Connecticut Coalition Against the Millstone Nuclear Power Reactor
CCAM NEWS 2008 part 2
Thumbs Up!
Richardson as Commerce Secretary
Bill Richardson, as Energy Secretary under Clinton in 2000, suspended the move to recycle radioactively contaminated metals into consumer products at DOE weapons facilities such as Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Pickens Pushes Obama on Wind Power. T. Boone Pickens, one-time oil magnate turned wind energy proponent, continues to push the incoming Obama administration to focus on the enormous potential of wind energy. Speaking at a wind energy conference in his home state of Oklahoma, Pickens was bullish about the incoming administration’s focus on renewable energy. "I think we're going to see an energy plan for the first time in America, ever," Pickens said. "And a big part of that will be renewables."Thumbs Down!
Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary
As Clinton's Energy Secretary, Richardson approved the opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM for plutonium-contaminated military wastes, despite widespread concerns about transport risks and the geological and hydrological unsuitability of the site to safely contain the wastes for the requisite hundreds of thousands of years.
Also under Clinton, Richardson approved the use of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant for the production of tritium for use in U.S. hydrogen bombs. This act did away with any pretense that U.S. commercial nuclear reactors were separate and distinct from the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, setting a precedent that could be followed by other countries.
As Governor of New Mexico, Richardson said he would oppose the proposed LES uranium enrichment facility unless its "depleted uranium" radioactive wastes left the state. The Waste Control Specialists dumpsite in Texas, less than a mile from the LES uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico, seems to have met Richardson's criterion. However, it is located directly above the Ogallala Aquifer, meaning any leakage could find its way back into New Mexico's drinking and irrigation water.
Bombs Not Away. The decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense in the new Obama administration does not send a positive signal regarding the abolition of nuclear weapons. Speaking in October at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Secretary Gates called for the production of more U.S. nuclear weapons under what is known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
21st Century (nuclear) Energy. General James Jones, named this week as Obama’s National Security Advisor, believes that an expanded nuclear power program is integral to U.S. energy policy. Gen. Jones is the president and chief executive of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In November, the Institute identified a key component of increasing U.S. national security as the expansion of nuclear power and the reprocessing or irradiated reactor fuel as well as more coal. Jones also sits on the board of Chevron, corp. and appears to embody the Bush administration “friend to big industry” approach. Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch described the environmental policy record of 21st Century Energy as “reprehensible.”
Don’t forget the Obama team wants to hear from you. Send your ideas on energy and environmental agendas to the “share your story” Obama-Biden transition Web site.
Time to Shut The Damn Nuisance Down
For years, the Connecticut courts have shielded the Millstone Nuclear Power Station from any legal challenges to its operations and their effects on the marine environment and human health.
Not since 1999, when a courageous judge, Robert Hale, granted a temporary injunction which kept Millstone Unit 2 shut for 10 days to reduce massive kills of marinelife at the intake structure, has a Connecticut court ruled in favor of the public trust where Millstone is concerned.
Connecticut has a broad environmental protection statute, enacted in the 1970s, which grants to “any person” the power to go to the Superior Court to seek an injunction to protect the environment.
Yet, in case after case, the Connecticut courts, with convoluted illogic, have found ways to interpret “any person” to mean “no person.”
On October 30, 2008, the Connecticut Department of Public Health released a disturbing report - revealing that New London County has the highest cancer rates in the state. The second highest rates are in Fairfield County, all of which is within 50 miles and downwind of another nuclear power plant, Indian Point.
New London County leads the state in cancers of the female reproductive system and is second in breast cancer.
Millstone routinely releases radiation to the environment - to the air and water. Radiation is a well-known carcinogen. It causes thyroid cancer and is linked to cancer of the breast and reproductive system - and lungs, bone, brain, pancreas, blood and testicles, among other organs.
On Monday, November 2, 2008, a judge of the Superior Court in Hartford will convene a hearing at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 3 at 95 Washington Street on an application for a temporary injunction to shut Millstone Unit 3 as a public nuisance. The suit, Nancy Burton v. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., also seeks an injunction against Dominion’s plans to increase its power generation at Unit 3 by more than 7 per cent - a windfall-profits-scheme which if allowed will also result in increases of 9 per cent or more in releases of radioisotopes to the air and water and an increase in the temperature of Millstone’s thermal plume. There has never been a public hearing on Dominion’s plans to increase its radiation doses to the community, although there is an undisputed linear relation between levels of radiation exposure and increased cancer risk. The lawsuit also seeks money damages against Dominion for its deliberate deceptions.
Millstone is poisoning our air and water with deadly materials. Dominion treats the Long Island Sound as its private dumping ground for toxic materials and radiological waste. New London County leads the state in cancer.
It is time to shut this damn nuisance down. It is time for the Connecticut courts to put the public interest first.
THE FLAWED ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR POWER
For full report visit http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78.htm
WASHINGTON D.C., October 29, 2008 --/WORLD-WIRE/--“Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival. Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets,” says Lester R. Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, in a recent release, The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power. “The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical.”
In a recent analysis, “The Nuclear Illusion,” Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out.
The United States, which leads the world with 101,000 megawatts of nuclear-generating capacity, proposes to store radioactive waste from its 104 reactors in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The cost of this repository, originally estimated at $58 billion in 2001, climbed to $96 billion by 2008. This comes to a staggering $923 million per reactor, assuming no further repository cost increases. (See additional data.)
In the event of a catastrophic accident, every nuclear utility would be required to contribute up to $95.8 million for each licensed reactor to a pool to help cover the accident’s cost. The collective cap on nuclear operator liability is $10.2 billion. Anything above this would be covered by taxpayers.
Another huge cost of nuclear power involves decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Recent estimates show decommissioning costs can reach $1.8 billion per reactor. In addition, the industry must cope with rising construction and fuel expenses. Two years ago, building a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant was estimated to cost $2–4 billion. As of late 2008, that figure had climbed past $7 billion, reflecting the scarcity of essential engineering and construction skills in a fading industry.
Nuclear fuel costs have risen even more rapidly. At the beginning of this decade uranium cost roughly $10 per pound. Today it costs more than $60 per pound. The higher uranium price reflects the need to move to deeper mines, which increases the energy needed to extract ore, and shift to lower-grade ore. The high cost of nuclear power also explains why so few plants are being built compared with a generation ago. In a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider projects an imminent decline in world nuclear generating capacity. He notes there are currently 439 operating reactors worldwide. To date, 119 reactors have been closed, at an average age of 22 years. If we assume a longer average lifespan of 40 years, then 93 reactors will close between 2008 and 2015. Another 192 will close between 2016 and 2025. The remaining 154 will close after 2025.
Only 36 nuclear reactors are currently under construction worldwide—31 of them in Eastern Europe and Asia. Although there is much talk of building new nuclear plants in the United States, there are none under construction.
Despite all the industry hype about a nuclear future, investors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into wind farms each year. And while the world’s nuclear generating capacity is estimated to expand by only 1,000 megawatts this year, wind generating capacity will likely grow by 30,000 megawatts.
For information contact:
Media & Permissions to Reprint Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12
E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org
Research Contact:
Janet Larsen
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14
E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org
Earth Policy Institute
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20036
Web: www.earthpolicy.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Let 'Em Drink Radwaste
Courtesy of www.BeyondNuclear.org October 30, 2008
Background: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering setting new drinking water standards that would allow radioactive concentrations in drinking water to be hundreds and even as much as a million times higher than current EPA limits. Details about the EPA plans can be found on the Web site of Committee to Bridge the Gap. CBA’s assessment is here.
The draft EPA guidance can be read here.
Our View: Clean up standards for radiation – along with almost every good environmental law – have been under assault by the Bush administration since it took office. Using Homeland Security as cover, the administration has attempted to increase “acceptable” levels of human exposure to radiation in ominous anticipation of a radiological terrorist assault. Now the EPA is pushing to apply these same unacceptable standards to radioactive contamination from routine and accidental radiation releases as well. It is not yet known whether the EPA intends to release these “standards” for comment or just declare them official.
What You Can Do: Use the CBG assessment (link above) to create your own letter to send to: Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Tell him an eleventh-hour relaxation of standards during a lame duck Bush administration is unacceptable. Or, add your name and information to the sign-on letter found on the main CBG page. Or, send an email to cindy@beyondnuclear.org to sign on. Deadline is 5pm Thursday, November 6.
Courtesy: www.BeyondNuclear.org
Fire Hazards at Reactors Leave Millions at Risk 10/30/08
Background: Deliberate bureaucratic negligence has left millions of Americans exposed to unnecessarily high risks from fire hazards at the nation’s nuclear power reactors for more than a decade, according to a new report written by experts at Union of Concerned Scientists, Beyond Nuclear and NC WARN. Fire When NOT Ready reveals that for nearly two decades the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has chosen not to enforce safety regulations put into place following a severe fire at an Alabama plant. Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the NRC’s Inspector General have confirmed the groups’ charges of repeated failures by the NRC to rectify a list of known problems. The NRC estimates that the overall meltdown risk from fire hazards is about 50%, roughly equal to all other hazards combined. Fires can damage control cables, causing operators to lose the ability to shut down and cool the reactor. That risk calculation assumes plants are in compliance with fire protection regulations, and it excludes risks from deliberate acts. Fire risks increased dramatically after 9/11 because many potential attack scenarios involve explosives or large amounts of jet fuel.
Our View: Congress must demand either the enforcement of fire protection regulations or the suspension of operating licenses. Millions of Americans are in clear and present danger due to the NRC’s ineptitude. Congress – which appropriates the NRC’s budget, oversees its performance and confirms its Commissioners – must wield its power in protection of the public. Congress should draw a firm deadline: that every nuclear plant must gain compliance by the end of its next refueling outage, or be shut down until corrections are made.
What You Can Do: Go to the report on our home page where you can also view our press release and a letter submitted to Rep. Tom Carper (R-Del.) Deliver a copy of the report to your Congressional representative with a cover letter insisting that he or she perform their duty and hold NRC accountable for its public safety mandate.
.
