ML20134E152
| ML20134E152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1996 |
| From: | Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Zwolinski J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D719 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611010006 | |
| Download: ML20134E152 (1) | |
Text
)
From:
PAUL M. BLANCH <PMBLANCH@ix.netcom.com>
To:
JZ <JAZWOL0aol.com>
Date:
9/10/96_6:10am
Subject:
INDEPENDENCE John:
You are getting much better with your letters.
I am enclosing a copy of your recent letter to me where I asked a simple question and that was if Millstone 2 employees would be allowed to be involved in the independent assessment of Millstone Unit 3.
Your response was:
"No current employee of NU or NNEC0 who has been involved with Millstone Unit 3 will be accepted as a member of the Millstone Unit 3 ICAVP team.
Contractors and former employees that have previously worked on Unit 3 or have a current financial interest in NU or NNEC0 will also be precluded from the team.
The ICAVP team members will be selected by the organization contracted to perform the ICAVP.
The team members will be approved by NRC prior to the ICAVP implementation."
I guess this means YES and that other NU employees may be involved in this assessment.
One other condition of the order is:
"[w]hether the individual has any financial interest in Northeast Utilities (NU)"
Are we, as members of the public to assume that employees of NU have no financial interest in NU and will not be influenced by the desires of NU management?
Let's try again.
(1) WILL NU EMPLOYEES BE ALLOWED ON THIS TEAM?
(2) WILL PREVIOUS NU EMPLOYEES BE ALLOWED ON THIS TEAM?
(3) CAN THE STATE OF CONNETICUT APP 0 INT ANY MEMBERS TO THIS TEAM?
John, we want straight answers and if a question can be answered with a simple yes or no then please give us this straight answer. This is the type of communication that results in the loss of public confidence with the NRC.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTONs D.C.