Ex-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko: No More Nuclear Power for Japan Unless Japan Is Willing to Have Another Accident

I do not believe anyone in Japan, regardless of whether he/she is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, wants to have another nuclear accident. But according to the former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Japan then has to abandon nuclear power.

From Wall Street Journal's Fukushima Watch (3/12/2014):

Fukushima Watch: Is Japan Ready for Another Nuclear Accident?

Is Japan ready for another nuclear accident? That is a question the country must answer before returning to large-scale reliance on nuclear power, according to a former senior U.S. nuclear energy regulatory official.

“This has to be remembered — that there are certain accidents that are not preventable,” said Gregory Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “The question Japan has to ask itself is: Is the country willing to have another accident? And if the answer is no, then the answer has to be no more nuclear power,” he said Tuesday in an interview with JRT.

Mr. Jaczko made the remarks as the ruling Liberal Democratic Party debates whether to approve a new energy plan that defines nuclear power as an important “base load” electricity source that should almost always run at full capacity. During a ceremony Tuesday to commemorate the third anniversary of the March 2011 disaster that triggered the Fukushima crisis, LDP lawmaker an lower house speaker Bunmei Ibuki said “it seems as if we have reaped the benefits of electricity … while letting the people of Fukushima bear the cost.”

Reaffirming a commitment to nuclear power was one of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s campaign promises in the national election he won in late 2012. But during parliamentary deliberations Monday, Mr. Abe himself called for a reduction on dependence on nuclear power “as much as possible.” Nevertheless, he stressed the importance of nuclear power and called for the restart of reactors idled since the Fukushima accident.

Public opinion polls have consistently shown high approval for Mr. Abe’s leadership and strong opposition to nuclear power at the same time.

In the March 2011 disaster, an earthquake caused large tsunami waves that knocked out all backup power at the Fukushima plant, paralyzing cooling systems and eventually causing three of six reactors to melt down.

Investigations later showed the plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.9501.TO -2.51% had underestimated the potential size of a tsunami and the chances of losing all power, ignoring studies recommending stronger safety systems.

Mr. Jaczko said it was true Tepco had failed to sufficiently prepare for the disaster. “But at the end of the day, Tepco didn’t create the earthquake, Mother Nature did that,” he said.

Japan’s new, stricter regulations meant to prevent another big accident like Fukushima took effect in July 2013. Since then, the Nuclear Regulation Authority has been reviewing the safety of several reactors that power companies want to restart. The NRA is expected to identify one or two reactors that are nearly ready to restart when its board meets Thursday.

That nuclear power plant looks to be Sendai Nuclear Power Plant located in Kagoshima Prefecture in southern Kyushu. The operator, Kyushu Electric Power Company, is likely to face power shortage this summer, and there is little opposition in the city of Satsumasendai, where the power plant is located.

Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority's review of the nuclear power plants based on the new regulatory standard that NRA crafted in haste is mostly about hardware - plants, reactors, equipment, backup batteries, etc.. I don't believe NRA has even adequately investigated what went wrong on the "software" side of the Fukushima nuclear accident - how well or how badly politicians, regulators, scientists, TEPCO communicated with each other in the crucial first few weeks of the accident, for example. Or why the teleconference system at the Prime Minister's Official Residence was never turned on. Or why no one was able to tell then-PM Kan to shut up and listen to the experts.

They didn't communicate well at all, but the NRA commissioners - four scientists and one former diplomat - seem to think they can do much better and there is no need to learn from the mistakes from people like Dr. Haruki Madarame, who has publicly demanded that NRA call him and hear him out. Dr. Madarame is rather upset that the NRA commissioners don't think it necessary to learn from the mistakes he made as he was in the middle of the initial chaos after the start of the nuclear accident.

So, not for the reason that Dr. Jaczko cites - if Japan don't want another nuclear accident - but for the reason that practically nothing has been learned on the "software" mistakes from the Fukushima nuclear accident, I agree with Dr. Jaczko that Japan should stay away from nuclear power generation.

Tweet

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman: IAEA's Recommendation to Release Water from #Fukushima I NPP Appropriate

US NRC Chairman Allison MacFarlene is in Japan right now, and she spoke with the reporters on December 6 at the US Embassy in Tokyo.

From Jiji Tsushin (12/6/2013):

汚染水の海洋放出検討は妥当＝ＩＡＥＡの勧告支持－米原子力規制委員長

It is appropriate to consider releasing the contaminated water, as IAEA recommended, says US NRC Chairman

来日中のマクファーレン米原子力規制委員会（ＮＲＣ）委員長は６日、国際原子力機関（ＩＡＥＡ）調査団が東京電力福島第１原発事故の影響で蓄積する放射能汚染水について、海洋に放出する可能性を含めて検討すべきだと勧告したことは「妥当だ」と述べ、支持する考えを示した。東京都内の米国大使館で記者団に答えた。

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman MacFarlane indicated her support for the IAEA recommendation to consider releasing the contaminated water accumulating at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant as the result of the nuclear accident into the ocean. She said the recommendation was appropriate. She spoke with the press at the United States Embassy in Tokyo.

ＩＡＥＡ調査団は４日に、基準値以下の汚染水であれば「放出することを含めた選択肢を検討すべきだ」との報告をまとめていた。

The IAEA delegation issued a report on December 4 that recommended considering alternatives including releasing into the ocean if radioactive materials in the water are below the legal limit.

また同委員長は、福島第１原発事故を原因とする汚染物質が米西海岸地域に与える影響に関する報道が米国内で出ていることについて問われ、「人々が放射線の影響を心配するのは当然だ」と指摘。一方で、「米国（の海）に到達する放射線の量は最大でも飲料水基準の１００分の１未満」との予測に言及し、冷静な対応を呼び掛けた。

Chairman MacFarlane was asked about reporting in the US on the effect of radioactive contaminants from the Fukushima I NPP accident on the west coast of the US. She pointed out that it was natural for people to worry about the effect of radiation, but she referred to the estimate that "the density of radioactive materials that will reach the US (coastal water) will be less than 1/100th of the standard set for drinking water" and called for calm response.

Other than certain blogs and websites that continue to grossly exaggerate the Fukushima nuclear accident (almost to the point of falsifying, by withholding or ignoring data and by declaring "they lie") after nearly two years and 9 months, I don't see much reporting on the Fukushima accident in the US.

There is no mention of the press conference at the US Embassy website yet.

In order to release the treated water from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, ALPS has to be in full operation (to remove gamma nuclides other than cesium, and alpha and beta nuclides (including strontium)), but it isn't. The system continues to have minor problems that prevent the system from operating fully. Then, currently there is no large-scale system that could remove tritium (whatever the US Energy Secretary says about Kurion), thus dilution as recommended by IAEA.

=====================

By the way, the US NRC has been ordered to resume the licensing review of Yucca Mountain Waste Repository, after the "US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a 2-1 decision August 13 that NRC had violated the law when it suspended the congressionally mandated review of the Yucca Mountain repository license application in 2011 and ordered the agency to restart that process".

From Platts.com (11/18/2013; emphasis is mine):

US NRC to resume Yucca Mountain waste repository licensing review

The commissioners of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered agency staff Monday to complete and publish a safety evaluation report on the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, nuclear spent fuel and waste repository.

"The Commission has also requested [Department of Energy] to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement requested by the staff in order to complete [NRC's] environmental review of the application," NRC said in a statement Monday.

The multi-volume safety evaluation report, or SER, reflects NRC staff's assessment of the repository proposed for the site roughly 95 miles (about 153 km) outside Las Vegas and is considered in NRC's determination of whether the facility would meet regulatory requirements. Volume 3 on the post-closure safety of a repository at Yucca Mountain is central to making that determination.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the US nuclear power industry, was among those who have recommended that completion of the SER be a top NRC priority. NEI did not respond immediately Monday to a request for comment on the commission's order.

YUCCA DECISION NOT IMMINENT

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said in a post Monday on the agency's blog that the commission's order does not "signal that a licensing decision is imminent. Before a final licensing decision can be made, the adjudicatory hearing must be completed, and the Commission must perform its own review."

Calls for completion of the SER were included in comments NRC staff and licensing participants filed with the commission September 30.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a 2-1 decision August 13 that NRC had violated the law when it suspended the congressionally mandated review of the Yucca Mountain repository license application in 2011 and ordered the agency to restart that process.

Gregory Jaczko, the NRC chairman in 2011, attributed the suspension to NRC's lack of funds to complete the work. The agency began what it called an "orderly closure" of its Yucca licensing activities in 2010, the same year DOE dismantled the Yucca Mountain program and left the repository license application at NRC under review.

NRC staff estimated in comments to the commission in September that it is possible SER Volumes 2-5 could be completed in about 12 months at a total cost of less than $11.1 million, the amount of carryover funds NRC has available to complete the review.

DOE told the commission in its comments that the department "is committed to complying as expeditiously as possible with any NRC order, subject to the availability of funds." DOE said it has about $15.4 million in unobligated Yucca carryover funds that could be used to support participation in an NRC licensing proceeding. The department added that it also has $29.5 million in Nuclear Waste Fund money that is obligated on existing contracts and that about $18.1 million of that obligated money could be used for DOE work needed to support an NRC licensing proceeding.

NRC's McIntyre said Monday that the commission's order does not direct staff to resume an NRC licensing board's adjudicatory hearing on the application, nor does it reactivate the Licensing Support Network, or LSN, a system created by NRC as a web-based document storage and retrieval system that could be used as tool during legal discovery in a Yucca licensing proceeding.

"The Commission said it would consider the future of the LSN and the adjudicatory hearing once the tasks it directed today are completed and it can determine what tasks it can perform with whatever available funds remain," McIntyre said.

Tweet

US NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane: Life after #Fukushima - “The New Normal”

I guess Ms. Macfarlane probably doesn't know that the word "New Normal" was coined by PIMCO's co-president Mohamed A. El-Erian, as she doesn't give any credit to PIMCO when she quotes the word...

El-Erian's "New Normal" is the phrase he coined in 2009 to describe the post-Lehman world of slow economic growth, high unemployment and high government debt.

In Macfarlane's "New Normal", she says that "public interest in nuclear power, whether positive or negative, remains heightened."

So what exactly is her definition of "New Normal" in nuclear industry regulation, other than to say "In the months and years ahead, we should continue to consider “the new normal,” and assess the nature of the influence Fukushima will have on our daily work"?

Continue to consider?

Well I haven't had time and patience to read the 5-page statement yet, but you can read her entire prepared statement at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Nuclear Energy Assembly on May 14, 2013, here.

Feel free to leave the summary in the comment section.

In early April this year, NRC effectively ditched the idea of filtered vent (a la Sir Humphrey, "further study is needed").

Tweet

Former US NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko: "All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed"

From New York Times (4/8/2013), right after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission effectively shelved the idea of filtered vent:

Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed

WASHINGTON — All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.

The position of the former chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, is not unusual in that various anti-nuclear groups take the same stance. But it is highly unusual for a former head of the nuclear commission to so bluntly criticize an industry whose safety he was previously in charge of ensuring.

Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.”

“I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems,” which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”

Dr. Jaczko made his remarks at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington in a session about the Fukushima accident. Dr. Jaczko said that many American reactors that had received permission from the nuclear commission to operate for 20 years beyond their initial 40-year licenses probably would not last that long. He also rejected as unfeasible changes proposed by the commission that would allow reactor owners to apply for a second 20-year extension, meaning that some reactors would run for a total of 80 years.

Dr. Jaczko cited a well-known characteristic of nuclear reactor fuel to continue to generate copious amounts of heat after a chain reaction is shut down. That “decay heat” is what led to the Fukushima meltdowns. The solution, he said, was probably smaller reactors in which the heat could not push the temperature to the fuel’s melting point.

The nuclear industry disagreed with Dr. Jaczko’s assessment. “U.S. nuclear energy facilities are operating safely,” said Marvin S. Fertel, the president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association. “That was the case prior to Greg Jaczko’s tenure as Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman. It was the case during his tenure as N.R.C. chairman, as acknowledged by the N.R.C.’s special Fukushima response task force and evidenced by a multitude of safety and performance indicators. It is still the case today.”

Dr. Jaczko resigned as chairman last summer after months of conflict with his four colleagues on the commission. He often voted in the minority on various safety questions, advocated more vigorous safety improvements, and was regarded with deep suspicion by the nuclear industry. A former aide to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, he was appointed at Mr. Reid’s instigation and was instrumental in slowing progress on a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas.

Dr. Jaczko visited Fukushima last summer. Maybe it was that visit that influenced him. If you haven't seen the NHK documentary of that visit, see my post from December 30, 2012. In the documentary, he seemed to be genuinely touched by the devastation in Namie-machi, and by the people's lives destroyed by the nuclear accident.

Tweet

US NRC Will Delay Filtered Vent Plan and Study Options, Final Rulemaking by March 2017

Let's kick the can...

It looks the cost-benefit ("performance-based") analysis argument by the Congressional Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee won.

To recap the Committee's letter to the NRC chairwoman:

"With respect to these [safety] enhancements, we have particular concern about the potential requirement to install "filtered vents" for certain boiling water reactors which we understand to be significant, capital-intensive structures. As instructed by the Commission, the NRC staff has proposed four potential options but urged the Commission to choose "Option 3." Under this option, the Commission would issue an order requiring the installation of fintered vents rather than pursuing a performance-based process."

Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will "study options" and won't make the final rule till March 2017. The Commission's thinking as you can read in the article below take the House Energy and Commerce Committee's thinking extremely seriously.

From Power News (3/21/2013; links are in the original, emphasis is mine):

NRC Delays Action on Vent Plan, Directs Staff to Study Options

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Tuesday delayed approving a recommendation made by technical staff that calls for upgrades or replacements of "hardened" venting systems at the nation's 31 Mark I and Mark II boiling water reactors (BWRs), giving staff a year instead to assess other options and produce a "technical evaluation" on the proposal.

The NRC commissioners directed staff to follow a two-track approach for further improvements to systems for safely venting pressure during potential accidents at the reactors, in response to the Fukushima accident in March 2011. It gave the staff 60 days to finalize a March 2012 order, which will require vents to handle elevated pressures, temperatures, and radiation from a damaged reactor. The order will also ensure plant personnel can operate vents safely under these accident conditions.

It also gave the staff a year to produce a technical evaluation to support rulemaking on filtering, gathering more public input as it completes its analysis. Directing the staff to consider both the use of a filter to be placed on the vent, as well as a more performance-based approach using existing systems to achieve a similar reduction in radioactive release during an accident, the commission said the draft rule and final rule must be ready by March 2017.

A vent generally refers to a pipe connected to the primary containment of a nuclear power plant and leading to the plant’s exhaust stack. It is designed to allow gases inside the containment to be removed. “The major problem at Fukushima was getting the containment vents open,” said Doug True, president of ERIN Engineering and Research told Nuclear Insight last fall. “Significant delays in the decision to open the vents, combined with the Japanese decision-making process and difficulties in opening the vent valves, delayed the venting action, which in turn led to hydrogen explosions.”

The NRC's decision was widely viewed as a victory for the nuclear industry. The NRC has estimated that filtered vents could cost up to $15 million, but other estimates put costs of equipment at $30 million or more.

But media reports accusing the nuclear energy industry of opposing the installation of filtered vents on Mark I and II BWRs are incorrect, say Jason Zorn, assistant general counsel, and Steven Kraft, senior technical advisor at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI ). The issue is a technical one. "In the extremely unlikely event that an accident progresses to the point of the fuel melting through the reactor vessel onto the containment floor, it is imperative that water be injected into containment to cool the fuel debris on the floor," they say. "If not, radiation releases will occur from numerous locations in the containment building and bypass the vent. If the vent is bypassed, it doesn’t help if there is a filter on the vent, because it, too, will be bypassed."

Filtering strategies based on the individual plant evaluations could result in the installation of a vent filter, "if that’s what makes sense for a given plant," they said.

Sources: POWERnews, NRC, Nuclear Insight, NEI

“Significant delays in the decision to open the vents, combined with the Japanese decision-making process and difficulties in opening the vent valves, delayed the venting action, which in turn led to hydrogen explosions"?

The vents couldn't be opened for a long time because there was no power. There are experts and engineers who have proposed that instead of delay in venting leading to hydrogen explosion, venting may actually have caused hydrogen explosions in Reactors 1 and 3 because of the peculiar structure of the exhausts stacks and power loss. Instead of leaving via the exhaust stack, vented hydrogen gas came back inside the reactor building, they say.

Water under the bridge at this point, except that inaccurate understanding of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident is being used as excuse.

"Performance-based" cost saving instead of "Defense in Depth", without properly defining "cost".

======================

Defense in depth, in NRC's own words:

An approach to designing and operating nuclear facilities that prevents and mitigates accidents that release radiation or hazardous materials. The key is creating multiple independent and redundant layers of defense to compensate for potential human and mechanical failures so that no single layer, no matter how robust, is exclusively relied upon. Defense-in-depth includes the use of access controls, physical barriers, redundant and diverse key safety functions, and emergency response measures. For further information, see Speech No. S-04-009 (PDF), "The Very Best-Laid Plans (the NRC's Defense-in Depth Philosophy)."

I thought venting is an emergency response measure...

Tweet

US House Energy & Commerce Committee Opposes NRC's Requirement of Filtered Vents in BWRs in the US, Says #Fukushima Accident Cannot Happen in the US

Republican members of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee has sent an open letter dated January 15, 2013 and addressed to Chairwoman Allison MacFarlane of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, demanding that NRC answer their concern that NRC's attempt to further regulate the nuclear industry after the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident may be stifling and unnecessary for the health of the industry.

They seem to be saying, correctly I suppose, the US is not Japan.

From their letter (PDF; emphasis is mine):

(Page 2)

"In particular, concerns were raised about the agency's departure from rigorous technical and cost-benefit analysis. Yet as the Commission readies itself to take additional actions concerning "Tier One" recommendations (post-Fukushima items of highest priority), it appears that the NRC may be discarding the disciplined processes that for years have ensured that reactor safety is rooted in performance-based regulation, appropriately recognizing each nuclear plant is different. It also appears that the Commission is considering some issues on an independent basis without considering how those issues impact other matters currently pending before the Commission and previous NRC actions that are already being implemented by the industry. This suggests the Commission views the cumulative impact[s] of its actions as merely a cursory scheduling challenge, and ignores the serious risk that piecemeal consideration of related issues may yield unintended consequences."

Right below this passage, the letter quotes NRC Commissioner William Magwood and the official report of the Fukushima accident investigation commission set up by the Japanese National Diet (out of context, in my opinion) that say the accident was "made uniquely in Japan".

And what exactly is their beef that isn't justifiable with the traditional "cost-benefit analysis"?

Filtered vents.

(Page 4)

"With respect to these [safety] enhancements, we have particular concern about the potential requirement to install "filtered vents" for certain boiling water reactors which we understand to be significant, capital-intensive structures. As instructed by the Commission, the NRC staff has proposed four potential options but urged the Commission to choose "Option 3." Under this option, the Commission would issue an order requiring the installation of fintered vents rather than pursuing a performance-based process."

It is apparently of no concern to these Representatives (or should I say representatives of the US nuclear industry) that it was the dry vents from the reactors at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, not so much the explosions, that contaminated much of Tohoku and Kanto.

Instead, their concern is over cost, and adequacy of protection, as the letter quote yet another NRC Commissioner insisting on a "fully developed justification", and says:

We strongly agree and observe that the "fully developed justification" Commissioner Ostendorff referenced remains absent. To move forward on a poorly justified, precedent-setting proposal like Option 3 would be a disturbing erosion of the NRC's historically disciplined standard of adequate protection.

Their "performance-based process" seems to mean that as long as there is no accident there is no need for "costly" filtered vents. Their cost calculation doesn't seem to include the public and social cost in case of an accident, because an accident is not supposed to happen.

How's that thinking different from Japan's before the Fukushima accident?

Later in the letter, the argument is made that the closure of a nuclear power plant would result in power shortages and a huge loss of local employment.

It is the same old argument that has been made everywhere in Japan. So, what's different in the US?

Tweet

San Onofre Nuke Plant: "Mitsubishi Heavy failed certain requirements", Says NRC

NRC says Mitsubishi Heavy Industries failed to meet requirements related to the mock-up and testing of re-designed components for the steam generators.

So-Cal Edison wants to restart Reactor 2 in March. It says independent experts from Areva, Westingshouse/Toshiba, and Intertek/Aptech conducted the operational assessment.

SCE insists the company didn't rely on Mitsubishi (as if it is a good thing; maybe it is...).

For more on the Mitsubishi-made steam generator problems at San Onofre, see my posts (here and here).

From Reuters (12/19/2012; emphasis is mine):

SCE's Calif. San Onofre restart plan didn't rely on Mitsubishi

* NRC says Mitsubishi Heavy failed certain requirements

* SCE wants to restart Unit 2 at San Onofre

* NRC may approve of San Onofre 2 restart in March

* San Onofre reactors shut in January

Dec 19 (Reuters) - California power company Southern California Edison (SCE) said it did not rely on testing by Japanese engineering firm Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd to develop its restart plan for Unit 2 at the San Onofre nuclear plant in California.

Both reactors at the 2,150-megawatt (MW) San Onofre plant shut in January due to tube wear problems in the units' new steam generators. Mitsubishi Heavy built those steam generators and installed them in 2010 and 2011.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said in a letter posted on its website that Mitsubishi Heavy failed to meet certain requirements related to the mock-up and testing of re-designed components for the steam generators that may be used to repair the San Onofre steam generators.

But in a statement Tuesday night, SCE, a unit of California power company Edison International, said it did not consult or rely upon the Mitsubishi testing under review by the NRC to create the utility's plan to restart Unit 2.

The NRC is also reviewing SCE's plan to restart Unit 2 and may issue a decision on that plan in March. The reactor cannot restart without the NRC's approval.

SCE's plan to restart Unit 2 includes preventive plugging of tubes in the steam generators and operating the 1,070-MW unit at 70 percent power for a five-month period.

San Onofre is one of the biggest power plants in California and its shutdown since January has caused reliability challenges for the Southern California power grid.

INDEPENDENT EXPERTS

SCE said its team of experts conducted three independent operational assessments of tube wear. The assessments were done by units of nuclear engineering firm Areva SA of France, the Westinghouse Electric unit of Japan's Toshiba Corp , and international testers at Intertek/Aptech.

SCE said none of its experts based their review and recommendations on testing by Mitsubishi. SCE said this was confirmed Tuesday at an NRC public meeting in Rockville, Maryland.

SCE submitted technical information to the NRC in October in support of its proposed restart plan for Unit 2. That plan did not include a restart for Unit 3 in part because the steam generators in Unit 3 suffered more tube wear.

The company shut Unit 2 on Jan. 9 for a planned outage. Unit 3 shut on Jan. 31 after station operators detected a leak in a steam generator tube.

SCE operates San Onofre for its owners: SCE (78.21 percent), Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric (20 percent) and the city of Riverside (1.79 percent).

I think NRC's letter mentioned in the article is this. It's more a report than a letter, dated November 30, 2012. So NRC staff made a trip to Kobe, Japan to inspect Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' noncompliance. Interesting.

Addressed to the Quality Assurance Manager Mr. Otake, NRC says:

From October 9-17, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted an inspection at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (MHI) facility in Kobe, Japan. The purpose of this reactive inspection was to assess MHI’s compliance with the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 21, “Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance,” and selected portions of Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Program Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

This reactive inspection evaluated MHI’s quality assurance activities associated with the mock-up and testing of re-designed anti-vibration bars that may be used as a long-term repair of both Unit 2 and Unit 3 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) steam generators. The inspection will assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when and if modifications are installed at SONGS. The design and installation of the modification will require that the NRC conduct an independent review of the modification and possibly approval of the design change. The inspection evaluated if MHI’s design, manufacturing, preparation, and testing of the mock-up and testing of re-designed anti-vibration bars meet the applicable requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 21, and American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components”. The enclosed report presents the results of this inspection. This NRC inspection report does not constitute NRC endorsement of MHI’s overall quality assurance (QA) or 10 CFR Part 21 programs.

During this inspection, the NRC inspection team found that the implementation of your quality assurance program failed to meet certain NRC requirements imposed on MHI by its customers or NRC licensees. Specifically, MHI: 1) failed to verify the tube outside diameter straightness, tube bending radius, and total tube length conformed to the requirements identified in the purchase order and purchase specifications to Sumitomo Metal Corporation for the alloy 690 seamless tubes used to construct the steam generator u-tube bundle mock-up; and
2) failed to perform dedication of the commercial calibration services provided by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd. The enclosed Notice of Nonconformance (NON) cites these nonconformances, and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the enclosed inspection report. Even though the NRC inspection team did not identify issues in all areas reviewed, in the response to the enclosed NON, MHI should document the results of the extent of condition and determine if there are any effects on other associated QA activities.

Please provide a written statement or explanation within 30 days from the date of this letter in accordance with the instructions specified in the enclosed NON. We will consider extending the response time if you show good cause for us to do so.

The letter is followed by the notice of nonconformance and the detailed inspection report.

Quick check on MHI's website, and there is still no mention of the accident.

Tweet

Hurricane Sandy Shut Down 3 Nuke Plants in NY, NJ

Nine Mile Point (Unit 1), Indian Point (Unit 3) in the State of New York were automatic shutdowns because of electrical grid problems. Salem (Unit 1) in New Jersey was manually shut down because of high river water levels and debris in the water.

Oyster Creek (NJ)'s alert due to the high water levels at the water intake remains.

From NRC press release (10/30/2012, 10AM; emphasis is mine):

NRC MAINTAINS HEIGHTENED WATCH OVER NUCLEAR PLANTS IMPACTED BY SANDY; THREE REACTORS EXPERIENCED SHUTDOWNS DURING STORM; OYSTER CREEK PLANT REMAINS IN ALERT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to maintain its heightened watch over nuclear power plants in the Northeastern U.S. impacted by Sandy. Three reactors experienced shutdowns during the storm while another plant, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, remains in an “Alert” due to high water levels in its water intake structure.

The three reactors to experience trips, or shutdowns, during the storm are Nine Mile Point 1 in Scriba, N.Y., Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y.; and Salem Unit 1 in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.

Nine Mile Point 1 underwent an automatic shutdown at about 9 p.m. Monday when an electrical fault occurred on power lines used to send power to the grid. It is likely a storm-related event, but the plant’s operators are still evaluating the cause. All plant safety systems responded as designed and the shutdown was safely carried out. Meanwhile, Nine Mile Point 2 experienced a loss of one of two incoming off-site power lines as a result of the fault. One of the plant’s emergency diesel generators started in response to generate power usually provided by the line. Nine Mile Point 2 remained at full power.

Indian Point 3 automatically shut down at about 10:40 p.m. Monday in response to electrical grid disturbances caused by the storm. All safety systems responded as designed and the unit was placed in a safe shutdown condition.

Salem Unit 1 was manually shut down by plant operators at about 1:10 a.m. Tuesday as a result of circulating-water pumps being affected by high river level and debris in the waterway. The circulating-water system is used to cool down steam generated by the reactor; it is a closed system that does not come into contact with any radioactivity.

At Oyster Creek, the Alert was declared at approximately 8:45 p.m. An alert is the second-lowest level of emergency classification used by the NRC. The Alert was preceded by an “Unusual Event” at about 7 p.m. when the water level first reached a minimum high water level criteria. The water level rose due to a combination of a rising tide, wind direction and storm surge. While the water level has dropped since peaking earlier today, the Alert will not be exited until the level is below the specific criteria for the intake structure, which is where water from an intake canal is pumped into the plant for cooling purposes. Oyster Creek was shut down for a refueling and maintenance outage prior to the storm and the reactor remains out of service.

Tweet

US NRC OK's GE-Hitachi's Laser Uranium Enrichment Facility to Be Built on its Global Headquarters in North Carolina

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy will build a facility on its global headquarters in Wilmington, North Carolina, based around a novel laser technology from Australian company SILEX that will enrich uranium (U-235) up to 8% by weight.

It looks like a research facility. But the rumor a while ago that Hitachi, and GE for that matter, want to pull out of the nuclear business was, just a rumor, it seems.

From Business Wire (9/25/2012):

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's Global Laser Enrichment Receives Nuclear Regulatory Commission License f

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's Global Laser Enrichment Receives Nuclear Regulatory Commission License for Uranium Plant

First-of-a-Kind Facility Licensed by NRC to Make Laser Enrichment of Uranium a Reality

WILMINGTON, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's (GEH) Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) today announced receipt of its license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build a groundbreaking laser enrichment facility on the 1,600-acre site of the company's global headquarters in Wilmington, N.C.

While a commercialization decision must still be made by the company, the license enables GLE to build a first-of-its-kind uranium enrichment facility using lasers conceived of by Australian technology company SILEX and developed by GLE experts. The company has worked with the NRC, the U.S. departments of State and Energy and independent non-proliferation experts for several years to ensure the security of this technology and has met—and in many cases exceeded—all regulations pertaining to safeguarding this technology.

"Receiving our NRC license is a tremendous accomplishment and strong testament to everyone involved in this project," said Chris Monetta, president and CEO of Global Laser Enrichment. "The technology we've developed could be one of the keys to the nation's long-term energy security. At a minimum, it could provide a steady supply of uranium enriched right here in the U.S. to the country's nuclear reactors. These reactors provide approximately 20 percent of the nation's electricity today and will continue to be an important part of the energy mix for decades to come."

Today, a majority of enriched uranium made to produce nuclear fuel in the United States comes from foreign or government-supplemented sources. The GLE license, applied for in June 2009, will allow the laser enrichment plant to produce up to 6 million single work units (SWU) per year in the United States.

The next step in the process is for the company to make a commercialization decision. This decision will be based on several factors.

About GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

Based in Wilmington, N.C., GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is a world-leading provider of advanced reactor technology and nuclear services. Established in June 2007, GEH is a global nuclear alliance created by GE and Hitachi to serve the global nuclear industry. The nuclear alliance executes a single, strategic vision to create a broader portfolio of solutions, expanding its capabilities for new reactor and service opportunities. The alliance offers customers around the world the technological leadership required to effectively enhance reactor performance, power output and safety.

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
Christopher White, +1 910-819-6121
christopher1.white@ge.com
or
Masto Public Relations
Tom Murnane or Howard Masto
+1 518-786-6488
tom.murnane@mastopr.com
howard.masto@ge.com

A bit more details from the local news station WWAY (9/25/2012):

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today issued a license to GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) to build and operate a uranium enrichment plant using laser technology in Castle Hayne.

The license authorizes GLE to enrich uranium up to eight percent by weight in the fissile isotope U-235, using a laser-based technology. It will be used in fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. GLE plans to build the plant at the site of GE-Hitachi's existing Global Nuclear Fuel-America's fuel fabrication plant.

"Receiving our NRC license is a tremendous accomplishment and strong testament to everyone involved in this project," GLE President and CEO Chris Monetta said in a statement. "The technology we've developed could be one of the keys to the nation's long-term energy security. At a minimum, it could provide a steady supply of uranium enriched right here in the US to the country's nuclear reactors. These reactors provide approximately 20 percent of the nation's electricity today and will continue to be an important part of the energy mix for decades to come."

The approval comes more than three years after GLE submitted its license application and after safety and environmental reviews by the NRC.

There's no word when construction will begin. The company says "the next step in the process is for the company to make a commercialization decision. This decision will be based on several factors." It did not elaborate on those factors.

The NRC staff will conduct inspections during the construction and operation of the GLE facility. The agency plans to hold a public meeting in Wilmington before construction begins to explain its oversight plans to the public.

Tweet

New NRC Chairman Allison McFarlane: "Dry Casks Are Good Enough"

Sorry for old news, as I haven't been up-to-date on the US side. But the new NRC chairman has been installed, and she is a geologist who opposes the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (which the Obama Administration defunded in 2010) but says it is OK to upgrade a nuclear power plant and continue operation when geological surveys point to some seismic danger, and dry cask storage is good enough.

She also says building the public confidence in her agency is a matter of improved communication, and no, the agency is not cozy with the nuclear industry.

Her first interview as the NRC chairman, from CNN (8/14/2012):

New NRC chair vouches for agency's independence, states goals

Is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission too cozy with the industry it regulates?

After five weeks on the job, the new chairwoman of the agency doesn't think so.

Allison Macfarlane said Tuesday she has confidence in the agency and its independence from the nation's 104 commercial nuclear power plants.

"I have some strong initial impressions of the agency, and one is that I've been very impressed with the staff and their dedication to safety, and their willingness to stand up to industry when they believe a situation is not safe," Macfarlane said in a wide-ranging discussion with reporters.

"So I'm actually quite assured that the agency is completing its mission of protecting public health and safety," she said. "They take safety issues very seriously. They take their role as regulators very seriously and the public should be assure that they have the public's best interests in mind."

Macfarlane said she hopes to build public confidence in the agency by improving communication, increasing transparency and making NRC documents understandable. "Some of them are rather opaque," she allowed.

Macfarlane, the first geologist to head the agency, repeatedly stressed the importance of geology in the placement of nuclear power plants, and said one of her top goals is to look "at the intersection of geology and nuclear technology."

"Geology clearly matters. If that wasn't one of the main lessons of Fukushima, I don't know what was," Macfarlane said of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan. "There was a massive earthquake -- an earthquake that was not predicted."

...

Pressed on whether geologic surveys could lead to the closing of some older nuclear power plants, Macfarlane said she believes plants could be upgraded if necessary. "The important thing is you need to understand what those risks are."

Macfarlane also stressed the need for the Congress and the administration to find a geologic site for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. The Obama administration scrapped a plan to store waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and a blue ribbon commission, on which Macfarlane served, said the government must look for a community willing to accept the waste.

Finding a site for nuclear waste is possible, she said.

"I just want to provide people assurance that this can happen in the United States, because it has," she said, noting the Department of Energy's waste site east of Carlsbad, New Mexico, used to store waste from the production of nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, Macfarlane said, dry casks have proved effective for the temporary safe storage of nuclear waste.

"They seem to be operating very well," she said, noting that they are passively cooled, avoiding the need for water that has proved problematic with the damaged storage pools at Fukushima.

The NRC is looking at the issue of expediting the movement from storage waste pools to dry cask storage, she said.

(Full article at the link)

Expediting the movement? How? By telling the spent fuel assemblies to cool down faster? Fukushima I Nuke Plant's Spent Fuel Pools are actively cooling the spent fuel assemblies for good reasons, problematic or not.

Tweet

"Unusual Event" at Limerick Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania, US, Unit 1 Reactor Manually Scrammed

The Limerick Generating Station is operated by Exelon.

From Excelon's press release on 7/18/2012, announcing that the Unit 1 has been taken offline:

Limerick Operators Take Unit 1 Offline

Operators at Limerick Generating Station took Unit 1 offline this morning following an electrical disturbance on the non-nuclear side of the plant.

POTTSTOWN – Operators at Limerick Generating Station took Unit 1 offline this morning following an electrical disturbance on the non-nuclear side of the plant.

Unit 1 will remain offline until repairs, inspections and testing can be completed. Limerick Unit 2 continues to operate at full power.

As a result of the electrical disturbance, an Unusual Event was declared at 8:39 a.m. and terminated at 9:46 a.m. in keeping with NRC procedures. An Unusual Event is the lowest of four Nuclear Regulatory Commission emergency classifications.

Exelon Generation notified all appropriate federal, state and local government officials of the event. There is no threat to the health and safety of the public associated with this event.

Limerick Generating Station is located approximately 21 miles northwest of Philadelphia. With both units at full power, the site can produce enough carbon-free electricity for 2 million homes

An excellent example of not saying anything like "where exactly" and "what exactly".

According to reports, a transformer blew up in the turbine building. Here's from The Times Herald (7/18/2012):

‘Unusual event’ reported at Limerick power plant

(Updated at 10:55 a.m.) LIMERICK — The Nuclear Regulating Commission said it is closely monitoring events at the Limerick Generating Station after a manual scram around 8:15 a.m. shut down the reactor at the nuclear power plant.

According to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, an electrical fault was reported in a transformer in a turbine building that spurred the scram and that the transformer is not a main transformer.

The event was listed as an “unusual event” around 8:39 a.m., the lowest of the event ratings, Sheehan said. No one was injured in the incident and no outside help was requested, Sheehan said.

Sheehan said the transformers have been known to fail from time to time and that the reactor was safely shut down.

Sheehan said there are no complications at the power plant at this time and there is no danger to the public from the incident.

EARLIER VERSION OF THIS STORY

LIMERICK — An “unusual event” was reported Wednesday morning in Unit 1 of the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station.

According to Frank Custer, communications director with Montgomery County, the county received an email from Exelon, parent company of the nuclear power plant, stating that an explosion had occurred causing the “unusual event,” in Unit 1 but the event did not pose any threat to the public.

Custer said the notice reported the “unusual event” had been terminated.
A call placed to the Limerick Generating Station’s media relations spokesperson was not picked up or returned as of 11 a.m. Wednesday.

Tweet

IAEA, NRC Document Dump by "Anonymous"?

(From http://par-anoia.net/innodata/)

Innodata Isogen Databreach
Fukushima Daiichi
Vietnam Nuclear Power Development

Information is free. Expect it. ~ Anonymous

Background 

On July 5th 2012, Anonymous published 1.2 Gigabyte of internal data from IT-service company Innodata Isogen. In total there is 40 Gigabyte to be released, including communication between top management of business data provider Thomson-Reuters which has yet to be disclosed.

The initial batch of leaked material mostly contains documents from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in particular regarding the development of a nuclear infrastructure in Vietnam. These files include English and Vietnamese documents, scans of diplomatic passports and complete information about key personell like the Vietnamese Vice Minister of Science and Technology and Director General of the Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety.

At this moment we decided against mirroring the entire dump to avoid overwhelming information. Instead we start by presenting selected material that we consider interesting, most notably documents from IAEA and The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision (NRC) about the 2011 nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. This material is not necessarily classified but nonetheless interesting. We plan to publish all relevant material from the Innodata dump related to Fukushima Daiichi as collected information since it is unknown whether all of this information has already been disclosed to the public or will remain publically accessible. Check back on this site for new documents, the latest entry will be on top.

Fukushima Daiichi

• Chairman Takashi Imai, Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.: As March 11 Nears
• IAEA Draft: Environmental Issues in New Nuclear Power Programmes.
• IEAA Draft: Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety
• NSC: Organization of Nuclear Safety Commission
• NRC: Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami (SECY-11-0137)
• NRC: Staff Assessment and Prioritization in SECY-11-0137
• NRC: ACRS Recommendations
• NRC: Order modifying Licenses for external vents
• NRC: Order modifying Licenses for hardened containment vents
• RC: Order modifying Licenses for Fuel Pool Instrumentation
• NRC: Six-Month Status Update on other charter activities
• NRC: Request for Information about Fukushima Daiichi incident
• IAEA: Handbook on Nuclear war law: Implementing Legislation

Vietnam

• IAEA: Developing Nuclear Power Structure in Vietnam (Project VIE4015)
• IAEA: National Training Workshop (Project VIE4015)
• Scan of a Vietnamese Diplomatic Passport (for the Lulz)
• Hello, Deputy Director of the Vietnamese Nuclear Power Department
• Hello, Vice Minister of the Vietnamese Ministry for Science and Technology

Support

Please consider to donate a few bitcoins to support our infrastructure and keep this project running:
13zBHSVzqVTJpQzuaax8bqkqpzVj28MGEj

Contact

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/Par_AnoIA
IRC:
irc.voxanon.net 6667/6697 (SSL) Channel: #paranoia

Tweet

US NRC's Information on Spent Fuel Storage

Since there are many experts who urge removing the spent fuel assemblies from the Reactor 4 Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and into dry cask storage as soon as possible, I checked what the US regulatory agency of the nuclear power industry says about spent fuel storage to find out how soon is "as soon as possible".

The minimum the NRC has authorized is 3 years, 5 years normal, industry norm 10 years.

From NRC's webpage "Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks: Key Points and Questions & Answers" (part):

1. All U.S. nuclear power plants store spent nuclear fuel in “spent fuel pools.” These pools are robust constructions made of reinforced concrete several feet thick, with steel liners. The water is typically about 40 feet deep, and serves both to shield the radiation and cool the rods.

2. As the pools near capacity, utilities move some of the older spent fuel into “dry cask” storage. Fuel is typically cooled at least 5 years in the pool before transfer to cask. NRC has authorized transfer as early as 3 years; the industry norm is about 10 years.

3. The NRC believes spent fuel pools and dry casks both provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Therefore there is no pressing safety or security reason to mandate earlier transfer of fuel from pool to cask.

The Reactor 4 Spent Fuel Pool contains fuel assemblies that were removed from the reactor core when the unit went into regular maintenance that included replacing the core shroud on November 30, 2010. The maintenance was to last until September 24, 2011 (299 days). There were 548 fuel assemblies in the reactor core at that time. (Information from TEPCO's press release, 11/29/2010)

Assuming that the fuel assemblies were removed from the core soon after the start of the maintenance and put into the SFP, say sometime in December 2010, they have been cooled in the SFP for about one and a half years by now. Another one and a half years to go, then, to reach the minimum that the NRC would authorize the removal from the SFP to dry casks.

TEPCO/Japanese government's current plan seems to be to move the older fuel assemblies in the Common Spent Fuel Pool into dry casks to make room for the Reactor 4 SFP fuel assemblies.

Tweet

NRC's Jaczko: "right now I intend to continue to serve out my term"

??? Didn't he just announce his resignation?

From The Hill (5/23/2012):

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko acknowledged Wednesday that it could be a while before he steps down as head of the agency, despite announcing plans to resign this week.

And he declined to outright dismiss the possibility that he could be re-nominated to a second term as chairman if his successor is not confirmed by next year.

“Right now my focus is on nuclear safety and I have been privileged and honored to serve in this position, and right now I intend to continue to serve out my term,” Jaczko said at a press conference in Charlotte, N.C., the chairman’s first public appearance since announcing his plan to step down.

“If by that time, a successor has not been found, then I’ll deal with those issues at that time.”

The comments came a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested that Jaczko could be re-nominated if his successor is not confirmed by June 30, 2013, when the chairman’s first term ends.

“We hope to have a replacement before that. But if we don’t, Greg will be there for the duration,” Reid told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday. “And if something doesn't work out, he can always be re-nominated.”

Pressed by reporters Wednesday for clarification of his remarks, Jaczko added: “I announced my resignation contingent on a successor being nominated and confirmed. And until that time I intend to continue to serve as chairman.”

Asked if he intends to serve out his term, Jaczko said, “It depends on the process whether a successor is nominated and confirmed. So if that happens before the end of my term, then I would leave at that time.”

The White House has said President Obama hopes to nominate Jaczko’s replacement “soon.” But Reid’s comments Tuesday cast doubt on how quickly the nomination will move through the Senate.

The Senate is also grappling with the re-nomination of Republican NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, who faces opposition from Reid and other top Democrats.

Reid has been a vocal defender of Jaczko, his former aide, amid allegations that he bullied NRC staff.

Republicans have added the allegations to the long list of reasons they dislike Jaczko’s leadership on the commission. Other reasons include Jaczko’s decision to close out a review of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and the chairman’s opposition to recent approvals of new nuclear reactors.

Jaczko again defended his tenure at the NRC Wednesday and denied that his resignation had anything to do with a pending inspector general report examining his leadership on the panel.

“Any inspector general report had nothing to do with this decision,” he said.

The chairman repeated the assertion that he made his decision in order to give the president and the Senate time to name a successor.

“The timing I thought was appropriate for the president and the Senate to find a replacement for me,” he said.

Jaczko declined to offer suggestions for his replacement.

“I’m not involved in the process of identifying a replacement,” he said.

Tweet

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko to Resign as Obama Nominates Successor

Washington Post hints at Jacko having lost support from Senator Harry Reid.

From Washington Post (5/21/2012):

Nuclear Regulatory Commission chief Jaczko resigns

The nation’s chief of nuclear safety announced his resignation Monday after a turbulent three-year tenure that included allegations of bullying and misogyny in the workplace and of providing potentially false testimony at a congressional hearing last year.

The departure of Gregory B. Jaczko, an advocate of tough safety standards at nuclear reactor sites during eight years on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, caps almost a year of concerns about his leadership of the NRC, which he has chaired since 2009.

It also signals that he had lost the support of his former boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a fierce opponent of efforts to store nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, a key concern of the nuclear agency. In a statement Monday, Reid thanked Jaczko for his service, noting his leadership of the agency in the aftermath of the Japanese tsunami and partial meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

“I am confident whomever replaces Chairman Jaczko will share his commitment to protecting the safety of the American people over the interests of a single industry,” Reid said.

Several congressional aides had said that Jaczko would resign only if Reid signaled that he could no longer give him political support. Aides reached Monday confirmed that diminishing support for Jaczko on Capitol Hill was a factor, but they also cited Jaczko’s desire to move on amid the allegations.

The White House can now nominate a replacement who could be paired with a Republican NRC member who requires confirmation for a new term as commissioner.

While Jaczko’s own flaws might have been a key factor behind his resignation, some supporters said he also fell victim to the nuclear power industry and its allies in Congress who were happy to seize upon a reason to question his leadership. A voice for tighter safety standards, Jaczko frequently found himself voting as the sole dissenter in key commission votes.

Jaczko’s tenure included the awarding of the first new nuclear construction permit in three decades and the U.S. response to the Japanese tsunami and nuclear reactor crisis.

“This is the right time to pass along the public safety torch to a new chairman who will keep a strong focus on carrying out the vital mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Jaczko said.

(Full article at the link)

Tweet

Radiation in Namie-machi, Fukushima Almost Exceeded OSHA 90-Day Limit for Radiation Worker in 14 Days Last Year

The cumulative radiation dose at MP (monitoring post) 32 in Fukushima Prefecture from March 23 to April 4, 2011 was 11,630 microsieverts (or 11.63 millisieverts), almost exceeding the OSHA 90-day limit for radiation worker of 12,500 microsieverts in 14 days.

My guess is if the radiation had been measured from March 11, 2011, it would have surpassed that limit long before March 23, 2011.

From Enformable's digging of the NRC FOIA documents, 3-page email dated April 9, 2011 says on page 3:

MP32

The U.S. 50-mile radius adequately protects public health, but the Japanese 20-kilometer (12 mile) radius may not protect the health of the general public, pregnant female radiation workers, or radiation workers who remain longer than 2 weeks near MP32.

MP32 remained MP32 in the Ministry of Education and Science (MEXT) monitoring data, until April 11, 2011 when the location was finally named. It was Akougi District of Namie-machi in Fukushima. Why was the location finally named that day? Because that was the day the government announced the planned evacuation zone that included Akougi and most of Namie-machi that was not already inside the 20-kilometer no-entry zone.

Akougi is located at 31 kilometers northwest of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, outside the no-entry zone. The district was finally declared planned evacuation zone on April 11, 2011, because the annual cumulative radiation dose was expected to exceed 20 millisieverts.

There was a evacuation shelter in Akougi, with people living there until March 30, 2011.

According to the MEXT data, as of March 26, 2012, the cumulative dose at MP32 since March 24, 2011 is 125,760 microsieverts, or 125.76 millisieverts.

Chuck Casto E-Mail - Pages From C141933-02BX-24

Here's the same information released by the Ministry of Education on April 6, 2011.

Tweet

NRC to National Labs Last Year Who Wanted to Help With Fukushima Radiation Analysis: "Knock It Off"

From Enformable (2/28/2012) quoting from the official transcript of NRC's meeting (audio file) on March 12, 2012, from page 161 (emphasis is mine):

MR. SHARON: This is Brian Sharon. Quick question, well, not question, but I’ve gotten a couple of emails here today, from some of the National Labs, and they’re all — there are a couple of them chomping a the bit, you know, saying, “Ghee, can we help? Ghee, can we go calculate this,” with the codes and all that stuff.

I keep telling them, “No, you don’t know the scenario,” but you know, somebody might want to call DOE and tell them to tell their labs to cool it, because the last thing we want is the labs going off, talking to the press, talking about consequences and all sorts of other stuff, because you know, they’re chomping at the bit, to do something, and I’m not sure, Eliot, maybe you’ve got a point of contact up there at DOE?

MR. BRENNER: I’ll send a note to their Press Secretary, asking him, through his chain, to reach out, down to the labs and tell them to back off. If we’ve got other chains, we might as well –

MALE PARTICIPANT: If I could chime in on that? On the Deputy’s call yesterday, I was on with the Chairman, and Pete Lyons was one of the principals at DOE. Lyons may be a good source to contact at DOE.

MR. JOHNSON: This is Mike Johnson. My other thought was, it may be just to cut to the chase, just to pass the same, to call the lab directors and say, “Knock it off,” or whatever messages we want to get to them.

There are a number of ways we can do this.

So, I agree, Brian, we’ve got to do it soon.

MR. McDERMOTT: Okay, we’ll take that action from headquarters.

In this particular transcript, there is also a mention of GE engineers who were present at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant when the earthquake and tsunami hit on March 11, 2011. See my previous post here.

Tweet

New York Times: As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

US nuclear plant operators may not have enough money to decommission their aging reactors. If the reactors have to be shut down, it may be 20 to 60 years until they have enough money in the funds set up to pay for decommissioning.

The industry claims they are victims of the 2008 financial turmoil and market collapse.

From New York Times by Matthew L. Wald (3/20/2012; emphasis is mine):

WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts.

Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive process that involves taking down huge structures and transporting the radioactive materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them. The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and ’70s.

Mothballing the plants makes hundreds of acres of prime industrial land unavailable for decades and leaves open the possibility that radioactive contamination in the structures could spread. While the radioactivity levels decline over time, many communities worry about safe oversight.

Bills that once seemed far into the future may be coming due. The license for Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt., at 40 the nation’s oldest reactor, expires on Wednesday, for example. And while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted its owner, Entergy, a new 20-year permit, the State of Vermont is trying to close the plant.

In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has vowed to force the two operating reactors at another Entergy plant, Indian Point, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, to shut down when their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015 by denying them state environmental permits.

Entergy is at least $90 million short of the projected $560 million cost of dismantling Vermont Yankee; the company is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point 2 and 3.

The shortfall raises the possibility that Vermont could tend one sleeping reactor for decades while New York oversees three; Unit 1 , another reactor at Indian Point, shut down in 1974 and has yet to be dismantled.

Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s chairman is uneasy about the prospect of a 60-year wait.

“These facilities should be cleaned up, and their footprints reduced as much as possible so that these areas can be returned to other productive uses within the community,” the chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, said recently.

Gil C. Quiniones, the president and chief executive of the New York Power Authority, a state utility that sold Indian Point 3 to Entergy in 2000, called Entergy’s failure to plan for or finance the decommissioning of Indian Point in real time “stunningly irresponsible.”

“Delaying action for 60 years — when Entergy might no longer even exist — is offensive to the communities of Westchester County and the people of New York,” he said. James Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said that financing would not be a problem because the company still expects to obtain new 20-year licenses for Units 2 and 3, which would allow time for savings to grow, and to prevail on the state permit issue.

Assuming that the plants remain open for two more decades, the company has promised Westchester County that it will decommission Indian Point in a “reasonable” period of time after the reactors close, probably in the 2030s.

Of the 20 reactors that lack the money for swift deconstruction, the owners hope that license renewals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make the problem go away. For the plants that are fighting with their host states, Indian Point and Vermont Yankee, the federal courts may have the final say on whether and how long they keep operating. (A large demonstration in favor of closing the plant is planned for Wednesday at Vermont Yankee.)

The remaining 84 active reactors have enough savings on hand to satisfy the commission’s minimum financing requirements for eventual dismantling, some of them because they won license extensions.

The nuclear industry had been counting on steady returns on the funds and did not anticipate the 2008 market crash. Altogether the nation’s 104 power reactors have about $40 billion on hand. “A lot of decommissioning funds did take a hit at the nadir of the economic crisis,” said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the regulatory commission.

One plant, Palisades in western Michigan, had $597.6 million saved up at the end of 2006, but the account was down to $218.8 million two years later and was only $279.2 million by the end of 2010, the most recent figures show.

Bruce Biewald, an economist who specializes in electricity economics at Synapse Energy, a Boston consulting firm, said the mothball strategy carries risks that could outweigh benefits. Proponents say “it’s like magic — compound interest on the one hand and radioactive decay on the other,” he said. (Because radioactivity levels decline over time, deconstruction workers would ultimately be exposed to less contamination.) But future investment returns could prove bleak, Mr. Biewald warns, and anticipated deconstruction costs could easily rise.

Responding to a petition from Sherwood Martinelli, an antinuclear activist who lives near Indian Point, Dr. Jaczko, the regulatory commission chairman, sought a shorter period between closing and dismantling.

But in October, Dr. Jaczko was outvoted 4 to 1 by his fellow commissioners. And the commission’s staff said that even 60 years was not a hard-and-fast outer time limit for suspending a reactor’s operations.

In the industry, this status is known as Safstor and it usually involves putting the spent nuclear fuel into storage casks on site, draining many of the plant’s fluids, making security arrangements and maintaining the reactor so it looks like a decent neighbor.

Environmental experts say the plants can be dangerous when they are not running. In a letter, the three members of Vermont’s Congressional delegation pointed out that 55,000 gallons of contaminated water spilled out of a mothballed plant in Illinois after a pipe froze. An attentive night watchman was credited with catching the spill in time to contain it.

Indian Point 1 has leaked a variety of radioactive materials into the soil on the banks of the Hudson in the 38 years since it closed, a point acknowledged by Entergy, which responded by emptying a spent fuel pool that was the source of the problem. The environmental group Riverkeeper argues that this is a harbinger of further trouble if Units 2 and 3 enter Safstor.

Compounding the worries about radioactive materials, the nation still lacks a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel after decades of jockeying by politicians who sought to bar it from their backyards. So the fuel at the sleeping reactors will remain on site.

Twelve reactors across the country have been retired in the last three decades, all on short notice, because of a design or safety flaw that the economics did not justify fixing. The low price of natural gas, a competing fuel, makes the economic lifetime of existing reactors uncertain.

Some have been decommissioned in a few years, like Connecticut Yankee, whose owners, a group of New England utilities, footed the cost. Decommissioning started two years after its 1996 shutdown and was completed in 2005 at a cost of $871 million.

In Haddam, Conn., officials are still advertising for a new industrial tenant for its former site on the east bank of the Connecticut River.

Asked if tearing it down had been the right call, Paul J. DeStefano, the town’s first selectman and top official, said, “I’m a little hesitant, from a layman’s standpoint, of having something sitting around for 60 years. It just doesn’t sound right.”

Tweet

NRC's Orders to US Commercial Nuke Plants: Install or Improve Venting Systems, Water Gauges in SFPs

On the one-year anniversary (I know you're getting sick of the phrase..) of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued orders to improve safety of the commercial nuclear power plants in the US.

From the NRC's press release on March 9, 2012, they are:

1. The first Order requires the plants to better protect safety equipment installed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to obtain sufficient equipment to support all reactors at a given site simultaneously.

2. The second Order requires the plants to install enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in each plant’s spent fuel pool.

3. The third Order applies only to U.S. boiling-water reactors that have “Mark I” or “Mark II” containment structures. These reactors must improve venting systems (or for the Mark II plants, install new systems) that help prevent or mitigate core damage in the event of a serious accident.

4. Plants have until Dec. 31, 2016, to complete modifications and requirements of all three Orders.

There are evidences that the venting may have caused the hydrogen explosions of the reactor buildings because the vent pipes were connected to the pipes for the gas management systems BEFORE they connected to the exhaust stacks. At least part of hydrogen and other gasses, instead of dispersing into the atmosphere through the exhaust stacks, may have come back into the reactor buildings via the gas management system pipes, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency admitted in December last year, 9 months after the explosions.

About the "enhanced equipment" to monitor water levels in the SFPs, I wonder what happens if station blackout happens and the operator cannot read any instrument, as it happened at TEPCO's plant.

Order No.3 requires the installation of new venting systems for Mark II containment structures. Fukushima Reactor 6 is Mark II. I actually do not know if Reactor 6 has the venting system.

If anyone knows the link to the details of these NRC orders, please post on the comment section. I want to know the details. I haven't found it, but I haven't looked carefully enough on the NRC site.

Tweet

5th Hearing of the NAIIC Investigation of Fukushima I Nuke Plant Accident

The 2-hour hearing just ended. The former NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve appeared in front of the panel.

NAIIC stands for Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission set up by the National Diet of Japan.

Video streaming by Ustream

English simultaneous interpretation is not great. "Japanese scientific situation"?? Oh boy...

Tweet