First she loses her Senate race to a nude centerfold model, and now this:
Attorney General Martha Coakley’s bid to suspend the relicensing of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant has been rejected by the panel that’s reviewing the Plymouth reactor’s license.
Coakley in May filed a request urging federal regulators to suspend the relicensing of Pilgrim until the implications of the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster in Japan can be fully studied. Coakley was particularly concerned with the impact that a meltdown could have on the pool that contains spent nuclear fuel.
But the three-judge panel overseeing Pilgrim’s relicensing review on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied Coakley’s request on Monday. The panel also rejected Coakley’s request to waive, for the Pilgrim review, an NRC rule against weighing spent fuel pool issues in relicensing reviews.
One of the panel members – Ann Marshall Young – showed sympathy for Coakley’s request in a separate opinion: She wrote that there’s some likelihood that the lessons from the Fukushima disaster will need to be taken into consideration in the Pilgrim relicensing, once more information becomes available.
“Without Judge Young, people would rightly have very little respect for the process followed by the NRC in these licensing decisions,” said Mary Lampert, founder of the Pilgrim Watch citizens group and a longtime critic of the plant. “There needs to be more Judge Youngs. … To deny that the Fukushima accident, particularly in a reactor (similar to) Pilgrim, provides no significant new information is ludicrous.”
The rest here.
I remember that last tsunami that hit Mass. ... it was horrible ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShai Dorsai! [grin]
Don't forget that earthquake that simply devastated eastern Massachusetts!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe last thing we need is to mothball usable nuclear power plants. At least there is some sanity in Mass once in a while.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho actually still believes that nuclear power is safe?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI still think its safe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMe too. At least as safe as coal or oil or windmills or going without electricity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepends on what you mean by "safe." Tens of thousands die in auto wrecks every year just in the US. Does that mean automobiles are unsafe?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing is perfectly safe. No form of energy is without risk. I am confident that the risks of using nuclear energy are acceptable, and that the risk of not using nuclear are unacceptable.
The choices for base load are coal, hydro (where you can use it), and nuclear. There are no realistic alternatives. Given the real effects of coal pollution in terms of heavy metals, NOx, SOx, fine particulates, and even radioactive material, I think the choice is clear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSafe is relative. Coal mining kills way more people than do nuclear plants.
Heck, more people die each year building wind towers than have died in all nuclear accidents to date.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNuclear energy is the safest, most reliable and cleanest source of energy on Earth. Think of the crew of a nuclear submarine, who work and live for months in close proximity to an active reactor. It is NOT a death sentence, nor are there any health concerns. We have hundreds or years of experience running nuclear reactors safely, and with respect to the environment.
And, as far as the waste is concerned, a vast majority of the radioactive waste in the USA comes from the government bomb programs, and from nuclear medicine. When the government and medical science figures out a solution to the waste problem, the electric utilities will tag along.
I'll agree to get rid of nuclear power plants when a valid, cost-effective alternative is found. Until then, we should be full speed ahead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe government has figured out a solution for its waste problem:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost waste, is not in fact waste. It is fuel that we foolishly refuse to reprocess and reuse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMartha Coakley is both corrupt and incompetent. Which says a lot about the idiots in her state who continue to elect her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMartha Coakley is both corrupt and incompetent. Which says a lot about the idiots in her state who continue to elect her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wasn't aware that 30 foot tsunamis were a concern in Boston.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse