Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged Washington

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Dan R.D.

Face Off Over Nuclear Waste Storage Takes New Twist - 0 views

  • The Department of Energy (DOE) has been trying to close the Yucca mountain storage site, but South Carolina and Washington, both facing the challenges of storing growing numbers of spent nuclear fuel rods, have tried almost everything to maintain access to the dump.
  • On Friday, the US Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. threw out their case, ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the ultimate the authority on deciding the fate of the storage facility.
  • Like a recent Supreme Court decision about the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in implementing greenhouse gas emissions policies, the Friday ruling reaffirmed the role of federal regulators--in this case the NRC--to call the shots on energy policy. But, similar to the EPA case, the judicial ruling added that states do have the right to take federal agencies to court when they believe regulators there have failed to do their job. "We will not permit an agency to insulate itself from judicial review by refusing to act," the court said in its ruling.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • On Thursday, Senator Lisa Murkwosi (R-AK), who is also ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, introduced a bill to open two temporary storage sites for spent rods. "This proposal addresses one of the most glaring failures of our national nuclear policy--what to do with nuclear fuel currently that is currently being stored at over 100 sites across the country," Murkowski said.
  • The federal government, she said, is responsible for finding a long-term solution for nuclear waste storage.
D'coda Dcoda

RSOE EDIS - HAZMAT in USA on Wednesday, 22 August, 2012 at 03:18 (03:18 AM) UTC. E[22Au... - 0 views

  • As part of the biggest, costliest environmental cleanup project in the nation's history - disposing of 53 million gallons of radioactive waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state - one thing was supposed to be sure: Waste stored in the sturdy, double-wall steel tanks that hold part of the toxic ooze wasn't going anywhere. But that reassurance has been thrown into question with the discovery of a 3-foot-long piece of radioactive material between the inner and outer steel walls of one of the storage tanks, prompting new worries at the troubled cleanup site. "We're taking it seriously, and we're doing an investigation so we can better understand what it is," Department of Energy spokeswoman Lori Gamache said
  • The discovery marks the first time material has been found outside the inner wall of one of the site's 28 double-shell tanks, thought to be relatively secure interim storage for the radioactive material generated when Hanford was one of the nation's major atomic production facilities. It opened in 1943 and began a gradual shutdown in 1964. Cleanup started in 1989. The $12.2-billion cleanup project eventually aims to turn most of the waste stored at Hanford into glass rods at a high-tech vitrification plant scheduled to be operational in 2019, assuming the formidable design and engineering hurdles can be overcome. In the meantime, plant engineers have been gathering waste stored in the facility's 149 aging, leaky single-wall storage tanks and redepositing them in the double0-shell tanks for safekeeping. Over the years, more than 1 million gallons of waste has leaked out of 67 single-wall tanks into the surrounding soil.
  • "There's been this presumption that the double-shell tanks at least are sound and won't fail, and they'll be there for us," said Tom Carpenter of the advocacy group Hanford Challenge. Several days ago the group obtained a memo from the cleanup site detailing discovery of the mysterious substance. "This changes everything. It is alarming that there is now solid evidence that Hanford double-shell has leaked," Carpenter said in a separate statement on the discovery. The 42-year-old tank, known as AY-102, holds about 857,000 gallons of radioactive and other toxic chemical waste, much of it removed several years ago from a single-shell storage tank where it was considered unsaf
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Workers who relocated the material fell ill simply from inhaling the fumes, Carpenter said. Department of Energy officials said none of the material has leaked outside the outer steel wall or the concrete casing that surrounds the structure, and there is no present hazard to workers or groundwater. They said they were trying to determine whether the material leaked from the inner tank or oozed from a nearby pit into the space between the two walls, known as the annulus. "There's no evidence of it leaking the liquid from the inner shell right now," Gamache said. The material – a mound 2 feet by 3 feet by 8 inches -- is dry and doesn't appear to be growing. It was discovered during a routine video inspection of the annulus conducted last month from a viewpoint not normally used. The possibility that it could have come as overflow from a nearby pit arises because a pipe runs into the annulus from the pit, Gamache said.
  • But Carpenter, who has talked extensively with workers at Hanford and was briefed Tuesday by one of the Department of Energy's senior officials at the tank farm, said he believed the evidence was strong that there was a leak. "I know Hanford would like it not to be so. But the people I'm talking to at the Hanford site say, no, it really does look like a leak," he said.
  • "From what I'm being told and looking at the pictures, it appears it's coming from under the tank and going up. Which is a far cry from it coming from the pit." Gamache said an initial sample of the material revealed that "the contamination levels were higher than expected" and it definitely contained radioactive waste. "There wasn't enough material to fully characterize the material, so we're preparing to pull another sample. That will probably happen around the mid-September time frame," she said. Carpenter said that if the inner tank leaked, it would probably prompt the need to reevaluate expectations that the tanks could safely act as interim storage vessels for several decades.
  •  
    Hanford Nuclear Plant, USA
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear group spent $540,000 lobbying in 3Q.[12Dec11] - 0 views

  • The main trade group for the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, spent $540,000 in the third quarter lobbying federal officials about financial support for new reactors, safety regulations and other issues, according to a disclosure report.That's 30 percent more than the $415,000 the trade group spent in the third quarter of last year and 7 percent less than the $580,000 it spent in the second quarter of 2011.
  • NEI, based in Washington, lobbied the government on measures designed to ensure the nation's 104 commercial reactors can withstand natural disasters, cyber attacks, and on a proposal that would require the president to issue guidance on a federal response to a large-scale nuclear disaster. It also lobbied on a measure that would require nuclear operators to transfer radioactive spent nuclear fuel from cooling pools inside or near reactor cores to dry casks further from the reactors.
  • NEI also lobbied the government over environmental regulations. Congress is considering several measures that would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases or delay rules. Nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gases, while the other two major fuels for electric generation, coal and natural gas, do so. A 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats, Republicans, industry leaders and even the EPA agree separate legislation would be preferable, but Congress has been unable to agree on new rules.NEI lobbied for funds for research and development for smaller, cheaper reactors and other nuclear technologies, and also on a measure that would create an export assistance fund that would promote the export of clean energy technologies.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • In the July through September period, NEI lobbied Congress, the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the Executive Office of the President, the Departments of Transportation, Energy, State and Homeland Security Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Management and Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to the report the NEI filed October 19 with the House clerk's office.
D'coda Dcoda

Whistleblower on MSNBC: Criticality possible at Hanford - We could end up with explosio... - 0 views

  • Whistleblower pays price for voicing nuke safety concerns, MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, Dec. 15, 2011: Dr. Walter Tamosaitis, Research & Technology Manager for the Waste Treatment Plant processing Hanford’s radioactive waste Walt Tamosaitis, nuclear waste whistleblower and Tom Carpenter, attorney and executive director of the non-profit group Hanford Challenge, talks with Rachel Maddow about safety concerns at the site and the penalties he has suffered as a consequence of speaking about his concerns.
  • Transcript Excerpts At ~7:00 in MADDOW: Dr. Tamosaitis, can you describe your safety concerns at Hanford [nuclear waste facility in Washington] for the non-nuclear engineers among us? TAMOSAITIS: Yes, ma`am. The major concern is poor mixing in the vessels, the tanks that process the hazardous nuclear waste. And if you have poor mixing in the tank, you can build up solids, the solids can trap hydrogen gas. You can have solids build up on the bottom of the tank which can lead to a criticality. So, trapping a hydrogen gas can lead to a fire or an explosion. And the solids buildup could lead to a criticality.
  • At ~9:45 in MADDOW: In terms of — Dr. Tamosaitis, let me go back to you. In terms of your safety concerns and, again, speaking to a public that may not be, including myself, all that familiar with the processes you`re describing there, what is the greatest risk that you think is possible here based on corners that you`ve seen cut? Are we looking at something that could be more than the kind of leaks that Hanford has already experienced? Are we talking about something that could be a larger release of radioactive material? TAMOSAITIS: Yes, ma`am. Yes, Rachel, we are. If we have poor mixing, we could trap hydrogen gas, we could end up with a fire or explosion, as we saw on the TV at Fukushima in Japan.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Note the interesting exchange during Tomasitis’ recent Senate testimony at around 3:00 in DR. WALTER TAMOSAITIS, URS: Bechtel is still in charge of the project. Yes, Senator. SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: And everyone sees you go to work in the basement with no windows? TAMOSAITIS: Yes. Yes, ma`am. MCCASKILL: And knows that you are not allowed to work even though you`re there on site and getting paid? TAMOSAITIS: Correct. MCCASKILL: So everyone — so every day you are an example to all the workers there, whether they`re federal employees or Bechtel employees, don`t say anything or you too will be banished to the basement?
  • TAMOSAITIS: Yes, Senator. Very directly. It`s a very visible example of what happens if you speak up. Advertise | AdChoices MCCASKILL: It`s just unbelievable to me that we`ve allowed this to occur.
D'coda Dcoda

Bill Gates developing nuclear reactor with China [07Dec11] - 0 views

  • Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates says he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new kind of nuclear reactor.During a talk at China's Ministry of Science & Technology on Wednesday, the billionaire said: "The idea is to be very low cost, very safe and generate very little waste."Gates backs Washington-based TerraPower, which is developing a nuclear reactor that can run on depleted uranium.He says TerraPower is having "very good discussions" with state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation. Gates says perhaps as much as a billion dollars will be put into research and development over the next five years.
D'coda Dcoda

Blocking Keystone Won't Stop Oil Sands' Flow Into The U.S. : NPR [18Jan12] - 0 views

  • President Obama is feeling election-year pressure over the pending decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans say the Canadian project would provide the U.S. with oil and new jobs, but environmentalists want Obama to block it. They say Alberta's oil sands generate more greenhouse gases than other kinds of oil, and Americans must not become dependent on such a dirty source of energy. But it may already be too late to change that.
  • Ben West, an anti-oil tanker activist with a group called the Wilderness Committee, says when the pipeline company Kinder Morgan bought this facility in 2005, it shifted its focus to exports — primarily to the American West Coast. "We've seen this huge increase of tanker traffic," he says. "We went from 22 tankers in 2005, up to 79 [in 2010]. You know these 700,000-barrel tankers that are now coming through the Burrard Inlet, which passes through one of the most populated areas of British Columbia."
  • The pipeline also has a branch that crosses the border, feeding crude oil to refineries in Washington state. Kinder Morgan is now exploring the possibility of doubling the pipeline's capacity. West calls it the "quiet repurposing" of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And because of it, oil sands gasoline is now fueling cars from Seattle to San Francisco.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Philip Verleger, an economist who specializes in oil markets, says even if environmentalists convince Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline, it won't stop the growth of production in the Canadian oil sands. "With prices around a hundred dollars a barrel globally, that oil is going to make it to the market somehow," Verleger says. "The development may be slowed for a year or two. But one can move the oil west on the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline. They could expand pipelines east. Those pipelines already exist, and they can be expanded."
D'coda Dcoda

Changing Energy Trends Across The Globe: Overview Australia - 0 views

  • , Dan Hansen from Repower Australia, concluded that Australia will only be able to support a maximum of three or four turbine manufacturers in the years to come. Hansen spoke to Climate Spectator about the aggressive and cut throat competition in Australian market. A challenge which has evolved due to competitors bidding for contracts, which are to be awarded within the coming few months after being set back for a good two years. Hansen’s statements follow Suzlon’s announcement of operating in Australia under its newly acquired German subsidiary’s name, Repower.
  • In spite of reports of more than 15 wind turbine makers and more than 30 developers of wind farms actively functioning in Australia, Hansen believes that only the toughest ones would survive and do well. It will be hard for smaller wind turbine makers to survive in such a tough competition.
  • Even when considering a scenario where the existing trend of market of renewable-energy certificates continues up to 2014/15, if the certificates are to be delivered by, then, it would be necessary for the projects to be commissioned within the coming six to twelve months. This leads Hansen to hope that regulation of the projects would begin. He says that currently power deals cost around 90 USD per MWh. If they are to give rise to comfortable ROIs, most of the projects need to be sold for more than 100 USD per MWh.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Dip in revenue predicted by Solco Solco, the solar company based in Washington, foresees a sudden dip in revenues for the financial year 2011. However, Solco sales figures bounced back up in September following a prominent fall in July and August 2011, and the company looks at it as a continual occurrence. But owing to the speedy expansion of its national division of solar products, Solco anticipates a fall in revenues to as low as USD 41 million in the year 2011/12, post a 56 percent jump hitting the mark of USD 53.7 Million in 2010/11.
  • t Solco’s record making profit figures in 2010/11 has stabilized the company’s financial standing which would take them safely across the deteriorating market phase. Solco says that it is acquiring several mid-sized projects across the country,
  • Predictions for solar panels Solar Panel makers are mostly expected to be faced with huge heaps of excess material in the next year, as many analysts predict considerably lower sales in 2012 following a rise of 40 percent in this year. According to this week’s report of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, prominent dips in the major European market subsidies translate into lower buying capacity in next year as compared to the current year. In contrast to 24.5 GW in 2011, installations would be very low to the tune of 23.8 GW in 2012, thereby increasing pressure on companies burdened with dipping prices and piling stocks.
  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Martin Simonek said that greater demand in 2011 as compared to last year has sustained many nations. It would be a different scenario in 2012. However, then again, different people predict differently. According to Simonek, 2011 installations could rise as high as 29.4 GW, whereas, 2012 could see installations from as low as the basic 23.8 GW to the towering 31.8 GW mark.
  • Goldman Sachs predicts a dip by 10 percent in 2012, bringing annual additional installed capacity down to 20.8 GW as compared to 19.6 GW predicted this year. While Vishal Shah, an analyst from Deutsche Bank predicts 21GW in 2011 and 25GW in 2012, silicon manufacturer Wacker Chemie foresees between 22GW to 26GW in 2011. Solar panel maker Yingli Green estimates it to be between 18 to 19 GW in 2011. Simonek of Bloomberg forecasts an increased demand in 2013, when developing and promising nations see a healthy competition in solar energy by way of introduction of low priced panels.
  • Hope In The Desert
  • Desertec, a highly anticipated and venturesome project that endeavours to aid the power industry in Europe with solar power deduced from the Sahara desert is expected to kick off its first ever power plant, worth USD 800 million, in Morocco.
  • Desertec will launch the first solar thermal 150 MW plant, the first one in the entire network worth USD 400 million. This would also mark the launch of solar PV, and wind provisions, spanning from Egypt to Morocco. The CEO of the project management company Dii, Paul van Son said in a Bloomberg interview that he is very certain that firm and permanent measures would be adopted in 2012. Owing to its stability, government support for expansion of renewable energy and connectivity to Europe through two cables running in the sea all throughout the Strait of Gibraltar, with free power of as much as 1000MW, Morocco would be tested for the first development.
  • many other nations in North Africa are far ahead of Desertec in executing projects of their own. There are some plants located in Egypt while others are being planned somewhere.
D'coda Dcoda

U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes and Hydraulic Fracturing at Oil Price - 0 views

  • On 5 November an earthquake measuring 5.6 rattled Oklahoma and was felt as far away as Illinois. Until two years ago Oklahoma typically had about 50 earthquakes a year, but in 2010, 1,047 quakes shook the state. Why? In Lincoln County, where most of this past weekend's seismic incidents were centered, there are 181 injection wells, according to Matt Skinner, an official from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency which oversees oil and gas production in the state. Cause and effect? The practice of injecting water into deep rock formations causes earthquakes, both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Geological Survey have concluded.
  • The U.S. natural gas industry pumps a mixture of water and assorted chemicals deep underground to shatter sediment layers containing natural gas, a process called hydraulic fracturing, known more informally as “fracking.” While environmental groups have primarily focused on fracking’s capacity to pollute underground water, a more ominous byproduct emerges from U.S. government studies – that forcing fluids under high pressure deep underground produces increased regional seismic activity. As the U.S. natural gas industry mounts an unprecedented and expensive advertising campaign to convince the public that such practices are environmentally benign, U.S. government agencies have determined otherwise. According to the U.S. Army’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal website, the RMA drilled a deep well for disposing of the site’s liquid waste after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “concluded that this procedure is effective and protective of the environment.”  According to the RMA, “The Rocky Mountain Arsenal deep injection well was constructed in 1961, and was drilled to a depth of 12,045 feet” and 165 million gallons of Basin F liquid waste, consisting of “very salty water that includes some metals, chlorides, wastewater and toxic organics” was injected into the well during 1962-1966.
  • Why was the process halted? “The Army discontinued use of the well in February 1966 because of the possibility that the fluid injection was “triggering earthquakes in the area,” according to the RMA. In 1990, the “Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” study of RMA events by Craig Nicholson, and R.I. Wesson stated simply, “Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.” Twenty-five years later, “possibility” and ‘established” changed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s July 2001 87 page study, “Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations EPA 816-r-02-025,” which reported, “In 1967, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) determined that a deep, hazardous waste disposal well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was causing significant seismic events in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado.” There is a significant divergence between “possibility,” “established” and “was causing,” and the most recent report was a decade ago. Much hydraulic fracturing to liberate shale oil gas in the Marcellus shale has occurred since.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • According to the USGS website, under the undated heading, “Can we cause earthquakes? Is there any way to prevent earthquakes?” the agency notes, “Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada. The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.” Note the phrase, “Once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.” So both the U.S Army and the U.S. Geological Survey over fifty years of research confirm on a federal level that that “fluid injection” introduces subterranean instability and is a contributory factor in inducing increased seismic activity.” How about “causing significant seismic events?”
  • Fast forward to the present. Overseas, last month Britain’s Cuadrilla Resources announced that it has discovered huge underground deposits of natural gas in Lancashire, up to 200 trillion cubic feet of gas in all. On 2 November a report commissioned by Cuadrilla Resources acknowledged that hydraulic fracturing was responsible for two tremors which hit Lancashire and possibly as many as fifty separate earth tremors overall. The British Geological Survey also linked smaller quakes in the Blackpool area to fracking. BGS Dr. Brian Baptie said, “It seems quite likely that they are related,” noting, “We had a couple of instruments close to the site and they show that both events occurred near the site and at a shallow depth.” But, back to Oklahoma. Austin Holland’s August 2011 report, “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma” Oklahoma Geological Survey OF1-2011, studied 43 earthquakes that occurred on 18 January, ranging in intensity from 1.0 to 2.8 Md (milliDarcies.) While the report’s conclusions are understandably cautious, it does state, “Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located.”
  • Sensitized to the issue, the oil and natural gas industry has been quick to dismiss the charges and deluge the public with a plethora of televisions advertisements about how natural gas from shale deposits is not only America’s future, but provides jobs and energy companies are responsible custodians of the environment. It seems likely that Washington will eventually be forced to address the issue, as the U.S. Army and the USGS have noted a causal link between the forced injection of liquids underground and increased seismic activity. While the Oklahoma quake caused a deal of property damage, had lives been lost, the policy would most certainly have come under increased scrutiny from the legal community. While polluting a local community’s water supply is a local tragedy barely heard inside the Beltway, an earthquake ranging from Oklahoma to Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas is an issue that might yet shake voters out of their torpor, and national elections are slightly less than a year away.
D'coda Dcoda

HEALTH RISKS FROM EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF IONIZING RADIATION [1Feb12] - 0 views

  • THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
  • This study was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
  • This is the seventh in a series of reports from the National Research Council (NRC) prepared to advise the U.S. government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. In 1996 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a scoping study preparatory to a new review of the health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations. The main purpose of the new review would be to update the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V) report (NRC 1990), using new information from epidemiologic and experimental research that has accumulated during the 14 years since the 1990 review. Analysis of those data would help to determine how regulatory bodies should best characterize risks at the doses and dose rates experienced by radiation workers and members of the general public
  •  
    see the site for the government report
D'coda Dcoda

NUCLEAR POWER - Resisting "Rust Belt" reactors' radioactive risks! [04Aug12] - 0 views

  • As if the closing steel mills and automobile manufacturing plants weren't bad enough, some of the oldest, most risky atomic reactors in the U.S. are located in the Midwest. Worse still, they are on the shores of the Great Lakes, putting at risk the drinking water supply for 40 million people downstream in the U.S., Canada, and a large number of Native American First Nations. Altogether, 33 atomic reactors are located on the shorelines of the Great Lakes. Two of the most infamous of these radiologically risky "Rust Belt reactors" are Entergy Nuclear's Palisades in southwest Michigan, and FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse in northwest Ohio.
  • Last month, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), a long-time watchdog on the nuclear industry, wrote the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about an acidic, radioactive leak representing a "crisis in the control room at the Palisades nuclear power plant." The leakage had been ongoing for a year, and was being "contained" in glorified buckets referred to by Entergy PR spokesman Mark Savage as "catch basins." Although the leak came to light when Palisades was forced to shutdown after its rate reached more than 30 gallons per day, it had been ongoing for months at a rate of 15 gallons per day. The tritiated and borated water is leaking from a 300,000 gallon Safety Injection Refueling Water storage tank, which is safety critical for both reactor core and radiological containment cooling. Whistleblowers contacted Washington, D.C. attorney Billie Pirner Garde, who alerted Rep. Markey, who wrote NRC. The NRC Office of Investigations has launched a probe into potential Entergy wrongdoing. On July 17th, NRC issued a "Confirmatory Action Letter" which enables Palisades to keep operating into 2013, even if the leak increases to nearly 38 gallons per day!
  • Markey demanded a copy of an internal Entergy report surveying its own workers on "safety culture" at Palisades. Michigan Radio obtained a copy, which reveals "a lack of accountability at all levels," and a workforce deeply distrustful of management, fearful that they will be harassed and punished if they dare to raise safety concerns.
D'coda Dcoda

Top Genetics Expert: Japan's path closely resembles Chernobyl's - "Very, very major dis... - 0 views

  • This week’s guest is Wladimir Wertelecki, the founder and chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics and Birth Defects Center of the University of South Alabama, in the U.S. Prior to his training in Medical Genetics at Harvard University Medical School, Dr. Wertelecki trained in Pediatrics at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Washington University. Later, he served as Senior Surgeon, U.S. Public Health Commission Corps at the Epidemiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute [...] He has extensively studied the effects of the radiation released by the Chernobyl meltdown on public health, particularly in children [...]
  • Wertelecki: I did give lectures in Tokyo recently and I met people from a variety of Universities that attended these events. My sense is that the path followed in Japan closely resembles the path that evolved after Chernobyl. And there are more regrettables than nonregrettables. It seems like frankly it’s difficult to understand what’s going on and what’s not going on. From my point of view the absolute priority is women of reproductive age… No registry of pregnant women as far as I know… very little concentration on these aspects… everything is concentrated on cancer…children beyond the scope of thyroid cancer are very important…
  • Wertelecki: There’s a team of expert son birds and ornithology form France, very distinguished Danish ornithologist who found in Chernobyl area very, very major disturbing findings that exactly the same is happening in Fukushima. In other words these birds cannot migrate because they become exhausted… they find microcephaly just like we do, they find all kind of instability like random spotted changes to fur, which are local mutations of course on so on and so on.
D'coda Dcoda

How To Remove Radioactive Iodine-131 From Drinking Water [07Apr11] - 0 views

  • The Environmental Protection Agency recommends reverse osmosis water treatment to remove radioactive isotopes that emit beta-particle radiation. But iodine-131, a beta emitter, is typically present in water as a dissolved gas, and reverse osmosis is known to be ineffective at capturing gases. A combination of technologies, however, may remove most or all of the iodine-131 that finds its way into tap water, all available in consumer products for home water treatment.
  • When it found iodine-131 in drinking water samples from Boise, Idaho and Richland, Washington this weekend, the EPA declared: An infant would have to drink almost 7,000 liters of this water to receive a radiation dose equivalent to a day’s worth of the natural background radiation exposure we experience continuously from natural sources of radioactivity in our environment.” But not everyone accepts the government’s reassurances. Notably, Physicians for Social Responsibility has insisted there is no safe level of exposure to radionuclides, regardless of the fact that we encounter them naturally:
  • There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.” via Physicians for Social Responsibility, psr.org No matter where you stand on that debate, you might be someone who simply prefers not to ingest anything that escaped from a damaged nuclear reactor. If so, here’s what we know: Reverse Osmosis The EPA recommends reverse osmosis water treatment for most kinds of radioactive particles. Iodine-131 emits a small amount of gamma radiation but much larger amounts of beta radiation, and so is considered a beta emitter:
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Reverse osmosis has been identified by EPA as a “best available technology” (BAT) and Small System Compliance Technology (SSCT) for uranium, radium, gross alpha, and beta particles and photon emitters. It can remove up to 99 percent of these radionuclides, as well as many other contaminants (e.g., arsenic, nitrate, and microbial contaminants). Reverse osmosis units can be automated and compact making them appropriate for small systems. via EPA, Radionuclides in Drinking Water
  • However, EPA designed its recommendations for the contaminants typically found in municipal water systems, so it doesn’t specify Iodine-131 by name. The same document goes on to say, “Reverse osmosis does not remove gaseous contaminants such as carbon dioxide and radon.” Iodine-131 escapes from damaged nuclear plants as a gas, and this is why it disperses so quickly through the atmosphere. It is captured as a gas in atmospheric water, falls to the earth in rain and enters the water supply.
  • Dissolved gases and materials that readily turn into gases also can easily pass through most reverse osmosis membranes,” according to the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. For this reason, “many reverse osmosis units have an activated carbon unit to remove or reduce the concentration of most organic compounds.” Activated Carbon
  • That raises the next question: does activated carbon remove iodine-131? There is some evidence that it does. Scientists have used activated carbon to remove iodine-131 from the liquid fuel for nuclear solution reactors. And Carbon air filtration is used by employees of Perkin Elmer, a leading environmental monitoring and health safety firm, when they work with iodine-131 in closed quarters. At least one university has adopted Perkin Elmer’s procedures. Activated carbon works by absorbing contaminants, and fixing them, as water passes through it. It has a disadvantage, however: it eventually reaches a load capacity and ceases to absorb new contaminants.
  • Ion Exchange The EPA also recommends ion exchange for removing radioactive compounds from drinking water. The process used in water softeners, ion exchange removes contaminants when water passes through resins that contain sodium ions. The sodium ions readily exchange with contaminants.
  • Ion exchange is particularly recommended for removing Cesium-137, which has been found in rain samples in the U.S., but not yet in drinking water here. Some resins have been specifically designed for capturing Cesium-137, and ion exchange was used to clean up legacy nuclear waste from an old reactor at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (pdf).
Dan R.D.

Columbia River Area To Be Contaminated With Nuclear Waste for Millennia [10Feb10] - 0 views

  • given the fact that a new study reports that the Columbia River will be contaminated with nuclear waste from a nuclear weapons plant for thousands—yes, thousands—of years. Even though the government has already spent billions of dollars on cleanup.
  • The Oregonian reports that the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, formerly a nuclear weapons production site, sits on 586 square miles of land next to the Columbia. And it has already leaked and spilled some waste into the river, contaminating the water and surrounding environment with such fun things as strontium, cesium, tritium, and plutonium. The federal government did an analysis of the damage to determine if capping and sealing off the waste would stop more of it from getting out, and also, if more waste could be imported to the site to be buried along with the original waste.
  • The analysis also shows that the U.S. energy department's plan to import low-level and midlevel radioactive waste from other sites to Hanford after 2022 poses "completely unacceptable" risks, [assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy Ken] Niles said. Washington is also raising concerns about importing more waste. […] Health risks from Hanford's contamination are long-term, not immediate. They're expressed in terms of cancer cases after a lifetime of drinking well water from the site, with a one in 10,000 risk considered high. But many of the contaminant levels at the site exceed health benchmarks by wide margins.
D'coda Dcoda

U.S. nuclear group backs 5-year safety timeline [26Jul11] - 0 views

  • WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The head of the nuclear power industry's trade group on Tuesday said U.S. plants should move within five years to implement safety measures as a result of lessons learned from Japan's nuclear crisis. Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the five-year timeline put forward last week by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko was "reasonable."
  • An NRC staff task force this month recommended a host of changes to U.S. regulations based on observations of Japan's Fukuhsima Daiichi plant, which has struggled to safely shut down and control radiation after a March 11 earthquake and tsunami. In addition to saying any changes should be fully implemented within five years, Jaczko has also said the five-member commission should decide within 90 days whether it would support the staff recommendations. Fertel did not endorse Jaczko's 90-day proposal. He said acting too quickly could have unintended consequences. "We also don't want to divert operations to areas that maybe are important to safety but not as important as something else that needs to be done right now," he said.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Energy Institute Report on Japan's Nuclear Reactors [27Jul11] - 0 views

  • TEPCO to Install Second Water Decontamination System Plant Status Tokyo Electric Power Co. continues its attempts to decontaminate radioactive water that has collected in the basements of buildings and in drains at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility. With its current decontamination system operating at only 53 percent of capacity, TEPCO is planning to receive new water treatment equipment this week.  TEPCO will use the new system alongside the existing one
  • Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues The government of Japan will buy beef containing radioactive cesium that has reached the country’s distribution chain. NHK news service reports that more than 2,800 cattle that may have been fed radioactive rice straw have been shipped to 46 of 47 prefectures. The government will inspect the beef and buy any that contains higher-than-permissible levels of cesium.
  • Media Highlights NEI briefed financial analysts in New York July 26 on the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The presentation is available in the Financial Center on NEI’s website. NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel appeared on CNBC prior to the briefing. Media coverage included Dow Jones Market Watch and a New York Times blog. NEI’s news release on the event is here.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Upcoming Events A July 28 public Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting will focus on the agency’s near-term task force recommendations for safety enhancements at U.S. nuclear energy facilities after the Fukushima accident. The Foundation for Nuclear Studies will host a July 29 briefing and discussion on the status of Fukushima Daiichi for congressional staff in Washington, D.C. The briefing will be conducted by Lake Barrett, former NRC site director for Three Mile Island and former acting director of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
D'coda Dcoda

Bulgaria: WikiLeaks Cable: Russia's Atomstroyexport's International Nuclear Energy Cont... - 0 views

  • The following cable by John Beyrle, US Ambassador to Russia who was the US Ambassador to Bulgaria before going to Moscow, dated April 3, 2009, was released Thursday by WikiLeaks and their Bulgarian partner Bivol.bg.
  • Subject: Russia's Atomstroyexport Cannot Fulfill Existing International Nuclear Energy Contracts, But Seeks New OnesOrigin Embassy Moscow (Russia)Cable time Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:02 UTCClassification UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYSource http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09MOSCOW851.htmlRelease timeWed, 24 Aug 2011 01:00 UTC -->History First published on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:21 UTC
  • UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 000851 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KNNP [Nuclear Non-Proliferation] BTIO [Trade and Investment Opportunities] ETRD [Foreign Trade] ETTC [Trade and Technology Controls] ENRG [Energy and Power] TRGY [Energy Technology] PREL [External Political Relations] ECON [Economic Conditions] RS [Russia; Wrangel Islands]
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • VZCZCXRO8369 RR RUEHBC RUEHDBU RUEHDE RUEHDIR RUEHKUK RUEHLN RUEHPOD RUEHSK RUEHVK RUEHYG DE RUEHMO #0851/01 0930402 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 030402Z APR 09 FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2715 INFO RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0616 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0335 RUEHSK/AMEMBASSY MINSK RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0286 RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI RUEHUM/AMEMBASSY ULAANBAATAR 0304 RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE RUCNIRA/IRAN COLLECTIVE RHMFIUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC RUEHLN/AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG 5295 RUEHVK/AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK 3181 RUEHYG/AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG 3534
  • SUBJECT: RUSSIA'S ATOMSTROYEXPORT CANNOT FULFILL EXISTING INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY CONTRACTS, BUT SEEKS NEW ONES REF A: ANKARA 111, REF B: 08 YEREVAN 1049, REF C: 08 MOSCOW 908 MOSCOW 00000851 001.2 OF 003
  • ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Russian policymakers are relying on Russia's competitive advantage in civilian nuclear power to help it diversify its natural resources-based economy. Atomstroyexport, Russia's international nuclear power plant constructor is diligently pursuing construction contracts for 11 new nuclear reactors in India, Iran, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. It is in active discussions on another six reactors (two in China and a Build-Own-Operate plant with four reactors in Turkey). At least four other countries have stated their interest in having Russian-design reactors as their entry into the nuclear power arena. However, the crunch on credit, insufficient machine-building infrastructure, and a paucity of trained specialists make it unlikely that Atomstroyexport will be able to realize all of these plans soon. End Summary.
D'coda Dcoda

East coast earthquake reveals faults in nuclear emergency planning [24Aug11] - 0 views

  • To say that Tuesday's east coast earthquake surprised everyone would be an understatement.
  • This is why our best bet is planning for the worst. And when we look at the US nuclear energy infrastructure, it becomes clear that we aren't planning for the worst – not even close
  • We had a pretty good warning earlier this year, when the tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused an even bigger tragedy when the Fukushima nuclear power plant suffered a meltdown. Tuesday's earthquake was the worst on the east coast of the US since 1944, measuring at 5.8 on the Richter scale. And while we certainly avoided the kind of crisis that Japan has endured, two nuclear reactors near the site, at the North Anna nuclear power plant, were shut down following the quake. The plant temporarily lost power and halted operations until it switched to back-up generators. Twelve other plants around the country were put on alert following the quake.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • We're also lucky that this particular plant isn't as close to an urban centre as many others in the US. It's nearly 50 miles from Richmond, and about 100 miles from Washington, DC. But the plant that the NRC deemed most at risk was the Indian Point 3 reactor in Buchanan, New York – just 38 miles from New York City. This is the primary reason why New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has called for the plant to be shut down. After Fukushima, everyone within 50 miles of the plant had to be evacuated. Right now, our evacuation plans for all our nuclear sites only cover a 10-mile radius. If something really bad were to happen at Indian Point, it could create the need to evacuate 21 million people
  • The North Anna plant is located about 15 miles from the epicentre of the quake in Mineral, Virginia. It was designed to withstand a 6.2-magnitude quake, according to its owner, Dominion Resources. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists the plant as one of the 10 US plants most at risk of damage in a seismic event. So, it seems like we got lucky in this case.
  • Though a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told reporters that "as far as we know, everything is safe", the event revived fears about the safety of US nuclear plants. Most of the region's reactors were reportedly designed to withstand a 5.9 to 6.1 magnitude quake – which means Tuesday's quake was, for many, too close for comfort.
  • don't believe we're going to shut down our existing nuclear energy infrastructure entirely any time soon. But at the very least, the 23 August quake should be a reminder that our worst-case scenarios might not be bad enough. We should perhaps rethink just how ready we are for the worst.
D'coda Dcoda

Ten Most Radioactive Places on Earth [26Sep11] - 0 views

  • While the 2011 earthquake and worries surrounding Fukushima have brought the threat of radioactivity back into the public consciousness, many people still don't realize that radioactive contamination is a worldwide danger. Radionuclides are in the top six toxic threats as listed in the 2010 report by The Blacksmith Institute, an NGO dedicated to tackling pollution. You might be surprised by the locations of some of the world’s most radioactive places — and thus the number of people living in fear of the effects radiation could have on them and their children.
  • 10. Hanford, USA
  • The Hanford Site, in Washington, was an integral part of the US atomic bomb project, manufacturing plutonium for the first nuclear bomb and "Fat Man," used at Nagasaki. As the Cold War waged on, it ramped up production, supplying plutonium for most of America's 60,000 nuclear weapons. Although decommissioned, it still holds two thirds of the volume of the country’s high-level radioactive waste — about 53 million gallons of liquid waste, 25 million cubic feet of solid waste and 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater underneath the area, making it the most contaminated site in the US. The environmental devastation of this area makes it clear that the threat of radioactivity is not simply something that will arrive in a missile attack, but could be lurking in the heart of your own country.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • 9. The Mediterranean
  • For years, there have been allegations that the ‘Ndrangheta syndicate of the Italian mafia has been using the seas as a convenient location in which to dump hazardous waste — including radioactive waste — charging for the service and pocketing the profits. An Italian NGO, Legambiente, suspects that about 40 ships loaded with toxic and radioactive waste have disappeared in Mediterranean waters since 1994. If true, these allegations paint a worrying picture of an unknown amount of nuclear waste in the Mediterranean whose true danger will only become clear when the hundreds of barrels degrade or somehow otherwise break open. The beauty of the Mediterranean Sea may well be concealing an environmental catastrophe in the making.
  • 8. The Somalian Coast
  • The Italian mafia organization just mentioned has not just stayed in its own region when it comes to this sinister business. There are also allegations that Somalian waters and soil, unprotected by government, have been used for the sinking or burial of nuclear waste and toxic metals — including 600 barrels of toxic and nuclear waste, as well as radioactive hospital waste. Indeed, the United Nations’ Environment Program believes that the rusting barrels of waste washed up on the Somalian coastline during the 2004 Tsunami were dumped as far back as the 1990s. The country is already an anarchic wasteland, and the effects of this waste on the impoverished population could be as bad if not worse than what they have already experienced.
  • 7. Mayak, Russia
  • 3. Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan
  • 6. Sellafield, UK
  • The industrial complex of Mayak, in Russia's north-east, has had a nuclear plant for decades, and in 1957 was the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. Up to 100 tons of radioactive waste were released by an explosion, contaminating a massive area. The explosion was kept under wraps until the 1980s. Starting in the 1950s, waste from the plant was dumped in the surrounding area and into Lake Karachay. This has led to contamination of the water supply that thousands rely on daily. Experts believe that Karachay may be the most radioactive place in the world, and over 400,000 people have been exposed to radiation from the plant as a result of the various serious incidents that have occurred — including fires and deadly dust storms. The natural beauty of Lake Karachay belies its deadly pollutants, with the radiation levels where radioactive waste flows into its waters enough to give a man a fatal dose within an hour.
  • 5. Siberian Chemical Combine, Russia
  • Mayak is not the only contaminated site in Russia; Siberia is home to a chemical facility that contains over four decades' worth of nuclear waste. Liquid waste is stored in uncovered pools and poorly maintained containers hold over 125,000 tons of solid waste, while underground storage has the potential to leak to groundwater. Wind and rain have spread the contamination to wildlife and the surrounding area. And various minor accidents have led to plutonium going missing and explosions spreading radiation. While the snowy landscape may look pristine and immaculate, the facts make clear the true level of pollution to be found here
  • 4. The Polygon, Kazakhstan
  • Once the location for the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons testing, this area is now part of modern-day Kazakhstan. The site was earmarked for the Soviet atomic bomb project due to its “uninhabited” status — despite the fact that 700,000 people lived in the area. The facility was where the USSR detonated its first nuclear bomb and is the record-holder for the place with the largest concentration of nuclear explosions in the world: 456 tests over 40 years from 1949 to 1989. While the testing carried out at the facility — and its impact in terms of radiation exposure — were kept under wraps by the Soviets until the facility closed in 1991, scientists estimate that 200,000 people have had their health directly affected by the radiation. The desire to destroy foreign nations has led to the specter of nuclear contamination hanging over the heads of those who were once citizens of the USSR.
  • Located on the west coast of England, Sellafield was originally a plutonium production facility for nuclear bombs, but then moved into commercial territory. Since the start of its operation, hundreds of accidents have occurred at the plant, and around two thirds of the buildings themselves are now classified as nuclear waste. The plant releases some 8 million liters of contaminated waste into the sea on a daily basis, making the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world. England is known for its green fields and rolling landscapes, but nestled in the heart of this industrialized nation is a toxic, accident-prone facility, spewing dangerous waste into the oceans of the world.
  • Considered one of the top ten most polluted sites on Earth by the 2006 Blacksmith Institute report, the radiation at Mailuu-Suu comes not from nuclear bombs or power plants, but from mining for the materials needed in the processes they entail. The area was home to a uranium mining and processing facility and is now left with 36 dumps of uranium waste — over 1.96 million cubic meters. The region is also prone to seismic activity, and any disruption of the containment could expose the material or cause some of the waste to fall into rivers, contaminating water used by hundreds of thousands of people. These people may not ever suffer the perils of nuclear attack, but nonetheless they have good reason to live in fear of radioactive fallout every time the earth shakes.
  • 2. Chernobyl, Ukraine
  • Home to one of the world’s worst and most infamous nuclear accidents, Chernobyl is still heavily contaminated, despite the fact that a small number of people are now allowed into the area for a limited amount of time. The notorious accident caused over 6 million people to be exposed to radiation, and estimates as to the number of deaths that will eventually occur due to the Chernobyl accident range from 4,000 to as high as 93,000. The accident released 100 times more radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. Belarus absorbed 70 percent of the radiation, and its citizens have been dealing with increased cancer incidence ever since. Even today, the word Chernobyl conjures up horrifying images of human suffering.
  • 1. Fukushima, Japan
  • The 2011 earthquake and tsunami was a tragedy that destroyed homes and lives, but the effects of the Fukushima nuclear power plant may be the most long-lasting danger. The worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the incident caused meltdown of three of the six reactors, leaking radiation into the surrounding area and the sea, such that radiative material has been detected as far as 200 miles from the plant. As the incident and its ramifications are still unfolding, the true scale of the environmental impact is still unknown. The world may still be feeling the effects of this disaster for generations to come.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear group spent $580,000 lobbying in 2Q [30Sep11] - 0 views

  • The main trade group for the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, spent $580,000 in the first quarter lobbying federal officials about financial support for new reactors, safety regulations and other issues, according to a disclosure report. That's 32 percent more than the $440,000 the trade group spent in the second quarter of last year and 6 percent more than the $545,000 it spent in the first quarter of 2011. The nuclear crisis in Japan last March brought about by the earthquake and tsunami led to calls for tighter safety regulations for nuclear plants in the United States.
  • NEI, based in Washington, lobbied the government on measures designed to ensure the nation's 104 commercial reactors can withstand natural disasters. It also lobbied on a measure that would require nuclear operators to transfer radioactive spent nuclear fuel from cooling pools inside or near reactor cores to dry casks further from the reactors. In the Japanese nuclear accident, crowded pools of spent nuclear fuel overheated when the nuclear station's cooling power was knocked out. NEI also lobbied the government over environmental regulations. Congress is considering measures that would delay new clean air and clean water rules and curb the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to issue rules by forcing the EPA to factor in the cost of their implementation in addition to medical and scientific evidence.
  • There also are several measures under consideration that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gases and none of the airborne toxins such as mercury that EPA clean air rules target. But many nuclear plants use outdated cooling systems that consume enormous amounts of water. Replacing those cooling systems with newer systems that use less water is expensive. NEI also lobbied for funds for research and development for smaller, cheaper reactors and other nuclear technologies.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Nuclear reactors produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, but the country's reactors are aging. No new reactor has been planned and completed since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. In April through June, NEI lobbied Congress, the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the Executive Office of the President, the Departments of Transportation, Energy, State and Homeland Security Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Management and Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to the report the NEI filed July 19 with the House clerk's office. Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches of government under a federal law enacted in 1995.
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 66 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page