ML20117M494

Discusses Restart Plan for Millstone Unit 3

ML20117M494
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/16/1996
From:	External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20117M437	List: ML20117M494
References
NUDOCS 9609170458
Download: ML20117M494 (2)

Text

-

,n w a. :. :.

...+:......

.s CITIZENS REGULATORY COMMISSION Neighbors Asking Questions 18o Great Neck Road PHONE (060)WI13 w. w ford, c T 063ss FAX (Odo)4440113 The Honorable Shirley Jackson Chamnen U. S. Nuclear Reguhsory Comenssion j

Washington, D.C. 20555 @ 01 July 16,1996 Dear Chamnen Jackson Agam we find ourselves writmg to you, this time in regard to th: recent announcement by your maff of a moeung on July 24th,1996. Our understanding is that the public will be allowed to ask quesnons of the NRC with regard to Northeast Utilities n:-mart plan for Millmone Unit 3.

In early July, Northeast Utilities submitted a re-start plan to the NRC staffin response to an j

order by the NRC on March 4,1996. The order reqmred NU to submit under osah or adBrra=*w=

additional informarma pursaant to Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as====ria4 and 10CFR 50.54(f) 30 days prior to restart The plan was 800 pages, and idenufied over 1200 coenpliance issues. In the plan, we are told that NU proposes to correct about 600 of these issues, leaving the rest to be cxurocaed at some later time frame Apparently your staff has been able to E- ; '- E a review, and is now going to hold public rwiew hearings Many goespons came to our minds:

Why would the NRC staff even consider tins type of proposal froen NU7 h scems to be contradictory to it's order of March 4,1996 How could the NRC miew this proposal in such a short time, make a decision for pddic review, and attil not have ad a decision on the August 21,1995 2.206 Petition that senesed all this in the first place?

Likewise, the Petnion, NRC inspecuan reports and OlO Investigative reports appear to

=*m*=ri=*e that NU enher breaks it's promises to the public and the NRC, or fails to property immitate conecuve programs it has comumtted to for pnot infrucnans of NRC rules.

To date there has been no =~==*dminy for hVs aedans and val =*maa. Woukki't you expect

^*14y? We expect M!ny, including crinunal prosecuhon griar to re-start of any unit.

To date there has been no =---- - ^% for the NRCs inarman and everiney Wouldn't you expect himy? We expect arm =ed= Hey, inciedmg the reeuwel af TAYLOR, RU11211.,

LIEBERMAN, IEITS, MARTIN, WIGGINS, MCKEE, DURR, and SWETLAND How can the pubiac he W to adequasely cemment on a restart plan it has amt been allowed so see, la anoes remw.7 9609170458 960905 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

l 1

.s....

.:n l

l l

In short Dr. Jadoon we see no reason for any re-start plan at this point an time. We see no m for a restart plan revien mecaing either! If a regaart review pddse mecung should be suowed it should at least require an equal ances of review thne to the pubiac as was allowed to the NRC stadt'. The clock 1

is M M M d h w e l

l l

WOy, l

l The Citizens Regulatory Conutussion Steering Commuttee l

1 I

I I

l 1

i i

l l

I l

I I

i I

l l

r I

1 1

i l

l 1

4 I

p 4,m

.r.-

--..,-s-

-_s 4

4 g

}

UNITED STATES 5

f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

...../

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066EW)001 l

September 13,1996 l

l NOTE FOR: Document Control Desk 1

I l

FROM:

Doris Mossburg, Chief Correspondence & Records Branch Office of the Secretary l

The enclosed document (s) are to be entered into the l

DCS. An advanced copy has been sent to the Public i

Document Room.

PLEASE INDEX INDIVIDUALLY.

l j

J l

i a