Flamanville nuclear reactor – EDF must repair welds or reinforce new reactor – ASN.
Montel News 17th May 2019 EDF must repair welds or reinforce new reactor – ASN. French utility EDF
must repair faulty welds on its new generation European pressurised reactor
(EPR) Flamanville or reinforce the under construction plant, the ASN
nuclear safety authority said.
the table”, said ASN president Bernard Doroszczuk during a presentation
of the watchdog’s annual safety report to parliamentarians on Thursday.
The ASN would announce a final decision on which course to take next month,
he added, with Montel having reported earlier this week that this would
happen once its group of experts had met on 6 June.
welds was “quite feasible”, reinforcing the 1.6 GW plant could be a
“complex operation” for which the unit was not necessarily conceived,
said Doroszczuk. However, the “French nuclear industry is currently
facing a skills shortage”, which could complicate things, he added.
early next year by two years to 2022, sources told Montel last month. Last
July, EDF delayed the 1.6 GW EPR launch by yet another year due to the
defective welds. It also raised the total estimated cost of construction by
EUR 400m to EUR 10.9bn.
Nuclear Power Is Not Safe
 https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/13/nuclear-power-is-not-safe/ May 13th, 2019 by George Harvey Should we subsidize uncompetitive old nuclear plants? Should we build (uncompetitive) new ones?
One nuclear industry safety assessment figure claims risks are only one-tenth as great as the historic record shows they are. If the people in the industry know it, they are not admitting to a serious safety problem. If they don’t know it, they are simply ignorant of their industry’s record. Either way, I think it is clear that nuclear industry safety analyses should be regarded as untrustworthy.
To deal with the nuclear power industry, we have to understand that some numbers it produces are nearly always accurate, and some are nearly never so. The accurate numbers include the power rating of a plant, the amount of energy produced by the fission of an atom of a given isotope, the approximate percentages of specific isotopes among products of fission, and the amount of time it takes to refuel a plant, if everything goes normally. There are other numbers that seem usually to be off by a factor of two. When the industry supplies the cost to build a new reactor and the amount of time it will take it, it is probably best to take those figures and double them. If a plant is projected to cost $6 billion and take six years to build, experience tells us that a safer estimate would be $12 billion and twelve years. The really big problem, however, comes with statements about safety.
Whenever I think about this question, I recall an email I got from a nuclear power advocate, in which he appeared to gloat about how safe the industry is. Compared with the deaths associated with coal, he claimed, nuclear power produced almost none. He “proved” this by citing the explosion at Chernobyl, which he said killed 31 people. He compared this with the hundreds of thousands killed by the coal industry each year.
Most pro-nuclear advocates admit that in addition to those 31, who were mostly killed by concussion or flying debris, at least several dozen people died of radiation poisoning from the Chernobyl accident. One source at the United Nations put the number of additional cancer-related deaths in 2008 at 64 and rising. This is a far cry from the estimate in the Chernobyl Forum, also from the UN, which is that something like 4,000 early deaths could ultimately result. Greenpeace puts the number at many times that. Radical anti-nuclear activists and some European governments put the number at well over 100,000 and possibly as high as 200,000. While the numbers related to safety, they seem to be matters of opinion, rather than fact. The high numbers are well over a thousand times as great as the low numbers. (Wikipedia: Chernobyl Disaster: Deaths Due to Radiation) Fortunately, safety can be assessed from other points of view, with specific, comparable safety-related numbers, and at least one of these is pretty much indisputable. Based on them, we can learn something about the accuracy of the nuclear industry’s other safety statements in general. I will focus on one number, which relates to the likelihood that a nuclear plant will suffer a “core damage event.” (Note that “core damage event” (CDE) is the term used for what people call “meltdown.” It includes events involving melted or deformed fuel, ranging from “partial meltdowns” to Chernobyl-scale events or worse, regardless of the amount of damage.) Early on, when our oldest reactors were new, probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear plants indicated that a core damage frequency of one event in 10,000 reactor years could be expected. This means that in any given year, any given reactor has a one in 10,000 chance of melting down. More recently, that number was increased to one event in 20,000 reactor years, because newer reactors are thought to be safer. With some newer reactors, the numbers are said to be more like one event in 50,000 reactor years, and, in the case of the proposed small modular reactors, the claim is that some reactors cannot melt down at all. he World Nuclear Association, in an article updated in February of 2019, says civil nuclear plants have run through approximately 17,000 reactor years, worldwide. According to the earliest risk analysis, which was valid for only the earliest reactors, that could have been expected to produce 1.7 CDEs. With most reactors having been built with designs that had much reduced risk of one in 20,000 years or more, we really should have expected one CDE, or possibly none. There is another way to look at these figures. If the core damage frequency is one in 10,000, that means that for a reactor with a 40-year life span, the likelihood of the reactor melting down during its lifetime is forty in 10,000, one in 250, or 0.4%. If the reactor is designed to a core damage frequency of one in 20,000, then the likelihood of meltdown over its lifetime is one in 500, or 0.2%. These numbers do not reflect what has happened in the real world. Having gone through 17,000 reactor years at civil reactors, we have experienced three meltdowns in Japan, all at Fukushima Daiichi; at least one meltdown in the Soviet Union, at Chernobyl (though given the Soviet inclination to cover things up, there might have been others); one in Scotland, at Chapelcross; two in France, both at Saint-Laurent, but on different occasions; one in Czechoslovakia, at Jaslovské Bohunice; and three meltdowns in the United States, one each at Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania), Fermi (Michigan), and SRE (California). In other words, instead of the projected number of CDEs, which we might have expected to be one or fewer, there were at least eleven in the real world. Instead of having a frequency of one in 20,000 reactor years, or more, or even of one in 10,000 for the oldest plants in the world, the number was about one in 1,550. And we can calculate that the likelihood of a CDE in the lifetime of a given plant is certainly not 0.2% or even 0.4%. In the real world, it has proven to be about 2% for the time the reactors have served, which is, on average, about three-quarters of their service lives. To calculate for the full service life, divide that figure by three-quarters, and you get 2.66%. So based on experience, the likelihood that any randomly chosen nuclear plant will have melted down when its time is up is 2.66%, or one in about 37.6. If you went before a group of citizens and told them, “The reactor we want to build here is really safe, there is only a one-in-forty chance that it will ever melt down,” how do you think you would be received? This miscalculation can be attributed to a specific problem in the math used in risk analysis, and in my opinion it is serous enough to reduce its value of the risk analysis for nuclear plants to zero. In every case of a CDE, the event was beyond the design basis, meaning that there was no way to include it properly in the calculations. The causes of the events were not assessed properly in the calculations because they are unpredictable. The Three Mile Island meltdown happened because of human error. The Chernobyl disaster happened because of human error. How do you predict human error? Actually, I believe all of the others depended on human error, as well. For example, I will claim that the Fukushima Disaster was due to human error. It was certainly beyond design basis, but in this case the industry seems to have exclaimed, “How could anyone have known?” Their excuse was that the event was unprecedented, that a tsunami of the magnitude that ruined the plant was unpredictable, arising from a record-breaking earthquake, also unpredictable. But was it unpredictable? The Tohoku Earthquake of 2011 caused a 5.7 meter (18.7 feet) seawall at Fukushima to be overwhelmed by a tsunami whose waves were locally 14.5 meters (47.5 feet). While that is impressive, I would argue that it was not unpredictable. Along the coast in 2011, the highest wave was 40.5 meters (133 feet), enough to submerge a 10-story building easily. But on the same northeast coast of Japan, the Sanriku Earthquake of 1933 produced a tsunami with a maximum wave of 28.7 meters, and the Sanriku Earthquake of 1896 produced a tsunami of 38.2 meters. When I think of these data, my mind goes to a meeting I can imagine between design engineers for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant and their management. Someone asks how tall the seawall needs to be, and someone else answers with the question, “How tall can you make it within the budget?” Such is my imagination. I think the sea walls should have been at least six or eight meters higher, the Fukushima Disaster can be attributed to bad planning (possibly due to greed), and that can be correctly called “human error.” The point is that the nuclear industry safety problems in question, serious safety problems that caused CDEs, developed more than an order of magnitude more often than they were expected. The simple reason is that certain problems are not correctly calculated in probabilistic risk assessments. These problems, of which human error is one, are not correctly calculated for a simple reason: they are impossible to predict, and so their probability cannot be used accurately in a calculation. It seems clear that the greatest cause of the most destructive nuclear accidents is human error. The risk should not have been stated in the form of “one in 20,000.” It should have been stated as “one in 20,000, unless someone does something stupid.” Question: What is the chance of someone doing something stupid? Answer: Approximately 100%; given the current US administration, it is precisely 100%. The relevant question here is not whether a stupid thing will happen, because it will, but whether it will cause a meltdown. Whatever the cause of failure is, the nuclear industry has to face the fact that until it addresses the failure of its risk analysis, its safety calculations are utterly without value. |
|
Chernobyl nuclear accident: how it happened, and the aftermath
In the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl, a total of 31 firemen and plant workers died. Some of their bodies were so radioactive, they had to be buried in lead coffins. A report by the World Health Organization estimated that 600,000 people within the Soviet Union were exposed to high levels of radiation, and of those, 4,000 would die. Those who lived near the Chernobyl site have reported increased instances of thyroid cancer, and they have an increased risk of developing leukemia.
700 Million Years
The Chernobyl accident is one of only two nuclear energy accidents that is classified as a “Level 7 Event,” the highest classification. The other is 2011’s Fukushima disaster in Japan. At the lowest level of Reactor 4 lies the famous “elephant’s foot”, a several-meter wide mass of corium that is still giving off lethal amounts of radiation. The half-life of radioactive elements is defined as the amount of time it takes for the radioactivity to fall to half its original value. The half life of U-235 is 700 million years.
|
Chernobyl – A Timeline of The Worst Nuclear Accident in History [the original of this article gives details on how the accident happened. ] 33 years ago, a series of missteps caused the worst nuclear accident in history, and its effects are still being felt to this day. Interesting Engineering, 11 May By Marcia WendorfLocated 65 miles north of Kiev, Ukraine, the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Station at Chernobyl was a model of Soviet engineering. Its four RBMK nuclear reactors produced enough electricity for 30 million homes and businesses.The RBMK reactor is a class of graphite-moderated nuclear power reactor that was designed and built by the Soviet Union. Certain aspects of the design contributed to the Chernobyl disaster, and there were calls for the reactors to be decommissioned. However, the reactors were redesigned, and as of 2019, ten are still in operation. 1,600 Radioactive U-235 Fuel RodsIn 1986, Chernobyl had four working reactors, with two new ones under construction. The newest of the four, Reactor No. 4, contained 1,600 radioactive uranium-235 fuel rods. Because U-235 is unstable, its atoms spontaneously release neutrons, which hit other U-235 nuclei, causing them to release neutrons. This is what is called a chain reaction. ……… This night involved the continuation of a test that was begun twelve hours earlier. ……..“The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years.” — Vitali Sklyarov, Minister of Power and Electrification of Ukraine Continue reading |
U.S. federal board rejects objections to proposed New Mexico nuclear dump
Federal panel rejects all objections to proposed New Mexico nuclear dump https://www.krwg.org/post/federal-panel-rejects-all-objections-proposed-new-mexico-nuclear-dump?fbclid=IwAR1ROpcdsAWDegwnW0vib6ICXXy3q2lzDVTrrOuEbKN4ZbM90Q169XCM6Cc
Among the requests the panel refused to consider was the objection raised by Sierra Club that U.S. law clearly prohibits nuclear waste being moved to interim facilities before a permanent storage site has been identified. No such permanent sites exist in the U.S.
“This ‘interim’ storage facility could well become a permanent repository without the protections of a permanent repository,” Sierra Club attorney Wally Taylor said in response to Tuesday’s ruling. “Now it is up to the people and public officials in New Mexico to protect New Mexicans from this boondoggle.”
“New Mexico citizens should be very concerned about this project,” Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Nuclear-Waste Co-Chair John Buchser said. “Energy Secretary Rick Perry has indicated he is OK with the storage-site proposal in Texas, just across the New Mexico border, becoming a permanent facility. The Sierra Club is very concerned about possible radioactive releases from 
containers designed for short-term storage. The transport of this highly radioactive waste is even more risky, and the nation’s rail system is not safe enough to transport this waste.”
Taylor, representing the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, and attorneys for Beyond Nuclear, Fasken, AFES and transportation intervenors raised nearly 50 different contentions before the three-judge board during oral arguments in January in Albuquerque.
The panel, charged with ruling on petitioners’ standing and the admissibility of their contentions under NRC regulations, agreed that some of the six petitioners, including the Sierra Club, had standing, but ruled that not not a single one of nearly 50 contentions raised were admissible for even an evidentiary hearing.
“The board won’t even consider transportation risk,” Buchser said.
“This decision is a perfect example and a lesson for the citizens of New Mexico and the United States of how the NRC process is shamelessly designed to prevent the public from participating,” Taylor said.
“It’s clear from the hearings across the state that the people of New Mexico don’t want this. They need to join forces and make that clear to New Mexico officials,” Taylor said. “State officials can pass and enforce laws that would require permits or other protections from the dangers posed by the transport of high-level radioactive waste to southeast New Mexico.”
The next step for Sierra Club is to appeal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The vulnerability of nuclear weapons systems to cyber threats
|
Apocalypse now? Cyber threats and nuclear weapons systems, European Leadership Network Julia Berghofer |Policy Fellow and Project Manager for the YGLN, 10 May 19, It is accepted that all states are vulnerable to cyber threats. Yet, a majority of states have yet to develop coherent cyber strategies or implement sufficient preventive measures. Despite the increase in severe cyber incidents directed at national power plants, companies and nuclear-related military equipment, the threat of cyber interference in national nuclear weapons systems is not being properly tackled. With multinational nuclear supply chains and nuclear command and control systems at risk of being compromised, this must be urgently addressed. The more complex, the more vulnerable Governments and legislators are struggling to keep pace with the rapid development of cyber capabilities. As military systems become more technically complex it would be easy to assume that they are more secure. The opposite is true. Increased automation and connectivity increases vulnerabilities to cyber attacks. Measures such as air-gapping a system (ie. de-connecting it from the internet) can fall short. A recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessed the cyber security of US weapons systems and found “mission critical cyber vulnerabilities in nearly all weapons systems […] under development.“ While the report does not make reference to any specific system type, one can reasonably assume that nuclear weapons systems are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
Cyber attacks can take many forms. Activities range from cyber espionage, data theft, infiltration of nuclear command, control and communications (NC3), denial of service/distributed denial of service (DoS/DDoS) attacks, false alarms (jamming and spoofing), sabotage and physical damage. When directed against nuclear weapons systems, in the worst possible case this may escalate to a deliberate or inadvertent exchange of nuclear weapons. Another area of concern is the supply chain, comprised of any hardware and software components belonging to the nuclear weapons system, including NC3, platforms, delivery systems and warheads. The supply chain usually includes a string of companies and providers located in different countries with varying cyber security standards, which means there is room for manipulation and sabotage. Take, for instance, a computer chip produced in country A. If a vulnerability were inserted at the production stage it could then be remotely activated at a later point when the chip is integrated into the military system of country B. If the attacker happened to be an “insider“ with unlimited access to a military site, compromising military equipment could be easier. This could be done for instance through an infected USB drive when security standards in a military facility happen to be low, leaving the victim of the attack unaware of the manipulation up until it is too late. Limited awareness of cyber risks to nuclear systems There is a lack of awareness within the expert community and among decision-makers and a reluctance by states to implement measures such as common cyber security standards and the sharing of information on vulnerabilities. Among the nuclear weapons states, only in the United States have high-ranking officials, such as Gen. Robert Kehler (ret.) and Air Force Gen. John Hyten (STRATCOM), in two Senate Armed Service Committee hearings in 2013 and 2017 expressed their concerns about a potential cyber attack affecting the U.S. nuclear deterrent. One reason why decision-makers and governments are unwilling to take these steps could be that it seems too unrealistic or improbable a threat, merely belonging to the worlds of science fiction and doomsday scenarios. But there is no reason to assume that the warnings of the GAO, the U.S. 2017 Task Force on Cyber Deterrence or the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) are exaggerated. Certainly, there has not yet been a major cyber attack on a state-run nuclear weapons programme – at least none we have publicly heard of. But there are a string of examples of cyber interference in nuclear installations or parts of the What should decision-makers and policy-makers do? Governments need to grapple with how to handle rapidly developing cyber capabilities. A critical first step is develop a better understanding of the threat…….. https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/understanding-and-addressing-cyber-threats-to-nuclear-weapons-systems/
|
|
Increased tension as U.S. has seized a North Korean ship for sanctions violations
In Middle of Nuclear Standoff, U.S. Seizes North Korean Cargo Ship Illicitly 
Exporting Coal, Slate, By HANNON, 9 May 19
Safety concerns by Austria mean delay in Slovakia’s nuclear station expansion
|
Slovakia delays nuclear plant expansion under pressure from Austria, DW, 8 May 19, Amid complaints from Austria, Slovakia has decided to push back the long-awaited opening of two new nuclear reactors. Activists claim to have evidence that the reactors’ safety structures are damaged and could fail……..
The plant is located some 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Austria’s border. For decades, Austria’s politicians and activists have been trying to cancel the plans to add two more nuclear reactors to the facility, citing safety concerns. In April this year, environmental watchdog Global 2000 said construction had major flaws. They also cited photos and testimonies which allegedly showed the reactors’ protective containment structure was damaged and could fail in case of an earthquake or a serious accident.
Another reason for concern is that the reactors were originally built to Soviet-style designs, and then modified with Western elements. The two new reactors were originally projected to start work in 2012 and 2013, but the project was repeatedly delayed…….. Austria has been urging the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEO) to send its experts to inspect the site. However, this will only happen if Slovakia invites the inspectors to the Mochovce plant. Following the announcement on Monday, Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said it was a “step in the right direction.” “We will not let up until all our safety concerns have been answered,” he was quoted by the Krone newspaper as saying……https://www.dw.com/en/slovakia-delays-nuclear-plant-expansion-under-pressure-from-austria/a-48628715 |
|
|
Four decades later, the Russian nuclear disaster—now the subject of an HBO miniseries—is still reverberating
Chernobyl (2019) | What Is Chernobyl? | HBO
Chernobyl Isn’t a Story About an Accident—It’s a Story About Endless Impact
Four decades later, the Russian nuclear disaster—now the subject of an HBO miniseries—is still reverberating, The Ringer, By an immense tradition of fiction about nuclear war or radiological mayhem. But somewhat paradoxically, a nuclear disaster, in and of itself, doesn’t make for particularly interesting television or film. You can’t fight radiation the way you can fire, or hide from it like you can a tornado. In the trailer for HBO’s Chernobyl miniseries, which premieres Monday night, Jared Harris’s Valery Legasov compares a radioactive atom to a bullet. Indeed, radiation kills instantly, though the process of dying from radiation poisoning can take anywhere from days to decades. By the time a nuclear accident happens, there’s nothing to do but limit the damage it causes.
A grim ‘Chernobyl’ shows what happens when lying is standard and authority is abused
HBO’s miniseries about the 1986 nuclear disaster resonates with a crucial warning. (subscribers only) Washington Post 6 May 19
Chernobyl Disaster – growing up in the fallout zone, Business Insider, 6 May 19
Janina Scarlet was just under 3 years old when the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant blew up.
-
Chernobyl was the worst nuclear-reactor disaster in history. The explosion spread toxic radiation over large swaths of Ukraine, including Scarlet’s hometown.
-
Scarlet said she was often sick as a child, with a weak immune system and frequent nose bleeds. She still has migraines and occasional seizures……..
Although it’s been 33 years since the Chernobyl explosion, the health consequences of that radiation exposure still plague people who lived near the plant. The Chernobyl disaster has been directly blamed for fewer than 50 deaths from radiation poisoning, but many researchers say the full death tally from the Chernobyl explosion and its lingering effects may never be known. The World Health Organization estimates that eventually, the disaster may become responsible for some 5,000 cancer deaths. …….
Kids who lived near the Chernobyl site have increased instances of thyroid cancer, and adults who helped with the reactor cleanup are more at risk of developing leukemia.
Report: Islamic Jihad threatens to strike nuclear reactor, airport
The targets mentioned in a video released by the Gaza-based terror group include the nuclear reactor in Dimona in the south, Ben-Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv and oil refineries in the northern city of Haifa.
Highland Green MSP John Finnie points out the danger of transporting nuclear material across the Atlantic
Press and Journal 4th May 2019 Highland Green MSP John Finnie has expressed concern after three quartersof a ton of highly enriched uranium was transported from Dounreay in
Caithness to America. He said: “The appropriate place for dangerous
material is secure storage and supervision by highly trained staff where it
was created, not transportation.
“Whilst pleased that this risky has been completed without incident, that we know of. “But before the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic pat themselves on the back, they need to
reflect on the dangers they put communities in. “As was evidenced when a
ship which was transporting nuclear material in the Moray Firth went on
fire. As with oil and gas reserves, the message regarding nuclear waste has
to be ‘keep it in the ground’.”
Risk of catastrophic Hanford tunnel collapse prevented as tunnel is stabilised
|
Radioactive waste tunnel at Hanford stabilized after fears of a possible ‘catastrophic’ collapse, Tri City Herald, BY ANNETTE CARY, APRIL 29, 2019 The second Hanford PUREX plant tunnel storing highly radioactive waste has been stabilized to prevent a collapse.
Work to fill the tunnel with concrete-like grout began in early October and was completed at the end of last week. Local government officials are relieved. “We experienced a horrible winter with a massive amount of snow,” said Pam Larsen, executive director of Hanford Communities, a coalition of local governments, at a recent meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board. “The tunnel could have collapsed,” she said. “It would have been catastrophic for our regional economy.” Concerns about the second PUREX tunnel were raised after the first tunnel partially collapsed in spring 2017. An unusually wet winter may have contributed to the collapse. Filling the second tunnel with grout is a temporary measure to prevent a possible collapse and release of radioactive particles into the air, with plans to clean up the waste in the tunnel to be made in the future…… About 40,000 cubic yards of grout, or 4,000 truckloads, were needed to fill the tunnel, which is 1,700 feet long. It holds 28 rail cars loaded with obsolete and failed equipment that is contaminated with highly radioactive waste from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. When the first tunnel partially collapsed, thousands of Hanford workers were ordered to take cover and the Tri-Cities-area anxiously waited for information until it was determined that there had been no release of radioactive particles. The soil topping the tunnel fell into the breach, covering the waste……. Hanford watchdogs were concerned that grouting might become a permanent solution, with the radioactive waste left in the ground permanently. “Opponents raised legitimate concerns, but in the end those concerns did not outweigh the potential environmental and safety threats that could have been posed had the tunnel collapsed and exposed its highly radioactive contents,” Ecology officials said in a statement Monday….. In both tunnels, grout was added in layers, with each layer allowed to set before the next layer was added. But the second tunnel was five times longer, requiring changes to procedures and equipment as grout was added every 100 feet along the tunnel…….https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article229789389.html |
|
All Japan’s nuclear reactors may shutdown, as regulator is firm on safety measures
Japan’s nuclear reactors face new near-total shutdown, Regulator refuses to extend deadlines for installing antiterrorism measures Ft.com, Robin Harding in Tokyo APRIL 25, 2019 Japan is heading towards another near-total shutdown of its nuclear reactors after regulators refused to extend deadlines for completing antiterrorism measures. The Nuclear Regulation Authority said it would enforce deadlines that expired next summer for many operating reactors. Electricity companies have said there was almost no chance they would be ready on time. The regulator’s stance is a fresh blow to a nuclear power sector that has never recovered from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011, when three reactors melted down after a tsunami knocked out their cooling systems. …….Each restarting reactor has its own deadline and a number of them expire next year — but none of the operators are likely to be ready in time. They will therefore have to shut the reactors down. For example, anti-terror work at the Sendai No 1 and No 2 reactors, run by Kyushu Electric, and the Takahama No 3 and No 4 reactors, run by Kansai Electric, must be completed next year.
……. Japan has struggled to restart its reactors in the face of strong public opposition and many are still offline. As of March 15, nine out of Japan’s 57 reactors had restarted. Several others have restarted only to shut down again because of injunctions issued by local courts.
……. the national government has not pushed for restarts, leaving it in the hands of regulators, utilities, courts and local politicians. The long-term future of the sector is therefore in doubt. https://www.ft.com/content/1b2c395e-6724-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056
Japan now has 9 operating nuclear reactors, all may close, due to inadequate safety measures
Japan nuclear plants threatened with closure over antiterrorism measures, Jakarta Post, The Japan News/Asia News Network, Tokyo, Japan / Fri, April 26, 2019 The Nuclear Regulation Authority has decided to order power companies to shut down nuclear reactors if they have not had certain facilities, legally required as antiterrorism measures, completed by specified deadlines.Nine reactors are currently online at five nuclear plants across the nation, and these are unlikely to have the necessary facilities completed before their deadlines. Consequently, it is possible that, one by one, these reactors will have to suspend operations.
NRA Chairman Toyoshi Fuketa emphasized the nuclear watchdog’s tough stance at a press conference Wednesday.
Reactors will be considered “nonconforming with required standards at the point the deadline passes,” Fuketa said.
“Overlooking any state of incompatibility would, in light of the authority’s position, be totally unacceptable,” he said.
The operators are required to build facilities from which nuclear reactors can be remotely controlled in the event of an emergency, such as an aircraft being deliberately flown into the plants. Installing such a facility became mandatory under new regulations introduced after the March 2011 accident at Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law stipulates nuclear plants that do not meet certain conditions can be suspended from operating, but no decision had been made on how authorities would handle reactors currently online if the deadline for completing the emergency facility passes…….
Fuketa lobbed some stinging criticism at the utilities for the current situation.
“Not only were they overly optimistic about the construction work schedules, but they also were too optimistic about the reaction from the regulatory authorities,” Fuketa said. “They were grossly mistaken if they thought they might find a way through by asking for an extension when the deadline is drawing close.”
n a comment issued the same day, Kyushu Electric, Kansai Electric and Shikoku Electric said they would “continue making maximum efforts” to complete the facilities as soon as possible.
Profits could be hit
Halting the operation of nuclear reactors, which generate electricity at relatively low cost, could harm the earnings of power utilities and strike a major blow to their business performance.
Kyushu Electric is the utility facing the shortest deadline until it might have to switch off a reactor. Kyushu Electric’s No. 1 unit at the Sendai nuclear power plant was restarted in October 2015, which returned the company to profitability. Unplugging this reactor again would significantly affect the utility’s business performance……..https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/04/26/japan-nuclear-plants-threatened-with-closure-over-antiterrorism-measures-.html
 |
ReplyForward
|
Europe’s oldest nuclear reactors: safety problem at Hunterston B
 Cracks found in nuclear reactor that could lead to the full evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow, edinburgh live, 26 Apr 19,The Hunterston B reactors in Ayrshire are the oldest in Europe, and dangerous cracks have been found, The two reactors at Hunterston B nuclear power plant near Ardrossan are 43 years old – the oldest in Europe.They’re already well beyond their operating lifetimes, which have twice been extended by EDF Energy, and they’re scheduled to close down for good in 2023.
“In the very worst case the hot graphite core could become exposed to air and ignite leading to radioactive contamination of…the metropolitan areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh.”The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from trade union GMB. Although the probability of a meltdown is still low, the consequences could be incredibly severe. In such an event, both Glasgow and Edinburgh would need to be entirely evacuated due to radioactive contamination. According to Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, and Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Policy at the University of Aberdeen, the two reactors definitely should not be restarted. Speaking about the cracks in the barrels, they say: “This is a serious matter because if an untoward incident were to occur – for example an earth tremor, gas excursion, steam surge, sudden outage, or sudden depressurisation, the barrels could become dislodged and/or misaligned. “These events could in turn lead to large emissions of radioactive gases. Further, if hot spots were to occur and if nuclear fuel were to react with the graphite moderator they could lead to explosions inside the reactor core. “In the very worst case the hot graphite core could become exposed to air and ignite leading to radioactive contamination of large areas of central Scotland, including the metropolitan areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh.” ….. The operational limit for the latest period of operation was 350 cracks but an inspection found that allowance had been exceeded.https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/cracks-found-nuclear-reactor-could-15944122?fbclid=IwAR02Y5JATa8g9RAlmeuO1dLy2XInrIKdtKP7lbb4DBkYmls_AjMjJMkniWs |
|
Japan’s nuclear regulators not impressed by nuclear facilities’ flimsy excuses about safety
VOX POPULI: Flimsy excuses by nuclear plant operators are unacceptable, Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a daily column that runs on Page 1 of The Asahi Shimbun., April 26, 2019 …………. three operators of nuclear power plants, seeking an extension of a very different kind of deadline, found the Nuclear Regulation Authority to be quite unforgiving.Kansai Electric Power Co., Shikoku Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co. were initially required to install anti-terror facilities against airborne attacks at their nuclear power plants by July 2018.
Having already failed to meet that deadline, the utilities on April 17 asked the government’s nuclear watchdog to extend it by another 12 to 30 months, but the plea was rejected on April 24.
The utilities have insisted in unison that installing facilities to remotely cool nuclear reactors would require the time-consuming work of drilling through mountains.
They probably thought this “excuse” was good enough to sway the government into extending the deadline.
No such luck.
The Sendai nuclear power plant in Kagoshima Prefecture will likely be shut down as a result, according to the NRA.
The utilities must be underestimating the odds of any of their nuclear power plants being targeted for a terrorist attack.
Have they already forgotten that North Korea was repeatedly test-launching its missiles until recently? And what about the Fukushima disaster of 2011, which occurred because virtually nobody wanted to consider the possibility of a mega-quake triggering a tsunami?
The “deadline” book mentioned above also contains an anecdote about author Akira Yoshimura (1927-2006), a stickler for punctuality who always handed in his manuscripts early, claiming he had a tendency to start panicking as the deadline approached. And he always attached a note to his editor, apologizing, in effect, for jumping the gun.
I guess it’s useless to expect the three utilities to emulate Yoshimura. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201904260032.html
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (64)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
