ML17056A975
| ML17056A975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1990 |
| From: | Murley T NRC |
| To: | Pooler R ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17056A976 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9009120011 | |
| Download: ML17056A975 (4) | |
Text
~
4
~
~
~it RE0I 0
co s
O i
us ts n ++*dc+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EGU LATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 31, 1990 Docket No. 50-220 (10 CFR 2.206)
Rosemary S. Pooler, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc.
658 West Onondaga Street
- Syracuse, New York 13204-3356
Dear Ms. Pooler:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your Petition of July 26, 1990, and your letter of the same date to the Commissioners.
Your Petition requests the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke Niagara Mohawk's license to operate Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit I (NMP-I) until such time as the torus is repaired, the company implements every generic letter and bulletin relating to safety, and until such time as the company demonstrates that it has the requisite management capability to operate a nuclear power plant.
You seek relief based on allegations that (1) there is continuing evidence of thinning of the torus walls, and that therefore the plant should not be allowed to restart before the torus is repaired; (2I the most recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report shows enduring evidence of managerial incompetence at NMP-l; and (3) the history of Niagara Mohawk's management, together with the specific questions relating to restart, call for a different standard at NMP-I than that applied to other plants with regard to implementation of all safety issues from generic letters and bulletins.
In your letter of July 26, 1990, to the Commissioners, you further specify questions relating to the basis stated herein for your Petition.
On behalf of the Commission, I will review these specific questions as part of the Petition and respond to them in my decision on the Petition; therefore, it will not be necessary for the NRC to respond separately to your letter of July 26.
'pI009i 200 ii 90083i PDR ADOCIl, 05000220 P
PNU o~Q
,oL
~
~
~,
~
~
The NRC will review the Petition in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.206 and I will issue a final decision with regard to it within a reasonable time.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the notice that is being filed for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Federal
~Re ister Notice cc w/enclosure and incoming:
See next page 5r'1'gi'asl signed bg Thomas E. Hurloy, ~
Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution:
Doc et-s e-50-220 w/incoming)-.
NRC/Local PDR RACapra EDO 85704 RMartin TMur1 ey/FMirag 1ia CVogan JPartlow GPA/CA SVarga PDI-1 RF RWessman ETana LChandler ~
OGC JLinville JDurr RWeisman
- See previous concurrence:
PDI-I:LA CVogan*
8/28/90 PDI-1:PM PDI-I:D RMartin*:rsc RACapra*
8/28/90 8/28/90 Tech Ed JMain*
8/24/90 OGC PD I-I:AD SHLewis*
RWessman*
8/28/90 8 /28/90 DPI-1: D SVarga*
8/28/90 NRR:ADP JPartlow*
8/28/90 TM rley DOCUMENT NAME:
Petition 2.206
II MPMPHP II
>>,PPl
'IIM g IIP I
H P
'll P
Hf I
I'IPP 1
~
'I IP
)I IlM H
li M& ~ ~
M
~
11 H
~
M
" Pl M
I
~
P I
If FM M
II 14
~ M e
P'