ML20054F669

Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Contention on Electromagnetic Pulse Or,Alternatively,Request for Certification to Commission.Informal Discovery Should Be Allowed on Contention IV-2.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054F669
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/11/1982
From:	Lewis M LEWIS, M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206170203
Download: ML20054F669 (5)

Text

~

~

g w

.g 5

UNITED STATE OF AMDtICA

.5 NUCLEAR REUIATORY COMMISSION I-2/;UI 8

3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSDC BOARD

'52 c :: 10 P2:53 5

5 In the Matter of Y

PHIIADELPHIA EIEC'"RIC COMPANY

""""~"

50-353 OL (LimerickGeneratingStation, Units 1 and 2) 3 b

INTERYENOR IEWIS'S OBJECTIONS TO, REQlEST FOR CIARIFICATION OF, AND -IN p

TF2 ALTERNATIVE-REQUET FOR CERTIFICATION OF EIEMENIS IN THE_ SPECAIL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER OF June 1, 1982.

=

b e

si June 11,1992, i

I 5C)3 9

i i

t 5

y

$$86Ao85A'o!$00hj o

3, i

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN TIE ALTERNATIVE REQEST FOR CERTIFICATION 5

'IO THE COMMISSIONERS:

g i

Tha Board has denied the Iewn contention on Electromagnetic pulse. (Page 122 SPCO) j Intervenor Iewis respectfully wishes to bring the Board's attention

, to the misreading that the Board has placed upon both Intervenor Ipwis's Contention and his argument before t M Board at the SPC, January 8th.

Througliout the Board's discussion on Page 123, the Board refers to " accidental cxplosion." The Board also refers to Intervenor I4wis's " postulation of an accidental explosion."

4 Intervenor Iewis' contention is not necessarily based upon an " accident &l explosion." Intervenor Lewis' contention is also based on the the possibility, Q

R probability and commercial application of high altitude non-accidental explosions.

g m

Commercial applications would not be barred from consideration by

, Para 50.13 A

3 Tha entire lyic presented for the denial of I49 revolves about Para 50.13

=

Since commercial applications are not covered by Para 50.13.

tha justification for the denial of I49 fails, and I49 should be admitted on its merits, r

i Purther Iewis did not use a missile silo accident as the basis for his 5

contention as was the case cited for denial of I49. I3P-8142,14 NRC 842(1981)

Intervenor {ewis used a commercial application: Project Crion.

2 "The development of spaceships to be propelled thru spce space by nuclear y

explosions just behing behind them."

Remarks of Commissioner Peter j*

A Bradford before the Groton School, Groton Massachusettes, January 15,1982.

Although this Poject Orion is not presently active, there is no reason to assume that Project Crion will not be reactivated by the US or its allies within the 35 year lifetime of a the Limerick Nuclear Plants.

b Thsrefore Intervenor ~ewis requests that I49 be reconsidered using the basis of a non-accidental, commercial high altitude nuclear explosion as argued in front of the Board at the SPC, January 8th In the alternative, Intervenor Iewis respectfully requests that the ASLB certify the question of the admissibility of Contention I49 based upon a commercial, non-accidental hig's altitude nuclear explosion.

m E:

=

1. n E

L

7 f

p Request for reconsideration of I-50:

2 Cenerally, the Board has characterized this contention correctly with only 6

on2 or two essential differences from the Intervenor's approach. The Board states that Intervenor I4wis alleges "that the casks are inadequately inspected."

Tha allegation is that the casks are not only inadequately inspected.

.but that the casks are not inspected at all. This is not a vague charge nor is this charge an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations.

Sure"y, there must be some assurance that the regulations are met. Without any inspection or testing, there can be no assurance that the regulation's ara met.

On this basis, I respectfully request reconsideration of this ccntention.

I fthere is adequate or any Q/C on these casks, then this contention would fail during the "snmary disposition phase" of the hearings according to the new Iart 2 rules.

Denial of this contention at this Y

juncture is untimely.

3 Tha Board further rejects the contention on the grounds that Intervenor

[E did not supply the " specific information on the conditions around Limerick" E

which would render the regulation inapplicable. This is untrue, f

Intervenor in argument before the Board pointed out that there was only one major highway to evacuate the immediate timerick area and that th3re was only one small road to evacuate the plant aref:

Since there

[.

was no further question or discussion from the Board at that time, 5

Intervenor assumed that adequate information on specific site demography 1

had been demonstrated. The Board dit not request any further clarification d

or information.

1. nally, Intervenor Iewis did not limit his contention to shipnent of i

j spent fuel from the Limerick reactor. As Intervenor pointed out in his oral presentazion, spent fuel could easily be shipped to Limerick for storage in the empty fuel pool from reactors where the fuel pool is full.

Also spent fuel and other radioactive shipments not associated with Limerick at all could have accidents on the only major road that is h

available for evacuation in an emergency.

Neither of these instances b

have been investigated in the emergency planning.

E!

These are not nit picking or trivial points above. They are essential

{

m points in emergency planning.

For all the points above,

to protect the health and safety of 4

{

the public, Intervenor Iewis respectfully requests that the Board

[j reconsider contention I 50.

t L

REQt2ST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF I-57.

The' Board has apparently adopted the Staff's mischaracterization of

)

the scenario upon which this contention is based as " confusion." There in no confusion except that which the staff is generating to justify f

the Board's denial of this contention.

There is no argument on intervenor's part that much of the coolant R

invantory in timerick is not borated.

Intervenor also a6rees h

that "only the standby liquid control system contains borated water" N

This is exactly the problem upon which the contention is based.

22 standby liquid control system is used to shut down the reactor 5

when sufficient control rods fail to insert, g

me scram did discharge volume is not safety grade. There is no reason to assume that failure of the scram discharge volume system could g

be repaired in 30 days which is the amount of' cooling water stored on site,for normal condenser cooling.

i!!

This leaves a scenario that is truely a quandary.

Failure of the SLV does not allow the control rods to, drop. The SIE contains h

a limited supply of borated water.

Eventually the reactivity control from f

the borated water is lost as the borated water is used up. Due to failure E3 id of the SDV, the control rods do not drop. This situation continues 5

for over thirty days. The spray pond is used up attempting to cool m

tha reactor which is generating its full thermal rating.

This scenario fits those elements that the staff believes the Intervenor E

is confused about.

Efl id Intervenor Iewis rebuts that the staff is confused about the possible scenarios gg specific to this reactor.

O

?]

For all the above reasons and to protect the health and safety of the 3

3 public, Intervenor respectfully requests reconsideration of this contention.

5 Ons further. point: This is not the only scenario that fits into possible SDV failure. If accepted, I hope that the contention will f

not be limited to only the above scenario.

3 55 51 N

aM=

Ez!

i.1 If h.I t?

E_

5.

i REQtEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF C0ffrENTION IV-1,.

Interv;ncr lexic raf terate: that this contention is not an attack on Commission regulations. All that this contention is sayir4 is trat tho training described in NUREG 0645 is not adequate to meet the regulation.

Surely it is permissible under the rules to question if a training

..ranual that is deficient upon its face is an adequate guide to meet a regulation.

' hat is all this contention asks.

T RMUEET FOR CIARIFICATION OF SPCO CONCERNINB IV-2.

This contention is denied without prejudice. However, intervenar's rights will be prejudiced if discovery at this time on this subject is not allowed. For this reason, [ntervenor suggests that informal discovery be allowed on this contention at this time.

This is not phrased as a Motion to request since the c: der does not make clear if informal discovery is denied to those contentions which are denied without prejudice for future cocsideration.

Respectfully submittdd,

/ /,.., '

l d'arvin I. Lewis, Intervenor.

6504 Bradford Terrace Phil PA 19149 215 CU 9 5964/ 725 7825 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Intervenor Iewis's Objections to the SPC0 of June 1,1982 were placed by me in the LE Pail, First Class on June 8,1982.

AIJ Brenner Schiiper Morris Gerusky Cole Goode S Iewis NRC White Connor, ESq Sugarman l

Bauer PECo Dorsey ASLB Panel AIAB Panel Docketing andService F

Adler U Cohen PEMA l

Anthony

[

Br.,nstein Hershey Johnsrud E

Naill NEI2Itet f

Romano I

l