[ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Critics oppose Georgia Power's nuclear plan

[John R Johnson]

Sandy

I'm sorry to hear this. I've found your posting very useful.

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:52 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Critics oppose Georgia Power's nuclear 
plan


> Note: It's been a long time since I've posted a nuclear news
> distribution. These postings will be much less frequent in the future.
>
>
>
> Index:
>
>
>
> Critics oppose Georgia Power's nuclear plan
>
> EU to hear Slovakia on nuclear plant restart
>
> Gas crisis, a PR coup for French nuclear industry
>
> Nuclear only a distant solution for S.Africa
>
> Entergy ends plan to build nuclear plants with GE Hitachi
>
> Nuclear renaissance faces a big challenge
>
> Investors Avoid the Nuclear Option
>
> Editorial: Nuclear Plant Fine, nodding off
>
> Analysts tip GDF Suez for 2nd French EPR contract
>
> India requires Rs.1.5 lakh crore for meeting nuclear power targets
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>
>
> Critics oppose Georgia Power's nuclear plan
>
>
>
> ATLANTA, GA -(2009-01-12) Today, groups united in their opposition to
> Georgia Power's plan for two nuclear reactors lobbied the state to deny
> the company's request.
>
>
>
> Georgia Power wants to build two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle; its
> nuclear facility near Augusta. Company officials argue the reactors will
> provide a clean way to meet growing demand for electricity.
>
>
>
> Before construction can begin, the Georgia Public Service Commission has
> to OK the company's plan, which calls for Georgia Power customers to
> foot the bill. However, critics, like Krista Brewer of Georgia WAND, say
> that's unusual.
>
>
>
> Brewer: "That it's always been a policy that we ratepayers do not pay
> for construction work in progress. You wait until you're actually
> getting a benefit."
>
>
>
> There won't be a financial benefit for customers if Georgia Power waits
> to raise rates according to company spokesperson Lynn Wallace.
>
>
>
> Wallace: "The whole idea is that it will save ratepayers money over the
> long term."
>
>
>
> Wallace says your power bill on average would be 30 dollars higher a
> year if the company waited for construction to be complete. The
> Commission votes in March. If approved rates, wouldn't jump until 2011.
>
>
>
> However, cost is just one issue for critics. They fear approval of the
> reactors will result in Georgia having the nation's largest
> concentration of radioactive material.
>
> -----------
>
>
>
> EU to hear Slovakia on nuclear plant restart
>
>
>
> BRUSSELS, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The European Commission will listen to the
> arguments of Slovakia on the need to restart the country's Bohunice
> nuclear power plant and then assess the situation, the European Union
> executive said on Monday.
>
>
>
> Slovakia is seeking alternative energy sources after a dispute between
> Russia and Ukraine has cut the amount of gas supplies to Europe.
> Slovakia had agreed to close the Bohunice plant as part of its EU
> accession agreement.
>
>
>
> "The (Energy) Commissioner (Andris Piebalgs) will hear the Slovak
> authorities' explanation and in the light of the explanation ... he will
> assess the situation," Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger said.
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> Gas crisis, a PR coup for French nuclear industry
>
>
>
> PARIS, Jan 12 (Reuters) - France's vast nuclear power network has
> largely shielded it from the Russian gas crisis, handing the country's
> atomic energy sector an unexpected public relations coup.
>
> With 80 percent of its electricity generated by nuclear power stations,
> the highest proportion in the world, France was able to reassure nervous
> households and industry after the Russia-Ukraine dispute cut off gas
> supplies to Europe.
>
> The gas crisis coincided with exceptionally cold weather in France,
> testing its power system to the limit as households turned up their
> heaters to maximum.
>
>
>
> "The French must be delighted that the country didn't bet only on gas
> when we see what is happening with the gas (crisis)," EDF's Chief
> Executive Pierre Gadonneix said on French radio last week.
>
>
>
> France has been a staunch advocate of nuclear power since the 1970s oil
> crisis which led it to build up Europe's largest network of 58 reactors.
>
> State-owned electricity giant EDF is now marketing this savoir-faire
> (expertise) worldwide, as demonstrated by high-profile moves into
> Britain and the United States over the past few months.
>
>
>
> France hopes to lead a global renaissance of atomic power as countries
> seek to fight global warming -- nuclear is virtually carbon dioxide free
> -- and aim to boost their energy independence.
>
>
>
> China, South Africa and Italy are the next targets for EDF, which has
> said it wants to finance, build and operate European-designed
> new-generation reactors across the globe.
>
>
>
> STRONG SELLING POINT
>
>
>
> "The Russian-Ukraine gas crisis is a strong new selling point for the
> French nuclear industry," said Jean-Marie Chevalier, head of the
> geopolitical energy centre at Paris Dauphine University.
>
> "The crisis will allow the French nuclear sector to alert countries such
> as Germany or Italy, which are highly dependent on gas, of an energy
> landscape full of uncertainty," he said.
>
>
>
> German decision makers, who are faithful energy partners with Russia,
> are now likely to present more independent scenarios, including a review
> of plans to shut nuclear reactors.
>
>
>
> "When you see upcoming European projects, 58 percent of them are fossil
> fuel-based power plants, including 40 percent which are gas-fired plant
> projects," said Colette Lewiner, head of utilities at French consultancy
> firm Capgemini.
>
> "This will only increase Europe's dependency on Russian gas," she said,
> adding that Europe should on the contrary be raising its share of
> nuclear.
>
>
>
> MORE GAS NEEDS AT HOME
>
>
>
> While its neighbours may be forced to study ways of cutting their
> dependency on Russian gas, France must prepare to increase its imports,
> as it builds new fossil fuel-fired power plants to better cope with
> demand during peak times.
>
> But France imports just 15 percent of its gas needs from Russia, and
> thanks to its diverse supply sources, this low level of exposure should
> be maintained.
>
>
>
> French energy demand broke new records last week as domestic heating
> demand soared, testing national peak supply capacity to the limit.
>
> EDF, which last week warned power cuts might occur in remote parts of
> the grid, created new peakload capacity of 3,100 megawatts over the last
> three years and says a further 1,900 MW is needed by 2012, equivalent to
> two nuclear reactors.
>
> The insufficient slack in the French power system meant last week's
> surge in demand required heavy imports of electricity from Germany's gas
> and coal-fired plant network.
>
>
>
> "The current energy trend is for diversification and I tend to believe
> that France is too dependent on nuclear energy," Chevalier added.
>
> "For peak needs, nuclear is not a solution because it's not economical
> to use atomic power for just a few days per year," Capgemini's Lewiner
> said.
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> Nuclear only a distant solution for S.Africa
>
>
>
> JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa expects its next nuclear power
> plant to come on stream by 2019, two years later than initially planned
> by utility Eskom, which has dropped plans to build the facility due to
> financial woes.
>
>
>
> While Eskom was hoping nuclear energy would supply one quarter or 20,000
> megawatts (MW) of South Africa's expanded generating capacity by 2025,
> the government says a target of 6,000 MW in the same period is more
> feasible.
>
>
>
> Africa's biggest economy, which has been battling a power shortage, will
> have to keep reverting to more coal to supply its growing demand in the
> meantime.
>
>
>
> "We appreciate what Eskom had as a plan, but we need to be practical and
> see what can be done in that time -- 6,000 MW seems much more feasible,"
> said Nelisiwe Magubane, the deputy director general at the Department of
> Minerals and Energy.
>
>
>
> Eskom operates Africa's sole nuclear power plant, Koeberg, with a total
> capacity of 1,800 megawatts. Magubane said an additional 3,200 MW of the
> planned 6,000 MW is due in 2019.
>
>
>
> The government, which took over after Eskom bowed out, said the two-year
> delay was needed to properly initiate the process.
>
>
>
> Some experts say the government could have helped Eskom raise funding
> for the nuclear project through debt guarantees.
>
>
>
> But Mugabane said the government wanted to launch a process that
> differed from the utility's one-time proposal to ensure it could build
> up the fleet over time.
>
>
>
> South Africa would approach various countries which have made nuclear
> part of their energy mix to copy their models. These include France, the
> United Kingdom, the United States, South Korea and Russia.
>
>
>
> Nuclear is a major part of South Africa's energy diversification plan to
> reduce its heavy reliance on coal, which now supplies the lion's share
> of its electricity.
>
>
>
> AGEING FLEET
>
>
>
> The government would revise its nuclear plans taking into account the
> economic slowdown, but the decision to expand South Africa's nuclear
> supply was not based on choice, Magubane said.
>
>
>
> "In the next 20 years we need to decommission quite a number of coal
> fire power plants, so we need to have a plan on what it would be that
> would replace that ageing fleet," she said.
>
>
>
> "So it's not a question of whether we can afford it or not ... it's a
> fact that we will be needing that."
>
>
>
> But the cost, coupled with the long lead time of some 7-10 years to
> build a new nuclear plant means the country will have to pump up its
> coal production in the meantime, even though that will harm its ambition
> to reduce the country's carbon footprint.
>
>
>
> South Africa's progress on renewable energies has also been slow,
> hindered by financial constraints and the limited amount of energy they
> produce.
>
>
>
> Eskom recently committed to building 50 wind turbines, which would
> provide 2 MW of power each, but critics say this lacks economic
> viability to raise supply and reduce emissions.
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> Entergy ends plan to build nuclear plants with GE Hitachi
>
> NEI SmartBrief | 01/12/2009
>
>
>
> A plan to develop two nuclear plants has gone in a new direction.
> Entergy, which hoped to build the plants, said it could not reach an
> agreement with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Entergy will consider
> alternate nuclear technology for new reactors in Mississippi and
> Louisiana.
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> Nuclear renaissance faces a big challenge
>
>
>
> January 12, 2009
>
>
>
> SUBJECT: The outlook for nuclear power.
>
>
>
> SIGNIFICANCE: Increases in the cost of borrowing and the availability of
> credit represent a major challenge for the nuclear industry.
>
>
>
> ANALYSIS: A so-called nuclear renaissance has been under way for some
> years now. It has taken three broad forms, namely: the predominantly
> state-led and financed continuation of nuclear construction in countries
> with an existing industry, such as South Korea, China, India and Russia;
> renewed support for nuclear power in countries that have existing
> industries but that have not seen any newbuild in decades, the most
> notable in this regard being the United Kingdom and United States; and a
> host of potential newcomers to the nuclear market, the most substantial
> groups being emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East.
>
>
>
> However, in practice, outside countries where nuclear is
> state-subsidized and driven by government-set targets, new nuclear is
> making little progress, despite increasingly supportive policy
> environments. Moreover, the financial crisis is having various impacts
> on the industry, the most critical of which is likely to be the
> increased cost of capital.
>
>
>
> Nuclear finance. Increased borrowing costs are likely to more than
> outweigh the impact of the decline in basic commodity prices. Even if
> central bank rates have fallen, the cost of project finance has not. For
> project financiers working in energy, wind, solar or natural gas-fired
> plants, remain much safer investments than nuclear. Smaller-scale
> projects also suit the current conservatism in project lending.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, governments, faced with recession, are committing
> themselves to a huge range of public spending initiatives, and promotion
> of so-called 'green jobs', which are undermining previous commitments
> not to engage in forms of state aid. A lack of bank lending is also
> pushing borrowers towards state banks, export-import banks and
> multilaterals. Both these trends could benefit nuclear, as governments
> become more amenable to providing the cheap finance that new nuclear
> requires. As such, the financial crisis may increase the chances of
> state support for new nuclear.
>
>
>
> Construction costs. Materials costs are likely to fall, which would
> benefit overall construction costs and the amount of capital needed,
> serving to mitigate the upward spiral evident in recent cost estimates
> for nuclear newbuild. For example, a nuclear plant uses about three
> times more steel in its construction per mega-watt installed than a coal
> plant. However, the supply chain for nuclear plants will remain tight,
> both in terms of an aging work force and limited manufacturing capacity,
> with some severe bottlenecks in areas such as ultra heavy forgings and
> steam generation tubing.
>
>
>
> Of the five new reactors being offered to western markets, only one -
> Toshiba's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor - has a track record of
> construction, while Areva's European Pressurized Water Reactor and
> Mitsubishi's Advanced Pressure Water Reactor are under construction.
> Westinghouse's AP1000 and GE-Hitachi's Economic Simplified Boiling Water
> Reactor both employ passive safety mechanisms that have not yet been
> incorporated in a nuclear plant anywhere, thus providing an additional
> layer of 'first-of-a-kind' technological risk, though they promise lower
> costs over the reactor's full life.
>
>
>
> New demand outlook. Projections for increases in power demand are being
> revised in the light of an expected severe recession in the OECD and
> slower growth among developing countries. Power demand may contract in
> some OECD economies in 2009, and there is already evidence, for example,
> in Spain and the Netherlands, that this might indeed be the case.
>
>
>
> In the OECD, the impact of lower energy prices should not affect new
> nuclear given little newbuild is expected to be commissioned before 2017
> at the earliest. The long-term outlook remains one in which energy
> demand continues to grow. Among developing economies, the pace of power
> demand growth should negate the risk of insufficient demand upon
> completion.
>
>
>
> However, nuclear plants are price takers in electricity markets, as they
> have to run at as near to full capacity as possible. This means that
> even when the wholesale price of electricity falls below their cost of
> production - which is largely set by construction cost and financing
> terms - they continue to produce at a loss. Should existing nuclear
> installations find themselves in this situation as economic activity
> slackens, it will again highlight a risk that has previously sent
> nuclear operators to the wall, and will dampen any enthusiasm for new
> investment in the industry.
>
>
>
> Solid drivers. Nevertheless, the nuclear renaissance is based on solid
> foundations: Nuclear is a proven low-carbon technology. Concern over
> greenhouse gas emissions has been a major factor behind the revival of
> interest in nuclear. Although considerable concern remains about the
> long-term storage of radioactive waste, the gain in terms of low
> emissions has dampened environmental and public opposition to the
> industry.
>
>
>
> Nuclear is seen as improving a country's security of supply, which may
> be attractive given the current gas crisis in Europe. It provides an
> alternative to traditional hydrocarbon imports, but it is usually still
> dependent on an externally-supplied fuel. For many countries, nuclear
> represents primarily a diversification of the energy mix, which reduces
> dependence on the hydrocarbon complex.
>
>
>
> Nuclear delivers large-scale baseload power to national grids, making it
> attractive to countries with large expected increases in electricity
> demand, such as China and India. It also offers the possibility of
> developing a lucrative export industry, through the export of plants to
> countries without the capacity to build them.
>
>
>
> As a result of these factors, the European Commission, International
> Energy Agency and governments in many parts of the world have accepted
> the need for nuclear power stations as an essential part of the policy
> mix capable of delivering a low carbon power-generating sector. Not
> least is the fact that as older nuclear units reach the end of their
> lives, there is a need to replace their generation capacity. Emissions
> targets being set by the EU and other countries fall particularly hard
> on the power sector and are already challenging. Phasing out a major
> low-carbon power source at the same time as trying to meet emissions
> targets appears to be illogical.
>
>
>
> Eastern growth. Nevertheless, the main new nuclear building programs are
> taking place in China, Russian and India - all countries where the
> government has mandated targets and is building new units through
> state-owned companies. In addition, South Korea and Japan, which are
> already heavily dependent on both nuclear power and imported fuels, have
> major construction programs. In South Korea, all of the country's
> nuclear reactors are owned by a subsidiary of the state-owned Korea
> Electric Power Corporation. By contrast, only two nuclear plants are
> under construction in Western Europe and none in the United States.
>
>
>
> It would appear that the risks associated with new nuclear in
> liberalized, or liberalizing, markets are too high to attract capital at
> a price that makes new nuclear viable. Without additional state support,
> new nuclear will have to be built from existing utility revenue streams,
> which in some cases could damage credit ratings.
>
>
>
> CONCLUSION: Meeting both emissions and supply security goals will be
> difficult, if not impossible, if an established low-carbon base-load
> technology like nuclear is ignored. However, newbuild does not look
> viable in current market conditions. State support is needed and may be
> more forthcoming from governments faced with recession.
>
>
>
>>From the Oxford Analytica Daily Brief
>
> -----------
>
>
>
> Investors Avoid the Nuclear Option
>
>
>
> DESPITE A BULLISH STORY in Barron's, shares of Entergy and Exelon
> (tickers: ETR, EXC) were down 3% and 1.2%, respectively, in midday
> trading Monday, bowing to the overall market slide.
>
>
>
> In "The Blossoming of Nuclear Power," Barron's Senior Editor Robin
> Goldwyn Blumenthal wrote that the companies will likely experience a
> renaissance as the U.S. works toward reducing its carbon footprint under
> President-Elect Barack Obama.
>
>
>
> (Nuclear plants are the biggest producers of energy that doesn't emit
> any greenhouse gases.)
>
>
>
> Exelon, the biggest nuclear-power generator in the U.S., is called a
> "bond proxy" by some analysts for its dividend yield of nearly 5%, and
> enjoys a positive relationship with regulators.
>
>
>
> Likewise, Entergy's CEO, who was able to breathe new life into the
> faltering company when he joined 10 years ago, says Entergy delivered
> the highest total shareholder return -- 414.3% -- of any company in its
> industry for the nine years ended Dec. 31, 2007.
>
>
>
> And, Blumenthal notes, nuclear power's 35-year track record has
> convinced many people who were formerly skeptical of it as a viable
> energy source.
>
> -----------
>
>
>
> Editorial: Nuclear Plant Fine, nodding off
>
>
>
> Philadelphia Inquiree, January 12 - A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> decision last week is another blow to efforts to build greater public
> trust in nuclear power as an alternative to the nation's expensive
> appetite for foreign oil.
>
> The NRC proposed a paltry $65,000 fine against the owner of Peach Bottom
> nuclear plant, where investigators found that security guards routinely
> napped on the job. The NRC last year issued a color-coded "white"
> finding - a low-to-moderate safety violation - for the incident.
>
>
>
> The agency's actions seem more like a slap on the wrist for
> Chicago-based Exelon, rather than a strong message about safety and
> accountability. Exelon says it plans to pay the fine for the NRC's
> findings, which were confirmed by its internal investigation at the York
> County nuclear power facility.
>
>
>
> It took the utility and its regulators more than a year to reach this
> disappointing conclusion to what should have been an open-and-shut case,
> with indisputable evidence.
>
>
>
> The investigations were launched in September 2007, but only after a
> videotape of the sleeping guards had surfaced. After receiving a tip in
> a letter from a former employee at the nuclear plant, the NRC allowed
> Exelon to do its own investigation of the allegations. Talk about the
> fox guarding the hen house!
>
>
>
> It came as no surprise that Exelon initially found no evidence of guards
> napping. That quickly changed when the video became public.
>
>
>
> Exelon took the unusual step of announcing its inquiry before regulators
> took any action, but it disclosed only that it was investigating reports
> that its guards were "inattentive" to their duties.
>
>
>
> That must be code language for sleeping, far different from the less
> serious daydreaming or distracted state suggested by "inattentive."
>
>
>
> And it gets worse. Several guards were found sleeping on more than one
> occasion in a plant "ready room" that served as a break room.
>
>
>
> Plant supervisors were not informed about the incidents, according to
> the NRC. There were missed opportunities as well to identify the
> behavior earlier.
>
>
>
> At a Senate committee hearing in February, company officials tried to
> downplay the risk posed by the dozing guards. They said the guards were
> not at a guard post but were in a staging area where they were supposed
> to be ready to assist in the event of an incident.
>
>
>
> The thought of trying to rouse sleeping guards to respond to an
> emergency is not reassuring, especially in the post-9/11 era.
>
>
>
> Exelon did fire the Wackenhut Corp. as its provider of security guards
> at Peach Bottom and its other plants and reactors in Pennsylvania, New
> Jersey and Illinois, and replaced it with an in-house security detail.
>
>
>
> But a justified fear of nuclear accidents has been an obstacle to
> greater reliance on nuclear power in this nation. If that is to change,
> the NRC must issue stiffer sanctions even in response to low-level
> risks.
>
> ---------------
>
>
>
> Natural gas cutback leads Italy to eye nuclear power
>
>
>
> NEI SmartBrief - Italy must diversify its energy supply and nuclear
> energy is its first option, says the country's economic development
> minister, Claudio Scajola. Italy's need for diversification was
> underscored by the disruption of the natural gas supply when a
> Russian-Ukranian dispute led Gazprom to cut Europe's supply. Scajola
> said Italy is trying to find alternative suppliers but "in any case we
> cannot but think about the future and diversify our sources with the
> return to nuclear power."
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> Analysts tip GDF Suez for 2nd French EPR contract
>
>
>
> * Analysts say GDF Suez well-placed for second French EPR.
>
>
>
> * EDF still keen to protect its nuclear sector position.
>
>
>
> PARIS, Jan 12 (Reuters) - French energy and utilities group GDF Suez
> (GSZ.PA) is well-placed to win a deal to build and operate France's
> second state-of-the-art EPR nuclear reactor, analysts said.
>
>
>
> "It is clear that GDF Suez is the best placed company for the second
> EPR. It will provide a nuclear alternative to EDF," said CM-CIC
> Securities analyst Patrice Lambert de Diesbach.
>
>
>
> GDF Suez has said it would decide at the start of this year whether or
> not to put in a bid for the EPR contract, estimated to cost in the
> region of 4 billion euros ($5.36 billion).
>
>
>
> EDF (EDF.PA), France's main electricity provider, is also a candidate
> for the reactor.
>
>
>
> For EDF, the technology behind EPR plants is a key part of its expansion
> plans following last year's acquisition of British Energy (BGY.L) and
> around half of the nuclear power business of Constellation Energy
> (CEG.N).
>
>
>
> However, Exane BNP Paribas analyst Benjamin Leyre said giving the
> contract to GDF Suez would allow the French government to introduce more
> competition in the sector.
>
>
>
> "Both EDF and GDF Suez have their respective political support but
> giving the second EPR to GDF Suez would allow France to thwart any
> criticism from the European Commission of allowing a monopoly in that
> sector," he said.
>
>
>
> GDF Suez, French oil major Total (TOTF.PA) and nuclear reactor maker
> Areva (CEPFi.PA) have submitted a proposal to develop two EPR reactors
> in the United Arab Emirates, and Leyre said such bids would be helped if
> GDF Suez won the French EPR contract.
>
>
>
> "For GDF Suez, it would be a confidence boost. They already know how to
> run nuclear facilities, and their strong balance sheet would allow them
> to finance the investment. These two factors would help them win more
> overseas deals," said Leyre.
>
>
>
> GDF Suez shares were down 1.3 percent at 32.76 euros in late afternoon
> trade. The stock has fallen around 7 percent since the start of 2009,
> having lost 12 percent in value last year.
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> India requires Rs.1.5 lakh crore for meeting nuclear power targets
>
>
>
> NEW DELHI: India will have to invest Rs.1.5 trillion in nuclear power
> plants if it is to meet an ambitious target of generating 63,000 mega
> watts
>
> (MW) from nuclear power by the year 2020, a leading parliamentarian said
> Monday.
>
>
>
> "India would require Rs.1.5 lakh crore (Rs.1.5 trillion) if we are to
> meet the target of generating 63,000 MW using nuclear power. This is
> possible only through the public private partnership route," said
> Abhishek M. Singhvi, member of parliament and chairman, India-US Forum
> of Parliamentarians.
>
>
>
> "This requires amendment to the Atomic Energy Act and new legislation
> like the Liability Act," he said while addressing a US delegation of
> civil nuclear power companies which is here to expedite talks with the
> government and understand policy issues.
>
>
>
> India's nuclear programme is worth $160 billion in nuclear technology
> and components.
>
>
>
> "The Indian government needs to operationalise many protocols
> expeditiously, so that private companies from the two countries can step
> in," said Steve Hucik, general manager of GE-Hitachi Nuclear and leader
> of the US delegation.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Sander C. Perle
>
> President
>
> Mirion Technologies
>
> Dosimetry Services Division
>
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
>
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
>
>
> +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
>
> +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)
>
>
>
> Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/