In September, one of the UN experts, Baskut Tuncak, will present a report to the UN Human Rights Council, calling on States and employers to strengthen protection for workers from exposure to toxic substances, and proposing principles in that regard. The UN experts: Mr. Baskut Tuncak, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Ms. Urmila Bhoola, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences,and Mr. Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health …
U.S. firm pulls out of building Hitachi nuclear plant in Britain, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, August 17, 2018 Major U.S. construction firm Bechtel Corp. is to withdraw from its key role in building a nuclear power plant in Britain due to concerns over the Hitachi Ltd.-helmed project’s profitability, sources said Aug. 16.
Bechtel made the decision based on its assessment that the drastic rise in construction costs would make it hard to make money on the project, the sources said.
The withdrawal deals a blow to Tokyo-based Hitachi, which lacks experience in nuclear power plant construction. The conglomerate could now face further difficulties in financing the project.
The Japanese government supports the construction project as an “export of nuclear power generation technologies,” but even so, its future is becoming more and more uncertain……..
if Horizon replaces Bechtel, it faces the risk that the construction costs will become higher than anticipated.
Hitachi is aiming to lower its stake in Horizon from the current 100 percent to less than 50 percent as a condition for the start of construction of the nuclear plant, and so it is asking other companies to invest in Horizon.
But if other companies are concerned over Horizon’s risk, they will hesitate to invest in it. As a result, Hitachi will face bigger difficulties in raising funds for construction and proceeding with the project.
Citing ‘potential mismanagement,’ state senator asks for study of JEA’s nuclear power costs Jacksonville.com By Nate Monroe , 16 Aug 18
Central Florida state Sen. Debbie Mayfield has asked the Legislature’s auditing and accountability office to study JEA’s involvement in a faltering and increasingly expensive nuclear power project, citing it as an “alarming example” of “potential mismanagement” at the city-owned electric, water and sewer utility.
JEA’s involvement in the Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion project has largely simmered in the background this year as City Hall was embroiled in a contentious debate over whether it should sell the utility to a private operator. But the costs associated with JEA’s share of Vogtle — which could total $4 billion over 20 years — have concerned city and utility officials and credit-rating analysts.
JEA has told the Plant Vogtle co-owners it wants the project canceled, and utility officials are actively searching for ways to get out of the contract it has with the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, one of the co-owners
Mayfield, who represents a state Senate district that includes Brevard and Indian River counties about 150 miles south of Jacksonville, wants the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Office to complete an in-depth study of JEA’s contract with MEAG, and to submit a report to the House and Senate leadership by Feb. 1.
“Citizens from the community have expressed concern over recent events and published reports that suggest serious issues surrounding the spending and operation decisions of the JEA,” Mayfield wrote in a Wednesday letter to the legislative auditors.
…….. JEA signed the Plant Vogtle nuclear power agreement in 2008, when industry analysts considered nuclear power to be on the upswing
…….In recent years, however, the fortunes of nuclear power have nose dived, stemming in large part from the availability and low cost of natural gas.The Plant Vogtle expansion is the only remaining active project of its kind in the nation and has experienced explosive cost overruns and delays in the completion dates. Zahn said JEA’s decision to invest made sense in 2008 but that the structure of the contract has left JEA in a bad spot, especially as the cost has skyrocketed. ……..
Citizens Advisory Panel Skeptical Over Sale of Pilgrim Nuclear Powerplant, WCAI , BySARAH TAN , 16 Aug 18
The Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel expressed deep skepticism regarding Entergy’s decision to sell the Pilgrim powerplant in Plymouth on Wednesday night. Entergy is looking to sell the plant to a joint company after it officially closes in June 2019. Entergy claims the two companies, Holtech International and SNC Lavalin, have more experience with nuclear decommissioning. Holtech and SNC Lavalin have proposed to decommission the plant in much less time – eight years versus Entergy’s up to 60 years, and for much less money than Entergy had estimated. …….
Panel members peppered Entergy and Holtech officials with questions regarding their finances, their plans for decommissioning and their plans for where they’ll store spent nuclear fuel. Former state senator Dan Wolf said the fact that Pilgrim could be sold to not one, but two companies, concerned him.
“And it concerns me that as one of the things I see as part of the presentation is the financial strength of the business, which would imply that if the business gets weak financially there’s not going to be safety? The two should be disconnected, and I don’t see evidence of that,” Wolf said.
As utilities threaten to shut nuclear units, a patchwork of state subsidies has emerged, and DOE and the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are mulling separate actions to prevent reactors from closing. The result is a confusing amalgam of measures that could benefit nuclear units in some locations but not others.
“We’re seeing these plants close, and the next question seems to be ‘Is anyone going to step in and stop it,'” said Tim Fox, a vice president at ClearView Energy Partners, in an interview Friday.
In 2012, the US had 104 nuclear units with total gross capacity of 107.6 GW. A series of retirements for technical and economic reasons shuttered 6 units with 4.7 GW of capacity by 2016.
But in recent years, continued low power prices and the competition from subsidized renewable energy and lower-cost natural gas-fired generation has accelerated the pace of nuclear plant retirement announcements. Thirteen additional units with combined capacity of 12.1 GW will shut permanently between September and 2025. The bulk of the announced retirements will be coming in 2019 (2 units), 2020 (3 units) and 2021 (4 units).
An estimated 12.4 GW in nuclear capacity is at high risk of retiring before its operating authorization ends, said Manan Ahuja, senior director of North American power analytics for S&P Global Platts Analytics. As many as half of all US nuclear units are at some risk of premature retirement, Platts Analytics said in an annual report on the topic in January.
“The biggest issue is plant economics,” Ahuja said in an interview Friday. Factors such as the existence of power purchase agreements, which can provide higher revenue for plant operators, plant-specific costs and the prices in capacity markets are important in determining the risks, he noted.
State, federal actions
The figures for early retirements would be higher had states not enacted subsidy programs, known as zero-emission credits, aimed at keeping nuclear units from shutting.
DOE and FERC are separately considering whether and how to compensate nuclear and coal plants for the benefits they provide to the grid.
The program in New York provides payments to three Exelon-owned upstate nuclear plants for 12 years. ZECs paid to generators increase from $17.48/MWh in the first of six two-year periods to $29.15/MWh in the final period through March 2029.
In Illinois, Exelon’s Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear plants, totaling nearly 3,000 MW, are receiving ZECs. The program could provide $235 million annually to the plant owners.
Power producers separately challenged the Illinois and New Jersey ZEC programs in federal court, saying they violate federal authority to regulate wholesale power markets. After courts ruled in favor of the states, power producers appealed those decisions.
A ZEC-like program was approved by New Jersey lawmakers this year. Plants that are approved for payments could receive 0.4 cent/kWh from retail customers.
In Connecticut, the two-unit 2,113-MW Millstone nuclear plant has been declared eligible to participate in a competitive solicitation for power payments to zero-carbon generating units for the first time. Ohio and Pennsylvania have debated supporting nuclear units, but no action has been taken by lawmakers.
DOE’s effort to consider using its authority to enact emergency measures relating to the power grid to support coal and nuclear plants remains underway and is expected to result in action, although the scope is unknown, said Christine Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy. “It doesn’t seem imminent today, but it certainly hasn’t fallen off the radar screen,” she said Friday.
Helping save several dozen nuclear units could cost billions of dollars, according to a study by the Brattle Group last month. If all coal and nuclear plants were to receive an out-of-market annual payment of $50 per kilowatt of capacity, roughly the average operating shortfall for plants with a deficit, the cost would be $16.7 billion a year, or about $34 billion over two years. The amount would be somewhat lower if only plants in financial trouble received the support, Brattle said.
Market exposure
While all nuclear plants face competitive pressure, the units that are shutting for economic reasons are almost exclusively in deregulated electricity markets. Those in regulated states face fewer challenges because state rate-setting commissions have generally allowed them to recover their costs.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association of nuclear vendors and operators, has directed an effort to cut industry costs, and says those costs peaked in 2012 and have fallen 19% to $33.61/MWh. NEI says nuclear plants are not being compensated for the benefits they provide in terms of availability of fuel, high capacity factors and zero carbon emissions.
Market participants and the owners of natural gas-fired generating units have said markets are doing a good job of providing a steady flow of electricity at the lowest cost to consumers, and subsidies will distort those markets and raise customer costs.
In fact, the trend to provide support to nuclear, and potentially, coal units will keep generators online that would otherwise retire, and does nothing to curb the market’s biggest issue, that of overcapacity, Tezak said. It is hard to see wholesale power prices rising if more generators are encouraged by out-of-market subsidies to remain online, she said.
Middle East Monitor 10th Aug 2018 , Egypt will obtain a license to build the Dabaa nuclear plant by mid-2020,
the Russian deputy minister of industry and trade said. Georgy Kalamanov
added that Russian experts are currently completing designing the nuclear
plant and surveying the area where it will be built.
In 2015, Russia andEgypt signed a deal which would see Russia build Egypt’s first nuclear
power plant in the Dabaa area, located on Egypt’s northwestern coast.
Under the terms of the agreement, Cairo would access a loan for the project
from Moscow. In 2016, the Egyptian official Gazette reported that the loan
would amount to $25 billion, which would finance 85 per cent of the cost of
contracts signed for the plant’s construction. The loan repayment period
is 35 years. Egypt will finance the remaining 15 per cent. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180810-russia-egypt-to-begin-building-nuclear-reactor-in-2020/
Bond Buyer 9th Aug 2018, A $2.2 billion jump over eight months in the estimated cost to complete two
nuclear reactors in Georgia could spell doom for the project. The actual
increase won’t be final until the project’s budget is revised, and it
will require that the private and public utility owners vote on whether to
continue the work at Plant Vogtle. The project is about 67% complete,
according to the latest estimate. https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/costs-rise-for-unfinished-georgias-nuclear-reactors
Premium Times Nigeria, August 12, 2018, Kemi Busari Seven months after PREMIUM TIMES published an investigation on the sorry state of Nigeria’s Nuclear Technology Centre, some abandoned projects within the centre have been completed.
Following the report of security loopholes in the investigation, the management of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) which oversees the centre also contracted a private firm to provide security for the centre.
In the two-part series published by PREMIUM TIMES in January, three projects were designated as abandoned as work had stopped on them.
Read first and second part of the investigation.
Identified as uncompleted were the centre’s recreational and educational facility, instrumentation laboratory and waste management plant.
In the report, some workers of the centre complained of idleness due to the inadequate facilities
The report also beamed a search light on the porous security at the centre which is partly due to the management’s insensitivity to the centre’s peculiar needs and a failed surveillance project………..
Waste Management
Meanwhile, works have continued on the radioactive waste management facility at the centre.
Awarded at over N400 million in 2009, a building that was supposed to serve as the radioactive waste management facility was overgrown with weed when this reporter first visited September 2017.
Waste management plants and equipment comprise various devices and machines used for treating, converting, disposing and processing wastes from various sources.
The construction of low/medium radioactive waste management facility was awarded at the contract sum of N401.4 million to Commerce General Limited and so far, N312 million has been paid to the contractor, the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC) said in response to a Freedom of Information request.
During the last visit, PREMIUM TIMES reporter observed the presence of the contractor at the site of the facility.
The management of NAEC did not respond to multiple inquiries on the rationale for redesign of the facility.
One of the staff members told this newspaper that the redesigning is unavoidable to correct the flaws of the contractor that first worked on the project.
He expressed optimism at the prospect of the facility.
“A lot of hazards will be reduced once it’s completed. As it is now, the country does not have a place to properly dispose our nuclear wastes. If it is completed and put to use, these hazards will be reduced. There is much to be benefitted if completed.”
Improved Security
………..But the level of security is not enough as expected of a nuclear technology centre says a staffer.
“The security is better but it’s not commensurate with what we expect in a nuclear environment. We commend the management for getting these people but they should give them orientation and we need armed security.
“There are differences. Before, if you come here, you won’t see anybody (at the gate). But now, it’s no longer like that. Even at weekends, you’ll meet them and policemen too. They are new and we feel that security of such places as this should be saddled with people that have at least basic educational level on nuclear technology,” he concluded. https://www. premiumtimesng.com/news/ headlines/279786-after- premium-times-report- contractors-complete- abandoned-projects-at- nigerias-nuclear-technology- centre.html
Russia on an international offensive to sell its nuclear plants, Vladimir Putin’s government vies with China to become a superpower in the field TOMOYO OGAWA, Nikkei staff writerMOSCOW — Russia is stepping up its overseas sales of nuclear power plants, with state-run nuclear energy company Rosatom agreeing in July to cooperate in building a plant in the Central Asian country of Uzbekistan and reaching an accord with China to build a plant in that country.
Russia accounts for 67% of the world’s nuclear plant deals currently in development. By 2030, Rosatom aims to increase its overseas sales to two-thirds of total sales, from 50% at currently. Vladimir Putin’s government is looking to expand Russian influence through nuclear diplomacy, vying with China — which is promoting its own nuclear plants — for the status of nuclear energy superpower.
“We hope that a lot of other countries will become our partners, and as they say, ‘nuclear newcomers,'” Rosatom Chief Executive Alexey Likhachev told Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting in early July…….
During a visit by Putin to China in June, Rosatom entered into a framework agreement to cooperate in nuclear plant construction, including four reactors in Jiangsu and Liaoning provinces.
Russia intends to make nuclear power plants a major revenue earner alongside exports of crude oil and natural gas. Rosatom’s annual business report for 2016 showed it was involved in nuclear plant projects in more than 10 countries, including China, Bangladesh and India. The company had $133.4 billion of overseas orders, up 21% from a year earlier. It targets $150 billion to $200 billion in orders in 2030…….
Russia’s strength in the field is the all-out support of the government, and its ability to take on all aspects of a nuclear energy project. The Putin government attaches much importance to nuclear plants, seeing them as a globally competitive, technology-intensive industry with an important role to play in revitalizing Russia’s domestic industry. Putin himself has successfully pitched Russian nuclear plants to foreign leaders during international summits.
Russian nuclear plants also boast price competitiveness, with the government providing loans to finance the high costs. Not only does Russia build the plant, but it supplies the fuel, operates and maintains the reactors, and disposes of the used fuel. This makes a deal with Russia attractive for countries that want to build their first nuclear plant, but which lack the operational know-how…….
Why has China’s nuclear expansion programme stalled? By Compelo Staff Writer, 9 Aug 18, Completion of the first EPR and AP1000 reactors in China marks a major milestone, but, as Steve Kidd of East Cliff Consulting explains, the nation’s ambitious nuclear expansion programme is no longer on track. Many of the negative factors which have affected nuclear programmes elsewhere in the world are now also equally applicable in China. Despite many new reactors starting up, it is clear that the programme has continued to slow.
The most obvious sign of this is the lack of approvals for new construction starts. There have been no new approvals for approaching three years, so the number of reactors under construction has been falling sharply. Other indications of trouble are:
uncertainties about the type of reactor to be utilised in the future
the position of the power market
the structure of the industry with its large state-owned enterprises (SOEs)
the degree of support from state planners and the level of public opposition to nuclear plans.
where China now stands with its planned transition to advanced reactors and a fuel reprocessing strategy.
Over-supply and the AP1000 reactor
Start-ups of two imported Gen III reactor designs (Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva EPR) are now happening at last, but the delays no doubt concerned the regulatory authorities. The problems with the AP1000 (at Sanmen and Haiyang) are the more serious, as this reactor was destined for most of the future sites in China. Although the units at both sites are now ready to enter commercial operation, this is unlikely to bring forward a flood of new approvals. China has suffered a severe dent in its confidence in the AP1000, not helped by Westinghouse’s US bankruptcy. The authorities now no doubt wish to see clear evidence of successful operation before authorising more units. There may be further reactors at the two existing sites, but there are many others that have been “ready to go” for several years now.
Another important reason for the slowdown relates to the size of nuclear programme China needs. Problems of power over-supply in particular regions are now pressing and connected to the continued construction of coal generating stations and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power. There are important questions to be resolved about how many reactors are needed to satisfy power demand and the price that can be paid for their electricity. Nevertheless, most of the Chinese nuclear companies want to build lots of new units and feel they are being held back by the authorities. The rapid expansion of wind and solar generating capacity has reminded the planners that there are alternative means of achieving environmental goals, while the Chinese hydroelectric programme is still enormous.
The shadow of Fukushima
The Fukushima accident still casts a significant shadow over the nuclear sector in China and regulators are clearly very cautious about having a big nuclear programme. Ultimately one person at the top of the regulatory authority has to take responsibility for safety and having 100 reactors in operation is far more burdensome than 20 or 40. South Korea’s apparent turning away from nuclear and the tardiness of Japanese reactor restarts are also unhelpful in inspiring confidence in the region.
China’s nuclear programme is now much harder to assess. The picture up to 2020 is fairly certain, as units under construction come into operation). The 58GW capacity target by end-2020 will be missed by perhaps 5GW, but more serious is another goal – having 30GW under construction by then. This would imply a programme of six reactors a year up to 2025, a similar level to 2015-2020. Almost all will have to be approved before the end of 2020. On recent trends, this looks unlikely and so it may be prudent to assume a programme of only 3-4 units per year beyond 2020. This means nuclear generating capacity of only 90GW or so by 2030, well below previous expectations. Beyond then it is difficult to judge, but the chance of China having a huge nuclear programme by 2050, perhaps consisting of 200-400 reactors, is much less than a few years ago. Estimates that China may move ahead of the USA in nuclear generating capacity by the mid or late 2020s now look wide of the mark. Even if 10-20 US units do eventually shut down by 2030, it could happen after then.
The dent in confidence surrounding the imported Gen III designs has been overcome, to some extent, by China’s development of the Hualong reactor, which satisfies the regulators’ insistence that all approved designs are at the Gen III level. Four units are now under construction in China (plus two in Pakistan). The two units being built by CNNC at Fuqing are on schedule to go online in 2020-2021, but CGN’s pair at Fangchenggang are apparently unlikely before 2021-2022. Whether Hualongs will replace AP1000s at any of its sites in China remains to be seen.
Big questions surround the CAP1400, the larger version of the AP1000, which China has developed, and the extent of the programme for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) and small modular reactors (SMRs).
Approval of construction of the initial CAP1400s has been long-delayed and surely still awaits the regulator’s satisfaction with the AP1000. It appears that the HTGRs and SMRs will remain as marginal components of the main Chinese nuclear programme, but may offer useful additional export opportunities. The economics of the HTGRs are apparently questionable versus large LWRs, while there are lots of SMR designs around the world without anyone committing to build them.
Economic issues
Perhaps surprisingly, a big issue today affecting the Chinese nuclear programme is its economic viability. With nuclear power only currently representing 3-4% of China’s electricity supply, one would think that there is still plenty of room for dramatic growth. However, the slowing of the Chinese economy and the switch to less energy-intensive activities, together with over-investment in power generation capacity, means that there is now more than can be carried in the grids in some provinces. It cannot therefore be assumed that new nuclear units will run at the 80-90% capacity factors necessary to pay back the funds invested in their construction.
Tariffs that producers receive when they sell power to the grid are also under threat. The central government wishes to liberalise the Chinese power sector and make it more responsive to economic criteria and this may not help nuclear. The rising costs of building Gen III units are also a factor. Reactors may have to load-follow, which is not ideal in the technical or economic sense. Nuclear has to compete against other generation options…………
Power to the people
Many people used to believe that because China is a centrally-planned economy with a strong one-party government, public opinion did not matter much and any opposition to nuclear could be easily overcome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Public opinion matters a great deal in China and politicians fight shy of any issue that could inflame public opinion in any way. The last thing the Chinese government wants is people protesting on the streets – and this has already happened with two proposed fuel cycle plants. Both were quickly cancelled.
One particular public acceptance problem is inland sites for nuclear plants. Having imposed a moratorium on these for now (in fact to slow the nuclear programme down), the government has made a huge problem for itself by giving the impression that these sites are “second best” and maybe not as safe as the coastal sites (where all current Chinese reactors are located).
The threat in China is that nuclear may become no more than a niche, bridging technology, as a route to something better in the future.
This article originally appeared in Nuclear Engineering International.
Its two major nuclear project developers, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the China General Nuclear Project Corporation (CGN), are jointly promoting an advanced third-generation reactor known as the Hualong One to overseas clients, with CGN aiming to deploy the technology at a proposed nuclear project at Bradwell in England.
The push to extend Chinese technological standards was disclosed in new cabinet guidelines published late on Thursday.
China aims to raise its total nuclear capacity to 58 gigawatts (GW) by the end of the decade, up from 37 GW at the end of June.
Capacity could reach as high as 200 GW by 2030, and China also has ambitions to dominate the global nuclear industry via its homegrown technologies.
Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Eric Meijer
Chugoku Electric Power Company has initiated the regulatory process for starting up unit 3 at its Shimane nuclear power plant by applying to the Japanese regulator for a review to assess its compliance with revised safety standards. Construction of the 1373 MWe advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) is nearing completion………
Chugoku becomes the second Japanese utility to apply to the NRA for pre-operation safety inspections for a new nuclear power reactor since the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The first was Japan Electric Power Development Corp (J-Power), which applied in December 2014 for inspections of unit 1 at its Ohma nuclear power plant, also an ABWR, being built in Aomori prefecture. However, with construction of Shimane 3 more advanced than Ohma 1, Shimane 3 is likely to be the first new reactor to begin operating in Japan. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Safety-review-sought-for-new-Japanese-reactor
Could Indian Point be next nuclear power plant up for sale? Lohud, Thomas C. Zambito, Rockland/Westchester Journal News Aug. 6, 2018 The sale of nuke plants in Massachusetts and Michigan could foreshadow Indian Point’s future and unions once pushed for a role in its decommissioning.
Entergy will sell nuclear power plants in Massachusetts and Michigan to a New Jersey firm that’s promised to knock years off a lengthy shutdown process, a move that hints at the company’s plans for Indian Point.
Entergy announced last week that it has agreed to sell the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., and the Palisades Power Plant in Covert, Mich., to Holtec International, for what will be the company’s first decommissioning venture.
The announcement, coupled with Entergy’s decision to sell its Vermont Yankee plant to NorthStar Groups Services, a New York-based industrial demolition firm, is the latest indication that Indian Point could be sold once it powers down.
……. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants typically extends for decades.
But in recent years, as more than a dozen nuclear power plants have announced plans to close, firms like Holtec and NorthStar have jumped into decommissioning, promising quick turnarounds.
n the case of Pilgrim, Holtec would begin decommissioning in 2020 and wrap up the work in eight years, Entergy officials say.
Palisades is slated to shut down in the spring of 2022 when the timetable for its dismantling would be announced. In both cases, spent nuclear fuel will be moved into cement casks on the site within three years of the shutdown, Entergy says.
“Transferring our Pilgrim and Palisades plants to Holtec, with its vast experience and innovative use of technology will lead to their decommissioning faster than if they were to remain under Entergy’s ownership,” said Leo Denault, Entergy’s chairman and CEO.
While these will be Holtec’s first decommissionings, the company has years of experience with dry cask storage on nuclear power plant sites, including Indian Point. The work will be carried out by Comprehensive Decommissioning International, a newly-formed Holtec subsidiary based in Camden, New Jersey.
Storing nuclear waste
Holtec currently has an application pending before the NRC to operate the nation’s first interim storage facility for nuclear waste in the New Mexico desert.
A federal program that has paid out more than $60 million to former Apollo area nuclear workers for radiation-related illnesses is looking for more former nuclear workers throughout the region who might be eligible for compensation.
The U.S. Department of Labor will hold an information meeting for former workers in the nuclear materials industry or their survivors on Aug. 22 from 9 a.m. noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Quality Inn in New Kensington.
There are about 14 work sites eligible in Southwestern Pennsylvania, including some steel mills and nuclear fuel processing plants.
Among them are the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) in Apollo and Parks Township, Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Division in Cheswick, and Aluminum Co. of America — Alcoa — in New Kensington.
The benefits proved helpful to deceased workers’ families to shore up medical expenses and the financial losses.
But it still doesn’t make up for the loss of a loved one.
“It just seems trivial — $150,000 for someone’s life, but it did help my mom out,” said Shellie Robertson, 57, Washington Township, whose father, John Grazetti, died in 2015 at the age of 74 from acute myeloid leukemia.
Grazetti, of Washington Township, was a NUMEC worker as was his father, John Grazetti Sr., who died of colon cancer and a brother who has recently been diagnosed with rectal cancer, according to Robertson.
All three men had cancers associated with exposures to radioactive substances encountered at work, and the compensation claims to the Labor Department by the three men have been accepted.
“My dad said he would probably die of cancer,” Robertson said. “He knew.”
Grazetti, who worked at NUMEC for about 20 years, didn’t talk much about his job, according to his daughter.
All the family knew what that he was foreman and worked with chemicals. However, Robertson did recall her father having to submit urine samples for the company to test for what is now known as radiation over-exposures.
Near the end of his life, Robertson started to hear NUMEC stories when her dad and uncle would talk.
“They would have to clean up stuff, spray down the walls. I remember the soles of my father’s shoes being eaten away from the stuff he was walking in.”
Paid out so far: $15 billion
To date, the program has paid more than $129.3 million in compensation and medical benefits to 1,138 claimants living in Pennsylvania and more than $15.2 billion nationwide, according to the Labor Department.
The government established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) in 2000 to pay sick nuclear workers a lump sum of $150,000 and coverage of related medical expenses.
The program pays people who became ill because of working for a private business subcontracted by the federal government to develop and produce components for nuclear weapons.
Generally, eligible workers must have worked a certain amount of time and developed one of 22 cancers designated by the program and or other illnesses. The benefit also is payable to families of deceased workers.
The Labor Department has visited the area before and is visiting again because there still might be workers or their families still eligible for the benefit.
In Pennsylvania, most of the nuclear workers covered by the program were employed in the 1960s and 1970s.
It’s difficult to say how many more workers could be eligible for the program, but they could number in the hundreds, according to estimates provided by an EEOICPA program official several years ago.
Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary Ann at 724-226-4691, mthomas@tribweb.com or via Twitter @MaThomas_Trib.
The chair of a New Mexico legislative committee that monitors radioactive and hazardous materials in the state says he finds it troubling Attorney General Hector Balderas has concluded the state cannot legally stop a New Jersey-based company from the building a nuclear waste storage facility.
Holtec International, a New Jersey-based company specializing in nuclear storage, has applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a nuclear waste storage facility about 35 miles (56 kilometers) east of Carlsbad.
The facility, to be located in western Lea County, could eventually store up to 10,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, as much as 120,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, from nuclear power plants around the country. It would be stored just below the surface.
The facility is intended to be a temporary storage site, storing nuclear waste only until a permanent storage facility can be built. But opponents fear that it could become permanent because plans for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have stalled because of opposition.
Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, said Wednesday that New Mexico should have a say about the proposal and that he was disappointed in the attorney general’s opinion, The Hobbs News-Sun reports .
“It’s troubling that a project of this magnitude with this much exposure to the state — I mean exposure in the sense of the hazardous materials involved and long-term ramifications of it being here — that our state would not have a say in being able to approve it or not,” said Steinborn, who chairs interim Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee.
Balderas said in a letter last month the state cannot legally stop Holtec International from temporarily storing up to 100,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste in New Mexico.
Balderas cited the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and two court cases clearly establishing two principles.
“(F)irst, that the NRC has the statutory authority to license and regulate consolidated interim nuclear waste storage facilities, and secondly, that the comprehensiveness of that federal regulatory scheme pre-empts virtually any state involvement,” Balderas wrote.
The facility is intended to be a temporary storage site, storing nuclear waste only until a permanent storage facility can be built. But opponents fear that it could become permanent because plans for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have stalled because of opposition.
nuclear-news 