Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Indian Point Double or Nothing Philosophy

What about iodine production and xenon burnout?
I don't have inside information, but this fast restart seems to be reckless to me. We will see as time goes by? Do they double or nothing philosophy once a plant gets into trouble...under intense NRC special inspection scrutiny and the state is trying to shut them down.
Indian Point 3 returns to service 
BUCHANAN – Indian Point’s Unit 3 nuclear power plant was returned to service Tuesday afternoon, generating electricity less than 24 hours after the unit automatically shut down following the failure of an electrical switch, ro breaker, in a switchyard outside the plant. 
The switchyard is located across the street from Indian Point and receives electricity generated by the plant before distributing it out to the electrical grid. 
The failure of the breaking led to Indian Points Unit 3 shutting down as a protective measure.
All equipment operated appropriately. There was no release of radioactivity and no threat to the safety of workers or the public. 
Unit 2 continues to operate at full power.
So this is what caused it. It is too bad, this didn't eliminate from Entergy.
Indian Point: Balloon triggered reactor shutdown
BUCHANAN – A balloon that got tangled in electrical wires led to a sequence of events that caused a shutdown of a reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant Monday night, regulatory officials said Tuesday. The shutdown occurred at 7:20 p.m., after Consolidated Edison asked Indian Point operators to open an electrical breaker so that workers could safely remove a large Mylar balloon that got tangled in wires leading to the Millwood substation south of the plant. Soon after that breaker was opened, a second breaker opened, resulting an an automatic shutdown of the reactor, according to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The shutdown occurred without any complications, with all safety systems functioning the way they were supposed to, he said. The reactor went back online at 11:45 a.m. Tuesday, according to Jerry Nappi, a spokesman for Entergy.

ALBANY—One of the two nuclear reactors at the Indian Point nuclear center shut down again on Monday, just weeks after it returned to service following a transformer fire that drew the concern of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other elected leaders.

When a transformer at the plant caught fire on May 9, Cuomo rushed to the scene and reiterated his long-standing concerns about the plant. Shortly after that, a top state energy official acknowledged that the administration was actively working to pressure the plant to shut down.


The cause of the transformer fire, which sent a dark plume into the sky and frightened nearby residents, is still under investigation. Unit 3 returned to service on May 24.

Power Reactor
Event Number: 51156
Facility: INDIAN POINT
Region: 1 State: NY
Unit: [ ] [3] [ ]
RX Type: [2] W-4-LP,[3] W-4-LP
NRC Notified By: LUKE HEDGES
HQ OPS Officer: DONALD NORWOOD
Notification Date: 06/15/2015
Notification Time: 20:15 [ET]
Event Date: 06/15/2015
Event Time: 19:20 [EDT]
Last Update Date: 06/15/2015
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) - RPS ACTUATION - CRITICAL
50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) - VALID SPECIF SYS ACTUATION
Person (Organization):
BRICE BICKETT (R1DO)

UnitSCRAM CodeRX CRITInitial PWRInitial RX ModeCurrent PWRCurrent RX Mode
3A/RY100Power Operation0Hot Standby
Event Text
REACTOR TRIP DUE TO TURBINE TRIP

"On June 15, 2015 at 1920 EDT, Indian Point Unit 3 received a Turbine trip which directly led to a Reactor trip. Operators entered [plant procedure] E-0, Reactor Trip or Safety Injection. All control rods fully inserted. All safety systems responded as expected. The Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system actuated as expected. Offsite power and electrical lineups are normal. No primary or secondary code safety valves lifted. All MSIVs are open and the Main Condensers are being used as the heat sink. The Reactor is in Mode 3 and stable. Unit 2 was unaffected and remains at 100% power. Preliminary investigation determined that Breaker Number 1 in the Ring Bus was intentionally opened [by plant personnel on switching orders from the district operator] due to a problem on W93 [output feeder from Ring Bus]. Subsequently Breaker #3 went open and caused a Turbine/Reactor trip of the Unit."

The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Massive Warming In NE Continental Shelf: Implication For Coastal Nuclear Plants?

June 26
The question is, how often will the wind be coming in the Northeast direction...
Dangerous jellyfish appearing at Jersey shore – News
June 23, 2015 at 9:24 pm
It’s not what Harvey Cedars Beach Patrol Captain Randy Townsend usually sees on the resort’s beaches: a risky jellyfish-like creature called a Portuguese man o’war. “When the wind is coming from the northeast, warm water from the Gulf Stream comes to shore”, the post read. According to National Geographic, it moves by floating on the water’s surface, drifting on the currents, catching the wind.
 

June 16

Why can't the main stream media help us understand these interactions? I bet they will say not enough people interested in it. 
The Atlantic Ocean's Cool Phase Will Change The World's Weather

By The Conversation  
May 29th 2015 11:30 AM 
The Atlantic Ocean’s surface temperature swings between warm and cold phases every few decades. Like its higher-frequency Pacific relative El Nino, this so-called “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” can alter weather patterns throughout the world.

The warmer spell we’ve seen since the late 1990s has generally meant warmer conditions in Ireland and Britain, more North Atlantic hurricanes, and worse droughts in the US Midwest.

However a colder phase in the Atlantic could bring drought and consequent famine to the developing countries of Africa’s Sahel region. In the UK it would offer a brief respite from the rise of global temperatures, while less rainfall would mean more frequent summer barbecues. A cold Atlantic also means fewer hurricanes hitting the southern US.

The good news is our latest research, published in the journal Nature, gives us a much better understanding of these Atlantic oscillations. We now know that accelerations in sea-level rise in cities like New York and Boston on the north-east coast of the US are linked to a cold spell in the Atlantic...
Did they make worst the heating of the Long island sound last heat spell.
The Greatest Ever Thermohaline Superstorm Approaching the Millstone Nuclear plant!
Is this implicated with the North Carolina shark attacks...
Accelerated Warming of the Continental Shelf Off Northeast Coast 
June 11, 2015 
A couple of unexplained large scale changes in the waters off the northeast coast of the U.S. have oceanographers perplexed: an accelerated rate of sea level rise compared to most other parts of the world; and the disturbing signs of collapsing fisheries in the region.
A new study by physical oceanographers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, shows that water temperatures in this continental shelf region have been trending upward, with unprecedented warming occurring over the last 13 years. The study also suggests a connection between sea level anomalies and water temperature along the continental shelf. 
“The warming rate since 2002 is 15 times faster than from the previous 100 years,” says co-author Glen Gawarkiewicz, a WHOI senior scientist. “There's just been this incredible acceleration to the warming, and we don't know if its decadal variability, or if this trend will continue.” 
The scientists compared their findings with a study of surface waters using data collected by Nantucket Light ship, and other light ships up and down the East Coast between 1880 and 2004, previously analyzed by Steve Lentz of WHOI and Kipp Shearman of Oregon State University. The new study shows that recent accelerated warming is not confined to the surface waters, but extends throughout the water column...






Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Grand Gulf’s Power History: Entergy’s Junk Southern Fleet?


June 12
Finally 100%
Update June 11
Miserable progress now at 94%. Six days to recover from a 50% down-power...  
Update June 10
at 77% today...they ain't making money at this power level. River Bend is at 66%.
Everyone in Region 1 is at 100% power.


*********************
Hmmm, River Bend and Grand Gulf is a struggling single unit facility? 
The whole deal reminds me of Pilgrim's shutdowns and power reductions over their junk new safety relief valves for six years.
It is driving me crazy why the exact same NRC event report came out on June 8 and June 9. Bet you it was a NRC screw-up, entergy came up with a update and the NRC just copied over the original by mistake today.
All plants in the same vicinity?

Grand Gulf's recent power history. 

June 9  95%

8  94%

On June 8th at 8:15 pm Grand Gulf had a fire in their Electro Hydraulic Pump C terminal box. Again in 24 hours the reactor power level being stuck at 95% is highly unusual. 

7  79%

6  50% 

5  100%

River Bend: What A Junk Plant’s Power History Looks Like

7/20
95%
 
7/17
91%
 
7/13

What the hell, back to 63%
7/4
Finally 100% 
7/3
80%
 
7/2
80%
 
7/1
84%  
6/30
75% 
6/29
down to 74% over the weekend
6/28
31% 
6/27
50%
 
6/26
still at 94%
6/25
94%
6/24
94%
6/23
94%
6/22
94%
June 19
94%
June 18
93%
June 17
88%
June 16

River Bend is at 90% power and Indian Point 3 is a 0% power. 

June 15
Wow, great progress over the weekend. Now 89% power. At least Grand Gulf didn't trip.  

June 12
71% power 
Update June 11
At 70% power. Gained a whole lot in 24 hours, a tiny 4% power.  
Update June 10 
Well, there is progress. They are at 66%. Grand Gulf is at 77% power. Can't make money this way?
Everyone in Region 1 is at 100% power.
****************************** 

June 9 33% reactor power
  
The started up on June 8 (actually June 7), 24 hours later they are only at 33% power? This means something is highly abnormal. It is shocking just the before scram, RB were at reduced power on May 30 and 31, upon start up they are drastically at reduced power for over 24 hours. This isn't the looks of a professional outfit? 

8 3%

7 0%

6 0%

5 0%

4 0%

3 0%

2 0%

June 1 92%-this is when they scrammed on feed level control problems.

May 31 81%

30 52%

29 100%

Monday, June 08, 2015

Grand Gulf Fire: Another Entergy plant




Power ReactorEvent Number: 51137
Facility: GRAND GULF
Region: 4 State: MS
Unit: [1] [ ] [ ]
RX Type: [1] GE-6
NRC Notified By: RONNIE WALTERS
HQ OPS Officer: DAN LIVERMORE
Notification Date: 06/08/2015
Notification Time: 00:45 [ET]
Event Date: 06/08/2015
Event Time: 22:59 [CDT]
Last Update Date: 06/08/2015
Emergency Class: UNUSUAL EVENT
10 CFR Section:
50.72(a) (1) (i) - EMERGENCY DECLARED
Person (Organization):
JACK WHITTEN (R4DO)
WILLIAM GOTT (IRD)
ALLEN HOWE (NRR)

UnitSCRAM CodeRX CRITInitial PWRInitial RX ModeCurrent PWRCurrent RX Mode
1NY92Power Operation92Power Operation
Event Text
FIRE IN PROTECTED AREA LASTING GREATER THAN 15 MINUTES

At 2359 EDT on June 7, 2015, the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station declared a Notice of Unusual Event in accordance with Emergency Action Level HU4 for a fire in the protected area lasting greater than 15 minutes. The fire started in the wiring of a terminal box for Electro Hydraulic Pump C, the running pump located in the turbine building. The running pump was then deenergized by operators and the standby pump started. The site fire brigade responded and extinguished the fire. The emergency was terminated at 0030 on June 8, 2015.

The licensee notified state and local agencies and will inform the NRC Resident Inspector.

Notified R4DO (Whitten), NRR EO (Howe), and IRD (GOTT).

Notified DHS SWO, FEMA Ops Center, NICC Watch Officer, and FEMA NWC and Nuclear SSA via email.

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Employee Sabotage: Knocking Off Line The Waterford Nuclear Plant?

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

LER 2014-006-00: The River Bend Christmas Scram Causing the First Special Inspection

So here is the 2014 Christmas scram that got the first inspection. An event like this happens with the mixture of poor plant maintenance and general incompetence of the employees...poor training across the board.  

Doesn't it raise the hairs in the back of your neck with all degradation of components showing up in one event? 

This is a dangerous plant in many ways...

I believe the first half scram with the turbine control scam over instrumentation problem was basically a  turbine grounding problem throwing electrical spikes at the instrumentation...creating a set of scrams.

I see the problem as in many cases as  intermittent equipment and electrical problems...they really don't have a means to record the event. They are uncertain what caused it...they guess what did it or on a quick and expensive fix...then quickly startup into the next scram.   

Licensee Event Report 50-458 /2014-006-00:Automatic Reactor Scram and Primary Containment Isolation Due to Loss of Power on the Division 2 Reactor Protection System With a Concurrent Division 1 Half-scram On December 25, 2014. at 0836 CST, a reactor scram occurred while the plant was operating at approximately 85 percent power. This event resulted from the loss of power on the Division 2 reactor protection system (RPS) (**JD**) bus, in conjunction with a preexisting half-scram on Division I. The loss of Division 2 RPS power also resulted in a Division 2 containment isolation signal. Approximately four minutes after the scram, reactor water level increased to the Level 8 setpoint, causing the running main feedwater pump (**SJ**) to trip. As reactor water level decreased back through the normal operating range, operators attempted to re-start main feedwater pump "C," but its supply breaker failed to close. Main feedwater pump "A" was subsequently returned to service. As reactor water level decreased to the point at which the startup feedwater regulating valve (FRV) should have opened to establish automatic control, the valve failed to open. Attempts to open it with a manual input signal were unsuccessful, and the "C" main FRVwas put back into service. By that time, reactor water level had decreased slightly below the Level 3 RPS actuation setpoint, resulting in a second scram signal. INVESTIGATION and IMMEDIATE ACTIONS 
The Division I half-scram had been inserted two days prior to the event, in compliance with Technical Specifications, following the failure of an instrumentation channel on the no. 2 main turbine control valve. Teams were formed to investigate the separate significant aspects of the event, as follows: Loss of Division 2 RPS Bus 
Power was lost when the output breaker on the RPS motor-generator (MG) in the Division 2 subsystem tripped. The mostly likely cause of the output breaker trip was an intermittent failure of the MG field flash card due to a degraded capacitor. The capacitor was replaced, and the MG was tested and returned to a standby condition as a backup power supply. The alternate power supply will remain in service carrying the bus until completion of a modification to eliminate the field flash card as a potential source of recurrence of this problem. Misoperation of the Startup FRV The operation of the startup FRV was investigated to determine why it was unresponsive to either the automatic controller or the operator's manual input. Maintenance technicians discovered a failed circuit card in the "manual" side of the valve controller. The ".automatic" function of the controller had operated correctly in the post-scram environment once reactor water level had returned to normal, and this was confirmed again during the troubleshooting. Additionally, Engineering personnel determined that the performance of the valve was consistent with its design criteria. The valve and its control logic are designed for flow control, and not simply for isolation. When the valve receives a gradual "open" signal from the closed position, there is no specific time response requirement. This design feature can allow a delayed response that, in the scram recovery scenario, may be too slow to arrest a significant downward trend in reactor water level. Malfunction of Main Feedwater Pump "C" The failure of main feedwater pump "C" was found to have been was caused by an "over-racked" condition of its supply breaker (that is, the breaker racking mechanism had slightly over-travelled the last time the breaker was returned to service). This caused the limit switches that detect the position of the breaker mechanism within the cabinet to give the control logic circuit a false indication that the breaker was not connected to the bus. Interim instructions have been implemented to have electricians verify the condition of all similar breakers each time they are racked in.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

I Now Know What Is Wrong With The NRC. It's a Alien Invasion Coming.


Posted by Chris Beveridge
June 2, 2015 at 11:25 AM


The central idea of the series is one that’s certainly an interesting one, an approach you don’t see often when it comes to alien invasion shows. At least not ones that are treated seriously when you get down to it. As we see with the prologue here, these aliens are looking for a way to take care of business by working through the children. Not just any children though, but carefully selected ones that will give them the access they need. Seeing the way a young girl is enthralled by an imaginary friend she calls Drill is certainly eerie with how it unfolds, since Harper just views it all as a game and her mother finds it cute. But when it leads to the mother’s death in a creative way, that sets things into motion since the child’s father is the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That elevates things up several notches to be sure among those that investigate such things.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

March 7, 2013: Mike Mulligan's Request For Special Inspection on Pilgrims SRVs Problems

Additionally, during an extent of condition review of historical SRV performance, the review identified on March 13, 2015 that SRV-3A had failed to open in response to three manual actuation demands on February 9, 2013 with reactor pressures of 114, 101, and 98 psig.


I supposed I could have danced around in a sting bikini at the font door of the NRC's main office trying to get them to take action. Maybe that could made them act.

The media is about worthless!!! 

From: Michael Mulligan [mailto:steamshovel2002@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:33 PMTo: newstip~globe.com; NRC Allegation
Subject: 2.206: Pilgrim Nuclear Plant SRVRequest for Emergency Shutdown  
Dear Sir, 
I called this into your hotline by telephone and left a message to a reporter an hour or so ago. This is just a follow-up. I'd like to get Gov Patrick to demand an immediate Pilgrim shutdown and demand a special investigation of these events.  
Mike 
So the below is my 2.206 request to the NRC. You'd do me a favor if the BG calls our region I public relation people...Neil Shaheen. 

March 7, 2013

Bill Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Bochardt,

Request an emergency and for a exigent bases, that the Pilgrim Nuclear plant be immediately shut down. 
Don't tell me just before Nor'easter Nimo struck the Pilgrim plant with a leaking safety relief valve and down at 80%, Entergy was intending to operate that plant with a defective leaking safety relief valve till the next refuel outage? Tell me it ain't so. It certainly looks like with the current leak today they are intending to operate till next month. 
Is the game plan today to incrementally increase reactor power from 94% by 1% to see if a new SRV leak is getting worse? 
Timeline: 
1) New three stage safety relief valves installed in the plant around May 2011. 
2) First leak and shut down on Dec, 26. 2011 (SRV RV-203-3D). 
3) Second leak and shut down on Jan 20, 2013 (SRV RV-203-3B).  
4) Third leak occurred a few weeks later and the Nemo blizzard tripped the plant.. .the NRC promised these valves would be fixed. (SRV RV-203-3B). 
5) Basically they operated for 20 days at 100% power operation post shutdown, then reported on Feb 27 the plant is operating at 94% power with no explained reason until today. The reason for the down power was kept secret from the public.
(NRC added: EDO -- G20130174)  
Don't forget the repetitive nature of the recently broken scram discharge volume vent and drain valves...implies Entergy is incapable of maintaining safety components in a nuclear plant.  
The repeated nature of the failure of the safety relief valves means Entergy doesn't know the mechanism of the failure.. .it is a common mode failure. The design and manufacture of these valves
They changed out the not safe 3 stage SRV valves  for new 2 stage SRVs after Juno...the NE+RC forced their hands  
are defective and it is extremely unsafe to operate in a nuclear plant with all safety relief valves being INOP. A condition adverse to quality...  
The NRC should have made a public comment about the new leaking safety relief when they first became aware of the leak. The implication is the agency was going to allow the plant to operate with unsafe SRVs until the refueling outage next month. The NRC is involved in a serious cover-up of an extremely unsafe operation in a nuclear power.  
1) Request an immediate shutdown the Pilgrim Plant.  
2) The is the second time I requested a special NRC inspection concerning the defective SRV valves.  
3) Not allowing the plant to restart Pilgrim until they fully understand the past failure mechanisms of the four bad new three stage safety relief valves.  
4) Request the OIG investigate this cover-up to keep an unsafe nuclear plant at power. 
References:
The Popperville Town Hall (my blog) 

"Pilgrim's Safety Relief Valve Leaking Boondoggle"

Sincerely,
Michael Mulligan
PO Box 161
Hinsdale, NH 0345116033368320
steamshovel2002@vahoo.com
This is the agency's take directly in the lead up to the Juno's trip. There is a lot more evidence. These guys are picking and choosing what information they think is important to push  out for a organizational agenda.  
May 27, 2015: PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION – NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000293/2015007; AND PRELIMINARY WHITE FINDING
  • The ‘A’ SRV was not planned to be used due to previously identified pilot valve leakage, but was considered by Entergy to be available for use if needed.
The problem with the above in a past LER with pilot valve leakage, they all should know this...the leak can make the relief lift inaccurate without being detectable. It could be so inaccurate if they knew about it, they would have to intermediately shut down to fix it. It illegal to be up at power with a inaccurate SRV valve.  
  • While the ‘C’ SRV satisfactorily stroked during both the setpoint test and additional low pressure (100 psig) actuation test at the testing facility, the inspection revealed notable damage to some internal valve main stage parts. Specifically, the main valve piston had indications of some scoring and the lower piston ring (two rings in total) was seized within the piston ring. The most noteworthy damage was wear (grooves) in the main operating cylinder liner where the operating piston rings rest while the valve is in its closed position.

  • During Entergy’s investigation of the January 27, 2015 partial LOOP event, Entergy staff reviewed plant parameter data associated with historical SRV actuations. During the review, Entergy staff determined that the ‘A’ SRV similarly did not open during manual actuations on February 9, 2013, during a plant cooldown following a LOOP event. This determination was based on Entergy’s review of the response of reactor pressure, level, local suppression pool temperature, and SRV tailpipe temperature.
I think Entergy was actively not looking for problems with the SRV valves in 2013. They knew the mis-operation and choose not to report it. 

  • Entergy identified that, during the February 9, 2013, event, operators attempted to utilize the ‘A’ SRV to reduce reactor pressure on three occasions (at 114 psig, 101 psig, and at 98 psig). The operators observed that the ‘A’ SRV did not yield the appropriate tailpipe acoustic monitor response, although tailpipe temperature did show an increase. Following the third opening without observing the appropriate acoustic monitor response, operators only utilized the ‘C’ and ‘D’ SRVs for plant cooldown [note that the operators considered that the ‘B’ SRV was less desirable to use due to previously-observed pilot valve leakage]. 

  • The only action that resulted from CR-PNP-2013-00825 was the replacement of components associated with the ‘A’ SRV’s acoustic monitor. Maintenance workers identified an electrical ground on the system. Analysis. Entergy’s failure to identify, evaluate, and correct the condition of the ‘A’ SRV’s failure to open upon manual actuation during a plant cooldown on February 9, 2013, was a performance deficiency. In addition, the failure to take actions to preclude repetition resulted in the ‘C’ SRV failing to open due to a similar cause following the January 27, 2015 LOOP event.
2015-002-00: On March 12, 2015, after further engineering evaluation of performance of the valves and internal conditions identified during inspection, SRV-3A and SRV-3C were determined to have been inoperable for an indeterminate period during the last operating cycle. SRV-3C was determined to be inoperable based on its on-demand performance at low reactor pressures (first

Licensee Event Report (LER).2013-002-00, "SRV-3B Safety Relief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage and Setpoint Drift" was submitted on March 31, 2013 (Reference 1), with a target schedule of September 30, 2013 to submit a Supplement to the LER, after completing
the root cause analysis. Since then the vendor (Target Rock) has issued a 10 CFR Part 21 Notification, (Reference 2)confirming defects in safety relief valve bellows.

2013 - 002 - 01 On February 3, 2013, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve leakage was identified while at full power. Reactor power was lowered to 80% and at 1000 psig pressure, the pilot was reseated. An Operability Determination with a compensatory measure was implemented to maintain the reactor power at 80% and reactor pressure at 1000 psig. An Operations Decision Making Issue (ODMI) was implemented to monitor and take corrective actions. During the forced outage on February 8, 2013, caused by a loss of offsite power due to a major winter storm, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve was replaced with a new pilot valve and the plant was returned to power operation. The cause of the pilot leakage was determined to be a combination of the natural frequency issue and weakening of the pilot bellows spring. This bellows spring had a through wall failure during testing at an offsite test facility in March 2013. This failure was the subject of a Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 (Reference 1).The removed RV-203-3B pilot valve was sent to Wyle Laboratory for testing. 
As-found test results for the SRV, RV 203-3B pilot valve were: 
Pilot S/N SRV Position As-Found Deviation 23 RV-203-3B 1112 psig (-)3.8% Technical Specification 3.6.D.1 requires the as-found setpoint to be within 1155±34.6 psig (1120.4 psig to 1189.6 psig). The as-found setpoint was less than the minimum pressure specification required by TS 3.6.D.1. This test result was entered into the corrective action program as a separate event, and is included in this LER since the condition was discovered within 60 days from the initial discovery of pilot leakage. Accordingly, this as-found value being out of Technical Specification setpoint is reported in this LER pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).
Licensee Event Report 2013-002-01, SRV-3B SafetyRelief Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Leakage and Setpoint Drift
1/20/2013
  • This condition potentially applies to all four three
The design is defective creating the damaged components. There was no way to reliability to observe or predict the degradation mechanism. They were unfit for reactor operation...they were inop from new installation and onto the Juno plant trip.

The 3 stage SRVs defective and unsafe...post last outage they were all removed. 


Lets say the main spring was so severely damaged it would fail in three cycles. It would get through all the testing, then have two cycles before failing. It would pass all test, but sitting right on the precipice of failure. Is that fully operational or inoperationl? Does getting past all the pre-operational testing mean it is operational despite the actual materiel condition of the components inside the valve. 


I am certain there would be many other problems documented in secret plant documents than this.    

stage SRVs that were installed in RFO 18. During Cycle 19 operation, Pilgrim has observed leakage from RV-203-3B, 3C, and 3D.
  • On May 18, 2011 and November 25, 2011, SRV RV 203-3C second stage pilot valve minor leakage was observed. This condition did not cause inoperability of the valve. SRV RV-203-3C was replaced during the December 26, 2011 shutdown.
  • On December 26, 2011, SRV, RV-203-3D first stage pilot valve experienced leakage that exceeded the operability criteria while operating at full power. The plant was shut down as required by TS 3.6.D.2, RV 203-3C and 3D were repaired and the plant returned to full power operation. The cause of the pilot leakage was later determined to be a combination of the natural frequency issue and weakening of the pilot bellows spring. This bellows spring had a through wall failure during testing at an offsite test facility in March 2013. This failure was the subject of a Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 (Reference 1).
  • On January 20, 2013, Pilgrim experienced the event described in this Licensee Event Report, first stage pilot valve leakage of SRV, RV-203-3B. The plant was shutdown as required by TS 3.6.D.2. The pilot valve was replaced with a refurbished pilot and the plant was returned to full power operation.
  • On February 3, 2013, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve leakage was identified while at full power. Reactor power was lowered to 80% and at 1000 psig pressure, the pilot was reseated. An Operability Determination with a compensatory measure was implemented to maintain the reactor power at 80% and reactor pressure at 1000 psig. An Operations Decision Making Issue (ODMI) was implemented to monitor and take corrective actions. During the forced outage on February 8, 2013, caused by a loss of offsite power due to a major winter storm, RV-203-3B first stage pilot valve was replaced with a new pilot valve and the plant was returned to power operation. The cause of the pilot leakage was determined to be a combination of the natural frequency issue and weakening of the pilot bellows spring. This bellows spring had a through wall failure during testing at an offsite test facility in March 2013. This failure was the subject of a Target Rock 10 CFR, Part 21 (Reference 1).
The removed RV-203-3B pilot valve was sent to Wyle Laboratory for testing.
As-found test results for the SRV, RV 203-3B pilot valve were: 
Pilot S/N SRV Position As-Found Deviation23 RV-203-3B 1112 psig (-)3.8%
Technical Specification 3.6.D.1 requires the as-found setpoint to be within 1155±34.6 psig (1120.4 psig to 1189.6 psig). The as-found setpoint was less than the minimum pressure specification required by TS 3.6.D.1. This test result was entered into the corrective action program as a separate event, and is included in this LER since the condition was discovered within 60 days from the initial discovery of pilot leakage. Accordingly, this as-found value being out of Technical Specification setpoint is reported in this
  • The third pilot on RV-203-3B began leaking on February 26, 2013. Leakage was controlled by reducing power and pressure per the ODMI. This pilot was replaced during the Spring 2013 RFO. The cause of the pilot leakage was that the pilot assembly had a natural frequency that was close to a resonant frequency of the valve assembly when installed on the PNPS main steam line.