Senator calls for Pa. nuclear site investigation

From PennLive:

A senator wants an investigation of the cleanup at an old nuclear waste site about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey says in a statement Wednesday that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inspector General should investigate the cleanup of the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., or NUMEC, site, which operated from 1957 until the 1980s.

Read article

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

(Directing Staff to Amend Filing on 10 C.F.R. § 2.206) In a May 17, 2012 Order, this Board directed the NRC Staff to submit “a list of those occasions since January 1975 on which the NRC official to whom a [10 C.F.R. § 2.206] petition was submitted granted the substantive relief sought.”1 In response, the Staff identified 142 Director’s Decisions that either granted the petition in whole or in part or, although denying the 1 Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Requesting Filing on Petitions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206) at 1-2 (May 17, 2012) (unpublished) (emphasis in original); see also Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Regarding Motion to Extend Time for Filing and to Reschedule Oral Argument) at 2 (May 24, 2012) (unpublished) (granting approximately a two week extension for Section 2.206 filing). - 2 - petition, either prompted action by the Staff or reflected action already taken by the Staff.2 For each of these decisions, in accordance with the Board’s request the Staff summarized the relief granted. Upon reviewing the filing, it is plain that the Staff did not comply with the Board’s directive. Rather than, as instructed, identifying solely those petitions in which substantive relief was provided to the petitioner, the Staff elected to supply the Board with each and every petition in response to which some action was taken by it. The most cursory examination of the Staff response reveals that in many, if not the majority, of the instances that action was patently not substantive in character. To cite but one example, of the 387 Director’s Decisions reviewed by the Staff only 2 petitions were granted in whole, one of which was that submitted in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), DD-90-3, 31 NRC 595 (1990). On an examination of the relief provided in that instance, it is obvious the relief could not possibly be characterized as substantive in nature. There, in response to allegations in a Section 2.206 petition that Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) violated certain antitrust license conditions in the Diablo Canyon operating licenses, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation withheld a decision on the petition until completion of a ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on related issues and thereafter directed PG&E simply to submit a report regarding the steps it had taken and planned to take to comply with the District Court ruling.3 It is difficult to believe that the Staff is not conversant with the difference for present purposes between calling upon a licensee to file a report and what is being sought in the matters now before the Board, the augmentation of reliable hardened containment venting and 2 NRC Staff Response to the Board Order Regarding Petitions Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 at 2 (June 15, 2012). 3 Diablo Canyon, DD-90-3, 31 NRC at 595-96. - 3 - spent fuel storage. In the circumstances, we must conclude that in presenting the Board with all 142 instances where some affirmative action was taken with regard to a petition, the Staff chose simply to ignore the manifest distinction between substantive and procedural relief. The Staff is directed to file, no later than noon (EDT) on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, an amended response to this Board’s May 17, 2012 Order. That response shall identify those of the 142 Director’s Decisions listed in the June 15, 2012 response that, in fact, provided substantive relief to the petitioner. To accommodate the filing of responsive comments, provided for by the Board’s June 15, 2012 Order,4 those responsive comments shall now be filed no later than noon (EDT) on Tuesday, July 3, 2012. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

Re: TMI-Alert Inc.’s Support for the Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Licensing Programs

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook: On Monday June 18, 2012, I filed a Petition (“Petition”) in concert with Joint Petitioners to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded Waste Confidence Proceedings, Re: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, (Docket No. 52-039-COL.) I am formally withdrawing my appearance in the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 52-039-COL. I am refiling on behalf of Three Mile Island, Alert, Inc., and formally supporting the Petition to Suspend Final Decision in All Pending Reactor Licensees Proceedings Pending Completion of Remanded Waste Confidence Proceedings. The Petition also asked the NRC to establish procedures for ensuring that members of the public are given an opportunity to participate in the remanded proceedings. Three Mile Island Island Alert is a cosponsor of the Petition. Three Mile Island Alert was established in 1977 and has 600 members who live in close proximity to operating and proposed nuclear reactors. We are not submitting the Petition in any specific docket but we are resubmitting this Petition for your general consideration. Sincerely, Eric J. Epstein, Chairman Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. 4100 Hillsdale road Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-541-1101

Download: TMIA Support Suspension

Susquehanna: Review of 60-Day Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 9.3

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 - Review of 60-Day Response to Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 9.3

Download: ML12160A194

Markey Statement on Court Ruling Vacating NRC Waste Disposal Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Edward J. Markey (D- Mass.) today released the following statement after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 2010 update to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Waste Confidence Decision to temporarily store nuclear waste at power plants for up to six decades, rejecting the “Commission’s conclusions regarding temporary storage because the Commission did not conduct a sufficient analysis of the environmental risks.” “It comes as no surprise that the court has no confidence in NRC’s waste confidence decision. The NRC relied on what seemed to be a faith-based methodology to conclude that highly radioactive nuclear waste can be left simply sitting in the giant swimming pools and parking lots in which it is currently stored for an additional 60 years. There was a collective failure on the part of both Congress and the Department of Energy to enable a credible, science-based search for a permanent nuclear waste repository.”

Download: NRC Waste Disposal Decision

Peach Bottom: NRC Triennial Fire Protection Inspection Report

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - NRC Triennial Fire Protection Inspection Report 05000277/2012007 and 05000278/2012007

Download: 2012007

Download:

Peach Bottom: Request for Withholding Information From Public Disclosure

Request for Withholding Information From Public Disclosure for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (TAC Nos. ME8535 and ME8536)

Download: ML121290529

PUC Approves Two Settlements with PPL that Include $471,000 in Monetary Penalties, Improved Customer Service Provisions

November 19, 2009

HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today finalized two settlements with PPL Electric Utilities Inc. that include $471,000 in monetary penalties and contributions to low-income programs, as well as improvements to customer service procedures and training, ending two informal investigations into the company’s termination practices.

The Commission voted 5-0 to approve the settlements, which include provisions that prohibit the company from recovering the monetary penalties from ratepayers.

One settlement deals with the Aug. 8, 2008, termination of electric service to a residence in Lancaster, Lancaster County. A fire destroyed the home on Aug. 9, 2008, killing Cynthia Glassman. Although Pennsylvania State Police were unable to determine the fire’s cause, the PUC’s independent Prosecutory Staff began an informal investigation into PPL’s termination practices.

Commission Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy issued a statement.

If the issue had been litigated, Prosecutory Staff would have contended the company violated various portions of the state’s Public Utility Code and Commission regulations including provisions on termination notices, medical certificates, payment arrangements, restoration of service and dispute rights. PPL would have contested the matters.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to:

• Not terminate service to residential customers on Fridays before Jan. 1, 2013, without petitioning the PUC;
• Contribute $400,000 to its Operation HELP program, which provides emergency financial aid to pay electric bills for low-income families;
• Pay a civil penalty of $50,000;
• Establish additional customer service procedures; and
• Revise additional internal procedures to deal with terminations, medical certificates and disputes.

-more-

The other settlement involves an April 9, 2008, termination of electric service to an apartment in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County. A fire destroyed the apartment and six other apartments on May 3, 2008. Following the incident, the PUC’s independent Prosecutory Staff began an informal investigation into PPL’s termination practices.

Commission Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy issued a statement.

If the issue had been litigated, Prosecutory Staff would have contended the company violated various portions of the state’s Public Utility Code and Commission regulations including provisions on termination notices, medical certifications and dispute rights. PPL would have contested the matters.

Under the settlement, the company agreed to:

• Develop updated call scripts for customer service representatives and provide retraining;
• Revise its procedures for customer service representatives receiving calls on terminations;
• Contribute $20,000 to its Operation HELP program; and
• Pay a civil penalty of $1,000.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protect the public interest; educate consumers to make independent and informed utility choices; further economic development; and foster new technologies and competitive markets in an environmentally sound manner.

For recent news releases, audio of select Commission proceedings or more information about the PUC, visit our website at www.puc.state.pa.us.