Updated November 30, 2008
Nuclear plant renewal dealt setback
(November 25, 2008) Entergy Nuclear's hopes for renewing its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's license for another 20 years were dealt a surprise setback Monday when a federal panel raised concerns about possible metal fatigue problems at the facility.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a panel that acts as the judicial arm for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a 154-page decision that Entergy needs to do more tests now, not later, on metal nozzles used to supply water and maintain the temperature in the reactor core.
Entergy had proposed putting off such tests until sometime after the anticipated 2012 date for renewal of its license. One of the nozzles is critical to protecting the reactor's core in the event of an accident.
The board said it would not issue a license renewal for Vermont's only nuclear power plant until the panel is satisfied that the metal fatigue issue regarding the nozzles has been adequately addressed.
"The key question is as follows: Is it legally and technically permissible to issue the license now, and allow Entergy to postpone the necessary metal fatigue analyses until later? Our answer is - no," the three-member, quasi-judicial board ruled.
"To defer determining such a significant safety issue until after the license has already been issued would impermissibly remove it from the opportunity to be reviewed in the hearing process."
Monday's ruling was a victory for the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro nuclear watchdog group that had brought the metal fatigue issue before the board in the face of stiff opposition from Entergy lawyers and the NRC's staff.
"We are the first citizen organization in the country to have one of our contentions sustained by the hearing board," said Raymond Shadis, a coalition consultant. "Vermonters ought to be extremely proud of what this little, homegrown, organization has done."
Shadis said the board did not go far enough in examining problems at Vermont Yankee and said his group would ask the board to reconsider its decision. He said the cost of appearing before the board had nearly bankrupted his organization, however, and he called on Vermont energy regulators to help pursue issues the group has raised.
"This is their opportunity to bring in their experts or help us a little," Shadis said. The state supported the coalition's contentions at the board's hearings, but only minimally participated in the proceedings.
Sarah Hofmann, director of public advocacy for the state Public Service Department said that, in light of the board's decision, Vermont will hire xperts to monitor Entergy's handling of the metal fatigue issue.
"We're very excited about this ruling," Hofmann said. "It is an historic decision to actually have an intervenor or a state to prevail at the board level."
An Entergy spokesman said late Monday saying the company would not appeal the board's decision and that it had begun more extensive testing of the metal nozzle components as required by the panel.
"Time is of the essence," said Laurence Smith, Vermont Yankee communications manager. "We are not going to wait."
Smith, in a statement, said the company expects that once the additional testing is done, it will show that the nozzles are in good shape.
"Entergy ... is confident that they will show that there is significant margin in the components so that they will continue to be in service safely throughout the license renewal period," Smith's statement said.
The board's decision also contained a sharply worded rebuke of the NRC. The board noted that the NRC had initially required that the nozzles undergo a full testing regimen for any aging problems, but then relented and concluded that Entergy's plan to do the work later was legal and permissible.
"This is an example of form over substance," the board said. "Entergy re-labeled its TLAA (time-limited aging analyses) as an AMP (aging management program) and the NRC staff now deems it compliant."
Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said the ruling does not reflect badly on the agency staff's handling of the metal fatigue issue.
"It is not as though the staff felt the (nozzles) shouldn't be subjected to more sophisticated review. It was just a different view as to the timing for that review," Sheehan said. Sheehan said the NRC would not appeal the board's decision.
The board's ruling rejected two other contentions brought forward by the New England Coalition involving pipe corrosion and the condition of the plant's steam dryer.
Parties to the decision have 15 days to file an appeal of the board's ruling. Smith said he did not know how long it would take before the testing was completed on the nozzles.
The board's approval is the final step in Entergy's quest for approval of its license renewal application. Separate state Public Service Board hearings on the license renewal matter are expected to get under way in early 2009. The state Legislature must also agree to the renewal request.
Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20081125/NEWS02/81124033
NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING DEC. 1 TO DISCUSS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct a public meeting in Rockville, Md., on Monday, Dec. 1, to discuss issues related to a proposed Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2001-07, REV.1 that clarifies reporting and record keeping requirements for nuclear power plant decommissioning funds.
The NRC staff will provide a brief presentation describing the RIS that informs nuclear power plant licensees of the need to distinguish funds accumulated to pay for radiological decommissioning
from funds for other decommissioning costs, such as state decommissioning requirements and spent nuclear fuel management. Following the presentation, there will be an opportunity for public comments.
NRC staff will hold the public meeting in the Commissioner's Conference Room of the agency's One White Flint North building, at 11555 Rockville Pike. It will run from 8 - 11 a.m. A complete agenda
and draft copy of the RIS is available on the NRC's Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone with questions or those wishing to make public statements during the meeting and to make your reservation to participate please notify the NRC's meeting contact:
Aaron Szabo by phone at (301) 415-1985 or via email at aaron.szabo@nrc.gov.
Fault Found Near Plant
A new earthquake fault that could run as close as 1,800 feet offshore of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has been discovered by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
The fault was found using new computer programming that allows geologists to better map the epicenters of the many small magnitude earthquakes in the area, said Lloyd Cluff, head of PG&E's earthquake risk management program.
Based on this data, the new fault appears to run from offshore of Point Buchon to within a mile of Diablo Canyon, extending to just off Point San Luis, near Avila Beach. The fault could generate a 6.5-magnitude quake. Diablo Canyon is built to withstand a 7.5-magnitude quake, so the new fault does not pose a threat to the operational safety of the plant, Cluff said.
"We don't see anything that exceeds the plant's design basis," Cluff said.
Assemblyman Sam Blakelsee, R-San Luis Obispo, who has a doctorate in geophysics, said he agrees that the plant is safe, but adds that much more research needs to be done.
"This is not a cause for panic," he said. "It's a cause for concern."
Specifically, research needs to determine whether the fault extends further south than currently thought, Blakeslee said. Generally, the longer a fault is, the more powerful the earthquake it can produce.
Research needs to also examine what happens during an earthquake to structures, such as the power plant, that are located close to a fault. It is common for buildings next to a fault to be unscathed after a quake while structures miles away are flattened, Blakeslee said.
County Supervisor Bruce Gibson said he had been briefed about the existence of the new fault.
"I think this is an important discovery they've made," said Gibson, who represents the county's North Coast from Los Osos to San Simeon. "The fault definitely needs further study, and they are on their way to doing that."
Smaller than Hosgri fault
The new fault, which is unnamed, is thought to be smaller than the other fault off the plant's coastline, the Hosgri fault, but it is closer to shore. The new fault is less than a mile offshore, while the Hosgri fault is about three miles offshore.
"Currently, the available geophysical data is not sufficient to definitely classify the offshore feature as a major fault, although a minor fault could exist," Cluff wrote in a notice sent to regulators earlier this week.
The new fault is described as a vertical strike-slip fault as indicated by the earthquake activity along it. The two sides of such faults move horizontally.
Recent studies have indicated that the Hosgri fault is also a strike-slip fault, meaning it is less likely to cause a tsunami than other types.
It is estimated to be from nearly two miles to more than eight miles below the Earth's surface and from nine to more than 15 miles long and could intersect the Hosgri fault, which is 68 miles long.
The utility is planning on doing additional geophysical surveys in the spring and summer of 2009, which will provide two-dimensional information about the new fault. Information from that work is likely to be available a year and a half from now, Cluff said.
Calls for new studies
In response to the discovery of the new fault, the state Energy Commission is recommending that PG&E and the operators of the state's other nuclear power plant at San Onofre in San Diego County do seismic mapping and other advanced techniques regardless of whether it is warranted by a cost-benefit analysis. The agency will evaluate whether these studies should be required before PG&E can apply to renew Diablo Canyon's licenses in 2025.
Although the federal regulators govern the operational safety of the plant, state regulators have a responsibility to ensure that Californians have reliable sources of electricity, Blakeslee said.
The Assemblyman said he wants PG&E to take the seismic mapping to the next level and produce three-dimensional maps, which are commonly used when siting offshore oil platforms. Such research is expensive and may require new legislation to provide the funding. Blakeslee promised to author such legislation, if needed.
Public outcry
The discovery of the new fault may renew a public debate over the future of Diablo Canyon in such a seismically active area. The Hosgri fault was discovered before Diablo Canyon was licensed, and caused the utility to spend billions of additional dollars to seismically upgrade the plant.
A large earthquake a year and a half ago in Japan caused the world's biggest nuclear plant to shut down. That plant has not restarted, Cluff said.
"How many earthquake faults does it take to close down a nuclear power plant?" asked Rochelle Becker of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, an anti-nuclear organization based in San Luis Obispo. "If there is an earthquake on the Hosgri fault, would that trigger a quake on this new fault and would there be a cumulative affect? I don't know."
San Luis Obispo Tribune - David Sneed at (805) 781-7930.
California: Nuclear Plants may need $5.6 Billion in Cooling Retrofits
http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-8719626-10846
The California Energy Commission on Nov. 20 adopted a report warning that the state's two nuclear plants may be required to conduct more than $5.6 billion worth of cooling system retrofits if another state agency adopts regulations to outlaw the "once-through" cooling systems both plants use.
"A restriction on the use of once-through cooling in California is likely to be implemented in the future," the report said. "If the [State Water Resources Control Board] preliminary draft policy is adopted, Diablo Canyon and [San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station] would need to either adopt closed-cycle cooling systems or reduce the negative effects of their once-through cooling systems to a level comparable to the effects of a closed-cycle system."
The commissioners said nothing about that part of the 331-page "AB 1632 Assessment of California's Operating Nuclear Plants" final report, but instead focused on what they saw as a need for continued monitoring of seismic conditions around the nukes to evaluate the risks of extended plant outages from earthquakes or tsunamis.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Counsel Scott Galati told the commissioners that the U.S. Geological Survey has found a potential offshore fault near the Diablo Canyon nuclear station of which PG&E was previously unaware. Galati said the fault does not appear to present as big a threat as the previously known Hosgri fault. The Hosgri hazard is debated among scientists, according to the commission's just-approved report, but Galati said the plant has been designed to withstand an earthquake originating there. The offshore Hosgri fault zone is 2.8 miles west of Diablo Canyon.
The report also said there are major uncertainties regarding the seismology near Southern California Edison Co.'s seaside San Onofre plant, called SONGS. A nearby offshore fault zone connects faults in the Los Angeles and San Diego regions, but much is unknown about the seismic structure and stability.
The report, prepared for the commission by MRW & Associates Inc., said studies with newer technologies, such as three-dimensional geophysical seismic reflection mapping, are needed to resolve questions about the extent of the hazards for both Diablo Canyon and SONGS.
Commissioner Jeffrey Byron told PG&E and SoCalEd representatives that the utilities should provide status reports to the commission on their continued efforts to explore the fault zones around their plants. He noted that interest has intensified since a major earthquake in Japan in July 2007 knocked out the world's largest nuclear plant located there. He said Japan is still juggling for replacement power as repairs on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant continue.
New regulations could shake nukes too
California's regulators may be a more immediate threat to the nuclear plants, which account for 12% of the state's electricity supply.
The report concluded that "while the regulations are still being finalized, it appears possible that Diablo Canyon and SONGS will be required to replace their cooling systems or to retrofit them in a manner that significantly reduces marine impacts."
Extended outages would be required to complete the projects, the report said. It said that the California Ocean Protection Council in 2006 commissioned a consulting firm, Tetra Tech, to evaluate the feasibility of converting the cooling systems to wet cooling towers. Tetra Tech estimated the total net present cost for cooling system retrofits at Diablo Canyon and SONGS to be $3.02 billion and $2.62 billion, respectively, but the utilities said those estimates are too low.
In comments regarding the Tetra Tech report, both PG&E Corp. subsidiary PG&E and Edison International subsidiary SoCalEd responded that a retrofit is not feasible, the commission's just-adopted report said. PG&E estimated its nuclear plant would have to be sidelined for 12 to 18 months to make the conversion and that replacement power costs alone would be up to $2 billion.
The energy commission has previously called for caution in dealing with the nukes on this issue.
"The Energy Commission's 2007 Environmental Performance Report produced recommendations to retire or repower numerous aging once-through cooling power plants by 2012," the report said."However, it recognized that California's nuclear power plants present special circumstances due to their size, costs, and unique contribution to grid stability, fuel diversity, and resource adequacy, and therefore 'should be evaluated carefully before new regulations on once-through cooling are finalized in California.'"
The commission's just-adopted report was prepared in response to a law passed from legislation that Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee initiated to require the commission review policy and reliability issues associated with the use of California's nuclear plants. The report also delved into plant aging, safety, economic impacts, prospects for relicensing, nuclear waste, the role in the power system and alternative supply options.
How Many Earthquake Faults Does it Take Close a Nuclear Plant?
This week PG&E publicly announced that the USGS has discovered another earthquake fault offshore of Diablo Canyon - that makes two! The first fault was discovered before the nuclear plant was licensed, and retrofitting resulted in billions of dollars in cost overruns. While the utility downplayed the significance of the fault on safe plant operations, the new fault is not good news for PG&E and may not be good news for San Onofre. What are the odds that another fault posing a larger threat to Diablo Canyon and San Onofre is out there - but better at hiding than the ones found so far? The discovery suggests the odds aren't zero.
Upon learning of this new seismic information, the California Energy Commission (CEC) recommended that new seismic technology and mapping be implemented at both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre to determine if these nuclear plants are more vulnerable to earthquakes than previously predicted. The CEC is so concerned, they emphasize these new studies should be undertaken regardless of whether the utility thinks it is or is not warranted under a "cost benefit analysis."
Californians may remember that in 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refused to hold hearings on new seismic information before it granted PG&E a license to site a high-level radioactive waste storage facility onsite at Diablo Canyon. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility found this decision unacceptable and turned to the state to assess the economic impacts of California's reliance on aging reactors.
Little did the Alliance know that merely two years after the CEC began discussing the state's reliance on aging reactors, 8000 MW of nuclear generation would be lost in Japan due to an earthquake on the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa fault. To date there is no estimate of when the world's largest nuclear facility will be brought back on line.
The California Energy Commission assessment of the possible impacts was mandated in a bill authored by San Luis Obispo Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee. Without the efforts of Assemblyman Blakeslee this study would not have coincided with the approval of the CEC's analysis that recommends all studies be complete and reviewed by the state before any consideration of license renewal.
CEC Commissioner Byron praised the efforts of Assemblyman Blakeslee before voting to approve recommendations for more seismic studies. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility echoes that praise and adds that if the CEC'S ecommendations are followed, California will now be better prepared to plan for our energy future knowing whether or not it can depend on 4000 MW of generation that is located along with hundreds of tons of highly radioactive waste on the state's fragile coast.
Link to story in San Luis Obispo Tribune: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/566/story/535834.html
Rochelle
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
www.a4nr.org
(858) 337 2703
AN ASSESSMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: AB 1632 COMMITTEE REPORT http://a4nr.org/library/07.2007-cechearings/10.2008-cec/view
CHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATES INCREASE NEAR U.S. NUCLEAR PLANTS - RISES GREATEST NEAR OLDEST PLANTS, DECLINES NEAR CLOSED PLANTS
For Immediate Release - Contact Joseph Mangano, 609-399-4343
New York, Nov. 11, 2008. Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear reactors rose sharply (vs. the national trend) in the past two decades, according to a recent study.
The greatest mortality increases occurred near the oldest nuclear plants, while declines were observed near plants that closed permanently in the 1980s and 1990s. The study was published in the most recent issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care.
The study updates an analysis conducted in the late 1980s by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That analysis, mandated by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), is the only attempt federal officials have made to examine cancer rates near U.S. nuclear plants.
U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, Nothing is more important to American families than the health of their children. It is critical that we continue to improve our understanding of the causes of child leukemia and learn how this heartbreaking disease be prevented, therefore this study deserves critical consideration.
Actor and advocate Alec Baldwin said exposure to ambient levels of radiation near nuclear reactors used by public utilities has long been suspected as a significant contributor to various cancers and other diseases. Baldwin, who has a long-standing interest in radiation health issues, adds nuclear power is not the clean, efficient energy panacea to which we are presently being reintroduced. It is dirty, poses serious security threats to our country, and is ridiculously expensive. Nukes are still a military technology forced on the American public with a dressed up civilian application.
Study authors were epidemiologist Joseph Mangano MPH MBA, Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project and toxicologist Janette Sherman MD of the Environmental Institute at Western Michigan University. They analyzed leukemia deaths in children age 0-19 in the 67 counties near 51 nuclear power plants starting 1957-1981 (the same counties in the NCI study). About 25 million people live in these 67 counties, and the 51 plants represent nearly half of the U.S. total).
Using mortality statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mangano and Sherman found that in 1985-2004, the change in local child leukemia mortality (vs. the U.S.) compared to the earliest years of reactor operations were:
- An increase of 13.9% near nuclear plants started 1957-1970 (oldest plants)
- An increase of 9.4% near nuclear plants started 1971-1981 (newer plants)
- A decrease of 5.5% near nuclear plants started 1957-1981 and later shut down
The 13.9% rise near the older plants suggests a potential effect of greater radioactive contamination near aging reactors, while the 5.5% decline near closed reactors suggests a link between less contamination and lower leukemia rates. The large number of child leukemia deaths in the study (1292) makes many of the results statistically significant.
The Mangano/Sherman report follows a 2007 meta-analysis also published in the European Journal of Cancer Care by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina. That report reviewed 17 medical journal articles on child leukemia rates near reactors, and found that all 17 detected elevated rates. A January 2008 European Journal of Cancer article that found high rates of child leukemia near German reactors from 1980-2003 is believed to be the largest study on the topic (1592 leukemia cases).
The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among infants and children. Leukemia is the type of childhood cancer most closely associated with exposures to toxic agents such as radiation, and has been most frequently studied by scientists. In the U.S., childhood leukemia incidence has risen 28.7% from 1975-2004 according to CDC data, suggesting that more detailed studies on causes are warranted.
The Radiation and Public Health Project is a non profit group of health professionals and scientists based in New York that studies health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP members have published 23 medical journal articles on the topic. A copy of the child leukemia article (PDF or faxed) is available upon request from Mangano.
HIGH LEVEL SHENANIGANS AT NRC in the last days of the Bush Administration:
November 7, 2008
Dear Safe Energy Activists:
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is "updating" its "Waste Confidence Decision," a set of 5 findings in which NRC uses its authority to claim long-lasting, intensely radioactive and biologically dangerous high level radioactive waste and irradiated nuclear fuel can be and will be safely disposed in a deep geological repository some day. In addition, NRC is revising its generic determination there are no significant environmental impacts from storage of irradiated fuel at, or away from, reactor sites after the expiration of reactor operating licenses. NRC is now proposing that the irradiated fuel from any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts beyond the licensed life for operation, including the time for extended or renewed licenses reactors, at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) [we call them IFFY] until a disposal facility can reasonably be expected to be available.
These determinations by NRC are used legally to justify making more waste. NRC is giving us until Dec 8th to comment. Sign on to our extension request letter by midnite MON Nov 10 or send NRC a request directly for 3 months more time. Send comments by Dec 8th in case extension is not granted.
(1) Sign-on by Monday NOV 10 2008 (Midnight eastern time) by e-mailing your NAME / ORGANIZATION / CITY AND STATE to dianed@nirs.org (301 270 6477 x 16) See letter Below.
(2) COMMENT directly to NRC by Dec 8th telling NRC to
(a) revoke the its Waste Confidence Decision and
(b) require more robust storage of irradiated fuel already at operating and closed reactors.
To comment E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov SUBJECT: Docket IDs 2008-0482 and 0404
If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that NRC received your comments, contact NRC directly at 301-415-1677
Extension Request Letter:
(Sign-on by Monday NOV 10, 2008 Midnight eastern time at dianed@nirs.org)
If you are late please send a note directly to NRC with your request for more time:
To: the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
From: Multiple Organizations
RE: Request to NRC to EXTEND for 3 months the Public Comment Period on
► Waste Confidence Decision and
► Consideration of Irradiated Fuel Storage at Closed Reactors
Date: November 12, 2008
The organizations below call on the US NRC to provide additional time for the public to comment on proposed
Waste Confidence Decision Update
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-23381.pdf and
Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-23384.pdf
We request that NRC extend the comment periods for 90 additional days beyond the December 8, 2008 deadline for both of these high level radioactive waste/irradiated (spent) nuclear fuel proposals published in the Federal Register October 9, 2008. Both of the NRC's proposals make assumptions that have legal, regulatory, environmental, economic, health, safety, security, moral, genetic and philosophical significance. In order to have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposals and their underlying assumptions, and thereby ensure that the NRC complies with the National Environmental Policy Act in evaluating the environmental impacts of high-level radioactive waste disposal, the undersigned organizations require additional time to evaluate the claims and assumptions made in the proposals.
The last time the NRC published anything more than a cursory review of the Waste Confidence determination was 1990 in 55 Fed. Reg. 38474 (September 18, 1990). In the proposed revision of waste confidence Findings 2 and 4, the NRC has made some critical and complex judgments that are very different than the judgments made in support of Findings 2 and 4 in the 1990 Waste Confidence rule. It will take considerable time to study the NRC's judgments and make informed comments on them in a manner that would promote public discourse and better decision-making.
The proposed Waste Confidence rule raises important technical and policy questions that demand a significant amount of research and analysis - far more than can be accomplished in 60 days. For instance, the NRC has cited the history of repository programs in various countries as justification for its confidence that "sufficient mined geologic repository capacity can reasonably be expected to be available within 50-60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of any reactor..." The NRC has cited programs from the UK, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, and Germany as part of the basis of its conclusion. The history of these programs is complex and involved, and more than 60 days is required to do the level of research and analysis necessary to determine whether the NRC has correctly interpreted the history of these programs.
While the NRC does not rely on the idea that the capacity of Yucca Mountain will be increased, it provides no technical basis that would indicate that such an increase in capacity could be accommodated within the final EPA dose limits. Public comment on this issue requires some time to address the various complexities, especially in view of the fact that the EPA final rule has only recently been published.
As another example, the NRC has made assumptions about legislative actions in arriving at its proposed text for Findings 2 and 4. The basis for these assumptions is not clear. It will require a study of the legislative and regulatory history of the U.S. repository program, including the history of the NWPA and the PFS program to address.
Finally, the proposals impact communities with existing and new nuclear power reactors, existing and proposed reprocessing facilities, high level waste storage and disposal facilities as well as existing and proposed transportation routes between these facilities. As organizations involved in public education on nuclear issues and as organizations concerned about nuclear safety and the environment, we believe that 60 days is entirely insufficient for us to be able to inform the public about the proposed changes and seek their input. This problem has become even more complex in the last year, since there are now proposals for almost three dozen new reactors, spread from East to West and potentially for new reprocessing facilities.
NRC is required to responsibly regulate and manage nuclear waste, which will remain dangerous for literally millions of years. Given the significant and long-lasting character of the risk, given the NRC's unique role in managing that risk, and given that the NRC's determinations may be used to justify the construction and operation of an entire new generation of nuclear power plants, it is critical that the public be given a sufficient amount of time to analyze and respond to the issues raised by these two proposals. We respectfully submit that an extension of time of three months is the minimum amount of time required in order to provide a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposals.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME and ORGANIZATION
TOWN OR CITY AND STATE
ILLINOIS SAFE-ENERGY REFERENDUM BACKS RENEWABLES OVER NUCLEAR 2-1
As much as has been made by the nuclear industry of its self-proclaimed "nuclear renaissance," and while many national polls purport that the public is allegedly "warming" towards nuclear power, a piece of election data out of Oak Park, Illinois demolishes these notions like a sledge hammer between the eyes.
Green Candidate for the State Legislature Rita Sand Maniotis and others worked to have the following advisory referendum appear on the local ballot in the three communities in Berwyn Township (Oak Park, Berwyn and Riverside):
"Shall our elected officials in Illinois take steps to phase out nuclear power in the state, replacing it with renewable sources such as wind and solar?"
With all 119 precincts reporting, the election results are as stunning as they are unambiguous: 33,275 (68.0%) YES; 15,701 (32.1%) NO. (Results from Cook County Election Dept.; http://results.voterinfonet.com/110408/SummaryElection110408RaceNum2.html )
The results are significant, coming as they do from 1.) the most nuclear-reliant state in the USA, with 11 operating reactors; and 2.) communities which themselves are currently 75% reliant on nuclear energy purchased by local utility Commonwealth Edison, a subsidiary of the nation's largest nuclear utility, Exelon Corporation.
Prior to the election Maniotis arranged for a public debate on this issue to help educate the local electorate about the referendum. The debate consisted of a 4-person panel -- two in favor, two opposed to nuclear power -- followed by a question and answer session. The 90-minute program was also audio-tape recorded, and aired on WLUW-FM radio in Chicago prior to the election.
The panelists included Dr. Roger Blomquist and George Stanford, Ph.D., retired, both of Argonne National Laboratory -- both speaking in favor of nuclear power; and Bob Cleland, North Suburban Peace Initiative, and Dave Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service, speaking in favor of alternative energy paths. Due to a pre-debate misunderstanding panelist Cleland elected to not elaborate on the details pertaining to the referendum, allowing the "pro" position twice the time to make their case. NEIS director Dave Kraft promoted the national Carbon Free-Nuclear Free agenda (http://www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org/ ) as the viable and responsible alternative to replace nuclear power.
After the debate a letter to the editors written by NEIS Board member Dennis Nelson who attended the event appeared in the local Oak Park newspaper.
While no one can say to what extent or even whether the debate, the radio broadcast, and the letter to the editors that appeared in the Oak Park paper had any effect on the outcome, what IS certain is that, by a two-to-one margin, voters rejected nuclear power when give the alternative of viable renewable energy resources.
Perhaps now elected officials will feel compelled to give it to them. That's change you can believe in. We thank Rita Sand Maniotis and the others who worked on this referendum for their efforts.
[NOTE: Ms. Maniotis can be reached at: rsand@mc.net ]
NEW VIDEO!
NEW! Stop the Bailout! YouTube. (click to view).
RELEASE OF KILOWATT OURS: A PLAN TO RE-ENERGIZE AMERICA
Kilowatt Ours is an award-winning film from Jeff Barrie that provides simple, practical, affordable solutions to America's energy crisis and shows how we can save electricity, save money and make a difference for ourselves and the planet. Visit http://www.kilowatthours.org for a short sneak preview and a schedule for your area.
"BLANK CHECK" NUCLEAR POWER LOAN GUARANTEES DEFEATED, BUT MAY RESURFACE IN LAME DUCK SESSION OR 2009
A stunning defeat has been handed the nuke power industry as the Senate's "Drill Drill Drill" bill containing virtually unlimited loan guarantees for new nuclear plants has been withdrawn. Amidst the catastrophic collapse of America's financial institutions, the attempt to gouge as much as a half-trillion-dollars in taxpayer liability for new reactor construction fell flat. However, it could be revived in the upcoming lame duck session of Congress, and in 2009. So we urge you to DO SOMETHING by reminding all Congressional Representatives and candidates to hold the line against billions on new bad loans for this failed technology.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
STATES HANDING OUT MASSIVE RATE HIKES TO FUND REACTOR CONSTRUCTION
In Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas and Mississippi, pro-nuke electric companies are getting public utilities commissions to approve huge state-wide rate hikes to pay for reactor construction IN ADVANCE. Few citizens know this is happening. The reactor builders are refusing to specify how much the reactors will actually cost, but the final price tags will be well over $10 billion per reactor. In some cases, rates have already gone up 30%. For more information visit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) at http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/fctsht.htm
DO SOMETHING
If you live in one of these states, contact your public utility commission (PUC) and local politicians to demand these huge giveaways of your electric bill money be stopped immediately.
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/state_puc.html
STATES BECOME BATTLEGROUND FOR NO NUKES FIGHT
In Maryland, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Missouri, utilities are also pushing hard for new nukes. For more information, visit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) athttp://www.nirs.org/factsheets/fctsht.htm
DO SOMETHING
If you live in one of these states, contact your PUC and local politicians to demand these huge giveaways of your electric bill money be stopped immediately.
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/state_puc.html
