Download ML13269A389

Entergy's Nuclear Limbo Threatens Public Safety


October 21, 2013

Entergy's Nuclear Limbo Threatens Public Safety

Contact: Mary lampert, Pilgrim Watch 781-934-0389

Entergy that operates the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth Massachusetts is cutting the workforce, failing to invest in key equipment and personnel, and showing increasing signs of indecision about keeping the reactor running. Entergy's uncertainty creates a unique safety hazard, and nuclear watchdog groups focused on Entergy’s Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee and Fitzpatrick (Pilgrim Watch, Alliance for a Green Economy, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Awareness Network, and Vermont Citizens Action Network) have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expand an investigation into how Pilgrim’s, Vermont Yankee’s and Fitzpatrick’s (NY) economic problems impact public safety.

The attached request is a supplement to a petition filed in March by the watchdog groups. They pointed to projected financial losses at all three Entergy plants and asked the NRC to enforce its financial qualifications regulations, which require companies to generate enough money to maintain a nuclear reactor.

The NRC agreed on August 7 to investigate Entergy for compliance with the financial qualifications regulation at the three reactors. The supplement asks NRC to expand the scope of the investigation to look deeper into the ways Entergy's decision-making at the plants regarding staffing levels, equipment maintenance, and safety upgrades is affected by economic distress at the plants. The supplement also raises concerns that uncertainty at the plants could impact worker's willingness to stay or to report problems that could impact the company financially.

Because Entergy cannot compete with cheaper sources of electricity, it is not able to turn a profit at Pilgrim and it is cutting costs on the backs of workers and public safety. Operating a nuclear reactor under financial distress is dangerous so we are calling on the NRC to do its job and investigate Pilgrim’s finances before the cost cutting causes an accident.



Entergy made a bad bet when it bought Pilgrim, Vermont and Fitzpatrick in a newly deregulated (competitive) market. It bought the reactors for a song and initially raked in profits. Things went sour when natural gas came along and wind, and hydro undercut nuclear. Now Pilgrim is running significant deficits, showing losses on the same order as Vermont.



Moreover, Pilgrim is operating less due to unplanned shutdowns and power reductions putting Pilgrim in a deeper financial hole- when a reactor is shut down or operating at low capacity, they lose money.

Pilgrim Operational Performance (January 1-September 27, 2013) -

Add another shutdown October 14th


Power Generation Level

Number of Days

Equivalent Days at Full Operation

0% (shut down)















100% (full power)







Pilgrim operated at 68% of capacity through September 27; the October 14 shutdown makes it worse.

Entergy wants to satisfy its shareholders, but you cannot safely run a nuclear reactor on the cheap- especially an old reactor with parts breaking down.


Financial distress threat to public health & safety


Just this year, Pilgrim has had 18 Event Reports, an unprecedented number for the industry, and more than ten times the number of shutdowns than the national average. The shutdowns and required event reports to NRC are clear signs that Entergy is not making the necessary investments in personnel and maintenance that are needed to safely run this antique reactor.  To put it in perspective, Pilgrim was built about the time the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and Lyndon Johnson was President.”

I do not know about you but I have gone through many household appliances and cars since the 1960’s.

Absent substantial investments in aging reactors that Entergy is unwilling to make, the public is at risk.


Download Alliance for a Green Economy Letter dated March 18, 2013

Download Alliance for a Green Economy Letter dated October 16, 2013

In Regards to Requesting a Meeting with Three Mile Island Alert Representatives

Mr. Epstein,

Although it’s in Japanese, I just wanted to give you a link to an article about the Fukushima delegation’s visit to Three Mile Island and to Three Mile Island Alert which was published in the national newspaper, the Asahi Shimbun.  The two paragraphs after the bullet (●) discuss their meeting with you (and I believe the third picture is you as well).

If you have any questions, I can do my best to translate or look for any specific information.

Thank you once again for all of your hard work!


Kind regards,


Kim Kreil
Commercial Liaison
Economic Division
Consulate General of Japan in New York
299 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10171
212-418-4447 (Direct)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME9631 and ME9632)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME9631 and ME9632)

Download ML13242A090

Incident Chronology at TMI from NRC: 1979-2012

Incident Chronology at TMI from NRC: 1979-2012

March 28, 1979, 4:00 a.m. - Beginning of the Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit-2 loss-of-coolant, core melt accident. The plant came within 30 minutes of a full meltdown. The reactor vessel was destroyed, and large amounts of unmonitored radiation was released directly into the community.

March 28, 1979, 4:30 p.m. - Press conference of Lt. Governor William Scranton:
This is an update on the incident at Three-Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant today. This situation is more complex than the company first led us to believe. We are taking more tests. And at this point, we believe there is still no danger to public health. Metropolitan Edison has given you and us conflicting information. We just concluded a meeting with company officials and hope this briefing will clear up most of your questions. There has been a release of radioactivity into the environment. The magnitude of this release is still being determined, but there is no evidence yet that it has resulted in the presence of dangerous levels. The company has informed us that from about 11 a.m. until about 1:30 p.m., Three-Mile Island discharged into the air, steam that contained detectable amounts of radiation.

Download PDF

Incident Chronology at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Berwick: 2010- 2011

Incident Chronology at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Berwick: 2010- 2011


This chronology does not include the cost to the rate payer to build Susquehanna-1 and -2. PP&L asked the Public Utility Commission (PUC) for $315 million to recover the cost of building Unit-1. The PUC granted $203 million on August 22, 1983, or a 16% increase to the customer. The company asked for $330 million for Unit-2 but was allowed $121 million in April, 1985; an 8% increase to rate payers. In addition, PP&L consumers have “contributed”  approximately $4.6 million annually (since 1985) to the decommissioning fund.

Download PDF

NRC Hit Hard By Government Shutdown

NRC Hit Hard By Government Shutdown
by Eric Epstein, Chairman
Three Mile Island Alert

The government shutdown hit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday October
10, 2013. The NRC furloughed 3,600 employees. Approximately 300 “essential” workers
have remained on the job as well as 150 resident inspectors.

The mission of the NRC is to focus on the oversight of nuclear power plants. The
Commission also monitors the transport of radioactive materials and the disposal of nuclear

What does this mean?

The NRC is now operating at "skeleton staffing" levels due to insufficient funding. The
Commission has halted inspections relating to radiation and reactor safety and emergency

How does this impact Three Mile Island?

Resident inspectors will remain in place. However, the furloughs put a dent in staffing
levels at plants that are under heightened oversight like TMI Unit-1 and Susquehanna Unit-1.

So what happens if there is an emergency at a plant?

According to Neil Sheehan of the NRC, “employees could be called out of their furlough
status. After this situation was resolved, the workers would go into the furlough status until
the shutdown ends.”

When will this end?

Until Congress authorizes the funding, the nuclear industry will essentially be monitoring

Two PA nuclear power plants currently under heightened inspection during NRC furloughs

No: 13-073    September 6, 2013 CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Mid-Cycle Assessments for Nation’s Nuclear Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued mid-cycle assessment letters to the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants regarding their performance through the first half of 2013. The mid- cycle assessment period concluded on June 30, with 92 of 102 plants in the two highest performance categories.

“These periodic assessments are part of our efforts to ensure the appropriate regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants and to keep the public informed about our safety oversight activities,” said Ho Nieh, director of the Division of Inspection and Regional Support in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Of the 92 highest-performing reactors, 75 fully met all safety and security performance objectives and were inspected by the NRC using the normal inspection program. Seventeen reactors were assessed as needing to resolve one or two items of low safety significance. For this performance level, regulatory oversight includes additional inspection and attention to follow up on corrective actions.

These plants requiring additional inspection are: Beaver Valley 1 and 2 (Pa.); Browns Ferry 3 (Ala.); Davis Besse (Ohio); Dresden 2 and 3 (Ill.); Fermi 2 (Mich.); FitzPatrick (N.Y.); Grand Gulf (Miss.); LaSalle 2 (Ill.); Nine Mile Point 1 (N.Y.); Point Beach 2 (Wis.); Prairie Island 1 and 2 (Minn.); Susquehanna 2 (Pa.); Three Mile Island 1 (Pa.); and Turkey Point 3 (Fla.). Beaver Valley 1 and 2 and Fermi 2 have resolved their issues since the reporting period ended and have transitioned to the highest performing level.

Eight nuclear reactors were in the third performance category with a degraded level of performance. For this category, regulatory oversight includes more NRC inspections, senior management attention and oversight focused on the cause of the degraded performance. These plants were Browns Ferry 2 (Ala.); Monticello (Minn.); Perry 1 (Ohio); Point Beach 1 (Wis.); Sequoyah 1 and 2 (Tenn.); Watts Bar 1 (Tenn.); and Wolf Creek (Kan.). Perry 1 and Wolf Creek resolved all the outstanding issues and have since transitioned to the highest performance level.

One reactor, Browns Ferry 1 in Alabama, is in the fourth performance category and requires increased oversight because of a safety finding of high significance. Increased oversight for this category includes additional inspections to confirm the plant’s performance issues are being addressed.

Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska is in an extended shutdown with significant performance issues and is currently under a special NRC oversight program distinct from the normal performance levels. Therefore, the plant will not receive a mid-cycle assessment letter.

The Crystal River 3 and Kewaunee nuclear plants entered decommissioning during the first half of this year and are no longer considered operating reactors, so they did not receive mid-cycle assessments.

Near the end of this reporting period, Southern California Edison announced that it would decommission the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 in California. The plant began transitioning to the decommissioning process in July, so it did receive a mid-cycle assessment for the period ending June 30.

The NRC routinely updates information on each plant’s current performance and posts the latest information as it becomes available to the action matrix summary. Every six months each plant receives either a mid-cycle or annual assessment letter along with an NRC inspection plan. These letters are available through the NRC’s webpage on the Reactor Oversight Process. Annual construction assessments for new reactors at the Vogtle and Summer sites and at Watts Bar 2 are also on the NRC website.

Download PDF

Hole in Beaver Valley Containment

Power Reactor


Event Number: 49413


Region: 1 State: PA

Unit: [1] [ ] [ ]

RX Type: [1] W-3-LP,[2] W-3-LP



Notification Date: 10/05/2013

Notification Time: 01:19 [ET]

Event Date: 10/04/2013

Event Time: 23:24 [EDT]

Last Update Date: 10/05/2013

Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY

10 CFR Section: 

50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A) - DEGRADED CONDITION

Person (Organization): 










Initial PWR


Initial RX Mode


Current PWR


Current RX Mode
















Event Text




"On October 4, 2013, during the Beaver Valley Unit 1 refueling outage, a planned visual examination of the interior containment liner and coatings was being performed. The containment design consists of an interior steel liner that is surrounded by reinforced concrete. An area approximately 0.4 inches by 0.28 inches was discovered that penetrated through the containment steel liner plate. 


"With the plant currently shut down and in Mode 6 the containment as specified in Technical Specification 3.6.1 is not required to be operable. The cause of this discrepancy is currently being evaluated.

"This is reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(A). 


"The Site Resident Inspector has been notified."

NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NOS. 1-2012-012, 1-2012-043, 1-2011-030, AND NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000387;388/2013013; AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NOS. 1-2012-012, 1-2012-043, 1-2011-030, AND NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000387;388/2013013; AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Download ML13269A254

Syndicate content