Nuclear Regulatory Commission: License Renewed For Entergy Corp's Pilgrim Reactor

May 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said Friday it approved a new 20-year operating license for Entergy Corp's Pilgrim reactor in Massachusetts.

Three of the five commissioners voted in favor of the new license for the 40-year old reactor, with one -- Chairman Gregory Jaczko -- opposed. The other commissioner did not vote.

Also on HuffPost:

From our partners

• How Two Determined Sisters Set Up A Pet Rescue Pipeline To Colorado - Mother Nature Network
• Panel Finds Flaws In Hurricane Sandy Warning System - Climate Central
• 11 Images And Facts About A Misunderstood Creature - Mother Nature Network

Comments

[mdinoregon]

11:34 AM on 06/01/2012

Safety panel agrees to hearing on nuclear plant
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120531/NEWS/120539957/-1/NEWS01
An atomic safety board has agreed to conduct a hearing in Boston after a request by opponents of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth.

A three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hear arguments June 7 regarding two orders given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after last year’s nuclear plant accident in Japan.

The NRC orders aimed to apply lessons from the accident to improve safety. But the group Pilgrim Watch said they failed to require fixes needed to prevent the same problems that caused three Japanese reactors to blow up. It also says the orders didn’t address problems with storing spent fuel rods.

[Teresa Tutt]

10:36 AM on 05/31/2012

Forget the Carbon claptrap (it's not a pollutant) . Nuclear provides the one thing that no renewable source can ever produce (without costly and heavily polluting backup systems):

Baseload Power

If you think baseload power is a myth, then visit a hospital ICU sometime... or a waste treatment plant... Or a water purification facility...

Wind, solar, gas and especially coal have all killed more people per megawatt hour generated than nuclear by several orders of magnitude. Nothing is safer. Nothing is more reliable. Nothing is cleaner. EVEN when the so-called waste issue is taken into account (80% of "waste" is actually fuel)

GO NUKES!!

[mdinoregon]

08:30 PM on 05/31/2012

Only nukes can poison thousands of miles of land, and ever heard of nuclear weapons?
KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE
Gee, you would think that was why it was invented.
That doesn't even mention the waste that is really good at poisoning for hundreds of generations.

As far as baseload, it peaks and ebbs- NPPs don't. When does it peak? Early afternoon. When does both wind and solar work best? Early afternoon.

NOW you are suppose to say that backups take more energy and pollute more then just having a gas backup by themselves and the magic of misinformed silliness continues.

[Kenz300]

11:04 AM on 05/29/2012

We now find out that the spent fuel storage pools at Fukishima are as dangerous as the reactors. The plan is is begin removing the rod at the end of 2013. This disaster is a slow moving train wreck. The cost and environmental dangers will continue forever.

These 40 year old nuclear plants are beyond their life expectancy and need to be shut down.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy sources.

[caldomark]

03:30 PM on 05/29/2012

Actually there is no danger from spent fuel pools at FUKU. This was more junk science from the usual Denier organisations all funded by Big Oil.

The 40 year life expect canard was based on depreciation schedules not engineering.

Nukes are the safest cleanest energy source there is.

[stephengn1]

06:52 PM on 05/29/2012

"Actually there is no danger from spent fuel pools at FUKU"

Why then is TEPCO concerning themselves with taking them down?

[Genders]

09:08 AM on 05/30/2012

Tin hat?

Nuke power has killed 6 million people so far.

Nukes are trill dollar, million cancer disasters, million year millions of cancer wastes, and civilization ending proliferation.

Solar is cheaper, wind and waste are half the costs of nukes, and all are much faster to install.

[Kenz300]

11:00 AM on 05/29/2012

The cost of coal, oil and nuclear keep rising while the price of wind and solar are dropping.

Wind, solar, wave energy and geothermal are the future of clean energy.

[caldomark]

03:34 PM on 05/29/2012

Nukes are the cheapest energy source there is with costs expected to drop rapidly as factory module construction begins. Solar just got a 233% increase from the US government on the Walmart quality dumped Chinese panels and wind can expect the same treatment.

[stephengn1]

06:54 PM on 05/29/2012

"Nukes are the cheapest energy source"

Only if you lie

[Genders]

09:09 AM on 05/30/2012

wrong again.
Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!

http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
shows overlap in solar and nukes costs at around 13 cents.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html 3 cents per KWH rooftop solar.

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

Then see what subsidies you can get, there are lots of them: http://www.dsireusa.org/

http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-solar-billing-2009-12

[Jtt]

08:56 PM on 05/28/2012

Renewable energy sources provided about 13% of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation in 2011. The largest share of the renewable-generated electricity came from hydroelectric power (63%), followed by: wind (23%), biomass wood (7%), biomass waste (4%), geothermal (3%), and solar (

[Jtt]

09:00 PM on 05/28/2012

Nuclear 19%

Natural gas 25%

Coal 42%

Renewables are not going to replace nuclear and combat climate change.

[strangiato]

09:00 AM on 05/29/2012

Sources less destructive than nuclear energy like natural gas will be replacing nuclear energy in the short term. Ultimately, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal will replace the less destructive sources.

[stephengn1]

06:59 PM on 05/29/2012

"Renewables are not going to replace nuclear and combat climate change. "

Over what time frame is this true?

2 years? True.

10 years? Renewables will certainly gain market share

20 years? Can you even fathom the advances in materials science that will occur over the next 20 years?

[strangiato]

09:21 AM on 05/29/2012

And that is about to change. So? What does this have to do with an aging, problematic, and poorly designed nuclear power plant that routinely releases radiation and was recently re licensed to operate well outside its originally intended design lifetime?

[caldomark]

03:40 PM on 05/29/2012

Doesn't leak a tiny fraction of the radiation even one of your gas plant spews. Poorly designed it might be by todays standard but it still works safely and efficiently.

The 40 year life expect canard was based on depreciation schedules not engineering.

[Jtt]

07:29 PM on 05/28/2012

Set new, realistic target for greenhouse gas reductions

Nuclear power plants, which emit almost no carbon dioxide when they generate electricity, are an important energy source in terms of fighting global warming.

The estimates show Japan may be able to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a maximum of only 19 percent in 2020 from 1990 levels, even if the ratio of nuclear power generation is raised to 35 percent from the 26 percent level before the nuclear crisis and energy-saving policies are thoroughly implemented. ( http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T120524003871.htm )

The anti nukes cant comprehend reality when it comes to emission cuts.

[strangiato]

08:23 PM on 05/28/2012

And nuclear villagers seem to forget that nuclear power supplied electricity can only be good and useful if you survive the threat to your health that it poses. Not everyone subscribes to the notion that "cheap" electricity is worth getting sick or dying for.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/587/5518.html

[Jtt]

08:45 PM on 05/28/2012

blah blah blah blog

whatever.

[Jtt]

08:50 PM on 05/28/2012

The baby teeth FRAUD. And you complained about peer review - using a fraudulent study that no one else has access to the materials.

[Thomas Rowe]

10:36 AM on 05/29/2012

Drip drip drip.Keep trying to put in your two cents.Chump change.

[MAX1]

05:52 PM on 05/28/2012

.
Rolling the dice...
.

[Kenz300]

11:47 AM on 05/27/2012

Japan has shut down all 54 nuclear reactors and is getting along without them.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy sources. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.

Biofuels can now be made from waste or trash. Seems like there is a lot of trash from the tsunami disaster. Every landfill can now be converted to produce biofuels, energy (methane) and raw materials (recycled) for new products.

Alternative energy sources combined with energy conservation and energy efficiency can move Japan and the rest of the world forward.

[caldomark]

10:52 PM on 05/27/2012

Yup getting alone just fine murdering tens of thousands of citizens annually with air pollution while the reactor accident killed nobody.

Your safe, clean alternative energy sources and Biofuels can only produce a tiny amount of energy at enormous cost.

[strangiato]

06:19 PM on 05/28/2012

Sources or links to support your rubbish?

[mdinoregon]

11:16 AM on 05/29/2012

still designing reactors in crayon?

[Jtt]

07:37 PM on 05/28/2012

Japan has no plan other than increasing fossil fuel use to meet its energy needs.

[Thomas Rowe]

10:41 AM on 05/29/2012

And just think where they would be if They had not made such a foolish choice.Listening to Jtt and the other trolls, you would think that there was no other choice. Imagination is key.

[stephengn1]

08:37 PM on 05/29/2012

"Japan has no plan other than increasing fossil fuel use to meet its energy needs."

This is an outright lie

http://japanfocus.org/-Andrew-DeWit/3721

[WeMustDoBetter09]

10:16 AM on 05/27/2012

Nukes Run Wild Momentous week in nuclear world http://enformable.com/2012/05/nukes-run-wild-momentous-week-in-nuclear-world/
It has been a momentous week in the nuclear world. Last week’s announcement of the long-expected resignation of NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko seems to have set off a flurry of activity in the nuclear industry and its several lobbying and/or propaganda arms.
Just two days after Jaczko’s announced retirement from the NRC, that agency and FEMA quietly overhauled emergency planning around this nation’s nuclear plants, cutting requirements for evacuations and emergency responder exercises.
It seems like right at the time when we should be actively planning for the total shut-down of the nuclear industry, we’re getting hit instead with the total insanity of nuclear expansion.
INSANE IS RIGHT! NO MORE NUKES!!

[Jtt]

03:31 PM on 05/26/2012

“In order for a cladding fire to occur the fuel must be recently discharged (about 10 to 180 days for a BWR and 30 to 250 days for a PWR).”

( http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6135335-5voofL/6135335.pdf )

[strangiato]

05:28 PM on 05/26/2012

And given the refueling rate of most plants - that means there's always very hot fuel in the spent fuel storage pond.

The information contained in the link you cite btw is theoretical. Moreover, the conditions by which spent fuel rods disintegrate and affect adjacent rods can vary significantly. The statement you quoted was conveniently taken out of context and must be weighed against numerous other factors.

Also from the report you linked to:

"It should be emphasized that SFUEL does not address the question of Zircaloy oxidation propagation after clad melting and relocation. For recently
discharged fuel (less than 90 d a y s ), or for severely restricted air flow
(e.g., high density PWR spent fuel racks) the oxidation reaction is predicted
to be very vigorous and failure of both the fuel rods and the fuel rod racks
is expected. Thus a large fraction of the fuel rods would be expected to fall
to the bottom of the pool forming a large debris bed. If water is not present
in the bottom of the pool, the debris bed will remain hot and will tend to
heat the adjacent assemblies from below. "

[WeMustDoBetter09]

05:43 PM on 05/26/2012

Cha-Ching strangiato! Good catch!
Ha Ha...Charade Pro-Nukes Are!

[dripdropandslowlydie]

07:26 PM on 05/26/2012

That is one rod sitting all by itself, not a jumbled stack. Would say additive property but just-tutu wouldn't understand that.

[WeMustDoBetter09]

02:55 PM on 05/26/2012

WATCH OUT WEST COAST
OREGON ESP
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-fuel-rods-at-damaged-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all

[Jtt]

03:26 PM on 05/26/2012

From that poorly written story:

"Some outside experts have also worked to allay fears, saying that the fuel in the pool is now so old that it cannot generate enough heat to start the kind of accident that would allow radioactive material to escape.

But many Japanese have scoffed at those assurances and point out that even if the building is able to withstand further quakes, which they question, the jury-rigged cooling system for the pool has already malfunctioned several times, including a 24-hour failure in April. Had the failures continued, they would have left the rods at risk of dangerous overheating."

That doesn't makes sense. Either it can generate the heat or it cannot. The cooling system is irrelevant.

[WeMustDoBetter09]

04:21 PM on 05/26/2012

Howdy, Oregon! All kinds of rad monitoring links to keep track.
P.s. radiation releases have not stopped since 3/11/11
http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php/board,24.0.html

Also nuke video updates and fallout forecasts posted regularly
http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/nnn.html

In case anyone is inclined to contact their representatives
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[Michael Mann]

06:49 AM on 05/29/2012

Fear sells advertising...

[Jtt]

12:56 PM on 05/26/2012

Good. Unless there are major unfix-able problems we cant afford the carbon.

[WeMustDoBetter09]

02:11 PM on 05/26/2012

We cant afford NUCLEAR jtt.
We subsidize every single thing with NPPs.
No more! I will work the rest of my life shutting these D E A T H Machines down!
GET IT? I GOT IT.

[Jtt]

03:08 PM on 05/26/2012

There is a NASA vid being featured on the Sun right now, the largest unshielded reactor ever.

[Jtt]

04:43 PM on 05/26/2012

"I will work the rest of my life shutting these D E A T H Machines down!"

I guess issues like high fructose corn syrup, fluoridated water, and chemtrails are just going to have to wait.

[Sherrie Heckendorn]

02:46 PM on 05/26/2012

So, radiation from nuclear mishaps, doesnt worry you? Are you even aware what happened in cherbonyl? Are you aware, that reactor 4 is still uncovered and on a fragil support a 100 feet in the air? Are you also aware that japan and the rest of the world raised the amount of radiation that is safe? How can the persuit of energy lead to using a source of energy that has the power to kill all life on the world?

[Jtt]

03:10 PM on 05/26/2012

Doesnt worry me at all compared to FF emissions and Co2. Not one bit -worrying about radiation from nuclear power is like worrying about your neighbor smoking while your house burns down around you.

[Jtt]

03:11 PM on 05/26/2012

Name one extinction due to nuclear power. I can related to hydro and FFs.

[WeMustDoBetter09]

10:54 AM on 05/26/2012

State and Federal Politicians React to Pilgrim's Reliceinsing - Plymouth, MA Patch http://plymouth.patch.com/articles/state-and-federal-politicians-react-to-pilgrim-s-reliceinsing
They are not happy....at all.

[slinkybro]

01:54 PM on 05/29/2012

All 3 of them.

[dripdropandslowlydie]

10:53 AM on 05/26/2012

More political reactions.

http://plymouth.patch.com/articles/state-and-federal-politicians-react-to-pilgrim-s-reliceinsing

State and Federal Politicians React to Pilgrim's Reliceinsing

snip-"It sets a dangerous precedent and highlights the fact that our current system for relicensing our nuclear power plants is in desperate need of reform. The men and women who work to keep Pilgrim operational and safe are undoubtedly some of the best, but what does today’s vote say for the plants across the nation that have yet to go through Post-Fukishima upgrades and have been operational for decades now? While it is not safe for a nuclear plant to be under extended operation status without a renewed license, it is equally unsafe to relicense when ongoing issues exist or without updates being fully implemented. Our current relicensing process allows for both scenarios to happen."

[WeMustDoBetter09]

10:49 AM on 05/26/2012

Markey Blasts NRC Vote to Circumvent Rules, Shut Out Public on Pilgrim Relicense
http://markey.house.gov/press-release/markey-blasts-nrc-vote-circumvent-rules-shut-out-public-pilgrim-relicense

“This vote is an unprecedented subversion of the rules governing relicensing of the nation’s nuclear reactors. It is the latest in a long series of votes that demonstrate a reckless disregard for safety and the public on the part of Commissioners Magwood, Svinicki, Ostendorff and Apostolakis," said Rep. Markey, dean of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation and senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC. “The NRC shouldn’t be short circuiting the process and short-changing residents by moving forward with license approval before all the efforts to improve nuclear and environmental safety at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station have been resolved. Pilgrim’s history of safety and security issues demands full transparency and accountability in the decisions affecting its relicensing so residents can be assured that the process is fair and serves the public interest.”