PPL shuts Susquehanna 2 reactor due to control system fault

Fri Nov 9, 2012 4:20am EST

Related Topics

Nov 9 (Reuters) - PPL Corp said it shut down its
1,190-megawatt Unit 2 at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in
Pennsylvania on Friday after a computer system that controls the
reactor's water level malfunctioned.
    "Operators manually shut down the reactor when they
identified the malfunction," PPL said in a statement.
    During the outage, employees will address the control system
malfunction and begin a previously scheduled turbine blade
inspection, PPL said.
    Susquehanna 1 continued to operate. 
STATE:      Pennsylvania          
COUNTY:     Luzerne          
TOWN:       Salem Township          
OPERATOR:   PPL Susquehanna LLC          
OWNER(S):   PPL Corp (90 pct)          
            Allegheny Electric Coop Inc (10 pct)          
CAPACITY:   2,450 MW 
UNIT(S):    1 - 1,260-MW General Electric boiling water         
            2 - 1,190-MW General Electric boiling water         
FUEL:       Nuclear         
DISPATCH:   Baseload      
COST:       $4.1 billion         
1983       - Unit 1 enters commercial service          
1985       - Unit 2 enters commercial service          
2008       - PPL files with NRC to build one of Areva SA's      
             1,600 MW Evolutionary Power Reactors    
             (EPR) at the site to be called Bell Bend. PPL      
             estimated the new reactor could cost $10 billion   
2009       - NRC renews 40-year licenses for Units 1 and 2 for  
             additional 20 years          
2009-11    - PPL to uprate plant output by about 110 MW      
2013       - NRC expected to decide on construction and 
             operating license for Bell Bend, but the schedule 
             is being revised 
2042       - Unit 1 extended license to expire          
2044       - Unit 2 extended license to expire
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
Paxus wrote:
So the fact that the regulator and the utility agree that we are safe means little. The regulator is captured by the nuclear utility, which was exactly what lead to the Fukushima disaster. http://funologist.org/2012/10/20/nrc-hides-information-about-high-probability-dam-breaks/

Nov 09, 2012 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.