Tag Archives: Kendra Ulrich

Harris nuke flaw “fixed” that wasn’t found for a year

Less than 500 miles from here in NC, what else haven’t they found if ‘Duke Energy’s examination a year ago “was supposed to have found that problem then and fixed it”‘? This was a ‘a quarter-inch spot the NRC and the company describe as a “flaw” in the reactor vessel head, which contains heat and pressure produced by the nuclear core’s energy.’ When a solar panel has a quarter-inch flaw, you get a tiny percentage less electricity, not the risk of radiation leak or worse. Would you rather have two more nukes at the same site, run by the same company that can’t run the one it’s got safely, or solar power instead?

Plus where is the advantage of baseload capacity when Harris 1 has only been up 27.41% for the past month (NRC data), which is hardly better than the approximately 20% sun hours per day for solar power in North Carolina this time of year. Given the low and continually-dropping cost of solar panels, Duke could simply over-provision distributed solar panels and get way more than 20% or 27.41% effective power, and get that on budget and on time.

Harris 1 7% last 27.41% for the month

Emery P. Dalesio wrote for AP yesterday, Harris nuclear plant in U.S. is safe to restart after reactor problem found, Continue reading

NRC says it’s “never been a practice” to show licensee documents to the public

After Kendra Ulrich of Friends of the Earth asked about some licensee documents related to last week’s NRC hearing in faraway Maryland on restarting California’s San Onofre nuclear reactor, NRC’s David Beaulieu expanded on NRC’s refusal to divulge the documents.

Here’s the video:

Video by Myla Reson at NRC, Maryland, 18 December 2012.

You can hear him say it’s “never been a practice” to let the public see licensee documents. But if they’re being used in making a license decision, why doesn’t that make them public documents accessible by the public? Oh, right “it’s very complex” but “it’s a yes or no question” and “I will assess”, he says. It’s good to be king!

I wonder if the public had some assurance of transparency maybe the NRC wouldn’t get so many FOIA requests?

Remember, this is the same NRC that gave 100-mile-from-here same-design-as-Fukushima Plant Hatch a 20 year license extension, and the same NRC that gave Plant Vogtle a clean bill of health at a public meeting two days before Unit 1 shut down, and the same NRC that could stop the new nukes there even if the GA PSC won’t.

What if we deployed solar power instead, on budget and on time?


NRC doesn’t publish nuclear licensing documents

Kendra Ulrich of FOE at NRC Did you know the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t publish nuclear licensee documents? Hear them say it on this video of Tuesday’s NRC “public meeting” in Maryland about restarting the San Onofre reactor in California. This is the same NRC that gave Plant Vogtle a clean bill of health at a public meeting two days before Unit 1 shut down, and the same NRC that could stop the new nukes there even if the GA PSC won’t. Plant Hatch This same NRC recertified Plant Hatch on the Altamaha in Georgia, extending the original 40 year design lifespan of Unit 1 from 2014 to 2034 and of Unit 2 from 2018 to 2038. But don’t worry; if you’re farther than 10 miles from Hatch, you’re outside the evacuation zone, so you must be safe, right? Just study the licensing documents to see; oh, wait!

Kendra Ulrich of Friends of the Earth asked the NRC some simple questions that stumped the Commissioners and staff. She wondered when the public could expect to see a a 50-59 analysis California Edison had done about restarting San Onofre. Dave Beaulieu, NRC Generic Communications Branch, said it was a “licensee document, licensee documents are not made public.” He did say NRC would release its own inspection results. She asked again, and Rick Daniel, NRC meeting facilitator suggested she submit written questions. Beauleiu summarized:

“At the end of the day, licensee documents are not made public; that’s the answer.”

So what would be the point of her submitting questions when she was just told they won’t make the answers public?

Ulrich continued by asking why NRC was considering going ahead on the basis of experimental data that has never been used before and that has not been made public. Remember this is about a nuclear reactor that was shut down because it was leaking. That question sure caused some passing of the buck and pretending not to understand the question by everybody in the room who should have been able to answer the question.

Here’s the video:

Video by Myla Reson, 18 December 2012, Maryland.

Continue reading