ML20196C595
| ML20196C595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Brambilla S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00902, 53FR16435-902, NUDOCS 8807010163 | |
| Download: ML20196C595 (1) | |
Text
- _ _ _
Susan Brocbilla 21 Cote Drive b
Epping,'N.H. 03042-NhI 22 June 1988 Secretary of the Commission Docgiyg SM/$2 Branch Attn:
n U.S. Nuclear Eegulatory Comaission gggD Washington, D.C. 20555 p a...
..i "
PROPOSED L E L.-. A__O DCKEi g }E'V!CI-3 F/& /b V3 Dear Sirs Being a resident and concerned citicen of New Haspshire as well as a visitor to Seabrook Station, it has become apparent to se that a lot-of confusion and misunderstanding exists.in the public's mind about what is required for 5% "low power" testing vs. 100%
"full power' operation.
For this reason
!. fully support the proposed "Interpretive Rule" to clarify your intent on the requirements for testing vs. operation.
I encourage you, therefore, with regards to the proposed "Interpretive Rule,"
to include seans whereby the public and local and state government officials in N.H. anri Mass will be far better informed about in-place safety systens being designed to handle 100% full power operation emergencies, available time for emergency action at 3% low power testing being much longer, 5% low pcHer being for the purpose of testing, and the risk factors at low power testing being significantly lower than at 100% f ull power operetion.
l These items alcng with Seebrook Statien's double-walled containment, a fully oper ati onal N. H. s,i r en not i f i c ati on system, and the Emergency Broadcast System should help to indicate that ersergency preparedness requirements for low power testing vs. full power. operation do not in any may decrease public safety.
Sincerely yours, husus, $w>>LI $I'4 l
l l
l l
I i
l l
8807010163 00062,7 PLR PR 50 53FR16435 PDR o
p ss
.