ML19274G195: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Y                                r1M b            0        /
{{#Wiki_filter:Y                                r1M b            0        /
CO 9#go CAMMER 8 SHAPIRO. P. C.      9                    gy g l ATTORNEY 5 AT LAT      2                h    fl
CO 9#go CAMMER 8 SHAPIRO. P. C.      9                    gy g l ATTORNEY 5 AT LAT      2                h    fl d '-    fM                ' ul ;a m sikitI HARCLD I CANtAtER                  \.b pqD                    'l^I?MI    ' i  VI' '
                                                            -
d '-    fM                ' ul ;a m sikitI HARCLD I CANtAtER                  \.b pqD                    'l^I?MI    ' i  VI' '
RALPit SHMik0 ROBERT C uthtER              /
RALPit SHMik0 ROBERT C uthtER              /
                                       ,      cn      >    ne 28, 1979 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairnerson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re:    In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
                                       ,      cn      >    ne 28, 1979 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairnerson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re:    In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Line 34: Line 32:
In other words, if what was done did not conform to specifications, the specifications were modified to conform to what was done rather than the other way around.
In other words, if what was done did not conform to specifications, the specifications were modified to conform to what was done rather than the other way around.
A realistic and thorough inspection of the Shoreham plant is necessary to see if the changes that were made comply with safety requirements.
A realistic and thorough inspection of the Shoreham plant is necessary to see if the changes that were made comply with safety requirements.
zl5                                                  Yours truly,            203"7          i c3
zl5                                                  Yours truly,            203"7          i c3 7908 3 00 M3 cc:  To All Parties}}
.-
                                                                                                  -
7908 3 00 M3 cc:  To All Parties}}

Latest revision as of 18:29, 1 February 2020

Notifies That Intervenor North Shore Committee Against Nuclear & Thermal Pollution Joins Intervenor Suffolk County 790517 & 0620 Requests
ML19274G195
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 06/28/1979
From: Shapira R
Cammer & Shapiro
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19274G196 List:
References
NUDOCS 7908300393
Download: ML19274G195 (1)


Text

Y r1M b 0 /

CO 9#go CAMMER 8 SHAPIRO. P. C. 9 gy g l ATTORNEY 5 AT LAT 2 h fl d '- fM ' ul ;a m sikitI HARCLD I CANtAtER \.b pqD 'l^I?MI ' i VI' '

RALPit SHMik0 ROBERT C uthtER /

, cn > ne 28, 1979 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairnerson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322

Dear Ms. Bowers:

Intervenor North Shore Committee Against Nuclear and Thermal Pollution joins in the requests of Irving Like, Esq. in behalf of the County of Suffolk, dated May 17 and renewed June 20.

Applicant's response of May 29 emphasizes the need for the independent audit requested by Mr. Like. Novarro's affidavit of May 25, annexed to the applicant's response, avers that design and construction changes are initiated, approved, and effectuated by LILCO and Stone & Webster personnel. It admits there is no independent review of such changes prior to their effectuation, precisely the point stressed by Mr. Like.

The Novarro affidavit, as does the staff reply of June 12, concentrates on compliance with NRC regulations about record-keeping and does not meet the safety issue stressed by Mr. Like.

Compliance with record-keeping regulations is, of course, not the issue. The real issue is the extent to which NRC staff, and it 1s to be hoped the applicant, has been shocked by the Three-Mile Island "near miss" into a more active and realistic appraisal and supervision of design, control, and safety factors.

The records found in the Town of Southold dump convey the impression that when a conflict existed between specifications and practice, the specifications were modified to meet the practice.

In other words, if what was done did not conform to specifications, the specifications were modified to conform to what was done rather than the other way around.

A realistic and thorough inspection of the Shoreham plant is necessary to see if the changes that were made comply with safety requirements.

zl5 Yours truly, 203"7 i c3 7908 3 00 M3 cc: To All Parties