ML070320370

G20070073 - Thomas Gurdziel Ltr. Re 2.206 - Siren/Alarm System at Indian Point, People in the Area Will Not Have a Battery Backup System to Provide Them with Warning in the Event a Serious Problem Occurs at the Plants

ML070320370
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/26/2007
From:	Tom Gurdziel - No Known Affiliation
To:	Reyes L NRC/EDO
References
2.206, G20070073
Download: ML070320370 (3)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 03/07/07 EDO CONTROL: G20070073 DOC DT: 01/26/07 FINAL REPLY:

Thomas Gurdziel Oswego, New York TO:

Reyes, EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO:

Dyer, NRR DESC: ROUTING:

2.206 - Siren/Alarm System at Indian Point Reyes Virgilio Kane Silber Johnson Burns DATE: 01/31/07 Collins, RI Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Mensah, NRR Jones, OGC NRR Dyer SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

evtpIc4e~; ~DO~OOi

January 26, 2007 Mr. Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Luis A. Reyes:

Please consider this letter as a 10CFR2.206 petition.

On February 1, 2007, people in the Indian Point area of New York State will not have a battery backup siren/alarm system to provide them with warning in the event a serious problem occurs at one (or more), of the Entergy/Indian Point plants and the normal power to them is lost.

I think you may agree with me that the risk to the public is higher with the plants running than when they are shutdown, since we have to consider high energy steam and heated nuclear fuel. (This does not mean there is no risk when even all the plants there are shutdown since the spent fuel from Unit I continuously leaks contaminated water into the ground, Unit 2 leaks at least intermittently from not fully identified sources, and the status of Unit 3 leakage has not been reported to the public, as far as I know.)

So there is the "cost" of increased risk to the public. What is the cost to the power company? Well, it appears to me that their cost is zero.

What I am asking is that the NRC apply a cost. If you may think that a reduction in power to zero on February 1, 2007 is too severe for a first time action to institute accountability, could I recommend a 10% each plant per month decrease? In this way, at the start of every month that the specified siren/alarm system is not fully tested, fixed, retested, and accepted for full operation, each plant at Indian Point would have its licensed power reduced by 10%.

I believe that one result of taking such action would be a demonstration that the US NRC is interested in reducing increases in risk to the public: in other words is interested in the public's safety.

'Thomas Gurdziel Attach.

EDO -- G2007 0 0 7 3

tt

-- _ J _ ,*. -

tp.~ ____.*

tI. *. 1, g~*

1

-l.Op

?M_

-- v --. . I--L A -

IL IL w 1 "Wi--

70W %M --- -- --- -- --- --

-~~~~~ L -Tmm- -