ML19309G827

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 800319 Memorandum & Order.Contains Motion to Compel NRC Answers to Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl

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. 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

1. 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. .

. ..

1. . 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