|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML0915402042009-05-29029 May 2009
Comment (1) of Raymond A. West on Behalf of Dominion Resources Services, Inc., on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1192 - Request for Inclusion of ASME Code Case N-513-3 - (Proposed Revision 16 of Regulatory Guide 1.147, Dated October 2007)
ML0911004032009-04-0808 April 2009
Comment (1) of Chris L. Funderburk, on Behalf of Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Opposing NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2009-XX on Implementation of the New Final Rule on Protection of Safeguards Information
ML0714503172007-05-23023 May 2007
Comment (2) of Robert Royce on NUREG-1021, Rev. 9, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors
ML0714503142007-05-22022 May 2007
Comment (1) of Robert S. Royce on NUREG-1021 Draft Rev 9, Suppl. 1, Operator Licensing Examinations Standards for Power Reactors
ML0509605082005-03-28028 March 2005
Comment (60) of Nancy Burton in Regard to Millstone Nuclear Power Station/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Comments
ML0509003592005-03-22022 March 2005
Comment (58) of Nancy Burton Regarding Connecticut Coalition Against Milestone (Ccam) Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement NRC Staff Has Prepared in Support of Relicensing of Millstone Nuclear Reactors Units 2 and 3
ML0509002262005-03-21021 March 2005
Comment (59) of Nancy Burton on Millstone - Notice of Intent to Sue
ML0509002362005-03-11011 March 2005
Comment (56) of Larry Kaley Re Testimony
ML0509002342005-03-0707 March 2005
Comment (55) of Donald W. Downes Supporting Millstone Power Station Application for Renewed Operating License
ML0511502432005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (26) of Nancy Burton on Behalf of Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone Millstone Nuclear Power Station/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ML0509605452005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (26) of Nancy Burton on Behalf of Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone Re Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Millstone Nuclear Power Station
ML0508201122005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (48) of Lynne Krauza & Town of Southold Opposing Relicensing of Millstone
ML0508200602005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (45) of Kersten Elenteny Opposing Licensing of Millstone Nuclear Plant
ML0508200552005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (44) of Kathleen Cunningham Faraone Opposing Millstone Power Plant Relicensing
ML0508200132005-03-0202 March 2005
Comment (40) of John Rooney Opposing the Reissuance of the Millstone License
ML0508200702005-03-0101 March 2005
Comment (49) of Gwynn Schroeder Opposing Re Licensing of Millstone Nuclear Plant
ML0508105802005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (33) of Justin Porter Opposing Nuke Plant Relicensing of Millstone CT
ML0508200722005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (50) of Diane Lazinsky Re Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Millstone Power Station, Units 2 & 3
ML0508105842005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (34) of Andrew Benners Urging NRC to Deny License Extension to Millstone
ML0508105902005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (36) of Judi Opposing Licensing of Millstone
ML0508200102005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (38) of Amy Martin Opposing Relicensing of the Millstone Nuclear Plant at Northville Beach
ML0508105592005-02-27027 February 2005
Comment (31) of Constance K. Case Relicensing of Millstone Nuclear Plant
ML0508105622005-02-26026 February 2005
Comment (32) of Kathleen Mcgraw Opposing Relicensing of the Millstone Nuclear Plant at Northville Beach
ML0508105562005-02-26026 February 2005
Comment (30) of Sylvia Pafenyk Urging NRC to Use Common Sense and Protect Both the Public and the Environment Before Renewing Millstone License to for Another Twenty Years
ML0508200492005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (43) of Arthur Tillman Opposing Re Licensing of Millstone Nuclear Plant
ML0508200662005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (47) of Roy Macnish Opposing Relicensing of Millstone
ML0508200412005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (42) of Marie Baran Opposing Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Renew It'S License
ML0506600982005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (22) of E. S. Grecheck on Draft Supplement 22 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
ML0508105542005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (28) of Helga Geisler Walter Urging NRC to Deny Millstone'S Relicensing
ML0508105552005-02-25025 February 2005
Comment (29) of Margie Brock Urging NRC to Deny License Extension to Millstone
ML0508105532005-02-23023 February 2005
Comment (27) of Steve Levy on Draft Supplemental Impact Statement to Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, NUREG-1437, Supplement 22
ML0506305542005-02-23023 February 2005
Comment (18) of Marie Domenici on Address Correction Regarding Millstone
ML0505400102005-02-10010 February 2005
Comment (3) of Charlie Pillsbury and Allan Brison on Behalf of the Green Party Opposing Extension of Operating Licenses for Millstone'S Units 2 and 3 Nuclear Power Reactors in Waterford, Connecticut
ML0506305432005-02-0909 February 2005
Comment (17) of John Magnesi Urging NRC to Delay Renewal of Millstone Power Station License
ML0506304892005-02-0101 February 2005
Comment (16) Opposing Consideration of Extending the Opening of Millstone Facility
ML0506304862005-01-31031 January 2005
Comment (15) of Maureen Swearingen & Valerie Briody Opposing Renewal of Millstone Power Plant License
ML0502604652005-01-25025 January 2005
Comment (2) of Michael Hess Re Response from Comment on NRC Documents.
ML0506304732005-01-17017 January 2005
Comment (13) of Barbara & Victor Dipaola Protesting Scheduling of a Vital Public Meeting on Operations at the Millstone Nuclear Plant Without Adequately Notifying Residents
ML0506304842005-01-17017 January 2005
Comment (14) of Bill Garrett Urging NRC Not to Allow the Millstone Nuclear Facilities to Operate
ML0506304752005-01-14014 January 2005
Comment (12) of Janice Circo-Randazzo Opposing the Relicensing of the Millstone Nuclear Power Units 2 and 3
ML0506304952005-01-14014 January 2005
Comment (10) of Arlene Farinacci Opposing Renewal of Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 & 3 License
ML0506304922005-01-11011 January 2005
Comment (9) of Barbara Doyle Opposing the Renewal of Units 2 & 3 at the Millstone Power Plant Site in CT
ML0502403312005-01-11011 January 2005
Comment (1) of Lindsay Suter Opposing the Millstone Nuclear Plant Relicensing
ML0506305502005-01-11011 January 2005
Comment (20) of Walter N. Parahas Opposing the Relicensing of Millstone Nuclear Power Units 2 and 3
ML0506600162005-01-11011 January 2005
Comment (21) of Joseph J. Mangano Opposing the Relicensing of Millstone Nuclear Power Units 2 and 3
ML0506304722005-01-0707 January 2005
Comment (6) of Marie Baran Disagreeing Re the Comments on the Millstone GEIS
ML0506304682005-01-0606 January 2005
Comment (5) of Marie Domenici Opposing Renewal of EIS for Millstone Power Stations Units 2 and 3 Licensing
ML0506304632005-01-0505 January 2005
Comment (4) of David Simpson Disagreeing Re the Comments on the Millstone GEIS
ML0432804662004-11-12012 November 2004
Comment (2) of David M. Collins on Additional Information
ML0432402302004-11-12012 November 2004
Comment (1) of David M. Collins on Public Comments - RIS on SCWE
2009-05-29
[Table view] |
Text
INRREP -,Responsefrom "Comment on NRC Documents" Page 1 From: Robert Royce <Robert.S. Royce@ dom.com>
To: <nrcrep@nrc.gov>
Date: Wed, May 23, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject:
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents" Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Robert Royce (Robert.S.Royce@dom.com) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 09:27:48 DocumentTitle: NUREG-1021, Rev 9 Operator Licensing Examination Standards For Power Reactors Comments: ES-301, Section D.5.c. says "scenarios... should include startup, low-power, and full-power situations." A note at the bottom of the page states "NUREG-1449, 'NRC Staff Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operation,' defines 'low power' to include the range from criticality to 5 percent power."
It was difficult to develop a "low power" scenario that did not run excessively long, as the crew needs a fairly lengthy time for pre-briefing the scenario, and the crew takes longer to maneuver the plant at such low powers. Also, the crew in the plant would have an extra operator at the feed station during portions of the startup, and the risk of a feed-station related reactor trip is also significant, potentially invalidating portions of the scenario.
We are already required to test applicants at low power/shutdown conditions during the JPM exam per ES-301, section D.4.b. Is it posible to remove the definition of "low power" from section D.5.c, allowing the Sim Operating Test scenario to be at 25%, 50%, etc.?
organization: Dominion, Millstone Station addressl: Millstone Simulator Training Building address2: PO Box 128 city: Waterford C:
state: CT )
N) zip: 06385 -F1 country: USA J-]
phone: (860) 437-2636 C/)
6 61,us r- 6ee~' ee, /-
&~,
c:\temp\GW}00012.TMP Ia .g-e Mail Envelope Properties (4654415C.75E: 4: 59230)
Subject:
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents" Creation Date Wed, May 23, 2007 9:27 AM From: Robert Royce <Robert.S.Royce @dom.com>
Created By: Robert.S.Rovce @dom.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO01 .HQGWDOO1 NRCREP Post Office Route TWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1620 Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:27 AM Mime.822 2254 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled
