ML071780061

Comment (11) of Henriette Groot on the Supplemental EA Regarding ISFSIs at Diablo Nuclear Power Plant

ML071780061
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/22/2007
From:	Groot H - No Known Affiliation
To:	Hall J Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
72FR30398 00011
Download: ML071780061 (2)

Text

Fage I 01 1 NRCREP - docket # 72-26 From: henriette groot <hplgroot@kcbx.net> -0 To: <NRCREP @nrc .gov> TI Date: 06/22/2007 3:55:04 PM

Subject:

docket #72-26 CIN CC: "debbie.arnold-asm.ca.gov" <debbie.amold@ asm.ca.gov rn To: James R. Hall PQ9 N)o C/3 re: docket # 72-26 Having studied the supplemental BA regarding ISFISIs at Diablo Nuclear Power Plant I have the following comments:

1. section 3.2 p.5: "The NRC determined that the proposed security plan revisions and facility design features met the requirements of Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials," which were the same requirementsfor ISFSIs that were in effect before September 11, 2001 " (my italics)

DO YOU MEAN THERE WAS NOT EVEN ANY UPGRADING OF THE REQUIREMENTS? JUST "REVIEW"?

2. section 4.0, p. 7: The "plausible threat scenarios" considered were that of a large aircraft and ground assaults.

WHAT ABOUT ATT7ACKS FROM THE SEA - DIABLO IS RIGHT ON THE SHORE AND IHIGHLY VISIBLE.

WHAT ABOUT ATTACKS BY SMALL PLANES? IRAQ IS TEACHING US THAT IE'S DO NOT HAVE TO BE LARGE AND CAN BE COMPOSED OF A VARIETY OF INCENDIARY OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.

3. section 5.0, p. 7: No additional consultation with outside agencies were conducted.

WHY FOR HEAVENS SAKE NOT?? HOMELAND SECURITY THESE DAYS LINKS SO MANY AGENCIES, COAST GUARD, FAA, ETC. DOWNRIGHT SLOPPY NOT TO DO THIS.

4. section 4.0 p.6: In the middle paragraph you state the "probability of. ...an attack....cannot readily be quantified", yet you assert in the same paragraph that "This protective strategy reduces the risk .... to an acceptable level".!

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, EITHER YOU QUANTIFY OR YOU DON'T. IN EITHER CASE WHAT IS "AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL" ?? YOU DIE A LITTLE BIT? YOU DIE FROM CANCER? - WHEN?

5. section 6.0, p. 7: No "significant effect on the human environment". EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE: THE ENVIRONMENT CONSISTS OF MORE THAN US HUMANS.!

MY CONCLUSION. I FIND YOUR ANALYSIS TOTALLY DEFICIENT AND YOUR CONCLUSION NEGLIGENT.

Henriette Groot, PhD

/ez~~ (JA~/9) 72ý -

file :1C :\temp\GW 100001 .ITM 0/220 06/22/2007

c:\temp\GW}OOO1 5.TMP Page 1]

Mail Envelope Properties (467C2905.8FC :6:2300)

Subject:

docket # 72-26 Creation Date Fri, Jun 22, 2007 3:48 PM From: henriette groot <hplgi-oot@kcbx.net>

Created By: hpl groot @kcbx.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOOI1.HQGWDOO 1 NRCREP asm.ca.gov debbie.amnold CC (debbie.arnold-asm.ca.gov)

Post Office Route TWGWPOOI1.HQGWDOO I nrc.gov asm.ca.gov Files Size Date & Time TEXT.htm 2062 Mime.822 3715 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