ML20043B271

Urges Commission to Keep Unit Closed Until Commission Holds Full & Complete Evidentiary Hearings to Consider Listed Concerns of Retire Nine Mile 1

ML20043B271
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/14/1990
From:	Pooler R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Carr K, Roberts T, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 9005250180
Download: ML20043B271 (4)

Text

- .- --. .---- - - --

l ATEANTICSTATFK .

i

_EGAL ~OU \ DA~~ O N , N C.

May 14, 1990 Chair Kenneth Carr Commissioner Thomas Roberts Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Cc.missioner Forrest Remick Commissioner James Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comr.ission Washington, D.C. 20$55 In Rega-d to Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Deur Chair Carr and Commissionerst

, I am writing on behalf of Retire Nine Mile 1, an organization made up of people who live in upstate New York, many of them very close to the Nine Mile Point Unit I 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 it closed until the Commission holds full and complete evidentiary hearings to consider the following concerns of Retire Nine Mile 1. We 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. If so, the Staf f surely inust have answers to the following questions

,.. which memb. ors of Reti g Nine Mile 1 hereby request.

r:nrntIC Iggggg

1. Has. Niagara Mohawk completed the actions required by all generic letters and bulletins issued by the NRC applicable to Nine Mile Point Unit 17

2. If not, please have the NRC Staff identify the,, safety 900525o180 9o0st4

{DR ADOCK 05000220 PDC 658 West Onondaga Street, Syracuse, New York 13204-3356 315-475 1170 a._

i

~

f Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Commissioners May 14, 1990 Page 2 requirements addressed in the generic letters and bulletins which have not been completed at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and explain why Nine Mile Point Unit 1 should be allowed to restart without implementing safety requirements which the NRC itself has deter-mined are needed.

THE INTEGRITY OF TEE TORDS ,

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 is 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 provide us with the answers before allowing the plant to restart:

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

2. What wero 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 mini. mum 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 l 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 Mark I t containments the torus and drywell have the same design pressure and thus have thicker torus walls than Nine Mile Foint 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

. . ~ , . . . _ . . - _ . _4 _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _. . . _ , _ _ . . . __ , _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ , _ _ . _ . . .

.c i

i Nuci.2r Reglatory Chair and Commissioners May 14, 1990 i 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 comyared to the already great incurred cost of the present prolongec, outage and the potential risk to the health and safety of the public,of postponement?

TWE IErTEGRITT'AED LUMPETEBCE OF n w 4n -T Recently it was revealed Qby a local television station and not Niagara Mohawk) that a spell of radioactive water was concealed by Niagara Mohawk from the NRC and, of course, the public for eleven years. The same management which elected to illegally koop secret important regulatory information is still "in charge a.

Hansgement inability to guarantee performance 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. With this back-ground, what basis is there now for believing that Niagara Mohawk has the requisite integrity and technical competence to operate Nine Mile Point Unit 17 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-Jy 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 reached only after a full-evidentiary

hearing where members of Retire Nine Mile 1, other members of the

• I- public, and state officials can participate, sincerely yours, W

Rosemary S. Pooler, Esq. +

Vice President for Legal Affairs

e

%dd%%%%%%%%WA%%%%%Wd%%%d4Afffw g ggg g TPM!$MITTAt. TO: Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Room li DATE: g5/ /96 h

( /

FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch {:1 g

, i Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and I;l g

placement in the Public Document Room. - No other distritution is requested or g l

reouired.

l Meeting

Title:

8Mu b/, #% hMd zfy .c ) h kLos / h &s L S '

f Meeting Date: ,

M/ Mt 9 r>

Open N Closed '

1

'- E Item Oescription*: Copies '

Advanced DCS

'8

[ to POR C3 i e

b l l 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 "li k

t u/ M g -

i:-

4 .

l 2. % & f. > m . L ~ h b m _ L I i.

E J:

sum Laa k .5L. -

1' z 3. v 4 4 1 4 M/yo

,E, 2

1 >

E 1 ,

, 2 6 2 );

t 4. e L E e

L 3 5 2 6 l i- 5-i e

a i  !;

= , .

g- ,,

- . . . . 3 I"

3 ,

h

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.  !

j C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY papers.

p 5

$.)gp7_

un -  %

L L c