[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Neb.'s Cooper nuke faces possible early shutdown
Note: I will be away May 14 - 23. There will most likely be no news
distributions during this time, depending on internet connections.
Index:
Neb.'s Cooper nuke faces possible early shutdown
Chernobyl Gets Glowing Reviews
Lithuania's nuclear workers fret for future
==================================
Neb.'s Cooper nuke faces possible early shutdown
SAN FRANCISCO, May 10 (Reuters) - Nebraska Public Power District is
considering putting its 28-year-old Cooper nuclear power station,
dogged by poor performance and safety concerns, into early
retirement.
"One of the options certainly is to shut it down," NPPD Chief
Financial Officer Ron Asche told Reuters. "That's a decision that our
board of directors will be making. The fourth quarter of this year is
our current timeline."
Asche said the board will take into account three key factors when it
determines the fate of the 778-megawatt plant on the banks of the
Missouri River in southeast Nebraska. The single biggest generating
unit in the state, Cooper began operating in 1974 and is licensed
through 2014.
The first is the potential outcome of litigation regarding a dispute
over decommissioning costs, including the possibility NPPD may have
to reimburse MidAmerican Energy Co. <BRKa.N> and Lincoln Electric
System, which buy a majority of Cooper's output. The two had been
paying decommissioning costs since 1984, but stopped in December 2000
pending a court decision.
"If we had to recover those decommissioning costs between now and
2014, that would cause our retail and wholesale rates to go up in the
range of 4 to 7 percent," Asche said.
Decommissioning costs are estimated at $500 million. As of March 31,
2002, the fund stood at $297 million, Asche said.
The second factor is Cooper's operational performance, including its
status with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which last month
downgraded Cooper to the lowest level a reactor can operate at
without being closed -- a distinction held by only one other nuclear
power plant in the country.
"It was an alarming move. It raises questions as to the management of
the plant," said Karl Pfeil, a director of Fitch Ratings' global
power group.
Fitch, like Standard & Poor's, has assigned NPPD a negative outlook
primarily due to concerns regarding Cooper.
NPPD estimates costs from extra NRC inspections and related costs at
$5 million, or higher if other changes are ordered.
Finally, Asche said NPPD's ability to sell power generated at Cooper
beyond expiration of a major supply contract will also be a key to
the board's decision.
Lincoln Electric said last month it will not extend its contract to
buy 12.5 percent of Cooper's power after September 2003 because it
can buy this power cheaper elsewhere.
And MidAmerican Energy, which buys a whopping 50 percent of the
power, says it would not renew its contract unless it were rewritten.
The contract ends in September 2004.
Analysts think it unlikely that MidAmerican renew its contract. They
believe that if Cooper is shut down before its license ends, it will
happen in 2004 when the key contract expires. "That certainly is a
significant date, but I don't think our board is necessarily locked
into that," Asche said.
OTHER OPTIONS
The board will also consider leaving NPPD to operate Cooper, finding
someone else to take over operations, or selling or leasing the
plant.
Because its a public corporation, NPPD cannot sell or lease its
assets to anyone other than a public power entity.
"Currently state statute would prohibit us from selling it so that
wouldn't be done easily or without a lot of additional work," Alan
Dostal, NPPD's power sales contract project manager, told Reuters.
In the next 30 to 60 days, NPPD will send out a request for proposals
(RFP) to utilities and other interested parties in the Midwest and
elsewhere regarding power purchases that would replace current
contract sales.
"The terms of the RFP will be key. I doubt people will want to do a
take-or-pay contract. The problem is most people expect to do a lot
of taking with the paying," said Christopher Loop, a director at
Standard & Poor's who covers utilities.
Take-or-pay contracts, such as the ones NPPD signed with MidAmerican
and Lincoln Electric, require parties to pay for operational and
service costs even if they do not receive any power, for example when
a plant is down for repairs.
Those types of contracts may not be attractive for a plant like
Cooper which has longer than usual refueling and maintenance outages
and, as a result, higher operating costs.
The last such outage that ended on January 2 lasted 60 days, almost
twice as long as the 30 to 35 days which is more common in the
industry.
Also, in the past decade, capacity factors at Cooper exceeded the
industry median only three times, Loop said. Capacity factors
indicate how much power a plant is actually producing compared to
what it is capable of producing.
Asche said one reason for Cooper's high costs is that NPPD is a
single-unit operator and thus does not have the benefit of economies
of scale as do multiple-unit operators. "One of our goals would be to
bring down the operating costs of Cooper."
------------------
Chernobyl Gets Glowing Reviews
CHERNOBYL, Ukraine May 11 -- Yuri Zayets pointed his binoculars
toward a distant copse of birches and shouted excitedly from midway
up the fire tower: "They're over there, grazing near the forest."
It had taken nearly two hours of driving through the unique
radioactive wilderness born of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster to
find them, but one of the world's few wild herds of rare Przewalski
horses finally came into view.
"Stay here," Denis Vishnevsky, a zoologist with the Chernobyl Ecology
Center, said after the group of official guides and a journalist
piled out of their minibus to see the short but powerfully robust
horses, introduced here in 1998 to eat what was supposedly "excess"
vegetation in the depopulated area. "They'll come to us." "Chernobyl
safaris," mused Rima Kiselytsia, a guide with Chernobylinterinform,
the agency that shepherds all visitors to the "Zone of Alienation"
around the now-decommissioned reactor, an area that once was home to
135,000 people. "It's a strange idea, but I like it."
Chernobyl tourism has been a hot topic in Ukraine since January, when
a U.N. report urged Chernobyl communities to learn to live safely
with radiation--such as consuming only produce grown outside the
zone. The report suggested specialized tourism as one of several
possible ways to bring money into a region that has swallowed more
than $100 billion in subsidies from Soviet, Ukrainian and
international government funds since the nuclear accident 16 years
ago.
Back in the town of Chernobyl, where the zone's administration
manages the Rhode Island-sized no man's land around the destroyed
reactor, one official said economic benefits of tourism will never be
more than minor.
But he doesn't reject the idea outright. "The U.N. is 12 years too
late," said Mykola Dmytruk, deputy director of Chernobylinterinform,
referring to technicians who have been coming to the zone for that
long. "We've been allowing tours since 1994."
A few Kiev tourist agencies advertise Chernobyl excursions on their
Web sites, but so far the zone administration doesn't actively
promote the idea. "A great deal still isn't known," said Dmytruk,
"and we warn everyone about the risks, even scientists."
The risks, though small, are real. And so is the desolation. But the
aftermath of the accident has created a misleading stereotype of the
zone as a toxic wasteland, a nuclear desert devoid of life, and
certainly not a place a sane person would want to visit.
In fact, by ending industrialization, deforestation, cultivation and
other human intrusions, radiation has transformed the zone into one
of Europe's largest wildlife habitats, a fascinating and at times
beautiful wildness teeming with large animals such as moose, wolves,
boar and deer. It now is home to 270 bird species, 31 of them
endangered--making the zone one of the few places in Europe to spot
rarities such as black storks and booted eagles.
And traveling to Chernobyl may qualify as a kind of adventure
tourism. The very knowledge of the buzzing background of radiation
imbues even the prosaic act of walking down the street with an aura
of excitement. It isn't the same adrenalin punch as bungee jumping in
the Andes, but it is a palpable sensation--like being surrounded by
ghosts.
By law, no one can enter the zone without permission. But except for
children under 17, the administration may give permission to pretty
much anyone. The vast majority of the nearly 1,000 annual visitors
are scientists, journalists, politicians and international nuclear
officials, but the zone has hosted a handful of what Dmytruk calls
"pure" tourists--including three Japanese in 2000--and it can put
together customized programs, such as safaris in search of Przewalski
horses, which some experts believe are the ancestors of all domestic
horses but far more aggressive..
"If a group of Californians want to go bird-watching, we can organize
that," Dmytruk said, adding, "so long as they know the difference
between plutonium and potatoes."
Of course, Chernobyl isn't Club Med. But 16 years after the fourth
reactor bloc spewed radiation around the globe, the risks are mostly
manageable. About a quarter of the cesium and strontium have already
decayed, and 95% of the remaining radioactive molecules are no longer
in fallout that can get on or inside a visitor, but have sunk to a
depth of about 5 inches in the soil.
>From there, they have insinuated themselves into the food chain,
making the zone's diverse and abundant flora and fauna radioactive
indeed. An antler shed recently by a Chernobyl elk was stuffed with
so much strontium that it cannot be allowed out of the zone. But
three Przewalski foals born in the wild, though radioactive, have
grown to adolescence with no visible effects.
Such radioactivity now has receded to the background. On an average
day, a visitor might receive an extra radiation dose about equivalent
to taking a two-hour plane trip, zone officials say.
That is, if the visitor follows the strict but simple safety rules:
"Don't eat local food, stay on the pavement, and go only where your
guide takes you," Dmytruk said.
It is almost impossible to smell fresher air in an urban setting than
here in the town of Chernobyl, where the number of cars seen on a
warm April day could be counted on one hand and songbirds frequently
provide the only sound.
"It is one of the zone's many paradoxes, but because human activity
is banned nearly everywhere, the region is one of Ukraine's
environmentally cleanest," Dmytruk said. "Except for radiation."
Today, villages are slowly succumbing to encroaching forests. In the
abandoned town of Pripyat, less than two miles from the nuclear
reactor, empty black windows stare blindly from high-rise buildings
at kindergartens littered with heartbreakingly small gas masks.
It may seem like an odd place for a rewarding tourism experience. But
nowhere else can a visitor stand amid a herd of wild Przewalski
horses like a character in Jean Auel's Ice Age novels, or watch a
pair of rare white-tailed eagles circling above the ghostly high-
rises of Pripyat, a moving monument to the devastating effects of
technology gone awry and nature's near miraculous resilience and
recovery.
----------------
Lithuania's nuclear workers fret for future
VISAGINAS, Lithuania, May 13 (Reuters) - Sergei Monakhov worries a
lot these days. The energy plant where he works in northeast
Lithuania is facing cutbacks and eventual closure.
Like many of the 4,600 people who make a living at the facility, he's
concerned about how his small family will get by if he loses his
job or he has to move in search of work.
Sometimes, he says, fretting about the future can be an on-the-job
distraction. "You have to think about the work, not about the
problems, but it's difficult now."
Monakhov had better keep his concentration.
He's a nuclear safety engineer responsible for keeping track of
atomic fuel at Lithuania's Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear power plant,
which may be shut down completely by the end of this decade if the
European Union gets its way.
Brussels considers Ignalina a potential nuclear hazard because its
two reactors are similar in design to those that powered Ukraine's
disastrous Chernobyl plant -- only bigger.
It has got Lithuania to commit to switch off the first unit by 2005,
but the two sides are deadlocked over the EU's demand that the
second unit be shut down by 2009 and the 2.4 billion euros ($2.2
billion) Vilnius says decommissioning the plant will cost.
Ignalina, which provides most of Lithuania's electricity, is now the
biggest obstacle to this tiny Baltic nation's bid to conclude entry
talks this year to be in a bigger EU by 2004.
Lithuanian officials say it might take until December to resolve the
Ignalina talks, but they are aiming for a deal by the end of June.
CONTROVERSIAL CLOSURE
Closure has been surprisingly controversial for this state of just
3.5 million people. Lithuanians launched daring protests against
Soviet plans to build a third and fourth reactor in the wake of the
1986 Chernobyl disaster.
But these days, Lithuanians are more concerned about having an
independent energy supply, though experts say they have more
than enough capacity even without Ignalina, and the dispute has
damaged sentiment on EU membership in opinion polls.
The Lithuanian authorities' stubbornness over the second reactor
baffles some, as it was built to run only to 2017 and the EU has
offered 70 million euros a year in funding from 2004-2006.
In the early 1990s, concerns hit home amid a series of minor mishaps
at Ignalina, a bomb threat and the theft of a nuclear fuel
container, but with international help, tens of thousands of dollars
were poured into improving safety and security.
Now, at the back of everyone's minds is the thought that a worried
workforce, preoccupied with looming unemployment, might not be
the safest.
"People in positions of responsibility at a nuclear power plant have
to have guarantees about their future," said Kazys Zilys, deputy
head of Lithuania's nuclear regulatory body.
"Otherwise, we don't think a nuclear power plant can be operated
safely."
The government is working on draft legislation to cover compensation
for Ignalina's employees. If the closure of the first unit goes
ahead by 2005, up to 900 people stand to lose their jobs.
More job cuts would follow and, upon final closure of the second
unit, only about 1,500 staff would stay on for post-shutdown work.
Most families in Visaginas -- a town of 30,000 built in the
Lithuanian wilderness to house Ignalina staff -- have at least one
person
working at the plant. Monakhov says his chances of working after
shutdown are good, but he's not sure what life will be like in the
town after the plant closes.
"After the closure, nobody knows what will happen with the town, and
I don't want to live in a dead town," he said.
The EU is sponsoring a host of projects to help the town's well-
educated community of nuclear scientists and engineers get a
headstart in the post-shutdown job search.
Michael Graham, head of the EU delegation in Vilnius, says he's
upbeat, given that the EU has dealt with industrial dislocations
involving tens of thousands of people in the past.
TIME SLIPPING AWAY
Work in progress at the plant is being funded by international donors
who pledged over 200 million euros to decommission unit one.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which
manages that fund, says decommissioning preparations are
ahead of schedule.
"We are confident we will be well on time for the decommissioning,"
said EBRD nuclear safety director Vince Novak.
But Lithuanian negotiators are digging in their heels over the second
reactor.
The country's president, Valdas Adamkus, an ex-U.S. citizen who spent
decades working at the Environmental Protection Agency,
favours building a new, Western-standard nuclear reactor to replace
Ignalina.
He says Lithuania cannot afford the decommissioning costs --
officially estimated at 2.4 billion euros, almost one fifth of last
year's gross domestic product.
"If we say we are committing ourselves by 2009 to closing the second
reactor...we are signing and committing to the total bankruptcy of
the country," Adamkus told Reuters.
-------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Director, Technical
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100 Extension 2306
Fax:(714) 668-3149
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/