nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

‘Bringing calm and hope’: President Carter’s role at Three Mile Island

As plans continue to recommission the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to reflect on the actions of the late President Jimmy Carter following the accident which occured at the plant 46 years ago today.

The Three Mile Island accident is considered the worst in the history of the United States nuclear industry. On this date in 1979, the Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2) suffered a partial meltdown as a consequence of equipment failure and operator error. The reactor lost cooling water, exposing the core which led to the release of some radioactive gas.

The United States was at that time at least fortunate in having in President Carter a head of state with knowledge of nuclear fission and a history of responding calmly in a nuclear crisis.

28th March 2025

‘Bringing calm and hope’: President Carter’s role at Three Mile Island

As plans continue to recommission the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to reflect on the actions of the late President Jimmy Carter following the accident which occured at the plant 46 years ago today.

The Three Mile Island accident is considered the worst in the history of the United States nuclear industry. On this date in 1979, the Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2) suffered a partial meltdown as a consequence of equipment failure and operator error. The reactor lost cooling water, exposing the core which led to the release of some radioactive gas.

The United States was at that time at least fortunate in having in President Carter a head of state with knowledge of nuclear fission and a history of responding calmly in a nuclear crisis.

In October 2024, on the former President becoming a centenarian, the NFLAs sent him our warm birthday wishes but used the occasion to highlight President Carter’s past as a nuclear engineer and his brave, though largely unknown, contribution repairing a reactor in Canada following a serious nuclear accident.

As a young US Navy Lieutenant, Jimmy Carter had graduated in engineering and taken courses in nuclear technology. After training, he became part of the nuclear submarine service. As one of only a few officers authorised to enter a nuclear reactor, Carter led a contingent of 22 fellow submariners in dismantling and repairing a badly damaged reactor following an accident at the Chalk River plant in Canada in 1952. Each team member was in turn lowered into the reactor to work for no more than ninety seconds. Carter took his turn, receiving in this short time the full dose of radiation permitted for a full year and therefore joked that for six months his urine when regularly tested was found to be radioactive! [i]

Only four days after the Three Mile Island disaster, President Carter visited the plant bringing ‘calm and hope to central Pennsylvanians in the wake of the most serious accident at a commercial nuclear plant in U.S. history.’[ii]  Donning distinctive yellow boots, the President toured the control room in the damaged plant, accompanied by Harold Denton, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Dick Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania.

After being elected in 1977, President Carter had established a new Department of Energy, in part to seek more nuclear power as “an energy source of last resort” to lessen the United States’ reliance on foreign oil. However, in his short speech following his visit to the striken nuclear plant on April 1, the President recognised the technology’s shortcomings promising to initiate a ‘thorough inquiry’ into the circumstances that led to the accident and make the results public; this would help make plain “the status of nuclear safety in the future”.

Local officials at the time said Carter’s visit helped to dispel immediate panic and boost morale amongst people living near the plant, but, subsequently, public disquiet manifested after perceptions of a partial cover-up by nuclear industry officials and regulators. In response six inquiries were established at federal, state and local level, and other specialist government agencies also initiated investigations into the accident. This clearly represented an uncoordinated and duplicated effort and, true to his word, the President appointed John Kemeny, president of Dartmouth College, to lead a President’s Commission on the accident.

The Kemeny Commission did not take a stance on nuclear power’s future; instead in its report[iii], the Commission lambasted the lax attitude that had permeated the nuclear industry in the years before the accident. For its egregious deficiencies, the principal finger was pointed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for regulating the nuclear power industry. This was charged as being so dysfunctional that its five-member panel should be abolished and restructured as an independent agency in the executive branch.

The NRC had morphed only five years earlier from the Atomic Energy Commission. Ironically Carter had worked with the AEC as a young naval officer, but the AEC was responsible for both nuclear promotion and regulation, with many staff having industry sympathies and connections; consequently, it left the industry largely unfettered in its operations. Recognising this unfortunate conflict in its dual role, the US Congress in 1974 split the AEC, creating the NRC to oversee the role of regulation. However, many of the AEC’s staff moved across so little changed.

In 1975, the new agency published the Rasmussen Report, which downplayed the risk of any nuclear accident, stating that people and property would only suffer minimally. This complacency was attacked by the Kemeny Commission, which found that the agency overlooked small, and more subtle, industry failures, the sort of shortcomings that ultimately led to the disaster at Three Mile Island.

On the publication of the Commission’s report, President Carter made a commitment to implement “almost all” of the recommendations and set out a series of actions that he expected agencies of the Federal Government and the industry to carry out to would implement the findings and outlined a series of actions to “ensure that nuclear power plants are operated safely”. Fortunately, most people in Washington recognised that action needed to be taken and even the NRC acknowledged that the Commission’s recommendations were ‘necessary and feasible’.

Although its five-member board was not abolished, after the accident, Carter replaced the NRC Chairman and ensured that his successor was granted increased Congressional authority in accordance with his personal wishes. The NRC budget was also significantly increased and, within ten years, many of the Kemeny Commission’s recommendations had been implemented to make the NRC more effective in a regulatory role.

The Three Mile Island accident had a significant impact on the fortunes of the US nuclear industry. According to the US Energy Information Administration, plans for 67 new nuclear power plants were cancelled between 1979 and 1988.


The Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2) never restarted after the accident with the Utah-based company Energy Solutions being commissioned with cleaning up the site. The Unit 1 reactor (TMI-1) continued power generation until September 20, 2019, when it was shut down because it became economically uncompetitive to generate electricity at the plant against other energy sources such as natural gas.

Ironically there are now plans to restart generation at the plant, this time backed by a deal to supply electricity to Microsoft to power data centres.

President Carter’s speech following his visit to the plant: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/middletown-pennsylvania-remarks-reporters-following-visit-the-three-mile-island-nuclear

…………………………………………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/bringing-calm-and-hope-president-carters-role-at-three-mile-island/

April 1, 2025 Posted by | history, PERSONAL STORIES, USA | Leave a comment

Resistance to nuke dump grows in South Copeland


 NFLA 31st March 2025

Kirksanton and Bankhead residents in the South Copeland GDF Search Area will be heartened by the support of Millom Town Councillors who approved a motion at their 26 March meeting to ‘reject the area of focus as being beneficial to Bank Head’.

In January, Nuclear Waste Services announced that a site surrounding the prison West of Haverigg was its ‘Area of Focus’, the preferred inland site for a Geological Disposal Facility, a deep repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste. This site borders the village of Kirksanton and the Bank Head housing estate.

The Council also agreed to a request that a public meeting be held to examine the ‘positives and negatives’ of bringing the GDF to the area. In September 2023, a Community Forum attended by the public and organised by the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership drew up an initial list.  In response to this NWS promised to commission an ‘impacts report’ from an independent consultant, but this has never materialised.

Councillors also agreed to send a letter of complaint to NWS about the size of the Area of Focus and how the announcement has impacted house sales and affected residents of the area.  At the meeting, the Chair conceded that, after speaking to estate agents, he believed the area to be ‘blighted’. Since the announcement, one house sale in nearby Silecroft has fallen through and a house owner in Bank Head has been forced to significantly reduce their asking price in make a sale.

Jan Bridget, who co-founded Millom and District against the GDF in 2022, was delighted at the level of attendance from the public and at the outcome:

“Well, what can I say, we have won a battle but not the war.  And I am thrilled that around  40 people turned up at the Millom Town Council meeting, demonstrating that Bank Head and Kirksanton are not willing communities”. 

Millom and District Against the Nuclear Dump organised a meeting of Bank Head residents to meet their local councillors from Cumberland and Millom Town Councils in February. Thirty-nine people attended the meeting, most from the Bank Head estate.  Residents asked the councillors for their help after sharing their very moving concerns.

We reported on this meeting:…………………………………..
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/resistance-to-nuke-dump-grows-in-south-copeland/

April 1, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste centre delayed

Nuclear center must replace roof on 70-year-old lab so it can process radioactive waste.

Project sees 7-year delay and budget swell to £1.5B, but nuclear leadership ‘confident’ it has an alternative

Lindsay Clark, 28 Mar 25, The Register 

The center of the UK’s nuclear industry has agreed on alternatives for how it will process waste into the next decade after delays and overspending hit a lab project.

In the face of a 2028 deadline to put facilities in place to treat and repackage plutonium, Sellafield paused a delayed project to build a replacement for its 70-year-old analytical lab.

Speaking to MPs last week, Euan Hutton, CEO of Sellafield Ltd, said he was “confident” in an alternative that involves refurbishing its old lab and borrowing facilities from another onsite lab.

This comes after the go live date for its Replacement Analytical Project (RAP) was delayed from 2028 until at least 2034 and costs ballooned to £1.5 billion ($1.93 billion).

The center of the UK’s nuclear industry has agreed on alternatives for how it will process waste into the next decade after delays and overspending hit a lab project.

In the face of a 2028 deadline to put facilities in place to treat and repackage plutonium, Sellafield paused a delayed project to build a replacement for its 70-year-old analytical lab.

Speaking to MPs last week, Euan Hutton, CEO of Sellafield Ltd, said he was “confident” in an alternative that involves refurbishing its old lab and borrowing facilities from another onsite lab.

This comes after the go live date for its Replacement Analytical Project (RAP) was delayed from 2028 until at least 2034 and costs ballooned to £1.5 billion ($1.93 billion).

Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, has been the center of the UK’s nuclear industry since the 1950s. While the site is home to a number of companies, and the government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Sellafield Limited is a British nuclear decommissioning Site Licence Company controlled by the NDA.

In October last year, the UK’s public spending watchdog said Sellafield depends on an on-site laboratory that is “over 70 years old, does not meet modern construction standards and is in extremely poor (and deteriorating) condition.”

The National Audit Office said [PDF] the laboratory is “not technically capable of carrying out the analysis required to commission the Sellafield Product and Residue Store Retreatment Plant (SRP)” to treat and repackage plutonium.

Sellafield’s plan in 2016 was to convert a 25-year-old laboratory on the site, to replace the 70 year-old lab, under the “Replacement Analytical Project.” The outline business case was approved in 2019 with an estimated cost of between £486 million and £1 billion ($626 million – $1.3 billion).

However, that project was “strategically paused” in February 2024 after it emerged Sellafield believed it could take until December 2034 to deliver the full capability, while cost could reach £1.5 billion ($1.93 billion).

Speaking to Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee last week, Hutton said: “Fundamentally, around December 2023, there was an incoherence that came out between the availability of the analytical services and when I needed to have those available for the plutonium repack plant…………………………………………
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/28/uk_nuclear_center_waste_project_delayed/

April 1, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Disappointing but predictable: Government minister’s reply on nuke treaty

 In February 2025, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities was a
signatory alongside academics and peace campaigners to a letter drafted by
the United Nations Association UK (UNAUK) that was sent to Prime Minister
Sir Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

NFLA Chair Cllr Lawrence O’Neill and NFLA Secretary Richard Outram co-signed for the
NFLAs as did signatories from twenty-five other organisations, including
community advocates from Kiribati, an island nation impacted by British
nuclear weapons testing carried out in the 1950’s and by the United
States in 1962.

As the islanders were not evacuated both they and the
participating servicemen were impacted by radiation. The letter called on
the UK Government to send an observer to the 3rd Meeting of States Parties
(3MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which was
held in New York until 7 March. The UK Government did not take up this
opportunity.

 NFLA 29th May 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/A434-NB320-Disappointing-but-predictable-Government-ministers-reply-on-nuke-treaty-ban.-May-2025.pdf

April 1, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

‘Greedy landlords are cashing in and forcing us out of town’.

 The construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk
coast is a key part of the government’s growth programme. But some locals
fear being forced out, accusing landlords of cashing in on a jobs boom by
evicting tenants and raising rents to unaffordable levels. The plant is due
to open in 2031, and although a final investment decision has not yet been
made, groundwork is already well under way.

The construction project will
require a predicted workforce of 7,900, of which about two-thirds will be
from outside the area. About 2,400 workers will be based on site with 500
others living at the former Pontins holiday park at Pakefield, near
Lowestoft. The remaining contractors, however, will have to move into
properties in or around the town of Leiston – population 5,508 – where some
rents have doubled to more than £3,000 a month.

 BBC 31st March 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce98ljn1gzno

April 1, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment