UK ‘s new nuclear projects further delayed
|
Nuclear project planning hit by delays, Construction News, 02 APR 2020 BY MILES ROWLAND DECISIONS ON FUTURE NUCLEAR BUILDS HAVE BEEN PUSHED BACK AT THREE POTENTIAL NEW SITES DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS.The planning process for Wylfa Newydd, Sizewell C and Bradwell B have all been delayed by periods ranging from weeks to months.
A decision on Horizon Nuclear’s application for a development consent order (DCO) for Wylfa Newydd – the shelved nuclear project in Anglesey, North Wales – has been pushed back by six months by the government, from 31 March to 30 September. This is the second such delay for the decision, the original deadline for which was 23 October last year. While the project was put on hold over funding issues, Horizon, a subsidiary of Hitachi, had been hopeful the project could restart following the decision and the approval of a new funding model. A statement from the Planning Inspectorate said: “The secretary of state has concluded that an additional period of time is required in order to complete his consideration in respect of environmental effects and other issues which were outstanding following the examination.”…… Decisions on future nuclear builds have been pushed back at three potential new sites due to the coronavirus crisis. The planning process for Wylfa Newydd, Sizewell C and Bradwell B have all been delayed by periods ranging from weeks to months. A decision on Horizon Nuclear’s application for a development consent order (DCO) for Wylfa Newydd – the shelved nuclear project in Anglesey, North Wales – has been pushed back by six months by the government, from 31 March to 30 September. This is the second such delay for the decision, the original deadline for which was 23 October last year. While the project was put on hold over funding issues, Horizon, a subsidiary of Hitachi, had been hopeful the project could restart following the decision and the approval of a new funding model. A statement from the Planning Inspectorate said: “The secretary of state has concluded that an additional period of time is required in order to complete his consideration in respect of environmental effects and other issues which were outstanding following the examination.”……. EDF and Horizon Nuclear have also been awaiting a decision from the government on whether the regulated asset base model could be used to fund nuclear projects, following a consultation in October. The model requires developers to spend less upfront and instead raise cash through consumer bills. A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said a decision would be made “in due course”. Meanwhile, the public consultation for Bradwell B in Essex, which began last month, is to be extended by five weeks. The project is introducing new ways for the community to participate in the consultation online and on the phone, as well as allowing people to book 20-minute discussions with nuclear experts to answer questions throughout April. Ground-surveying works are continuing on site at Bradwell B, and the project is awaiting a decision from the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency on its design for the UK HPR1000 – a third-generation pressurised water reactor.
Last week EDF announced it was cutting its workforce on Hinkley Point C by more than half, and implemented a range of measures to encourage social distancing after criticism that its actions there had been insufficient. A spokesman declined to state whether this could cause delays to the project. It is due to be completed in either 2025 or 2026. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/nuclear-project-planning-hit-by-delays-02-04-2020/ |
|
Anxieties over proposal to allow some nuclear waste to be disposed in landfills
Advocates raise questions about proposal to allow some nuclear waste to be disposed in landfills The Hill, BY RACHEL FRAZIN – 04/03/20 Scientists and advocates are raising concerns about a proposed relaxation on regulations for disposing of nuclear waste, saying that the government should halt the proposal as the scientific community focuses on the coronavirus.
A March 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposal would allow for the disposal of some nuclear waste in municipal landfills, rather than a licensed facility.
Advocates say the proposal could put public health at risk, pushing the NRC to give the public more time to weigh in.
“What they’re trying to do is prop up a failing industry so that the cost of decommissioning these [nuclear] reactors is reduced so you don’t have to send it to a place that is expensive because it’s designed to safely handle it,” said Dan Hirsch, the former director of the University of California, Santa Cruz’s Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy.
“I find it just astonishing that they would do that in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic,” he added. “How the NRC can look themselves in the mirror to propose massive deregulation and do it in the midst of the pandemic, I find it just ethically shocking.”……..
“If they’re going to consider it at all, it should only be considered once the pandemic is behind us,” he said.
Currently, the nuclear waste in question is typically disposed of at licensed waste disposal facilities, which have adequate training and equipment to protect public health.
The proposal would grant some exceptions to this regulation for waste with a cumulative radiation dose level of up to 25 millirem…….
n a statement on Thursday, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Pacific Director Jeff Ruch also criticized the proposal.
“NRC’s action could transform most municipal dumps into radioactive repositories, with essentially no safeguards for workers, nearby residents, or adjoining water tables,” he said. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/490988-advocates-raise-questions-about-proposal-to-allow-some-nuclear
Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulls back inspectors, because of Covid 19
|
The agency and the primary industry group say the change in oversight does not pose a threat to the public. “Nuclear power plants also have plans to maintain appropriate staffing under adverse conditions,” the agency said. “The NRC will require plants to shut down if they cannot appropriately staff their facilities.” Still, the decision has raised alarm from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear plant safety at the UCS, which monitors the intersection of policy and science, said he was worried plant operators could request that inspections of their plants be delayed during these refueling periods. In part, he said, “other concerns are potential requests from reactor owners to postpone certain inspections that take place during refueling outages until the next cycle, which could result in delays of more than 18-24 months in some of these critical activities. The concern is some of these inspections require personnel to be in tight quarters or might require specialized contractors from off-site.” The agency also said in a March 27 announcement that it was evaluating scheduled inspections of nuclear sites, including reactors being decommissioned and facilities where spent fuel is stored. NRC did not respond to questions about which facilities would be affected……. the industry is running low on protective medical supplies — gloves, wipes, masks and thermometers, Korsnick said — and the scheduled refueling operations could present a problem during a pandemic when authorities have locked down cities and states from non-essential activities. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel every 18 or 24 months, and to complete these refueling changeovers requires hundreds of specialized technicians to enter each plant and work for a month or two before leaving. “These workers typically stay in hotels or board with local families, and eat in restaurants,” she said……. Nuclear plants are required to maintain a certain number of staffers in their control room, as well as at least 10 armed guards to protect against attacks. They also fall under regulations that bar staff from working too much in a brief period of time, typically no more than 16 hours in a day, 26 hours in two days and 72 hours in a 7-day stretch. …….https://personalliberty.com/citing-virus-nuclear-agency-pulls-back-inspectors/ |
|
Problems of New England nuclear reactors most are offline
Most NE nuclear power offline due to timing fluke and problem, CT Mirror, CAll but unnoticed as the coronavirus pandemic tears through the Northeast: the New England power grid is without 75% of its nuclear power – with more to go. by JAN ELLEN SPIEGEL, APRIL 3, 2020
Many nuclear power plants schedule refueling operations in spring and fall when electricity demand is lower, and that is the case in New England, where the three remaining nuclear plants typically supply about one-third of the electricity. The Seabrook Nuclear plant in New Hampshire went offline on Tuesday for its refueling – that’s 1,245 megawatts of power. Unit 2 of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, with about 870 megawatts, is due for refueling this spring as well.
But in the meantime, Millstone Unit 3, which carries about 1,230 megawatts , tripped offline less than a day after the Seabrook shutdown due to a circuit fault between the main generator and the switchyard, according to Kenneth Holt, spokesman for the plant’s owner Dominion Energy. The automatic reactor protection system kicked in as it was supposed to and the plant was shut down.
As of Friday noon, the grid mix showed nuclear at 8% and natural gas at a whopping 68%.
While the situation is abnormal and the timing with the health emergency a fluke, it does not pose any special risks for the region, especially since the demand for power is lower than normal because so much commerce and industry has temporarily shut down. ……
Nuclear plants have some wiggle room, but not a lot, for refueling. In the case of Millstone, each unit is refueled every 18 months in an alternating rotation. Unit 3, the one offline now, is due for refueling in the fall. Refueling takes about one month during which one-third of the plant’s nuclear rods, which are about one foot-by-one foot by 12 to 14 feet long, are replaced. They last about 4.5 years.
……….. https://ctmirror.org/2020/04/03/most-ne-nuclear-power-offline-due-to-timing-fluke-and-problem/
Danger in transporting spent nuclear fuel to New Mexico
Why should NM store nation’s nuclear waste? https://www.abqjournal.com/1439716/why-should-nm-store-nations-nuclear-waste.html BY LAURA WATCHEMPINO / MULTICULTURAL ALLIANCE FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, PUEBLO OF ACOMA
Friday, April 3rd, 2020 If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s conclusion that it’s safe to move spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants across the country to a proposed storage facility in Lea County sounds vanilla-coated, it’s because the draft environmental impact statement for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility submitted by Holtec International did not address how the casks containing the spent fuel would be transported to New Mexico.
It’s likely the casks would be transported primarily by rail using aging infrastructure in need of constant repair. But our rail systems were not built to support the great weight of these transport casks containing thin-wall fuel storage canisters.
Nor was the potential for cracked or corroded canisters to leak radiation studied because an earlier NRC Generic EIS for the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel assumed damaged fuel storage canisters would be detected during an intermediary dry transfer system or a pool. But Holtec’s proposal only addresses a new destination for the high-level nuclear waste – not the removal and transport of the fuel storage canisters from nuclear power plants to New Mexico.
Even transport casks with canisters that are not damaged will release radiation as they are transported from nuclear power plants to the storage facility, exposing populations along the transport routes in a majority of states and tribal communities in New Mexico to repeated doses of radiation.
Other issues not considered in the draft EIS were the design life of the thin-wall canisters encasing the nuclear fuel rods and faulty installation at reactor sites like San Onofre, or the self-interest of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance in using the land it acquired for a consolidated interim storage site.
Thin-wall canisters cannot be inspected for cracks and the fuel rods inside are not retrievable for inspection or monitoring without destroying the canister. NRC does not require continuous monitoring of the storage canisters for pressure changes or radiation leaks. The fuel rods inside the canisters could go critical, or result in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, if water enters the canisters through cracks, admits both Holtec and the NRC. None of us are safe if any canister goes critical.
Yet a site-specific storage application like Holtec’s should have addressed NRC license requirements for leak testing and monitoring, as well as the quantity and type of material that will be stored at the site, such as low burnup nuclear fuel and high burnup fuel.
With so many deficiencies in the draft EIS, a reasonable alternative is to leave this dangerous radioactive nuclear waste at the nuclear plants that produced it in dry cask storage rather than multiply the risk by transporting thousands of containers that could be damaged across many thousands of miles and decades to southeastern New Mexico, then again to a permanent repository.
Interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at existing nuclear plant sites is already happening – there are 65 sites with operating reactors in the United States and dry cask storage is licensed at 35 of these sites in 24 states. But since the thin-wall canisters storing the fuel rods are at risk for major radioactive releases, they should be replaced with thick-walled containers that can be monitored and maintained. The storage containers should be stored away from coastal waters and flood plains in hardened buildings.
Attempting to remove this stabilized nuclear waste from where it is securely stored across hundreds or thousands of miles through our homelands and backyards to a private storage facility also raises some thorny liability issues, since the United States will then be relieved of overseeing the spent nuclear fuel in perpetuity. The states and nuclear plants that want to send us their long-lived radioactive waste will also be off the hook, leaving New Mexico holding a dangerously toxic bag without any resources to address the gradual deterioration of man-made materials or worse, a catastrophic event. It’s a win/win, however, for Holtec International and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance.
Environmental justice footnote: When removal of uranium mine waste on the Navajo Nation was being discussed a few years ago, communities got this response from EPA: Digging up the waste and tr+ansporting it to a licensed repository in different states outside the Navajo Nation – which has always been the Nation’s preferred alternative – is the most expensive option. “Off-site disposal, because of the amount of waste in and around these areas, means possibly multiple years of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of trucks going in and out of the community and driving for miles.”
Radiation poses major obstacle to future deep-space astronauts bound for Mars
A roundtrip from Earth to Mars, plus time on the Red Planet, would mean a human crew could spend months or years in deep space.
Mars seems to be on everybody’s mind in the space industry. There are already several robotic missions to the Red Planet underway, and companies and space agencies are already working to one day send humans there.
But a crewed mission would present many more challenges. One of these obstacles is radiation, and so researchers are working to find a way to protect a crew against the dangerous radiation of deep space.
Humans evolved underneath the protective blanket that is the Earth’s atmosphere and magnetosphere. Our bodies are not like the robots we shoot into the far reaches of the solar system. We are made of organic matter that needs to be shielded from harmful radiation. …… https://www.space.com/mars-radiation-obstacle-crewed-human-missions.html
France solar auction success delivered at nuclear’s expense — RenewEconomy
France announces winners of latest renewables auctions, including 12 solar projects totalling nearly 100MW commissioned to replace a decommissioned nuclear plant. The post France solar auction success delivered at nuclear’s expense appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via France solar auction success delivered at nuclear’s expense — RenewEconomy
April 3 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “COVID-19 Is The Catalyst We Need To Push Renewable Energy Forward” • Business is far from usual in America or around the world as the COVID-19 pandemic decimates industry after industry. We are at a crossroads. We can choose to pedal backward furiously or we can choose to boldly go where human civilization […]
No Lockdown for Nuclear Construction Projects – Trident, Sellafield, Hinkley C — Mining Awareness +
While the country is locked down to protect us from Covid19, the government’s nuclear projects continue. These include construction of nuclear submarines, construction on the Sellafield site (new gas plant and more) and the continued construction of Hinkley C. If Moorside had not been scrapped there would be an influx of thousands of workers ensconced…
via No Lockdown for Nuclear Construction Projects – Trident, Sellafield, Hinkley C — Mining Awareness +
Finally: 1000s of sailors leaving nuclear Aircraft Carrier and going into Coronavirus isolation
US Sailors Pour Off Aircraft Carrier and Into Coronavirus Isolation on Guam, Defense One , BY BRADLEY PENISTON, DEPUTY EDITOR, 2 Apr. 20 NAVY LEADERS PRAISE SHIP’S CAPTAIN FOR URGENT EVACUATION REQUEST; 3,700 WILL LEAVE THE SHIP WITHIN DAYS.
About one-fifth of the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s 4,865 sailors are off the COVID-stricken aircraft carrier and into isolation on Guam, with about 2,700 more expected to evacuate in the next few days, Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Wednesday.
Modly’s update comes two days after the ship’s captain sent a stark letter up the chain of command — made public on Tuesday by the San Francisco Chronicle — warning that fully 90 percent of the crew needed to evacuate and isolate for two weeks for their own safety. The secretary’s comments clarify that the Navy was indeed evacuating most sailors from the ship, after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a CBS News interview aired late Tuesday that said an evacuation was not yet necessary. Modly praised the captain for the prodding, and said that evacuation efforts already were in the works but not with the right urgency. ….. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/04/us-sailors-pour-aircraft-carrier-and-isolation-guam/164287/?oref=d-topstory
Second: Navy change of heart: nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sailors can evacuate
|
“We are not at war,” Caprain Brett Crozier wrote in a four-page letter to bosses detailing how the ship did not have enough quarantine facilities. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset – our sailors.” Now, his demand to get crew ashore appears to have been met with Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly confirming sailors were being taken off board in stages, with 1,000 people already evacuated and placed in isolation on land. It is thought around 100 people on the nuclear-powered vessel have tested positive for Covid-19, although this remains unconfirmed by the navy itself. Modly said the force had been working for several days to get the majority of crew off the ship but that, because Guam was dealing with its own outbreak of Covid-19, there were not currently enough isolated beds. He said he was in talks with officials there to use hotels and set up tents. “It’s not the same as a cruise ship, it has armaments on it, it has aircraft on it, we have to be able to fight fires if there is a fire on there,” he said……..
|
First: Captain of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier begs to have its sailors evacuated
Navy Rejects Captain’s Plea to Evacuate Virus-Ravaged Carrier, Bloomberg, By Roxana Tiron ,Travis J Tritten, and Glen Carey
- Admiral says sailors will be rotated off in smaller numbers
-
A U.S. Navy captain’s dramatic plea to evacuate most sailors from an aircraft carrier struck by the coronavirus was tamped down by an admiral who called for a more gradual rotation of crew members off the ship that’s sidelined in Guam.
Citing an “ongoing and accelerating” danger on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Captain Brett Crozier sent his Navy superiors a memo pleading, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die.” He called for removing all but a skeleton crew off the carrier, where sailors are in close quarters, so that they can be isolated and tested……
The Roosevelt, meant to be patrolling the Pacific and South China Sea, is sitting dockside in Guam indefinitely as the number of soldiers infected by the novel coronavirus rises daily. Infections started cropping up after an early March port call in Vietnam, which Pentagon leaders say had about 16 known virus cases at the time …… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/carrier-s-captain-pleads-for-coronavirus-action-to-save-sailors?fbclid=IwAR2jMtSh2oHrD8_xM384jGcK52DX3TihqP3brMrzaUrSNBgY17GYBVxcbEg
Doctors warn on coronavirus danger for Julian Assange, imprisoned without conviction, in a coronavirus incubator
ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Doctors Warning on Assange in a Covid-19 Breeding Ground, Consortium News,April 1, 2020 • In a prison cited for failing to curb infections, Doctors4Assange warn that Julian Assange is at high risk of contracting the deadly coronavirus. According to a report Wednesday in The Daily Maverick, imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is one of only two prisoners of 797 inmates in Belmarsh Prison who are being held for skipping bail. The majority are violent criminals, including 20 percent for murder and 16 inmates on terrorism offenses. The facility was also repeatedly criticized by prison inspectors for a lapse in preventing infections to inmates. Following Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision to deny Assange bail last week, Doctors4 Assange released the following statement:
Doctors4Assange Statement on Assange
Bail Hearing over Coronavirus Risk, March 27, 2020 Doctors4Assange strongly condemns last Wednesday’s decision by UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny bail to Julian Assange. Despite our prior unequivocal statement[1] that Mr Assange is at increased risk of serious illness and death were he to contract coronavirus, and the evidence of medical experts, Baraitser dismissed the risk, citing UK guidelines for prisons in responding to the global pandemic: “I have no reason not to trust this advice as both evidence-based and reliable and appropriate.”[2]
Notably, however, Baraitser did not address the increased risk to Mr Assange relative to the general UK prison population, let alone prisoners at HMP Belmarsh where Assange is incarcerated. Nor did she address the rapidly emerging medical and legal consensus that vulnerable and low-risk prisoners should be released, immediately.
As the court heard, Mr Assange is at increased risk of contracting and dying from the novel disease coronavirus (COVID-19), a development which has led the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency of international concern[3] and a global pandemic.[4] The reasons for Mr Assange’s increased risk include his ongoing psychological torture, his history of medical neglect and fragile health, and chronic lung disease.
Edward Fitzgerald, QC, representing Mr Assange, said, “These [medical] experts consider that he is particularly at risk of developing coronavirus and, if he does, that it develops into very severe complications for him… If he does develop critical symptoms it would be very doubtful that Belmarsh would be able to cope with his condition.”[5]
Baraitser’s casual dismissal of Mr Assange’s dire situation in the face of the COVID-19 emergency stood in stark contrast not only to the expert medical evidence, but the proceedings themselves. The hearing took place on the third day of the UK’s coronavirus lock-down. Of the two counsels representing Mr Assange, Edward Fitzgerald QC wore a facemask and Mark Summers QC participated via audiolink. US attorneys joined the proceedings by phone.
Mr Assange himself appeared by videolink, which was terminated after around an hour, rendering him unable to follow the remainder of his own hearing, including the defence summation and the District Judge’s ruling. Mr Assange’s supporters attending in person observed social distancing measures. Overall only 15 people were in attendance, including judge, counsel, and observers……..
Adding their legal voices to these medical and human rights authorities, the day after Mr Assange’s bail hearing, three professors in law and criminology recommended “granting bail to unsentenced prisoners to stop the spread of coronavirus”.[12]
Julian Assange is just such an unsentenced prisoner with significant health vulnerability. He is being held on remand, with no custodial sentence or UK charge in place, let alone conviction.
Doctors4Assange are additionally concerned that keeping Assange in Belmarsh not only increases his risk of contracting coronavirus, it will increase his isolation and his inability to prepare his defence for his upcoming extradition hearing, in violation of his human right to prepare a defence…… https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/01/assange-extradition-doctors-warning-on-assange-in-a-covid-19-breeding-ground/
1 This Month
23 April – WEBINAR – Why new nuclear reactors are the wrong tools for decarbonization Thursday, April 23 • 1 AM – 2 AM AEST
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (275)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 