ML19309G827: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:. . - | {{#Wiki_filter:. . - | ||
8 qur,0 70 $M | 8 qur,0 70 $M | ||
- .'~~. .. , - - - . . . .. | - .'~~. .. , - - - . . . .. | ||
T3 ; | T3 ; | ||
,,i.. | ,,i.. | ||
2 Lcwie /Bossd 4-10-80. ~~ | |||
2 | |||
Lcwie /Bossd 4-10-80. ~~ | |||
> f.- UNITE.D STATES OF AMERICA - | > f.- UNITE.D STATES OF AMERICA - | ||
(,e . | (,e . | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | ||
[- In;the matter of ) | [- In;the matter of ) | ||
, METROPOLITAN EDISBN. COMPANY .) , | , METROPOLITAN EDISBN. COMPANY .) , | ||
Docket No. 50-289 | Docket No. 50-289 | ||
~!.. < | ~!.. < | ||
TMId1 i | TMId1 i se | ||
se | |||
} | } | ||
o 4 I i OBJECTIONS TO RECUEST FOR | o 4 I i OBJECTIONS TO RECUEST FOR | ||
~ | ~ | ||
8 CCCKETED | 8 CCCKETED | ||
(' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - - | (' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - - | ||
USNRC | USNRC M & 0 ON 3-19-80 LE7/IS MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF APR 15 GSO> | ||
Off;ce of the Secturf | Off;ce of the Secturf | ||
. ; , | . ; , | ||
TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes | TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes | ||
* .c. Bracch - | * .c. Bracch - | ||
if. ! - | if. ! - | ||
I am not in this hearing for fun . g | I am not in this hearing for fun . g A d | ||
A d | |||
.I - | .I - | ||
It's costing me. It's costing me time. I 's tcosting me money. -- -- | It's costing me. It's costing me time. I 's tcosting me money. -- -- | ||
It's costing ma hdart5.che. ' | It's costing ma hdart5.che. ' | ||
' i | ' i I am in this hearing because I honestly fear 6 the restart - | ||
I am in this hearing because I honestly fear 6 the restart - | |||
,j . | ,j . | ||
# 1 | # 1 of TMIf1. I bele$ve that,whatever the reason- management. ' :.[ | ||
of TMIf1. I bele$ve that,whatever the reason- management. ' :.[ | |||
sabotage, fear of the workplace, TMI!1 will be dosa hard and . ' | sabotage, fear of the workplace, TMI!1 will be dosa hard and . ' | ||
fast if it ever reopens. - ' | 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, | .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 ! | Instead , I find-just the opposite. The Bard's Orders are ! | ||
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. ' | ||
Abe Lincoln said it best . . | Abe Lincoln said it best . . | ||
} , | } , | ||
" Capital has rights as worthy of protection as any other rights." | " Capital has rights as worthy of protection as any other rights." | ||
I agree;.I ar no; Communist ~' I unders tand that capital has I ., | 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. | 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, | 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. | ||
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. . | 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 Boajd seems to be out of touch with this. " | ||
Line 115: | Line 70: | ||
, d o, b, . 2 .. . | , d o, b, . 2 .. . | ||
^ | ^ | ||
2. | 2. | ||
^ | ^ | ||
Line 138: | Line 86: | ||
value which my intervention might have had. 4 fairer route woul:d have been not to allow my tofntervene at all. , | value which my intervention might have had. 4 fairer route woul:d have been not to allow my tofntervene at all. , | ||
Q{4 , | 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 | |||
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." | ||
not to the larger problem to which he refers." | |||
~ ' | ~ ' | ||
For some reason , the' Board uses a different test on Licensee's ' | For some reason , the' Board uses a different test on Licensee's ' | ||
Intarrogatory A-1 in its 4-1-80 M&O Page 3; | Intarrogatory A-1 in its 4-1-80 M&O Page 3; | ||
[ . | [ . | ||
j, ' | j, ' | ||
"On one hand we do not expect intervenors now to be able to ; | "On one hand we do not expect intervenors now to be able to ; | ||
specify each circumstance related to the TMI2 accident which - | 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 | 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" , | |||
- 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 | 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. | 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 | 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 | W | ||
,1 I admit that I am a pro se , non-lawyer intervenor but , | ,1 I admit that I am a pro se , non-lawyer intervenor but , | ||
Line 172: | Line 106: | ||
,y gontention 8. , | ,y gontention 8. , | ||
: 4. Let's look at the Lewis Contention and how limiting it to the h | : 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. | example therein would not only zakwrt be unfair ; but also. | ||
[ make-it unlitigable. ,, | [ make-it unlitigable. ,, | ||
First #,'the Lewis contention refers to the accident on 3-28-79 | First #,'the Lewis contention refers to the accident on 3-28-79 | ||
{ | { | ||
- If the contention were to be limited to the example presented 3 | - If the contention were to be limited to the example presented 3 | ||
therein,.the Staff and Licensee would have a perfect right to | therein,.the Staff and Licensee would have a perfect right to objectam to any information , evidence , happenstance, what-havo | ||
objectam to any information , evidence , happenstance, what-havo | |||
: .f '. 3. | : .f '. 3. | ||
: f. , | : f. , | ||
1 - | 1 - | ||
that occurred on 3-29-79 or therooftor. It would be a perfect - | 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 | 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. | { 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 ^ | . .,This is not due process or a fair hearing for the people ^ | ||
, kho are concerned With their health and safety. | , kho are concerned With their health and safety. | ||
* 1 Many other problems must develop along these lines if the Board { | * 1 Many other problems must develop along these lines if the Board { | ||
does not retract its summary limitation of the Lewis 15Z122M31231{ | does not retract its summary limitation of the Lewis 15Z122M31231{ | ||
br' Contention. | br' Contention. | ||
'5 | '5 The Board goes on on Page 2 oE the 4-3 M&O | ||
The Board goes on on Page 2 oE the 4-3 M&O | |||
, "He has asserted no basis whatever for enlarging the contention, | , "He has asserted no basis whatever for enlarging the contention, | ||
, j nor can we identify any basis." . | , j nor can we identify any basis." . | ||
l | l p d First of all, I don't try to enlarge the contention. All I an k[ - | ||
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 | , 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." | |||
' 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. < | ,f Obviously g-the contention was looking beyond one simple example. < | ||
The Board must have been also , or it would have deleted takt sentence. | 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. | 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. | 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 . | c . | ||
will not be allowed. P2. | will not be allowed. P2. | ||
f | f | ||
'After discovery and before the hearing, the . Board will, by re - | 'After discovery and before the hearing, the . Board will, by re - | ||
fy . | fy . | ||
j quiring trial btiefs or other method, require a full and timely y , | 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 | disclosure of each party's position on each issue affecting that x | ||
party." / | party." / | ||
s 'It is our judgement that , in this proceeding with so many partieE r | 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 ' | 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 - | would be disruptive , inefficient , unnecessarily burdi$some, f distract 1' , duplicative , and of questionable affinnative - | ||
3 - va1 usa1 | 3 - va1 usa1 | ||
*'t | *'t | ||
i | i f.e - | ||
f.e - | |||
4e Nov , thic 10 tho teot that the Board ucos on UCS Intorregatory i | 4e Nov , thic 10 tho teot that the Board ucos on UCS Intorregatory i | ||
k 179 to Licensee. But the Board makes up a completely different l 2( - | k 179 to Licensee. But the Board makes up a completely different l 2( - | ||
, and contradictory ruling on the Lewis Contention. (P.2 34-3-80MM l j.AlsotheBoardstatesonPage59ofthePSPCO(12-18-79) ,. | , and contradictory ruling on the Lewis Contention. (P.2 34-3-80MM l j.AlsotheBoardstatesonPage59ofthePSPCO(12-18-79) ,. | ||
' " The boa'rd believes that this contention is important and should be inolhded in the issues to be determined at the hemiing." | ' " The boa'rd believes that this contention is important and should be inolhded in the issues to be determined at the hemiing." | ||
IftheBoardtrulybe1NvedthattheLewis0ontentionwasimportans | IftheBoardtrulybe1NvedthattheLewis0ontentionwasimportans | ||
, on 12-18-897 surely,the Bond did not believe that the one , s18 i | , on 12-18-897 surely,the Bond did not believe that the one , s18 i | ||
example in the Lewis Contention held that much importance. | example in the Lewis Contention held that much importance. | ||
Susely , the Board must have believed that there needed to be , | Susely , the Board must have believed that there needed to be , | ||
furtherf discovery on the Lewis Contention , or it would not have | furtherf discovery on the Lewis Contention , or it would not have been accepted for discovery. - | ||
been accepted for discovery. - | |||
If the 1bove is not the case, then, why it is not correct is El Part of the clarification wh*ch I seok. ' | If the 1bove is not the case, then, why it is not correct is El Part of the clarification wh*ch I seok. ' | ||
Thisruling$oftheBoardhas completely destroyed any chance | Thisruling$oftheBoardhas completely destroyed any chance for any meaningful discovery and testimony. / | ||
for any meaningful discovery and testimony. / | |||
: I' . | : I' . | ||
7 e Furthermore, the importance of the Lewis Contention has been j {. | 7 e Furthermore, the importance of the Lewis Contention has been j {. | ||
developing over the year due to the news releases of the . . . | developing over the year due to the news releases of the . . . | ||
, Utility, NRC and especially the ACRS. MThe Acrs Mas pointed i , | , Utility, NRC and especially the ACRS. MThe Acrs Mas pointed i , | ||
Line 293: | Line 175: | ||
!x 4- 1* USNRC March 5 ,1980 W 3reifing on Assessment of f Cleap up At TMI. Page 24 and 25. ' | !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 March''4,1980 1 | .; 2. Le~per from Heman Diekamp to J fnearne dated March''4,1980 1 | ||
Page 3 . This is an important letter for more reasons than | 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. ," | ||
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 - | : 3. ACRS lettee of March , 11,1980 to Aherne from Plesset on - | ||
v .,.. - - | v .,.. - - | ||
.g -.n . | .g -.n . | ||
e . | e . | ||
~ | ~ | ||
t - ; The importance of the Lewis Contention,as originally pointed t out by this Board , has grown over the year. To truncate it | |||
t - ; The importance of the Lewis Contention,as originally pointed | |||
t out by this Board , has grown over the year. To truncate it | |||
?,. - | ?,. - | ||
y . | y . | ||
i A ,y now would only place greater potential dangers to the haealth | i A ,y now would only place greater potential dangers to the haealth | ||
, ni safety of the thpublic than what it now faces. | , ni safety of the thpublic than what it now faces. | ||
/ I admit that I haven't been the greatest pro se intervenor f | / 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. | ) se for bringing up matters which do not concern it. | ||
{/ | {/ | ||
j. | j. | ||
'[ | '[ | ||
I e;an only point out things that I believe are important. | 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 | 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 | '. 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. | |||
. 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 | i The Objection is , of course,to the summart restriction of the | ||
; f Lewis Contention and to the requirement for basis to keep the | ; f Lewis Contention and to the requirement for basis to keep the | ||
) | ) | ||
contention litigable at this point. | contention litigable at this point. | ||
i 1 | i 1 | ||
Line 345: | Line 205: | ||
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 | 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 | Pubic Service & Gas Co ( Salem Nuolear Generating Stationl&2) ALA3 136,6AEC 487(1973).) | ||
Nuolear Generating Stationl&2) ALA3 136,6AEC 487(1973).) | |||
f ) 2. First S pecial Prehearing Conference Order PSPCO P,59. | f ) 2. First S pecial Prehearing Conference Order PSPCO P,59. | ||
j k | j k | ||
y . | y . | ||
.T y. | .T y. | ||
i. | i. | ||
Line 362: | Line 216: | ||
0 | 0 | ||
'4 . | '4 . | ||
? | ? | ||
~ | ~ | ||
s | s | ||
~. | ~. | ||
_______.__--------:------L--- | _______.__--------:------L--- | ||
^ | ^ | ||
=*'. > " | =*'. > " | ||
.; . | .; . | ||
I. | I. | ||
.i' . _ | .i' . _ | ||
.il } | .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? | |||
_, 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 . | s . | ||
The Staff need only answer for those releases which got out | 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 | |||
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 , | determines which releases fxited thru the filters, vent header , | ||
; | ; | ||
of filter bypass of the auxiliary building. | of filter bypass of the auxiliary building. | ||
c | c s, ' . | ||
T ~ | T ~ | ||
e - . . | e - . . | ||
* l | * l | ||
~ - | ~ - | ||
V? - | V? - | ||
e. | e. | ||
E | E I | ||
g [ ,. I - - | |||
F e | F e | ||
p.g * * .4 | p.g * * .4 | ||
* 4 8 s- | * 4 8 s-g.. | ||
g.. | |||
7 - | 7 - | ||
eP T. . | |||
#. g | #. g | ||
. e 7 4" | . e 7 4" | ||
: g. a d , . | : g. a d , . | ||
s-*' ,e | s-*' ,e | ||
,,4 | ,,4 | ||
Line 462: | Line 259: | ||
.; - , ;' ,' .. | .; - , ;' ,' .. | ||
;- - | ;- - | ||
i.- | i.- | ||
i . | i . | ||
i | i | ||
[ < | [ < | ||
t .- _ | t .- _ | ||
~. | ~. | ||
., 5 | ., 5 | ||
.- ,g i y* | .- ,g i y* | ||
v. | v. | ||
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | ||
( k I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of theh | ( 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 - | % m rfio M ~~2r.w.M document, To Board Memorandum And Order - | ||
f,fh.hh t l | f,fh.hh t l | ||
be placed in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to the persons listed belcw: | be placed in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to the persons listed belcw: | ||
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire | Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S . Nuclear Regulator.i Commission ; | ||
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S . Nuclear Regulator.i Commission ; | |||
Washington, DC 20555 ; | Washington, DC 20555 ; | ||
1 | 1 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive .gy,9ggggy iE Oak Ridge, TN 37830 ;M: : 0WEU"43 . ? | ||
Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive .gy,9ggggy iE Oak Ridge, TN 37830 ;M: : 0WEU"43 . ? | |||
ECS$ fhf5It' . . | ECS$ fhf5It' . . | ||
}0.SE,'-f$s ?w | }0.SE,'-f$s ?w Dr . Linda W . Little n h. n le 5000 Hermitage Drive ;c p. | ||
Dr . Linda W . Little n h. n le | |||
5000 Hermitage Drive ;c p | |||
^'Q Raleigh, NC 27612 1'$f41.g ./{(r;3[?]h;gfE iy | ^'Q Raleigh, NC 27612 1'$f41.g ./{(r;3[?]h;gfE iy | ||
~ | ~ | ||
..?s35YM...M @Y | ..?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 | ||
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' . | ,rm wc u ny . . : S5' . | ||
Washington, DC 20006 % | Washington, DC 20006 % | ||
c>~bny0 QMMS' hvsqpitMIME | c>~bny0 QMMS' hvsqpitMIME | ||
'iff 4t | 'iff 4t Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, DC 20555 G 4 Executive Legal Director , | ||
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, DC 20555 | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l CCC g 4 Washington, DC 2 | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l CCC g 4 Washington, DC 2 | ||
* O_ | * O_ | ||
E' APR 15 $80> ~; A cmes ett'.sW _ | E' APR 15 $80> ~; A cmes ett'.sW _ | ||
f o' ocede2&#J 8 ennd -/ - | f o' ocede2&#J 8 ennd -/ - | ||
i g' - | i g' - | ||
- G e . | - G e . | ||
0% | 0% | ||
At Dated: April $ 1980 | At Dated: April $ 1980 a | ||
t I e | |||
I e | |||
*}} | *}} |
Revision as of 11:00, 1 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