The NRC Selectively Enforces the Laws

So why didn't the NRC OIG step in before purchasing the new steam generator?  

San Onofre NRC OIG Report

 

Nuke regulator faulted for California plant oversight

By Timothy Cama - 10/08/14 10:46 AM EDT

Nuclear enforcement officials failed in 2009 to predict that a California power plant’s steam generators would cause problems, government auditors said.

The revelations came in a lengthy report released Tuesday on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego on the Pacific coast.

The plant shut down last year, but it had been idle since 2012 after it was found that faulty new steam generators had been rapidly deteriorating, causing a small leak of radiation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Office of Inspector General faulted the agency for “shortcomings” in the 2009 inspection that approved the generator change.

Auditors also questioned how Southern California Edison, the plant’s operator, was allowed to install the new steam generators without amending its operating license.

“There is no assurance that NRC reached the correct conclusion in its 2009 inspection that [San Onofre] did not need a license amendment for its steam generator replacement,” the report concluded.

Some NRC officials questioned whether the agency was making the right decision in allowing the swap to move forward without licensing changes or believe that in hindsight, but the process went through nonetheless.

A former regional NRC official told investigators that the generators were “basically unlicensable” and should not have been approved.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, agreed with the findings.

“When Southern California Edison decided to completely replace their steam generators in order to increase their profit margin, they failed to apply for an amended license as they are required to do, and NRC stood by and did nothing,” she said in a statement.

Boxer said she has initiated her own investigation into the matter and plans to hold a December hearing with NRC officials to discuss the inspector general’s findings.

Ginna Must Be Taking Shortcuts losing $100 Million

These guys lose $100s of million dollars due to botched maintenance...that is 75% of the problem. 

How many nukes are in the same boats.  

Ginna's future in jeopardy

By Jeremy Moule@jfmoule

The owner of the R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant says that the facility may close unless it gets a new contract for the sale of its electricity. And even that may only be enough to keep the aging nuclear plant going for a few more years, the owner says.

Ginna's cloudy future is a matter of economics. Its majority owner, Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, says in a recent filing with the State Public Service Commission that the price it's getting for its electricity won't be enough to cover the plant's operating and investment costs.

Prior to June, Rochester Gas and Electric was contractually obligated to purchase 90 percent of Ginna's output. But the 10-year agreement expired that month, and Ginna has since started selling its electricity into New York's competitive marketplace. Even under the RG&E contract — at times, the utility paid above market prices for power, at others it paid below market prices — the plant was running in the red. The commission's filing says that Ginna's losses have significantly exceeded $100 million over the last three years.

That's why Constellation, a subsidiary of nuclear energy giant Exelon, is asking state utilities regulators to clear the way for a new, albeit temporary contract with RG&E; the utility would buy power from Ginna on an as-needed basis at negotiated prices. The so-called reliability support services agreement would forestall Ginna's retirement, Constellation's filing says.

Without the contract, Constellation management will recommend the plant's retirement to the company's board of directors, the filing says. The filing doesn't say how much of an impact the contract would have on the plant's bottom line, and the company declined to discuss details of its request.

"The filing is a proactive step to ensure grid reliability and continue the station's positive economic impact on the local community and the Central New York region," Maria Hudson, a spokesperson for Ginna, says in an e-mailed statement.

Hudson says that the plant will continue operating as the Public Service Commission reviews its request, and that Constellation will keep working to "identify market-based solutions that enable us to keep operating Ginna."

So what does any of this mean to Rochester-area electric customers? Unfortunately, there's no clear answer. Using a temporary contract to prop up the plant could cost RG&E customers if its terms include above-market prices. But letting the plant go offline could also bump up utility bills, since filling supply gaps would likely carry some costs.

Rochester Gas and Electric hasn't taken a firm position on Constellation's request.

"If the commission directs us to, RG&E will negotiate an RSSA with the best interests of our customers in the forefront, while recognizing the importance of reaching reasonable terms for all parties," Mark Lynch, RG&E president and CEO, says in a statement.

But Constellation's request does have critics, including owners of other New York power plants. They're concerned that the company is essentially trying to get special treatment by skirting the commission's process for plant retirements. That process has firm, detailed rules that are meant to protect other power providers, utility companies, electricity customers, and the state's competitive market, they say.

"There [are] a whole lot of lawyers representing the competition who want to see those boundaries maintained," says Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a national environmental organization that says it's not for or against nuclear power.

The commission doesn't have a deadline to complete its review of Ginna's request, according to a commission spokesperson. In its petition, Constellation says that it wants to have the temporary contract with RG&E filed by December 1, and for it to go into effect no later than January 11, 2015.

Nuclear power plant owners have been shutting down financially underperforming reactors across the country. And analysts at major financial research firms, including Moody's and Standard and Poor's, have warned that more economically stressed plants are likely to close before their federal licenses expire.

In their reports, the analysts have repeatedly said that Ginna is a likely candidate for closure, since it's a smaller plant selling into a competitive market dominated by cheaper electricity sources.

Fracking plays a big role in this trend. Over the past few years, large supplies of natural gas have been extracted from shale formations in Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, and other states. As a result, the price of natural gas has plummeted, which has enabled power plants that run on the fuel to produce lots of electricity much more cheaply than they previously could.

The way that New York's deregulated electricity market works, all generators are essentially paid the same base rate for their power. That rate is set through an intricate process, but it's basically an average of what the different plants charge for the power they are able to produce. And when a group of plants can produce a lot of energy cheaply, which is what natural gas plants have been able to do, it drives down the price paid to all power plants.

This is exactly how New York's power market is supposed to function. It was designed to drive down what consumers pay for electricity by giving an incentive to efficient plants and encouraging the retirement of less-efficient plants.

The nuclear industry once backed this approach, known generally as utility deregulation. But now, nuclear industry representatives say that the competitive electricity markets are flawed. A policy brief from the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, says that the market operators set power prices for nuclear electricity too low.

The brief also says that market operators undervalue nuclear's contributions to states' electric systems, particularly the protection that nuclear offers against volatility in natural gas prices and supplies. To illustrate that need, nuclear energy supporters point to the natural gas shortages that occurred during a period of harsh cold last winter. In Upstate New York and much of the Northeast, tight gas supplies drove up the cost of generating power, and many customers saw a spike in their utility bills.

The contract that Ginna wants would temporarily prop up the plant, though it may not make it profitable.

And Constellation says that there is still need for Ginna's power. Its petition to the Public Service Commission is built around a reliability study from the New York Independent Systems Operator, the organization that manages the state's power grid. The study, conducted at Constellation's request, says that without Ginna or some other power source equal to that plant's output, the Rochester-area electric system could experience reliability problems through 2018 — meaning that there's an outside chance that there won't be enough power to go around when demand is at its peak.

Tentatively, RG&E officials expect to have a significant transmission upgrade, the Rochester Area Reliability Project, completed in 2018. Constellation's filing says that the need for Ginna's power is tied to that transmission project.

But RG&E officials say that the project is not intended to replace Ginna. If Ginna retires, further transmission systems upgrades would probably be necessary, they say.

Constellation's request has supporters, including a handful of elected officials who have submitted comments backing the temporary contract. House Representatives Dan Maffei and Tom Reed made a joint submission supporting the agreement; State Senator George Maziarz, who chairs his chamber's energy committee, submitted supportive comments; and Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks has given it her backing.

Ginna's owners and supporters also tout economic benefits from continued operation of the plant. Ginna regularly employs 700 people and is the largest taxpayer in Wayne County — in 2012, it paid $10 million in local and state taxes. Owners also say that the plant offers environmental benefits to the state. It'd be harder and more expensive for the state to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals without Ginna, the company's commission filing says.

Brooks says that Ginna is a critical part of the local power infrastructure and that she doesn't know how its power would be replaced.

"Nuclear power is still one of the most cost-effective ways of providing power to a lot of people," Brooks says.

But opponents of Constellation's request say that the company is asking the state's utilities regulator to do something unprecedented.

The Public Service Commission has an established and detailed process for retiring power plants. And that process doesn't start until a plant owner makes a formal filing stating that the decision has been made to close.

From there, the commission orders studies to examine whether the plant's power supply is needed for reliability purposes and for how long. Through that process, plant owners can get contracts to keep the facilities running temporarily.

But the closing proceedings also open up a process where other power providers, large and small, can offer proposals to meet identified electricity supply needs.

In a filing, New York City officials asked the commission to reject Constellation's petition because of the precedent it could set. In that city's market, any retiring generator would probably cause a reliability issue, they say. And they worry that plant owners could try to hold utilities and their customers captive by threatening to retire unless they get a reliability support services contract.

The Alliance for a Green Economy, a coalition of environmental social justice groups including the state Sierra Club chapter, also wants the commission to reject Constellation's petitions. In general, the organization wants New York to phase out nuclear power plants. (Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power; they see it as potentially unsafe and take issue with some of the ecological impacts, particularly the plants' use of large quantities of water.)

The group says that straying from the established plant retirement process limits other possibilities for filling identified electricity needs, including renewables development or large-scale energy efficiency projects.

"There needs to be a really good process to figure out is this plant really needed for reliability, which we're skeptical of," says Jessica Azulay, program director for AGREE. "If they are, how long are they actually needed, and what can we do to phase them out as quickly as possible in a way that is the most environmentally friendly and the best for ratepayers?".

Jacobs, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that the situation facing Ginna is more political than regulatory. It hinges on a question of whether the public and government officials want nuclear plants to keep running, he says. And if that's the case, he says, are they willing to offer heftier subsidies to the plants?

Jacobs says that the state Public Service Commission doesn't have an established mechanism or process to grant Constellation's request. But he says that there are other avenues that the company — and other New York nuclear plant owners — could take if it wants to improve Ginna's financial performance. For example, it could petition the Public Service Commission to set a higher carbon price, which would increase generating costs for fossil fuel generators in the state.

Azulay and Jacobs say that Ginna's situation highlights a bigger issue around electric system planning. Pretty much all nuclear plants were built at a time when natural gas and electricity prices were higher. The utility industry isn't sure how to handle the new reality, where other large generators can out-price them.

But the utility industry has also been warned that these closures might come, they say. Utility companies, grid operators, regulators, and policymakers should be planning ahead, they say.

The comments from New York City officials echo that point, and say in particular that Ginna's potential closure should come as no surprise. In fact, city officials' comments are blunt on that point, and lay the problem at the local utility's feet.

"Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation should have been preparing for the closure of Ginna, but apparently has not," their filing says.

Why is Wolf Creek In Trouble?

I think it is a instrumentation transformer...not the main line transformer.

Much smaller and easily fixable...

Wolf Creek faces shutdown if fire-damaged generator isn’t fixed in 2 day

By Dion Lefler
The Wichita Eagle

10/07/2014 11:13 AM

10/07/2014 11:15 AM

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article2556561.html#storylink=cpy

The Wolf Creek nuclear power plant has about two days to fix a fire-damaged generator or shut the plant down for repair, officials of the plant’s operating company said.

The plant, near Burlington, went on alert for about two hours Monday afternoon after fire broke out in one of its emergency generator rooms, according to a statement from the Wolf Creek Operating Corp., which runs the plant on behalf of its owners, Westar Energy, Kansas City Power & Light and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative.

The damaged generator is one of two that provide emergency backup power if the plant loses its regular supply of both on- and off-site power, the statement said.

No radiation was released by the incident and the plant has continued to run at full capacity.

The plant’s permit regulations require that the damaged generator be repaired within three days, or the plant shut down until repairs are completed.

Westar and KCP&L each own 47 percent of the plant and are entitled to that much of its power output. KEPCo owns the remaining 6 percent and gets that much of the power.

When the plant is off line, the utilities have to cover for it by producing more energy –– and burning more fuel –– at their coal and gas plants, and/or buying power from other utilities.

Westar estimates that a plant shutdown costs the company about $280,000 a day and KEPCo estimates its cost is about $35,000. KCP&L refuses to release any information about its additional costs when Wolf Creek is down.

Last week, the plant avoided a possible shutdown when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the operating company an extension on repair time for a malfunction unrelated to Monday’s generator fire.

Wolf Creek had asked for additional time to fix a broken sump tunnel level transmitter, a detection unit immediately underneath the plant’s reactor that would provide a warning of a reactor coolant leak.

The plant has to be shut down to fix that problem, because the radiation level under the reactor is too high for people to work there when it’s running, even if they’re in protective suits.
Both Wolf Creek and an outside expert contacted by The Eagle agreed that the plant could safely operate without the sensor for longer than the 30-day repair time specified in the plant’s operating permit, because any leaks would be detected by other sensors monitoring temperature, humidity and radiation in the reactor building.

The NRC granted Wolf Creek’s request for permission to run without the sensor until the next scheduled shutdown for refueling, which is planned to begin in late February.

Power Reactor	Event Number: 50510
Facility: WOLF CREEK Region: 4 State: KS Unit: [1] [ ] [ ] RX Type: [1] W-4-LP NRC Notified By: MIKE NORRIS HQ OPS Officer: MARK ABRAMOVITZ	Notification Date: 10/06/2014 Notification Time: 15:00 [ET] Event Date: 10/06/2014 Event Time: 13:36 [CDT] Last Update Date: 10/06/2014
Emergency Class: ALERT 10 CFR Section: 50.72(a) (1) (i) - EMERGENCY DECLARED	Person (Organization): DON ALLEN (R4DO) KRISS KENNEDY (R4DR) BILL DEAN (NRR) MARC DAPAS (R4RA) JEFFERY GRANT (IRD) SAMSON LEE (NRR)

Unit	SCRAM Code	RX CRIT	Initial PWR	Initial RX Mode	Current PWR	Current RX Mode
1	N	Y	100	Power Operation	100	Power Operation

Event Text

ALERT DECLARED - FIRE IN A DIESEL GENERATOR POTENTIAL TRANSFORMER At 1336 CDT, Wolf Creek declared an Alert due to a fire. The fire in the "B" Emergency Diesel Generator potential transformer was extinguished using a portable CO2 fire extinguisher. Plant personnel were exposed to the smoke and were evaluated with no injuries noted. The plant continued to operate at 100% power throughout the event. The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector, State of Kansas Division of Emergency Management, and the Coffey County Sheriff Notified DHS SWO, DOE Ops Center, FEMA Ops Center, HHS Ops Center, NICC Watch Officer, USDA OPS Center, EPA EOC, FDA EOC, and Nuclear SSA via email. * * * UPDATE AT 1648 EDT ON 10/6/2014 FROM AARON LUCAS TO MARK ABRAMOVITZ * * * The Alert was terminated at 1542 CDT because the fire had been terminated within fifteen minutes and a walkdown of the area was clear. The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector. Notified the R4DO (Allen), IRD (Grant), NRR (Lee), DHS SWO, DOE Ops Center, FEMA Ops Center, HHS Ops Center, NICC Watch Officer, USDA OPS Center, EPA EOC, FDA EOC, and Nuclear SSA via email..

Originally posted on 9/29 

Utilities' attitude should change to boost safety: center head

The head of Japan's newly established private Nuclear Risk Research Center said Wednesday that a "major change" is required in the attitude of Japanese plant operators in enhancing the safety of nuclear power in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima crisis. 

George Apostolakis, a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, took the post of chief of the center which was set up the same day. The entity will engage in research and risk assessment to reduce nuclear risks, and promote continued self-initiated safety enhancement by nuclear plant operators. 

During a meeting with industry minister Yuko Obuchi, Apostolakis said he hopes "the attitude (among Japanese utilities) of 'meeting regulations is enough' has ceased to exist" after the worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 Chernobyl. 

"The regulations specify the minimum amount of safety that is acceptable. It's a responsibility of the owners (of nuclear plants) to go beyond that," he said.
Obuchi said the nuclear industry was caught up in a "safety myth" where utilities tended to be complacent about safety once regulatory requirements were met. 

"But after experiencing the Fukushima accident, we know that's not going to work any longer," she added.
After the Fukushima meltdowns, utilities, especially Tokyo Electric Power Co. -- the operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant -- came under fire for not taking enough safety measures based on the "safety myth," and failing to include such a severe accident in their assumptions

Sept 29

I gave Mr Oesterle (1-301-415-1014) a quick call today, left a recording...basically saying these events around the tunnel instrumentation constitutes agency corruption.

I am thinking $3 million dollars...

If federal regulators don’t grant the request, it means Wolf Creek would have to be shut down for two to three days, which would likely cost Kansas utilities, and eventually their customers, more than $1 million.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article2273459.html#storylink=cpy

I was calling yesterday to ask how to contest the licence Amendment. As i said, I left a message, then made another call getting the project manager. He said somebody was in the room with him, he promised he would call me back.

This must be a world record getting a document added into the NRC document system. Notice I called on the Sept 29 and the document is dated 29, it was publicly disclosed on the Sept 30... 

I wonder if he got wind I wanted to contest the LAR, would they have to shut the plant because it was going to the system... 

September 29, 2014

SUBJECT: WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION- ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES RE: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.4.15, "RCS LEAKAGE DETECTION INSTRUMENTATION," COMPLETION TIME EXTENSION (TAC NO. MF4777)

Dear Mr. Heflin:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 211 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for the Wolf Creek Generating Station. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to your application dated September 10, 2014. This amendment is being issued under exigent circumstances in accordance with paragraph 50.91 (a)(6) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Sept 29

Rumor has it they are looking around for Entergy or Exelon to manage the site 

MID-CYCLE ASSESSMENT LETTERFOR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION (REPORT 0500482/2014006)

Wolf Creek puts poor quality components inside their containment for sump water level detection. The radiation causes shorts …unit freezes up.

First freeze up happen in Nov 2013.

Another one occurred and they called it inoperable on May 28, 2014.

Rules say fix it or be shutdown in month.

 This document was date Sept 18, 2014:

PUBLIC NOTICE NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO AMEND OPERATING LICENSE AT THE WOLF CREEKGENERATING STATION

Added to adams on Sept 22, I just noticed it on Sept 29….

The NRC says the comment period ends on Sept 26…

I thought the comment came out today, with the end of the comment period seven days ago…that is why I called in a huff I made certain of the dates.

So I asked why was the comment period close before the document came out…I was in error.

But the comment I got back was more puzzling than anything else, he said,  "it was written under exigent circumstances".

No doubt it was ginned up exigent circumstances…

They knew about this problem since Nov 2013…

I got a call into project manager on this and I am awaiting his call back. Got a list of issues and

***During the facility-administered annual operating tests of licensed operators, the licensee training staff evaluated crew and individual operator performance during dynamic simulator scenarios and individual operator performance during job performance measures. There were two crew failures and 11 individual failures. The licensee remediated and retested the staff prior to returning them to licensed duties. Analysis. In accordance with Inspection Procedure 71111.11, each of the following was a performance deficiency against expected licensed operator knowledge and abilities: 1) Greater than 20 percent of the crews failing their scenarios and 2) greater than 20 percent of the licensed operator staff failing their operating tests. Using the Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Appendix B, "Issue Screening," the inspecton determined that the finding was more than minor because the performance deficiency was associated with the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of human performance, and affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. The inspector determined that this finding could be evaluated using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix I, "Licensed Operator Requalification Significance Determination Process." This finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because the finding was related to the requalification

I'd like to know how they come up with the 40% failure rate is unsafe?

exam results, did not result in a failure rate of greater than 40 percent, and the licensed operators were remediated prior to returning to shift. This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance associated with

Green. The inspector reviewed a self-revealing finding associated with licensed operator performance on the annual requalification operating tests. Specifically, 2 of 8 crews (25 percent) failed the simulator scenario portion of the operating test; and 11 of 46 licensed operators (23 percent) either failed the scenario or failed the job performance measure portions of the operating tests. The licensee remediated and retested the staff prior to returning them to licensed duties. Wolf Creek entered this finding into their corrective action program as Condition Report 75336.

It is not the lake water that is corroding the pipe...it is inexpensive and inappropriate metal used for the pipe at initial construction. They need to replace all the pipes.

Wolf Creek Assures NRC It's Fixing Water Issues

Officials from Wolf Creek, the only nuclear power plant in Kansas, updated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday on their efforts to solve persistent problems with the water supply that cools safety equipment at the plant. As Kansas Public Radio's Bryan Thompson reports, the NRC has been aware of the problems for the last five years.
 The essential service water system brings water into the plant from Coffey County Lake—not to cool the reactor itself, but to cool equipment needed to shut down the reactor in an emergency. The lake water has caused corrosion in the pipes, and when the pumps kick on, the surge in water pressure has blown small holes in the pipes. The NRC was looking for assurances that the company is finally on a path to resolve the problem. Wolf Creek site vice president Cleve Reasoner said he’s confident, but not certain.
“We have good confidence in our logic, and we’re seeing positive numbers, but the reality is until you’ve got the material in hand or the confirmation is signed, there is risk," says Reasoner. "Don’t know how to give you a percentage confidence number, but it’s not 100%.”

Wolf Creek officials emphasized that the plant is under new management, and has a new, hands-on approach to addressing engineering problems. The company has already replaced nearly four miles of underground pipe. The repairs are scheduled to be finished next spring, at a cost of more than $28 million.

 

Exelon: Too Big to be a Competent Public Utility

Look at how well Dominion did in the 2009 financial crisis and the stock price has been screaming up until recently. 

Basically Exelon collapsed in 2009 and has been stagnant since 2009 or in decline. 

Study: Reactors at Risk of Closure Add $3.8 Billion to Illinois Economy

Nuclear Street News Team

Thu, Oct 2 2014 10:26 AM

A study by the Nuclear Energy Institute has tallied up the economic impact of Exelon's nuclear plants in Illinois as the utility threatens to close several unprofitable reactors unless changes are made to the state's energy market.

The analysis (.pdf) released Wednesday reported that Exelon's 11 reactors in the state provide nearly half of Illinois' power and have operated with a capacity factor of 96 percent over the last decade. They employ about 5,900 people and generate $8.9 billion in annual economic output, defined as the value of their power production, as well as secondary economic effects that include the way employees' spending influences the demand for goods in their local communities. Full-time employees at Exelon's nuclear facilities in Illinois earned an average of $105,300 in 2012. Additionally, Exelon's nuclear facilities provide $290 million in revenue to state and local governments and nearly $1.1 billion to the federal government, which includes taxes derived from economic activity attributable to the plants.

Exelon has told state legislators that it will likely close five reactors at the Byron, Quad Cities and Clinton plants if market conditions affected by low natural gas costs and periods of excess wind generation don't improve. The study found that doing so would reduce the fleet's direct economic output in 2016 by $2.4 billion and its secondary economic impact by a further $1.2 billion. The study did not address how much of that economic activity might be made up by non-nuclear power plants replacing the lost generation capacity in the future. Regardless, the closing of reactors elsewhere in the country has shown that the impact to the communities hosting the plants would be substantial.

Exelon has not publicly advocated for specific legislative measures to support the plants, but its leaders have suggested that the reactors' revenue should reflect their positive effect on grid stability and in helping the state meet its carbon-emissions reduction goals. The utility has pushed back when it plans to make

The Impact of Exelon’s Nuclear Fleet on the Illinois Economy

An Analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute

October 2014

If Byron, Clinton and Quad Cities close prematurely this analysis found that the initial output losses to Illinois would be $3.6 billion. The output losses would increase annually and, by 2030, reach $4.8 billion. The number of direct and secondary jobs lost peaks in the fifth year after the plants close: 13,300 jobs lost in Illinois. Losses would reverberate for decades after the premature plant closures, and host communities may never fully recover.

North Anna Has 15 Million Fuel Pellets update

 

Their greatest sin is they could anticipate this.

"Due to the fact that the failure exceeded expected conditions, this event is being reported per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A), as any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear plant, including its principle safety barriers, being seriously degraded."

See how it again is reported as a split 10 inch pin and not a cracked off cap.

Bet you these pellet glowed in the dark...Cherenkov radiation.

Again, the radiological effects of the lost pellets will create a large increase in the collective dose of the plant employee over years and decades. It will tremendously increase the burdens on the employees with radiation protection and it will create a large increase of cost and time in maintenance and ops. It will globally dilute the effectiveness of employees across the board

It will heavily fall on a small proportion of the employees, namely ops, maintenance, rad and chem.  

 

Notification Date: 09/15/2014 Notification Time: 14:54 [ET] Event Date: 09/15/2014 Event Time: 09:00 [EDT] Last Update Date: 09/30/2014
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR Section: 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A) - DEGRADED CONDITION 74.11(a) - LOST/STOLEN SNM 20.2201(a)(1)(ii) - LOST/STOLEN LNM>10X	Person (Organization): SCOTT SHAEFFER (R2DO)

Unit	SCRAM Code	RX CRIT	Initial PWR	Initial RX Mode	Current PWR	Current RX Mode
2	N	N	0	Refueling	0	Refueling

Event Text

FAILED FUEL ASSEMBLY IDENTIFIED DURING CORE OFF-LOAD "With North Anna Unit 2 in Mode 6 during a scheduled refueling outage, discharged assembly 4Z9 was identified as a failed fuel assembly by In-Mast Sipping. The fuel assembly was located in core location B11. Initial inspection of the fuel assembly identified two (2) visibly split fuel pins of eight (8) to ten (10) inches long with visible damage to the top of the pins. The internals of the affected pins are visible and the springs from the top of each pellet stack are touching the top nozzle. The fuel assembly has been placed into its designated location in the Spent Fuel Pool. No abnormal increase was noted on any radiation monitor either after or during fuel assembly movement. This fuel assembly had been used during three (3) previous operating cycles and is not scheduled for reuse. "On September 15, 2014, at 0900 [EDT], subsequent video inspection of the fuel assembly identified that the top springs of the two (2) fuel pins were dislodged. Video inspection of the reactor vessel identified debris that has the potential to be fragments of fuel pellets resting on the core plate. Additional investigations are in progress. "Due to the fact that the failure exceeded expected conditions, this event is being reported per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A), as any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear plant, including its principle safety barriers, being seriously degraded." The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector and will notify local county authorities. * * * UPDATE FROM PAGE KEMP TO HOWIE CROUCH AT 1227 EDT ON 9/30/14 * * * "Event Notification #50457 was provided on September 15, 2014, at 1454 hours, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A), to provide notification that North Anna Unit 2 discharged assembly 4Z9 had two visibly split fuel pins and debris on the core plate that had the potential to be fuel pellet fragments. "Detailed video inspections estimated that fifteen (15) fuel pellets were dislodged from fuel assembly 4Z9. For reference, the reactor core contains approximately 15 million fuel pellets. Efforts to identify and recover the fuel pellets were performed. Debris fragments, estimated to represent five (5) fuel pellets, were located within the damaged fuel assembly that is currently in the spent fuel pool. In addition, an estimated three (3) pellets worth of material was retrieved by the foreign object search and retrieval (FOSAR) efforts in the reactor vessel. The remaining seven (7) fuel pellets have already or are expected to granulate into fine particles that will remain in low flow areas of the primary plant systems or be removed by normal purification processes. However, since the specific location of the seven (7) fuel pellets is undesignated, a report is being made pursuant to 10 CFR 74.11(a) for the loss of special nuclear material. "The seven (7) fuel pellets contain licensed material in a quantity greater than 10 times the quantity specified in Appendix C of 10 CFR 20; therefore a report is also being made pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2201(a)(ii). "The cause of the fuel clad degradation is understood and is being addressed. It has been evaluated that the dispersion of fuel pellet material will pose no threat to the integrity or operation of the reactor fuel and primary system components. Reactor Coolant System activity will remain below Technical Specification limits during power operation. In addition, there are no adverse radiological consequences to the public as a result of this issue." The licensee will be notifying the state of Virginia, local authorities in Louisa County and has notified the NRC Resident Inspector. Notified R2DO (Vias) and IRD (Stapleton).

Dominion Nuclear Is In Trouble: North Anna's Uranium Memory Blackouts

Oct 5,

So I am updating my theory about what caused this. It is not a steam explosion. I small hole developed in the top of the pin. Water got in, basically water got in to corroded the pin and some pellets. It is much like what Dominion and NRC said.

I still think this is much more serious that what has been admitted by them both…  

Oct 4

The whole core is drooping. Hey, it is just a product of natural old age? Guess who I was actually talking about?

10/5 No idiot, the fuel sits on the lower support. How thick our the baffles?

The baffles carries the weight of 15 million fuel pellets, the core support and the rest?

The core baffle of a PWR is loaded by the pressure difference between bypass and core and by temperature profiles developing from gamma and neutron heating and heat transfer into the coolant. Strain, deformation and gaps between the sheets resulting from this load are determined considering the effect of neutron irradiation induced creep of the core baffle bolts. The finite element code ANSYS® is applied for the thermal and mechanical analyses. The FE-model comprises a complete 45° sector of the core baffle structure including the core barrel, the formers, the core baffle sheets and about 230 bolt connections with non-linear contact between the single components and the effect of friction. The complete analysis requires three major steps:

Why the cancer?

PWR Fuel Failure Management Handbook

Page 3-1 or 31?

Corner injection point...there has got to be a design reason for this gap. Bet it has something to do with core reflooding.

 So cool!

The cause of such extensive fuel cladding failure is secondary degradation by zirconium hydride.

Now I know what the core barrel is

10/5 The core barrel slides down inside of the reactor vessel and houses the fuel.

What the hell is the "former". Do you even need it? 

No, I got to be missing something. The former is attached to the core barrel through a string of bolts and holes. There are holes through the vessel? Just tear along the dotted line?

Thanks to my EDF Friends below. These are the state operators of the France's nuclear system. How pathetic, they look more democratic and transparent than the USA? This would be my case for a national (USA) based nuclear plant operator. The expectation is, it is a government agency, thus more transparency than we have today.

Light Water Reactor Fuel Performance

Review of Degradation Phenomena affecting Fuel Rod Cladding

So North Anna had a cancerous wasting disease on their fuel rods for years?  I am sure they picked it up in primary system coolant chemistry testing? Dissolving thrice

Note: I am hazy the role of zirconium hydriding is in A PWR and North. I think the North Anna 10 inch split is really more half the pin material missing. More looking like a half a circle for most of the 10 inches.This would imply zirc hybriding.   

Real pictures of fuel road damage? 

Hmm, "and other emergent issues. Going to have to make time for this". But it is not a teleconference. 

October 01, 2014

Title: Notice of Forthcoming Public Conference Call To Discuss North Anna Combined License

Application Requests For Additional Information And Other Emergent Topics

Date(s) and Time(s): October 16, 2014, 02:00 PM to 03:30 PM

Location: NRC Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD

Category: This is a Category 1 meeting. The public is invited to observe this meeting and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portion of the meeting but before the meeting is adjourned.

Purpose: To discuss the resoluation of North Anna COLA Requests for Additional Information.

Ok, do you have bolting or attachment problems with the baffle or the core support structure leading to the jet of water between the plates destroying the two fuel pins? Causing the baffle to vibrate? 

Information Notice No. 98-11: Cracking of Reactor Vessel Internal Baffle Former Bolts in Foreign Plants

ENCLOSURE 2 TO AEP-NRC-2014-59 I&MCAP Document AR 2010-1804-10, Root Cause Evaluation Attachment, "Rx VesselCore Support Lug Bolting Anomalies"

                            How come they didn't report this in the newspaper?

"Due to the fact that the failure exceeded expected conditions, this event is being reported per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A), as any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear plant, including its principle safety barriers, being seriously degraded." 

I'll be heavily updating this in the next few days!

    

I bet you the North Anna fuel pins looked like the top picture below. The gash I’d seen would be longer (about 10 inches), but the gash lips would be more protruding away from the pipe. A somewhat narrower crack, but the crack edges were peels back away from the pipe more. It was a lot more energetic pipe burst and different material than these copper pipes. The pins are about .5 inch to an inch wide. It wasn't a discreet weakness or force in the copper that began the pipe burst...it was more a 9 inch rod inside the pipe giving off a lot of power and energy violently turning the water into steam that created the crack.

• 

Updated this on Oct 1 and republished this from yesterday! 

Ok, this is what they are are saying. Again this is a example where this problem had showed up in the industry in the 1980s and 1990s. They just never spent enough money to eradicate the problem. They keep putting off permanently fixes the problem from one cycle to another, they spend enormous monies on fixing the same problem over and over again.

They probably need to totally off load the core, then go in and replace the core baffles. This is why Dominion is trying to put off globally fixing the problem, only fix the immediate symptoms of the damage pins, deal with the baffles in 18 months to 36 months. 

It is a huge job and extremely timely. There seems to a hole in the baffle caused by some kind if process; either corrosion or some kind of poor maintenance where the flow vibrations caused the baffle plates to separate. The symptom in which they are fixing is the fuel damage and the pellets disintegrating in the coolant and plating out throughout plant...the root of the problem is the poorly designed and maintained baffle plate.

• If a gap between intersecting baffle plates becomes enlarged,the differential pressure across the baffle plate creates a water jet that impinges on adjacent fuel rods.

• be attributed to the water-jetting-induced motion of fuel rods in fuel assemblies that are adjacent to baffle plate joint locations with enlarged gaps.

Ok, these words are from the professional corporate public relations spin masters. I’ll bet you they contracted to outsiders, to the professional public relations people. Every word is carefully chosen to portray a non-threatening and benign tone. The more they try to make you feel good about this, the more distance they get from telling you the truth. The Prozac happy face of indecipherable words. They are publically lying to you!

The below is from the newspapers. It is totally inaccurate and a blatant lie to the public. Notice the benign stance of the newpapers without any pushback.   

• In the last 18 months, a jet of water through a millimeter-size hole in the fuel rods’ support structure was squirting

The support structure is the baffle.  

• over the rods. That flow started them spinning and vibrating, Heacock said, a problem called “baffle jetting,” which has occurred at other nuclear reactors. The rods rubbed against

 The top harmlessly cracked off, but how did the pellets get pushed out. This all sounds like the top of the core. 

• the support structure, cutting grooves in them and eventually causing their tops to crack off.

The below is from the NRC documents, the event report seen at the bottom of the page. A 10 inch gash in both pins??? What was they mentioned in the newspapers? A lot of energy has to do that. I actually had seen photographs over a similar accident. Dominion has similar photographs...why don't you ask them to disclose those pictures. They had a steam explosion, they over powered the pin,  the water inside the pin heated up and expanded very quickly. The edges of the 10 inch gash are protruded out or away from the pin like a  very powerful force burst the pin open. "Visibly split" is code words for burst open by a power force. If the pins were just spinning around by the hydraulic force, how do you explain the visibly split fuel pins. It doesn't make sense. So this is what I am talking about, the NRC has an unacknowledged process where they allow the licensee to tell the partial truth in order to to put  prozac happy face on troubling events at these nuclear plants. They are in the game to create a fraudulent public image about the nuclear industry. 

I alway said, risk perspective is solely about damage and destruction of peoples health in the outcome of a severe accident. Why don't we put a dollar value on the possible loss of faith government and the nuclear industry...the ability to trust our institutions in a national crisis? The NRC allows these utilities to outright lie to us. Trust in our institutions is unbelievably precious and a lost of trust in a institution is very costly. Through risk perspective, we should put strict incentives where the NRC and the utilities the whole truth. I might make a case trust in institutions and government is at a historic lows. Most of the damage to the nuclear industry in TMI came out of the  benzene communication of the event. The perception of mistrust in their political implications is enormously expensive. Why isn't this a consideration in risk perspectives? Why does our government allow the nuclear industry to communicate to us so dishonestly...why do you allow the licencees to practice the art of dishonesty so extensively?

Right, the solution to the seismic and plant safety issues in Fukushima tragedy has mostly come into the public realm through engineers about engineering solution. How come out nation hasn't had  a great debate about licensee and NRC full disclosures and honestly?  The foundation and infrastructure that built the nuclear disaster in Japan is basically about the nuclear village and trustworthiness of the institutions running and overseeing the plants.The public mistrust of these institutions are the greatest impediment to restarting the Japanese nuclear fleet. Really, how expensive is the lost of trust in the our institutions, in a federal agency and the nuclear industry.      

• Event report (9/15): Initial inspection of the fuel assembly identified two (2) visibly split fuel pins of eight (8) to ten (10) inches long with visible damage to the top of the pins.

For clarity, Dominion owns two plant facilities of Millstone, Surry, and North Anna. That is six plants. They recently shut down Kewaunee.  I consider corporate wide management safety culture is seriously degraded…with 33% of their fleet showing serious signs safety of culture deterioration.  

Two nuclear fuel rods found damaged during North Anna power plant refueling

BY PETER BACQUÉ Richmond Times-DispatchThe Daily Progress

RICHMOND — Dominion Virginia Power has found two damaged nuclear fuel rods in its North Anna 2 power plant during the Louisa County reactor’s scheduled refueling in earlier this month.

The Richmond-based utility said it believes that about 15 uranium fuel pellets came out of two rods and entered the reactor cooling system.

However, because the radioactive uranium is contained in the reactor system, the damage has “no radiological consequence to it,” said David A. Heacock, president and chief nuclear officer of Dominion Nuclear, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc., the parent company of Dominion Virginia Power.

It is not the whole story, the pellets are extremely radioactive. Lots of this stuff plates off in the core and throughout the primary system. It increases piping and component radiation levels, the compensation for that are extremely costly and time consuming.

“It’s a fairly low safety significance issue,” said Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Atlanta. “Even though the fuel is damaged, it’s in a closed system, so you don’t have the concern for an environmental release” of radioactivity.

Cooling water flows though the reactor’s internal cooling baffles at the rate of 300,000 gallons a minute.

In the last 18 months, a jet of water through a millimeter-size hole in the fuel rods’ support structure was squirting over the rods. That flow started them spinning and vibrating, Heacock said, a problem called “baffle jetting,” which has occurred at other nuclear reactors. The rods rubbed against the support structure, cutting grooves in them and eventually causing their tops to crack off.

Ok, if the tops slowly cracked open, how did the pellets come out"? The way this goes is it had been a known leaking over many cycles...they have radiochemistry about this. It is in their documents. Up on a start up water seeps into the cracks. The uranium in the pin becomes super moderated, as a rod passes near by upon startup, high local power cause a very fast heat up of the water in the pin. Lots of slow power  making neutrons are made. The pin has a steam explosion, either the pin itself cracks open  and you know it is explosion related, or the top is blown off. That is the mechanism that expels pellets out in the coolant.

What has changed to cause this? These plants has been operating since 1980, so why hasn't this showed up in the past. Why has changed causing this.

Remember, when the first pin pops it creates an unmistakable and immediate large signature in the radiochemistry. They immediately know what happens...and they are monitoring the other pin pops, monitoring the conditions of the degradation pins.

It would be troubling if the pins were in the vicinity of each other. I would  wonder if the large neutron population created a over power condition in the surrounding area causing a cascade of overpower pin causing the other pim pop.

By the way, these guys won't be able to use a regular storage cask...

Why didn't all the pellets come out, because there are welded caps creating individual cells of seven or eight pellets. After each eight fuel pellets, they put in a welded plug just so some day they don't "expel" all the  270 pellets.

I was the first one to report publicly about these problems in 1991 at Vermont Yankee in 1991?

Having this occur at a plant is unbelievably unprofessional.  

Seven or eight fuel pellets came out of each of the two zirconium-alloy fuel rods, Heacock said. “We have accounted for about eight of the pellets,” he said. “We believe the rest have been pulverized in the normal filtration mechanism,” which will recover the nuclear material.

Ask them what the radiation level is at the surface of the pellet. I bet we are talking 100,000 rem to  millions of rems. Five rems I believe is the yearly limit for employees.

It actually looks like they lost control of power making density in the core.

“We’ve cleaned the entire reactor vessel,” Heacock said. “Now we’re inspecting the entire reactor refueling cavity.”

In the critical area of the replaced assembly, Dominion Virginia Power has installed seven stainless steel rods so coolant flow cannot damage uranium-filled rods, Heacock said.

It actually sounds like five other pins where damaged. I like to see pin sipping record of this plant.

“The long-term fix is to modify the way the water flows in the baffle so there’s no possibility of baffle jetting,” he said. That modification will be done either in 18 months at the unit’s next refueling or during the refueling after that.

This is the moniker of the nuclear industry, "why fix the problem immediately, when you can put it off fixing problem for 18 months or 36 months. 

J. Wellington Wimpy (Popeye the Sailor Man): "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburge today." 

“I will gladly pay you in 18 month or 36 month for less  short term safety of tomorrow.”   

Considering the unprecedented three special inspection at Millstone over unfixable maintenance and operation problems with a critical turbine driving safety pump and not the

Made from uranium dioxide, the ceramic pellets are about half an inch long and three-eighths of an inch in diameter. A 12-foot-long fuel rod —called a “pin” — at North Anna 2 contains either 360 or 372 pellets, depending upon the vendor. The reactor has 157 fuel assemblies, each of which holds 264 rods.

The damaged fuel assembly has been placed into the plant’s spent fuel pool. “No abnormal increase was noted on any radiation monitor either after or during fuel assembly movement,” the company told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The failed fuel assembly had been used during three 18-month operating cycles at North Anna and was not scheduled for reuse.

I'll bet you the pins were knowingly leaking...pin hole leaks...the cycles before the popped tops? It is dangerous to restart a plant with a knowingly pin holes leak. Why did sipping miss this?

Radiation dose rates around the reactor are 4 percent lower than they were 18 months ago, the company said, because of efforts to reduce the rates.

Refueling outages for Dominion Virginia Power’s nuclear power plants usually take about a month. The latest refueling began Sept. 7.

Basically what you are seeing here is a policy of the NRC, where the NRC expects and approves of a utility  giving the happy spin of a event at these plants.

“At this point,” said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Hannah,“we see no reason why, with new fuel in there, they couldn’t restart the reactor.”

Dominion Virginia Power’s four nuclear units produce more than 40 percent of the electricity used by the company’s nearly 2.4 million customers.

Power Reactor	Event Number: 50457
Facility: NORTH ANNA Region: 2 State: VA Unit: [ ] [2] [ ] RX Type: [1] W-3-LP,[2] W-3-LP,[3] M-4-LP NRC Notified By: PAGE KEMP HQ OPS Officer: JOHN SHOEMAKER	Notification Date: 09/15/2014 Notification Time: 14:54 [ET] Event Date: 09/15/2014 Event Time: 09:00 [EDT] Last Update Date: 09/15/2014
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR Section: 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A) - DEGRADED CONDITION	Person (Organization): SCOTT SHAEFFER (R2DO)

Unit	SCRAM Code	RX CRIT	Initial PWR	Initial RX Mode	Current PWR	Current RX Mode
2	N	N	0	Refueling	0	Refueling

Event Text

FAILED FUEL ASSEMBLY IDENTIFIED DURING CORE OFF-LOAD "With North Anna Unit 2 in Mode 6 during a scheduled refueling outage, discharged assembly 4Z9 was identified as a failed fuel assembly by In-Mast Sipping. The fuel assembly was located in core location B11. Initial inspection of the fuel assembly identified two (2) visibly split fuel pins of eight (8) to ten (10) inches long with visible damage to the top of the pins. The internals of the affected pins are visible and the springs from the top of each pellet stack are touching the top nozzle. The fuel assembly has been placed into its designated location in the Spent Fuel Pool. No abnormal increase was noted on any radiation monitor either after or during fuel assembly movement. This fuel assembly had been used during three (3) previous operating cycles and is not scheduled for reuse. "On September 15, 2014, at 0900 [EDT], subsequent video inspection of the fuel assembly identified that the top springs of the two (2) fuel pins were dislodged. Video inspection of the reactor vessel identified debris that has the potential to be fragments of fuel pellets resting on the core plate. Additional investigations are in progress. "Due to the fact that the failure exceeded expected conditions, this event is being reported per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A), as any event or condition that results in the condition of the nuclear plant, including its principle safety barriers, being seriously degraded." The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector and will notify local county authorities.