|
|
Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Exelon Ceneratlon 4 300 W~nfield Rotad Warrenvillc. | | {{#Wiki_filter:Exelon Ceneratlon 4 300 W~nfieldRotad Nuclear Warrenvillc. 11. 60555 DOCKETED June 27,2007 (1 :I 8pm) |
| : 11. 60555 June 25,2007 Nuclear DOCKETED June 27,2007 (1 :I 8pm) OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
| | OFFICE OF SECRETARY June 25,2007 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. 17440) | | PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. 17440) |
|
| |
|
| ==Reference:== | | ==Reference:== |
| Letter from Douglas J. Walters (Nuclear Energy Institute) to NRC, "PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. | | Letter from Douglas J. Walters (Nuclear Energy Institute) to NRC, "PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. 17440)," dated June 22, 2007 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is providing comments on the petition for rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 50, submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Exeion endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in the referenced letter regarding the petitioner's two requests. |
| 17440)," dated June 22, 2007 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is providing comments on the petition for rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 50, submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. | |
| Exeion endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in the referenced letter regarding the petitioner's two requests. | |
| As described in the referenced letter, Exelon concurs with the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 73 to require, when information becomes known that would prevent an individual from gaining unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant, that measures be implemented to preclude the individual from entering the protected area. The Commission shcald issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to appropriately modify the NRC regulations. | | As described in the referenced letter, Exelon concurs with the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 73 to require, when information becomes known that would prevent an individual from gaining unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant, that measures be implemented to preclude the individual from entering the protected area. The Commission shcald issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to appropriately modify the NRC regulations. |
| Exelon does not agree with the petitioner's second request that would require an armed security officer to escort a visitor. Trained individuals have served as visitor escorts for many years at Exelon without incident. | | Exelon does not agree with the petitioner's second request that would require an armed security officer to escort a visitor. Trained individuals have served as visitor escorts for many years at Exelon without incident. With the additional emphasis on security in the last few years, only persons with a work-related need for entry are typically allowed as visitors. The escorts for these visitors are trained and badged individuals that are selected, as appropriate, for the purpose of the visit. The petitioner has not demonstrated a benefit commensurate with the cost of increasing the size of the security force to provide armed security officers as escorts, nor has the petitioner cited instances demonstrating the inadequacy of existing processes. The petitioner's second request for rulemaking should be denied. |
| With the additional emphasis on security in the last few years, only persons with a work-related need for entry are typically allowed as visitors. The escorts for these visitors are trained and badged individuals that are selected, as appropriate, for the purpose of the visit. The petitioner has not demonstrated a benefit commensurate with the cost of increasing the size of the security force to provide armed security officers as escorts, nor has the petitioner cited instances demonstrating the inadequacy of existing processes. The petitioner's second request for rulemaking should be denied. | | Sincerely, I |
| Sincerely, Darin M. Benyak I Director, Licensing}} | | Darin M. Benyak Director, Licensing}} |
2007/06/25-Comment (9) Submitted by Exelon Generation Company LLC, Darin M. Benyak, on Ucs'S PRM-73-13 Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and MaterialsML071780418 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Dresden, Peach Bottom, Byron, Braidwood, Limerick, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle |
---|
Issue date: |
06/25/2007 |
---|
From: |
Benyak D Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
---|
To: |
Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY/RAS |
---|
SECY RAS |
References |
---|
72FR17440 00009, PRM-73-13 |
Download: ML071780418 (1) |
|
|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML18157A3072018-06-0101 June 2018 Comment (035) of Anonymous Individual on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML16054A3632016-02-23023 February 2016 Comment (039) of Jolene Franciskovich on Behalf of Coal City, Il, Public Library District Regarding on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors ML16049A4312016-02-17017 February 2016 Comment (029) of Eric Misener on Behalf of Seneca Community Consolidated School District #170 on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors ML13361A0152013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00707) of Linda Lewison on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13345B2782013-12-0909 December 2013 Comment (00355) of Lewis Cuthbert from the Alliance for a Clean Environment on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML12201A0392012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (272) of Michael Griffen, on Behalf of Maryland Dept of Environment, on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML11146A1112011-05-26026 May 2011 Comment (6) of Larry Lawson on Proposed Rule Pr 26 Regarding Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements ML11146A1102011-05-25025 May 2011 2011/05/25-Comment (5) of Mark Callahan on Proposed Rule Pr 26 Regarding Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements ML1100400142011-01-0101 January 2011 2011/01/01-Comment (20) of Justin Prahl on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, Regarding Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs. ML1100600262010-12-30030 December 2010 2010/12/30-Comment (27) of Harvey, on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5 Regarding 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs. ML1036404582010-12-29029 December 2010 2010/12/29-Comment (14) of Michael Backo, on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, Regarding Fitness-for-Duty Programs. ML1100302352010-12-29029 December 2010 2010/12/29-Comment (15) of Paul West, on Nei'S on Proposed Rulemaking PRM-26-5 Regarding Fitness-for-Duty Programs. ML1100302362010-12-29029 December 2010 2010/12/29-Comment (16) of Michael Mulka, on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, Regarding Fitness-for-Duty Programs. ML1100600222010-12-29029 December 2010 2010/12/29-Comment (23) of Mike Mulka, on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, Fitness-For-Duty Programs ML1036205212010-12-26026 December 2010 2010/12/26-Comment (12) of Ronald Vanderhyden, on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, Regarding Fitness-for-Duty Programs ML1035003982010-12-15015 December 2010 Comment (3) of Michelle Medrow-Kielski, on PRM-26-6, Minimum Day Off Requirements for Security Officers Working 12 Hour Shifts from an Average of 3 Days Per Week to 2.5 or 2 Days Per Week ML1030800782010-11-0303 November 2010 2010/11/01-Comment (3) of John Jaquin on Nei'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-5, 10 CFR 26, Fitness-For-Duty RS-09-070, Comment (12) of Darin M. Benyak, on Behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, on ANPR 171, Variable Annual Fee Structure for Power Reactors2009-06-0303 June 2009 Comment (12) of Darin M. Benyak, on Behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, on ANPR 171, Variable Annual Fee Structure for Power Reactors ML0904804002009-02-0202 February 2009 Comment (88) of Sally Shaw on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update ML0726705742007-09-24024 September 2007 Comment (13) of Lisa Rainwater on Behalf of Riverkeeper on Epstein'S PRM-50-85 Re to Extend the Minimum Distance from Five to Ten Miles for Host School Pick-up Points Beyond Plume Exposure Boundary Line ML0717804182007-06-25025 June 2007 Comment (9) Submitted by Exelon Generation Company LLC, Darin M. Benyak, on Ucs'S PRM-73-13 Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials ML0716305412007-06-12012 June 2007 Comment (9) Submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Darin M. Benyak on Pogo and Ucs Re Amend 10 CFR Part 50 Concerning Design Basis Threat ML0703700772007-02-0303 February 2007 Comment (45) Submitted by Jean Flood on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0703700722007-02-0202 February 2007 Comment (42) Submitted by Katie Silberman and Ted Schettler on Behalf of Science and Environmental Health Network on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0703900422007-01-29029 January 2007 Comment (37) Submitted by Lisa Smoyer on Shaw'S Re Application of National of Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0703100792007-01-29029 January 2007 Comment (36) Submitted by M. L. Steiner on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Applicationo of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0703006632007-01-26026 January 2007 Comment (32) Submitted by Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of Alliance for a Clean Environment on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0701807052007-01-14014 January 2007 Comment (11) Submitted by Jason Halteman on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation ML0701804782007-01-13013 January 2007 Comment (1) Submitted by Three Mile Island Alert,L Inc., Eric Epstein on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51 ML0636300782006-12-27027 December 2006 Comment (12) Submitted by Ronald K. Scheeler on Proposed Rules PR-50, 72 and 73 Regarding Power Reactor Security Requirements ML0617201702006-06-20020 June 2006 Comment (81) Submitted by Dan Todhunter on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness-for-Duty Rule Programs ML0609600452006-04-0404 April 2006 Comment (76) Submitted Anonymous on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs ML0534000242005-12-0303 December 2005 Comment (30) Submitted by Blaine Peters on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs ML0534000292005-12-0303 December 2005 Comment (31) Submitted by Danny Todhunter on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs ML0532604992005-11-22022 November 2005 Comment (24) Submitted by Dennis Specha on Proposed Rule PR-26 Re Fitness for Duty Programs RS-04-059, Comment (8) Submitted by Exelon Generation, LLC and Amergen Energy Co., Kenneth A. Ainger, on Proposed Rules PR-19, 20 and 50, Re Collection, Reporting or Posting of Information; Availability of Draft Rule Language2004-04-0909 April 2004 Comment (8) Submitted by Exelon Generation, LLC and Amergen Energy Co., Kenneth A. Ainger, on Proposed Rules PR-19, 20 and 50, Re Collection, Reporting or Posting of Information; Availability of Draft Rule Language ML0323201352003-08-0101 August 2003 Comment (9) Submitted by Morgan Lewis & Brockus, Llp, Steven P. Frantz, P.M. Bessette, on Behalf of Exelon Gen., S. Texas, on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Risk-Informed Categorization & Treatment of Structures, Systems & Components for Nuclear Po ML0226805452002-09-13013 September 2002 Comment from Michael T. Chezik on Draft Supplement 10 (NUREG-1437) to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ML0225600462002-08-27027 August 2002 Comment of Michael P. Gallagher Concerning Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 10 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ML0222101472002-08-0101 August 2002 Comment of Joe Mangano on Draft plant-specific Supplement 10 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement Re Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 & 3 2018-06-01
[Table view] |
Text
Exelon Ceneratlon 4 300 W~nfieldRotad Nuclear Warrenvillc. 11. 60555 DOCKETED June 27,2007 (1 :I 8pm)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY June 25,2007 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. 17440)
Reference:
Letter from Douglas J. Walters (Nuclear Energy Institute) to NRC, "PRM-73-13, Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (72 Fed. Reg. 17440)," dated June 22, 2007 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is providing comments on the petition for rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 50, submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Exeion endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in the referenced letter regarding the petitioner's two requests.
As described in the referenced letter, Exelon concurs with the petitioner's request to amend 10 CFR 73 to require, when information becomes known that would prevent an individual from gaining unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant, that measures be implemented to preclude the individual from entering the protected area. The Commission shcald issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to appropriately modify the NRC regulations.
Exelon does not agree with the petitioner's second request that would require an armed security officer to escort a visitor. Trained individuals have served as visitor escorts for many years at Exelon without incident. With the additional emphasis on security in the last few years, only persons with a work-related need for entry are typically allowed as visitors. The escorts for these visitors are trained and badged individuals that are selected, as appropriate, for the purpose of the visit. The petitioner has not demonstrated a benefit commensurate with the cost of increasing the size of the security force to provide armed security officers as escorts, nor has the petitioner cited instances demonstrating the inadequacy of existing processes. The petitioner's second request for rulemaking should be denied.
Sincerely, I
Darin M. Benyak Director, Licensing