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
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 |
|
Japanese Only Operational Nuclear Reactor Shut
Japanese Only Operational Nuclear Reactor Shut, Increasing Fuel Costs, By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com A Japanese high court has ordered local utility Shikoku Electric Power Company to continue idling its only operational nuclear reactor until the company provides a satisfactory proof that the reactor is safe.The extended shutdown of the nuclear reactor would lead to higher fuel costs for the Japanese utility.
Shikoku Electric Power’s only operational reactor at the Ikata nuclear plant in western Japan was taken offline at the end of December for regular maintenance. The utility planned to restart the reactor within two months, but the Hiroshima High Court has just ruled that the utility had not provided sufficient guarantees that the reactor would be safe in case of earthquakes or volcano eruptions……..
Public opposition to nuclear energy is creating uncertainty about how much nuclear generation capacity Japan will restore.
Japan spent an additional annual average of around US$30 billion for fossil fuel imports in the three years after the Fukushima accident, according to EIA estimates.
The country is also looking at alternative energy sources, including hydrogen, in order to reduce its fossil fuels import bill as the future of many of its nuclear reactors is still uncertain. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Japanese-Only-Operational-Nuclear-Reactor-Shut-Increasing-Fuel-Costs.html
Nuclear reactors for the gulf region could be an even worse threat than global heating
|
Could UAE nuclear reactors imperil the Gulf? https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/uae-nuclear-reactors-imperil-gulf-200117180846816.html
Reactor due to come online in March could elevate risk of an arms race and environmental catastrophe, says analyst. When it comes to safeguarding the wellbeing of planet Earth, fossil fuels are an increasingly controversial energy source. Nuclear is arguably more so, given the experience of Chernobyl and the potential to convert civilian nuclear technology to military uses. Those risks become even more ominous when a nuclear power plant is introduced into a tinderbox of geopolitical rivalries like the Arabian Peninsula. But that’s where the region is headed. This week, the world learned that after years of delays, the United Arab Emirates is set to bring the first of four nuclear reactors in the Al Dhafra Region of Abu Dhabi online by the end of March. The UAE’s nuclear power plant is named Barakah – Arabic for “divine blessing”. That is how UAE Minister of State Sultan bin Ahmad Sultan Al Jaber spun it at the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week conference, telling reporters earlier this week “we will become the first country in the region to deliver safe, commercial and peaceful nuclear power”. But some nuclear experts are not so sanguine, and are warning of the potential curse that could be unleashed by Barakah, from a nuclear arms race to environmental catastrophe. ‘Significant questions’ about relative safetyA recent report by Paul Dorfman, chair of the non-profit Nuclear Consulting Group, titled Gulf Nuclear Ambition: New Reactors in the United Arab Emirates, highlights myriad risks inherent in Barakah’s design. Among the most prominent red flags is the firm that won the contract to build Barakah – Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), which clinched the deal with a bid that was “spectacularly low, about 30% lower than the next cheapest bid,” the report says. That bargain-basement price was made possible, the report notes, thanks to a lack of “key improved safety design features” normally expected on new European reactors but missing from those built by KEPCO. Such features include a so-called “core catcher” to prevent the nuclear reactor core from breaching the containment building in the event of a meltdown and other defences to guard against a significant radiation release in the event of an accident or deliberate attack on the facility. Further compounding these omissions, says the report, is “the discovery of cracking in all 4 reactor containment buildings” and the installation of faulty valves – all of which cast doubt over the UAE’s ability to provide “adequate nuclear regulation”. The UAE is the only country that has purchased a KEPCO reactor. But if it proves unable to contain radioactive fallout resulting from an accident or attack, this won’t just be a problem for the Emirates. Radioactive fallout travels, and the UAE’s neighbours are already voicing concerns. In March, Qatar’s foreign affairs ministry reportedly sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that a radioactive plume from an accidental discharge could reach its capital, Doha, within five to 13 hours – and a radiation leak could devastate the Gulf’s water supply due to the region’s heavy reliance on desalination plants. Regional tensions and broader security issuesDespite the UAE’s insistence that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, concerns about the potential for proliferation abound given the geopolitical rifts between neighbouring Gulf countries and the recent ratcheting up of tensions in the Middle East. This month, fears of a military escalation engulfing the Middle East were heightened after the United States assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in an air attack and Tehran retaliated with missile attacks on US airbases in Iraq. Qatar is currently the subject of an ongoing diplomatic, trade and transport blockade by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt over allegations that Doha supports “terrorism” and is too close to Iran. Qatar has rejected such claims. In September, a drone attack on Saudi Aramco’s oil facilities raised serious concerns about the vulnerability of the region’s energy infrastructure to assaults. “As recent military strikes against Saudi oil refineries infer, nuclear safety revolves around the broader issue of security,” notes Dorfman in his report, “especially since belligerent armed groups may view UAE military operations as a reason to target nuclear installations or intercept enriched uranium fuel or waste transfers nationally or regionally.” Such warnings have not deterred the UAE from pressing ahead and sticking to the script. Abu Dhabi continues to say its nuclear programme is grounded in transparency, safety, security, sustainability and international cooperation. The region can only hope those principals are enforced as the Arabian Peninsula is pulled across the nuclear threshold. |
|
|
Over 32,000 potassium iodide pills ordered in 2 days after Pickering nuclear power plant alert error
|
Typically, between 100 and 200 orders are placed per month, CBC News · January 15 Tens of thousands of people have placed orders for free potassium iodide pills in the days following a false alert from the province about an incident at a nuclear plant in Pickering, Ont. Sunday’s alert, which was sent to mobile phones across Ontario, shocked those within a 10-kilometre radius of the Durham Region plant and even those living farther away. About an hour after the 7:24 a.m. ET alert, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the plant’s operator, tweeted without explanation that the warning “was sent in error.” The Ontario government also later acknowledged the mistake, blaming human error, and issued an apology. Although the mistake left some people fuming, others stepped up their planning for a real emergency. Between Sunday morning and Monday afternoon, 32,388 orders were placed for potassium iodide tablets through Durham Region’s Prepare To Be Safe website, which is jointly managed by the City of Toronto and OPG. Typically, OPG says, between 100 and 200 orders are placed per month. ……https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/potassium-iodide-pills-nuclear-power-plant-pickering-1.5426044 |
|
The fallout from a false nuclear alarm
Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, CanadaJanuary 14, 2020 On Sunday at 7:23 a.m., residents of the Greater Toronto Area were abruptly awakened by an alert issued by Ontario’s Emergency Alert Ready System stating: “An incident was reported at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. There has been NO abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and emergency staff are responding to the situation.”At 8:06 a.m., the Ontario Power Generation released a statement that the alert was issued in error and that there was no danger to the public or the environment. At 9:11 a.m., another message from the Provincial Alert Ready System stated that the initial nuclear alert was “in error.”………..
Other false nuclear alerts This false alarm is not the first time that a nuclear-related alert has been issued during in error during an exercise. In January 2018, an alert was issued in Hawaii warning of an impending ballistic missile attack. Thirty-eight minutes later, the alert was rescinded as a false alarm.
In the Hawaii case, similar to what happened in Ontario on January 12, a public alert was accidentally issued during a routine internal test of the Emergency Alert System. The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency released a statement that the false alert was due to human error.
Jeopardizing trust
Within hours of the false nuclear alarm, the office of Ontario’s Solicitor General released a statement of apology and said a full investigation has been launched into the error made during the routine training exercise. Those initial actions are only the first steps in attempting to repair the damage.
If we take the incident in Hawaii as a guide, the fallout was far-reaching. In the immediate term, all upcoming emergency drills and exercises were suspended. Changes were put in place, such as a two-person verification rule along with a new cancellation command system for public alerts. As the false alarm became a scandal, state-level emergency management officials resigned. Human error and poor software design were identified as root causes, and investigations suggested revamping the system, specifically in terms of oversight of the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System in the United States.
The bottom line is that a false alarm for an incident at a nuclear power station erodes public safety efforts. Fortunately, the risks realized from the Ontario emergency alert were not related to actual radioactive fallout. The fallout from the false alarm is that the public’s trust in emergency alert systems was jeopardized. https://theconversation.com/the-fallout-from-a-false-nuclear-alarm-129766
Canadians got a false alert about a nuclear power plant incident
|
Canadians got an emergency alert about a nuclear power plant incident. It was sent in error, the plant says By Matthew Friedman, Elizabeth Joseph and Eric Levenson, CNN January 12, 2020 An emergency alert sent to residents of Canada’s Ontario province that warned about an “incident” at a nuclear power plant was sent in error, the Ontario Power Generation said. On Sunday morning at about 7:20 a.m., an “incident” was reported at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station near Toronto, triggering the government to send an emergency alert to local residents. The bulletin, sent to people within 10 kilometers of the nuclear plant, did not offer details about the incident.
“There has been NO abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and emergency staff are responding to the situation. People near the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station DO NOT need to take any protective actions at this time,” said a mobile alert seen by CNN.
The Province of Ontario urged residents to turn to local media for further information and instructions.
But shortly afterward, officials said the alert had been sent in error.
“There is no danger to the public or environment,” Ontario Power Generation said in a tweet sent at 8:06 a.m……. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/12/world/pickering-nuclear-power-plant-alert/index.html
|
|
A nuclear accident in Essex would be catastrophic
|
How much of Essex would disappear if there was a nuclear disaster?The damage would be catastrophic, Essex Live, By Brad Gray Multimedia Reporter 12 Jan 2020 “…………. disasters can happen, and Essex has it’s own nuclear power plant up in Bradwell-on-Sea.
Although the plant was closed down back in 2002 – and works have taken place over the past 20 years to remove nuclear waste and storage vaults – there are plans to reopen the site. A new plant could be built on the same location, up to modern standards, by 2030, but plans are not fully in place. However, with the date only a decade away – and interest in nuclear disasters higher than usual because of the hit TV show Chernobyl – it’s worth seeing how bad a nuclear disaster would be if something happened near Essex. How bad would the damage be in Essex?No 2 Nuclear Power have created a map tool to see how bad the damage would be if Sizewell were to have a nuclear accident the scale of Chernobyl’s. The map shows that much of Essex would become uninhabitable and areas in dark red or purple would have compulsory evacuation take place. At around 30 miles from the Essex border, the impact would still encompass most of the county. What about elsewhere?The damage wouldn’t just stop at our county. Suffolk and Norfolk would both be equally as affected as Essex, and London would also be heavily affected with some relocation needed. The affects would be felt as far away as Birmingham and Wales, and even further north to Nottingham and Sheffield. It’s fair to say that an explosion would be a national disaster unlike anything ever seen in the country. These estimations are also based upon there not being strong winds on the hypothetical day in question, as radiation can spread further if gusts are strong. If wind was blowing strongly west a huge portion of the country would be brought to a halt. Cities like Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln and Sheffield would all require immediate evacuation. Huge parts of the country would become uninhabitable and it would be a nationwide disaster not seen in the UK since World War Two. How likely would something like this be?It’s worth remembering that at the moment, Bradwell’s site is a non-operable plant. A disaster like this cannot happen until reactors there are up and running. And even then, with modern technology and monitoring standards, explosions like this are incredibly unlikely. In regards to Sizewell, which is made up of two nuclear power stations, there are plans that it could be transferred to a ‘nuclear island’ off the Suffolk coast………. HTTPS://WWW.ESSEXLIVE.NEWS/NEWS/ESSEX-NEWS/HOW-MUCH-ESSEX-WOULD-DISAPPEAR-3729222 |
|
|
Two earthquakes strike near Iran nuclear plant
|
Two earthquakes strike near Iran nuclear plant, By Artemis Moshtaghian, CNN, 8 Jan 2020, Two earthquakes struck near a nuclear power plant in southwestern Iran on Wednesday morning, just over a week after another quake hit the region.
The first quake, measuring 4.9 magnitude, struck just before 9.00 a.m. local time in Bushehr province, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Around 30 minutes later a second quake, this time measuring 4.5 magnitude, struck the same province which runs along the Iranian coastline. The quake epicenters were within 20 kilometers of the city of Borazjan — a short distance from the country’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. Another earthquake, measuring 5.1 magnitude, struck the same region less than two weeks ago. In a dramatic day for Iran, the two quakes happened just hours after the country fired a number of missiles at two Iraqi bases housing US troops, in retaliation for the US’ killing of a top Iranian general last week. In the wake of Qasem Soleimani’s killing last week, Iran said it was ending its commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Opened in August 2010, Bushehr is not only Iran’s first nuclear plant but the first civilian reactor in the Middle East. Another earthquake, measuring 5.1 magnitude, struck the same region less than two weeks ago. In a dramatic day for Iran, the two quakes happened just hours after the country fired a number of missiles at two Iraqi bases housing US troops, in retaliation for the US’ killing of a top Iranian general last week. In the wake of Qasem Soleimani’s killing last week, Iran said it was ending its commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Opened in August 2010, Bushehr is not only Iran’s first nuclear plant but the first civilian reactor in the Middle East. History of deadly quakesIran is no stranger to tectonic activity. The country sits on a major fault line between the Arabian and Eurasian plates, and has experienced many earthquakes in the past……https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/two-earthquakes-strike-near-iran-nuclear-plant/ar-BBYK7JS |
|
Environmental and technical worries, as Russia extends the life of old Kola Nuclear Power Plant
One of Russia’s oldest nuclear reactors set to run until 2034 https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2020-01-one-of-russias-oldest-nuclear-reactors-set-to-run-until-2034
The second reactor unit at the Kola Nuclear Power plant near Murmansk has received the nod from Russian regulators to operate until 2034, making it one of the longest running commercial reactors in the world and raising a host of environmental and technical concerns. January 2, 2020 by Charles Digges
The second reactor unit at the Kola Nuclear Power plant near Murmansk has received the nod from Russian regulators to operate until 2034, making it one of the longest running commercial reactors in the world and raising a host of environmental and technical concerns.
Currently, the longest serving reactor ever is the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in the United States, which, after running for 49 years, was finally shut down in 2018. Should the Kola plant’s No 2 reactor run out the term of its new lifetime extension, it would be 59 by the time it is retired.
Kola’s No 2 reactor, which came online in 1975, is not alone. The plant’s other three units, which are all VVER-440 reactors, are likewise operating on sometimes numerous lifetime extensions that would bring them to ripe old age before their operations are stopped. The No 1 reactor at the Kola plant, which started generating power 1973, was granted a second runtime extension two years ago, and won’t retire until 2033. The No 3 and No 4 reactors – which came online in the early 1980s – will operate until 2027 and 2029, respectively.
The prolonged operations of these reactors has been cause for concern among some experts, who say that bringing the units into step with current industry safety demands is difficult, given their aging design.
n the shadow of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, which resulted in a triple reactor meltdown, worldwide nuclear building standards have tightened across the board in ways that some fear have left the Kola Nuclear Power Plant’s reactors behind.
Yet more and more often, extending runtime extensions is becoming a general practice throughout the nuclear industry – and not only in Russia. Throughout central and western Europe, there are some 90 nuclear reactors that are currently under review for lifespan extensions, including many in countries like France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland. Six of the 15 Soviet-built nuclear reactors in Ukraine are operating on extended lifespans, with the remaining expected to follow.
For its part, Germany has elected altogether to shutter its nuclear power plants – a goal it hopes to reach by 2022. But the move is proving politically and technically complex. The waste resulting from the closures – thought to eventually comprise some 2,000 containers – must be stored in safely the same spot for 1 million years, and experts are short on ideas about where, exactly, to do that. The costs, too, are astronomical, with the phase-out expected to reach nearly $73 billion.
t is expenses like these that are so deviling to Russia’s nuclear industry, which has failed to build up a robust savings account for decommissioning expenses. Like other countries, Russia collects decommissioning funding through electricity tariffs charged to customers. But unlike other countries, Russia has only been doing this since 1995, shortly after the fall of the Soviet regime and the introduction of a market-based economy. As a result, issuing lifetime extension to elderly reactors offers Moscow a cheap – and what many countries consider a safe – alternative to the more costly route of dismantlement.
Still, environmentalists are right to be nervous. Scientific research on how nuclear reactors age – and on the kinds of problems that emerge as they do – has come mostly from studies in research reactors. While these studies have offered some insight on how reactors weather over time, many experts say that the data on how commercial reactors behave in their twilight years are still too inconclusive to be trusted.
But Rosatom officials insist that the extended reactors at the Kola Nuclear Power Plant are safe, and offers figures to back up its claims. According to a report in the Barents Observer, the corporation spent some 4.5 billion rubles – or about $72 million – on upgrades to the No 2 reactor before regulatory officials granted the runtime extension. Plant officials likewise eliminated numerous safety violations and are in the process of eliminating them.
Britain’s nuclear weapons convoys a disaster waiting to happen
DOZENS of safety failures during nuclear weapons convoys are a “disaster waiting to happen,” campaigners charged as they demanded the Ministry of Defence (MoD) answer for the risks it is exposing the public to.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and political campaigners have hit out at the MoD after concerning reports show 40 lapses in safety while nuclear and radioactive materials were being transported across the country over the past five years.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the 40 operational and engineering issues on convoys carrying bombs and hazardous materials.
These incidents included issues identified with brakes on convoy vehicles, included burning smells during transportation.
On other occasions convoy vehicles were forced to stop, and road lanes closed, after suffering flat tyres.
Among other engineering faults listed were warnings of overheating in convoy vehicles.
Multiple “operational” issues also disrupted transportation of dangerous materials.
Reported in these were rolling road blocks needed to manoeuvre the convoy through busy, congested routes across the UK, causing delays in the journey.
CND general secretary Kate Hudson said: “Nuclear bombs carried on our roads are a disaster waiting to happen.
“This report shows that ‘poor maintenance’ is a factor in these safety lapses.
“The MoD must be brought to book for this disgraceful failure — and our new government must end this cargo of death through our communities.”
Britain’s nuclear weapons are still based in Scotland and those north of the border have said it is time to rid ourselves of the apocalyptic threats.
Scottish Green MSP Mark Ruskell led a debate on the topic last year.
He said: “Like many I’d like to see an end to the housing of nuclear weapons in Scotland, but while they are still here it’s not unreasonable to expect the highest standards of safety to apply to their movement.
“People will be shocked at the thought of nuclear convoys travelling on public roads.
“In Stirling the convoys even park up overnight behind a chain-link fence across the road from a Nando’s and a Vue Cinema. This is an absurd situation that must come to an end.”…… https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/britain-nuclear-weapons-convoys-are-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-peace-campaigners-warn
“Potentially faulty electrical components” in France’s nuclear backup systems
 Montel 27th Dec 2019, EDF has replaced 28 “potentially faulty electrical components” making backup systems for the Penly 2 nuclear reactor (1330 MW) unavailable and is checking whether other units could present the same “safety” problem, said France’s ‘Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and EDF Friday.
https://www.montelnews.com/fr/story/edf-change-des-pices-dfectueuses-%C3%A0-penly-2/1074523 |
|
Swiss nuclear power station shut down, due to a technical problem
Once the cause has been clarified, the plant will be put back into operation as soon as possible, the operator said. It is not clear when that will be. ……
Transducers replaced
Two reactor shutdowns had already occurred at Leibstadt in April and May 2019. Both had the same cause. According to ENSI a malfunctioning transducer led to incorrect values in a channel of the main steam pressure measuring system. These triggered a rapid closure of the turbine inlet valves.
……Saturday’s shutdown comes a week after the 47-year-old Mühleberg nuclear power plant near Bern was permanently switched off. It was the first Swiss nuclear power reactor to be decommissioned. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/leibstadt_technical-problem-shuts-down-swiss-nuclear-power-station/45461886
Dangers of weapons race, terrorism, disaster, as United Arab Emirates proceeds with nuclear power plan
The UAE has been constructing four nuclear reactors at its upcoming Barakah power plant, the Arab World’s first nuclear power station. The plant is expected to go online in 2020.
Dr. Paul Dorfman of the Nuclear Consulting Group said the UAE may be hoping to use the program to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal. He also warned that Abu Dhabi’s nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists
“The motivation for building this may lie hidden in plain sight,” Dorfman said. “They are seriously considering nuclear proliferation.”
The scientist said one threat to safety was regional turmoil that could see enemies launch attacks against the plants, when it was unclear the UAE had sufficient defense capabilities to properly defense against them.
He also cited vulnerability to extreme temperatures and unforeseen effects of climate change.
The Barakah plant is located near the country’s coast, and rising sea levels and storms could potentially hit such locations and destabilize the facilities, he said. He also noted that water in the Persian Gulf is on average higher than elsewhere in the world, and could be less effective as reactor coolant.
Dorfman is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at University College London’s Energy Institute and has advised the British government.
The nuclear plant west of Abu Dhabi is being built by a consortium led by the Korea Electric Power Corporation…..
5.1 magnitude earthquake near Iran nuclear power plant
History of deadly quakes
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 