Great news folks...Indian Point just hit a MAJOR snag in the process to relicense their aging, failing reactors. Seems that the NRC has found some crucial OMMISSIONS in the application...OH GEE, like that is a big surprise. More importantly, these are issues we now know to make contentions on...trust me, they left those items out for a reason, not because it was a clerical oversight.
June 18, 2007
Mr. Michael Kansler
President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT: REVIEW STATUS OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3
Dear Mr. Kansler:
By letter dated April 23, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated May 3, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application for renewal of Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.
By teleconference on June 6, 2007, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informed representatives from Entergy that certain information is needed for the staff to complete the acceptance review of the license renewal application (LRA) for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Specifically, the NRC staff informed Entergy that the current licensing basis for Unit 2 was not fully represented in accordance with Part 54.4(a)(3) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.4(a)(3)).
During its acceptance review, the NRC staff determined that the applicant has not included within the scope of license renewal those systems, structures, and components relied on in the safety analyses or plant evaluations to perform a function that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for station blackout (SBO) per 10 CFR 50.63, and safe shutdown per 10 CFR 50.48. In this regard, the LRA did not include information on the gas turbines currently credited as an alternate power supply for the Appendix R and SBO events.
Please respond within 14 days of the receipt of this letter to inform the staff of your plans to resolve the acceptance issue identified above. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bo Pham by telephone at 301-415-8450 or via e-mail at BMP@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director
Division of License Renewal
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
cc: See next page
June 18, 2007
Mr. Michael Kansler
President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT: REVIEW STATUS OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3
Dear Mr. Kansler:
By letter dated April 23, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated May 3, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application for renewal of Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.
By teleconference on June 6, 2007, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informed representatives from Entergy that certain information is needed for the staff to complete the acceptance review of the license renewal application (LRA) for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Specifically, the NRC staff informed Entergy that the current licensing basis for Unit 2 was not fully represented in accordance with Part 54.4(a)(3) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.4(a)(3)).
During its acceptance review, the NRC staff determined that the applicant has not included within the scope of license renewal those systems, structures, and components relied on in the safety analyses or plant evaluations to perform a function that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for station blackout (SBO) per 10 CFR 50.63, and safe shutdown per 10 CFR 50.48. In this regard, the LRA did not include information on the gas turbines currently credited as an alternate power supply for the Appendix R and SBO events.
Please respond within 14 days of the receipt of this letter to inform the staff of your plans to resolve the acceptance issue identified above. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bo Pham by telephone at 301-415-8450 or via e-mail at BMP@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director
Division of License Renewal
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
cc: See next page
4 comments:
"Major snag"? Snort! So tell me: How much do you know about the regulatory oversight that goes on at nuclear power plants? Because I know a little bit about it. And I'd be willing to bet an entire week's pay (about $2500 -- you see, I'm a highly-skilled nuclear plant worker, not a rebellious youth who likes to blog) that the systems whose analyses the NRC wants included in the LRA are already under constant scrutiny by the NRC, and that these systems already meet NRC standards for operability and reliability, and that including the additional information in the LRA will be little more than a formality. In fact, I can guarantee you that if these systems *didn't* already meet the NRC's standards, Indian Point would already be shut down. The NRC is very picky that way.
But feel free to light up some pot and dance around with glee over this "major snag" if it makes you feel better.
Oh, and Indian Point's license will be renewed. I'll bet an entire *month's* pay on that one. Sorry to kill your buzz.
Gee...Highly skilled nuclear plant worker...with all due respect, if the thugs that showed up in mass at the April Annual Assessment meeting to support Entergy are any example, I'd swear that statement was and oxymoron. As for being a rebellous youth, at 51 doubt that I fit into that category.
As for your comment on the LRA being little more than a formality, I THANK YOU for that comment, as it supports one of my contentions, and your comment has just earned its way into our petition to intervene. Trust me, the citizens are very aware of the fact the NRC is trying to rubber stamp the process, and I'll be introducing a lot of NEI, NRC and DOE documents into the mix to prove that very point, especially as relates to Indian Point.
As for NRC standards...you mean the standards that have consistently lowered safety and health standards by issuing letters of generic finding one after the other that excuse their licensees from the very regulations they are supposed to abide by? The standards that saw them allow David Bessy to operate with a huge hole in the dome under the guise the company could not afford the financial losses of shutting the plant down for repair.
Or maybe you mean the NRC standards that saw carpetbagging commissions remove from the DBT weapons that are routine terrorist issue because including them make Indian Point and other reactors security infrastructure obsolete. Bullet resistant glass will not stand up against mortars, rocket launched grenades, or armor piercing ammo, but the NEI insisted that those weapons be removed from the list that site security had to be prepared to defend against.
Or perhaps you are talking about the NRC standards that don't fine Entergy on a daily basis for their tritium and strontium 90 leaks that are inviolation of both state and NRC rules and regulations...sure the fact that the state owns the land and discharge channel for Indian Point is playing a part in their reluctance to institute litigation against the company....after all, that makes them a party to the suit.
Curious here, have you yourself actually read the ENTIRE application and its underlying documents? (almost 3000 pages) I have, and am now on my second read through it using a high liter pen to identify its weaknesses.
Indian Point might get relicensed because the NRC is in collusion with NEI and the nuclear industry to bring forth a Nuclear Renaissance (go read the NERAC committee reports), but if they do, they will have paid a huge price to get said license through, because we already know from the NRC that there is more visiable opposition to Indian Points relicense, more petitions being filed than at any other facility in America.
51, I guess you can't use the excuse of youth, but then again 30+ years of loving scotch and wine could explain the paranoia.
Buy the way, we have security against mortars, rocket launched grenades in this country and it's called the US Armed Forces. If foreign fighters are going to be on our soil using these weapons you WILL see troops defending our country.
Gee Curtis, nice attempt at character assassination. Yes, I do enjoy the occassional good single malt Scotch...perhaps a nice Balvenie Doublewood, or even a 85 Macallan come to mind. I also drink wine, with a penchant for Merlot, but all things in moderation. Your suggestion and attempts to paint me as and alcoholic are rather sad, and speak volumes about your character, or lack thereof.
Nice slight of hand on protecting against mortars, rocket launched grenades and armor piercing ammo. Yes, America does have a military, and sure it would be deployed when and if needed...problem is, in the case of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, time is NOT on our side, and reactor security as deplorable and inept as it is, is our FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE in such and attack.
Curious here...guess you missed the latest court rulings against the Bush administration where the judges said terrorists could not be held as enemy combatants, that they have to be tried, or let go? In short, as a general rule, terrorists are a police issue, not a military issue.
Based on that ruling, the NRC is going to have no choice but to significantly strengthen the DBT by reinstating onto the weapons list those weapons the NEI lobbied to have taken off.
Post a Comment