Incident Chronology of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 2005-2008

Submitted by webEditor on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 21:43

A chronology of events and incidents at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Berwick, Pa.

Jan. 20, 2005

Susquehanna set plant record by generating 18-million MWH

Susquehanna’s two units generated a record combined output of 18.03-million megawatt-hours (MWH) last year, besting 2003’s output of 18-million MWH, PPL Corp. said this week.

Susquehanna-2 also set a site generation record, producing 10.03-million MWH, said PPL spokeswoman Constance Walker. The old record for unit 2 was 9.347-million MWH in 2000, Walker said.

Unit 1 generated 8-million MWH, short of its 2001 record of 9.413-million MWH, Walker said.

PPL said one factor in the record station generation was the installation of new turbines on unit 1 during its spring refueling outage ast year. Unit 2 received a similar upgrade in 2003.

Both units are operated by PPL subsidiary PPL Susquehanna. Unit 1 is a 1,142-MW BWR; unit 2 is a 1,147-MW BWR.

—Report by Daniel Horner

Feb. 11, 2005

Nuclear plant guard rule could be year away

TMI watchdog group decries 'glacier' pace

The Harrisburg-based nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert has been waiting since Sept. 12, 2001, for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide whether nuclear plant owners must post armed guards at their front gates.

TMIA will have to wait another year for its answer, according to an NRC memo released to Wednesday. The memo outlines a schedule the NRC plans to follow as it considers rule changes for security at the nation's 63 nuclear power stations.

The memo, from Luis A. Reyes, executive director for operations, anticipates that recommendations that could mandate guards at plant entrances will be presented to the commissioners next February.

If the NRC adheres to the schedule, the recommendation would come nearly five years after TMIA petitioned the agency for the change.

A statement issued by the watchdog group yesterday called the NRC's failure to act on its request irresponsible and unreasonable. "For nearly four and a half years the NRC has misled [TMIA] about its deliberations on the petition," the statement said. "When requesting status updates, the NRC perpetually stated that a decision on the petition would be made within three to six months."

TMIA asked the NRC to require plant operators to keep at least one armed guard at each plant entrance. The petition, which was drafted weeks before the terror attacks of 9/11, argued that the guards would serve as a physical and visual deterrent against attacks.

Since 9/11, the NRC has issued security requirements aimed at making the plants less vulnerable to attack. Changes include the addition of guard towers, truck barriers, deeper background checks and high-tech fencing. Most, if not all, plant owners post guards at their front gates.

For months after the terror attacks, Pennsylvania was among several states to assigned National Guard troops to the plants. NRC officials have denied allegations of foot dragging. Petitions such as TMIA's, which require rule changes, take a long time to complete, officials said.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents plant owners and operators, opposes the petition. It told the NRC that guards should be posted only when the level of security threat makes it prudent.

On July 29, 2005, the NRC a issued White Violation relating to another staffing deficiency at Three Mile Island where “approximately 50% of the emergency responders,” including “key responders” were “overdue” for their annual training for “an approximate five month period. (Please refer to Thursday, July 14, 2005, for background material).

-Report by Garry Lenton of the Patriot-News

March 4, 2005

'Unusual event' declared. No fire found and no one is hurt

Smoke at PPL Corp.'s Susquehanna nuclear power plant led to a

low-level emergency declaration on Friday afternoon.

Crews detected smoke in a construction area at one of the Luzerne

County facility's two nuclear units. The unit was out of service

for refueling.

As a result, an ''unusual event'' was declared for about 55

minutes.

An unusual event is the lowest of the four emergency classifications established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear power plants. ''Our plant fire brigade responded and no fire was found. The

smoke has stopped,'' said Joe Scopelliti, spokesman for the Susquehanna plant. ''There were no injuries. We are investigating the cause. No action by the general public was required.''

Unit 2 had been shut down since Feb. 26 for a refueling and inspection outage.

The smoke was detected at 2:57 p.m. in a construction area near a

moisture separator, which is used to ''dry'' the steam heading for the turbines.

-By Sam Kennedy of The Morning Call

March 6, 2005

Post-accident monitoring instrument inoperable

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station informed the NRC today by fax that: "At (3 p.m.) on March 6, 2005, the Control Room declared both required divisions for three functions (Primary Containment Pressure, Primary Containment Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer, and Drywell Atmosphere Temperature) of Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation (a Safety System) inoperable. The control room was notified of 'Non Quality' (non-Q) parts installed in both required divisions of a Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Recorder. The appropriate LCO Conditions were entered for one or more functions with two required channels inoperable. This equipment has passed all surveillance requirements and has been functional since installation," the statement said.

"Plans are being developed to replace the non-qualified parts.

"This is being reported as an event or condition that could have prevented fulfillment of a safety function required to mitigate the consequences of an accident in accordance with 10CFR50.72(b)(3)(v)(D)."

The NRC Resident Inspector was notified.

April 12, 2005:

Berwick plant shut down

“PPL Corp. officials shut down the Unit 2 reactor at Susquehanna

nuclear power plant in Luzerne County Sunday to repair a battery

charger that is part of the site's electrical system. The plant's Unit 1 reactor continued to operate at 100 percent power.”

“Allegheny Electric Cooperative and PPL Susquehanna jointly own the two-unit nuclear power plant, which has a 2,352-megawatt generating capacity.

-Report by the York Daily Record

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Nuclear reactor restarted

“Operators safely restarted the Unit 2 reactor at the Susquehanna

nuclear power plant in Berwick Wednesday after completing electrical repairs to the unit's battery chargers. The battery chargers are part of the plant's electrical system and are located in a non-nuclear area of the plant.”

“On Sunday, plant workers had discovered one of the unit's four chargers was not working properly. Because crews could not repair the electrical problem and conduct a thorough investigation of the Unit 2 direct current electrical system within a specified time period, they manually shut down the unit

as called for in plant procedures.”

Susquehanna-2 was out of service this week as plant personnel repaired a battery charger and checked similar components in the 1,147-MW BWR, operator PPL Susquehanna said.

An “expert team” determined that two embrittled wires near a resistor came into contact with each other, creating a short circuit that caused three fuses in the charger to fail April 10, PPL spokesman Lou Ramos said. The charger provides a back-up power source for pump breakers, isolation valves, and other components, he said.

PPL found three similar chargers elsewhere in the reactor and now has configured them to make sure they won’t have the same problem, he said. When PPL has collected and analyzed information from the repair and inspection, the company “probably will put something out to industry,” as other plants probably have similar battery chargers, he said.

- Report from Nucleonics Week / Volume 7/ Issue 15 / April 14, 2005 and the York Daily Record

April 29, 2005

Troubled Reactor Shutdown Again Due to Electric Problems*

On Thursday, April 28 at 7:19 a.m. , PPL shut down the Unit 2

nuclear reactor for the second time in a month due a malfunction with a

plant electrical transformer.

The main transformer is a non-nuclear component of the plant

that increases the voltage of the electricity for distribution on the electrical

transmission network. The malfunction appears to be related to the cooling

system for the transformer.

Unit-2 was still shut down on April 29.

April 30, 2005

PPL Susquehanna Restarts Unit 2 Reactor

Operators reported safely restarting the Unit 2 reactor at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant and reconnecting to the electrical transmission network Saturday, April 30 after repairing the cooling system on the unit's main transformer.

A worn motor for one of the transformer's cooling system fans caused the unit to be shut down Thursday morning, plant officials reported.

-Report by Marlene Lang

June 6, 2005

Third forced closure since April 14, 2005

Unit 2 of PPL's Susquehanna nuclear power plant shut down automatically at 12:33 p.m. Monday, June 6 because of a problem with the electric transmission network.

-PRNewswire report

June 11, 2005

Unit 2 at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant resumed generating electricity Saturday June 11.

The unit shut down automatically five days earlier after an electrical generator component - a voltage regulator - failed. Plant crews have replaced the regulator and have completed thorough inspections to ensure that the unit's electrical systems are operating properly.

-PRNewswire report

July 25, 2005

PPL Pa. Susquehanna 1 nuke dips to 73 pct power

PPL Corp.'s 1,140-megawatt Unit 1 reactor at the Susquehanna nuclear power station in Pennsylvania dipped to 73 percent of capacity by early Monday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report.

On Friday, the unit was operating at full power.

Power was reduced throughout the weekend to replace feed water valves. PPL began a return to full power on

-Report by Rueters

Sept. 27, 2005

GE receives contract to increase output of PPL nuclear units

A General Electric Co. subsidiary said Sept. 22 that it won a $10 million contract to increase the electric gen-erating capacity of PPL Corp.’s two-unit Susquehanna nuclear plant by about 200 MW combined. This is part of an extended power uprate for the boiling water reactor units at the nuclear plant, near Berwick,

Pa. PPL Corp. currently lists a generating capacity of 2,360

MW for the facility plant. PPL Corp.’s PPL Susquehanna unit is 90% owner of

the nuclear plant. Allegheny Electric Coop. Inc. is a 10% owner. Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1983 and unit 2 in 1985. PPL Corp. will likely file for a 20-year oper-ating license renewal for both units next year.

GE Energy, the plant’s original equipment manufac-turer, will work with PPL Corp. to prepare for the uprate, which will be implemented in phases during several refu-eling outages.

GE Energy will perform the engineering analysis and provide documentation support for the uprate as well as the generator scope of work. A combination of GE, PPL Susquehanna and other subcontractors hired by PPL Corp. will perform the balance of the plant work.

-Report by Wayne Barber

Oct. 29, 2005

Friction in fuel assemblies, control rods shuts down plant

One of the reactors at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant near

Berwick will shut down late Friday for maintenance and should be generating power again within three weeks, PPL Corp. said Wednesday.

Routine testing showed that some of the control rods and fuel assemblies on the Unit 1 reactor are experiencing increased friction, slowing their response time, the company said. The Unit 2 reactor is expected to continue operating normally.

-Report by York Daily Record/Sunday News

March 14, 2006

Proposed Spent Fuel Exemption for the Susquehanna Nuclear Generating Station Challenged

Eric. J. Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, told the NRC why he was concerned about PPL's request to exempt fuel casks, allowing storage of spent fuel. Here is his statement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Thanks for the opportunity to offer input and share my concerns on PPL’s

spent fuel cask exemption request.

On April 16, 2003 at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) annual RIC

workshop in Rockville, Bryce Shriver from PPL gave a presentation on Safety

Management: An Integrated Approach. Among the key areas he touched upon

were “Work Management,” “Operational Decision Making,” “Design and

Licensing Basis Control,” and “Business Planning and Budgeting”. He emphasized that PPL’s processes together with their “Independent Oversight” and “Culture” would produce “Safety Performance.”

This approach seemed to make sense as PPL prepared for relicensing and power uprates:

• The Company has contracted with GE Energy to prepare for additional uprates, i.e., Susquehanna 2 (1994) and Susquehanna 1 (1995) had 4.5% bumps. The 200 MWe uprates are scheduled to be implemented in phases during several refueling outages.

• Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 are currently preparing for

a license extension applications estimated to be somewhere from July- September 2006.

What went wrong?

It appears PPL has poorly managed human and technical resources to complete projects.

Background: PPL submitted a request for an exemption that would enable the plant to begin loading Framatome 9x9-2 spent fuel into the Nuhoms 61BT storage system.

The Company is not presently authorized to store the fuel.

Statement of concern: This “precedent” (1) would bypasses normal review and

approval processes for cask loading and penalize plants like Peach Bottom that have followed the NRC’s procedures and protocol.

In my opinion, granting the exemption would weaken the NRC’s regulatory protocol

of firm, fair and consistent oversight.

Background: Normally, the NRC reviews exemption requests for changes the staff has already reviewed as part of an amendment to a cask certificate of compliance (COC).

Such exemptions allow the utility to begin cask-loading before NRC completes its rulemaking process to formalize the amendment is complete.

Statement of concern: However, Transnuclear has not yet submitted the

amendment request to make the change PPL needs. Any exemption would force the NRC to prematurely approve the cask to relieve a self-imposed economic hardship.

There is a reason the Agency prides itself on a rigorous oversight process.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, A-00110550F014, OPINION

AND ORDER, “Thus, PPL states that the Recommended Decision failed to address the distinction between the use of the settlement as “binding precedent” and itsadmissibility as evidence in future proceedings...”

Background: PPL claims the exemption is necessary because the plant will

lose full-core offload capability in December, 2006 when it receives and begins

to stage new fuel for Unit 2's 2007 refueling outage. Susquehanna had originally scheduled cask-loading to begin in October, 2006.

However, because of recent fuel channel performance problems at Unit 1, PPL

expects Unit 2 will have to undergo a mid-cycle maintenance outage to inspect

and replace any bowed fuel channels. That would limit space available in the pool, requiring the plant to accelerate its loading plans.

Statement of concern: An exemption would reward poor planning (2) of a

utility that owns and operates one plant vs. AmerGen and Exelon that own and

operate three plants in the state. (3)

Reactor Core Size Lose Full Core Off load Capability

Limerick 1 764 2006

Limerick 2 764 2006

Oyster Creek 560 LOST

Peach Bottom 2 764 2000

Peach Bottom 3 764 2001

Salem 1 183 2012

Salem 2 193 2018

Three Mile Island 177 NA

Station Dry Cask Technology Deployment Date Contractor

Limerick BD Summer 2010 TBD

Oyster Creek NUHOMS 52B (4) July, 2010 None

Peach Bottom Trans-Nuclear TN-68 June, 2000 Raytheon

I am asking the NRC deny the exemption and preserve a fair and level regulatory playing field.

____

1 Please note that PPL opposed the merger of Come Ed and PECO based on

one principal: “precedent.”

2 Poor resource planning by a Company headed by a systems manager, i.e.,

William F. Hecht, warrants an independent NRC evaluation, e.g., Augmented

Inspection Team.

3 PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO’s Response to Eric

Epstein’s Informal I-8.

4 Holtec has been chosen by AmerGen to provide dry cask services at Oyster Creek.

Feb. 28, 2006

NRC examing TMI security

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to investigate the management of the security force at Three Mile Island, focusing on fitness-for-duty issues such as fatigue and sleeping on the job.

The probe, announced in a certified letter delivered to a Patriot-News reporter, was prompted by a story published Jan. 29.

The story reported on a memo in which John Young, head of the Wackenhut security, scolded security supervisors for failing to note that veteran officers were telling new hires safe places to sleep undetected while on duty. Wackenhut is a private security firm hired by plant owner Exelon Nuclear to guard the nuclear station.

The memo also said officers were telling new hires ways to short-cut patrol duties.

Of additional concern to the NRC were reports that security officers were being allowed to work excessive hours. The newspaper documented one person who worked more than 150 hours during a 14-day period, and averaged more than 54 hours a week for more than 10 months.

Since March 2004, AmerGen Energy, the operator of TMI, investigated and disciplined five workers for "inattentiveness to duty." The phrase is used by the industry and regulators to cover an array of conditions, including sleeping. Three of those workers were security officers.

Guards, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said fatigue from long hours and boredom were to blame for the inattentiveness.

Guards work 12-hour shifts at TMI. Federal regulations limit those hours to 16 out of 24; 26 hours out of 48; and 72 out of seven days.

The agency said it will not announce the findings of the probe.

"Due to the nature of the security-related issues ... we are not providing you with further information on this matter," wrote David J. Vito, senior allegation coordinator for the NRC.

-Report by Garry Lenton of the Patriot-News

March 1, 2006

Drop-in inspections planned by state

Prompted by reports of sleeping or inattentive employees at Three Mile Island, the state said it will conduct surprise inspections at least twice a month at Pennsylvania's five nuclear power plants.

The first round of inspections last month found no instances of inattentiveness on the part of control roomoperators or plant security, Gov. Ed Rendell said yesterday.

The state Department of Environmental Protection will continue the inspections through the end of the year. Then the DEP will decide whether to continue the practice, said Ronald Ruman, a department spokesman.

The inspections came shortly after The Patriot-News reported on five cases of inattentiveness at TMI that occurred since March 2004.

Report by Garry Lenton of the Patriot-News

March 3, 2006

Alert Declared at nuclear power plant in Luzerne County

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Director James R. Joseph announced that an ALERT was declared Wednesday night at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Salem Township, Luzerne County. This action was necessary due to the activation of the fire suppression system in the Security Control Center. Plant operations have not been impacted and the plant fire brigade is investigating.

“No one has been injured and there was no non-routine release of radioactive material,” said Joseph. “The plant continues at normal operation, but the ALERT could last several hours overnight.”

“An Alert is the second-lowest of four emergency classifications for nuclear power plants. It is declared when an event has occurred that could reduce the plant's level of safety, but backup plant systems still work,” said Joseph.

Preparedness for commercial nuclear power plants includes a system for notifying the public if a problem occurs at a plant. The emergency classification level of the problem is defined by four categories: Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency and General Emergency. Listed in order of increasing severity.

Pennsylvania Power Light, which operates the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station declared the ALERT at 9:27 p.m.

The State’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Harrisburg was partially activated to monitor the situation. Representatives from the state Departments of Agriculture, Corrections, Education, Environmental Protection, General Services, Health, Public Welfare and Transportation, the Office of Administration, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Fish and Boat Commission, the Public Utility Commission and the American Red Cross joined staff from PEMA in the EOC. At no time during the incident was there a need to issue protective action recommendations to the public.

-Report by the Daily Item, Sunbury, Pa.

April 11, 2006

NRC grants Susquehanna exemption for spent fuel storage

NRC's Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) granted an exemption April 11 to PPL Susquehanna, allowing the utility to load a previously unapproved fuel assembly design into Transnuclear Inc.'s Nuhoms-61BT spent fuel storage system. NRC has exempted the plant from Part 72 requirements that a licensee use systems that NRC approved for use under a general license.

The exemption will allow Susquehanna to start loading Framatome ANP 9x9-2 spent fuel containing 79 full fuel rods and no partial fuel rods. The certificate of compliance (COC) for the Nuhoms-61BT system currently allows the loading of GE 9x9-2 rods or their equivalent with 66 full rods and eight partial rods. Susquehanna has committed to loading fuel with maximum decay heat below 210 watts per assembly, lower than the COC's 300-watt limit. The fuel parameters are generally bounded by the existing COC.

PPL spokesman Joe Scopelliti said the plant will begin moving the spent fuel into dry storage next month. Susquehanna will lose full-core offload capability in December when it begins to stage fuel for Unit 2's refueling outage next spring. The start date for the loading campaign had to be pushed forward from October 2006 because of a possible outage this summer to inspect fuel channels and replace any that show signs of bowing. The spent fuel pool will be needed to store any bowed channels that are removed and must be cleaned out before that activity begins.

But NRC staff rejected PPL's suggestion that the exemption remain in effect until either the completion of its planned 2008 loading campaign or 60 days after NRC grants amendment 9 to the Nuhoms-61BT system, which would add the Framatome fuel to the system's approved contents.

Instead, NRC limited the exemption to the loading of the five casks that PPL said were needed to preserve full-core offload capability through summer 2007. "The staff believes that the use of exemptions in regulatory activities should be minimized," SFPO Deputy Director William Ruland said in an April 11 letter granting the exemption. He added that normal processes for amending COCs should be followed "whenever possible." The NRC believes TN could submit a focused amendment in the near term to allow the Framatome fuel to be added to the approved contents, Ruland said. The cask vendor is scheduled to submit amendment 9 to NRC this month.

In a separate letter April 12, Ruland notified TMI-Alert Chairman Eric Epstein that NRC did not agree with his request to deny the exemption. Epstein asserted in a March 14 teleconference that granting the exemption "would reward poor planning," something that he said "warrants an independent NRC evaluation."

Ruland emphasized that NRC regulations permit licensees to seek exemptions in special circumstances, so long as the exemption "is authorized by law and would not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest." He said the limitation on the number of casks loaded under the exemption should "enable PPL to avoid the need for further exemptions" for dry storage.

May 1, 2006

Plant shuts due to leak

PPL Corp. shut the 1,140-megawatt Unit 2 at the Susquehanna nuclear power station in Pennsylvania on April 29 to repair a water leak, the company said in a release.

“The leak is minor – significantly less than the amount that would require us to shut down for repairs according to the plant’s operating procedures -- and it does not affect our ability to operate safely,” Robert Saccone, vice president of

Nuclear Operations for PPL Susquehanna, said in the release.

“We made the proactive decision to find and fix the leak now, so that we don’t run the risk of having to shut down the unit during the summer if the leak gets worse. In the summer months, the regional power grid, consumers and PPL count on Susquehanna to provide reliable power as electricity use increases,” Mr. Saccone added.

PPL said it planned additional maintenance in other areas of the plant during this short outage that will help maintain the reliability of the unit, which was in service for 322 consecutive days before this shutdown.

The unit was operating at full power early Friday.

The 2,245 MW Susquehanna station is located in Berwick in Columbia County, about 125 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

There are two units at the station, the 1,135 MW unit 1 and the 1,140 MW unit 2.

-Report from NuclearFuel Volume 31 / Number 9 / April 24, 2006

June 15, 2006

Monitoring system trips shutdown at Unit 1

At 3 a.m. on June 15, the Susquehanna Unit 1 reactor automatically "scrammed due to an apparent neutron monitoring trip while transferring Reactor Protection System power supplies," company documents stated.

A "scram" means a shutdown in nuclear industry lingo.

"All rods [fully] inserted, and both reactor recirculation pumps tripped," according to the report, which explained, reactor water level lowered to -38" causing level 3 (+13") and level 2 (-38")isolations, and was restored to normal level (+35") ... and subsequently the feedwater system. All isolations at this level occurred as expected. No steam relief valves opened. Pressure was controlled via turbine bypass valve operation. All safety systems operated as expected."

A reactor recirculation pump was restarted to re-establish forced core circulation. The reactor is currently stable in condition 3. An investigation into the cause of the shutdown is underway. Unit 2 continued power operation, according to the report.

The NRC resident inspectors were notified, the company stated.

-Report by Marlene Lang

Sept. 6, 2006

Shipment to plant had radiation reading at 4 times allowed level

A container shipped from Vermont Yankee on Aug. 31 ended up at its destination later that night with radiation readings four times higher than those allowable under federal law, according to a report filed Sept. 1 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The shipment, a box measuring 6x7x8 feet containing a machine used to configure fuel rods in the power plant's spent fuel pool, registered no more than 60 millirem per hour before it left Vermont, according to Vermont Yankee (VY) records. That level is well below the federal Department of Transportation's (DOT) 200 millirem hourly contact exposure limit.

However, when it arrived at the Susquehanna reactor in Berwick, Pa., the bottom of the container registered 820 millirem per hour, more than four times the DOT limit.

The container was shipped on a flatbed truck by a private contractor Hittman Transport Services of Barnwell, SC. As of Tuesday the container remained closed in a controlled area at the Susquehanna plant, while inspectors made special preparations before opening it, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.

He said they planned to open the container Wednesday.

En route to its destination, the truck stopped at rest stops on the westbound side of the Massachusetts Turnpike and on southbound Interstate 87 after existing Interstate 90, according to an incident report filed by Susquehanna officials, who were required to make a report to the NRC because of the high radiation recording.

No one to the knowledge of the driver came in contact with the shipment, the report states. The truck arrived at Susquehanna at 8:45 p.m. and the driver, who was wearing a radiation detection monitor, slept in the vehicle. Sheehan said the driver's dosimeter showed readings well within acceptable levels.

A spokeswoman for the trucking company said she had no knowledge of the incident.

According to the NRC report, the shipment was formally received at the Susquehanna facility at 8:05 a.m. the next morning. The high reading was recorded at 11:15 a.m., and Susquehanna officials notified the NRC at 12:15 p.m.

According to the report, the shipment showed no signs of surface contamination, and it exceeded the dose rate limit only on the bottom of the container once it was lifted off the truck.˛"Doses under the trailer prior to lifting the shipment did not exceed the limit," the report states.

Unless someone got right up under it, the probability that someone would have received any kind of exposure from that configuration is low, said NRC Region I deputy administrator Mark Depas.

VY spokesman Rob Williams also emphasized that point: Despite the unexplained high radiation levels, the shipment represented no threat to public health and safety in transit because the radioactive side was against the bed of the truck, which provided additional protection, he said.˛

At no time during the shipment was there any additional exposure to anyone because the flatbed truck provided adequate shielding, Williams said. "In fact, the radiation level in question was detected only at the bottom of the package, and only after it was lifted off the flatbed, so this had no impact on public health and safety."

Vermont Yankee is responsible for shipments while in transit, Williams noted. Two experts from VY's radiological shipping group had left for Pennsylvania to determine what may have caused the increase, he said Tuesday.

"We've reviewed our radiological survey and confirmed that the package left here in compliance," Williams noted.

Sheehan speculated the increase might have been due to the machine shifting during transit, resulting in a part with higher contamination levels closer to the bottom of the box. Or, he said, a piece of debris from the VY spent fuel pool could still have been attached to it.

The tool is what Sheehan called a cutter-shearer machine that crushes control rods in order to ship them more easily. Control rods are used to separate spent fuel rods in a fuel pool. They are inserted between the fuel rods in crucifix form, with a centerpiece and four blades inserted between the fuel bundles to stop the fusion process, Sheehan said.

He said reactor operators periodically install new control rods during cleanup of their spent fuel pools.

Anti-nuclear activist Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the Brattleboro-based New England Coalition, speculated that the discrepancy in radiation readings could have been due to inaccurate VY detection equipment.

What is serious is the possibility that VY radiation detection was off by a whopping factor of four and/or the probability that the contents of the package leaked and/or became more exposed as shielding shifted or settled, Shadis said in an e-mail to the Vermont Guardian.

At 820 millirem/hour, a person exposed to the hottest part of the container could have, in one hour, received eight times the annual dose allowed by the NRC, or their annual allowable dose in less than eight minutes, Shadis noted.

Unlike the DOT, the NRC does not set a contact exposure ceiling, but the agency limits exposure for members of the public to 100 millirem annually.

"This is just a real sloppy performance," Shadis continued. "Let's hope it is an exception and not the standard.

-Report by Kathryn Casa of the Vermont Guardian

Sept. 6, 2006

High radiation reading receives "White" violation rating

A shipment from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that was giving off more than four times the allowable level of radioactivity posed a "low to moderate" safety risk to the public, federal regulators said Tuesday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a preliminary "white" finding about the August shipment of a device designed to crush and cut reactor control rods from the plant site in Vernon to Salem Township, Pa.

The NRC uses a color-coded system to denote safety risks, with "green" indicating a very low risk, "white" low to moderate, "yellow" substantial and "red" high, said agency spokeswoman Diane Screnci.

In a letter dated Tuesday to Vermont Yankee, the NRC said its finding was preliminary and that it had not yet made a final determination of what enforcement action might be taken.

Screnci said she doubted the plant would be fined, but said it would get some stepped-up scrutiny.

Nov. 8, 2006

Nuclear regulators slapped Vermont Yankee with a safety violation Tuesday, after determining plant owners failed to take the highest level of

precaution when they shipped radiation-exposed equipment.

Two months ago a piece of equipment was sent from Vermont Yankee

in a shielded container on a flatbed truck to a nuclear power

plant in Pennsylvania. When it arrived, the freight's radiation

level measured at four times the allowable level.

Entergy Nuclear received a "white" inspection finding from the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the second lowest of the four

levels of findings. That means the radioactivity posed a "low to

moderate" safety risk to the public, according to Neil Sheehan,

spokesman for the NRC.

The equipment Entergy was sending to the Susquehanna nuclear

power plant was a control rod crusher and shearer, owned by a

separate vendor. In Pennsylvania, inspectors found a "sliver of

metal" of high radioactivity and two small "hot particles" fell

from the top of the crusher to the bottom, Sheehan said. That

kind of disturbance in the equipment, when in transit, is not

uncommon, he said.

A white inspection finding from the NRC triggers an increased

oversight at Vermont Yankee. For the next four quarters, federal

inspectors will have an enhanced role in reviewing how Entergy

decontaminates and prepares freight before it leaves the Vernon

campus.

But first Entergy has 10 days to file an appeal with the NRC,

challenging the finding. For now, the NRC is still calling the

white finding "preliminary," and has not said for sure what

enforcement action will be taken.

Efforts to reach Entergy officials Tuesday were unsuccessful.

This is the first time in two years Vermont Yankee has received

a white inspection finding. The plant hasn't gotten anything

higher than a "green" inspection finding for the last two years,

the lowest finding. In 2004, the NRC gave the plant a white

finding for its distribution, or insufficient distribution, of

tone alert radios.

The NRC uses a color-coded system to denote safety risks, with

"green" indicating a very low risk, "white" low to moderate,

"yellow" substantial and "red" high.

Reporty by Kristi Ceccarossi of the Reformer, New England Newspapers

Dec. 18, 2006

Sirens mistakenly sound at nuclear power plant

Emergency sires near PPL’s Susquehanna nuclear power

plant went off around 11 this morning, but company

officials said it was part of a test and not an actual emergency.

“We conduct silent tests of the siren system every two weeks,”

said Lou Ramos, spokesman for the plant. “During a scheduled

test this morning, the sirens mistakenly received a signal to

sound, rather than a signal for a silent test. We apologize for

any anxiety that this may have caused among area residents.”

The sirens can be sounded by PPL Susquehanna or by emergency

management agencies in Luzerne or Columbia counties.

“The sires that sounded today were part of the old siren system,

which PPL Susquehanna is in the process of replacing,” Mr. Ramos

said. “We will conduct a full-scale test of the newly installed

siren system tomorrow.”

Emergency sirens around the plant are in place to notify the

public to tune into emergency broadcast stations on television

or radio in the event of an emergency at the nuclear plant or in

the community.

-Report by The Daily Item Publishing Company

Dec. 20, 2006

NRC Finalizes White Finding for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant over Shipment of Radioactively Contaminated Equipment

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will receive additional

oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission based on a

violation involving a shipment of radioactively contaminated

equipment. The violation, which has now been finalized, stems

from a shipment that went from Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania

nuclear power plant last summer.

The NRC uses a color-coded system to categorize inspection

findings. They range from green, for a very low safety issue, to

red, for a highly significant safety issue. In this case, the

Vermont Yankee violation has been determined to be white, which

signifies the issue is of low to moderate safety significance.

The finding is based on an inspection the NRC carried out from

Sept. 6 through Oct. 6, 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, Vermont Yankee, which is located in Vernon,

Vt., and operated by Entergy, prepared and shipped a package

containing a radioactively contaminated control rod

crusher/shearer to the Susquehanna nuclear power plant, in Salem

Township, Pa. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

requirements apply to such shipments. DOT requires that this

type of shipment be prepared so the radiation level on any

external surface of the package not exceed 200 millirems per

hour.

However, upon arrival at the Susquehanna plant on Sept. 1, 2006,

the radiation level at a location on the bottom exterior surface

of the package was measured at about 820 millirems per hour. It

was later determined that during transit, discrete highly

radioactive particles shifted to the bottom of the package,

resulting in the radiation levels in excess of the DOT limits.

It is important to note that no actual public radiation exposure

occurred during the shipment from Vermont to Pennsylvania

because the affected package surface was inaccessible to members

of the public.

The actual condition did not involve an exposure or hazard to

the public, but it had the potential to adversely affect

personnel who would normally receive the package or respond to

an incident involving the package since responders could have a

reasonable expectation that the package conformed with DOT

radiation limits, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins

wrote to Entergy in a letter regarding the enforcement action.

In addition, it was fortuitous that the surface of the package

was inaccessible to the public during transport.

The company did not request a regulatory conference on this

matter but is required to respond to the violation within 30

days.

The NRC will conduct a supplemental inspection at a future date

to evaluate the companys corrective actions.

-NRC report

April 26, 2007

Work hours to be limited for some nuclear plant workers

Security workers and others in critical jobs at the nation's nuclear plants will no longer be allowed to log excessive overtime hours under new rules approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The change in the NRC's "fitness for duty" requirements is meant to reduce fatigue among plant employees and improve safety and security.

Exelon Nuclear, owner of Three Mile Island, Peach Bottom and Limerick nuclear stations in Pennsylvania, and seven other plants nationwide, expects to increase security staffing to reduce overtime.

"Any area where you have 24/7 coverage is most likely to be impacted," said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for the company.

The regulations, which should go into effect this year, end a policy that allowed plant operators to meet work-hour limits by averaging the hours of dozens of employees. The process allowed some employees to log hundreds of hours of overtime a month. The new rule bases hourly limits on individuals.

The work-hour limits apply to security, maintenance and operations staffers, such as control room operators.

The rule is common sense, said Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.

"Groups don't get tired. People do," he said.

David Desaulniers, an NRC staffer who helped shepherd the rule change through a seven-year administrative review, said the revision will improve plant safety.

"I think that what the commission has approved will be a substantial step forward in addressing worker fatigue issues in the future," said Desaulniers, senior human factors analyst for the agency.

The shortcomings of group averaging were evident at TMI, where some security officers employed by Wackenhut Nuclear Services logged 72-hour weeks for six weeks straight last year.

In 2005, TMI officials cited three security workers for being inattentive or sleeping on the job. Each incident occurred during the night shift. Security officers contacted by The Patriot-News at the time said the incidents were not surprising given the overtime officers were being compelled to work.

The NRC rule, which must undergo review by the federal Office of Management and budget before it goes into effect, also:

• Increases the minimum break between shifts from eight hours to 10.

• Establishes training requirements for fatigue management.

• Limits the reasons plant operators may waive the hourly limits.

• Revises drug- and alcohol-testing requirements.

A veteran security officer at TMI employed by Wackenhut welcomed the changes. "It will definitely keep things from getting really bad again like they were in '02 and '03," said the officer, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

Another officer, also requesting anonymity, said the change would significantly reduce fatigue. But he remained skeptical of how much leeway employers would have to waive the rules under special circumstances.

Though the NRC establishes the regulations, it does not require plants to obtain agency approval before authorizing a worker to go over the limit.

Eric Epstein, chairman of the Harrisburg-based watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert, had similar concerns. "I believe the standards are contingent upon voluntary compliance," he said. "I see nothing that suggests there will be more aggressive oversight of a new fitness-for-duty program."

-Report by Garry Lenton of the Patriot-News

2007

PPL to seek license for new nuclear generator at Berwick

PPL Corp. announced on Wednesday it notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it plans to apply for a license to construct and operate a third nuclear generator at its Susquehanna River plant near Berwick.

The Allentown-based company also filed a request for an interconnection study with PJM Interconnection, an organization that coordinates the movement of electricity throughout much of the mid-Atlantic region.

PPL is awaiting a license renewal for its two Salem Township nuclear generators, which supply about 25 percent of PPL’s total output, and company spokesman Dan McCarthy said a rejection of those renewals could have serious repercussions for the new license.

“If we didn’t get them, I don’t know that we would go ahead with building the third one,” he said.

The company is also considering expansions of hydro and coal plants, he said.

The letter of intent to the NRC lets the company hold a place in the processing line and retain the potential for federal production tax credits and federal loan guarantees, which expire for any application submitted after 2008, according to Jim Miller, PPL chairman, president and chief executive officer. The study request gives the new generator consideration in future regional power planning studies.

Miller said the construction would only go forward as a joint venture with another energy company, which hasn’t been chosen, according to McCarthy.

The $70-million cost of the licensing application wouldn’t be accounted for until the plant goes online, meaning the company doesn’t expect the expense, which would mostly be spent by the end of 2008, to affect earnings forecasts for current operations.

McCarthy said no specific timelines for construction or power generation exist. Studies of safety and environmental impacts have not yet been done.

Though he didn’t expect the 10-mile-radius emergency planning zone to increase with a third generator, McCarthy said there would be more nuclear material onsite.

Critics believe PPL needs to take care of its current site before moving on to new ventures.

“Rate payers are bailing PPL out for the initial boondoggle,” said Eric Epstein, chairman of TMI Alert, among membership in other organizations. “There’s just not enough water resources available to support another nuclear reactor.”

The plant already uses millions of gallons of water a day from the river, much of which evaporates through its cooling towers, he said, raising concerns that a third generator would seriously affect the downstream flows.

McCarthy said the company maintains a reservoir in New York that could be diverted into the river on low-flow days to compensate.

PPL has 30 generating sites in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Illinois, Montana and Long Island, N.Y., but the Susquehanna site is the company’s only nuclear plant, McCarthy said. Coal plants produce about 55 percent of the company’s output, with generation from hydro, oil and natural gas producing the remaining 20 percent.

-Report by Rory Sweeney of the Times Leader

Aug. 2, 2007

PPl reports earning jump, raises forecast

PPL Corp. reported second-quarter earnings of $345 million, a jump of more than 90 percent compared to the same period of 2006. Earnings per diluted share rose about 87 percent, to 88 cents.

Allentown-based PPL distributes and generates electricity in the midstate.

The earnings increase was driven by gains on the sale of a business in El Salvador, according to PPL. Excluding that and other special items, operating earnings rose by almost 19 percent, to 63 cents per share, according to the company.

PPL beat the average analyst estimate of 51 cents per share, according to Yahoo Finance.

PPL raised its forecast for full-year earnings from ongoing operations to $2.40 to $2.50 per share, up from $2.30 to $2.40 per share. -

-Report by David Dagan

Sept. 12, 2007

PPL fires and sues its siren installer

PPL Corp. has fired and sued the Boston company it hired to replace

the siren system around the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Salem

Township.

PPL claims the siren vendor, Acoustic Technology, failed to deliver

on the contract because some of the 76 warning sirens it installed

in a 25-mile radius around the plant failed to sound during tests

earlier this year.

Attempts to reach Acoustic Technology were unsuccessful.

PPL's existing siren system, installed 25 years ago, continues to be

fully functional and in use until the company selects a new vendor.

The sirens are intended to alert the public to emergencies at the

plant or in the community.

- Report by David Falchek of the Citizens Voice

Sept. 19, 2007

PPL pays to settle dispute over water use at plant

Two electric utilities, PPL Corp. and Exelon Corp., have paid large sums of money to settle disputes with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission over the amount of water they use to operate their nuclear power plants.

PPL last week agreed to pay $500,000 to the commission to settle a claim that it did not get permission six years ago to increase the water it takes from the river.

Last December, Exelon Nuclear paid $640,000 to settle a similar claim related to its Peach Bottom plant in York County.

The commission controls water withdrawals within the Susquehanna River basin in Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland to ensure that adequate supplies are available to all users. Under its rules, companies like PPL and Exelon must seek the commission's approval for any change in processes that requires them to increase water usage by 100,000 gallons a day, said Susan Obleski, commission spokeswoman.

The commission contended that PPL exceeded that threshold in 2001.

PPL disagreed with the commission's finding, but it agreed to settle the dispute so it could proceed with a request to increase its water use from 47 million gallons to 66 million gallons a day, said Luis Ramos, a spokesman for the utility. The increase was approved by the commission last week.

With the increase, the company uses about six-tenths of 1 percent of the river's water supply, Ramos said.

The monetary settlements, though large by the commission's standards, are inadequate, said Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, a watchdog group that has challenged PPL's requests. The settlements fail to underscore the commission's message that water is a finite resource, he said.

"The New England Patriots paid more for stealing football signals than PPL was fined for stealing water from the river," Epstein said.

PPL will need the water if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves its request to increase the amount of electricity its two Susquehanna reactors produce by about 100 megawatts, Ramos said. If approved, the increase would allow the company to produce electricity sufficient to power about 60,000 additional households.

The two reactors produce enough electricity to power about 1 million homes.

As the demand for electricity increases, the commission anticipates that the demand from utilities for water will grow. PPL already has announced that it is considering adding a third nuclear reactor at its plant north of Allentown.

"Right now the basin is a hotbed for future power production," Obleski said. "We see that as a growing sector."

-Report by Garry Lenton of the Patriot-News

Jan. 24, 2008

Refueling shipment exceeded radiation limit

A shipment to the Susquehanna nuclear plant arrived on Friday emitting radioactivity beyond the limit allowed by the federal Department of Transportation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on Tuesday.

“This did not impact the public,” NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said. “Nevertheless, DOT sets these limits so the public is protected.”

He said it is “premature” to discuss potential enforcement actions.

The plant is jointly owned by PPL Corp. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc.

The shipment, containing equipment to be used during an upcoming refueling and maintenance outage, was surveyed for radioactivity and passed before leaving North Carolina. A similar survey upon arrival found the underside of a box containing equipment used on the refueling floor emitted 350 millirems per hour, above the 200-millirems-per-hour exposure limit.

“The spot was in a place that was inaccessible to anyone,” PPL spokeswoman Nancy Bishop said. “When it left North Carolina, the measurements were below the limit. When it arrived here, the measurements were above the limit. What probably happened is that the components shifted in transit.”

The box was put into an onsite facility “designed and licensed to hold radioactive material,” she said, where it will stay until it’s needed for refueling.

The equipment was being shipped by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which PPL hired to execute the refueling. The equipment can become radioactive, Bishop said, because “it can come in contact with various radioactive components when it’s on the refuel floor … during maintenance.”

- Report by Rory Sweeney of the Times Leader

Oct. 27, 2008

NRC Monitoring alert issued at Susquehanna plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is monitoring an Alert declared this afternoon at the Susquehanna 2 nuclear power plant in Salem Township (Luzerne County), Pa. An Alert is the second-lowest of four levels of emergency classification used by the NRC.

At 4:15 a.m. today, maintenance work was initiated on a water line that is part of a reactor safety system for the plant. That work involved the use of a “freeze seal” – that is, placing a device containing nitrogen over a section of piping so that the water inside the line can be frozen. Once frozen, the line can be isolated to allow maintenance to be performed on it.

PPL, the plant’s owner and operator, declared an Alert at 12:06 p.m.

-Report from Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Incident Chronology of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 2005-2008

User login