NRC spots problem during nuclear power plant safety drill
Beaver Valley nuclear power plant may have failed part of an April federal safety drill in which mock intruders attack the plant, federal regulators and the plant owners said on Monday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission spotted a problem during the “force-on-force” test, in which plant security and staged saboteurs battle with laser guns and other simulated weapons, according to plant owner FirstEnergy Corp. and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The commission has not made a final ruling on how severe the problem was, but plant officials corrected it before the inspectors left, according to the commission.
Its spokesman and a spokeswoman at FirstEnergy, Pennsylvania's largest electricity provider, declined to detail the issue. The company claims the plant's problem may have been the way it conducted the exercise, and not an actual security failure. It has asked to appeal any finding that the problem went beyond the lowest level of severity, spokeswoman Jennifer Young said from the company's Akron headquarters.
“The good news for people living nearby is that the NRC came in and identified these security problems during an intensive test,” said Dave Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The poor showing is embarrassing to the company. Had these vulnerabilities been found by real bad guys, the poor showing would have graver implications.”
The NRC has a four-level, color-coded scale for security violations, with a green violation at the bottom, very low significance. Federal officials found six problems at the green level and one potentially beyond it, according to a letter it sent to the plant manager on Aug. 8.
The test was routine, but the plant has had a string of incidents. Another undisclosed security problem from August 2012 put the plant under increased federal scrutiny. Inspectors had to make a return visit this July because of dozens of minor problems that turned up last year when they conducted an assessment of how well the plant could withstand an earthquake.
The agency released the letter on Monday as it announced a meeting with FirstEnergy officials on Sept. 5. The company had asked for the meeting, which it is entitled to as regulators review their findings before a final determination. The commission has not yet cited the company for a violation, pending the review, the letter said.
Only one plant had a similar problem and simulated damage during the commission's 23 different inspections in 2012, according to the commission's annual report. That's a typical year, said Lochbaum, adding that Beaver Valley “was certainly below par” when considering both its larger problem and its six low-level problems. Eleven plants last year had those kinds of low-level problems, averaging about two each.
“It's not uncommon to have some green violations in any inspections. Of course, we don't want them,” Young said. “We take all of these findings very seriously. We look at these as an opportunity to improve our already strong security system there.”
Timothy Puko is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7991 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Symposiums to spotlight Pittsburgh’s role as an energy powerhouse
- Balancing gas pipeline expansion, environmental unease a problem in Pennsylvania
- More companies embrace exchanges to curb health care costs
- Hospitals turn to technology to tear down language barriers with patients
- U.S. Steel shares jump on turnaround strategy
- Stocks drift amid Alibaba’s IPO drama
- Families, friends become lenders of last resort for homebuyers
- Getting into executive pipeline may require schmoozing
- CNG autos slow to make inroads into U.S. market
- Parasitic load issue solvable with some probing
- MarksJarvis: Benefits, not just pay, hit the skids