ML18038A304

Urges That Commission Keep Plant Closed for Economic & Safety Reasons Until Full & Complete Evidentiary Hearings to Consider Concerns of Retire Nine Mile 1

ML18038A304
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/14/1990
From:	Pooler R ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC., RETIRE NINE MILE 1
To:	Carr K, Roberts T, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML18038A303	List: ML18038A304
References
NUDOCS 9006270092
Download: ML18038A304 (6)

Text

a o AllANTICSTATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.

May 14, 1990 Chair Kenneth Carr Commissioner Thomas Roberts Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Commissioner Forrest Remick Commissioner James Curtiss V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hashington, D.C. 20555 Xn Regard to Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Dear Chair Carr and Commissioners>

l am writing made up on behalf of Retire Nine Mil.e 1, an organization of people who live in upstate New York, many of them very close to the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 nuclear generating station, who believe that from both an .economic and safety point of view, Nine Mile Point Unit 1 should be decommissioned.

The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 plant has been closed since December, 1987, and we are writing to urge the Commission to keep until the Commission holds full and complete evidentiary hearings it closed to consider the following concerns of Retire Nine Mile 1. He be-lieve that without a hearing and a full examination the NRC cannot assure the requisite health and safety of the public.

Since a briefing by the Staff on Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is on the Commission agenda for May 14, 1990 the Staff may be in agreement with Niagara Mohawk that the plant is ready for restart. Zf so, the Staff surely muse have answers to the following questions which members of Retire Nine Mile 1 hereby request, GENERIC XSSUES

1. Has Niagara Mohawk completed the actions requixed by all generic lettexs and bulletins issued by the NRC applicable'to Nine Mile Point Unit 1?

2. Zf not, please have the NRC Staff identify the safety 658 West Onondaga Street, Syracuse, New York 13204-3356 31 5475-1170 900627009+ 900gPg PD CQggP gPCC QP recycledPaPer CORRESPONDENCE PDC 4~~ >~

e

~ l

'Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Commissioners May 14, 1990 Page 2 I

rrequ quirements reme addressed in the generic letters and bulletins which have not been completed at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and explain wh y Nine Mile Point Unit 1 should= be allowed to restart without implementing safety requirements which the NRC itself has deter-mined are needed.

THE XHTSGRITT OP THE TORUS We are aware of the NRC's response of June 5, 1989 to the Ecology Center of Southern California's generic complaint about the General Electric Mark I containment. We believe that Nine Mile Unit. 1 can be distinguished from the NRC's response to that Petition because in the specific case of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, there ia continuing evidence of the thinning of the torus walls.

While Niagara Mohawk contends in their letter to the Commission of November 22, 1989 that there is "sufficient wall thickness...to provide at least one additional operating cycle at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 before corrective actions must be taken",

recent reports of accelerated corrosion rates at Oyster Creek raise grave doubts about the validity of the basis of Niagara Mohawk's 'assertions.,

Members of Retire Nine Mile 1 especially request that the Commis-sion ask the following questions, and pr'ovide ua with the answers before allowing the plant to restarts

1. For what. percentage of the torus wall have thickness measurements been made?

2. What were the results?

3. Has the NRC or will the NRC require Niagara Mohawk to measure the thickness of the entire torus before permitting the plant to restart? If not, why not?

4. What is the minimum required wall thickness?

5. What -is the standard or basis for saying that that is the minimum 'required torus wall thickness given that the torus at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (and at Oyster Creek) were--unlike all other Mark I containments originally designed only to withstand a lower pressure than the drywell? In all subsequent Hark I containmenta the torus and drywell have the same design pressure and thus have thicker torus walla than Nine Mile Point Unit 1.

6. Niagara Mohawk contends in a March, 1990 Economic Analy-sis of Continued Operation of the Nine Mile Point Unit. 1 Nuclear

I V

~ ~

~ V 0

A Nuclear Reglatory Chair and Commissioners May 14, 1990 Page 3 Station prepared for the New York Public Service Commission, page S-4, that it will cost "less than $ 15 million to correct" the torus. what is the purpose of postponing this repair given the relatively low cost of such repair'compared to the already great incurred cost of the present prolonged outage and the potential risk to the health and safety of the public of postponement?

0 Recently it was revealed (by a local television station and not Niagara Mohawk) that a spill. of radioactive water was concealed by Niagara Mohawk fzom the NRC and, of couxse, the public for eleven years. The same management which elected to illegally keep secretimportant regulatory informati.on is charge",

still "in Management inability to guarantee perfoxmance standards and quality control has been a continuing theme of the NRC's com-plaints about Nine Mile Point Unit 1. Indeed, complaints about management competence and veracity have been a feature of both state and federal regulation of Niagara Mohawk for years.

Given the great deal of attention that the NRC focused on manage-rial competence and integrity at Three Mile Island, we believe that their importance cannot be overstated. Kith this back-ground, what basis is-theze now for believing that Niagaxa Mohawk has the requisite integrity and technical competence to opexate Nine Mile Point Unit 1? Specifically, can the Commission be sure that the health and safety of the public can be assured-given'the most recent SALP report which continues to document operator failure?

In conclusion, the members of Retire Nine Mile 1 believe that, a decision to permit restart,,made under pressure from a financial-ly prostrate utility can hardly provide the public with any assurance that the decision is based only on the company having achieved an adequate level of safety. Moreover, we believe that such assessment can be xeached only after a full evidentiary hearing where members o'f Retire Nine Mile 1, other members of the public, and state officials can participate.

Sincerely yours, Rosemary S. Pooler, Esq.

Vice President foz Legal Affairs

a ~S t