Saturday, October 17, 2015

Chinese Black Market 2 Stage Safety Relief Valves In Pilgrim Now?

Everyone knows the NRC Blog is a back door method for me to speak to Entergy. So your paragraph is aimed to Entergy too.

Do you think the 2010 3 stage SRVs were "new" valves. Target Rock no longer makes nuclear SRV valves…they haven’t done this for decades. Who even knows where they get repair and replacement parts? This is the world obsolete aged nuclear plants and our times…the manufacturers no longer support their lines or the manufacturer is no longer in business. They reverse engineer these kind or components…we are better reverse engineering than the Chinese now. Worse, companies like target rock blackmail companies like Entergy to get a cut out of reverse engineering because they own the patents with the component. We have big companies who specialize in reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is very dangerous because they don’t keep track of the history of the component or their failure mechanisms. These nuclear junk yard obsolete component vendors and contractors…it is a very lucrative business. Basically for these large manufacturers, the nuclear sector is not sustainable or profitable because no growth and a too small market.

So Pilgrim borrowing the two stage from another plant…this supports the idea of a secret black market in SRVs. Think about it, a plant has a set of standby SRVs, why would they risk a long shutdown if SRV problems show up at their plant. The don’t have enough good SRVs to place in the plant. We think “got SRVs from another plant” is a cover story for we got the 2 stage from the black market nuclear junk yard vendor.

I got a question, why didn't Pilgrim comprehensively refurbish the 2010 2 stage SRVs and have them in their store room just in case? Where did Pilgrim's old 2010 2 stage SRVs go? What plant?

This might all be at the heart of all the SRVs and similar relief valve(PORV) problems in the Industry…components and repair parts not comprehensively supported by a large and reputable USA manufacturer who keeps track of the component failure history. I am a mental freak with my ability to puzzle out an accurate model of these large system (Donald Trump?).

These nuclear component junk dealers and their new or replacement repair parts venders, contractors and specialized businesses…the USA don’t make these small replacement parts anymore. You can call or e-mail over to China the specs on a repair part…they will have the part at your door in a few weeks. They are really hungry for business in china. One wonders the magnitude of this outside the obsolete component business this is? China is notorious with their middleman. The part will be made in a factory…it will go through 5, 10 or even 20 secretive untraceable middlemen before coming to your door.

So I will add your paragraph to the NRC blog. It will be posted on Monday. The value of it is, Entergy and the NRC will see where we are heading. I doubt you will get a straight answer. I am notorious with writing up petitions to the NRC…10 CFR 2.206...they are all waiting for this. If somebody gains new information on this whole deal, if you pass it on to me, I make up a quickie 2.206 and submit it to the NRC. The value of me is I got a long relationship with the NRC, all the companies are watching me, everyone thinks I am highly influential with the agency. As example this spring, on my call, I got two huge NRC special inspection at River Bend nuclear plant. “The Mike Mulligan River Bend special inspections.

Main Steam Safety Relief Valves Buna-N thread seals

***(update) So the  NRC and Entergy says they fixed the actuator with the 400 degree vitol seal material. It is much better material and with a high likelihood of accident survivability. It is much better material than the Buna at first blush. But if they put grade B material in for the actuator seals, what about all the rest materials in the valve and actuator? Please list all the grade B material in the SRVs? They were built as a grade B valve, not a grade A valve.

I am strictly a show me man in nuclear power. I want you to put that valve and actuator on a test stand, mimic the duty of severe accident with 400 degrees. I need a positive repeatable test many times and without leaks.

As far as the SRV problems at Peach Bottom, they seemed to have put in 3 stage SRVs their plants. There has not been any new SRV pressure lift test reportable inaccuracies problem since. They had tons of problems in the setpoint lift test with the 2 stage. Generally it is not required public reporting when a SRV leaks. They might not be using their SRVs like Pilgrim for the cooldowns...thus really not cycling them allowing them to see and report  a failure to operate.       
Forgot-the trajectory of this began as the SRVs actuators seals were first made from asbestos. Asbestos was dangerous and for legal reasons they shifted to silicone seals. Then when they didn’t have a grade A actuator, they went to a grade B actuator with a lower grade seal buna material in it. Then installed 400 degree vitol material. Can you just imagine the fractions of pennies the saved by using the buna.
You can destroy the culture of many people having to play words game here. 
I wonder if the SRVs problems at Peach Bottom continued.  

Originally published on 11/6/12

Now to double check and see if the links work? They are fixed and the last fix of this article happened on Nov 7 at 10:15 am

Right, this grossly rusted picture is from the Vernon Dam emergency power switchyard to Vermont Yankee...we know today the NE Independent System Operator and NRC required them to install a on-site replacement for the dam's capacity with a  4 MW diesel generator before the turn of the year. And VY proposes installing same.

From a nuclear professional, what does this mean?

You notice I submitted my Peach Bottom Petition on Oct 15th and the new Vermont inspection report 2012004 was signed on Oct 31... 

2011008: "During RFO27, Entergy discovered that the SRV Vendor no longer supported the Type-1 SRV actuators which VY had. The vendor recommended replacing the Type 1 actuators with a Type 2 actuator. The Type 1 actuator has silicone thread sealants which are rated up to -390 degrees F while a Type 2 actuator uses BUNA-N polymer which is rated up to 210-250degrees F."
Does this mean only the seal is a type 2, absolutely no. It means the whole actuator is a 225 degree F component. Based on a simpleton nuclear professional assumption, the poor quality at normal temperature and not 400 degree F temperature buna-n critical nuclear safety relief valve should have kicked them into the extent of cause/condition investigation much like the Fort Calhoun recent containment sample valves with 120 degree nitrile elastomers LER (The design temperature limit for the nitrile elastomers used in the valves is 180°F which is acceptable for the normal operating conditions inside Containment of 120°F). Remember the actuator vendor to VY left them out in the blue with no type 1 actuator...I suspect this vendor told all the nuclear plants they supported only type 2 actuator. I am sure the vendor said, tough, or purchase it from somebody else or shutdown. So the VY vendor is: "Parker Hannifin Corporation and dedicated for use in safety class applications by Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation, Target Rock Division."
On the Vermont Yankee SRV actuator LER and within any NRC inspection report on same there is no mention of a "extent of cause/condition investigation" with the SRV seals. This is a fundamental engineering investigatory technique and the missing query indicates fraud and collusion between the NRC and Entergy.    
You see the low standards with how corporation's write License Even Reports... notice Exelon-Peach Bottom  doesn't mention the vendors name on their Safety Relief Valve air actuators seal failure LER. Did Peach Bottom do a "extent of cause/condition" investigation on their dangerous type two 225 degree F SRV valves that should have been qualified for 400 degrees F. Of course not!  This must be collusion and fraud between them all.  

They should have commenced, and the NRC show have demanded....an immediate investigation if other components in the actuator were type 2 components...if these other components couldn't withstand 360 degree heat. That would kicked VY into a Fort Calhoun sample valve air actuator extent of cause/ condition investigation per their Licence Event Report and they would had to declare a 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D). Here is the generic version with Fort Calhoun's air actuator quality problems in containment.   
"This condition is being submitted pursuant to: , Any event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident."
I am certain if the NRC knew there was a certain condition where all SRV's would fail in a design accident, that would force VY to immediately shutdown and then get appropriate quality air actuators. And they would have went hunting throughout the industry for dangerous environmentally unqualified less than 225 degrees F actuators and other similar inviromentally unqualified component.

Just to be clear, this is how the NRC speaks to the Vermont Yankee dangerous 225 degree F qualified buna-n SRV that failed at 180 degrees F normal operating temperatures in June 2, 2011 Inspection Report 2011008 for the last time until today's new inspection report.           
"NRC Inspection Report 05000271/2011002 documents an LER closeout review and two Licensee identified Violations related to inoperability of Main Steam Safety Relief Valves (SRVs) due to degraded thread seals. During the 2010 RFO: the pneumatic actuators for the four SRVs were tested and leakage was identified through the shaft-to piston thread seal that was in excess of the design requirement on two of the four SRVs. Material testing determined that the apparent cause of the degraded thread seal condition was thermal degradation. During RFO27, Entergy discovered that the SRV Vendor no longer supported the Type-1 SRV actuators which VY had."
So this is how the NRC explains it today in Vermont Yankee's Inspection Report 2012004 
"During the 2009 refueling outage, Entergy found nitrogen to be leaking from the actuators and determined the actuator stem nut seals were degraded. However, Entergy’s evaluation of the seal incorrectly concluded that the seal material was defective and a new Buna-N seal was installed."
This is Entergy-Vermont Yankee explains it is their revised LER 05000271/2010-002-01.
"During the 2010 refueling outage, the actuators for the four main steam (EIIS=SB) safety relief valves (EIIS=RV)RV-2-71 A, B, C & D, were tested and leakage was identified through the shaft to piston thread seal on three of the four RV actuators."
Is there a difference between "shaft to piston thread seal" and "actuator stem nut seal"...why can't the NRC stay with the same wording they used from the first VY LER and NRC inspection reports.
 
Bottom line after doing a little research, I think the NRC is talking about the same component with the "shaft to piston thread seal" and "actuator stem nuts". I thought it was a completely different new component from yesterday.

But I still think VY should have called a 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) in the beginning of the SRV seal problem. Those valves are a type 2, remember the vendor cheapskated for pennies savings, installing the buna-n seal into containment. I believe there was, and still are, basically fraud and a cover-up, by knowingly installing environmentally unqualified 225 degree F rubber and  plastic parts in the SRV actuators and possible other components. These guys will fail surprisingly fast in any accident that heats up the containment.  
....     
Vermont Yankee Inspection Reports:
2012004 October 31, 2012
2011008 June 2, 2011
2011002 dated April 29, 2010

***Nov 6 2012: I am reposting this...originally posted on April 23, 2011
How this bleeds into the new Pilgrim plant inspection report, it almost looks the NRC and I am working behind the scene...

New Nov 8 
October 31, 2012
Mr. Christopher Wamser
Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Vernon, VT 05354
SUBJECT: VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION – NRC INTEGRATED
INSPECTION REPORT 05000271/2012004

2 Annual Sample: Automatic Depressurization System Actuator Leakage

a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed an in-depth review of Entergy’s apparent cause analyses and corrective actions associated with the issue of actuator stem leakage on valves in the automatic depressurization system (ADS). Specifically, Entergy identified repeat occurrences of leakage around actuator stems during the 2009 and 2011 refueling outages. The inspectors determined whether Entergy had taken appropriate corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the leakage. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed an operability determination performed during the previous operating cycle following the discovery by Entergy that the seal installed on the ADS actuator stems did not meet environmental qualification requirements.

The inspectors interviewed plant personnel and reviewed test procedure results, condition reports, engineering evaluations, root cause analyses, and manufacturer data to assess Entergy’s problem identification, evaluation, and corrective action effectiveness with respect to the ADS actuator leakage. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed the documents to determine if the seal material used on the ADS actuator stems from 2008 to 2011 should be attributed as the root cause of the 2009 and 2011 stem leakage and to verify that the replacement seal material now installed was qualified for the expected environmental conditions. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the TS, the UFSAR, and Vermont Yankee licensing documents to assess adverse impact due to the leakage with respect to design basis requirements. Finally, the inspectors evaluated whether the compensatory actions taken by Entergy following identification of the degraded condition provided reasonable assurance of operation of the ADS system during a design basis event and that Entergy’s conclusion that the system remained operable with the degraded condition was correct.


Findings and Observations
No findings were identified.
Entergy modified the actuator system in 2008. However, in consultation with the manufacturer, Entergy incorrectly concluded that the changes to the actuators were “like for like” replacement of components. Entergy failed to determine that the seal material for the actuator stem nut had been changed from Silicon to Buna-N. This change resulted in the temperature rating of the seal dropping from 400 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 225 degrees F. During the 2009 refueling outage, Entergy found nitrogen to be leaking from the actuators and determined the actuator stem nut seals were degraded. However, Entergy’s evaluation of the seal incorrectly concluded that the seal material was defective and a new Buna-N seal was installed. Entergy performed a subsequent evaluation of the seal material and determined that the material was Buna-N, not defective, and the failure of the material was due to exceeding the thermal rating (225 degrees F) of Buna-N. Following identification that the seal material did not meet environmental conditions, Entergy performed an operability determination which concluded that the ADS system was operable, but degraded. These performance deficiencies were previously evaluated by the NRC in inspection reports 05000271/2011002 and 05000271/2011008.

The ADS system consists of four 3-stage safety relief valves with an actuator attached to the valves so that they can be opened using a nitrogen gas supply. The UFSAR states that nitrogen for the actuation of the valves is stored in accumulators installed in the drywell that are sized to ensure sufficient gas is available for the required number of ADS valve actuations following a design basis accident. This system was credited to respond to design basis accidents and was required to be operable by TS. Additionally, nitrogen bottles were installed outside the drywell to actuate the ADS system following a design basis seismic event. The bottles were sized to allow operators to control reactor pressure using the ADS system for several days following the event. The inspectors determined that this portion of the system had not been evaluated or licensed for design basis accidents other than seismic events.

The inspectors reviewed the evaluations performed by Entergy that assessed past operability of the system prior to the 2011 refueling outage and the operability determination performed during the operating cycle. By crediting the use of the nitrogen bottles, Entergy determined that an adequate nitrogen supply would be available to respond to design basis accidents and events even with the additional loss of inventory from the accumulator stem leakage. Entergy concluded that the ADS system had remained operable because there was adequate nitrogen inventory available. The inspectors questioned whether the bottles and piping would be available for all design basis accidents. In response, Entergy performed an evaluation and concluded the bottle system had been designed to survive the required design basis accidents and would be available. The inspectors reviewed and concurred with the assessment, but noted that the evaluation was not done prior to crediting the system in the 2011 operability determination.

Finally, the inspectors evaluated the corrective action that replaced the Buna-N seal material with Viton®, a flouroelastomer, during the 2011 refueling outage. The inspectors found that this material had the same properties as the previously installed silicon seal,with a temperature rating of 400 degrees F, and met the environmental requirements for the system.

***March 17, 2011

William Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject 2.206: Request a emergency shutdown of Vermont Yankee because the Reactor Oversight Program is ineffective and Entergy has a documented history of a culture of falsification and thumbing their noses at reoccurring violations. It should be noted in this inspection period most of the fleet of Entergy’s plants are on fire and burning in the Gulf of Mexico with numerous NRC inspection findings including Palisades, Grand Gulf, River Bend, Arkansas One and Cooper.

Dear Mr. Borchardt,

In the 1942 movie Casablanca:
Rick Blaine: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Louis Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
Jan 18, 2011: My 2.206 Emergency Shutdown of Vermont Yankee
“The safety culture of the plant is impaired because of information inaccuracies and wide spread acceptance of falsifications.”

“I request Vermont Yankee to be immediately be shut down and that Entergy be prohibited from owning nuclear power plants... because Entergy doesn’t have the integrity to tell the truth about safety and nuclear power plant issues. Money and profits comes before truth telling and full disclosures.”
Inoperability of Main Steam Safety Relief Valves due to Degraded Thread Seals (Licensee Event Report 05000271/2010-002-01)
"During the 2010 refueling outage, the actuators for the four main steam safety relief valves , were tested and leakage was identified through the shaft to piston thread seal on three of the four RV actuators. This leakage, when combined with the RV accumulator leakage, caused two of the four RVs to not meet design actuation requirements. The nitrogen gas is introduced from an accumulator assembly which contains enough gas for two operations at 70% of containment design pressure or approximately five operations at atmospheric pressure...and it is critical for the low pressure core cooling system to work."
These relief valves are the devices used to control pressure in the Fukushima plant meltdowns and they had a terrible time maintaining pressure protection during their accident. They had to operate these valves multiple times and all these valves had is the accumulators and no electricity after the safety batteries wore down. You know that outside nitrogen supply was severed be quickly after the accident.
"The thread seals were manufactured in 2002, supplied to Vermont Yankee (VY) in new style actuators in 2008 and were in service for one operating cycle prior to the test."
They were in there less that 2 years and they don't know if they became dysfunctional within month of heated operation.
"The thread seals in the new style actuators are made of Buna-N material, were manufactured by Parker Hannifin Corporation and dedicated for use in safety class applications by Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation, Target Rock Division. Prior to the upgrade to the new style actuators, the thread seals were made from a silicon material. Material testing determined that the apparent cause of the thread seal condition was thermal degradation. The change to use Buna-N material in the new style seal resulted in reduced thermal margin when considering the potential local heat transfer affects on the seal material. The use of silicone material in the original application provided more margin."
This is atrocious behavior for nuclear safety engineers... they substituted Buna-N material for silicone and they weren’t aware of the properties of the Buna-N material or considered for the heated environment? There must be a testing regime to assure the Buna-N material would survive the heated environment before it was used in the plant....how did that fail? This is a object organizational safety related failure of Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Entergy has construction related QA/QC problem and now it is showing up in the nuclear safety end? It is interesting, the NRC suspects QA/QC problems at the plants and they still allow VY to operate without a all clear signal that it isn't known and corrected. It questions their safety related spare or replacement parts purchase programs...in that they can’t maintain the quality of nuclear grade safety components. It questions, in a widespread manner, if they are substituting inferior replacement parts in all their safety components. How many inferior safety related replacement parts are there in the Vermont Yankee?
This event did potentially affect the ability of the RVs to perform their manual and automatic ADS function since the combined thread seal leakage and accumulator leakage impacted the ability of the RVs to satisfy design actuation requirements. However, due to the redundancy in the ADS design, the availability of the HPCI system and availability of backup nitrogen supplies, the ability to depressurize the reactor was maintained.

VY will replace the Buna-N thread seal material in all four RVs during the 2011 refueling outage with a material that provides more temperature margin. This event did potentially affect the ability of the RVs to perform their manual and automatic ADS function since the combined thread seal leakage and accumulator leakage impacted the ability of the RVs to satisfy design actuation requirements. However, due to the redundancy in the ADS design, the availability of the HPCI system and availability of backup nitrogen supplies, the ability to depressurize the reactor was maintained.
Unbelievable, they knowingly started up with inferior critical nuclear safety parts and they had evidence Buna-N would degrade and fail. I bet you they were gaming uncertainty, we got no proof of the Buna-N has failed yet...so we can start up. I‘ll bet they knew the Buna-N was inappropriate, didn’t have on site the appropriate silicone, so they intentionally started up knowing the part would fail between outages.I bet you they could tell by feel the buna-n was degraded. I’ll bet you the manufacture no longer made this obsolete replacement part. How much sense does it take when the material was in for the first time, it failed, it is common sense it was the new material that bad. Thus is absolutely contemptuous of the design function...that their other systems make this a nothing incidence. They should be thinking this system that can’t stand any unknowns...they should be considering this a last ditch system and assume everything else is broken.

1) This should make you absolutely sickened, they know it’s the wrong material, they knows it fails within the first cycle...and they stuck the same defective material in there knowing the plant won’t meets its Fukushima requirements.

2) Request Vermont Yankee immediately shutdown and they replace there relief valve o ring Buna-N material with silicone. The is the shuttle Challenger accident all over again. Request Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and all Entergy nuclear power plants be immediately shutdown.

3) Request before startup a investigation on “one for one” safety related replacement parts program...and throughout Entergy...one should consider the Entergy QA/QC investigation ongoing. Is the national oversight of safety related replacement parts quality in nuclear power plants adequate?

4) Request a outside the NRC investigation of this NRC behavior for tolerating this atrocious regulatory behavior.

5) Request top Vermont Yankee Management staff be fired and replaced before startup.

6) Request Entergy’s corporate nuclear senior staff be fired and replaced before the restart of the plants.

...7) Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every nuclear plant.

...8) Request a emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of

reforming the ROP.

...9) Request a national NRC oversight panel of outsiders to overseer and report on the agency’s activities. There should be a mixture of professional academic people and capable lay people.

10) There is some heavy duty and exceedingly numerous findings of problems with Entergy plants’ this inspection reporting cycle...do an analysis of why this is occurring.


Sincerely,

Mike Mulligan
Hinsdale, NH
1-603-336-8320
steamshovel2002@yahoo.com

Petition On Peach Bottom, VY And Other Not Named Nuclear Plants

I am just saying with risk perspectives and the current style of maintenance...it was inevitable a plant would startle everyone with three inop SRVs. The trajectory was just leading to this.

Originally published on Oct 13, 2012

Isn't it suspicious as hell, the NRC went through all of the required safety attributes about the new motor in this inspection report except one. Nothing was said about the accident electrical environmental requirements...nothing about could the new motor, its wiring insulation and nitrile elastomers parts survive the worst accident of record. Say around 360 degrees F.

Aug 2 VY Inspection
RHR Shutdown Coolinq Inboard lsolation Valve Motor Maqnesium Rotor ReplacementThe team reviewed modification EC 23301 that replaced the motor for motor operated valve (MOV) V10-18, residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling inboard isolation valve. The seismically qualified and safety-related V10-18 motor is located in the containment structure and is credited to close the valve for primary containment and reactor vessel isolation actuation signals. The modification was initiated becauseEntergy had identified motor degradation during the RF028 refueling outage inspection and determined that motor replacement was required. During RFO29, the motor was replaced with an equivalent motor that was refurbished and certified by a qualified vendor that met the quality assurance program requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,Appendix B.

The team reviewed the modification to verify that the design and licensing bases of the RHR valve had not been degraded by the motor change. The team conducted interviews with the engineering staff and reviewed the design modification package to ensure that the replacement motor had similar electrical characteristics of the previously installed motor. The team verified that the impact of the change was adequately evaluated for power consumption, cable protection, voltage drop, and overload condition protection and short circuit protection requirements. The team also verified that affected plant design drawings and calculations were properly updated. Finally, the team reviewed post maintenance testing to determine if the motor and valve would operate as required and to verify that the replacement motor did not affect the minimum closing rate for the valve as specified in the VY Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
I hope they consider corruption and a regulatory breakdown as a path to SRV failure.

SOARCA Peach Bottom Status report
(2) I am working on the 'white paper' on SRV failure modeling and hope to issue an update to Jason for review this week. They agree that this paper will eventually form the basis for an updated version of Appendix A. They want to 'see' a proposal for precisely how the white paper information will be used to prepare a new Appendix A before writing actually starts. Their primary concerns areas twofold. First, they want to reach
some agreement on which of the sensitivity cases will Be included. For example, they are not too keen on presenting any of the MSL creep rupture cases, since they feel they are very low probability. Second, they want to reach some agreement on how the changes to the original results (i.e., adjustments made in response to peer Review comments) will be incorporated into the document.
So MSLB accident was  re evaluated as worst than the current one was reported on May 2012...but they didn't check if the actual equipment could stand the new accident.

Then down the line they discovered  the nitrile based elastomers in the safety actuators was only qualified for 180 degrees...

The red finding was in and around May 2011...

I suspect Fort Calhoun knew before May 2011 that the elastomers on the actuators were unsafe...and it was nuclear safety fraud. Did I back into some other kind of NRC investigation...was that why the NRC stiff armed me.

Licensee Event Report 2012-009 (July 23rd)
FCS Condition Report (CR) 2011-10129, described a condition where equipment within the 10CFR50.49 (Equipment Qualification Rule) was not analyzed to the conditions defined in FCS calculation FC07054 Rev 1, “Containment Response Study of a Main Steam Line Break with GOTHIC,” and created an unanalyzed condition. This condition was determined to be reportable as an unanalyzed condition which could prevent fulfillment of a safety function. 
During the review of the current analysis of record for Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) inside containment, no analysis or evaluation could be found to address why the original Electrical Environmental Qualification (EEQ) evaluation of peak MSLB conditions remain valid. The current analysis of record in calculation FC07054 Rev 1 establishes that containment temperatures remain above the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) peak temperature for substantially longer (220 seconds versus 60 seconds) but at a lower temperature (347.9 degrees Fahrenheit vs.401 degrees Fahrenheit). The longer dwell time could result in a more adverse impact on environmentally qualified equipment.... 
...This LER reports a condition where equipment within 10 CFR 50.49, Equipment Qualification Rule, was not properly analyzed when the analysis of record was revised. The initial Operations review focused on the current operating conditions, noting that the condition would need to be resolved prior to start up. The station paradigm inappropriately concluded that reportability could be evaluated at a later date since current operating conditions were not challenged, and that the 60-day reporting window commenced when the event was determined to be reportable 
Boy, is that fishy or what, "the 60-day reporting window commenced when the event was determined to be reportable." It could get conveniently lost in their document system, since they had not made a determination it wasn't  reportable yet, the 60 day reporting requirement didn't kick in. 
From: OPA4 Resource <OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov>
To: 'Michael Mulligan' <steamshovel2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: Lara Uselding and Fort Calhoun

Thank you Mr. Mulligan for your email. Again, feel free to email me your technical questions and we can get you the information you need.
Lara Uselding
....Why didn't the NRC enforce containment accident maximum temperature requirements on these components? 
Was the whole actuator unqualified to be in the containment besides these nitrile parts...370 degrees? What are the licensing temperature requirements of these actuators..err, the containment  both on a PWR and BWR?  
What did Fort Calhoun and the manufacturer state as the temperature qualification of these actuators. 
How does a PWR depressurized for RHR...does any of the PWR depressurization associated valves and actuators have nitrile problem? 
Could you explain the offending nitrile components more completely...it is a gasket, o-ring or seal? What is the difference between nitrile, buna or buna-n material? 
How long was this nitrile materials installed in containment in LER 2012-017? I hope this isn't a rather new install in the last few years and then it was discovered. Is it like Vermont Yankee's buna-n SRV actuator seal and type 1 or type II air actuators, like in their LERs and inspection reports 
Who was the manufacturer?
Any more environmentally unqualified components in the Fort Calhoun's containment...how big of a generic issue is this?
I wish you would put an NRC name on the response to me who is responsible for writing the e-mail, not like this one.
Mike

Yea, I am a idiot for not seeing her name... typically their name is in the email address. I don't know why the public relation NRC guys are so special...

...So i sent this out today...

Oct 15, 2012

R. William Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Borchardt,

(Jan 24, 2012) Request an Emergency Peach Bottom nuclear plants 2 and 3 shutdown to replace all safety relief valves pneumatic actuators buna-n seals with nylon seals…or other high quality and durable materials designed and tested for elevated temperature." So this is a renewed requested based on10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) concern.

In other words, I am requesting all SRV seal materials be like vitol. They be able to withstand all containment accident conditions and temperatures (340/370 degrees F) . Not only is the buna-n seal material not qualified for worst accident temperature, but the whole actuator won't meet10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) including wiring insulation or any other buna or nitrile based elastomers (rubber or plastic) gaskets or seal material. Any material that won’t stand up to the accident temperatures or conditions.
Any event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Including wiring insulation and other plastic or rubber like material of the actuator or components.
This is how the September 4, 2012 Petition Board final response answers me:
The PRB determined that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant or to the public health and safety to justify the requested immediate action.
So the NRC is only required to answer immediate safety defects in a  2.206 ...long term safety defects are not the preview of the NRC. And the agency don’t have the decency in the petition process to answer the “not immediate” safety problems me. Come on, is this the USA? And they spin up any definition of “safety” in some computer model that nobody can understand...they diminished all other's concepts of safety that disagrees with the USA's nuclear village. You see this, the NRC on fear of pain with illegal falsification didn't even answer if Peach Bottom could meet all licensing accident bases containment environmental (max temperature-360 degrees F) requirements.

I bet you they had the NRC’s lawyers working on this short response. It is the safety granularity Martha, are they talking about the safety of actuator seals in normal operation mode or the deeper safety of max temperature requirements of extremely important containment core cooling components in a accident. Is completely accurate answers nuclear safety...it public truth and honesty nuclear safety? Do they see these safety defects in the holistic whole and all...or does the agency just choose what segments of safety that favors our USA nuclear village? Is nuclear safety just the protection they feel of not seeing things in whole? The NRC is supposed to be able to write better than that.

 The chances of having this kind of accident is slim, but the worst case would have devastating consequences to out nation. It is unimaginable, a common mode failure of the SRVs and now other air safety actuators outside the safety relief valves....it is across many plants. I guess it just a matter what your definition of safety is. These federal officials are playing word games with safety...they are play footsies with each other under the table and being exclusionary to outsiders.

So the below is a written quote from project manger Mr Hughney. He was decent to me. It is clear I am talking about accident conditions. I been telling everyone, the NRC and Exelon are withholding most of the information from me, severely limiting my participation in a 2.206 proceeding. I know the system is making me running around here 95% blind. The system always intends the agency gets to legally answer me with a "you have insufficient information" even when they know I am completely right.

You notice the agency never answers me with a legal "your issues have absolutely no bases". They infer a weak response of "you have insufficient evidence" or "it has not an immediate safety concern". Whatever that means. I know from history these nuclear plants and the agency, they just might not put the information down on paper or restricting the information from me. Hiding information to the outsiders is in the expressed purpose to not hold themselves up to their own rules and code. To withhold information from a guy like me and prevent me from participating in a fair government process and proceedings. And a guy like me makes the agency and nuclear plant stronger and safer.
From: "Hughey, John"
To: 'Michael Mulligan'
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Peach Bottom 2.206 Petition Request
 
"You expressed that the material facts of the seal (the temperature duration in radiation for example) had not been established through testing. Therefore, the NRC staff could not prove to you that the Buna-N threaded seal material is adequate for accident conditions as well as normal operating conditions. You also expressed that you felt that the NRC staff’s safety determination was merely “throwing engineering language” at you instead of addressing your concerns.”
Japan Utility Agree Nuclear Crisis Was avoidable

For First Time, Tokyo Electric Says it Didn't Implement Some Safety Measures for Fear of Political, Economic Consequences
"There was a worry that if the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan, it would spur anxiety throughout the country and in the community where the plant is sited, and lend momentum to the antinuclear movement,'' Tepco said in a report, explaining what it described as the "underlying reasons'' the company didn't have an adequate plan in case of such accidents.
The below sounds familiar with the unqualified and 200 degree F actuators in the containment, when the need is 360 degree F actuators.
The task force said TEPCO had feared efforts to better protect nuclear facilities from severe accidents such as tsunamis would trigger anti-nuclear sentiment, interfere with operations or increase litigation risks. TEPCO could have mitigated the impact of the accident if it had diversified power and cooling systems by paying closer attention to international standards and recommendations, the statement said.
This is the well trodden path for the nuclear industry with the dummified news organizations. It is called engineering certainty/ uncertainty gaming...they get to selectively choose an issue's apparent report certainty or uncertainty. Oh well, the bad news data for us is unreliable or turn a good news questionable assumption into absolute certainty. This kind of corruption is all over the USA nuclear industry. You know, if  campaign contribution congress dictates it is safe, then everyone is forced to say it is safe.
The report largely repeated findings from previous outside studies of the Fukushima Daiichi accident and its causes. Tepco didn't take further measures to prevent severe accidents after a series of upgrades it made in 2002, the report points out. The company determined that a massive tsunami wouldn't hit the plant, but it didn't have enough data to reliably come to that conclusion, the report said.
The nuclear village was a USA invention....it was imported into Japan by us.
But the admission, an apparent bid to inspire confidence, also seemed to confirm one of the main arguments of the company’s critics: that it refused to recognize and fix problems because it did not want to jeopardize the so-called safety myth that Japan’s nuclear technology was infallible.
I am requesting a 2.206 petition on Peach Bottom and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. I am also requesting a petition at any other plant on any secret but known internally...any component, system or part in a safety system that is not designed or qualified for the accident containment requirements (inside the containment of a nuclear reactor)...like the highest containment temperature or radiation.

Fort Calhoun LER  2012-017 dated 9/24/12:
While performing an extent of condition review associated with the adequacy of air operated equipment inside containment to withstand containment main steam line break (MSLB) and loss of coolant accident (LOCA) temperatures, it was discovered that valves HCV-238 ( Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Loop 1a Charging Line Stop Valve), HCV-239 (RCS Loop 2a Charging Line Stop Valve), and HCV-240 (Pressurizer RC-4 Auxiliary Spray inlet Valve) have nitrile based elastomers for the air filter regulator and actuator and may not be able to withstand Containment MSLB and LOCA temperatures. The design temperature limit for the nitrile elastomers used in the valves is 180°F which is acceptable for the normal operating conditions inside Containment of 120°F. However, during the MSLB and LOCA accident the temperature inside Containment is analyzed to reach 370°F. Since these valves have both open and close functions supported by an air accumulator, failure of the nitrile based elastomers could prevent the valves from fulfilling their intended safety function. 
This condition is being submitted pursuant to: 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D), Any event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Per a conversation with a Peach Bottom resident inspector, he said LOCA containment temperature inside BWR's are expected to reach 340 degrees F. He also said Exelon was going to replace those actuator seals with 400 degrees F material much like Vermont Yankee's has now in PB’s upcoming outage. The inspector said, “I do have a issue with these actuators not being able to perform their safety function in a accident environment of greater than 340 degrees F.” So was the old actuator and seal qualified for 360 degrees and is the new whole actuator qualified for accident environments?
Fort Calhoun LER 2012-017 :  “while performing an extent of condition review associated with the adequacy of air operated equipment inside containment to withstand containment main steam line break (MSLB) and loss of coolant accident (LOCA) temperatures...”
If Exelon-Peach Bottom or Entergy-Vermont Yankee were legitimate  professional engineering nuclear operators,  they would have immediately flipped their  not qualified SRV actuator buna-n seal problem into an “extent  of condition” investigation. I’ll bet you they would have found other actuators not qualified for their containment accident environment in their facilities much like Fort Calhoun. They could have warned all of the industry with these kinds of problems.  
Fort Calhoun LER 2012-017:  “ it was discovered that valves have nitrile based elastomers for the air filter regulator and actuator and may not be able to withstand Containment MSLB and LOCA temperatures...” 
So specially what unqualified components  are they talking about at Fort Calhoun inside the valve(s) actuator “air filter” and “actuator“?  Something like the seals and gasket material. The implications are the unqualified  parts who can’t withstand accident temperatures are much wider than the Peach Bottom and Vermont SRV actuator seals.

Don't forget looking at Fort Calhoun LER 20120-009?

This is from Vermont Yankee Inspection 12011008. This proves VY, Peach Bottom and the NRC knowingly and secretly violated CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D). The actuator should have been qualified to 360 degrees F and this is a obscene violation of postulated accident conditions the plant is suppose to be designed too. This is a Fukushima once the containment cross 200 degrees F. The agency’s professional nuclear engineers knew the actuators would fail really early in high temperature containment accident and they just played dumb like they didn’t understand me. The agency corruptly deferred to the normal operational consideration in the answer to me, when they knew I was terrified about the actuators not meeting the accident maximum temperature operability requirements. Their nuclear engineering professionalism is supposed to be way beyond this. Once they see a 210 degree material they are suppose to flip it into can the actuator survive accident conditions.

I suspect the agency was covering-up widespread nuclear power plant accident quality assurance problems in the industry and large scale inoperable of last ditch nuclear safety air actuators not being able to mitigate the consequences of their most limiting accident. This questions the honesty of all your Fukushima responses and corrective action. Does the agency even know what is important in a postulated severe nuclear accident?
Vermont Inspection Report 2011008
"During RFO27, Entergy discovered that the SRV Vendor no longer supported the Type-1 SRV actuators which VY had. The vendor recommended replacing the Type 1 actuators with a Type 2 actuator. The Type 1 actuator has silicone thread sealants which are rated up to -390 degrees F while a Type 2 actuator uses BUNA-N polymer which is rated up to 210 --250 degrees F."
Functionally, both Vermont Yankee and Peach Bottom have been operating secretly with components in a grossly unsafe "condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident".

I suspect this is a problem with not having the right off the self commercial quality valve air actuator of the right quality...so they accepted a illegal and inferior lesser quality components to continue to operate. As Vermont Yankee said, the contractor jumped them out of the blue with they don’t have the accident quality actuators.

Two hundred and ten degree actuators would fail amazingly fast in an environment expected to reach three hundred and forty degree.....with not excess margin of safety. I don't care if you have a infinite supply of nitrogen...you can't prove to me they will last and operate as expected in the design accident temperature. The agency has no science and engineering studies on these 210 degree actuators  proving the operability of these actuators in extreme radiation or 360 degree temperature environment.

I can hear the agency in the 2.206 process saying next; mike, you have no proof the 210 degree actuator will fail in a expected accident environment of 360 degree F. Or the accident is so extremely improbably, even if we got regulations prohibiting it...it will never be a immediate concern of the agency.

You got to know, if the  actuator seals were only 210 degree F qualified and thermally degrading after a few years as in both VY and Peach Bottom at less than 180 degrees...these guys are going to fail at a really low temperature. I suspect the wiring insulation and other plastic and rubber like materials are only qualified to the 210 degree limit. Who knows what the plants would do in a extreme radiation field and 360 degree temperature. They are not qualified for 360 degrees F like they are supposed to be for public protection. From the opening stages of VY finding thermal degradations in their SRV actuator seals under normal a operational regime, they should have declared a CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) violation and entered tech specs fearing what the hell would they do in a 360 degree F environment or worst.

Not doing the below investigations constituted creating  a cover-up by the NRC and allowing the plants to operate knowingly with unsafe components and inoperable safety functions in my Peach Bottom Jan 24 2012 petition. It begs to ask the question, could you even trust the utility to do a honest RCAR or the NRC to do a honest special or AIT investigation! Who do you trust?
1) Have Peach Bottom do a outside detailed investigation and root cause. 
2) The NRC do a special investigation or equivalent...with contrasting and explaining the similarities and differences between Vermont Yankee and Peach Bottom SRV actuators and seal problems. 
3) Need a generic notice on this? 
4) That Peach Bottom nuclear plant be immediately shutdown. 
5) All safety relief valve seals and actuators be replaced with a design with a sufficient margin of safety before start-up (including accident conditions).
This is an example how the 2.206 process and MD 8.11 procedure facilitates an obscene injustice to a petitioner and the community. It is gross language corruption....it is a cover-up. They can bend around the meaning of words and rules to the whims of the moment for a individual's or groups wants and needs. I guess they wanted to limit the number of  people in the cover-up.
NRC Perform a Special Investigation (or Equivalent) and Explain the Similarities and Differences Between the Vermont Yankee and Peach Bottom Safety Relief valves.
Valve Actuators and Seal Problems In accordance with MD 8.11, this request does not meet the criteria for review because you did not provide sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry and therefore, this request is not accepted for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

With Peach Bottom replacing 210 degree actuator seals and unqualified  activators with 400 degree material per the resident inspector going into actuator, this constitutes a violation of CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) right now. This wording constitute gross professional engineering negligence...it is a enormous cover-up widespread illegal falsification of documents considering all the signatures on paperwork with this in the agency and the utilities.

All these officials had information available and apparent that these plants couldn't meet accident safety functions and should have tripped into tech spec requirements of a shutdown. This constituted all ADS valves were and are inoperable, and a common mode failure. And all these plants' failed to declare a 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) and the NRC failed to enforce its own regulations. It constituted a wide spread industry conspiracy with covering up obscenely not safe nuclear power plants in containment accident conditons like at 360 degrees. Really, this symbolizes as a nation, the NRC  doesn't have the integrity to oversee and regulate the operation of our nuclear power plants.

It has come to may attention there has become widespread discussion within the NRC about the implications of my first Peach Bottom SRV 2.206  according to the resident inspector. I am irked as hell I don't get any credit for this in NRC paperwork. I get it, the agency solely controls the credibility of any outsiders and restricts the credit of raising questions the NRC or the industry did not raise.
This condition is being submitted pursuant to: 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D), Any event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The below is how Michele G. Evans gives me a final 2,206  answer...this constitutes gross engineering professional nuclear safety negligence. She didn't have the courage to answer if the valves met their accident design intent...could they survive and function in the worst accident of record for the containment. I suspected there are many more actuators and other components in the containments throughout the industry who could not meet their accident operability temperature and radiation intent.

You get it, your have to pose a nuclear engineering question in a “never obtainable utterly perfect written or language form”. This gives the NRC the excuse to reject any and all safety problems even if it is legitimate because the agency made a mistake in interpreting a petitioners words. A honest member of the public can never get on the other side of this “never obtainable utterly perfect written or language form“. And these guys never disclose what the perfect form is.
September 4, 2012 -"The PRB denied the request for immediate action because there was no immediate safety concern to the plant. or to the health and safety of the public. The NRC reviewed the licensee's evaluation and actions related to this matter and concluded that the 3-ADS-SRV 71 B degraded seal condition was not caused by improper maintenance practices. Also, trend data did not indicate a potential degradation in that the same seal material had been used at PBAPS Units 2 and 3 for the last 20 years with no other failures. These facts support the conclusion that the failure of the 3-ADS-SRV 71 B threaded seal was not a common mode failure, or an age-related failure. but was isolated to the particular seal installed in November 2010. The inspectors assessed the risk associated with the issue by using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix G, "Shutdown Operations SDP [Significance Determination Process]." The 3-ADS-SRV 71 B is one of the five PBAPS Unit 3 ADS reactor vessel relief valves. In order to perform the ADS system safety function, four of the five ADS SRVs are required to function. The four other ADS SRVs passed the leakage test, and would have been capable of de-pressurizing the reactor pressure vessel for design basis events. Therefore. during the period that the 71B SRV was inoperable, the overall ADS safety function was maintained. The NRC staff's evaluation of this issue has been documented in Inspection Report 05000277/20120003 and 05000278/2012003, dated August 14, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12227 A323)."
I might make the case the industry is playing word games with identifying defects in rubber like material such as buna, buna-n and nitrile.

Per a recent conversation with Mr. Hughey, he was forced to flip this into a official NRC allegation because I was making accusations of NRC official wrongdoing. I have less that zero faith in the integrity of the Allegation process.

As a warning, systemic and long term problems with controlling equipment reliability like this is usually a deep hole for an organization to climb out of. It usually is driven by inadequate resources and budget starvation. The plant people tell upper management the limited budget is being deeply felt on the plant reliability and human level...but it usually takes a set of serious plant accidents and the NRC to break the trance. The deep hole of TVA's  Browns Ferry speaks of "minimalist approach" and Entergy Palisades speaks "putting power production above safety" and "just meeting minimum regulatory intent". We are just waiting for Fort Calhoun’s excuse is.  The system allows these utilities to secretly dig a humongous hole for themselves that takes years to correct.
The inspectors reviewed a list of approximately 6,791 IRs that PBAPS initiated and entered into the CAP action tracking system (Passport) from December 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011.
I can not even begin to tell you how dangerous this is for the agency and the nuclear plants in our nation. Can you believe the agency is “one and a half to two years behind on the adverse equipment reliability trend reports. Usually these internal reports are junks anyways. It no wonder Browns Ferry, Palisades and Fort Calhoun get so far behind the eight ball and are a embarrassment to out nation  Its like trying to drive you car though three sets of rear view mirrors and you are not allowed to drive out of the front windshield. This is what is wrong with the agency...why Entergy-Palisades and TVA-Browns Ferry problems are so intractable. The agency should be reporting in inspection reports on the CAP and CR reports trends on the last quarters.

This is very dangerous territory we are talking about if all the nuclear plants defer to the "minimalist approach", "placing power production over safety" and "just meeting the minimum regulatory intent". You give me access to those CAP reports and trends on a nation wide bases, I will transform the whole nuclear industry into something the nation can trust. After this year's mid west drought for Exelon, I'd put on that list of the  "minimalist approach" to heat sink cooling.

Did I mention about the agency i think the NRC Office of Investigation section is brain dead and effectively powerless to change utility behavior. They are just paper shufflers who don’t change behavior.  I think we got a widespread and long list of events where the agency just hasn’t turned nuclear plant behavior around. They more facilitated bad behavior by paper macheing over problem until they get big like Fort Calhoun, San Onophre, Browns Ferry and Palisades.    

August 14, 2012
EA-12-094

SUBJECT: PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000277/2012003 AND 05000278/2012003, NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 1-2012-011, AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION
The inspectors performed a detailed review of items entered into the CAP to identify trends (either NRC or licensee-identified), and develop insights into PBAPS’s progress in identifying and addressing themes. The inspectors reviewed a list of approximately 6,791 IRs that PBAPS initiated and entered into the CAP action tracking system (Passport) from December 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011. 
The inspectors performed a detailed review of items entered into the CAP to identify trends (either NRC or licensee-identified), and develop insights into PBAPS’s progress in identifying and addressing themes. The inspectors reviewed a list of approximately 6,791 IRs that PBAPS initiated and entered into the CAP action tracking system (Passport) from December 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011. 
PBAPS has identified a continued adverse trend in the area of equipment reliability. During the review period, the inspectors noted that PBAPS has performed six causal investigations related to the area of equipment reliability: 
 An apparent cause analysis was performed under CR 1294916 in response to multiple examples of station management not driving thorough diagnosis and efficient resolution of equipment issues. 
 A common cause analysis was performed under CR 1317314 to evaluate if any equipment reliability programmatic deficiencies exist at the station, in response to 21 equipment apparent cause evaluations between January 1, 2011 and February 2, 2012. 
 An apparent cause evaluation was performed under CR 1345680 to analyze multiple examples of slow management response to resolve degraded equipment issues.
 A root cause analysis was performed under CR 1359373 to analyze weaknesses in the station’s response to and management of degraded equipment issues. 
 A common cause analysis was performed under CR 1361089 to analyze five NRC findings with cross-cutting components in the CAP area, related to degraded equipment or equipment failures, from the second quarter of 2011 through the first quarter of 2012. 
 A common cause analysis was performed under CR 1372563 to investigate emergent clearances written during the first half of 2012 which identified that sixty percent were written as a result of equipment failures. 
Additionally, during the previous semi-annual review period, as documented in NRC Inspection Report 2011-005, Section 4OA2.3, the inspectors identified an adverse trend in the area of equipment reliability.
Of course, fraud, lying, deception and dishonesty...selective truth telling for a agenda of self over national interest...is only what the agency and the political system that supports it says it is.

Request

1) That Peach Bottom one and two be immediately shutdown for safety reasons based on the common mode failure of the SRV activators not being qualified for the licensed accident containment max temperature  and radiation conditions. Basically Peach Bottom-Exelon is not honest enough to be operating any nuclear reactor. Their actuators would fail grossly early in the most limiting accident with their containment substantially below 360 degrees F accident temperatures. I suspect the actuator would fail at 200 degrees F instead of 360 degrees F as required by plant license.  I believe the requirement is components who could survive 360 degrees for the accident time limit plus a margin of safety.. That is why now Peach Bottom are moving to replacing their SRV actuators with buna-n seal materials that would survive 400 degrees F. I don't know if the new actuators are qualified. I don't know per Fort Calhoun actuators if other containment safety actuators or other components are involved.

I believe unit 2 has just through a outage and 3 has yet to have on...but who the hell knows what is going on with their actuators....

2) That Vermont Yankee-Entergy be fined $10 million dollar for not declaring a 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) on their SRV actuators....they did not warn the other  plants of these problems.

3) Request a Department of Justice/ FBI investigation of these events. The agency NRC Enforcement cronies and OIG just blew by this.

4) An investigation nationwide with equipment and components not being accident qualified in any nuclear plant containment especially max temperatures and radiation...they should  be shutdown immediately to acquire and install the appropriates grade of nuclear accident safety equipment. Is the wiring insulation or any of the rubber like material (buna and nitrile)qualified for 360 degree F  or the extreme radiation environments?
 
5) Request the formation of a local public oversight panel around every plant.

6) A emergency NRC senior official oversight panel with the aims of reforming the ROP.

7) A national NRC oversight panel of outsiders to oversee and report on the agency’s activities. There should be a mixture of professional academic people and capable lay people.

8) Request massive reforms within the 2.206 system and their directives. This system doesn't serve the public and their communities...it serves the agency and protecting the nuclear village industry. This doesn’t make our nation greater, it demeans a great nation like ours. It is at the root with why there is no growth in the industry and most of their plants have grown obsolete.  

9) I request a $10 million dollar fine to Peach Bottom, because even with prompting, they failed to submit and comply with 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D).



Sincerely,

Mike Mulligan
Hinsdale, NH
16033368320

Friday, October 16, 2015

Does This Mean Fitz is A Goner?


Entergy (ETR) Sees Q3 Impairments of ~$1.6B from Two Nuclear Power Facilities

Entergy (NYSE: ETR) is currently in the process of preparing financial statements for third quarter 2015 financial reporting. In connection with preparation of such financial statements, the Company has concluded that in the Company’s third quarter results, the Company will report non-cash asset impairments for its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and its James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant totaling approximately $1.6 billion on a pre-tax basis and approximately $1.1 billion after-tax. These impairments will be classified as a special item, and therefore, excluded from operational results.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, long-lived assets are typically accounted for on a historical cost basis unless a triggering event occurs which requires an impairment evaluation. Both plants experienced a triggering event in the third quarter. Applying the accounting rules after these events led to the impairments and related charges. The resulting charges, per share, by plant, are summarized below.

 

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

These are the 2 stage SRVs that replaced Pilgrim's 3 stage SRVs…they would be the same size 2 stage as Pilgrim? I doubt anyone is happy staying with the 2 stage?

***I would say Hope Creek's SRVs are identical to Pilgrim.
While we have yet to determine if a specific defect exists, the following plants were supplied 0867F MS-SRVs:


- Pilgrim (Model 09J-001) Quantity Shipped = 8


- Fitzpatrick (Model 09H-001) Quantity Shipped = 4, Quantity on order= 8


- Hatch 1 and 2 (Model 09G-001) Quantity Shipped= 24, Quantity on order= 12


The following plants will be supplied 0867F MS-SRVs:


- Hope Creek (Models 14J-001, 14J-002) Quantity on order = 7

I hear rumor the borrowed Pilgrim 2 stage SRV valves come from Hope Creeks. Would it make a difference if they came from Hope Creek?  

Originally posted on 9/3 

Update 9/3, 2015
***Until recently there has been very little srv setpoint testing failures at Hope Creek. The last three operating periods sit outside the normal. The first two operating period consist of three or four SRV setpoint testing failures, while the last setpoint testing failures has 10 failed SRVs. Why are the failures skyrocketing? What has changed to cause this.    

You can't do a SRV lift setpoints accuracy test up at power. You have to shutdown to test these valve. If one of Pilgrims SRV valves was known to be outside their plus or minus 3% tech spec limit, they would be required to shutdown within 24 hours.

This exact problem with repeated two stage Target Rock inaccuracy setpoint testing problems at Hope Creek...the ones in the Pilgrim plant now... is the reason why Pilgrim dumped their two stage SRV valves and jumped into their defective three stage SRVs valves.
You get it, Target Rock hasn't made nuclear plant grade two or three stage safety relief valves for many decades. They are out of manufactor for decades. Currently the whole USA nuclear fleet (BWRs) gets their reliefs from canceled or decommissioning plant junk yards.

Current one of the Hatch plants is trying to get out of the unreliable Target Rock two stage SRV valves. They installed three Target Rock three stage relief valves in their plant in anticipating shifting all of their 12 Two stage reliefs into three stage. They are testing the reliability of the three stage reliefs. The issue of unreliable three stage relief  at Pilgrim had delay shifting over to all three stage reliefs in the Hatch nuclear plants.
***There is a fix to corrosion bonding or welding on inaccurate setpoint testing with the safety relief valves. You open and shut them once for a bi monthly or monthly bases during the operating period. The problem of this is duty of monthly testing is really the two or three stage Safety Relief Valves are too delicate for installation in these nuclear plants. They are a obsolete technology. They would quickly start to leak much like Pilgrim and then leakage would drive the valves into breaking and not operating when called upon. These utilities would begin to lie to stay up power with leaking valves saying they will definitely operative...then they won't. Then you got regulatory issues like Pilgrim today. As for today, we make believe this valves are operational when they are not. Lying, cheating and not telling the whole truth has a high probability of damaging the whole safety culture in a nuclear plant.***

***We really need a new bullet proof design for safety relief valves. We could beat the hell out of these valves without them degrading and not passing setpoint testing for many years. We can keep these valves in the plant for many operating cycles without excessive burdens with testing and maintenance.***
LER: As-Found Values for Safety Relief Valve Lift Set Points Exceed Technical Specification Allowable Limit


On June 2, 2015, Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) received initial results of the 'as-found' setpoint testing for the safety relief valve (SRV) pilot stage assemblies. The initial results indicated that three SRV pilot stage assemblies had exceeded the lift settings prescribed in Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.2.1. The TS requires the SRV lift settings to be within +/- 3% of the nominal setpoint value. During the nineteenth refueling outage (H1R19), all fourteen SRV pilot stage assemblies were removed for testing at an offsite facility. Between June 2 and June 1 O, 2015, HCGS received the test results for the remainder of the SRV pilot valve assemblies. A total of ten of the fourteen SRV pilot stage assemblies experienced setpoint drift outside of the TS 3.4.2.1 specified values. All of the valves failing to meet the limits were Target Rock Model 7567F two-stage SRVs. This is a condition reportable under 1 O CFR 50. 73{a)(2)(i)(B) as an Operation or Condition Prohibited by Technical Specifications.

The cause of the setpoint drift for the ten SRV pilot stage assemblies is attributed to corrosion bonding between the pilot disc and seating surfaces, which is consistent with industry experience. This conclusion is based on previous cause evaluations and the repetitive nature of this condition at HCGS and within the BWR industry.

Technical evaluations performed to assess the aggregate safety significance of ten SRVs with out of tolerance initial lift setpoints concluded that this condition had no safety significance.

DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRRENCE

During the nineteenth refueling outage (H1R19) at Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), all 14 Main Steam Safety Relief Valves (SRV) pilot stage assemblies {SB/RV} were removed and tested at NWS Technologies. The SRVs are Target Rock Model 7567F two-stage SRVs. During the period from June 2, 2015 through June 10. 2015, HCGS received the results of the 'as-found' set pressure testing required by Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.4.2.2. A total of ten of the 14 SRV pilot stage assemblies had setpoint drift outside of the required

TS 3.4.2.1 tolerance values of +/-3% of nominal value. The 'as-found' test results for the ten SRVs not meeting the TS requirements are as follows:

Valve ID As Found TS Lift Setting Acceptable Band % Difference

(psig) (psig) (psig) Actual

F013C 1216 1130 1096.1 -1163.9 7.61%

F013F 1240 1108 1074.8 -1141.2 11.90%

F013G 1208 1120 1086.4 - 1153.6 7.86%

F013H 1148 1108 1074.8-1141.2 3.60%

F013J 1161 1120 1086.4 -1153.6 3.66%

F013K 1161 1108 107 4.8 -1141.2 4.80%

F013 L 1165 1120 1086.4 -1153.6 4.00%

F013 M 1207 1108 1074.8 -1141.2 8.90%

F013P 1221 1120 1086.4 -1153.6 9.00%

F013R 1169 1120 1086.4 -1153.6 4.38%

CAUSE OF EVENT

The cause of the setpoint drift for the ten SRV pilot stage assemblies is attributed to corrosion bonding between the pilot disc and seating surfaces, which is consistent with industry experience. This conclusion is based on previous cause evaluations and the repetitive nature of this condition at HCGS and within the BWR industry.