ML20137Z557
| ML20137Z557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1997 |
| From: | Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Z548 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1353 2.206, NUDOCS 9704250022 | |
| Download: ML20137Z557 (2) | |
Text
U a-g PaulM. Blanch t
Energy Consultant 1/13/97 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 SU3 JECT: COMMENT ON NRC RESPONSE TO 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION ON MILLSTONE..... UNIT 1 REFUELING PRACTICES
DearMr. Collins:
By letter dated December 26,1996, Mr. Frank Miraglia, Jr. transmitted the NRC's response to the petition dated August 21,1995, submitted by Mr. Ernest C. Hadley on behalf of Mr. George Galatis and We the People, Inc. pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Corle of Federal Regulations. The petitioners contended, among other things, that refueling Jcactices at Nonheast Utilities' Millstone Unit I facility were not being conducted in accordance within the plant's design and licensing bases.
'Ibe petition requested the Licensee /NRC " perform a detailed independent analysis of the I
offsite dose consequences of the total loss of spent fuel pool water." The response stated
"'Ihe NRC's actions to date'... constitute a partial grant of the Petitioners' request to perform analysis of such accidents."
All of these referenced documents are either not applicable to Millstone, are no longer generically applicable, fail or underestimate propeny damage and exposure to the public, or did not consider the specific design and inoperability of safety systems at Millstone at the time of the full core offloads. Mr. Wayne Lanning of the NRC staff publicly 2
acknowledged that the population doses predicted by NUREG 1353 are significantly underestimated and are more than 3 times greater than previously analyzed. Again,in response to numerous public requests and in response to the 2.206 petition, please provide this information as previously promised by the NRC Staff.
Footnote 5 of the petition response states the "... safety significance of these offloads was low..." Please 3rovide me with a copy of the NRC's safety analysis that substantiates this conclusion. > lease indicate how the inoperability of the SBOTS and other systems found to be non-seismic and ino xrable were factored into this assessment. Also, how was that the fuel was removed from t)e reactor commencing at less than 70 houts from the time of shutdown factored into this NRC analysis? This request is being made under the provisions of the Freedom Information of Act.
8 NUREG 1353, WASH 1400 AND the NRC's task action plan dated July 26,1996.
- NRC Public meeting of December 17,1996 and other 1996 NRC Public meetings held in Connecticut 9704250022 970415 PDR ADOCK 05000245 Q
t i
Iawait yourpmmpt response.
Sincerely, W$1. AA /
PaulM. Blanc 5 135 Hyde Rd.
West Hartford CT MI17 860-236-0326 k'u#
U ta ci Washington, DC20$5 a ryCommission MI. George Mulley sistant Inspector General y,
Was ngton, 20$5 7
mmission Ernest Hadley
.