NRC: Soviet Style Confidence Men

That is why I think Jascko was a terrible regulator…at the heart of it he was dishonest. He was carrying the industry’s water.

I think the NRC employees are just trying to survive and feed their families. Just like the rest of us. A survival tactic is to minimize your profile….the electric utilities and the politicians hold tremendous powers over them. The Republicans will slit their throats if they get crossed...the Democrats will just turn their backs on them. 

They basically don’t want to risk losing their great jobs they love.

At the bottom of it, the pro safety folks just don't have the resources and the access to the foundational information as the economic interest of the nuclear industry. It is a terrible mismatch of power and access to information...

I also think the uneducated anti nuclear extremist disserved our nation...cut of the main proportion of our population into getting involved with maintaining standards.

U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted

By Bill Dedman

In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants, according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.

The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry came as the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.

At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three years ago, Scott Burnell, a manager in the agency’s media and public relations wing, thanked his colleagues for sticking to the talking points that his team had been distributing to senior officials and the public.

"While we know more than these say," Burnell wrote, "we're sticking to this story for now."

There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of radioactive material:

Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland.

If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one email.

When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City.

And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to address the questions.

As the third anniversary of Fukushima on Tuesday approaches, the emails pull back the curtain on the agency’s efforts to protect the industry it is supposed to regulate. The NRC officials didn't lie, but they didn't always tell the whole truth either. When someone asked about a topic that might reflect negatively on the industry, they changed the subject.

NBC News requested in late March 2011 all of the emails sent and received by certain NRC staffers during the first week of the crisis. Other news organizations and watchdogs filed similar requests. The NRC has now been posting thousands of emails in its public reading room over the past two years.

The NRC declined to discuss specific emails or communications. But NRC Public Affairs Director Eliot Brenner provided an emailed statement: "The NRC Office of Public Affairs strives to be as open and transparent as possible, providing the public accurate information in the proper context. We take our communication mission seriously. We did then and we do now. The frustration displayed in the chosen e-mails reflects more on the extreme stress our team was under at the time to assure accuracy in a context in which information from Japan was scarce to nonexistent. These e-mails fall well short of an accurate picture of our communications with the American public immediately after the event and during the past three years."

Dating back to the Three Mile Island nuclear crisis in 1979, many nuclear watchdogs and critics have said that the NRC acts first to protect the industry, and its own reputation. One critic said these emails solidify that perception.

"The NRC knew a lot more about what was going on than it wanted to tell the American people," said Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the nuclear watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of the new book "Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster," which relied on some of the same emails. "They immediately put out information that implied that U.S. reactors were in a better position to withstand Fukushima type events than Fukushima reactors were, but it was clear that the what the NRC knew internally was not nearly as positive."

'We all need to say a prayer'

From the earliest hours of the crisis, the emails among NRC staff show deep concern about the developing crisis in Japan, particularly among the technical experts.

The first word that the powerful earthquake and tsunami waves had devastated the Fukushima plant came early morning (Eastern time) on March 11, 2011. Throughout the day, staff at NRC headquarters in Rockland, Md., struggled to learn what was going on in Japan. The chief of the NRC Component Integrity Branch, senior engineer David Rudland, was asked by a colleague if he had any new information. [The emails excerpted in this article are shown in full in a PDF file.]

From: Rudland, David

Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:54 AM

No, at this point all we know is that they are struggling to shut down the plant.

We all need to say a prayer.…

By that afternoon, the news was worse. An officer in NRC research passed on to his colleagues a status update from the Japanese electrical company.

From: Nosek, Andrew

Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:46 PM

There was a triple SBO.

SBO is nuclear jargon for a station blackout. The earthquake had cut electrical power to the plant, and the tsunami had damaged the backup diesel generators.

NRC operations officer Daniel Mills had an emotional reaction:

From: Mills, Daniel (NRC operations officer)

Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:49 PM

BBC is reporting radiation levels at reactor are 1000x normal. I feel like crying.

The NRC staff recognized immediately the public-relations nightmare that Fukushima presented for nuclear power in the United States. More than 30 of America's 100 nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General Electric reactors or containment system used in Fukushima.

American nuclear reactors are well into middle age. The median age of an operating reactor in the U.S. is 34 years, placing start-up in midst of the Carter administration. The oldest -- the Ginna plant near Rochester, N.Y. -- was licensed in 1969, the year Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Only four of the 100 reactors have begun generating power since 1990. The newest, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, was licensed in 1996, when many of this year's high school seniors were born.

The unfolding disaster in Japan triggered immediate alarm inside the NRC about plans to announce regulatory actions. Seeing the video from Japan, NRC engineer Richard Barkley pointed out that the NRC staff that week to recommend extending for 20 years the license for reactors a nuclear power plant in New England called Vermont Yankee. He warned colleagues, "That was a very scary picture to myself, much less the public, especially since the machine is a GE designed BWR (boiled-water reactor) not radically different in size, age and design than some high visibility plants in my region. I can see the cards and letters coming to my in-box by Monday." (Ultimately, the NRC delayed the Vermont Yankee re-licensing only briefly, approving it on March 21. This year the plant's owner plans to close it, a victim of the competition from falling prices for natural gas.)

Three decades after the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, nuclear power companies saw hope for a renaissance, with the first new reactors in years being planned. But public opinion was fragile: If the Fukushima reactors, built by American companies, could be overwhelmed by natural disasters, could the public trust that American power plants were safe?

'We are not talking about that'

In the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the first talking points had been written and distributed by 10:25 a.m. on Friday, less than 10 hours after the quake. NRC technical experts were cautioned repeatedly not to make any public statements. All information had to come from Public Affairs.

In an email sent at 2:56 p.m., the updated talking points were unequivocally reassuring: "The NRC has regulations in place that require licensees to design their plants to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes ... based on historical data from the area's maximum credible earthquake, with an additional margin added."

But privately, the NRC was aware of uncertainties.

An hour before that email was sent, Brenner, the public affairs director, sent a "great work so far" memo to his staff at HQ and around the U.S. His third bullet point highlighted he NRC's role in helping Japanese engineers deal with the problems at Fukushima -- a fact not mentioned in the NRC's press releases that day. The emails indicate that the Obama administration and the NRC were keen to keep up the appearance that they were merely observing the Japanese nuclear crisis and had no responsibility for helping resolve it.

From: Brenner, Eliot

Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:54:57 PM

While one reporter knows or has guessed that there are Japanese here in our Ops center in communication with their home authorities, we will NOT make the[m] available and we will NOT volunteer their presence. If anyone knows they are here and wants to talk with them, they will have to make the request through the embassy to have it relayed to these folks.

The memo also instructed staff to evade any questions about efforts by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to model the effects of similar earthquakes and tsunamis on California plants:

“NRR is getting tasked with making an overlay of the Japanese conditions … to see how west coast plants stack up against it,” it said. “We think preliminarily Diablo would have had no trouble with a wave that size. [For an earthquake of about] 8.9 we're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that.”

NBC News

 

Find the distance from any U.S. location to the nearest nuclear power plants with this map from Esri.

In congressional testimony and interviews in that first week, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko was quick to say that the NRC could learn lessons from Fukushima.

"We're going to take a good solid look at everything that comes out of Japan, and if we need to make modifications to our facilities in this country, then we'll do that," he told NBC News on March 16. He did not disclose that the NRC technical staff had already been reassessing, before Fukushima, increased risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, dam failures and power blackouts.

Jaczko did push for release of a report on Fukushima and its lessons just 90 days after Fukushima. Some of those recommendations have been implemented. Jaczko, who resigned in 2012, declined a request last week to be interviewed.

'Non-public information'

The talking points written during the emergency for NRC commissioners and other officials were divided into two sections: "public answer" and "additional technical, non-public information." Often the two parts didn't quite match.

One topic the NRC avoided in the talking points, even when responding to a direct question: meltdown.

"Q. What happens when/if a plant 'melts down'?

"Public Answer: In short, nuclear power plants in the United States are designed to be safe. To prevent the release of radioactive material, there are multiple barriers between the radioactive material and the environment, including the fuel cladding, the heavy steel reactor vessel itself and the containment building, usually a heavily reinforced structure of concrete and steel several feet thick.

"Additional, non-technical, non-public information: The melted core may melt through the bottom of the vessel and flow onto the concrete containment floor. The core may melt through the containment liner and release radioactive material to the environment."

The Japanese public television network, NHK, asked if the NRC could provide a graphic depicting what happens during a meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

From: McIntyre, David

Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 9:02 AM

NRC would not have such a graphic. I suspect any number of anti-nuclear power organizations might.

When reporters asked if the Japanese emergency could affect licensing of new reactors in the U.S., the public answer was "It is not appropriate to hypothesize on such a future scenario at this point."

The non-public information was more direct: This event could potentially call into question the NRC's seismic requirements, which could require the staff to re-evaluate the staff's approval of the AP1000 and ESBWR (the newest reactor designs from Westinghouse and General Electric) design and certifications.

On the subject of tsunamis, the public assurances omitted the "non-public " nuances that might have given the public reasons to doubt nuclear power safety:

Design standards varied significantly from plant to plant in the U.S.

The experience in Japan had taught the NRC that it needed to study the dangerous effects of “drawdown,” the powerful receding of ocean water near the shore that can precede a tsunami's arrival.

And although the U.S. was developing new tsunami standards, those wouldn't be in draft form for another year.

'It was a hydrogen explosion'

The NRC spokespeople sometimes had trouble following the public debate, because for days their computers were blocked by security rules from accessing Twitter and YouTube. And they often had incomplete information about events in Japan.

From: McIntyre, David

Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:02 PM

Just saw an incoherent discussion on cnn by Bill Nye the science guy who apparently knows zilcho about reactors and an idiot weatherman who said Hydrogen explosion? Pfft. I'm not buying it.

His boss sent back the following reply, correcting the staffer and explaining plans to ask the Obama administration to help blunt critical news coverage.

From: Brenner, Eliot

Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:07 PM

1: There is a good chance it was a hydrogen explosion that took the roof off that building, though we are not saying that publicly.

2: I have just reached out to CNN and asked them to call (former NRC Chairman Nils) Diaz, and reached out to push the white house yet again to start talking on background or getting out in front of some of this crap.

 

On March 20, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu hesitated on CNN when asked if U.S. plants could withstand a 9.0 earthquake?

McIntyre, one of the agency’s spokesmen, suggested to his bosses what Chu should have said:

From: McIntyre, David

Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 10:01:00 AM

He should just say "Yes, it can." Worry about being wrong when it doesn't.

Sorry if I sound cynical.

The public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for nuclear watchdog groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and also the Nuclear Control Institute.

When the UCS raised concerns about diesel backup power and batteries being inadequate, as at Fukushima, spokesman McIntyre dismissed it as "bleating" from nuclear power foes.

When Steven Dolley, research director of the NCI, asked McIntyre for a nuclear containment expert to speak to a reporter, the NRC asked if he had contacted the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute.

Dolley asked, "So, should I say NRC is deferring inquiries to NEI?" suggesting that the NRC was deferring to the industry it is supposed to regulate.

McIntyre shared this exchange with his bosses, adding the comment, "F---ing a-hole."

There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT!

The NRC's Public Affairs staff attempted to discredit news reports that raised questions about nuclear plants, even when they were based on NRC data.

A story by this reporter for msnbc.com (now NBCNews.com) reported that the NRC had published a study six months earlier with new estimates of the risk that an earthquake could cause damage to the core of U.S. nuclear power plants. The plants were listed in alphabetical order, along with the NRC's risk estimates.

The msnbc.com story, published on March 16, ranked the U.S. nuclear plants by those NRC estimates. Surprisingly, the highest risk was not on the Pacific Coast, where plants are designed and built with severe earthquakes in mind, but in the Central and Eastern states, where scientists have raised their estimate of the earthquake risk since the plants were designed and built. The story said that the NRC still described the plants as safe, but also said the margin of error had shrunk.

We had checked our understanding of the report with NRC earthquake experts, but Burnell responded to the story by asking the same staff to find fault with it.

From: Burnell, Scott

Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 6:22 AM

I know you're going to have a cow over this - somewhat inevitable when a reporter new to the subject tries to summarize things. Apart from "you're totally off-base," what specific technical corrections can we ask for??

OPA (Office of Public Affairs) - this is likely to spark a lot of follow-up. The immediate response would be "that's a very incomplete look at the overall research and we continue to believe U.S. reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their sites could experience." I'll share whatever we get from the experts.

Senior officials at the industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute, sent emails asking the NRC for help rebutting the story. Burnell urgently asked again for errors in the article.

From: Burnell, Scott

Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 11:11 AM

Folks, the expected calls are coming in -- We need a better response ASAP!

But the NRC experts found nothing to correct.

From: Beasley, Benjamin

Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:31 PM

I have received no concerns or corrections regarding the MSNBC article.

Nevertheless, the Public Affairs staff waved other news organizations off the story, particularly after New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo reacted to his state's Indian Point nuclear power plant having the worst risk in the NRC data.

From: McIntyre, David

Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:20 PM

I just filed this request for correction with The Huffington Post, which has a report of Cuomo wanting to shut IP based on the MSNBC report:

There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT! The NRC does not rank nuclear power plants according to their vulnerability to earthquakes. This "ranking" was developed by an MSNBC reporter using partial information and an even more partial understanding of how we evaluate plants for seismic risk. Each plant is evaluated individually according to the geology of its site, not by a "one-size-fits-all" model - therefore such rankings or comparisons are highly misleading. Please correct this report.

His colleague in Atlanta, spokesman Joey Ledford, replied, "Great talking point, Dave. I wish I had it during my 10 or so calls today trying to debunk this thing."

The New York Times, which was reporting a story about Indian Point, was dissuaded from using the NRC's risk estimates. We asked the New York Times reporter, Peter Applebome, why he ignored the NRC data. He replied in an email, "Burnell said it wasn't accurate and included rankings the NRC never made. I have no idea if that's correct, but I was writing a column on deadline and figured I did not have the ability to figure out who was right in the time I had."

In his piece, Applebome quoted the NRC downplaying the risk: "Officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the site is safe and that its earthquake threat is on the lower end nationally and in the Northeast." The NRC's recent study with a different picture was ignored.

The NRC followed up with a blog post from Brenner, the public affairs chief, cautioning the public, “Don't Believe Everything You Read.” Brenner called the msnbc.com report "highly misleading."

He didn't mention that its figures came from the NRC.

SHAHEEN: FIXING OUR NATION’S BRIDGES CRITICAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ECONOMY

March 16 Reformer:

"Darcy and Ebbighausen have said they decided to run for re-election to see through some projects that have started in town, most notably the replacement of the Charles Dana and Anna Hunt Marsh bridges that link Hinsdale to Brattleboro, Vt., and the development of a new police station."

March 9 Saturday: I had a part in raising the consciousness within Hinsdale NH!

Just saying, according to the Reformer this weekend about the Hinsdale selectman's upcoming election...one spoke in the newspaper at length about how the Hinsdale bridge hobbles our town and the need for a replacement.  

It is still not enough money!

Hey, Reformer...when you going to run that story about my court pleading. Those initial charges including the felony you ran on the paper...that was a smear! It was a wild ass exaggeration of my illegality.

Scumbag! 

N.H.'s Shaheen introduces bridge funding bill to U.S. Senate

By DOMENIC POLI / Reformer Staff

Posted: 03/08/2014 03:00:00 AM EST

The Vilas Bridge stretches across the Connecticut River. (Reformer file photo)

BRATTLEBORO -- U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill Thursday to increase funding for bridge repairs, though it is unclear if the Vilas, Charles Dana and Anna Hunt Marsh bridges would benefit if it becomes law.According to Shaheen's office, the legislation would maintain public safety and provide businesses and consumers with the infrastructure necessary in the 21st century."The Strengthen and Fortify Existing Bridges Act of 2014 (SAFE Bridges Act) would establish a program to provide funding specifically dedicated to repair and replace aging and deteriorating bridges," a statement reads.Built around 1930 as a "Symbol of Friendship" between New Hampshire and Vermont, the Vilas Bridge connects Walpole, N.H., to Bellows Falls and was closed in 2009 after a semi-annual inspection that found continued deterioration of the reinforced bridge deck. The closure has been a hot-button issue for Bellows Falls residents, who feel a broken promise is hurting their economy.A letter from Charles O'Leary, the then-commissioner of the N.H. Department of Transportation, to Nancy C. Muller, then the director and state preservation officer for the N.H. Division of Historical Resources, in 1993 stated the Vilas Bridge would be taken out of commission only under exceptional circumstances (such as natural disasters creating a serious safety hazard or another unforeseen situation). Muller also said there would be efforts would be made to maintain the 635-foot-long bridge.An estimated 4,600 vehicles crossed the structure on an average day at the time of its closure and village residents say businesses are suffering because the traffic from Walpole has been severed. New Hampshire owns 93 percent of the bridge.Pat Fowler, the president of the Bellows Falls Downtown Development Alliance (BFDDA), which has spearheaded efforts to reopen the Vilas, said she hopes the news of Shaheen's bill will bring more attention to the bridge.

She added, however, she has no idea where the Vilas falls on New Hampshire's priority list.Further down the state line, the Anna Hunt Marsh Bridge connects Brattleboro to Hinsdale Island, which is connected to Hinsdale by the Charles Dana Bridge. The two Pennsylvania truss bridges, built in 1920, are now considered "functionally obsolete." By federal highway standards, they are too narrow and have insufficient weight limits and vertical clearances. The structures are deemed by many to be essential for commuters and industry trucks, not to mention emergency vehicles.There is a plan to replace the two old bridges with a new one that begins near the stop light at the former Walmart location and spans over the railroad tracks, the Connecticut River and the southern portion of Hinsdale Island before touching down near Vernon Road south of the Marlboro College building.Hinsdale Selectman Jay Ebbinghausen, who have been involved in the project, said Shaheen's bill is "certainly excellent news." He told the Reformer the Southwest Region Planning Commission (SWRPC) had reached out to Shaheen's for help, as the bridges cross the stateline.A representative from Shaheen's office did not know if the Vilas would be affected if Shaheen's bill becomes law, but it would provide an extra $150 million a year for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation for two years, according to NHDOT's Public Information Officer Bill Boynton.Boynton said New Hampshire's funding shortfalls are well-documented and Shaheen is simply trying to get more money for the safety of her constituents.According to Shaheen's statement, nearly 15 percent of New Hampshire's 2,429 bridges are considered structurally deficient and more than 18 percent are considered functionally obsolete. That equals nearly a third of the state's bridges. On average, more than 2 million vehicles travel over bridges that are rated structurally deficient every day in New Hampshire."The condition of our bridges is unacceptable," Shaheen said in a statement. "Bridges in need of repair or unable to sustain the weight of heavy trucks and emergency vehicles impact jobs and the economy and put public safety at risk. My plan will help repair and replace New Hampshire bridges that are currently substandard and at the same time put Granite Staters to work."Nationally, one-quarter of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete as determined by Federal Highway Administration standards. The SAFE Bridges Act would increase the amount of funds the federal government dedicates to states for bridge repair by 50 percent, to $5.5 billion over two years.The SAFE Bridges Act, the companion to House legislation introduced by U.S. Congressman Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), has already been endorsed by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, America's Infrastructure Alliance, Transportation for America, the AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades, and the American Highway Users Alliance, according to Shaheen's statement.Domenic Poli can be reached at dpoli@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311, ext. 277. You can follow him on Twitter @dpoli_reformer.

American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card on Infrastructure

PoliticalNews.me - Mar 07,2014 - SHAHEEN: FIXING OUR NATION’S BRIDGES CRITICAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ECONOMY

SAFE Bridges Act would rehabilitate and replace structurally deficient bridges

(Washington, DC) – Citing a need to upgrade and update our roads and bridges, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has introduced legislation that will both maintain public safety and provide businesses and consumers with the infrastructure necessary for a 21st century economy. The Strengthen and Fortify Existing Bridges Act of 2014 (SAFE Bridges Act) would establish a program to provide funding specifically dedicated to repair and replace aging and deteriorating bridges.

“The condition of our bridges is unacceptable,” Shaheen said. “Bridges in need of repair or unable to sustain the weight of heavy trucks and emergency vehicles impact jobs and the economy and put public safety at risk. My plan will help repair and replace New Hampshire bridges that are currently substandard and at the same time put Granite Staters to work.”

In New Hampshire nearly 15 percent of the state’s 2,429 bridges are considered structurally deficient and more than 18 percent are considered functionally obsolete, totaling nearly one-third of New Hampshire’s bridges. Nationally, one-quarter of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete as determined by Federal Highway Administration standards. The SAFE Bridges Act would increase the amount of funds the federal government dedicates to states for bridge repair by fifty percent to $5.5 billion over two years.

Last year, Shaheen visited Sewalls Falls Road Bridge in Concord to call for repairs to the nearly 100 year old structure. The condition of the bridge has limited access to emergency vehicles subjecting some Concord residents to extended emergency response times. On average more than 2 million vehicles travel over bridges that are rated structurally deficient every day in New Hampshire.

The SAFE Bridges Act, which is the companion to House legislation introduced by Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), has already been endorsed by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the National Infrastructure Alliance, Transportation for America, the AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades, and the American Highway Users Alliance.

The Ukraine Crisis Is An American “False Flag Operation”?

 

Eia-Dec 13

Pipeline     4.70

Liquefied  8.75

Export

Pipeline    3.92

Liquefied 13.4

The Guardian today:

In Washington, there is a growing appetite to retaliate against Russia with a long-term, strategic acceleration in energy exports. Exporting US gas obtained through fracking would be controversial among environmentalists, Democrats, and US industries reliant on cheap energy, the price of which would be expected to rise if supplies were being piped abroad.

Republicans, backed by gas producers such as ExxonMobil, have for years been pushing to dramatically increase gas production to enable export trade, and are using the crisis in Crimea to argue for swift action by the Obama administration. 

US gas production is projected to rise 44% by 2040, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and producers have been pressing the Obama administration to expand exports of natural gas. 

The Republican leader of the House, John Boehner, used an an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday to call on Obama to “dramatically expand production of American-made energy” and make US supplies of natural gas available to global markets.

You get it; the US natural gas industry is withholding 15 billion cubic feet a day from the American market...to inflate the price of energy to us. Maybe more!

Remember the propane shortage and price crisis this winter was driven by the exporting propane overseas.

See how they abuse altruism today...”altruism” is such a dirty word. The NYTs and the Obama administration are using the fear of the Russians and the fall of the Ukraine to drive an internal domestic policy. They want to in an emergency fashion open up the exportation of  liquefied natural gas. They couldn’t get this policy passed on the merits domestic and external issues.

This is really not a complicated model or computer program today. Model the energy markets...and run what the result would occur if we supplied 15 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas to Europe. What would happen to the price. What fedural control we going to put on the domistic market. Oh, the private corporation would save us.  

Right, we want to send our natural gas bounty to the expensive markets of Europe and Asia...   

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/brattleboro-vt/THIV0NI8HLLV4IKOK

So let me get this straight, just like the propane shortage this winter....we are going to provide lignified natural gas to Europe and the Ukraine to make up for the Russian upcoming cutoff.

This is the congressional bailout to the nuclear and coal industry... 

Oh brother, this has got to spike natural gas prices... 

I bet you our intentions are we are subsidized the hell out of the lignified natural gas exports.  

We are letting them borrow a billion dollars. 

How about Europe develops ling their own energy supplies instead of being dependency on Russia or the USA. 

Who is now going bail out our poor and middle class in the USA

Right, here everyone wins...we bailout the coal and nuke folks...we make the natural gas folks richer than they could ever could imagine.

Then they buy our our democracy!

Everyone wins!

But do you hear a peep from the NYTs and the Obama administration on what this would do to the cost of our cost of natural gas and increasingly our electricity prices.

You just don’t get it. "All Of The Above Energy Policy" means all of the energy sources collude against us for exaggerated prices. It basically means the highest cost source sets the price of everyone else...the US administration bypasses the free market.

They then collect just a fraction of the profit...they turn our government against us with 100s of billions dollars of excess profit. They buy out our political system!

This issue with the Russia, the Ukraine and natural gas...this looks exactly like our energy sources ganging up on all us...look exactly like these trumped up events and their exaggerations.  

America's Natural Gas Lever

By MICHAEL WARAMARCH 7, 2014

STANFORD, Calif. — The news that the Obama administration wants to use America’s new natural gas abundance as a lever against Russia offers a chance to change a long-term dynamic in Europe, which allows an undemocratic petrostate to dictate terms to our closest allies.

This won’t happen overnight, and it won’t be of use in the current crisis. But by accelerating the process now, we can give our allies freedom to respond to future aggressions like the one in Crimea. And we will increase our capacity to shape coalitions that manage a resurgent and aggressive Russia.

Europe imports 15 billion cubic feet of gas per day from Russia. This dependency has emboldened and financed the Russian government while hampering Europe’s ability to respond. America faced this dilemma six years ago as it struggled to confront Russian aggression in Georgia. But that was before horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing unleashed America’s shale gas.

At present, the United States lacks the capacity to ship any of this natural gas overseas. But an export terminal capable of supplying three billion cubic feet of gas per day in liquefied form is under construction in Cameron Parish, La., and numerous others are in the planning and permitting stages. These vast projects hold the potential for a long-run solution to problems like the one in Ukraine.

The hitch is that these projects are bedeviled by a complex and uncertain permitting process, especially in order to sell their gas to countries, like those in the European Union, that haven’t signed a free-trade agreement with the United States. As a result, each project must petition the Department of Energy for a finding that exporting gas to our European allies is in the “public interest.” Events of the past week show that the energy security of our closest allies is decidedly within the public interest of the United States.

The president can help to accomplish this by issuing an executive order finding that liquefied natural gas exports to our allies meet the legal standard. The president should also direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department to expedite the complex permitting process for these terminals, consistent with state and federal safety and environmental laws.

In doing so, Mr. Obama should make clear that the intent of such action is to give Europe flexibility, not to cut Russia out of its European gas business.

The truth is that today, gas suppliers in both the United States and Europe would choose to ship their gas to Asian markets, where it is most valuable. But global markets evolve. As more natural gas export capacity comes online, this price differential should erode and European utilities could find American natural gas an attractive option.

Having that option in a crisis is valuable. Even if Europe is not the normal destination for American natural gas, it might welcome it under extraordinary conditions. Diverse energy supplies also prevent crises by removing the incentive to use energy as a tool of geopolitics.

Those who oppose gas exports are rightly worried about the economic and environmental consequences. Both are real concerns, but the former is an acceptable cost and the latter can be managed with tougher environmental rules.

Some fear that gas exports may cause gas prices to rise in the United States. The laws of supply and demand suggest that they are right to some degree. The Obama administration should acknowledge this policy cost and its impact. But the crisis in Ukraine illustrates why this is a price worth paying.

Others fear that gas exports will encourage further hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, which can cause local air and water pollution. Here, the administration can offer a deal to companies profiting from shale gas resources. In exchange for facilitating access to foreign markets, the federal government should set minimum national environmental standards. Production of additional gas, under stringent regulation, is in the national interest. But local communities should not have to pay the price of unacceptable air or water quality.

Some in the environmental community also worry about the impact of higher gas prices on greenhouse gas emissions: Gas exported may mean more coal burned at home. Here, the rules the administration is developing to regulate fossil-fuel-fired power plants should blunt any impact. Also, environmental advocates can take comfort from the fact that lower-cost gas in Europe would reduce the competitiveness of dirty power plants in Europe. Lastly, Mr. Obama should redouble efforts to regulate methane leaks from gas extraction and transport infrastructure.

There will be costs to breaking the codependent relationship between Russia and Western Europe. But these costs are a price worth paying to eliminate Russia’s ability to flout international norms with impunity.

Michael Wara is an associate professor at Stanford Law School.

NRC Says Palisade' SCWE/Safety Culture has Melted Down!

This is a special inspection...the plant SCWE/Safety Culture has melted down recently.

Honestly, doesn’t look like this isn’t a coincidence with my 2.206. There is no question the agency knew I smelled something was going on.

See how these things are sickeningly repeating themselves over and over again...there is a periodicity of these things.  

The NRC never holds a utility accountable to the public also. The agency doesn't assume their interaction with a license are going to enter into a enforcement activity and thus necessitating court level qquality evidence. These guys are still stuck in the 1970s regulatory regime where all of the advantages go to congressional ly protected licensee. It always becomes a “he said, she said”...the licensee and their employees know they can tell half-truths and outright lies without professional accountability.

 

At the end of the day, an inspector goes back into his office sometimes after many days and writes up his recollection of events and complicated discussions.   

 

Right, these inspectors should have to  go into this teleconference with full audio recording capability. Most of the NRC activities should be recorded...most of these activities should have them go into a recorded conference room and all this stuff should be available for public scrutiny.

 

So what about the court of the public? The public gets such a limited window on what goes on with a licensee and the NRC ...and this allows the licensee to portray horrible behaviors to the inspector. Basically the agency has to collect not obtainable quality of document evidence...the licensee knows how to not collect the bad information or write around not getting caught!

 

And if a inspector or NRC management is a friend to the industry, looking for a industry job...a lot of issues just get sterilized.

 

Right, we are talking about the security officer lying to the NRC here below. Actually we are talking Entergy lying to the NRC...probably to meet budgets and save a few pennies? These lies are always about pennies and promotions...

Telephone Conference (Director, Nuclear Security / NRC Inspector) (February 2008)

Recollection of the two participants differs.
 

( New today)

1)  SUBJECT: PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT – PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION FOCUSED INSPECTION (REPORT 05000255/2014009)
 

As documented in the inspection report, Safety Culture deficiencies, in part, contributed to these findings. In 2013, the NRC observed that although your efforts were generally on track with your Recovery Plan, the NRC received several concerns related to SCWE/Safety Culture. Collectively, these issues prompted questions into progress made in the plant’s Recovery Plan regarding Safety Culture. Therefore, the NRC performed this limited scope PI&R inspection to continue assessment of Safety Culture at Palisades, focusing on SCWE.

The NRC identified a chilled work environment in the Security Department. The NRC concluded that staff within the Security Department perceived that: (1) recent actions to terminate the employment of two supervisors was in retaliation for their raised concerns; (2) the Corrective action Program (CAP) was ineffective at addressing equipment and other concerns raised by Security staff; (3) the Security management was unresponsive to employees’ concerns; and (4) the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) could not be relied upon to maintain employee confidentiality.

The NRC inspectors concluded that the Palisades management team did not recognize the

extent of SCWE related concerns within the Security.

2)  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2009-0505]

CONFIRMATORY ORDER

[NRC-2009-0505]

 (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation (OI Case No. 3-2008-020). Based on the evidence developed during the inspection and investigation, the NRC identified a violation of 10 CFR 50.9 for inaccurate and incomplete information. This violation is described in the separate Notice of Violation, included as Enclosure 3 to the transmittal letter.

3)  Enterqy Response for Action 6 ofConfirmatory Order EA-09-060

 

The Amazing Collapse with the Palisades Nucelar Plant.

The research concluded that the cause of the failures is fatigue-related effects from the operation of the pumps in conditions beyond the maximum flow rates and below the minimum net positive suction head recommendations as described in the UFSAR and other design documentation.

Palisades yellow finding not red.

I’ll just say, San Onofre came to the end through many years of horrendous maintenance and operational problems. The last straw came from poor maintenance and bum engineering associated with the new generators. I think if San Onofre had a sterling NRC and public record...they would have survived.

Do you even want one nuclear plant operating in the USA if the agency allows a corporation to operate a nuclear plant in such a sloppy manner...indeed the NRC's ROP accommodates this sloppiness over and over again?

SUBJECT: PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2012003

The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, for the failure to operate the Primary Coolant Pumps (PCPs) in accordance with their design operating criteria. In October 2011, a slight rise in vibration levels on the ‘C’ PCP occurred and was sustained for approximately 24 hours. This was followed by a short spike in vibrations and a return to a lower stabilized value than what had been previously observed. Investigation by the licensee revealed it was likely a piece of an impeller vane which had deformed and broken free. Based on a review of operating experience associated with impellers and further licensee investigation, the inspectors concluded that the PCPs had been operated outside of their license/design basis as stated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) with regard to minimum net positive suction head and maximum flow. Further, based on impeller-like pieces found in the reactor vessel in 2007 (which an apparent cause stated likely came from a PCP), and an operating history which indicated past occurrences of vane breakage and degradation, the inspectors concluded the licensee had the ability to foresee and correct the condition affecting the PCPs prior to the release of a piece in October 2011. The licensee entered the issue in their Corrective Action Program (CAP) as CR-PLP-2011-5744 and performed additional research into the phenomena leading to the impeller degradation. The PCP operating sequence was changed, an Operational Decision Making Issue was implemented, and efforts to explore further procedural changes are on-going to mitigate degradation of the impellers.

Criminal facilitative assumptions never backed up by science and evidence...judgement dictated by self interest and massive political corruption. The utilities get to write the rules and control the agency.

2012-003:Investigation by the licensee with the assistance of outside consultants concluded it was likely that a piece of the ‘C’ PCP impeller deformed and broke free. There was no indication of degradation to the primary coolant system or reactor core components as a result of this postulated failure. NRC inspectors, including experts at the Offices of Research and Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) reviewed the data gathered by the licensee and concluded that the pump was safe to operate until the refueling outage in April 2012 with the monitoring plan that the licensee had put in place.

This is a huge piece of metal.

The metal is 5 inches by 12 inches long..

"Lindsay Rose, spokeswoman for Entergy Corp"...why do we let these officials speak to us so plausibly stupid. Why are they so ill prepared with the history of the plant when they talk to the public? Why aren't they technical people talking to us instead if highly paid corporate spokesmen paid to talk stupid to us! This was intentional she didn't have the history on the impellers.

Rose said she did not have any information about when the metal piece might have broken off the impeller, which has been replaced. An impeller is a rotor that is used to pump water within the reactor.

Exactly like the "safety injection refueling water tank", which took them decades of leaks and half ass fixes before they discovered the tanks weren't constructed as designed (constructed poorly). Don't forget about the massive self-destruction of the CRDMs Palisades is dealing right now. The repetitive nature of flaws, cracks, leaks and shutdowns...the obscene nature of the exact same NRC violations and failed revolutionary alloy designs repeated over and over again derived from poor quality maintenance and plant operations!

The NRC accommodates plant and corporate destructive behavior...they aren't in the game of mandating a change of bad behavior! The NRC isn't in the game of picking up the easily detectable early stages of bad behavior...then turning it into good business behavior towards the better interest of the USA and our communities.

The licensee identified impeller cracking had been observed at Palisades on several occasions since 1984, when the pumps had been removed for inspection and refurbishment/replacement.  

How many pieces? Obviously they falsified past investigations and searches for broken impeller pieces...knowing the current piece was unrecoverable or not removable. At worst, they were incompetent with past searches.

Additionally, pieces suspected to be from impellers were discovered in the bottom of the reactor vessel in 1984 and 2007.  

The impeller is terrible and dangerous news...but all the things that has happened in last four years at this plant is much worst?

Epic non-conservative judgment. It is systemic engineering certainty and uncertainty gaming. Why didn't the agency stop Palisades...make them inspect all the PCP impellers considering all this history.  The 2011 Red Finding yellow finding spoke of endemic and habituated non conservative judgement (a pattern). They are doing the same engineering and regulatory gaming with the massive and repeated CRDM cracks  and the broken off impeller....the yellow finding medicine through 2012 absolutely did not take hold. It was all a phony fake phony facade.

I'll put it in the grid and ISO perspective. Exelon is threatening to shutdown a assortment of nuclear plants within a short period because of low ISO market price and unfair competition from green electricity. The NRC is severely pulling their punches because they know Palisades is so economically vulnerable. Why didn't we ever know what the true motives of  decision  the NRC and Entergy makes? Why is everything always hidden from us.Why is our electricity market so Soviet when we are supposed to be be the most open society is the world?

Approx May 2012: In response to the discovery of two pieces that resembled the PCP impeller composition during reactor vessel inspections in 2007, the licensee conducted an apparent cause analysis. The conclusion was that the pieces were most likely from the ‘D’ PCP. Additionally, the analysis explored the history of Palisades’ PCP impeller conditions which included repeat occurrences of cracking having been identified and an instance of "heavy recirculation damage," which rendered an impeller unfit for continued use. The pump manufacturer, Flowserve, also released a Tech Alert due to the Palisades PCP vane cracking history. The apparent cause analysis implied that the pieces were fatigue generated and that additional vane breakage was possible. Despite this, the PCPs were not declared as non-conforming nor were any compensatory measures taken. When the ‘D’ PCP was later inspected after removal during the 2009 refueling outage, it did not have any pieces of impeller missing. Inspections of the other PCPs, which were recommended in the apparent cause and had been planned to be executed if the ‘D’ PCP was not the source of the 2007 pieces, were cancelled. The cancellations were based, in part, on thoughts that the pieces may have originated elsewhere. However, vessel inspections done in 2007 revealed no deficiencies that would infer the pieces were generated somewhere within the reactor vessel, and the 2007 apparent cause analysis had essentially ruled out other sources.

Come on, the inspection was cancelled because they were trying to save a few pennies by not lengthening a outage.

Remember, I talked about beautiful science and technology. Why didn't the fixes coming out of the 2012 NRC  inspection put an end of with vane damage. They inspected the impeller this outage and then found this huge piece of metal at the bottom of the vessel.  Obviously the pump is a defective design...not good for the duty intended. We still don't know why Palisades operated this pump outside the manufacture recommendations. I try to use science to anticipate problems and fix them early...Palisades and the NRC use science and engineering to justify not fixing defects and running equipment irresponsibly. Science is just a tool..you can use any tool to do good or evil. It is just our choice!

Rose said the impeller piece was from one of the plant's four main coolant system pumps. That impeller was recently replaced during this outage, she said.

Personally in the below, I'd be worried PCP seal damage with a damage off balanced impeller...that is in the accident studies with the largest risk to the community. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the installed vibration detectors.

Any good corporate citizens would immediately recognize weld repairing a safety related nuclear pump impeller in a high temperature environment is just plain crazy science and engineering talk. Where is the NRC in establishing standards! Maybe the pump is so obsolete they didn’t have new impeller in stock? Why has the NRC allowed  Entergy to weld repair PCP impellers?    

The licensee noted, based on metallurgical examination of a previous fragment, previous pump inspection findings, and the mechanism by which the cracks propagate, that weld-refurbished impellers were particularly susceptible to degrading to a point where a piece could be released.

Entergy always knew where to look.

Additionally, pieces suspected to be from impellers were discovered in the bottom of the reactor vessel in 1984 and 2007.

I think this all is a broad corporate business philosophy...Entergy is Systematically Destroying Nuclear Plants through a Run-to-Failure Philosophy. Here is a new Pilgrim nuclear plant NRC inspection report. The agency speaks of a non-safety component run-to failure philosophy. Gets you wondering, will the non safety equipment run-to-failure-philosophy cause the public to lost faith in the safety of a plant. It might be legal to the NRC, but will not be excepted by the public?

Pilgrim Plant-The following observations have been noted by the inspectors: SRV performance was a driver for several down powers and forced outages in 2012 and into 2013; a number of unplanned down powers and shutdowns were the result of non-safety-related equipment failures; it appears that non-safety-related equipment that was characterized as a run-to-failure is starting to reach the end of their service life and can likely become contributors to such events.

Basically the NRC and Entergy are saying it is safe to operate these components outside their manufacturer designs...even after repetitive damage. Even after the manufacture’s told them to knock it off. It is self-destruction on a massive scale! The NRc allows a utility to run to failure safety components...this is a run-to-failure philosophy just like Pilgrim except it is actually safety related.   You notice the NRC never gets to the bottom of it...public disclosure.. what was the ultimate rationale or justification with why Entergy was operating these components to damage outside the manufacturer’s recommendation.

The research concluded that the cause of the failures is fatigue-related effects from the operation of the pumps in conditions beyond the maximum flow rates and below the minimum net positive suction head recommendations as described in the UFSAR and other design documentation. These conditions are present when operating only one or two PCPs during reduced temperatures and pressures (typically during startup and shutdown activities). Cyclic pressure pulses and stresses are created under these reduced pressure conditions that act on the leading edges of the impellers, which can ultimately lead to vane cracking and the release of impeller fragments. The licensee noted, based on metallurgical examination of a previous fragment, previous pump inspection findings, 18 Enclosure and the mechanism by which the cracks propagate, that weld-refurbished impellers were particularly susceptible to degrading to a point where a piece could be released. Currently, none of the PCPs contain any remaining weld-repaired impeller areas (ones that did are postulated to have released pieces already). Also, at normal operating temperature and pressure, there is adequate net positive suction head on all PCPs, so these additional stresses are not present.

In response to the discovery of two pieces that resembled the PCP impeller composition during reactor vessel inspections in 2007, the licensee conducted an apparent cause analysis. The conclusion was that the pieces were most likely from the ‘D’ PCP. Additionally, the analysis explored the history of Palisades’ PCP impeller conditions which included repeat occurrences of cracking having been identified and an instance of “heavy recirculation damage,” which rendered an impeller unfit for continued use. The pump manufacturer, Flowserve, also released a Tech Alert due to the Palisades PCP vane cracking history. The apparent cause analysis implied that the pieces were fatigue generated and that additional vane breakage was possible. Despite this, the PCPs were not declared as non-conforming nor were any compensatory measures taken. When the ‘D’ PCP was later inspected after removal during the 2009 refueling outage, it did not have any pieces of impeller missing. Inspections of the other PCPs, which were recommended in the apparent cause and had been planned to be executed if the ‘D’ PCP was not the source of the 2007 pieces, were cancelled. The cancellations were based, in part, on thoughts that the pieces may have originated elsewhere.

Engineering certainty/uncertainty gaming...pernicious engineering language corruption. 

However, vessel inspections done in 2007 revealed no deficiencies that would infer the pieces were generated somewhere within the reactor vessel, and the 2007 apparent cause analysis had essentially ruled out other sources.

In response to the October 2011 event and subsequent research conducted to better understand the phenomena affecting the PCPs, the licensee has instituted a monitoring plan, changed the preferred sequence for starting/stopping PCPs during startups and shutdowns, and has corrective actions to explore further procedure changes regarding operation of the PCPs and the resultant impact on other aspects of plant operation.

Yet here we sit in 2014 with a broken impeller and a blade stuck in the vessel.

Since the licensee was intending to have this non-conformance on the C pump (missing impeller pieces) the entire cycle, the inspectors (including experts at the Offices of Research and NRR) reviewed the impact of this non conformance on the PCP safety functions. Key safety functions of the pump are to provide a coolant pressure boundary and ensure an adequate coast down of flow. The review indicated there were no current safety issues with this non-conformance. The inspectors are evaluating the monitoring plan to determine its long-term effectiveness.

COVERT TOWNSHIP, MI — A piece of metal from a broken impeller blade has lodged in the reactor vessel at Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. Workers discovered the issue during the nuclear power plant's scheduled refueling and maintenance shutdown, which began Jan. 19.

The metal is 5 inches by 12 inches long, said Lindsay Rose, spokeswoman for Entergy Corp., which owns Palisades. The piece is wedged into the reactor vessel between the vessel wall and the flow skirt, inside the vessel.

They know where to look (2011)..."aadditionally, pieces suspected to be from impellers were discovered in the bottom of the reactor vessel in 1984 and 2007".

"It's physically separated from the fuel," Rose said in an interview with the Kalamazoo Gazette. "It's not a loose piece floating around. It's firmly wedged into place."

Efforts to remove the metal have proved unsuccessful. At this point, Entergy plans to leave it in place, saying it does not pose a safety risk.

"We took steps to remove it. We've thoroughly analyzed it and we've determined that, based on the location of where it is, it's not going to have any impact on safe operations. We do not believe it is going to move from its location," Rose said. "It has not compromised safe operations and it is not expected to."

Rose said she did not have any information about when the metal piece might have broken off the impeller, which has been replaced. An impeller is a rotor that is used to pump water within the reactor.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is aware of the issue and its on-site inspectors are monitoring the situation, NRC spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng said.

"We are aware that there is a small piece of metal that is stuck in the reactor. The company has tried different methods for removing it and it is wedged really tightly," said Viktoria Mitlyng, senior public affairs officer for the NRC, in a phone interview. "With some of the more intrusive methods that could be used, there's a danger of actually damaging the vessel. We don't know what the resolution is going to be, but we're following this issue."

Entergy Corp. bought Palisades from Consumers Energy in 2007 for $380 million. The one-reactor plant, which is located along Lake Michigan in Covert Township, supplies about 20 percent of Consumers Energy's power. The facility came online in 1971 and its license runs until 2031.

The plant has shut down at least 10 times since 2011 for repairs, including a month-long shutdown in 2013 to replace the bottom of its safety injection refueling water tank. That shutdown came after approximately 80 gallons of highly diluted radioactive water leaked out and made its way into Lake Michigan in May.

The NRC will have the final say on whether the metal represents a safety-significant issue, Mitlyng said.

"If they propose to leave the metal in the reactor core, they have to provide analysis and justify to the NRC that leaving that in there would not have an impact on the safe operation of the reactor," she said.

Mitlyng said plants have been able to operate with "similar matter" in the reactor.

"However, licensees are required to evaluate the nature of the material and determine whether there will be an adverse impact on safety," she said.

The NRC and its experts will then review the evaluation to determine whether the plant can continue to operate safely.

While he did not have firsthand information about the specific situation at Palisades and could not comment on it, there have been at least three other instances in the U.S. of reactors that operated with metal debris inside, said David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Lochbaum said he experienced one of those instances first-hand.

When he was stationed at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama in January 1980, workers kept track of fuel bundles by moving metal squares on vertical wooden boards.

While one of the three reactors at the plant was shut down for refueling, "the tag board was knocked over twice, dumping dozens of metal tags into the spent fuel pool and onto fuel bundles to be reloaded into the reactor core," he said in an email. "The metal tags were just large enough to block off flow through a bundle. We looked for but did not find all missing tags, and had to analyze the 'what if' scenario if a tag got carried into the reactor vessel. Because it would only have caused overheating damage to one fuel bundle, an outcome within the design of the plant to withstand, we were allowed to restart. The missing tags were never found, but they never caused problems wherever they went."

Quad Cities Generating Station in Illinois also encountered loose metal parts with minimal problems, Lochbaum said.

However, in 1992, the Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant experienced more serious damage when workers removed the thermal shield, a metal plate that was designed to act as insulation but was found to be unnecessary. When cutting through the plate, the workers created metal slivers and flakes that were not fully removed before the reactor started, Lochbaum said.

"It damaged the metal fuel rods either by direct impact or by lodging against some of the framework holding the fuel rods. Water flowing past vibrated the debris against the fuel rods, wearing it away. Workers had to shut down the reactor and inspected each and every fuel rod for signs of damage — replacing the damaged fuel," he said.

Until the NRC is satisfied with Entergy's evaluation of the situation, Mitlyng said, Palisades will not be allowed to restart.

"Our inspectors are evaluating the activities as they unfold," Mitlyng said. "What I can tell you is that we will have to be comfortable with the analysis and their proposed solutions before the reactor can return to power."

Yvonne Zipp is a staff writer at the Kalamazoo Gazette. Email her at yzipp@mlive.com or follow her on Twitter.

NYT Report: The Collapse of the Anna Hunt Marsh and Charles Dana Bridges

All the the factors are here as spoken in the video...but a much older bridge and the ingredients are much more intensified in a much smaller state.

I got pictures of our bridge frozen roller blades...

Right, the 1967 Minneapolis I 35 bridge was rated in poor condition for 17 years...while the dilapidated and massively corroded 1921 Hinsdale bridge has never been rated in a poor condition. What is wrong with this picture?

The integrity of NH bridge inspections and their rating system has been severely corrupted. Our budget problems has caused this just like the I35 bridge.

For our area population density, it is also a "bridge-buster bridge". There has always been some sort of ideological war going on trhese state. NH doesn't want to pay full freight and Vermont doesn't want pay half the cost. So everyone is play bridge collapse chicken!

 

All along I predicted our bridge collapse will occur on a hot summer afternoon!