Group items tagged

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

Question: When is a plan not a plan? Answer: When it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's "cleanup" proposal for the town of Port Hope, Ontario. At a packed hearing last week, Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, listened to presentations on the proposal from its staff, AECL, private citizens, and volunteer organizations - roughly 100 presentations in all, spanning 17 hours of hearing time. AECL is asking for a licence for a low level radioactive waste site. The site will house approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of nuclear and industrial waste, collected from the community over the course of the next decade. The proposal was approved in 2007, following a six-year environmental assessment. The ensuing licensing process should have been fairly straight forward - hash out a few technical details and get shovels in the ground.

A crowd fi lled the room for the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan Public Consultation Process, a process initiated by the Government of Saskatchewan; the consultation held a meeting in La Ronge June 16. The consultation began with the viewing of three videos, a SaskPower presentation Powering your future, which offered an overview of the ancticipated power needs for Saskatchewan in the future; a video presentation by Dr. Richard Florizone, who chaired the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP); and a video from Clean Green Saskatchewan, outlining concerns about the possible increased used of nuclear power in the province. Several people voiced concern about both the process of the consultation and the prospect of the possible building of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan. A major concern expressed by several people was the presentation of one option, nuclear energy, when others are available.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, which has one proton and two neutrons, where a normal atom of the element would have one proton and no neutrons. It is produced naturally when hydrogen is bombarded by cosmic rays, and is also a by-product of reactions that drive nuclear power plants. Tritium atoms almost invariably bind to oxygen atoms, to create tritiated water. The isotope is a weak source of radiation, emitting low-energy beta particles that cannot penetrate the skin, and are therefore not dangerous outside the body. If inhaled or swallowed, however, the beta particles present a radiation hazard. As with all poisons, the risk depends on the dose.Trace levels of tritium are present naturally in all water supplies and are not harmful. Higher exposures, however, may cause cancer, and have also been linked to birth defects in the children of people who are exposed.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, which has one proton and two neutrons, where a normal atom of the element would have one proton and no neutrons. It is produced naturally when hydrogen is bombarded by cosmic rays, and is also a by-product of reactions that drive nuclear power plants. Tritium atoms almost invariably bind to oxygen atoms, to create tritiated water. The isotope is a weak source of radiation, emitting low-energy beta particles that cannot penetrate the skin, and are therefore not dangerous outside the body. If inhaled or swallowed, however, the beta particles present a radiation hazard. As with all poisons, the risk depends on the dose.Trace levels of tritium are present naturally in all water supplies and are not harmful. Higher exposures, however, may cause cancer, and have also been linked to birth defects in the children of people who are exposed.

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct two public meetings on Feb. 9, to discuss the agency's review process for the license renewal application for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, located near San Luis Obispo, Calif. The meetings will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 333 Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo. The first session will begin at 1:30 p.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session, which will offer the same presentations as the earlier one, will get under way at 7 p.m. and continue until 10 p.m., as needed. Both meetings will begin with NRC staff presentations on how the license renewal review will be conducted. Following the presentations, attendees will be able to ask questions of the staff. The NRC will host an open house beginning one hour before each meeting during which people can talk informally with agency staff. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. "

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Environmental monitoring of operations at LLNL in 2008 indicates no adverse impact to public health or the environment from Lab operations. The findings are presented in the Laboratory's Environmental Report 2008. The annual report demonstrates LLNL's continuing commitment to providing responsible stewardship of the environmental resources in its care. Environmental monitoring of operations at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2008 indicates no adverse impact to public health or the environment from Laboratory operations. The findings are presented in the Laboratory's Environmental Report 2008. The annual report demonstrates LLNL's continuing commitment to providing responsible stewardship of the environmental resources in its care. The report also documents the integration of environmental stewardship into strategic planning and decision-making processes through the Lab's Environmental Management System.

Environmental monitoring of operations at LLNL in 2008 indicates no adverse impact to public health or the environment from Lab operations. The findings are presented in the Laboratory's Environmental Report 2008. The annual report demonstrates LLNL's continuing commitment to providing responsible stewardship of the environmental resources in its care. Environmental monitoring of operations at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2008 indicates no adverse impact to public health or the environment from Laboratory operations. The findings are presented in the Laboratory's Environmental Report 2008. The annual report demonstrates LLNL's continuing commitment to providing responsible stewardship of the environmental resources in its care. The report also documents the integration of environmental stewardship into strategic planning and decision-making processes through the Lab's Environmental Management System.

For decades, the authorities have denied that nuclear weapons were present in Japan; yet it allowed United States to stockpile and transport them on Japanese soil. The credibility of the Liberal Democratic Party, now in the opposition, sinks further. Tokyo - The people of Japan was deceived for decades, this according to declassified documents that are only now coming to light about secret deals between Washington and Tokyo with regards to the presence of nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. Since 1960, the government led by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has repeatedly denied that nuclear weapons were ever present in Japan or that any agreement existed to that effect. In mid-October, the National Security Archives in Washington released declassified telegrams, background papers and top-secret minutes regarding US nuclear weapons policy in Okinawa and, more broadly, Japan between the 1950s and 1972. Information about secret deals comes from this source, but it is neither the only nor the main one.

For decades, the authorities have denied that nuclear weapons were present in Japan; yet it allowed United States to stockpile and transport them on Japanese soil. The credibility of the Liberal Democratic Party, now in the opposition, sinks further. Tokyo - The people of Japan was deceived for decades, this according to declassified documents that are only now coming to light about secret deals between Washington and Tokyo with regards to the presence of nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. Since 1960, the government led by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has repeatedly denied that nuclear weapons were ever present in Japan or that any agreement existed to that effect. In mid-October, the National Security Archives in Washington released declassified telegrams, background papers and top-secret minutes regarding US nuclear weapons policy in Okinawa and, more broadly, Japan between the 1950s and 1972. Information about secret deals comes from this source, but it is neither the only nor the main one.

"The U.S. Department of Labor will visit Livermore, Calif., on June 29 and Emeryville, Calif., on June 30 to present information about the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which provides compensation and medical benefits to employees who became ill as a result of working in the nuclear weapons industry. Through town hall meetings, officials will present details about two new classes of former employees at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory recently added to the EEOICPA's Special Exposure Cohort, as well as provide an overview of the program. The Labor Department's California Resource Center staff will also be available at the town hall meetings for extended periods of time to assist individuals with the filing of claims under the EEOICPA. A worker who is included in a designated SEC class of employees, and who is diagnosed with one of 22 specified cancers, may receive a presumption of causation under the EEOICPA. On April 5, 2010, the secretary of health and human services designated the following two classes of employees as additions to the SEC: all employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors, who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., from Jan. 1, 1950, through Dec. 31, 1973, and at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., from Aug. 13, 1942, through Dec. 31, 1961, for at least 250 workdays occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with workdays within other classes of employees in the SEC. Both designations became effective on May 5, 2010. As the Department of Health and Human Services determines and introduces new SEC classes into the EEOICPA claims process, the Labor Department's role is to adjudicate these claims based on the new SEC class definition. To date, more than $118 million in compensation and medical bills have been paid to 1,0

"While the world is busy watching the FIFA World Cup that is being held at South Africa, the CBS on Sunday went to throw some light on a still unsolved issue of 2007 when a raid was carried out at the Pelindaba's nuclear research facility that contained weapons-grade uranium. Scott Pelley of CBS' "60 Minutes" is seen exploring the incidents and how such a raid could have had one of the most horrific effects on the whole world. CBS replayed its 2008 famous report on the issue that has brought the matter to the national attention. The "60 Minutes" episode that once again enlivened in front of the viewers the horror of the attack with interviews with people who have been present at the place and also experts who provided insight into the matter and what consequences the raid could have yielded. Scott Pelley interviews Anton Gerber the man who was present at the plant on that fatal night and who had worked at Pelindaba for 30 years."

"Bellona presents an analysis of the draft law "On Management of Radioactive Waste," currently under consideration in the Russian legislature. This position reflects the opinion shared equally by Bellona and experts from most ecological non-governmental organisations operating in Russia. Aleksandr Nikitin, 01/07-2010 - Translated by Maria Kaminskaya Foreword The draft Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Management of Radioactive Waste" (hereinafter, the Bill) has been under preparation by Russian legislators for over ten years. At present, the bill is going through its second reading at the lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma. According to the requirements set forth by the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which Russia signed in Vienna in 1999 and ratified in 2005, countries that employ nuclear energy must have a regulatory and legal framework in place to ensure safe management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and radioactive waste. The proposed legislation will govern all legal relations arising in the field of management of SNF and radioactive waste. As an instrument to regulate such relations, the Bill is without doubt a necessity. Precisely how such relations will be regulated by the Bill in its current form, however, is a different matter. For the reader's convenience, the following analysis has been divided into three distinct parts detailing the potential ecological, social, and economical issues raised by the Bill. This analysis represents the opinion shared equally by Bellona and the majority of experts working with ecological non-governmental organisations in Russia. The ecological impact 1. The fundamental ecological problem that arises with the passing of the Bill is that it will legalise the existing practice of injecting liquid radioactive waste (LRW) inside geological formations for disposal."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in what was termed a "fairly unusual meeting" by its regional administrator, presented to the public Tuesday night its special inspection report on the status of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's cooling towers. Because of the public's interest in the matter and because of the concerns of local elected and appointed officials, said Samuel Collins, the administrator for the NRC's Northeast region, the agency felt it was important that it present the results in Brattleboro rather than relying solely on a written report to describe what it found.

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Denial. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by Eric Epstein (PRM-54-5). The petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations that govern renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the NRC conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear power plant licensees' emergency planning during the license renewal proceedings. The NRC is denying the petition because the petition presents issues that the Commission carefully considered when it first adopted the license renewal rule and denied petitions for rulemaking submitted by Andrew J. Spano, County Executive, Westchester County, New York (PRM-54-02), and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey (PRM-54-03). The Commission's position is that the NRC's emergency planning system is part of a comprehensive regulatory process that is intended to provide continuing assurance that emergency planning for every nuclear plant is adequate. Thus, the Commission has already extensively considered and addressed the types of issues raised in the petition. Also, the petition fails to present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant the requested amendment.

At present, Ignalina nuclear power plant buys the nuclear fuel for about 80% higher price than over the previous year. Network distribution companies are also preparing plans for raising prices. Ignalina nuclear power plant intends to present the request to the State Control Commission for Prices and Energy until October 2008 on the increase of the sale price for the produced electricity.

Magic is captivating. Illusionists will use misdirection and smoke and mirrors to influence their audience. A good illusion requires that the audience "suspend their disbelief" due to the authority and confidence in which the illusion is presented, leading them to accept its premise. Advertisement Vermonters have been witnessing their own magic show on the energy stage in Vermont, with the Legislature and ratepayers as its audience. Throughout the past year, Gov. Douglas, utilities, Entergy and corporate special interest groups have presented a steady supply of smoke and mirrors to create an illusion -- the illusion that Vermont Yankee is cheap, clean, green and reliable, and still critical to Vermont's energy portfolio for the next two decades. Cue the smoke: Vermont utilities continually publicize their efforts to increase renewable energy and conservation as part of their future energy plans. Yet, their plans show a small increased investment in renewable energy over a 25-year time span and continued reliance on Vermont Yankee during this same 25-year period.

When decommissioned in 1987, Hanford held two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. These have been leaking into the groundwater and the river despite a massively funded, 19-year cleanup effort. The Nov. 17 hearing presented a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the energy department's earlier proposal to develop a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" presented in May, 2007 at the same locations. The DOE snuck in its mandated hearings far from our population centers, with short and little notice. For good reason. Under the GNEP plan, nuclear fuel would be produced in the U.S. and other advanced nuclear nations through a reprocessing technology that is yet to be developed. The cost is undisclosed but substantial. Nuclear fuel would be provided to developing countries for their nuclear energy development. In return, we would receive their waste for further reprocessing - an international recycling system that would keep the big boys in control of weapons-grade nuclear material production. The DOE claims the reprocessing site isn't yet selected, but the inside word is that it's Hanford.

Jim Albertini, a Big Island resident who has stood in opposition to the military presence on the island, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry, testified at the NRC meeting in Hilo. "Ongoing live-fire at PTA (millions of rounds annually) risks spreading the DU radiation already present," Albertini wrote in a recent media release. "DU is particularly hazardous when small burned DU oxide particles are inhaled. The Hawaii County Council, more than a year ago, on July 2, 2008, called for a halt to all live-fire and other activities at PTA that create dust until there is an assessment and clean up of the DU already present. 7 additional needed actions have also been noted by the Council. The military has ignored the Council and continues live-fire and other dust creating activities at PTA, putting the residents of Hawaii Island at risk, since no comprehensive testing has been completed."

Will they or won't they? And if they do, for how long? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will decide whether 1.2 million cubic metres of low-level radioactive and historic waste from around Port Hope will be excavated and contained in an encapsulated mound south of Highway 401. The commission is expected to decide whether to grant a licence to Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) to proceed with the cleanup project within the next two months. There was a lot of ground and a lot of history to cover at the one-day public hearing Wednesday. Everyone was on best behaviour as the televised and webcast proceedings, complete with English/French translators, transcript stenographers and large-screen monitors for better in-house viewing got underway at the Town Recreation Centre. As the licence requester, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) outlined its plans for the estimated $150-million chore ahead. The CNSC, as safety overseer of the project, had its staff there, too, formal presentations and answering questions of panel members. With 96 intervenors registered -- 43 of them with oral presentations -- it was a full day and evening for all concerned.

It's too bad that the State of Idaho doesn't have an energy siting committee like a lot of other states. Their duty would be to separate the wheat from the chaff and present to the public and local officials the true facts of any energy project proposed in the state. The purpose of this letter is to present my concerns on the proposed nuclear plant in Elmore County. While I don't hold myself out as an expert in the nuclear power business, I have had some experience in contract negotiations and purchasing power from nuclear facilities. I was the CEO/General Manager of two electric power cooperatives, one in Washington and the other in Oregon, for more than 30 years. With that introduction, let me add my take on the project proposed by AEHI.

Over 25 people attended a two-hour meeting Tuesday night to discuss a planned evaporation capping project and other issues of concern to residents regarding the Yerington Mine. Advertisement The meeting was called by the Yerington Community Action Group and featured U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials and a pair of EPA consultants who gave presentations on the mine's evaporation pond removal project. Nadia Hollan Burke, Remedial Project Manager with EPA Region 9 (Superfund) over the Yerington Mine remediation project, was joined by her superior, Roberta Blank, as EPA representatives. Also giving a presentation was Victor Early, senior engineering geologist wih Tetra Tech, a consultant for EPA, who was joined by Tetra Tech's Doug Herlocker, an air quality specialist/environmental project manager.

On May 26, 1958, President Eisenhower waved a wand with a little light bulb on the end of it in front of an electric eye, starting up the first commercial reactor, located three hundred miles away at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. That was as close to it as he wanted to be. We are told that nuclear power is being used to generate electricity. That is not correct. Nuclear power is being used to boil water, and the resulting steam is being used to generate electricity in variants of the same way it has always been generated. What the enormously expensive nuclear plants do is generate heat in the most dangerous way imaginable, with waste products that are, so far, unmanageable. Conversion of the energy of nuclear fission or fusion directly into usable power would be a new and different kind of process. Perhaps it can be done; maybe people are working on it; but the present system is not it. The present system is a fancy steam engine.