ML17309A010: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = E-Mail
| document type = E-Mail
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1SeabrookLANPEm ResourceFrom:Deborah Grinnell <grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com>Sent:Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:14 AMTo:Buford, Angela
==Subject:==
[External_Sender] The NRC acceptance of the SLAAngela, NextEra has not answered the questions you asked. in research The NRC still can not state Seabrook is operating with ASR under their license and never will be able to operate safely under their UFSAR and current license. NextEra's SLA has not addressed how they will monitor ASR in the complexity required ( which is a guess) nor have they been reliable in monitoring ASR at Seabrook in all the NRC documentation. Since 2011 without the NRC inspector's violations or NRC RAI's to push them to learn and you learn and understand the requirements to monitor or even monitor under NRC pressure to corrective actions or violations or rewriting their responses to the NRC RAI. Will they?? NO. The NRC studies are not complete or peer reviewed, right?? BUT you know you needed the NIST study done and peer reviewed in a gold standard. 
I can not believe the NRC accepted NextEr'a license amendment. Did you accept the SLA ?? Did the NRC research division accept the SLA?? Did anyone? How?
Is the decision based on on basis-.you don't have an ASR basis to accept it. The operative determination is singularly based on a single day-..ASR at Seabrook will collapse-and to continue to operate the plant you will only continue to report SEABROOK's ASR until the one report about a collapse. Hopefully it will not be at a ground level radiation release and the public radiation health exposure lot of people are at risk-isn't that your job to protect us-or is it to primarily to release the plant?? I has been proven, hasn't it?? Lawyers can not morally cover your responsibly, can they?
Debbie Hearing Identifier:  Seabrook_LA_NonPublic  Email Number:  367  Mail Envelope Properties  (6B2B4F8A-0606-4214-8A35-2EC0E5476336) 
==Subject:==
  [External_Sender] The NRC acceptance of the SLA  Sent Date:  3/1/2017 10:14:14 AM  Received Date:  3/1/2017 10:14:18 AM  From:    Deborah Grinnell  Created By:  grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com  Recipients:    "Buford, Angela" <Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:  gmail.com  Files    Size      Date & Time  MESSAGE    1608      3/1/2017 10:14:18 AM Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:       
}}
}}

Revision as of 02:10, 24 April 2018

2017/03/01 Seabrook La - [External_Sender] the NRC Acceptance of the Sla
ML17309A010
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/01/2017
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
References
17-953-02-LA-BD01
Download: ML17309A010 (2)
v • d • e


Text

1SeabrookLANPEm ResourceFrom:Deborah Grinnell <grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com>Sent:Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:14 AMTo:Buford, Angela

Subject:

[External_Sender] The NRC acceptance of the SLAAngela, NextEra has not answered the questions you asked. in research The NRC still can not state Seabrook is operating with ASR under their license and never will be able to operate safely under their UFSAR and current license. NextEra's SLA has not addressed how they will monitor ASR in the complexity required ( which is a guess) nor have they been reliable in monitoring ASR at Seabrook in all the NRC documentation. Since 2011 without the NRC inspector's violations or NRC RAI's to push them to learn and you learn and understand the requirements to monitor or even monitor under NRC pressure to corrective actions or violations or rewriting their responses to the NRC RAI. Will they?? NO. The NRC studies are not complete or peer reviewed, right?? BUT you know you needed the NIST study done and peer reviewed in a gold standard.

I can not believe the NRC accepted NextEr'a license amendment. Did you accept the SLA ?? Did the NRC research division accept the SLA?? Did anyone? How?

Is the decision based on on basis-.you don't have an ASR basis to accept it. The operative determination is singularly based on a single day-..ASR at Seabrook will collapse-and to continue to operate the plant you will only continue to report SEABROOK's ASR until the one report about a collapse. Hopefully it will not be at a ground level radiation release and the public radiation health exposure lot of people are at risk-isn't that your job to protect us-or is it to primarily to release the plant?? I has been proven, hasn't it?? Lawyers can not morally cover your responsibly, can they?

Debbie Hearing Identifier: Seabrook_LA_NonPublic Email Number: 367 Mail Envelope Properties (6B2B4F8A-0606-4214-8A35-2EC0E5476336)

Subject:

[External_Sender] The NRC acceptance of the SLA Sent Date: 3/1/2017 10:14:14 AM Received Date: 3/1/2017 10:14:18 AM From: Deborah Grinnell Created By: grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com Recipients: "Buford, Angela" <Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1608 3/1/2017 10:14:18 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17309A010&oldid=597123"