was "the improper use" referred to in the quote above fron the Eemeney Comnission?
Give type of use; dates; who authorized; where written authorizations, such as logs, work or job tickets, proper paperwork stored? art Bend copies if not in an easily, accessible public reading roomfof all supporting documents referred to in ikimrx the answer to this and all interrogatories.7 C-2 Ehen, why, and how was "roquired testing for' filter effectiveness for the fuel handling building... waived by the NRC"?
Specify names, dates, send copies of letters and any other pertinent documentation with you answer.
D *
- lD *D19fhfl[\\'
~
M e AMi M%L
C-3 Considerin g that there were " no testing requirements to verify auxiliary building filter effectiveness",was thelicenseeope[ratinginviolationof 100FR 50 Appendix A GDC 41
" Systems to control fission products... chall be provided as necessary to reduce...the concentration and quality of fission products released to the environmenit."
GDC 60 All.
GDC 61 The fuel storage and hand 16ng, radioactive vaste, and other systems which may contain radioactivity shall be designed to assure adequate safety under normal and postulated tecident conditions.
These eystemsskill be designed (1) with a capacity to permit cppropriate periodic inspection and testing...
(3)with apppopriate containment, confinement and filtering systens."
C-4 Was the NRC knowingly allowing the Licensee to operate in violation to any GDC7 C-5 Did the KNRC allow the Licensee to operate without checking the effectiveness of the filter media because there was a problem of where to get rid of the Low Level waste generated in the filtering systems?
Was this a form of releIf granted f
to the Liconsee by the NRC to circumvent a LLT disposal probleg?
Has any form of ILW been refused at any site from TMI?
If so, have the intervenors received any notification of said refusal c'lx and why?
la I
/
l
NRC 10 was objected to as " burden some and improper.
It was not meant to be. It is rewritted cnd resubmitted as NRC 36.
The Licensee has supplied everyone on the Distribution List with his answers to Lewis Interrogatories. The Staff will read (or appropriate Staffer) the Licensee'A ansvers to Louis Interrogatories, and anuver thof following :
A. Are the Licensee's answer's to Lewis Interrogatories accurate?
No opinion on responsiveness is asked.
B. If cny of the above ansvers cre not nceurate, would the Licensee jeopardiye the health and safefy of the public by impicmenting said inaccuracies?
NRC CCIi 37. Thg_ Staff's answer to NRC 8 is not responsive in that it does h!T give times nor state that they are unavailable.
Intervenor Lewis is not objecting to this nnsuer cince he has obtained sufficient times and dates on his and his associate's researches.
One question remains:
DoestheStaffagreewiththedates[ndtiresofreleasesreferred to in the Rogovin and Ke=eny Reports?
In order to reduco the burden, the S aff need only answer for the major document and t
not the Staff reports.
However, Intervenor Lewis reserves the right to refer to above mentioned Staff reports in direct and indirect testimony.
lDTIDl r M ]u m)~fi!Mll}lan U
J
/
UNITED 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)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR LEWIS' INTERR0GATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF", dated March 7, 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 7th day of March, 1980:
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Mr. Steven C. Sholly Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 304. South Market Street U.S. i'uclear 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 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 & Trowbrid e Metropolitan Edison Company S
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 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Department of Justice Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 St.awucrry Square,14th Floor tiarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 l
- Dso wa =
-2 D
John Levin, Esq.
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Allen R. Carter, Chairman Fox, Farr and Cunnincham 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 Chesapeak Energy Alliance 609 Montpelier Street Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Baltimore, Maryland 21218 R.D. #5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Chauncey Kepford Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Ave.iue State College, Pennsylvania 16801
(/v>,'I
/
./
l st Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman d
O'4 Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant 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 5
4