ML16187A069: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Good morning, Tom Gurdziel <tgurdziel@twcny.rr.com> | |||
Good morning, Tom Gurdziel | Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:07 PM CHAIRMAN Resource JNappi@entergy.com; T Holden; Lyon, Jill:(NMP); | ||
<tgurdziel@twcny.rr.com> | Screnci, Diane; ESTRONSKI@aol.com; Bridget Frymire; tknauss@syracuse.com; Pickett, Douglas [External_Sender] | ||
Entergy Leadership Change I see that the Indian Point site vice president is being replaced. | Entergy Leadership Change I see that the Indian Point site vice president is being replaced. | ||
Before he goes, though, I would appreciate him getting the root cause of the February 2016 contaminated water release into the site ground water completed. | Before he goes, though, I would appreciate him getting the root cause of the February 2016 contaminated water release into the site ground water completed. | ||
I consider this a matter of Entergy upper management accountability as well as a demonstration of, (since the problem has already been identified), | I consider this a matter of Entergy upper management accountability as well as a demonstration of, (since the problem has already been identified), problem resolution or their site-wide inability to resolve problems. | ||
problem resolution or their site-wide inability to resolve problems. | As I count, it has been about 5 months of time without even a probable cause offered to the public. And could I just say that I have a hard time understanding how a company that cannot control unpressurized contaminated water from inside their "containment" building can be allowed to operate nuclear reactors at probably 2000 psig (inside that same "containment" building.) (Perhaps I assume too much. The problem I have identified is that, once contaminated water inside the Indian Point "containment" building leaks from where it is supposed to stay, it has then additionally leaked from inside the "containment" building to outside it. That means that they do NOT have containment integrity, which I might suppose is a requirement of their Technical Specifications when running the reactor at power. Did anybody (like Shift Managers) notice?) While we are talking about messing up the environment, could I point out that Entergy/FitzPatrick is having a current problem with oil. It seems that lubricating oil was able to fill a tank, flow up a vent pipe to above the roof, exit onto the roof, flow down the roof drain to a storm water drain and then enter the top surface of Lake Ontario, ALL DONE WITHOUT ELECTRIC POWER! (And apparently unnoticed by anyone on site.) They have at least said that "Environmental protection is a hallmark of our operations". | ||
As I count, it has been about 5 months of time without even a probable cause offered to the public. And could I just say that I have a hard time understanding how a company that cannot control unpressurized contaminated water from inside their "containment" building can be allowed to operate nuclear reactors at probably 2000 psig (inside that same "containment" building.) | I am not sure if the word "our" applies just to the site or to the entire fleet. Frankly, it appears to me that Entergy should enquire if Mike Balduzzi and Pete Dietrick can be paid enough money and provided a completely free hand to return and straighten out these situations. | ||
(Perhaps I assume too much. The problem I have identified is that, once contaminated water inside the Indian Point "containment" building leaks from where it is supposed to stay, it has then additionally leaked from inside the "containment" building to outside it. That means that they do NOT have containment integrity, which I might suppose is a requirement of their Technical Specifications when running the reactor at power. Did anybody (like Shift Managers) notice?) | Finally, one more Indian Point item. As I read the EPRI document MRP-227, Revision 1, it seems to me that this revision should have been used for the baffle-former bolt replacement because the use of Revision A is only allowed for plants that have received license extensions (as I read it, anyway), and neither Indian Point plant has received a license extension. | ||
While we are talking about messing up the environment, could I point out that Entergy/FitzPatrick is having a current problem with oil. It seems that lubricating oil was able to fill a tank, flow up a vent pipe to above the roof, exit onto the roof, flow down the roof drain to a storm water drain and then enter the top surface of Lake Ontario, ALL DONE WITHOUT ELECTRIC POWER! (And apparently unnoticed by anyone on site.) They have at least said that "Environmental protection is a hallmark of our operations". | |||
I am not sure if the word "our" applies just to the site or to the entire fleet. Frankly, it appears to me that Entergy should enquire if Mike Balduzzi and Pete Dietrick can be paid enough money and provided a completely free hand to return and straighten out these situations. | |||
and neither Indian Point plant has received a license extension. | |||
Could somebody find out if the proper procedure revision was used? Thank you, Tom Gurdziel One more thing. The FitzPatrick plant went down last Friday. Now, (Thursday night), the public still has received no information about why the loss of just one, non-safety related circuit breaker has prevented a restart for 7 days. The way I see it, you really have no business complaining that you can't make any money from your nuclear generating plant if you can't generate electricity. | Could somebody find out if the proper procedure revision was used? Thank you, Tom Gurdziel One more thing. The FitzPatrick plant went down last Friday. Now, (Thursday night), the public still has received no information about why the loss of just one, non-safety related circuit breaker has prevented a restart for 7 days. The way I see it, you really have no business complaining that you can't make any money from your nuclear generating plant if you can't generate electricity. | ||
1 | 1 | ||
[§J This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. | [§J This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. | ||
www .avast.com 2}} | www .avast.com 2}} | ||
Revision as of 07:08, 8 July 2018
| ML16187A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2016 |
| From: | Tom Gurdziel - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Burns S G NRC/Chairman |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16187A070 | List: |
| References | |
| LTR-16-0347 | |
| Download: ML16187A069 (2) | |
Text
CHAIRMAN Resource From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject:
Good morning, Tom Gurdziel <tgurdziel@twcny.rr.com>
Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:07 PM CHAIRMAN Resource JNappi@entergy.com; T Holden; Lyon, Jill:(NMP);
Screnci, Diane; ESTRONSKI@aol.com; Bridget Frymire; tknauss@syracuse.com; Pickett, Douglas [External_Sender]
Entergy Leadership Change I see that the Indian Point site vice president is being replaced.
Before he goes, though, I would appreciate him getting the root cause of the February 2016 contaminated water release into the site ground water completed.
I consider this a matter of Entergy upper management accountability as well as a demonstration of, (since the problem has already been identified), problem resolution or their site-wide inability to resolve problems.
As I count, it has been about 5 months of time without even a probable cause offered to the public. And could I just say that I have a hard time understanding how a company that cannot control unpressurized contaminated water from inside their "containment" building can be allowed to operate nuclear reactors at probably 2000 psig (inside that same "containment" building.) (Perhaps I assume too much. The problem I have identified is that, once contaminated water inside the Indian Point "containment" building leaks from where it is supposed to stay, it has then additionally leaked from inside the "containment" building to outside it. That means that they do NOT have containment integrity, which I might suppose is a requirement of their Technical Specifications when running the reactor at power. Did anybody (like Shift Managers) notice?) While we are talking about messing up the environment, could I point out that Entergy/FitzPatrick is having a current problem with oil. It seems that lubricating oil was able to fill a tank, flow up a vent pipe to above the roof, exit onto the roof, flow down the roof drain to a storm water drain and then enter the top surface of Lake Ontario, ALL DONE WITHOUT ELECTRIC POWER! (And apparently unnoticed by anyone on site.) They have at least said that "Environmental protection is a hallmark of our operations".
I am not sure if the word "our" applies just to the site or to the entire fleet. Frankly, it appears to me that Entergy should enquire if Mike Balduzzi and Pete Dietrick can be paid enough money and provided a completely free hand to return and straighten out these situations.
Finally, one more Indian Point item. As I read the EPRI document MRP-227, Revision 1, it seems to me that this revision should have been used for the baffle-former bolt replacement because the use of Revision A is only allowed for plants that have received license extensions (as I read it, anyway), and neither Indian Point plant has received a license extension.
Could somebody find out if the proper procedure revision was used? Thank you, Tom Gurdziel One more thing. The FitzPatrick plant went down last Friday. Now, (Thursday night), the public still has received no information about why the loss of just one, non-safety related circuit breaker has prevented a restart for 7 days. The way I see it, you really have no business complaining that you can't make any money from your nuclear generating plant if you can't generate electricity.
1
[§J This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www .avast.com 2