ML20203P079
| ML20203P079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1986 |
| From: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1081 EW, NUDOCS 8610200245 | |
| Download: ML20203P079 (1) | |
Text
,
/
MARVlN LEWIS n
/
7801 ROOSEVELT BLVD. 042 PHILA., PA 19152 WmnnM151tg 00L FE n c 10-9-86.
U.PF.C theAtomicSafetyandLicengngpog{q Before In the Matter of Eduard Wallace 16 ET 15 P3 :25 Docket No 50-289 EU TMI#1.
f,,Q 3G0Fri'l 3 _
b, 00ChE?lhG a Flir:1.
Look, I don't agree with the conclusion and finding thakRAh?M Ed Wallace should have the notification requirement lifted.
Here are my reasons:
Uhen a charge is brought the entire reccrd stands to cause the action that the Board took against Mr Uallace. Suddenly without reviewing any of the record or finding that any of the original record was flavod or unfair the Board nou reverses itself on the original caveat against'Mr Wallace.
This flies in the face of all jurisprudence.
There is no reason to build a record if it will be ignored in handling subsequent petitions.
What the Board is saying is that take a murderer, Convict nim. Sentence him to life imprisonment or death. But let him out of any punishment if subsequent to the conviction anybody presents'an uncontested petition.
The lau should not and does not work that way. All this decision does is show the World hou farcical nuclear regulation is when handled by the NRC and its Boards.
You'have not only shown that the NRC is a farce but brought disgrace upon your own heads.
I uish that I could say Respectfully submitted,
[
o I
(215) 624 1574 B6102OO245 861009 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0
PDR D99
_