My 2013 Petition On Pilgrim Asking for Everyone To Come To Terms Over Bad SRVs

I presented this 2.206 to the regional officials at the SRV white finding public meeting this summer. I asked them why didn't you move on this 2.206 petition. They said, "at the time there was no evidence available to show the SRVs were inoperable or broken to anyone. This 2.206 was just based on wishful thinking." Everything in this 2.206 has come to be true post Jan storm Juno and the resulting NRC investigations.

I have these conversations recorded...

From: Michael Mulligan [mailto:steamshovel2002@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:33 PM

Yep, I was desperately trying to get people to believe what I was saying. Took a shot at getting the Boston Globe involved. 

To: newstip~globe.com; NRC Allegation

Subject: 2.206: Pilgrim Nuclear Plant SRV Request for Emergency Shutdown 

Dear sir, 

I called this into your hotline by telephone and left a message to a reporter an hour or so ago. This is just a follow-up. 

I'd like to get Gov Patrick to demand an immediate Pilgrim shutdown and demand a special investigation of these events. 

Mike 

So the below is my 2.206 request to the NRC. You'd do me a favor if the BG calls our region I public relation people.. .Neil Shaheen.

March 7, 2013

This was shortly after storm Nemo...

Bill Borchardt

Executive Director for Operations

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Dear Mr. Bochardt, 

Request an emergency and for a exigent bases, that the Pilgrim Nuclear plant be immediately shut down.

Don't tell me just before Nor'easter Nimo struck the Pilgrim plant with a leaking safety relief valve and down at 80%, Entergy was intending to operate that plant with a defective leaking safety relief valve till the next refuel outage. Tell it ain't so. It certainly looks like with the current leak today that are intending to operate till next month. 

Is the game plan today to incrementally increase reactor power from 94% by 1% to see if a new SRV leak is getting worse? 

Timeline: 

1) New three stage safety relief valves installed in the plant around May 2011. 

2) First leak and shut down on Dec, 26. 2011 (SRV RV-203-3D). 

3) Second leak and shut down on Jan 20, 2013 (SRV RV-203-3B). 

4) Third leak occurred a few weeks later and the Nemo blizzard tripped the plant...the NRC promised these valves would be fixed. (SRV RV-203-3B).

5) Basically they operated for 20 days at 100% power operation post shutdown, then reported on Feb 27 the plant is operating at 94% power with no explained reason until today. The reason for the down power was kept secret from the public. Don't forget the repetitive nature of the recently broken scram discharge volume vent and drain valves...implies Entergy is incapable of maintaining safety components of a nuclear plant. 

The repeated nature of the failures of the safety relief valves means Entergy doesn't know the mechanism of the failure...it is a common mode failure. The design and manufacture of these valves are defective and it is extremely unsafe to operate a nuclear plant with all safety relief valves being INOP. A condition adverse to quality... 

The NRC should have made a public comment about the new leaking safety relief when they first became aware of the leak. The implication is the agency was going to allow the plant to operate with unsafe SRVs until the refueling outage next month. The NRC is involved in a serious cover-up of an extremely unsafe operation of a nuclear power.

1) Request an immediate shutdown the Pilgrim Plant. 

I called for a big special inspection in early 2013. One wonders if the NRC a full scale special inspection in 2013; would Pilgrim not have a permanent shutdown hanging over their head today?

2) The is the second time I requested a special NRC inspection concerning the defective SRV valves.  

3) Not allow the plant to restart Pilgrim until they fully understand the past failure mechanisms of the four bad new three stage safety relief valves. 

4) Request the OIG investigate this cover-up to keep an unsafe nuclear plant at power.

References: 

The Popperville Town Hall (my blog):

http://steamshovel2002. blogspot.com/ 

"Pilgrim's Safety Relief Valve Leaking Boondoggle"

http: //steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/2013/02/pilgrims-safetyrelief-valve-leaking.html

Sincerely,

Michael Mulligan

PO Box 161

Hinsdale, NH 03541

16033368320

steamshovel2002@vahoo.com

Boston Globe's Editorial On The Pilgrim Closing

I am convinced now the NRC has to give me a fair hearing on the installed 2 stage SRVs. Here I trying to petition "old Abe"(Lincoln) to start asking questions. If he begins asking just one question to Entergy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on this, the whole "House of Cards" will collapse. I love that Netflix series.

Knowing the corrupt NRC, they will throw it into a official investigation forever to be lost in the belly of beast organization. 

From: Michael Mulligan <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>

To: dabel@globe.com   

Today at 10:40 AM 

These guys (nuclear industry) are so huge and corrupt...they don't fear lying right to your face and they hold such political power. They have total control of the information. I wonder about you? The size of the cover-up going on here is mind boggling. What would you do to survive and feed your family? Most of the horrors of the world are created though/by doing so called "altruism", "doing good" or "for work or having a paycheck". In the name of protecting and providing for our families.    

My complaint is entered on the NRC's Blog. I have been ahead of these guys for years now: 

http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2015/10/14/entergy-to-nrc-pilgrim-nuclear-power-plant-to-cease-operations/#comments 

Entergy to NRC: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant To Cease Operations

My blog:

http://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/2015/10/nrc-blog-current-pilgrims-2-stage-srvs.html 

Mike Mulligan

Hinsdale, NH

I hear a letter to Governor Baker of Massachusetts with this is on the way? Is he a Republican?   

After Pilgrim closes, a nuclear graveyard

By The Editorial Board   October 14, 2015

Critics of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth — and there are many — have long portrayed it as a catastrophe waiting to happen. Their doomsday scenarios depict an accident or terrorist attack that causes a massive radiation leak, forcing a panicked evacuation of Southeastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod. But Entergy Corp.’s announcement Tuesday that the Louisiana-based company will shut down the Pilgrim plant by June 2019 — and probably earlier — was about an impending financial disaster, not safety. Cheap natural gas, a push to bring hydropower from Canada, and the huge investment needed to upgrade the 43-year-old plant all combined to turn a nuclear dinosaur into a white elephant. Entergy estimates Pilgrim will lose about $40 million this year, and the projections beyond that aren’t any better.

Unlike the closing of other kinds of businesses — like a retail store or factory — there is no sense of finality in Entergy’s decision to pull the plug on Pilgrim. If anything, it raises more questions, offers few answers, and will demand vigilance by federal regulators, state leaders, and local officials. For starters, Pilgrim remains online now and could keep generating power for nearly four more years. That’s a concern, especially since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month lowered the plant’s safety ranking following unplanned shutdowns and chronic problems with pressure valves, demoting it to one of the three worst-performing nuclear power facilities in the United State.

Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, said during a press conference in Plymouth that Entergy “will continue to work with the NRC under its enhanced oversight, with safety and security being our top priority.” Given the plant’s lame-duck status and dodgy track record, his scripted promise provides little comfort to those who live in the vicinity of Pilgrim.

Mohl said a permanent shutdown could come as soon as spring 2017 — if a scheduled refueling is scuttled — but even then, Pilgrim will hardly be history: Decommissioning takes decades. The most immediate worry is the security of several thousand spent fuel rods that sit in a water-filled pool built in the 1970s. Entergy has started transferring some rods to fortified concrete casks that can hold 360,000 pounds apiece. It’s unclear how the shutdown will affect that process, which, like everything associated with nuclear power procedures, is agonizingly slow. So-called dry cask storage has been used at other commercial nuclear plants for nearly 30 years, but the antinuclear coalition Cape Cod Bay Watch says the siting of the containers at Pilgrim, some only about 200 feet from the Atlantic Ocean, makes them vulnerable to the effects of climate change. However the old fuel is stored, it is staying put for a long time in what will become a nuclear graveyard — the NRC’s much-maligned plan to build a central waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada lost federal funding years ago.

Beyond safety issues, taking Pilgrim off the grid will drastically reduce the region’s clean energy output. It accounts for about 84 percent of Massachusetts’s noncarbon-emitting energy. Entergy says a gas-powered plant generating the same amount of electricity, enough to power 600,000 homes, would produce 1.6 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. The shutdown provides momentum for the renewable-energy bills filed by Governor Charlie Baker that would make it easier to bring in hydropower from Canada and increase incentives for solar power. It could also reinvigorate efforts to construct offshore wind turbines. Those initiatives, though laudable, don’t lessen the need to expand the region’s gas pipeline capacity. But natural gas proposals, like the 188-mile pipeline Kinder Morgan Inc. wants to construct through parts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, face opposition from environmentalists and would cost ratepayers.

Locally, the closure will deliver a moderate economic blow to Plymouth, including the loss of many of the 600 full-time jobs at Pilgrim, but municipal officials say they have been preparing for the day when the plant would cease to operate. Prior to the state’s deregulation of the utility industry in the 1990s, money from Pilgrim covered 25 percent of the town’s budget, keeping taxes low and sparking what was essentially a subsidized growth spurt. As Plymouth’s economic base grew and diversified, the town became far less reliant on plant revenue. Today, the $9.25 million that Entergy contributes in lieu of taxes accounts for about 5 percent of the community’s $200 million annual budget, and the company will still have to make payments of an undetermined amount even after the reactor is turned off.

Speaking in Plymouth after breaking the news to Entergy employees this week, a grim-faced Mohl said closing the plant was “a choice of last resort.” But make no mistake, this ending is in many ways just a beginning. Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous for 250,000 years.

The Marcellus Natural Gas Monster is Choking On Insufficient Transmission Pipelines

America's Biggest Shale Gas Field Is Choking on Its Own Supply

The flow of natural gas from the nation’s biggest reservoir is close to dropping below last year as pipeline capacity fails to keep up with surging production. 

For the first time since the shale boom began in 2007, output from the Marcellus shale basin in Pennsylvania and West Virginia is faltering. While Appalachian pipeline capacity will more than double this year, it’s not happening quickly enough to keep the flow moving freely, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

Marcellus production has surged more than 14-fold in the past eight years. Now, drillers are awaiting seven new Appalachian pipeline projects scheduled to enter service this quarter, with eight more scheduled for 2016, according to Range Resources Corp., a Fort Worth, Texas-based producer active in the Marcellus. 

“The Marcellus is now totally infrastructure-constrained,” said Charles Blanchard, an analyst at BNEF in New York. “All through 2015, it couldn’t manage to get any incremental production out.” 

How 2015 is looking compared with previous years

Gas has tumbled 13 percent this year as mild weather limits demand and stockpiles approach a record. Without declining production and rising consumption by power plants, the price slump might have been even more pronounced. 

Marcellus gas production may slip 1.3 percent in November to 15.892 billion cubic feet a day from October, compared with 15.699 billion a year earlier, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s monthly Drilling Productivity Report. Output is poised to drop for four straight months. 

Even as the dearth of pipelines prevents some supplies from reaching high-demand markets, gas production is still set to climb this year, and there’s a chance it won’t dip below 2014 levels. 

“We’re on the cusp,” Blanchard said. ”But you have new pipelines coming in. Everyone hopes to finish these projects before the heating season in November.”

NRC Blog: Current Pilgrim's 2 Stage SRVs Are Not Safe And A Continuing Cover-Up

Oct 16 update

Would it make a difference?

The rumor going on has it Pilgrim’s 2 stage SRVs have been borrowed from this Hope Creek’s SRV disaster?  All three of the test 3 stage SRVs failed lift testing and 71% of their 2 stage failed also. Check out the date I wrote my blog entry. Would it make a difference to Pilgrim's continued operation if they had Hope Creek 2 stage SRV in the plant? 

Nearly Identical To Pilgrim’s SRVs: 71% Target Rock Two Stage SRV Tech Spec Failure Rate

I like the concept of DG load testing. They test these guys monthly or so at full design load. They don’t test these guys at say 5% full plant design load. We got big quality troubles with both the 2 stage and 3 stage Target Rock safety relief salves. These failures are sending us a big signal something has to done about these problem. 

As most BWR plants during the worst case design accident…very infrequent…these Safety Relief Valves could/will have to be cycled up to 400 times. I don’t think the current testing regime covers this worst duty at all. How do we know how these delicate valves will behave after 100 cycle in a short period time and environment? We are talking science and engineering here? 

I’d be test cycling a hunk of these valves some 400 times...one valve 400 times per outage.  This is how the engineers screw the operations people when the plant is in the clutches of a terrible designed accident…they don’t have our backs. Nope, seeing how important these guys are when 99% of the safety systems have been wiped off the table and unavailable, I be regularly test cycling these guys 800 times just to make sure something is working when everything else is gone.  

By the way, I got a great question for everyone. They say test stand lift or pressure testing damaged the internal just before going into the Pilgrim plant. Why hasn’t the damaged proliferated to the other BWR plants who also used this test stand or similar? Why haven’t I seen problems similar to Pilgrim’s throughout the industry whose use similar test stand set-ups, testing regimes or procedures? 

Sincerely, 

Mike Mulligan
Hinsdale, NH 

http://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/

This is the NRC response to me. Mr Sheenan is a public relation NRC official. He has little contact with technical information and the plant itself...especially hands on experience with things going on in the plant.      

The NRC conducted an annual Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection sample at Pilgrim related to installation of these 2-stage safety relief valves (SRVs). As documented in the inspection report: 

• Entergy removed all four 3-stage SRVs and replaced them with refurbished 2-stage SRVs. 

• The 2-stage SRVs are of a design that is in use at other industry boiling water reactors. 

• The inspectors reviewed design documentation associated with this change. The inspectors determined that the modification and design of these 2-stage SRVs are consistent with Pilgrim’s design and licensing bases. 

• The inspectors observed surveillance testing of the 2-stage SRVs during startup from the last refueling outage, and observed proper operation when actuated manually from the main control room. 

• The inspectors concluded that the 2-stage SRV design did not invalidate any existing commitments or requirements.
Based on our inspection, we determined that use of the 2-stage SRVs was acceptable.
Neil Sheehan

My response?  

If I knew what plant those SRVs came from, then I could do an Adams look-up on the operational history of that model and the particular valves to see how safe they are? This unnecessary secrecy implies a cover-up in itself.  

Did they come from Vermont Yankee?

Why didn’t Energy just refurbish their old two stage 2010 valves to save money?

Are the SRVs in the plant now identical to the pre 2010 ones? Cause if not, they needed a 10 CFR 50:59 and LAR. As you know, these valves could operate perfectly in another plant, but be inappropriate in Pilgrim. Our domestic fleet of nuclear plants are basically a design one off...each are mostly a unique design?  

Blog: The inspectors observed surveillance testing of the 2-stage SRVs during startup from the last refueling outage, and observed proper operation when actuated manually from the main control room. Basically the 3 stage SRVs were unfit to be in an operating reactor plant.

They did exactly the same test at the beginning of the last operating period with the 3 stage SRVs and nobody ever discovered that the three SRVs were nonfunctional and required an immediate emergency shutdown. Was there NRC observers there on that test? 

There is increasingly widening gulf between what is documented in an “inspection report” and what really is going on in the plant. This is the story of the SRVs, Pilgrim and the NRC since 2010.

So we are going to make believe Entergy never wrote this 2010 evaluation and the document isn’t in the docket?

• “The SRVs require replacement because the current two-stage Target Rock SRVs have been unreliable performers with respect to leaking while in-service and the subject of setpoint drift. SRV pilot valve leakage has led to multiple plant shutdowns and the setpoint drift problem resulted in exceeding current TS limits and numerous Licensee Event Reports (LERs). It has been determined that pilot valve leakage is due to low simmer margin and high as-found lift setpoints are due to corrosion bonding at the pilot valve disc/seat. To address current SRV performance problems, Entergy has performed extensive investigations and feasibility studies. The preferred option for correcting these problems is to replace all SRVs and SSVs during the next refueling outage. RFO-1 8 is currently planned to start on or about April 17, 2011.”  

The NRC put it up on the blog...I am actually impressed with their transparency.

Entergy to NRC: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant To Cease Operations

Part 1 continuing 

By the way, I am impressed with the NRC for allowing me to discuss problems like this on your blog. 

Am I the only one reading documents submitted by Entergy to the NRC anymore? Does the NRC keep up with reading pertinent documents like Pilgrims 2010 SRV License Amendment Request? They are shifting from the 2 stage to the defective and dangerous 3 stage SRV. We now have these 2 stage reliefs back in Pilgrim?? 

Basically Entergy says the valves currently in the plant are dangerous, leak and unsafe in the below 2010 LAR document. These valves drift outside the tech spec set point often requiring a immediate shutdown wink, wink. But these dangerous degradations are undetectable at power. This is why we went to the 3 stage SRV. You might have inop two or more valves each requiring a immediate safety shutdowns, but the plant can’t detect the dangerous deterioration. Don’t be confused, I am not talking about the 3 stage SRV removed from the plant last spring…these are the guys in the plant right now.

“Proposed License Amendment to Technical Specifications: Revised Technical Specification for Setpoint and Setpoint Tolerance Increases for Safety Relief Valves (SRV) and Spring Safety Valves (SSV), and Related Changes”March 15, 2010 

The SRVs require replacement because the current two-stage Target Rock SRVs have been unreliable performers with respect to leaking while in-service and the subject of setpoint drift. SRV pilot valve leakage has led to multiple plant shutdowns and the setpoint drift problem resulted in exceeding current TS limits and numerous Licensee Event Reports (LERs). It has been determined that pilot valve leakage is due to low simmer margin and high as-found lift setpoints are due to corrosion bonding at the pilot valve disc/seat. To address current SRV performance problems, Entergy has performed extensive investigations and feasibility studies. The preferred option for correcting these problems is to replace all SRVs and SSVs during the next refueling outage. RFO-1 8 is currently planned to start on or about April 17, 2011. 

Mike MulliganHinsdale, NH

http://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/

Part 2 

Entergy's LER: Notice how Entegy is allow to pick and choose what information they release to the public? They aren’t required to explain the vulnerabilities and defective 2 stage design outlined in their 2010 LAR going into the plant after the 2015 spring outage. 

“All SRV body/bases were removed from the system during the current refueling outage. In place of the four SRV's removed from the plant during the current refueling outage, PNPS has installed 2-stage SRV's” 

This is a brazen cover-up on top of the first cover-up. It is mind boggling.

Inspection Report 2015-002, is this a full and accurate statement considering how defective and unsafe Entergy identified the 2 stage in the 2010 LAR? Should the residents discussed the limitation of the 2 stage in 2015-002-02?

“The inspectors concluded that the 2-stage SRV design did not invalidate any existing commitments or requirements.”

They are used valves from another plant and Entergy has indication this model valve is defective and dangerous in their 201O LAR. They certainly aren’t new. They basically grab them from a nuclear plant junk yard. They aren't being manufactured today.

Entergy Senior Communication Specialist Lauren Burm: “Burm said four new safety relief valves were installed during a recent refueling and refitting of the reactor.”

Seriously Bill, is this statement true? 

Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities: “Mohl said that the plant has previously addressed the safety relief valve issue and the plant is operating safely”. 

Again the skimpy information gives Entergy the advantage to keep operating with a poorly designed component and dangerous. You notice both sides of the story; this is why Pilgrim needs the valve and this is the vulnerabilities of the design of the valve? You decide if it is safe or not. The NRC never treats us as adults. 

NRC Public Affairs specialist: “The plant has since replaced all four valves...” 

Part 3 

As a compensatory action for the defective and dangerous SRV 2 stage SRVs outlined in the 2010 LAR: 

I request Pilgrim to shutdown for any indication of a leaking SRVs or any out of normal temperature reading of a tailpiece. I request Pilgrim to shutdown quarterly in order to detect the outside setpoint 3% plus or minus required tech spec vulnerabilities and unreliabilities. 

The OIG was really was involved with this…I request a outside the OIG and NRC investigation of this whole mess. 

It all leads to this…I am asking the NRC now. Is the 2 stage SRVs now installed in Pilgrim safe? Does these valves meet all codes and rules…do they meet the highest ethical and nuclear professional obligations. Could you direct me to a current comprehensive engineering document discussing all the historic safety limitation of the currently installed 2 stage SRV valves and the compensatory action? 

Sincerely, 

Mike Mulligan  

Hinsdale, NH

http://steamshovel2002.blogspot.com/

Dresden's Broken Electromatic Relief Valves?

You get it, two different component manufacturers for parts in the same model valve: GE Hitachi and Dresser Industries. Two different components on the same model valve being defective and cause the safety valve not to work. One is on a actuator and the other is on the cutoff switch.

Seem like very similar problems...the component parts are defective or improper maintenance. Got tiny parts dimensional problems, alignment, spring force problems, vibration, bushing issues and guild post misalignment. It's is basically defective internal component problem.

Kinda sounds like Pilgrim SRVs and Oyster Creek electromatic relief valves small internal component or parts problems too? 

PART 21 REPORT - ELECTROMATIC RELIEF VALVE (EMRV) CUTOUT SWITCH

GENERAL ELECTRIC HITACHI

"Following the return of the actuator that failed bench testing to GEH, on 6/12/15 at 1804 [CDT], General Electric Hitachi (GEH) notified Dresden Station of a potential parts quality Potential Failure of the EMRV Cutout Switch. It has been determined the notification is applicable to DNPS [Dresden Nuclear Power Station], Units 2 and 3. "The GEH investigation concluded that the EMRV actuator assemblies failed to change state because of the

failure of the cutout switch to fully close and provide the appropriate current path. Multiple contributing factors were discovered which could have led to the presence of the gaps in the cutout switch. The most significant of these factors is a change in lever arm positioning causing increased forces in the tension spring which prevent roper closure of the cutout switch. Design changes to reduce wear caused by vibration on the actuators changed lever arm position and also allowed for additional dimensional tolerance which tended to increase force in the tension spring.

"Identification of Facility and Component: DNPS / EMRV Actuator, GEH Part Number 352B2632G001 "Safety Significance (e.g., substantial hazard that is or could be created): Identified condition is a Potential Substantial Safety Hazard since it could cause affected EMRVs to fail to operate as designed, which could result in a loss of safety function. Potential to affect the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR), Reactor Coolant System (RCS), Automatic Depressurization System (ADS), and Low Set Relief Function "Plants with similar GEH cutout switches: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station."

LER 2015-002-02: 2C ERV Failed to Actuate duringExtent of Condition Testing

Dn February 7, 2015, with the reactor in mode 4, an Electromatic Relief Valve (ERV) actuator failed to open during the prerformance of an extent of condition test. The testing involved an operator manually actuating the ERV from the main control room with operators and engineers staged in the field. However, when the demand signal was given, the 20 actuator plunger did not move and the valve did not open. Th

The failed ERV actuator sub-components were inspected in the field and immediately following removal. Based upon the in-field inspection, the 2C ERV actuator's binding point was identified to be at the top of the guide post below the top of the top guide post bushing. PowerLabs performed a failure field inspection, the 2C ERV actuator's binding point was identified to be at the top of the guide post below the top of the top guide post bushing. PowerLabs performed a failure

NRC mechanical binding was determined to have been caused by preferential wear between the guide post and bushing due to an alignment issue. The 20 ERV actuator had measurable material loss on the bushing. The ERV actuator is normally open and de-energized. The bushings on the 20 were last replaced in 2005 per WO 636642. The wear due to actuation has been determined to be insignificant and is not related to the wear mechanism. The basis for the failure mechanism was determined by engineering inspection and a Powerlabs autopsy.

The preferential mechanical wear between ERV actuator sub components was determined to have been caused by the guide posts being in constant contact with the bushings during operation. The rigid guide post was noted to have been slightly angled away from the solenoid centerline, from the base of the post, with all base bolting completely intact and torqued, and interfering with the inside diameter of the bushing. These guide posts have sometimes been found slightly angled in previous WOs, requiring additional maintenance effort to bend the post into straight, concentric alignment with the bushing. Without this additional maintenance attention, the guide post and bushing would have had constant contact for the duration of cycle operation. The valve would have passed all as-left testing because the wear mechanism had not yet occurred.

Commonality of Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee's Shutdown Pressures

There was hanky-panky going on in Vermont with the politicians over Hydro Quebec and Gas Metro with the Vermont Yankee shutdown. Basically CVPS was bought out Gas Metro. CVPS was the largest electric utility in Vermont. Then Hydro Quebec came in and replaced VY’s electric load for the state Of Vermont. Trans Canada is big in our area. The Hydro Quebec power agreement over decades was notoriously loaded with Vermont political corruption and money. Hydro Quebec in New York and all though NE has for decades been trying to push out American electricity onto the border states. The Canadian energy electric power cabal has been trying desperately to push their electricity into our metropolitan high population areas such as NYC and Boston. 

I mean, because Entergy is so dependent on cheap natural gas fracking in Louisiana...could they really say anything negative about it. Who is the real foreigner in NE: Entergy or Canada. I know Canada in a lot closer?

Gaz Metro is a large energy corporation and Hydro Quebec is really an arm of the Canadian Government. What a powerhouse of influence.  Then Vermont has the Hydro Quebec line? Check out that new switchyard in Vernon VT?

In the early 1990s Vermont through political corruption bungled the Hydro-Quebec line power purchase agreement. The electricity was terribly overpriced and nearly led to the CVPS bankruptcy. I guess the state forced CVPS to purchase really expensive Hydro Quebec electricity. There were rumors of Vermont politicians exchanging money for Canadian electricity.  You remember the big ice storm, then Hydro Quebec electricity became unreliable because all their cheap and poorly design transmission towers. They mostly collapsed in the ice storm.

We had that big monster deregulation approaching in the late 1980s and early 1990s…we had a near political Vermont rebellion over the high priced electricity charged to the rate payers and especially for the republican Vermont businesses and ski areas. Basically eventually Maine Yankee failed and Millstone collapsed over the withdrawal of plant funding and maintenance. Massive regional nuclear power plant budget cutbacks, a weak NRC…gigantic nuclear employee intimidation. So CVPS came under intense pressure to reduce their electricity prices mostly by the businesses (IBM plant). They came up with the bright idea to cutback budgets to Vermont Yankee…easier than the politically protected really expensive green electricity and the smaller power plants. This is how I became a reluctant whistleblower at Vermont Yankee. Equipment started failing because of insufficient funding and maintenance, this cause the VY officials to be deceptive and out right lying to maintain capacity factor. Then off to the races when I sent a letter to the Vermont Governor complaining about it all.

The Entergy story about favored electric prices from Hydro-Quebec today…does the gigantic Canadian power house influencers such as Gaz Metro, Hydro-Quebec, the Canadian government, the Vermont Hydro Quebec line and the future NH Hydro-Quebec line…do they hold more sway over the form of our NE and NY electric grid and markets than we think.

I am just saying the extremely low worldwide petroleum prices are imploding the Canadian Tar Sands and their petroleum miracle. The Canadian stock index is in full rout.  Our natural gas fracking miracle is going to blow up the enormous Canadian electricity markets coming into NY and NE. Their Hydro-Quebec lines in Vermont and possibly in NH is junk because of the cheap and cheaper fracking nature gas. Just Look at the natural gas prices. I wouldn’t be making any expensive long term electricity contracts with anything greasy monied-hand Canadians today. Electricity prices are going to continue to decline for years especially as they build in the gas lines. Will the Canadian electricity exports to the USA go the way as their expensive petroleum exports…a collapse?  I think is going to be a historic electric USA/Canada transformation. Will we one day make big money exporting electricity to Canada?

 

Entergy: Maybe Some Level of Truth With Canadian Power House Influencors s?

Entergy: Maybe Some Level of Truth With The Canadian Power House Influencers?

Hydro-Quebec looking south to new markets

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard and Gov. Peter Shumlin discuss the relationship between Vermont and Quebec during a dinner ceremony at a energy conference in Burlington on Monday. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger
BURLINGTON — Hydro-Quebec and its owner, the province of Quebec, indicated Monday that they want Northeast states to build new high-voltage power lines to carry hydropower south.

The province has “vast resources” of hydroelectric power and wants to send more of it to urban markets where electricity is in high demand.
“If we want to go further and extend our trade, we need to extend our transmission capacity,” Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said during a dinner ceremony with Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin following an energy conference in Burlington on Monday.
Hydro-Quebec, the province’s electric utility, is building four new hydroelectric dams capable of delivering 1,550 megawatts of power — enough electricity to serve 1.5 million New England homes.

The utility exports to New England, New York, Ontario and New Brunswick. The company has 30 terawatt-hours of hydropower available for export, about half of which is contracted to supply utilities in New England. Vermont utilities contract for 1.2 terawatt-hours of electricity.
“I would like to think there is a hydro opportunity for the region,” said Stephen Molodetz, vice president of business development for Hydro Quebec U.S.

To attract investments in transmission lines, Molodetz said the region should split the costs of projects among ratepayers, change project-siting processes and offer a “fuel diversity bonus” for hydropower.

There are two interconnections with New England — an 1,800 MW transmission line to western Massachusetts and a 225 MW line in Vermont. The company is partnering on another transmission line that would carry hydropower from Quebec into New Hampshire. The Northern Pass project has run into stiff public opposition from residents who fear it will scar the White Mountain National Forest.
At least two similar projects are proposed in Vermont by New York-based TDI New England and Massachusetts-based Anbaric. The projects both would pass beneath Lake Champlain and cross underground through southern Vermont. HQ has not publicly announced support for either project.
Environmentalists warn the projects could harm Vermont’s landscape. And other alternatives, such as upgrades to existing interconnections, have not been considered, according to Sandra Levine, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation.

CLF is a party in a regulatory case involving TDI New England’s application for a state permit to build a 1,000 megawatt, $1.2 billion transmission line under Lake Champlain. She said the project has environmental impacts yet to be fully studied.

“For the most part, they are digging up a big trench and placing down a transmission line and waiting for the sediment to settle. It releases sediment into the lake. And releases phosphorous. There is also heat associated with the transmission line during its operation that has an impact on the critters and plants that live in the water and that live at the bottom of the lake,” she said.

Vermont’s energy history with Quebec

The University of Vermont hosted the two-day conference this week to discuss the region’s energy relationship as well the social and economic impact of hydropower. The conference opened by focusing on Vermont’s history with Quebec. Shumlin said the relationship to Quebec is “absolutely critical” to Vermont’s energy future.

He said hydropower has helped the state’s economy and provided baseload generation to help build out other renewables such as wind and solar. Vermont was the first to consider large-scale hydropower as renewable energy.

“We were the first state to call hydropower green power regardless of size,” Shumlin said Monday night.

Vermont utilities first contracted for power from Hydro-Quebec in 1987. The state then replaced the contract that began in 2012 to supply 225 megawatts of power for 26 years, which is about a quarter of Vermont’s consumption.
But as Quebec brings new dams online, First Nation communities displaced by reservoirs say they still struggle to have a say in new projects. For decades, First Nation communities have been pushed aside for development projects, according to Ghislain Picard, the chief of the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.
“We find ourselves in 2015 very frustrated. The political process has not evolved as much as the issue itself has evolved,” Picard said.

In the 1990s, when early projects were being constructed, Picard said the Cree people traveled to New England in search of support.

“You’re one of the consumers of our hydro. It’s important for you to realize that the bigger the demand is, the more impact it has on our lands where we still continue to hunt and fish,” Picard said.

Since 1975, HQ has signed about 30 agreements with First Nation communities regarding development projects. Molodetz, of HQ, said the company has a process to consider local support for development projects.

“HQ takes it very seriously,” he said. “The projects don’t move forward if it’s not accepted by the community through that process.”

Quebec could avoid building new dams if it improved its own energy conservation, some advocates say. Low electricity prices — about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour for residential customers — and demand for electric heating has created relatively high electricity consumption in the province.



Pierre Arcand, Quebec’s’ minister of Energy and Natural Resources, spoke during an energy conference in Burlington on Monday. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger 

“We’re not very good in energy efficiency, let’s say it. Someone said to me the other day, ‘You are the Hummers of green energy,’” said Pierre Arcand, Quebec’s’ Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
Vermont officials say there may an opportunity for Vermont to help drive down Quebec’s electricity consumption by expanding efficiency programs that have been successful here. Quebec officials agree.

“One area where Vermont can help us is in the area of energy efficiency,” Arcand said.

Environmentalists say hydropower should be used to balance intermittent renewables, like wind and solar, and not replace them. They point out that traditional hydropower floods large areas of land that affects wildlife, native populations and releases greenhouse gas emissions.

“We should not be writing a blank check to destroy vast areas of northern Quebec to satisfy an energy appetite in southern New England. It’s great we’re closing down coal plants, but we shouldn’t be trading one environmental disaster for another,” Levine said.

Boston Globe Didn't Tell The Complete Decommissioning story about Pilgrim?

Boston Globe:

  Decommissioning Pilgrim could take decades, millions

The Boston Globe article is just carrying Entergy's water. It is easier and cheaper just taking Entergy's word at face value...then picking and choosing other peoples representation to bolster Entergy position. It is all about just cheap and stupid newspaper stories. Merchant plants are bad news and they corrupt everyone in their wake.

I could make the case the Boston Globe set the plant up to fail because they never paid enough attention to them. Has Entergy paid the BG to lay off them or some other incentive not to write stories on them?

Commons: "On the plant’s website, administrators say they chose “immediate dismantlement [...] because it was the most practical and environmentally responsible option for the plant.”

"Administrators said they also considered other factors, including the availability of experienced plant employees to help in the process and the “prevention of long-term maintenance costs.” 

Connecticut Yankee completely decommissioned in a decade. Maine Yankee did about the same. They are about the same size as Pilgrim? It is possible to decommission Pilgrim in a decade and the industry now has a lot more experience with it. The Safestore scenario is nothing but big bucks nuclear industry political campaign contributions totally capturing the nuclear Regulatory Commission!!!   

Nuke panelists find tranquility at Connecticut Yankee site 

VNDCAP members visit site of decommissioned nuclear plant, where they found little evidence of prior operations and an atmosphere akin to 'wildlife sanctuary

Originally published in The Commons issue #326 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015). This story appeared on page B1.

By Mike Faher/The Commons

BRATTLEBORO—There’s not much that Connecticut Yankee and Vermont Yankee have in common, other than their names and the fact that they’re both nuclear plants that no longer produce power. But a recent field trip to the Connecticut site provided several members of the Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (VNDCAP) with some important insights.

For VNDCAP Chair Kate O’Connor, the most powerful impression was Connecticut Yankee’s reclamation by nature — and her realization that something similar might one day happen in Vernon.

“If you didn’t have to drive through a security gate, you would never know that you were entering the site of a former nuclear power plant,” O’Connor recalled from her visit to the Connecticut property.

“I drove down to Vernon not long after the trip and tried to imagine what the site will look like when the buildings are gone,” O’Connor added. “It is a hard thing to imagine, but after seeing [Connecticut Yankee], I know it is possible to restore a site back to green grass.”

Vermont Yankee owner Entergy cited economic factors in its decision to stop producing power at the Vernon plant as of Dec. 29, 2014. The plant’s reactor has been de-fueled, and some site cleanup has begun.

But under a program called SAFSTOR, the site is entering a decades-long period of dormancy until its decommissioning fund earns enough money to complete decommissioning work.
Two plants, two decommissioning paths

Things went much differently at Connecticut Yankee, which is not owned by Entergy. At the Haddam Neck, Conn., plant, which shut down in 1996, decommissioning started in May 1998 and was finished in November 2007.

On the plant’s website, administrators say they chose “immediate dismantlement [...] because it was the most practical and environmentally responsible option for the plant.”

Administrators said they also considered other factors, including the availability of experienced plant employees to help in the process and the “prevention of long-term maintenance costs.”

The speed of decommissioning was just one of the differences between the Yankees in Connecticut and Vermont. Others include:

• The Connecticut plant operated for 28 years, while VY produced electricity for 42 years. That’s a big factor in the amount of spent nuclear fuel that must be stored at the sites: There are 1,019 fuel assemblies at the Connecticut site and 3,880 in Vermont.

• There are 43 dry-cask storage containers for spent fuel at Connecticut Yankee. There will be 58 at Vermont Yankee when all fuel eventually is removed from a storage pool.

• Connecticut Yankee is a much more sprawling site: 525 acres, compared to 125 acres at Vermont Yankee.

• That site size allowed Connecticut administrators to place their spent-fuel-storage facilities three-quarters of a mile from the plant’s reactor. At Vermont Yankee, the existing spent-fuel pad is just 200 feet from the reactor — a proximity that some fear will lead to a longer and more costly decommissioning process.

Members of VNDCAP traveled to Connecticut to get a full tour of the site, including its spent-fuel storage. In a summary of the visit presented at the Sept. 24 VNDCAP meeting, officials wrote that “it was noted that locating the [spent fuel pad] well away from the facility made decommissioning easier.”

The Vermont panelists who made the June 26 trip were O’Connor, a citizen appointee to VNDCAP; David Andrews, who represents the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the advisory panel; Chris Campany, Windham Regional Commission executive director; Bill Irwin, radiological and toxicological sciences program chief at Vermont Department of Health; Jim Matteau, another citizen appointee; and Steve Skibniowsky, representing the town of Vernon. Also traveling to Connecticut Yankee was Tony Leshinskie, Vermont state nuclear engineer.

Skibniowsky said the trip was “very productive from the standpoint of seeing the physical location both of the site — what the site looks like now — and also to see where the fuel-storage facility is located at that site, which is a very different site than what Vermont Yankee has.”

He also took note of the site’s relative tranquility following demolition of the main plant structures.

“Their entire facility is no longer visible,” Skibniowsky said. “It’s really not possible to tell there was a nuclear plant there.”

O’Connor, in recounting the visit for The Commons, said there was “no asphalt except for a road, not even an indentation in the ground.”

“It looked like a wildlife sanctuary or a park. They mow the lawns, so nothing is overgrown,” O’Connor wrote in an email. “We saw deer and even a bald eagle. It was actually very peaceful. Of course, there is one dry cask storage pad, but you can’t see it. It’s built far from the entrance and is surrounded by trees. I think the dry cask pad is one of the major differences between Connecticut Yankee and VY. Unlike [at] Connecticut Yankee, the casks at VY will be visible.

Aesthetics aside, there might also be a lesson at Connecticut Yankee for those who hope for eventual redevelopment of the Vermont Yankee site: The removal of most nuclear-plant structures has not yet spurred commercial activity at the Connecticut property.

The VNDCAP visit notes indicate that there had been efforts to redevelop Connecticut Yankee as a gas-fired or alternate-fuel-source electric generating station.

But “these efforts collapsed during the 2008 recession,” the VNDCAP document says, and “there are currently no efforts for any site redevelopment.”

Connecticut Yankee’s website says administrators remain open to talking about redevelopment options, though there is “no timetable for making such a decision.”

Warning To Massachusetts: Pilgrim’s New Unreviewed Safety Issue

Sept 6, 2015: Pilgrim Nuclear Plant Following Exactly the Vermont Yankee Model?

Oyster Creek represent this perfectly. Exelon notified the NRC many years ago they were going to shut down in 2019. I contend Exelon was throttling funds to the plant for many years…the NRC had to secretly contend with this. Instead of funding a plant for decades, they began funding and putting off work based on a shutdown in a few years. So you had a grossly obsolete plant basically with tons of components grossly gone past their usefull life spans…with maintenance and safety funding being withheld do to a near shutdown. It just not worth it to replace gear and keep up with all the maintenance and replace expensive parts, do the expensive and time consuming surveillance because of the impending shutdown. Then its natural to get a yellow finding on maintenance with the obsolete electromatic relief Valve ( safety relief Valve) and all the preventable shutdowns and scrams. Oyster Creek is the poster boy going into a permanent shutdown withb terrible plant reliability and preventable regulatory actions and violations. The NRC residents becomes exhausted and overwhelmed in  the no-man-lands shadow of a permanent shutdown. How much more overwhelmed will region I be with Pilgrim, Oyster Creek and others being in terrible regulatory shape heading for the grave yards. 

Will we have four terrible years with all sorts of plant reliability and regulatory issues all over the place like Oyster Creek? What will Gov Baker and the NRC do if a yellow finding shows up? Will it really be unforeseen? It’s going to be a terrible shadow over gov Baker and it can severely impair his credibility.  

Do you think even for one second Entergy would protect the credibility of Ma Gov Baker. How have they done so far? 

Pilgrim's 2010 License Amendment Request For defective Three Stage Safety Relief Valves

Why is this such a fascinating document today?

Proposed License Amendment to Technical Specifications: Revised Technical Specification for Setpoint and Setpoint Tolerance Increases for Safety Relief Valves (SRV) and Spring Safety Valves (SSV), and Related Changes

March 15, 2010

The SRVs require replacement because the current two-stage Target Rock SRVs have been unreliable performers with respect to leaking while in-service and the subject of setpoint drift. SRV pilot valve leakage has led to multiple plant shutdowns and the setpoint drift problem resulted in exceeding current TS limits and numerous Licensee Event Reports (LERs). It has been determined that pilot valve leakage is due to low simmer margin and high as-found lift setpoints are due to corrosion bonding at the pilot valve disc/seat. To address current SRV performance problems, Entergy has performed extensive investigations and feasibility studies. The preferred option for correcting these problems is to replace all SRVs and SSVs during the next refueling outage. RFO-1 8 is currently planned to start on or about April 17, 2011.