ML071780061
| ML071780061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/2007 |
| From: | Groot H - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Hall J Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 72FR30398 00011 | |
| Download: ML071780061 (2) | |
Text
Fage I 01 1 NRCREP - docket # 72-26 From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
henriette groot <hplgroot@kcbx.net>
<NRCREP @nrc.gov>
06/22/2007 3:55:04 PM docket #72-26 "debbie.arnold-asm.ca.gov" <debbie.amold@ asm.ca.gov TI
-0 CIN rn PQ9 C/3 N)o To: James R. Hall re: docket # 72-26 Having studied the supplemental BA regarding ISFISIs at Diablo Nuclear Power Plant I have the following comments:
- 1. section 3.2 p.5: "The NRC determined that the proposed security plan revisions and facility design features met the requirements of Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials," which were the same requirements for ISFSIs that were in effect before September 11, 2001 " (my italics)
DO YOU MEAN THERE WAS NOT EVEN ANY UPGRADING OF THE REQUIREMENTS? JUST "REVIEW"?
- 2. section 4.0, p. 7: The "plausible threat scenarios" considered were that of a large aircraft and ground assaults.
WHAT ABOUT ATT7ACKS FROM THE SEA - DIABLO IS RIGHT ON THE SHORE AND IHIGHLY VISIBLE.
WHAT ABOUT ATTACKS BY SMALL PLANES? IRAQ IS TEACHING US THAT IE'S DO NOT HAVE TO BE LARGE AND CAN BE COMPOSED OF A VARIETY OF INCENDIARY OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.
- 3. section 5.0, p. 7: No additional consultation with outside agencies were conducted.
WHY FOR HEAVENS SAKE NOT?? HOMELAND SECURITY THESE DAYS LINKS SO MANY AGENCIES, COAST GUARD, FAA, ETC. DOWNRIGHT SLOPPY NOT TO DO THIS.
- 4. section 4.0 p.6: In the middle paragraph you state the "probability of....an attack....cannot readily be quantified", yet you assert in the same paragraph that "This protective strategy reduces the risk....
to an acceptable level".!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, EITHER YOU QUANTIFY OR YOU DON'T. IN EITHER CASE WHAT IS "AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL" ?? YOU DIE A LITTLE BIT? YOU DIE FROM CANCER? - WHEN?
- 5. section 6.0, p. 7: No "significant effect on the human environment". EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE: THE ENVIRONMENT CONSISTS OF MORE THAN US HUMANS.!
MY CONCLUSION. I FIND YOUR ANALYSIS TOTALLY DEFICIENT AND YOUR CONCLUSION NEGLIGENT.
Henriette Groot, PhD 72ý
/ez~~ (JA~/9) file :1C :\\temp\\GW 100001.ITM 0/220 06/22/2007
c:\\temp\\GW}OOO1 5.TMP Mail Envelope Properties (467C2905.8FC :6:2300)
Page 1]
Subject:
Creation Date From:
Created By:
docket # 72-26 Fri, Jun 22, 2007 3:48 PM henriette groot <hplgi-oot@kcbx.net>
hpl groot @kcbx.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOOI1.HQGWDOO 1 NRCREP asm.ca.gov debbie.amnold CC (debbie.arnold-asm.ca.gov)
Post Office TWGWPOOI1.HQGWDOO I Route nrc.gov asm.ca.gov Files TEXT.htm Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Size 2062 3715 None Standard No None No Standard Date & Time Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled