In Federal Court Filing, PG&E and Nuclear Regulator Said to Collude in Secret Decision to Cover up

[bananas]

Source: eNews Park Forest

Friends of the Earth has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a secret decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to illegally alter the operating license for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant allowing Pacific Gas and Electric to hide the fact that the reactors are vulnerable to earthquakes stronger than it was meant to withstand.

The secret revision of Diablo Canyon’s license was revealed in NRC documents rejecting a dissent by the plant’s former senior resident inspector. The inspector, Dr. Michael Peck, defied his superiors in saying that Diablo Canyon was operating in violation of its license and should be shut down unless and until new seismic information was addressed.

In a July 2013 formal dissent, which the NRC suppressed for more than a year, Dr. Peck argued that newly discovered faults could produce earthquakes far more destructive than the plant was designed, built and licensed to withstand. Last month, in rejecting the dissent, the NRC revealed that in September 2013 it had changed the way the risk of earthquakes at the plant are assessed -- in effect, rewriting history and science to make the threat of more powerful earthquakes go away, without requiring any safety upgrades by PG&E.

The amendment was added in secret, unknown beyond the highest levels of PG&E and the NRC. Today Friends of the Earth petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit to review the amendment, overturn it and order a public license amendment proceeding as required by federal law.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/56383-in-federal-court-filing-pg-e-and-nuclear-regulator-said-to-collude-in-secret-decision-to-cover-up-diablo-canyon-s-vulnerability-to-earthquakes.html

[bananas]

1. Group Asks Court For Review Of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor License Over Earthquake Fears

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/10/28/environmental-group-asks-court-for-review-of-pge-diablo-canyon-nuclear-reactor-license-over-earthquake-fears/

Group Asks Court For Review Of PG&’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor License Over Earthquake Fears
October 28, 2014 1:05 PM

AVILA BEACH, San Luis Obispo County (CBS SF) — An environmental group asked a federal court Tuesday to review its claim that California’s last operating nuclear power plant is violating federal law and should be shut down at least temporarily.

In a petition filed in Washington with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Friends of the Earth said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission violated its own rules when it altered the operating license for the Diablo Canyon reactors.

<snip>

“The NRC acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion and violated” federal laws by approving the change without seeking the required license amendment, the petition said.

<snip>

The environmental group said the NRC and the company are trying to conceal that the reactors are vulnerable to strong shaking from possible earthquakes.

“It is now clear that these outdated 1960s-era reactors are not built to withstand the earthquake risks that surround the plant,” spokesman Damon Moglen said in a statement. “Instead of making them address these safety issues, the NRC worked with PG&E to change the rules.”

[TxDemChem]

2. That is terrible

I hope it gets overturned. I'm at a loss for words.

[vkkv]

3. Someone needs to go to prison,

NOW.

[lark]

4. A big "whoohoo" and thank you to whistleblowers.

We need you!!!

[FBaggins]

5. Talk about loaded language.

The NRC releases their response to Peck's disagreement (in the normal order of their process) and the author declares that it was actually "suppressed" prior to that (though somehow we all heard about it a year ago when it was posted here) and the determination was actually a "secret decision" (even though they publish it)?

That's pretty laughable.

In a July 2013 formal dissent, which the NRC suppressed for more than a year, Dr. Peck argued that newly discovered faults could produce earthquakes far more destructive than the plant was designed, built and licensed to withstand.

No he didn't. He worried that the company had not completely evaluated whether or not the newly-discovered fault could exceed the plant's design basis and that the evaluation that they had done did not use NRC-approved methods and assumptions. He did not conclude what the maximum earthquake would be and argue that it was beyond what the plant could handle.