Urgent Jan. 2 Deadline for Sneaky Fast One – RE: Grand Gulf and Peach Bottom Nuke Plants

This is an importent story from Mining Awareness. The NRC has a “comment period” [ deadline Jan. 2! ]  about a dangerous flim-flam they are trying to pull on the people of Louisiana and Mississippi.

” They are trying to sneak through this MELLLA plus comments also for 2 Jan. for Grand Gulf and Peach Bottom. Grand Gulf is on the river in Mississippi across from Louisiana and is the largest single reactor in the US. It has Mark III containment which can get hydrogen build up and they try to burn it off as the solution. The MELLLA plus causes reactor system instability.  “comment from author


Nuclear Reactor Licenses: US NRC can’t figure out to whom they are being transferred- Urgent Comment Deadline

PART 2 – Louisiana Nuclear Reactors Owned By Texas Limited Liability Companies? Comment Now!

AND – Dangerous Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Plus for Largest US Nuclear Reactor? Urgent Comment – Demand Hearing Now!


3 thoughts on “Urgent Jan. 2 Deadline for Sneaky Fast One – RE: Grand Gulf and Peach Bottom Nuke Plants

  1. Summary of the two things which desperately need comment at the US NRC within less than 24 hours. Deadline is 11.59 pm (23.59) ET (Washington DC) January 2. They are being sneaked through during the holiday season. This and the fact that the NRC doesn’t even know who the licenses are being transferred to (i.e. it is incorrect in the Federal Register) is reason to demand an extension. As explained below, this may have financial consequences for the US, Japan and even Romania and Argentina! It may have large radiological impacts throughout the central and eastern US, Canada, and even Europe. One or two sentences is fine. Make it your own words. They need to at least know they are being watched.
    1) http://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/nuclear-reactor-licenses-us-nrc-cant-figure-out-to-whom-they-are-being-transferred-urgent-comment-deadline/
    Comment here. It can be anonymously if you want: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2014-0258-0001 See also: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/03/2014-28422/river-bend-station-unit-1-and-waterford-steam-electric-station-unit-3-consideration-of-approval-of Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0258 See related post: http://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/louisiana-nuclear-reactors-owned-by-texas-limited-liability-companies-comment-now/

    2) http://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/dangerous-maximum-extended-load-line-limit-plus-for-largest-us-nuclear-reactor-urgent-comment-demand-hearing-now/
    Comments must be filed by January 2, 2015, at 11.59 pm (23.59) US Eastern Time (Washington, DC). This is January 3rd for Europe (early morning) and Asia.
    However a request for a hearing can be filed until February 2, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2014-0250-0001
    [Comments do not have to be long. One or two sentences is good. It needs to be your own words. If they are the same as others, they don’t post them. Demanding a hearing is a good idea. We discuss only two of five nuclear power stations which require comment.]

    While they state that the changes “involve no significant hazards consideration,“: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2014-0250-0001 NRC and other documents indicate otherwise. For instance: “implementation of MELLLA+ could lead to operation closer to system stability boundaries” (US NRC, 2014). http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1404/ML14041A136.pdf

    Americans and Japanese should be especially alarmed now that they are jointly responsible for any accident in either country. Because it is based on installed capacity the US and Japan will pay the most. However, Romania will also pay. And, presumably Argentina based on experimental nuclear capacity. And, eventually Morocco and the UAE once they have nuclear reactors up and running. So, not only can US NRC screw-ups impact the world with fallout, but impacts it economically as well and that’s excluding the impact that destruction of US food supplies or migration waves could have. The same is now true for Japan. The Convention just ratified by the Japanese gov and comes soon into force is the “Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage”. Americans and Japanese need to see who is going to pay into this American-Japanese liability pool. While one US document claims that the US taxpayer will not pay, they almost certainly will have to, especially if there are accidents in more than one country, causing fund depletion. Americans and Japanese are also now liable for accidents in several other countries. According to the treaty it must be paid. It doesn’t appear to specify how. Additionally the deciding court is in the place where the accident occurred. “obligation on all Contracting Parties to the Convention to make available public finds according to the formula specified in Article IV.
    http://state. gov/md5951.htm The formula is based on nuclear capacity. This means that the US pays approximately one dollar for every 50 cents that Japan pays (It’s something like 99 cents and 42 cents in reality). However, US liability is capped at one third of the cost of a foreign accident. The purpose of this convention is to let nuclear service providers off the hook for liability except to the extent that they may be retroactively forced to pay into the group insurance fund. This means that everyone can dump their defective fuel on the US, Japan, Romania, Morocco, Argentina, and the UAE, and do experiments with computer programs with almost no fear – they cannot be sued. They can continue to make a killing both figuratively and literally. In the event of an accident Japan and the US pay by whatever means, as will Romania and others.

  2. just saw this from an e-mail response from a Louisiana group about this issue:

    “Entergy is consolidating 2 of their 3 Entergy subsidiaries in Louisiana. Entergy Gulf States (EGSL) and Entergy Louisiana (ELL), both regulated by the Public Service Commission, are consolidating to save money and regulatory burdens for each company. Entergy Gulf States used to also cover Mississippi and Texas but the portion in MS became Entergy MS and TX became Entergy TX. There really is no good reason to continue Entergy Gulf States as a separate entity as this increases costs to consumers by about $1-2 million a year (guestimate). Ownership of EGSLs and ELLs assets are being consolidated into one Entergy Louisiana subsidiary company. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s