Showing posts with label nuclear accountability. Show all posts

Saturday, June 6, 2015

The TVA - Debt, Reports, Propaganda and Benefits - Could be a Love-Hate Relationship in the Southland - A Report

Old TVA logo, Fair Use Rights for news and criticism

A byline to this could be - Never Allow So Called Conservative Politicians in the TVA Area to Say They Support Conservative Values, Ever Again. Every federal elected legislator and 99% of the elected state legislators in the TVA support the socialist organization we call the TVA.

Every so often, about once a quarter the TVA places forward financial statements and follows up with copious propaganda regarding these statements. There is an effort to report and deceive at the same time. Reporting the condition of OUR TVA is important, being deceptive about it is hiding the truth about its failures facilitates a growing governmental turn to corporate fascism.

My Report

Opening Remarks - TVA Debt - There is no doubt that under TVA's current CEO, Bill Johnson, TVA's debt picture has improved, but is the Federal power agency still in trouble, to my way of thinking yes. Any private corporation would have gone under years ago because of the waste, abuse and down right deceit.

There have been two relevant bits of news about TVA's debt which has surfaced within the past week. Those who follow the TVA's financial actions should see a clear pattern which has developed. Instead of news agencies reporting factual events regarding TVA debt they are falling prey to TVA propaganda, this is bothersome. I think, rather than report the truth, they are afraid of TVA's reaction to them, and possibly large financial institutions actions pointed at a civilian news groups accurate reporting .

>By the numbers - Why these conclusions?

>1. Chattanooga Times Free Press article on June 5, 2015: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/jun/05/privatizing-tvwould-raise-ratesstudy-criticiz/308025/ The article summary -
"A new study commissioned by the Economic Policy Institute suggests that selling or privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority would raise power costs and hurt economic development and research in TVA's seven-state region...The liberal think tank is not often at odds with President Barack Obama and supportive of the positions of conservative Southern Republicans. But on the question of cutting federal ties to America's biggest government utility, researchers for the Economic Policy Institute are in agreement with Tennessee's GOP lawmakers and against an Obama administration plan to phase out the federal role in the New Deal agency created in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt..."

(a) EPI, Dr. Yudken's comments - ""Over its 80-year existence, the TVA has had an excellent track record in almost every area of its operation, and its success has delivered substantial benefits throughout the Tennessee Valley," Dr. Joel Yudken, an economist and principal of High Road Strategies LLC, concluded in a 44-page study of TVA's finances. "The TVA is addressing its serious financial problems and its new leadership is preserving its capabilities as a system that provides wide-ranging benefits to the region and people it serves.""

Big claim, "excellent track record," but is it true? The answer is, in my opinion, NO, Yudken's opinion is fallacy mixed with fact. Reason, TVA's debt with interest and commitments exceeds its assets. But, TVA has improved its slide into the financial abyss by approximately $2 billion dollars concerning its bond debt. But is TVA's financial picture a slight of hand accounting trick perpetuated by this so called "liberal think tank" of financial genius which the Time Free Press mentions? My opinion, YEP.

(b) Nuclear Power is "Cleaner Energy" (pg11) One other important point, in the EPI Yudken report, nuclear energy is placed into the category of clean energy. Falling in lock step with the NEI, Nuclear Enrgy Institute, special interest position. Nuclear power is not clean in any sense of the the word clean or cleaner. Nuclear power has produced and continues to produce millions upon millions of pounds of deadly radioactive waste with no definitive solutions for its disposal.

(c) Coal vs Nuclear power is a false mantra facilitated by nuclear special interest groups.The replacement of coal fired generation with nuclear power is not a move into cleaner energy. It increases risks of a disaster on the scale of Fukushima Daiichi or greater.
EPI Report - http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com//news/documents/2015/06/04/862405499801752.pdf

But that is not all, anyone who ignores the fact that TVA has wasted over $20 billion dollars due to unnecessary nuclear power construction, and intentionally ignores that fact in a report, "ain't right."

>2. On June 2, 2015 TVA distributed an 8K Report concerning a change to one of TVA's $1,000,000,000.00, one billion dollar, loans. That change, linked below, states as follows:

"On June 2, 2015, TVA executed an amendment to its $1,000,000,000 credit agreement dated as of June 25, 2012, and amended as of December 12, 2012, with The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, N.A., Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, New York Agency, First Tennessee Bank National Association, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., and Toronto Dominion (New York) LLC.

The amendment, among other things,

(1) extended the maturity date of the credit agreement from June 25, 2017, to June 2, 2020,

(2) gave TVA the option to extend the maturity date by one year up to two times, subject to lender approval,

(3) reduced the TVA credit rating threshold that would allow the lenders to stop making credit extensions from lower than A3 or A- to lower than Baa1 or BBB+,

(4) reduced the TVA credit rating threshold that would allow the lenders to terminate their commitments and require the prepayment of loans and other obligations in full and the cash collateralization of all letter of credit obligations from lower than A3 and A- to lower than Baa1 and BBB+, and

(5) reduced the TVA credit rating threshold that would trigger an event of default from lower than Baa2 and BBB to lower than Baa3 and BBB-. A copy of the amendment is filed as Exhibit 10.1." (linked below)

Since when is a billion dollar 3 year credit extension good for rate payers? Is this a sign for things to come, for instance a lowering of the credit rating, again?

>3. When a financial report is issued by the TVA, the TVA immediately follows up with "painting a rosy picture" propaganda article, and the local media complies with the propaganda ministry's request and all fall in lock step with the wonderful flute tunes of the pied piper of propaganda's writings.

Looking at TVA's last 10 K report reveals the seriousness of the problem. Debt + interest exceeds assets.

April 2015 - This is an article I sent around in April, after Bill Johnson's comments:
CEO Bill Johnson attempts to paint a rosy picture. But when the numbers are crunched there is trouble in the TVA. Bragging about being under the debt cap does not restructure the fact TVA's debt and obligations far exceed assets. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/apr/23/tva-debt-stays-below-federal-cap/300288/

Crunching the numbers - Here is the real picture based on the data supplied in TVA's 2014 10K Report.

Total Statutory debt - $23.6 billion; 2014 VIE (Sevier Ponzi scheme, gas plant financing) Debt - $1.3 billion.
Total interest on both debt catagories $23.7 billion.
Total bond, VIE debt with interest is $48.6 billion of your dollars.
TVA's total assets as reflected on their financial statement - $45.6 billion dollars.

Debt with interest exceeds assets, for a normal business that spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E, with or without a capital "T."

Ladies and Gentleman, that is not counting Pension obligations, nuclear decommissioning obligations, leases and future fuel purchases, which is another obligation of approximately $20-25 billion.

Link to TVA Financials, 10K etc - (pg 61, 82 and others) http://www.snl.com/IRWebLinkX/FinancialDocs.aspx?iid=4063363

>4. Why Deceit? TVA is NUCLEAR POWER'S last bastion of support, where future projects may be built. Only a federal agency which is not supported by stock holders may get away with the blatant deceit and irresponsibility demonstrated as a result of nuclear power investments and the massive waste perpetuated by banks, multi-national corporations, bureaucrats and politicians supportive of nuclear power and the multinational nuclear defense industry.

(a) Building of electric power generation should not result in the building of deceit, ignorance, sickness and death. The replacement of coal fired generation with nuclear power is not acceptable and in no way or form is it clean, cheap or reliable. Only in the TVA area may government and corporations act in unison to literally sicken and kill people without the people revolting against disgusting practices and policies of corporate fascism and its deceitful practices.

(b) Health -The cancer incidence and death rates are staggering, the nuclear death industry contributes to the declining health of the area (past and present). Regulatory actions do not consider public health, nor the fact that the nuclear industry has and is killing and sickening folks in the TVA region, particularly in East Tennessee. The nuclear industry has dumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of deadly radioactive materials in the past and continues to do so in the present. Public reports on the dumping of highly radioactive nuclear materials are readily available and accessible on the web.

(c) Defense Mission - nuclear weapons - Nuclear Weaponry in the U.S. is dependent on the TVA, nuclear weapon's support missions include the production of tritium for thermo-nuclear weapons. Tritium is in our water, plants, animals and in us, the people.

A large portion of East Tennessee is Red and Orange, indicating increased cancer incidence rates over the rest of the nation. Source National Cancer Institute, current statistics reported. http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/map/map.withimage.php?47&001&001&00&0&01&0&1&4&0#results

>5. Very Short Conclusion - With all of that said, the EPI report makes good points about many positive aspects of TVA's current management and its initial mission to the good people of the Tennessee River Valley. However, the report does not accurately describe or disclose the full picture for decision makers and rate payers.

TVA Board meetings reports, it is important to note, in no case are full financial disclosures given in regards to long term debt interest or a full disclosure of all financial obligations, including pension plan shortfalls and facilities decommissioning costs at TVA Board Meetings. Such is the case within the EPI Report. http://arklite.blogspot.com/search/label/TVA%20Board%20Meeting

TVA's current financial update: June 2015 Investor Update

TVA's full update and presentation lists

http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/presentations.aspx?iid=4063363

Fair Use for non-profit news reporting “By jove, I think I see Airstrip One, jolly good. The sun over Oceania is rising.”

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository - Department of Energy Failure, Gross Negligence and Corruption?

Fair Use Rights for educational and news reporting, and criticism for wasting $14 billion dollars.

The big dark financial hole - YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY was it, is it the biggest financial scam in Department of Energy's history??

What is Yucca Mountain and why does a place warrant me calling Department of Energy, DOE, grossly negligent, wasteful, corrupt or a combination of all of the above? The following information is from Power Magazine and Wikipedia, references are listed and have been reviewed, they are accurate. Fair Usage Rights for education and news reporting. Creative Commons License Reference CC BY-SA 3.0

Power Magazine had this to say about DOE and Yucca Mountain regarding the NRC's position and finding either approving or disapproving of the nuclear waste repository: NRC statement: "Specifically, DOE has not acquired ownership or jurisdiction over the land where the geologic repository operations area would be located, and the land is not free of significant encumbrances such as mining rights, deeds, rights-of-way or other legal rights. DOE also has not acquired water rights it determined are needed to accomplish the purpose of the geologic repository operations area.” NRC quote - "The NRC staff finds that DOE has not met the requirements 10 CFR 63.121(a) and 10 CFR 63.121(d)(1) regarding ownership of land and water rights, respectively."

"NRC in November 2013 directed staff to finish the long-delayed SER, the key technical document of the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain application. It is to be published in five volumes."

"Volume 1 (General Information) was published in August 2010, and Volume 3 (Repository Safety After Permanent Closure) was issued this October. Volume 2 (Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure) and Volume 5 (License Specifications) will be published by the end of January 2015, as they are completed, the NRC said."

" Volume 4 (Administrative and Programmatic Requirements) of the five-part SER, documents the NRC staff’s evaluation to determine whether the DOE’s research and development, and performance confirmation programs, as well as other administrative controls, systems, and programs, meet applicable NRC requirements."
http://www.powermag.com/nrc-doe-does-not-meet-land-ownership-water-rights-requirements-for-yucca-mountain-site/
NRC Reference - "The NRC staff finds that DOE has not met the requirements 10 CFR 63.121(a) and 10 CFR 63.121(d)(1) regarding ownership of land and water rights, respectively." http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v4/
Land ownership and control - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part063/part063-0121.html

Reference court order - In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to either "approve or reject the Energy Department's application for [the] never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain."^[77]From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

MAP

Fair Use Rights for map: CC BY-SA 3. Finlay McWalter - USGS Topo maps GIS data in NASA World Wind NationalAtlas Dreamland resort Groom Lake Desert Rat Glenn Campbell FAA Aeronautical chart Wikipedia maps of Nevada and the western USA Nevada DOT air transportation map (click on map for an expanded view)

"Arrogance of the Federal Government... handling of the project was wrong."

LESSONS LEARNED FROM YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

( Confirmed references as listed on Wikipedia )

"The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, is to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other high level radioactive waste. Federal funding ended in 2010 but is expected to start again in 2015 with the new Republican Congress. ^[2] It is located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas Valley. The proposed repository is within Yucca Mountain, a ridge line in the south-central part of Nevada near its border with California."

Spent nuclear fuel is the radioactive by-product of electric power generation at commercial nuclear power plants, and high-level radioactive waste is the by-product from reprocessing spent fuel to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.^[6] In 1982, the United States Congress established a national policy to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. This policy is a federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,^[7] which made the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility called a geologic repository. The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates back to 1957 when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.^[8]

The Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons; 77,000 short tons) (150 million pounds) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently stored at 121 sites around the nation. An estimated 10,000 metric tons (9,800 long tons; 11,000 short tons) of the waste would be from America's military nuclear programs.^[9] On December 19, 1984, the Department of Energy selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. This was based on data collected for nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Ronald Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a former nuclear test site. The Act provided that if during Site Characterization the Yucca Mountain location is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. This option expired when the site was actually recommended by the President. On July 23, 2002, President

George W. Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87,^[10] (Pub.L. 107–200) allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store the country's nuclear waste. The Department of Energy was to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository by January 31, 1998 but did not do so because of a series of delays due to legal challenges, concerns over how to transport nuclear waste to the facility, and political pressures resulting in underfunding of the construction.

On July 18, 2006 the DOE proposed March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste based on full funding. On September 8, 2006 Ward (Edward) Sproat, a nuclear industry executive formerly of PECO energy in Pennsylvania, was nominated by President Bush to lead the Yucca Mountain Project. Following the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."^[11]

(click on diagram for an expanded view)

Fair Use Rights, image is in the Public domain: Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the University of California, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

MASSIVE COSTS AND BUDGET PROBLEMS

In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million. Despite this cut in funding, the project was able to reallocate resources and delay transportation expenditures to complete the License Application for submission on June 3, 2008. Lacking an operating repository, however, the federal government owes to the utilities somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998.^[12]

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to abandon the Yucca Mountain project and as a result Senator Reid moved the Nevada primary to help Obama's campaign.^[13] After his election, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Obama he did not have the ability to do so.^[14] On April 23, 2009, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and eight other senators introduced legislation to provide "rebates" from a $30 billion federally managed fund into which nuclear power plants had been paying, so as to refund all collected funds if the project was in fact cancelled by Congress.^[15]

In November 2013, in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the US Court of Appeals ruled that nuclear utilities may stop paying into the nuclear waste recovery fund until either the DOE follows the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which designates Yucca Mountain as the repository, or Congress changes the law.^[16] The fee ended May 16, 2014.

In 2008, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works found that failure to perform to contractual requirements could cost taxpayers up to $11 billion by 2020.^[79] In 2013 this estimate of taxpayer liability was raised to $21 billion.^[80] In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 (Roll call vote 591, via Clerk.House.gov) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.^[29]^[81] In 2013, the House of Representatives voted twice during the 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations debate by over 80% majority to reject elimination of Yucca Mountain as the nation's only nuclear waste solution.^[82]

On April 13, 2010, the state of Washington filed suit to prevent the closing of Yucca Mountain, since this would slow efforts to clean up Hanford Nuclear Reservation.^[83] South Carolina, Aiken County (the location of Savannah River site) and others joined Washington.^[84] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the suit in July 2011, saying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had not ruled on the withdrawal of the license application.^[85] Washington and South Carolina filed another lawsuit on July 29.^[86]

With $32 billion received from power companies to fund the project, and $12 billion spent to study and build it, the federal government had $27 billion left, including interest. In March 2012, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill requiring three-fourths of that money to be given back to customers, and the remainder to the companies for storage improvements.^[87]

In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to either "approve or reject the Energy Department's application for [the] never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain."^[77] The court opinion said that the NRC was "simply flouting the law" in its previous action to allow the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site since a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository remains in effect. The court opinion stated that "The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections."^[77]

Confirmed References as listed on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#cite_note-abc20130813-77

UNETHICAL CONDUCT - (official government document, Fair Use) Department of Energy: Unethical Conduct at DOE's Yucca Mountain Project (Letter Report, 09/30/96, GAO/OSI-96-2). Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO investigated allegations of conflicts of interest at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain Project, focusing on whether: (1) the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) properly implemented and adequately enforced federal standards of ethical conduct and DOE ethics regulations; and (2) failure to implement DOE ethics standards may have contributed to contract award and management abuses.

GAO found that: (1) the two most senior DOE officials on the project, as well as 14 other DOE employees, had personal relationships with employees of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the project's largest single contractor; (2) the relationships of the two senior officials were in violation of an executive order and DOE regulations because they created at least the appearance of a loss of impartiality; (3) although in some cases OCRWM and other project officials knew for years that potential ethical problems existed at the project, they did not take formal action until 1993, when OCRWM issued a memorandum about federal-contractor employee relationships, provided ethics training, and determined whether DOE employees in such relationships required a recusal or waiver to ensure impartiality; and (4) one of the senior officials also acted questionably in terms of presenting his own positions about the project to Congress without management approval, influencing the hiring of a subcontractor, opposing a contract that would have reduced SAIC work, and inappropriately lobbying Congress and attending congressional meetings with the contractor. GAO REPORT ON UNETHICAL CONDUCT - YUCCA MOUTAIN

SUMMARY

A failure to acquire land usage rights and/or ownership rights, including water rights represents unbelievable ignorance or negligence, maybe both, as displayed by Department of Energy's actions regarding the Yucca Mountain Project. This incident, coupled with recent security failures and leaks in Department of Energy storage facilities represents negligent conduct on the part of agency managers, These facts bring into question whether this agency should be handling nuclear materials, much less managing programs involving nuclear materials. There appear to be serious leadership problems within Department of Energy.

After all the work, billions of dollars spent, the DOE does not own the land or have usage rights of the land; therefore, the NRC should not issue a license to operate the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Depository facility.

This question must be asked - was this project designed to fail and only reap benefits for contractors?

List of Yucca Mountain Archival Documents - DOE http://energy.gov/list-yucca-mountain-archival-documents

Partial List of Legal Actions from Yucca Mountain.org http://www.yuccamountain.org/lawsuites_press05.htm#

Monday, April 7, 2014

Browns Ferry Disclosures - Shhh secrets, have the problems been corrected?

TVA photo of Browns Ferry

Shhh, the TVA and the nuclear industry have secrets at Browns Ferry Alabama that they do not want the public to know about. Secrets that jeopardize public safety and health of over 1 million citizens who reside in the plume paths of the three defective GE Mark 1 Browns Ferry Nuclear Reactors.

Art - Nuclear Whistle-Blowers by Pete Ryan

25 identified serious problems at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Reactors. The Browns Ferry 2010 INPO, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, (Established by the nuclear power industry in December 1979, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations is a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Atlanta. http://www.inpo.info/AboutUs.htm#values ) report discloses that the TVA and the NRC endangered the public. The degraded conditions at TVA's Browns Ferry nuclear facility was much greater than previously released by the TVA or the NRC. The NRC's Red Finding did not disclose the seriousness of TVA's Browns Ferry nuclear facility problems. There is the appearance of a cover-up of serious safety systems and management failures.

INPO Browns Ferry Disclosures, July 2010:
(Item 1, pages 30-31 from Field notes) 1) The TVA and the NRC knew of several valve failures, not just one. Valve failures was an ongoing serious issue in all three Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants since 2006. (Items 2-25 pages 1-17, Executive Summary)
2) Notable gaps in operator fundamentals remain.
3) Weaknesses in the review and recognition of risk associated with some work activities have negatively impacted plant operations.
4) The conduct of maintenance has improved, however, behavior gaps continue to adversely affect safety system performance and cause rework and injuries.
5) Management is not holding key personnel accountable.
6) On-line risk continues to be adversely affected.
7) Chemistry performance has declined, performance gaps are not fully understood. Several unplanned and unmonitored radioactive releases have occurred.
8) Significant gaps in equipment health and component reliability have not been resolved.
9) High-Pressure core injection system experienced multiple failures and are not meeting industry goals.
10) Reactor core cooling system failures attributed to age related degradation.
11) Multiple safety systems failures in the emergency system cooling water and residual heat removal service water.
12) Multiple scrams and transients were the results of long standing equipment problems not corrected, industry goals are not being met.
13) Source of increasing unidentified dry well leakage not identified.
14) Several long standing emergency generator problems have not been resolved.
15) Equipment reliability programs and processes are not being implemented in a manner that will result in a timely resolution to problems, equipment failures or the prevention of new problems.
16) Initiatives to improve equipment reliability are inhibited by supervisors and management.
17) Preventive maintenance is not being implemented to prevent equipment failures.
18) Inadequate consideration for design inputs for plant modifications resulted in multiple scrams.
19) A significant vulnerability remains with the lack of testing for safety related cables.
20) Industry standards for radiological protection are not being met.
21) A number of organizational and human performance issues exist because personnel were not effective at identifying, properly characterizing, and resolving issues with appropriate corrective actions.
22) Gaps in operational risk assessment, equipment reliability, and human performance remain. As a result, the station is vulnerable in its ability to sustain event-free operations.
23) Workforce behaviors and cultural norms are not aligned with a strong nuclear safety culture.
24) Management acceptance of degraded conditions that challenges safety system reliability.
25) Station is adversely impacted by weaknesses in supervisory and individual behaviors which has the potential to impact future station performance. Workers in several work groups tend to deviate from station standards and station supervisors often do not correct these behaviors.

Have the failures at Browns Ferry been corrected? Have management changes at the TVA improved nuclear safety culture failures? Will the nuclear industry and its regulator continue to cover-up safety issues and problems which jeopardize human health and safety?

Peer Review Reports, regardless of the author, which identify safety conditions which jeopardize public health and safety must be reported to the public.

The placement of the nuclear industry's and nuclear operators financial gain ahead of public safety, health and welfare is immoral, unethical and in the case of degraded nuclear safety systems, including human factors, probably illegal.

There is a later Peer Review report by the World Association of Nuclear Operators, WANO, concerning Browns Ferry. WANO is also a non-profit organization. http://www.wano.info/about-us/
I have requested inspection of the report from the TVA, below is their reply.

TVA claims that the inspection of this report by me would harm TVA's future participation in WANO. I did not request a copy of the report, I requested permission to inspect the report.

The denial also states that the WANO report contains proprietary methodology and would harm WANO's competitive financial position in the nuclear power industry. WANO is a non-profit organization.

SUMMARY:
INPO and WANO's work is copyright protected. However, U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Rule: "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, nonprofit educational purposes and research. Link: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

No organization may keep work practices secret which creates a danger to the public at large. Proprietary information, restricted commercial/financial information and copyright restrictions are bogus red herring arguments which are unsupportable excuses to not inform the public about serious management and safety culture failures at a nuclear power facility.

We are not speaking about the failure of a valve in one safety system as the NRC and TVA would like the public to believe. We are speaking about the intentional cover-up of multiple unsafe operations as a result of failed management and a failed safety culture at a nuclear power plant. How does the public know the serious deficiencies described in the INPO report have been corrected?

The recent NRC 95003 Red Finding at Browns Ferry involved a valve problem, not the complete breakdown of TVA management at Browns Ferry, which the INPO report vividly describes.

Maybe the NRC, TVA, INPO, WANO and others should "practice what they preach" as it applies to law and policy. NRC Safety Culture Policy Statement - http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/safety-culture/sc-policy-statement.html

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - The continuing Saga: When did the NRC and the TVA Know about the Defective Valves and Management Failures? Did the NRC Intentionally Deceive the Public

When and how long had the Tennessee Valley Authority's, TVA, Browns Ferry been experiencing degraded conditions as a result of failed valves? Was there an intentional cover-up by the TVA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC? Do nuclear Peer Review organizations such as WANO, World Association of Nuclear Operators, or INPO, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, have a moral, ethical and legal responsibility to disclose the existence of serious issues which may jeopardize public health and welfare of the public relating to nuclear power operations?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)

BRIEFING ON BROWNS FERRY UNIT 1

OCTOBER 18, 2011

9:O0 A.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Public Meeting

Link: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/tr/2011/20111018.pdf

All the players were present, the NRC Commissioners and TVA Senior Executives. Quote from page 1 of the report -

"CHAIRMAN JACZKO: Good morning, everyone. The Commission meets today to discuss the safety challenges experienced by the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant and the steps being taken to strengthen safety at the plant. In particular, in May 2004, Brown's Ferry Unit 1 was placed in Column IV of the Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix after it received a "Red" finding when a reactor core cooling valve failed." Is that an error?

In the next paragraph Commissioner Jaczko goes on to say:

"This is not the only significant issue the Browns Ferry plant has experienced in recent years. In 2003, all units at Browns Ferry were placed in Column III after receiving a "Yellow" finding for fire protection issues. Given this recent history of issues, I'm sure that we can all agree that we want to see the plant perform more safely. To achieve that, there needs to be a strong commitment from the licensee’s entire organization, from its senior leadership to its frontline engineers to do what needs to be done for safety."

Had the plant actually received "Red finding" in 2004, or was this an error on the part of the NRC Chairman, Commissioner Jaczko? Attention to detail is important for the nuclear industry. The report continues; BILL BORCHARDT's comments on page 4 of the PDF linked: "...Browns Ferry Unit 1 entered Column IV of the Action Matrix in the fourth quarter of 2010." VICTOR MCCREE's comments on page 5: "...Unit 1 was assessed as being in the multiple repetitive degraded cornerstone, or Column IV, of the Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix. Unit 1 was placed in this cornerstone column due to a "Red" finding in the mitigating systems cornerstone...On October 23rd, 2010, operators of Browns Ferry Unit 1 attempted to place Loop II of the residual heat removal low pressure coolant injection, or, RHR LPCI system in service to support refueling activities."

Maybe Commissioner Jaczko misspoke about the 2004 "Red Finding. Meanwhile, according to the NRC, the "Red Finding" is lifted and Browns Ferry Unit 1 is returned to the "Green" operating column stating, "The results of the inspection indicated that Browns Ferry was being operated safely." NUCPRO's listing of the Browns Ferry Assessment Letter: March 10, 2014 http://www.nucpros.com/content/browns-ferry-annual-assessment-letter

When did TVA and the NRC know there were valve problems at Browns Ferry?

Nuclear facilities have the privilege of receiving Peer Review Inspections by two separate groups of nuclear engineers. One of the groups is WANO, World Association of Nuclear Operators. Another group is INPO, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Unfortunately for the public, when the INPO or WANO reports are issued they have a statement that they are restricted from public view. The TVA claims that the public is not entitled to see the reports nor entitled to a copy of the report for proprietary and financial reasons. TVA's position is highly suspect and reflective of TVA's attempt to continue with cover-ups and secrecy involving its nuclear program failures. However, the WANO and INPO groups themselves mark the reports as restricted.

The restrictive markings, when covering up serious safety issues which reflect negligent actions on the part of management of nuclear power plants, are effectively covering up issues which are of grave public concern. In the case of the Browns Ferry GE Mark 1 Nuclear plants the issues covered up, if not corrected, place the public at a higher risk of physical injury as a result of TVA negligence and a failure to correct the negligent actions by the regulator, the NRC.

The WANO and INPO reports contain information that should be and must be made public. There is an ethical, moral and legal responsibility of the government agencies and the professional nuclear engineering organizations to make public those defective items identified which may in fact cause a catastrophic failure thus endangering the public. Such is the case of multiple defective valves which insure a nuclear reactor is cooled properly in the course of normal operations and emergency events.

The reports contain information regarding the safety of operating nuclear reactors. In the case of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Facility the INPO report dated July 2010 indicates the TVA, and presumably the NRC knew of the repetitive valve failures at all of the 3 Browns Ferry Units going back to 2006. On pages 30 and 31 (of 83pages) all 3 Browns Ferry Units experienced various valve failures.

The following photo of the pages are hereby listed as news, criticism and educational use, this posting is a not for profit listing under the Fair Use Rule of Section 107 of United States Law.

This listing also casts grave doubt on the inappropriate classification of such documents and the Federal Government's and the INPO/WANO institutions responsibilities to divulge such information to the public. The INPO report discloses long time safety failures at Browns Ferry and brings to light the regulators failure, NRC, as well as the TVA's failure as to safety culture and executive management. This failure extends to the NRC having access to such reports and keeping the reports restricted. The restriction of the reports are immoral, unethical, and possibly illegal, as they disclose serious public safety hazards regarding nuclear reactors at the TVA Browns Ferry nuclear facility.

Nuclear Power Plant Safety and the protection of the publics health and welfare should be a TEAM PROCESS to protect the public. Not a process of cover-ups and secret documents to protect the nuclear power industry, executives, defective systems and incompetent managers.

The INPO report began its description as Follows for the defective valves at Browns Ferry on page 28: "High and Low Pressure Injection systems have experienced repeat and age related failures." It goes on to describe management failures and "insufficient actions to prevent reoccurrence of equipment failures." The exact findings are hereby submitted as a "Fair Use Right" for the purpose of news reporting, education, criticism and the exposure of systemic negligence in a safety culture involving nuclear power use by the TVA.

Click on images for an expanded view.

Due to the seriousness of the issues involved and the appearance of a cover-up and or negligent activities on the part of the NRC and the TVA in this matter, the INPO report relating to valve failures at the TVA Browns Ferry GE Mark 1 Nuclear Facility is disclosed.

The July 2010 INPO report goes on to describe other equipment failures as a result of a failed safety culture and management neglect.

Nuclear Engineer Henry Jones discusses the existence of Peer Review Reports and their implications.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

The Nuclear Industry Is Not Your Friend

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND IN ANY WAY FORM OR FASHION. THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AND CONDUCT, IN MY OPINION, ARE A THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION. It appears the nuclear industry and the regulator are carrying forth programs which are designed to untruthfully present risks and safety reports regarding nuclear reactors. The nuclear industry harasses, intimidates and threatens with bodily injury, and the livelihood of those who report safety violations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission fails to hold accountable nuclear industry corporations and operators. Below I submit to you the evidence which supports my conclusion as reflected by the information below.

This information has numerous links. To grasp the full implications of the failure of our nuclear regulator and the security threat to our nation, please take the time to read, listen and/or watch the videos linked. Without significant change this could be the end result:

>Disinformation-Maskirovka<
Disinformation is intentional for the purpose of misinforming, misleading and providing an avenue to discredit groups and create confusion. It is propaganda, or as the Russians call it, "maskirovka." It is an intentional program of misinformation initiated by the nuclear industry. "Pandora's Promise" is an example of the NEI's propaganda program. Op-Ed by Ralph Cavanaugh on Pandora's Promisehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pandora-nuclear-energy-opinion-cavanagh-cochran/

It should be obvious that the nuclear industry via NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute, is currently spending millions of dollars in a massive public relations campaign. NEI's PR campaigns are directed by this person - J. Scott Peterson, http://www.nei.org/About-NEI/Governance-Leadership/J-Scott-Peterson "He is a member of the board of directors for the Public Affairs Council and NucNet, an international nuclear energy news organization, and serves on the advisory committee for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASE). He also is a member of the National Press Club."
Nuc Net http://www.nucnet.org/about-nucnet
Nuclear Industry PR in schools http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nuclear_Industry_PR_in_Schools

>Cyber Attacks<
The nuclear industry is also carrying forth cyber attacks on anti-nuclear groups. Guard your computer equipment that you may carry with you. Do not utilize any public network without a purchased anti-virus program protecting your equipment. Do not assume that Apple Computers or Android phones are protected by internal security software; there have been compromises of Apple Computer and Android Phone Systems.
November cyber attacks in Japan http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/10/national/anti-nuclear-civic-groups-targeted-in-large-scale-cyber-attacks/#.UshVpbCA3rc

BEST-MATRR has suffered 7 cyber attacks in 5 years. The total cost in equipment destruction and loss of research data is in excess of $6,000.00. Attempts to enter computer systems by Federal contractors employed by the NRC is ongoing. Complaints have been filed but have proved to be useless to date.

>Threats, Dirty Tricks and Social Control<
Beware of those bearing gifts in disguise. If you think the nuclear industry or the regulators should be trusted, think again. http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her162/mixetal.pdf
"Social control tactics are specific behaviors enacted by social control agents intended to impede activists’ fulfillment of movement tasks. Tactics are aimed at the activist both directly and indirectly. Direct tactics target three aspects of the activist’s life: his/her body, his/her livelihood, and his/her social status. Tactics aimed at the activist’s body intend bodily harm; those aimed at the activist’s livelihood intend income reductions; and tactics aimed at the activist’s social status intend loss of prestige from peers. Indirect social control tactics aim at the activist’s social status, intending loss of prestige from the public by destroying the activist’s credibility and persuading the public to dismiss grievances and tolerate the repression of the movement." (note figure 1 pg 181 of the above report link, PDF pg 10 Figure 1. Schematic of Forms of Repression and Tactics of Social Control)

>Whistleblower Threats and Harassment <
" U.S. Harassment of Nuclear Scientists, Nuclear Plant Workers and Grassroots Anti-Nuclear Activists" http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-82007565/u-s-harassment-of-nuclear-scientists-nuclear-plant
NRC admitted that it has stripped whistleblower protection -
Whistleblower stories - http://youtu.be/Lv_-Gc9PPKs and http://youtu.be/IQEnzugHfu0 Browns Ferry - http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/browns_ferry.html Whistleblowers - featuring Dave Lochbaum and Arnie Gunderson ; "...NRC does not fix problems...NRC Inspector General, NRC taking bribes from employer... NRC intentionally botched inspections." http://youtu.be/EHwDS84UN1Y

>NRC, Failure to Regulate<
Three former members of the NRC's Office of the Inspector General charge that the independent watchdog no longer challenges the industry. "...the [NRC] has become reluctant to probe anything that could become controversial or raise difficult questions for the NRC...They don't want to do anything... everything just seems to die."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whistleblowers-say-nuclear-regulatory-commission-losing-bite
To close to industry - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/business/energy-environment/08nrc.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>The Growing Threat - Fuel Pools, Regulator, Safety Culture<
Over packed cooling pools http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/su-13-the-growing-threat-of-nuclear-waste.html "One major problem is that today’s U.S. nuclear operators routinely store spent fuel in pools at a much higher density than they were designed to hold. That increases the risk in two ways. First, it increases the chance that the spent fuel will overheat, burn, and release radiation into the environment if cooling is lost due to a terrorist attack or accident. More spent fuel in a pool results in closer spacing between spent fuel bundles, reducing cooling and increasing the chance of fire spreading between the bundles. Second, high density of fuel rods in cooling pools will increase the consequences of an accident if the fuel overheats. More fuel in the pool means it could release more radioactivity." http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/spentfuel.html

Preventing Nuclear Meltdown: Assessing Regulatory Failure in Japan and the United States - Regulatory failure occurs when the regulatory system is deeply flawed – such as when it over- or under-regulates or when the regulatory design is based on “old science”. Regulatory failure also happens when agencies inadequately fulfill their oversight, supervisory and enforcement functions. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/04/01-nuclear-meltdown-kaufmann#

Safety culture problems industry wide, fuel cycle and nuclear facilities:
Independent Oversight Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project "Some elements of fear of retaliation were identified in some groups as inhibiting the identification of problems. Negative perceptions around feeling free to challenge management decisions and believing that constructive criticism is not encouraged may be contributing to the behavior." http://www.dnfsb.gov/sites/default/files/Board%20Activities/Letters/2012/ltr_20121212_20916.pdf

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted an independent assessment of nuclear safety culture1 and management of nuclear safety concerns at the DOE Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).
"...there is a definite unwillingness and uncertainty among employees about the ability to openly challenge management decisions. There are definite perceptions that there is not an environment conducive to raising concerns or where management wants or willingly listens to concerns. Most employees also believe that constructive criticism is not encouraged." http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/hss/Enforcement%20and%20Oversight/Oversight/docs/reports/semevals/Final_Hanford_WTP-Report_Jan%202012.pdf

"It's evident the NRC is capable of being an effective watchdog," said Dave Lochbaum, director of UCS's Nuclear Safety Project and author of the report. "But too often the agency does not live up to its potential, and we are still finding significant problems at nuclear plants that could trigger a serious accident.Many of the near-misses last year involved problems that were festering for years, if not decades," he added. "That means that the plant owners' testing and inspection regime is broken. Nothing is going to change unless the NRC requires plant owners to fix it." http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/us/nrc-nuclear-report/ "NRC's lax oversight "reflects a poor safety culture," including a disconnect between the agency's workforce and its senior management, with managers tending to downplay safety problems and react negatively when workers point them out." http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/nrc-and-nuclear-power-safety-annual.html

Safety Culture is not possible without regulatory compliance: http://allthingsnuclear.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130900-blanch-regulatory-compliance-report-.pdf

> Summary<
One incident in itself does not indicate a regulatory failure, corruption or compromised safety culture. However, when placing together all the pieces of the puzzle the picture becomes clear. There is evidence, as presented, that the U.S. nuclear industry and the regulator, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have intentionally, for the purpose of financial gain, compromised U.S. citizen health and welfare in violation of Federal Law. This is a historical, long standing problem which has serious implications for the security of the United States. The saga of failed oversight, neglect, threats, harassment and criminal acts continue to this day.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

TVA Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, NRC Relicensing - Videos on Citizen Presentations

TVA photo of the Sequoyah Nuclear Reactors

April 3, 2013, Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scoping Session (public comments) for the relicensing of Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) located near Soddy-Daisy, Tn.

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant seeks 20-year NRC license extension: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/apr/04/sequoyah-seeks-20-year-nrc-license-extension/