|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
. . -
8 qur,0 70 $M
- .'~~. .. , - - - . . . ..
T3 ;
,,i..
2 Lcwie /Bossd 4-10-80. ~~
> f.- UNITE.D STATES OF AMERICA -
(,e .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[- In;the matter of )
, METROPOLITAN EDISBN. COMPANY .) ,
Docket No. 50-289
~!.. <
TMId1 i se
}
o 4 I i OBJECTIONS TO RECUEST FOR
~
8 CCCKETED
(' , CLARIFICATION OP: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF; - -
USNRC M & 0 ON 3-19-80 LE7/IS MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF APR 15 GSO>
Off;ce of the Secturf TO ANS72R INTERROGATORIES.(Docketed 4-4-80.) c3 M.etint & Sdes
if. ! -
I am not in this hearing for fun . g A d
.I -
It's costing me. It's costing me time. I 's tcosting me money. -- --
It's costing ma hdart5.che. '
' i I am in this hearing because I honestly fear 6 the restart -
,j .
- 1 of TMIf1. I bele$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$some, f distract 1' , duplicative , and of questionable affinnative -
3 - va1 usa1
i f.e -
4e Nov , thic 10 tho teot that the Board ucos on UCS Intorregatory i
k 179 to Licensee. But the Board makes up a completely different l 2( -
, and contradictory ruling on the Lewis Contention. (P.2 34-3-80MM l j.AlsotheBoardstatesonPage59ofthePSPCO(12-18-79) ,.
' " The boa'rd believes that this contention is important and should be inolhded in the issues to be determined at the hemiing."
IftheBoardtrulybe1NvedthattheLewis0ontentionwasimportans
, on 12-18-897 surely,the Bond did not believe that the one , s18 i
example in the Lewis Contention held that much importance.
Susely , the Board must have believed that there needed to be ,
furtherf discovery on the Lewis Contention , or it would not have been accepted for discovery. -
If the 1bove is not the case, then, why it is not correct is El Part of the clarification wh*ch I seok. '
Thisruling$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 - . .
~ -
V? -
e.
E I
g [ ,. I - -
F e
p.g * * .4
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
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