ML092150583
| ML092150583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/2009 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML092150583 (3) | |
Text
1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:
Green, Kimberly Sent:
Friday, February 27, 2009 2:41 PM To:
dreamjockey@netscape.com Cc:
Wrona, David; Diaz-Sanabria, Yoira
Subject:
RE: Indian Point Safety Issues
Dear Mr. Erdman,
I understand your observations and concerns regarding the recent pipe leak at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2. Unfortunately, I am not the correct person to answer your questions regarding that matter. However, I will pass your email along to someone who might be able to answer your questions.
As for the ACRS meeting slides, I can mail you a copy of the staff's and the applicant's slides after the meeting occurs. It is my understanding that the NRC is making the ACRS Subcommittee Meeting accessible by phone.
If you so desire to listen to the meeting, you may contact Ms. Yoira Diaz at 301-415-8064 or via email at Yoira.Diaz-Sanabria@nrc.gov and make a request to receive the phone number to access the meeting.
Please feel free to contact me with any other questions you might have. If I am not the correct person to answer, I will forward your request to someone who can.
Sincerely, KimberlyGreen SafetyPM (301)4151627 kimberly.green@nrc.gov From: dreamjockey@netscape.com [1]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:14 PM To: Kimberly Green Cc: dreamjockey@netscape.com
Subject:
Indian Point Safety Issues
Dear Ms. Green,
I've been reviewing the SER for the Indian Point facility. There are now several points that I think should be considered.
Section 3.2.2.2 of the report, beginning on page 3-279, appears among other provisions to detail a number of exemptions or easements from standards governing management of metal fatigue and related aging factors as applied to flex hoses, flow elements, thermowell, tubing, and other plant components, and to loss of material due to cladding breach, pitting, and crevice corrosion, specifically in metal piping, piping components, and piping elements exposed to soil and other corrosive substances. In light of the latest reported incident at Indian Point, these exceptions seem at best highly questionable.
In an article published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on February 20, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, speaking in connection with last week's tritium leak, describes the possibility of "an accident involving the reactor such as a pipe rupture," in which water would have to be taken off the condensate storage tank to which the pipe is joined to cover the nuclear fuel as efforts are made to deal with the effects of the rupture. I'm not an alarmist, but this scenario seems to
2 recall aspects of the Three Mile Island accident, whose potential catastrophic consequences I'm sure are entirely familiar to you (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html.)
Furthermore, according to the article, unspecified "NRC officials" said "a portion of the pipe's external coating, which is intended to inhibit corrosion, was missing at the location of the leak." Evidently the end result was a weakening of the pipe. Is this coating not an example of the "cladding" referred to in the cited portion of the SER? In a February 21 article in Westchester's Journal News Sheehan said the "seal on the outside" of the pipe--apparently referring to the missing coating or cladding--"may be wearing," and so seemed to be attributing its absence to natural wear. Has it been conclusively determined that the coating was in fact removed by wear? I hope the question doesn't make me sound like a crank, but can other possible means of removal definitely be ruled out?
On February 24 the Associated Press reported that the leak was fixed over the weekend, and that Entergy will now "have to do a study to see if corrosion is a problem at other pipes beneath the surface." Sheehan was again cited as the source of this information. Is this inspection currently being carried out? Will the results of the investigation be made available to the public, and if so, when? Is the Indian Point 2 reactor, the reported site of the leak, now fully operational?
In one of your e-mails to me you wrote that you would be making the presentation to the ACRS Subcommittee, evidently at the March 4 session, and that your presentation would include a slide on metal fatigue. Since I won't be able to attend that session, would it be possible for you to send me an advance copy of those materials? Of course I'll keep any information you may share with me confidential until after the meeting.
Entergy uses a three-word slogan in connection with Indian Point: Safe, Secure, Vital. The third claim I won't dispute. My inquiries have convinced me of the substantial truth of the second. But I think there are now serious questions to be raised concerning the claim to safety, and I don't believe relicensing of the plant should be allowed to proceed until those questions are satifactorily answered.
Once again, I appreciate your willingness to assist me in my inquiries. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely, Jim Erdman Hastings-on-Hudson, NY Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
Hearing Identifier:
IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:
1434 Mail Envelope Properties (Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov20090227144000)
Subject:
RE: Indian Point Safety Issues Sent Date:
2/27/2009 2:40:35 PM Received Date:
2/27/2009 2:40:00 PM From:
Green, Kimberly Created By:
Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Wrona, David" <David.Wrona@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Diaz-Sanabria, Yoira" <Yoira.Diaz-Sanabria@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "dreamjockey@netscape.com" <dreamjockey@netscape.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5187 2/27/2009 2:40:00 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: