ML20195E650: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _                      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
  !.                                              i M Wl.I,il nv-EN@@                                      A 88 OCT 28 P3 :02
                                            $$0ORlDY@WAYC0                    @IE heneed                      October 24, 1988 h #a 'U                        "
i l'      S' c ear Regulatory Commission                      COCKET MR.iEIR Washington, D.C.              20555                          PETIT;0t! RULE PRM SD w Attention:          Docketing & Service Branch gg              y w              7 Er: Docket No.PRM-50-62 of 10 CFR Part 50
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
i
!              We support the request that the NRC reinstate financial qualifications                                                                                  [
of utilities as a consideration in the operating licensing hearings for electric utilities.
4-          .
This issue has direct and indirect bearing on public henith and safety.
A utility that is under financial duress, often a result of ineffective                                                                                  '
management, may take short cuts in operation and procedures which result                                                                                  i in accidental releases of radiation that endanger the public.                                                                                            ;
Our experience in researching the Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco),
givec us reason to believe that large, unplanned expenser have greatly                                                                                  '
wea!.ened the utility, with no relief in sight.                    This weakened fiscal                                                                  ,
;              condition can translate into substandard operation.                                                                                                      !
We were told that PECo has poured over 5350 million into refurbishing
,              Peach Bottom, plus has the continuing monthly cost of 35 million each                                                                                    5 i              month (now 19 months, with no restart in sight) for replacement power                                                                                    -
while Peach Bottom is out of service. Another 59 million a month cost is split among the three other partner utilities. These three utilities                                                                                  -
have sued PECo $250 million to recover these costs.                                                      Early this year some PECo stockholders announced a lawsuit against management for its                                                                                    {
t gross mismanagement of Peach Bottom.
l PEco estimates it will cost $80 million to repair a rndioactive fuel                                                                                    !
leak at Limerick I that was detected this pas.t August .
PEco's long history of incompetence and irresponsibility should have                                                                                    [
been a factor in considering the licensing of Limerick I and II.                                                                          It is        ;
]'            irresponsible nf tha VRC to rescind the rule which elimir.ates finanelal                                                                                  !
          -  qu n ', i f i c a t i on s f rom ec>nwidn at ion, in linnaing.                                                                  -'-
j              P!ce-e r r. i n s t e L c t tri s Tu1W                                                                                                                  l 8813100038 801024                                                        Si"C'PC'"'                                                            *
                                                                                                                                                                    ,  i M                                                                          [+, cc.h                                                  NM '
hR,, $2                PDR                                    /
EQBOX902/COLUhBA,MD/210M                                                                                                  i GOD 381-2714/433-4674                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                            .bu a    ;}}

Latest revision as of 15:26, 16 December 2020

Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM 50-52 Re NRC Reinstatement of Financial Qualifications of Util as Consideration in Operating Licensing Hearings for Electric Utils
ML20195E650
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom, Limerick, 05000000
Issue date: 10/24/1988
From: Birnie P
MARYLAND NUCLEAR SAFETY COALITION
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR32913, RULE-PRM-50-52 53FR32913-00005, 53FR32913-5, NUDOCS 8811100038
Download: ML20195E650 (1)


Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

!. i M Wl.I,il nv-EN@@ A 88 OCT 28 P3 :02

$$0ORlDY@WAYC0 @IE heneed October 24, 1988 h #a 'U "

i l' S' c ear Regulatory Commission COCKET MR.iEIR Washington, D.C. 20555 PETIT;0t! RULE PRM SD w Attention: Docketing & Service Branch gg y w 7 Er: Docket No.PRM-50-62 of 10 CFR Part 50

Dear Sir:

i

! We support the request that the NRC reinstate financial qualifications [

of utilities as a consideration in the operating licensing hearings for electric utilities.

4- .

This issue has direct and indirect bearing on public henith and safety.

A utility that is under financial duress, often a result of ineffective '

management, may take short cuts in operation and procedures which result i in accidental releases of radiation that endanger the public.  ;

Our experience in researching the Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco),

givec us reason to believe that large, unplanned expenser have greatly '

wea!.ened the utility, with no relief in sight. This weakened fiscal ,

condition can translate into substandard operation.  !

We were told that PECo has poured over 5350 million into refurbishing

, Peach Bottom, plus has the continuing monthly cost of 35 million each 5 i month (now 19 months, with no restart in sight) for replacement power -

while Peach Bottom is out of service. Another 59 million a month cost is split among the three other partner utilities. These three utilities -

have sued PECo $250 million to recover these costs. Early this year some PECo stockholders announced a lawsuit against management for its {

t gross mismanagement of Peach Bottom.

l PEco estimates it will cost $80 million to repair a rndioactive fuel  !

leak at Limerick I that was detected this pas.t August .

PEco's long history of incompetence and irresponsibility should have [

been a factor in considering the licensing of Limerick I and II. It is  ;

]' irresponsible nf tha VRC to rescind the rule which elimir.ates finanelal  !

- qu n ', i f i c a t i on s f rom ec>nwidn at ion, in linnaing. -'-

j P!ce-e r r. i n s t e L c t tri s Tu1W l 8813100038 801024 Si"C'PC'"' *

, i M [+, cc.h NM '

hR,, $2 PDR /

EQBOX902/COLUhBA,MD/210M i GOD 381-2714/433-4674  !

.bu a  ;