ML20197G856

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations.Suggests Several Reasons for Keeping Present Rule Overlooked
ML20197G856
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 06/02/1988
From: Jeffery Grant
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00321, 53FR16435-321, NUDOCS 8806150354
Download: ML20197G856 (1)


Text

i fly)g : '. dic..

h Z. D ' *.

Jane B. Grant N,U;;C Rt.. 2 M

RFD 2, Box 154 i

~N-Conco rd, New Hamushire 03301 3M/h8h June 2, 1988

'85 J:: -6 LL :n Secretary, Tuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

,, 1 V"0 C 4. ', i.,

u Re: Emergency Planning and PreparednesE Requirements for Nuclear Power plant fuel loading and initial i

low-power operations. Comment:

Basing your proposed rule primarily on the relatively low risk to the public of low-power testing overlooks several in-portent reasons for keeping the present rule.

Foremost is the fact that the plant will become radio-active, as is the case with Shoreham, Once this becomes a realit:,

the olcnt can never be converted to another use. In the case of S abrook, with the enrgency planning process in such disarray, it is hs.r0 for me to conceive that the owners would propose low-cower testing, thus cancelling the option for conversion which richt well be their only course.

Unrcsolved financial and safety questions also add to my objections to low-power testing at Seabrook. Should the plant never ; o on line, how could a company in bankruptcy pay for de-com=issioning?

Although the proposed lowering of standards for emergency preparedness is stated as applying to all plan,ts, it is. obvious

... ry ;.., s that the situation at Seabrook prompted this proposal. Any lower-

v.,. w m.. << -

ing of standards points indubitably to utility,and agency press-ure to speed up the licensing process, a very poor reason for chan ginc the rule. 1 see this as another example of the Commission favoring promotion over regulation. My cohment thus,,is.a strong m

crotest agninst the proposed rule change. ' }

d fn 8806150354 000602 M 'O P' " ' 5 PDR

R

,J.ane B. Grant

/

50 53FR16435 PDR

,