NRC

— ‘It’s a lie’: former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi blasts Shinzo Abe’s government over Fukushima clean-up

admin , , , , , , ,

“I think nuclear is an environmentally viable way to produce electricity.”
— Dale Klein, an adviser to TEPCO and a former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dale Klein is a good example of the revolving door between government and private industry. Regulators don’t regulate because they don’t want to jeopardize their career options.

From South China Morning Post

Sept. 8, 2016

Former prime minister backed the use of nuclear power during his years in office but now says he regrets being ignorant about its risks

Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi has blasted current premier Shinzo Abe’s stance that the situation at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant is under control.

“It’s a lie,” an impassioned Koizumi, 74, told reporters in Tokyo on Wednesday. “They keep saying it’s going to be under control, but still it’s not effective. I really want to know how you can tell a lie like that.”

A spokesman for Abe’s office didn’t immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail requesting comment.

More than five years after the meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, the operator – Tokyo Electric Power Co. – continues to struggle to contain the radiation-contaminated water that inundates the plant. Tepco is using a frozen “ice wall” to stop water from entering the wrecked facility, but still about 300 metric tonnes of water flows into the reactor building daily, mixing with melted fuel and becoming tainted, according to the company’s website.

Company spokesman Tatsuhiro Yamagishi said by email that a process to bolster the ice wall is beginning to have an effect, adding that the company believes no underground water is flowing into the sea without being treated. All radioactive materials are under measurable limits, he said.

Koizumi was speaking at an event to publicise his campaign to raise money to help US servicemen who say they contracted radiation sickness while working on the clean-up after the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and meltdown.

The former prime minister backed the use of nuclear power during his years in office from 2001-06, but now says he regrets that he had been ignorant about its risks and is campaigning for its abolition.

“When I was prime minister, I believed what they told me. I believed it was a cheap, safe and clean form of energy,” Koizumi said. “I’m now ashamed of myself for believing those lies for so long.”

Koizumi also blasted Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority, saying that its chief, Shunichi Tanaka, gave permission to restart the Sendai reactor in the southern Japanese island of Kyushu despite having reservations about its safety. The authority wasn’t immediately available to comment outside of business hours.

Local courts and governments have been one of the biggest roadblocks to restarting more reactors, crimping Abe’s goal of deriving as much as 22 per cent of the nation’s energy needs from nuclear by 2030. [it’s always at the local and grassroots level where action happens]

The Otsu District Court earlier this year made a surprise decision that restricted Kansai Electric Power Co. from operating two reactors in western Japan only weeks after they’d been turned back on.

On March 10, the eve of the fifth anniversary of the disaster, Abe said that Japan can’t do without nuclear power.

Just three of the nation’s 42 operable reactors are currently online. Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, which restarted last year, are facing opposition from the region’s new governor, who has twice formally demanded that they be temporarily shut for inspection.

“There is no perfect source for electricity,” Dale Klein, an adviser to Tepco and a former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in an interview in Tokyo last week. “If there were a perfect source, we wouldn’t be having our energy debates. Wind has its problems, solar has its problems, coal has its problems. But at the end of the day, we need electricity. And I think nuclear is an environmentally viable way to produce electricity.”

Koizumi contested claims by Abe’s administration that the nuclear watchdog is imposing the world’s most stringent safety standards in the earthquake-prone nation. “If you compare the Japanese regulations to those in America, you realise how much looser the Japanese regulations are,” he said.

“Abe knows the arguments on both sides, but he still believes the arguments for nuclear power generation,” Koizumi added.

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2017251/its-lie-former-japanese-prime-minister-junichiro-koizumi-blasts

Massachusetts: Nuclear expert questions how long Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station operated without emergency generators

admin , , , , ,

From The Enterprise

Nuclear safety expert seeks data about Pilgrim incident

By Christine Legere
The Cape Cod Times
Posted Jul. 1, 2016

PLYMOUTH – A well-known nuclear safety expert is looking for more information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding a report that both emergency diesel generators at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station had been out of commission at the same time for a short period in April while the reactor was operating at full power.

David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, questions how long the plant had been running with no emergency generators, which provide a default power source to safely shut down the reactor, maintain safe shutdown conditions and operate all essential systems if primary and secondary power sources have failed.

The Pilgrim plant can continue to operate for only 24 hours with both generators down, under conditions of its license. If one isn’t back online within that time frame, the reactor must go into cold shutdown, Lochbaum pointed out in his email.

Entergy, Pilgrim’s owner-operator, filed an event report on the April incident with federal regulators on June 9. The report is required because it was “a condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of a system needed to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, remove residual heat and mitigate the consequences of an accident,” according to the report.

The document said workers had removed one of the plant’s two diesel generators from service for planned maintenance at 7 p.m. April 11. More than 25 hours after shutting down the generator, a worker noticed water leaking across the floor “at 130 drops a minute” from a pipe coupling on the generator believed to be still operable.

Workers determined the leak was caused by stress corrosion and pronounced the generator inoperable, leaving the plant with no working generators.

Workers fixed the leak and put the diesel generator back in service shortly before noon April 12.

Meanwhile, Mary Lampert, a Duxbury resident and director of Pilgrim Watch, said she believed the situation occurred because of aging equipment and lack of vigilance.

“It’s the same old story: Entergy running the reactor on the cheap – generating not required backup power but trouble for us and themselves,” wrote Lampert in an email.

While Lampert noted Pilgrim workers used to operate on eight-hour shifts, which would have resulted in three checks of the diesel room daily rather than the current two, Patrick O’Brien, speaking for Entergy Corp., said the change to 12-hour shifts occurred in the 1990s, before Entergy bought the plant. O’Brien added that Pilgrim still maintains a full staff of 650 employees.

“The plant’s operations professionals maintain scheduled rounds of all protected equipment when another system is out of service, and the procedures in place ensure the plant maintains safe operations,” O’Brien wrote.

‘‘Proper procedure was followed, and there was no impact on public health or worker safety. At the time, the plant had access to its other back-up power source – the station’s blackout generator – as well as the preferred source, off-site power.”

Follow Christine Legere on Twitter: @chrislegereCCT.

http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20160701/nuclear-safety-expert-seeks-data-about-pilgrim-incident

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

— Comments on “consent-based siting” to Department of Energy, 4-26-16

admin , , ,

From San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

April 26, 2016

In 2016 the Department of Energy (DOE) held eight public meetings around the country on the Department’s consent-based siting initiative for facilities to manage the nation’s nuclear waste. The DOE is planning siting facilities to store, transport, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

Comments on Consent-Based Siting D.O. E. meeting, Sacramento

April 26, 2016

1. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) does not support or ‘consent’ to the plan of solving the nuclear waste problem with the goal of guaranteeing the FUTURE of nuclear energy in the USA. We do not support the intention of continuing the use of nuclear energy. SLOMFP is concerned that these public meetings are ultimately being conducted to rationalize the continued production of spent fuel through the operation of nuclear reactors, and thereby serve the needs of the nuclear industry, not the needs or the desires of the public.

2. After more than 60 years spent searching for an effective solution to the disposal of radioactive waste, there remains no viable plan. Furthermore, an increasing number of options are available for generating electrical energy using renewable resources that do not create lethal wastes. Thus, as a condition for going forward with a consent-based process for spent fuel disposal, the United States should enter a process for the orderly shutdown of all nuclear reactors. The problem of long-term storage would remain, but at least the quantity of wastes would remain stable.

The term “consent-based siting” is not clearly defined. There are no assurances that such “consent” will be fully informed. In a medical context, informed consent means the patient has been told and shown in writing all of the possible negative outcomes of a treatment as well as the hoped-for positive results The patient can make an objective decision about proceeding or not. SLOMFP sees no indication that the probable negatives of allowing storage of lethal radioactive wastes on a given site will be clearly spelled out BEFORE the community in question can give “consent”. This is essential.

Furthermore, there is no process defined for securing so-called consent. Would consent be determined by a letter from elected local officials? Or would the population affected have an opportunity to vote? If so, what plurality would be required to qualify as “consent”? And who is authorized to speak for future generations?

If legitimate consent is to be obtained for the interim storage of highly irradiated “spent” nuclear fuel in or near a community, each individual in that community must be given adequate, unbiased information about the potential short-term and long-term risks of living in proximity to the site. Then a legal vote must be obtained from the community members. Elected officials do not have the authority to make such an important decision without the fully informed consent of every member of the community. An example of failure to hear those who dissent comes from New Mexico. “We do not consent to the plan to dump dangerous radioactive waste on us,” said Rose Gardner who lives in Eunice, New Mexico, a town of nearly 3000 people that is 40% Hispanic. It lies five miles west of the Waste Control Specialists site proposed for interim storage of nuclear waste. “Andrews County officials say that we want this waste, but no one has ever asked me if I consent. I would definitely say no, and many others here feel the same way. We never got to vote on this issue. The Department of Energy is saying that our community consents to having radioactive waste dumped in our backyard, but this isn’t true. The DOE scheduled eight hearings around the country, but not a single one for New Mexico or Texas, the targeted region. Clearly they don’t want to hear our voices.”

  1. It is also essential that states and communities with responsibility for caring for nuclear waste be given the authority to regulate it to a greater degree of safety than the federal government. And states and communities should have the prerogative of opting out of consent throughout the process, as additional information is developed about the site and the risks of disposal.
  2. We agree with the recommendation of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future that DOE should be replaced with a new agency to manage high-level radioactive waste. Given the DOE’s dismal record and the public’s lack of trust in its work, replacement of the DOE with a new agency is an essential step.
  3. SLOMFP supports the creation of a permanent geological repository for nuclear waste that is scientifically selected to guarantee that the radioactive materials will be secure from the environment for the length of time they are radioactive. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that time period may extend to 1 million years. See http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm

https://mothersforpeace.org/data/2016/2016-04-26-comments-on-consent-based-siting-to-department-of-energy

— US Senate Bill 2795 on deregulation of the nuclear industry – the conflicts of interests of author and sponsors — Senators Inhofe, Booker, Crapo, Whitehouse, Fischer

admin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sen. James Inhofe, S. 2795: “The existing fleet of nuclear reactors in the United States is operating safely and securely.“

From Mining Awareness

April 29, 2016

It is perfectly possible that Inhofe, Booker, Crapo et. al. are simply lazy, stupid and ignorant in pushing a bill (S. 2795) claiming that US nuclear reactors are “operating safely and securely”. Maybe they’ve just observed that the US NRC does exactly what the nuclear industry wants anyway so should indeed have funding cut. It is actually pretty funny that all the workers at US NRC that have sold their soul to the nuclear devil have their jobs on the cutting block anyway. So, the proposal to cut funding to the US NRC is actually pretty funny. Watch and learn before you sell your soul to the devil. However, many NRC workers will just go home to their countries of origin, leaving the children of the American Revolution and others who have no other home stuck with their nuclear crimes. But, why not just totally shut down the US NRC?

The attempt by Inhofe et. al. to stop mandatory hearings for new nuclear reactor types suggests other nefarious motives:https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/us-senate-efforts-to-do-away-with-mandatory-licensing-hearings-for-so-called-advanced-nuclear-reactors-small-modular-reactors/

According to the idiotic statement in the Senator Inhofe sponsored bill S2795, “the existing fleet of nuclear reactors in the United States is operating safely and securely;…” (S.2795 — 114th Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2795/all-actions?resultIndex=3&overview=closed Sponsor: Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]). Inhofe and his co-sponsors can’t read? The list of safety related problems-“incidents” reported to the US NRC appears endless: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

http://www.c-span.org/video/?408515-1/hearing-nuclear-energy&start=5937 Why is the entire panel pro-nuclear? Read about them at the bottom of this post. Second from the left is Ashley Finan who works for the so-called “
Clean Air Task Force”, but has promoted the use of nuclear power in the Canadian tar sands industry.

The electrical defects for all but one US nuclear power station are so serious that 7 brave NRC electrical engineers put themselves at risk by demanding something be done immediately. They were ignored. These brave seven were led by an American from India who loves America. And, maybe he’s just smart enough to understand that the world environment is interconnected too.

This claim about the safety and security of US Nuclear Power Stations and push for nuclear deregulation is oddly coming from a Senator (Inhofe) from Oklahoma where there are no operating nuclear power stations, though Oklahoma is the location of the infamous Kerr-McGee site where Karen Silkwood worked.

Does Inhofe’s bill have to do with campaign contributions related to Andarko? https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005582 Andarko inherited the Kerr-McGee liability:
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/kerr-mcgee-cimarron-corporation-former-fuel-fabrication-facility.html

Maybe Inhofe’s bill has to do with his funding related to Honeywell International: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/us-nrc-launches-special-inspection-at-honeywell-uranium-hex-facility-in-metropolis-illinois/

And, funding to Inhofe related to Southern Co. with their Vogtle Nuclear Reactors, both old and under construction?https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00005582&newMem=N&cycle=2016 More overt, of course, is Inhofe’s military industrial complex funding.

Continue reading →

— Radioactive blues: NRC relicensing hearing of Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station (Mississippi) held 1000 miles away in D.C. May 4

admin , , , , ,

From Mining Awareness
May 2, 2016

To Obama’s statement after B.B. King’s death, almost a year ago, that “there’s going to be one killer blues session in heaven tonight.” one can but reply that there’s going to be a killer of a nuclear accident in Mississippi or somewhere else soon, and that will be a reason for a killer blues session in heaven alright.https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/05/15/bb-king-blues-has-lost-its-king-and-america-has-lost-legend
BB King performs "Merry Christmas Baby" at the National Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. December 9, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
“BB King on December 9, 2010 in DC. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)”

Obama apparently intends to evac to his father’s birthplace, Kenya, or he wouldn’t have beem running around the world begging to dump foreign nuclear waste upon America, to be buried there, under the guise of “non-proliferation”. Unless, of course, he’s just blinkered, drugged up and/or insane.
Grand Gulf Steam
Grand Gulf Nuclear Reactor near Port Gibson, Mississippi

When a man was found hung last year near Port Gibson Mississippi, the news was heard around the world. When B. B. King passed away last year, it made international news, as had the death of Elvis, also a Mississippian. When accusations were made that B.B. King was poisoned, once again it made news. His visitation and funeral in Mississippi made international news, as well. They are both lucky to have died and miss what’s to come.

But, when the US NRC-Entergy are already legally, and illegally, poisoning land, air and water with deadly radionuclides, and courting a major nuclear disaster in B.B. King’s and Elvis’ home state of Mississippi, not a peep is heard.

The fact that the neighboring Jefferson county, just downriver from Grand Gulf, is the fattest county in a fat country has made world headlines.[1] But, there is no discussion of if this may be due to thyroid damage from radioiodine coming out of Grand Gulf – the largest single nuclear reactor in the US.

When the US NRC-Entergy are playing statistical games which may, at any moment, lead to reactor pressure vessel failure and major nuclear disaster in Mississippi, it doesn’t make news at all, even though it will probably impact much of North America, depending on the luck of the wind direction and rain (or lack thereof). There is no room for the 20 to 40% error allowed by the NRC, when it comes to a potential major nuclear disaster.
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/us-nrc-sneak-through-alert-comment-deadline-today-at-11-59-et-request-hearing-by-1-june/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/us-nrc-safety-abuses-alert-comment-deadline-april-30-at-11-59-eastern-time-request-hearing-by-1-june/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/dangerous-maximum-extended-load-line-limit-plus-for-largest-us-nuclear-reactor-urgent-comment-demand-hearing-now/

The US NRC is having a hearing where people could speak in Washington DC, almost 1,000 miles away from the Mississippi nuclear reactor on May 4th.http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg To speak, one is supposed to give five days notice. And, yet the official announcement only came out on April 19th, and we didn’t find that people could do presentations until May 1st. We found out about the meeting ca April 26th, but not that people could speak. The “Safety Evaluation Report, Related to the License Renewal of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-416, Entergy Operations, Inc.“, United States Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, April 2016 is a daunting 777 pages which makes even less sense than most NRC documents. http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1609/ML16090A252.pdf As it’s a technical document, one may estimate 4 or more hours per day which might be spent reviewing it over the course of April 4th to May 4th, if it were well-written and comprehensible. But, it’s not. The parts that we read basically say that Entergy failed to do this and that and the US NRC asked them to do this or that and that the US NRC is ok with their follow-up.

But, should we be ok with the follow-up? An educated guess is most likely not. And yet, each topic has related documents, meaning that one would probably need to examine 1000s of pages, meaning more like a dozen hours per day for one month. And, that allows no preparation of a presentation, nor the travel time. If a Ph.D. who is pretty good at reading bureaucratic crap, and who has been reading US NRC crap for two or three years finds it too daunting to deal with, what about other people? Even if one were motivated to work night and day and beg for an audience, the US NRC is lap-dog to the nuclear industry.

The Japanese are neat, orderly, and think of everything. If you think that Fukushima is bad, a nuclear disaster in the US is going to be a never-ending radioactive Katrina, where people are just left to die, as they were in New Orleans. A nuclear disaster in the UK will be worse than their massive flu epidemic, around 16 or 17 years ago, where they had no room for the bodies. History tells us that after a nuclear accident in Europe, the French will probably try to pretend it never happened. Of course, the US will probably try this as well, but the truth will come out – too late for people to take shelter, as with the plutonium flying out from WIPP. Mississippi may actually fare better than most due to low population density, many people still having a farm work ethic and the heavy military-retired military presence in the state. But, you can be certain that the Feds will treat it like New Orleans.

[…]

[1] Claiborne County, home to the Grand Gulf nuclear reactor is 84% African American. Just down river is Jefferson County, the county with “the highest percentage of African Americans of any county in the United States, as well as being the most obese in the nation statistically.” Both are among the poorest counties in the United States.” Jefferson is 85.7% African American. The county seat of Fayette is 97.37% African American. At 37% the State of Mississippi still has the highest percentage of African Americans in the USA.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claiborne_County,_Mississippihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County,_Mississippi

“Siting Nukes in a Poor Black Town — If A Black President Does It, Is It Still Environmental Racism?” 07/04/2010 05:12 am ET, Updated May 25, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-dixon/siting-nukes-in-a-poor-bl_b_559103.html

Related from 2004 pointing out that the county failed to get promised and needed infrastructure due to the cost overruns during construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station. The NIRS found that one evacuation road near the nuclear power station had ben washed out.https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/616/us-nrc-adopts-jim-crow-policy-nuclear-licensing

Report about tritium at incomplete Grand Gulf Nuclear Reactor next to the operating reactor. It was flushed to the Mississippi River, where people still fish and many communities, including New Orleans, get their drinking water. No one has clarified where this tritium came from and why they believe there won’t be more! The 106,400 picocuries flushed is 3,936.8 becquerels per liter. This is over 5 times the amount of tritium allowed in drinking water in the US and over 50 times the California Public Health goal. How the tritium was in the incomplete building apparently remains a mystery.http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1215/ML12157A182.pdf (Note that in another context we finally found that there is apparently a long-standing pipe problem, which probably led to the tritium discharge and which we need to post about.)

More information on Grand Gulf, which hasn’t made it into the mainstream news either
http://www.stuarthsmith.com/nuclear-plant-workers-dump-large-amount-of-radioactive-tritium-directly-into-mississippi-river/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/us-nrc-impact-of-environmental-conditions-on-nuclear-waste-dry-storage-comment-deadline-may-4-2015/
https://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/event-reports-fire-at-mississippi-nuke-a-supervisor-on-drugs-at-florida-facility-and-a-mistaken-alert-and-an-arkansas-tv-station-issues-an-inaccurate-emergency-alert/
https://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/event-reports-fires-in-south-carolina-and-florida-a-lightning-strike-in-mississippi-and-a-reactor-shutdown-in-illinois/
https://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/event-report-grand-gulf-worker-fired-for-drug-use/
https://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/drunk-supervisor-at-mississippi-nuke/
A tritium report from Grand Gulf:http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1407/ML14071A249.pdf

Obama was happy to have B.B. King at the White House, but does nothing to protect Mississippians or other Americans from imminent danger – probably because of the funding which he’s gotten from nuclear utility Exelon. Obama’s “push for more nuclear energy came after the nation’s biggest nuclear power company strongly backed his candidacy. Illinois-based Exelon was one of the biggest corporate backers of then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 presidential run. The company’s director, John W. Rogers, served on Obama’s finance committee and bundled $193,598 to the Illinois senator’s campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Rogers also sat on the president’s Inaugural Committee and donated $50,000 to the 2009 Inauguration. ComEd CEO Frank Clark bundled $75,100 in contributions to the Obama presidential campaign. (ComEd is a subsidiary of Exelon.) Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made millions when he joined an investment bank in Chicago and shepherded through the merger deal between PECO Energy and Unicom that created Exelon.”https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/23/nuclear-industry-lobbyists-battle-fallout-from-japan-reactor-crisis

He does nothing to stop the poisoning of Tennessee either, probably so Exelon can decommission its nuclear reactors on the cheap by sending the waste to landfills. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/what-makes-tennessee-so-popular-as-a-nuclear-waste-dump-not-its-great-singers/

Obama had a white mother and an African father from Kenya. He was raised by white grandparents. Thus, he is not African American. African Americans arrived during a 200 year period starting ca 1614 and mostly from west Africa. He does not share the history or culture, except through marriage. But, his wife apparently doesn’t care either.

 

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/radioactive-blues-grand-gulf-nuclear-power-station-relicensing-hearing-a-1000-miles-away-in-dc-on-may-4th/

Fires at two U.S. nuclear plants; emergency declarations by NRC

admin , , , , , , ,

Oconee Nuclear Plant in North Carolina — March 7, 2016
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee — March 9, 2016

From ENE News

ALERT: Emergency at US nuclear plant after “massive” fire and multiple explosions — “All of a sudden we heard this loud boom and the whole ground started shaking” — “Intense Flames… Heavy Black Smoke… Chaos” — 100s of fire personnel called in — “We ask that the public stay away from the area” (VIDEOS)

3-8-16

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mar 7, 2016 (emphasis added): [Oconee Nuclear Station, SC] EMERGENCY DECLARATION DUE TO FIRE/EXPLOSION IN THE MAIN TRANSFORMER… At 1520 EST, the licensee declared a Notification of Unusual Event… personnel were applying additional foam to prevent a re-flash… Offsite assistance was requested with three local fire departments… At 1658 EST, the licensee declared an Alert [when] the fire damaged an overhead power line that supplies emergency power to all three units at Oconee.

WHNS transcript, Mar 7, 2016: People fishing on the lake… reported hearing a loud boom and seeing black smoke, and then steam… Witnesses say there were two explosions… This afternoon [was] chaos… Fire crews [were] all on scene at the Oconee nuclear plant after a massive electrical fire… Fire Official: “It’s also in very close proximity to the buildings… I know they worked on… preventing the transformer from impinging on any of the other structures”… People in the area were very concerned when they saw heavy black smoke… Witness: “All of a sudden we heard this loud boom and the whole ground started shaking.”… It’s a scary situation… [An official] said it was a very rare problem.

Loudspeaker at Oconee Nuclear Station: “Attention all site personnel… This is an emergency message… An unusual event has been declared for Unit 1… TSC – OSC [Technical Support Center – Onsite Operational Support Center] activation is necessary and the TSC – OSC has not yet been activated. Activate the TSC – OSC — I repeat, activate the TSC – OSC.”

WYFF, Mar 7, 2016: Scott Batson, site vice president [said] the intense flames and smoke came from oil burning… Batson said because a cable burned in the fire fell and caused other equipment to be affected, which led to the “unusual event” to be upgraded to an alert.

FOX Carolina, Mar 7, 2016: Hundreds of fire personnel sprang into action after a fire started at the Oconee Nuclear Plant.

WSPA transcript, Mar 7, 2016: Nearby Resident: “I freaked out – you see a fire, smoke at a a power plant”… Fire Chief: “When you’re responding to a call, and you can see it when you leave the station like that, it really kind of gets your adrenaline going.”

Oconee County Emergency Management, Mar 7, 2016: “We ask that the public stay away from the area as emergency personnel and Duke Energy staff work.”

Greenville News, Mar 6, 2016: The alert was necessary because the problem could have affected operations of the plant itself… The transformer is 25 to 30 feet from the turbine building that serves Unit 1 and about 100 yards from the reactor building…

WLOS, Mar 6, 2016: A transformer burst into flames at an Upstate nuclear power station…. Officials did ask the public to stay away from the area… The fire chief also said crews are continuing to work with on-site personnel to ensure… there is no further extension.

From last month: ALERT: Fire/explosion at North Carolina nuclear plant (VIDEO)

Watch broadcasts: WHNS | WSPA | Loudspeaker Announcement

EMERGENCY: Fire breaks out at another US nuclear plant — Blaze ignites in turbine building — “It took so long to put out” — Alert issued to government officials (VIDEO)

March 10, 2016

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mar 9, 2016 (emphasis added): WATTS BAR [Tennessee]… Emergency Class: UNUSUAL EVENT… EMERGENCY DECLARED… UNUSUAL EVENT DECLARED DUE TO A FIRE GREATER THAN 15 MINUTES… Watts Bar Unit 2 declared an Unusual Event at 0342 EST based on a fire greater than 15 minutes in the turbine building – 2B Hotwell pump motor… Notified DHS… DOE, FEMA… and Nuclear SSA…

WBIR, Mar 9, 2016: An electrical fire overnight at TVA’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in southeast Tennessee triggered an alert… It took about 29 minutes from the time the fire was discovered until it was extinguished by the Watts Bar Fire Brigade. The pump was in a part of the plant that is hard to access, and that’s why it took so long to put out. Because the fire burned longer than 15 minutes, a Notice of Unusual Event (NUE) was declared. The NUE triggered an alert to TEMA and other agencies… Unit 2 is fueled but is non-operational. The hot well is where the steam from power generation ends up after being condensed back into water.

WTVC, Mar 9, 2016: TVA spokesman Scott Brooks says the fire broke out at 3:45 a.m. in one of the pump motors, one that received an operating license back in October.

Power Engineering, Mar 9, 2016: Watts Bar 2 Shut Down After Turbine Building Fire — Workers with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) declared an Unusual Event at Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee due to a fire inside the turbine building… The cause is under investigation.

Chattanooga Times Free Press, Mar 10, 2016: Fire at Watts Bar… triggers emergency event

Chattanooga Times Free Press, Mar 9, 2016: Fire in Watts Bar pump motor on Thursday declared an emergency… fire ignited early Wednesday in one of the pump motors for TVA’s newest reactors, forcing the federal utility to declare the lowest of emergency classifications at the plant even before it has produced any power… The Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor will be the first new nuclear reactor added to America’s nuclear grid since the other Watts Bar unit started up in 1996. TVA has spent more than $5 billion to build the unit through a series of starts and stops in construction since the project began in 1973.

WRCB, Mar 9, 2016: Fire in Watts Bar pump motor today brings emergency declaration

WJHL, Mar 9, 2016: TVA: Watts Bar Dam generating unit caught on fire… Tennessee Valley Authority was alerted of an “usual event” [and] was able to extinguish the fire after the alert.

Watch WBIR’s broadcast here

 

http://enenews.com/alert-emergency-nuclear-plant-after-massive-fire-multiple-explosions-all-sudden-heard-loud-boom-ground-started-shaking-videos

http://enenews.com/fire-breaks-another-nuclear-plant-emergency-event-declared-long-put-alert-issued-government-officials-video

PG&E covers up continued safety problems at Diablo Canyon

admin , , , , ,

From the Lompoc Record
February 25, 2016

Nuke plant poses risks

PG&E recently reported to the NRC its analysis of an incident that occurred on Dec. 31, 2014, at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.

PG&E described it as an “event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems needed to remove residual heat and mitigate the consequences of an accident.” Do they mean meltdown?

Just how small of a problem was this that took over a year to diagnose, repair and report? Did they shut down part of the plant during that year, or did they continue to operate without knowing the cause of the problem?

Once again we are reminded that while we sleep, the possibility of a nuclear disaster at Diablo is very real. How many safety regulations have been fudged away over the years? What health risks are people living downwind from these reactors subjected to?

The way for California to safely meet carbon emission standards is by using renewable sources, not by keeping Diablo open. Renewables mean no carbon or highly toxic radioactive waste hanging around for 250,000 years.

Shut it down now, before it’s too late.

by Simone Malboeuf
Los Osos

http://lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/mailbag/hartmann-nuke-risks-oil-trains/article_9f1703e4-4a34-5f16-997c-6be468a26bc9.html

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

 

“Leak First, Fix Later: Uncontrolled and Unmonitored Radioactive Releases at Nuclear Power Plants” — report

admin , , , , , , ,

LEAK FIRST, FIX LATER
Uncontrolled and Unmonitored Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants

A Beyond Nuclear Report
By Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight Project
Revised Edition: March 2015

 INTRODUCTION
“Leak First, Fix Later” was first published in April 2010. Now nearly five years later, Beyond  Nuclear takes another look at the problem of aging and deteriorating piping systems carrying
radioactive liquids that still run under every nuclear power plant.

Nuclear power plants have an extensive network of piping systems dozens of which transport liquids that contain radioactive isotopes including tritium — a radioactive form of hydrogen — and long-lived strontium-90. These piping systems are not adequately inspected or maintained due to their inaccessibility.

U.S. reactors continue to experience leaks and spills of radioactive material into groundwater the unmonitored pathways from unknown and unanticipated sources.

…

Now, five years after our initial 2010 report, Beyond Nuclear has determined that the NRC has failed to mandate any corrective action programs that focus on inspection and maintenance programs aimed at groundwater protection by preventing ongoing radioactive leaks and contamination of water resources.

Full report at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/356082/26211376/1431107993237/LeakFirst_ReportLater_BeyondNuclear_March2015.pdf?token=z1pOj4O3mtw9GUIJX27aU%2FNIDIU%3D

– On the NRC hormesis proceeding

admin , , , , , ,

From the Hemlock Tea Room and Ladies Emporium:

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED THREE PETITIONS TO RAISE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RADIATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT BY 500%.

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT THINGS COULDN’T GET ANY CRAZIER, I READ THIS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE  FEDERAL REGISTER:

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June, 2015.  For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Annette L. Vietti-Cook,   Secretary of the Commission.      

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/23/2015-15441/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards-for-protection-against-radiation

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation.” 

YES, THESE “PETITIONERS” ARE TRYING TO CRAM IT DOWN AMERICANS’ THROATS THAT RADIATION IS GOOD FOR US, JUST LIKE THEY DID IN JAPAN!

 WELL, JAPAN ALLOWED IT, EVEN FORCED IT ON THEIR CITIZENS.
JULY 31, 2015

“Nuclear plant workers in Japan will be allowed to be exposed to more than twice the current level of radiation in emergency situations, according to the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s Radiation Council.

The radiation exposure limit will be raised from the current 100 millisieverts to 250 millisieverts in emergencies, the radiation council announced in a report released July 30.

The new cap will be activated from April 2016 after revisions to the nuclear reactor regulatory law and the Industrial Safety and Health Law.”

WHAT A COINCIDENCE, RIGHT?
JAPAN UPS THEIR LEVELS, WE UP OURS, EVERYBODY SEES AN ONCOLOGIST AND INSURANCE COMPANIES CANCEL POLICIES BEFORE THIS IS ENACTED!
WHAT A GREAT IDEA, YES?
NO!

 I GUESS THE U.S. WANTS TO HELP OUT ITS BIG “TRADE PARTNER” BY FOLLOWING SUIT?

THIS IS NO JOKE, IT’S FOR REAL!

AND AMERICANS HAVE ONLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER TO LET THE NRC KNOW HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, THIS PETITION.

BACK TO THE NRC AT HOME:“The petitions were submitted by Carol S. Marcus, Mark L. Miller, and Mohan Doss (the petitioners), dated February 9, 2015, February 13, 2015, and February 24, 2015, respectively. 
These petitions were docketed by the NRC on February 20, 2015, February 27, 2015, and March 16, 2015, and have been assigned Docket Numbers. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, respectively. 

 [The petitioner suggests that “urgency of action on this petition” is necessary because “any potential future accident involving release of radioactive materials in the USA would likely result in panic evacuation because of the LNT—model-based cancer fears and concerns, resulting in considerable casualties and economic damage such as have occurred in Fukushima.” 

THERE IT IS AGAIN!
IT’S ALL ABOUT ECONOMIC IMPACT!]

The NRC is examining the issues raised in these petitions to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking.”

 BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE YOU SHOULD KNOW!
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

In one of these “petitions” to raise civilian maximum radiation amount to 100 mSv per year, which is 500 percent more radiation than even nuclear workers are allowed, 

 NO DIFFERENT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS WILL BE SET FOR CHILDREN OR PREGNANT WOMEN, EVEN THOUGH THE SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT BOTH CHILDREN AND EVERY DEVELOPING EMBRYO/FETUS ARE FAR MORE SENSITIVE TO RADIATION AND MUCH MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ITS DEADLY EFFECTS!

IF ACCEPTED BY THE NRC, ALL HUMANS WILL BE ALLOWED THE SAME HIGHER LEVELS!

These are the 4 changes that petitioner Dr. Carol S. Marcus is recommending:

 ” (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are chronic.

 (2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The petitioner argues that “it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.”

 [NOTE: ALARA is an acronym for As Low As Reasonably Achievable. This is a radiation safety principle for minimizing radiation doses and releases of radioactive materials by employing all reasonable methods.]

 (3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner notes that “these low doses may be hormetic.
The petitioner goes on to ask, “why deprive the public of the benefits of low dose radiation?”

 (4) End differential doses to pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, and children under 18 years of age. “

 THIRD PETITIONER:
The petition for rulemaking was submitted by Dr. Mohan Doss, on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, and “supports and supplements” petition PRM-20-28. This petitioner provides additional information suggesting that “low-dose radiation reduces cancer risk” (i.e., has a hormetic [beneficial] effect) and suggests that the “LNT model is no longer justifiable.” 

SO WHAT IS THIS DAMNABLE “HORMETIC EFFECT” ?
LUDICROUS WON’T DESCRIBE IT, NOR WILL “BAT-GUANO INSANE”, NOR COUNTER-INTUITIVE…IT’S WAY BEYOND THOSE!

JUST A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THE PRODUCTS THEY ADVOCATE SHOULD CLUE YOU IN ON HOW WHACKO THEY REALLY ARE.

~ “MAGIC STONES” …ACTUAL RADIOACTIVE ROCKS.
~”Radium-containing “HEALTH ELIXIRS”, touted as magical remedies that promote health and prolong life by rejuvenating effects with a host of widespread benefits.”
~ RADON WATER! BATHE IN IT, THEY SUGGEST!

IF THE NRC ALLOWS THIS, IT FLIES AGAINST ITS OWN PAST STATEMENTS AND MORE STUDIES THAN WE CAN COUNT THAT MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ANY TINY RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE INSIDE A HUMAN (OR ANIMAL OR PLANT) BODY IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CANCER, CELL DAMAGE, DAMAGE TO THE DNA, AND CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS IN THE UNBORN. 

WE’VE KNOWN FOR MANY CENTURIES THAT EVEN THE SUN’S IONIZING RAYS HAVE DAMAGING EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS WHEN ONE IS OUTSIDE FOR LONG PERIODS.
SKIN CANCERS AND DEEP SUNBURNS THAT LEAVE SCARS ARE PRETTY DAMNED OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
BEING REPEATEDLY BAKED BY THE SUN HAS PREMATURELY AGED A LOT OF FOLKS AND WE KNEW THAT, TOO!

Hormesis Theory Claims That If An Acute Dose Of 
Radiation Does Not Kill You Quickly, Then It Is Good For You!

“The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure” says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.”      

 SOURCE: Vines, Vanee; Petty, Megan (2005-06-29). “Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm”

 “Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation.  At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.”      

 SOURCE: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press. 2006. ISBN 978-0-309-09156-5.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that any amount of exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful. BUT THEY ALLOW MORE OF IT NOW IN OUR DRINKING WATER!

ADD THE ABOVE TO THE HUNDREDS OF STUDIES AND EVIDENCE WE’VE LINKED TO HERE IN THE TEA ROOM AND ANYONE CAN SEE THE “HORMETIC EFFECTS” OF ANY RADIATION ARE NEVER GOOD.

AS A RADIOLOGIST SAID TO ME A FEW YEARS BACK:
“WE CAN KILL THESE CANCER CELLS WITH RADIATION, BUT A FEW MONTHS OR YEARS FROM NOW, WHAT WE DO TODAY WILL BRING YOU BACK HERE FOR US TO TREAT THE MONSTER WE CREATE TODAY. IT’S THE RISK PATIENTS TAKE TO LIVE.”

HE WAS AN HONEST FELLOW.

HOW DUMB, HOW GULLIBLE DO THESE PETITIONERS AND THE NRC THINK AMERICANS ARE?

WELL, WE’RE ABOUT TO FIND OUT.
TIME IS SHORT FOR COMMENTS ON THIS, CITIZENS, SO HERE’S HOW TO GO LEAVE A FEW:
[http://tinyurl.com/NRCradiationrule]

YOUR CHOICE, AMERICA…ACCEPT NEW HIGHER LEVELS OR DON’T.

THE TEA ROOM WILL NOT, NO MATTER WHAT THE NRC DECIDES.

NONE OF US HAVE TO LIVE IN AMERICA, AFTER ALL.

http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2015/08/nuclear-regulatory-commission-petition.html

– Alert: NRC “radiation is good for you” proceeding — Nov. 19 comment deadline,

admin , , , , ,

Comment now. Government websites can get jammed with traffic during the last day. The deadline is November 19, 11:59 PM EST.

Search terms like NRC, hormesis, radiation exposure, rule, to find out what scientists and experts say about this.

“The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure”
Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

There are also industry sites mocking health impacts and the need for safety rules.

The revised instructions on how to submit comments are below, together with information on the docket and links to additional documents.

To comment, there is a quick link on the page linked below http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086. You can also email, fax, and mail comments per the instructions below.

If you comment through the website, you can create an overview or summary document (5000 character limit), and attach a detailed letter and additional documentation in PDF format.

Include “Docket ID NRC-2015-0057” in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086

or
http://tinyurl.com/NRCradiationrule

Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period
ID: NRC-2015-0057-0086

This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Agency

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Action

Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment; extension of comment period.

Summary

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested public comment on three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

Dates

The comment period for the document published on June 23, 2015, at 80 FR 35870, is extended. Comments should be filed no later than November 19, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

Addresses

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in your comment submission.

  • Federal Rulemaking Web site:
    Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
    Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
    (Address questions about NRC dockets to
    Carol Gallagher;  telephone: 301-415-3463;
    email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov)
    (For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.)
  • Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.
    If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us
    at 301-415-1677.
  • Fax comments to:
    Secretary,
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    at 301-415-1101.
  • Mail comments to:
    Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
    ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
  • Hand deliver comments to:
    11555 Rockville Pike,
    Rockville, Maryland 20852,
    between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
    telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

For Further Information Contact

Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781, email: Solomon.Sahle@nrc.gov.

Supplementary Information

  1. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
  2. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

  • Federal Rulemaking Web site:
    Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
  • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
  • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
  1. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

  1. Discussion

On June 23, 2015, the NRC requested public comment on three PRMs, PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The NRC is examining the issues raised in these PRMs to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.

The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period on this document until November 19, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2015-20722 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P