Susquehanna: Notice of Public Meeting - Annual Assessment Meeting - March 21, 2012

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2: Notice of Public Meeting - Annual Assessment Meeting - March 21, 2012

Download: ML12066A064

Summary of December 7, 2011, Meeting with Exelon

Summary of December 7, 2011, Meeting with Exelon Re: Proposed Amendment Request to Implement an Extended Power Uprate

Download: ML120270288

Susquehanna: Notice of Public Meeting - Annual Assessment Meeting - March 21, 2012

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2: Notice of Public Meeting - Annual Assessment Meeting - March 21, 2012

Download: ML12066A064

Japan decontaminates towns near tsunami-hit nuclear plant, unsure costly effort will succeed

From Washington Post:

Workers in rubber boots chip at the frozen ground, scraping until they’ve removed the top 2 inches (5 centimeters) of radioactive soil from the yard of a single home. Total amount of waste gathered: roughly 60 tons.

One down, tens of thousands to go. And since wind and rain spread radiation easily, even this yard may need to be dug up again.

The work is part of a monumental task: a costly and uncertain effort by Japan to try to make radiation-contaminated communities inhabitable again. Some contractors are experimenting with chemicals; others stick with shovels and high-pressure water. One government expert says it’s mostly trial and error.

The radiation leak has slowed considerably at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, nearly one year after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami sent three of its reactors into meltdown. Work continues toward a permanent shutdown, but the Japanese government declared the plant stable in December, setting the stage for the next phase: decontaminating the area so that at least some of the 100,000 evacuated residents can return.

Experts leading the government-funded project cannot guarantee success. They say there’s no prior model for what they’re trying to do. Even if they succeed, they’re creating another problem they don’t yet know how to solve: where to dump all the radioactive soil and debris they haul away.

Read article

The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011

UCS is releasing today 1at 11am the attached report and stand-along executive summary on the NRC and nuclear plant performance in 2011. It's the second in a planned annual series of reports. Chapter 2 summarizes the 15 near-misses at U.S. nuclear plants last year. They occurred at 13 different plants because Palisades and Pilgrim each scarfed up two each. Both are Entergy plants; hmmm. Chapter 3 summarizes positive outcomes achieved by the NRC last year. Topping the list were the measures NRC took in 2010 that helped prevent flood waters from topping barriers around the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant last June. Chapter 4 summarized negative outcomes by the NRC last year. CDBI's topped that list. Here in Tennessee, they might be mistaken for Charlie Daniels Band Inspections, but the NRC calls them component design basis inspections. The NRC looks at a very very very very small group of items for insights on the owners' broader progams. But the NRC treats their CDBI findings as if they'd turned over every rock and peeked into every closet. The owners only have to fix the small number of violations identified during the NRC's very very very very small audit. The owners do not have to repair the gaping holes in their own testing and inspection regimes that prevented them from either finding or fixing the problems until NRC pointed them out. Eight of the 15 near-misses last year involved items within the scope of CDBIs. If the NRC doesn't start taking CDBI findings in proper context, they will never induce the programmatic fixes necessary to drive the number of near-misses downward. Instead, we'll have nuclear groundhog days featuring near miss after near miss. Chapter 4 also notes that the NRC is aware of 47 reactors operating despite violations of fire protection regulations and 27 reactors operating despite seismic hazards being greater than their seismic protection levels -- 8 reactors are on both lists. Safety IOUs protect no one. Chapter 5 points out what NRC needs to do -- enforce it's own regulations. They did so at Fort Calhoun. They have not done so at many other reactors. Thanks, Dave Lochbaum UCS

Download: UCS Annual Nuclear Safety Report

New SRBC Regulations

The Commission's Project Review Regulations, condified at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 802, 806, 807, and 808, contain the standards and procedures used by the Commission for the review and approval of water resources projects, and for related enforcement and oversight activities.

Download: Final Rulemaking

Japan decontaminates towns near tsunami-hit nuclear plant, unsure costly effort will succeed

From the Star Tribune:

Workers in rubber boots chip at the frozen ground, scraping until they've removed the top 2 inches (5 centimeters) of radioactive soil from the yard of a single home. Total amount of waste gathered: roughly 60 tons.

One down, tens of thousands to go. And since wind and rain spread radiation easily, even this yard may need to be dug up again.

The work is part of a monumental task: a costly and uncertain effort by Japan to try to make radiation-contaminated communities inhabitable again. Some contractors are experimenting with chemicals; others stick with shovels and high-pressure water. One government expert says it's mostly trial and error.

Read article