Mike Mulligan steamshovel2002@gmail.com
NRC MAILER-DAEMON message?
Monday, June 05, 2017
Senior NRC Employees Unable to Control Their Monstrous Bureaucracy
Sunday, June 04, 2017
Millstone: Connecticut Said Drop Dead To The Financially Starved Facility
This was a bad week for the nuke industry. TMI is said to shutdown in 2019. Pilgrim had its last shutdown. Trump backed out of the Paris climate agreement, the governmental welfare gravy train for the utilities is dead.
Remember there has been a drastic collapse in electric prices in the last three or four years. This recent increase in prices is just a temporary blip on the continuing collapse.
Dominion is a out of state company. If it was a Connecticut utility, would the legislators be more sympatric to Millstone. Having far flung electric plants "states" away from the parent company is a 1990s and non fracking business model. The times of increasing cheap natural gas has severely disrupted this model. What, Millstone/Dominion is a Richmond Virginia based utility and Seabrook/Nextera is a Juno Florida based utility. I think safety is highest when the plants are locally controlled. Why has all the nuke plants in the New England controlled by southern foreigners?
In the face of Trumpism, which way has the public approval rate turned in the last year and in the future? I think the approval rate is heading for a drastic turn to worst. The public is beginning to think the nuclear industry is a gasping dinosaur. I also think the greater public will scapegoat the nuclear industry based on the floundering Trump administration. You can't trust anything government, why should the nuclear industry even be alive.
I wish Dominion would spend their millions of political monies on upgrading equipment and training than buying drinks for the politicians.
Remember there has been a drastic collapse in electric prices in the last three or four years. This recent increase in prices is just a temporary blip on the continuing collapse.
Dominion is a out of state company. If it was a Connecticut utility, would the legislators be more sympatric to Millstone. Having far flung electric plants "states" away from the parent company is a 1990s and non fracking business model. The times of increasing cheap natural gas has severely disrupted this model. What, Millstone/Dominion is a Richmond Virginia based utility and Seabrook/Nextera is a Juno Florida based utility. I think safety is highest when the plants are locally controlled. Why has all the nuke plants in the New England controlled by southern foreigners?
In the face of Trumpism, which way has the public approval rate turned in the last year and in the future? I think the approval rate is heading for a drastic turn to worst. The public is beginning to think the nuclear industry is a gasping dinosaur. I also think the greater public will scapegoat the nuclear industry based on the floundering Trump administration. You can't trust anything government, why should the nuclear industry even be alive.
I wish Dominion would spend their millions of political monies on upgrading equipment and training than buying drinks for the politicians.
Dominion Energy loses legislative fight over Millstone pricingBy: Mark Pazniokas | June 3, 2017A long, intense and expensive lobbying campaign by Dominion Energy has failed to find the votes in the Connecticut General Assembly for legislation intended to improve the profitability of its Millstone Nuclear Power Station by changing the rules for procuring electricity.“It’s dead. It’s a toxic brand now, literally radioactive,” Rep. Lonnie Reed, D-Branford, the co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee. “Let’s let it go and figure out a new way.”Dominion said it was seeking changes that would lower electric rates and stabilize profits generated by the state’s only nuclear-power plant, the source of nearly half of Connecticut’s electricity and most of its carbon-free energy. Opponents say the bill would cost ratepayers and produce a windfall for the plant’s owner, Dominion.In interviews Friday night and Saturday, key legislators told CT Mirror that a Senate bill sought by Dominion over the opposition of environmentalists, consumer groups, other energy producers and the utility Eversource cannot go forward, unless it is reduced to a call for a study.Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, and Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, another energy co-chair, said in interviews Friday night that a concept passed unanimously by the Senate a year ago, only to be blocked in the House, no longer has even a simple majority.Only Sen. Paul Formica, R-East Lyme, an energy co-chair whose district includes Millstone, declined to concede defeat, interrupting a somber conversation with Winfield to say only, “The session’s been a struggle.”But a small army of Dominion officials and lobbyists, a visible presence at the State Capitol on Friday, had decamped on Saturday, when only the House was in session.Kevin R. Hennessy, a Dominion government affairs executive, said failure to pass the bill would be a loss for Connecticut.“The status quo, which our opponents champion, is not working for Connecticut,” he said. “It would be surprising and a missed opportunity for Connecticut not to reduce the highest electric rates in the continental United States, meet its long-term carbon goals and ensure the sustainability of a major employer this year given the events of this week.”In the year since the Senate passed the original bill, Dominion’s opponents have mounted a lobbying and advertising campaign that matched or even exceeded the effort by Dominion.“That full-on bill is not going to happen. Anything more than a study is not going to happen,” Reed said. “Dominion doesn’t want a watered-down bill. They want to play hardball in the post-session atmosphere.”Low natural gas prices have driven down the daily auctions that set the wholesale price of electricity. Under the legislation, Dominion would have been able to use long-term contracts to lock in prices for up to half its Millstone output as a hedge against daily market volatility.Dominion had been insulating itself from the highs and lows of the spot market by selling energy through a series of futures contracts that run for three years. But the daily market is so volatile that the futures market has faltered.The bill would have allowed power from Millstone to compete in the market with biomass and trash-to-energy plants if the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection decided it was in the best interest of consumers.Dominion has neither threatened nor reassured Connecticut on the status of Millstone in an era when electricity generated by cheap natural gas has depressed the electric markets, accelerating the closure of nuclear plants that still have years of service left on their operating licenses.AARP, a grass-roots advocacy group for retirees that has grown into a broader consumer lobby, opposed the legislation unless Dominion agreed to open its books and demonstrate that Millstone was on the verge of unprofitability. Without providing details on Millstone’s finances, Dominion instead pointed to nuclear plants in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and elsewhere that have closed or are slated to close.Analysts that track the power industry did not help Dominion’s cause, noting that the company’s public filings and other information showed it would be profitable for at least the near future. UBS, for example, told investors earlier this year: “We continue to note that Millstone appears poised to drive positive cash flow through the forecast period. This would appear to reduce the merit of a legislative deal in CT.”
Saturday, June 03, 2017
Risk Informed Regulations: A Undecipherable Language Even to Sophisticated Professionals
What about NRC's focus to make their documents understandable to the common person. So here the NRC and the industry are jockeying for organizational advantage.
These guys have invented a language nobody can understand. Probably only a handful of people in the USA can understand. They are splitting a hair on a knat's ass to gain plant capacity factor with the possibility of both sides of the identical redundant component being degraded and broken at the same time.
They are turning engineering uncertainty into certainty. This is all special interest advantage dressed up as science, engineering and proof. They has been no actual testing of the system with this. It all guesswork.
Right, this is how corruption in industry is played out in our rotten political system. It goes on in all sides Dems and Reps. They jack up the complexity of the undecipherable regulation language so nobody on the outside can understand what is going on. In the stew of this self imposed language complexity, they get to choose what fragment of regulation framework the use for specific issue. It is similar to having no regulations at all and going on a whim. They give you the impression engineering stature based on science and facts...but it is all money greasing mindless deregulation for profit. They are chasing their tails finding money can be made off of it.
Right, and who profits the most from this. Its the politicians. It forces the politician to step in and settling these weasel words disputes without them even having a basic understanding how a nuke plant works. The genesis of all the too complex regulations and more knat's ass language hair splitting over regulation wording is money and stature to the politicians.
Even our common language is too imprecise, not complex enough, the penchant of humans to have different definitions for a word...to express the actual system hidden under the veil. There is a huge gap of knowledge of what we say we understand the system and what is the real system under the bullshit and money!!!
Description of Common Cause Failure Treatment in the TS Risk Informed Completion
Time (RICT) Program
The NRC proposed the TS Section 5.5 RICT Program be modified to address common cause
failure (CCF) as follows:
[d]. If a high degree of confidence cannot be established that there is no common cause
failure that could affect the redundant components, the RICT shall account for the
increased possibility of common cause failure. Accounting for the increased possibility of
common cause failure shall be accomplished by one of the two methods below. If one of
the two methods below is not used, the TS front stop shall not be exceeded.
• The RICT calculation shall be adjusted to numerically account for the increased
possibility of CCF, in accordance with RG 1.177, as specified in Section A-1.3.2.1 of
Appendix A of the RG. That is, when a component fails, the CCF probability for the
remaining redundant components shall be increased to represent the conditional
failure probability due to CCF of these components, in order to account for the
possibility that the first failure was caused by a CCF mechanism.
OR
• Prior to exceeding the front stop, RMAs shall be implemented. These RMAs
shall not already be credited in the RICT calculation, and shall target the success of
redundant and/or diverse SSCs that perform the function(s) of the failed SSC, and, if
possible, reduce the frequency of initiating events that call upon the function(s)
performed by the failed SSC. Documentation of the RMAs shall be available for
NRC review.
The industry proposes the following wording:
[d]. If the extent of condition evaluation for inoperable structures, systems, or components
(SSCs) is not complete, the RICT shall account for the increased possibility of common
cause failure (CCF) by either:
1. Numerically accounting for the increased possibility of CCF in the RICT calculation;
or
2. Prior to exceeding the Completion Time, Risk Management Actions (RMAs) [not
already credited in the RICT calculation] shall be implemented that support redundant
or diverse SSCs that perform the function(s) of the inoperable SSCs, or reduce the
frequency of initiating events that challenge the function(s) performed by the
inoperable SSCs.
Discussion of Differences
1. The format is revised to be consistent with the ISTS and the Writer's Guide, such as using
numbers instead of bullets and the appropriate format of the logical connector "or." See
TS Program 5.5.1 for an example.
Page 2 5/31/2017
2. (Paragraph d) The proposed term "high degree of confidence" has no objective measure
and will likely lead to inspection issues. One individual's high degree of confidence may
not align with another's. Instead, the industry proposes the objective measure of
completion of an extent of condition evaluation. If such an evaluation is complete, a
licensee and the NRC staff can consider common cause failure to be assessed. If not,
additional margin should be included in the RICT calculation.
3. (Paragraph d) The staff and industry proposals state that the increased possibility of a
CCF shall be accomplished by using one of two methods. The staff proposal then states
that if one of the two methods isn't used, a RICT can't be calculated (i.e., the front stop
cannot be exceeded). This statement is unnecessary. If one of the two methods must be
used and one is not used, a RICT can't be used.
4. (First bullet point) A TS Administrative Control Program description provides the highlevel
requirements for a licensee-controlled program that implements the requirements.
Note the TS RIC program introduction states, "The program shall include the following."
The TS program should include the requirements and constraints on the licensee's
program, but not every detail. The industry proposal simplifies the staff proposal in
several ways:
a. It is sufficient to state that the increased possibility of a CCF must be accounted
for numerically. In their review of licensee's implementation of TSTF-505, the
NRC may review the method used to numerically account for an increased
possibility of CCF. Methods other than that described in RG 1.177 may be
acceptable.
b. The following explanatory statement is removed, "That is, when a component
fails, the CCF probability for the remaining redundant components shall be
increased to represent the conditional failure probability due to CCF of these
components, in order to account for the possibility that the first failure was caused
by a CCF mechanism." Licensees understand the purpose of numerically
accounting for an increased possibility of common cause failure and this type of
explanation is not necessary or found in other TS Administrative Controls.
c. The reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177 is removed. Regulatory Guides
are not intended to be requirements. As stated on the front page of RG 1.177,
"Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them
is not required. Methods and solutions that differ from those set forth in
regulatory guides will be deemed acceptable if they provide a basis for the
findings required for the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the
Commission." As stated previously, the NRC staff may review the methods for
accounting for CCG as part of their review of the licensee's amendment request.
Page 3 5/31/2017
5. (Second bullet point) The term "front stop," while used in NEI 06-09, is not defined and
does not appear in the TS or Bases. Its use should be avoided in the TS. The paragraph is
revised to state "Prior to exceeding the Completion Time," which is equivalent.
6. (Second bullet point) The requirement, "These RMAs shall not already be credited in the
RICT calculation," is eliminated. At most sites, there will be proceduralized RMAs in
place for many situations. The PRA may credit some or all of these actions, but the
benefit from identifying an activity as an RMA is that it is performed, it emphasizes to
the plant operator its importance, and the RMA becomes a focus of the control room
while the RICT is in effect. For example, a plant’s protective actions may include
protecting the redundant (as opposed to diverse) train and by using a zero-maintenance
model some credit may be in the RICT calculation for this action. However, other
RMAs, such a stopping work in the switchyard or limiting transient combustibles near the
redundant train, reduce overall plant risk and are not specifically credited in the RICT
calculation. Even if there are no additional unique RMAs beyond those credited in the
PRA model, this increased focus enhances plant safety.
7. (Second bullet point) The proposed term "target the success of redundant and/or diverse
SSCs" is undefined and may be misinterpreted by licensees and NRC inspection staff.
The phrase "support the redundant or diverse SSCs" is more typical wording. Also, the
term "and/or" is avoided in the TS (See the Writer's Guide, section 3.1.1.h). A logical
"or" serves the same purpose as "or" is not exclusive.
8. (Second bullet point) The term "if possible" is typically not used in TS as the TS
represent legal requirements. Instead of stating, "and, if possible, reduce the frequency
of," the conjunction was rewritten as "or reduce the frequency of…". As stated
previously, a logical "or" is not exclusive and one or both actions may be taken.
9. (Second bullet point) The term "failed SSC" was revised "inoperable SSC" to be
consistent with TS terminology and the introductory paragraph d.
10. (Second bullet point) The statement "Documentation of the RMAs shall be available for
NRC review," is redundant and is eliminated. The TS program requires following NEI
06-09. Section 2.3.2, "Documentation," of NEI 06-09, step 6, states, "Relative to
extended CTs beyond the front-stop CT, the following shall be documented: … 6.5. Risk
management actions implemented." This requirement is reiterated in Section 3.1 of the
NRC's SE states (page 8), under "Documentation," which states: "Each entry into the
RMTS is required to be properly documented to permit proper review and oversight to
determine compliance with the TS requirements. The minimum requirements include: …
RMAs including compensatory actions implemented."
These guys have invented a language nobody can understand. Probably only a handful of people in the USA can understand. They are splitting a hair on a knat's ass to gain plant capacity factor with the possibility of both sides of the identical redundant component being degraded and broken at the same time.
They are turning engineering uncertainty into certainty. This is all special interest advantage dressed up as science, engineering and proof. They has been no actual testing of the system with this. It all guesswork.
Right, this is how corruption in industry is played out in our rotten political system. It goes on in all sides Dems and Reps. They jack up the complexity of the undecipherable regulation language so nobody on the outside can understand what is going on. In the stew of this self imposed language complexity, they get to choose what fragment of regulation framework the use for specific issue. It is similar to having no regulations at all and going on a whim. They give you the impression engineering stature based on science and facts...but it is all money greasing mindless deregulation for profit. They are chasing their tails finding money can be made off of it.
Right, and who profits the most from this. Its the politicians. It forces the politician to step in and settling these weasel words disputes without them even having a basic understanding how a nuke plant works. The genesis of all the too complex regulations and more knat's ass language hair splitting over regulation wording is money and stature to the politicians.
Even our common language is too imprecise, not complex enough, the penchant of humans to have different definitions for a word...to express the actual system hidden under the veil. There is a huge gap of knowledge of what we say we understand the system and what is the real system under the bullshit and money!!!
Description of Common Cause Failure Treatment in the TS Risk Informed Completion
Time (RICT) Program
The NRC proposed the TS Section 5.5 RICT Program be modified to address common cause
failure (CCF) as follows:
[d]. If a high degree of confidence cannot be established that there is no common cause
failure that could affect the redundant components, the RICT shall account for the
increased possibility of common cause failure. Accounting for the increased possibility of
common cause failure shall be accomplished by one of the two methods below. If one of
the two methods below is not used, the TS front stop shall not be exceeded.
• The RICT calculation shall be adjusted to numerically account for the increased
possibility of CCF, in accordance with RG 1.177, as specified in Section A-1.3.2.1 of
Appendix A of the RG. That is, when a component fails, the CCF probability for the
remaining redundant components shall be increased to represent the conditional
failure probability due to CCF of these components, in order to account for the
possibility that the first failure was caused by a CCF mechanism.
OR
• Prior to exceeding the front stop, RMAs shall be implemented. These RMAs
shall not already be credited in the RICT calculation, and shall target the success of
redundant and/or diverse SSCs that perform the function(s) of the failed SSC, and, if
possible, reduce the frequency of initiating events that call upon the function(s)
performed by the failed SSC. Documentation of the RMAs shall be available for
NRC review.
The industry proposes the following wording:
[d]. If the extent of condition evaluation for inoperable structures, systems, or components
(SSCs) is not complete, the RICT shall account for the increased possibility of common
cause failure (CCF) by either:
1. Numerically accounting for the increased possibility of CCF in the RICT calculation;
or
2. Prior to exceeding the Completion Time, Risk Management Actions (RMAs) [not
already credited in the RICT calculation] shall be implemented that support redundant
or diverse SSCs that perform the function(s) of the inoperable SSCs, or reduce the
frequency of initiating events that challenge the function(s) performed by the
inoperable SSCs.
Discussion of Differences
1. The format is revised to be consistent with the ISTS and the Writer's Guide, such as using
numbers instead of bullets and the appropriate format of the logical connector "or." See
TS Program 5.5.1 for an example.
Page 2 5/31/2017
2. (Paragraph d) The proposed term "high degree of confidence" has no objective measure
and will likely lead to inspection issues. One individual's high degree of confidence may
not align with another's. Instead, the industry proposes the objective measure of
completion of an extent of condition evaluation. If such an evaluation is complete, a
licensee and the NRC staff can consider common cause failure to be assessed. If not,
additional margin should be included in the RICT calculation.
3. (Paragraph d) The staff and industry proposals state that the increased possibility of a
CCF shall be accomplished by using one of two methods. The staff proposal then states
that if one of the two methods isn't used, a RICT can't be calculated (i.e., the front stop
cannot be exceeded). This statement is unnecessary. If one of the two methods must be
used and one is not used, a RICT can't be used.
4. (First bullet point) A TS Administrative Control Program description provides the highlevel
requirements for a licensee-controlled program that implements the requirements.
Note the TS RIC program introduction states, "The program shall include the following."
The TS program should include the requirements and constraints on the licensee's
program, but not every detail. The industry proposal simplifies the staff proposal in
several ways:
a. It is sufficient to state that the increased possibility of a CCF must be accounted
for numerically. In their review of licensee's implementation of TSTF-505, the
NRC may review the method used to numerically account for an increased
possibility of CCF. Methods other than that described in RG 1.177 may be
acceptable.
b. The following explanatory statement is removed, "That is, when a component
fails, the CCF probability for the remaining redundant components shall be
increased to represent the conditional failure probability due to CCF of these
components, in order to account for the possibility that the first failure was caused
by a CCF mechanism." Licensees understand the purpose of numerically
accounting for an increased possibility of common cause failure and this type of
explanation is not necessary or found in other TS Administrative Controls.
c. The reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177 is removed. Regulatory Guides
are not intended to be requirements. As stated on the front page of RG 1.177,
"Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them
is not required. Methods and solutions that differ from those set forth in
regulatory guides will be deemed acceptable if they provide a basis for the
findings required for the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the
Commission." As stated previously, the NRC staff may review the methods for
accounting for CCG as part of their review of the licensee's amendment request.
Page 3 5/31/2017
5. (Second bullet point) The term "front stop," while used in NEI 06-09, is not defined and
does not appear in the TS or Bases. Its use should be avoided in the TS. The paragraph is
revised to state "Prior to exceeding the Completion Time," which is equivalent.
6. (Second bullet point) The requirement, "These RMAs shall not already be credited in the
RICT calculation," is eliminated. At most sites, there will be proceduralized RMAs in
place for many situations. The PRA may credit some or all of these actions, but the
benefit from identifying an activity as an RMA is that it is performed, it emphasizes to
the plant operator its importance, and the RMA becomes a focus of the control room
while the RICT is in effect. For example, a plant’s protective actions may include
protecting the redundant (as opposed to diverse) train and by using a zero-maintenance
model some credit may be in the RICT calculation for this action. However, other
RMAs, such a stopping work in the switchyard or limiting transient combustibles near the
redundant train, reduce overall plant risk and are not specifically credited in the RICT
calculation. Even if there are no additional unique RMAs beyond those credited in the
PRA model, this increased focus enhances plant safety.
7. (Second bullet point) The proposed term "target the success of redundant and/or diverse
SSCs" is undefined and may be misinterpreted by licensees and NRC inspection staff.
The phrase "support the redundant or diverse SSCs" is more typical wording. Also, the
term "and/or" is avoided in the TS (See the Writer's Guide, section 3.1.1.h). A logical
"or" serves the same purpose as "or" is not exclusive.
8. (Second bullet point) The term "if possible" is typically not used in TS as the TS
represent legal requirements. Instead of stating, "and, if possible, reduce the frequency
of," the conjunction was rewritten as "or reduce the frequency of…". As stated
previously, a logical "or" is not exclusive and one or both actions may be taken.
9. (Second bullet point) The term "failed SSC" was revised "inoperable SSC" to be
consistent with TS terminology and the introductory paragraph d.
10. (Second bullet point) The statement "Documentation of the RMAs shall be available for
NRC review," is redundant and is eliminated. The TS program requires following NEI
06-09. Section 2.3.2, "Documentation," of NEI 06-09, step 6, states, "Relative to
extended CTs beyond the front-stop CT, the following shall be documented: … 6.5. Risk
management actions implemented." This requirement is reiterated in Section 3.1 of the
NRC's SE states (page 8), under "Documentation," which states: "Each entry into the
RMTS is required to be properly documented to permit proper review and oversight to
determine compliance with the TS requirements. The minimum requirements include: …
RMAs including compensatory actions implemented."
Thursday, June 01, 2017
Disgruntled Employee Terrorism Event Coming To a Nuclear Plant Near You?
We are torturing plant employees with rumors and actual plant closing. The industry condition is pretty bleak...these are going to be "the good old days" in a few years. We are setting our selves up for a internal terrorism event at a plant. A weak and deranged person is going to go berserk at a plant. The example would be a person with a knife or some weapon would step into the control room, then stab and kill employees there. He would barricade the doors...create a prolonged incident. It might me two or more people to act together to make a point. Something like a meeting or cafeteria , stab and kill lots of people. Bring in large quantities of undetectable explosives to damage the plant. Meltdown the plant to get even with the public for destroying his family and career.
Last time I spoke like this I had two FBI agents wanting to speak to me "before the end of daylight today".
Last time I spoke like this I had two FBI agents wanting to speak to me "before the end of daylight today".
Exelon: Still Time for Pennsylvania to Help Three Mile Island
Energy and Climate Report provides current, thorough coverage of clean energy, efficiency, and climate change legislation, regulation, policy, legal developments, and trends in the U.S. and...
By Rebecca Kern
Pennsylvania’s legislature still has time to help keep Exelon Corp.'s financially struggling Three Mile Island nuclear plant operating, Exelon’s Joseph Dominguez told Bloomberg BNA.
“We’re continuing the discussion with policymakers that we really began six or seven months ago: talking about the value proposition of nuclear, both from an environmental standpoint, as well as from fuel diversity and grid resilience standpoint,” Dominguez, Exelon’s vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy, told Bloomberg BNA May 31.
Exelon announced May 30 that it plans to prematurely close Three Mile Island by Sept. 30, 2019, due to financial losses at the plant from low wholesale power prices tied to the natural gas shale boom. In a statement announcing those plans, the company identified some potential policies that could keep the plant viable, including amendments to the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard and the creation of a zero-emissions credit program.
“We’ll see if there’s interest among policymakers to do the things that Illinois and New York were able to do,” Dominguez said. “We still have some time to have this discussion, but there is a sense of urgency in terms of starting to introduce policymakers to the subject.”
Last year, the Illinois Legislature approved a $235 million-a-year lifeline for Exelon’s Quad Cities and Clinton reactors after the company announced they would close. Also, New York’s Public Service Commission’s Clean Energy Standard—passed last summer—will issue credits for zero-emitting resources, such as nuclear plants, starting this June. Both those policy changes have triggered lawsuits and complaints to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has been without a quorum since February.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Junk Plant TMI Shutting Down Perminantly
What if this was a two plant facility? Did the meltdown really cause this shutdown? If it was a two plant facility, would it be more profitable? Would it have survived another few years?
Exelon Announces Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant to Close in 2019
Exelon Corp. said it plans to retire the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant around September 30, 2019, unless policy reforms are enacted in Pennsylvania.
The company used a similar ploy in Illinois to pressure lawmakers into passing the state’s Future Energy Jobs bill, which provides subsidies for nuclear power plants. In that case, Exelon announced the closure of the Clinton and Quad Cities stations, only to reverse the decision once the legislation received the necessary support.
TMI has been in jeopardy for some time. Last year, TMI failed to clear PJM’s 2019–2020 capacity auction. At the time, Exelon CEO Chris Crane said, “The capacity market alone can’t preserve zero-carbon emitting nuclear plants that are facing the lowest wholesale energy prices in 15 years.”
This year, PJM’s prices were even lower. Last week the regional transmission organization announced a 2020–2021 base residual auction price of $76.53/MW-day for most resources in its footprint. Both TMI and Quad Cities failed to clear the PJM auction.
“Today is a difficult day, not just for the 675 talented men and women who have dedicated themselves to operating Three Mile Island safely and reliably every day, but also for their families, the communities and customers who depend on this plant to produce clean energy and support local jobs,” Crane said in a press release.
Exelon said it is taking the first steps to shut down the plant. Items include sending PJM a deactivation notice and making permanent shutdown notifications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within 30 days, terminating capital investment projects needed for long-term operation of the plant, and canceling 2019 fuel purchases and outage planning.
One solution the company suggested was amending Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard to include nuclear power. According to Exelon, nuclear power provides 93% of the state’s emissions-free electricity and avoids 37 million tons of carbon emissions, but its zero-emission attributes are not properly rewarded. Another option would be to establish a zero-emissions credit program, similar to the approach implemented in Illinois and New York.
“Like New York and Illinois before it, the Commonwealth has an opportunity to take a leadership role by implementing a policy solution to preserve its nuclear energy facilities and the clean, reliable energy and good-paying jobs they provide. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to secure Pennsylvania’s energy future, and will do all we can to support the community, the employees and their families during this difficult period,” Crane added.
The Illinois and New York subsidies are being contested, however. A group of generators filed suit in federal court last October to block the New York incentive program. The plaintiffs argue that the plan interferes with wholesale power prices in violation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority over interstate power sales.
In mid-February, the Electric Power Supply Association, Dynegy, Eastern Generation, NRG Energy, and Calpine Corp. filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Illinois, challenging its nuclear subsidies too. Monitoring Analytics—PJM’s independent market monitor—filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois about a month later to intervene as a plaintiff in the lawsuit as well.
If the subsidies were to be overturned in either case, it would be a huge loss for Exelon and could put at least a few nuclear plants back at risk for early retirement.
Junk Plant Hope Creek/Salem In Serous Decline and NRC Allegation
It sounds like they think they don't have enough information to make a probe. I know Allegations has been asking questions to the inspectors. I ask the NRC to scrub the SRVs for information...
So I have raised the temperature?
What next???
We know this facility is under grave financial pressure and blackmailing the community with trying to keep the plant operating.
So I have raised the temperature?
What next???
We know this facility is under grave financial pressure and blackmailing the community with trying to keep the plant operating.
To Michael Mulligan
May 30 at 1:26 PMHi Mr. Mulligan, I have copied and pasted the text below.Sincerely,Nicole WarnekSr. Allegation Coordinator610-337-5222 (Safety Hotline)800-432-1156 x5222 (Toll Free)Mike Mulligan RI-2017-A-0028Subject: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding Hope CreekDear Mr. Mulligan:This letter refers to your emails to the NRC Allegation email account on May 2 and 3, 2017, and telephone conversations with NRC staff on May 3, 4, and 12, 2017. Based on these emails and conversations, we have identified three concerns under NRC regulatory jurisdiction related to safety relief valves at Hope Creek. Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our understanding of your concerns. If the descriptions of your concerns are not accurate, please contact me as soon as possible so they can be properly characterized prior to the completion of our review. The NRC normally completes our review of technical matters within six months, although complex issues may take longer.Our initial review of the information you provided determined that we would need additional details from you in order to perform an effective review of your concerns. The information we are requesting is detailed in Enclosure 1. If you have any such details to provide, please contact me within 10 days of the date of this letter. If no additional information is provided we will attempt to evaluate your concerns to the extent possible based on the limited specifics.In accordance with our identity protection policy, the NRC intends to take all reasonable measures to not disclose your identity outside the agency, and only provide your identity to NRC staff members with a need to know. For additional information on the NRC’s process for reviewing nuclear safety concerns, please refer to our brochure entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC," which can be viewed on the NRC webpage at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0240/. This brochure includes an important discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC as well as the circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect an alleger's identity.Thank you for raising these concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call this office toll-free via the NRC Region I Safety Hotline at 1-800-432-1156, ext. 5222, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or contact me in writing at 2100 Renaissance Blvd, Suite 100, King of Prussia, PA 19406.Sincerely,Nicole S. WarnekSenior Allegation Coordinator
Concern 1:You asserted that there are commercial grade dedication problems concerning the safety relief valves (SRVs) at Hope Creek.Concern 2:You asserted that there are Part 21 problems with the SRVs at Hope Creek.Concern 3:You asserted that the SRVs at Hope Creek are in worse shape than the NRC knows.Partial Response to Concerns 1, 2, and 3:As noted in the cover letter, we are requesting additional information from you in order to perform an effective review of your concerns. Specifically, please provide us with additional details regarding the commercial grade dedication and Part 21 issues impacting the SRVs at Hope Creek, and any other details you have regarding Concern 3. Such information would help us focus our review effort and ensure a thorough review of your concerns.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Junk Plant Cooper's Bum Meteorological Towers.
Remember Pilgrim's meteorological tower problems (google Popperville, pilgrim and meteorological tower). It stated out like this failing for days in a blizzard. It took a year before the NRC admitted both towers have been acting erratic for years and now both are in dire need of replacement.
The issues here is why the main and backup tower are not working at the same time. Basically not having any tower available occurred for only about a hour...
The issues here is why the main and backup tower are not working at the same time. Basically not having any tower available occurred for only about a hour...
Power Reactor Event Number: 52768 Facility: COOPER
Region: 4 State: NE
Unit: [1] [ ] [ ]
RX Type: [1] GE-4
NRC Notified By: RANDY KOUBA
HQ OPS Officer: JEFF HERRERANotification Date: 05/23/2017
Notification Time: 15:57 [ET]
Event Date: 05/23/2017
Event Time: 08:30 [CDT]
Last Update Date: 05/23/2017Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(xiii) - LOSS COMM/ASMT/RESPONSEPerson (Organization):
JEREMY GROOM (R4DO)Event Text
Unit SCRAM Code RX CRIT Initial PWR Initial RX Mode Current PWR Current RX Mode 1 N Y 100 Power Operation 100 Power Operation
LOSS OF METEOROLOGICAL TOWER PRIMARY AND BACKUP COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
"This notification is being made due to a loss of emergency assessment capability in accordance with 10 CFR50.72(b)(3)(xiii). On [May, 23, 2017] at 0830 (CDT), the meteorological tower primary and backup communication equipment failed, which resulted in a loss of meteorological data to the plant. Information technology and communications personnel investigated and restored the primary system to service. Meteorological data to the plant was restored at 0925 on [May 23, 2017].
"The NRC Senior Resident Inspector has been informed."
Our Electric system Is In A Full Scale Severe Economic Depression
‘Gas apocalypse’ looms amid power plant boom
The glut of cheap natural gas from a single, gigantic, shale basin that straddles the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest has sparked a massive construction boom of power plants. Dozens have been built in the past two years alone.
There’s just one problem: There isn’t nearly enough electricity demand to support all the new capacity. And as wholesale electricity prices plunge, industry experts are anticipating a fire sale of scores of plants in the region. Many, in fact, have already been sold along the PJM Interconnection LLC grid, the nation’s largest, encompassing 13 states from Virginia to Illinois.
“Everything in fossil fuels is for sale,” said Ted Brandt, chief executive officer at Marathon Capital LLC, a mergers-and-acquisitions adviser in Chicago. “People are bleeding.”
Drawing from abundant, cheap and nearby natural gas in the country’s most prolific shale field, the new plants are adding a gigantic amount of power generation — more than 20 gigawatts — to a region that arguably has more than it needs. The new gas-fired plants are also coming online at a time of market turmoil, buffeted by Obama administration efficiency policies that have helped tamp down demand and by the Trump administration’s determination to keep old coal-fired plants going.
Spot wholesale prices at PJM’s benchmark Western hub slumped to an average of $28.79 per megawatt-hour last year, falling by more than half since 2008 as the shale boom took hold. Many players are exiting the market. Calpine Corp. — the highly leveraged Houston-based independent power producer with a more than $4 billion market value and 17 plants in the PJM grid — is exploring a sale of its facilities. The company has attracted interest from private-equity firms, Bloomberg reported this month. And FirstEnergy Corp. and American Electric Power Co. took more than a combined $11 billion in 2016 charges for plants. They’re exiting production to focus on buying and distributing electricity. Dynegy Inc. has also been reported as a takeover target.
“It’s a gas-driven apocalypse in the power market,” said Toby Shea, a New York-based analyst at Moody’s Investors Service.
As prices slip, some see a buying opportunity. Blackstone Group LP and ArcLight Capital Partners LLC bought four Midwest plants from American Electric for $2.17 billion in September. That implies an average sale price of $417 a kilowatt, a fraction of the $1,000 a kilowatt cost to build a new gas plant.
“It suddenly becomes a buyer’s market if the summer disappoints,” said Paul Pace, who heads KeyCorp’s energy lending team.
Contributing to the glut is the slowdown in coal-plant closures resulting from more favorable policies under the Trump administration. Some of the country’s smartest investors, including Blackstone, are buying these facilities at discounts, betting that a few hot or cold days each year will yield enough money to justify keeping them operating.
Patches of extreme weather are also a motive for the building boom. The polar vortex sidelined a fifth of PJM’s power plants in the game-changing winter of 2014, when frigid weather forced some plants to suspend production. This resulted in a huge, if temporary, spike in electricity rates for consumers. Preventing another such shutdown is a primary focus for PJM: Now, power plants must be both efficient and reliable in extreme weather or face steep penalties.
Finally, advances in efficiency, reducing demand for electricity, are converging with the gas glut to further depress the industry. Everything from the advent of LED light bulbs to Energy Star-certified refrigerators and appliances prompted PJM to slash its long-term growth forecasts to just 0.2 percent a year from 1 percent in 2014. Add in wind and solar, which are providing ever more energy to the grid, and the demand for new power plants looks even shakier.
Given lackluster demand for energy, it’s surprising that power-plant valuations haven’t fallen more, said Ravina Advani, a New York-based managing director at BNP Paribas SA. One reason: Developers continue to attract new investors, including from Japan and Korea. Still, it’s just a matter of time before prices break lower, said Dean Murphy, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based principal at the Brattle Group.
“It’s like the housing market that is oversupplied and it takes longer to move your house,” he said. “Buyers have tons and tons of options.”
...The NEISO electric prices has been in steep decline for the last few years. It really has never translated into lower prices for the ratepayers. The PJM is a huge system. It is a bellwether indicator for electric prices in the nation.
In other words, the system is indicating wholesale electric prices will decline 25% in three years. How much will it decline this year, next year and year two?
This is very very bad news for the nukes and indicates safety is gravely compromised...
Another nuclear plant, Quad Cities in Illinois, also failed to clear PJM's capacity auction. In a written statement, Dominguez said Exelon "remains fully committed to keeping the Quad Cities plant open."
Updated on May 24, 2017 at 8:42 AM Posted on May 24, 2017 at 8:00 AMPJM Interconnection's annual auction to determine which power plants will best be able to serve customers three years from the auction date shows that coal and nuclear plants continue to have problems competing against gas turbine plants but that the pace of new gas plants entering the market is slowing.(PJM)0 sharesCLEVELAND, Ohio -- Add another monkey wrench to Ohio's debates about saving nuclear reactors and big coal-fired power plants from the growing fleet of gas turbine plants and wind farms.PJM Interconnection's annual auction to guarantee there will be enough power plants in business three years from now to provide electricity to customers in Ohio, 12 other states and the District of Columbia has wrapped up with a healthy reserve committed to generate in June 2020.The auction showed a reserve generating capacity margin of more than 23 percent higher than what PJM projects the demand will be from June 2020 through May 2021.And perhaps the best news for consumers, the auction closing prices -- what PJM will pay power plants that commit to be operating in three years -- are lower than expected, about 25 percent lower over most of the PJM territory."The results show that PJM markets continue to achieve what they were originally intended to accomplish, ensuring reliability at the lowest reasonable cost," said Andrew L. Ott, PJM president and CEO, in a prepared release.There are exceptions in parts of the East Coast where demand is high and transmission capability constricted.The one exception in Ohio is the Greater Cincinnati area served by Duke Energy, where power prices are expected to be significantly higher because there is a chance of plant closings and power imports, said Adam Keech, executive director of PJM market operations, in a news conference.The auction capacity charges are not a complete guarantee of future prices, however, because they account for only about 10 percent of the final price of power. Fuel prices, competition and unexpected declines or increases in demand also play a role…
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Columbia Nuclear Plant: Trump Just killed His First Nuclear Plant
Ok, I don't know what it is. Its a hybrid of municipal, state and federal ownership. Its way too top heavy and indicates they spend way too much on bureaucracy. Its a political jobs authority.
Ok, ok...Columbia is owned by a private corporation...
The dams subsidize this nuclear plant. It definitely won't be able to stand up on its own with the cheap hydro power. Who is going to buy the nuke plant? It basically is a extremely isolated nuke plant in the northwest. Then they had a whistleblower recently who was right. The plant is tainted over this to any new owner.
The very same logic would throw off TVA into the private market.
I bet you this is just Trump punishing Washington for not voting for him. The area surrounding TVA is deep in Trump area. Is there a little hypocrisy between selling off BVA versus TVA???
Hmmm, would this get liberal or antis votes next election if Trump canned the plant.
Energy Northwest (formerly Washington Public Power Supply System) is a United States public power joint operating agency formed by State law in 1957 to produce at-cost power for Northwest utilities. Headquartered in Richland, Washington, the WPPSS became commonly known as "Whoops"[1] due to over-commitment to nuclear power in the 1970s which brought about financial collapse and the second largest municipal bond default[2] in U.S. history. WPPSS was renamed Energy Northwest in November 1998. Agency membership includes 28 public power utilities, including 23 of the State’s 24 public utility districts.
Energy Northwest is governed by two boards: an executive board and a board of directors. The executive board has 11 members: five representatives from the board of directors, three gubernatorial appointees and three public representatives selected by the board of directors. The board of directors includes a representative from each member utility.
The consortium’s nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar projects deliver nearly 1,300 megawatts of electricity to the Northwest power grid. Current power projects include White Bluffs Solar Station, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nine Canyon Wind Project, and Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant.
Ok, ok...Columbia is owned by a private corporation...
The dams subsidize this nuclear plant. It definitely won't be able to stand up on its own with the cheap hydro power. Who is going to buy the nuke plant? It basically is a extremely isolated nuke plant in the northwest. Then they had a whistleblower recently who was right. The plant is tainted over this to any new owner.
The very same logic would throw off TVA into the private market.
2016 presidential election results: Clinton, Trump and Gary whats-his-name.
1,742,718, 1,221, 747, 160,879
Hmmm, would this get liberal or antis votes next election if Trump canned the plant.
Trump proposes sell-off of most Bonneville Power assets
Most of the assets of the Bonneville Power Administration would be sold off under the proposed federal budget for next year released by the administration of President Donald Trump.
The proposed change would raise costs for utility ratepayers, said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
The Benton and Franklin PUDs receive most of their power from BPA.
“Public power customers in the Pacific Northwest have paid for the system and their investment should not be put up for sale,” he said.
BPA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, but is self funding. It markets wholesale electric power, mostly from federal dams and the Energy Northwest nuclear power plant near Richland.
It also operates and maintains about three-quarters of the high-voltage transmission in its service territory, which includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington and some small parts of other nearby states.
“I successfully fought Republican’s efforts more than a decade ago to privatize Bonneville Power, and I will fight this misguided attempt,” Wyden said.
Annually the presidential administration proposes a budget for the next fiscal year starting Oct. 1, but Congress sets the final budget.
BPA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, but is self funding. It markets wholesale electric power, mostly from federal dams and the Energy Northwest nuclear power plant near Richland.
“I successfully fought Republican’s efforts more than a decade ago to privatize Bonneville Power, and I will fight this misguided attempt,” Wyden said.
Annually the presidential administration proposes a budget for the next fiscal year starting Oct. 1, but Congress sets the final budget.
Why Has Columbia been at 65% For A month And A Half
Originally published 5/2
It just doesn't make sense to "coast down" for this time frame. I doubt the below from the NRC is truthful.
"REDUCED FOR ECONOMIC DISPATCH COASTDOWN TO REFUELING OUTAGE"Update: I talked to the senior resident inspector about this. Man, the Washington state electric system is a beast. The grid is owned by all of us and the DOE (Bonneville Power). Columbia is owned by Northeast Power. Bet you this setup is a artifact of the cold war and nuclear weapons production. The vast proportion of the juice in Washington is produced by their dams. As this time, there is extreme winter melt off. The dams can go full power at this time. Dams electricity is very cheap and Washington electricity is also cheap. They found it very economical to ramp down power from the Columbia nuclear plant and supply all of electricity from the dams in heavy meltdown. I wonder how they compensate Columbia for all the capacity factor it lost? This kind of dispatch(for this long) is very infrequent.
Meet Our New NRC Commissioners
Deep state bureaucrats with no hands on nuclear experience. Southern ideological good old boys. A continuation of the same.
President Trump announced three nominations Monday evening to keep the nation's nuclear energy watchdog from effectively shutting down on July 1.
Trump announced that he intends to nominate Annie Caputo, a senior Senate environment panel adviser and nuclear engineer, and David Wright, a former state utility regulator from South Carolina, to serve five-year terms on the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
What a South Korean Terrorism Plant Meltdown Would Look Like
It would drastically change the world if a North Korean Submarine launched missile hit a south Korean nuke plant, but did not lead to a meltdown.
It would be a grand North Korean last ditch suicide military strike.
It would be a grand North Korean last ditch suicide military strike.
South Korean nuclear power plant accident would heavily taint western Japan: simulation
The Japan Times
KyodoA nuclear accident at a power plant in South Korea could cause wider radiation contamination in western Japan than on its home soil, a study by a South Korean scientist has shown.
If a cooling system fails at the spent-fuel storage pools at the Kori power plant’s No. 3 reactor in Busan, massive amounts of cesium-137 would be released that could potentially reach western Japan, according to a simulation by Jungmin Kang of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. think tank.
In the worst-case scenario, up to 67,000 sq. km of Japanese soil would be contaminated and 28.3 million people would be forced to evacuate, the study said, though the fallout’s spread would depend on the season.
As for South Korea, an accident at the plant could taint more than half of the nation by contaminating up to 54,000 sq. km, it said.
A total of 818 tons of spent nuclear fuel were stored in pools at the site as of the end of 2015, Kang said. He said an accident could be triggered not only by natural disasters but by terrorism or a missile from North Korea.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Junk Plant Browns Ferry: All Violations Related To Not Following Procedures
May 10, 2017
REPORT 05000259/2017001, 05000260/2017001, AND 05000296/2017001
Cornerstone: Barrier Integrity
• Green. An NRC identified non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, was identified for the licensee’s inadequate corrective actions to preclude repetition (CAPR) of a significant condition adverse to quality (SCAQ). The licensee’s failure to take appropriate CAPRs for a SCAQ that resulted in an inoperable RCIC containment isolation check valve was a performance deficiency. The licensee entered the condition into their corrective action plan as condition report (CR) 1265552, performed repairs to the valve, and initiated a new root cause analysis. This performance deficiency was more than minor, because it was associated with\ the configuration control attribute of the Barrier Integrity cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective because the misalignment of the stem to disc for 2-CKV-71-14 resulted in a loss of reliability. The finding screened as Green because the RCIC subsystem remained operable. The finding was not assigned a cross-cutting aspect because the cause was not related to current licensee performance. (Section 1R15)
Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems
• Green. An NRC identified NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, Document Control, was identified after maintenance on safety-related 4kv to 480 volt transformers TS1A and TS1B (Unit 1) resulted in the windings tap setting being misconfigured. The licensee’s failure to develop work instructions to change TS1A and TS1B transformer configuration was a performance deficiency. This performance deficiency was more than minor because it impacted the Mitigating Systems cornerstone attribute of configuration control in that the loads supplied by 480 volt shutdown boards 1A and 1B were challenged by this misconfiguration. The finding screened as Green because the electrical system remained operable. The licensee entered the condition into their corrective action plan as CR 1221265 and corrected the tap setting. The finding was not assigned a cross-cutting aspect because the cause was not related to current licensee performance. (Section 4OA3)
Cornerstone: Occupational Radiation Safety
• Green. A self-revealing NCV of Technical Specifications (TS) 5.7.1 was identified for a worker who entered a High Radiation Area (HRA) (Unit 1 reactor building steam tunnel) without proper authorization. This performance deficiency was determined to be greater than minor because it was associated with the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute of Human Performance and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from exposure to radiation from radioactive material during routine civilian nuclear reactor operation. The inspectors determined the finding to be of very low safety significance (Green). The licensee entered the issue into their Corrective Action Program (CAP) as CR 1219539 and took immediate
corrective actions including restricting Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) access for the individuals involved and performing confirmatory surveys of the area. This finding involved the cross-cutting aspect of Human Performance, Teamwork, [H.4], because a significant contributor to this event was poor communication between different work groups (workers entering the reactor building steam tunnel and RP personnel at the control point). [Section 2RS1]
• Green. An inspector-identified NCV of TS 5.4.1 was identified for the licensee’s failure to obtain an air sample while performing work in an area with smearable contamination levels greater than 50,000 disintegrations per minute (DPM) per 100cm2. This performance deficiency was determined to be greater than minor because it was associated with the Occupational Radiation Safety Cornerstone attribute of Human Performance and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from exposure to radiation from radioactive material during routine civilian nuclear reactor operation. The inspectors determined the finding to be of very low safety significance (Green). The licensee entered the issue into their CAP (CR 1219539) and, since the work created airborne radioactivity in the area, performed in-vivo monitoring on the affected workers to assess doses from the intake of radioactive material. This finding involved the cross-cutting aspect of Human Performance, Avoid Complacency, [H.12], because, considering the contamination levels present, RP staff underestimated the risk for potential airborne radioactive material in the area. [Section 2RS1]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)