NRC: Nuclear Safety Myth And Risk Perspectives

November 19, 2013

Macfarlane Reaffirms NRC Commitment to Safety; Cautions Industry about Budget Impact on Agency

ATLANTA – Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane Tuesday acknowledged to nuclear executives that both the NRC and the industry face economic challenges but cautioned that a diligent commitment to nuclear power plant safe and secure operation of must remain paramount.

“Clearly, these are demanding economic times for all of us. But in the face of uncertainty we must continue to demonstrate together that plant safety and security aren’t, and never will be, in jeopardy,” Macfarlane told the CEO conference of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry organization that focuses on improving nuclear safety.
Macfarlane also said the recent government shutdown created a backlog of non-emergency licensing work and delayed important projects such as the Waste Confidence rule work and post-Fukushima actions.

She added that, “while the recent lapse in federal appropriations is the most recent and most problematic external financial challenge we’ve faced, it is not the only one. For the past year we’ve had to readjust our work in response to required sequestration cuts and unabated continuing resolutions. We’re now facing the possibility of another year of sequestration at even more austere funding levels. … The combination of well-grounded immediate priorities and constrained and unpredictable annual budgeting means that important long-term focused work simply isn’t going to get done.”

“In some cases, it could mean additional delays – in others it means certain activities may be temporarily suspended. … The commission recognizes this, and we’re working to ensure that we continue to have the ability to do as much as we can with the resources we have.”

In her remarks Macfarlane also highlighted:

• Appreciation for INPO’s emphasis on the link between strong plant management and consistent plant performance, and for the industry’s work to implement lessons learned from the Fukushima accident.

• Overall nuclear power plants continued to perform well, but there are a few trends of concern attributable to systemic issues, such as maintenance practices for aging equipment.

• The Commission this week decided how the agency will proceed on the Yucca Mountain issue.

• The NRC has received “valuable input” from a variety of perspectives at public meetings on the Waste Confidence issue.

• The agency is monitoring domestic and international concerns about counterfeit and fraudulent parts and challenged both industry and the NRC staff to “maintain a shared commitment to vigilant vendor inspection.”

• The NRC has “worked closely with industry and Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on an integrated [emergency] response program for nuclear power plants. In the past year in particular, closer cooperation between industry and the various government entities has yielded good results and the program is advancing.”

• Operators of plants undergoing decommissioning should “engage with the public and be transparent about decision-making.”

• All facility operators “should be more proactive in engaging interested parties in their communities. I think there’s a clear linkage between continued, productive dialogue and the establishment of mutual trust in a particular community.”

Nov 15, 2013

So the Japanese’s nuclear safety myth is their industry’s PR people educating or teaching the general population nuclear power is safer than it really was. This whole deal allowed the collusion between the politicians, regulators and nuclear industry. The whole deal is a system that enables the nuclear industry to hide information from the public and the activist. It is so undemocratic at its core. It also is a system to intimidated the good nuclear employees to not disclose and fix troubling problems...which bolstered the status and profits of the higher ups.

Basically the USA "risk perspectives" is a undecipherable safety analysis and code words to insiders and outsider alike. It is mostly used to get the officials to repeat over and over again the plants are safe, safe, safe.  I called it the "nothing ever matters "rationalization and we know it undermines the good employees in the industry. If you look at risk perspectives carefully, it is a system designed to not discuss ongoing problems in the industry, and get problems fixed. We are spinning safety as much as the Japanese.

You need agency actions that changes plant's bad behaviors...not agency actions that just harmlessly bureaucratizes poor practices and unsafe behavior. Sticking a corporation in the corner for five minutes just doesn't change their behavior. I think we got host of troubling plants out there who have been enabled by the mentality of “nothing ever matters” risk perspectives. And we have entered a historic tough economic environment and the “nothing ever matters” risk perspectives wouldn’t protect the nuclear industry in our new reality.

I see the degrading economics and poor maintenance as tremendously increasing the complexity of the operators environment. They are juggling too many balls. We are going to have an accident and it is going to look like all the employees are all crazy. It will really be we put these guys in a too complex environment without enough economic support.  

So our USA risk perspectives and the Japanese’s nuclear safety myth and regulatory capture are the same thing. The inability of the NRC to ask the fundamental question of, how is the Japanese’s safety myth the same as our risk perspectives is an indication we are in the Japanese mentality before Fukushima.

The last and most important safety barrier is an active and engaged political system...they are constantly testing if the nuclear industry’s activities are making sense.  If things go south, they know how to go in there and knock heads together in order to get a change of behavior out of the regulator and the industry. Do you think our political system has this competence today?   

"I think that the Fukushima accident provided a clear example of the importance of an independent, well-funded regulator as a critical foundation for any nuclear program, regardless of its size or scope. In the initial months, an independent commission of high-level officials appointed by the Japanese Diet took a hard look at the potential causes of the accident. The Kurokawa Commission, as it was known, released a candid report that concluded that the accident was“manmade,” a result in part of “regulatory capture,” in which the industry had too great an influence over the regulator. The report also coined the phrase“nuclear safety myth” to characterize an unfortunate overconfidence that low-probability, high-risk events would simply not occur."

Prepared Remarks of NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting

Monday, November 11, 2013 – Washington, DC

Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be here today to reflect on what lies ahead for nuclear safety in the next quarter century. I’m honored to join this esteemed group of panelists and I’m looking forward to our discussion. Today, I’d like to offer my thoughts on the events and lessons that have shaped our current perspectives on nuclear safety and on how best to keep a bright spotlight on safety in the years ahead.

The annual ANS Winter Meeting always brings together a diverse audience, including students from a number of disciplines. Many of you are engaged in research and in generating knowledge that might advance the use of nuclear technologies for global benefit in the coming years. As a scientist, I know well the excitement and sense of fulfillment that comes from knowing that your contributions are adding to human understanding of the world around us.

This is a significant time for all of us in the nuclear field. Next month marks 60 years since President Eisenhower delivered his iconic “Atoms for Peace” speech at the United Nations. In the decades that have followed, there have been substantial advances in energy, medicine, and industry as a result of nuclear technology.

We’re now at a juncture where further expansion of civilian nuclear power to non-nuclear countries is poised to occur. As the nuclear power landscape changes, the international community must remain vigilant to protect against potential hazards and malicious uses posed by nuclear technology without effective regulation. Use of nuclear power requires a strong regulatory regime to ensure that the power of the atom is put to beneficial use and to protect against misuse and/or complacency that opens the door to unacceptable risk of potentially devastating consequences.

Fukushima’s Ongoing Lessons

The Fukushima-Daiichi accident nearly three years ago challenged us to revisit established assumptions and regulatory priorities. As the accident unfolded, it became clear that we should consider the possibility of multiple units at the same facility experiencing an accident. We also realized that in some cases, we may not have sufficiently addressed the threats that some natural disasters could pose.

As the international community began to come together in the ensuing months, it was affirming to see that we were reaching similar technical conclusions about where safety enhancements were necessary. As a result, despite the diversity of nuclear power programs worldwide in terms of size, scope, design, and other factors, we’ve been able to collaborate closely and benefit from one another’s experiences.

Our work to address lessons learned from the accident continues. We’re reassessing our licensees’ ability to mitigate seismic and flooding events and requiring them to ensure adequate emergency response training and communication to cope with prolonged accident conditions. They’re strategically placing backup equipment on-site to help maintain reactor cooling in the event of a loss of power. We’ve also required enhanced instrumentation to better measure the water level in spent fuel pools. While many of these activities are well on their way to completion, we’ll need to address some items through rulemaking at our agency. This can be time-consuming, but provides the benefit of codifying lessons we’ve learned with opportunities for public participation throughout the rulemaking process.

Worldwide Nuclear Energy Pursuits

The Fukushima accident halted the course of future nuclear energy development in some countries, but others are moving ahead with their plans, including some new players. The community of countries operating or developing nuclear power programs is becoming more diverse. Some of these are developed countries that have an interest in diversifying their energy portfolios. Others are still grappling with developing basic infrastructure. It’s possible that new developments in small modular reactor technology in future years may further broaden the range of countries seeking to pursue nuclear power.

In some respects, the prospect of initiating a new nuclear power program from the ground up could be seen as a positive opportunity. These “newcomer” countries have a chance to reflect on the decades of lessons others have learned – sometimes the hard way. They can establish a competent, well-funded regulator; promote a healthy safety culture; consider the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste before any is generated; and communicate clearly with the public on each new step in the process. I think that the possibilities, at least in a philosophical sense, appear broad and encouraging.

But of course, I note that there are often competing external pressures contributing to the desire to establish a civilian nuclear power program. There are urgent economic and energy needs. There’s political prestige. There’s the consideration of a country’s sovereign right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. And, in rare cases, there’s a desire among some to leverage the technology for geopolitical purposes by pursuing a nuclear weapons program. We’ve seen these factors contribute to the establishment of high-level policies that put nuclear power programs on a fast track. From a regulatory standpoint, however, a strong focus on nuclear safety and security should be the ultimate objective. I believe there’s a need to balance the right to possess nuclear technology with the responsibilities that come with it. Nuclear safety is a global obligation – there cannot be a vibrant nuclear power industry without a global commitment to safety. And an essential component of that commitment is the presence of a strong, independent regulatory body.

Why a Strong Regulator?

The role of the nuclear regulator has evolved and expanded over time – the United States is no exception. The creation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1974 was the result of a pivotal realization that regulation of an industry would never be sufficiently effective if it was linked

organizationally to the promotion of that industry. But I would be remiss if I oversimplified this point. Establishing an effective, independent regulatory structure is not a one-step process, nor does it remain static. The NRC has continued to hone its independent regulatory model in the 35-plus years since our agency was established. On a global level, the NRC and our counterparts in other countries routinely engage in discussions about what regulatory independence means, and there’s not always universal agreement about its definition.

It’s clear that a regulator’s organizational independence will vary depending on the overall political structure of the country – and since there’s no fixed model for the latter, it’s impossible to have a one-size-fits-all approach to nuclear regulation. But while our experiences may differ, one resounding lesson is that safety must transcend all else. To be effective, a regulator must be independent of any political, economic, or other policy interest whose outside influence could coerce the regulatory body to make decisions that aren’t in safety’s best interest. The regulator must have sufficient, sustainable funding to ensure that it can effectively do its job and attract the best and the brightest. I believe that, for a regulator to have the trust and support of the public, it must be committed to openness and transparency – providing information about its work in terms the public can understand, and affording the public opportunities for input into its processes. Finally, the independent status of the regulator must have support from government leaders – nuclear safety must factor into national decision-making.

I think that the Fukushima accident provided a clear example of the importance of an independent, well-funded regulator as a critical foundation for any nuclear program, regardless of its size or scope. In the initial months, an independent commission of high-level officials appointed by the Japanese Diet took a hard look at the potential causes of the accident. The Kurokawa Commission, as it was known, released a candid report that concluded that the accident was “manmade,” a result in part of “regulatory capture,” in which the industry had too great an influence over the regulator. The report also coined the phrase “nuclear safety myth” to characterize an unfortunate overconfidence that low-probability, high-risk events would simply not occur.

Obviously, the Fukushima accident has prompted all of us, even the most developed countries with the most well-established programs, to reassess how we do things and see where enhancements may be necessary. It’s clear that any type of nuclear accident anywhere in the world has global consequences. The response to this accident plainly demonstrates the need for a continued global commitment to preventing future incidents.

You may have seen media coverage over the past year about counterfeit and fraudulent parts making their way into nuclear construction sites, or of greater concern, being discovered at operating reactors. This concern is not unique to the nuclear industry, and general advances in technology have prompted new worries about hard-to-spot fake computer chips and circuit boards. Today’s nuclear industry relies on a global supply chain, and new reactors being designed and constructed around the world have all digital operating systems. Taken together, these factors clearly point to the need for a global regulatory commitment to rigorous quality control, irrespective of a problem’s country of origin. It is unwise, and potentially dangerous, for a country to embark on nuclear construction without a vigilant vendor inspection program.

There’s also been discussion about a “build-own-operate” model for new nuclear power plants in countries without established nuclear programs. The objective would be to rely on vendors and contractors from an experienced nuclear power country to handle all aspects of the new country’s

program, from the construction to the day-to-day operation, and even the regulation. In some cases, this model presupposes virtually no indigenous nuclear engineering capability or regulatory structure. I believe this would be problematic for several reasons.

First, it would make the host country fully reliant on foreign inspectors to maintain the plant, identify safety concerns, and quickly address them. In a worst-case scenario, I find it worrisome to consider a sovereign country counting on a foreign entity, potentially thousands of miles away, to oversee the response to a nuclear accident. Second, as an open, transparent regulator, the NRC regularly communicates with other federal, state, and local government agencies, interest groups, the media, and members of the public. This communication happens on a routine basis – not just in the event of an incident. If a country chooses to place its nuclear program in the hands of a foreign regulator, that country would relinquish its ability to ensure that it is adequately informing its own citizens about that program.

Regulators also have an important role to play in upholding non-proliferation commitments. Regulatory controls on nuclear materials help ensure that these materials are kept out of the hands of malicious actors and ensure safeguards measures are enforced. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was carefully crafted to create a balance between the right to develop nuclear technology and the responsibility to safeguard this technology to ensure its exclusively peaceful use. The regulator is integral to the efforts to uphold this balance by establishing clear requirements for the safe and secure use of the technology. Effective regulatory requirements demonstrate a country’s commitment to peaceful use, which, in my view, should facilitate access to the technology, rather than being perceived as a bureaucratic obstacle.

A regulator’s non-proliferation role extends to any country that uses nuclear materials for any reason, even if the country never intends to establish a civilian nuclear power program. A robust regulatory infrastructure is necessary to ensure safety and security in authorizing these materials to move from place to place and overseeing their storage and use once at their destinations. There’s also an economic benefit – these types of controls actually enhance efficiency of movement of these materials across the marketplace by ensuring a clear destination, thereby minimizing delays.

Putting it into Practice

The NRC is working continuously to put these regulatory ideals into practice. At home, we have a rigorous safety and security oversight program. Our resident inspectors are a daily presence at our licensed facilities, helping to ensure that identified issues are promptly addressed. I should note that, during our recent government shutdown, all of these inspectors remained on the job. We take more than 1,000 licensing actions each year, all publicly available, following well-established, well-documented procedures. We work closely with the 37 Agreement States, which regulate tens of thousands of nuclear materials licensees throughout the country to ensure that our collective approach is effective. We license all imports and exports of civilian nuclear materials. We’re committed to openness and transparency, and our processes provide documented opportunities for public involvement. While I believe there’s always room for improvement, we’re certainly practicing the kind of competent, independent regulation that we advocate.

The NRC is also engaged internationally, both bilaterally and with multilateral organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency. We work closely with our regulatory counterparts to

address safety and security issues of mutual interest. We also provide assistance to countries with new or small nuclear programs. We share insights about establishing a sound regulatory infrastructure, offer workshops on the development of laws and regulations, and participate in international peer review missions assessing the health of regulatory bodies. With effective use of these principles in our domestic program, we’re proud to demonstrate credible leadership in this area.

We also played a critical role in strengthening implementation of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, or CNS, following the Fukushima accident. The U.S. Government, with the NRC in a leadership role, joined other countries in successfully advocating for stronger language about the importance of regulatory independence in the Convention’s guidance documents. These documents provide a roadmap for countries to report how they’re meeting their obligations under the Convention. Thanks to these enhanced guidance documents, countries will be asked to offer specific information about their regulatory structure at the upcoming Review Meeting next spring. All countries’ reports, including ours, will be peer reviewed with the intent of identifying areas for improvement. These upcoming exchanges will give us valuable input to consider.

I just mentioned the NRC’s collaboration with other U.S. Government agencies in the CNS context. We also work with our interagency colleagues to provide support and offer regulatory assistance for countries considering U.S. technology. It’s important for me to emphasize that the NRC doesn’t promote nuclear energy. However, it’s become clear that the expertise we can offer in the way of design review and certification, construction oversight and quality assurance checks, and other related areas is of interest to countries considering nuclear power. From a purely regulatory standpoint, we believe this type of focused collaboration contributes positively toward advancing our collective goal of strengthening nuclear safety and security worldwide.

Keeping the Momentum Going

Reflecting once again on the theme of today’s discussions, it’s safe to say that all aspects of nuclear energy – from how it’s generated to how it’s regulated – have changed considerably since the technology’s initial introduction. Today’s approach to nuclear regulation is naturally defined by our experiences. We’ve sought to identify, share, and advance good practices, and we’ve used the less positive moments as opportunities to learn and do better. This is an ongoing process. Growing and changing over time is healthy for any organization.

But as we move forward, ready to embrace the lessons of the decades to come, it is imperative that we continue to shine that bright spotlight on safety. Nuclear regulation, like the nuclear industry and most everything in our time, is a global effort – and safety and security are shared responsibilities. The Fukushima accident reinforced this reality in a tragic way, but it didn’t introduce it. A global commitment to effective, independent nuclear regulation is an absolute must if we are to prevent future accidents and guard against malicious use of nuclear materials.

The NRC is leading by example. Our regulatory oversight of our licensees is rigorous, independent and open. Our export controls facilitate the safe and secure movement of nuclear materials in and out of the United States, and give us assurance that materials will be properly protected upon reaching their destinations. Our international assistance work enables us to share lessons from our domestic regulatory program to benefit others – whether they are countries pursuing nuclear power for the first time or seeking to strengthen their oversight of facilities already in operation. I’m proud to lead our agency at this critical time.

It’s not possible or appropriate for me to predict where the industry will be in the year 2038 or beyond. We may be looking at how new technological advances, like small modular reactors, have brought nuclear power to regions that could not previously have considered it. We may be reflecting on how the medical isotope production market has changed. We’ll have new construction lessons to consider from all over the world, and decommissioning approaches to contrast as other plants shut down. For those of you who will be the stewards of nuclear regulation and the nuclear industry in the coming decades, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of maintaining the momentum on safety. Whatever the future brings, I believe that one thing is certain. If the nuclear industry is going to be operating effectively at any size – if it’s going to inspire confidence and public trust – then we must keep our focus on safety.

It’s an honor for me to have the opportunity to participate in this important conference, and look forward to hearing from the other panelists and to our discussion. Thank you.

Nuclear Plant Fitness For Duty Testing

These guys figured out how to bypass drug and alcohol testing!

Melissa Ralph

Fitness For Duty Specialist

Watching over a nuclear reactor’s controls or supervising nuclear power plant maintenance are jobs that need a person’s full attention. Nuclear plant workers can’t perform properly if they’re overly tired, dealing with a medical concern or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For those reasons, the NRC has strict “fitness for duty” requirements so companies can spot impaired workers and keep them out of the plant.

Human factors were in the spotlight after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Afterward, we closely examined how human behavior affects nuclear plant safety. In 1989 the agency issued the first fitness for duty rules covering anyone with unescorted access to a nuclear plant, as well as workers whose duties affect safety, security or emergency preparedness.

Drug and alcohol testing is the program’s most obvious feature. New hires are tested before they get access to the plant, and companies must also conduct random, unannounced drug and alcohol tests for workers. The tests must cover a specific minimum set of drugs (including marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines) and companies can expand the test for additional drugs.

The rules also say workers can’t drink alcohol for at least five hours before their shift, and blood alcohol concentrations as low as 0.02 constitute a “positive” test. (For comparison, driving while impaired in the United States requires a 0.08 blood alcohol level.)

Plants must also test on-duty workers if they seem impaired or are behaving oddly, and workers must report anyone they think is impaired to management. Workers who feel impaired from being too tired must report themselves.

Workers are automatically drug and alcohol tested and assessed for being overtired if they’re involved in an onsite accident or event possibly caused by human error. Plants also test workers when they’re working extended shifts. All of these multiple layers of testing help ensure plant workers are fit for duty.

Plants give the NRC information from all these tests regularly. Reviewing this information shows that most of the positive tests – two out of three – comes from pre-access testing. So these impaired individuals never get into the plant. In the other cases the worker’s access is promptly revoked.

What happens to a worker with a positive test? The first bans the worker from the site for at least 14 days; a second revokes the person’s access for five years. If the worker has a third positive test or tries to cheat on a drug test the person is permanent banned from access to the site. Workers who want to restore access after a first or second positive test must go into a treatment program and have follow-up tests.

In 2008, we updated NRC regulations to strengthen the drug and alcohol test requirements and to enhance how companies manage work hours to prevent worker fatigue. Since then, the overall positive test rates have remained steady at about 0.62 percent. Last year 179,135 tests spotted 1,114 cases where a worker was positive for either alcohol or a drug.

We continue to examine new information about fitness for duty, as well as improvements in testing technology. We’re working on proposed updates to our rules based on this information. You can read more about today’s fitness-for-duty requirements on our website.

"We Cannot Let The Rest Of The State Starve"

You get the flavor...we are a city-state or a regional-state...the optics of a locally. We don’t belong to a greater state or nation. It is advertisement, newspaper and media fixation on all profits are local. Screw the greater good.

And so the fixation on the fuel tax and casino...it is the political ideological wars. It is a fixation of just thinking up any old excuse to obstruct government until my local ideological needs are met. I got to fee.
This is how our nation is going to collapse.

Contractors: Money is needed to fix N.H. highways

By NORMA LOVE

The Associated Press

Sunday, November 3, 2013
(Published in print: Monday, November 4, 2013)

A legislative stalemate over raising the gas tax and legalizing a casino could jeopardize the state’s biggest transportation priority and drive highway contractors out of New Hampshire to look for work in nearby states willing to fund infrastructure improvements.

The New Hampshire House passed a gas tax this year that the Senate killed, while the Senate passed a casino bill that the House rejected. Transportation Commissioner Chris Clement said this week that he’s worried funding won’t be available to finish expanding Interstate 93 – the top priority – as well as make other highway improvements.

“They’ve got to follow the work,” Clement said.

Lawmakers hoping to keep the I-93 project alive say funding must be in place next year to keep contractors from seeking guaranteed work elsewhere. They point to Massachusetts, which has just begun an effort to pump billions of dollars into its transportation network over the next decade.

They’ll try to break the stalemate next year with bills to raise the state’s 18-cent gas and diesel tax and to legalize casino gambling. Some money from a casino could be used for highway projects. The Senate rejected a phased-in, 12-cent increase this year to the tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1991. Details have not been released on the Senate proposal for next year, but its prime sponsor said it won’t be as big of an increase.

“It’s not an exaggeration to say we have a catastrophic situation with our infrastructure,” said House Public Works Chairman David Campbell, who sponsored this year’s defeated gas tax bill.

Campbell and other supporters of increasing funding for roads and bridges are adopting a new tactic for next year. They’re gambling that the House can be swayed to pass a casino bill and that the Senate can be persuaded to increase the gas and diesel tax.

The risk is high that each chamber will stick to its established position and no revenue bill will pass.

That keeps Clement awake at night. The expansion of I-93 from four lanes to six lanes – and potentially eight – from the Massachusetts border to Manchester to ease traffic congestion and spur economic growth will stop, and even if the $250 million needed is later approved, construction won’t be done before the state’s environmental permit expires in 2020, which would lead to further delays and higher costs, he said. Design work on the remaining I-93 sections is being done in hopes money will be available within the next year to begin work in 2015.

The department also will begin running a deficit starting in mid-2015 that could force Clement to lay off up to 600 of his 1,600 workers and reduce services, including how often snowplow trucks complete circuits during storms.

More money is needed – and soon – to keep contractors from migrating to other jobs and to keep the department operating smoothly, Clement said.

“I am revenue agnostic. It doesn’t matter where the revenue comes from,” he said.

Contractors working on I-93 say that whether or when they pull out depends on if there’s money to do the work without leaving them idle waiting. Taxpayers will pay more if the job stalls, contractors said.

If a company already has its heavy equipment at the interstate, it costs less to move the machinery to a new site a few miles away, said Ryan Audley, vice president of R.S., Audley Inc., which is working on the Exit 4 interchange. If the equipment is moved to a new job location and later brought back, the costs for a contract can be hundreds of thousands of dollars higher, he said.

“We will have to go out of New Hampshire to bid projects,” he said.

If lawmakers don’t break the stalemate, Clement says he won’t pour all the state’s limited resources into finishing I-93 when there are so many roads and bridges in need of repair elsewhere.

More than 350 municipal bridges are on the state’s “red list” of structures badly in need of repair or replacement. An additional 140 bridges owned by the state are also on the list. The state has roughly 1,600 miles of state roads in poor condition, 1,900 miles in fair condition and 800 in good condition.

“We cannot let the rest of the state starve on the back of I-93,” he said.

Worst In Nation: Pilgrim Nuclear plant

Nov 7:

Plymouth nuclear plant receives lower performance ratin

PLYMOUTH – The news has not been good this week for Entergy Corp., the owner-operator of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. www

On Monday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced a performance rating drop for the Plymouth plant due to shutdowns with complications, placing it among 22 in the country requiring more oversight.

Two days later, federal regulators sent Pilgrim officials written notice that the plant’s standing will likely fall even further within the next couple months, placing it among the nation’s eight worst performers.

And on Thursday, a union representing Pilgrim plant workers, publicly condemned Entergy’s plan to lay off eight employees next month, saying the company shouldn’t be cutting staff at a time when the plant is rapidly dropping to the bottom of the country’s list of 100 reactors.

The NRC’s Wednesday letter to John Dent, Entergy’s site vice-president at Pilgrim, warned that the plant was headed for a further downgrade at the close of the year’s fourth quarter, based on the number of unplanned, forced shutdowns over the last several months.

Pilgrim, in fact, led the country in the number of shutdowns.

The letter fell just short of stating Pilgrim’s upcoming drop to the bottom eight was a certainty, and comments from the NRC’s spokesman Thursday were also just shy of a definite confirmation.

“Until we finalize the data, it’s not 100 percent,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said. “But we wouldn’t have put it in the letter if we didn’t think it was a good possibility it was going to occur.”

Entergy spokesman James Sinclair said the company did not wish to add anything to the statement it issued Monday. In the statement, Entergy said: “Operating Pilgrim at the highest levels of safety and reliability is our highest priority and we have conducted rigorous reviews of the plant shutdowns to identify needed improvements.”

Meanwhile Daniel Hurley, president of the Utility Workers Union of America Local 369, criticized his employer when contacted shortly after the union issued a press release.

The Pilgrim employees targeted for layoff are administrators, technicians and technical specialists.

“These employees write the procedures for everything being done at the plant,” Hurley said. “The facility is safe and reliable as long as it’s run by men and women trained to do it – all of them.” “There are no non-critical workers in a nuclear power plant,” the union president continued. “If anything, they should be hiring more workers.”

U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., joined the protest via a press release Thursday. “We know the best team at Pilgrim is the team that is there now, and has been there for years,” the senator said. “Entergy shouldn’t make cuts to that team, They should keep everyone on the job so Pilgrim is safe and operating smoothly.”

Meanwhile Sinclair defended the company’s decision. “The determination of positions that could be eliminated was based on careful consideration not to impact plant safety, security or reliability,” he said.

In light of this week’s development’s at Pilgrim, Diane Turco, a Harwich resident and founder of the anti-nuke group Cape Downwinders, repeated her group’s message that the time has come to shutter the plant.

“Entergy is criminally negligent for operating the Pilgrim Nuclear power reactor for profit over public safety, as is the NRC for recognizing the dangers and just giving lip service and labels to the real and serious threat to the population and environment,” Turco said. “We already know there are lots of issues there. We need to call on our legislators to shut Pilgrim down now.”

Pilgrim No. 1 in U.S. for shutdowns

This is the first installment of a two-part series about the future of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, which was published on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2013.

PLYMOUTH — From broken water pumps, leaky valves and steaming pipes to elusive electrical problems, it's been a tough year for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

Related Links

PILGRIM'S FUTURE

Sunday:

Part 1:Pilgrim No. 1 in U.S. for shutdowns

Mondayz:

Part 2: Pilgrim plant: Taxing future ahead?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2013 Pilgrim shutdowns and glitches

Jan. 10-17: Both recirculation pumps tripped, followed by a head drain valve leak

·         Jan. 20-24: Leaking safety valve

·         Feb. 8-16: Winter storm, 169 hours down

·         Aug. 22-26: All three main water pumps shut down

·         Sept. 8-17: Steam pipe leak

·         Oct. 14-21: Off-site power to plant unavailable because of NStar problem, which caused initial shutdown. Plant remained closed for two days after power restored because of faulty mechanical pressure regulator, which caused water levels in the nuclear reactor to become too high.

OTHER INCIDENTS

·         July 15: Loss of control room alarms. Plant stayed online. Alarms came back on with no explanation. Reason for malfunction never found.

·         July 16: Heat wave warmed seawater temperatures, forcing the plant to power down to about 85 percent intermittently. Federal regulation required seawater, used for cooling the reactor, to be no warmer than 75 degrees.

Source: NRC website and Entergy press releases

Entergy, Pilgrim's owner and operator, has poured $500 million into the 41-year-old plant since buying it from Boston Edison in 1999, yet mechanical problems and off-site power outages have forced the operation to shut down six times since January, making it No. 1 among the U.S. fleet of 100 commercial nuclear reactors for shutdowns this year.

Pilgrim has spent 79 days in shutdown since January, although company officials are quick to attribute 46 of those to planned refueling last spring.

Even when Pilgrim has been operating, the reactor has frequently been kept below peak level while workers address mechanical glitches. Between Aug. 22 and Sept. 21, for instance, the plant underwent two complete shutdowns and never reached peak power.

During July, a heat wave forced plant operators to frequently drop below peak levels because of the rising temperature of sea water used to cool the reactor. Federal regulations won't allow use of seawater above 75 degrees.

Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, agreed in a recent interview that Pilgrim has had more than its share of problems.

"We've had our challenges with that facility this year," Mohl said. "But we are very focused on improving that operation."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after a five-year review process, agreed to re-license the plant for another 20 years just 16 months ago, despite considerable outcry from anti-nuclear groups and local and state officials, including the governor and attorney general.

"The issue is that the NRC has never truly met a plant it didn't like," said Jeffrey Berger, a former longtime chairman of the Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee. "Many people, including me, quite pointedly question whether the NRC is the guard dog over the industry that it's supposed to be or simply the lapdog."

Darrell Roberts, director of NRC's Region I Division of Reactor Projects, in King of Prussia, Pa., countered that his agency did "an exhaustive review" of Pilgrim before granting Entergy a new license. "Pilgrim was the longest license renewal process of any plant," Roberts said.

ENTERGY: PILGRIM IS FINE

The operation's stuttering performance since its re-licensing, coupled with Entergy's recently announced plan to shutter its Vermont Yankee nuclear plant for financial reasons, has caused some to wonder about Pilgrim's future despite the decision by federal regulators to license it until 2032.

The plant's frequent unplanned shutdowns since January, with four of those related to mechanical problems, will probably also affect its level of oversight, once the NRC finishes its review of third quarter performance records, expected to wrap up next month.

"Shutdowns like that would get our attention," Roberts said.

More than three forced shutdowns in 7,000 operating hours (there are 8,200 hours in a year) will lower a plant's "performance indicators."

Pilgrim, now in a category that requires only standard oversight, may end up joining 22 other plants that must undergo more intense scrutiny.

Thomas Kauffman, spokesman for Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, an advocacy group for the nuclear industry, argues that Pilgrim has a good operating record. The plant's three-year average for being at full operating level is 91 percent, Kauffman said, "several points higher than the U.S. nuclear fleet's national average."

Not surprisingly, Entergy officials also say Pilgrim is just fine, although a company spokeswoman refused discuss plant financial specifics.

"Pilgrim is about 10 percent larger than Vermont Yankee," said Entergy spokeswoman Joyce McMahon in an email. "In addition, Pilgrim is located in a region of the electrical grid where there is a stronger and growing demand for electricity. Those two factors provide Pilgrim with a significant economic advantage over Vermont Yankee."

In its announcement of Yankee's planned closure, set for the end of 2014, Entergy cited the low price of natural gas, increasing cost of meeting federal standards, particularly for smaller single reactors, and maintenance costs as reasons to shutter the 41-year-old plant.

Dave Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Vermont Yankee has performed at 90 percent capacity over the last three years, "a tad below Pilgrim."

"It's hard to believe that such minor differences yield a red light for Vermont Yankee and a green light for Pilgrim," Lochbaum said. "At best, it would seem a yellow light for Pilgrim, cautioning about another premature retirement due to unfavorable economics."

OPPONENT: 'A DANGEROUS PERIOD'

Pilgrim has stirred up considerable public opposition over the years, particularly during the plant's re-licensing process, as well as since then.

Residents of the Cape are concerned about the plant's safety and the lack of an evacuation plan should there be an accident. That latter problem has prompted items such as T-shirts emblazoned with slogans like "No Escape from the Cape" and "Cape Evacuation Plan: Swim East."

Fourteen Cape towns, through town meeting or ballot votes, approved petitions last spring asking Gov. Deval Patrick, as the state's top official, to call for Pilgrim's closure because the safety of Cape residents can't be guaranteed.

Barnstable, the final town to vote, will consider the petition on Nov. 5.

"We've been concerned over public safety, but the decision has always been in Entergy's court on whether they operate or not," said Diane Turco, a Harwich resident and founder of the Cape Downwinders, the group that penned the petitions. "It will probably close down over company profits, not public health and safety."

Mary Lampert, a Duxbury resident and founder of Pilgrim Watch, has called Pilgrim "an antique."

"The plant was built when leisure suits were in style," Lampert said. "I think we're in a particularly dangerous period with an old reactor and no investment. People are thinking, 'Should I live here?'"

There is also some worry in the plant's host town. "Every time I get a shutdown notice, it makes me more concerned about their operating system," Plymouth Town Manager Melissa Arrighi said. "I think there's a townwide desire they improve safety and security. Fukushima made us all sit back and say, 'Do we have enough in place to protect our residents?'

FIVE REACTORS CLOSING

Peter Friedman, a retired naval nuclear engineer and current chairman of the mechanical engineering department at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, said Pilgrim and other U.S. nuclear plants are strictly regulated and safely operated.

"People should realize that a statistical analysis of base-load power generators like coal, natural gas and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is by far the safest, and that includes accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," Friedman said.

None of glitches that caused Pilgrim's shutdowns or power downs this year posed any risk to the public, he said.

Nuclear plants in the United States are staffed with personnel who are more highly trained than their counterparts at Fukushima, according to Friedman.

Meanwhile, five reactors are slated to close within the next year: Crystal River 3 in Florida, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee in Vermont and two reactors at San Onofre in California. Kewaunee and Yankee will close for financial reasons. San Onofre and Crystal River are closing because of mechanical problems that proved too expensive to repair.

All five are shutting down before their licenses were set to expire.

Lochbaum said it's not uncommon for plants to close before the expiration of their licenses. "To date, about two dozen nuclear power reactors have been permanently closed in the U.S.," Lochbaum said. "Only one (Big Rock Point) shut down at the end of its operating license period. All the rest shut down unexpectedly ahead of the license expiration date."

Entergy's Mohl remained vague when asked recently whether any consideration was being given to closing Pilgrim anytime soon.

While he said there were no current plans to shutter the plant, Mohl added, "We're always looking at holding and optimizing an asset, selling it or shutting it down."

Eastern Metro New Hampshire Centric

Bottom line, if your bridge isn't red listed...it is a political decision wholly controlled by the fraudulent bridge inspection,...you are shit of of luck.

 The whole 10 year transportation plan is scam to make us feel better with NH doing nothing around our route 119 1921 bridges...

Give us the appearance of movement, when there is not a chance in the world.

State House Memo: We need a 21st-century transportation network

By Councilor CHRIS PAPPAS
For the Monitor

Friday, October 25, 2013
(Published in print: Saturday, October 26, 2013)

Every two years the Executive Council updates the state’s 10-year transportation plan, structuring funding for roads, bridges, airports, buses and rail for the next decade. As the council holds more than two dozen hearings across the state to solicit public input, two facts are becoming abundantly clear: New Hampshire’s transportation network is in need of repair and expansion, and there’s not enough money available to get the job done.

 

The public has done an excellent job identifying the state’s substantial transportation needs. In Londonderry, I heard about the need to finish Interstate 93 and develop Pettengill Road south of Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. In Hooksett, residents shared important traffic and safety concerns on major state roads going through town. In Manchester, I heard about the need to reconstruct Exits 6 and 7 on Interstate 293 and for the state to invest more in mass transit. There’s widespread concern about delays to the Route 101 widening project in Bedford. In Loudon, residents made a compelling case for safety upgrades on the Route 106 corridor and the expansion of the Bow-Concord stretch of I-93.

 

Statewide, there are nearly 500 red-list bridges and 5,000 miles of state roadway to repair and maintain, not to mention a backlog of important new road projects that are languishing on the shelf.

Some communities are underserved by transit, and the overall network lacks connectivity for many people and economic centers.

 

Transportation projects are economic generators, infusing our state with much-needed construction jobs and lasting economic, public safety and quality-of-life benefits.

The I-93 widening project, currently under way from Windham to the Massachusetts border, is the state’s most critical one. This artery is a lifeline for our economy, but the state is still $250 million short of completing the project. If left unfinished, an inadequate I-93 will be a detriment to New Hampshire motorists and our economic fortunes.

 

Finding money for new projects is particularly challenging because of years of flat federal transportation aid and the shrinking purchasing power of our state’s gas tax.

 

Unless something changes, we will not have the capacity to look far beyond I-93 and basic maintenance over the next decade.

 

Guided by metrics on condition, safety, mobility and economic impact, the council is working with the Department of Transportation to finalize a plan that prioritizes our many local, regional and statewide needs. This will have to be done within the confines of current funding realities and will be sent to the governor and Legislature for their consideration next year. At that point, it will be up to legislative leaders to have a full discussion about whether the 10-year plan is adequate in terms of its breadth and scale.

 

If they have listened to what the public has said at the Executive Council’s hearings and the data provided by DOT, they will know that we run the risk of shortchanging communities and our future if we do not expand the scope of this plan.

 

New Hampshire must develop a 21st-century, intermodal system of transportation that connects our people and our economy. Currently, we are struggling to simply patch up the one we inherited from last century. This 10-year plan should not be a catalog of projects that will never be initiated; it must be a road map for long-term success.

 

If the legislative and executive branches can set aside ideology and assemble a robust and responsible plan, I’m confident New Hampshire’s future as a place to live, work, and do business will be better than ever.

(Executive Councilor Chris Pappas is a Democrat from Manchester. His district includes the local communities of Allenstown, Bow, Chichester, Deerfield, Epsom, Hooksett, Loudon, Northwood, Pembroke, and Pittsfield.)

Congressional Study Finds Inconsistency in Nuclear Safety Enforcement

Oct 22: So i saying the south and west NRC region's enforcement is perfectly consistent...hear, see and speak no evil. That is why there are so many plant in such serous condition without much chance of the NRC pushing them into being good nuclear corporate citizens. Are they playing up to our regional difference with our individualist and extremist anti government and free market political philosophies? What it the best interest of the rate payer and our nation. The west and south just portrays events inaccurately different to their public for the same reason...congressional and presidential campaign contribution distorting federal over site.

 The GAO is a paper tiger.

You can clearly see this in this report where they don’t identify particular plants and corporations. Like is there any relationship with lost power operations, scrams, unscheduled shutdowns and down-powers? The GAO is basically a paper tiger where our legislators have pulled away from these guys the power to enforce truth telling and full disclosers or you go directly to jail. These guys should be like the FBI or other federal agencies, in that if you are in a  investigation and you lie or withhold information, then you sit in jail for many years. 

You get don’t you...the GAO has the ability to be very influential...but they have been defanged many years ago by both the Dems and Republicans at the behest of campaign contributions.  

 

The New GAO Report: Or maybe the GAO just got its head up their ass.

Basically I think the GAO has been captured by the extremist republicans and the nut bag teabaggers over anything nuclear. That how i see it over the years and they are part of the problems with our nuclear industry, as we can't see accurately the real problems and fix it. The GAO is basically a function of congress and they have become highly sensitive with the powerful southern and nuclear political contingent. These guys stick together and they are very potent. The GAO has been intimidated for years and they really got no transparency with the agency and certainly within a nuclear. They got minimal skills and education with understanding anything nuclear power plant.   

Congressional Study Finds Inconsistency in NuclearSafety Enforcement

The number of safety violations at U.S. nuclear power plants varies dramatically from region to region, pointing to inconsistent enforcement in an industry now operating mostly beyond its original 40-year licenses, according to a congressional study awaiting release.

The Southeast, with the most reactors of the NRC’s four regions, had the fewest such violations, according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press

The study also says that the NRC’s West region may enforce the rules more aggressively and that common corporate ownership of multiple plants may help bolster maintenance in the Southeast.

The west and the south generally have plants that have horrific and uncontested known long term violations with NRC regulations. The NRC might ignore a NRC region or slap them with a horde of insignificant violation...but these powerful coalitions of nuclear plant owners in the south and west are totally immune with changing their horrific behaviors. The southern and western NRC regions are a hubris/arrogant nontransparent and stubborn group.  The upper west is just about as bad but they haven't been caught with their pants all the way down to their knees because of huge exelon. These huge energy companies got congress and the president completely in their pockets!

Region 4 has San Onofra who has been known for many years with running totally out of control with not following regulations and ending with a two plant shutdown over new bum steam Generator. Fort Calhoun has been shut down for many years and they were discovered with a horde of many long term undiscovered violations of NRC regulation until a mid west flood got their attention. It take a terrible incident to change the heart of the NRC if we are are lucky...it doesn' t come from the heart of this agency to do what is right for our nation.I think the NRC knew a horde of nuclear plants were running like this and they just ignored it as a favor to the industry. Wolf Creek is in the same boat.

One of the worst plants and nuclear corporations in the nation is Brown Ferry and TVA. Again the NRC has turned their eyes away from confronting the powerful south political  contingents...tolerated long term violations of regulation that lead to a valve failure. A tremendous amount of safety equipment was degraded or broken at the same at one Browns Ferry plant...basically TVA knowingly created this with the long term complacency of the agency. Their whole fleet has become suspect and the current issues today indicate with all the NRC's and TVA's effort...the fleet is still overwhelmed with past and new problems.  

The game over and over with the NRC, is the agency turns their eyes away from numerous long term known rules violation caused by political intervention and then  the agency discloses an unimagined shocking incident that just shows up out of nowhere. This forces the agency to out massive mounts of plants known rules violation over many years to regain their credibility.  This hide-and-seek  and purge cycle happens over and over again.

Basically, if you don't rock the boat we will close our eyes to rules violation no matter what they are...if you draw attention to yourselves we will violate any of you if you burp. This is he result of massive corporate political pressure...  

... Basically the south and western NRC regions got the same problem but handle it in different ways.  Their inspectors are intimidated by their managers and potent political pressures generated by the powerful electric utilities. The got the NRC in their pockets.

The South...the inspector just turns their eyes away from massive rule breaking because the antigovernment southern political philosophy generates or forces them to behave in this way.

The West...the inspectors generates a blizzard of insignificant violation to bamboozle the population into thinking the NRC is strict. The so call western individualistic and anti-government political philosophy generates pressures to stir up meaningless paper violation while allowing the plant to be run to the ground by not following engineering codes or agency rules...

It is all massive political pressures that blind’s the public from really knowing what is going on and it turns off the NRC oversight switch for political payola...  

One blinds the public with bullshit and the other has the power to make the inspector shut their eyes at work!

The West and South just have differant ways to turn off the NRC switch...but they accomplish the same thing.

The upper mid west Region 3...the rotten Blagojevich-Exelon political influences are so intense on the bottom level NRC inspectors..everything in region 3 is a black hole. Nobody can see anything!   

Once the rules and laws were designed to control the outlaws.

Now the rules and laws are designed to control the  the police and NRC...give total permissives for bad plants and crooks to do anything....

 

 

Out Of Control Rogue Nuclear Corporation

You see how they are still making good profits at Entergy this quarter but still starving their nuclear plant.

 

The first and second worst plants in the nation are both managed Entergy. Then we got the debacle of Vermont Yankee, Palisades and Pilgrim...

Report: Indian Point plant had most nuclear violations in U.S.

JIM FITZGERALD | AP

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) — The Indian Point power plants in the New York suburbs have been cited for more violations than any other nuclear site in the country, although 99 percent were low-risk violations, according to a federal report awaiting release.

The Government Accountability Office report, using figures from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said four of the 384 citations between 2000 and 2012 were for "higher-level" violations. Many plants around the nation have more in that category.

But no plant site had more total violations. The closest to Indian Point's total was at the Cooper plant in Brownville, Neb., which had 374 violations. Eleven of those were "higher-level" violations, the report says.

Cooper has just one reactor, while Indian Point has two.

Lower-level violations are those considered to pose very low risk, such as improper upkeep of an electrical transformer.

Entergy Nuclear, owner of Indian Point, issued a statement saying it "has received the most regulatory scrutiny of any plant in the country." It said, "Entergy's commitment to address even minor issues and enhance safety is unrelenting."