ML19242B814

Forwads Ny Daily News 790621 Article Re Tmi.Article Refers to AEC 690905 Rept in Which Design of Plant Was Reviewed

ML19242B814
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/06/1979
From:	Hand R REILLY & LIKE
To:	Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7908090433
Download: ML19242B814 (2)

Text

7: g ,,

illnt

/

anid be amTED connEsPoNDENcs yhn__ ,aL.

200 Yat dam $tml .

0 0 $a til

$ Q , J foon f1702 J- r W - Z4a $fe)

Rf14 y 4' A O M 3-2000

~f- h J,s w W JYJ cf R;-.

-y '

t_ ] Ym ,4 o .e, l.aYl ~' F c 8. "gf s-'73 A d 9 +7 July 6, 1979

• sc l,ya. .

..,->4 f-

?.)

V"  ? :c_ ' .k N'Oy, b,?

s /

Richard Hoefling, Esq.

Staff Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Re: Shoreham - Case 50-322

Dear Dick:

Enclosed is a copy of a recent news report which refers to a September 5, 1969 AEC report in which the design of the Three Mile Icland plant was reviewed. Would you kindly forward a copy of this report. Please consider this in the nature of an informal discovery request arising under County Contentions 3a, 5b and lla.

Si erely,

/ /U([ bc

.cnard C. Han RCH/ jag CC: To all parties (with enclosure) .,

7908090 m -

5ecec3

na-m3

,\ Dt %RMsposDEggg s

s e yA* 4

. e.#

r, ,

p

~

su s9 -

C ~D~ sA A y

. f } Q\ es f  ;

m.

1_

~

. :.=

1F3 l_

7

~

=

\ c3 Rv. M4{#s 9 % d EWh c- .

.5M. he- 'Sn2Fris.eA.,

.u ., ., n, , w - -.;. ~ ..

ga L3..Jh.l& Island,s .m/.- .

s_  ;

cacceptabre . .. . ,.

of controlling the-hydrogen

~+ M 1 concentration ... .w 3 -e,1abusheer to iN Bu,o bleb.

THydr ogen:-~ bth'e:

WW operatforr bi M 2.";- @auffes%

mweucameeormirun a,ahd: ..

N.sWashingtone-ThiiNfrightening i l." hydro' gen D.a hpical.WashinW solutiansG idelines P. bubble" that:nearly blew tee lid off the Three twere 2ssued ettin l $:mac%rs' emmency;r strict. sta6dards core-ccohng systems.-And m- fo OMile findustryIsland alongpower wit it-was hant4cd the nuclear expfained away by power ptember,e 19'6; a gew safety..evaluatzorr

" red faced federal officials as "pomething that had .;nree Mile Island c_oncluded that everytiung as- w.ofj fudtebeen foreseeniwhen the /reactorg was. ,hneQecause ee plant's, emergency system was idesigned,"

E This is~si= ply W-y".n;.g not E5Y.+r%-EdOr G ;;:pme$;J. Lconsistent with tne-gtudelmes "/s;i-hM A:.O

.. [.'".2The caly trouble,was, the theoretical guess.

EdWe have-uncovered / evidence'fhidr# 'h'e' C t gov . gork.on which the gtudelmes were Based. turned -

ernment'a'oun fl!es:that makes:it< clear'that. .

gutGto-bc cockey.ed. --::;5.y w.g.p;m4 Catomic safe.ty experts.:were worried ab6ut'the '

6% ontmnent and industry experts agreed,'for -

[ possibility of.hyaregen, gas problemsCa' Three

.bMile Island Nucleai Station UniitNo12a decade.  ; tion of'hydrog;en gas in the contmmnt ve B ago;'even before the Erst. concrete was p6ured for twduld noemch a h-ale explosive leyel un--

ithe foundations of:the. cooling towersW": -;- : ;til"aoproximately 25 days"after theloss cf cool .. -

P&It-is'also clear freci'the near-atstro'pha last. gant .Thus there_would be plenty of time.to take-

%Iarch'that the response to the expressed fehrs of

! theierperts-.wa.va ' bureatteratie solution;-one' e=erpncrmeasunsgw a.My-5.r.

win Pomt of fad, unfortunately; thereias 2 7 ithitlooked' good oh' paper but proved whoDy.in - !hydror tadequate wheri the emergency struck 92'.:S. j ;the.ac en gas cident explosiorr at nree less ~:.1..

Mile Island than 11.m.yhours

, after '

~NBefore a const:uction permit could beissued; I

=ct ncredible asat.may seem, the NRC's Adviso '

Crdr.'the.Three'MileIsla:id'plantisafetylexperts of ry Cocumttee on Reactor: Safeguards-assured Kthe Atomic Er.ergy Cohbiort (AECT, predeces-- (Congress m January /19'787that hydrogen con-O to the Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission, isor ctml.was one of a number-ofinherent proble=s Ip(NRC),.made lans;.Their report,a'requied evaluation dated SeptJ5,1969, was of both the i design:that had_ been "jargorrresolved."x-c..:.g:-1;. ;f'bureau MBut tn ,the pecuhar o y, deandid -nd e.:plicits-M: Cres lved is m no way the same.'as? solved."

%*' Hydrogen gas w7uld rodu' be~p#t-im$#

cetf As a conse-'vc f ' .As a memo accompanying the NRC report ex-

~'que: ice'of a. loss-of-coolant accidest,"-thetreporta Mamed:

Awarned~"We~are Szrrentif reviewirig th robe ;s Ind m, "In .some , cases an ttent has been re .

Ilem of'hYdregen'predtiction and'several m@ethodsJ an ahmtrative sense."..Ini ether <.

Ufor#controLot the hydrogen'concentratfort for<all-N" #d'dth" pr blent had been resolved only paper..not.at the reactors, where it counts.",on-Greactdrs'.and:have not yet sstablished the{meth ..

..- Th h the official explanation that the hy- .

6cds:which wilf be" acceptable."im ~ :/N~rh.- .p.oug gen problem popped out of a clear blue sky is .

z%Having.' posed:theyproblem3.diid n6fe'dnhat; jn*@c'h$ h dhey didn't have an answerto it--the' safety.ofE, "*bus 7 N " dI'Iats 3a "we*v d* '

Ycials6 incredibly decided it was 6kay to letthings iThe NRC assured the- *

'ylide_M.QM@~.M8?WF]'GEPN3.  ?: evaluatsd; -- ' A:,A - *Srobi.m . - . ..** beI"J/*'

~

n#We' conclude ".the expsrtss~afety evalTation "'NS6;the near.disastler in'ay hav5 had's egood Meport said/that. the'(utility;companiesT.com , effect;after alf:-perhaps it win change the mad.

f.mit=ent to. study'oths!meansof controlling the Tdenihg' "WhatfMe worry >* attitude of the nucle-yhydroge'n~ provide (reasonabla.~assurancethat an. ilaipower indtistry^and the bureaucrats who are i Aippdidd.td%fM_irrdiths:public; -"--

t New York Daily :Tews g g $i _ 1m ece