ML20069K626

Responds to ASLB 830412 Memorandum & Order Denying Air & Water Pollution Patrol Petition for Addl Contention.Specific Basis for Contention Is Entire Nuclear Establishment Failure to Handle life-threatening problems,w/TMI-2 as Example

ML20069K626
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/20/1983
From:	Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL
To:	Brenner L, Cole R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8304260422
Download: ML20069K626 (2)

Text

i s

.i g -

o e 4

AIR and WATER

%gp

. Pollution Patrol  ; 1

~

BROAD AXE, PA. .

'~

2 88gA 2 II.S. NRC ASLB Washington, D.C.?A555

'_ Lawrence Brenner, -Chairman; Dr. Richard '. Cole; Dr. Peter _ 'o 7 In the Matter of '  ; 4

-- j Ca PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY . DOCKET.NOS: 5t-352-OL

~

(Limerick Generating Station _

50-353-OL Units 1 and 2) April 20, 1983 As per Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 1983 Denying Air and Water Pollution Patrol's Petition for Additional Intervention Contention, re t.he TMI Test of Capability contention I sent the Board on' March 1, 1983.* I wish to respond.

The Staff response states "AWPP's proposed contention'15Lcks-the required basis stated with specificity". In particular, the- Staf f states', "It is not apparent, however, just what factors in that current statu (of TMI2) are of concern to AWPP". AWPP responds, specif'ically...there is on,1y one factor:

TMI 2 is proof the entire nuclear establishment does not.know how to handle

- all life-threatening problems (crippled Unit 2 as exampls)_ involved in nuc-lear reactor operation. The Staff further states "If AUPP' believes there is a particular technological problem which has been inadequataly addressed, it has not identified the problem. Nor has it specified how that problem re-lates to the Limerick proceeding". AWPP repeats. The problem is the inabil-ity, as previously specifically stated, of the nuclear establishment to take care of a semi-cielt down condition'that threatens me, iny family, and members of AWPP, Because a TMI 2 accident may reoccur at L4merick...'w hat with the applicant unable to demonstrate capability via the T$1 Test of Capability,

~

it definitely relates to Limerick.

The Staff states "In addition, AWPP has failed to address the five fac-tors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714 (a) which must be balnneed in deciding whether to admit an untimely contention". As it relates to timeliness inter-venor states the timeliness is based on the daily evidence of inability of

~

the nuclear establishment to pass the TMI Test of Capability...it cannot do so today, and TMI-2 threatens today more than yesterday so it is timely.

• received hv 90ard 8304260422 830420

^

PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR

r< .

(s o -

AIR and WATER

. Pollution Patrol .

2 BROAD AXE, PA. '

(2) ]

~ '

Response to Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 1983 contin [ued:

The Staff states "the events at the Three Mile Island reactor occurred

~

- four years ago and the contention addresses conditions at the' reactor be- ,

tween those events and the present". AWPP responds: No--the contention addresses the inability at this time to even put forth a -solu' tion...let alone

~'

perform the solution before the same or similar problem arises at Limerick, as almost did at P.E.-involved Salem very recently.

Staff states "No allegation is made of a recent change in conditions"...

to which AWPP states: It is exactly because the on- going life-threatening conditions (as per Governor Thornberm statement : "Every day that passes in-creases the threat that some event will happen there", that th'e abysmal' fail-

__ ure of the nuclear establishment, of which the applicant isTa part, that the TMI Test of Capability must be made the prior performance'before Limerick is

~ licensed to operate. ThisisspecificallytoprevenIdangertothehealth

~

j and welfare of me, my family, and members of AWPP and the public.

Finally the Staff states "Indeed, the petition in no way indicated the type of evidence AWPP would expect to present". AWPP responds: the evidence AWPP expects to present is the most factual information that exists in the

~

nuclear controversy in the U.S., that is, the evidence 'that TMI-2 sits there

specifically and tangibly at Middletown, Pa. .The evidence is that the nuclear establishment is prostrate in its inability to handle TMI-2--and that the cn-tire nuclear establishment has tried to hide their inability to the point of meriting a Congressional investigation of known quasi-criminal collusion and con $equential disregard for public sefety,(see report by Government Account-ability Project on Richard Parks re Bechtel Power Corporation--letter and affidavit of March 23, 1983 to NRC Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino).

I'erv trulv vours,

.'.t y Fompno l C

.Jlank:w<. ~ .-

Served by First Class Mail: 9tenhen M. Letris; 'tober;t L. Anthony; "arvin T T.et.ris; Judith A. Dorsey; F.dtf. C. Bauer, .ir; 'tobert 'f. Adler; Ann Hondon:

l rhomas nertiskv; Director PE'4A; Steven D. Hershey; 'Jalter 'J. Cohen; "ohert .T. Rus'arnan; Cf tv of Phila.; Atomic Safety and Licensing Anneal Panel: Atonic 9afety and T.icensine " card Panel; Docketing and Mervice Section; Trov 9 Conner,' .ir; 'tanda11 Rrubaker * " ark .1*

Wetterhahn.