The nuclear industry mislead and misinformed the public about the Three Mile Island nuclear accident
Chaos at Three Mile Island
Public will never know truth behind Three Mile Island, anti-nuclear energy advocates say https://www.witf.org/news/2019/03/public-will-never-know-truth-behind-three-mile-island-anti-nuclear-energy-advocates-say.php by Ivey DeJesus/PennLive | Mar 26, 2019 The public will never know the truth behind some of the most basic facts about the nation’s worst nuclear disaster nor the actual amount of radiation that was released.Those were some of the messages underscored on Monday by the head of Three Mile Island Alert, an anti-nuclear advocacy group, and other advocates at a press conference in the Main Rotunda of the state Capitol.
Just days shy of the 40th anniversary of the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Londonderry Township, TMI Alert’s Eric Epstein excoriated the nuclear industry for misrepresenting the facts of the accident, and in the process misleading and misinforming the public.
“Three Mile Island is an accident without an ending,” Epstein said. “There’s no bookends to it. If you look at the holy trinity of nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, we can probably pretty much tell you when they started. The reality is there is no ending. This is a funeral where the pallbearers need to stand in place for 500 years. That’s tough for a society that has the memory of a fruitfly.”
Epstein was joined by Tim Judson, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer, who over the years converted from a proponent to an ardent critic.
Judson and Gundersen outlined the chain of events that took place on March 28, 1979, the start of the partial meltdown, as well as the levels of radiation released and subsequent impact on the health of the region.
Judson said the Three Mile Island story amounted to a “mistelling of history” of what could have been a preventable accident. He said that as a result of inconsistencies provided by the nuclear industry, the public was not given – nor will never have – a clear picture of the facts and the risks surrounding the meltdown.
Gundersen explained that because inadequate radiation monitors were in place at the time, officials were never able to get an accurate reading of radiation levels.
All analysis of radiation releases were based on mathematical corrections to estimates derived from off-site dose readings, he said.
“How much radiation was released? Nobody knows,” said Gundersen, who began a change of heart on nuclear energy in the 1990s when he served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Three Mile Island.
He is today chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates, an advocacy group for clean, renewable energy.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has long stood by its 40-year-old estimate that 10 million Curies of radiation were released. The NRC has also long held that the radiation released during the accident was well within levels deemed safe. The industry has reiterated that no one died or was harmed as a result of the accident.
Gundersen said that according to his own analysis of raw data, he calculated that 10 times that amount was released.
Epstein further excoriated legislative efforts to “bail out” Pennsylvania’s nuclear power plants, including Exelon Corp., current owner of TMI-1.
He said proposals to bail out the nuclear industry in Pennsylvania – to the tune of nearly $3 billion – were “fundamentally and manifestly unfair,” adding that Three Mile Island Alert categorically opposed any bailout.Proposed legislation would lead to the reclassification of Pennsylvania’s nuclear plants as “zero emission energy” and create new requirements on how electric companies purchase power.
Among the members of the audience, were several visitors from Fukushima, Japan, site of the 2011 post-tsunami nuclear disaster that led to the evacuation of a quarter of million people.
“The same (tactics) used to minimize the damage and risk of health is the same between Fukushima and TMI,” said Hiroko Aihara, a journalist from Fukushima.
She said citizen engagement has been pivotal in the case of Three Mile Island and continues to be so in the Fukushima aftermath.
“It’s very important to work together. To know we are not alone,” she said.
Aihara said the Japanese people – like residents of central Pennsylvania 40 years ago – were not provided with the truth.
“Many people are still suffering… about evacuation, radiation, contamination and economic situation,” she said. “We are still suffering or fighting the situation.”
Problems with nuclear safety after Three Mile Island
“I was on television telling people not to worry,” said Gundersen, whose wife was pregnant at the time. “I was telling everybody, ‘Don’t worry. No radiation got released.’ I think I said, ‘The Titanic hit the iceberg and the iceberg sunk.’ I think that was my comment at the time and boy was I wrong.”
But it took him about a decade to change his mind.
His conversion from proponent to nuclear whistleblower occurred gradually in the 1990s as Gundersen, among other things, served on nuclear energy symposiums and as an expert witness for plaintiffs lawsuits against the nuclear industry.
“I was on the other side of the argument,” said Gundersen, who sits on the board of the Fairewinds Energy Education, a Charleston, S.C.-based anti-nuclear energy nonprofit that advocates for renewable energy. “I would call myself a nuclear zealot back then as opposed to a nuclear critic now.”
Others come at the nuclear energy debate from a decidedly opposite direction. …
These days, Heather Matteson, who works at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in San Luis Obispo County, and Kristin Zaitz, who used to work there, are ardent supporters of nuclear energy. …..
Now 70, Gundersen, stands by his conviction that the health of untold numbers of people across central Pennsylvania was endangered by the Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Over the years in his testimonies, Gundersen has attested to a litany of factors, he said, contributed to the misrepresention by the nuclear industry about the facts of the accident, including the number of radiation plumes released, the amount of radiation released and the amount of radioactive waste that was released inside the reactor.
Gundersen said that because of the inaccurate assessments released to the public, subsequent medical studies on the impact of Three Mile Island radiation exposure were compromised.
“The plant wives pulled all the kids out of school by 11,” Gundersen said. “The plant staff knew how serious it was. Civilians, who trusted government, didn’t do a darn thing.”
The 2011 Fukushima Daiishi nuclear plant disaster in Japan has furthered fueled the debate on nuclear energy, reinforcing the public opinion chasm. Radiation particles from the plant, which was destroyed that March in the wake of a powerful tsunami, spread over an area the size of Connecticut. About a quarter of a million people fled the area……
A report published by Scientific America in January, noted some areas near the Fukushima plant continue to exceed five times the level of radiation set by Japan as safe for the general public. In certain spots radioactivity remains as high as 20 millisieverts, the maximum exposure recommended by international safety experts for nuclear power workers, according to Scientific America.
The debate goes beyond radiation and certainly includes arguments about uranium mining and radioactive waste. Nuclear proponents say that the mining of uranium levels a far lower impact on the environment compared to fracking, natural gas pipelines and other fossil fuel energy sources.
Gundersen argues that uranium mining exposes workers to radiation, and contaminates groundwater and aquifers….
Gundersen discredits the assessments released on Fukushima. He claims the nuclear industry used “identical tactics” to deal with that disaster as it did with the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl and even the Deepwater Horizon disaster. That includes downplaying the risks and telling the public it is in no immediate danger.
“The industry controls the narrative,” Gundersen said. “The orthodoxy very quickly circles the wagons and protects trillions of dollars of investment.”
Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, an anti-nuclear advocacy group, stands behind Gundersen’s assessment of the lack of transparency in the nuclear industry. Epstein says the industry will never own up to the dangers of nuclear energy nor the dangers inflicted on central Pennsylvania as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.
He says he remains resolutely cynical about nuclear: “We can all agree that there are no safe levels of radiation exposure. … But the industry can’t afford to acknowledge the truth. It would bankrupt the nuclear industry.”….
“It’s an orthodoxy,” Gundersen said. “The nuclear industry is an orthodoxy. What the high bishops say the lowly priests repeat. At the time I just accepted the party line of the orthodoxy.”
For Zaitz and Matteson, co-founders of Mothers for Nuclear, too much is at stake not to stand behind it.
“In college I learned about the biases we all have,” Zaitz said. “I started evaluating my beliefs and using more data instead on a feelings-based approach. I used that to examine beliefs about nuclear…..it aligns with my values about preserving the environment. The ability to use electricity on a tiny footprint with no emissions was something that made me challenge my views.”…. https://www.witf.org/news/2019/03/40-years-after-three-mile-island-accident-debate-over-safety-of-nuclear-energy-still-goes-back-and-f.php
‘Near Miss” at San Onofre nuclear plant brings federal fine to the owners.
San Onofre Owners Face Federal Fine Over Nuclear Storage Mishap https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/mar/26/san-onofre-owners-face-federal-fine-over-nuclear-s/, March 26, 2019, By Maureen Cavanaugh and Emiliano Limon The poor handling of a nuclear storage container at San Onofre has resulted in a $116,000 fine by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Investigators point to a lack of availability of important safety equipment as one of the factors during the incident.
The “near-miss” was reported by a whistleblower last summer at the shuttered nuclear power plant owned by Southern California Edison. On Aug. 3, a nuclear waste-filled canister was left unsupported on a storage cavity during transfer.
RELATED: Safety Inspector Describes Near Accident During San Onofre Community Panel Discussion
The incident temporarily shut down the effort to transfer nuclear material from so-called wet storage to dry storage casks on the San Onofre site. It also put a renewed focus on safety concerns surrounding the decommissioning of the nuclear plant and the storage of nuclear waste at the facility.
Sizewell C and nuclear accidents
No2Nucear Power March 2019, EDF Energy has been running its third stage of public consultation on the proposals for a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. The consultation closes on 29 March 2019. (1) As with earlier consultations on proposed new nuclear stations, the principle of nuclear power generation is deemed to have been settled during the process of drawing up National Policy Statements. (2) Nevertheless, with the anniversaries of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island all occurring during March, this seems like a good opportunity to re-visit the risk of a nuclear accident at the proposed nuclear stations.
A severe accident scenario was postulated by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland in 2013. (3) This would involve a loss of coolant combined with a bypass of the containment. Core damage would be initially delayed by actions of the plant operators, but eventually takes place after 12.75 hours. The release of fission products to the environment starts 12.8 hours after reactor shutdown, and lasts for 35.2 hours eventually stopping 48 hour after reactor shutdown.
Nuclear engineer, the late John Large, expanded on this type of scenario pointing out that the fuel core would completely melt after about 16 hours and the corium mass slumps to the bottom of the Reactor Pressure Bessel (RPV), thereafter burning through the RPV steel shell to fall and slump onto the primary containment floor. At this point in time, the hydrogen gas in the RPV circuit is released into the primary containment whereupon it reacts with the air in the containment, deflagrating and exploding with sufficient might to breach the containment surety and, with this, the first phase release of radioactivity to the atmosphere for dispersion and deposition further afield commences. He said this scenario is very similar to the events at Fukushima. (4)
According to EDF Energy´s Environmental Statement for Hinkley Point C (Appendix 7E “Assessment of Transboundary impacts”), the likely impacts of an accident do not extend beyond the county of Somerset and the Severn Estuary. In contrast a report for the Austrian Environment Agency says severe accidents at HPC with considerable releases of caesium-137 cannot be ruled out, although their probability may be low. There is no convincing rationale why such accidents should not be addressed in the Environmental Statement (ES); quite to the contrary, it would appear rather evident that they should be included in the assessment since their effects can be widespread and long-lasting. (5)
The RPII Severe Accident Scenario suggests a radioactive release of I-131 and Cs-137 amounting to 610,000TBq which is quite a bit larger than Fukushima. Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years, whereas I-131 only has a half- life of 8 days. So Cs-137 is much more important in the longer term. With its longer half-life Cs-137 is around for much longer. Having said that I-131 distribution after an accident is important when looking at the incidence of thyroid cancer. Austria had the second highest average I-131 deposition density, outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, after Chernobyl. (As ever, whether there was an increase in thyroid cancer in Austria after Chernobyl is controversial – see TORCH 2016).
Spent Fuel Storage Unlike spent fuel generated by existing UK nuclear reactors, it is not the intention of future reactor operators to reprocess spent fuel from new nuclear reactors, so spent fuel will almost certainly remain on-site for decades, rather than being transported off-site to Sellafield as it is at the moment at most sites apart from Sizewell B. Although it is possible that spent fuel might start to be transported off site during the 60 year lifetime of new reactors, prospective operators generally take the view that it is prudent to plan to store all of the lifetime arisings of the planned reactors on-site probably in spent fuel storage ponds. At Hinkley Point C, EDF is planning to be able to extend the life of the storage ponds for up to 100 years after the reactors close. (14)
A recent study in the US detailed how a major fire in a spent fuel pond “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident.” The author Frank von Hippel, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, who teamed with Princeton’s Michael Schoeppner on the modelling exercise said “We’re talking about trillion-dollar consequences.” (15) This would clearly involve major transboundary radioactive releases much larger than those suggested in the RPII scenario, because the spent fuel store could contain up to 60 years’ worth of spent fuel.
According to the Austrian Analysis PSA 2 results (in the Pres-Construction Safety Reports by EDF and Areva) show that a possible severe accident in the spent fuel pool could result in a release of 1,780,000 TBq of Cs-137. (16) In other words, the greatest risk is one that could remain in place until at least 2130. …………..
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NuClearNewsNo115.pdf
Earthquake in France, not that far away from nuclear reactors
IRSN 22nd March 2019 On Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at 10:56 local time, an earthquake of moderate magnitude (between 4.7 and 5.0 on the Richter scale) occurred in Montendre (Charente-Maritime). This earthquake was followed at 11:30 of a magnitude replica of 2.8.
The closest nuclear installation to the earthquake is the Blayais nuclear power generation center, located 27 km
from the epicenter. The Civaux and Golfech power plants are located respectively at 145 and 169 km from the epicenter. The Seismic Risk Assessment Office for Facility Safety (BERSSIN) of IRSN has prepared a briefing note on the characteristics of this earthquake.
In the Middle East, world’s most volatile region, nuclear power is taking off – what could possibly go wrong?
Above all, nuclear power needs stability and systems where everyone works together. The Middle East is one of the world’s most volatile regions, full of rivalries between states and internal divisions.
Israel has never disclosed the full extent of its nuclear programme and, in the past, has launched air strikes on nuclear facilities in both Iraq and Syria.
Spectre of Chernobyl hangs over Middle East’s nuclear ambitions, Middle East Eye , Kieran Cooke
To avoid a potential disaster, nuclear power needs stability and systems where everyone works together The Middle East is going nuclear.The United Arab Emirates is home to the Barakah nuclear power station, the Arab world’s first such facility and the biggest nuclear power plant currently under construction.
Saudi Arabia has plans for two large nuclear plants to cope with national energy demands, increasing by more than eight percent annually.
Initial land-clearing work has also begun for a nuclear facility at Akkuyu, on Turkey’s southern coast, while Egypt is due to start building a nuclear power plant in El Dabaa, west of Alexandria, next year. Jordan has plans for a number of smaller nuclear facilities. …..
The Barakah facility, expected to supply a quarter of the UAE’s energy needs, will cost upwards of $30bn.
Equally expensive is the cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant at the end of its working life. Nuclear power has been around for more than 60 years, but no one has really come to grips with how to dispose of spent but still highly dangerous nuclear waste, handing a poisoned legacy to future generations.
And then there is the safety factor. On the morning of 26 April 1986, engineers at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine were carrying out routine turbine and reactor tests when they heard a sudden roar, followed by a loud blast.
Some thought there had been an earthquake. In a recently published book on Chernobyl, Serhii Plokhy – now a history professor at Harvard but in 1986 a Ukraine resident – said the idea of a nuclear accident was inconceivable. “As far as they [the engineers] were concerned, the reactor and its panoply of safety systems were idiot proof. No textbook they had ever read suggested that reactors could explode.”
Obsessed with secrecy
The nuclear industry today – whether in Russia, Europe, China, the US or the Middle East – is similarly confident of its safety.
Chernobyl’s reactor exploded, throwing vast clouds of radiation up into the atmosphere that were blown by winds over Scandinavia, much of Europe and Ukraine itself. Plokhy’s book – billed as the most extensively researched work yet on the Chernobyl disaster – should be required reading for any government official contemplating a nuclear-driven future………
Safety concerns
Plokhy says a combination of factors was to blame for events at Chernobyl, which beyond the immediate deaths, is believed to be responsible for tens of thousands of cases of fatal diseases, such as cancer. There were shortcuts in construction and pressure to increase energy quotas. Testing procedures were not followed. There were serious design faults, yet staff who foresaw dangers were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.
Plokhy foresees similar consequences in modern-day nuclear power programmes, wondering whether safety measures will be followed scrupulously in countries such as Egypt, the UAE and Pakistan.
“Are we sure that all these reactors are sound, that safety measures will be followed to the letter, and that the autocratic regimes running most of these countries will not sacrifice the safety of their people and the world as a whole to get extra energy and cash to build up their military, ensure rapid economic development, and try to head off public discontent?” he said. “That is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union back in 1986.”
Of course, these are early days in the nuclear power industry in the Middle East, but already there are problems. The first reactor unit of the four being built at the Barakah plant in Abu Dhabi was supposed to have come on-stream in 2017, but there is reportedly evidence of cracks in some of the containment walls and delays due to shortages of trained staff.
On Wednesday, Qatar asked the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog to intervene in a dispute over a a nuclear power plant that is under construction in the United Arab Emirates, Reuters reported.
Citing a letter Qatar sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the news agency said that Doha argued that Barakah, a nuclear plant being built near its border with the UAE, threatens the stability of the region and the environment.
Qatar said that a radioactive plume from an accidental discharge could reach its capital Doha in five to 13 hours, while a radiation leak would have a devastating effect on the region’s water supply because of its reliance on desalination plants.
The biggest prize
Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, is developing Egypt’s 4.8GW nuclear power plant, with work due to start next year. But there have been a number of protests at the site of the proposed plant, just as there have been demonstrationsas building work gets underway at Turkey’s Akkuyu nuclear facility, also being built by Rosatom.
In Jordan, the government seems to have abandoned plans for a $10bn nuclear plant to be built by Rosatom due to worries over costs. Instead, Amman is planning to build a number of much smaller reactors.
At the same time, the nuclear industry is falling over itself for what’s considered the biggest prize of all: Saudi Arabia. Competition for building the first two reactors in the kingdom’s ambitious nuclear power programme is intense, with US, Chinese, South Korean and French companies, along with Rosatom, involved in the process.
The US Congress is investigating reports that the White House has been transferring sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia so that US firms allegedly linked to President Donald Trump could win multibillion-dollar nuclear contracts……….
Regional volatility
Above all, nuclear power needs stability and systems where everyone works together. The Middle East is one of the world’s most volatile regions, full of rivalries between states and internal divisions.
Israel has never disclosed the full extent of its nuclear programme and, in the past, has launched air strikes on nuclear facilities in both Iraq and Syria. There are ongoing arguments over the status of Iran’s nuclear industry. ……..https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/spectre-chernobyl-hangs-over-middle-easts-nuclear-ambitions
Bradwell B nuclear project – a risk to UK’s national security?
Is Bradwell B a risk to nationalsecurity? Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG)21 March 2019
Andy Blowers considers whether the ‘golden relationship’ with China might be a Trojan Horse in the BANNG Column for Regional Life March 2019. The state visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping, in October 2015 proclaimed the beginning of a ‘golden era’ in Sino-British relations. The deal was sealed with the promise that China would be offered the opportunity to construct a new nuclear power station at Bradwell with a state-owned company, CGN, using its own technology. In return the Chinese would provide the lion’s share (two-thirds) of investment in the project, with its partner the French state backed-company EDF finding the rest.
The jubilation of the Cameron Government turned to scepticism when his successor’s Joint Chief of Staff, Nick Timothy, declared, ‘The Government is selling our national security to China’. Fears that a critical part of sensitive infrastructure could be open to control by a potentially hostile power have continued to cloud the project. The fact that China, like the UK, is a military as well as civil nuclear power makes the issue of security and control especially worrying.
Bradwell B – a Trojan Horse?
Concerns about security threats are not without foundation. There is the broad charge that China plays by its own rules and the United States has long claimed that China has stolen American atomic secrets…….
Fears of Chinese infiltration in national security have led the United States to ban foreign ownership or control of nuclear power plants (see Box). No such injunction has been proclaimed in the UK; rather, at this very moment, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation is deeply engaged in the process which may lead to approval for the Chinese Hualong One reactor design, thereby paving the way for overseas expansion of Chinese nuclear technology and the inevitable proliferation of security concerns. Bradwell B could be the Trojan Horse that leads into the heart of our national security …..
nothing is said at all about what will be a deteriorating nuclear complex with stores of highly radioactive nuclear wastes strewn on a disappearing coast for the indefinite future. And will the Chinese still be around when the risks increase?
The Chinese are intent on accelerating the Bradwell B programme to begin construction before the end of the next decade. That is a tall order but they have the resources and apparent determination. But, the risks to national and local security and safety from a nuclear power station constructed and controlled by a foreign power cannot easily be allayed. Despite all the soothing words and promises of energy security, Bradwell B, if it materialises, may be a dangerous and unpredictable cuckoo in the nest. https://www.banng.info/news/is-bradwell-b-a-risk-to-national-security/
Dangers of nuclear weapons convoys travelling through Northampton
Northampton Chronicle 21st March 2019 , Campaigners have raised concerns about nuclear warheads travelling through
Northampton after a convoy passed an accident-prone stretch of motorway.
Nuclear warheads are regularly driven from Burghfield Atomic Weapons
Establishment (AWE) near Reading to Coulport, Scotland, for loading onto
the Trident missile submarines.
Nuclear transport trucks in the thick of gang gunfire in Brazil
Brazilian drug gang opens fire on convoy of trucks carrying nuclear fuel, Guardian Dom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro 20 Mar 2019 Latest incident raises concerns about Brazil’s nuclear security in a state struggling with violent crime A convoy of trucks carrying nuclear fuel came under armed attack on a highway in Rio de Janeiro state on Tuesday as it drove past a community controlled by a drug gang. Gang members armed with rifles opened fire on the convoy, Rio’s O Globo newspaper said.
Armed police escorting the convoy exchanged fire with armed gang members as the trucks carrying uranium continued to a nearby nuclear plant. The attack is the latest of several violent incidents in the area where Brazil has two nuclear reactors and has raised concerns about its nuclear security in a state struggling with high levels of violent crime.
The attack happened as the convoy passed the Frade community around noon near the tourist town of Angra dos Reis in the Green Coast (Costa Verde), around 200km from Rio de Janeiro. It reached the Angra 2 nuclear plant less than half an hour later, Brazil’s nuclear agency said……
Typically, such convoys have around five or six trucks and are escorted by regular police and motorbike outriders from Brazil’s Federal Highway police, the Eletronuclear spokesman Marco Antonio Alves told the Guardian. It was carrying uranium fuel to supply the Angra 2 nuclear power plant, which began operating in 2001. ……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/20/brazilian-drug-gang-opens-fire-on-convoy-of-trucks-carrying-nuclear-fuel?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3RPlZ7l2eqbDbUKOavFnccBnocR5AjCpeedTMeCQT7686-HKxuii8rfwE
Comment by Raymond John Cockram I‘m figuring the probability that it was refined into fuel rods is closer to the truth given it was on its way to the reactor site, what you need to remember is that the Brazilian President is a self confessed fascist so media manipulation MUST be expected.
EDF Energy extends outages at UK’s Hunterston B nuclear plant
Nina Chestney, Reuters LONDON (20 Mar 19, – EDF Energy, owned by France’s EDF, has extended outages at two nuclear reactors at its Hunterston B plant in Scotland while it waits for Britain’s nuclear regulator to assess their safety cases.
- Hunterston B-8 reactor is now expected to restart on April 30, a month later than previously forecast. Hunterston B-7 is scheduled to restart on June 29, compared with a previous date of April 30, according to EDF Energy’s website.
- In March last year, the two reactors were taken offline to carry out inspections of the graphite core. These confirmed the presence of cracks and showed these were happening at a higher rate than modelled……… https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-outages-idUKKCN1R01Q1
Are the UK’s cracked Hunterston nuclear reactors safe?
The Ferret 19th March 2019 Plans to restart two cracked and ageing reactors at Hunterston in north Ayrshire have again been delayed as operators struggle to convince regulators they are safe.
EDF Energy, the French company that runs Hunterston B nuclear power station, has postponed the restart date for reactor three by two months to 30 June 2019. The restart of reactor four has been postponed a month until 30 April 2019.
Some 370 major cracks have been found in the graphite core of reactor three, which has been closed down for more than a year since 9 March 2018. There are estimated to be around 200 similar cracks in reactor four, which was closed down on 2 October 2018.
The operational safety limit for cracks imposed by the UK government’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is 350. EDF is now trying to convince ONR that reactors should be allowed to operate with up to 700 cracks.
The proposed restart dates for both reactors have been repeatedly delayed over the last six months. They started generating electricity in 1976 and were originally due to close in 2006 – but EDF wants to keep them going until at least 2023.
Critics, however, reiterated calls for the reactors to shut down permanently. “It really is time for EDF to admit that these stations are well past their sell-by date and need to close,” said nuclear consultant, Peter Roche. “They should start talking to the Scottish Government about providing alternative employment opportunities in Ayrshire, preferably by bringing forward decommissioning and dismantling and developing robot technology.”
Rita Holmes, chair of the Hunterston site stakeholder group chair, said that personally she had no doubt that ONR would take time to scrutinise EDF’s safety cases. “Some people find the delays reassuring because EDF is sparing no expense, leaving no stone unturned, consulting the experts in order to build a robust safety case,” she said.
“Some feel the opposite – if it takes EDF that long to provide a robust safety case then maybe there is something far wrong. The safety case might or might not satisfy the regulator……….
https://theferret.scot/cracked-reactors-force-further-delays-at-hunterston/
Nuclear industry pushes for weaker regulations:NRC Board dominated by Trump appointees
Nuclear industry pushing for fewer inspections at plants
The board of the agency charged with enforcing regulations on commercially operated nuclear plants is dominated by Trump appointees. NBC News, March 16, 2019, By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The nuclear power industry is pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to cut back on inspections at nuclear power plants and throttle back what it tells the public about plant problems. The agency, whose board is dominated by Trump appointees, is listening.
Commission staffers are weighing some of the industry’s requests as part of a sweeping review of how the agency enforces regulations governing the country’s 98 commercially operating nuclear plants. Recommendations are due to the five-member NRC board in June.
Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was “open to self-assessments” by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections. …….
the prospect of the Trump administration’s regulation-cutting mission reaching the NRC alarms some independent industry watchdogs, who say the words “nuclear safety” and “deregulation” don’t go together……..
“For an industry that is increasingly under financial decline … to take regulatory authority away from the NRC puts us on a collision course,” said Paul Gunter, of the anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear. With what? “With a nuclear accident,” Gunter said………..
Trump has said he wants to help both the coal and nuclear power industries. So far, it’s the more politically influential coal industry that’s gotten significant action on the regulatory rollbacks that it sought from the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.
In January, Trump appointees to the NRC disappointed environmental groups by voting down a staff proposal that nuclear plants be required to substantially — and expensively — harden themselves against major floods and other natural disasters. The proposal was meant to be a main NRC response to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster after Japan’s 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in 2011……… https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nuclear-industry-pushing-fewer-inspections-plants-n983671
Danger in Russia’s nuclear- powered icebreakers parked at Murmansk
Nuclear safety expert says it’s time to consider moving risky icebreaker operations out of Murmansk
«So far, so good, but what if something goes wrong one day. Then questions will come in terms of why such operations take place within the city limits of Murmansk,» says Andrey Zolotkov, head of the autonomous non-commercial organization Bellona.
Before he started working for the nuclear safety watchdog group, Zolotkov worked for decades onboard «Imandra», a service ship storing spent nuclear fuel from the fleet of icebreakers. The vessel is berthed at Rosatomflot’s service base less than two kilometers north of the nearest blocks of flats in the Rosta district in Murmansk, a city with 300,000 inhabitants.
There are few cities in the world where more reactors’ maintenance work, change- and storage of uranium fuel, handling and storage of radioactive waste takes place within the boundaries of such big city.
«Look at the bases of the [military] Northern Fleet,» Andrey Zolokov illustrates. «There, all the maintenance and repair work with nuclear submarines take place outside and away from the towns where people are living.»
Every three to four years, the uranium fuel in the reactors of the icebreakers have to be replaced. Such high-risk operations are carried out with the most comprehensive safety precautions in the nuclear industry. Additionally, due to heat and high radiation, the fuel elements have to be temporarily stored for a few years before being transported away by train. At the base in Murmansk, such interim storage takes place onboard the two ships «Imandra» and «Lotta», as well as in spacial designed casks onshore.
An accident with release of radioactivity could reach densely populated areas in Murmansk long before anyone manage to trigger the emergency evacuation alarm.
«Considering the many new icebreakers coming the most risky parts of the nuclear maintenance operation should be moved further away from the city centre,» Andrey Zolotkov argues. He, however, underlines that there has never been any accidents at the service base.
Currently, Russia has four nuclear-powered icebreakers and one container carrier. Rosatomflot is the world’s only fleet of civilian nuclear powered vessels and when not sailing in icy waters, they are all moored at the quays in Murmansk…….. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2019/03/nuclear-safety-expert-says-high-time-consider-moving-risky-icebreaker-operations-out
Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator – Gregory Jaczko
Riding the Wild Bull of Nuclear Power, Counter Punch,
The other commissioners and senior staff looked at Jaczko with suspicion and mistrust. Here was a young man, younger than most of them, being their boss and constantly probing them to protect public health and the environment.
Running Jaczko out of town
Even the Fukushima tragedy made no difference. Jaczko was convinced NRC was a hopeless case, being a subsidiary of the nuclear industry.
“I eventually got run out of town because I saw things up close that I was not meant to see: an agency overwhelmed by the industry it is supposed to regulate and a political system determined to keep it that way,” he wrote.
The Fukushima “cataclysm” finally convinced him that “nuclear power is a failed technology.” Keep using it and it will bring “catastrophe in this country or somewhere else in the world,” he wrote.
I sympathize with the mental anguish and humiliations Jaczko suffered for trying to improve the safety of a dangerous technology. And shame on the Obama administration for missing a rare opportunity to get the country out of the nightmare embedded in nuclear power.
Jaczko had the courage to insist things had to improve at NRC and the nuclear power plants. He knows what he is talking about. Like other dangerous technologies, nukes have no place in a civilized society.
I love Jaczko’s book: Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator. It’s a passionate and personal account of what happens to honest bureaucrats trying to use science and the government in the public interest. It’s also a riveting true story, well-written, insightful, very timely, and extremely important. In addition, the book is a warning from the horse’s mouth: nuclear power plants will continue melting down; they are ticking time bombs. And in the words of Jaczko: “Nuclear power… is large and bulky and will lumber into extinction.” https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/15/riding-the-wild-bull-of-nuclear-power/
South Korea: Nuclear reactor shut after ‘malfunction’
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/south-korea-nuclear-reactor-shut-after-malfunction-/1419440
Hanbit 5 nuclear reactor has been shut down twice in last six months, local media report says
Riyaz ul Khaliq |15.03.2019 , ANKARA
A nuclear reactor in South Korea has been shut down on Friday following a technical glitch, local media reported.
According to Yonhap news agency, South Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) announced 1 million-kilowatt Hanbit No. 5 in Yeonggwang region “stopped operating at around 1.25 p.m. (0425GMT), apparently due to a malfunction in its transformer”.
South Korea has six operational reactors at the Hanbit plant. The same nuclear reactor was shut down last September for its regular examination. It restarted generating power in November.
KHNP said that the malfunction in the nuclear reactor “did not cause any radiation leak or pose safety risks”.
Yonhap reported that South Korean officials have opened an investigation into what caused the malfunction in the Hanbit plant.
Hanbit No. 5 is expected to resume its operation as soon as inspections are completed, the news agency said.
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
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 (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
nuclear-news 