ML20217C159
| ML20217C159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1997 |
| From: | Del Core D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217C047 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G970140, NUDOCS 9803260334 | |
| Download: ML20217C159 (2) | |
Text
03/05/1997 16:58 es68462828 ORBIT INC PAGE 01 U.-
Reference:
.6970140 Donald % DelCore, Sr.
4 DriscollDrive Action:
Collins, NRR Uncasville, CT.06382-1808 Cys:
callan Jordan Thompson Norry
~
~
Mr. Leonard 1 Callan,EDO r 0GC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion Goldberg, OGC Washington, D. C. 20555 Burns. OGC March 4,1997
FACSIMILE
Dear Mr.. Callan:
Please include me as a Co-Petitioner to the 10 CFR 2.2% petition ofMr. Albert A.
Cizek. As you are aware Mr.'Cizek has petitioned the NRC to modify the licenses of Mdistone 1, 2, & 3, and Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plants. I am in support of the Proposed License Conditions spelled out in the peitition for both plants.
The rationale submitted by Mr. Cizek fully supports the proposed license madihtions. I myself, in a recent letter to NRC Chairman Shirley A. Jackson, dated February 1,1997, suggested that Northeast Utilities ( NU ) was incapable, and unworthy ofholding a heense to operate such a dangerous technology as nuclear power. There does rot seem to be any question that NU has knowingly and willingly violated the terms of their ' perating licenses, NRC Regulations, UFSAR, and its omt policies and o
procedures for safely operating it's plants. The problem has gorie on for years and years unsbated by your staff. I guess the real questions are; When is your staff going to realize what hil others know as fact?, and When are they going to do something about it?
In support of Mr. Cirek's contentions, I would like to emphasize the lack of enforcement action, and the support of that lack ofenforcement by the NRC management, both regionally, und at headquarters, including the Commission itself. That is quite plainly established by the partial 10 CFR 2.206 decision rendered by your staffin the George Galatis' petition. ( Also mentioned in my Feb.1,97' to the Chairman.) Further evidence oflack of enforcement is evident by a simple review ofmy 10 CFR 2.206 submitted in S pe==6r,1993, and a fbliow-up written complaint to the OIG ( Mr. Leo Norton ) in December 1993 regarding improper and inadequate enforcement action by the NRC.
.The NRC has had a long history ofissuing non-cited violations, even when those violatio'ns involve cases ofrepeat violations. While an infiniteshnal amount of violations have resuhed in accelerated enforcement action by the NRC staff, the vast majority of -
violations are not even looked at for repeat violations. Many were not even cited, that were fully quamd to be violations, and even repeats ofviolations. Look at the Unit # 3
. reports dealing with the repeated violations associated with remotely operated solenoid valve for Delution System. The NRC staff allowed at least six ( 6 ) occunences at Unit #
3, with no more than a level 4 vloistion. Not bed for a serious problem with a reactivity addhion consequence. Based on the policy that was in 10 CFR 2 app. C, NU would have had h's. license suspended long ago if the NRC had not protected them.
9803260334 980211-E PDR ADOCK 05000213 0
,eg.83/es/1997 18:58 8688482828 ORBIT INC PAGE 82
.J on a separate issue, the long term problem ofprocedure non-cotopliance, and inadequaie procedures contin = to this day with either level 4 violations, or non-cited violations. One only has to reviewjust the last two years ofroutine la=a~*ian sports to WaaeWe that issue. Looking at the last ten ( 10 ) years will absolutely amaze the reviewer. Looking into issues of tagging control, and work contro1 will produce similar resuks to the procedure issues, and again continues to this day.
A review of all routine inspection reports for the past two years, would compare about the same as the last three ( 3 ) routine reports, everithough the plants have been on the watch list since January 1,1996. It is as if nothlag has ekanged. The NRC staff would probably blame it on the W-up NRC inspection coverage.
Touching on issues ofextreme importance regarding NRC and NU credibDhy and ethics, one only has to look at the Millstone Radwaste Facility management and deceit by NU, ard the a look the other way " oversight by the NRC stafE Another classic example of NU and NRC collusion is the restart of Unit # 2 in July of 1995. Not only was the Radwaste issue ongoing at the time, but the NRC allowed the restart of Unit # 2 with an incomplete restart plan, and many of the issues targeted for corrective action prior to the restart were not accomplished, but are still restart issues today. How can that be?
A review of all the information presented in this letter will provide the petition reviewers with more than enough evidence to support many of Mr. Cizek's contentions. I then formally request the inclusion of all evidence by way of all my previous allegations to the NRC, all my previous communications with the NRC, all communi~ ations with OIO c
staff, and all communications with all NRC Chdiven and Commissioners be included as evidence to support the March 3,199710 CFR 2.206 Petition of Albert A. Cizek.
Sincerely, i
na
. Del Core, Sr.
c/c: Alber! A. Cizek E. C. Hadley, Esq.
g 4
h pn nicoq
'y*
t UNITED STATES s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
wa:HINGTON, D.C. 3066M001 Y+,*....,o April 8, 1997 Ernest C. Hadley, Esq.
1040 B Main Street West Wareham, MA 02576
Dear Mr. Hadley:
This letter acknowledges receipt of a Petition to 10 CFR 2.206 submitted by you on March 3,1997, on behalf of Albert A. Cizek (Petitioner). The. Petition was addressed to the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and requests that the licenses of the three Millstone nuclear reactors and the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor held by Northeast Utilities (NU or the licensee) be modified by placing cprtain conditions on the operating licenses of each of these facilities.
The Petition has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for preparation of a response.
The Petitioner alleges that NU has knowingly, willingly, and recklessly operated Millstone Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Haddam Neck in violation of their respective operating licenses, the regulations of the NRC, and their respective updated final safety analysis reports (UFSARs) for a prolonged period of time, which unnecessarily but significantly compromised public health and safety by eroding the required defense-in-depth philosophy; and knowingly, willingly, and intentionally harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against its employees who raise safety concerns in violation of U.S. statutes and NRC regulations for a prolonged period of time, which also unnecessarily but significantly compromised public health and safety by eroding the required defense-in-depth philosophy. The Petitioner further alleges that in the absence of express license conditions, there is no reasonable assurance that NU will cease and desist from engaging in these activities in the future.
The Petitioner requests a number of actions. The Petitioner seeks to have the following license conditions imposed on the operating licenses of Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 and Haddam Neck:
1.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three license violations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any L3-year) period, irrespective of the violation level, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
NRC FILE CENTER COPY #
9 I
1 The Citizens Regulatory Commission of Waterford, Connecticut, Donald W, t
Del Core, Sr., of Uncasv111e, Connecticut, and Anthony Ross of Pawleys Island,1 1
South Carolina, have each requested, via separate letters, to be a co-i petitioner.
e
-9704tTOT47~470408 dnD.
PDR ADOCK 05000213
'ff Q
Ernest C. Hadley 2.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, including all applicable appendices, from the U.S.
)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any [3-year) period, irrespective of.the violation level, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
3.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three violations of the UFSAR from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any
[3-year) period, irrespective of the violation level, the operating 1
license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
4.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving any harassment, intimidation and discrimination ("HI&D") finding by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, or any [5] tate or [F]ederal court of competent jurisdiction, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
5.
If, within [5] years of a license suspension based on paragraphs 1 through 4 above, the licensee receives a total of three license violations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, irrespective of the violation level; receives a total of three violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, including all applicable appendices, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, irrespective of violation level; receives a total of three violations of the UFSAR from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0
Commission, irrespective of violation level; or receives any HI&D finding by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department 1
of Labor, or any [S) tate or [F]ederal court of competent jurisdiction, I
the operating license of that facility shall be permanently revoked within 90 calendar days.
6.
In the event that the license of a facility is revoked pursuant to paragraph 5, no operation of that facility for the purpose of generating electric power shall be permitted during the pendency of any administrative or judicial processes or appeals related to such revocation.
7.
In'the event that the license of a facility is suspended or revoked
, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
underparagraphs[1]through[5]icenseetomaintainthefacilityin shall designate.an appropriate j
shutdown mode for the duration of the suspension or until such time as a j
new licensee is found to operate the facility. [ Footnote omitted) NU l
shall be responsible for all expenses related to the operation of the facility during such shutdown. NU shall be required to post a bond in
)
the amount of $500,000,000 (five hundred million) as reasonable i
assurance that it can fulfill this requirement.
J l
l i
a Ernest C. Hadley The Petitioner further requests that these license conditions be imposed on the operating licenses of Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 before NRC Commission approval to start up any of those >1 ants, and further requests that these license conditions be imposed on t se operating license of Haddam Neck before any decommissioning of that plant.
Additionally, the Petitioner requests that public hearings on the Petition be scheduled in the immediate vicinity of the Millstone and Haddam Neck reactors for the presentation of further evidence in support of the Petition. The Petitioner specifically requests that these pu>1ic hearings be held and that a decision on this Petition be issued before restart or decommissioning of any of these units.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will take action with regard to the issues raised in the Petition within a reasonable time. However, the Director's Decision may be delayed as a result'of ongoing investigations by the Office of Jnvestigations and the Office of the Inspector General.
-With regard to the Petitioner's request to hold a public hearing, the NRC staff has decided not to hold such a hearing. However, if the Petitioner has additional information to support the Petition, the Petitioner is asked to promptly supply that information to the NRC staff in writing.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
I have also enclosed a pamphlet on the public petition process for the Petitioner's information.
Sincerely, kDirector ue Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register Notice 2.
Pamphlet on the Petition Process' cc w/encls: See next page
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Units-1, 2, and 3 cc:
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esquire Mr. Wayne D. Lanning Senior Nuclear Counsel Deputy Director of Inspections Northeast Utilities Service Company Special Projects Office P.'O.' Box 270 475 Allendale Road Hartford, CT 06141-0270 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director Mr. F. C. Rothen Monitoring and Radiation Division Vice President - Nuclear Work Services Department of Environmental Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Protection P.O. Box 128 79 Elm Street Waterford, CT 06385 Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Charles Brinkman, Manager Mr. Allan Johanson, Assistant Washington Nuclear Operations Director ABB Combustion Engineering Office of Policy and Management 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 330 Policy Development and Planning Rockville, MD 20852 Division 450 Capitol Avenue - MS 52ERN Mr. D. M. Goebel P. O. Box 341441 Vice President - Nuclear Oversight Hartford, CT 06134-1441 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 128 Regional Administrator, Region I Waterford, CT 06385 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road Mr. M. L. Bowling, Jr.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Millstone Unit No. 2 Nuclear Recovery Officer First Selectmen Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Town of Waterford P. O. Box 128 Hall of Records Waterford, CT 06385 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, CT 06385 Senior Resident Inspector Millstene Nuclear Power Station Mr. J. P. McElwain c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Millstone Unit No. 1 Nuclear P. O. Box 513 Recovery Officer Niantic, CT 06357 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 128 Mr. J. K. Thayer-Waterford, CT 06385 Recovery Officer - Nuclear Engineering and Support Deborah Katz, President Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Citizens Awareness Network P. O. Box 128 P. O. Box 83 Waterford, CT 06385 Shelburne Falls, MA' 03170
e Millstone Nuclear Power Station Units 1,_2, and 3 cc:
Mr. Neil S. Carns (w/ incoming Petition)
The Honorable Terry Concannon Senior Vice President Mr. Evan Woolacott and Chief Nuclear Officer Co-Chairs Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Nuclear Energy Advisory Council c/o Mr. Richard T. Laudenat Room 4035 Director - Regulatory Affairs Legislative Office Building P. O. Box 128 Capitol Avenue Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Mr. M. H. Brothers
- Vice President - Millstone Unit 3 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06365 Burlington Electric Department c/o Robert E. Fletcher, Esq.
271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05402 Mr. M. R. Scully, Executive Director Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative 30 Stott Avenue Norwich, CT 06360 Mr. William D. Meinert Nuclear Engineer Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company P. O. Box 426 Ludlow, MA 01056 Ernest C. Hadley, Esq.
1040 B Main Street P. O. Box 549 West Wareham, MA 02576
~
Joseph.R. Egan, Esq.
Egan & Associates, P.C.
2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 Citizens Regulatory Commission ATTN: 'Ms. Susan Perry Luxton 180. Great Neck Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 i
I Ernest C. Hadley April 8,1997 The Petitioner further requests that these license conditions be imposed on the operating licenses of Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 before NRC Commission approval to start up any of those plants, and further requests that these i
license conditions be imposed on the operating license of Haddam Neck before any decommissioning of that plant.
Additionally, the Petitioner requests that public hearings on the Petition be scheduled in the immediate vicinity of the Millstone and Haddam Neck reactors for the presentation of further evidence in support of the Petition. The Petitioner specifically requests that these public hearings be held and that a decision on this Petition be issued before restart or decommissioning of any of these units.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will tako action with regard to the issues raised in the Petition within a reasonable time. However, the Director's Decision may be delayed as'a result of ongoing investigations by the Office of Investigations and the Office of the Inspector General.
With regard to the Petitioner's request to hold a public hearing, the NRC staff has decided not to hold such a hearing. However, if the Petitioner has additional information to support the Petition, the Petitioner is asked to promptly supply that information to the NRC staff in writing.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
I have also enclosed a pamphlet on the public petition process for the Petitioner's information.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
federal Register Notice 2.
Pamphlet on the Petition Process i
cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NA.ME:
RE 1.
..~.....,.
G:\\.u.Y.NOLDS\\.GT970140.GRN c. c.,,m.o.c.,,,.ov.
.,. r. c.,,
- ..cnm.ni,.nci.,. =. ~.....
OFFICE SPO-L l
SPO-L:LA) dA
- TECH ED l
- 0GC l
SP0:DD l
NAME SReynolds n.
LBerry
( t\\ "
BCalure RHoefling PMcKee.'
D u!mummma 04 -
_ g,,,,g OFFICE SPO:D A i N,R
/
NAME WTravjpd ) / W (JC'olKns DATE 04/ L /97
/"' O M /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (w/ original incoming) 50-245, 50-336, and 50-423 PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
ED0 #970140 EDO Reading HThompson LCallan EJordan PNorry JBlaha Sco111ns/FMiraglia RZimmerman BSheron TMartin SP0-L Plant (w/ incoming)
WTravers PMcKee OGC OPA OCA NRR Mail Room (EDO #970140 w/ incoming)
(0-12G18)
SRohrer SReynolds (w/ incoming)
LBerry KCyr, OGC JGoldberg, OGC JKennedy, NRR JLieberman, OE AThadani SBurns, OGC JDurr, RI HMiller, RI
)
~
7590-01-P U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SSION DOCKET NOS. 50-213, 50-245, 50-336, 50-423 NORTHEAST UTILITIES HADDAM NECX PLANT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS I, 2, AND 3 RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that on March 3, 1997 Albert A. Cizek (Petitioner) submitted a Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that the licenses of the three Millstone nuclear reactors and the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor held by Northeast Utilities (NU or the licensee) be modified by placing certain conditions on the' operating licenses of each of these facilities.
The Petitioner alleges that NU has knowingly, willingly, and recklessly operated Millstone Unit I, Unit 2 Unit 3, and Haddam Neck in violation of their respective operating licenses, the regulations of the NRC, and their respective updated final safety analysis reports (UFSARs) for a prolonged period of time, which unr,ecessarily but significantly compromised public health and safety by eroding the. required defense-in-depth philosophy; and knowingly, willingly, and intentionally harassed,' intimidated, and discriminated against its employees who raise safety concerns in violation of U.S. statutes and NRC regulations for a prolonged period of time, which also unnecessarily but significantly compromised public health and safety by eroding the required defense-in-depth philosophy. The Petitioner further alleges that in the absence of express license conditions, there is no TIMb5 3
0
s
. reasonable assurance that NU will cease and desist from engaging in these activities in the future.
The Petitioner requests a number of actions. The Petitioner seeks to j
have the following license conditions imposed on the operating licenses of Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 and Haddam Neck:
1.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three license violations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any
[3-year) period, irrespective of the violation level, the operating icense of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
2.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, including all applicable appendices, from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any [3-year) period, irrespective of the violation level, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
3.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving a total of three violations of the UFSAR from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during any
- 3-year) period, irrespective of the violation level, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
4.
Within 30 calendar days of receiving any harassment, intimidation and discrimination ("HI&D") finding by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, or any (S) tate or [F)ederal court of competent jurisdiction, the operating license of the facility shall be suspended for a period of not less than 90 days and not more than 180 days.
5.
If, within (5) years of a license suspension based on paragraphs 1 through 4 above, the licensee receives a total of three license violations from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, irrespective of the violation level; receives a total of three violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, including all applicable appendices, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, irrespective of violation level; receive a total of three violations of the UFSAR from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, irrespective of violation level; or receives any HI&D finding by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, or any [S) tate or [F)ederal court of competent jurisdiction, the operating license of that facility shall be permanently revoked within 90 calendar days.
a
.m j
" 6.
In the event that the license of a facility is revoked pursuant to paragraph 5, no operation of that facility for the purpose of generating electric power shall be permitted during the pendency of any administrative or judicial processes or eppeals related to such revocation.
7.
In the event that the license of a facility is suspended or revoked under paragraphs [1] through [51, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall designate an appropriate licensee to maintain the facility in shutdown mode for the duration of the suspension or until such time as a new licensee is found to operate the facility.
[ Footnote omitted] NU shall be responsible for all expenses related to the operation of the facility during such shutdown. NU shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $500,000,000 (five hundred million) as reasonable assurance that it can fulfill this requirement.
The Petitioner further requests that these license conditions be imposed on the operating licenses of N111 stone Units 1, 2, and 3 before NRC Commission approval to start up any of those plants, and further requests that these license conditions be imposed on the operating license of Haddam Neck before any decommissioning of that plant.
The issues in the Petition are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of j
i the Commission's regulations and have been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action with regard to these issues will be taken in a reasonable time.
A letter acknowledging receipt of the Petition was sent to the Petitioner on April 8,1997.
A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike,
Norwich, Connecticut, and at the temporary lccal public document room located at the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of April 1997.
I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
~;
I a
Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation E
I
>r M
i-t-
it i
~
<?
- e REF: 6970140 ACTION:
SPO:TRAVER
-.da* h /
- TUUTmGy' COLL = -
Mut$ $
i
- =.-
E5HEu
. car ncum. m. ee =
B0HRER JKEgg{,gge
- ==csv c.*Aotev noe)esi-ou
.sotata PAvtum oLacN FAs pos)3337003 WAf7E P. STUML
~
April 16, 1997 samuel J. Collins Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 re: Albert A. Cizek Petition under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206
Dear Mr. Collins:
I am in receipt of your letter of April 8,
1997 acknowledging receipt of the above-referenced petition. Please let me express my strongest objections to your response which denies the request for a public hearing on the petition.
First, I would note that you do not indicate any basis for denying the hearing.
While the grant of a hearing may be within the discretion of the NRC, to deny the request for a hearing without reason is an abuse of that discretion.
Second, I would note that there is precedence for such a hearing.
As I am sure you are aware, the NRC previously granted a request for a public hearing that I made in connection with a petition filed b States.y George J. Galatis and We the People, Inc., of the United Arbitrarily granting one request for a hearing and denying another also constitutes an abuse of the NRC's discretion.
Third, I would note the extraordinary amount of NRC resources being committed to Northeast Utilities for plans to restart the units t
1 / I would be remiss in my responsibilities to those clients if I did not note that no final decision has been issued on that petition which was filed in August 1995-a fact which can only raise sincerity of your statement in the April 8 questions amous une letter that the NRC will take action on the issues raised by Mr.
Cizek "within a reasonable time."
f $ ^ % ($ O kf
- 9 0 b
1 which are the subject of the instant petition.
It certainly is a reflection of the NRC's true aims and objectives when it commits unprecedented resources to overlooking a long history of criminal activity by a licensee to ensure that its plants are restarted at the earliest opportunity while, at the same time, denying Mr.,
Cizek's request for a public hearing.
On behalf of Mr. Cizek, I renew my request for a public hearing I
and, if the NRC persists in denying that request, I would ask that you at least do my client and the public the simple courtesy of l
setting forth the reasons for denying that request.
In all sincerity, E
s
. Hadley cc: A. Cizek G. Mulley, IG
(
l I
...