Group items tagged

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2011-0147] Receipt of Request for Action

Notice is hereby given that by petition dated March 12, 2011, Thomas Saporito (petitioner) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action to order shutdown of all ``nuclear power reactors in the USA [United States of America] which are known to be located on or near an earthquake fault-line.''

As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that following an 8.9 magnitude earthquake on March 11, 2011, in Fukushima, Japan, one or more nuclear power reactors there sustained significant damage which resulted in the release of radioactive particles into the environment, and that the Japanese authorities ordered a ``General Emergency Evacuation,'' but many Japanese citizens were not able to timely leave the affected area and were subject to radioactive contamination at this time. The petitioner further stated that many of NRC's licensees operate nuclear power reactors on or near earthquake fault lines and could, therefore, be subject to significant earthquake damage and loss- of-coolant accidents similar to that experienced by those in Japan for which an on-going state of emergency continued to unfold.

The UN Atomic Agency’s 35 nation board adopted an action plan on Tuesday to strengthen global nuclear safety following Japan’s Fukushima accident six months ago. The board of governors approved by consensus the eight-page document put forward by Director General Yukiya Amano of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), setting out a series of voluntary steps meant to enhance standards worldwide.

A governors’ debate on the issue underlined divisions between states seeking stronger international commitments and others wanting safety to remain an issue strictly for national authorities. “There were a number of critical voices,” one diplomat said about the closed-door discussions, referring to countries that had made clear they wanted firmer action at the international level.

One group of nations — including Germany, France, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada and Denmark — voiced disappointment about the final version of the IAEA’s safety action plan for not going far enough. The U.S., India, China and Pakistan — all big nuclear countries — were among countries resisting any moves towards mandatory outside inspections of their atomic energy facilities.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2011-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On June 09, 2011, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board affirmed their Recommendation 2011-1, concerning Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, to the Department of Energy. In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), The following represents the Secretary of Energy's response to the recommendation.

As the Board notes in the introduction to this Recommendation, DOE committed itself to establishing and maintaining a strong nuclear safety culture almost 20 years ago through Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-35-91, Nuclear Safety Policy. This commitment was reiterated and confirmed in February 2011, in DOE Policy 420.1, Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Policy. We agree with the Board's position that establishment of a strict safety culture must be a fundamental principle throughout the DOE complex, and we are in unqualified agreement with the Board that the WTP mission is essential to protect the health and safety of the public, our workers, and the environment from radioactive wastes in aging storage tanks at Hanford.

A ‘smoking gun’ article is one that reveals a direct connection between a fossil fuel or alternative energy system promoter and a strongly antinuclear attitude. One of my guiding theories about energy is that a great deal of the discussion about safety, cost, and waste disposal is really a cover for a normal business activity of competing for market share.

This weekend, I came across a site called Culture Change that provides some strong support for my theory about the real source of strength for the antinuclear industry. According to the information at the bottom of the home page, Culture Change was founded by Sustainable Energy Institute (formerly Fossil Fuels Policy Action), a nonprofit organization.Jan Lundberg, who has led the organization and its predecessor organizations since 1988, grew up in a wealthy family with a father who was a popular and respected petroleum industry analyst.

Lundberg tells an interesting story about his initial fundraising activities for his new non-profit group.Setting out to become a clearinghouse for energy data and policy, we had a tendency to go along with the buzzword “natural gas as a bridge fuel” — especially when my previous clients serving the petroleum industry until 1988 included natural gas utilities. They were and are represented by the American Gas Association, where I knew a few friendly executives. Upon starting a nonprofit group for the environment with an energy focus, I met with the AGA right away. I was anticipating one of their generous grants they were giving large environmental groups who were trumpeting the “natural gas is a bridge fuel” mantra.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is setting up a Nuclear Safety Action Team to oversee prompt implementation of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety and ensure proper coordination among all stakeholders. The 12-point Action Plan, drawn up in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, was approved by the Agency's Board of Governors on 13 September and endorsed by all 151 Member States at its General Conference last week. The team will work within the Agency's Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, headed by Deputy Director General Denis Flory, and will coordinate closely with the Director General's Office for Policy.

The worldwide use of nuclear energy will continue to grow despite the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, told a meeting of its Board of Governors. Non-proliferation concerns remain in some countries, he noted.

"We now expect the number of operating nuclear reactors in the world to increase by about 90 by 2030, in our low projection, or by around 350, in our high projection, compared to the current total of 432 reactors," Amano told the board. "This represents continuous and significant growth in the use of nuclear power, but at a slower growth rate than in our previous projections."

He noted that most of this growth will occur in countries already operating nuclear power plants, especially in Asia. "China and India will remain the main centres of expansion and their nuclear power capacities by 2030 are expected to be as projected before the accident, after a temporary period of slower growth," Amano said. "The projected slowdown in global growth reflects an accelerated phase-out of nuclear power in Germany, some immediate shutdowns and a government review of the planned expansion in Japan, and temporary delays in expansion in several other countries."   According to Amano, interest remains strong in countries considering introducing nuclear energy. He said that the factors that contributed to increasing interest in nuclear energy before the accident remain unchanged: "increasing global demand for energy, as well as concerns about climate change, dwindling reserves of oil and gas and uncertainty of supply of fossil fuels." However, he noted that "a few countries have cancelled or revised their plans, while others have taken a 'wait and see' approach."

In recent weeks I have been excited to witness several genuine grassroots efforts in support of nuclear energy emerging on the scene. Several have already been covered on this forum, like the Rally for Vermont Yankee and the Webinar collaboration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the American Nuclear Society. Both of these efforts proved to be very successful in bringing together nuclear supporters and gaining attention from the mainstream media.

I’d like to share some information about another opportunity to actively show your support for nuclear. The White House recently launched a petition program called “We the People.” Here is the description of how it works: This tool provides you with a new way to petition the Obama administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response. One of the first and most popular petitions on the website is a call to end subsidies and loan guarantees for nuclear energy by 2013. As I write this, it is only about a thousand signatures away from reaching the White House. In response to this petition, Ray Wallman, a young nuclear supporter and filmmaker, wrote a counter petition called “Educate the Public Regarding Nuclear Power.” It needs 4,500 more signatures before October 23 in order to get a formal response, and reads as follows:

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source. To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

The nuclear energy industry will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it considers forthcoming recommendations of an agency task force on new procedures and regulations in light of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.  We have undertaken significant work in the past 90 days to examine our facilities and take the steps necessary to enhance safety.  We will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to understand any potential gaps in safety and fill those gaps. Prompted by the Fukushima accident, the NRC staff has been developing recommendations to enhance safety at America’s reactors. The task force is expected to release its report to the NRC commissioners within the next week. In their interim reports, NRC officials have emphasized that issues identified during the recent inspections will not impede the facilities’ ability to maintain safety even in the face of extreme events.

These NRC’s inspections complement industry efforts begun within days of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Each of the nation’s 104 nuclear energy facilities has been subjected to a comprehensive verification of preparedness to maintain safety during a severe event, regardless of the cause. As a result of these self-inspections, facility operators have made immediate enhancements or developed plans to enhance safety. The vast majority of the items identified by the industry are enhancements to safety measures already in place.

The NRC has also made clear that issues identified during its post-Fukushima inspections at each plant do not undermine any facility’s ability to respond to extreme events. This conclusion is based upon exemplary levels of safe operation and the multiple layers of protection that exist at each nuclear energy facility in the country.   Moreover, in its annual reports to Congress, the NRC has listed only one “abnormal occurrence” over the past decade—an incident nine years ago that did not result in the release of radiation. Over the last 10 years, the NRC has not identified any negative trends in safety at America’s nuclear facilities. In the wake of the tragedy in Japan, Americans are concerned about whether U.S. reactors face the same risks.  The fact is, American nuclear facilities are subject to more regulatory scrutiny and requirements than in any other country.  American nuclear energy facilities are equipped and employees are trained to manage severe events. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the industry has made significant improvements in physical structures and emergency response capabilities.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A federal agency has ordered additional oversight for the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant because of regulatory violations found last year at the site north of Omaha.Fort Calhoun will be subject to additional inspections and public meetings, and the Omaha Public Power District must submit a detailed improvement plan, according to a letter released Tuesday from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC and OPPD both said none of the problems identified at Fort Calhoun represented a public safety threat. Regulators say a key electrical part failed during a test and deficiencies in flood planning were found last year.OPPD officials promised improvement at Fort Calhoun, which sits about 20 miles north of Omaha on the west bank of the Missouri River."We take this situation very seriously," OPPD CEO Gary Gates said. "We will work to find ways to improve and we will seek assistance from other high performing power plants as well."

Besides the regulatory violations already on the books at the NRC, a small fire at Fort Calhoun briefly knocked out the cooling system for used fuel in June. Temperaturs at the plant never exceeded safe levels and power was quickly restored.That fire is still being investigated and the NRC has not determined the severity of the problem under its regulations.

Countries with atomic power plants would be encouraged to host international safety review missions, under a draft U.N. action plan that may disappoint those who had hoped for strong measures to prevent a repeat of Japan's nuclear crisis.

Seeking the middle ground between states advocating more binding global rules and others wanting to keep safety as a strictly national responsibility, the U.N. nuclear agency appears to have gradually watered down its own proposals.The document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the third draft presented to IAEA member states over the last few weeks, outlines a series of steps to help improve nuclear safety after the Fukushima accident almost six months ago.

The latest version puts increased emphasis on the voluntary nature of the proposals, highlighting resistance among many countries against any move toward mandatory outside inspections of their nuclear energy installations.The changes were made following feedback from member state diplomats of the Vienna-based U.N. body. The 35-nation board of the IAEA is expected to debate the final proposal at a September 12-16 meeting in the Austrian capital.

The U.S., after authorizing the release of 30 million barrels of oil from its emergency stockpile, is prepared to take additional action if needed to react to disruptions in world supplies, according to an Obama administration official. The decision to draw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, part of an international move to release 60 million barrels, was made after months of consulting with allies and oil-producing nations, according to officials, who briefed reporters on condition they not be named.

The coordinated release of 60 million barrels by the U.S. and 27 other nations would provide about 2 million barrels a day within the first 30 days, according to the IEA.

Supply Concerns The release is being done in response to disruption caused by the Libya conflict and in anticipation of increasing demand during the U.S. summer driving season, the official said. It is intended more to ensure supply rather than affect prices, according to the official. The national average retail price for a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.612, according to a AAA survey.

Despite the fact that its proposed new reactor projects are beset by ongoing major safety risks, schedule delays, cost overruns, and other economic and radiological pitfalls, the nuclear power industry continues to seek massive taxpayer bailouts, not only in the U.S. but even overseas. The environmental movement has responded by urging the Japanese government not to risk its own taxpayers’ funds on the risky South Texas Project twin reactor expansion. A coalition of more than 170 organizations, including Beyond Nuclear, recently sent a letter to the Japanese prime minister, and issued an accompanying media release. (Last August, Beyond Nuclear’s Kevin Kamps, along with Japanese allies from Green Action, Citizens Nuclear Information Center, Friends of the Earth, and other groups met with the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the federal Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) to deliver just such a message.) The nuclear industry's attempted money grab in the U.S. has now shifted -- yet again -- to the U.S. Senate, which is considering funding measures for the current and next fiscal year. Right now is a critical time to stave off this latest attempt to risk additional billions of taxpayer dollars on proposed new atomic boondoggles. Call your two U.S. Senators via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            (202) 224-3121      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or look up their fax numbers and websites for writing in via their webforms, or to find their in-state offices nearest you. Urge them to not only reject additional nuclear power loan guarantees, but also to roll back the entire nuclear loan guarantee program, as 57% of Americans polled by the Wall Street Journal/NBC have indicated ("When it comes to reducing spending, the most popular targets were subsidies to build nuclear power plants...")! After more than half a century of heavy subsidization by American taxpayers and ratepayers, it's high time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace, or go away for good!

Journalist Iwakami Yasumi: “No more Nuclear Power” 100 Women from Fukushima. A sit-in Action in Tokyo 100 women from Fukushima will be sitting in front of Agency of Ministry and Trade located in Tokyo, giving a peaceful appeal for three days. Another 100 from all areas in Japan will be sitting from 10/30-11/5.

The researchers at Australia's BioPower Systems evidently looked at kelp, and thought, 'what if we could use that swaying action to generate power?' The result was their envisioned bioWAVE system: 'At the base of each bioWAVE system would be a triangular foundation, keeping it anchored to the sea floor. Extending up from the middle of that foundation would be a central column, topped with multiple blades — these would actually be more like a combination of the kelp's blades and floats, as they would be cylindrical, buoyant structures that just reach to the surface. The column would join the foundation via a hinged pivot, allowing it to bend or swivel in any direction. Wave action (both at the surface and below) would catch the blades and push them back and forth, in turn causing the column to move back and forth relative to the foundation. This movement would pressurize fluid within an integrated hydraulic power conversion module, known as an O-Drive. The movement of that fluid would spin a generator, converting the kinetic energy of the waves into electricity, which would then be delivered to shore via subsea cables.'"

This year’s World Energy Outlook report has been published by the International Energy Agency, and says wealthy and industrializing countries are stuck on policies that threaten to lock in “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system.”You can read worldwide coverage of the report here. Fiona Harvey of the Guardian has a piece on the report that focuses on the inexorable trajectories for carbon dioxide, driven by soaring energy demand in Asia.A variety of graphs and slides can be reviewed here:

According to the report, Russia will long remain the world’s leading producer of natural gas, but exploitation of shale deposits in the United States, and increasingly in China, will greatly boost production in those countries (which will be in second and third place for gas production in 2035).Last month, in an interview with James Kanter of The Times and International Herald Tribune, the new head of the energy agency, Maria van der Hoeven, discussed one point made in the report today — that concerns raised by the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi power plant could continue to dampen expansion of nuclear power and add to the challenge of avoiding a big accumulation of carbon dioxide, saying: “Such a reduction would certainly make it more difficult for the world to meet the goal of stabilizing the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade.”

Short-term pressures on oil markets are easing with the economic slowdown and the expected return of Libyan supply. But the average oil price remains high, approaching $120/barrel (in year-2010 dollars) in 2035. Reliance grows on a small number of producers: the increase in output from Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is over 90% of the required growth in world oil output to 2035. If, between 2011 and 2015, investment in the MENA region runs one-third lower than the $100 billion per year required, consumers could face a near-term rise in the oil price to $150/barrel.Oil demand rises from 87 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2010 to 99 mb/d in 2035, with all the net growth coming from the transport sector in emerging economies. The passenger vehicle fleet doubles to almost 1.7 billion in 2035. Alternative technologies, such as hybrid and electric vehicles that use oil more efficiently or not at all, continue to advance but they take time to penetrate markets.

In a letter to the IAEA from US Ambassador to the IAEA Glyn Davies, a request was made that there be the adoption of a global nuclear liability regime. “In addition, to the extent practical, Member States and the Agency should utilize existing instruments and programs to undertake the actions.  In this regard, we strongly encourage Member States to join and effectively implement the Conventions noted in the Action Plan.  Likewise, we urge Member States to join the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage as a step towards a global nuclear liability regime.  These are steps that can, and should, be taken by any Member State with, or considering, a nuclear power program.”