ML072740198
| ML072740198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/2007 |
| From: | Martinelli S, Penstinger R Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) |
| To: | Klein D NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| G20070685, LTR-07-0662, SECY-2007-0388 | |
| Download: ML072740198 (7) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: / / EDO CONTROL: G20070685 DOC DT: 09/26/07 FINAL REPLY:
Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA TO:
Chairman Klein FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 07-0662 DESC: ROUTING:
Reasonable Assurance - Indian Point Reyes (EDATS: SECY-2007-0388) Virgilio Kane Ash Ordaz Burns DATE: 09/28/07 Dyer, NRR Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
RI Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
For Appropriate Action.
EDATS Number: SECY-2007-0388 Source: SECY IGenera i Assigned To: Region I OEDO Due Date: NONE Other Assignees: SECY Due Date: NONE
Subject:
Reasonable Assurance - Indian Point
Description:
CC Routing: NRR ADAMS Accession Numbers - Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE O Inom Cross Reference Number: G20070685, LTR-07-0662 Staff Initiated: NO Related Task: Recurring Item: NO File Routing: EDATS Agency Lesson Learned: NO Roadmap Item: NO Action Type: Appropriate Action Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: No Signature Required Urgency: NO OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions: For Appropriate Action.
'iDouen Infraio Originator Name: Sherwood Martinelli Date of Incoming: 9/26/2007 Originating Organization: FUSE USA Document Received by SECY Date: 9/28/2007 Addressee: Chairman Klein Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Incoming Task Received: E-mail Page 1 of I
OFFICE OF TIlE SECRETARV CORRESPONDENCE CONTROl. TICKEI' P),e Prited:Sep 28,2 007 12:55 PAPER NUMBER: LOGGING I)ATE: 09/27/2007
""T-"'-0662 ACTION OFFICE: ý/ ED! C:
AUTH-OR: Sherwood Mailinelli AFFILIATION-. NY AD)DRESSEE- Dalel Klein SUBJlECT: Trhe deftmiiion of reasonable assurance ACTION: A-ppropriate DISTRIBUTION: Chainnan, Comrs LETTER DATE: 09/26'21007 ACKNOWLEDGED No SPECIAL HANDLING: Made publiciy available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC NOTES:
FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: D.ATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20070685
Page 1 of 2 CHAIRMAN - The Definition of Reasonable Assurance.. .seeking clarity.
From: <RoycePenstinger@aol.com>
To: <chairman@nrc.gov>, <fxc@nrc.gov>, <rsbl@nrc.gov>, <nas@nrc.gov>, <ptk@nrc.gov>, <gerishapiro@clinton.senate.gov>,
<gclary@lohud.com>
Date: 09/26/2007 1:14 PM
Subject:
The Definition of Reasonable Assurance ...seeking clarity.
CC: <Palisadesart@aol.com>, <ulrich@ulrichwitte.com>, <remyc@prodigy.net>, <acer8sac@comcast.net>, <deb@nukebusters.org>,
<crotonshaw@optonline.net>, <phillip@riverkeeper.org>, <luckytown@optonline.net>, <judya8l4@comcast.net>,
<margofrances@yahoo.com>, <mark@longviewschool.org>
Dear Chairman:
On behalf of FUSE USA, and on behalf of the citizen stakeholders living within the shadow of Indian Point, we are constantly told that the evacuation plan, the DBT, and a host of other components, systems and decisions related to your licensee (Entergy) provide reasonable assurance that public health and the environment will be adequately protected.
Ascertaining that fact or even if the claim is valid requires a finite definition of what the NRC means by reasonable assurance, what they mean in the use of the word adequately. IE, in the 10 CFR 54 rules addressing the License Renewal process, it is gleaned that Aging Management programs must be adequate to provide reasonable assurance that public health and the environment will be protected.
What exactly does that REALLY MEAN? The problem is, right now the NRC's use of adequate and reasonable assurance are vague, ambiguous, ever moving targets. That fact makes it very difficult if not impossible for host communities to form and write our contentions.
Without the NRC's concrete and specific definition of these terms, we as stakeholders are wrongfully being kept in the dark. This becomes even more apparent when one reviews other License Renewal cases on the NRC docket where it becomes clearly apparent that the NRC is using the vagueness and ambiguity of these words as applied to their 10 CFR rules and regulations to have very differing criteria of acceptability in meeting the rules and regulations of 10 CFR, specifically as relates to License Renewal You cannot expect to fairly enforce regulations if they are applied differently, unequally, from one licensee to another.
Licensees and the agency regulating them have a burden to operate and regulate in "good faith". To that end, I am asking the NRC, your legal staff, to provide and/or to define VERY SPECIFICALLY and finitely the definition as used by the NRC of adequate (in all its various derivatives) and the term reasonable assurance (in all its various derivatives). The definition is requested to clarify the BENCHMARKS that clearly and concisely define the terms and requirements that a licensee and/or the NRC must meet in fulfilling NRC's own definition of these terms as they are used in the 10 CFR Rules and Regulations. We as a community cannot, and should not have to try to hit the proverbial moving target. As example, Aging Management Plans must be sufficient enough to provide reasonable assurance that the licensee can do a Safe Shut down of the reactor and adequate protect public safety. Without a clear definition of the terms reasonable assurance, and adequate.
It is imperative as our community moves forward into the LRA process for Entergy's aging reactors to know specifically the definition(s) being used by the NRC for these two terms. Based on past history, the first knee jerk response by the NRC is going to be and impulse to write me back claiming that the definition is found on ADAMS if I just take the time to search for it, put together the myriad pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.
I've done that, I've spent hundreds of hours on ADAMS, read numerous NUREGS, LIC 100 recommendations, and even the rules of procedure by which the NRC is supposed to abide and operate by. Simply stated, there is no clearly defined FINITE definition of these important terms. I am placing before you a very simple, clearly stated request. Define these two terms in a~finite, clearly understood definition that can be used by the stakeholders in reading NRC documents and decisions, in reviewing and preparing comments and/or contentions as relates to the immediate case of Entergy's LRA for IP2 and IP3.
Respectfully, Sherwood Martinelli Vice President FUSE USA 351 Dyckman Street.
Peekskill, New York 10566 (914) 293 7458 www.fuseusa.org For those on the CC list, I would encourage you to write the NRC yourselves demanding that these definitions be clearly and NARROWLY defined so that we can actually understand just what if any assurances our community is really afforded in Entergy's application.to gauge the adequacy of Aging Management plans, we need to know by what measuring stick they are being judged. You can send your request to the commission by writing chairmananrc.gov It is also suggested here, that you begin writing your ELECTED officials asking them to endorse this request for definition of the terms as they are applied to 10 CFR, and to Entergy's fatally flawed LRA. Post this to your list serves, share it with friends in your email trees. We must remove the veil of secrecy, must have a fully open and transparent license renewal process for Indian Point.
file://C:\temp\GW}00001 .HTM 09/26/2007
c:\tem~p\GW}OOO-1 .TMP I o:t~m
.L....77
~}*o* 2i.i
- M*LL
....i*L
.L.. ... TLI...L .7_ TLZS ZL L .7,;L.,I......7L.. "................
Pgag
.....3, Pag3 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
CAtEýMPV7pW)00001.TMP c.. ..... .TM. P . ..... . . .... Pa ge2 Page 2I deb CC prodigy.net remyc CC ulrichwitte.com ulrich CC aol.com Palisadesart CC lohud.com gclary clinton.senate.gov gerishapiro Post Office Route OWGWPOO4.HQGWDOOI nrc.gov kp 1_po.KP DO nrc.gov OWGWPOO .HQGWDO01 nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov longviewschool.org yahoo.com comcast.net optonline.net riverkeeper.org nukebusters.org prodigy.net ulrichwitte.com aol.com lohud.com clinton. senate.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4931 Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:13 PM TEXT.htm 6244 Mime.822 13357 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None
c...e O .......
.T.P.. Pag...
1..
Mail Envelope Properties (46FA9351.2CD : 9 :17101)
Subject:
The Definition of Reasonable Assurance.. .seeking clarity.
Creation Date Wed, Sep 26, 2007 1:13 PM From: <RoycePenstinger(iaol.com>
Created By: RoycePenstinger(aaol.com Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 PTK (Pao-Tsin Kuo) nrc.gov kpl_po.KPDO NAS (Neil Sheehan)
RSBI (Richard Barkley) nrc.gov OWGWPOO1.HQGWDO01 FXC (Francis Cameron) nrc.gov OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 CHAIRMAN longviewschool.org mark CC yahoo.com margofrances CC comcast.net judya814 CC acer8sac CC optonline.net luckytown CC crotonshaw CC riverkeeper.org phillip CC nukebusters.org