Pilgrim's Junk Safety Relief Valves

Basically the valves are of a poor quality and they weren't designed and tested for their safety duty.

So they say the resonant frequency of the main steam line is the cause for the SRV failure. How do we know if something dangerous is going on with the MSL causing abnormal vibrations. If might be a crack developing or maybe even damage with the loop vibration snubbers. Maybe nothing is wrong with the SRVs...except the main steam lines are vibrating a lot more than they have been in the past. Are we setting ourselves up for a MSL break before the MSIVs?   

I guess the rule are, you got to prove those valves were unsafe behind a barrier, instead you prove to the community these valves are safe.

These new valves were allowed to operate with a common mode failure due to design and poor quality components.

All this secrecy with this from the beginning was predicated on the fear the poor quality components in the SRV effecting the operability of other plants with target rock srvs. Remember within a month with the new valves one started leaking...

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station LER: SRV-3B Safety Relief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage and Setpoint Drift

Submitted by NUCBIZ on February 20, 2014 - 14:18  

On Sunday January 20, 2013, at 2050 hours with the reactor at 100% core thermal power (RMSS in RUN), PNPS declared SRV-3B inoperable and entered Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.D.2 requiring an orderly re- actor shutdown such that reactor coolant pressure is less than 104 psig within 24 hours. On Monday January 21, 2013, at 1300 hours (16 hrs and 10 minutes) reactor coolant pressure was lowered to less than 104 psig. SRV-3B had been declared inoperable consistent with PNPS procedures that state an SRV is inoperable if the first stage pilot thermocouple temperature is 350 F below its baseline temperature. This LER Supplement provides the determination of cause for the leakage. The cause of the SRV leakage was that the natural fre- quency of the pilot assembly was close to a resonant frequency of the valve assembly when installed on the PNPS main steam line, that had failed to be considered in the design of the SRV. A contributing cause was wear and looseness of parts in the main stage of RV-203-3B.
The reactor was depressurized and a new pilot valve assembly was installed on SRV-3B. On January 22, 2013, at 1015 hours reactor restart was commenced. On January 24, 2013 at 0312 hours 100% core thermal power was achieved. 

This LER also reports the as-found setpoint of one SRV pilot valve tested was less than the minimum pres- sure required by TS 3.6.D.1.  

This event had no impact on the health and/or safety of the public.

So this is how Pilgrim explained it in the first LER with these new SRVs.

The enclosed Supplement Licensee Event Report (LER) 2011-007-01, "Safety Relief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage

There was no evidence of a design defect that could be the root cause for the onset of leakage. The basic design of this 3-stage valve is mature and had been in operation since 1970.  

The newest frames it like this.

Licensee Event Report 2013-002-01, SRV-3B Safety Relief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage and Setpoint Drift

The industry has experienced numerous instances where SRV leakage has occurred at other plants with other Target Rock Model three stage safety relief valves.

What I have seen over the years is truthfulness and integrity is totally unregulated with license Event report. They generally must submit one, god help you if you don’t...but the substance of the LER can be falsified at will and the NRC will never call a utility on it.

They will tell any any mistruth in order to protect saying up a power with defective nuclear safety componets.

SRV-3B Safety Relief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage and Setpoint Drift
 

On Sunday January 20, 2013, at 2050 hours with the reactor at 100% core thermal power (RMSS in RUN), PNPS declared SRV-3B inoperable and entered Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.D.2 requiring an orderly reactor shutdown such that reactor coolant pressure is less than 104 psig within 24 hours. On Monday January21, 2013, at 1300 hours (16 hrs and 10 minutes) reactor coolant pressure was lowered to less than 104 psig.
 

SRV-3B had been declared inoperable consistent with PNPS procedures that state an SRV is inoperable if the first stage pilot thermocouple temperature is 350 F below its baseline temperature. This LER Supplement provides the determination of cause for the leakage. The cause of the SRV leakage was that the natural frequency of the pilot assembly was close to a resonant frequency of the valve assembly when installed on the PNPS main steam line, that had failed to be considered in the design of the SRV. A contributing cause was wear and looseness of parts in the main stage of RV-203-3B.
 

The reactor was depressurized and a new pilot valve assembly was installed on SRV-3B. On January 22, 2013, at 1015 hours reactor restart was commenced. On January 24, 2013 at 0312 hours 100% core thermal power was achieved.
 

This LER also reports the as-found setpoint of one SRV pilot valve tested was less than the minimum pressure required by TS 3.6.D.1.
 

This event had no impact on the health and/or safety of the public.

BACKGROUND:
 

As background, the pressure relief system includes four (4) SRVs and two (2) spring safety valves (SSVs). During Refueling Outage (RFO-1 8), in April/May, 2011, the four SRVs were replaced with Target Rock Model 0867F 3-stage SRVs. The SRVs discharge through their individual discharge piping, terminating below the minimum uppression pool (torus) water level. The four SRVs are installed on the main steam piping in containment between the reactor pressure vessel and the flow restrictors.
 

The 3-stage SRV contains a pilot (also called the first stage), a second stage, a main stage, and an air operator.
 

To monitor these valves for leakage, Pilgrim installed thermocouples at the pilot (first stage), at the second stage, on the tailpipe near the valve (4.5' to 6' away), on the tailpipe far from the valve (-20' away) and at the pilot bellows. Procedure 2.2.23, "Automatic Depressurization System", provides guidance for interpreting the thermocouple data and determining valve operability based in part on testing performed by Target Rock.
 

Subsequent to installation in RFO-1 8 and prior to this event, Pilgrim experienced minor second stage pilot valve leakage from SRV RV-203-3C on May 18, 2011 and November 25, 2011. Also, on December 26, 2011, SRV RV- 203-3D first stage pilot valve experienced leakage while operating at full power. The SRV was declared inoperable and the plant was shutdown on December 26, 2011 in accordance with TS 3.6.D.2 and RV-203-3C was replaced entirely, and the RV-203-3D pilot assembly was replaced (LER 2011-007-00).
 

EVENT DESCRIPTION:
 

On Sunday January 20, 2013, at 2050 hours with the reactor at 100% core thermal power (RMSS in RUN), PNPS declared SRV-3B inoperable and entered Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.D.2 requiring the initiation of an orderly reactor shutdown such that reactor coolant pressure is less than 104 psig within 24 hours. On Monday January 21, 2013, at 1300 hours (16 hrs and 10 minutes) reactor coolant pressure was less than 104 psig. SRV-3B had been declared inoperable consistent with PNPS procedures that state an SRV is inoperable if the pilot stage thermocouple temperature is 350 F below its baseline temperature.
 

While at full power, indication of a steam leak across the first stage pilot of RV-203-3B was identified. The leakage was evaluated and in accordance with criteria specified in procedure 2.2.23, specifically, if the pilot stage thermocouple temperature is 35 degrees F below its baseline temperature (with a smaller decrease at the second stage thermocouple) and cannot be explained by a corresponding downpower, the SRV is inoperable. The safety relief valve was subsequently declared inoperable and the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.D.2 was entered. Per TS 3.6.D.2 the plant was shutdown and reactor coolant pressure was below 104 psig within 24 hours.
 

CAUSE:
 

The SRVs were purchased new, installed, and tested for the first time in April/May 2011 during RFO-1 8.
 

Following an extensive investigation, it was determined that the cause of the SRV leakage was that the natural frequency of the pilot assembly was close to a resonant frequency of the valve assembly when installed on the PNPS main steam line. This was not considered in the Entergy specification or the Target Rock design of the valve.
 

A contributing cause was wear and looseness of parts in the main stage of RV-203-3B.
 

EXTENT OF CONDITION:
 

This condition potentially applies to all four three stage SRVs that were installed in RFO 18. During Cycle 19 operation,Pilgrim has observed leakage from RV-203-3B, 3C, and 3D.

• On May 18, 2011 and November 25, 2011, SRV RV 203-3C second stage pilot valve minor leakage was observed. This condition did not cause inoperability of the valve. SRV RV-203-3C was replaced during the December 26, 2011 shutdown.

• On December 26, 2011, SRV, RV-203-3D first stage pilot valve experienced leakage that exceeded the operability criteria while operating at full power. The plant was shut down as required by TS 3.6.D.2, RV 203-3C and 3D were repaired and the plant returned to full power operation. The cause of the pilot leakage was later determined to be a combination of the natural frequency issue and weakening of the pilot bellows spring. This bellows spring had a through wall failure during testing at an offsite test facility in March 2013. This failure was the subject of a Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 (Reference 1).

• On January 20, 2013, Pilgrim experienced the event described in this Licensee Event Report, first stage pilot valve leakage of SRV, RV-203-3B. The plant was shutdown as required by TS 3.6.D.2. The pilot valve was replaced with a refurbished pilot and the plant was returned to full power operation.

• On February 3, 2013, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve leakage was identified while at full power. Reactor power was lowered to 80% and at 1000 psig pressure, the pilot was reseated. An Operability Determination with a compensatory measure was implemented to maintain the reactor power at 80% and reactor pressure at 1000 psig. An Operations Decision Making Issue (ODMI) was implemented to monitor and take corrective actions. During the forced outage on February 8, 2013, caused by a loss of offsite power due to a major winter storm, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve was replaced with a new pilot valve and the plant was returned to power operation. The cause of the pilot leakage was determined to be a combination of the natural frequency issue and weakening of the pilot bellows spring. This bellows spring had a through wall failure during testing at an offsite test facility in March 2013. This failure was the subject of a Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 (Reference 1).

The removed RV-203-3B pilot valve was sent to Wyle Laboratory for testing.

 

As-found test results for the SRV, RV 203-3B pilot valve were:

Pilot S/N SRV Position As-Found Deviation  23 RV-203-3B 1112 psig (-)3.8% 

Technical Specification 3.6.D.1 requires the as-found setpoint to be within 1155±34.6 psig (1120.4 psig to 1189.6 psig). The as-found setpoint was less than the minimum pressure specification required by TS 3.6.D.1. This test result was entered into the corrective action program as a separate event, and is included in this LER since the condition was discovered within 60 days from the initial discovery of pilot leakage. Accordingly, this as-found value being out of Technical Specification setpoint is reported in this LER pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).

 

The third pilot on RV-203-3B began leaking on February 26, 2013. Leakage was controlled by reducing power and pressure per the ODMI. This pilot was replaced during the Spring 2013 RFO. The cause of the pilot leakage was that the pilot assembly had a natural frequency that was close to a resonant frequency of the valve assembly when installed on the PNPS main steam line.

 

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:

 

The following corrective actions were taken to address this event related to leaking RV-203-3B:

• The SRV-3B pilot was replaced with a refurbished and tested pilot.
•  
• PNPS Procedure was revised to reduce reactor power and pressure to stop leakage per an ODMI as described in "Extent of Condition."

The following corrective actions are being taken to address the results of review of Extent Conditions:

• To minimize the possibility of further pilot leaks, all currently installed pilots (and replacements if necessary until the long term corrective action can be taken) have been set at the high end of their allowed set pressure band.

• The recommendations of the Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 are being followed.

• The only PNPS pilot with a bellows spring from the same material and heat treatment certifications as the failed bellows was removed from the plant. Detailed metallurgical analysis did not identify any intergranular cracks such as those identified in the failed bellows.

• PNPS has ordered new pilot assemblies with enhancements designed by Target Rock to raise the natural frequency of the pilot and make it more resistant to steam system vibration (References 2 and 3). These pilots include the bellows replacement recommended by the 10 CFR, Part 21. PNPS plans to install these pilots during the spring of 2015 RFO.

SAFETY CONSEQUENCES:

The leaking SRV pilot valves and the plant shutdown to repair the SRV in accordance with Technical Specification 3.6.D.2 posed no threat to the public health and safety.

All leakage from the valve was collected in plant systems, the suppression pool (torus), and processed in accordance with normal station practices.

Pilgrim has installed temperature monitoring to provide sufficient indication of SRV leakage to ensure that timely actions can be taken to ensure that the plant is maintained in a safe condition. Procedure 2.2.23 provides the instructions and guidance for interpreting and responding to SRV temperature indications. Based on these instructions, the plant was shutdown. The SRV would have been able to respond if needed to meet its core cooling or reactor pressure vessel over protection functions. As a result, the plant safety was maintained. The risk of operating with a leaking SRV is characterized by an increased chance of having an inadvertently opened SRV with increased chance of that valve failing to reclose. Assuming the plant operated for 24 hours with this condition, this results in a change in core damage frequency of less than 1.OE-7. The impact of setpoint drift (0.8% below the 3% tolerance) is considered to be bounded by delta change in core damage frequency of less than 1.OE-7.

PREVIOUS EVENTS:

Prior to Cycle 19, there were no leakage or setpoint drifts occurrences with three stage safety relief valves since the new design was installed in April/May, 2011, during Refueling Outage 18 for all four safety relief valves.

During Cycle 19, Pilgrim observed minor leakage from the second stage pilot valve of RV-203-3C. Also, first stage pilot valve leakage was observed from RV-203-3D which was confirmed, plant was shutdown as required by TS 3.6.D.2, and first stage pilot valve was replaced. This event is described in LER 2011-007-00. During the outage for RV-203-3D, the entire RV 203-30 was replaced with a new valve assembly.

The industry has experienced numerous instances where SRV leakage has occurred at other plants with other Target Rock Model three stage safety relief valves.

OE33766 - Three Stage Safety Relief Valve Pilot Leakage just below Normal Operating Pressure - Plant Hatch. The plant Hatch installed the same model 3-stage SRVs in Unit 2 in April 2011. Hatch experienced numerous pilot leaks during 2011. On some occasions, leakage was reduced by power and/or pressure reductions. Hatch Unit 2 had some success through power and/or pressure reductions and operating for several months after reseating the first stage pilot valve through power and/or pressure reductions.

OE26394 & OE26892 - Planned Shutdown due to a three stage Safety Relief Valve Leak - Peach Bottom Unit 3

OE32805 - Safety Relief Valve Temperature Phenomenon – Fitzpatrick

OE34730 - Target Rock 3 Stage Main Steam SRV Bore to Seat Misalignment - Limerick 2

OE19219 - Plant Shutdown Due to Increasing Tailpipe Temperature - Duane Arnold

ENERGY INDUSTRY IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (EIIS) CODES:

COMPONENTS CODES

Valve, Relief RV

SYSTEMS

Main Steam SB

REFERENCES:

 

1.    Target Rock Letter NID#13307, "10 CFR Part 21 Report, Notification of a Defect, Bellows Failure," June 17, 2013. 

2. Target Rock Technical Evaluation of Replacement Items TERI 075, "Technical Evaluation of Pilot Assembly 304095-1 Replacing Pilot Assembly 303977-1 for 0867F-001," Target Rock, Revision A, January 14, 2013.

 

3.    Target Rock Letter SRP1 3003, "Enhancements to Primary Pilot Design," Target Rock, January 21, 2013.

4. Condition Report CR-PNP-2013-0378, Safety Relief Valve RV-203-3B, Pilot Leakaqe.

Nuke Plant Meteorological Tower problems...Poor Evacuation Plans

Pilgrim and NRC BlewAccident Reportability Requirements In Blizzard!

 

My complaint to the NRC.

Meteorological Tower problems...Poor Evacuation Programs.

Pilgrim’s meteorological tower now has become a national problem. A dead tower means a plant has an impaired radiological evacuation plan.The opaque NRC system has kept these issues hidden...

This idea of becoming dependent on the national weather service gives permission for a utility to not keep their metrological towers system up to date and reliable.

SUBJECT: D. C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000315/2013005; 05000316/2013005

4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violations

The following violation of very low safety significance (Green) or Severity Level IV was identified by the licensee and is a violation of NRC requirements which meets the criteria of the NRC Enforcement Policy, for being dispositioned as a NCV.

•Sub-paragraph 50.36a (a)(2) of 10 CFR Part 50, requires the licensee to submit a report to the Commission annually that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluent during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases.

The NRC Safety Guide 23 “Onsite Meteorological Programs” states that knowledge of meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the reactor is important in providing a basis for estimating maximum potential annual radiation doses resulting from radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents. The Safety Guide also described a suitable onsite meteorological program to provide meteorological data needed to estimate potential radiation doses to the public as a result of the routine or accidental release of radioactive material to the atmosphere and to assess other environmental effect. The Safety Guide states that meteorological instruments should be inspected and serviced at a frequency which will assure at least a 90 percent data recovery and which will minimize extended periods of instrument outage.

Contrary to sub-paragraph 50.36a (a)(2) of 10 CFR Part 50, the licensee failed to submit information required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. Specifically, the licensee was not able to maintain Meteorological Tower instrumentation so that data recovery remained above 90 percent for the calendar year 2012, information that the Commission required to estimate maximum potential dosesto the public.

After identifying the error, the licensee took corrective action to prevent further loss of meteorological data due to equipment failure by troubleshooting and repairing Meteorological Tower instrumentation and instituting additional data recovery efforts in 2013. The license’s corrective actions were entered into the CAP as Condition Reports AR 2013-12764 and AR 2013-15116. Because the licensee identified the failure to properly recover data, the inspectors determined that the violation met the requirements of a licensee identified NCV.

NH Senate President Chuck Morse: "We are in the midst of an infrastructure crisis"

This is how the government hater teabaggers disassemble our transportation system. This is what happens when the political parties spend their days sabotaging each other...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/10763193-95/nh-senator-if-gas-tax-bill-doesnt-pass-trucking-industry-will-be-targeted

N.H. senator: If gas tax bill doesn’t pass, trucking industry will be targeted

By KATHLEEN RONAYNE

Monitor staff

Wednesday, February 19, 2014
(Published in print: Wednesday, February 19, 2014)

The prime Republican sponsor of a bill to increase the gas tax said if the bill doesn’t pass, he will seek a repeal of laws that benefit the trucking industry, including a 2005 bill that increased the weight trucks can carry by 24,000 pounds.

“That added weight is helping to destroy our roads, and what do we hear from them? ‘We don’t want to help you,’ ” Sen. Jim Rausch, a Derry Republican, said yesterday.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard testimony for nearly four hours on Rausch’s bill to increase the gas tax by 4 cents this year and again in 2018, then tie future increases to the consumer price index. The state’s gas tax of 18 cents per gallon hasn’t changed since 1991, making it difficult for the state Department of Transportation to complete projects as inflation causes costs to rise.

Rausch told the committee this is not a tax but a user fee, because how much it affects people will depend directly on how much they drive on the state’s roads.

…Supporters of the bill said fixing the state’s roads and bridges is key to bringing in new businesses, growing the economy and keeping young people here. Clement said the Department of Transportation would need to eliminate as many as 700 jobs if it can’t fill the expected 2016 deficit. But opponents said the increase would hurt drivers and consumers and that putting a formula for future increases into law now wouldn’t allow for public and legislative input later.

 02/19/2014 jonstah wrote:  

"I'm wondering which legislator or relative of one has to have a bridge fall out from under them before someone does something to improve our roads and bridges"

I think over the years we have mistrusted government so much...the solution to it has been to weaken the government and the politicians. Then you end up with the minority able to completely sabotage the majority.

Over government should be mostly winner take all...with the winners, like the governor or the majority of the senate or house, then getting extraordinary powers to change our government. It you don’t like what they are doing, next election cycle vote them out.

This is not a transportation problem....it is political in nature. Actually, it is the people of NH or a USA...they have given up with controlling their government.

February 18. 2014 9:14PM 

NHDOT chief warns of cuts, says gas tax needed

By DAVE SOLOMON
New Hampshire Union Leader

 

CONCORD — Transportation Commissioner Chris Clement commended DOT workers as a snowstorm raged outside the hearing room in Concord on Tuesday, but warned lawmakers that he could have to lay off 700 of those workers if the Legislature fails to approve an increase in the state's gasoline tax or a new casino.
As several one-time sources of revenue for the state's highway fund evaporate, Clement told members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee that his agency is facing shortfalls of $48 million and $105 million over the next two budget cycles if the Legislature does nothing to increase DOT funding.
"We need help," he said.

Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Odell, R-Lempster, tried to keep the conversation focused on a proposal by fellow committee member Sen. James Rausch, R-Derry, to increase the state's 18-cent gas tax by 4.2 cents a gallon, but the conversation kept turning to gaming as an alternate revenue source.
"We need both," said Clement, warning of continued deterioration of the state's roads and bridges, failure to widen I-93, and a budget shortfall that could cost him almost half of the 1,600 employees who work for his department
Cost of gas tax

Opponents of Rausch's bill, SB 367, warned that it would do serious harm to the state's transportation and forestry industries, with cost being passed along to consumers.

"Those sponsoring the bill say it will only increase the cost $16 per passenger vehicle per year, based on 25 miles per gallon, traveling 10,000 miles per year," said tree farmer Tom Thomson of Orford, honorary chairman of the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity. "What they don't tell you is how this tax will have a devastating impact on the trucking industry."
In written testimony, he accused Clement of politicizing his position: "It appears that Commissioner Clement has decided to become the DOT's top lobbyist, and take his Power Point presentation to every corner of the state, claiming his agency is short of revenue by $70 to $100 million; while threatening to lay off 300 to 700 DOT employees if he does not get additional revenues through an increase in the gas and diesel tax."
Thomson warned that truckers are running on razor-thin margins and any increase will put some out of business.

"The others will just pass the increase onto the consumers," he said. "Stop and think about it. Everything we consume moves by diesel. Raising the tax makes the price of everything, including food, higher due to any increase in the diesel tax."
Rausch called on the trucking industry to do its share to maintain the roads in a state that has been far more generous to the industry than its neighbors. He pointed out that New Hampshire has a lower gas tax, higher weight limits and lower fines for violations than any of its neighboring states.
"We give them breaks, and what do we get in return?" he asked.

Under Rausch's proposal, the state's gas tax, which has not been increased since 1991, would increase about 4.2 cents a gallon and produce about $30 million in new revenue for transportation projects. A formula using the Consumer Price Index would be reapplied every four years to adjust the gas tax to align with inflation.
Growth in DOT budget

Senate President Chuck Morse, also a committee member, pressed Clement on the growth in his budget in recent years, saying it had gone up 20 percent a year over five years at a rate that simply was "not sustainable."

Basically, they decimated the employee ranks of the NHDOT over recent years. They privatized most of the NHDOT for campaign contribution..it is a grossly failed experiment. 

Clement admitted that DOT spending had gone up more than $100 million since 2007, but said most of that was due to infusions of cash through the federal stimulus program and other one-time events. Even though the DOT spends about $700 million, most of that is pass-through of federal highway funds. The amount of discretionary funds used to finance payroll and other department operations is only about $142 million, Clement said. 

He said gas tax revenue has been declining due to the recession and improvements in fuel efficiency, while the state now has 140 red listed bridges, 37 percent of its road are in poor condition, and the expansion of Interstate 93 is underfunded by $250 million. 

"We are in the midst of an infrastructure crisis," he said.

Efforts to raise the gas tax, or road toll as it is known, failed in 2009 and again in 2013 largely because of Republican opposition.

This year, Rausch's bill has two Senate Republican co-sponsors, Sen. Nancy Stiles of Hampton and Sen. David Boutin of Hookset, along with House Republican John Cebrowski of Bedford.dsolomon@unionleader.com

Legacy with the Megaton to Megawatt Program

Banks sitting on huge stockpiles of rawuranium 

Will Uranium Spike Again?

On the Watch for a Nuclear Rebound

This is the legacy of the megaton to megawatt program...USA GDP. Jobs and economic growth transferred to Russia.

Russian nuke supply ceases, U.S. uranium production spikes

By Mark Wilcox February 5, 2014

With no more Russian nuclear warheads at the conclusion of a 20-year agreement to supply American nuclear power plants uranium for fuel, U.S. uranium production hit a 17-year high in 2013.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the Megatons to Megawatts program made its final delivery to the U.S. in December last year. USEC Inc., the private company that acted as executive agent for the intergovernmental deal, said the deal eliminated the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads by recycling 500 metric tons of bomb-grade uranium into 14,000 metric tons of lower-grade enriched uranium.

Wyoming has largely stepped in to take up the slack from the dying program with the arrival of two in-situ uranium mining projects in the past year. Ur-Energy opened its Lost Creek facility near Jeffrey City last year, and sold about 90,000 pounds of yellowcake into the market near the end of 2013. During the fourth quarter of 2013, the EIA reported that total production of uranium was less than 1.1 million pounds, meaning Ur-Energy's new mine may have accounted for about 8 percent of production – though it's not clear whether the 90,000 pounds were all produced in the same quarter they were sold.

Meanwhile, Uranerz Energy Corporation, another Casper-based newcomer to uranium mining, should be starting production at its Nichols Ranch in-situ uranium project sometime in the first quarter. Altogether, EIA reported that yellowcake production from Wyoming accounted for nearly 900,000 pounds or about 80 percent, of all national uranium production during the fourth quarter. Wyoming, even without Uranerz's upcoming greenlit project, hosts three out of seven functional facilities in the U.S.

But the U.S. needs far more production than even that to stay even. Projections show contractually supplied uranium dwindling in the coming years, with only half currently under contract by 2017.

"Increased domestic production of uranium concentrate should help fill the market requirements going forward," the EIA stated.

Large Electric Users On Natural Gas Shortage?

These large users...they are the guys who deregulated our electric system. Allowed them to purchase electricity on the open market. Now it is biting them in the ass.

Government haters...

No matter how the businesses and corporation screw the markets up for us...the fix is always double up on what damaged us it the first place...

 

February 17. 2014 9:28PM

Report: Gaspipeline not enough to avert New England energy crisis

By DAVE SOLOMON
New Hampshire Union Leader

New England is facing an energy crisis brought on by high natural gas prices, and the call by governors in the six states for a new, publicly funded natural gas pipeline does not go far enough to solve the problem, according to a detailed analysis of the region's energy options.

The 30-page analysis, released on Feb. 11, was conducted by a consulting group, Competitive Energy Services of Portland, Maine, on behalf of the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, which represents large-scale users of electricity in New England.

"The governors' recommended addition of one billion cubic feet of natural gas pipeline capacity will help lower energy prices," according to the analysis, "but will still leave New England paying $600 million more for energy annually than if adequate pipeline capacity existed."

The consultants used 12 months of 2013 data to estimate future trends, and concluded that New England needs two billion cubic feet of new natural gas pipeline capacity — twice what the governors are calling for.
"Since 2012, a fundamental shift toward higher costs due to inadequate gas pipeline capacity has occurred in New England," they wrote.

It was just a year ago that the ratepayers in the region were enjoying lower costs attributed to new sources of natural gas tapped in nearby Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Although some experts predicted that the honeymoon would be short-lived, few if any anticipated the dramatic price swings alluded to in the CES analysis, which stated, "Previous studies did not perceive this fundamental shift because of the unavailability of 2013 data."

According to Maine attorney Anthony Buxton, counsel to the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, "This winter has provided frigid witness to the highest energy prices ever experienced by New England —prices routinely twice as high as those of last winter."

The human and economic costs have been significant, he said: "On just one Friday in January, the total cost of electricity in New England was $100 million more than what it would otherwise have been if New England experienced prices like the rest of the nation. The total above-market energy costs to New England in 2014 will be in the billions of dollars."

Buxton points out that in neighboring New York and Pennsylvania, natural gas is available at prices that often dip below $3 per million BTU, but because New England lacks adequate natural gas pipeline capacity, natural gas prices in cold weather have routinely been above $20 per million BTU.

A unique NE burden

"To make matters worse, these prices drive up the price of electricity astronomically for virtually all New England consumers," Buxton wrote. "Electricity prices have routinely doubled this winter ... These prices have closed New England mills for weeks on end, strained home budgets and burdened New England's economy uniquely among regions in the nation."

The worst is yet to come, he continued, "as customers with fixed-price contracts this year see those contracts expire and must now face the grim reality of much, much higher energy costs next winter."

Unregulated competitive energy suppliers who found it easy to compete with regulated utilities on price in 2012 are now struggling to offer a better buy to consumers, if they can.

Any new hydroelectric lines into the region from Quebec or Eastern Canada will help replace the region's aging coal, oil and nuclear plants, but will do nothing to reduce the need for two billion cubic feet of new natural gas pipeline capacity into the region, according to the analysis.

The consultants warn that failure to create new pipeline capacity will make hydro-electricity from Canada more expensive, even if the Northern Pass is built, as high electricity prices in the region are used as a basis for bids from Hydro-Quebec.

"Additional pipeline capacity into New England serves to discipline Canadian energy suppliers by reducing their pricing power," the report states. "To be assured of obtaining low prices for any imported Canadian electric energy, New England must move forward with developing additional pipeline capacity as soon as possible, and before entering into any electricity purchase agreements with Canadian suppliers."…



These are Maine teabaggers...government haters. The businesses and corporation that are sabotaging each other in order to create beneficial shortage and price spikes for themselves. These guys would screw the regular consumers in order to make just one more penny.

So I say screw the businesses...have the government on a emergency bases finance and build their over natural gas pipeline in NE. Build it twice as big or capacity as needed...build it with a eye on 30 years down the pike. Take land by imminent domain...bypass every inviromental laws known to man...

I went overboard a little...but minimize red tape on a huge level...put the environmental laws at a much lower priority...

Report: New England needs to add 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas pipeline

Details

Published Date Tuesday, 11 February 2014 00:04

Written by David Carkhuff

New England needs 2 billion cubic feet of new natural gas pipeline capacity to eliminate cost spikes and make New England competitive with the rest of the nation, according to a new consultant's study. 

The Industrial Energy Consumer Group, which represents some of the region's largest industrial facilities, commissioned a study, "Assessing Natural Gas Supply Options for New England and their Impacts on Natural Gas and Electricity Prices," from the energy consulting firm Competitive Energy Services to review the most recent data and "determine the true impact of high natural gas prices on New England," explained Anthony W. Buxton, attorney with Preti Flaherty of Maine and counsel to the Industrial Energy Consumer Group.

"This is a manmade crisis, truly, and we can fix it," Buxton said in an interview Monday.
The nonprofit New England States Committee on Electricity invited comment late last month on a proposal to expand natural gas capacity in the region.

"Announced in January, the NESCOE proposal requests the regional grid operator, ISO-NE, to socialize the cost of additional natural gas pipeline capacity and up to three electric transmission lines to increase the purchase of renewable energy," Buxton explained in a memo.

"As you are aware," Buxton wrote to the New England Gas-Electric Focus Group in this memo, "this winter (2013-2014) has provided frigid witness to the highest energy prices ever experienced by New England, prices routinely twice as high as those of last winter (2012-2013). The human and economic costs of these huge price increases have been staggering: on just one Friday in January, the total cost of electricity in New England measured by the energy clearing price was $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars) more than what it otherwise would have been if New England experienced prices like the rest of the nation. The total 'above-market' energy costs to New England in 2014 will be in the billions of dollars."

Buxton went on to state that the crisis " is entirely man-made."

"In neighboring New York and Pennsylvania, merely 250 miles from Boston, a century's supply of natural gas is available at prices that are often less than $3.00 per million BTU, the equivalent of heating oil at a cost of 45 cents/gallon," he wrote. "But, because New England lacks adequate natural gas pipeline capacity, New England's natural gas prices in cold weather have risen routinely above $20.00 per million BTU and as high as $80 per million BTU. To make matters worse, these prices drive up the price of electricity astronomically for virtually all New England consumers. Electricity prices have routinely doubled this winter and have reached over $1.00 per kWh at times, twenty times the normal price. These prices have closed New England mills for weeks on end, strained home budgets and burdened New England's economy uniquely among regions of the nation."
Buxton said natural gas can save residential consumers as well.

The average Maine resident can save, after paying for the furnace, $1,500 a year by switching to gas from oil, he said.

On the commercial front, the natural gas problem affects Maine workers, Buxton said. A Waterville mill now requires shifts to call in to decide whether they can work depending on the supply of natural gas, Buxton said. A Gorham, N.H. paper mill only started up a couple of machines after being shut down due to similar energy-supply problems, he said.

"There are a lot of problems being caused by this all throughout New England," Buxton said. 

"It's pretty serious when you can't operate your electric grid or you're shutting down mills because they can't get natural gas," he said.

Unitil is seeking a rate increase, "and that's in significant part due to the price of gas in the marketplace," Buxton said.

"The high winter prices in New England suggest a natural gas delivery system that is stretched significantly," the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported.

"With rising natural gas output from the Marcellus production field, pipeline expansion to move this gas to New England is one option for alleviating market stress. ... Companies have proposed pipeline expansion, but getting the financial commitments to move forward has been difficult because the additional capacity may only be necessary for short periods during the year. Pipeline expansion may become more viable if baseload consumption of natural gas to generate electricity continues to increase," the agency noted (http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/issuesandtrends/deliverysystem/2013).
Patrick Woodcock, director of the Governor's Energy Office, commenting on the natural gas capacity report, said, "Clearly capacity needs to be increased, and this winter is clearly illustrating that New England needs to move forward with basic infrastructure in order to provide stable and affordable energy for residences and business customers."

In December, New England's governors signed an agreement for a Regional Energy Infrastructure Initiative. They included Governors Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut; Paul LePage, Maine; Deval L. Patrick, Massachusetts; Margaret Wood Hassan, New Hampshire; Lincoln D. Chafee, Rhode Island; and Peter Shumlin, Vermont.

"This initiative will accelerate regional cooperation on expanding renewable energy and energy infrastructure in New England. ..." the governors announced at the time.

"The agreement calls attention to the fact that the region's electric and natural gas systems have become 'increasingly interdependent,' creating a need for cooperative investments in energy efficiency, new and existing renewable generation, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission," the governors announced.

"New England's energy costs are not competitive," LePage said at the time. "Our high energy prices drain family budgets and are a significant barrier to attracting business investment, especially in energy-intensive industries. At the same time, we are geographically positioned to take advantage of competitively priced natural gas and hydropower resources if we collectively invest in key infrastructure. This energy infrastructure initiative can bring these world-class resources to start powering New England industry and start saving money for families across our states."
 

In response to the plan, the Conservation Law Foundation questioned whether the approach — "electric tariff changes to build transmission to facilitate new wind and hydropower, and increase natural gas pipeline capacity by nearly 20 percent in three years" — would "achieve the states' legally mandated climate policies."

"This agreement raises concerns over whether the proposed upgrades would be consistent with the rapidly changing grid and states' climate laws and policies," said N. Jonathan Peress, VP and Director, Clean Energy and Climate Change for the foundation. "In particular there is a very real risk that the states will overbuild natural gas infrastructure that would ultimately not comply with these laws, increase our overreliance on natural gas, and potentially leave the public holding the bag for a bad bet."

Buxton said renewable energy should be a part of the region's energy mix, but he said natural gas can't be discounted.

"New England has historically been terribly burdened by oil, the cost of oil, the pollution of oil," as well as the foreign policy complications of acquiring oil from overseas, Buxton said. Natural gas provides an answer, he said.

"We need to complete that transition as we also move to renewables," he said.

Palisades New CRDM Cracks Notes

Get you wondering, they got radiation reports throughout this area...all they got to do is look it up. It sounds like something changed...why is the doses higher?

Those eight rods and expsecaially the center rods...they are taking about it costing Palisades 100 Rem. You you go by the below we are talking about 900 rem for the center rod job? The rods they are not doing this outage...these guys got a lot of radiation.

Why does it take the NRc so long to do a inspection on things like this and write up a inspection report?

Remember BWR Pilgrim's crud burst...course Palisades is a PWR?

New inspection report 05000255/2013005

Introduction: The inspectors identified a URI concerning the collective dose received by workers repairing the CRD-24 housing during the August 2012 forced outage.

Description: During the August 2012 forced outage, numerous work tasks were performed, including repairs of the CRD-24 housing. The initial dose estimate for this work as reflected on the Radiation Work Permit (RWP) was 2.950 Rem. The actual dose expended was 26.563 Rem. The data provided by the licensee at the time of the onsite inspection was not sufficient for the inspectors to complete their regulatory review of the collective dose received during this work activity. The licensee provided additional data to the NRC on January 7, 2014, that will be used to determine whether the dose received was within the licensee’s ability to control.

Why the secrecy with talking about source terms and plant wide radiation level trends?

The inspectors used licensee records to determine the historical trends and current status of significant tracked plant source terms known to contribute to elevated facility aggregate exposure. The inspectors assessed whether the licensee had made allowances or developed contingency plans for expected changes in the source term as the result of plant fuel performance issues or changes in plant primary chemistry

Why such a high change...a factor of five. Five times the normal rates. Christ, that wouldn't pick up a metldown. I am just saying public reporting with events at these plants are all keyed into protecting the bad actors...protecting the industry.  

The inspectors reviewed all significant changes in reported dose values compared to the previous radiological effluent release report (e.g., a factor of five, or increases that approached Appendix I criteria) to evaluate the factors which may have resulted in the change.

Recovery from the red grade:

However, the inspectors noted continued issues with regard to the planning and execution of routine scheduled maintenance. There were many instances where schedule conflicts, parts issues, or work instruction adequacy caused delays in the execution of work and schedule perturbations. Many of the issues could have been resolved as part of the formalized planning process in the weeks prior to work execution. The inspectors did note; however, that when conflicts or questions arose, work was put on hold and appropriately assessed by the license before moving forward.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Entergy Systematically Destroying Nuclear Plants through a Run-to-Failure Philosophy

Seems to be a lot of equipment problems here with Entergy?

March 12, 2013: FitzPatrick-EntergyNot Financially Qualified 2.206

Right out of a new FitzPatrick's inspection report. How widespread is this? Is Entergy run-to-failure their own employees. This sounds like the nuclear professional class fleeing Entergy..they see the writting on the wall. It just might not be about the fear of a closure...they might be worrying about losing their professional credentials and going to jail.   

.2 Inspection Procedure 92723 Follow-up Inspection for Three or More Severity Level IV

Traditional Enforcement Violations in the Same Area in a 12-Month Period documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000333/2013002. These three violations occurred within the same traditional enforcement area of impeding the regulatory process. Entergy’s evaluation was a collective review of a total of six traditional enforcement violations, which included three violations documented in 05000333/2013002 and three earlier traditional enforcement violations that occurred in 2011 and early 2012. All six violations were within the same traditional enforcement area of impeding the regulatory process.

Inspection Scope: On December 13, 2013, inspectors completed an in-office review of Entergy’s evaluation (CR-JAF-2013-02388) of three SL IV traditional enforcement violations, which were documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000333/2013002. These three violations occurred within the same traditional enforcement area of impeding the regulatory process. Entergy’s evaluation was a collective review of a total of six traditional enforcement violations, which included three violations documented in 05000333/2013002 and three earlier traditional enforcement violations that occurred in 2011 and early 2012. All six violations were Entergy’s evaluation identifies the apparent cause as being associated with inadequate management skills associated with the oversight of the Licensing department. Specifically, a site manager with considerable plant operations documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000333/2013002. These three violations occurred within the same traditional enforcement area of impeding the regulatory process. Entergy’s evaluation was a collective review of a total of six traditional enforcement violations, which included three violations documented in 05000333/2013002 and three earlier traditional enforcement violations that occurred in 2011 and early 2012. All six violations were within the same traditional enforcement area of impeding the regulatory process.

It is the bum laws and regulation causing this!

The behavior of Entergy is like the "loud music" murder case against Michael Dunning (and George Zimmerman)...the teabagger politicians who wrote laws in the books that are contrary to our common good. Of course, the good people sat back and let it happen. I am convinced Entergy could do a lot of damage to our nation with this destructive short term philosophy with running their nuclear fleet to ground...but it is perfectly legal. It is the nature of the wording in the laws that lets them get away with murder!  

In a brand new Pilgrim NRC inspection report below. Palisades is now replacing again the the CRDMs they destroyed. The CRDMs replacement are basically the same form as the repeated maintenance incompetence shut downs and start-ups, as with the safety injection refueling water tank in the past. Remember these tanks were never built as designed. They were defective from day one and lead to the repeated leaks. Ignore the word safety in "safety injection refueling water tank" as the NRC thinks it is not a safety system because of its leaks! Pilgrim over their excess shutdowns severely discharge radioactivity all over their plant...outside primary containment from crud burst. This isn't a plant issue, it is a fleet wide problem...this is a national problem throughout many other plants and fleets outside Entergy.

This is the greatest crisis in our nationwide fleet...all nuclear plants in the USA... we ever faced in the history of nuclear power.

The following observations have been noted by the inspectors: SRV performance was a driver for several down powers and forced outages in 2012 and into 2013; a number of unplanned down powers and shutdowns were the result of non-safety-related equipment failures; it appears that nonsafety-related equipment that was characterized as a run-to-failure is starting to reach the end of their service life and can likely become contributors to such events.

Feb 16: Let talk about 2013 with Arkansas Nuclear One....a year in the life of ANO.  What does a plant look like in a run-to-failure mode with two plant site.

March begins with unit 1 going into refueling. On March 31 they drop a 600 ton stator. It kills one, seriously injures 4, another 4 aren’t so seriously injured.  It tripped off unit 2 for about a month. All this death, injury and destruction was caused by Entergy not following their own procedures, not testing safety equipment (crane) and a undersized crane. Basically run-to failure or insufficient budgets to get a job properly done.

OHSA "This tragedy could have been prevented had the employer ensured vital safeguards to protect workers from potential hazards and proper planning for a project of this magnitude," said Carlos Reynolds, OSHA's area director in Little Rock. "OSHA will hold the employers accountable for not meeting their workplace safety and health responsibilities."

They restart Unit 2 on April 27. It goes well. This plant has been dead for a month.

Below is a dangerous sign of a sloppy nuclear plant and gross incompetence. Short term budgeting overrides long term profits! This is so unprofessional

(This is what incompetence looks like. A good plant typically breezes through a start-up with any issues and restarts)

• Aug 7 1% ANO attempts a restart on unit 1. This guy has been dead for about four months.
• Aug 8 18% increasing power.
• Aug 9 56% MFP trouble shooting.
• Aug 10  83% Increasing

• Aug 11 77% The start-up is being held up because secondary maintenance issues...something broke.

• Aug 12 87% Sart-up now being held up for a heat balance (wink wink).

• Aug 13 87% It’s still the heat balance thing.

• Aug 14 87%  Holding power for the heat balance. Oops, now shutting down.  

• Aug 15 0%  It is called feedwater sodium excursion.

• Aug 16 0% Now called a sodium exclusion.

• Aug 17 12% Gen synced and back at 100%
• Aug 18 86% Increasing
• Aug 19 100%

Is the above normal...it took them more than a week and a shutdown...

I am saying Entergy though nuclear budget issues are damaging or wearing out components. They are knowingly letting the plant run-to-failure. Examples are ANO, Palisades and Pilgrim! Non safety systems failures are power downing, tripping or shutting down the plant. The magnitude of the repeated power excursions are then damaging the nuclear safety systems.

You see what I am talking about, the NRC in their status report frames it as a transformer explosion while in Entergy’s LER they never mention the explosion. You can count on Entergy always sterilizing their language!   

ANO's LER to the NRC 

Event Cause: Based on the physical evidence available, the initial fault is suspected to have occurred at the ‘C’ phase 6900V flexible link on the 2X-02 6900V non-segregated bus, which propagated to the associated ‘C’ phase bus. Damage from the explosion led to phase-to-phase and phase-toground faults on the 6900V and 4160V buses. Based on observations of the 2X-02 ‘A’ and ‘B’ phase flexible links at this location, there was evidence of corona exposure on the tapping around the bolted connections, moisture and corrosion on the copper flexible links, and no vendor recommended putty on the bolt heads. Without the putty, partial discharge (corona) occurred which degraded the tape insulation.The flexible links and insulation have been installed in this configuration since at least 1979. In addition, the duct design air gap in the flex link area had a marginal air gap as compared to applicable electrical codes that combined with the lack of putty lowered margin for fault protection.

2X-02 is protected by various protective relays including high speed phase differential relays to actuate the main generator lockout relays for isolation of the transformer and the associated fault. Upon fault detection, these relays are designed to initiate prompt actuation of the main generator lockout relays that open the main generator output breakers, exciter field breaker, and associated 4160V and 6900V bus breakers. Although the relays did actuate during this event as evidenced by the instantaneous element target flags, subsequent inspections identified the output contact for the 2X-02 differential relays were not terminated. Failure of the relays to clear the fault allowed 2X-02 to source the fault for approximately 4 to 5 seconds prior to its failure, which exceeds the typical maximum through-fault current rating of 2 seconds for this class of transformer. (explosion)

You see what I am talking about, the NRC in their status report frames it as a transformer explosion while in Entergy’s LER they never mention the explosion. You can count on Entergy to always sterilizing their language!

(This below is what incompetence looks like again.)

0n Dec 9, 2013 in Unit 2 their aux transformer has an electrical explosion and fire. It is interesting; I guess the NRC feels sorry for these guys because they have yet to covered this event in any meaningful way. The plant tripped.

• Dec 20, 2013 forced outage...transformer repair.
• Dec 21 Just zero power. Out of the forced outage
• Dec 22 Now back to a force outage, transformer will remain broken till the next refueling outage.
• Dec 23 Steam line vent repair
• Dec 24 Another heat up in progress. Reactor startup right around the corner.
• Dec 25 Oh shit, cooled back down for MSIV issues
• Dec 26 MSIV Issue
• Dec 27 MSIV
• Dec 28 MSIV
• Dec 29 MSIV
• Dec 30 MSIV
• Dec 31 MSIV
• Jan 10 Completed testing on MSIV
• Jan 11 chemistry hold 30% power
• Jan 12 95%
• Jan 13 100%

Basically a month shutdown.

ANO out of two plants, had one plant shut down for a 6 months in 2013. A thumb rule is 2 million dollars a day cost for a down plant. Maybe $300 million for replacement power? These down plants were totally preventable...this isn’t a competent staff! It is putting profits and the stockholders above the community! 

When is Entergy cutting their dividend like Exelon and FirstEnergy?  

Reposted from 2/11/14

My take on this. For the last twenty years at many of these multi nuclear plant utilities, these nuclear plants have been the low cost producer and they have been the golden goose for the parent company. At points, the nuclear assets have carried the whole utility and they directly supported the stock price. They should have diverted some excess profits from the nukes into updating their plant...they should have put aside a rainy day fund for the nukes for when the market made a turning point to get them passed the stress.

These guys don’t deserve any bailouts or any sympathy!   

SUBJECT: PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION – NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION 

REPORT 05000293/201300 and 07201044/2013001

February 10, 2014

 Pg 25

(the regulator)"Equipment reliability issues resulting in plant transients have been identified as a continuing trend by the inspectors and Entergy. The following observations have been noted by the inspectors: SRV performance was a driver for several down powers and forced outages in 2012 and into 2013; a number of unplanned down powers and shutdowns were the result of non-safety-related equipment failures; it appears that nonsafety-related equipment that was characterized as a run-to-failure is starting to reach the end of their service life and can likely become contributors to such events. These issues have directly led to six forced outages in 2013, and have contributed to Pilgrim crossing multiple performance indicator thresholds. Additionally, although two of the events which resulted in complicated scrams at Pilgrim in 2013 were the result of offsite initiators, these also represent opportunities for Pilgrim to further evaluate options to limit their vulnerability to, or to mitigate the consequences of, such events."

You could make the case these plants are intentionally not preparing plant evaluations...they are intentionally blinding their upper management to the results of this.

(*new) By the way, those SRVs that cost them so much money with reduced capacity factor. It is one of the most safety critical components in the reactor. They recently replaced obsolete SRVs with new ones. It is the brand new ones that repeatedly leaked and malfunctioned. They began leaking within months of new installation....with repeated shutdowns and downpowers throughout the operating cycle. We still don’t know why this happed and the report has been delayed from being released because their bureaucracy is overwealmed with paperwork. This goes way beyond only a run-to-failure philosophy with non-safety component.

Non-safety components consist of 99% of the components of a nuclear power plant...but their repeated failures on this scale can damage and degrade safety related components.

A hint of the scale with what we are talking about here....a nuclear power plant consists of many millions of components.

A relative small percentage of high worth “non-safety” components failure does result in damaging nuclear safety components and structures in a non-safety million component system!  Pilgrim and Palisades are a result of this!

The results of this business strategy is they are damaging plant reliability...ending in the damage cascading into degrading nuclear components and processes. The examples are ther recent ANO transformer explosion and dropped stator, the destruction the Palisades CRDMs and excessive shutdowns at Pilgrim plant, excessive radiation problems throughout inside the Pilgrim plant and now serous contamination in a well outside the building These issues all come from budgets taking a higher priority than plant reliability and safety.

So here is Entergy and Exelon at a Platts Energy conference talking about a unprecedented nuclear plant economic crisis. They are saying their nuclear plants are economical.

Nuclear giants urge market changes to thwart closures  

Hannah Northey, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Thursday, February 6, 2014  

　
The country's largest nuclear operators yesterday reiterated their calls for market changes to prevent a spate of reactor closures in markets that they say are becoming too reliant on subsidized renewables and cheap gas amid premature plant retirements.
Top executives from Entergy Corp. and Exelon Corp. -- the United States' biggest nuclear operators in competitive markets -- warned at a Platts energy conference in Washington, D.C., that electricity markets are rewarding the lowest-cost, near-term energy sources, namely cheap gas and subsidized wind. 

Being overlooked are merchant nuclear power plants that provide carbon-free base-load power, they said. 

"Regulators, policymakers really don't understand the consequences of some of their focus, which are well-intended; they want to do the right thing, move to renewable resources, reduce carbon output," said William Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, which operates about 5,000 megawatts of merchant nuclear power. "[But] we're really headed off a cliff if we don't see some changes in overall market design."

Think about this statement on a national level where a few bad nuclear plants can wipe out the profits across the whole fleet of nuclear plants. The west coast for years have had low wholesale electric rates. Can you believe this; "where losses have wiped out revenues at the company's other 19 nuclear facilities". These guys have been hacking and slashing at nuclear plant budgets for years. Generally when you hack away resources at a nuclear plant, you are intimidating the staffs of these nuclear plants.

Brown said Exelon is eyeing shaky finances at five of its merchant nuclear plants -- including Clinton, Quad Cities and other units not made public -- where losses have wiped out revenues at the company's other 19 nuclear facilities. Brown said those decisions will be based on movement with gas markets and what Congress decides to do with the production tax credits.

There it is right there out of the mouths of babes...investors and executive bonuses comes before plant reliability and nuclear safety.  By the way, the NE electric market prices have been skyrocketing since 2012.

"Frankly, what we're dealing with right now in some of these markets is they are insufficient to provide sustainability for investors -- and that's where you end up with a situation like Vermont Yankee," Mohl said. "And obviously, there are other units out there that are critical.

Basically, Entergy's one off plant in Michigan is deeply in with Exelon's territory...certainly their ISO. Palisades maintenance screw-ups and shutdowns has cost Entergy many tens of millions of dollars. If Entergy shuts down this plant it will be because they shot themselves in the foot for not putting enough money into this guys.

Chicago Business, February 6, 2014. "The clock is now ticking for Exelon Corp.'s Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear power plants. CEO Chris Crane said the company would have to decide by year-end on whether to shutter nuclear facilities that currently are losing money due to persistently low wholesale power prices. Analysts have identified the downstate Clinton plant and Quad Cities as the two in Illinois that fit this description. Exelon runs six nukes in Illinois."