ML19309G827: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
(' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - - | (' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - - | ||
USNRC M & 0 ON 3-19-80 LE7/IS MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF APR 15 GSO> | USNRC M & 0 ON 3-19-80 LE7/IS MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF APR 15 GSO> | ||
Off;ce of the Secturf | Off;ce of the Secturf TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes | ||
TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes | |||
* .c. Bracch - | * .c. Bracch - | ||
if. ! - | if. ! - | ||
Line 54: | Line 52: | ||
I. _ | I. _ | ||
becoming more and more remote frr.; the actual situation, | becoming more and more remote frr.; the actual situation, | ||
' with the one exception the rights of the utility. . | ' with the one exception the rights of the utility. . | ||
I don't disagree with the utilit'y's rights. The utility has great rights. ' | I don't disagree with the utilit'y's rights. The utility has great rights. ' | ||
Line 203: | Line 200: | ||
i 1 | i 1 | ||
, The Motion for Reconsideration requests the b oard to reconsider I | , The Motion for Reconsideration requests the b oard to reconsider I | ||
kt its premature and summary restriation of the Lewis Contention I and restore the contention \to its former"importance". M | kt its premature and summary restriation of the Lewis Contention I and restore the contention \to its former"importance". M y | ||
y | |||
/ 1. Pro-se intervanors will be held to less rigid standards of pleading... | / 1. Pro-se intervanors will be held to less rigid standards of pleading... | ||
Pubic Service & Gas Co ( Salem Nuolear Generating Stationl&2) ALA3 136,6AEC 487(1973).) | Pubic Service & Gas Co ( Salem Nuolear Generating Stationl&2) ALA3 136,6AEC 487(1973).) | ||
Line 224: | Line 220: | ||
^ | ^ | ||
=*'. > " | =*'. > " | ||
I. | I. | ||
.i' . _ | .i' . _ | ||
Line 234: | Line 229: | ||
Provide some rationale ( calculations, assumptions, comparison of location of monitoring instruments) by which the staff y | Provide some rationale ( calculations, assumptions, comparison of location of monitoring instruments) by which the staff y | ||
determines which releases fxited thru the filters, vent header , | determines which releases fxited thru the filters, vent header , | ||
of filter bypass of the auxiliary building. | of filter bypass of the auxiliary building. | ||
c s, ' . | c s, ' . | ||
Line 257: | Line 251: | ||
.g M | .g M | ||
' + | ' + | ||
i.- | i.- | ||
i . | i . |
Latest revision as of 21:06, 21 February 2020
ML19309G827 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Three Mile Island ![]() |
Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
From: | Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
References | |
NUDOCS 8005070628 | |
Download: ML19309G827 (7) | |
Text
. . -
8 qur,0 70 $M
- .'~~. .. , - - - . . . ..
T3 ;
,,i..
2 Lcwie /Bossd 4-10-80. ~~
> f.- UNITE.D STATES OF AMERICA -
(,e .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[- In;the matter of )
, METROPOLITAN EDISBN. COMPANY .) ,
Docket No. 50-289
~!.. <
TMId1 i se
}
o 4 I i OBJECTIONS TO RECUEST FOR
~
8 CCCKETED
(' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - -
USNRC M & 0 ON 3-19-80 LE7/IS MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF APR 15 GSO>
Off;ce of the Secturf TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes
- .c. Bracch -
if. ! -
I am not in this hearing for fun . g A d
.I -
It's costing me. It's costing me time. I 's tcosting me money. -- --
It's costing ma hdart5.che. '
' i I am in this hearing because I honestly fear 6 the restart -
,j .
- 1 of TMIf1. I bele$ve that,whatever the reason- management. ' :.[
sabotage, fear of the workplace, TMI!1 will be dosa hard and . '
fast if it ever reopens. - '
.I was hoping my intervention would en provide one small tl . modicum of increased safety, of increased reasonableness. i y,
Instead , I find-just the opposite. The Bard's Orders are !
I. _
becoming more and more remote frr.; the actual situation,
' with the one exception the rights of the utility. .
I don't disagree with the utilit'y's rights. The utility has great rights. '
Abe Lincoln said it best . .
} ,
" Capital has rights as worthy of protection as any other rights."
I agree;.I ar no; Communist ~' I unders tand that capital has I .,
- )
rights,.But Capital has no greater rt'..ghts than the rest of us.
And Cajital has no greater rights than the People's Rights to Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Capital's right, if any , is just compensation.
CapYial has no right to, endanger others without corresponding benefit and against their wills. mrev:r,u,4r,nrr vr 155555555584W55. .
The Boajd seems to be out of touch with this. "
The.f4 a're many examples of the Board's leanings which I can sight.
m m q
, d o, b, . 2 .. .
^
2.
^
[. 'Ishallnotbo'copottyes[togooveroldwoundohostloftalcno.
jw . Hopefully,- they will not establish a pattern for this -Board of
~
unfair treatment to pro se intervenors.
9 '
9 Now , however , the Board is destroying any value to my interven y >
! anammeily. I am not saying that my intervention t.as wath anythi h* ,
to begin with. The Board made the value judgement when it
'. allowed me to intervene.
f Q. .,' Surely , the,3 card,then , has no right to destroy what little h '
'l '
value which my intervention might have had. 4 fairer route woul:d have been not to allow my tofntervene at all. ,
Q{4 ,
I; speak about the Board's sentence on Page 2 of its 4-300 M&Os "The Contention will be limited to the example presented and f
- not to the larger problem to which he refers."
~ '
For some reason , the' Board uses a different test on Licensee's '
Intarrogatory A-1 in its 4-1-80 M&O Page 3;
[ .
j, '
"On one hand we do not expect intervenors now to be able to ;
specify each circumstance related to the TMI2 accident which -
should be considered , not do we believe that only these system components alleged to have contributed directly to the aco'ident may now be considered. On the other hand practical
- evidantialy considerations and due process require that there be some reasonable bounding of the example type contentions" ,
f y The bounding that the 4-3 M&O of the Board does to the Lewis Contention flies against the test cited above from the l
FSPCO on Page 9 and 19 and used by the Board in its 4-1 M&O.
However, in f:ay case , the Icard not only requires that g "esch circumsta ge"be provided in the original contention 3 but also prematurely orders impossibly strict bounding of y
i the Lewis Contention to one example.
W
,1 I admit that I am a pro se , non-lawyer intervenor but ,
S' I do not believe that that fact gives the Board the right to f judge my contention on a stricter basis than the UCS's
,y gontention 8. ,
- 4. Let's look at the Lewis Contention and how limiting it to the h
example therein would not only zakwrt be unfair ; but also.
[ make-it unlitigable. ,,
First #,'the Lewis contention refers to the accident on 3-28-79
{
- If the contention were to be limited to the example presented 3
therein,.the Staff and Licensee would have a perfect right to objectam to any information , evidence , happenstance, what-havo
- .f '. 3.
- f. ,
1 -
that occurred on 3-29-79 or therooftor. It would be a perfect -
g, objection on'the s taff of the Utility's part to state that any
{ information that Intervenor Lewis requested was not known on 3-28-79 'and therefore beyond the scope of the contention.
. .,This is not due process or a fair hearing for the people ^
, kho are concerned With their health and safety.
- 1 Many other problems must develop along these lines if the Board {
does not retract its summary limitation of the Lewis 15Z122M31231{
br' Contention.
'5 The Board goes on on Page 2 oE the 4-3 M&O
, "He has asserted no basis whatever for enlarging the contention,
, j nor can we identify any basis." .
l p d First of all, I don't try to enlarge the contention. All I an k[ -
, trying to do is discover the contention as the h oarddidreproduch
' k% in their FS700(12-18-79). It states specifically and the Board i left in', a There are many design errors in the filter system .3 and design.of same."
,f Obviously g-the contention was looking beyond one simple example. <
The Board must have been also , or it would have deleted takt sentence.
What the Boarg is dging now is trfing to make me provide a brief to give basis to allowing the Lewis Contention to stand vtu*mt intact.
This is unfair , and it is unfair according to the Board's own g words. In its April 2 M&O, the Board gives a schedule for E. ] such briefs and states why preliminary briefs on the issues t.
c .
will not be allowed. P2.
f
'After discovery and before the hearing, the . Board will, by re -
fy .
j quiring trial btiefs or other method, require a full and timely y ,
disclosure of each party's position on each issue affecting that x
party." /
s 'It is our judgement that , in this proceeding with so many partieE r
participating on so many. issues , to require an interim brief j '
would be disruptive , inefficient , unnecessarily burdi$some, f distract 1' , duplicative , and of questionable affinnative -
3 - va1 usa1
- 't
i f.e -
4e Nov , thic 10 tho teot that the Board ucos on UCS Intorregatory i
k 179 to Licensee. But the Board makes up a completely different l 2( -
, and contradictory ruling on the Lewis Contention. (P.2 34-3-80MM l j.AlsotheBoardstatesonPage59ofthePSPCO(12-18-79) ,.
' " The boa'rd believes that this contention is important and should be inolhded in the issues to be determined at the hemiing."
IftheBoardtrulybe1NvedthattheLewis0ontentionwasimportans
, on 12-18-897 surely,the Bond did not believe that the one , s18 i
example in the Lewis Contention held that much importance.
Susely , the Board must have believed that there needed to be ,
furtherf discovery on the Lewis Contention , or it would not have been accepted for discovery. -
If the 1bove is not the case, then, why it is not correct is El Part of the clarification wh*ch I seok. '
Thisruling$oftheBoardhas completely destroyed any chance for any meaningful discovery and testimony. /
- I' .
7 e Furthermore, the importance of the Lewis Contention has been j {.
developing over the year due to the news releases of the . . .
, Utility, NRC and especially the ACRS. MThe Acrs Mas pointed i ,
outa8potentialinteractionbetweenUnitLandUnit2"(Pagek h Commissioner's 8-9-79 Order) which directly affects the filters ~
k and vent header placement. These are items which must be h .
~
resolved"priop to restart" h The leakages at TMI#2 have had a major traumatic effect upon the f: A localpopulace.Purthermore,comHendriedndH.Dieckampdave E
,f both specifically referred to leakages and other problems I Q developing at TMI#2 which can cause a recriticality accident.
4 A reoriticality accident sat at TMI#2 would. definitely put a i
burden upon the filtering system which to date has not been
- y analysed by the NRC Staff for this grave concern , an interaction
.( between Unit 1 and Unit 2, and a matter which concerns the filters
{ in the auxiliary building of TMI#2.
!x 4- 1* USNRC March 5 ,1980 W 3reifing on Assessment of f Cleap up At TMI. Page 24 and 25. '
.; 2. Le~per from Heman Diekamp to J fnearne dated March4,1980 1
Page 3 . This is an important letter for more reasons than I have stated above and I resp.ectfully request the Board to read it 1r} its entire %ty. ,"
- 3. ACRS lettee of March , 11,1980 to Aherne from Plesset on -
v .,.. - -
.g -.n .
e .
~
t - ; The importance of the Lewis Contention,as originally pointed t out by this Board , has grown over the year. To truncate it
?,. -
y .
i A ,y now would only place greater potential dangers to the haealth
, ni safety of the thpublic than what it now faces.
/ I admit that I haven't been the greatest pro se intervenor f
in.the world. I know my typing is a chore to understasd, and 7 I'have never mastered written English. The Board has chided
) se for bringing up matters which do not concern it.
{/
j.
'[
I e;an only point out things that I believe are important.
I ask the Board to use no more stringent test on my contention h [ thaMtheBaardudes on the contentions presented by lawyers. M
'. The Request for Clarification that I seek is why is the Lewis
. Contentinn being summarily restricted on more narrow grounds tham used on USS and Licensee.
i The Objection is , of course,to the summart restriction of the
- f Lewis Contention and to the requirement for basis to keep the
)
contention litigable at this point.
i 1
, The Motion for Reconsideration requests the b oard to reconsider I
kt its premature and summary restriation of the Lewis Contention I and restore the contention \to its former"importance". M y
y
/ 1. Pro-se intervanors will be held to less rigid standards of pleading...
Pubic Service & Gas Co ( Salem Nuolear Generating Stationl&2) ALA3 136,6AEC 487(1973).)
f ) 2. First S pecial Prehearing Conference Order PSPCO P,59.
j k
y .
.T y.
i.
- i. ,
0
'4 .
?
~
s
~.
_______.__--------:------L---
^
=*'. > "
I.
.i' . _
.il }
_, Rephrasing of nterrog$ tory 37 PER BOARD"S M&O OF W 4-3-80 ic . .
Does the Staff agree with khe dates and times of releases referred to in the Kameny and Rogovia Reports?
s .
The Staff need only answer for those releases which got out thru the auxiliary building of Unit 2 and specifically thru' filters, vent header and filter bypass. (Lewis contention.)
Provide some rationale ( calculations, assumptions, comparison of location of monitoring instruments) by which the staff y
determines which releases fxited thru the filters, vent header ,
of filter bypass of the auxiliary building.
c s, ' .
T ~
e - . .
- l
~ -
V? -
e.
E I
g [ ,. I - -
F e
p.g * * .4
- 4 8 s-g..
7 -
eP T. .
- . g
. e 7 4"
- g. a d , .
s-*' ,e
,,4
.g M
' +
i.-
i .
i
[ <
t .- _
~.
., 5
.- ,g i y*
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
( k I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of theh
% m rfio M ~~2r.w.M document, To Board Memorandum And Order -
f,fh.hh t l
be placed in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to the persons listed belcw:
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S . Nuclear Regulator.i Commission ;
Washington, DC 20555 ;
1 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive .gy,9ggggy iE Oak Ridge, TN 37830 ;M: : 0WEU"43 . ?
ECS$ fhf5It' . .
}0.SE,'-f$s ?w Dr . Linda W . Little n h. n le 5000 Hermitage Drive ;c p.
^'Q Raleigh, NC 27612 1'$f41.g ./{(r;3[?]h;gfE iy
~
..?s35YM...M @Y George F. Trowbridge, Esquire 'f',M(.0%[ ;;;ty*7: M4 [g Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge YNcMF 1800 M Street, N.W. %'?@NbN5Iil
,rm wc u ny . . : S5' .
Washington, DC 20006 %
c>~bny0 QMMS' hvsqpitMIME
'iff 4t Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, DC 20555 G 4 Executive Legal Director ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l CCC g 4 Washington, DC 2
- O_
E' APR 15 $80> ~; A cmes ett'.sW _
f o' ocede2&#J 8 ennd -/ -
i g' -
- G e .
0%
At Dated: April $ 1980 a
t I e