ML17055E686
| ML17055E686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Nine Mile Point, Perry, Fermi, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Pilgrim, Susquehanna, Columbia, Brunswick, Limerick, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Duane Arnold, Clinton, Quad Cities, Big Rock Point, FitzPatrick, LaSalle, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055E687 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8530 2.206, DD-89-03, DD-89-3, IEB-88-007, IEB-88-7, NUDOCS 8905050062 | |
| Download: ML17055E686 (4) | |
Text
<k< >le~+
c,~
~4 0
Oc IA C
0V
>see~
~ VS!i!
E UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 Ape'i1 27>
1989 DD-8~3 Hs.
Susan L. Hiatt Representative of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.
8275 Hunson Road Hentor, Ohio 44060
Dear Ms. Hiatt:
This letter is in further response to your Petition of July 22, 1988, requesting that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), take iaeediatc action with respect to boiling water reactors (BMRs) to relieve what you allege to be undue risks to the public health and safety posed by the thermal-hydraulic instability of BMRs as revealed by an event at LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, on March 9, 1988.
On August 26, 1988, I informed you that your request for ianediate relief was denied because the allegations that form the basis for your Petition did not reveal any new operational safety issue that posed an iamediate safety concern for continued BMR operation.
I also informed you that your Petition was being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Conmission's regulations and that appropriate action, that is, a formal decision, would be taken within a reasonable time.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, your Petition has been denied.
- However, as discussed below, your request to reopen rulemaking proceedings regarding anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) is being treated as a Petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 of the Comnission's regulations.
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Coimission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
The Decision will constitute final action of the ComIission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Comnission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time.
In the August 26, 1988 letter, I acknowledged your request to reopen rulemaking proceedings regarding ATMS as part of the relief requested.
However, since that time, I have determined that this request is more properly treated as a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 of the CoIImIission's regulations.
As such, it has been referred to the NRC Office of Research for appropriate action.
However.
it is important to note that both the NRC and BMR Owners Group (BMROG) currently have programs in which analyses of ATMS conditions are being conducted.
These analyses treat large amplitude power oscillations with state-of-the-art analytical methods.
The results of these analyses to date confirm the technical bases for the current ATMS rule.
Consequently, at this time, the NRC staff sees no basis for recommending that the Commission reopen rulemaking proceedings regarding ATMS.
If, however, the staff finds evidence which contradicts the assumptions and results of previous ATMS analyses from either the information you provided in support of your Petition or new information from ongoing NRC and BMROG programs, it may then be appropriate for the CoIImIission to reconsider the current ATMS rulc.
l T
Susan L. Hiatt For your information, I am enclosing a copy of Supplement 1 to NRC Bulletin No. 88-07, "Power Oscillations in Boiling Mater Reactors",
which is referenced in the Director's Decision.
1 am also enclosing a copy of the notice regarding this Decision that was filed with the Office of the Federal Register for pub 1 i cation.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Enclosures:
- 1. Director's Decision
- 2. Federal Re ister Notice
- 3. RK ~u letin
- o. 88-07, Supplement 1
7 J'
C',
3 4I