ML20205D990: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 00:16, 7 December 2021
| ML20205D990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/1985 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Parker G INTERNATIONAL NUTRONICS, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D814 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-317 NUDOCS 8510170168 | |
| Download: ML20205D990 (25) | |
Text
'
, a* ' 8 4,,,, UNITED STATES
..f, ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ . ia '
E REClON I 3 f saicann AvcNut n:NG or enusse A. PENNsYLV ANI A 19406 ,
APR 19 1985 Mr. Gregory A. Parker Vice President - Corporate Counsel International Nutronics, Inc.
1237 North San Antonio Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Dear Mr. Parker In an Order dated June 11, 1984, you were required, among other things, to accomplish later than October final decontamination 19, 1984. However, of your facility in Dover, New Jersey, no in a letter to the NRC dated September April 19, 1985, 6,1984, you requested an extension of the time limit until facility caused by your inability to finance the ef fort. Yourbased request upon of a delay in September 6 was granted in our letter of October 12, 1984. In your letter of March 13, 1985, you requested an extension of the completion date for decontaminating Jersey facility from and April decommissioning International Nutronics' (INI) Oover, New 19, 1985 to July 19, 1985.
In your March 13, 1985 letter, you state that several reasons have caused unforeseen delay, including, but not limited to: (1) equipment failure; (2) problems incident to waste shipments; (3) employee staf fing problems; (4) lack of pool visibility due to suspended sediment; and, (5) required procedure amendments.
NRC inspectors have visited your facility on approximately a weekly basis over the past year and have determined that, although the pace of your clean-up has not met the milestone dates contained in problems you have encountered.
During a telephone conversation on April 17, 1985, Bruce Thomas of your staff informed Dr. John Glenn of my staf f that: (1) Envirocare, Inc. , the decontamination contractor, has been dismissed from the project; (2) Lexington Insurance Co., has restated its commitment to fund the entire decontamination effort, the work. and; (3) INI is in the process of obtaining a contractor to complete In light of these events, and pursuant to section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to enable the NRC to determine whether your request for an extension of time should be granted, you are required within 20 days following: from the date of this letter to submit written information relative to the 1.
What are your plans, including schedule, to obtain the services of a contractor to perform the balance of the required work?
2.
What are your the required plans, including schedule, to perform the balance of work?
I
,a 8510170160 050930 PDR FOIA SWICER05-317 PDR
]
.* j Mr. Gregory A. Parker 2
- i
- In addition, you should provide to me in your submittal, a written statement from Lexington Ir.surance Co., verifying their continued commitment to fund the
- i, decontamination effort, and include in that statement whether there is any qualification or limit on that commitment, and if so, specify what they are.
Pursuant to section III.5 of the Order, dated June 11, 1984, and section III.5 of the Order, dated January 30, 1984, your reque:t for an extension up to and including July 19, 1985, is hereby denied. However, we are granting you an extension of 30 days from the date of this letter to enable you to answer the questions and for us to evaluate the response. Your response must be made 1 within 20 days of this letter.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator cc: Bruce Thomas bec: J. Allan i
J. Gutierrez T. Martin J. Joyner J. Glenn/
- 0. Holody
- J. Axlerad IE l
l
)
3
!