ML20116N642
| ML20116N642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1996 |
| From: | Mcniece A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116N634 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608220216 | |
| Download: ML20116N642 (1) | |
Text
.
v h
ADAM P. MCNIECE 198 Grassy Hill Road East Lyme. CT 06333 Telephone (860) 6918080 May 23,1996 To:
Commissioner Shirley Jackson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Commissioner Jackson,
The need has arisen to write you regarding Millstone Unit 2's pending Tech Spec amendment concerning boration. This one time reprieve is designed to give them an easy way out of a situation that perhaps could have been avoided with proper management. Boron concentration as I understand it, is fundamental in controlling reactivity. If Unit 2 has problems in this area of meeting existing Tech Specs, then perhaps more oversight is required,and they may need to be prompted to take the right (safe) approach.
I am asking the NRC give this matter careful consideration to try to help them find an engineered resolution. A one time Tech Spec amendment simply will not invite public confidence for either NU or the NRC. A mechanical fix would obviously be preferred. Together, regulators and the company should be able to produce viable alternatives notjust a " rubber band and tape solution".
Should this change in expectations be considered, then I suggest it be presented in a straightforward public manner, perhaps at a hearing or other forum in which the public can be informed and make comments before the amendment is granted.
In conclusion, is this uncharted terrain? Have any other nuclear plants been in similar sit.uations?
What was their answer? How many other one time Tech Spec changes have occurred? Is this the best approach? Or does it set the precedent for undermining all existing regulations?
Sincerely, Adam P. McNiece M R**!88 M M888826 P
-..