Tag: nuclear

Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants

  • The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

Transcript

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

The federal agency that’s looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.

It’s asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn’t made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study’s even needed.

It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.

“Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen.”

Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.

“I am one of the statistics you’ll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you’re doing this for.”

“Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they’d like to.”

“I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah’s mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words.”

Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.

She’d learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.

Cynthia Sauer can’t say for sure the plant caused Sarah’s cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.

“I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town.”

Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.

“The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed.”

What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn’t answer whether they’re at risk of getting cancer.

It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.

Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can’t be confident in the old one.

And that’s a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.

Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.

Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:

“There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data’s carefully selected to prove the point. That’s what we’d like to see avoided.”

So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.

But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can’t begin good studies, because it’s hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Russian Nuclear Material in U.S. Power Plants?

  • The treaty signed by Presidents Obama and Medvedev might bring more business to companies like USEC, which will have recycled the equivelent of 20-thousand warheads by 2013.(Photo courtesy of The White House)

The START treaty signed last week means hundreds of nuclear warheads will be dismantled. Lester Graham reports, that nuclear material could end up as fuel for nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Transcript

The START treaty signed last week means hundreds of nuclear warheads will be dismantled. Lester Graham reports, that nuclear material could end up as fuel for nuclear power plants in the U.S.

There is a historic precedent for this. Not many people know, but half of the nuclear fuel used in U.S. power plants today comes from Soviet era nuclear warheads. In an agreement signed in 1994, the U.S. and Russia entered a program called Megatons to Megawatts. Russia dismantles warheads, processes highly enriched uranium down to low enriched uranium. An American company called USEC buys it, ships it to Kentucky and then sells it to power companies. Jeff Donald is a spokesman for USEC.

“By the time the program is finished in 2013, we will have recycled 500metric tons of high enriched uranium, which is the equivalent of 20-thousand warheads.”

The START treaty signed last week covers a lot fewer warheads, but USEC is prepared to continue the program if asked.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Billions Down the Yucca Hole

  • Without the Yucca mountain site, companies like Exelon have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks. (Photo courtesy of Lester Graham)

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning:

Transcript

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning.

The Yucca Mountain project claimed more money than just the nine billion that’s on the books.

It also tied up cash from electric rate payers, power companies and taxpayers.

Let’s start with the first group – rate payers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to store the radioactive spent fuel left behind in nuclear reactors.

The U-S government charges power companies a fee to cover costs.

Power companies pass it on.

“Everybody in the state of Georgia that uses electricity and pays an electric bill is paying into this Yucca Mountain trust fund.”

This is Bobby Baker.

He’s serves on Georgia’s public service commission.

Baker says now that President Obama took Yucca Mountain off the table, the federal government should return the money.

Georgia’s share of fees and interest is more than one point two billion dollars.

“We were supposed to be shipping our spent nuclear fuel out to yucca mountain back in 1998 they were supposed to be receiving shipments at that time. The only thing that’s been done is the fact that Georgia ratepayers are continuing to pay into that trust fund and getting nothing from that trust fund other than a big hole in Nevada.”

So far, the federal government’s collected a total of 31 billion dollars in fees and interest for the nuclear waste fund.

The next group who paid extra for Yucca – power companies.

CHA-CHING

By law, the federal government’s supposed to take away radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants.

But without Yucca, it stays put.

John Rowe is CEO of Exelon, the country’s biggest nuclear power company.

Last hear he complained to the National Press Club.

“My mother used to say, somebody lies to you once that’s his fault … lies to you twice and you believe it, that’s your fault. I don’t know what she would have thought about somebody lying to you for fifty years.”

Rowe is especially mad because his company and others like it have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks.

They sue the federal government to recover costs.

The US Government Accountability Office figures the government will lose these lawsuits and owe power companies twelve point three billion dollars within a decade.

The last group that paid extra for Yucca – taxpayers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to handle nuclear spent fuel from civilian power reactors, but it was also supposed to handle decades-worth of the military’s radioactive waste.

That includes waste from former weapons sites, like Hanford in Washington state.

Washington’s Senator Patty Murray brought it up in a recent hearing.

Here, she’s looking straight at Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

“Congress, independent studies, previous administrations pointed to, voted for and funded yucca Mountain as the best option as the nuclear repository.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government chipped in at least three point four billion dollars to cover military costs at Yucca Mountain.

But the tab’s bigger than that.

Murray says without Yucca, Hanford has to store its waste on-site. it’s not cheap.

“Billions of dollars have been spent at Hanford and sites across the country in an effort to treat and package nuclear waste that will be sent there.”

The Obama administration’s getting complaints from states and industry and taxpayer groups.

The Administration hasn’t responded publicly, but Energy Secretary Steven Chu mentioned the financial fallout from Yucca Mountain during a U-S Senate hearing.

He said the administration’s convinced Yucca Mountain just won’t work …

So, no matter how much money people have paid so far, it makes no sense to send good money after bad.

He didn’t mention paying any money back.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Burying Radioactive Waste (Part 1)

  • Waiting for new waste solutions, power plants across the country are still stacking spent fuel in concrete casks like this one at the Yucca Mountain site. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country. For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan. Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now:

Transcript

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country.

For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan.

Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now.

The old nuclear waste plan was simple: take spent fuel leftover from nuclear reactors and bury it under Yucca Mountain.

That would have moved the problem away from nuclear power plants and people who live nearby.

The Obama Administration cut the program but only said, the program “has not proven effective.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried explaining that to the U-S Senate.

“I don’t believe one can say, scientists are willing to say Yucca Mountain is the ideal site, given what we know today and given what we believe can be developed in the next 50 years.”

So … Obama’s administration is switching gears, and government scientists have to adjust.

“I worked at Yucca Mountain for ten years.”

Mark Peters is a deputy director at Argonne National Laboratory west of Chicago.

“I ran the testing program, so I got intimate involvement in Yucca Mountain. The license application has pieces of me all through it.”

Peters says he’s disappointed Yucca Mountain was killed.

But he says that’s a personal opinion – he’s on board with the new policy.

In fact … he’s helping it along.

Obama created a blue-ribbon commissison.

Commissioners will come up with new solutions for nuclear waste within two years.

Peters will tell them about new technology.

“There are advanced reactor concepts that could in fact do more effective burning of the fuel, so the spent fuel’s not so toxic when the fuel comes out.”

Peters says these “fast breeder reactors” might not just produce less nuclear waste.

They might use the old stuff that was supposed to head to Yucca.

“You extract the usable content, make a new fuel and burn it in a reactor, so you actually get to the point where you’re recycling the uranium and plutonium and other elements people’ve heard about.”

But Obama’s blue – ribbon nuclear waste commission could find problems with fast-breeder technology.

In the 1970s, we ran a commercial prototype, but it didn’t work very long.

Peters says new versions might be decades away.

There’s another problem, too.

“One important point is that there’s still waste from that process. So we have to go back to ultimately, some kind of geologic repository for part of the system.”

In other words … we’d have less waste, but we’d still have to bury it … somewhere.

History suggests there’s gonna be a squabble over any location.

After all, Yucca Mountain wasn’t the government’s first stab at an underground nuclear waste site.

“It had an embarassing failure in Lyons, Kansas between 1970 and 1972.”

That’s Sam Walker, a historian at the U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He’s talking about the old Atomic Energy Commission, or AEC.

The AEC pushed hard to bury nuclear waste in a salt mine, even though scientists in Kansas had doubts.

“And then it turned out that the salt mine they had planned to place the waste in was not technically suitable either. So, what the AEC did was to lose its battle on both political and technical grounds.”

Walker says for 15 years, the government scouted for another location to dump hazardous nuclear waste.

“There was lots of vocal public opposition to even investigating sites.”

Eventually, the debate got too hot.

Congress settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, even though scientists debated whether it’d work.

Congress kept Yucca Mountain going because it promised to keep nuclear waste out of everyone’s back yards … except for Nevada’s.

Now with Yucca Mountain out of the picture, it could take years for Obama’s administration to settle on a way to handle nuclear waste.

In the mean time, power plants across the country are stacking spent fuel in pools of water or in concrete casks.

For decades the federal government said this local storage is both safe and temporary.

It still says it’s safe, but now, no one’s sure what temporary really means.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

From Health Care to Climate

  • Congressional leaders are beginning to start thinking about a climate bill again.

Health care legislation has finally started
moving forward in Congress. Shawn Allee reports
the US Senate can now devote some attention to
its unfinished work on climate change:

Transcript

Health care legislation has finally started moving forward in Congress.

Shawn Allee reports the US Senate can now devote some attention to its unfinished work on climate change:

The climate-change bill got a cold reception last year, but Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman say they’re making headway lately.

Margaret Kriz Hobson tracks climate legislation for the National Journal.
She says the Senate got stuck negotiating a complex carbon trading scheme.
That would have required most industries to trade carbon pollution credits.

Kriz Hobson says the three senators are now focusing mostly on power companies.

“A lot more people are letting them in the door because the proposal that they’re bringing forward would include some benefits for nuclear power, oil drilling in the United States and for more modern technologies for capture and sequestration.”

That last technology would basically bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

That could save money and jobs in states that burn or mine coal.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Renewing the Nuclear Past (Part 3)

  • Indian Point Nuclear Station, as seen from the opposite side of the Hudson River. A spent fuel and other systems have leaked tritium and other radionuclides into the groundwater below. (Photo by Shawn Allee

You might think a nuclear power station
would have the tightest pipes imaginable
to keep radioactive liquids from
contaminating water underground. But the
truth is, dozens of reactors have leaks,
and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising
questions about how nuclear power plants
are regulated:

Transcript

You might think a nuclear power station would have the tightest pipes imaginable to keep radioactive liquids from contaminating water underground.
But the truth is, dozens of reactors have spouted leaks, and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising questions about how nuclear power plants are regulated.

I meet anti-nuclear activist Susan Shapiro in some hills northwest of New York City.
We drive where we can see the Indian Point nuclear power station across the Hudson River.
Shapiro tells me it’s leaked radioactive water into the ground.

Shapiro: It’s not contained and they know that. In fact, their answer was to let it leak into the groundwater. For years it might have been leaking. We know it’s been leaking for the last five, because that’s when we found it.

And for Shapiro, things get worse.
We stop along the river.

Allee: What’s the significance of this place?

Shapiro: This is where they’re planning to put the desal plant.

Allee: What kind of plant?

Shapiro: Desalination plant for … they want to take the Hudson River water which is a briny water and desalinate it and give it to Rockland County people as their drinking water.

The water plant and the nuclear power plant have been filing important paperwork about how they’d use the river they share.

Shapiro: Neither one refers to the other. The desal plant doesn’t mention Indian Point, and Indian Point doesn’t mention the desal plant. And we’re looking at it … how can they not mention it?

I asked both the water company, United Water, and the US Nuclear Regulatory commission about this.
The water plant’s application was made after the Indian Point leaks were well-known.
But a spokesman says water tests show the Hudson’s water, before and after treatment, will be far below federal limits for pollutants, including radioactive ones from Indian Point.

Things are complicated on the Indian Point side, though.
To start, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to make clear, people shouldn’t worry.
Here’s NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

Burnell: By virtue of the vast quantities of water traveling through the Hudson, any isotopes that would make it to the river would automatically be diluted to several orders of magnitude, meaning they would be incapable of posing any public health risk.

The NRC is reviewing Indian Point’s operations, because the plant wants to run an additional twenty years beyond its current license.
The plant filed an environmental report to get permission.
But that filing does not mention the desalination plant, even though these filings are supposed to mention drinking water facilities.
The deputy head of the NRC’s re-licencing division says the agency’s “looking into that right now” – almost three years after the water company made its intentions clear.

Indian Point is just one nuclear plant that’s leaked radioactive water.
At least 27 reactors have leaked.
The NRC says “at least” 27 because the agency learns about leaks from companies that own nuclear power plants.
In some cases, they’re not found and reported for years.
Burnell says these kinds of leaks pose little health threat, so his agency doesn’t demand inch-by-inch inspections of every pipe and drain.

Burnell: The issue there returns to the limits of the NRC’s authority. We have the authority to ensure the plant is capable of shutting down safely. We do expect that the systems will remain whole and not leak. We do not, however, have the authority to enforce a standard that goes beyond what’s necessary to safely shut down the plant.

To recap … the federal government wants to stop leaks, but it won’t step in unless there’s potential for a massive accident, health threat or exorbitant clean up costs when a plant closes.

As for the nuclear power industry?
It says plant owners are trying to meet higher standards, but they’re self-imposed standards, and it doesn’t think regulators should change that.
Here’s Ralph Andersen, with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

Andersen: We’ve given it that enhanced priority, but to then say that the regulators should take that on, that’s a whole different reach, in my mind.

So, the NRC says it’s not going to change its rules on leaks because it feels those rules are effective now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Renewing the Nuclear Past (Part 2)

  • Cooling units at the Vermont Yankee power station. Radioactive tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) has leaked into the ground near the center of the plant. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Power companies hope to extend the working life of old nuclear reactors because it’s cheaper to run them than it is to build new reactors.
But old reactors require federal approval to renew their licenses.
For the past decade, power companies have been on a winning streak.
They’d gotten reactor licenses renewed every time they asked.
Shawn Allee reports one of the industry’s most recent bets went wrong:

Transcript

Power companies hope to extend the working life of old nuclear reactors because it’s cheaper to run them than it is to build new reactors.
But old reactors require federal approval to renew their licenses.
For the past decade, power companies have been on a winning streak.
They’d gotten reactor licenses renewed every time they asked.
Shawn Allee reports one of the industry’s most recent bets went wrong:

Vermont’s only nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, is likely to shut down in 2012.
The story of how that happened is unique in the nuclear biz.

Vermont Yankee’s license was set to expire in 2012 but eight years ago, a company called Entergy bought it anyway.

Entergy gambled the federal government would renew that license so Vermont Yankee could run another twenty years.

It seemed a safe bet, since the federal government never rejected a renewal application.

But Entergy also asked to expand Vermont Yankee, to produce more power.

That’s when Vermont’s state legislature stepped in.

The legislature said, if you want to expand, we want some say in whether you operate past 2012, regardless of what the federal government says.

No other state legislature has given itself this kind of authority.
This was an opening for anti-nuclear activists.

This video’s from a protest back in January.

Activists took it during their week long winter-time March to Vermont’s statehouse.

The protesters stopped for potlucks, speeches, and church songs.

Protester say they felt they were winning some support, but then they got an unexpected boost.

Here’s protester Bob Bady:

“We got a call that there was migrating plume of tritium under the plant and it was going to hit the press the next day.”

Bady says tritium is a kind of hydrogen that makes water radioactive.

In other words, Vermont Yankee was leaking radioactive water.

Protesters asked themselves, didn’t Entergy say these kinds of underground leaks couldn’t happen?

“The plant owner, Entergy, has incredibly low credibility particularly because they went before the legislature and vehemently denied there were even pipes underground, so that created a problem for them.”

The details are fuzzy, at least according to Entergy.

Here’s PR-guy Rob Williams.

“Clearly there was some kind of a miscommunication and then, uh, once we have a handle on it, we want to set the record straight.”

Entergy says its own investigation found employees did not lie about piping that could cause tritium leaks.

Vermont’s Attorney General is still determining that.

Regardless, some state senators said they felt they were lied to. Or Entergy did not know the plant could leak tritium. Either would be bad, so the state senate voted to shut the plant.

And that’s all Vermont law requires, so now Vermont Yankee’s slated to close in 2012.

But what happened with the tritium leaks?

PR-guy Rob Williams gives me a tour of Vermont Yankee.

From Entergy’s point of view, the system worked. It detected tritium in underground water.

“Right. Now, this is three wells we installed to specifically look for tritium. It gives you a good early warning that you’ve got a leak back in the piping.”

State health officials say tritium probably leaked near the center of the plant.

The state hasn’t found contaminated wells or other drinking water supplies.
Tritium is likely to move into the nearby Connecticut River, where it’ll be diluted.

As for the federal government, it’s unfazed.

The U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Vermont Yankee leaked tritium before – several times.

At least 26 other reactors leaked tritium, too, but the NRC says the public’s safe.

In fact, the NRC has approved applications for license renewal at plants that had leaks just like Vermont Yankee’s.

The NRC is still reviewing that plant’s license renewal application … regardless of what the State of Vermont has to say about it.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Tomorrow, Shawn Allee looks at tritium leaks at one power plant that is across the river from a desalinization drinking water plant.

Related Links

Renewing Aging Nuclear Reactors (Part 1)

  • Watts Bar Unit 1 was the last nuclear power reactor to receive a new operating license in the U.S. in 1996. Reactors are licensed to operate for 40 years. After that, the utility has to apply for a 20 year renewal. (Photo courtesy of USNRC)

President Barack Obama has been stumping for nuclear power lately.
He announced loan guarantees to kick-start construction of the first new reactor in 30 years. Those guarantees might lead to just a handful of new reactors in the next decade. Shawn Allee reports the real action in the nuclear industry is in old reactors we already have:

Transcript

President Barack Obama has been stumping for nuclear power lately.

He announced loan guarantees to kick-start construction of the first new reactor in 30 years.
Those guarantees might lead to just a handful of new reactors in the next decade.

Shawn Allee reports the real action in the nuclear industry is in old reactors we already have:

To run a reactor, you have to have the federal government’s permissison, but that permission lasts 40 years.
If a company wants more time, it’s got to renew that license – for twenty years at a pop.
Companies are flooding the government with renewal applications.

To understand why, I talk with Don Kreis. He teaches environmental law at the Vermont Law School.

“Think about an automobile that you owned for a really long time, but it’s still working fine.”

OK. You’ve got two choices …. you can bet your car repair costs will be low … or you fork over a hefty wad of cash for a new car.

“Which of those two things are you going to do? Well, you’re goiing to run your old machine … and run it for as long as something can possibly run. Nuclear power plants run exactly the same way. ”

This is an understatement; it’s MUCH cheaper to run an existing nuclear reactor than to build a new one.
In Kreis’ home state of Vermont, a company bought an old reactor in 2002.
It paid 180 million dollars.
To build the same-sized plant new would cost 2.4 billion dollars today.

That’s the industry’s motivation for license renewal, but only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give the final O-K.

In the past decade, the NRC’s approved renewal at 59 reactors … more than half the nuclear fleet.

This is too fast for critics.

“We haven’t been happy with the process and I think there are issues with license renewal and the NRC needs to address those.”

That’s Edwin Lyman.
He’s a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.

Lyman worries the NRC downplays risk from old reactors.

Take the case of the Crystal River reactor in Florida.

Last year, workers tried to replace old steam turbines.

“To do that you have to cut a hole in the containment building, when they did that, they found there was a huge gap that had developed in the containment building that you couldn’t see or detect from the outside and they only saw it when they cut through it. and so, the question is, was this an age-related issue that people didn’t know about.”

The containment building keeps the public safe from radiation during accidents.
The power company caught the problem after it submitted an application for renewal.
Lyman also worries about corroding pipes and reactor vessels.

“So, there are uncertainties and these will probably only grow as the fleet of power plants gets older.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says critics like Lyman shouldn’t worry about aging reactors.
Samson Lee oversees renewal applications at the NRC.
He says old reactors meet the same safety standards new ones do, plus, companies have to show they’ll manage aging parts.

“So if they continue to meet the requirement to ensure the plants are safe, and if they continue to meet that, then you know, we can issue a renewal license.”

But as for the charge the renewal process is too quick or easy?

Lee says the NRC can say “no.”

“NRC has returned one application for license renewal.”

“What was that for?”

“That was because of poor quality of application. It was how they put together the application.”

“Did that reflect on the plant or the application process?”

“It’s the application process. This is how they chose to prepare the application.”

So, for now … the biggest problem the NRC has seen during license renewal has been in the paperwork.

Right now, the federal government’s handing out renewal licenses, allowing nuclear power plants to run up to 60 years.

But there’s more to come.

The government’s prepared to evaluate renewals to let plants run up to 80 years.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Tomorrow Shawn Allee will have
a report on one state that has said “no”
to re-licensing a nuclear power plant.

Related Links

Plug Pulled on Nuke Plant

  • Vermont Yankee Corp. is one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Yankee Corp.)

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants is setting its operating life shorter than expected. Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants might have its operating life cut shorter than expected.

Shawn Allee reports:

The federal government has been leaning toward letting the Vermont Yankee reactor renew its license in 2012 for another 20 years.

But Vermont’s state legislature says has voted to shut it down – no matter what the federal government says.

One reason is the plant’s been leaking radioactive water.

State senator Peter Shumlin says plant owners said that couldn’t happen.

SHUMLIN: What’s worse? A company that won’t tell you the truth or a company that’s operating their aging nuclear power plant next to the Connecticut River and doesn’t know they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking and they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed … neither is very comforting.

The federal government says the leaks have not been a health threat.

The closure of Vermont Yankee would be a setback for the nuclear power industry.

It’s trying to extend the operating life of reactors across the country, since its far cheaper to run old reactors than to build new ones.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Nuclear Loans Guaranteed

  • If all goes according to plan, the nuclear reactors will go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:

Transcript

The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:

The Southern Company plans to build the reactors in Georgia. They say, if all goes well, they’ll go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.


Investors have seen nuclear energy as a risky bet. But now that the President says the government will guarantee the loans, Wall Street might be enticed back to nuclear energy.

And then there’s the question of safety. President Obama’s Energy Secretary is Steven Chu. He says these new generation reactors are safe.

“We expect that the newer generation reactors will be ideally completely passively safe. Which means that, uh, you don’t actually need to control the reactor. If you lose control of it, it will not melt down.”

Some environmentalists say nuclear energy is not worth the costs – and there’s still no permanent place to store nuclear waste that’s radioactive for thousands of years.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links