ML20073R666

New Info Contention Re Inadequate Util Mgt.Repeated Carelessness,Malfunctioning safety-related Equipment & Util Response Adversely Reflect on Mgt Capability

ML20073R666
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/27/1983
From:	Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8305040470
Download: ML20073R666 (1)

Text

_

AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA. April 27, 1983-

' ' ~'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.20555 3 W

In The Matter of L..T -2 P!2 :02 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAfri .

i (Limerick Generating Docket Nos.50-352Station, Units 1 and 2) kw:iC and 50-353 .y .; T Lawrence Brenner, Chairman; Dr. Richard F. Cole; and Dr. Peter A. Morris NEW INFORMATION CONTENTION BY FRANK R. ROMANO (AWPP)

I contend that the management of Philadelphia Electric Company has been newly demonstrated to be inadequate to insure safe operation of the Limerick Nuclear re-actor. Such incapable operation threatens the health and welfare of me, my family, and members of Air and Water Pollution Patrol of Pennsylvania (AWPP).

I previously, and specifically, in letter received by the U.S. NRC Atomic Saf-ety and Licensing Board on March 1, 1983, re the TMI Test of Capability, contended that the Applicant, as part of the nuclear establishment was not, and'is not, cap-able of handling all recently made known problems that point to the accident-prone, thus threatening, nature of nuclear reactor operation. For example, problems made known currently at Salem: stuck valves, substitution of parts, by-passing specified procedure re inspection, etc. (as at TMI) and at Applicant-involved Salem.

While the staff denied contention (received from ma on March 1, 1983) on the basis of timeliness and specificity, subsequent timely and specific evidence of in-ability'to handle and insure against threats to me, my family, and members of AVPP include repeated carelessness, and repeated malfunctioning on safety-related equip-ment, and response there to...all adversely reflecting on management capability involving Applicant and Limerich.

Specifically the repeated life-threatening incidents at Salem reflects direct-ly on management and operation of Limerick because the Philadelphia Electric Com-pany, owning a large part of the Salem reactor, is part and parcel of the evidence of incapability demonstrated by the repeated near-miss accidents at Salem.

Lastly I contend that, based on the recent 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision,

., that if Pennsylvania and the NRC permits Limerick to operate before acceptable dis-gg posal sites are in place and ready to completely keep nuclear wastes from the bio-yy sphere for hundreds of thousands of years, Pennsylvania and NRC will be condoning 4g and permiting, in effect, a dangerous unauthorized nuclear waste dump at the Lim-

,g erick facility...in contempt of the fundamental purpose of the 9-0 U.S. Supreme

o e Court deicsion, which fundamentally had the safety of the public in mind, d.

8305040470 030427 ( [Vergu gs,

$ PDRADOCK05000h Frank-1. Romano , Chairman gg G Air & Water Pollution Patrol CA Served by First Class Mail: Stephen H. Lewis, Esq; Robert L. Anthony; Marvin I Lewis;

.g Judith A. Dorsey, Esq; Edward G. Bauer, Jr.; Robert W. Adler; Ann Hogdon; Director PEMA; Q , Steven P. H2rshey, Esq; Walter W. Cohen; Robert J. Sugarman,Esq.; City of Philadelphia; pC9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appea) Panel (5); Docketing and Service Section; Troy B.

MmRsv & Mlmmhg Boagd3 Dro Richard F. Cole;