Fracking – This needs to be regulated hard

This just the beginning. The drillers have no idea what they are doing down below. They have very little idea of all the formations they are drilling through. They absolutely have no control over the venting of the gas. And yes, they need to disclose, recover and retain all of the high pressure fluids that they use.

http://coloradoenergynews.com/2011/10/breaking-news-epa-to-regulate-fracking-wastewater-disposal/

Breaking News — EPA to Regulate Fracking Wastewater Disposal

October 20th, 2011

Federal environmental regulators say they will develop national standards for the disposal of polluted wastewaters generated by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. The agency said it will draft standards for fracking wastewater that drillers would have to meet before sending it to treatment plants.

Staff-Updated

“Fracking” as it is commonly referred to is used extensively in natural gas extraction throughout the United States, including Colorado and neighboring Wyoming. It has been the main technique for freeing up large pockets of shale gas deep underground, and involves injecting sand and chemical additives mixed with millions of gallons of water. The potential impact on water quality in the areas where fracking is practiced is the main concern, although the industry points out there have not been any documented cases of water supplies being contaminated, and hydraulic fracturing operations take place far below water tables.

The EPA’s announcement said the agency will draft standards for fracking wastewater that drillers would have to meet before sending it to treatment plants

Major natural gas companies like Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., which has a major presence in Colorado, and Chesapeake Energy recycle a large percentage of fracking wastewater, other operators inject it underground. However, a certain amount is sent to treatment plants that are not equipped to handle it.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Moving On To National Issues for Awhile – The Gulf of Mexico is still screwed up

If the Exxon Valdez incident is any example the Gulf will be damaged for 20 years and most of the people who had direct contact with the oil will be dead. Generally this is a crime with nobody in jail.

http://alabamashrimpfestival.com/2011/11/01/bio-hazard-beach-littered-with-possibly-hazardous-dead-dolphin-chunks/

 

Bio Hazard : Mississippi Beach littered with possibly Bio-hazardous dead dolphin chunks

by Michele on November 1, 2011

Click the link to see more of these pictures by Laurel Lockamy  : This is Disgraceful … instead of proper disposal of dead Marine mammal’s they bury potentially Bio Hazardous pieces of them all over this Mississippi beach

I am disgusted by what I am seeing … What are these people thinking… A Government report was just released stating that 5 of 21 dolphins that they’ve tested so far died from a  a Bacteria known as Brucella…. Yes it can be transmitted to humans as well as domestic animals… While Brucella is a naturally occurring bacteria these scientists involved in the study feel that either the bacteria has mutated in to a more viralent and Lethal Strain  after being exposed to Crude Oil and Dispersants  from the BP Oil Disaster .. or possibly that the Dolphins immune systems have been so compromised from the continuing environmental stressors related to the BP Oil Disaster that they can no longer fight off what would otherwise for the most part have been a non- lethal infection.. Wake up people The Gulf is not better than before the spill and the ongoing death and destruction continue daily from La.- Fl. Please stay out of the water,and DO NOT EAT GULF SEAFOOD !!!!

Here is Stuart Smith’s latest article on the subject > Government Scientists Tie BP Spill to Dolphin Die-Off in Gulf – And Suggest Humans Also Could BeAffected

Here is the link to the CNN report Bacteria linked to deaths of bottlenosed dolphins

Going to include this link to more info on Brucella : Welcome to Brucella Bioinformatics Portal

NRDC ‘s Rocky Kistner’s latest for the Huffington Post: As Dolphins Die, Gulf Residents Ask What About Us?

 

:}

More national news tomorrow.

:}

ICC Hearing A Joke – 15 minutes, 3 speakers and it was over

OK so it wasn’t really the Commission or the Commission Staff’s fault. Not even AARP’s,  though I was surprised that only 2 of their people spoke. I think it was their regional Director who is in Chicago and then what I took to be one of their local members. She ended up talking to the AARP  National Gazette reporter that was there so I split. But still, I got up as the third speaker and gave my classic “times are bad for people and the rates should be cut” spiel.  I was out the door in 15 minutes and arrived late. The ultimate blame falls on the poor people who have been crushed into submission. Unless they rise up and speak nothing will happen. Turn off their power at the same time or something like that, as a protest then utility companies will continue to roll.

http://www.icc.illinois.gov/

August 22, 2011                                                                                      Contact:   Beth Bosch

217-782-5793

 

ICC Sets Public Hearing On Ameren Rate Increases

For August 30

The Illinois Commerce Commission has scheduled a public forum Tuesday, August 30 to gather comments on Ameren Illinois’ proposal to increase rates for the delivery of natural gas and electricity to its customers.

The forum will be held at 1 p.m. in the Commission’s main hearing room, 527 E. Capitol Ave., Springfield.

Ameren proposed increasing rates for gas and electric delivery service to generate an estimated $110.5 million in new annual revenue.  Ameren proposed increasing electric rates for CIPS customers by appropoximately 11 percent, CILCO customers by 16.5 percent and IP customers by about 2.5 percent.  The company proposed increasing gas rates for CIPS customers by approximately 15.5 percent, CILCO customers by 24.0 percent and IP customers by 14.5 percent.

Oral and written comments will be accepted at the meeting.

Ameren Illinois’ rate case proposals are available on the ICC e-docket system.  To access all documents filed in the cases, enter the case numbers in the box on the front page of the ICC website at  http://www.icc.illinois.gov .   The docket numbers are 11-0279 (electricity) and 11-0282 (natural gas).

Comments may also be filed anytime on the Commission’s website under public comments.

# # #

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

As often as this has been documented, you would think peeps would get it by now.

http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/?fb_ref=rightrail

Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money

Nine Out of Ten Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon Mobil Money

2011 • 2:30 pm PDT

newsweek, global warming is a hoax, global warming, climate change, denial,

If you spend any time at all browsing comments on articles about climate change (and bless you if you’ve managed to avoid it), you’ve likely read the same handful of long-debunked arguments against the reality of anthropogenic global warming (or “man-made” global warming). Recently, you’ve also almost definitely seen links to this website—”900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm”—created by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The problem is, of the top ten contributors of articles to that list, nine are financially linked to Exxon Mobil. Carbon Brief, which examined the list in detail, explains:

Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry. There are numerous other names on the list with links to oil-industry funded climate sceptic think-tanks, including more from the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Marshall Institute.

Compiling these lists is dramatically different to the process of producing IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports are thoroughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is relevant and diverse.

It’s well worth reading the rest of the Carbon Brief analysis.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Green Transportation For The Saudis – Germans sell Leopard 2A1 tanks

Please play this song in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJDuZIcQ34

It is kind of a return to our old Jam Band Friday format.

:}

Anyway crossing the boundaries between green transportation, energy policy and crowd control, the Germans announced they had come to an agreement to sell Saudia Arabia 200 of their Leopard 2A1 battle main tanks. As Der Speigel quickly pointed out such a sale sends both a crazy signal to Germany’s large peace community but a defeatist one to those countries involved in the Arab Spring (read: food riots). But when it comes to crushing resistance any battle main usually weighs over 50 ton, so that works out pretty well. Do not be fooled either by the nameless chinese man’s dance with the Chinese battle main because that was a once in a century event. The Arab drivers prefer to get them  babies up to their top speeds of 45 miles per hour and roll. At those speeds they get a whopping 1.3333 miles per gallon. But at more cautious battle speeds they get something more like 4 – 5 miles per gallon. Kinda like a 1963 red corvette. Or maybe a Hummer. But when you compare it to its actual soul mates like the Caterpillar 797 which gets a heart pumping 3 miles per gallon at the same speeds the Leopard is a true jungle cat. OK well I have had enough fun for today.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081566,00.html?

?

Should Germany Sell Tanks to Saudi Arabia?

By William Boston / Berlin Thursday, July 07, 2011
Click here to find out more!

Troops of the 37th Armored Infantry Brigade (37. Panzergrenadierbrigade) prepare to board their Marder light tanks.

It’s never easy to balance idealism with political realities, but as Germany grapples with the challenges posed by the Arab Spring it is sometimes hard to tell which side
Berlin is on.

The capital’s latest foreign-policy faux pas is an alleged behind-closed-doors deal to sell state-of-the-art tanks to Saudi Arabia. The deal — so secret the government won’t even acknowledge it was ever discussed — has kicked up a firestorm of protest, uniting an unlikely coalition of leftist politicians, human-rights groups, church leaders and senior members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party. (See “Angela Merkel: German Rules.”)

News of the deal broke on Sunday, when the newsweekly Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s ultra-secretive Federal Security Council, whose members include Merkel, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and Defense Minister Thomas De Maiziere, approved the sale of 200 Leopard 2 tanks, Germany’s most modern battlefield tank, to Saudi Arabia. During a meeting of the CDU parliamentary group on Monday, Norbert Lammert, the president of the Bundestag — the German parliament — and Ruprecht Polenz, head of parliament’s influential foreign affairs committee, argued forcefully that Germany could not sell such heavy arms to a country known for routine violations of the most basic human rights. “Such decisions cannot be taken at a time when people are fighting for democracy in the Arab world,” said Juergen Trittin, a Green Party leader, on German television on Tuesday.

Protests have also been raining in from church leaders and human-rights activists, who argue that Saudi Arabia is on the wrong side of history in the tide of rebellion sweeping through the Arab world. As the momentum of protests in Tunisia and Egypt carried the Arab Spring into the tiny nation of Bahrain last March, some 2,000 troops from Arab nations close to the ruling monarchy, including heavily armed Saudis, quashed the rebellion. Meanwhile, the German government still faces criticism for abstaining from the U.N. Security Council vote authorizing air strikes in support of Libyan rebels, and still refuses to offer direct military aid, even after softening its position (it does provide about $5.3 million in financial assistance for NATO’s Libya mission.) Against that backdrop, even Merkel’s closest party allies are at a loss to justify the sale of weapons to a nation with a history of oppression.

(See where Angela Merkel falls on the most powerful women list.)

The deal, were it to take place, is stunning not only because of the political signal it sends to pro-democracy activists in the Middle East and North Africa. A weapons sale of that order would mark a significant change in German arms-export policies. For the past 20 years, Germany has refused to sell such heavy artillery to the Saudis, citing concerns over human-rights abuses. German law also forbids weapons exports to countries engaged in a direct conflict — though the definition of conflict is open to interpretation.

dot dot dot (as they say) 

The Leopard 2 tank is manufactured in Germany but is also produced under license in Spain. And the Saudis are believed to have also negotiated with the Spanish, putting Madrid and Berlin in competition for defense jobs. Germany has a small army and with the end of the Cold War there is little requirement for tanks like the Leopard 2 on potential European battlefields. NATO is scaling back its traditional European land defenses in favor of lighter, rapid deployment forces to support campaigns out of the European theater, such as Afghanistan. The shrinking demand at home leaves defense companies looking abroad for contracts.

:}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2E

Leopard 2E

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leopardo 2E. zaragoza 1.jpg
Spanish Leopard 2E in Madrid, October 2006
Type Main battle tank

The Leopard 2E (E stands for España, Spanish for Spain) is a variant of the German Leopard 2 main battle tank, tailored to the requirements of the Spanish Army, which acquired it as part of an armament modernization program named Programa Coraza, or Program Armor. The acquisition program for the Leopard 2E began in 1994, five years after the cancellation of the Lince tank program that culminated in an agreement to transfer 108 Leopard 2A4s to the Spanish Army in 1998 and started the local production of the Leopard 2E in December 2003. Despite postponement of production due to the 2003 merger between Santa Bárbara Sistemas and General Dynamics and continued fabrication issues between 2006 and 2007, 219 Leopard 2Es have been delivered to the Spanish Army.

The Leopard 2E is a major improvement over the M60 Patton tank, which it replaced in Spain’s mechanized and armored units. Its development represented a total of 2.6 million hours worth of work, 9,600 of them in Germany, at a total cost of 1.9 billion euros. This makes it one of the most expensive Leopard 2s built. Indigenous production amounted to 60% and the vehicles were assembled locally at Sevilla by Santa Bárbara Sistemas. It has thicker armor on the turret and glacis plate than the German Leopard 2A6, and uses a Spanish-designed tank command and control system, similar to the one fitted in German Leopard 2s. The Leopard 2E is expected to remain in service until 2025.

:}

Gets better mileage then the Space Shuttle, which “leapt from the ground like a scared cat” today for the last time. God speed. More next week.

:}

Nuclear Power In The US Is Expensive – It is too much money to meter

The Finns found this out real quick when they started their new Nuke 5 years ago costs estimates were 4 billion $$$. Right now they are at 7 billion $$$ and the meter is still turning. Even with 8 billion $$$ of backing for the two new reactors at the Vogle site Georgia Power could get no money in the private sector so they are “self financing”. Anybody want to buy a cheap power company someday? But this was the wind blowing through the trees in 2003 (and you should see the 2009 update for a good laugh) when we had a President that couldn’t even pronounce the word nuclear right.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Introduction

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

News Release

MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON “THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY”

Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases

July 29, 2003

Washington, D.C. — A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls “the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy.”

The report maintains that “The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power.”

“Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020,” said Deutch. “In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions.”

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear’s share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.

“There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels,” said Dr. Moniz. “But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power”

The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:

  • Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
  • Offering a limited production tax-credit to ‘first movers’ – private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
  • Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
  • Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
  • Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
  • Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.

The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration..

The members of the study team are: John Deutch (co-chair), Ernest Moniz (co-chair), S. Ansolabehere, Michael Driscoll, Paul Gray, John Holdren (Harvard), Paul Joskow, Richard Lester, and Neil Todreas.

Members of the Advisory Committee included: former U.S. Congressman Phil Sharp (chair), former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and John Sununu, John Ahearne, Tom Cochran, Linn Draper, Ted Greenwood, John MacWilliams, Jessica Mathews, Zack Pate, and Mason Willrich.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

CONTACTS: David Dreyer / Eric London
PHONE: 202-986-0033

Related Links

MIT ENERGY INITIATIVE (MITei)

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING (NSE)

CENTER FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (CANES)

CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RESEARCH (CEEPR)

:}

Really amazing stuff. More tomorrow.

:}

China’s Nuclear Power Program Pauses Briefly

That is right. After one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, in its own backyard the Fukushima Power Plant Meltdown barely slowed the Chinese quest for megawatts. While Spain and other countries review their plants and Germany has renounced its programs altogether, the Chinese plunge ahead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/china-nuclear-plants-pass-inspections

China’s nuclear power plants pass safety inspections

Regulators give country’s 13 reactors the all-clear following checks ordered in wake of Fukushima disaster

nuclear power 
The Daya Bay nuclear power station in Guangdong province, south China. Inspectors have given the country’s existing reactors the all-clear. Photograph: Adrian Bradshaw/EPA

China has moved a step closer towards resuming its ambitious nuclear power plans after it was revealed that safety inspectors have given the country’s 13 reactors the all-clear.

The clean bill of health makes it more likely that Beijing will not follow the example of other countries – most recently German, Italy and Japan – who have promised to scale back or abandon nuclear power in the wake of the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in March.

China has the world’s biggest nuclear expansion plans with a goal of more than 100 reactors by 2020, but it suspended permits for new plants after the tsunami disaster in Japan.

The government said it would not be resumed until existing plants were checked, construction plans reviewed and a new national safety framework put in place.

That process is now well under way, according to a statement by the deputy environment minister, Li Ganjie, posted on a government website. As well as the completed checks for plants in operation, reviews of facilities under construction would be finished by October, he said.

Few analysts expect China to trim or delay targets that were included in the latest five-year economic plan to meet the power demands of a growing economy, while reducing the country’s reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting fuel sources.

But critical voices have grown louder. Professor He Zuoxiu, who helped to develop China’s first atomic bomb, caused a storm last month when he claimed that plans to ramp up production of nuclear energy twentyfold by 2030 could be as disastrous as the Great Leap Forward.

:}

More tomorrow.
:}

Japan’s Nuclear Contamination Is Spreading All Over The Island

Literally. They are finding “hot particles” in places away from even the evacuation and controlled zones. This thing looks like it could get out of hand. I am convinced that it will stay a local event. And I am convinced that when people report that the entire Island could become uninhabitable they are mistranslating things Japanese Officials are saying. Still, something that I thought would be over by August or September is going to be around until next year.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032751_Fukushima_strontium.html

Fukushima: Strontium levels up to 240 times over legal limit near plant, uninhabitable land area now the size of 17 Manhattans

Sunday, June 19, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Representing the first time the substance has been detected at the crippled plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reported on Sunday that seawater and groundwater samples taken near the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility in Japan have tested positive for radioactive strontium. And according to a recent report in The Japan Times, levels of strontium detected were up to 240 times over the legal limit, indicating a serious environmental and health threat.

Radioactive strontium, which is known to accumulate in bones and eventually lead to diseases like cancer and leukemia, is one of at least three “hot particles” being continually released by the damaged plant, according to experts. The others include radioactive cesium and plutonium, both of which are implicated in causing birth defects, cancer, and death.

“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo,” said Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president with 39 years of nuclear engineering experience, to Al Jazeera. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”

TEPCO has allegedly installed a new water decontamination system that it claims will eventually help filter dangerous radioactive isotopes from polluted water, and thus limit environmental and human exposure to the poisons. But that system has already run into several problems as flow rates have been lower than intended.

“Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed,” added Gundersen. “You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively.”

Al Jazeera also reports that a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government recently explained that roughly 966 square kilometers (km), or 600 square miles, around Fukushima are now uninhabitable due to the unfolding disaster. This massive dead zone area is the equivalent size of 17 Manhattans placed next to each other.

:}

More bad nukes tomorrow. :}

Russian Nuclear Power Plants Are Old And Dangerous

Just when you thought there could be no more Chernobyls, this report caused the reindeer to stampede.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Russian+officials+numerous+shortcomings+at+nuclear+plants+near+Finland/1135267043718

Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland

Inspection report leaked to Norwegian newspaper

Inspections of Russian nuclear power plants have revealed serious shortcomings in the safety of the plants – particularly in the preparations for earthquakes and other natural disasters.
The difficulties emerge in a report by the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom, which was acquired by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
The paper wrote on Sunday that many of the problems apply to Russian nuclear installations in general. However, the greatest risks are in old reactors located in areas near Finland and Norway – on the Kola Peninsula and the St. Petersburg region. 

In several countries, including Russia, nuclear power plants have undergone “stress tests” following the nuclear accident which occurred at the Japanese plant in Fukushima in March.
Keijo Valtonen, an official at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland (STUK), expects that the results of the inspections conducted in Russia will be available in Finland soon.

Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland
Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland
print this

In addition to the earthquake risk the Rosatom report warns of inadequate reserve cooling systems in Russian plants. Nuclear fuel storage facilities were also shown to be inadequate in some places, and there is a shortage of trained maintenance personnel and inspectors in Russia.
The report lists a total of 31 shortcomings.
According to Valtonen, judging from the deficiencies that were listed, the Russians have made an open assessment of the problems. Norwegian experts also feel that the assessments are reliable.

The report also mentions the Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg, which has been a cause for concern in Finland for some time.
The Sosnovy Bor plant uses the same reactor technology as what was used in Chernobyl, where the world’s worst nuclear accident took place in 1986. A mitigating factor in the matter is that the area is not especially prone to earthquakes.
Nuclear safety has also been assessed in Finland, in the wake of Fukushima. According to Valtonen, the risk reports made at the national level are to be given over to international assessment. “If shortcomings are noticed, drawing conclusions is a matter for each individual country.”

Previously in HS International Edition:
Finnish nuclear industry says Japan scenario unlikely in Finland (14.3.2011)
Steam leak brings Unit 1 of Loviisa Nuclear Power Plant to controlled shutdown (21.2.2011)
Finnish nuclear authority investigates problems in online reporting on Japan (15.3.2011)

See also:
People in Sosnovyi Bor discuss constructing new nuclear reactors (8.2.2007)

Links:
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland (STUK)

:}

Unfortunately more Tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power Plants Are Old And Dangerous Worldwide

Questions have been raised about the safety of Nuclear Power Plants around the world since the incident in Japan. I will get to Japan in a couple of days but first this just out from the AP. Turns out the US has some worries of its own. They have just been covered up.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137291169

AP IMPACT: US Nuke Regulators Weaken Safety Rules

by The Associated Press

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. June 20, 2011, 03:38 am ET

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP’s yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America’s electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are “unnecessarily conservative.”

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.

“That’s what they say for everything, whether that’s the case or not,” said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. “Every time you turn around, they say `We have all this built-in conservatism.'”

:}

dot dot dot

:}

Unprompted, several nuclear engineers and former regulators used nearly identical terminology to describe how industry and government research has frequently justified loosening safety standards to keep aging reactors within operating rules. They call the approach “sharpening the pencil” or “pencil engineering” — the fudging of calculations and assumptions to yield answers that enable plants with deteriorating conditions to remain in compliance.

“Many utilities are doing that sort of thing,” said engineer Richard T. Lahey Jr., who used to design nuclear safety systems for General Electric Co., which makes boiling water reactors. “I think we need nuclear power, but we can’t compromise on safety. I think the vulnerability is on these older plants.”

Added Paul Blanch, an engineer who left the industry over safety issues but later returned to work on solving them: “It’s a philosophical position that (federal regulators) take that’s driven by the industry and by the economics: What do we need to do to let those plants continue to operate? They somehow sharpen their pencil to either modify their interpretation of the regulations, or they modify their assumptions in the risk assessment.”

:}

Much more tomorrow

:}