Award-winning journalist Karl Grossman shares insights on the Indian Point Closure Agreement, the hidden manipulation tactics of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and gives us examples on how activists have successfully scuttled nuclear industry plans.
The interview begins with a discussion on Indian Point. In response to Libbe Halevy`s question on these New York based plants Karl Grossman cut straight to the chase;
“These are 2 aged problem plagued, beyond disasters, waiting to happen”
He goes onto say that here are 2 reactors leaking tritium into the Hudson River and that the plants have been called by a representative of River Keeper NGO;
“The biggest existential threats in the region”
The plants are just 30 miles from Times Square NY. There are 20 million people within 50 miles of these nuclear plants. Present arrangements for closure (and not quickly enough according to Karl) are that Indian Point 2 will be closed in April of 2020 and Indian Point 3 by the end of April 2021.
Looking at the extensive agreement with Entergy, Karl points out that all the nuclear workers will be re-trained at the states expense to work with the new renewable technologies that will replace them. Karl thinks that this is a good escape agreement. He does mention that if there was some unforeseen emergency that the plants lifespan could be extended another 2 years beyond the agreed closure date.
“Their record (the nuclear plants) has been absolutely abysmal and continues to be abysmal, in fact, my dear friend Harvey Wasserman said they are not disasters waiting to happen but disasters already happening and have been happening for many years” and goes onto say “These plants have been operating without licenses”
Entergy had been trying to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to rubber stamp the extension of these plants and the NRC had already given 85 reactors out 99 a twenty year extensions so far.
This means that most US plants now have 60 year lifespans (20 years over their planned lifespan) and the nuclear lobby is trying to get yet another 20 year extension to run the plants for up to 80 years!
Another problem Karl see with these long life extensions is that the NRC has also allowed the reactors to run hotter and harder to produce more electricity.
“ Its like taking an 80 year old car on the interstate and then running it at 90 miles an hour which is like asking for a catastrophe, asking for a disaster, so in light of this the closure (even though it is four years away)of the Indian Point plants is my judgment good news”
Libbe then presses Karl to define the clauses within the new agreement that might allow the plants to run for longer. Karl then goes onto say that the main issue being brought up by the nuclear lobby is what will replace the lost capacity? Karl explains that Governor Cuomo has put in place a program of development of renewable energy sources with off shore wind turbines being the main replacement source. The very first off shore wind farm began operating off Block Island in December 2016 (five wind turbines) and that the next phase will be off New Jersey south of NY city and a Norwegian company will be building in central Long Island as well.
Karl goes onto say that steps toward energy efficiency have also made an impact in reducing the need for electrical capacity and that the concerns of the nuclear lobby in this area, that the missing 2000 megawatts from the nuclear plants, will be offset by these projects and other projects including solar.
On the issue of Solar panels Karl mentions his homes solar capacity and indeed many homes in the US that have solar energy for their domestic use because of the huge reduction in cost of solar panels and associated equipment over recent years. Some of the new panels have as much as 36 percent efficiency, a marked improvement from years past. Karl makes these points that will ensure that the nuclear capacity will not be needed and Libbe points out the bonus factor of having an energy source that will not kill us as well!
Karl talks of the Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC 2) written by the NRC at Sandia National Laboratories (certainly a pro nuclear report). This report covers every nuclear power plant in the USA and reports on accidents that can happen to each plant and the consequences. The figures for the core meltdown accident at Indian Point 2 say that peak early fatalities 46,000 people would be effected peak early injuries 141,000 and and peak cancer deaths 13,000
“I think this is an under estimate”
and a cost of 274 billion dollars (At 1980 costings from the report) which at scale cost today might be 1 trillion dollars.
“A portion of the USA rendered uninhabitable because of radioactivity”
Indian Point 3 would give about the same kind of damage to health and the economy but slightly higher (10 to 20 percent higher). If the accident happened in the winter, as is the case now, the contamination plume would be heading directly south towards New York City center.
Libbe then brought up a recent article Karl did on Enformable (and other online journals) in which he talked with an engineer from Indian Point with 30 years experience. And as the story of the Indian Point nuclear agreement was breaking in the New York Times, this General Electric whistleblower said he didn`t want give his name but he had some important information to offer.
Karl was a bit reticent to use an unnamed source but the information concerning how the nuclear industry manages nuclear incidents and other bad news was just too important to not report on. The main issue is with color coded reports and this engineer said that he had seen about 100 of the most serious red colored national reports (that denotes an incident that could lead to a nuclear reactor core meltdown). The whistleblower said that it was not right that the public could not see these reports.
“INPO is a private organization that cant be accessed by the Freedom of Information Act and that is so wrong” said Karl.
The whistle blower told Karl that the NRC watchdogs can not make surprise inspections either. The watchdogs need to get permission from the upper management of the plant giving the lower managers time to clean up the problem. The engineer then went on to tell Karl that the industry has “thrown out the window” all the older and comprehensive reactor life time studies to enable the 60 and 80 years extension applications.
“They will ignore the standards to benefit their wallets, for greed, with total disregard for the countries safety”
On the green myth that nuclear does not produce greenhouse gases, the engineer went on to say that the industry ignores the whole nuclear manufacturing processes (mining, milling, fuel, processing etc) that do create greenhouse gases. The whistleblower was still concerned with Indian Point although they are due for closure.
How to trump Trumps nuclear plans!
Libbe then asks Karl what strategies will the nuclear industry use to keep nuclear plants open and earning them money?
Karl mentions an added problem concerning president Trump as well as the nuclear industry lobby. He quotes an article from Bloomberg where the Trump administration was asking how they might keep nuclear power alive. Karls main concerns are to do with how the Trump administration might block the increasing surge in renewable growth. He talked about how Eminent Domain was used by the NY state to threaten to take land and assets from the nuclear Industry if they did not close Shoreham nuclear plant down and cease plans for further nuclear reactors.
“Now Long Island is nuclear free”
Another strategy used recently to block the nuclear industry concerns the pollution outflows from nuclear plants where the local government refused to allow Entergy to get a permit. This and the fact that nuclear is no competition for the renewables that are planned, meant that Entergy had to give up its plans for further nuclear in NY State. Karl goes on to talk about the successful fight against the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
“Long Island is nuclear free, the notion, the myth that you can`t fight City hall - that`s a myth created by City hall – You can fight City Hall and you can win! And even in dark times, I mean that even the fight against B Shoreham and Locus nuclear power scheme and for many nuclear plants, that went off during the time of Reagan (and) the first George Bush, these were hard times politically because of the nature of the people in the Whitehouse and now I think we are going to have, I fear, as dark a time- If you can imagine; even darker and if the people organize, if the people act, if the people resist, they can win and just let me add as a footnote; In the fight against Shoreham there were different organizations with different strategies….”
Karl then goes on to explain the different strategies used by these different groups and that to get good people elected is a priority and that all the groups should be working together. Karl mentions that to fight against the nuclear industry we should work locally, nationally and globally.
In the USA Beyond Nuclear and Radiation and Public Health with Joe Mangano. NIRS.org Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to name a few are worth supporting.
INPO Fukushima Lessons learned August 2012 (shows how much the costs of nuclear reactors are going to go up if the recommendations on this are followed. There is little mentioned on the local and downwind populations health risks) https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12219A131.pdf
Soucewatch on the NEI(who work closely with INPO) – According to its website, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is “the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process. NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energies and technologies in the United States and around the world.” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Institute
¶ Scientists revealed that the extent of the Antarctic sea ice has shrunk and is getting increasingly erratic. According to the British Antarctic Survey, this year’s minimum sea ice level in the region is the smallest so far. Meanwhile, another report disclosed that the latest recorded sea ice extent had been the lowest in the last 38 years. [Telegiz News]
Record minimum Antarctic sea ice (Robert Woods, US Navy)
World:
¶ A competitive auction for the 750-MW solar power park in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, has yielded the lowest-ever tariff for a solar power project in India. The three units of the solar power park have been awarded at tariffs of ₹2.970 to ₹2.979 per kWh (4.4¢/kWh). The lowest bid was placed by ACME Cleantech Solutions. [CleanTechnica]
¶ Hundreds of protesters have gathered outside government offices in Bangkok since Friday to demonstrate against a…
Day 8 Royal Courts of Justice, 22nd June 2016 cross examination of Mr Rick Hallard, ex-BNFL Sellafeld, witness for the Secretary of State for Defence
Page 145 146 147
Cross-examination by DR BUSBY
16 DR BUSBY: Mr Hallard, good afternoon. I want to start just to explore something about your function in the arguments that are going on in this Tribunal. I want to start by asking you about your work history with the nuclear industry. It’s true that from the time you left university until quite recently you worked for the nuclear industry and for a long time at British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield.
(Mr Rick Hallard) A. I did.
Q. Now, what I want to ask you is a question about the scientific culture, ways of seeing the picture, if you like. I mean, for example, you must have been at Sellafield for much of the time that this discussion was going on about the childhood leukaemia cluster at Seascale?
A. Yes.
Q. And it’s correct, is it not, that for a long time — perhaps even as far as I know up until the present day — the argument has been that the statistically significant excess of childhood leukaemia at Seascale could not have been caused by the radiation because the doses were too low, is that fair?
A. I think that’s a fair summary. As I understand it, I think from the most recent COMARE report that I’ve read I think the size of the cluster is actually starting to shrink now, if that’s the correct term, that the excess is getting smaller if my memory serves me correctly. But you’re quite right, there has been —
Q. But there is still an excess —
A. There is still an excess risk there.
Q. — risk of childhood leukaemia. Of course childhood leukaemia is a well known consequence of exposure to ionising radiation, is it not?
A. Ionising radiation, yes, is a possible cause. I don’t think it’s the only one.
Q. No, of course not. But I think basically what I’m asking you is this: that does it not seem curious to you that here you have evidence of an effect, which is an effect that can be caused by radiation, it’s a well known consequence of exposure to radiation, and causation has been denied because you start with the dose rather than looking at the effect and working backwards to the dose. Is that a fair —
A. Okay, there’s quite a lot I could say about that.
Q. Well, of course, please do.
A. I think — sorry, I’m just getting my thoughts together when I said that.
Q. It’s just that I think that this is an important area because what’s happening here also in this Tribunal is very largely the same thing. On the one hand people are saying the doses are too low to cause the effect. On the other hand a lot of people are saying “Hey, look here’s a lot of effects and surely we should be working from the effects back to the doses,” or at least there are some people who are saying that. It’s a reasonable logical inference, if you like.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: You got the gist of that question?
A. I have.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: That maybe the hypothesis of childhood leukaemia in Sellafield should make us question the dose.
A. I understand, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: I tried to summarise but I think that’sthe question.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Yes.
A. Childhood leukaemia in Seascale has been a cause of concern for many years, not least among the Sellafield workforce, because of course some of the children were children of the Sellafield workforce and in fact I knew one of them. So it has been a cause of significant worrying concern, as indeed have some of the other episodes. When Dr Gardner came on to the site to explain his hypothesis that caused a great deal of concern. I heard him give his presentation. That was another theory about the possible cause of the leukaemia excess in Sellafield. That caused a great deal of worry. It changed quite a lot of practices on the site as well. But I think the most important — and can I just stress first of all that I’m not a epidemiologist. I hope that’s understood.
DR BUSBY: Of course. I just wondered
Citizen’s groups on Friday delivered a petition with more than 11,300 signatures to three of Japan’s mega-banks to demand they halt funding for the Dakota Access Pipeline reinstated by U.S. President Donald Trump.
A group of concerned citizens started the online petition last December at Change.org. They are calling on Mizuho Bank, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, and the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group to withdraw their funding for the Dakota Access Pipeline, saying the $3.7 billion project threatens Lake Oahe, the indigenous Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s only source of drinking water in North Dakota.
The three banks did not disclose the amount of money they’ve put up, but according to Food & Water Watch, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization, they have more than $1.4 billion invested in the project.
“Banks are financing projects with our deposits without our knowledge of where the money goes,” said Ian Shimizu, an organizer with 350.org Japan, another nongovernmental organization. “More people should know about it.”
The petition said the three banks are violating their own human rights values.
All three have adopted the so-called Equator Principle that determines, assesses and manages environmental and social risk in project financing.
While citizens’ groups assert the pipeline project breaches the principle, all three banks said they in general abide by the Equator Principle and finance projects with much consideration for the environment and human rights issues.
Following massive protests and campaigning, two of Norway’s largest financial institutions last year withdrew their funding for the project due to human rights and environmental concerns.
The delivery of the petition in Tokyo came as Trump is upping efforts to undo the legacy of his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
Obama’s team last December denied Energy Transfer Partners, the developer of the pipeline, the permit needed to complete construction of the pipeline. But Trump ordered the secretary of the army to advance construction as soon as possible after his swearing-in.
The pipeline is seen as an embodiment of Trump’s “America First” policy. Energy Transfer Partners say it will carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields of western North Dakota to Illinois and create thousands of construction jobs and fuel the economy.
But members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups view the project as threatening the environment and their culture.
The route crosses their ancestral lands, and there is concern about environmental damage should it rupture near the Missouri River.
“It is a violation against the rights of indigenous people,” said Akemi Shimada, an Ainu woman, head of Greater Tokyo Ainu Community House Project, who was one of the people who helped deliver the petition. “Trump should understand the rights of indigenous people to live harmoniously with nature.”
There have been massive protests against construction near the site, and the United Nations last October started an investigation on potential human rights violations against Native American protesters by North Dakota law enforcement officials.
But on Monday a U.S. court judge denied a restraining order that would have suspended the construction, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Bergum Thursday ordered the protesters to evacuate their camp.
Day 9 cross examination of Dr Haylock, UKHPA (National Radiological Protection Board) witness for the Secretary of State for Defence. Royal Courts of Justice, 23rd June 2016
Pages 36 37 38 AND 39
(DR BUSBY) Q: Okay, well, in that case let’s just go to SB7/113. This is the last question.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Yes. This is the mortality experience of A bomb survivors?
DR BUSBY: That’s correct, my Lord. This is the 1973 annual report from the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.
(DR HAYLOCK) A. I have it.
Q. Can I take you to page 6 of that report?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Right.
DR BUSBY: Now this report is interesting because it was one of the first reports that said what it’s saying —
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Which paragraph do you want to take us to?
DR BUSBY: We’re looking at “comparison group”.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Do you see that, about in the middle ofthe page?
A. I have it.
DR BUSBY: It says: “In order to ascertain the effects of radiation exposure, it is necessary to compare the mortality experience of a population exposed to ionising radiation with a comparison or control population.” Would you agree with that as a sort of general epidemiological statement?
A. It’s one way. I don’t believe it’s the only way or even the best way.
Q. Right: “For this purpose a group of people who were not present in the cities was included in the sample.” Would that have seemed a reasonable thing to do?
A. It depends what question you want to answer.
Q. I think the question — you know the question they want to answer. Perhaps you could tell us the question they want to answer?
18 A. Well, if you are saying if you want to compare that group with the group who were exposed to the bombs and compare their health, then —
Q. I asked you what the question was that they wanted to answer.
23 MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well —
DR BUSBY: Could you answer that question?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, do you know what question was being posed by the authors of this study? And therefore I think you are then being asked as to whether what they said they were doing by way of a comparison group was an appropriate —
A. I think they are trying to compare and see if the health of the people who were exposed to the bombs is significantly worse than that of the group that wasn’t in the city at the time of the bomb.
DR BUSBY: Well, could you agree —
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: If that’s the purpose, then is what they have done — I think you are being asked to comment upon the methodology.
13 A. I believe there was an issue with this in that when it was looked at the not in city group —
DR BUSBY: We haven’t got a lot of time.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Sorry, what’s the question? Ask the question.
DR BUSBY: I have asked him the question, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Do it again because I don’t think —
DR BUSBY: What was the purpose of this study?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, he has told you the answer.
DR BUSBY: In that case we can move on.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Right.
DR BUSBY: We are going to go to the bottom of this page now.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Low mortality?
DR BUSBY: It says: “The low mortality for the not in city group would have the effect of exaggerating the difference in mortality between the heavily exposed population and the control group.”
A. Right.
Q. This is what they are saying. I ask you to accept that that’s what they are saying, really, because we are going to go on to the killer point over the page.
A. I agree that’s the point they wanted to make.
Q. Yes, right. Can we go to the next page, 7, top of the page now?
14 A. Mm-hm.
Q. “The use of the low dose survivors as a comparison group is endorsed by the Subcommittee on Somatic Effects of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiations. It was felt that ‘some relatively small contaminations on the side of dosimetry is potentially less disturbing than the known large differences that mark the NIC group with respect to occupation, social class, and perhaps other factors’.” Does that seem reasonable to you?
A. It does.
Q. So can we go back to page 6 now, right at the bottom, and see what they are talking about. So going back to that last paragraph, where they say: “Although the tables include comparisons between early and late entrants and between the not in city and exposed populations, the discussions will be confined mostly to the comparison between the mortality of a low dose group and the more heavily exposed population groups.”
What does that mean?
A. As I understand it, it means that they are not using the not in city group as an appropriate comparison group but doing essentially a within comparison, where you’re looking at people who were, they think, lowly exposed at the time of the bomb versus people who are more highly exposed to see if there’s a difference in that exposure.
16 Q. Thank you. So they threw out their control group, is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 DR BUSBY: Yes. That’s all. No further questions.
Day 8 cross examination of Dr Haylock, UKHPA (National Radiological Protection Board) witness for the Secretary of State for Defence. Royal Courts of Justice, 22nd June 2016 (PAGES 117 AND 118)
(DR BUSBY) Q: Well, like the Sellafield paper, here is a paper that also appears to show evidence that there was an effect in northern Sweden from the Chernobyl accident [Tondel et al 2004]. Do you agree with the authors of this paper that that is so?
(DR HAYLOCK) A. No.
Q. No. Why not?
A. It’s a generally a poor quality paper and I don’t believe the fact that it uses geographical distribution of doses in place of actual individual doses to be a good point, and therefore I’m not convinced by the evidence in it.
Q. Do you recall if the ICRP — and you can see here that this was written in 2004 — do you recall if the ICRP included discussion of this evidence in its 2007 report?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Well, I mean, it actually didn’t, but if it didn’t, would you find that unusual or unacceptable?
A. No, because I don’t believe it’s a good quality study.
Q. Quite. So the ICRP probably also don’t consider it’s a good quality study?
A. I’m not a member of ICRP to respond to that.
Q. But my point is that scientists, therefore, who have a particular view of things can decide whether a study, or what I might call the facts are acceptable on the basis of their decision whether the study is good or not. So they can exclude something from their particular world view.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that’s acceptable, that you can actually exclude facts from your world view on the basis of a subjective decision?
A. I think if you review a paper and you feel that the evidence isn’t of sufficient quality then you should reject it and that is the case, I believe, with this paper. It doesn’t meet the threshold for good evidence.
Q. So it’s therefore possible that a particular view about whether some area is right — we’re talking about the ICRP risk model now — can be, if you like, put into a bubble and any evidence that shows that it may be wrong can be just excluded on the subjective decision of the people in the ICRP who don’t like it, if I can putit like that?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, he has explained the answer. I don’t think you are going to get much change from this kind of question. It’s not a question of “don’t like it”. It is suggested that the evidence supporting the conclusion is not sufficiently robust to sustain the conclusion, if I understood your answer correctly?
A. That’s correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: If, therefore, the method the methodology and the conclusion, is insufficiently robust to sustain the conclusion, it’s not considered evidence which requires a response from ICRP. Yes?
A. Yes, my Lord, yes.
The French military authorities reportedly intended to “study the physical and psychological effect of nuclear weapons on humans” and find out whether soldiers were “able to continue fighting” if a nuclear strike would have taken place in the conditions of a war.
In the 1960s, France carried out nuclear tests in Algeria to study the effects of radiation on humans. However, Algerians are still struggling to cope with the consequences of the French atomic experiments.
In the 1960s, France carried out nuclear tests in Algeria to study the effects of radiation on humans. However, Algerians are still struggling to cope with the consequences of the French atomic experiments.Algeria is demanding financial compensation from the French authorities for the nuclear tests they carried out in the Sahara desert in the 1960s.
According to Algerian military expert, Colonel Muhammed Halfawi, “France recognizes the fact that it carried out nuclear and chemical tests, but refuses to pay compensation to the victims.”
“Jointly with these people, we are actively urging France to pay compensation to the families of the victims of the explosion and those who have suffered from the effects of these tests,” Halwafi told Sputnik France.
“There are documentaries that reveal how the tests had been conducted. They show that at that time the French did not have an accurate understanding of the force of the explosion. You can see how the generals hastily left the site on the aircraft, because the power of the bomb significantly exceeded their calculations.”
Algerian officials recently held a national forum on “French nuclear tests in the Algerian Sahara, and their effect on humans and the environment.” The event was timed to the 57th anniversary of the nuclear experiments conducted on February 13, 1960.
According to Halfawi, the Algerians have been fighting for justice for a long time.
“Confessions on a political level are not enough. The families of those who died or became disabled are living among us. The nuclear tests will have effects for millions of years. France should recognize the rights of these people,” Halfawi concluded.
France carried out nuclear tests on its servicemen in the 1960s to study the effect of radiation on humans, according to a secret report uncovered by French media several years ago.The 260-page document, reported by Le Parisien newspaper in 2010, said the experiments were carried out on French soldiers in the Algerian Sahara desert in 1960-1966.
According to the report, the experiments, intended to study the possibility of carrying out offensive and defensive operations in a contaminated area, involved some 300 infantrymen and tank crews, the paper said.
The French military authorities reportedly intended to “study the physical and psychological effect of nuclear weapons on humans” and find out whether soldiers were “able to continue fighting” if a nuclear strike would have taken place in the conditions of a war.
Controversially, the MoD has its own internal nuclear regulator, which critics say lacks independence and cannot hold top brass to account over safety issues.
NIS research manager David Cullen said: ‘Our report shows the MoD’s response to an accident is to downplay it and to hope nobody noticed it. With nuclear weapons, the risks are so large the MoD should not be allowed to continue to regulate itself.’
A catalogue of more than 100 incidents show how close we came to disaster
The figure is four times higher than the Ministry of Defence has ackowledged
This included a truck carrying weapons overturning and two submarines nearly colliding
A chilling catalogue of more than 100 accidents involving Britain’s nuclear weapons reveals for the first time how often we may have come close to disaster.
The shock report by an independent nuclear watchdog documents 110 major alerts – four times higher than the Ministry of Defence has acknowledged.
Among the incidents in the dossier by the Nuclear Information Service (NIS), which has been seen by The Mail on Sunday, are:
British warships carrying nuclear depth charges by mistake in the 1982 Falklands War;
a mid-Atlantic collision between nuclear-armed British and French submarines in 2009;
a truck carrying nuclear warheads overturning on an icy road in Wiltshire in 1987;
the deaths of 116 UK nuclear workers from accidents and cancer.
The MoD’s sole comprehensive report on accidents involving nuclear weapons was published in 2003 and detailed just 27 incidents.
The NIS dossier follows the recent disclosure that a British Trident submarine-launched missile crashed into the Atlantic last year in an incident that was apparently hushed up ahead of MPs voting to renew the UK’s commitment to an independent nuclear deterrent.
Drawing upon whistleblower and eyewitness accounts, along with news reports and academic sources, the NIS has counted 27 fires at UK nuclear establishments, 14 serious accidents in the production of nuclear weapons and eight explosions since Britain developed atomic weapons.
There have also been 22 incidents on road transport; eight incidents involving storage and handling; 45 accidents on nuclear-capable submarines, ships and aircraft; and 21 ‘security incidents’, according to the report – entitled Playing With Fire – to be released this week.
According to experts at the NIS, the incidents have been caused by equipment failures, shortages of key safety items and staff failing to follow strict instructions and safety procedures, and some could have resulted in nuclear explosions.
Last night, the NIS called for Britain’s Defence Nuclear Programme to be placed under the responsibility of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which regulates the civil nuclear industry.
Controversially, the MoD has its own internal nuclear regulator, which critics say lacks independence and cannot hold top brass to account over safety issues.
NIS research manager David Cullen said: ‘Our report shows the MoD’s response to an accident is to downplay it and to hope nobody noticed it. With nuclear weapons, the risks are so large the MoD should not be allowed to continue to regulate itself.’
It claims there have been seven deaths after industrial accidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are manufactured
The NIS report goes back to the creation of Britain’s nuclear deterrent in 1952. It claims there have been seven deaths after industrial accidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are manufactured.
A further nine people have apparently died from radioactive contamination. A fire at the Windscale reactor in Cumbria in 1957 is said to have caused 100 fatal cancers among workers.
The report also claims the MoD launched a cover-up after a collision between a British and a French submarine – both carrying nuclear warheads – in the Atlantic in 2009.
HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were apparently on separate manoeuvres when the vessels bumped into each other at a depth of 1,000ft in the Bay of Biscay. The MoD insisted that at no time was the safety of the subs or their crews in any jeopardy. But the NIS report includes testimony from an unnamed officer on Vanguard, who said: ‘We thought, this is it, we’re all going to die.’
An information blackout was also imposed by the MoD after a road accident in Wiltshire in 1987 when four nuclear bombs slid from a truck into a roadside ditch.
The MoD said: ‘The safety of the public is our priority… In over 50 years of transporting defence nuclear material in the UK, there has never been an incident that has posed any radiation hazard to the public or to the environment.’
The Royal Navy mistakenly took nuclear weapons to the Falklands War, storing them aboard the ship on which Prince Andrew served.
The WE.177A nuclear depth charges were taken aboard aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, from which the Prince flew sorties as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot with 820 Naval Air Squadron.
The Nuclear Information Service report estimates that there were ten warheads aboard Invincible, 16 on the second British carrier, HMS Hermes, and more aboard support ships in the task force dispatched by Margaret Thatcher in 1982.
The Nuclear Information Service report estimates that there were ten warheads aboard Invincible
According to the report, the Royal Navy should have removed the ordnance from the warships before the fleet sailed to the South Atlantic, but the task was not performed since offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to dig in.
The presence of the weapons aboard British ships in the Falklands War was not officially confirmed until 2005.
An MoD report that year acknowledged the risks involved but added: ‘The operational imperative to dispatch the task force as rapidly as possible was judged by admirals and Ministers to take precedence over the safety advantages of returning the weapons to a home base.’
P Naveen | TNN | Updated: Feb 18, 2017, 01.56 PM IST
BHOPAL: The Rs 17,000-crore nuclear power plant project in Chutka, Madhya Pradesh, has run into a roadblock with villagers launching a ‘satyagraha’ against it.
Kunda village, one of the three affected by the project on the banks of Narmada, has not only passed resolutions rejecting the government proposal to set up the nuclear plant but also nominated three persons to move court, said sources.
“This project should be shifted elsewhere. It will not only deprive people of long term livelihood but also prove disastrous for the environment,” said Meera Bai, president of the women’s wing of Chutka Parmanu Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti. Dayal Singh of Kunde village echoed Meera and said he is among the three nominated by the village to fight a legal battle. The others are Monelal and Amar Singh.
The area witnessed a satyagraha andolan by villagers two days ago. Several organisations and social activists, including Medha Patkar, have raised their voice against the proposed nuclear power plant. The site is about 100km from Jabalpur and the famous marble rock formations on the Narmada and a mere 35 km from Kanha national park. Most of those affected are tribals, who were earlier displaced by the “Bargi Dam” in the 1990s. Being displaced again rankles them.
“How can the government be so ruthless as to displace villagers twice? Moreover, Bargi dam was constructed for irrigation, to help farmers. Giving up the site for a nuclear plant will only pollute the water with hazardous waste discharge,” said Rajkumar Sinha, convener of an organisation for those affected by the dam. “On the one hand, the government claims it is trying to save Narmada and on other it is allowing a nuclear plant on its banks.”
Sinha and the other protesters claim that the Centre and state government have joined hands to push ahead with the project, ignoring its “dangerous consequences.” Multiple organisations from Bhopal and other areas had been campaigning against the project by distributing booklets and handbills with information about nuclear power plants and their disasters elsewhere in the world.
In 2014, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had declared the Chutka plant safe. An environmental impact assessment report filed by the corporation says the project is in the low seismic activity zone-II and is “environmentally benign, techno-economically viable and sustainable
The local administration says most of the people have accepted the compensation package. “We don’t think that there is any reason left for them to protest. More than 85% people living in these villages have accepted the compensation and are happy,” said Mandla collector Preeti Maithili told TOI.
IN international relations there are no permanent friends or foes. To further the national aims and objectives countries keep changing their alliances to best suit their national interests. The history of Pak-US relations is no different. Since its infancy Pakistan opted for the US bloc preferring it over the then second superpower Soviet Union. In the hindsight it will not be unrealistic to conclude that Pakistan has paid a heavy price for this strategic decision. Being member of SEATO and CENTO Pakistan extended full support to the US against the USSR by providing its airbases to US Air Force; U-2 flight from Badaber in 1960 is a case in point.
However, when India was in the process of helping Mukti Bahini to create Bangladesh and Pakistan Army got stranded in Dhaka, the promised 7th Fleet never came to its rescue. Again in early 70s, Pakistan played a pivotal role in bringing China and the US together and in late 70s Pakistan became a frontline state to counter the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the disintegration of Soviet Empire. While Pakistan had to pay a heavy price in terms of accommodating over 4 million Afghan refugees who brought along Kalashnikov and drugs culture, sectarianism and other social evils besides handling of Mujahideen created and funded by the US.
Surprisingly, the US reward came in the form of Pressler Amendment and resultant sanctions against Pakistan. While Russia always took side with India on Kashmir issue and vetoed almost all the resolutions at UN forum, the US has been advising Pakistan to settle the dispute through bilateral talks. When India went nuclear and Pakistan responded in quid pro quo, it again had to face a lot of sanctions by the US and its allies. Contrarily, the US has been supporting India become member of the prestigious Nuclear Suppliers Group while Pakistan is always advised to cap its nuclear programme.
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was again forced to support the US in overthrowing the Taliban government in Afghanistan by paying an overwhelmingly higher price by fighting the War on Terror in its Tribal Areas bordering Afghanistan till today. In the process, thousands of Pakistani soldiers and civilians fell prey to the menace of terrorism besides billions of dollars loss to its economy. The reward as usual is no different; ie drone attacks killing hundreds of innocent civilians in the so-called collateral damage, maligning Pakistan of harbouring terrorists in safe havens, rhetoric of do more, Operation Neptune Spear on 2 May 2011 inside Pakistan against Osama bin Laden, limiting role of Pakistan in reconstruction process of Afghanistan after drawdown and giving a bigger piece of pie to India.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration eagerly concluded strategic bilateral pacts with India to include Defence Technology and Trade Initiative, India designated as’ major defence partner’ to facilitate defence technology, combat exercises and war games, joint projects to include Aircraft Carrier technologies and jet engines, futuristic helicopters, infantry combat vehicles, F-16/ F-18 fighter production line and billions of dollars arms deals to include C-17 globe master, Poseidon-8, C-130 Super Hercules, Apache attack helicopters and Chinook heavy lift helicopters while denying the same to Pakistan which has created a state of strategic imbalance in the nuclear South Asian region. So much for the past.
For now, the Donald Trump syndrome has created an entirely new situation for the whole world. He has openly declared Islam/ Muslims as enemy and banned entry of citizens of seven Islamic countries in the US. Muslims are being harassed in the US and there are widespread demonstrations across US and EU condemning the policies of Donald Trump. For Pakistan his views are no different; in an interview, he didn’t mince his words by declaring nuclear Pakistan as most dangerous country next to Iran and was openly planning to counter Pakistan by strengthening India by equipping its already strong conventional forces. Considering the prevailing environment and taking history as a guide, one doesn’t have to be a strategist or political analyst to predict future of Pak-US relations.
In this backdrop, Pakistan should remain ready to face coercive actions by India to possibly include activation of LoC, misadventure of precision strikes/ conduct hot pursuit operations across the LOC to discredit Pakistan Army, terrorist activities on soft targets, sectarian killings, creating law and order situation in economic hub of Pakistan; Karachi through ethnic/ linguistic groups, destabilizing Balochistan by funding, training and arming separatists, cross border actions in FATA from Afghanistan and denying Pakistan of its due water share according to Indus Water Treaty etc, and there could be a long list on how an Indo-US nexus can coerce Pakistan by creating a situation of civil war in the country to disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons through an International Peace Keeping Force.
Now what should Pakistan do to counter the emerging scenario? Pakistan should immediately appoint a dynamic foreign minister capable of leading the team of foreign missions to create a positive perception about Pakistan in the US and EU. CPEC could serve as a game changer for Pakistan; potential beneficiaries of CPEC should be brought together to counter any threat to destabilize Pakistan. We should also endeavour to make a strategic alliance with Russia and China to counter the impending threat. On the home front, Pakistan should speed up the process of reforms in FATA and bring it under a mutually agreed political umbrella to free its forces from Western front. Dissident Baloch leaders be brought into political mainstream. Simultaneously, Baloch youth may be harnessed ad engaged in economic activity generated by CPEC to dispel feelings of deprivation.
National Action Plan should be taken to its logical conclusion to clear the menace of terrorism from the Pakistani soil once and for all. Speedy justice is the key to the success of National Action Plan. Stable Karachi and Pakistan Stock Market can also attract a lot of Direct Foreign Investment thereby broadening international stakes for Pakistan. All elements of national power need to work hand in to build a stable Pakistan, which is mutually beneficial to all nations across the globe.
—The writer is a defence analyst based in Islamabad.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday that he discussed a number of issues, including the ones related to Iran, with US State Secretary Rex Tillerson during their bilateral meeting in Germany’s Bonn.
MUNICH (Sputnik) — On Thursday, Lavrov and Tillerson held the first meeting after the appointment of the top US diplomat in the German city of Bonn.
“Yes, we have discussed Iran, as well as other key issues of international agenda. We proceed from the premise that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has settled the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, will remain in place. The US side continues to participate in monitoring of the implementation of the document along with other participants of these accord,” Lavrov told reporters.
Lavrov emphasized that all countries should abide by the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, including lifting the ban on economic ties with Tehran.
Earlier in the day, Lavrov held a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano in Munich and discussed the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and monitoring activities of such implementation.
“[Amano] has confirmed that monitoring of this program’s implementation shows that Iran fulfills its obligations and we assume that it will continue. But other parties to the agreement should also fulfill their obligations. I mean full lifting of restrictions on economic cooperation and other ties with Iran,” Lavrov said.
Iran, five permanent UN Security Council members, Germany and the European Union signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015 to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Under the agreement, Iran pledged to refrain from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of sanctions imposed against Iran. A UN resolution was passed shortly afterwards, reaffirming the nuclear agreement.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iranian nuclear agreement during his election campaign and after winning the race.
This was supposed to be America’s nuclear century.
he Three Mile Island meltdown was two generations ago. Since then, engineers had developed innovative designs to avoid the kinds of failures that devastated Fukushima in Japan. The United States government was earmarking billions of dollars for a new atomic age, in part to help tame a warming global climate.
But a remarkable confluence of events is bringing that to an end, capped in recent days by Toshiba’s decision to take a $6 billion loss and pull Westinghouse, its American nuclear power subsidiary, out of the construction business.
The reasons are wide-ranging. Against expectations, demand for electricity has slowed. Natural-gas prices have tumbled, eroding nuclear power’s economic rationale. Alternative-energy sources like wind and solar power have come into their own.
And, perhaps most significantly, attempts to square two often-conflicting forces — the desire for greater safety, and the need to contain costs — while bringing to life complex new designs have blocked or delayed nearly all of the projects planned in the United States.
“You can make it go fast, and you can make it be cheap — but not if you adhere to the standard of care that we do,” said Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, referring to the United States regulatory body, which is considered one of the most meticulous in the world. “Nuclear safety always undermines nuclear economics. Inherently, it’s a technology whose time never comes.”
In the process, the United States could lose considerable influence over standards governing safety and waste management, nuclear experts say. And the world may show less willingness to move toward potentially safer designs.
“I’m concerned that if the U.S. is not seen as a big player, and doesn’t have that kind of market presence, that we won’t be in a competitive position to bring those standards back up,” said Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia. “If you’ve got more lax safety standards worldwide, I think that’s a problem from an industry perspective as well as just a human standard.”
This may be an advantage for state-owned nuclear industries worldwide. Often they benefit from long-term national policies in places like Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
By contrast, the Toshiba-Westinghouse withdrawal from nuclear construction shows how daunting it can be for the private sector to build these plants, even with generous government subsidies like loan guarantees and tax credits. Projects take decades to complete. Safety concerns change along the way, leading to new regulations, thousands of design alterations, delays and spiraling costs for every element.
In one case, even the dirt used to backfill excavated holes at the Westinghouse project in Georgia became a point of contention when it did not measure up to Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, leading to increased costs and a lawsuit.
Thus far in the United States, only the Tennessee Valley Authority, itself a government corporation, has been able to bring a new nuclear reactor into operation in the last 20 years.
Of the dozens of new reactors once up for licensing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, only four are actively under construction. Two are at the Alvin W. Vogtle generating station in Georgia, and two at the Virgil C. Summer plant in South Carolina. Both projects, which plan to use a novel reactor from Westinghouse, have been plagued by delays and cost overruns, some stemming, paradoxically, from an untested regulatory system intended to simplify and accelerate their development.
The projects, more than three years late and billions over budget, are what pushed Westinghouse — one of the last private companies building nuclear reactors — and its parent, Toshiba, to the brink of financial ruin, resulting in Toshiba’s chairman stepping down.
The company has said that Westinghouse will complete the reactors for the projects it already has underway, including two in China. But the fate of other projects in the United States and abroad that plan to use the Westinghouse reactor, known as the AP1000, are in doubt, along with the role of the United States in the future of nuclear energy. It is also unclear how President Trump will approach nuclear energy development, which has broad and overlapping implications for tax and trade policies, economic development and national security.
The AP1000 is considered one of the world’s most advanced reactors, with simplified structures and safety equipment which were intended to make it easier and less expensive to install, operate and maintain. It has been designed with an improved ability to withstand earthquakes and plane crashes and is less vulnerable to a cutoff of electricity, which is what set off the triple meltdown at Fukushima.
The industry has lurched through boom and bust cycles before.
Nuclear construction had all but disappeared in the United States, particularly after the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. Concerns over climate change led to renewed interest in building new plants under the administration of George W. Bush, however. The Bush-era energy policy acts authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, plus tax credits like those available for wind and solar
Determined to avoid the delays and ballooning costs that were common as plants were built in the 1970s and ’80s, federal regulators had devised a new licensing process.
Under the old system, companies received construction permits based on incomplete plans and then applied for an operating license, often leading to rebuilding and lengthy delays. The idea for the new system was that companies would submit much more complete design plans for approval, and then receive their operating licenses as construction started. That way, as long as they built exactly what they said they would, the process could move more quickly.
In the meantime, companies like Westinghouse and General Electric were developing a new generation of reactors intended to operate more safely. With the AP1000, for instance, emergency cooling for the reactor mainly relies on natural forces, like gravity, to propel the coolant, rather than relying on mechanical pumps powered by electricity. The problem is that electricity can fail, as it did at Fukushima, which can lead to disastrous overheating in a damaged reactor of an older design.
In addition, Westinghouse was engineering its equipment so that large components of the plants could be made in sections at factories, then welded together and lifted into place with cranes at the construction site. In theory, this approach would save money and time, requiring far less skilled labor than the old, bespoke approach, in which workers assembled more parts onsite.
By 2008, Westinghouse had deals to expand two existing plants with the electric utilities Georgia Power and South Carolina Electric & Gas. Little went as hoped.
Because nuclear construction had been dormant for so long, American companies lacked the equipment and expertise needed to make some of the biggest components, like the 300-ton reactor vessels. Instead, they were manufactured overseas, adding to expense and delays.
One reactor vessel, headed for Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant from the Port of Savannah, almost slipped off a specialized rail car. That led to a weekslong delay before a second attempt was made to deliver it.
And, in a separate snafu, while working on the plant’s basement contractors installed 1,200 tons of steel reinforcing bar in a way that differed from the approved design. That triggered a seven-and-a-half month delay to get a license amendment.
To some extent, the unexpected delays were to be, well, expected, given the novelty of the design and the fact that builders were decades out of practice. Any large undertaking involving so many first-of-a-kind complexities would be likely get tripped up somewhere, said Daniel S. Lipman, vice president of supplier and international programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry.
“Whether you’re building a nuclear power plant or providing a new locomotive or a new fighter jet complex for the Defense Department, the first of a kind almost always takes longer to be deployed,” he said.
And then there was Fukushima, when an earthquake and tsunami knocked out both grid and backup emergency power at the plant, disabling its cooling systems and leading to the meltdown of three reactors. The plant remains shut down, and the decommissioning and cleanup process is projected to take as long as 40 years.
The Japan disaster prompted regulators to revisit safety standards, slowing approval of the Westinghouse designs and resulting in new requirements even after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the go-ahead for the Georgia and South Carolina projects. That led to more costly delays as manufacturing orders had to be changed.
As all of that unfolded, Westinghouse was having troubles with the contractor it chose to complete the projects, a company that struggled to meet the strict demands of nuclear construction and was undergoing its own internal difficulties after a merger. As part of an effort to get the delays and escalating costs under control, Westinghouse acquired part of the construction company, which set off a series of still-unresolved disputes over who should absorb the cost overruns and how Westinghouse accounted for and reported values in the transaction.
Toshiba, which would like to sell all or part of its controlling interest in Westinghouse, has said it will continue to look into Westinghouse’s handling of the purchase.
“Certainly they underestimated the amount of liability or cost overruns that these projects were in,” Robert Norfleet, a managing director at Alembic Global Advisors who has followed the machinations, said of Westinghouse. “I don’t really know how they can’t take the blame for that. That’s something within their own due diligence that they needed to do.”
In the meantime, the main stage for nuclear development will move overseas to places like China, Russia, India, Korea and a handful of countries in the Middle East, where Westinghouse will have to find partners to build its designs.
In China, plants using an earlier model of the AP1000 are moving toward completion. If they are successful, that may stir up more interest in the technology, and future installations may go more smoothly. But Toshiba’s ambitions of installing 45 new reactors worldwide by 2030 no longer look feasible.
Indeed, despite the much-ballyhooed ingenuity of a new generation of reactors designed by the likes of Westinghouse and G.E., countries may stick with older technologies that they can produce and install more quickly and cheaply. “Until several of these new designs — including the AP1000 from Westinghouse — come online on time and on budget,” said Brent Wanner, an analyst at the International Energy Agency, “it will be an uphill battle.”
The latest data on doses taken by workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are available online at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Affairs. They were provided by TEPCO. The company has reset all meters to zero by April 1, 2016.
Since that date, and until 31 December 2016, 14,643 workers have been exposed to ionizing radiation at the site of the accidented plant, out of which 13,027 were subcontracted workers (89%). There were 9,484 in December alone, out of which 8,463 were subcontracted workers
The average dose received during these 9 months was 2.14 mSv (2.29 mSv for subcontracted workers and 0.94 mSv for TEPCO employees). The highest dose was 38.76 mSv and a subcontracted worker took it. It should be noted that 93 subcontracted workers have already received a dose higher than 20 mSv. The highest dose taken by a TEPCO employee is 11.63 mSv.
By way of comparison, let us recall that the annual limit dose for the public is 1 mSv per year under normal conditions. For workers, it is 50 mSv per year without exceeding 100 mSv over 5 years. In France, it is strictly 20 mSv per year for workers.
The Sasori robot is stuck inside the containment vessel of Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant’s No. 2 reactor on Feb. 16. (Provided by International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning)
Robot stuck in Fukushima No. 2 reactor on 1st try, abandoned
In the latest hitch in efforts to decommission reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, a robotic surveyor became mired in deposits and was lost on its maiden journey on Feb. 16.
Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the plant in Fukushima Prefecture, had to abandon the Sasori (scorpion) robot after it became stuck inside the containment vessel of the power station’s No. 2 reactor that morning.
The highly touted probe was specially developed for the important task of surveying the interior of the crippled reactor and collecting data to assist in removing the melted fuel.
But with the environment inside too treacherous for a key component in the process, TEPCO’s decommissioning project seems to have come to a standstill.
According to the utility, the robot entered the containment vessel around 8 a.m. It traveled along a 7.2-meter-long rail connecting the outer wall of the containment vessel with its central portion immediately beneath the pressure vessel.
But about 5 meters into its mission, the robot’s controls started to become less responsive. TEPCO believes it was due to deposits and other debris that are blocking the rail entering its drive system.
The operator tugged on the electrical cable connected to the robot and had it pull back to an area along its path with less obstacles, but it ultimately became stuck there.
The robot measured the radiation levels in the area at 210 sieverts per hour, which is lethal enough to kill a human in two minutes. Earlier, the company had estimated the level in the area at 650 sieverts per hour from video footage captured on Feb. 9 by another robot that paved the way for the Sasori.
With the robot completely immobilized, TEPCO gave up on retrieving it around 3 p.m. The operator cut the electric cable and closed the tunnel bored into the wall of the containment vessel, entombing the robot inside.
The probe was cast aside to the edge of the 0.6-meter-wide rail so that it would not impede future surveyor robots.
Had everything gone according to plan, TEPCO would have sent the Sasori onto the grating in the heart of the containment vessel, which is covered in black chunks believed to be melted fuel rods that fell from the pressure vessel above.
The utility had hoped to measure the dosage of these radioactive lumps, as well as capture images of the underside of the pressure vessel, which contains holes from when the nuclear fuel burned through it in the meltdown that was triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Damage inside No. 2 reactor building at Fukushima plant greater than expected
Damage within the No. 2 reactor building at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant was found to be greater than expected, based on images sent back by a robot sent into the structure by plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) in a mission that concluded Feb. 16.
The operation used a self-propelled scorpion-shaped robot, with the goal of investigating the inside of the reactor’s containment vessel and the area directly beneath the reactor, but the area under the reactor was not reached. The No. 2 reactor building was thought to be comparatively undamaged compared to the No. 1 and No. 3 reactor buildings, where hydrogen explosions occurred. Worse damage than expected was discovered, however, such as holes in the grating foothold inside the containment vessel.
At a press conference, TEPCO official Yuichi Okamura stressed, “This investigation was the first of its type in the world and uncovered information about the debris inside. The mission wasn’t a failure.”
The robot’s camera also took footage of the condition of pipes in the structure, and image processing could make these pictures clearer. However, the robot’s treads stopped moving after it proceeded over 2 meters along a rail, and TEPCO was not able to use it to check the melted nuclear fuel.
TEPCO plans to decide as early as this summer on how to remove the melted fuel from the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors and start the decommissioning process in earnest. The results of the investigation were to be used as base data for the decommissioning, but with it having not produced an overall understanding of the No. 2 reactor building’s interior, a new investigation will probably be sought.
However, no plan for the next investigation has been decided, and it may begin with the development of a new robot. TEPCO plans to send in a different robot to the No. 1 reactor building next month. For the No. 3 reactor building, a robot capable of moving in water is being developed because there is a large amount of contaminated water at the bottom of its containment vessel.
While the press reported Scorpion’s mission as a failure, it provided useful data before being abandoned. It collected some radiation readings and a number of useful images.
The robot seems to have become stranded on a pile of debris on the rail. Radiation data from along this inspection route provided only one radiation reading, no telemetry as other videos had. Tepco’s video is heavily edited but still provides some useful information.
A reminder, these readings are the result of venturing into the more deadly areas of the reactor where they have been unable to previously, no resulting from an increase of radiation. While this is much lower than the earlier camera estimates of radiation it is still extremely high and quite deadly.
Arond the same area where the high radiation source was found, TEPCO stated they found a 210 Sv/h reading with the on board radiation sensor.
New images from inside the pedestal were obtained as were some images looking up into the containment structure.
Image below from TEPCO. White ghosting on the image is likely due to radiation levels rather than steam. The existing melt hole in the pedestal floor grate can be partially seen in the upper mid section of the image. A very thick amount of fuel debris can be see in the lower right section of the image. The mark “clean” on this image with an arrow indicates an area where the floor grate may have failed after the molten fuel had splattered on the area. Further below, more fuel debris and structures can be seen.
The red circle shows an area where it appears fuel debris was moved or blocked by a fallen piece of sheet steel.
In both images, sections of light colored piping can be seen below the area where the grate is missing. On the far left of the image a partially melted section of flexible conduit can be seen.
This appears to indicate that high temperatures within the pedestal were very localized.
nuclear-news 