ML20073R666
| 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
L..T -2 P!2 :02 W
In The Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAfri (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) k.y.; Ti Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 w:iC 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 Dr Richard F. Cole; o