USA’s Pro Nuclear Energy Secretary Moniz announces $82 Million for Nuclear Energy Research
Feds Announce $82 Million for Nuclear Energy Research, Sci Tech Today, 16 June 16 US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has announced $82 million for nuclear energy projects in 28 states……The Idaho-based Snake River Alliance describes itself as Idaho’s nuclear watchdog and clean energy advocate.
“Nuclear waste is certainly a place where we want as much research as possible,” said Wendy Wilson, the group’s interim executive director, about Tuesday’s announcement. “If they put that much money into renewables that are here today, we could have really safe and clean energy.”
Donald Trump, Orlando massacre, and nuclear weapons policy
Trump’s Gun And Nuclear Arms Race: Both Wedge Issues Clinton Could Use To Peel Away Moderate Republicans, Huffington Post, Dave R. Jacobson Co-Authored by Maclen Zilber, 15 June 16 “……Just imagine how the world would be if, on January 20, 2017, billionaire Donald Trump raised his right hand, took the oath of office at his inauguration, and was sworn in as America’s 45th President.
Now visualize how Trump would respond, as President, to a horrific tragedy as the one we witnessed this past weekend at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida……
Given his past comments, Trump’s answer would probably be more guns, bigger guns, “the classiest guns you’ve ever seen.”
Rather than enacting tougher laws to make it more difficult for terrorists, like Mateen, to purchase guns through additional background checks, Trump has made it clear he would like less oversight, not more, on gun purchases. He says the current background checks on the books are sufficient and also supports the use and sale of military grade weaponry, the type of weapons that are necessary to carry out such a large-scale mass shooting.
Trump sees nuclear weapons the same way he sees guns. For both, he believes more is better.
In Trump’s mind, giving more people guns will prevent further acts of carnage. At least that’s what he said after the terror attacks in Paris. Likewise, Trump believes nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and that’s why he’d prefer that more of America’s allies have nukes, rather than not. Giving them these capabilities, Trump suggests, will help to minimize the risk of nuclear war……..
Perhaps what Trump fundamentally misunderstands, is that by allowing more nations to stockpile nuclear arsenals, he will help to spur a domino effect where bordering countries of those nuclear armed nations will feel compelled to build up their own cache of nukes, thus creating a world-wide ripple effect.
……. When it comes to who voters trust to oversee America’s nuclear arsenal, according to a recent May FOX News poll, 49% of registered voters trust Clinton to do a better job of making decisions about using nuclear weapons, compared to 38% for Trump. Some of the nation’s top national security experts, such as Republican and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have criticized Trump’s calls for more nukes around the globe……..
Trump’s failure in response to the Orlando catastrophe coupled with his spine-chilling approach to nukes are both wedge issues that can start to peel away some of the very traits that give him strength, and Hillary Clinton has every moral and political justification to begin hammering away at them. Who knows, Trump is so impulsive and rash that if he begins feeling the heat over these issues, he may well switch his position on them (one could only hope!).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-r-jacobson/trumps-gun–nuclear-arms_b_10457068.html
Japan’s Upper House Election
Upper House Election 2016 / Nuclear power a nonissue for opposition in Fukui, Japan News The Yomiuri Shimbun, 15 June 16 This is the fourth installment of a series.
Reconstruction Minister Tsuyoshi Takagi, 60, from the House of Representatives’ Fukui Constituency No. 2, held a policy briefing meeting on June 5 in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, that was seen as a rally for restarting nuclear power plants.
“We need to set a clear course on issues such as restarting nuclear plants and the future of Monju,” said Fukui Gov. Issei Nishikawa, 71, calling for operations to be resumed at reactors that have been deemed safe.
Joining him on the stage were heads of the municipalities of Tsuruga, Mihama, Oi and Takahama, which all host nuclear power plants. House of Councillors President Masaaki Yamazaki, 74, who is seeking a fifth term representing the Fukui constituency, was also in attendance.
After remarks by the local municipal leaders, Yamazaki asked the crowd for their support in the upcoming upper house election. His policy pamphlets and other materials addressing the issue of nuclear power state, “I promote an optimal energy mix based on safety and local development.”
Tsuruga sits on Wakasa Bay, a stretch of coastline that is home to the fast-breeder reactor Monju and 10 commercial nuclear reactors, not counting those slated for decommissioning. It is called “Nuclear Ginza” after the busy area in Tokyo.
Lawsuits seeking the suspension of operations and other issues have hindered efforts to restart the reactors in the wake of the March 2011 disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
Currently, no reactors are operating in the area……….
In contrast, Tatsuhiro Yokoyama, secretary general of the Fukui branch of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (Rengo), almost never mentions nuclear power in his speeches on the street.
Yokoyama, 51, is supported by the Democratic Party, the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party.
“Lawmakers from the Liberal Democratic Party cannot say no to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I want a Diet that listens to our voices,” he said in a June 8 speech near JR Tsuruga Station.
Yokoyama repeatedly criticized legislation related to national security and Abenomics, but he made no mention of nuclear power…….http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003009889
US Energy Secretary Moniz announces more money for nuclear industry
Feds Announce $82 Million for Nuclear Energy Research abc News, By KEITH RIDLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS BOISE, Idaho — Jun 14, 2016, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has announced $82 million for nuclear energy projects in 28 states as part of the government’s plan to reduce carbon emissions.
Moniz said Tuesday that the 93 research projects will help scientists innovate with nuclear technologies that can eventually enter the commercial market. He made the announcement while 
visiting the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho…..
Much of the money announced Tuesday is heading for universities, about $36 million for 49 university-led projects. Fifteen universities also will receive nearly $6 million for research reactor and infrastructure improvements…….
The funding includes $21 million for joint projects involving the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Environmental Management for nuclear waste immobilization. Collaboration between those two entities is part of Moniz’s plan to combine the Energy Department’s advanced nuclear research and remediation efforts……
The Idaho-based Snake River Alliance describes itself as Idaho’s nuclear watchdog and clean energy advocate.
“Nuclear waste is certainly a place where we want as much research as possible,” said Wendy Wilson, the group’s interim executive director, about Tuesday’s announcement. “If they put that much money into renewables that are here today, we could have really safe and clean energy.”
In Idaho, nuclear waste is a touchy subject involving federal court battles between the state and federal government over concerns the state was becoming a nuclear waste repository.
Currently, research on spent nuclear fuel the Energy Department wants to do at the Idaho National Laboratory is being prevented by a 1995 agreement prohibiting such shipments into Idaho until 900,000 gallons of high-level liquid radioactive waste stored at the site is converted to a solid form and shipped out of the state.
USA Congress Republicans denounce a carbon tax
13 June 2016 by dana1981On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:
The oil industry is scared of a carbon taxExxonMobil officially supports a carbon tax, but the company did not comment on the House Resolution prior to the vote. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, which is a key lobbying group of the oil industry, including ExxonMobil, publicly supported the anti-carbon tax resolution, as did Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suspects that the Resolution itself originated from the oil industry:
Since 2009, ExxonMobil has contributed at least $1.7 million to members of Congress who voted in favor of the resolution, according to an analysis by ClimateTruth.org. There are some indications that GOP leadership pressured House Republicans to vote for the Resolution. They certainly succeeded: of the 8 Republicans who are members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, whose purpose is to craft optimal climate changepolicies, 7 voted for the Resolution. Only Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) withstood the pressure, voting “Present.” Ultimately, 231 of the 246 Republican members of the House (94%) expressed their unwillingness to consider a carbon tax by voting for the Resolution. Why the House Republicans are wrongIt’s odd that not a single House Republican voted against the Resolution, because as long as the revenue is returned to taxpayers (also known as “revenue neutrality”), many conservatives support a carbon tax. This concept is supported by free market, libertarian, and conservative think tanks like the R Street Institute, the Niskanen Center, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI resident scholar Aparna Mathur said of the vote:
Polls show that about half of Republican voters support a carbon tax if revenues are rebated to taxpayers. It’s also supported by the non-partisan grassroots organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), whose advisory board includes Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State, George Shultz. CCL issued a point-by-point response to the carbon tax “pitfalls” listed in the House resolution……..http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html |
Donald Trump’s strange nuclear negotiating ideas
The Trump Files: Donald’s Nuclear Negotiating Fantasy http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-files-donald-trumps-nuclear-negotiating-fantasy
The billionaire was once convinced he could cut a magnificent nuclear weapons deal with the Soviet Union.
MAX J. ROSENTHAL, JUN. 10, 2016 In the 1980s, Donald Trump became a global symbol of wealth and success who wasplanning to build the tallest skyscraper in the world. But the one deal he reallywanted to cut was an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union that would take nuclear missiles off the Cold War’s battlefield. It’s now clear that Trump knowsquite literally nothing about nuclear weapons, but then he fantasized going toe-to-toe with the Russkies at the nuclear bargaining table.
“It’s something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past,” he told the Washington Post in 1984. “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles…I think I know most of it anyway.”
Three years later, growing even more alarmed about Libya and other rogue nations getting the bomb, he told author Ron Rosenbaum that he was indeed working with the Reagan White House on nukes. “I’m dealing at a very high level on this,” he said.
Trump was frightened about the spread of nuclear technology—he seemed at one point during the interview to suggest the United States should bomb France to keep it from selling nuclear know-how—and worried about the deal-making skills of American officials. “They have no smiles, no warmth; there’s no sense of them as people,” Trump complained. “Who the hell wants to talk to them? They don’t have the ability to go into a room and sell a deal. They’re not sellers in the positive sense.”
In the 1980s, Donald Trump became a global symbol of wealth and success who wasplanning to build the tallest skyscraper in the world. But the one deal he reallywanted to cut was an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union that would take nuclear missiles off the Cold War’s battlefield. It’s now clear that Trump knowsquite literally nothing about nuclear weapons, but then he fantasized going toe-to-toe with the Russkies at the nuclear bargaining table.
“It’s something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past,” he told the Washington Post in 1984. “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles…I think I know most of it anyway.”
Three years later, growing even more alarmed about Libya and other rogue nations getting the bomb, he told author Ron Rosenbaum that he was indeed working with the Reagan White House on nukes. “I’m dealing at a very high level on this,” he said.
Trump was frightened about the spread of nuclear technology—he seemed at one point during the interview to suggest the United States should bomb France to keep it from selling nuclear know-how—and worried about the deal-making skills of American officials. “They have no smiles, no warmth; there’s no sense of them as people,” Trump complained. “Who the hell wants to talk to them? They don’t have the ability to go into a room and sell a deal. They’re not sellers in the positive sense.”
“I used to laugh when I thought back on Trump and me in [the 21 Club] talking nukes,” Rosenbaum wrote for Slate this year. “I’m not laughing anymore.”
Sweden’s contradiction – wants 100% renewable energy, AND to save the nuclear industry
Sweden has committed to 100% renewable energy by 2040 – and at the same time ‘saved nuclear power’ http://nordic.businessinsider.com/sweden-is-to-use-100-renewable-energy-by-2040—but-no-expiration-date-has-been-set-for-nuclear-energy-2016-6/
Business Insider Nordic June 10, 2016 the Swedish government coalition together with a couple of the opposition parties presented a new broad agreement for Sweden’s energy consumption.
A date was set for Sweden’s energy production to be 100% renewable, but at the same time the agreement promises better conditions for Sweden’s nuclear power production: lower taxation, new facilites and no expiration date.
The agreement was presented at a press conference at which many of the involved parties emphasized the agreement as progress in the adaptation of renewable energy sources. Amongst other points an ambitious goal was set for 100% of Swedish energy consumption to come from renewable energy sources by 2040, according to Omni.
Such claims did not prevent some of the opposition parties from making the agreement out as a major victory in the dispute over the use of nuclear energy. A major tax on nuclear power was instead scrapped and no expiration date has been set, though one is often called for in the political debate.
According to SVT, Pernilla Gunther, who’s represented the Christian democratic party in the negotiations said, “With these negotiations we’ve achieved the goal of saving nuclear power, both in the long term and short term.”
Swedish nuclear power is a very controversial political topic.
The issue of nuclear power in Sweden is controversial because after the Harrisburg nuclear catastrophe a referendum in 1980 led to the decision that nuclear power should be non-existent in Sweden by 2010. The referendum has been criticized because there was no option to vote for not abolishing nuclear power.
Since then only one facility have been closed, while the Swedish parliament has approved that new facilities may be opened to replace old ones. The new agreement even allows for 10 new facilities to be built.
In this light it is not sursprising that the different parties are highlighting conflicting aspects of an agreement they all stand behind.
The problem seems to be that no sitting government is prepared to commit to abolishing nuclear power any time in the foreseeable future, though it is easy to shout demands and refer to the will of the people when in opposition. There has not been any consensus as to an alternative that is good enough, but with the new agreement perhaps there is hope.
When it comes to wind power, for example, the Liberal party left the discussions because they could not support the subsidies. Similarly the Danish government recently took a step back from the country’s wind power investment, because a ruling by the European Commission that would abolish the subsidy, along with falling prices on other sources is making wind power relatively expensive all of a sudden.
Renewable energy production is progressing, but the plan i svery ambitious.
At the same time, renewable energy production is certainly progressing and doing so according to schedule. Sweden and Norway have a joint scheme for meeting the green energy target of 28.4 terawatt-hours by 2020 and according to Reuters, the countries are set to deliver on track though Norwegian regulators may adjust the renewable quota downwards and while Swedish regulators adjust it upwards.
In any case the target is modest compared with Denmark, which already produces those amounts of renewable energy, with only a third of the population, according to Reuters. Yet Denmark has set the date of relying 100% on renewable energy to 2050. That makes the Swedish agreement saying 2040 seem very ambitious.
Donald Trump Can’t Be Trusted with America’s Nuclear Weapons Codes
Rubio: I Still Believe Trump Can’t Be Trusted with America’s Nuclear Weapons Codes, Weekly Standard JUN 09, 2016 | By JOHN MCCORMACK
During the campaign, Rubio said that Trump was “dangerous” and that we must not hand “the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual.”
Rubio’s comment Thursday afternoon came as Trump’s character and temperament faced a new round of scrutiny following Trump’s racial attack on a federal judge. Rubio condemned Trump’s remarks but did not withdraw his support from the GOP nominee.
Asked if his support for Trump is now unconditional or if it’s possible Trump could do something to lose Rubio’s vote, Rubio declined to discuss the matter. “I don’t have anything new to add from what I’ve already said. I’ve talked about it all week long,” he said…….http://www.weeklystandard.com/rubio-i-still-believe-trump-cant-be-trusted-with-americas-nuclear-weapons-codes/article/2002759
Secure Nuclear Waste Coalition formed to call public to action on San Onofre nuclear waste danger
New group wants action on nuclear waste storage at San Onofre, Orange County Register, eritchie@ocregister.com June 8, 2016 LAGUNA BEACH – Earthquakes, tsunamis or terrorism.
That’s what a newly created group of scientists, medical experts, activists and elected officials from Orange and San Diego counties say pose ominous threats to the more than 10 million people living within a 50-mile radius of the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
“If one of those events happen, the amount of radiation could be 89 times more than what was released at Chernobyl,” said Rita Conn, a spokeswoman for the newly created Secure Nuclear Waste Coalition and chairwoman of Let Laguna Vote, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to government transparency.
On Wednesday, Conn kicked off a Secure Nuclear Waste Coalition educational forum and called the public to action.
Members of the group include Mayor Pam Patterson from San Juan Capistrano; Nina Babiarz of Nuclear Waste Transportation; Charles Langley, executive director of the Public Watchdogs; Robert Pope, a geologist; and Dr. William Honigman.
Panelists told more than 200 people inside a packed Laguna Beach City Council chambers that plans by Southern California Edison to temporarily bury millions of pounds of nuclear waste 42 yards from the ocean at San Onofre State Beach must be stopped.
The experts testified about the dangers the public faces by potential exposure to radiation or radiation leaks. They questioned the lack of security at the shuttered plant. They discussed the potential for it to become a terrorist target.
“There is an obscene level of unpreparedness,” Honigman said. “How do we deal with radiation exposure on a massive level?”
They advocated that Edison move the spent nuclear fuel rods to a temporary storage site in West Texas or New Mexico – an idea being explored by lawmakers and regulators.
They criticized the California Coastal Commission’s approval of a “concrete monolith” to house spent fuel in temporary, dry-cask storage at the site. The contained radioactive material is expected to remain in place until 2049.
“Edison must not be allowed to store the highly radioactive fuel rods in the ‘experimental’ … thin-walled stainless steel canisters that have never been used in the damp marine environment, have no proven track record, no means to support transport and no means to inspect for radiological leaks,” Conn said.
The California Coastal Commission last year approved plans for the temporary burial of the San Onofre nuclear waste – which has been stored in liquid tanks – after political paralysis prevented the federal government from coming up with a permanent burial solution for the nation’s nuclear waste……..http://www.ocregister.com/articles/waste-718742-nuclear-san.html
USA: “NewNuclear” lobbyists want changed regulations and more tax-payer funding
Advanced Nuclear Reactor Framework Needed, Industry Says, Bloomberg BNA From Energy and Climate Report By Rebecca Kern June 8 — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to develop a regulatory framework specifically for advanced nuclear reactors and review applications for them efficiently, vendors that are developing the next-generation nuclear reactors told the agency.
The current regulatory process for all 100 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. is meant for light water reactor technology. Companies developing advanced non-light reactors say the current framework doesn’t apply to their technologies, which are cooled by substances other than water—such as sodium, gas, molten salt and lead…….
Jennifer Uhle, director of NRC’s Office of New Reactors, told Bloomberg BNA June 8 that the NRC can review non-light water reactors under its current light water reactor framework, but it is considering developing a new non-light water reactor framework that would be more efficient. So far the agency hasn’t received any applications for these types of reactors.
The most mature advanced non-light water technologies—sodium-cooled and gas-cooled reactors—are still at least 15 years away from the commercial market, John Kelly, DOE’s deputy assistant secretary for nuclear reactor technologies, told Bloomberg BNA June 8. Other advanced non-light water technologies, such as molten salt reactors, are at least 20 years away from the market, Kelly said.
Need for More DOE Funding
DOE is providing funding for these reactor designs. DOE awarded X-energy and Southern Company Services competitive advanced non-light water grants in January for X-energy’s pebble bed high temperature gas-cooled and Southern’s molten-chloride fast reactor designs.
“DOE funding for industry is definitely needed, alongside funding for test facilities,” Rita Baranwal, director of technology development at Westinghouse Electric Co., said at the workshop.
Additionally, the industry and government need to work together more closely to encourage innovation in advanced reactor designs, Baranwal said. She commended the work DOE has done to establish the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) initiative, which aims to provide the nuclear industry with access to technical, regulatory and financial support to speed the commercialization of new advanced nuclear reactor designs…….
To contact the reporter on this story: Rebecca Kern in Washington atrkern@bna.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl atlpearl@bna.com http://www.bna.com/advanced-nuclear-reactor-n57982073849/
USA Senate race, and assault weapons for nuclear guards
Nuclear power and assault weapons collide in Calif. Senate race http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuclear-power-assault-weapons-collide-in-calif.-senate-race/article/2593457 By JOHN SICILIANO • 6/9/16 What do nuclear power plants, a 2016 Senate race and assault weapons have in common? A lot, actually.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal watchdog overseeing all things nuclear, was forced to step in Wednesday to issue a special exemption for guards to wield assault weapons to keep nuclear power plants secure, after the Democratic nominee in the 2016 California Senate race apparently got in the way.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the commission stepped in after California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to extend the assault weapons exemption when taking over from her predecessor.
Harris is running for the open California spot in the U.S. Senate, taking over from environmental stalwart Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is retiring at the end of the year.
The plants affected by the order would include two in California owned by Southern California Edison, one of which has been closed and the other the last operating plant in the Golden State. The commission also allowed special weapons to be used at plants in New York.
“The lack of a written exemption from the current California Attorney General prevents the licensee’s security personnel from having access to firearms and devices needed to implement the licensee’s protective strategy at [the power plants], since firearms dealers are not willing to honor the [previous AG’s] 2004 exemption letter,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated in its order.
The assault weapons exemption is required to protect the closed plant, specifically because of all the radioactive waste being stored there. The waste cannot be moved because of a lack of a centralized nuclear waste repository.
The Times said a spokesman for Harris did not immediately respond to questions about why the attorney general was unwilling to extend the 2004 firearms exemption.
Harris won the California primary on Tuesday, beating out her Democratic challengers. Boxer, who Harris would replace if she wins in the November general election, is the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Commmittee that oversees the NRC and the nuclear power plant fleet.
Boxer has been opposed to keeping nuclear power plants open in the wake of the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, Japan, and succeeded in shutting down the San Onofre power plant in her state
EPA PROPOSES SHOCKING THOUSAND-FOLD INCREASE IN RADIOACTIVITY ALLOWED IN DRINKING WATER
From Diane D’Arrigo at NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service)
Note that the public has 45 days from when it is published in the Federal Register to comment to the EPA on the PAG-Protective Action Guides. I’ll post an alert tomorrow. This is a media release below. Feel free to send it to interested reporters. Direct them to the press contacts listed at the top of the release. Thanks! – Kay C.
Proposal Would Permit Radiation Exposures Equivalent to 250 Chest X-Rays a Year
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the U.S. EPA quietly issued proposals to allow radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year. Today, environmental groups called the proposal “shocking” and “egregious.”
The EPA proposed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) would allow the general population to drink water hundreds to thousands of times more radioactive than is now legal. For example, radioactive iodine-131 has a current limit of 3 pico-curies per liter (pCi/L), in water but the new guidance would allow 10,350 (pCi/L), 3,450 times higher. For strontium-90, which causes leukemia, the current limit is 8 pCi/L; the new proposed value is 7,400 pCi/L, a 925-fold increase.
“Clean Water is essential for health. Just like lead, radiation when ingested in small amounts is very hazardous to our health. It is inconceivable that EPA could now quietly propose allowing enormous increases in radioactive contamination with no action to protect the public, even if concentrations are a thousand times higher than under the Safe Drinking Water Act,” said Dr. Catherine Thomasson, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The Bush Administration in its last days unsuccessfully tried to put forward similar proposals, which the incoming Obama Administration pulled back. Now, in the waning months of the Obama Administration, EPA’s radiation office is trying again.
“These levels are even higher than those proposed by the Bush Administration—really unprecedented and shocking,” said Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Continue reading
America’s EPA lifting the level of radioactivity permitted in drinking water
EPA Pushing Hike in Radioactive Contamination in Drinking Water http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/epa-pushing-hike-in-drinking-water-radioactivity/ By Editor June 7th, 2016
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled a plan allowing radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than the levels permitted by the Safe Drinking Water Act for long periods following release of nuclear materials.
The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year for the general population for an unlimited time period.
EPA’s “Protective Action Guides” (or PAGs) dramatically relax allowable doses of radioactive material in public drinking water following a Fukushima-type meltdown or “dirty bomb” attack.
They cover the “intermediate phase” after “releases have been brought under control” – an unspecified period that may last for weeks, months or even years.
The agency has declared that the strict limits for chemical exposure in the Safe Drinking Water Act “may not be appropriate…during a radiation incident.”
EPA states that it “expects that the responsible party…will take action to return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels as soon as practicable” but during the indefinite meantime –
The general population may be exposed to radioactive iodine-131 at 10,350 pico-curies per liter of water.
By contrast, the current limit is 3, resulting in a 3,450-times increase; The current strontium-90 limit of 8 pico-curies per liter would be allowed a 925-fold increase; and
In an attempt to shield “sensitive populations,” the plan proposes 500 millirem per year for the general population but only 100 millirem for children under 15, pregnant or nursing mothers without explaining how these latter groups will get access to less contaminated water.
“Given this monstrous proposal, it unclear what lessons EPA learned from the contaminated water calamity of Flint, Michigan,” said. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) executive director Jeff Ruch. “It is unfathomable that a public health agency would prescribe subjecting people to radioactive concentrations a thousand times above Safe Drinking Water Act limits as a ‘protective’ measure.”
Internal EPA documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by PEER show that EPA itself concluded that proposed concentrations “would exceed MCLs [Maximum Contaminant Limits of the Safe Drinking Water Act] by a factor of 100, 1000, and in two instances, 7 million.”
The internal analysis estimated for one radionuclide that drinking only one small glass of water “would result in an exposure that corresponds to a lifetime of drinking liters of water per day at the MCL level.”
The Bush Administration in its last days unsuccessfully tried to put forward similar proposals, which the incoming Obama Administration pulled back.
Now, in the waning months of the Obama Administration, those plans are moving forward with new exposure limits higher than the Bush plan it had rejected.
“President Obama goes to Hiroshima to urge a nuclear-free world while his EPA facilitates a nuclear-ridden water supply,” added Ruch. “It speaks volumes that the current Obama drinking water plan is less protective than his predecessor’s.”
Lack of trust in USA govt’s plans for nuclear waste storage
“You would probably need a referendum where citizens can actually vote to embrace a repository in their community,” Raab said. “The vote would have to be closer to 100 percent than a simple majority.”
Nuclear waste storage plan a matter of trust http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160606/NEWS/160609636
BOSTON — Can federal energy officials be trusted to put together an interim storage plan for nuclear waste that provides adequate protection for the population and the environment?
That question was repeatedly asked by those who attended last week’s Boston forum organized by the Department of Energy to get public input on its plan for “consent-based siting” of facilities to temporarily store the 75,000 metric tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors until a permanent repository is built.
Exelon wants license to operate nuclear plant for 80 years
Exelon Will Seek License to Run Nuclear Plant for 80 Years http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/exelon-said-to-seek-license-to-run-nuclear-plant-for-80-years Mark Chediak Jonathan Crawford June 7, 2016
-
Exelon wants 20-year license extension for Peach Bottom site
-
Dominion said it will file similar request for Virginia plant
-
Exelon Corp. said it will seek to extend the operating life of a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania by another 20 years, joining Dominion Resources Inc. in requesting permission to run atomic generators for as long as 80 years.
Exelon will ask federal regulators for approval to renew the licenses of the two reactors at its Peach Bottom facility, the Chicago-based power generator said Tuesday in a statement. An extension would help the state meet its carbon-reduction goals under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, Chief Executive Officer Chris Crane said.
Should the commission approve Exelon’s request, the Peach Bottom nuclear station would be among the first U.S. reactors allowed to run beyond 60 years. Dominion said last year that it would seek approval to keep the Surry nuclear power plant in Virginia online until it’s 80 years old.
- The requests come at a pivotal time for the U.S. nuclear power industry as some operators including Exelon have announced plans to retire plants early because of financial losses. Competition from generators using cheap natural gas and renewable resources such as solar and wind have squeezed the profits of reactor owners, particularly those who sell their supply into wholesale power markets.
‘Renewal Program’
Exelon had issued a statement on Monday saying that Crane would join officials including Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chair Gladys Brown at the Peach Bottom station for an announcement on Tuesday “concerning the Station’s license renewal program.”
The two operating reactors at the Peach Bottom plant are licensed to operate through 2033 and 2034, according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission data. Exelon will seek federal permission for licenses that extend to 2053 and 2054, the company said. Exelon’s reactors received their original operating licenses in 1973 and 1974, according to the commission.
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (152)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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 