USA’s Hanford nuclear site could suffer the same fate as Russia’s Mayak – or worse
Comment from Dtlt 21 Dec 19, TRUMP IS CUTTING THE BUDGET TO MONITOR AND TRY TO CLEAN THE HANFORD MESS IN HALF
Massive Nuclear Explosion similar to Kyrshtym by Mayak Can Happen at Hanford if the site is not Monitored and tanks not taken care of.
A Ten Thousand Gallon Tank at Mayak Exploded from Heat Decay. The Heat Deacy was from Strontium 90, Cesium 137, Cobalt 60 and Plutonium Stored in the Underground Tank. The explosion was equivalent to 100 tons of TNT. There are 55 million gallons of the same Radionuclide Mix stored at Hanford, in UnderGround Tanks. They used nitic acid to extract radionuclides at hanford as they did at Kyahym, by Mayak. The nitrates mixed with heat decaying rand hydrogen gas generating radionuclides are very much like the explosive brew that went off in Kyshtym in 1957 and there are 55 million gallons of the explosive brew at Hanford. The heat decay, heat emitting Radionuclides and Hydrogen gas generating explosive mix and the nitrates in the brew are very much at risk for a massive catastrophic chemical-radionuclide explosion . The Kyshtym disaster was a radioactive contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site in Russia for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant of the Soviet Union.
If the exlplosive stew becomes too concentrated and hot, the same thing will Happen there, contaminating a Great Portion of the Pacific NW USA and southe western Canada.
Medvedev, Zhores A. (4 November 1976). “Two Decades of Dissidence”. New Scientist.
Medvedev, Zhores A. (1980). Nuclear disaster in the Urals translated by George Saunders. 1st Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-394-74445-2. (c1979)
In 1957 the cooling system in one of the tanks containing about 70–80 tons of liquid radioactive waste failed and was not repaired. The temperature in it started to rise, resulting in evaporation and a chemical explosion of the dried waste, consisting mainly of ammonium nitrate and acetates (see ammonium nitrate/fuel oil bomb). The explosion, on 29 September 1957, estimated to have a force of about 70–100 tons of TNT,[10] threw the 160-ton concrete lid into the air.[8] There were no immediate casualties as a result of the explosion, but it released an estimated 20 MCi (800 PBq) of radioactivity. Most of this contamination settled out near the site of the accident and contributed to the pollution of the Techa River, but a plume containing 2 MCi (80 PBq) of radionuclides spread out over hundreds of kilometers. Previously contaminated areas within the affected area include the Techa river, which had previously received 2.75 MCi (100 PBq) of deliberately dumped waste, and Lake Karachay, which had received 120 MCi (4,000 PBq).
In the next 10 to 11 hours, the radioactive cloud moved towards the north-east, reaching 300–350 km (190–220 mi) from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 to 20,000 km2 (310 to 7,720 sq mi), depending on what contamination level is considered significant, primarily with caesium-137 and strontium-90. This area is usually referred to as the East-Ural Radioactive Trace EURT
USA House Democrats let Jared Kushner suck them in to a very bad space weapons deal
|
The Very Bad Space Force Deal, https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/18/the-very-bad-space-force-deal/ by KARL GROSSMAN Unless grassroots action somehow stops it, it looks likely that the Trump scheme for a Space Force, a sixth branch of United States armed forces, will happen. The U.S. House of Representatives last week passed the $738 billion military policy bill that gives Trump his sought-for Space Force as he moves for what he terms “American dominance in space.”The vote for what is titled the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020 was 377 to 48. Some 189 Republicans and 188 Democrats voted for it. Six Republican House members voted no, along with 41 Democrats and one independent. The large Democratic yes vote came as a result of a trade-off for 12 weeks of paid parental leave for civilian federal employees. The New York The U.S. Senate now will consider the measure and pass it considering the Trump-controlled majority in the Senate, and Trump will sign it. Indeed, last week Trump tweeted: “Wow! All our priorities have made it into the final NDAA: Pay Raises for our Troops, Rebuilding our Military, Paid Parental Leave, Border Security, and Space Force!” Establishment of a U.S. Space Force would come despite the landmark Outer Space Treaty of 1967, put together by the U.S., then Soviet Union and the U.K., designating space as a global commons to be used for peaceful purposes. The U.S. move to negate the intent of the Outer Space Treaty will cause Russia and China to respond in kind—especially considering Trump’s declaration that “it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.” This will lead to an arms race in space. The Trump administration and the U.S. military have been claiming that a Space Force is necessary because of Russia and China moving into space militarily but, in fact, Russia and China and U.S. neighbor Canada have been leaders for decades in pushing for an expansion of the Outer Space Treaty. It bans weapons of mass destruction in space. The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty that the three nations have sought to expand would prohibit the placement of any weapons in space. The U.S.—under both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations—has opposed the PAROS treaty and effectively vetoed its enactment at the United Nations. The leading organization internationally in opposing the plan for a U.S. Space Force has been the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org). Commenting on the House vote, Bruce Gagnon, the network’s coordinator, said: “It is not surprise, but still disheartening, to see that 188 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the NDAA bill in the House.” He noted that “the Democrats were led by Rep. Adam Smith from the Seattle area which means that the aerospace giant Boeing Corp., which stands to make a gold mine off Space Force, clearly pulls Mr. Smith’s chain.” (Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the bill “the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades.”) Gagnon continued: “Another Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper from Tennessee chimed in saying, ‘Trump’s belated support for a Space Force does not make this a Republican idea.’ Cooper chairs the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and clearly is trying to stake out Democratic Party ‘bragging rights’ on passage of this proposal to move warfare into the heavens.” Gagnon said, “About three-dozen progressive and anti-war groups worked hard to stop this NDAA and called the Democrats support for it ‘near complete capitulation.’” “With this newly enshrined Space Force—the NDAA will easily pass in the Senate—Trump will now be poised to tweet that Washington will be able to ‘control and dominate’ space on behalf of corporate interests,” Gagnon stated. “With technology now nearly in place to allow ‘mining the sky’ for precious minerals on planetary bodies, the Space Force fits in nicely with the long-planned Pentagon ability to control which nations, corporations and wealthy individuals will be able to venture into space and which will not. The idea was spelled out in a 1989 Congressional study called ‘Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years.’” “Thus, Space Force would have two primary missions—give the Pentagon full control of the Earth and control the pathway on and off the Earth—both on behalf of corporate interests,” he said. “These provocative, expensive and destabilizing plans to control space will not be taken lightly by the rest of the world’s space faring nations. Even the Pentagon has lately been predicting the inevitability of war in the heavens.” Gagnon recounted: “In 1989 at a protest I organized at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon [who took part in the protest] told the assembled that any war in space would be the one and only. By destroying satellites in space massive amounts of space debris would be created that would cause a cascading effect and even the billion-dollar International Space Station would likely be broken into tiny bits. So much space junk would be created, Mitchell told us, that we’d never be able to get a rocket off the planet again because of the mine field of debris orbiting the Earth at 15,000 mph.” “That would mean,” said Gagnon, “activity on Earth below would immediately shut down—cell phones, ATM machines, cable TV, traffic lights, weather prediction and more—all hooked up to satellites, would be lost. Modern society would go dark.” “The aerospace industry has long claimed that Star Wars would be the largest industrial project in the history of our planet,” said Gagnon. “So much money would be needed that the industry has identified the ‘entitlement programs’ for defunding to pay for ‘everything space.’ That means Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the remaining tattered social safety net would be cut to pay for Space Force.” “Everything has an Achilles heel,” said Gagnon. He said that “if you want to help defeat plans for Space Force, fight for social and environmental progress. Demand that the compromised Congress not fund this disastrous plan to move the arms race into space. It is going to cost all of us dearly.” A return in many respects to President Reagan’s “Star Wars” scheme of the 1980s, the Space Force notion “started as a joke,” National Public radio reported in August in a report by correspondent Claudia Grisales titled, “With Congressional Blessing, Space Force Is Closer to Launch.” She related: “Early last year President Trump riffed on an idea he called ‘Space Force’ before a crowd of Marines in San Diego. It drew laughs, but the moment was a breakthrough for a plan that had languished for nearly 20 years.” She continued: “’I said maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force,’ Trump said at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in March 2018. ‘And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’” The Outer Space Treaty was spurred, as Craig Eisendrath, involved as a U.S. State Department officer in its creation, by the Soviet Union launching the first space satellite, Sputnik, in 1957, as he noted in the 2001 TV documentary that I wrote and narrate, “Star Wars Returns.” Eisendrath said “we sought to de-weaponize space before it got weaponized…to keep war out of space.” The Reagan “Star Wars” program also used a defense rationale—it was formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative. It was based on orbiting battle platforms with nuclear reactors or “super” plutonium systems on board providing the power for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons. Despite its claim of being defensive, it was criticized for being offensive and a major element in what the U.S. military documents then and since have described as “full spectrum dominance” over the Earth below which the U.S. has been seeking by taking the “ultimate high ground” of space. Among those voting against the NDAA bill last week were Representatives Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee which has just approved articles of impeachment against Trump; Alexander Ocasio-Cortez; Tulsi Gabbard; and Ro Khanna, who earlier, with Senator Bernard Sanders, issued a joint statement decrying it as a “bill of astonishing moral cowardice.” Meanwhile, the U.S. military is gearing up for a selling campaign for a Space Force. On a website called “Space War Your World At War” , Barbara Barrett, Air Force secretary, is quoted as saying that the Air Force has come up with a “strategy to find support among not just U.S. lawmakers, but also among the public for Trump’s new branch of the country’s armed forces, the Space Force. She opined that this could clarify to the broader public what the U.S. is doing in this domain and why exactly it needs a separate force for operations in space, as well as funding. More articles by:KARL GROSSMAN
Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. |
|
Scientists track down the source of radioactive plume, – Russian cover-up of a nuclear accident
|
Russia appears to have kept a major nuclear accident secret. But scientists called the ‘Ring of 5’ tracked the plume of radiation to its source. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-nuclear-accident-radiation-timeline-2017-2019-12?r=US&IR=T, ARIA BENDIX DEC 21, 2019
A group of scientists called the “Ring of Five” noticed something unusual in the atmosphere in late 2017: Air across Europe showed “unprecedented” levels of the radioactive isotope ruthenium-106.
The isotope is often made when reprocessing nuclear fuel. “We were stunned,” Georg Steinhauser, a professor at the University of Hanover in Germany who is part of the group, told Business Insider in August. “We did not have any anticipation that there might be some radioactivity in the air. We were just measuring air filters as we do on a weekly basis, 52 times a year, and suddenly there was an unexpected result.” The Ring of Five, which had been monitoring Europe’s atmosphere for elevated levels of radiation since the mid ’80s, spent the next two years looking for the cause of the spike.
The culprit, according to a study released in July, was an undisclosed nuclear accident at the Mayak nuclear facility in Russia, which was once the centre of the Soviet nuclear-weapons program. Mayak was also the site of the 1957 Kyshtym explosion, the world’s third-worst nuclear accident. More than 10,000 nearby residents were forced to evacuate at the time. Russia has never acknowledged that any nuclear accident happened at the Mayak facility in 2017, and has not responded to any findings from the Ring of Five. But now, the scientists have unravelled the mystery even further.A second study published last month offers even more evidence that an accident occurred at Mayak in 2017. It even pinpoints a timeline: Most of the ruthenium was emitted on September 26, 2017.
Tracing a radioactive plume across EuropeThe Ring of Five is so named because the group was originally made up of scientists from five nations – Sweden, Germany, Finland, Norway, and Denmark – but it now includes researchers from 22 countries. Their monitoring work takes takes place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The new study suggests that the Mayak facility likely released 250 terabecquerels (a measurement of radioactivity) of ruthenium into the atmosphere. The Kyshtym explosion, by comparison, released around 2,700 terabecquerels of ruthenium. The world’s worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, released around 5.3 million terabecquerels of radioactive material, according to a 2013 analysis.
To find out where the 2017 radioactive plume came from, scientists traced the path of the wind at the time using more than 1,100 measurements from the fall of that year. That required studying the wind’s altitude and direction, as well as weather conditions that may have changed its course.
The scientists determined that the plume started out in the Southern Urals, where the Mayak facility is located, then was driven towards southwest Russia. It arrived in Romania on September 29, then split in two. The main part of the plume spread toward Central Europe, where it encountered rain in Bulgaria. Plant and soil samples taken in the country showed elevated levels of ruthenium at the time. After that, the plume moved north to Scandinavia before arriving in Italy on October 2, 2017. That day, Italian scientists sent an alert to the Ring of Five about elevated levels of ruthenium in Milan. Steinhauser called this the “single greatest release from nuclear-fuel reprocessing that has ever happened.” Russia has not responded to the Ring of Five’s findingsAt the time of the alleged accident in 2017, Russian officials said the Mayak facility wasn’t the source of the release, even though the nation showed elevated levels of ruthenium. Instead, officials in Russia attributed the radiation to a satellite that burned up in the atmosphere. Russia still hasn’t issued a response to either of the studies the Ring of Five published this year. “We should not forget that Mayak is a military facility – and, of course, the Russian Federation is very reluctant when it comes to talking about military facilities,” Steinhauser said. “I presume this would not be much different for other superpower nations.” The scientists don’t consider the levels of radiation they detected to be an immediate threat to people’s health. Last year, France’s Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety determined that the levels of ruthenium-106 in the atmosphere do not pose danger to human health or the environment. But the long-term consequences are unknown. Another unanswered question, Steinhauser said, is whether the population near the Mayak facility breathed any radiation into their lungs. He added that there could be reason to monitor food safety if radiation leaked into the soil and water. “We would like to get some more in-depth information on what actually happened,” he said. “There’s a good chance that we’ll catch every single accident – but, in the present case, surprise was on our side.” |
|
Tepco (once again) saying they will put a giant cover over Fukushima No.1 reactor
|
Fukushima Daiichi No.1 reactor to be covered, https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20191220_12/ The operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it will install a giant cover over one of the reactors that underwent a nuclear meltdown as part of its dismantling process.Tokyo Electric Power Company announced the decision on Thursday regarding the No.1 reactor building, which was affected by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
The covering will measure 65 meters high, 65 meters long and 50 meters wide. Its ceiling will have cranes that can be used to remove debris. The reactor’s fuel storage pool still holds 392 nuclear fuel units. As part of their removal process, TEPCO is clearing scattered debris from the building. TEPCO says that by installing the cover, it aims to lower the risks of radioactive dust spreading outside during the debris removal process. It added that the device will also prevent rainwater from getting into the reactor building, thereby helping to reduce the volume of newly contaminated water. TEPCO says it cannot tell when the device will be completed, as it is still in the process of making a detailed construction plan. |
|
Kyrgyzstan bans uranium, thorium mining
Above – radioactive tailings mountain in Central Asia
|
Kyrgyzstan bans uranium, thorium mining http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/16/c_138635832.htm 2019-12-16 BISHKEK, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) –– President of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbai Jeenbekov signed a decree banning the mining of uranium and thorium deposits in the Central Asian country, his press service reported on Monday.The law, aimed at ensuring radiation and environmental safety, prohibits geological exploration and development of uranium and thorium deposits in Kyrgyzstan, as well as dumping and transfer of the material, the report said.
Meanwhile, the import of raw materials and waste containing the two radioactive substances is not allowed by law, it said. Earlier this year, protests arose against the development of uranium deposits after reports that exploration work had begun in the Kyzyl-Ompol area in the Issyk-Kul region. |
|
These 32 experts refute the claim that nuclear power is a sustainable method against climate change
|
Global investment in nuclear is in stark decline https://www.ft.com/content/75ea3180-0a02-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84 From Dr Paul Dorfman et al
We write in response to James E Hansen et al’s letter (“EU must include nuclear power in its list of sustainable sources”, December 17), which mistakenly advocates nuclear energy to address climate change. In fact, spending on new nuclear power significantly reduces our chances in effectively responding to climate change. This is because, for nuclear to be considered a feasible option, new reactors should be able to be completed economically, efficiently and on time — however, practical experience proves otherwise. Nuclear new-build represents a high-risk technical, regulatory and investment option, with significant delay and cost overrun. Market analysis shows investment in nuclear power to be uneconomic — this holds for all plausible ranges of investment costs, weighted average costs of capital, and wholesale electricity prices.
In the end, the fate of new nuclear seems inextricably linked with, and determined by, that of renewable energy technology rollout. Worldwide, market trends for new nuclear are in stark decline and renewables are markedly rising.
The, perhaps obvious, explanation for this dynamic can be found in the ramping costs of the former and the plummeting costs of the latter.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/75ea3180-0a02-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84 AUTHORS:
Dr Paul Dorfman, UCL Energy Institute, University College London Prof Tom Burke, Imperial and University Colleges, E3G
Prof MV Ramana, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia
Prof Benjamin K Sovacool, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
Prof Andy Stirling Centre on Social Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability, University of Sussex
Prof Steve Thomas Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich
Prof Keith Barnham Physics Department, Imperial College London
Prof David Elliott, The Open University Prof Mark Lemon, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University
Prof Manfred Mertins, Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences
Prof Benjamin K Sovacool, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
Prof Andy Stirling, Centre on Social Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability, University of Sussex
Prof Steve Thomas, Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich
Dr Abhishek Agarwal, Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University
Dr Sarah J Darby, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
Dr John Downer, Global Insecurities Centre, University of Bristol
Dr Ian Fairlie, Vice President CND
Dr Phil Johnstone, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
Dr Pascal Hingamp, Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography, Marseille University
Dr Dan van der Horst, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh
Dr Helga Kromp-Kolb, Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, former Head of the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Solarcentury
Dr David Lowry, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge Massachusetts
Dr med. Alex Rosen, IPPNW Germany
Dr Michael Schöppner, Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Dr Eva Stegen, Elektrizitätswerke Schönau, Energy Watch Group
Dr David Toke, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen
Cllr David Blackburn, UK and Ireland NFLA
Paul Brown, Climate News Network Eur Ing
Herbert Eppel, Chartered Environmentalist and Director of HE Translations Ltd
Friederike Frieß, MSc. Dr.rer.nat., Vienna University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Michel Lee, Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy
Jonathon Porritt, Author and Campaigner Ulli Sima, Vienna Deputy Mayor, Cities for a Nuclear Free Europe
David Thorpe, One Planet Life
|
|
Busting the false claims of the thorium nuclear lobby
Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , By John Krzyzaniak, Nicholas R. Brown, December 18, 2019 Andrew Yang, like many of the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, has an ambitious plan to wean America off of fossil fuels. Unlike many of the other candidates, however, a key piece of his plan to address climate change involves harnessing nuclear power—in particular thorium. According to Yang, thorium is “superior to uranium on many levels.” But Yang isn’t alone; thorium boosters have been extolling its supposed virtues for years.
Do the claims about thorium actually hold up? The Bulletin reached out to Nicholas R. Brown, an associate professor in the department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Tennessee, to examine five common claims about thorium and next-generation nuclear reactors. Brown’s responses are below.
…….. the public has good reason to be skeptical that thorium can or should play any role in the future.
Claim: Thorium reactors would be more economical than traditional uranium reactors, particularly because thorium is more abundant than uranium, has more energy potential than uranium, and doesn’t have to be enriched.
False. Although thorium is more abundant than uranium, the cost of uranium is a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy economics are driven by the capital cost of the plant, and building a power plant with a thorium reactor is no cheaper than building a power plant with a uranium reactor. Further, using thorium in existing reactors is technically possible, but it would not provide any clear commercial benefit and would require other new infrastructure.
Additionally, there is technically no such thing as a thorium reactor. Thorium has no isotopes that readily fission to produce energy. So thorium is not usable as a fuel directly, but is instead a fertile nucleus that can be converted to uranium in a reactor. Only after conversion to uranium does thorium become useful as a nuclear fuel. So, even for a reactor that would use thorium within its fuel cycle, most energy produced would actually come from uranium fissions.
Claim: Next generation thorium reactors would be safer than current reactors.
True but misleading.……. the benefits are a function of the inherent safety in the next-generation designs, not the utilization of thorium.
Claim: The waste from thorium reactors would be easier to deal with than waste from today’s uranium reactors.
False. A comprehensive study from the US Energy Department in 2014 found that waste from thorium-uranium fuel cycles has similar radioactivity at 100 years to uranium-plutonium fuel cycles, and actually has higher waste radioactivity at 100,000 years.
Claim: Thorium would be more proliferation-resistant than current reactors—you can’t make nuclear weapons out of it.
False. A 2012 study funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration found that the byproducts of a thorium fuel cycle, in particular uranium 233, can potentially be attractive material for making nuclear weapons. A 2012 study published in Nature from the University of Cambridge also concluded that thorium fuel cycles pose significant proliferation risks…
https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/fact-check-five-claims-about-thorium-made-by-andrew-yang/
Yet more delay – Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor already 12 years behind schedule
|
Olkiluoto 3 nuke delayed yet again, now 12 years behind schedule https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/olkiluoto_3_nuke_delayed_yet_again_now_12_years_behind_schedule/11128489
– 20 Dec 19, Finland’s fifth nuclear reactor will not begin regular operations before 2021, rather than 2009 as originally planned. The startup date for the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor on Finland’s southwest coast has been pushed back again. Plant owner Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said on Thursday that it had been informed of the new schedule by the main supplier, the Areva-Siemens Consortium.The supplier now says that fuel will be loaded into the reactor next summer ahead of grid connection in November 2020. Regular electricity production would start in March 2021, instead of September 2020 as most recently announced. Faulty components foundTVO says the latest delays are due to slow progress in system testing and shortcomings in spare part deliveries. For instance auxiliary diesel generators were found to have faulty components. “Because of numerous delays we have to do maintenance to equipment and components already installed to ensure fluent start-up and continuous operation. The manufacturing and deliveries of the spare parts take time,” OL3 Project Director Jouni Silvennoinen said in a TVO statement. Construction work on OL3 started nearly 15 years ago. According to the original timetable, it was to have gone online in 2009. Since then there have been many delays, lawsuits and massive cost overruns. With a total cost estimate of at least 8.5 billion euros, it has been described as the second-most expensive building in human history, behind a hotel complex in Mecca. Construction of the original atomic power station began in 1973. The first unit began commercial operations six years later, becoming the country’s second reactor after one in Loviisa. The Fennovoima consortium hopes to build Finland’s first entirely new nuclear plant since the 1970s in Pyhäjoki, near Raahe. That project too has been beset by delays and is yet to receive a construction permit.
|
|
Iran and US both undermining nuclear deal says UN political affairs chief
|
Iran and US both undermining nuclear deal says UN political affairs chief, UN News , 19 December 2019
Both Iran and the United States have been putting strain on the groundbreaking 2015 deal to monitor Iran’s nuclear programme, which remains a “cornerstone of international peace and security”, said the UN’s political affairs chief on Thursday. Rosemary DiCarlo was briefing the Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation, and resolution 2231 that specifically backed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), agreed in July 2015, by China, France, Germany, Russia, The United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, and Iran (see fact box below for full details). She said the “full and effective implementation” of the Plan was “key to ensuring the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme and to secure tangible economic benefit to the Iranian people.” Ms. DiCarlo said the US decision to pull out of the deal was a source of “regret” as well as “the recent steps taken by Iran to reduce its nuclear-related commitments”. “Certain actions taken by the United States, since its withdrawal from the Plan, are contrary to the goals of the Plan”, she said and the re-imposition of its national sanctions lifted under the Plan, and decision not to extend waivers for the trade in oil with Iran. But according to the IAEA, she added, Iran since July “has surpassed JCPOA-stipulated limits on its uranium enrichment level, as well as limits on its stockpiles of heavy water and low-enriched uranium.” Steps have also been taken on centrifuge research and development: “Iran has stated that all these steps are reversible and that it intends to remain in the Plan. It is important that Iran returns to full implementation of the Plan, and refrain from further steps to reduce its commitments”, said the UN Political and Peacebuilding Affairs chief. Rising regional tensions…….Summing up the importance of the JCPOA, Ms DiCarlo said that António Guterres considers the full implementation of resolution 2231, by all Member States “as an integral component of our collective conflict prevention efforts.” Given the year of tension in the Gulf, “this has assumed greater importance” she noted, adding that it was the Secretary-General’s wish for all countries “to avoid confrontational actions and explore avenues for dialogue and cooperation in the interest of international peace and security.” https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1054071 |
|
A quarter of Russia’s Andreeva Bay’s spent nuclear fuel stack removed, with Norway’s help
Norway helps pay for transporting old Russian navy nuclear waste
A shipment of 14 containers with spent nuclear fuel from Andreeva Bay to Atomflot in Murmansk took place this week. Barents Observer By Thomas Nilsen December 20, 2019
|
“This is the first time we will pay for removing. The ship was fully loaded. 14 containers with spent nuclear fuel,” says project coordinator Per-Einar Fiskebeck to the Barents Observer. The removed waste contained about one million Curie (37.000 TBq) of long lived isotopes. Unloading the 40-years old spent uranium fuel elements from the rundown storage tanks and repacking them to transport containers came with a price-tag of 5 million kroner (€500.000), while the shipment from Andreeva Bay to Murmansk will cost additional 2,5 million kroner (€250.000). This week’s shipment is the fourth this year, but the first one paid by Norway. Per-Einar Fiskebeck, an engineer with the County Governor of Troms & Finnmark, has since the 1990s worked in close cooperation with SevRao, Russia’s regional enterprise in charge of cleaning up the nuclear waste site on the western banks of the Litsa fjord. Here, only 65 kilometers from the border to Norway, the Soviet navy packed away its lethal leftovers. Without too much thought for the costs of future clean up. In Norway, like in Russia, the demand for action came out of fears for possible radioactive leakages that could have potentially negative impact on the important fisheries in the Barents Sea. So far, isotopes contamination has only been discovered in the sediments in the near proximity off the shore and not further out in the bay. Concerns of nuclear accidents and radioactive leakages are also why Norwegian authorities have granted hundres of millions kroner in aid to secure and clean up the site……. In 2017, the first load of containers with spent nuclear fuel left Andreeva Bay towards Murmansk, from where it go by rail to Mayak, Russia’s reprocessing plant north of Chelyabinsk east of the Ural Mountains. So far in 2019, three shipments paid by Russia and one shipment paid by Norway have left Andreeva Bay. “25% of the original amount of spent nuclear fuel is now removed,” says Per-Einar Fiskebeck. With one-fourth of the waste removed in two and a half years doesn’t mean the remaining will be shipped away with the same speed. «The fuel elements lifted out and re-packed so far have been undamaged,” Fiskebeck says. Both tank No. 1 and No. 2 are believed to hold mostly unproblematic elements. He explains how some of the other elements will be a much more challenging task. Tank 3A holds numerous rusty, partly destroyed steel pipes where concrete of poor quality was filled in the space between. Some of those fuel assemblies are stuck in the canisters, while some of the canisters are stuck in the cells. This is high level nuclear waste with radiation levels close to the uranium fuel comparable to the melted fuel rods inside the ill-fated Chernobyl reactor. Risk-assessments give a clear recommendation: Do not try to lift any of the assemblies before you are sure nothing falls out.
A worst case scenario is uranium pellets falling to the bottom, becomes unstable, creating an uncontrolled nuclear fission chain reaction with radionuclides being airborne. Three different kind of containers to handle damaged elements are now under development and testing, a work Fiskebeck estimates will take all of 2020 and 2021. “Risk assessment and environmental safety studies are core to all Norwegian funded projects,” Fiskebeck tells……… Another groundbreaking milestone in the clean up work took place earlier this fall when the retrieval of six abandoned, highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel assemblies from the bottom of Building No. 5 were successfully completed. Building No. 5 is a former pool storage, where several elements fell to the floor following a water-leakages in 1982. Traces of uranium and other radionuclides remained in the sludge at the bottom of the pool. The radiation on site was too high for humans to work safely. “You can’t have humans there. Robotics were needed to do the job,” Per-Einar Fiskebeck explains. Such remote controlled equipment were made and the six elements are now safely transferred to the nearby storage building No. 151 in Andreeva Bay……. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2019/12/norway-helps-pay-transporting-40-years-old-russian-navy-nuclear-waste |
|
PG and E face bankruptcy- transparency needed on decrepit Diablo Canyons nuclear reactors
|
December 18, 2019, by Common Dreams
The same pattern of lethal neglect and deferred maintenance that made PG&E the proven culprit in murderous wildfires is being repeated at Diablo Canyon. by Mimi Kennedy, Harvey Wasserman But in the interim, it must be brought to light that no squaring of PG&E’s accounts—with the people of California, the utility’s fire victims, the governor, the Public Utilities Commission, the banks, or the planet – will be complete unless there is a transparent public inspection of, and credible mechanical and fiscal accounting for, Diablo Canyon’s two aging reactors (see our petition at www.solartopia.org). The two central coast nukes are scheduled to shut by 2025, a fact that gives some policymakers a false sense of safety and a convenient cover to avoid thinking about the devastating possibility of an earthquake that would render a major population center uninhabitable and its agricultural economy barren. Why kick up a fuss if the problem’s going away in five years? Here’s why: The same pattern of lethal neglect and deferred maintenance that made PG&E the proven culprit in murderous wildfires is being repeated at Diablo Canyon. But the nuclear reactor units are more than thirty years old. Diablo Unit One was long ago found to be seriously embrittled, which means its piping is almost certainly cracked due to age. Its list of deferred maintenance procedures is a by-now notorious PG&E trademark. Its waste management procedures are suspect. The site is surrounded by more than a dozen interlinked earthquake faults. Can we really trust the operation of these immensely complex machines over the coming sixty months to a company we don’t trust to safely deliver electricity in a light breeze? We don’t need to: the power Diablo generates can be made up for by truly renewable energy sources. Now is the time—before PG&E’s bankruptcy is resolved—for the governor, the California Public Utilities Commission, and other public authorities to conduct a transparent inspection of PG&E’s nuclear facility at Diablo. A truthful appraisal of the reactors—what PG&E might claim as its biggest single asset—is impossible without a thorough inventory of the reactors’ structural liabilities Technically, such inspections are the bailiwick of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is currently a captive agency, with three of its five commissioners appointed by Trump. They have advocated a drastic scale-back of on-site safety inspections, allowing the nation’s 96 aging reactors to become progressively more dangerous to our population. But PG&E’s bankruptcy creates a condition outside the NRC’s purview: the court must ensure that the aggrieved parties are given a full understanding of the financial value and risks of the assets at stake. All US reactors, Diablo among them, lack private insurance. A federal fund to which providers contribute to cover their liability for catastrophic accidents contains less than $13 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to what even one such accident would cost. And who will run these two hotly contested nukes after the bankruptcy settlement? Public ownership is being hailed as a possible, progressive solution. Does that mean We the People unwittingly assume liability for the incalculable health, ecological, and property damages if the San Andreas fault (or any other) reduces Diablo to radioactive rubble and sends an apocalyptic Chernobyl cloud through the central valley, down to Los Angeles, up to the Bay Area, and into Northern California, so recently reduced to ash by PG&E? The high-stakes debate over what to do with what was once the world’s largest electric utility has been suspiciously silent on Diablo’s two 800-pound gorillas. So hear this scream: The question of ownership – private or public – cannot be answered without accounting for the structural safety and potential liabilities of the two decrepit megaliths at San Luis Obispo. The governor, the CPUC, the courts, and the company must provide the public with a detailed, independent, and credible look at the innards of these two immense machines before any bankruptcy proceedings can conclude or any future for California’s electric supply can be mapped out. Call them all now!!! |
|
|
Risks in incorporating artificial intelligence into nuclear weapons systems
|
As the US, China, and Russia build new nuclear weapons systems, how will AI be built in? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Matt Field, December 20, 2019 Researchers in the United States and elsewhere are paying a lot of attention to the prospect that in the coming years new nuclear weapons—and the infrastructure built to operate them—will include greater levels of artificial intelligence and automation. Earlier this month, three prominent US defense experts published a comprehensive analysis of how automation is already involved in nuclear command and control systems and of what could go wrong if countries implement even riskier forms of it.
The working paper “A Stable Nuclear Future? The Impact of Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence” by the team of Michael Horowitz, Paul Scharre, and Alexander Velez-Green comes on the heels of other scholarly takes on the impact artificial intelligence (AI) will have on strategies around using nuclear weapons. All this research reflects the fact that militaries around the world are incorporating more artificial intelligence into non-nuclear weaponry—and that several countries are overhauling their nuclear weapons programs. “We wanted to better understand both the potentially stabilizing and destabilizing effects of automation on nuclear stability,” Scharre, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told the Bulletin. “In particular, as we see nations modernize their nuclear arsenals, there is both a risk and an opportunity in how they use automation in their nuclear operations.” The report notes that nuclear weapons systems already include some automated functionality: For example, warning systems automatically alert nuclear weapons operators of an attack. After the Cold War, Russian missiles were programmed to automatically retarget themselves to hit US targets if they were launched without a flight plan. For its part, the United States at one point designed its entire missile arsenal so that it could be retargeted in seconds from its peacetime default of flying into the ocean. Even these forms of automation are risky as an accidental launch could “spark a nuclear war,” the report says. But some countries, the report warns, might resort to riskier types of automation. Those risks could come from a variety of different sources. Countries could develop unmanned vehicles carrying nuclear weapons; with no one on board and responsible for deploying a nuclear weapon, the systems could be hacked or otherwise “slip out of control,” the authors say. In fact, the report notes, Russia is already reportedly developing an autonomous nuclear torpedo. Horowitz, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor, told the Bulletin that the weapon, called Poseidon or Status-6, could be the start of a trend, though it’s not yet clear how or if AI will be included. “While so much about it is uncertain, Russia’s willingness to explore the notion of a long-duration, underwater, uninhabited nuclear delivery vehicle in Status-6 shows that fear of conventional or nuclear inferiority could create some incentives to pursue greater autonomy,” Horowitz said. Countries might also build more artificial intelligence into the so-called early warning systems that indicate whether a nuclear attack is underway, or insert more powerful AI into the strategic decision support systems they use to keep tabs on other militaries and nuclear forces. Even simple forms of automation in such systems have, in the past, exacerbated nuclear tensions. The report cites a famous 1983 incident where a Soviet officer, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, had to disregard automated audible and visual warnings that US nuclear missiles were inbound. Fortunately, Petrov chose not to trust what his systems were telling him and defied the powerful cognitive phenomenon known as automation bias. Another problematic form of early automation was the Soviet strategic decision support system known as VYRAN. It was a computer program in place to warn Soviet leaders when the United States had achieved a level of military superiority that required Moscow to launch a nuclear attack. But Soviet intelligence agents were inputting information that often confirmed their pre-existing beliefs about US intentions. “This feedback loop amplified and intensified those perceived threats, rather than providing Soviet leaders with a clearer understanding of US intentions,” the report notes. There is evidence that countries including Russia and China are placing more emphasis on developing these sorts of so-called computational models for analyzing threats. Despite all these drawbacks, however, the report’s authors believe there could be reasons to implement more AI and automation into nuclear weapons systems. They note how artificial intelligence systems could process more data and allow officials in charge of nuclear weapons greater situational awareness. Automation could also be useful in communicating commands in “highly contested electromagnetic environments,” as the report dryly puts it—perhaps, say, during a war. But, the report says, “many of these ways that autonomous systems could increase the resiliency and accuracy of [nuclear command and control systems] are speculative.” ……… Horowitz believes that incorporating artificial intelligence in nuclear weapons systems themselves poses mostly low probability risks. In fact, what concerns him most is how AI in non-nuclear military systems could affect nuclear weapons’ policies. “The risk I worry most about is how conventional military applications of AI, by increasing the speed of war, could place pressure on the early warning and launch doctrines of nuclear weapons states that fear decapitation in conventional war,” Horowitz told the Bulletin. Or, as the report puts it, AI-induced time pressure could lead to a chain of decision-making that, in the worst cases, could result in a country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack. “Fear of losing quickly could create incentives for more rapid escalation to the nuclear level.”……… https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/as-the-us-china-and-russia-build-new-nuclear-weapons-systems-how-will-ai-be-built-in/ |
|
The Japanese want to phase out nuclear power
|
No to nuclear: Japan wants reactors phased out, post-Fukushima
Japan is less reliant on atomic energy, but concerns are growing about its return to climate-damaging fossil fuels. Aljazeera, by Kelly Olsen -20 Dec 19, Tokyo, Japan – At the end of a decade in which northeastern Japan was devastated by a tsunami that triggered a nuclear disaster at Fukushima, atomic energy looks unlikely to make a comeback. In the nearly nine years following the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the country’s reliance on atomic power for electricity generation has plummeted to between 3 and 5 percent from about 30 percent before the disaster, according to the Tokyo-based Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. And despite a period of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of the meltdowns triggered when Fukushima’s cooling systems were overwhelmed by the tsunami created by the magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake, the world’s third-largest economy has shown it can function with radically less nuclear power. The public mood turned dramatically after Fukushima and the national trauma that ensued and combined with the increasing costs from aligning ageing plants with stringent post-disaster safety requirements, it is unlikely the nuclear industry will return to previous levels, according to experts, even as the government envisions nuclear power accounting for about 20-22 percent of electricity generation in 2030. “It is obvious that it is very difficult to meet this target,” said Hajime Matsukubo, secretary-general of the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. And while experts say while the anti-nuclear movement may seem to have quietened down, anti-nuclear feeling is firmly entrenched. ‘They say no’“Japanese people’s sentiment (has) changed after Fukushima Daiichi and it is continuing until now,” said Matsukubo, whose non-profit organisation was established in 1975 by concerned atomic scientists to gather and publicise nuclear information and raise public awareness on the industry. He said that even if people appear not as focused, if they are asked pointedly if they agree with nuclear power: “They say no.” Before Fukushima, Japan had 54 operational reactors and for a brief time in the accident’s aftermath, not a single one was in operation. So far, nine have been restarted and authorities are considering the cases of a dozen more, according to Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry figures. A further 24 are either under decommissioning or lined up for it….. Safety costsJapan’s mass-circulation newspaper Mainichi Shimbun in an editorial after the Onagawa decision cited the newspaper’s own research that found 11 top power suppliers had spent in excess of 5 trillion yen ($45.7bn) on nuclear safety since Fukushima. “As costs balloon, it is becoming increasingly difficult, even absurd, for the government and power companies to maintain the argument that nuclear power is ‘cheap’,” the editorial said…….. “There’s a sort of built-in time limit to how long the industry as a whole can continue,” said Alexander Brown, currently a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science international research fellow at Japan Women’s University. He also emphasised, however, that Japan’s turn against nuclear energy had also coincided with a key change in its domestic economy; less industrially robust and therefore not as hungry for energy as before. “Why have the lights stayed on,” Brown asked rhetorically. “One is, yes, increased fossil fuel use, but another is there’s just less demand than there was in the peak time of manufacturing onshore in Japan.” Brown calls that an “uncomfortable truth” for much of Japan’s ruling establishment – including the prime minister and his eponymous “Abenomics” economic revitalisation programme – which clings to a belief in a model of vigorous growth. “And I think one of the amazing things when I look at the anti-nuclear movement, to me, was it was full of people looking at what are other ways that we can live,” he said. “How can we embrace other values other than high consumption, high pollution, extreme overwork and look at things like de-growth economics.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/japanese-turn-nuclear-decade-wrought-fukushima-191220000003532.html |
|
The Human Side of Nuclear Weapons Issues in the FY20 Defense Bill
|
The Human Side of Nuclear Weapons Issues in the FY20 Defense Bill HTTPS://ALLTHINGSNUCLEAR.ORG/GUEST-COMMENTARY/THE-HUMAN-SIDE-OF-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS-ISSUES-IN-THE-FY20-DEFENSE-BILL LILLY ADAMS , UCS | DECEMBER 20, 2019, Tonight, President Trump is expected to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) at Joint Base Andrews, a defense budget bill totaling a stunning $738 billion. Much attention has been given to the many ways that Democrats lost out on progressive priorities in this bill. The nuclear arms control and disarmament community lost hard-fought battles over issues like the low-yield warhead, and overall spending levels on nuclear weapons systems.
UCS’s President Ken Kimmel put out an important statement on these issues, urging members of Congress to vote “no” on this dangerous bill. But many nuclear weapons-related issues have been flying under the radar, especially those relating to the communities directly impacted by nuclear weapons production and testing. Here’s a run-down of the issues nuclear policy wonks might have missed in their analysis of the NDAA.
Study on Runit Dome in the Marshall IslandsThe House version of the NDAA included a call for the Secretary of Energy to produce a comprehensive report on the health and environmental impacts of Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands: a massive unlined pit on Runit Island that holds waste and debris from 67 US nuclear tests on the islands, covered by a cracking, leaking concrete dome. The LA Times offers an excellent analysis of this issue. The required elements of the report largely made it through the conference process intact, but the Senate removed some of the more sweeping provisions. These include a study of the physical health impacts on Pacific Islanders resulting from US nuclear testing activities in the Marshall Islands, and a call for a plan to remove the radioactive contaminants from the dome and relocate them to a more stable location. For the Marshallese, who for decades have been fighting for proper recognition of the harms to their country and population, as well as adequate compensation, clean-up, and health care access, the call for a comprehensive study as outlined in the original House version would have been a step in the right direction. But the Republic of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission stated: “given the Senate-amended version of the bill, it’s difficult to see how the report would produce any new and useful information beyond what has already been done by the DOE, which has fallen short of satisfying Marshallese concerns.” In addition to working to prevent radiation leaks from the dome, the Marshallese are also fighting for, among other things, adequate studies and clean-up of other islands, proper compensation for health and environmental consequences and tests, and improved access to health care. So the dome itself is really just the tip of the radioactive iceberg. Much more work needs to be done by the US government to address their assault on the Marshallese people with these nuclear tests. Medal of Recognition to Atomic VeteransAtomic Veterans are the soldiers that were present at the US’s nearly 200 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands and Nevada, as well as those that had to clean up the waste left behind from tests. The House version of the NDAA included a provision to create a Medal of Recognition to Atomic Veterans. The provision was taken out in conference and did not make it through to the final bill. This is a terrible shame and, in my opinion, a great sign of disrespect to the thousands of surviving atomic veterans. In response to this decision, Keith Kiefer, National Commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, stated:
The most current Atomic Veteran count from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) sits at 550,000 individuals. Until 1996 these individuals were under an oath of secrecy, not being able to talk with their doctor or family members without risking imprisonment and/or civil fines. These individuals were left to suffer in silence. The Atomic Veteran was used in various roles of support, study of the physical, psychological and readiness effect(s) when using nuclear weapons. None of these men were given informed consent while participating in these activities. If nuclear weapons were like conventional weapons, many of these veterans would have had evidence of physical injury and be eligible for a purple heart medal. Moreover, were it not for the oath of secrecy these veterans would have received service medals while still in the service. Most of these veterans’ longevity and quality of life have been shortened. Creation of and issuing an Atomic Veteran Service Medal would correct the injustice of not recognizing the sacrifice and contributions these veterans have made on behalf of the country. Of equal importance to the families whose veteran is no longer with us, is the recognition that their loved one’s sacrifice and contributions were not in vain. Though Congress created a certificate of recognition for Atomic Veterans, many feel that this simply does not carry the same weight as a medal. In seeking a medal of recognition, Atomic Veterans are asking for parity with other veterans – that they may receive equal recognition for their sacrifices to their country. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA)Congress established the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) in 1990 and expanded it in 2000 to provide compensation to people harmed by nuclear atmospheric testing (“Downwinders” and Atomic Veterans) and uranium workers (miners, millers, core drillers, ore transporters, and remediation workers). Though an important program overall, RECA is severely flawed, largely because many communities directly impacted by testing and uranium mining are left out of the program and therefore ineligible for compensation. These include many regions affected by testing, the veterans who cleaned up atomic waste after tests, and uranium industry employees who worked in facilities after 1971. Legislation has been introduced to address this (H.R. 3783 and S. 947), which many activists in these communities are working hard to support. The NDAA sought to begin addressing these concerns in two ways:
Currently RECA is set to expire in 2022. H.R. 3783 and S. 947 would extend RECA until 2045; that additional time is sorely needed. Tina Cordova shares: “Imagine – the Downwinders of New Mexico have been denied access to RECA and the much needed health care coverage for 29 years and now we are facing a sunset provision. Bills have been introduced for 9 years to amend RECA to include the New Mexico Downwinders and yet not a single hearing in the House.” Nuclear policy groups should pay attention to this upcoming deadline and support the communities advocating for these bills. Nuclear Waste Clean-Up BudgetThis NDAA authorized roughly $5.5 billion for “Defense Environmental Cleanup” of nuclear weapons waste sites like Hanford, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge Reservation. This is a roughly $100 million reduction from FY19 NDAA authorization levels. Clean-up budgets should be increasing, not decreasing, because the longer it takes to clean-up these sites, the longer workers and nearby residents are being exposed to dangerous nuclear and hazardous material. The good news is that the Energy + Water Appropriations bills allocate $6.255 billion for Defense Environmental cleanup, well above FY2019 levels. What’s also notable here is that the $5.5 billion for clean-up represents nearly a quarter of the NDAA’s whole discretionary budget for “Atomic Energy Defense Activities,” including all of weapons activities and non-proliferation. As the United States continues to increase spending on nuclear weapons, it should not forget that cleaning up the waste from the long history of producing weapons remains an extremely costly problem with no reasonable solution in sight, while communities and the environment continue to be poisoned by radioactive, toxic and hazardous pollutants. Don Hancock notes that “the NDAA does include new Senate language to require submission to Congress with the annual Budget Request a report on the costs of meeting legal agreement milestones at sites. The Request never includes sufficient funding, but activists have long advocated for DOE to have to admit to the significant shortfalls in the request.” Oversight of Nuclear FacilitiesCongress established the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in 1988 to provide independent oversight for Department of Energy nuclear facilities to ensure their safety, as well as the safety of the public and workers. Watchdog and grassroots activist groups near nuclear sites have been fighting for over a year to ensure that the DNFSB retains its oversight capabilities. In 2018, the Department of Energy issued Order 140.1, which has the potential to “severely constrain the Safety Board’s access to information, facilities, documents and personnel.” Activists were glad to see a House provision largely remain in the final bill, which ensures the DNFSB has the full access they need. This is an important win for workers and nearby residents, allowing the Board to carry out its responsibilities to monitor nuclear sites and ensure public safety. Plutonium Pit ProductionThe nuclear policy community is also concerned about the requirement for the NNSA to produce 80 new plutonium pits per year starting in 2030, a significant increase over the current production capacity at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. The new production would take place at expanded LANL facilities and at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In addition to posing an arms control problem by supporting the production of new warheads in addition to refurbishing existing ones, these programs pose potential risks to the workers and nearby communities. LANL’s pit production program has been shut down many times, most recently from 2013 to 2016, over chronic safety concerns. Even after re-opening, an April 2019 report from the DOE and a November 2019 letter from the DNFSB highlight continuing major safety concerns. Savannah River Site poses novel risks, as the site has never before produced pits, and is now being required to do so on a very expedited schedule, requiring the repurposing of the partially constructed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, at which there were many construction problems. The combination of these issues (not even taking into account clean-up currently taking place at SRS) is a recipe for mistakes and accidents that could put people in harm’s way. A recent Institute for Defense Analyses report states that the current plan to produce 80 pits per year in the given timeline is extremely challenging, if not impossible, and poses many risks. In fact, they state “No available option can be expected to provide 80 ppy [pits per year] by 2030.” The DOE has not indicated how it will address this. This piece was reviewed and in some cases contributed to by the advocates and experts listed under each section. My sincere thanks to each of them for their help with this piece.For more information on Runit Dome, please contact Rhea Moss-Christian, Chair of the Republic of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission (NNC). |
|
Elizabeth Warren caves in to the nuclear lobby. Bernie Sanders stands firmly anti nuclear
‘We need to keep some’: Warren backtracks on 
nuclear power plants, Washington Examiner, by Josh Siegel, December 19, 2019 Elizabeth Warren would keep existing nuclear plants online to combat climate change, she said at Thursday night’s presidential primary debate, marking a shift in her position on an issue that has divided the Democratic field……..
Warren’s liberal rival Bernie Sanders is perhaps the most skeptical of nuclear, citing concerns about storing nuclear waste, and the high cost of building new plants, in opposing it.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist, seemed to echo that position at Thursday night’s debate, saying nuclear costs too much and presents too many risks.
-
Archives
- June 2023 (34)
- May 2023 (344)
- April 2023 (348)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
-
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
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- 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
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 