U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Operations Center
 
EVENT REPORTS FOR
05/17/2021 - 05/18/2021
 
 
Power Reactor
Event Number: 55261
Facility: Peach Bottom
Region: 1     State: PA
Unit: [2] [] []
RX Type: [2] GE-4,[3] GE-4
NRC Notified By: Brett Henry
HQ OPS Officer: Brian Lin
Notification Date: 05/17/2021
Notification Time: 13:12 [ET]
Event Date: 05/17/2021
Event Time: 12:38 [EDT]
Last Update Date: 05/17/2021
Emergency Class: Unusual Event
10 CFR Section:
50.72(a) (1) (i) - Emergency Declared
Person (Organization):
GREIVES, JONATHAN (R1)
LEW, DAVE (R1 RA)
MILLER, CHRIS (NRR EO)
GRANT, JEFFERY (IR)
CASTELVETER, DAVID (PAO)
Unit
SCRAM Code
RX Crit
Initial PWR
Initial RX Mode
Current PWR
Current RX Mode
2
N
Y
40
Power Operation
40
Power Operation
Event Text
UNUSUAL EVENT DUE TO A FIRE ALARM INSIDE THE DRYWELL

[Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station declared an unusual event due to a] "receipt of a single fire alarm in the Unit 2 drywell and the existence of the fire not verified in less than 30 minutes of alarm receipt."

The NRC Resident Inspector and State and Local Authorities were notified.

Notified DHS SWO, FEMA Operations Center, CISA Central, FEMA NWC (email), DHS Nuclear SSA (email), and FEMA NRCC SASC (email).

* * * UPDATE ON 5/17/21 AT 1423 EDT FROM BRETT HENRY TO HOWIE CROUCH * * *
At 1355 EDT, the licensee terminated the notification of unusual event. The basis for termination was that the smoke has dissipated and there were no signs of fire.

The licensee notified State and Local Authorities and the NRC Resident Inspector.

Notified R1DO (Grieves), NRR EO (Miller), and IRD MOC (Grant). Notified DHS SWO, FEMA Operations Center, CISA Central, FEMA NWC (email), DHS Nuclear SSA (email), FEMA NRCC THD (email) and FEMA NRCC SASC (email).
Subject:  Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Acceptance Ventilation Filter Testing LAR (EPID: L-2021-LLA-0078)
 
ADAMS Accession No. ML21134A015
 
NRC Public Workshop - Technical Basis for Guidance on Conducting and Evaluating Surveys of Residual Radioactivity in the Subsurface Soils of Licensee Sites
 
On July 14-15, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is holding a public workshop on the technical basis for guidance on conducting and evaluating surveys of residual radioactivity in the subsurface soils of licensee sites. The NRC began to address this problem in NUREG/CR 7021, “A Subsurface Decision Model for Supporting Environmental Compliance,” issued January 2012.
 
Workshop Format:
This will be a virtual-only meeting and attendance will be via Microsoft Teams (links to be provided at a later date). Detailed webinar information and other meeting details will be posted to the public meeting notice website: https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20210553
 
Workshop Agenda:
The agenda is still being developed. The current plan is to have a mix of pre-recorded presentations and open discussions. Parties interested in presenting should contact the NRC meeting organizers.
 
Workshop Topics:
The purpose of this workshop is to gather information on the subject areas below.  Discussion topics to be covered during this workshop may include:

 

1.    Subsurface radiological surveys ranging from historical site assessments, scoping, characterization, remedial action, confirmatory, and final status surveys.

2.    DCGLs for contaminants in the subsurface and use of multiple DCGLs for surface and/or subsurface layers. Evaluating elevated areas or hot spots (DCGLEMC) for potential doses to receptors including the inadvertent intruder.

3.    Evaluation of sites with geospatial and statistical methods.

·Statistical methods and geospatial modeling tools and software to analyze contaminant distributions and optimize sampling and scanning of the sub-surface.

·Methods to determine the sample density, spatial distributions, depths, and volume to achieve a level of confidence and limit decision errors.

·Applicability of MARSSIM statistical tests and other alternative methods.

  • Treatment of uncertainty and data sufficiency.
  • Applicability of “composite sampling” or surrogate ratios.
4.  Applicability of Scenario B for subsurface residual radioactivity and demonstrating indistinguishability from background.
5.  Methods to survey large subsurface soil excavations and survey of soils for reuse in large excavations including use of conveyor belts and other methods.
 
The executive summary to a draft Technical Letter Report by SC&A (see link below) outlines some key issues related to sub-surface characterization and surveys for decommissioning, and in some cases suggests approaches to resolving those concerns. Attendees are strongly encouraged to have read or be familiar with the nomenclature and procedures of the MARSSIM document, as analogous terminology and many of the same concepts may be useful for subsurface surveys as well. This is already reflected in the discussion topics listed above, in NUREG/CR 7021, and the SC&A executive summary.
 
Key References:
  • NUREG/CR 7021, “A Subsurface Decision Model for Supporting Environmental Compliance,” issued January 2012. 
Workshop Contacts:

Mark Fuhrmann, mark.fuhrmann@nrc.gov & Tom Aird, thomas.aird@nrc.gov

 
Thank you.
 
 
Anne Fream
Administrative Assistant
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Division of Decommissionning, Uranium Recovery,
  and Waste Programs
301-415-0645
 
/var/folders/_k/2vy99bkn3ss430kmkxpph3fh0000gp/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/cidimage001.png@01D5E8D0.A58A6610
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Contact: Jessica Woolford, 202-557-8037
 
 
SCHUMER, GILLIBRAND, JONES, MALONEY, BOWMAN SEEK CLARIFICATION ON HOLTEC’S PLANS TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY AND ENGAGEMENT WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT INDIAN POINT DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS
 
Ahead of PSC Decision, the Bicameral Group of Lawmakers Wrote to Holtec in Continued Advocacy for Transparency, Jobs, and Community Input for Path Forward
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, Representatives Mondaire Jones, Sean Patrick Maloney and Jamaal Bowman wrote a letter to Holtec International requesting the company’s plans to hold public meetings with local Hudson Valley stakeholders. The lawmakers outlined a series of questions they requested answers to, in the hopes of ensuring transparency and good-faith engagement over the course of the Indian Point decommissioning process.
 
“As the federal elected representatives for the Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) and the surrounding communities, we have a strong interest in providing oversight of the decommissioning process and the transfer of Indian Point’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license from Entergy Corporation to Holtec International. Given that Indian Point is the first nuclear power plant in New York to officially retire as of April 30th, 2021, it is critical that over the course of the decommissioning process there is a clear precedent set for full transparency and good-faith engagement with federal, state, local officials and stakeholders in the Lower Hudson Valley,” wrote the lawmakers.
 
“While we applaud the effort of these entities to ensure the people of New York are protected as the decommissioning of Indian Point moves forward, we remain concerned about the lack of public hearings and the approved exemption requests, among other outstanding issues. In order to assist in our understanding of Holtec’s decommissioning plans for Indian Point and to clarify the proposed settlement agreement,” continued the lawmakers.
 
The bicameral group of lawmakers previously wrote to the new NRC chairman calling on him to ensure that the Hudson Valley community would have their voices heard during the Indian Point ownership transfer. 
 
Read the text of the letter here and below.
 
Dear Dr. Singh:
 
As the federal elected representatives for the Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) and the surrounding communities, we have a strong interest in providing oversight of the decommissioning process and the transfer of Indian Point’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license from Entergy Corporation to Holtec International. Given that Indian Point is the first nuclear power plant in New York to officially retire as of April 30th, 2021, it is critical that over the course of the decommissioning process there is a clear precedent set for full transparency and good-faith engagement with federal, state, local officials and stakeholders in the Lower Hudson Valley.
 
It is our understanding that, as currently written, within 10 business days of the New York State (NYS) Public Service Commission's (PSC) issuance of the proposed settlement agreement, the NYS Office of the Attorney General, Riverkeeper, and jointly, the Local Entities shall each submit a stipulation of dismissal of their respective petitions for review of the NRC decisions approving license transfer and regulatory exemptions, and denying the petitions for intervention and requests for hearing. While we applaud the effort of these entities to ensure the people of New York are protected as the decommissioning of Indian Point moves forward, we remain concerned about the lack of public hearings and the approved exemption requests, among other outstanding issues. In order to assist in our understanding of Holtec’s decommissioning plans for Indian Point and to clarify the proposed settlement agreement, we are requesting answers to the following questions by May 24, 2021:
 
  • In the proposed settlement agreement there is currently no mention of Holtecholding a public meetings with the community. What is Holtec’s plan for regular community engagement with the public regarding decommissioning activities occurring at the site?
a)       Will Holtec commit to holding at least one public meeting with the community in 2021?
b)       If yes, how will that information be communicated to the public?
 
  • Will Holtec commit to providing federal representatives with the agreed upon written monthly progress reports in addition to state and local officials? (see agreement page 18)[1]
 
  • Holtec has agreed to provide job opportunities for over 300 of Entergy’s current employees and honor the collective bargaining agreements currently in place. For future hires, does Holtec commit to hiring locally and expanding collective bargaining agreements to cover new employees?
 
  • We understand that following Partial Site Release Holtec has agreed to commit $25,000 annually to emergency management response until the fiscal year in which License Termination occurs. What factors contributed to the agreed upon sum? 
a)       How will you provide emergency planning to the neighboring counties which are left out of the Emergency Response Plan agreement (Putnam, Orange, and Dutchess counties)?
 
  • There are a number of environmental and public health concerns surrounding on-site storage of spent fuel and the risks posed.
a)       What are Holtec’s plans to improve the safety of on-site storage in the interim at Indian Point?
b)       How often does Holtec plan to inspect the dry casks and canisters to ensure there is no corrosion, cracking, or aging? 
c)       What is Holtec’s plan to monitor any potential leaks into the groundwater or wells in the surrounding area? Does Holtechave an emergency management plan in place if such a leak were to occur? If so, please include it in your response.
 
  • Within 5 years of license transfer, the proposed settlement agreement states that Holtec agrees to file a complaint against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the recovery of all spent fuel management costs incurred after the Transaction Closing Date that are “ascertainable at that time.” Thereafter, under the proposed agreement, “Holtec agrees to seek spent fuel management cost recovery from DOE at recurring intervals not to exceed 5 years.” And, “Holtec agrees to deposit no less than 50 percent of each DOE recovery in a dedicated subaccount within the Decommissioning Trust Fund (DTF).”
 
a)       You have stated that Holtecexpects to recover funds from the DOE through settlement of its claims for the spent fuel management costs incurred as a result of the DOE’s breach of its obligations to dispose of Indian Point’s spent nuclear fuel. However, the NRC also approved an exemption to use the DTF on “spent fuel management.” Given this, how can the public be sure that Holtec will not treat DOE recoveries as corporate profit? 
 
b)       This agreement only contains a 50 percent required commitment that Holtec will reimburse the trust funds with DOE litigation recoveries. How can the public be sure that Holtecwill use the ratepayer-funded DTF for spent fuel management on site and site restoration? 
 
Thank you for your attention to our questions, and we look forward to receiving your prompt reply.
 
                                                                        Sincerely,
 
###

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 - Integrated Inspection Report 05000387/2021001 and 05000388/2021001
 
ADAMS Accession No.  ML21125A253
 
ML21102A142 and ML21102A143 – Summary of March 15, 2021, Webinar to Obtain Comments on NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2 and Enclosure
 
 

Comments from TMI-Alert Chairman, Eric Epstein:

"Reading through the notice, it really is incredible that NRC would even consider this application, much less put it out for comment and hearing requests, with so little information about the new corporate owner under the spinoff."

"It is not possible for  NRC to make a determination on the financial qualifications of the new licensees, in particular, given what is known about reactors’ finances and the new company’s shortage of assets, and the sufficiency of guaranteed revenue sources."

Type: 
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000277/2021401 and 05000278/2021401
 
ADAMS Accession No.  ML21117A343
 

FirstEnergy improperly used money collected from customers in five states to pay for expenses connected to the ongoing corruption scandal in Ohio, the company has confirmed. 

 
The money was collected from customers of FirstEnergy’s regulated distribution and transmission utilities in Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, according to statements found in annual Form 1 reports the utilities recently filed this month with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
FirstEnergy first disclosed in February that its internal investigation related to the federal racketeering case against former Ohio House speaker Larry Householder had:
… identified certain transactions, which, in some instances, extended back ten years or more, including vendor services, that were either improperly classified, misallocated to certain of the Utilities and Transmission Companies, or lacked proper supporting documentation. These transactions resulted in amounts collected from customers that were immaterial to FirstEnergy, and the Utilities and Transmission Companies will be working with the appropriate regulatory agencies to address these amounts.
The Energy and Policy Institute found similar statements in annual Form 1 reports for 2020 filed with FERC by fourteen FirstEnergy distribution, generation, and transmission utilities earlier this month; the statements indicated that the money was collected from customers of all fourteen subsidiaries. 
One statement found in the Form 1 report filed by Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) reads as follows (highlights added):
… in connection with the internal investigation, FirstEnergy recently identified certain transactions, which, in some instances, extended back ten or more years, including vendor service, that were either improperly classified, misallocated to certain FirstEnergy utility and transmission companies, or lacked proper supporting documentation. These transactions resulted in amounts collected from customers that were immaterial to FirstEnergy and JCP&L. These utility and transmission companies will be working with the appropriate regulatory agencies to address these amounts.
Nearly identical statements were found in Form 1s filed by thirteen other FirstEnergy utilities, only with the initials of the utility filing the report inserted in the place of JCP&L’s, including Allegheny Generating CompanyAmerican Transmission SystemsCleveland Electric Illuminating CompanyMetropolitan EdisonMon PowerOhio EdisonMid-Atlantic Interstate TransmissionPATH Allegheny Transmission CompanyPennsylvania Electric Company,  Pennsylvania Power CompanyPotomac EdisonToledo Edison, and West Penn Power
 
The Energy and Policy Institute asked Jennifer Young, a spokesperson for FirstEnergy, to confirm that the money was collected from customers of the distribution and transmission utilities that included those statements in their Form 1s. 
 
“Your interpretation of the disclosure is correct,” Young responded in an email.
 
new Factbook for FirstEnergy investors also said that the company is “Working with the state regulators to return funds to ratepayers that were improperly included in customer rates.”
 
“During our last call, we mentioned that we were proactively engaging with our regulators to refund customers for certain vendor payments,” FirstEnergy CEO Steven Strah said during an earnings call this morning. “Those conversations are underway in each affected jurisdiction.”
 
“In Ohio, at the PUCO’s request, the scope of our annual audit of Rider DCR has been expanded to include a review of these payments,” Strah said.
 
Last month, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) directed that the audit of FirstEnergy’s Delivery Capitalization Rider (DCR) be expanded to include to “determine whether any funds from ratepayers were used to pay for the vendors and if so, whether funds associated with the payments should be returned to ratepayers through Rider DCR or through an alternative proceeding.”
 
FirstEnergy did not respond to a request for more information about how exactly FirstEnergy is working to refund the money to customers, and in which affected jurisdictions.
Exactly how much money was improperly collected from customers remains a closely guarded secret, but some details have trickled out of FirstEnergy and more may be on the way. 
 
Company officials said on an earnings call in February that the “transactions” included a $4.3 million payment to an individual who fit the description of former Public Utilities Commission of Ohio chairman Samuel Randazzo, who resigned last year after the FBI raided his townhouse in Columbus. The transactions “could” have also included money spent on lobbying and political efforts, company officials said on the call. 
 
Santino Fanelli, FirstEnergy’s director of rates and regulatory affairs, revealed during a March deposition led by the Ohio Consumers Counsel that at least some of the $56.6 million that was secretly routed from the FirstEnergy Service Company to Generation Now was misallocated to FirstEnergy’s Ohio utilities, which include Ohio Edison, CEI, and Toledo Edison. 
 
Generation Now is one of three defendants that have pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy charges in the Householder case, in connection with a $60 million bribery scheme that resulted in a $1 billion nuclear power plant bailout included in Ohio’s 2019 energy law House Bill 6, as well as coal bailouts and a gutting of clean energy laws. 
 
FirstEnergy disclosed today in a quarterly financial report that it is discussing the possibility of a deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. The company also said that it “believes it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the investigation.” 
 
FERC is now investigating FirstEnergy’s lobbying and governmental affairs activities concerning HB 6. 

Earlier research by the Energy and Policy Institute found that customers of FirstEnergy’s distribution and transmission utilities may be on the hook for as much as $137 million in money paid to the FirstEnergy Service Company in 2017 to 2019 for external affairs support that included lobbying and government affairs.
 
Below is an excerpt from JCP&L’s annual Form 1 report for 2020.

Top image attributed to Jericho from Wikipedia CommonsCreative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported license.
 
Updated on April 23, 2021 with additional information disclosed during FirstEnergy earnings call and in related investors materials posted on FirstEnergy’s website.

Pages