ML20196F225
| ML20196F225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Kent C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-01323, 53FR16435-1323, NUDOCS 8807050097 | |
| Download: ML20196F225 (1) | |
Text
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED Rut.E @
N M23 9 M / b y35]
, JU :..
6 Ui's (
'88 JN 23 P 7 :42 June 22, 1988 0FE Ci g-I 00 Chi bri... : wt.".f.
BhaN."
To the NRC:
I just wanted to express my support for the proposed NRC rule change eliminating the requirenent for full energency response plans for low-power testing at designated nuclear plants.
The rule change does not minimize the NRC's scrutiny of plants like Seabrook Station for operational safety or performance. But it does allow the plant to move forward. This is as it should be. A deadlock does not even allcw corrections to be made.
I also think concerns over possible risks frcm low-power testing have been exaggerated. The risk to public safety during low-power operations is minimal. Plant safety systens are designed to handle full-power energen-cies, and during this testing phase, the plant will never be run above 5 percent of capacity. Seabrook Station, in particular, has several addi-tional, unique safety features-such as a double-walled containment building and extra backup systems.
Seabrook has net every regulatory requirenent, and faced more regula-tory, industry and public scrutiny than any other U.S. plant. Meanwhile, New England is running out of energy, and it makes no sense for this ccrrpleted plant to sit idle. Changing this rule would help keep a needed energy source on the path to operation.
Sincerely, h,Tt'Af pd El a P'E CW l
8807050097 880622 PDR 53 16435 bs-to
.