NucNews - October 22, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium NRC reconsiders dangers of depleted uranium The agency is told that the material is too dangerous for its classification By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 10/22/2005 http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3141349 Is it safe to dispose of depleted uranium in places like Envirocare of Utah, where only low-level radioactive waste is allowed? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's answer used to be an automatic "yes." But the federal agency this week appeared to stop taking it for granted that all depleted uranium deserves to be treated as Class A, the lowest category of low-level radioactive waste and the most hazardous type Envirocare is allowed to dispose of at its Tooele County landfill. In a case involving a uranium enrichment plant proposed for New Mexico that has talked to Envirocare about taking its waste called depleted uranium, the federal panel opened the door Wednesday for two anti-nuclear groups to make the case that federal oversight of depleted uranium disposal is alarmingly lenient. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen say depleted uranium is 40 times more radioactive than typical Class A waste, four times more hazardous to people than certain types of plutonium and can only be disposed of safely deep underground. The groups say federal regulators should reject the notion that landfills like Envirocare are constructed well enough to secure the highly radioactive waste for thousands of years. The case has long-term implications for Utah and Envirocare, which has accepted depleted uranium for more than a decade under its state license. One of three U.S. disposal sites licensed for Class A waste, Envirocare has a good chance of landing the disposal contract for waste from the New Mexico plant, which is proposed by a U.S. and European consortium of nuclear companies called Louisiana Energy Services. The plant would generate 1 million 55-gallon drums of depleted uranium over 30 years. The U.S. Energy Department also appears to favor Envirocare as the site for disposal of waste from three old enrichment plants (in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) where depleted uranium has been piling up for decades. Utah is affected because the state would have to reexamine its regulations. State regulations parallel the federal ones, and a change in how the federal government treats depleted uranium from enrichment plants might mean the state would not be able to allow any depleted uranium from enrichment plants. Last winter, lawmakers banned waste hotter than Class A from coming into the state. Momentum grew for the ban after the U.S. Congress two years ago changed the labeling of highly contaminated radioactive waste to render it suitable for Envirocare, or one of two other commercial sites like it. If the science has changed, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rethinking its depleted uranium regulations, then they need to inform the state, said John Hultquist, who has oversight responsibility for Envirocare at the Utah Division of Radiation Control. "Based on what we've done, that's how we interpret the rules, that it [depleted uranium] is Class A waste" and Envirocare can safely take it, he said. Envirocare spokesman Mark Walker noted that the company had to perform an in-depth safety review during its licensing more than a decade ago. "We had to demonstrate that we could contain it safely," he said. The environmental groups adamantly disagree. They accuse the commission staff and Louisiana Energy Services of ignoring clear evidence that shows the dangers of the leftovers from uranium enrichment. "The NRC staff is trying to pull a fast one on the public by saying, 'Don't worry, that's low-level Class A waste,' " said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear waste expert for the environmental groups. "Envirocare has been saying 'We're OK with this.' The [state] regulators are saying, 'We're OK with this,' " -------- terrorism FDNY chief: We're training for nukes By RICH SCHAPIRO NY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Originally published on October 22, 2005 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/358053p-305104c.html Terrorists attacking New York City with a crude nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb are among the main threats the FDNY is preparing for, the department's top disaster planner said yesterday. Chief Joseph Pfeifer told a panel of security experts the FDNY is rapidly transforming itself into a terrorism-ready force that is equipped to respond to such potentially catastrophic attacks. "It's the training we do that'll make the difference between who gets saved and who doesn't get saved," Pfeifer said at the Council on Foreign Relations on E.68thSt. The FDNY is particularly concerned about terrorists developing a crude nuclear bomb and detonating it among the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan. Such an attack would likely result in nearly 225,000 casualties, Pfeifer said. Another scenario worrying fire officials is one in which a terrorist could combine a radioactive bomb with an incendiary device on the upper floor of a high-rise building. The radiological incendiary device, or RID, would create a rapidly expanding fire that could engulf a building quickly - and result in a disaster similar to 9/11. "The fire caused the buildings to collapse, and that's where it became a catastrophic event," Pfeifer said. "It's the same thing with an RID." But Pfeifer noted that nearly 3,000 firefighters have been trained as hazardous material specialists, and every unit is now outfitted with devices that combat radiation. The FDNY also is in the process of developing a $17 million command center that is designed to serve as an enhanced information hub in the event of another large-scale attack. "If an improvised nuclear device goes off ... it will be horrific, but we can survive," said Pfeifer. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california PG&E's pledge to open coastal land raises critics' eyebrows By Tim Molloy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Saturday, October 22, 2005 http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RXiJI0GeXPUJ:www.dailybreeze.com/news/regstate/articles/1908797.html+PG%26E%27s+pledge+to+open+coastal+land+raises+critics%27+eyebrows&hl=en For two decades, Pacific Gas & Electric has preserved a 3-mile stretch of pristine coastal land bordering the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant -- an ecological haven in the shadow of a seaside facility environmentalists deride as a major threat to California's coast. Now the state's coastal protection agency wants to open the land to the public. PG&E has agreed, but says it wants to limit access for fear that hikers will pose security threats or simply love the open space to death. On the surface it looks like a rare situation in which a power utility is taking a more cautious approach to preservation than professional preservationists. But some environmentalists in this area midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco say appearances are deceiving. They accuse PG&E of trying to choreograph an elaborate dance in which the utility offers the same piece of land to two sets of state regulators so it can avoid possible environmental fines from one agency while limiting the public access it already has promised another. No matter what happens, those involved say the deal will end with increased public access to the land located north of the plant, which provides electricity to 1.6 million homes without the air pollution often involved in energy production. Located near the small town of Los Osos and separated by a barbed wire fence from a state park, the unnamed stretch of grassland, creek beds and bluffs seems like an isolated paradise. Steelhead trout climb the gurgling Coon Creek to spawn and endangered southern sea otters frolic on rocky outcroppings beyond sea caves. Cattle, sheep and goats graze the grasslands. Peregrine falcons, golden eagles and gray-horned owls feed on abundant rabbits, rodents and smaller birds. In recent years, PG&E has offered up the same land in different negotiations as the utility sought to win state approval for two aspects of its operations that alarm regulators and environmental groups. Regional water regulators wanted the utility to offset environmental damage caused by a process called once-through cooling, in which the plant ingests ocean water to produce steam, then spits it back into the ocean at higher temperatures. That kills up to 15 percent of the eggs of some species of fish for several miles of coast. The state Coastal Commission, meanwhile, was concerned by the utility's request to permit dry cask storage, in which nuclear waste is enclosed in thick containers to prevent radiation leaks -- a technique used at 25 plants nationwide. The casks are kept on the site because there is no national nuclear waste repository. To win a cask storage permit, the company agreed to the Coastal Commission's demand that it open the land. Before that deal, however, PG&E had been negotiating with the regional water board to set aside the land as open space to be run by a conservancy -- a tradeoff for killing marine life in once-through cooling. If PG&E can't agree with the water board on how to mitigate harm to fish, the board could fine the company, said assistant executive director Michael Thomas. Limiting public access to guided tours appeals to staff of the water board. "We think it's possible to have access and conservation at the same time," Thomas said. But the Coastal Commission isn't going for it, saying its deal requires the company to open the land to everyone, without restrictions. -------- vermont NRC completes Vermont Yankee report Published: Saturday, October 22, 2005 By David Gram The Associated Press http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051022/BUSINESS/510220312/1003 MONTPELIER -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it had completed its draft review of Vermont Yankee's plan to increase its power output, but would not make it public yet. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency would first send the report to Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear to allow the company to request which parts of the report it wants kept from public view. "We'll look at their suggested changes, redactions and then we'll release it to the public," Sheehan said. Sheehan and Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the safety evaluation contained proprietary information, mainly having to do with the engineering that went into various analyses supporting the position that the plant could safely increase its power output by 20 percent. The process of editing could leave little time for members of the public and a nuclear watchdog group that has opposed the power boost to review the report before an NRC panel comes to Vermont for meetings on Nov. 15 and 16. "Those of us who are intervenors need to pass this (NRC report) before our experts," said Raymond Shadis of the New England Coalition. "This is bound to include highly technical information that will take time to review. The NRC has had two years to put this together. Certainly this is short notice." Sheehan said there is no deadline for Entergy to complete its review of the report and make requests keeping items out and for the NRC to agree or disagree with those requests. "We'd obviously like them to move as quickly as possible," he said. "We're interested in making the document available before those meetings in Brattleboro." Shadis agreed that there likely will be material in the report that it will be reasonable for Entergy to want to keep secret. "There is a lot of competition when it comes to doing engineering on flow-induced vibration and other phenomena relating to the steam dryer," Shadis said. The plant's steam dryer removes moisture from steam because too-wet steam could damage a reactor's turbines. -------- washington Energy Northwest proposes first new plant since WPPSS 10/22/2005, 11:47 a.m. PT By SHANNON DININNY The Associated Press http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=111&sid=600547 http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business-2/1130007242290070.xml&storylist=orwashington RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) — When an ambitious plan to build five nuclear power plants in Washington state fell to pieces in the 1980s, it caused the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. Lawmakers and electricity ratepayers showered criticism on Northwest utilities that were party to the debacle. Voters passed an initiative to rein in public spending on big power plants. No entity took more heat than the Washington Public Power Supply System, or WPPSS, which led the effort. To this day, the project suffers under the moniker, "Whoops." But in the years since the scandal, the utility changed its name to Energy Northwest, weeded out those responsible and began the laborious process of rebuilding its public image. Now it has plans for a new power plant — one that many agree employs promising technology, but which has been carefully designed to avoid a public vote. The proposed coal gasification plant would be the most ambitious project since the colossal failure decades ago, and some critics are already raising concerns about the viability of the technology, the potential environmental hazards and the public financing of the project. For decades, the Pacific Northwest has relied on relatively cheap power from hydroelectric dams. In the late 1970s, WPPSS proposed building five nuclear plants to meet rising demand for electricity — demand that never materialized. The project collapsed in the 1980s amid massive cost overruns, leaving the concrete shells of four unfinished plants and $2.25 billion in worthless bonds. Bondholders eventually reached a settlement after years of court battles. Today, demand is gradually increasing as the region's population grows and environmental pressure on dam operations mounts. Some argue that conservation and investment in renewable energy resources, such as the wind farms sprouting in Eastern Washington, will meet rising demand. Energy Northwest supports and has participated in those efforts but does not believe they alone will meet demand, said Tom Krueger, the agency's project manager. In addition, he said, the region won't support hydropower expansion, a new nuclear plant in Washington simply isn't an option, and natural gas has become inordinately expensive. Instead, Energy Northwest is proposing what is called an integrated gasification combined cycle plant. The plant would generally use coal or petcoke, the waste product from oil refineries, that would be turned into a gas to be burned to generate power. The plant could also burn natural gas if the price declines. Krueger compared the emissions from an IGCC plant to those of a natural gas plant, generally carbon dioxide. "The question is not whether you can get energy in coal, but whether you can use it in an environmentally friendly way," Krueger said. The proposed plant also would capture the carbon dioxide emissions for storage. In other parts of the country, emissions are injected into spent oil wells. Energy Northwest is taking part in a study into injecting the emissions into basalt deposits, which are common in the region. "Of course it raises questions. Unless you examine that stuff, you never know," said Ronald Hatfield, chairman of the Energy Northwest board of directors, who represents Pacific County Public Utility District No. 2. Hatfield voted for the project. He does not yet know if his utility will sign a contract for power from the plant, but he does not believe the bad memories from WPPSS should impede its progress. "I don't know if they've forgotten, but it's always been my attitude that, because mistakes were made in the past doesn't mean you don't continue to try," he said. Energy Northwest is a joint agency, comprising 19 public utilities and municipalities. It operates Columbia Generating Station near Richland, the only WPPSS nuclear plant now operating, and a hydropower project, as well as wind, solar and biomass power projects. The agency's board of directors voted to push forward with the new project in July, allowing Energy Northwest to pursue a plant site west of the Cascades and to continue to research the technology. "To tie this to the WPPSS era is ludicrous," said Bob Boyd, an Energy Northwest board member representing the Chelan County PUD. Boyd voted against the proposal on behalf of his district, partly because he believes the power the plant produces will be too expensive. John Prescott, board member from Seattle City Light, also voted against the plan, citing his utility's policy against additional carbon-based power generation. "It just might be time for us to try to meet our needs through renewables and conservation, then look at what else," Prescott said. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which has planned the region's power needs since 1980, takes a similar stance in favor of renewable energy and conservation to meet the region's rising power needs for the next 10 years. John Harrison, a council spokesman, said Energy Northwest may be a little ahead of schedule with plans to have the plant operating by 2012. But he said the council recognizes the technology as its preferred new thermal power source beginning in 2015. At least one analyst is raising concerns. Energy Northwest may not have pursued a major project since WPPSS, but some of its public utility members have, and they are now paying higher rates for power, said Jim Lazar, an economist and private energy consultant. Lazar was the research director for the Don't Bankrupt Washington Committee, the group that successfully pushed a 1981 voter-approved initiative requiring voter approval for public financing of power plants that generate more than 350 megawatts. "It's promising technology, but it's an organization with a poor track record, made up of organizations with poor track records," Lazar said. The cost of the 600-megawatt plant has been estimated at close to $1 billion. Public utilities would pay half the cost and get half the power, an arrangement that dodges the requirement for a public vote. The rest of the power would be sold under private contracts, and the second half of the project would require separate financing. Krueger said regulations for utility project financing have changed significantly since the 1980s. Bond holders were responsible for the default then. Today, utilities that contract for the power before the plant is even completed would be held accountable, he said. The WPPSS hangover likely won't impede the project's advancement, said Alan Spen, managing director at Fitch Ratings, who has tracked Energy Northwest for more than 20 years. "Overall, I'm sure there's going to be a few old-timers who say, 'I don't think I want to buy this,'" Spen said. "But for the most part, I think most people are able to evaluate this on its own and get past the name." On the Net: Energy Northwest: http://www.energy-northwest.com Northwest Power and Conservation Council: http://www.nwcouncil.org