Nuclear Power Industry Seeks Life Extension For Aging Plants

As the manager responsible for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's license renewal program for commercial nuclear power plants, I read with great interest the article written by J.A. Savage.

The article contains a number of errors that create the false impression that the NRC is covertly preparing to renew the licenses of a vast number of aging nuclear power plants en masse unless a concerned public takes action prior to October 16. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The 40-year license term for nuclear power plants was selected by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act on the basis of economic and antitrust considerations -- not technical limitations. The Act also anticipated that these licenses might be renewed. As the first of these licenses will expire in 2006, NRC has established a process for reviewing requests for extending the operating life of a nuclear power plant. These reviews are conducted on a case by case basis, require thousands of pages of technical documentation from an applicant, involve independent inspections by NRC, take up to 30 months to complete, and ensure that public health and safety will be protected during the 20-year period of extended operation if a license is renewed.

Despite Ms. Savage's assertions to the contrary, public participation is an important part of the license renewal process. Public meetings were held in the vicinity of the Oconee and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plants before NRC granted license extensions to those plants earlier this year. All information provided by the licensee is made available to the public. A number of public meetings are held by the NRC, and NRC evaluations, findings and recommendations are published when completed. Public meetings are announced in press releases, the Federal Register, and posted at: http://www.nrc.gov on the agency's web site.

The NRC's effort to evaluate certain environmental issues generically for all plants, rather than separately in each plant's renewal application, is a matter of good government and regulatory efficiency, not as Ms. Savage asserts, an effort to coddle the nuclear industry or hide its actions from public scrutiny. The generic evaluation, assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A plant-specific supplement to the generic evaluation is required for each licensee that applies for license renewal. Additional details about the license renewal process are available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/index.html on the NRC web site.

Contrary to Ms. Savage's assertions, the NRC encourages interested members of the public to express their opinions, views and ideas on this and other important safety issues and will continue to offer opportunities for public comment for each license renewal application.

Christopher Grimes, NRC

-- J.A. Savage

Cheryl Pucci

Jason Cerda

Open letter to: Patricia Norry, Director, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555

I strenuously oppose the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plan to allow nuclear reactor owners to obtain 20-year license extensions based primarily on the "Generic Aging Lessons Learned" one-size-fits-all report, with no public hearings. There is no way that the GALL report could adequately cover all that could go wrong with aging reactors. It is time to close the nukes, not give them another 20 years to pollute our communities and run an ever-increasing risk of meltdown.

Extended licenses should not be considered at all, but if they are, they should only be considered case-by-case. The particular ecosystems of each site and surrounding areas should be the primary consideration, followed by the complete and detailed history and prospects of each reactor and each owner-including but not limited to maintenance history, labor practices, financial condition, and responsiveness to public concern. The plants were built with different designs; by different contractors; with all sorts of differences in the conditions of construction, upkeep and retrofits; and current owners have different abilities and willingness to take care of the reactors now and in the future. The impacts of the various electricity deregulation processes in each state should also be taken into account.

It is galling in the extreme that there will be no public hearings in reactor communities for a decision of this magnitude. Holding only one hearing in December 1999 at NRC HQ shows that the NRC has no intention of allowing true public participation.

There should be not one but many public meetings in each city and town within 100 miles of nuclear reactors, to make sure that everyone is aware of the implications of relicensing. At each meeting, and throughout the process, there should be a thorough airing of information about damages caused by radioactive emissions from "normal" nuclear reactor operations. For instance, studies published in May, 2000, show that there are heightened rates of infant mortality and breast cancer in communities near reactors, and that these rates go down when reactors close.

There are many generic reasons why license extensions should be denied. Are these fully addressed in the GALL report? Dave Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists clearly states the risk: "During the early stage of life and the late stage, the failure rate for both man and machines is generally higher than during middle age; the reliability of both man and machines is generally lower during the early and late stages. The prudent and proper course of action is to retire aging nuclear plants before they reach the point where reliability drops off markedly."

U.S. nuclear power plants were all built with technology that is 30 or 40 years old-and extensively modified so that they bear no relation to their original technical specifications. These souped-up old jalopies are a menace to us all. They should be shut down before they deteriorate further, especially now that nuclear operators are increasingly squeezed by economic uncertainties in the deregulated electric power market. Many are already cutting corners on maintenance and staff.

Deregulation unexpectedly made it more rather than less attractive to continue running nukes. In states where ratepayers are being forced to pay off nuclear construction costs, day-to-day nuclear operations are for the first time competitive with other forms of power.

In states without nuclear bailout provisions, it is also proving attractive for utilities to relicense and continue operating some nuclear plants, because this gives them 20 more years to collect money from ratepayers to pay off nuclear construction debts and build up decommissioning funds.

In either case, extended licenses encourages owners to keep plants running-or to sell them for some quick money and a chance to escape further responsibility. Companies that have recently purchased a number of U.S. and Canadian reactors and want to buy more, exhibit the lowest standards yet seen in the nuclear industry, specializing in squeezing out the most megawatts with the least possible investment.

The vast majority of people in the United States and many parts of the world oppose nuclear power. Relicensing the reactors flies in the face of democratic desires as well as common sense. In spite of the industry and the NRC's attempts to hide information, the people of the world know enough about the horrendous consequences of nuclear errors to know that we must end this ill-starred experiment as soon as possible. There are plenty of alternatives that can replace nuclear power. It is time for the U.S. government to drop its support for this obsolete and extraordinarily damaging technology, so that full-scale development of the alternatives can proceed.

Barbara George, Director Women's Energy Matters

So, where can we send public comments? Is there anyone that concerned citizens can write to to change this procedure?

Shia Levitt

-- Editor

George W. Bush, The Fortunate Son

In considering whether to subcribe to the Albion Monitor, I took advantage of reading the foreward to the Hatfield book by Toby Rogers and Nick Mamatas.

Even if they are correct when they imply that Michael Andrew Grissom is a white supremacist (and I've never heard of Grissom nor am I a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy), that is not proved by the Rogers/Mamatas referral to this Grissom statement: "No one can doubt the effectiveness of the original Ku Klux Klan. The Klan did a tremendous amount of benevolent work among the poor." Grissom's membership on the Board of the Council of Conservative Citizens is evidence of that, so why must Rogers/Mamatas overkill with the above-quoted statement? When I read the statement, particularly the word "original," I immediately thought that these guys would have gone nuts to defeat the nomination of Hugo Black, once a KKK member, in 1937 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Black and Douglas were the two greatest civil libertarians the court has ever had or ever will have.

Writers outside the mainstream ought to be like Caesar's wife -- above reproach. I want exposes, but I want to think the sources, the writers are credible.

Ann Loflin (N Carolina)

-- Editor

Give Back The Money

"It's hard enough to raise children today without the entertainment industry making it more difficult," Gore stated, as reported in Reuters. "We believe in giving parents better information and more tools to help them protect their children from inappropriate material."

I applaud Al Gore for standing for the "people, not the powerful," by publicly positioning himself against the entertainment industry and making Campaign Finance Reform at the top of his campaign agenda. Therefore, I call on the Vice President to go beyond publicity and to return campaign contributions received from the rich and powerful entertainment industry, as reported by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) to be $13,619,182, this year alone. The Associated Press reports that the entertainment industry to be the fourth largest source of cash for the Democratic Party, much of which is likely to be soft money.

Richard Obcena (Wisconsin)

Sour on Politicians

Rick Lazio, you be ashamed, the way you insulted the first lady. I lost my respect for you and you lost my vote.

Severio Nesich (New York)

Marysza Blaison

Dan Sweeton (Tennesee)

"IlandBld"

Giuliani Justice

Confirming what eight million New Yorkers already knew, Federal prosecutors have announced that the NYPD engages in racial profiling. Should New Yorkers be relieved that we are finally going to be rescued from Racist Rudy? The reality is that Federal authorities are fully aware of a host of illegal and unconstitutional practices by the Mayor and his criminal administration. Racial profiling is just one small category of these crimes against the people of New York City.

Was this really news for the Clinton administration or a discovery based on pouring over police records? They have sat quietly by while the Mayor trashes the First Amendment, terrorizes the Black and Latino community and sprays poison gas repeatedly on the entire City. His welfare, food stamp, street artist, homeless and City Hall access policies continue to flagrantly violate the law despite the Mayor repeatedly losing in Federal Court on each.

If not for the Mayor's characteristically exaggerated response -- viciously denouncing the report and any possibility that the NYPD practiced racial profiling as lies -- the facts could be conveniently buried under seemingly well-intentioned calls for reforming the police. Instead, Giuliani has made it clear to anyone with a brain that he takes this report as a personal attack on him, his "ideas" and his legacy -- as well he should.

His inflamatory rhetoric -- that if the police were looking for a suspected Black rapist fitting a particular description and stopped 100 men that they could be expected to arrest at least 40 of them on unrelated charges -- is a textbook explanation of the idea behind racial profiling. The entire reason we have a Fourth Amendment is that repressive dictatorships always resort to this exact same arbitrary stop and search policy. It is the single most effective technique for controlling people. To make it acceptable to the majority it must first be applied to a feared, hated or despised minority such as immigrants, Blacks or in Nazi Germany, Jews. Once the majority allows this policy to continue it can be expanded to include everyone.

Activists who imagine that the Feds will end the unequal treatment of minorities by the NYPD are fooling themselves. That Federal prosecutors keep trying to negotiate a settlement with Giuliani about this issue shows how little intention they have to really open up this can of worms. Giuliani is the prototype for all U.S. law enforcement, Republican or Democrat. What Giuliani does to Blacks and Latinos in NYC today is what the Federal government intends to do to all Americans tomorrow.

It's also long overdue for the mainstream media to stop leaving out the most important part of this story. Giuliani gets his so-called ideas from a CIA-sponsored right wing think tank, The Manhattan Institute. Every misbegotten policy he's tried to implement comes directly from this organization which is funded by the far right and by corporations with direct ties to Eugenics, racism and in some cases, Nazi Germany. For the intellectual premises behind his policies look no further than the Bell Curve and Fixing Broken Windows, both of which are closely identified with the Manhattan Institute. GW Bush has publicly claimed that next to the bible the Manhattan Institute has had the greatest influence on his own ideas.

Robert Lederman

Sweatshop Help

I am trying to find an updated list of retailers that have pledged to "try to ensure" that their products aren't made in sweatshops from the U.S. Dept. of Labor yet the latest on their website is from 1996. Do you have any further information about this? Where should I check for an update of such a list?

Anne Hickey

The best resource is sweatshopwatch.org's web section for Shop with a Conscience.
-- Editor

White Supremacy in the 1990's

I was impressed by the scholarship of Loretta Ross in her Albion Monitor commentary, but must address some of her guilt-by-association inferences. I'd rather write a letter of glowing praise applauding a good expository piece attacking the insidious tactics of white supremacist movements: I didn't agree with a lot of the broad categorizations she was making however.

First, she states: "From the ranks of homophobes, anti-abortionists, racists, anti-Semites, and those who are simply afraid of a fast-changing world, white supremacists find willing allies in their struggle to control America's destiny." As someone who believes that abortion is murder, I do not appreciate being lumped together with a group as foul and depraved as white supremacists.

My opinion on abortion is simply this: since no one would agree that aborting an 8-month 20 day old healthy fetus is acceptable, then it is clear that something is more important than the right to choose. At exactly what point in fetal development do we decide that the mother's right to choose is more important than the baby's right to live? Since I can see no clear, objective, medical criteria for this decision, and because no one can know for certain that the fetus feels no pain, then how could I be in favor of abortion? I feel entitled to my belief that it is morally wrong. Should I then be characterized as a "willing ally" of another movement I detest?

Let's not stereotype or discriminate against conservatives and Christians simply because the rabid racists have stolen the label. Any true disciple of Jesus Christ would eschew and condemn racist ideology.

Brian Crouch

What's Wrong With the Layout?

I have very much enjoyed my online subscription the Albion Monitor. Because I use a larger type with Netscape on my workstation the right most several characters in your articles get clipped off. (Since they are black letters running into a black border) Could you fix this?

Douglas S. Greer

The original HTML philosophy was intended to give the user as much control over the display as possible. Few, if any, assumptions should be made about the width/height of the page, preferred kind and size of font, and so on. (Many web designers ignore these rules, and assume that everyone has exactly the same display as they have.) But problems will still arise if the display is significantly larger or smaller. If it's too small the graphics and text may overlap; too large and the lines of text become difficult to follow. In both cases, the graphic composition of the page is lost. When we redesigned the layout in 1998 we decided to intentionally limit the background to about 1000 pixels, knowing that the result would look "wrong" on larger displays. We expected the reader would resize the width of the browser window to eliminate the wraparound, and thus restore the page width to a tolerable range for our layout. We have now changed this to add an explicit message asking readers with very large displays to resize their browser windows.

-- Editor