ML16006A046

W. Maurer Email Pilgrim Winter Storm Protocol

ML16006A046
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	01/04/2016
From:	Maurer W - No Known Affiliation
To:	Raymond Mckinley Plant Support Branch 1
References
Download: ML16006A046 (1)

Text

ML16006A046 From: William Maurer [1]

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 9:45 AM To: McKinley, Raymond <Raymond.McKinley@nrc.gov>

Cc: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Kurt.Schwartz <Kurt.Schwartz@MassMail.state.ma.us>;

Christine.packard <Christine.packard@massmail.state.ma.us>; John.Giarrusso

<John.Giarrusso@massmail.state.ma.us>; PilgrimCoalitionForum <pilgrimcoalition forum@googlegroups.com>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Pilgrim Winter Storm Protocol Good Morning Mr. McKinley, Our first 2015/16 winter storm is fast approaching. I have a questions relative to our previous correspondence (highlighted below) about recurrent switch yard performance failures during typical severe winter weather conditions:

You stated, "...Entergy has taken corrective action to enhance their storm procedures...". Exactly what are these improved corrective actions?

You also stated, "Entergy also has plans to make switchyard physical improvements to help improve switchyard reliability during severe winter storms." Exactly what switchyard physical improvements have been made since last winter's failures? What switchyard physical improvements are planned but yet to accomplished?

You also stated, "In the interim, Entergys storm procedures require a plant shutdown prior to severe winter storms such as Nemo and Juno." Today we have our first winter storm approaching. Exactly what are weather conditions that will trigger a precautionary shutdown? Exactly what are steps Entergy and NRC are taking in their evaluation of today's storm's severity and the switchyard's ability to perform successfully?

Are Pilgrim's winter storm precautionary shutdowns mandatory by the NRC's regulatory oversight or discretionary to be determined solely by Entergy?

When will Pilgrim's switchyard's performance ability be improved to reliably and successfully cope with the typical severe winter weather conditions it has recurrently failed cope with since 1978 (and possibly/probably longer)?

Does Entergy and the NRC plan to let Pilgrim's switchyard limp along a risk of failure during severe winter weather through 60 years of SAFSTOR or spend the large amount of money required as soon as possible to make the upgrades necessary for reliable and successful performance through typical severe winter weather conditions?

My personal opinion: It's unconscionable that BECO, Entergy, the NRC, FEMA and MEMA have knowingly gambled with public safety without correcting Pilgrim's well known switchyard deficiencies for decades until concerned citizens uncovered the recurrent switchyard failure pattern and history after 2015 Nor'easter Juno. Upgrading the switchyard with precautionary shutdowns until upgraded should have been a no brainer for everyone involved a long time ago especially considering that evacuation is impossible during severe winter weather conditions.

William Maurer 140 Gifford Street Falmouth, MA 02540 508-548-6221

ML16006A046 From: William Maurer [2]

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 9:45 AM To: McKinley, Raymond <Raymond.McKinley@nrc.gov>

Cc: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Kurt.Schwartz <Kurt.Schwartz@MassMail.state.ma.us>;

Christine.packard <Christine.packard@massmail.state.ma.us>; John.Giarrusso

<John.Giarrusso@massmail.state.ma.us>; PilgrimCoalitionForum <pilgrimcoalition forum@googlegroups.com>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Pilgrim Winter Storm Protocol Good Morning Mr. McKinley, Our first 2015/16 winter storm is fast approaching. I have a questions relative to our previous correspondence (highlighted below) about recurrent switch yard performance failures during typical severe winter weather conditions:

You stated, "...Entergy has taken corrective action to enhance their storm procedures...". Exactly what are these improved corrective actions?

You also stated, "Entergy also has plans to make switchyard physical improvements to help improve switchyard reliability during severe winter storms." Exactly what switchyard physical improvements have been made since last winter's failures? What switchyard physical improvements are planned but yet to accomplished?

You also stated, "In the interim, Entergys storm procedures require a plant shutdown prior to severe winter storms such as Nemo and Juno." Today we have our first winter storm approaching. Exactly what are weather conditions that will trigger a precautionary shutdown? Exactly what are steps Entergy and NRC are taking in their evaluation of today's storm's severity and the switchyard's ability to perform successfully?

Are Pilgrim's winter storm precautionary shutdowns mandatory by the NRC's regulatory oversight or discretionary to be determined solely by Entergy?

When will Pilgrim's switchyard's performance ability be improved to reliably and successfully cope with the typical severe winter weather conditions it has recurrently failed cope with since 1978 (and possibly/probably longer)?

Does Entergy and the NRC plan to let Pilgrim's switchyard limp along a risk of failure during severe winter weather through 60 years of SAFSTOR or spend the large amount of money required as soon as possible to make the upgrades necessary for reliable and successful performance through typical severe winter weather conditions?

My personal opinion: It's unconscionable that BECO, Entergy, the NRC, FEMA and MEMA have knowingly gambled with public safety without correcting Pilgrim's well known switchyard deficiencies for decades until concerned citizens uncovered the recurrent switchyard failure pattern and history after 2015 Nor'easter Juno. Upgrading the switchyard with precautionary shutdowns until upgraded should have been a no brainer for everyone involved a long time ago especially considering that evacuation is impossible during severe winter weather conditions.

William Maurer 140 Gifford Street Falmouth, MA 02540 508-548-6221