ML100120278
| ML100120278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/2010 |
| From: | Tom Gurdziel - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Borchardt R NRC/EDO, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2010-0010, G20100014, OEDO-2010-0010 | |
| Download: ML100120278 (4) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 02/08/10 EDO CONTROL: G20100014 DOC DT: 01/02/10 FINAL REPLY:
Thomas Gurdziel
- Oswego, New York TO:
Borchardt, EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF :
GRN CRC NO:
- Leeds, NRR DESC:
ROUTING:
2.206 - Entergy/Indian Point Siren System (EDATS: OEDO-2010-0010)
DATE:
01/11/10 Borchardt Virgilio Mallett Ash Mamish Burns/Rothschild
- Caputo, 01
- Burns, OGC
- Trocine, OEDO ASSIGNED TO:
RI CONTACT:
Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
IWO~&,~ eo-boO' 1~(b~: ~O-D I
EDATS Number: OEDO-2010-0010 Source: OEDO Geea Ifraio Assigned To: Regionl Other Assignees:
Subject:
2.206 - Entergy/Indian Point Siren System
==
Description:==
CC Routing: NRR; OE; 01; OGC ADAMS Accession Numbers -
Incoming: NONE OEDO Due Date: 2/8/2010 SECY Due Date: NONE Response/Package: NONE I OhrInomtnI Cross Reference Number: G20100014 Related Task:
File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO OEDO Monthly Report Item: NO I Proes *Inomtn I
Action Type: 2.206 Review Signature Level: Regionl Approval Level: No Approval Required OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions:
Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Urgency: NO Do ument In i
Originator Name: Thomas Gurdziel Date of Incoming: 1/2/20 10 Originating Organization: Citizens Document Received by OEDO Date: 1/8/2010 Addressee: R. W. Borchardt, EDO Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Incoming Task Received: Letter Page 1 of I
9 Twin Orchard Drive Oswego, NY 13126 January 2, 2010 Mr. Bill Borchardt Executive Director for Operations US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Executive Director for Operations Bill Borchardt:
This is a 2.206 letter.
It is perhaps a little too easy to sit back and just say: I don't like this. So, I have decided to write this letter 1) to say 1 don't like the present reliability of the Entergy/Indian Point battery backup emergency siren system, and 2) to provide some courses of action.
Right now it looks like the new siren system works for one non-silent test, then fails the next.
Course of action 1 (for the plant owner) Reduce the time between tests and do all tests twice: as non-silent with normal power, and non-silent with backup power-mntil FEMA acceptance is obtained.
Course of action 2 (for the plant owner)
Change the siren activation sequence so that one county after another (but not at the same time) sounds the sirens.
Course of action 3 (for the plant owner) Replace all people presently assigned to new siren operation, maintenance and/or repair.
Course of action 4 (for the plant owner)
Design and build a replacement new battery backup emergency siren system that is not as complicated as the present one.
Course of action I (for the NRC) If the cause(s) of the recent total failure to sound all sirens in Putnam County is not identified and corrective actions fully taken in 30 days from the event, using the 2.206 process, direct that plant power be reduced by 10% that day and, additionally, by 10% each month following until the plants are shutdown cold.
EDO -- G2.0100014,
Reason: If they can provide sufficient management direction and adequate resources to straighten out equipment problems at Vermont Yankee (like collapsing cooling tower cells and falling 100 ton loads of spent nuclear fuel in a cask), maybe this will provide sufficient motivation to also be successful with equipment at Indian Point. But if it doesn't, New Yorkers living nearby will be safer with shutdown plants and unreliable sirens than they would be with running plants and unreliable sirens (in my opinion).
Thomas Gurdziel