Copeland Council remove “Support” for deep geological dumping of nuclear waste —
Continuous Miner Machine – for making very big holes in the ground for example deep under the Irish Sea or Ennerdale or the Solway – Cumbria County Council have voted to bring this infrastructure to Cumbria when they said yes to West Cumbria Mining. Spot the difference? The Whitehaven News has reported that […]
via Copeland Council remove “Support” for deep geological dumping of nuclear waste —
Radioactive Nuclear Waste Lies: Holtec Nuclear Waste Cans at San Onofre; Plus Tritiated Water Can Be Filtered — Mining Awareness +
Prior to Donna Gilmore’s segment on Holtec, at 27 minutes, is a segment by Gordon Edwards https://youtu.be/tkpOfQ6cNgI. It is important to know, that contrary to what seems to be implied by Gordon Edwards, tritium/tritiated water CAN be separated-filtered, because it has different characteristics from regular water, as we posted over 4 1/2 years ago: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/recovery-of-tritium-from-tritiated-waste-water-cost-effectiveness-analysis/ %5B…%5D
November 8 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Colorado’s Cleanest Energy Options Are Also Its Cheapest” • Of all the states in the US, Colorado may be the best prepared for a genuine, large-scale energy transition. Colorado has enormous potential for renewable energy, most of which is as yet untapped. Gov Jared Polis campaigned on a promise to target 100% clean […]
Tuvalu heads for 35% renewables with $6m solar and storage grant — RenewEconomy
ADB grant to install rooftop solar, storage and ground mounted PV across Tuvalu promises to take daytime electricity supply to 35%, and 100% at times. The post Tuvalu heads for 35% renewables with $6m solar and storage grant appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Tuvalu heads for 35% renewables with $6m solar and storage grant — RenewEconomy
Netherlands floats its solar boat as it aims for 27GW by 2030 — RenewEconomy
Where will the Netherlands accommodate a forecast 27GW of solar by 2030? The completion of its largest floating solar project offers a clue. The post Netherlands floats its solar boat as it aims for 27GW by 2030 appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Netherlands floats its solar boat as it aims for 27GW by 2030 — RenewEconomy
Fukushima: Radioactive waste bags still missing after Typhoon Hagibis
In many municipalities in the prefecture, a lot of radioactive waste, including soil, was generated through decontamination work after the 2011 nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 power plant. Numerous bags containing the waste are kept outdoors in temporary storage areas around the prefecture.
Heavy rains from the 19th typhoon of the year flooded storage space in many locations, sweeping away 44 bags in Kawauchi, 30 in Tamura, 15 in Nihonmatsu and one in Iitate.
By the end of October, 50 bags had been recovered. The contents had leaked from half of them. “We had far heavier rains than we expected. We did not cover bags of radioactive waste,” said an official of the Tamura Municipal Government.
The ministry and other organizations have mobilized 20 to 30 workers to look for the missing bags, wading into rivers when necessary and using drones to search areas that cannot physically be entered.
An aerial survey was conducted by helicopter on Oct. 23. On Friday, 29 workers searched the Furumichi River and areas along it in Tamura. Four bags were collected, but their contents had been lost.
“There has been no confirmation of any environmental impact due to the loss of the bags,” a ministry official said.
“We’ll continue searching in cooperation with local municipalities.”
USA’s intercontinental ballistic missiles- epitome of nuclear corruption
   Why Are We Rebuilding the ‘Nuclear Sponge’? https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-are-we-rebuilding-%E2%80%98nuclear-sponge%E2%80%99-94371
Welcome to the “nuclear sponge.” A bizarre idea that has outlived its questionable Cold War-era usefulness, the nuclear sponge is the United States’ collection of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles intended to “soak up” a nuclear attack. by Tom Z. Collina Akshai Vikram 6 Nov 19, The media is abuzz about the epic battle between corporate titans Northrop Grumman and Boeing over who will win the $100 billion contract to build a new nuclear-armed ballistic missile. For those who are keeping score, it looks like Northrop will win a sole-source contract, which would be a disaster for taxpayers.
But media coverage of the Clash of the Titans is missing the real story. This is not about contractor wars or sweet-heart deals. This is about the integrity of our government: why, thirty years after the end of the Cold War, are we rebuilding nuclear weapons that we do not need? Why are we spending national treasure to buy weapons that make us less safe?
What if we told you that residents of Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming are being used as bait in a nuclear war with Russia? Surely, no sane person would accept or offer such terms. However, if you live anywhere near these states, you already have a nuclear target on your back. Welcome to the “nuclear sponge.” A bizarre idea that has outlived its questionable Cold War-era usefulness, the nuclear sponge is the United States’ collection of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) intended to “soak up” a nuclear attack. Before the development of nuclear-armed submarines that can hide their locations at sea, ICBMs were the crux of American nuclear strategy. Today, however, their only purpose is to draw fire away from other targets (like New York and San Francisco) in the (suicidal and thus highly unlikely) event of a first strike by Russia. The Air Force does not plan to launch the missiles in a war, but to have them draw a nuclear attack to the Upper Midwest.
We’re not making this up—that’s what former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress. However, sacrificing the Upper Midwest not only undervalues the people who live there but would not actually spare the residents of other states. A major nuclear war with Russia would doom the entire nation. It would little matter whether one resides in Manhattan or Montana.
Why then are we rebuilding the nuclear sponge? The answer, as House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (R-CA) recently highlighted, has much more to do with parochial interests and money than national security. When asked at a recent press conference why states would want to host the missiles, and thereby put themselves at risk, Smith said, only partly in jest, “They’re fond of their missiles. Apparently, they want to be targeted in a nuclear first strike.” And then, more seriously, he said “They want the jobs . . . no matter the circumstances. And that’s not rational. It’s parochial.”
 With current ICBMs getting older, the Trump administration has greenlit a new cohort of missiles as part of an almost $2 trillion nuclear rebuild plan over the next thirty years. The price tag for the new ICBM alone is potentially $140 billion. That contract is currently slated to go to Northrop Grumman, even as it fights off a Federal Trade Commission investigation for unfair competition, which may cost taxpayers “billions.”Northrop Grumman and others have hijacked the nuclear-security agenda of the United States through the usual Washington channels: lobbying and
 campaign contributions. In the 2018 election cycle, Northrop spent $5.6 million in campaign contributions. In fact, Northrop spends more than any other defense contractor on lobbying and is just behind Amazon and Facebook. Defense contractors have grown even more powerful with a willing ally in the White House. Simply put, the Trump administration has filled its top national-security ranks with people holding extensive ties to major defense contractors. Mattis worked for General Dynamics and received speaking fees from Northrop Grumman. The current defense secretary, Mark Esper, worked for Raytheon. Ex-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly worked for DynCorp; former Deputy Defense Secretary Mike Shanahan’s employment history at Boeing goes back over thirty years. Meanwhile, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood worked for Lockheed Martin as did former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson. In fact, that’s where she skirted lobbying restrictions. This list goes on. Programs such as a new ICBM are strategically unnecessary, economically unsustainable, and morally abhorrent. The missiles would be destroyed in a first strike (Russia knows where they are; you can find them on Google Maps) and serve no purpose except to “absorb” blows in a war whose fallout would kill most Americans anyway. Some jobs are created—but far more jobs could be created if the money was spent in other ways. In 2019, there are surely better ways to employ people than to have them guard Cold War relics. As Smith observed after visiting bases that host nuclear weapons, “what struck me was that the job is unbelievably boring.” Maybe that’s why substance abuse continues to plague these sites, with service members literally falling asleep on duty. Clearly, our nuclear policy needs a reboot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) has said “Take any big problem we have in America today and you don’t have to dig very deep to see the same system at work . . . despite our being the strongest and wealthiest country in the history of the world, our democracy is paralyzed. And why? Because giant corporations have bought off our government.” Warren was talking about climate change, guns, and healthcare, but her remarks hold just as true for nuclear weapons. The next president must tackle corruption in nuclear policy aggressively—by throwing away the nuclear sponge. Tom Collina is Policy Director and Akshai Vikram is a Hale Fellow at Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation in Washington DC. |
|
The mockery of justice that was Julian Assange’s extradition process
|
Julian Assange’s Extradition Process Is ‘A Charade’, The Real News Network, November 5, 2019
Interview Transcript GREG WILPERT: Julian Assange recently lost a court bid to have his upcoming February 2020 extradition hearing postponed. The hearing about the postponement took place on October 21, and according to observers who were present, he could barely speak in coherent sentences. Reacting to the hearing, UN Human Rights Rapporteur Nils Melzer warned last Friday that Assange continues to show symptoms of psychological torture. Melzer had visited Assange in May when he conducted an extensive review of his physical and psychological condition. In his statement on Friday, Melzer said, “Despite the medical urgency of my first appeal, and the seriousness of the alleged violations, the U.K. has not undertaken any measures of investigation, prevention, and redress required under international law.” In addition to the concerns about Assange’s treatment at Belmarsh Prison outside of London, many have also raised concerns about the impartiality of the proceedings against him. Assange was jailed last April when the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he had been given political asylum, allowed the police to arrest him. He then received a 50-week sentence for having skipped jail in 2012. The Trump Administration has since then requested Assange’s extradition on 17 charges of espionage for which he could receive a 170-year prison sentence in the United States. Joining me now to discuss the latest developments in the case of Julian Assange is John Pilger. He has been observing the Assange case very closely and was present at the October 21 court hearing…… John Pilger – “…..His physical condition has changed dramatically. He’s lost about 15 kilos in weight. To see him in court struggling to say his name, and his date of birth, was really very moving. I’ve seen that when I visited Julian in Belmarsh Prison where he struggles at first, and then collects himself. I’m always impressed by the sheer resilience of the man, because as Melzer says, absolutely nothing has been done to change the conditions imposed on him by the prison regime. Nothing has been done by the British authorities.
This was almost underlined by the contemptuous way that this court hearing recently was conducted by this judge, by this magistrate. There was a sense among all of us who were there that the whole charade, and it seemed a charade, was preordained. You had sitting in front of us, on a long table, four Americans who were from the U.S. Embassy here in London, and one of the prosecution team was scurrying backwards and forwards to get instructions from them. The judge could see this, and she allowed it. It was just absolutely outrageous.
When Julian did try to speak, and to say that basically he was being denied the very tools with which to prepare his case, he was denied the right to call his American lawyer. He was denied the right to have any kind of word process or laptop. He was denied certain documents. As he said, “I’m even denied my own writings,” as he called it. That is, his own notes and manuscripts. This hasn’t changed at all, and of course the effect of that on his morale, to say the least, has been very significant, and that showed in the court.
Greg Wilpert – ” ….district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, and one of the things that she did was completely dismiss Assange’s request for determination whether the extradition proceedings are even legal. That is, he cites according to U.K. law, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense”
JOHN PILGER quotes Julian’s lawyer Gareth Peirce – “….under law, it’s not a matter of opinion. They are political. All but one of the charges concocted in Virginia are based on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was a political piece of legislation used to chase off the conscientious objectors during the first World War. It’s political. There is no charge. There is no basis, no foundation, for allowing these extradition proceedings to go forward, and almost perversely the judge seemed to, if not acknowledged that in her contempt for the proceedings. Whenever Julian Assange spoke, she feigned a disinterest, a boredom, and whenever his lawyers spoke, the same thing. Whenever the prosecutor spoke, she was attentive. The theatrics of this hearing were quite remarkable. I’ve never seen anything like it. Then very hurriedly, when Julian Assange’s lawyer requested a delay in when the case actually starts from February, they said, “We’re not going to be ready in February,” and she dismissed that out of hand.Not only that, she said that the extradition case would be held in a court that is in fact adjoining Belmarsh prison. It’s almost part of the prison. It’s a long way out of London.
So you have, if not a secret trial, but a trial in which, or an extradition hearing in which very few seats are available to the public. It’s a very difficult place to get to. So every obstacle has been put in the way of Assange getting a fair hearing. And I can only repeat, this is a publisher and a journalist convicted of nothing, charged with nothing in Britain, whose only crime is journalism. That may sound like a slogan, but it’s true. They want him for exposing the kind of outrageous war crimes, Iraq, Afghanistan, that journalists are supposed to do. “
GREG WILPERT: “…….How do you explain this lack of concern among the media and human rights groups for Assange’s situation?
JOHN PILGER: Because so many human rights groups are deeply political, Amnesty International never made Chelsea Manning a prisoner of conscience. A really disgraceful thing. Chelsea Manning, who was effectively tortured in prison, and they haven’t, as you say, they haven’t elevated Julian’s case. Why? Well, they’re an extension. They’re an extension of an establishment that is now almost systematically coming down on any form of real dissent. In the last five, six years, the last gaps, the last bolt holes, the last spaces in the mainstream media for journalists, from average journalists for the likes Assange, not only Assange, for the likes of people like even myself and others, have closed. The mainstream media, certainly in Britain, always held open those spaces. They’ve closed, and there is generally I would think a fear, right throughout the media, a fear about opposing the state on something like the Assange case. You see the way the whole obsession with Russia has consumed the media with so many nonsensical stories. The hostility, the animosity towards Julian. My own theory is that his work shamed so many journalists. He does what journalists ought to have done, and don’t do any more. He’s done the job of a journalist. That can only explain it. I mean when you take a newspaper like The Guardian, which published originally the WikiLeaks revelations about Iraq and Afghanistan, they turned on Julian Assange in the most vicious way.
They exploited him for one thing. A number of their journalists did extremely well with their books, and Hollywood scripts, and so on, but they turned on him personally. It was one of the most unedifying sights I think I’ve ever seen in journalism. The same thing happened in the New York Times. Again, I can only surmise the reason for that. It’s that he shames them. We have a desert of journalism at the moment. There are a few who still do their jobs; who still stand up against establishment power; who still are not frightened. But there’re so few now, and Julian Assange is totally fearless in that. He knew that he was going to run into a great deal of trouble with the state in Britain, the state in the United States–but he went ahead anyway. That’s a true journalist…… https://therealnews.com/stories/julian-assange-extradition-process-charade
|
|
Japan still has land space to store radioactive waste tanks, but tries to justify dumping into ocean
 Japan accused of trying to justify nuclear dump http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2019/11/07/2003725403COVER? Tokyo Electric Power Co has said new storage tanks could be built to hold radioactive water at its stricken plant, a Greenpeace Germany member said
By Lin Chia-nan / Staff reporter The Japanese government’s claim that it will run out of room to store radiation-contaminated water at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in two years is not true, and is simply an attempt to justify discharging polluted water into the Pacific Ocean, a Greenpeace International member said yesterday.
Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany who has conducted long-term surveys in Japan, was invited by Greenpeace Taiwan to talk about the issue at a news conference in Taipei. An earthquake and a tsunami in March 2011 caused the plant’s reactor fuel rods to melt and large amounts of radioactive-contaminated water was released into the Pacific. As of Oct. 22, more than 1 million cubic meters of processed polluted water was stored at the treated water storage tank, while the current storage capacity is nearly 1.1 million cubic meters, Burnie said. Tokyo Electric Power Co in August said the tank would reach full capacity by the summer of 2022 and that there is no room for expansion at the site, he said. However, the company in a meeting in September said that land is available to build additional tanks, Burnie added. The claim of insufficient capacity is just an excuse to cover the Japanese government’s political agenda, Burnie said, adding that Tokyo has the option of storing contaminated water for a longer period. If Japan approves the discharge, radioactive tritium and other radionuclides in the water will likely enter the East China Sea, and eventually the waters surrounding Taiwan through the subtropical gyre, he said. However, even if the Japanese government decides to discharge polluted water into the ocean, it would not be able to carry out the plan immediately, as it might take years to build outflow pipelines, he said. In addition to protests from local fishers, especially those living along Japan’s Tohoku coast, the Japanese government would face strong pressure from the international community for discharging polluted water, he said, adding that it is a long-term problem that should be approached more cautiously. The Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster has led to catastrophic results, and the Taiwanese government should be lauded for making the “brave and correct” decision to phase out nuclear power plants, Burnie said. Taiwan should call on the Japanese government, via diplomatic or non-governmental channels, to shoulder its responsibility as a Pacific nation and not discharge radiation-contaminated water into the sea, National Nuclear Phase-out Action Platform spokesperson Tsuei Su-hsin (崔愫欣) said. As Taiwan generates less than 10 percent of its electricity from nuclear power — much lower than the ratio in Japan before the 2011 disaster, it should persist in its goal of phasing out all nuclear power plants by 2025, Tsuei said. |
|
Senator Elizabeth Warren questions Holtec Exemption from Emergency Planning Requirements at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
 Senator Warren Statement on Holtec Exemption from Emergency Planning Requirements at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-statement-on-holtec-exemption-from-emergency-planning-requirements-at-the-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station 4 Nov 19, Boston, MA – United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the following statement today following news federal regulators at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plan to exempt Holtec International from emergency planning regulations as the firm works to decommission the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station:
“I’m disappointed to learn Holtec will be exempt from important emergency preparation and planning safeguards as it decommissions the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,” said Senator Warren. “The Southeastern Massachusetts community has rightly continued to raise important questions about the plant’s decommissioning and they deserve answers, not more strong-arming.”
In October 2018, Senator Warren raised concerns about safety and lack of public input during Pilgrim’s shutdown last year and raised similar concerns regarding communications with local residents in her statement. In August 2019, she called for community concerns to be addressed before Pilgrim was allowed to change hands from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Holtec.
|
|
Deadline looms for nuclear veterans and descendants study
The study lead by University of Otago associate professor David McBride will look into the connection between nuclear veterans and their children, who may have been affected by their parents’ exposure to radiation.
So far only 166 people had signed up, according to Mururoa Nuclear Veterans president Gavin Smith.
Mr Smith implored more to join, saying about 500 people went to the Christmas Island and were exposed to nuclear tests in the 1950s and about 500 went to Mururoa during the 1970s.
“Everyone who has a veteran father or grandfather that served there and has maybe deceased or may be living but mentioned nothing of it, I urge them to contact the University of Otago,” he said.
He said the study was crucial because veteran’s children may have been affected by their parents’ exposure to radiation, which could make their offspring more susceptible to conditions like leukaemia and auto-immune diseases.
“Our study is open to all nuclear veterans. If we don’t do it in our generation, it’s going to be an even bigger battle for the next generation.”
The group, which was established in 2013 to press the government to help families with nuclear related illnesses, had 135 members who served at the protest.
Of those, 56 had children or grandchildren with unexplained medical conditions.
Testing would begin next week at the University of Otago, with a timeframe and details on the study yet to be confirmed.
U.S. Nuclear Plants Vulnerable to Terrorist Drones – NRC says “not our problem”
 NRC Decision Leaves U.S. Nuclear Plants Vulnerable to Terrorist Drones, https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/nrc-decision-leaves-nuclear-plants-vulnerable-terrorist-drones
WASHINGTON (November 4, 2019)—After a two-year review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has declined to require owners of U.S. nuclear power reactors and some nuclear material processing plants to defend against unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. As a result, commercial nuclear facilities will remain unprepared to cope with the additional capabilities that these rapidly evolving technologies could provide to terrorist groups seeking to sabotage nuclear reactors or steal weapon materials, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The decision was disclosed in an unclassified summary document posted on the NRC’s public document server on October 30.“The NRC’s irresponsible decision ignores the wide spectrum of threats that drones pose to nuclear facilities and is out of step with policies adopted by the Department of Energy and other government agencies,” said physicist Edwin Lyman, acting director of the UCS Nuclear Safety Project. “Congress should demand that the NRC require nuclear facility owners to update their security plans to protect against these emerging threats.”
The NRC requires nuclear power reactor owners to protect their facilities against attacks by terrorists assumed to have a defined set of capabilities known as the “design basis threat.” After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon outside of Washington, D.C., the NRC considered but ultimately rejected requiring nuclear plants to defend against attacks by jets or other types of aircraft.
The NRC argued that protecting nuclear facilities from aircraft is the responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration and other federal agencies. Rapid advancements in drone technology since then, however, have introduced new ways in which terrorists could use readily available aerial systems to defeat nuclear plant security measures that are designed only to defend against ground-based assaults and vehicles. Drones have been misused to spy on the U.S.-Mexican border, smuggle contraband into prisons, and—most recently—to attack oil processing facilities in Saudi Arabia. Drones are difficult to detect and defeat without specialized equipment.
According to an April 2019 report by the Department of Energy (DOE) inspector general, “the increasing availability and improved capabilities of small [drones] enhances the potential for use in illicit operations, including surveillance, disruption, and weaponization.” The report recommended that the DOE “use the appropriate process to update security controls based on the most recent information available concerning [drone] capabilities.” In response, the agency is revising its design basis threat policy, but the details of its revision—like the original design basis threat policy—are classified. By contrast, the NRC’s own threat assessment resulted a recommendation of no action.
The NRC summary claims that drones would not be able to exploit security vulnerabilities at nuclear reactors or other facilities or provide any surveillance capabilities beyond what potential adversaries are already assumed to have. It is true that small payload drones would not likely to be able to cause major damage by themselves to safety structures and equipment. But there are many ways in which drones could assist ground-based attackers, including delivering more weapons, explosives and other equipment to a nuclear facility’s protected areas than an attacking force could carry. Drones also could create disturbances to confuse plant security forces and disrupt their response, as well as provide real-time aerial surveillance as an attack progresses. “Many companies are developing technologies to protect critical infrastructure from drone attacks through early detection, tracking, and jamming,” said Lyman. “If the NRC were to add drones to the design basis threat, nuclear plant owners would likely to have to purchase such systems. Laws would also have to be changed to allow private facilities to disrupt hostile drone flights. But plant owners are loath to spend more on safety and security at a time when many of their facilities are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas, wind and solar. “The NRC seems more interested in keeping the cost of nuclear plant security low than protecting Americans from terrorist sabotage that could cause a reactor meltdown,” he added. “The agency needs to remember that it works for the public, not the industry it regulates.” |
|
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to Shrink Emergency Planning Zone
 FEMA and some states dispute the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s premise that “all hazards planning” would be enough to address a nuclear accident. Planning experts recommend the planning zone remain in place. Government Technology Emergency Managdement,
BY CHRISTINE LEGERE, CAPE COD TIMES, HYANNIS, MASS. / NOVEMBER 5, 2019
(TNS) — Despite opposition from the region’s legislators and even the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has voted to allow the owners of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to shrink the plant’s emergency planning zone from the current 10-mile radius down to its own property line. Pilgrim’s reactor ceased operation May 31. The NRC will allow elimination of the zone, which encompasses sections of Plymouth, Kingston, Carver, Marshfield and Duxbury, come April. And with that elimination will come the loss of about $2 million in annual funding for those towns, to be put toward safety training, staffing, equipment and expenses. “The exemption saves Holtec money at the cost of public safety,” Mary Lampert, president of Pilgrim Watch, said. “NRC rationalizes its decision to grant the exemption on a false assumption. They incorrectly claim that the risk of a rapidly occurring offsite radiological release is significantly lower at a nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and removed fuel from the reactor vessel. Wrong. There is far more radiation in the spent fuel pool than in the reactorcore when Pilgrim is operating.”……. A single NRC member voted against the exemption, citing a number of issues of concern, including increased possibility of an earthquake in the region. The earthquake risks at the Pilgrim site are greater than previously understood, Commissioner Jeff Baran wrote in a statement explaining his vote. In May 2014, as part of the post-Fukushima seismic hazard reevaluation, the NRC published updated ground motion response spectra for Pilgrim, Baran said. “The results revealed the potential for an earthquake at Pilgrim significantly stronger than the safe shutdown earthquake the plant was designed to handle,” Baran wrote. “In fact, the gap between the previously understood seismic risk and the updated seismic risk was larger at Pilgrim than at any other nuclear power plant in the country.” Baran said the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with several states including Massachusetts, have disputed the NRC staff’s premise that so-called “all hazards planning” would be sufficient to address a spent nuclear fuel accident. “FEMA notes that it is ‘unrealistic’ to ‘scale up non-existent plans’ and that the resulting ‘lack of necessary equipment and shortage of trained emergency personnel could have unfortunate consequences,'” Baran wrote, citing an August letter to the NRC from Michael Casey, director of FEMA’s technical hazards division. …… , emergency planning experts have recommended the planning zone remain in place until all spent fuel on a reactor site is stored in dry casks. About 3,000 radioactive spent fuel rods remain in a massive pool at Pilgrim. U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass, blasted the NRC’s decision to exempt Pilgrim from emergency planning requirements……… To date, every nuclear plant in the U.S. that has decommissioned has requested an exemption from the emergency planning requirements, and in every instance the NRC has granted it…….. https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/-Pilgrim-Nuclear-Power-Station-to-shrink-emergency-planning-zone.html |
|
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (301)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 