ML19270H661

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:29, 25 October 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Onsite Study of Plant Due to Constituent Interest in Safety.Requests Made on 790709 & 1015 Did Not Receive Adequate Response
ML19270H661
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 11/26/1979
From: Downey T
HOUSE OF REP., WAYS AND MEANS
To: Hendrie J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19270H662 List:
References
NUDOCS 8001020502
Download: ML19270H661 (1)


Text

THOM AS J, Or=wNT,Y g

  • 3

. 3 D' *N, N gwe Ysa4 =a* - - . * .3 WAYS AP*O M EAN5

, ,

,) M SvsCow er"TMs:

n n u,.

  • -

,Jmm o m . .. . ....3.'...% e 1em

~T nce-.. s .22z, ns. m s ,  : Ass s 4 ej a,.o m u-uv . = su.ccr comwrrte on Acm  !

~ ~ . -

we m .u..,.n r .. um

.gause ats nept:semtr.ats ,!

vac, .. m .3 ..: ..'"

Chshin;;t::n, D.C. 20515

f. D 7

l '. -

November 26, 1979 3  !..

of

.N q j v

.c -

t' s

Q W*

-

F-h0731\G

~

Y j

Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Uuclear Regulatory Commission

b j h [m'&j ,gs

f 5._

N 4 gj Washington, D.C. 20555

,o,

~(

u, O  :, I

'

Dear Joe:

d I must, unfortunately, complain to you about the un- {

responsiveness of your staff. 1 Ii On July 9, 1979, I requested an on-site study of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in Suffolk County. On July 13th, i I received the standard acknowledgement promising " prompt j attention". On September 26th, I received a totally un- l responsive and wholly inadequate letter that did nothing more g than explain the existing licensing regulations for nuclear power plants. Cn October 15, 1979, I again wrote to request .

an on-site study and, on October 26th, I received again the

" prompt attention" acknowledgement. I have enclosed copies of this correspondence for your information.

I am greatly disturbed at the cavalier manner with which my request was treated. It certainly should have been  ;

possible to respond in a substantive manner or, at the very j least, to explain why such a response could not be formulated. '

l l

In light of recent events there is renewed interest in  !

my district in the overall question of nuclear power and the -

!

safety of the Shoreham plant in particular. I would, therefore i greatly appreciate your personally reviewing my original [

r request that is now over fcur months old.

. .

.en

-

. ._ . . .- - -.

-

. . U.

.

.-Thank you for your condsideration. _ . i-".3 .

. . _ . - - .. .. _ _ _ _

- . - - Sincerely, '3 4

. . _ _

.

4 __ . --

a

/. . E --i

/ e, [, ,' _i

-- . . - . . .

~

. . - . _ _

.

_ .

_ . . . _. I M OMAS J.. . .DOWNEY .. _ _ _ _ . . .

_

d Member of-Congress  !

.

'

TJD/sc:ame . -- . .

b79 J45 __

- . , - _ .

.

- . _ .

Q 8001020 D M