A Old Security $70,000 Special Inspection At RIver Bend finding Decorum Problems

I wonder how these guys are doing today? 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

REGION IV 

EA-14-009 

December 3, 2014 

SUBJECT: CONFIRMATORY ORDER, NOTICE OF VIOLATION, AND CIVIL PENALTY- NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000458/2014407 AND NRC INVESTIGATION 

REPORT 4-2012-022- RIVER BEND STATION 

Dear Mr. Olson: 

The enclosed Confirmatory Order is being issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), as a result of a successful Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mediation session. The enclosed commitments were made by Entergy as part of a settlement agreement between Entergy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The settlement agreement concerns an apparent violation of NRC security requirements as discussed in the non-public enclosures to our letter dated July 16, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) ML 14198A338). The apparent violation involved the willful actions of an unidentified security officer which occurred at Entergy's River Bend Station on March 18, 2012. The willful actions of the unidentified security officer caused Entergy to be in violation of Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials." Our letter also informed you that the apparent willful violation was being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy and provided you an opportunity to (1) respond to the apparent violation in writing; (2) request a predecisional enforcement conference (PEC); or (3) request ADR. In response, Entergy requested ADR to resolve differences it had with the NRC concerning the apparent willful violation. An ADR mediation session was held on September 22, 2014, during which a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the preliminary agreement were formulated and are incorporated in the enclosed Confirmatory Order (Enclosure 1 ). 

This Confirmatory Order confirms the commitments made as part of the preliminary settlement agreement. In addition, this order includes a Notice of Violation (NOV) documenting the final significance determination of Apparent Violation 05000458/2014405-01 opened in NRC Inspection Report 05000458/2014405, dated July 16, 2014. The NRC and Entergy

Nobody knows what security officer did the dirty deed? Was it porn? Kinda impugns the integrity of all the security officers when nobody rats on their buddies.  

agree that the actions of an unidentified security officer at River Bend Station, on March 18, 2012, constitute a willful violation of 10 CFR Part 73. However, the NRC and Entergy disagree on the specific aspects of the willful characterization of the violation. At the ADR mediation session, Entergy agreed that a Notice of Violation would be issued. In addition, Entergy agreed to pay a civil penalty of $70,000 as part of the settlement.

Did not identify the individual responsible?  

While the NRC investigation did not identify the individual responsible for the security-related violation, the 01 Region IV Field Office did establish several facts that are germane to the conclusion of the investigation. Details of the security event and the subsequent inspection and investigation are described in Attachment 2 to this Order. Attachment 2 includes Security Related Information (SRI); therefore, it is not publicly available. 

A willful violation on a individual they can't identify?

The NRC determined that as the result of the willful actions of an unidentified individual, Entergy failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 73. 

The NRC and Entergy agree that a willful violation of Title 1 0 Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) Part 73 occurred on March 18, 2012, at River Bend Station. However, the NRC and Entergy disagree on the specific aspects of that willful characterization of the violation. The details regarding these aspects are described in the non-public Attachment.

What does SRI mean?  

Within 3 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will, at each of its nuclear plants, conduct a review of its controls for SRI and communicate to the NRC the results of the review. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will establish new controls and will provide its proposed controls to the NRC for its review… 

I get it now, they didn't know compliance to rules was mandatory?  

Entergy will develop a "commitment to compliance" statement or a similar document highlighting the special responsibilities of nuclear security personnel. This document will explain that nuclear security personnel need to comply with regulations and procedures, and it will describe the potential consequences if compliance does not occur. Within 12 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will require at each of its nuclear plants that nuclear security personnel read and sign the statement (subject to any collective bargaining obligations it may have). Entergy will include the reading and signing of this statement in the initial qualification process of nuclear security personnel.

This secrecy isn't protecting us from terrorism> It's protecting Entergy from accountability. This is undermining our confidence in government using the fear of terrorism as a means to protect a corporate interest. 

The details are described in the non-public Attachment. 

Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will identify those security posts in each of its nuclear plants that should be subject to certain decorum

What is decorum standards?   

standards that will ensure a professional environment in those areas. Once identified, Entergy will establish decorum protocols for those security posts. In addition, within 6 months of the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will provide its proposed decorum protocols to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the proposed decorum protocols within 60 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will implement the decorum protocols within 12 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order. 

Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will ensure that an independent third party

The NRC fears Entergy has a security force safety culture problem? It won't be the first time...Palisades has the same. How does the public know if they will be protected from a terrorism event at River Bend with security culture problem and decorum problems? The terrorist just by reading this NRC document would know this site is the weak link nationwide?  

conducts a safety culture assessment of the Security organization at River Bend Station. The results will be incorporated into Entergy's corrective action program as appropriate. A copy of the completed assessment will be made available for NRC review.

River Bend At Reduce Power Again

23 99%

22 99%

21 94%
 11/19 98%

If this is some rendition of a rod pattern exchange, what a horrible was of money and capacity factor.  

update 11/18

Something is wrong here. A core misload or something? Are they battling wide spread fuel failures? This is occurring much too frequently and its deeply damaging plant capacity factor.

87%

November 10, 2015

SUBJECT:RIVER BEND STATION – NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000458/2015003

River Bend Station began the inspection period with operators performing power ascension activities following a forced maintenance outage until 100 percent reactor thermal power was reached on July 4, 2015. It departed from full power as follows:

• On July 13, 2015, power was reduced to 65 percent for control rod suppression testing. Upon completion, power ascension activities were performed to reach 100 percent power on July 19, 2015.

• On September 4, 2015, power was reduced to 65 percent for control rod sequence exchange and scram time testing. Upon completion, power ascension activities were performed to reach 100 percent power on September 8, 2015.

 

Power remained at essentially 100 percent for the remainder of the inspection period.

Update 11/17

I guess if you are regulated it doesn't matter what your power history is.

June/July 2015 power problems

Maybe averaging 70% for the last three or four days. How can they make money this way?

The last five days power history:

88% 11/17

75%

65%

65%

100%

WSJ:More On Stranded Assets In the Ohio Electric Markets?

Ohio Power Companies, Consumers Spar Over Who Pays for Spare Electricity 

AEP, FirstEnergy proposals for users to bail out unprofitable plants spark critic

Stranded Assets 

By Cassandra Sweet

Nov. 16, 2015 2:12 p.m. ET 

What should electric companies do with money-losing power plants when there is more than enough electricity available to satisfy day-to-day demand?

The answer isn’t to close the unprofitable plants, say two of the nation’s biggest electricity producers, but rather to shift the financial burden to consumers.

American Electric Power Co. AEP 2.09 % and FirstEnergy Corp. say they don’t make enough money selling the power from seven old, coal-fired generating stations and one nuclear plant in their home state of Ohio. They have set off a firestorm of criticism by proposing that consumers and businesses in the state should cover the cost of operating the plants.

The power companies argue they need to keep the surplus production capacity to make sure there is enough electricity when consumption spikes—such as during heat waves and blasts of Arctic cold.

• ELECTRIC UTILITIES: DEREGULATION AND STRANDED COSTS
  
  
  October 1998
  
  
  Stranded costs, the potential losses to electric power utilities as their industry is deregulated, play an important role in the debate about restructuring the industry. Various electricity restructuring bills have been introduced into the House and Senate, but the questions of whether and how to compensate utilities for stranded costs remain a contentious and uncertain factor in the debate about restructuring.

• This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper, prepared at the request of the House Committee on Commerce, provides a primer on the subject of stranded
  costs. It examines the economic implications of compensating utilities for such costs and discusses various actions that states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have taken to address the issue. It also reviews various options for compensation and helps put possible federal actions into context. In accordance with CBO's mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this paper contains no
  recommendations.

But consumer advocates, environmental groups, industry rivals and some of Ohio’s big electricity users, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., WMT 2.57 % don’t buy it, and the staff of the state’s Public Utilities Commission has recommended rejecting the companies’ request. Critics say the proposal could add as much as $600 million a year to customers’ utility bills over 15 years and give AEP and FirstEnergy an unfair competitive advantage.

Ohio regulators are expected to make a decision by March.

The Ohio battle is the latest chapter in a nationwide debate over who should foot the bill for power plants that could provide an extra margin of security during periods of extreme weather. It also shows how newer plants that burn cheap natural gas are reshaping the economics of producing electricity in many markets, putting a squeeze on aging coal and nuclear plants.

That is particularly true in Ohio and roughly a dozen other states where power plants compete against one another to offer the lowest-price electricity to the grid and utilities aren’t locked into buying power from a particular producer. In many other states, power markets are regulated, with producers selling electricity to their customers at prices monitored by regulators.

Columbus-based AEP has shut down two Ohio coal plants and plans to switch to natural gas to generate power. But the company’s older coal units will be necessary for several years to prevent power outages, said Nick Akins, the company’s chief executive.

“You’re looking for state backup to support these units running for a period of time until you can make the transition” he said.

The company, which delivers electricity to households and businesses in the state though its Ohio Power utility unit, wants those customers to pay its share of the costs of operating and upgrading six coal plants it co-owns.

In return, the utility would get AEP’s share of the power from the plants, which it would sell in the wholesale market. That would be a money-losing proposition under current conditions, but AEP says wholesale power prices are

These Electric utilities have constantly and vastly underestimated how the fracking miracle is going to effect their bottom line. They don't have any credibility anymore. In the coming years, it is going to be mind boggling shocking how persistent the low priced natural gas and all indications are the gas is going much more lower and profitable for the drillers. The efficiency of scale.     

bound to rise in the future, and utility customers would recoup the costs.

AEP’s plan would cost its customers $3 billion to $4 billion over the first decade, according to the Sierra Club, which opposes the plan because of concerns about pollution from the coal plants.

If regulators don’t go along, AEP says it might sell its shares in the plant. The company, which owns utilities in 11 states, reported a 5.2% increase in third-quarter profit to $519 million, but its revenue from selling power on the open market fell 7% from a year earlier.

Akron-based FirstEnergy says it would probably have to shut down a large coal plant south of Youngstown and a nuclear plant near Toledo if it can’t get the financial help it is seeking from utility customers.

“We wouldn’t have proposed something like this if they weren’t at some degree of risk,” said Bill Ridmann, a vice president at FirstEnergy.

FirstEnergy’s plan would cost its customers $3 billion over 15 years, according to Bruce Weston, the state Consumers’ Counsel, who represents residential utility customers in regulatory and court proceedings.

Last month, FirstEnergy reported third-quarter profit of $395 million, up 19% from a year earlier, but revenue at its unregulated power-plant business fell 6% to $1.3 billion.

The Ohio Energy Group, which includes large industrial energy users such as  NUE 1.16 % Ford Motor Co. F 0.86 % , support FirstEnergy’s plan, saying customers will benefit in the long term. The group’s lawyer, Michael Kurtz, said it doesn’t support AEP’s proposal because the plan would allow AEP to earn a profit of as much as 16% on investments in the plants, even if they lose money.

Ohio residents currently pay about 12.6 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity, up 3% from a year ago, but slightly below the national average, according to federal data.

Meanwhile, the amount of power generated has slipped 8% this year through August, compared with a year earlier, according to data from the Department of Energy.

Wholesale power prices in Ohio have averaged $46.44 a megawatt-hour this year, down 27% from 2014. But AEP and

Check out how wholesale prices on the NEISO gird have collapsed this summer, while consumers prices have been skyrocketing.  

FirstEnergy predict that prices will jump as early as 2019, allowing their utilities to make money from power sales, profits which they can pass on to customers.

AEP estimates higher prices in the future will bring its Ohio utility about $675 million over the first nine years, plus additional profit through 2050, while FirstEnergy estimates its utility customers will gain $2 billion over 15 years.

My Indian Point Nuclear Plant Problem: Huge Plant Design Flaw

Update 11/16: 

Hey, amazing timing.

Cuomo administration to NRC: Shut down Indian Point
 

By Casey Seiler, Capitol bureau chief

November 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Director of State Operations Jim Malatras on Monday penned a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calling for it to deny Entergy a new license to operate the Indian Point nuclear plant.

 “To be blunt, Entergy’s aging management plan is woefully inadequate,” Malatras wrote, pointing to aging infrastructure and recent “unplanned shutdowns.” Cuomo has long opposed the relicensing of the plant, due to its age as well as the unique security risks associated with its proximity to New York City and its northern suburbs.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks to reporters near the main entrance of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y. on Saturday, May 9, 2015, following a transformer fire. (Craig Ruttle, AP)

“Allowing Entergy to operate these facilities for another 20 years puts the lives of too many New Yorkers at risk and cannot be justified by Entergy’s present plan to address these defects,” Malatras writes.

The NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold an evidentiary hearing this week on Entergy’s application.

Entergy is expected to make the case that Indian Point is both safe and a necessary component of New York’s power supply system.

First published on Nov 15. Republished 

Why does the NRC treat Point Beach diesel generator postulated flooding as the severing of the eight inch fire water fire water piping, while the NRC at Indian Point uses only the piping on the deluge valve small bore automatic drain valve piping. It is similar to the small bore piping with the service water relief. The magnitude of the differences is some 50 grm versus 4300 gpm. 

“Near Street New” The Department of State in New York is attempting to block the relicensing application for the Indian Point generating station 24 miles north of New York City on grounds that it is harmful to the fish habitat of the Hudson River and a threat to the city's population. 

About 17 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the plant. The state says that it would be impossible to evacuate the area in the event of an accident, which is a risk given the seismic fault lines near the plant. 

The state also says this threatens the New Croton Reservoir, a major source of drinking water for millions of people. In addition, the plant kills billions of fish larvae each year, drawing 2.5 million gallons each day for cooling. A major estuary region downstream is affected, the state claims.”

It just might come down to keeping a fire water main pressurized to fight a fire or shutting down the fire main in order to not drive the plant into a station blackout by flooding out the safety 480 volt switchgear room. 

On the far side of the switchgear room is another door. It opens to one of two diesel generators. I think IP 3 has two diesel generators. Surprisingly the next leak in the deluge room threatening the safety switchgear buses, the NRC is allowing Indian Point to open up diesel generator room door such that the flooding switchgear room water drains into the diesel generator sump. Seems it has a larger sump pump.

“The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will hold a hearing next week to gather information on whether Indian Point is ready to handle safety-related challenges for the next 20 years. 

Entergy Corp., which owns and operates the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, is seeking to extend licenses for its two reactors for 20 more years.
The panel's three administrative judges will ask questions to experts representing groups — including the state and Riverkeeper — who have raised safety concerns over license renewals because of Indian Point's aging facilities. 

A similar hearing was held at the same location in the fall of 2012, when the panel listened to concerns over both safety and environment. The upcoming hearing will focus on the remaining safety concerns, according to Diane Screnci, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the panel's parent organization. 

"This is a very important part of the process," Screnci said of the hearing. "The license renewal process has the NRC staff look at whether there are safety issues, whether there are environmental issues that should preclude the issuance of licenses."”

Obviously Indian Point has large defective design problem. Check out how much this design vulnerability eats up precious and limited on shift human capital.    

RidsNrrPMIndianPoint.Resource@nrc.gov   

Nov 14 at 11:14 AM

 

Mr. Pickett,

In Indian Point unit 3, why didn’t the NRC assume the safety switchgear largest postulated internet flood was the preverbal Point Beach 8-inch fire water pipe leak?  Why is Indian Point’s largest postulated fire water delude valve automatic drain valve piping diameter or the largest diameter service water relief valve leak the smallest possible diameter pipe in the systems? The magnitude of these leak differences are tremendous (50 gpm versus 4100 gpm).

It sounds like fraud to me in Indian Point.

Hmm, doesn’t say if the PB 8” fire water pipe is seismic? 

 

Doesn't the probability of an accident in "one in a million years" at Indian Point sound like the pre Fukushima mentality all over Japan before their accident?  

Please place both my e-mails to you on the docket.

Mike Mulligan

Hinsdale, NH

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 – NRC INTEGRATED

INSPECTION REPORT 05000266/2015003; 05000301/2015003

Description: During the inspectors’ review of Prompt Operability Determination (POD) 02044783, “Reduced Available Operator Response Time For DGB Flood,” Revision 1, they found that the licensee had previously identified an error in POD 02044783, Revision 0, which had failed to identify all affected SSCs for a postulated 8-inch fire water pipe leak. The DGB contains predominately Train B emergency power systems; however…

Specifically, when the licensee identified that internal flood sources in the diesel generator building (DGB) were larger than the drain capacity, they failed to identify all affected SSCs.

****To: RidsNrrPMIndianPoint.Resource@nrc.gov

Nov 13 at 11:20 AM

Mr. Pickett,

You and me got back a long way. Them god damn SRVs.  As does Mrs. Rich. The good old VY days.

I talked to Mrs. Rich yesterday about the large service water and fire water pipe being able to knock out the safety switchgear room spoken to in the transformer special inspection. It sounds like both safety bus divs are in the switchgear room. Sarah says the NRC considers a large pipe taking out both safety divs are too improbable to worry about. So this is a threat that can take out both safety buses, as spoken about with the water level getting too high in the switchgear room, it could drive the plant into a SBO.

Personally I think Indian Point and the NRC has been misinterpreting NRC regulations over this for decades. And it is not innocence either. 

The terms we are talking about is not a 50 gpm flood, but a 4100 gpm… 

I basically believe Indian Point is prohibited from having a piping system threatening both divisions of the safety bus. The accident is basically the largest diameter piping gpm, such as the fire water piping and the service water pipe in the vicinity.

Based on the probability of the large pipes breaks that have occurred in the industry with the fire water system and service water piping to date, the failure mechanisms,  the risk calculation of “1 in a million years” is utterly ridiculous.   

“Scenario B, resulted in a change in core damage frequency of low E-8 per reactor year (an increase in 1 in 100 million reactor years).”

The fire water and service water piping needs to be removed from the area or the switchgear room or needs to be water proofed such that a postulated internal or external flooding event never threatens both safety buses at the same time.  

We are all aware of the contentions in this facility. 

Mike Mulligan

Hinsdale, NH

1-603-209-4206

End of Daylight Savings in Brattleboro: Pedestrian Slaughter On Their Roads

Updated 11/16

Honestly, is this the great New York Times newspaper? How can they be such idiots. We are losing minutes of daylight at the greatest rate of the year on a day to day bases. And then we got to the end of daylight saving.

 

If you count back 16 days, what significant event occurred around Nov 1 you idiot. How about the end of daylight savings.

 

In our studies in Brattleboro 2013, we discovered the greatest risk when most of the accidents happened was about from 6 pm to 9 pm. I blame it on our slow adaption to fewer daylight hours and not adequate reflective gear. We didn't have such rates in the morning, many of ours were the elderly. Maybe eye issues or drunk. So the amount of people walking on and near our roads and a high disabled and elderly population walking in that period between 6-9 pm.

Marchers Warn of Safety Crisis Amid Spate of Pedestrian Deaths in New York 

By TATIANA SCHLOSSBERGNOV. 15, 2015

But the staggering number of deaths from traffic collisions in the last 16 days remains.

First posted on Nov 7, 2015 Reposted

***Is this the beginning?

2013:Western Ave Pedestrian deaths

Was it last year on High street and Western ave where they had all those car pedestrian fatalities.

Pedestrian struck by car in Brattleboro Thursday

Posted: Saturday, November 7, 2015 8:00 am

Pedestrian struck by car in Brattleboro Thursday By Matt Nanci Sentinel Staff SentinelSource.com 

BRATTLEBORO — A pedestrian was taken to Brattleboro Memorial Hospital with non life-threatening injuries after being struck by a car Thursday, police said. 

The collision happened at the intersection of Canal and Elm streets, according to a news release from Brattleboro police. 

The driver of the car was found to be unimpaired and is still being investigated, police said. 

Additional information was unavailable from Brattleboro police Friday.

Stupider Than Rocks at Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant (FirstEnergy)

"I am trying to save a company"?

Musical Chairs FirstEnergy's "I am trying to save a company" CEO Chuck Jones is basically saying I think bankruptcy is right around the corner. 

The trajectory the company now is in we end in bankruptcy. 

How can this be good for their nukes?

Is the absolute stupidity with repetitive component failures really insufficient budgets. Is the lack of money making the nuclear plant staff look stupid beyond belief... 

Basically they talked themselves into it's safe to operate a large electric motor with the oil level barely visible in the sightglass. 

There has been repetitive and notable big events at this plant in recent years. These guys are struggling and have gotten behind the eight ball…

Just out how these electric utility CEOs are making millions of dollar in salaries just recklessly jumping into one speculative pipe dream after another. I always thought preparing for deregulation and the resultant budget cutting cause the Davis Besse near disaster. Davis Besse hole in the head came in early 2002. 

Deregulation. Consumer choice. Restructuring. No matter what you call it, the 4.8 million customers of Ohio’s largest electric utilities have been free to pick their power supplier since 2001.

The euphemism of re-regulation here is stranded assets. Going into deregulation they thought it would make the nukes worthless. So they allowed utilities to write off the value of the nuke plant...make the ratepayer pay for their mistakes. You get it, now because natural gas is so cheap, they want to re-regulate. Effectively stranded assets the coal and nuclear plants again. I mean, how many times can they stranded asset a nuclear plant.        

FirstEnergy wants Ohio to end deregulation, return to state-controlled rates

By John Funk, The Plain Dealer

The Plain Dealer
Posted on July 28, 2015 at 5:11 PM, updated July 29, 2015 at 2:27 PM

Sammis is FirstEnergy's last Ohio coal-fired plant and its closing could force the company to build more long-distance transmission lines -- paid for by customers -- to bring power here from Pennsylvania and other states. Associated Press fil

AKRON -- FirstEnergy Corp. wants Ohio to re-regulate the electric utility industry, hoping to end an era the company itself fought for just seven years ago, in which electricity rates were set by wholesale markets without interference from the state.

"I would do it in a heartbeat," said Chuck Jones, CEO since January, in an interview with The Plain Dealer's editorial board. "I think it makes sense. I am trying to save a company."

Jones said FirstEnergy's future is at risk if it cannot convince the state's Public Utilities Commission to force ratepayers to cover the full cost of electricity from two of its huge coal and nuclear plants, even if other sources of electricity, such as natural gas, would be cheaper for consumers.

At the time of the last big battle over deregulation, in 2008, the company seemed likely to prosper because its coal-fired plants were among the cheapest sources of electricity in the state.

Since then, the development of horizontally drilled and hydraulic fractured gas wells has helped push down the price of a thousand cubic feet of natural gas, from more than $10 in the spring of 2008 to about $2.80 today. FirstEnergy's stock price tumbled from a high of more than $82 on June 1, 2008, to $32.80 at the end of trading on Tuesday.

Jones said the company is not currently working with any lawmakers to write a re-regulation bill, but added that the first step toward returning to regulation is for the Public Utilities Commission to approve the company's pending rate case.

That case includes a 15-year power purchase agreement to have FirstEnergy's local distribution companies Ohio Edison, the Illuminating Co. and Toledo Edison buy all of the power generated by the Davis-Besse nuclear plant and the coal-fired H.R. Sammis plant, at whatever it cost to generate.

Those generating costs are currently higher than the wholesale price of power on the grid, where gas-fired power plants are the low-cost producers. The company admits the deal would cost customers money in the first three years but argues that over the 15-year lifetime of the contracts, it would save about $2 billion because natural gas won't remain at today's rock bottom prices.

Critics of the plan, including the Ohio Consumers Counsel and the Northeast Ohio Public Utilities Council, or NOPEC, argue the deal would cost customers an extra $3 billion.

However long-term prices play out, the plan would ensure that the company would not lose money by operating the plants. In filings before the PUCO, the company's experts have argued that without the special power purchase contract the company may be forced to close them.

Sammis is the company's last Ohio coal-fired plant, said Jones, and its closing would force the company to build more long-distance transmission lines -- paid for by customers -- to bring power here from Pennsylvania and other states.

Jones said he has talked to Gov. John Kasich about the company's current situation. "We talked very frankly about the the kind of tenuous position FirstEnergy is in and he asked me four times what can they do to help.

I am trying to save a company.

"My answer four times was it's not your problem. It's my problem. The only thing I will ever ask you for is a fair chance to tell our story, a fair chance to have our case heard. And if we can't do it in a convincing manner, then shame on us.

"I am not asking the state for anything," he said.

But, apart from the rate-settting case, the company did ask for something from the state just a year ago.

It convinced legislators to remove the state mandate, in place since 2009, that forced power companies to help their customers use less power annually by buying energy efficiency technologies, and a parallel rule requiring power companies to sell an increasing percentage of "green power" annually.

Senate Bill 310, which Kasich signed into law in June 2014, froze those mandates for two years while lawmakers decided what to do next.

The chairman of the special committee studying the issue recently said it does not want to permanently freeze the mandates.

Jones said the energy efficiency programs FirstEnergy was forced to put in place were paid for by customers through higher rates, but benefited only those companies and consumers who could afford to buy new energy efficient products -- everything from new production line motors to new home appliances.

He said another way has to be developed to pay for energy efficiency programs, but did not offer any specific plan.

He said FirstEnergy is not opposed to renewable energy but believes that it must be "feathered in" slowly because wind and solar power production is not constant and therefore cannot be counted on.

And building solar arrays on buildings and homes is the least efficient way to add solar, he said.

"If you want solar energy the most efficient way to get solar energy is to have the utility build it for you," he said. "And build it in 200-300-400 megawatt solar farms."

A regulated power company could do that, Jones said, because it could add the costs to its rate base, just as the industry did for the first 85 years of its existence.

Check out how many times they revised the so called safe sight glass oil level until they felt it was at a adequate level to destroy the motor.  

It is actually pretty funny. I wonder how much this motor and outage cost them? Then they are whining to the politicians about they are not making enough money on the grid. 

LER 2015-001-00

The root cause evaluation determined that responses to technical questions were provided without the appropriate technical rigor or validation of assumptions regarding acceptable oil level for the pump motor. This resulted in an incorrect change in the oil level sight glass configuration and continued operation of the motor with the oil level below the vendor recommended minimum level until bearing failure. 

Replacement of the condensate pump motor. (Complete)

November 10, 2015: BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION – INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000334/2015003 AND 05000412/2015003 

Follow-Up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion (71153 – 1 sample)(Closed) Licensee Event Report (LER) 05000334/2015-001-00: Manual Reactor Trip and Automatic Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation Due to Condensate Pump Motor Failure

On April 15, 2015, FENOC manually tripped Unit 1’s reactor

Unit 1 began the inspection period at 100 percent power. On April 15, 2015, operators inserted a manual reactor trip after the ‘A’ condensate pump tripped on overcurrent. Operators returned the plant to 48 percent power with one condensate pump in operation on April 17 and remained at that power until the plant shutdown for 1R23 on April 24.

at 85 percent power following a condensate pump trip. Prior to the trip, the unit was performing an emergent power reduction after the identification of a degrading condition on the ‘A’ condensate pump motor. All control rods fully inserted into the core and the auxiliary feedwater system actuated as designed. The unit was stabilized in Mode 3 with main feedwater in service and auxiliary feedwater secured. 

Introduction. A Green self-revealing finding was identified for FENOC‘s failure to correct a low oil level in the Unit 1 ‘A’ condensate pump lower motor bearing in accordance with NOP-LP-2001, “Corrective Action Program.” Specifically, FENOC failed to execute the work order to add oil to the ‘A’ condensate pump motor and, instead, installed a placard on the oil level sight glass with improper oil level indications. This led to the motor bearing failure, which caused the pump to trip on overcurrent, and required the operators to insert a manual reactor trip.

Description. In November 2013, the Unit 1 ’A’ condensate motor was replaced due to moisture intrusion. During

Water destroyed it in 2013 and they replaced it with a leaking oil defective motor. The old normalization of deviance.  These guys are having shutdowns every time you turn around.

initial oil filling and motor operation, oil leaked around the motor shaft. After contacting the vendor, FENOC determined that the correct oil level was at the bottom of the oil sight glass. During the forced outage in January

Luckily they destroyed the main transformer (preventable and poor quality) in early 2014 in order to set up the destruction of the condensate pump in 2015 through intentionally starving the bearing of oil. It is notable the turbine driven aux main feed pump tripped on mysterious oscillations(LER 2014-002-00) when the main transformer got destroyed. And the TDAFW pump had been unreliable for years over improper symptom diagnosing and poor maintenance.

The idea I can link all these preventable things together is very dangerous. This is a cultural problem. Who owns these guys? Oh man, FirstEnergy stock has been dropping like a stone since 2012. 

***Who in a recent presidential debate accused Ohio governor John Kasich with getting bailed out over the miraculous Marcellus shale natural gas fracking economic development boom. Wasn’t it Donald Trump who posed the insult to the Ohio governor?  They got so much gas being produced in the Marcellus field the transmission pipes are overloaded with gas production…the oil wells can’t produce as much as they want. The Marcellus shale is the most productive oil/gas field in the world. Ohio sits right on top of the field.  You got to wonder if all this cheap natural gas is degrading nuclear safety across industry.

FirstEnergy's stock price high just before our stock market and real estate 2009 collapse was $83. It is a historic collapse of a electric utility stock price. Today they are struggling at maintaining $30 a stare. How much of their nuclear plants are effectively stranded assist?   

2014, the sight glass was replaced with one that has a lower viewing window and a placard was attached with minimum and maximum oil levels. In May 2014, a notification was written to add oil to the motor because oil level in the lower motor bearing had dropped to the minimum level. 

The notification was incorrectly closed to an existing outage work order for the motor. A second notification was written in June 2014 to add oil to the motor which was converted into a work order and assigned a priority in accordance with NOP-WM-1003. Three additional notifications were written in July 2014 to add oil to the motor. In August 2014, CR 2014-13579 was written to identify that motor lower bearing oil level was below minimum. In September 2014, the superintendent of work planning took ownership to resolve the issue identified in the condition report and incorrectly determined that oil should not be added until the oil level reaches the bottom of the sight glass. This was based on the assumption that the original sight glass was installed. The existing work order and notifications were cancelled, and a corrective action was initiated to install a new placard on the sight glass to show a minimum oil level at the bottom of the sight glass.

In February 2015, the old placard was removed and the new placard was installed. On April 15, 2015, the control room received a high temperature alarm on the condensate pump lower motor bearing. Operators reported oil misting, smoke, and high vibrations at the motor. Operations commenced an unplanned power reduction to 85 percent power. The motor tripped on overcurrent, causing operations to insert a manual reactor trip in accordance with their loss of feedwater procedure. 

The inspectors determined that the corrective actions implemented to resolve CR 2014-13579 were not in accordance with NOP-LP-2001. Section 4.2.3 of NOP-LP-2001 states that condition report/correct action owners should ensure that actions are developed to resolve the primary cause identified in the condition report. The corrective action implemented did not resolve the low oil level in the motor. 

Analysis. The inspectors determined that failure to correct the low oil level condition in the ‘A’ condensate pump motor lower bearing in accordance with NOP-LP-2001, was a performance deficiency that was within the capability of FENOC to foresee and correct, and therefore should have been prevented. The performance deficiency was more-than-minor because it was associated with the human performance attribute of the Initiating Events cornerstone, and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of limiting the likelihood of events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown as well as power operations. Specifically, cancelling the work order to add oil to the motor bearing subsequently caused the operators to trip the plant when the condensate pump motor bearing overheated due to oil starvation and the motor tripped on overcurrent. 

In accordance with IMC 0609, Attachment 4, “Initial Characterization of Findings,” issued June 19, 2012, and Exhibit 1 of IMC 0609, Appendix A, “The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power,” issued June 19, 2012, the inspectors determined that this finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because it did not cause a reactor trip and the loss of mitigation equipment.

This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Consistent Process, because FENOC did not seek input from the appropriate work group (engineering) prior to cancelling the work order to add oil to the condensate pump motor [H.13]. 

Enforcement. This finding does not involve enforcement action because no violation of a regulatory requirement was identified. FENOC entered this issue into their corrective action program as condition report 2015-05256. Because this finding did not involve a violation and was of very low safety significance (Green), it is identified as a FIN. (FIN 05000334/2015003-01, Failure to Correct a Low Oil Level in the Condensate Pump Motor)