The Failed Diesel Generator I predicted-anticipated At Pilgrim...
I predicted a failed DG and it showed up few months later. I believe the defect was available in Juno and this guy would have failed in it mission time if the accident would have been worst.
It is really so sloppy safety wise...
This is what Entergy is supposed to do at Pilgrim. They are supposed to anticipate problems based on the heavy duty use with the Diesel Generators.
Mike Mulligan February 11, 2015 at 10:47 am
This is what I got a problem with…everyone only showing the most prettified version of self. Not the most completely accurate version of events. The selective release of information that only creates the most handsome profile of self. The Brain Williams in the nuclear industry?
(2015) “During winter storm Juno, operators observed that water level indicators at the plant water intake were non-functional.”
Why didn’t the NRC admit this was missed by Entergy in storm Nemo? Why didn’t the NRC catch it in 2013? If you had a special inspection in 2013, you would have caught it then and preventing its re-occurrence in 2015?
What are you guys going to do if another blizzard knocks Pilgrim into another LOOP in 2015? I am predicting one diesel generator failure this time due to the accumulation to all the fast start-ups creating excessive stress on these machines. How many fast start-ups are these machines designed for considering all the LOOPs at this site and the integrated eccs testing ?
Don’t even get me talking about the broken meteorological tower I caught in Nemo…it being unreliable for a long period of time before this. This impaired a possible evacuation. I got it on the Pilgrim docket.
I do admit the water level is kind of insignificant in the big picture…but not knowing the limitation of your indications in a big event is bad.
They handled this like little leaguers. They didn't conservatively call the machine as inop just like the SRVs. I bet you this leakage was going on for a lot longer time...all through the winter.
Description. On March 18, 2015, at 2:15 AM, operators entered TS 3.5.F, “Minimum Low Pressure Cooling and Diesel Generator Availability,” to perform pre-startup checks of the X-107B EDG in accordance with procedure 8.9.1, “Emergency Diesel Generator and Associated Emergency Bus Surveillance,” Revision 129. TS 3.5.F provides a 72 hour limiting condition for operation (LCO) that can be extended to 14 days provided that all low pressure core and containment cooling systems, and the SBO diesel generator are determined to be operable. When the engine was rolled over with air to verify that no fluid was present in any of the cylinders, engine coolant was instead observed to spray out of the open cylinder test cock on cylinder 9L. Entergy staff estimated that approximately six ounces of fluid was discharged. This issue was entered into the CAP as CR-2015-02109. Entergy staff determined that the X-107B EDG had been and remained operable because the volume of fluid that had been discharged would not have produced a hydraulic lock on cylinder 9L and therefore would not have prevented the engine from starting. Entergy staff exited TS 3.5.F at 2:30 AM.The TS-required monthly surveillance test was satisfactorily completed on the X-107A EDG on April 2, 2015, approximately two weeks after the X-107B EDG 9L cylinder head coolant leakage event. While this did not eliminate the TS violation discussed above, it did demonstrate that, from a risk perspective, the X-107A EDG had been capable of performing its design safety function during that period.Entergy staff stated that their EDGs were capable of operating with one cylinder removed from service; however, were unable to provide the inspectors with any design documents or engineering calculations showing that the EDGs would be capable of supplying design basis loads under such conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment