THE NRC (NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, A JOKE SINCE ALL IS 'REGULATES' SEEMS TO BE CASH FLOW) RECENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SEVERAL U.S. POWER PLANTS ARE "EMBRITTLED", THAT THE MATERIAL USED IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT UP TO PAR WITH THE 1977 LAW REQUIRING THE USE OF "NEW" MATERIALS, AND THAT BRITTLENESS WILL BE THEIR DEMISE.
HOW DID THEY EXPLAIN THIS?
BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE AGED PLANTS WERE BUILT, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO UPDATES SINCE THE REGULATORY LAW ON MATERIALS PASSED CONGRESS!
THE NRC LIKELY DID NOT MEAN TO LET THE GENERAL PUBLIC KNOW THIS, BUT AT THE MARCH, 2015 'PUBLIC MEETING' AND THE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE NRC, WE FIND THE DATA!
"Summary of the March 19, 2013 Public Meeting Webinar Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant"
Someone asked the NRC:
"Which are the other most embrittled plants in the U.S.? How many PWRs will reach their screening criteria in the next 10 years?"
The NRC responded:
"The NRC currently estimates that the following plants will exceed the PTS screening criteria of 10 CFR 50.61 during their 20-year period of operation beyond their original 40 year licenses. Updated fluence calculations, capacity factors changes, power uprate, new surveillance data, and improved material property information (i.e., the use of direct rather than correlative measurements of the vessel material's resistance to fracture) can change these estimates...
1. Point Beach 2 (2017)
2. Palisades (2017)
3. Diablo Canyon 1 (2033)
4. Indian Point 3 (2025)
5. Beaver Valley 1 (2033)"
According to the NRC, Entergy-Palisades didn't violate standards because there weren't any!
"Palisades did not violate the NRC's PTS safety standards in 1981 since the NRC did not have any regulations pertaining to PTS until June 26, 1984."
“For new plants, the reactor vessel beltline materials should have the content of residual elements such as copper, phosphorus, sulfur, and vanadium controlled to low levels.The levels should be such that the predicted adjusted reference temperature at the ¼ T position in the vessel wall at end of life is less than 200 °F. [These] recommendations … will be issued in evaluating construction permits docketed on or after June 1, 1977.”
Since permitting would normally come before ground-breaking, this appears to mean that no nuclear reactors currently in operation are up to the 1977 standards for prevention of embrittlement.
1977 was 38 years ago. Jimmy Carter was President.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN OPERATION TODAY WERE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE CONSTANTLY HIGH RADIATION LEVELS AND HEAT FROM THEIR INCESSANT NUCLEAR REACTIONS.
FORTY YEARS, NOT SIXTY...ONLY FORTY...40!
IT TURNED OUT THE MATERIALS DID NOT, DOES NOT NOW, STAND UP AS THE DESIGNERS THOUGHT THEY WOULD, AND FRACTURES, OUTRIGHT CRUMBLING IS APPARENT IN ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TODAY, ALL ARE AT ONE STAGE OF DECAY OR ANOTHER!
QUICK-FIXES, PATCHWORK, USING WHATEVER MATERIALS, WILL NOT STOP THE DECAY OF THESE PLANTS!
THEY NEED TO BE RAZED, THE SITES CLEANED UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND AMERICA NEEDS TO TURN TO CLEANER, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE MULTI-THOUSANDS OF TONS OF NUCLEAR WASTE PER YEAR!
WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS AND RURAL AREAS TO DUMP THAT TOXIC CRAP ON!
WHILE I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS IN THE BACKYARDS OF EVERY CONGRESSMAN, EVERY NRC STAFF MEMBER, EVERYONE IN THE EPA AND FDA, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT WOULD QUICKLY SHUT DOWN THIS INSANE USE OF "NUCLEAR ENERGY" AS THOSE NEW OWNERS OF WASTE DUMPS WOULD GET ON THE BALL TO GET RID OF IT ALL, BUT WHAT NEW SOURCE WOULD THE ONES WHO REALLY RULE AMERICA USE TO HELP TAKE OUT THE "OVERPOPULATION" IF NOT THESE DARLINGS OF CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS?
WHAT A DILEMMA, YES?
HOW MANY OF YOU KNEW THAT THE NRC DOES NOT ISSUE OUTRIGHT REQUIREMENTS, BUT ONLY ISSUES "RECOMMENDATIONS"?
NOPE, LEAKY PLANTS HAVE OPTIONS NONE OF US WOULD EVER DREAM TO HAVE IF WE, THE PEOPLE, WERE WALKING AROUND EXUDING RADIOACTIVITY AND CONTAMINATING ALL WE WENT NEAR, LIKE THESE NUCLEAR PLANTS DO!
EVEN A NUCLEAR PLANT KNOWN TO BE LEAKING HAS ALMOST FOREVER TO "FIX" THE PROBLEM, AND IF IT DOES NOT, IT SIMPLY PAYS A FINE, GETS A 'NEW LEASE' TO CONTINUE "TRYING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE".
GOOD FOR THEM, BAD FOR US!
TWO IMMEDIATE CASES IN POINT COME TO MIND OF TWO OF THE TOP TEN MAJOR CONTINUOUSLY CONTAMINATING 'FACILITIES' IN AMERICA...HANFORD NUCLEAR SITE IN WASHINGTON STATE AND THE WIPP FACILITY IN NEW MEXICO.
HANFORD RIVALS FUKUSHIMA FOR DISASTROUS LEAKAGE, BUT WHAT'S A LITTLE RADIOACTIVE POISONING IN AMERICA, EH?
WIPP IS SO NEAR TOTAL COLLAPSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY AFRAID, IT APPEARS, TO TRY REPAIRING ALL ITS PROBLEMS!
FORMER NRC STAFF HAVE WARNED US!
EVEN FORMER HIGH-RANKING NRC EMPLOYEES KNOW WE'RE PAST DUE FOR OUR OWN FUKUSHIMA...
Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, has argued that more Fukushima-type accidents are inevitable if the world continues to rely on the current types of nuclear fission reactors, and he believes that society will not accept nuclear power on that condition.
"For nuclear power plants to be considered safe, they should not produce accidents like this," he said. "By 'should not' I don’t mean that they have a low probability, but simply that they should not be able to produce accidents like this [at all]. That is what the public has said quite clearly. That is what we need as a new safety standard for nuclear power going forward."
YEAH, THE GOOD OLD NRC AND EPA, SAFEGUARDING THE NUCLEAR ENERGY GIANTS AND SHAFTING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SINCE THE EARLY 1940s.
AND CONGRESS HELPS PULL THAT OFF!
EVEN OTHER AGENCIES KNOW THE NRC IS A DO-NOTHING PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT IS USELESS TO THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!
"Our findings match those of the agency’s internal assessments, as well as of independent agents such as the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General, and the federal Government Accountability Office," the UCS report concludes. "These evaluators consistently find that NRC enforcement of existing regulations is inadequate."
SAY, GUESS WHO PAYS FOR ALL THOSE LAWYERS AND DRAWN-OUT COURT BATTLES WHEN ANYONE TRIES TO SUE THE NUCLEAR ENERGY BOYS FOR VIOLATIONS, INJURY, OR DEATH?
YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE AT WORK PAYING FOR HIGH-DOLLAR ATTORNEYS AND ALL THEY NEED TO DEFEND NUCLEAR ENERGY'S RIGHT TO KILL YOU, MAKE YOU SICK, OR DESTROY THE AIR, WATER AND SOIL ALL AROUND YOU!
CONFLICT OF INTEREST MUCH?
THE NRC AND EPA ALSO USE YOUR TAX 'CONTRIBUTIONS' TO DEFEND THOSE YOU MAY SUE!
SMILE, AMERICA, GRIN AND BEAR IT!
OH, YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS TO WHY THIS IS GOING ON, AND MANY HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS...
REGARDING JUST THE ONGOING DISASTER AT PALISADES:
"My question is, didn't Palisades first violate NRC's PTS safety standards 10 short years into its operation, by 1981? This was documented in the following document: July 8, 1983: “Pressurized Thermal Shock Potential at Palisades: History of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessels in Pressurized Water Reactors,” prepared by Michael J. Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan (re-published August 3, 2005)."
In the referenced 1983 document by M. Keegan (Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes) it is stated that:
“Embrittlement at Palisades in 1981 was reported to occur at temperatures of between 190 and 220 degrees F. As noted earlier the NRC had originally set reference temperature for nil ductility transition (RTNDT) at 200 degrees F.
As early as 1981 Palisades had exceeded these original RTNDT limits.”
The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines.
According to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States.
PLEASE BE SURE TO FOLLOW AT LEAST SOME OF THE LINKS PROVIDED IN THE DIRECTLY ABOVE ARTICLE.
IN 2011, The Daily Beast rated the vulnerability of all 65 U.S. nuclear facilities based on safety records, potential disasters and nearby populations.
THAT'S QUITE A READ, BUT FALLS A BIT SHORT. IT WILL GIVE
YOU AN IDEA OF HOW VULNERABLE ALL ARE, BUT SAYS LITTLE ABOUT THE FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE.
IF THESE NUCLEAR SITES START TO GO AT INCREASED RATES, THE MAP FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE SHOWS YOU YOUR CHANCES OF SERIOUS RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT:
USE YOUR MOUSE TO MOVE THE LOCATION, HAVE A LONG LOOK AT WHERE WE STAND, MAKE A PLAN OF EVACUATION, AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.
YOU SEE, THERE'S A NEW RULE, AND IT MAKES THINGS WORSE!
On August 26, 2014, the NRC approved a controversial new rule and Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) regarding spent fuel that could pose long-term risks to public health and the environment. This would allow utilities to keep dangerous radioactive spent fuel in temporary storage at their reactors indefinitely while barring any licensing challenges predicated on the environmental risks of long term storage.
THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, "NUCLEAR WASTE IS ALLOWED ABOVE GROUND INDEFINITELY" SHOULD SHOW YOU THE DISREGARD FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
"The decision, in a unanimous vote of the commission on Tuesday, means that new nuclear plants can be built and old ones can expand their operations despite the lack of a long-term plan for disposing of the waste."
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
THE NRC SHOULD BE TERMINATED.
SO SHOULD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!
A 2013 report by Mark Cooper at the Vermont Law School indicates that there are nine merchant reactors that, like Kewaunee, were granted 20-year life extensions but are especially at risk of closure.
Epitaphs are already being written for two of them: Vermont’s lone nuclear power plant will close in 2014, and the country’s oldest reactor, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, will retire by 2019.
According to Credit Suisse, the cost of operating and maintaining the aging reactor fleet is rising at 5 percent a year and the nuclear fuel cost is growing even faster, at 9 percent annually. Wind and solar power costs, on the other hand, continue to drop as their electric output grows rapidly.
Over the past 30 years, the U.S. government has spent some $15 billion trying to approve a central repository for nuclear waste, and for most of that time the only site under consideration has been Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Amid concerns about the site’s safety and its extreme unpopularity in Nevada, the Obama administration has moved to abandon the project entirely and explore other options.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT A YEAR LATER, INDIAN POINT WAS STILL OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE!
AND TWO DAYS AGO THERE WAS A HUGE EXPLOSION THERE!
AND TWO DAYS AGO THERE WAS A HUGE EXPLOSION THERE!
AND STILL NO RENEWED LICENSING!
EVEN MAJOR NUCLEAR "WATCHDOG GROUPS" SEE THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO CHANGE THE NRC OR HOPE FOR THE CHOICE TO BE MADE OF CITIZENS' SAFETY OVER THE FAILING MONEY-MAKERS.
YEAH....DISMAL PROSPECTS, BUT ENOUGH STRONG VOICES MAY STILL CHANGE THINGS IN OUR FAVOR!
SEE: The Big Moat: How NRC Rules Suppress Meaningful Public Participation in NRC Regulatory Decision-making
THE BILL MOYERS WEBSITE ASKED IN 2013, "HOW CLOSE DO YOU LIVE TO AMERICA'S DIRTIEST POWER PLANTS?"
THAT ARTICLE SHOWS THAT COAL PLANTS ARE SIMPLY NO SANE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S ENERGY NEEDS.
THE TOP 100 DIRTIEST WERE ALL COAL-POWERED FACILITIES.
SO, SINCE NEITHER NUCLEAR POWER NOR COAL POWER CAN DO ANYTHING BUT POLLUTE, CONTAMINATE, RADIATE, INJURE, AND KILL AMERICANS, WHY THE HELL DOESN'T AMERICA TURN TO OTHER SOURCES SUCH AS GERMANY AND OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS ARE DOING AND LIKE NATIONS ALL OVER THE PLANET ARE DOING?
"If the reactors now under construction in Georgia and South Carolina actually come online, they are projected to generate electricity that is much more expensive than nearly any other source, including wind and solar power. New nuclear plants are simply too expensive to replace the aging fleet. And with uprate proposals for existing reactors being pulled, it appears the industry cannot depend on this option to increase capacity much either."
WHY ISN'T AMERICA DEVELOPING MORE SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, WIND, AND EVEN OCEAN WAVES ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, ALL OF WHICH WOULD PROVIDE US CHEAPER ENERGY AND A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT?
BECAUSE THE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND OIL AND COAL COMPANIES ARE BIG NAMES ON WALL STREET AND WALL STREET OWNS OUR GOVERNMENT.
AND, BECAUSE IF ENERGY WAS CHEAPER, 'AVERAGE CITIZEN' COULD SAVE A LOT OF MONEY, WHILE IF ENERGY WAS CLEANER, AVERAGE CITIZEN JUST MIGHT LIVE LONGER WITH FEWER DISEASES AND AMAZINGLY BETTER HEALTH.
CAN'T HAVE THAT!
WE NEED A "SERF CLASS", WE NEED A "POOR WORKING CLASS", NOT A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS WHO CAN HAVE SAVINGS, OR CREATE A BETTER LIFESTYLE!
PLUS...WE'RE OVERPOPULATED, RIGHT?
ALL WE REALLY NED IS....WHAT?
AN AMERICAN FUKUSHIMA?
COMING RIGHT UP!