ML19338C277

Response to ASLB 800623 Order.Urges Litigation of Contention in Present Form Alleging Continuation of Leaks in Vent Header & Filter Sys During Actual Operation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19338C277
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/31/1980
From:	Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19338C275	List: ML19338C274 ML19338C276 ML19338C277
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008140351
Download: ML19338C277 (4)

Text

_ _

Lowis 7-31-80.

O UNITzD S u2rS OF AMzRICi NUCLEAR R2GULATORY CCMMISSIONS BEFORE THE ATC* TIC SAPETY A'TD LICENSI'TG BOARD g. -

SUEAITTAL IN RESPONSE TO TH3 BOARD'S M A 0 0F JUN323,1980. E "C

%g f CV AUg 6

In the matter of g 4[ 47g /8g D eket No 50-289.

METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. .c ggA (TMI#1 ) J' SU?fITTAL IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD's M & O OF JUNE 23, 1980 W'

M&O June 23, 1980 Page 2," July 31 Events required 70 days before heartig itz in 5-22-80 Orddr."

M&O May 22,1980 Page 7, "(e)achintervenorisrekuiredtoreconsider

... contentions in light of &nfommation developed since the contention was accepted."

The Lewis Contention should be litigated essentially in its presant focm.

Newinformationobtainedthrudiscoveryandrgarchdoesnot change the "importance"of the Lewis Contention. It does, however, make the direction and need of further litigatten clearer.

Lewis Contention: (Broken up into sections for ease of discussion .)

"There are new filters on the auxiliary building of TMIf2.

There are no sin 11ar structures on the auxiliary building of TMIf 2. ... "

This section required research and interrogatories into the purpose of the new structure and the reasons for which it aas needed. Definite efforts have been made by the Licensee to negate a need for this

! type of structure in case of a repeat of the TMIf 2 accident xxtcx at IMI#1. Whether these measures are adequate or even actual and not a paper mirage requires a lot m4re investigation on my part aand partivularly" face to face " sworn testimony which is only available in the proper setting! I speak , of course,9feross examination.

l Another problem of problems which developed came about as the explanition for the "new structure" was offered in discovery.

(1) Pa'e g is 59,Pirst Specall Prehearing conference,Dec~18 ,1979.

• =

% Q 1 -

QhM[Nk

Lswis 7-31-80 2  !

Thora coro leaka chich required the 'new ctructure.' The explanation for allowing these leaks seems belaboured , but if true points up l c great deficiency in 1he regulation of all nuclear power plants. l It also points up a deficiency wherein no regulation of a nuclear l power plant may be adequate. It specifically points up that the TMI #1 unit may never be adequately run to mitigate ikm2 the consequencea of an accident similar to that of TM If2.

Apparently the leaks in the vent header and filter system at TMI

1. 2 were allowed to continue during " normal operation" because said Isaks were within allowable saiksion values for the plant. Then the att accident occurred, the leaks vers then big enough to allow excessive amounts of radiation out of the plant. The Licensee secas to argue ( and this is the Intervenor's paraphrasing )

that it was all right to allow so much out during the accident ao long as the emissions during unzmaxix normal operation -

where within the requiredvalues.

This seems to me to be saying that they really don't have to docign or run any equipment with proper mitigation of an accident in mind as long as the Licensee is within proper " normal operation" values. (2)

This intervenor is not prepared to extend the above alleged deficiency beyond the filter question although it should be. I shall mention this to the other Intervenots on the lith in front of the Licensee and see if anybody else has similar misgivings and wants to litigate this issue begond the limits of the Lewis Contention.

Lewis Contention :Part 2.

Further Preheaters must be placed on the filters of the (TMI#1) auxiliary building because they (ithe lilters) got wet during the (IMI#2) accident on 3-28-as 79."

M*wirad T his has turned into a much more complicated issue that just getting the filters wet. It now appears to be a complicated ,

issue of excessive Illter use, moisture , lack of replacement, '

and carte blanche changes to the technical criteria on the patt(2 )

of the staff. All of these issues bear further scrutiny and litigation. Again I am unable to do justive to these problems outside the area of the vent header and filters.

NRC staff response to Lewis Interrogatories in the SER 7-18-80 PageSER!3/.

l 1

,,m- , , - - , ,,,- , , _- , - , , , . , , - . --,.,,,,,,,,.------,..,,m-m. ,- , - ,4m-- - - - , ,,,

, ,s,,,- ,,,,4 , - - - ,,,m-,,--,,---,- ,,,,w l

3. Locia 7-31-80.

Lcwis Contention (part 3)

To mitigate a similar accident in M If1 , preheaters on the fiAters of the auxiliary building of W I #1 are necessary.

Since there is not a question of many other problems in the vent hcader and filters of MI twins, I cannot make a statemett that oven a new structure on the auxiliary building of TgIf1 would be adequate. This will also have to awilt the heating and sworn t tactimony.

Other questions which have developed in Discovery concerning the filters and vent header include Lack of bypass Rcquirements on filter testing and replacement.

lack of investigation of excessive amounts of radiation getting out thru the vent header and filters during a repeat of the TMIf2 accident zut TMI f1. (See SSR and Staff's yurther Response to the Board's M&O 3-31 -80.)

-gackofcausasinequanonforleaksinTMIf2ventheader.(If I youdon'tknoghowithappened,howcanyoubesure.itwon't happyn again?fI Integrity of the Licensee's representative vs the um+rtrr actual operating and manages)nt staff.

Ad==w W : Do the fixes proposed and incorporated by the NRC staff actually work , are incorporated in the reactor or Adequady:

are a' paper mirage.'

/ / 1 i u/W t h -

E,

--m .I o gJ .

/ N h (7 Y ,

D ou.hi,b e Alv a d JijL J E t,80.

1 50 c , y2(

Do eke hg ,1,,q C l - -- --. - - _ _ __. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

. 25 E

b E=E UNITED STATES OF AMRRICA E__

NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COMMISSION Q

E E

In the Matter of } E

) E METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-289 5 (Three Mile Island Unit No. 1

)

(Restart) 5

) E E

E___

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE E I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing docuanent(s]4 ~ E c=

upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by 5 the Office of the Secretary of the Commission'in this proceeding in M accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CPR Part 2 - g Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and E Regulations.

M E

==

E=E EEE E

Ea Dated at Washington, D. C. this g g day of (//_/ 19hh

/ E E

E E

- o .

g j./dkll / N6M(CL h Office of' the Secreta'ry of the Coenfission E E

E

==

=

ss

• =

U b

2 E?

.55 m

b EEE N

5 M

=

C=:

5

=

=

P c . . -  : - - R