Nuclear’s swansong?
Is This The Death Knell For Nuclear? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/death-knell-nuclear-200000585.html By Haley Zaremba – Jan 18, 2020 It’s nearly impossible to discuss climate change and the future of the energy industry without discussing nuclear energy. Nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions, [ ed. not so!] it’s ultra-efficient, it’s already in widespread use, and could be scaled up to meet much more of our global energy needs with relative ease, but it is, and will likely always be, an extremely divisive solution.nuclear energy certainly has its fair share of drawbacks. It may not emit greenhouse gases, but what it does produce is deadly nuclear waste that remains radioactive for up to millions of years and we still don’t really know what to do with it other than hold onto it in ever-growing storage spaces. And then there are the horror stories that keep civilians and politicians alike wary if not outright antagonistic toward the technology. Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island loom large in our collective doomsday consciousness, and not without good reason.
We’re still dealing with the aftermath of these nuclear disasters. Japan is in many ways still reeling from 2011’s Fukushima nuclear disaster and recently even threatened to throw radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean or letting it evaporate into the air because they are running out of storage space for the wastewater they have been using to keep the damaged Fukushima reactors from overheating again. So yeah, nuclear isn’t perfect.
As paraphrased by environmental news site EcoWatch, the energy experts at Chatham House “agreed that despite continued enthusiasm from the industry, and from some politicians, the number of nuclear power stations under construction worldwide would not be enough to replace those closing down.” The consensus was that this is nuclear’s swan song, and we are now unequivocally entering the era of wind and solar power.
These conclusions were arrived at during a summit convened to discuss the findings of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019, which concluded that “money spent on building and running nuclear power stations was diverting cash away from much better ways of tackling climate change.”
This echoes the sentiment of many other climate and energy experts, who have long been sounding the alarm bells that renewable energy is not being built up or invested in with nearly enough urgency. Last year the International Energy Agency announced that renewables growth has slumped, and that our current renewable growth rate of 18o GW of added renewable capacity per year is “only around 60 percent of the net additions needed each year to meet long-term climate goals”.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) did the math, calculating exactly how much renewable energy will need to be installed by 2030 if the world has any hope of meeting the goals set by the Paris climate agreement, and they found that “7.7TW of operational renewable capacity will be needed by 2030 if the world is to limit global warming to ‘well below’ 2C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement,” according to reporting by Wind Power Monthly. “However, at present, countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) amount to 3.2TW of renewable installations by 2030, up from 2.3TW currently deployed.”
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report succinctly sums up the situation while sounding the death knell for nuclear: “Stabilising the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow. It meets no technical or operational need that these low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper, and faster.”
Tehran warns it may cease cooperation with IAEA
Iran Says It Might Reconsider Cooperation With Nuclear Watchdog, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/iran-says-it-might-reconsider-cooperation-with-nuclear-watchdog-1.8412402 19 Jan 2020
Tehran’s warning comes in response to EU powers triggering a dispute mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran will review its cooperation with the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog should it face “unjust” measures, Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani said, after EU powers last week triggered a dispute mechanism under Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal.
“We state openly that if the European powers, for any reason, adopt an unfair approach in using the dispute mechanism, we will seriously reconsider our cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” state TV quoted Larijani as saying.
France, Britain and Germany triggered the mechanism in the deal after Tehran continued to distance itself from the pact by decreasing its nuclear commitments in reaction to sanctions reimposed by Washington since the U.S. quit the agreement in 2018.
Tehran announced last week that it would abandon limitations under the deal on enriching uranium, though it said that Iran would continue cooperating with the UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA), which is policing the nuclear pact.
Under the deal between Iran and six major powers, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
The three European nations said they still wanted the 2015 nuclear deal to succeed and were not joining a “maximum pressure” campaign by the United States.
Triggering the mechanism amounts to formally accusing Iran of violating the terms of the deal and could lead eventually to reimposing UN sanctions that were lifted under the pact.
The mechanism involves a Joint Commission, whose members are Iran, Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain and the European Union, seeking to resolve the dispute.
Belgium lawmakers narrowly agree to keep U.S. nuclear weapons, Belgian public overwhelmingly opposes this
Belgium debates phase-out of US nuclear weapons on its soil, By Alexandra Brzozowski | EURACTIV.com Jan 17, 2020 It’s one of Belgium’s worst kept secrets. Lawmakers on Thursday (16 January) narrowly rejected a resolution asking for the removal of US nuclear weapons stationed in the country and joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
66 MPs voted in favour of the resolution while 74 rejected it.
Those in favour included the Socialists, Greens, centrists (cdH), the workers party (PVDA) and the francophone party DéFI. The 74 that voted against included the nationalist Flemish party N-VA, the Flemish Christian Democrats (CD&V), the far-right Vlaams Belang and both Flemish and francophone Liberals.
Just before the Christmas recess, the parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved a motion calling for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Belgian territory and the accession of Belgium to the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The resolution was led by Flemish socialist John Crombez (sp.a).
With this resolution, the chamber requested the Belgian government “to draw up, as soon as possible, a roadmap aiming at the withdrawal of nuclear weapons on Belgian territory”.
The December resolution was voted in the absence of two liberal MPs, even though the text was already watered down.
According to Flemish daily De Morgen, the American ambassador to Belgium was “particularly worried” about the resolution before Thursday’s vote and a number of MPs were approached by the US embassy for a discussion.
The controversy was sparked by a debate to replace the US-made F-16 fighter aircraft in the Belgian army with American F-35s, a more advanced plane capable of carrying nuclear weapons…….
Although the Belgian government had so far adopted a policy of “to neither confirm, nor deny” their presence on Belgian soil, military officials have called it one of Belgium’s “most poorly kept secrets”.
According to De Morgen, which obtained a leaked copy of the document before its final paragraph was replaced, the report stated:
“In the context of NATO, the United States is deploying around 150 nuclear weapons in Europe, in particular B61 free-bombs, which can be deployed by both US and Allied planes. These bombs are stored in six American and European bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands and Inçirlik in Turkey……..
Belgium, as a NATO country, so far has not supported the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the goal of leading towards their total elimination.
However, the resolution voted on Thursday was meant to change that. A public opinion poll conducted by YouGov in April 2019 found that 64% of Belgians believe that their government should sign the treaty, with only 17% opposed to signing. https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/belgium-debates-phase-out-of-us-nuclear-weapons-on-its-soil/
Anxiety in Belarus and Lithuania, over new Chernobyl-style nuclear power station
|
They may not tell you the whole truth’: Fears of another Chernobyl as Russian-built atomic power station set to open in Belarus, Independent, 20 Jan 2020 Three decades after world’s worst nuclear disaster, the country most affected by the fall out is set to open its first nuclear plant. But as Oliver Carroll finds out, not everyone is pleased It was when the tree fellers arrived in early 2009 with their bulldozers that Nikolai Ulasevich, a local activist, knew the game was up. There might not have been a published order to build an atomic power station in the fields overlooking his homestead in the village of Vornyany – but a decision had clearly been made. In authoritarian Belarus those decisions rarely have a reverse gear. In the years that followed, Ulasevich watched as the gigantic cooling towers and system blocks of Belarus’s first nuclear power station took shape. Construction, which was led by the Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom, would be far from straightforward. A string of incidents delayed its opening, but the first reactor is finally due to go online early 2020. To say the construction of the Belarusian nuclear plant has been controversial would be to trivialise the history of these lands. Chernobyl lies only seven miles from Belarus’s southern border, and the nuclear accident, still the world’s worst, has left the deepest of scars locally. The direction of the wind in spring 1986 – and the Soviet authorities’ decision to avoid major harm in Moscow – meant Belarus suffered more than any other region in the union. At the moment that the radioactive clouds moved towards the capital, air force pilots were ordered to chase down the toxic clouds and seed them with jets of silver iodide. Much of the southernmost region of Homel remains seriously contaminated, with elevated oncology levels as a result. Any local over 50 can recall what they were doing on those dry, spring-summer days. They talk about the tiredness; the strange, dryness of the mouth; the rumours that it might be a good idea to take iodine, but the lack of reliable information. They will also tell you about a cloud of secrecy almost as harmful as the black cumulus masses that had their radioactive bowels emptied over southern Belarus. …….. “The thought of what happened back in 1986 can’t fail to make you anxious about what may happen. You know they may not tell you the whole truth.” Lithuania, the European nation that borders Belarus just 10 miles west of Astravets, is bitterly opposed to the nuclear plant. It says it has not been properly consulted and claims the plant breaches post-Fukushima distance guidelines – in particular, a recommendation that nuclear power stations should not be built closer than 100km of major conurbations. The new nuclear plant lies just 30 miles east of the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius. The Lithuanians say they are preparing for any eventuality: from stockpiling iodine tablets to opening up nuclear bunkers and issuing survival notes to their citizens. In October, authorities ran a major preparedness operation, imitating a disaster response to a nuclear meltdown. The drills were knowingly hyperbolic. But several reported incidents do give pause for thought. From what we know, the reactor vessel in Belarus has already been involved in at least two accidents. The first was in July 2016, when it was apparently dropped from a crane during installation. Belarusian authorities took weeks to admit a “minor” incident. Five months later, a replacement reactor vessel collided with a railway pylon while being transported. At least five workers have died in construction accidents. There was at least one fire incident in the control room. The outside world would likely have stayed little the wiser were it not for the opposition activist Ulasevich monitoring from his modest home, which he shares with his wife, a few chickens and sheep, three miles away from the new power station. He said he found out about the dropped reactor vessel in conversation with a local construction worker. “He swore that he saw it break free of ropes at a height of two or three metres,” he says. ……. Yury Voronezhtsev, the man who led the official Soviet official response to Chernobyl, says he could not believe any statement that the plant was “safe”. “I don’t believe that our Belarusian construction workers are any better than the Soviet ones,” he tells The Independent. “We have the same people, and the same systems………. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chernobyl-belarus-nuclear-power-station-atomic-vornyany-rosatom-ostrovets-astravets-a9271811.html
|
|
Australian bushfire smoke across the Pacific shows how French nuclear tests spread radiation
fallout from nuclear tests affected islands such as Tahiti. Smoke from Australia this month drifted over the south of French Polynesia after crossing New Zealand.
Mr Temaru said this was more than proof that fallout from France’s atmospheric nuclear weapons tests at Moruroa spread while France maintained they didn’t affect Tahiti.
He again called on France to tell the full truth about this dark chapter of history.
Until 1974 France detonated 46 atomic bombs over Moruroa and Fangataufa before continuing the tests with underground blasts.
France maintained until a decade ago that its nuclear tests were clean and posed no risk to human health.
A law brought in in 2010 offered compensation but its criteria were widely seen as too narrow because most applications by those suffering poor health were thrown out.
Its revision was changed again, leaving veterans organisations still dismayed. Mr Temaru made the comments as his Tavini Huiraatira party campaigned for the March municipal election.
However, Mr Temaru is yet to say whether he will seek re-election to the mayoralty of Faaa which he has held since 1983.
Among the candidates known so far are two assembly members of the ruling Tapura Huiraatira party.
Need to improve Hanford radiation exposure records
|
Some Hanford radiation exposure records could harm workers and taxpayers, report says, https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/state/washington/article239240843.htm
BY ANNETTE CARY, JANUARY 13, 2020 RICHLAND, WA Recordkeeping at Hanford could be improved to track worker radiation exposure, including to ensure fair compensation for workers who develop cancer, according to an inspection report of the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General. Issues in recordkeeping can be a problem for both individual workers and the federal government under a compensation program for ill workers, said the report released Monday. If a group of workers’ radiation exposure cannot be determined because of lack of records, the compensation program conservatively assumes that working at Hanford caused any of a wide range of cancers and the federal government must offer compensation. Recordkeeping issues also could prevent a worker from having complete records to make an individual case that cancer was caused by radiation exposure. The Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) pays each worker $150,000 in compensation for cancer plus medical coverage. An additional payment of up to $250,000 compensation may be made related to wage loss and impairment The program has paid out $1.7 billion to Hanford workers, former workers and their survivors in compensation and reimbursement of medical costs.
Brian Vance, the Department of Energy Hanford manager, disputed that inconsistencies in recordkeeping posed a liability to DOE under the compensation program, but did not explain why in his response to the Office of Inspector General. PAST RADIATION RECORDKEEPING INCOMPLETEThe review of the radiation exposure, or dosimetry program, at Hanford generally found that DOE Hanford contractor Mission Support Alliance was doing a good job of managing radiation exposure records for all Hanford workers. But it raised concerns that about 111 tank farm workers hired in 2014 and 2015 were not given radiation history forms to fill out by their employer, Washington River Protection Solutions. Some may have had previous exposures at the Hanford nuclear reservation or other DOE sites. Although the problem has since been resolved, some workers went without a historical exposure record in the Radiation Exposure Database for up to 3.5 years, according to the IG report. Radiation exposure records “provide key and sensitive information to management and workers, who make decisions based on this information, the IG report said. Although Mission Support Alliance has forms that other Hanford contractors can use to complete records in the site’s Radiation Exposure Database, contractors may instead use their own forms. Those forms do not require all the information that needs to be input into the database, which increases the risks that the database will not be complete and accurate, according to the IG report. DOE responded that it would consider working with Hanford contractors on standardized radiation exposure forms where appropriate. Mission Support Alliance provides sitewide services at Hanford, while contractors Washington River Protection Solutions and CH2M Hill Central Plateau Remediation Co. hires workers for cleanup of environmental contamination at Hanford, including radioactive waste and contamination. The Hanford nuclear reservation is contaminated from the past production of plutonium for the nation’s nuclear weapons program from World War II through the Cold War. REVIEW OF DOSIMETRY REPORTING POLICIESDOE also agreed to review contracts and procedure manuals for consistency in radiation exposure reporting requirements, after the IG report said there were inconsistencies. The report concluded that some of the issues with radiation-exposure records might be because of unclear oversight responsibilities at Hanford. Mission Support Alliance reports to the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, while one of the cleanup contractors, the tank farm contractor, reports to the DOE Hanford Office of River Protection. Vance, who oversees both DOE offices, said that was not a problem, but that the two offices will reinforce expectations that existing processes are used to resolve any conflict between contractors on dosimetry service issues. Hanford workers or the survivors of ill workers can learn more about compensation programs and how to apply for them at the Hanford Workforce Engagement Center at 309 Bradley Blvd., Suite 120, in Richland. The center can be reached at 509-376-4932. |
|
As building large nuclear stations stall in UK, sites are picked for ‘small] nuclear reactors
REVEALED: Sites for revolutionary mini nuclear power stations led by Rolls-Royce are set to be built in the North of England
- Whitehall is planning new small nuclear power plants in Cumbria and Wales
- Britain’s eight large-scale nuclear power plants are reaching their end of life
- Plans to build a new generation of large-scale nuclear power stations are stalled
- Officials hope these smaller power stations will be able to plug the potential gap
Daily Mail, By NEIL CRAVEN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY 19 January 2020 | The first of a new generation of revolutionary mini nuclear power stations is to be built in the North of England and North Wales by a consortium led by Rolls-Royce, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
A number of existing licensed nuclear sites have already been informally discussed within Whitehall.
The sites under consideration include Moorside in Cumbria and Wylfa in North Wales, where plans for future large-scale reactor projects have recently been shelved/
Britain’s eight large-scale nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their collective lifespan, with most due to close by the end of the decade.
It will be followed by up to 16 more mini reactors at other sites, with plans for all to be producing electricity.
It is understood that other locations being considered include Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia, North Wales…….
The pre-fabricated modules would then be transported to sites for construction. Officials have cautioned, though, that there could be public opposition in some areas to a nuclear facility being built nearby. ……..
Work at Wylfa by nuclear developer Horizon, owned by Japanese firm Hitachi, was suspended a year ago amid rising costs. Only months before, plans for a new nuclear power station at Moorside were scrapped after the Japanese giant Toshiba announced it was winding up the project.
A joint investment of £500 million between the Government and the Rolls-Royce consortium was proposed last summer. An initial award from the Government of £18 million was signed off in November, which the consortium will match.
One nuclear industry source said: ‘There is broad support for this programme from Government.’ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7903495/New-Rolls-Royce-mini-nuclear-power-stations-built-North.html
V4 group and Austria disagree on nuclear power
“We want to live in a diverse Europe,” that is yet unified when it comes to the main goals, said Kurz after meeting Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on Tuesday (12 January).
Kurz emphasised that the V4 as a group are the second most important partner for Austria after Germany, but admitted that his country, a net contributor to the bloc’s budget, has a different point of view from the Visegrád partners when it comes to the distribution of European funds.
In the context of talks on the future EU budget for 2021-2027, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are members of the so-called ‘Friends of cohesion’ group, while Austria and other rich countries are members of the so-called group of “frugal” countries.
“It is very important for Austria not to support nuclear energy but the funds should be allocated on development of renewable energy sources,” said Kurz.
discuss migration, border security, competitiveness, enlargement and climate. The newly appointed Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz, also in attendance, said he wanted to “fight” the “gaps” between Western and Eastern Europe.
“We want to live in a diverse Europe,” that is yet unified when it comes to the main goals, said Kurz after meeting Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on Tuesday (12 January).
Kurz emphasised that the V4 as a group are the second most important partner for Austria after Germany, but admitted that his country, a net contributor to the bloc’s budget, has a different point of view from the Visegrád partners when it comes to the distribution of European funds.
In the context of talks on the future EU budget for 2021-2027, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are members of the so-called ‘Friends of cohesion’ group, while Austria and other rich countries are members of the so-called group of “frugal” countries.
“It is very important for Austria not to support nuclear energy but the funds should be allocated on development of renewable energy sources,” said Kurz.
Hungarians and Slovaks are currently building new reactors to enlarge their existing power plants, a sore spot for the Austrian government that has previously pledged to fight the construction of new nuclear facilities in neighbouring countries “with all available political and legal means.” …… https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/austria-and-v4-agree-on-everything-but-nuclear/
The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs
|
The B-52 Will No Longer Carry Certain Nuclear Weapons. Here’s Why, 18 Jan 2020, Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk
The B-52 Stratofortress will no longer carry the B61-7 and B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs as it prepares to carry the new long-range standoff weapon, known as LRSO. Following reports that the bomb variants had been removed from the Cold War-era aircraft’s inventory, officials at Air Force Global Strike Command confirmed the move is in line with the bomber’s transition into an era of modern warfare………. …….. Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, first pointed out the change, which went into effect in September, according to Air Force Instruction 91-111, “Safety Rules for U.S. Strategic Bomber Aircraft.”
“It’s official: B-52 bombers are no longer authorized to carry nuclear gravity bombs,” Kristensen said in a tweet earlier this week. “New Air Force instruction describes ‘removal of B61-7 and B83-1 from B-52H approved weapons configuration.'” Command officials pointed out that the move actually preceded the AFI. “The removal of nuclear gravity weapons like the B-61 and B-83 from the B-52 platform has been in effect for several years,” said Justin Oakes, public affairs director for the Eighth Air Force and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center. “The B-52 remains the premier stand-off weapons platform utilizing the air-launched cruise missile as the main nuclear deterrent. While B61s and B83s are no longer equipped on the B-52, the weapons remain in the [B-2 Spirit] inventory,” he added. Eventually, the LRSO — a nuclear cruise missile that provides an air-launched capability as part of the nuclear triad — will replace the AGM-86B ALCM, developed in the early 1980s. The command said the LRSO, expected by the early 2030s, is one of many investments to keep the B-52, known as the Big Ugly Fat Fellow, flying into the foreseeable future……..https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/18/b-52-will-no-longer-carry-certain-nuclear-weapons-heres-why.html |
|
A new law in USA pushes regulators to approve new nuclear reactor plans
- NRC taking steps toward regulatory path for advanced reactors
- Barrasso says nuclear industry shrinking
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects its first application for a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors in a few weeks, as it works to implement a 2019 law meant to spur such technologies, agency officials told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Wednesday.
The 2019 law, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (P. Law 115-439), introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and signed by President Donald Trump in 2019, was cosponsored by the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), and seven other Democrats…….(subscribers only) https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/regulators-urged-to-spur-advanced-nuclear-power-under-new-law
California fights NASA over toxic Santa Susana nuclear site
California, NASA Clash Over Cleanup at Nuclear, Rocket Site, https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-nasa-clash-over-cleanup-at-nuclear-rocket-site
- California says the space agency is not adhering to past agreements
- NASA needs to redraft a cleanup plan, toxics agency says
California’s toxics agency is opposing a revised NASA cleanup plan to remove contamination at a former rocket and energy research site where a partial meltdown happened decades ago, calling the federal agency’s proposal irregular, infeasible, and legally deficient.
It’s the latest fight in a long tussle over the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a 2,850-acre site in Simi Valley near Los Angeles, where an estimated 17,000 rockets engine tests occurred. The lab, which operated from 1948 to 2006, was also home to 10 nuclear reactors where the Energy Department and what is now the Boeing Co. did energy research.
The site experienced a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959, but evidence wasn’t revealed until 20 years later. Cleanup work has been ongoing since the 1960s.
Cesium-137
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration agreed to a consent order in 2010 with the state Department of Toxic Substances Control requiring soil remediation of the site, which was contaminated with 16 radiologicals like cesium-137, and 116 chemicals.
A final environmental review was completed in 2014, but the space agency issued a separate draft cleanup plan in October based on new data showing more contamination.
The draft plan provides options for how much soil would be excavated. One option, the one that reflects the agreement in original administrative order on consent with the state, calls for excavating 870,000 cubic yards, an increase from the 500,000 cubic yards estimated in the 2014 plan to meet the standard agreed upon with the state. The other options call for removing lesser amounts, down to 176,500 cubic yards. The plan also considers a no-action alternative.
NASA said in the draft supplemental environmental impact statement that it hasn’t chosen a preferred option yet.
In a letter sent to NASA Jan. 8, the Department of Toxic Substances Control asked the space agency to revise its cleanup plans to reflect the original administrative order on consent, known as an AOC.
State Agency Rejects Other Options
“NASA must also be aware that DTSC is not open to considering NASA cleanup alternatives which are non-compliant with the AOC,” the letter said. “DTSC also will not renegotiate the binding AOC soil cleanup commitments to accommodate challenges NASA claims will be posed by the [Santa Susana Field Laboratory] cleanup implementation.”
The letter criticized some of NASA’s options as irregular because they called for decreased cleanup when contamination had ncreased. It called excavating less contaminated soil than called for in the 2010 agreement infeasible.
“NASA has failed to provide a rational explanation or data to support the [DSEIS] irregularities and unexplained reversal,” DTSC wrote, calling the plan “legally deficient.”
In its draft cleanup plan, NASA said it would be hard to find adequate backfill to support vegetation in areas that were excavated.
A NASA spokeswoman said Jan. 14 that the agency was reviewing comments made about the draft plan and valued input from all stakeholders.
“NASA is eager to work with DTSC and the community to implement a cleanup that is based in science, technically achievable, and is protective of the surrounding community and the natural environment,” Jennifer Stanfield wrote in an email.
NASA didn’t immediately respond to a question about other cleanup sites where revisions to agreements were being sought. DTSC couldn’t immediately say if the space agency had sought changes at other state cleanup sites.
Groups Back Cleanup Agreement
Community, environmental, and justice groups say the 2010 plan reached with the state is adequate and that NASA has no authority to decide how much contamination it must remove.
New estimates pointing to more contamination than previously thought also mean NASA should redouble cleanup efforts, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, and Committee to Bridge the Gap said in a comment letter to NASA about its draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS).
“The decision by the Trump Administration NASA to issue this DSEIS sets the stage for abandoning huge amounts of chemically hazardous material and would consign this important land in Southern California, set in the midst of millions of California residents, to never be cleaned up,” the groups wrote.
The new plan wasn’t a surprise. A NASA inspector general report issued in March said the cleanup would take too long and would be too costly and stringent. The Department of Energy is also seeking to reduce its cleanup obligations.
For its part, the toxics agency plans to issue a final environmental impact report this summer that “fully complies with and implements” the 2010 agreement, DTSC spokesman Russ Edmondson said in an email.
To contact the reporter on this story: Emily C. Dooley at edooley@bloombergenvironment.com, To contact the editors responsible for this story: Gregory Henderson at ghenderson@bloombergenvironment.com; Sylvia Carignan at scarignan@bloombergenvironment.com; Renee Schoof at rschoof@bloombergenvironment.com
Legal action against Orano’s lying advertising about nuclear power solving climate change
Reporterre 16th Jan 2020 The Sortir du nuclear network is filing a complaint against an Orano advertising campaign, which presents nuclear energy as a solution against climate change. A false statement intended to boost investments in a declining sector, denounces the association.
https://reporterre.net/Le-nucleaire-bon-pour-le-climat-Orano-poursuivi-pour-publicite-mensongere
No chance of re-using spent mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, its storage highly dangerous
|
Mainichi 15th Jan 2020, There are no prospects that spent mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, made by reprocessing spent nuclear material, can be further reprocessed and reused for nuclear power generation in accordance with the Japanese government’s energy policy.
Storing such fuel for a long period has thus raised safety
concerns. The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) has expressed concerns that the storage of spent MOX fuel in the pool over such a long period is highly dangerous. In case of a power blackout, the temperature of the water in the pool could not be maintained at a certain level and it would become unable to cool the fuel just as was the case with the Fukushima nuclear crisis. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200115/p2a/00m/0na/029000c |
|
Nuclear weapons are an existential threat and intertwined with the climate threat
Guardian 16th Jan 2020
Rachel Connolly is right to demand that the Labour leadershipcandidates address the climate crisis (The nuclear button? There really are more pressing issues, Journal, 8 January). But suggesting we remove nuclear weapons from the conversation ignores how intertwined these two existential threats are. Generations of climate scientists have documented that a
nuclear war could cause drastic climatic disturbances and global famine. Last year scientists found that the use of a few hundred weapons (less than 10% of today’s global nuclear arsenals) could nearly stop all rain over India and central China, and reduce global precipitation globally by 15%-30%. It would take over a decade to return to rainfall levels before the nuclear war. Nuclear weapons destroy the climate even when they are not used. Nuclear weapons facilities – not unlike the oil and gas companies
exacerbating the climate crisis – have contaminated land and water around the world with waste that will last far beyond even our grandchildren’s lifetimes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/16/nuclear-weapons-worsen-the-climate-crisis |
|
Japanese High Court rules against nuclear reactor restart
Japan court halts nuclear reactor restart citing volcano, earthquake risks, Channel News Asia. 17 Jan 2020
TOKYO: A Japanese nuclear reactor near a fault line must remain shut because of the risk of its being struck by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, a high court ordered on Friday (Jan 17).
All nuclear power stations were shut down after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident following a catastrophic tsunami, and many remain closed.
The Japanese public has turned against atomic power, despite Prime Minister Shinzo Abe insisting the nation needs nuclear plants to power the world’s third-largest economy, and the court decision was a boost for the country’s anti-nuclear movement.
The move by the Hiroshima High Court reversed a lower court decision in March that would have allowed the reactor at the Ikata nuclear plant in western Japan to resume operations.
The plant’s operator, Shikoku Electric Power, wanted to resume work at the reactor, which had been halted for routine inspections, and said it will appeal the high court’s ruling.
The case was originally lodged by residents of a neighbouring region who complained the utility failed to properly evaluate the risks posed by a local volcano and seismic faultlines……… https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/japan-court-halts-ikata-nuclear-reactor-restart-volcano-quake-12274482
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- 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







