New CDBI Inspection at Waterford, NRC says they could have melted down in Hurricane?

Updated on Apr 23: 0500382

See how in Brunswick the NRC inspectors discovered DG day tank vent pipe vulnerabilities... 

On Waterford's corroded DG day tank vent pipe, why wasn't it protected from tornadoes?  

Originally posted on 1/7/2015

This really ask us how close we are to a international incident. We are walking on a lot thinner ice as a nation than we realize.

By the way, even having safety related DG fuel oil tubing the operators have never been up to the roof?

More embarrassing than anything, Entergy's staff didn't catch this on their own. You notice the shadowy way the NRC hints the New Orleans severe weather and excessive rainfall could be outside the norms of anywhere else in the country. Stick that is risk perspective pipe and smoke it.

Hurricanes of Category 3 or greater passing within 100 miles of New Orleans 1852–2005. from NOAA

Waterford had in excess of 10 inches of rainfall in Katrina...had similar amounts in more recent hurricanes. Basically the NRC says, Waterford had corroded and leaking  fuel oil day tank(s) roof vent tubing. In a large rainfall, water on the roof would have ponded...would have covered the corrode tubes that had holes in it. You notice they don't show us pictures

The ponding water would have leaked into the diesels fuel oil tank and that would have permanently shutdown both diesel generator. The below is how the NRC frames it ( they don't say how many rainfall event). 

'Engineering review of the available meteorological tower data shows peak rain rates of 3.8 inches per hour have been experienced at the site in in the last two years." 

Per the NRC:

"It is unknown how long this corrosion has existed."  

So the huricane winds vibrates the thin wall corroded DG tubing, maybe the wind picks up debis and hit the tubing...this creates the break.

I believe all communication to the outside was lost in Katrina at Waterford. The grid was down for weeks and the plant was on the diesel generators for weeks. Here below the NRC says they would have stopped working:

"If required to operate after a Design Basis rainfall event over the past 3 years both the train A and B EDGs could have been inoperable due to water intrusion into the EDG Feed Tanks through the corroded holes." 

Here is the scenario. I wonder what size hurricane would now take take out the the transmission system surrounding Waterford. Did they upgrade the transmission?

1) The front side of the hurricane quickly takes out the transmission system.

2) The plant would immediately get re-energized by both diesel generators starting up and connecting to the buses. 

3) The eye wall would go over the plant...copious amounts of water would overwhelm the roof drains on the Reactor Auxiliary Building  roof in this first swipe. It would ensue huge ponding of water.

4) All during the front end of the hurricane, rain water would be draining into the the diesel generator local fuel oil tanks through the corroded vent line tube(s)

5) Shortly after eye wall would passes, both diesels generator would start sputtering. They would both trip and can't be started. Nobody would know why the DGs stopped. It would haunt the operators with not knowing why the DGs tripped.

6) It would be the first time a nuclear plant in the USA had to cycled into a station blackout procedure (SBO). If the accident gets under control at this point, can you imagine the hullabaloo with  the outsiders, that the roof corroded  DG fuel oil tubing got a plant into this position.

7) It would be the first time in the history of the world where the nuclear power plant staff tried to perform a SBO procedure in 110 MPH winds and copious rain.

8) Now how long does those emergency safety system batteries work?  I have no faith the portable dg would get

Can you even imagine how the cable networks and the newspapers would interpret this event? I believe maybe it would come to a fuel melt...probably not as bad a Fukushima. I don't  think you can get into a more complex event as this.

Here below is the LER on it. It doesn't seem the CDBI inspection report has come out yet.

By the way, they had three or four other dg fuel tubing leak through the years and poor maintenance leading to other leaks. You would think a nuclear plant would have high quality thick tubing who doesn't corrode in the weather? Where is the protective covering?

Emergency Diesel Generators Rendered Inoperable By Potential Water Intrusion Into Diesel Fuel Oil Feed Tanks 

LER-2014-04-00

During a walkdown of the Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tank A and B vent lines on October 22, 2014, an NRC Component Design Basis Inspection inspector identified corrosion on the Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tank A and B vent lines where the vent lines pass through the roof. A visual inspection was performed and revealed that the corrosion had created through wall holes that could allow water into both the train A and B Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tanks. Follow up analysis has determined that some rainfall amount less than the postulated Probable Maximum Precipitation event could have resulted in water intrusion into the Emergency Diesel Generator A and B Feed Tanks that exceeds the 0.1 percent water content allowed by the vendor technical manual. This could have potentially affected the operability of both the A and B Train Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tanks and subsequently both trains of the Emergency Diesel Generators. It is unknown how long this corrosion has existed. Compensatory measures were put in place to prevent water ingress should a large rainfall event occur. Follow up analysis has determined that some amount of rainfall less than the postulated Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event could have resulted in sufficient water ponding on the Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) [NF] roof to allow water intrusion into the EDG A and B Feed Tanks that could exceed the 0.1 percent water content allowed by the vendor technical manual. This could have affected the operability of both the A and B Train Emergency Diesel Generator Feed Tanks and Emergency Diesel Generators. Engineering review of the available meteorological tower data shows peak rain rates of 3.8 inches per hour have been experienced at the site in in the last two years. Based on the follow-up evaluation, these rainfall rates could have potentially resulted ponding on the RAB roof that would allow in water ingress into the EDG Feed tanks. These rain events have been followed by successful EDG monthly tests. If required to operate after a Design Basis rainfall event over the past 3 years both the train A and B EDGs could have been inoperable due to water intrusion into the EDG Feed Tanks through the corroded holes.

This it the first swipe with Waterford's reporting to the NRC. Can't you hear Entergy's bitching over wildy excessive regulatory burderns including the CDBI. 

SUBJECT: UPDATE - NOTICE OF UNUSUAL EVENT, PLANT SHUTDOWN, AND LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER AT WATERFORD-3 DESCRIPTION: 

This Preliminary Notification is being issued to update recipients of the Notice of Unusual Event(NOUE), plant shutdown, and loss of offsite power at the Waterford-3 facility in response to Hurricane Katrina. As of August 30, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. (CDT), Waterford-3 remains in the NOUE, because of the loss ofoffsite power. The plant is no longer under a hurricane warning which was the original basis for the emergency declaration. Preliminary assessment of the Waterford-3 plant identified no significant damage to safety systems and structures. The plant is currently in Mode 4 or “hot shutdown,” with both trains of shutdown cooling operable. Onsite safety-related electrical power continues to be provided by the emergency diesel generators. The licensee is continuing efforts to evaluate the condition of the electrical distribution network in the vicinity of the plant which is energized and supplying balance of plant loads. The licensee is planning inspections of electrical transmission facilities in the next 24 hours. Two regional inspectors remain onsite and are monitoring licensee recovery activities.

All NRC CDBI inspections at Waterford. The problem I got, was why wasn't the DG fuel oil day tank roof vent line problem picked up in the first inspection in 2007. The risk based priority system on picking what component system to inspect makes no sense...it's gone haywire.

Read all this violation...it is horrible engineering wise.    

July 13, 2007: NRC COMPONENT DESIGN BASES INSPECTION REPORT 2007007 4 violations

Nov 2, 2009: NRC DESIGN BASES INSPECTION NRC INSPECTION REPORT 2009009 6 violations

December 14, 2011: NRC DESIGN BASES INSPECTION, NRC INSPECTION REPORT 2011007 8 violations

NH PUC Launches Investigation Into Soaring New England Energy Price

Investigation into Potential Approaches to Ameliorate Adverse Wholesale Electricity Market Conditions in New Hampshire 
New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission

Northeast Forum on Regional Energy Solutions 

Remarks by Gordon van Welie, President & CEO, ISO New England

April 23, 2015

Gets you to wondering, what are the implication of this?  

NEISO:  ‘Global oil prices dropped dramatically, making it more economical at times to burn oil than natural gas. This dampened gas and electricity price volatility.”

I find it implausible NH does know what is causing the price spikes...

NH PUC launches investigation into soaring New England energy price 

By ALLIE MORRIS
Monitor staff
Thursday, April 23, 2015

The state Public Utilities Commission is launching an investigation into the state’s high electricity costs, hoping to find solutions.

“Overall, the average retail price of electricity in New England is the highest in the continental United States, posing a threat to our region’s economic competitiveness,” said the PUC order, dated last Monday. “The commission has a fundamental duty to ensure that the rates and charges assessed by (electric distribution companies) are just and reasonable.” 

The cost of energy has become a hot-button topic in New Hampshire, as lawmakers, businesses and citizen groups seek solutions to bring down prices.

Utilities announced rate increases across the board last fall, and many customers saw spikes in their winter electric bills. 

Electricity costs in January averaged 19 cents per kilowatt-hour for New Hampshire residents, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That compares with the national average of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

Many in the energy industry have attributed the high costs to constraints in the region’s natural gas supply. The fuel has risen in popularity because of its cheap cost and abundance. Nearly half of New England’s electricity is now generated by natural gas, compared with just 15 percent in 2000. 

The staff investigation will study the gas-resource constraint problem, seeking solutions. The order adds that the “potential development of additional natural gas resources for the benefit of the electricity supply in our region should be carefully considered.”

All New Hampshire utilities will be required to participate in the investigation, including Eversource Energy, Unitil and Liberty Utilities.

The commission will hold a public meeting May 12. Regulators will issue a report by Sept. 15 outlining their findings.

The PUC is already investigating energy efficiency proposals and reviewing how utilities purchase power.

Several natural gas pipeline projects have popped up recently, including a Kinder Morgan proposal that would send about 70 miles of pipeline through southern New Hampshire.

A separate plan, known as Access Northeast, would expand an existing natural gas pipeline that passes along the Seacoast.

Meanwhile, the six New England states are eying measures to reduce energy costs.

Five of the region’s governors will meet in Connecticut today for a forum focused on Regional Energy Solutions.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan is attending Sheriff Michael Downing’s memorial service today, and is unable to be at the regional meeting. 

Staff from the New Hampshire PUC and Office of Energy and Planning will be at the Connecticut forum on Hassan’s behalf, said spokesman William Hinkle.

“Governor Hassan will continue to work to protect the interests of New Hampshire and ensure that our regional partners understand that Granite Staters will have a voice on proposed projects that wish to be sited in our state,” he said.

Exelon: Nuclear Power Is Dead?

So why aren't they building these things in Illinois...trying to protect their expensive electricity?

When the economics are undeniable...how will the nuke folks respond to this? Will they become militant, take out a nuclear plant?

Do you think our NRC scheme can hold back the dike of poor economics...

Maybe Texas has the pipe capacity while Illinois does not.

I think the lack of NG pipe capacity in New England is collusion on a giant level...

Don't worry guys, the state and federal regulator will bail out the utilities with stranded cost scam of the century. 

But the environment, enormus corruption on the grid, approaching global warming, the once in a hundred natural gas miracle, the load disappearing for the grid and low electric prices   and the general obsolescence of our grid and infrastructure...can you even blame our great electric utilities for being dizzy. Remember when we had great politicians who crush the approach of bad history.

Then the problem nobody even cares about, our problem with decent secure and adequate income for the bottom half.

What can we do if we just don't give a shit anymore, all of us...  

Did Exelon Corporation Just Quietly Admit That Nuclear Power Is Dead?

By Maxx Chatsko | More Articles
April 21, 2015 | Comments (8)

Image source: Tobin/Flickr.

Eighty-one percent.

That's the percentage of power generated by Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC ) that originates in a nuclear power plant. That should come as no surprise, considering the company owns over 19,000 MW of nuclear capacity, which has among the highest utilization rates of any energy source. Of course, Exelon is not immune to market forces challenging the economics of traditional nuclear power, even if individual states that are heavily reliant on the company's atomic footprint pitch in to provide artificial buoyancy. 

The fast-falling costs of renewable energy and sudden global abundance of natural gas have turned the tables on nuclear power generators, which suffer from relatively high maintenance costs and, for newer plants, absurdly high upfront construction costs. 

Therefore, it should also not come as a surprise that Exelon has been carefully hedging against its existing nuclear power plants by investing in lower-cost generation. For instance, the company recently handed General Electric Company (NYSE: GE ) over $500 million for four next-generation natural gas turbines, which will combine to generate over 2,000 MW of electricity for the Texas grid. Is this a quiet admission that traditional nuclear power is dead? 

Natural gas to the rescue for investors? 

General Electric spent over $1 billion developing two next-generation natural gas turbines: the 600-MW 9HA for Europe and the 500-MW 7HA for the United States. They're the world's largest and most efficient natural gas turbines; capable of achieving the Holy Grail of power efficiency while consuming less natural gas and emitting one-third less carbon dioxide than older and more commonly used turbines. 

The turbines will be an important product for General Electric as it refocuses on manufacturing and winds down financial services, although there likely won't be any difficulties selling them. The company disclosed close to $2 billion in 9HA/7HA sales at the end of September from customers in France, Japan, Germany, Russia, and the 

United States.

Image source: GE Power and Water / GE Reports. 

The turbines will also be an important addition for Exelon as it insulates its power generation portfolio against losses from its nuclear fleet and duly invests in the future of energy. The four 7HA turbines, which will ship in 2016 and come online in 2017, will be be put into service at two new power plants currently under construction near Houston and Dallas. The ultra-efficient units will save millions of gallons of water in cooling applications every day -- nothing to take lightly in drought-stricken Texas -- as they're cooled with forced air instead. Additionally, each unit is expected to save $8 million in annual fuel costs. 

Although the details surrounding the natural-gas-fired turbines look favorable for investors, some simple number-crunching certainly favors the thesis that traditional nuclear power is dead, even if Exelon hasn't explicitly mentioned the possibility (or considered it internally). While the company won't be ditching its existing nuclear facilities anytime soon, investors surely shouldn't expect it to build any new nuclear capacity, either. Consider how the next-generation natural gas turbines from General Electric stack up when compared to a new nuclear power plant, using Southern Co.'s new Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 nuclear reactors for comparison.

Metric	Exelon 7HA Units	Southern Co. Vogtle Expansion
Investment	$0.5 billion	~$15.0 billion
Capacity (Gross)	2,000 MW	2,500 MW
Construction Time

2 years

~5 years

Source: SEC filings, press releases. 

Or think about it another way: Exelon's investment will increase its 2013 natural gas capacity by 25% and represent more capacity than the company's total wind and solar assets. Even if the company paid twice as much for future next-generation natural gas turbines, or $1 billion for 1,000 MW of capacity, it could replace its entire 19,000 MW nuclear fleet for just $19 billion. That's 126% of the price tag Southern Co is shelling out for just 2,500 MW of new nuclear capacity!
If that doesn't communicate the fact that new construction of traditional nuclear power is a thing of the past, then perhaps nothing will. 

What does it mean for investors? 

The numbers overwhelmingly stack up against traditional nuclear power. Simply put, spending just $500 million for a combined capacity of 2,000 MW of clean, affordable, and efficiently produced electricity is something only next-generation natural gas turbines can achieve. The fact that Exelon is going all-in on cheaper and more profitable power generation is terrific news for investors, and the wider trend sweeping the power industry will be great news for General Electric investors, too.

Study: Exelon subsidy would cost $1.6 billion over 5 years

PreviousNext

Tribune News Service | File

Study: Exelon subsidy would cost $1.6 billion over 5 years

A report by state agencies indicates the shutdown of three Exelon nuclear plants in Illinois � including this one in Clinton � would lead to billions of dollars lost in economic activity and 8,000 job losses.

Posted: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:46 pm | Updated: 12:14 am, Wed Apr 22, 2015.

Study: Exelon subsidy would cost $1.6 billion over 5 years

Staff and wire reportsmywebtimes.com | 5 comments

A study ordered by consumer groups finds a plan to financially reward Exelon Corp. for producing carbon-free nuclear energy would cost $1.6 billion over five years and strain financially strapped business and municipal government budgets.
Kestler Energy Consulting conducted the study released Tuesday at the state Capitol for the Better Energy Solutions for Tomorrow Coalition. The coalition opposes legislation to financially reward Exelon for producing energy without emitting harmful greenhouse gases.

Exelon says without the subsidy it might have to close three nuclear plants. Spokesman Paul Elsberg points to a state study from January that shows closing those plants would cost the state $1.8 billion annually in economic activity.

Critics say the Illinois proposal would reward nuclear plants. Under the system, electric suppliers would have to buy credits from carbon-free energy producers. Exelon says the plan would benefit nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, and other solar and wind projects.

BEST Coalition director Dave Lundy says Exelon should prove its case by opening finances to outside experts.

For example, if the bill were to pass, the coalition's study says the financial reward to Exelon would cost the City of Chicago nearly $14 million, Chicago Public Schools $7 million, Cook County Government $3.3 million and a small independent grocery store more than $13,000, according to the coalition's website.
Findings of the coalition's study are:

• The Low Carbon Portfolio Standard would increase electric costs by $2.38 per MWh ($0.00238/kWh) for ComEd customers and $2.17 per MWh ($0.00217/kWh) for Ameren.
• In total, it would cost ComEd and Ameren ratepayers $1.599 billion or $295.2 million per year over the statutory contract period of five years and five months (from January, 2016 through May, 2021).
• The bill would increase average wholesale electricity supply costs approximately 8.45 percent for ComEd customers and 8.35 percent for Ameren customers.

The cost to the average residential consumer will be about $2 per month, according to Exelon estimates.

Exelon officials have defended the proposal, by calling it a "market-based" solution that allows each resource to compete.
Exelon has said it might have to close at least three of its six Illinois plants, if it didn't receive a clean air incentive — Quad Cities Generating Station in Cordova, Byron Generating Station in Ogle County and Clinton Power Station in DeWitt County.

Operations in La Salle County, Morris and Braidwood are not considered at risk.

An analysis by state agencies estimated the cost of producing power at three plants proposed for closure may exceed the payments they get, though they could not be certain.
Exelon and other around-the-clock plants sometimes take losses when wind turbines produce too much electricity for the system.
Exelon remained profitable overall, making $1.6 billion last year. Exelon has said competition from lower-priced natural gas has taken a hit on its nuclear fleet's profit.

Waterford: Something Is Slowing Down Their Control Rods

Apr 25: Look what popped up it my e-mail? 

NUREG/CR-5783 BNLrNUREG-52299(1993)

Aging Assessment of the Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox

Control Rod Drives

Feb 22 meeting:

Significant increase in fuel damage in DBA...well, cladding damage without fuel melt. 

ANO ask and got the drop time change before they got all the equipment changes while Waterford did not? 

The below with seals, crud and filters are non applicable to PWR according to the NRC. This is about BWRs. WaterFord is a PWR. 

My Apologizes... 

???

Leaking seals leaking, maybe from a "crud bust" thru CRD Hydraulic. 

If they had good 1 micron filters in CRDH installed but did not clean / flush them periodically, then they filled up caused a high DP, then broke. 

Or the filters could be just plugged, causing hi dp, low flow. 

The seals on the drives themselves need to be replaced on a regular interval.

This is what I hate about the new NRC...they don't have to know what is causing the slower scram times. If they don't know what is causing it, how can they predict how it will behave. 

CEO Drop T.S. Change Request.

Most logical is the CEA replacement

Potential Cause 

Plant Primary Side Modifications 

• Steam Generator replacemen 

• Reactor Vessel Head replacement
• CEA replacement 

• Transition to Next Generation Fuel Product

In the below graph, I brought this out in the pre LAR meeting. Basically:

1) Check it out, as the core ages, the rod drop speeds become more erratic. 

2) How do you explain the stability cycle 1 thru 10. 

3) How do you explain the erratic drop timing between cycle 11 thru 18? 

4) Say the drop timing for the element or a rod is noisy on cycle. The timing for a rod is changes from one test to another. There is a lot of variability of the timing. If you have a lot of variability of the rod drop group timing, the average could jump all around. As a example, say you do do one testing (like they do), the average could be 2.8. If the actually rod drop group timings were highly erratic, changed from one test to another, then the average say on three test could come out to say 2.6, 3.2 and 3.9. How then would we know we are safe? 

Background for LAR 

• CEA Drop Times have challenged the Technical Specification (TS) limit in the last two surveillance performances 

– Waterford 3 TS 3.1.3.4 requires: 

• the arithmetic average of all CEA Drop Times be ≤ 3.0 seconds 

• Individual CEA drop times ≤ 3.2 seconds 

• Insertion time is measured from fully withdrawn position to 90% inserted

NRC Senate Political Hearing BS

This is a senate hearing I am talking about.

Say the issues around Markey’s state, the scam and LOOP in Pilgrim of this winter. 

Inform the commissioners we want to discuss the problems with the winter scram and LOOP. Be prepare to talk thoroughly about these issues and have your staff prepare you. Have the senior resident present the facts, then discuss with his boss and the regional boss in the hearing. Have the plant executive in charge explain what he’d seen. Maybe a on shift control room operator and shift supervisor explain how they seen the trip coming. Then a discussion with the commissioners on their perceptions.

Maybe a short list of question to discuss given to the NRC staff and the plant that need to answered months before the Senate hearing. 

But everyone in these congressional hearing would rather talk about these highly charged peripheral issue unrelated to actual plant operations,these politicians looking like they are actively engaged with the nuclear industry…but it is nothing but highly charged show senate and house hearings and oversight.

Actually, the congressional hearing are a shield from showing us the true conditions of the plants. It is the intent of congress to protect the nuclear industry, hide their misdeeds! 

It is the American nuclear village...  

April 12, 2015: NRC Senate Political Hearing BS

I get it now; the politicians would rather talk about Fukushima and seismic issues rather than the issues directly affecting the NRC and plants. Give me some more of that outdated budget procedure...

Like, what the hell is going on with all the problems with Calvert Cliffs, River Bend, Waterford and Pilgrim…why don’t we have a congressional hearing on these problematic plants. Just chose one and thoroughly discuss why it happened. Why not call in on scene inspectors, employees and executives? 

The politicians are sneakily using the seismic and Fukushima issues as a shield for the troublesome plants and current events.

That is why nobody wants to move on the Fukushima issues.it's great filler material of little concern...

Senator Sullivan asked a good question: what is the meaning of an independent Regulator.

He said basically, the president chooses nominees, the house and senate controls the agency.

The NY senator talking about global warming and evacuations, basically it is less painful and risky talking about these broad problem that nobody acts on than plant problems.

This is the hand the USA’s nuclear village…never directly talking about plant problems creating the most risk to the nuclear industry, the nation and the plant.

  

Even Senator Markey response is troubling, Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima…

I could cry, cyber security…nobody really interested on what the plants are doing?

Stealing US nuclear industry trade secret and china and Chinese access to US plants

This big facade of great so call issues of no meaning.

Some bs document request of no use, all a noisy useless facade..

Senator Carper…

26 new plants from 2001 and only four are in process now.

How to get good employees to the NRC?

Biggest problems, chairman

Fukushima

Licensing backlog coming from Fukushima

New reactors

Licensing oversight…notice this is last

Budget management directive out of date, just useless filler issues!

Senator Boxer again

Documents to Senate whining from San Onofre, god dam it, withhold their funding?

It is all a puppet show…

Senator Inhofe

Some Japanese official said if they had NRC mandated equipment prior to Fukushima the accident wouldn’t happen. 

Bet you the industry told the politicians here, you say anything directly about a US nuclear power plant will eat you alive.

A empty calorie show trial...

Calvert Cliffs: This Is What an Ineffective Regulator Looks Like?

Honestly, threatening to shutdown early due to financial problem. I find it implausible all these equipment problems aren't coming from plant budget problems.

Any scram or LOOP with big equipment problems always puts a tremendous burden on the control room people. Safety is a scram or LOOP without equipment problems.

So here we sit, as example with recent Pilgrim, River Bend and Waterford plant scams and LOOPs with equipment breakdowns and bad employee responses...I think this all is a result of profound industry financial problem.   

Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant at risk for ‘early   retirement,’ report says

By Christopher GoinsChris@marylandreporter.com 

Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby (photo by NRCGov on Flickr) 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant was listed as one of almost 40 nuclear reactors across the U.S. that is at risk of closing early, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. 

The lone commercial nuclear power plant in Maryland might be on its way to early retirement for primarily economic reasons, the report’s author said. No dates were given for any reactors on the list and the author insists he’s not making predictions. 

A spokeswoman for Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, the owner of Calvert Cliffs, said in response to the report that there are no plans to retire the plant early. The company brags on its website that the plant got a 20-year extension of its license in 2000 after replacing the steam generators. 

“It usually takes a precipitator to create the crisis,” said Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Vermont school’s energy institute. “Calvert Cliffs (reactors) have had some history of liability issues or safety issues and outages issues. It’s one of these reactors where the economic context is not very bright,” said Cooper. “And then the question is does something come along to put it off the edge?”

NRC Sends Special Inspection Team to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant to review issues during the unplanned shutdown of both reactors on April 7. The plant, which is operated by Exelon, is located in Lusby, Md. 

Calvert Cliffs, like all nuclear power plants, transmits power to the grid but also receives power back for operational purposes. A grid disturbance due the failure of a transmission line in Southern Maryland on April 7th caused both Calvert Cliffs reactors to automatically shut down as designed. 

Following the grid disturbance, one of Unit 2’s emergency diesel generators (which provide power to safety systems when off-site power is lost) started, but tripped after 11 seconds. This same diesel generator failed to start in 2010 after a loss of off-site power. In addition, one of three saltwater pumps on Unit 2 failed to automatically restart when power switched to the emergency diesel generators. Per procedure, operators manually started the pump, which provides cooling water to certain plant equipment. 

“While there was no impact on public health and safety, the issues with the emergency diesel generator and the saltwater pump warrant a closer look,” said Dan Dorman, NRC Region I Administrator. 

The three-member team that arrived on-site today is tasked with developing a sequence of events; reviewing and assessing equipment response to the event; reviewing operator performance; and assessing the effectiveness of Exelon’s response to this event. 

An inspection report documenting the team’s findings will be issued within 45 days of the end of the inspection.

From the 2010 NRC AIT inspection: Run to failure philosophy on DG Relay 

Preliminary White: The NRC identified an apparent violation of Technical Specification 

5.4.1 for the failure of Constellation to establish, implement, and maintain preventive maintenance requirements associated with safety related relays. The team identified that Constellation did not implement a performance monitoring program specified by the licensee in Engineering Service Package (ES2001 00067) in lieu of a previously established (in 1987) 1 O-year service life replacement PM requirement for the 28 EDG T3A time delay relay. As a consequence, the 26 EDG failed to run following a demand start signal on February 18, 2010. Following identification of the failed T3A relay, it was replaced and the 28 EDG was satisfactorily tested and returned to service. In addition, time delay relays used in the 1 Band 2A EDG protective circuits, that also exceeded the vendor recommended 1 O-year service life, were replaced. Constellation entered this issue, including the evaluation of extent-of-condition, into the corrective action program.

Rain Reboots At Calvert Cliff 

During a winter storm on January 21, 2014, the Unit 2 reactor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland automatically shut down from full power. That event should not have cascaded to cause the Unit 1 reactor to also shut down, but it did. 

At 9:25 pm on January 21, 2014, both of the pressurized water reactors (PWRs) at Calvert Cliffs were operating at full power. In PWRs, the heat produced by atoms splitting in the reactor core warms water to over 500°F. High pressure keeps this water from boiling as it leaves the reactor vessel and flows through tubes within the steam generator. Heat conducted through the thin metal walls of the tubes boils water. The pressurized water exits the steam generator and returns to the reactor vessel to be reheated. Steam flows from the steam generators through a turbine to generate electricity. 

When a reactor is operating at steady state, the energy produced by the reactor core is balanced by the energy carried away in the steam leaving the steam generators.

Our Takaway 

Weather caused water intrusion that shorted an electrical circuit, tripping one reactor. A design flaw allowed a ripple effect that tripped a second reactor at the plant. 

It happened on January 21, 2014, as described above. It also happened on February 18, 2010 as described in UCS’s first annual report on the NRC and nuclear plant safety.
Each time it happened, the NRC dispatched a special inspection team to investigate. The NRC’s SIT for the 2010 happening found that the owner violated federal regulations by failing to properly correct conditions revealed by water intrusion events in August 2009 and July 2008. 

The NRC’s SIT for the 2014 event found no federal regulations to have been violated. Apparently not even the one violated in 2010 due to recurring water intrusion events and inadequate fixes although this one also involved water intrusion.