BBC 17th Oct 2017,A manufacturer from Torfaen is helping to dismantle the remains of the
Chernobyl nuclear power station. A concrete and steel arch will cover the
reactor which was destroyed in the 1986 disaster. Pontypool-based
manufacturer Flamgard Calidair has developed fire and shut off dampers for
the project, known as the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement. The £1.3bn
(€1.5bn) building is set to be completed before Christmas 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41654257
Why NRC Nuclear Safety Inspections are Necessary: Columbia Generating Station, UCS, DAVE LOCHBAUM, DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SAFETY PROJECT | OCTOBER 17, 2017The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted its Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) in 2000. The ROP is far superior to the oversight processes previously employed by the NRC. Among its many virtues, the NRC treats the ROP as a work in progress, meaning that agency routinely re-assesses the ROP and makes necessary adjustments.
Earlier this year, the NRC initiated a formal review of its engineering inspections with the goal of making them more efficient and more effective. During a public meeting on October 11, 2017, the NRC working group conducting the review outlined some changes to the engineering inspections that would essentially cover the same ground but with an estimated 8 to 15 percent reduction in person-hours (the engineering inspections and suggested revisions are listed on slide 7 of the NRC’s presentation). Basically, the NRC working group suggested repackaging the inspections so as to be able to examine the same number of items, but in fewer inspection trips.
The nuclear industry sees a different way to accomplish the efficiency and effectiveness gains sought by the NRC’s review effort—they propose to eliminate the NRC’s engineering inspections and replace them with self-assessments. The industry would mail the results from the self-assessments to the NRC for their reading pleasure.
UCS is wary of self-assessments by industry in lieu of NRC inspections. On one hand, statistics might show that self-assessments increase safety just as a community firing all its law enforcement officers would see a statistical decrease in arrests, suggesting a lower crime rate. I have been researching the records publicly available in ADAMS to compare the industry’s track record for finding latent safety problems with the NRC’s track record to see whether replacing NRC’s inspections with industry self-assessments could cause nuclear safety to go off-track.
This commentary is the first in a series that convinces us that the NRC’s engineering inspections are necessary for nuclear safety and that public health and safety will be compromised by replacing them with self-assessments by industry.
Columbia Generating Station: Not so Cool Safety Moves………
UCS Perspective
Under the Atomic Energy Act as amended, the NRC is tasked with establishing and enforcing regulations to protect workers and the public from the inherent hazards from nuclear power reactor operation.
Owners are responsible for conforming with applicable regulatory requirements. In this case, the owner made a series of changes that resulted in the plant not conforming with applicable regulatory requirements for the air temperature within the control room. But there’s no evidence suggesting that the owner knew that the changes were illegal yet made them anyway hoping not to get caught. Nevertheless, ignorance of the law is still not a valid excuse. The public is not adequately protected when safety regulations are not met, regardless of whether the violations are intentional or inadvertent.
This case study illustrates the vital role that NRC’s enforcement efforts plays in nuclear safety. The soundest safety regulation in the world serves little use unless owners abide by it. The NRCs inspection efforts either verify that owners are abiding by safety regulations or identify shortfalls. Self-assessments by owners are more likely to sustain mis-interpretations and misunderstandings than to flush out safety problems.
The NRC’s ROP is the public’s best protection against hazards caused by aging nuclear power reactors, shrinking maintenance budgets, and emerging sabotage threats. Replacing the NRC’s engineering inspections with self-assessments by the owners would lessen the effectiveness of that protective shield.
Another nine reactors at four nuclear sites are at “risk of partial loss,”which is ‘level 0’ according to the INES. The scale has 7 levels that describe the safety significance of nuclear and radiological events, with the highest level classified as a ‘major accident,’ and events from levels 1 to 3 classified as ‘incidents.’ Events without any safety significance are rated as Below Scale/Level 0.
The French company EDF, which operates the country’s nuclear reactors, said earlier that 20 reactors might not be able to withstand earthquakes, which could cause a collapse of their cooling systems, and nine reactors’ cooling systems could also be at risk.
The ASN said that thickness measurements of pipeline systems at the Belleville Nuclear Power Plant in May and June 2017 revealed the metal is too thin to resist an earthquake. After discovering the vulnerabilities, “a thickness measurement campaign” was carried out by EDF at potentially at risk nuclear facilities.
EDF said on October 11 that it was fixing pipe problems at 20 nuclear reactors to prevent the collapse of cooling systems, and the ASN is currently checking the progress.
Last week, Greenpeace activists staged a fireworks display on the premises of the Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant to highlight “security risks” at the facility. Four reactors at the site were included among reactors at risk level 2 by the ASN.
France operates 58 nuclear reactors with total capacity of 63.2 GWe. Concerns over seismic safety were among the reasons it was decided to shut down the Fessenheim plant by April 2020.
National lab is cheerleader and umpire for reactors’ future Peter Behr, E&E News reporter, SCOVILLE, Idaho— Nuclear power for the grid was born here in 1951, when an experimental reactor’s football-sized core sent current flowing to a quartet of lightbulbs at the isolated government laboratory on Idaho’s southeast desert.
And the nuclear industry’s future may be written here, as well — at least key parts of it — inside the Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory testing complex.
INL’s scientists, with colleagues at other DOE labs, are keeping a close watch on the health of the nation’s commercial nuclear reactors, most of them built before the mid-1980s in the flush of excitement about nuclear energy that would be “too cheap to meter,” as an early promoter predicted. How long can the plants keep going before critical steel, concrete and wiring systems are overcome by the aging effects of heat, radiation and mechanical stresses?
And now, with the nuclear industry struggling to compete against low-cost natural gas generation, INL is also stepping up a search for ways to lower reactor operating costs, from research on “accident tolerant” reactor fuels to designing more efficient control rooms and using technology to reduce reactor safety inspection time and costs……..
The NRC has licensed 84 reactors to continue operating beyond the initial 40-year span for an additional 20 years. Nine more relicensing applications are pending, and four reactors are expected to apply, the NRC said……..
The Energy Department’s 2016 report on the reactor longevity campaign notes the potential for damaging surprises. The specialized stainless steel alloys chosen for reactors in the 1960s had many plus factors, DOE said, but concerns, as well. Reactor radiation can add to stress-related corrosion cracking, threatening structural integrity. DOE researchers noted this year that “limited information is known about the long-term performance” of these alloys. Concrete structures have borne thermal shock and radiation, and reactor wiring has lived in harsh environments. Aging issues are “expected to become more severe” as time passes, DOE said.
An essential test process at Idaho and other DOE labs is to bombard sample reactor materials with enormous radiation levels inside test reactors, accelerating stress testing to mimic impacts of operations far beyond 40 years.
“It’s possible plants could run into aging problems that were too expensive to fix, and the operators would decide to shut it down,” Wagner said.
“Nearly all of the fleet will go offline between 2029 and 2055” if plants cannot operate beyond 60 years, Wagner said. “That may seem like a long time away, but it’s really not when you consider replacing that level of assets.”…….https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060063769
North Korean Nuclear Tests Close Chinese Ski Area, Outside, 17 Oct 17,
Border resort shuttered amid earthquake and volcano concerns after a series of underground detonations China announced an indefinite closure of the country’s only cat-access ski resort due to earthquakes that were caused by a series of underground nuclear tests conducted by North Korea.
Changbaishan Ski Resort is part of China’s Changbaishan National Nature Reserve, a nearly 800-square-mile preserve along North Korea’s northern border that sits within 70 miles of the nation’s nuclear test site at Punggye-ri. The underground nuclear detonations in late September registered a seismic magnitude of 6.3, and eight seconds later produced a burst of seismic energy measuring 4.1, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The events triggered a landslide on a mountain within Changbaishan, prompting China to close a large section of the reserve—the only section with ski access.
“For the safety and convenience of travelers, we have temporarily closed the zone of Changbai Mountain. Officials are thoroughly investigating the safety of the tourist area,” reads a message from Chinese authorities, adding that the area will remain closed until “the potential risks disappear.”………
But the mountain range along the border of North Korea and China is sacred to more than just powder hounds. According to North Korean legend, its highest peak, Paektu Mountain, is the birthplace of the country’s former dictator Kim Jong-il. According to geological history, the range is also the skeleton of a violent volcanic eruption, an event that turned an ancient peak into the ring of mountains that appear today.
Aside from earthquakes and the subsequent landslides and avalanches, researchers worry that continued nuclear tests could recreate that explosive scenario, reactivating magma chambers and kicking off what would be a catastrophic modern-day volcanic eruption. A Newsweekarticle said that for a nuclear detonation to cause serious damage to a volcano, a preceding underground blast would need to measure at least 100 kilotons. The explosion in September was estimated to be around two and a half times that size. https://www.outsideonline.com/2251541/north-korea-nuclear-tests-are-affecting-skiing-china
Times 15th Oct 2017,Part of the giant Hinkley Point nuclear plant will have to be demolished
and rebuilt after inspectors found problems with its concrete foundations,
in the latest setback for the £20bn project.
EDF, the owner, is understood to have found weaknesses in a small area of the foundations that have been laid on the Somerset coast. The French energy giant insisted the problem is
isolated to 150 cubic metres where pipes and cables are due to be laid, and
said it will not delay construction. Yet the discovery will raise concerns
about the plant, which will house Britain’s first new nuclear reactors in
a generation.
EDF admitted in July that costs at Hinkley, which is being
bankrolled by the French and Chinese governments, would rise by £1.5bn to
£20.3bn and that it may be completed 15 months later than its December
2025 deadline.
Hinkley’s two sister plants, Flamanville in France and
Olkiluoto in Finland, have suffered hefty cost hikes and long delays. The
problems were found in a patch of “substitution” concrete that forms
the foundations of the first of the site’s 5 miles of “galleries” —
a series of deep trenches that will house the plant’s pipes and electric
cables. The inspection found problems including “weak concrete”,
“poor-quality cleanliness” and an area of concrete that was not wide
enough.
Chihiro Kamisawa, Masako Sawai, CNIC BY CNIC_ENGLISH · AUGUST 4, 2017At around 11:15 on June 6, 2017, a plutonium release and exposure accident occurred in an analytical lab (Room 108, a controlled area) at Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s (JAEA) Research and Development Center Fuel Research Building. During work to inspect a storage canister (unopened in 26 years since 1991) containing plutonium and other nuclear fuel materials in laboratory fume hood H-1, the canister lid rose up after four of the six bolts were removed and the instant the remaining two bolts were removed the plastic bags inside the canister burst. The polyethylene container in which the nuclear fuel material was placed was double wrapped in two plastic bags. When these bags burst, the materials in the polyethylene container were abruptly released. The main person carrying out the task stated that he “felt wind pressure on his stomach.” The five persons, who were wearing half-face masks to carry out the task, inspected themselves with an α radiation surface contamination detector, confirming that they had all been contaminated.
While there are many unknowns regarding the accident and its cause, the exposure of the task personnel and other matters, we report here on what has become clear thus far and the problems that the accident poses. The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) is scheduled to release the agency’s “report” about a month after the accident.
Occurrence of the plutonium dust release
Table 1 [on original] shows a timeline of the events based on releases by the JAEA, NRA and news media.
Several black lumps fell onto the floor in Room 108, from which a maximum of 55 Bq/cm2 were detected. The facility management supervisor instructed that a greenhouse (a temporary enclosure to implement detection and decontamination when retreating from the contaminated area) be set up at 11:54, and it is reported that this was completed at 14:29. More than three hours passed between the time of the accident and the time when the five task personnel exited the greenhouse. Concerning the delay in setting up the greenhouse, JAEA explained to NRA that “(The delay occurred because) the main work personnel in the Fuel Research Building were carrying out this work and other staff were engaged in stabilizing procedures for nuclear fuel materials (and could not leave their positions).”
As a result of a nasal smear (to detect contamination in the nostrils) taken inside the greenhouse, contamination of a maximum of 24 Bq (α radiation) was detected in the nostrils of three of the five personnel.
The five task personnel finally exited the controlled area at 18:55. Since α radiation had been detected in their nostrils and there was a strong possibility that the five people had inhaled plutonium, they were transported to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engineering Labs in Tokai Village, where measurement of plutonium inside their lungs was carried out using a lung monitor. Lung monitors detect the weak X-rays emitted by plutonium-239 and the gamma radiation emitted from americium-241 inside the lungs from outside the body. However, not only is this detection extremely difficult, it has poor sensitivity. The JAEA measurement results are shown in Table 2. [on original]………
This inappropriate long-term storage problem clearly shows, if one looks back at the historical series of organizations – the Nuclear Safety Commission, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and the NRA, that for 30 years or more none of these organizations made any public announcements on the issue, or knew what was happening and simply turned a blind eye. The regulatory organizations’ neglect thus far and the defensive awareness that they do not want this to be aired in public has undoubtedly been one of the remote causes of the accident at Oarai. This extremely facile method of dealing with plutonium and nuclear fuel materials is apparent from the notion that, since no serious accident has taken place up to now, it is fine to have the facility operators quickly sweep the problem under the carpet……. http://www.cnic.jp/english/?p=3910
Six US reactors — at five sites — have closed since 2013. Seven more remain on target to close within the next eight years, some of them as soon as 2019. A handful more had announced planned shutdowns, then received bailouts to prolong their existence, even though the plants are uneconomical and in dangerously degraded states due to aging and other factors. Wear and tear is a concern with any aging technology, but the risk factor goes up dramatically when nuclear power plants, filled with radioactive materials, are at issue.
Given the complexity of nuclear plants, their aging parts, rubber-stamped operating license extensions and their vulnerability to catastrophic failure, it makes sense to examine the “dead” reactors for a more reliable safety assessment of the potential failings of the “living” reactors. But the nuclear industry and its regulator, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has successfully avoided this common-sense safety procedure for decades. Given the regularity with which US nuclear reactors are shutting down — a statistic that will likely only increase over time — we have quite a few closed reactors already, and plenty more in the pipeline. This is a perfect opportunity to conduct a full investigation into the extent of decay inherent in the nuclear plants still running.
Nuclear Reactors Can Cost More to Decommission Than to Build
When reactors close, they don’t just disappear. They must be decommissioned. This is a long, complicated and, above all, outrageously expensive process. For example, the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant in Massachusetts, which operated from 1960 to 1992, cost $39 million to build. Its decommissioning took 15 years and cost $608 million.
Vermont Yankee, shuttered at the end of 2014, is currently looking at a price tag of at least $1.24 billion in decommissioning costs. But this is an estimate from its owner, Entergy. The real figure could be a lot higher.
Decommissioning involves the removal and, theoretically, the decontamination of equipment, structures and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants. This allows the property to be released from NRC oversight and terminates the NRC license. The high-level radioactive waste, essentially the irradiated nuclear fuel, currently has nowhere to go and remains on site in dry storage casks. But decommissioned sites can remain radioactively contaminated long after the reactors close. One such example is Big Rock Point on the shoreline of Lake Michigan, where plutonium-239 is still to be found in the high-level wastes and radioactive contamination at the site.
To date, the decommissioning of a US reactor does not include an examination of the site and materials. Instead, the evidence of the effects of aging and material degradation are buried with the dismantled reactor. This “autopsy” could reveal those effects and provide potentially life-saving insights into the risks run by operating reactors. Furthermore, it would also verify (or dispute) quality assurance documentation for the fabrication process of installed safety-related nuclear components.
For example, it is now known that 17 of our operating nuclear reactors contain key safety parts that might be dangerously flawed. These large components were manufactured at the French Le Creusot forge, which was not only caught producing and selling substandard components, but tried to cover up its loss of quality control as well. This revelation resulted in the shutdown of 17 French reactors with Creusot components late last year as well as the forge itself, which was only reopened in July.
Fortunately, one of the US reactors that reportedly has a Creusot part is now permanently closed — the Crystal River nuclear generating station on Florida’s west coast. An autopsy of Crystal River would not only provide safety insights into the potential jeopardy at the 17 reactors still operating with suspect Creusot parts, it would also deliver general intelligence about the state of our entire operating reactor fleet.
An autopsy would take an enhanced look at the remaining material integrity of safety-related structures and components, particularly those that are difficult to reliably assess in operating reactors. This would include destructive analysis by cutting up large components like the reactor pressure vessel for an assessment of radiation-induced cracking, embrittlement and stress corrosion cracking. Sections of the concrete containment and “spent” nuclear fuel storage structures could be tested for the same aging effects that weaken concrete in bridges and dams.
Captured Regulators May Not Act to Examine Flaws in Closed Reactors
Rest assured no such examinations will happen voluntarily. One of us, Paul Gunter, now with Beyond Nuclear, joined 10 safe energy groups in 1995 to petition the NRC to conduct autopsies on embrittled reactor pressure vessels at the permanently closed Yankee Rowe, Trojan, San Onofre and Rancho Seco nuclear power stations.
The groups wanted the NRC to archive material specimens and set a benchmark on age-degradation for the rest of the operating industry. The NRC and industry didn’t want to know and rejected the petition.
This would seem to contradict the NRC’s mandate, proclaimed on its website as “protecting people and the environment.” Behind closed doors, the agency instead works tirelessly on behalf of the nuclear industry, protecting the corporate bottom line with almost evangelical zeal. The NRC has, for example, never denied a license extension to an operating reactor, no matter how blatant the safety risks. In December 2015, the NRC relicensed the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio, despite the worsening cracking of the containment, without requiring the owners to repair a flaw so serious that a containment failure could lead to a meltdown.
Such capitulations have only one agenda — to save the nuclear industry money. Decommissioning costs are already so burdensome that Entergy is looking at a decommissioning option called SAFSTOR for its Vermont Yankee plant, which would essentially mothball the reactor for 60 years. By then, Entergy — already struggling financially — could be long gone, dodging the gigantic decommissioning bill altogether.
In order, therefore, not to demand expensive fixes of an industry in financial freefall, the NRC has a stellar track record of not enforcing its own safety orders, even though these might actually protect people and the environment. But the bigger cost that the NRC is seeking to avoid is the truth.
An autopsy might scientifically reveal just what a perilous, pre-meltdown condition most of our nuclear power plants are in. Such evidence would expose the NRC’s reckless bias in allowing US reactors to operate without essential safety fixes. It’s a gamble that saves the industry money, but which could cost thousands of lives or more.
Such revelations would also put a serious dent in the NRC’s efforts to extend the operating licenses of its remaining reactor fleet out to 60 and even a terrifying 80 years as the agency is now planning to do.
And the safety vulnerabilities uncovered by an autopsy might actually frighten people. They would start to question whether nuclear power was actually as safe as the NRC and the industry say it is, especially when they learn just how many things could go wrong. They might actually see the industry’s “safe and reliable” mantra for the lie that it is.
Linda Pentz Gunter is an international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. She writes columns on the follies and false representations of nuclear energy and the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Her views also appear on the Beyond Nuclear Twitter site.
North Korea earthquake hits near nuclear test site THE AUSTRALIAN, 13 Oct 17 A series of tremors and landslides near North Korea’s nuclear test base probably mean the country’s sixth and largest blast has destabilised the region, and the Punggye-ri nuclear site may not be used for much longer to test nuclear weapons, experts say.
A small quake was detected early today near the North’s nuclear test site, South Korea’s weather agency said, but unlike quakes associated with nuclear tests, it did not appear to be man-made.
The tremor was the latest in a string of at least three shocks to be observed since Pyongyang’s September 3 nuclear test, which caused a 6.3 magnitude earthquake.
Today’s quake was a magnitude 2.7 with a depth of 3km in North Hamgyong Province in North Korea, the Korea Meteorological Administration said. The United States Geological Survey measured the quake at 2.9 magnitude at a depth of 5km.
“This event occurred in the area of the previous North Korean nuclear tests. The event has earthquake-like characteristics, however, we cannot conclusively confirm at this time the nature (natural or human-made) of the event,” the US agency said.
But the Korea Meteorological Administration in the South said on its website that “analysis shows it was a natural quake”. “It is believed to have caused no damage,” it added.
The series of quakes has prompted experts and observers to suspect the last test – which the North claimed to be of a hydrogen bomb – may have damaged the mountainous location in the northwest tip of the country, where all of North Korea’s six nuclear tests were conducted.
“The explosion from the September 3 test had such power that the existing tunnels within the underground testing site might have caved in,” said Kim So- gu, head researcher at the Korea Seismological Institute.
“I think the Punggye-ri region is now pretty saturated. If it goes ahead with another test in this area, it could risk radioactive pollution.”
According to 38 North, a Washington-based project that monitors North Korea, numerous landslides throughout the nuclear test site have been detected via satellite images after the sixth test. These disturbances are more numerous and widespread than seen after any of the North’s previous tests, 38 North said.
The explosion from the sixth test was large enough for residents of the Chinese border city of Yanji, 200km north of North Korea’s nuclear test site, to feel the ground shake beneath their feet.
“The reason why Punggye-ri has become North Korea’s nuclear testing field is because this area was considered stable and rarely saw tremors in the past,” said Hong Tae-kyung, a professor of earth system science at Yonsei University in Seoul.
Thanks To North Korea, Nuclear Bunkers Are Making A Comeback — But How Effective Are They?, Forbes, Sharon Lam , FORBES STAFF I am an editorial intern with the Asia Channel, 13 Oct 17,Those born in America in the 40’s may recall “Duck and Cover”—a public service announcement featuring an animated turtle named Bert who instructed American households on how to protect themselves in the event of a nuclear blast. While the effectiveness of this strategy has been called into question since the Cold War, the level of threat has not necessarily decreased in kind. In September, North Korea test-flighted a second missile over Japan only twelve days after its sixth nuclear weapons test earlier that month. Bunkers and fallout shelters are now seeing an uptick in sales, making their first revival since the Cold War.
In the 20-some years that have passed, has our emergency preparedness in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation become more effective, and are we now more prepared than we were before for a nuclear strike?
Destruction Of Seismic Proportions
Virtually no city is prepared for a nuclear detonation –that is the verdict of a recent report by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. While factors like location, subsequent fire blast, long-term radioactive fallout and even building shield coverage all affect overall level of destruction, a nuclear exchange would cause irreparable damage to the world. To contextualize matters, North Korea’s recent hydrogen bomb test, which was believed to be 120 kilotons TNT, dwarfs both atomic bombs dropped in World War II–the “Little “Boy” on Hiroshima and the “Fat Man” in Nagasaki.
Melissa Hanham, a senior researcher at the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, reminds us that compared to a conventional weapon, a nuclear weapon is a different beast altogether. “It’s not possible to prepare for nuclear attack. There are not enough places to shelter, not enough emergency supply nor emergency responders to handle a nuclear exchange of this magnitude. Even if you were to survive the immediate blast, you would need to think about planning for the days, weeks, months– years afterwards.”………
Public fallout shelters have also edged towards obsolescence because they cannot adequately protect against nuclear, chemical or biological attacks, and also require time to get to–time that civilians likely won’t have. As Timothy J. Jorgensen writes for The Conversation, “The main reason we no longer build fallout shelters is that as nuclear bombs have grown in size and number, the prospects of surviving a nuclear war – even in a shelter – have decreased.” Spending money on fallout shelters does not guarantee safety, and funding has instead been diverted to deterrence efforts.
Government-commissioned fallout shelters may be more symbolic than functional, and Hanham explains how their role has always been to dampen widespread panic and hysteria. The catchy tune of “Duck and Cover” in particular provided comic relief, even when it belied much darker overtones of destruction. “Even in the Cold War, when people were asked to ‘duck and cover,’ it was largely to provide comfort and solace to the people,” she says.
A Burgeoning Market For Private Bunkers
While governments may no longer be building civil defense bunkers, there’s no denying that they do mitigate the effects of nuclear fallout. It has also carved out a niche market for the sale of personalized private bunkers, usually built underground or in the basement of one’s home. Nuclear shelter companies in Japan such as Shelter Co., whose shelters come equipped with anti-radiation air purifiers and tunnel exits have also proliferated, and Oribe Seiki Seisakusho in Kobe has reportedly received eight orders in April alone, compared to its usual average total of six in a year, Reuters reports. However, U.S. based bunker companies still command the lion’s share of fallout shelters, the most popular of which are the California–based company Atlas Survival and Rising S Co. in Texas, both of which have seen an uptick in sales, according to Bloomberg.
The obvious upside of these private bunkers include the benefit of proximity—assuming one is already home and can reach a shelter faster than a crowded metro station. Unlike wartime bunkers, they are also fully stocked and often built with protective materials.
That bunkers also increase the likelihood of survivability is indeed a hopeful sign in an otherwise grim situation. The War Monitor claims that radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion loses intensity fairly rapidly. “Fallout emitting gamma ray radiation at an initial rate over 500 R/hr (fatal with one hour of exposure for 50%) shortly after an explosion, weakens to only 1/10th as strong 7 hours later. Two days later, it’s only 1/100th as strong, or as deadly, as it was initially.” This fact should be reassuring, suggesting that even staying in a shelter and waiting for radiation levels to decline can dramatically increase one’s chances of survival. During nuclear Armageddon, every extra minute afforded counts towards survival rates……https://www.forbes.com/sites/lamsharon/2017/10/13/thanks-to-north-korea-nuclear-bunkers-are-making-a-comeback-but-how-effective-are-they/#6356e67d5ddd
PLAN TO SHIP NUCLEAR WASTE DOWN HUDSON CAUSES DEBATE, Rockland County Times, rctadmin on In recent months, routes to dispose of 76,000 metric tons of used fuel have been discussed in Congress.
In a 2002 report, the Department of Energy laid out a plan to get rid of the nation’s spent nuclear power plants’ waste, which has been piling up for several decades.
The report envisioned shipped the county’s nuclear waste from various locations via barge, rail and truck routes to the Yucca Mountain in the Mojave Desert, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Among the report’s more controversial proposals is a plan to move spent fuel out of Indian Point in Buchanan along with 16 other power plants without direct access to railroad lines, by barge, down the Hudson River.
Over the course of decades 58 shipments of nuclear waste would be loaded on barges at Indian Point for the 42 miles trip down the River, passing under the new Mario Cuomo Bridge and past New York City on the way to the seaport in New Jersey.
At the NJ seaport, cement and steel casks of spent nuclear matter weighing up to 100 tons, would be placed on rail cars for a 2,600-mile trip west to the Yucca Mountains.
The plan has caused much debate among politicians in New York. Former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli stated the New Jersey ports should not be used “as rest stops for nuclear material.” http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2017/10/12/49179/
Fears of new nuclear test in North Korea after earthquake is detected near test site, Mirror UK, 12 Oct 17 All of North Korea’s previous six nuclear tests registered as earthquakes and the country’s latest tremor has struck on Friday the 13th A small earthquake has been detected in North Korea where previous nuclear tests have been carried out.
The United States Geological Survey said a 2.9 magnitude quake with a depth of 5km was recorded 23km north-east of Sungjibaegam.
The area is has been used previously by the country to carry out nuclear drills which have resulted in subsequent tremors.
A statement on the US Geological Survey website reads: “This event occurred in the area of the previous North Korean Nuclear tests.
“The event has earthquake like characteristics, however, we cannot conclusively confirm at this time the nature (natural or human-made) of the event.”
All of North Korea’s previous six nuclear tests registered as earthquakes of magnitude 4.3 or above.
The last test the country carried out on September 3 registered as a 6.3 magnitude quake.
Protesters Broke Into a Nuclear Power Plant to Prove How Badly Defended It Is Stunt was to show poorly defended France’s nuclear plants are, Fortune, By Reuters 12 Oct 17
Greenpeace activists broke through two security barriers and launched fireworks inside the grounds of a French nuclear plant on Thursday to highlight the vulnerability of the plants to attacks.
The environmentalist group issued video footage showing several of its members inside the fence of EDF’s Cattenom nuclear plant in northeast France, and launching several rounds of fireworks over the plant.
Local police said eight people had been detained. EDF said there had been no impact on Cattenom’s security and condemned Greenpeace’s intrusion as “irresponsible.”
“Do we need to wait for a malicious attack on a nuclear plant before EDF gets out of denial?” asked Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaign head Yannick Rousselet.
Olivier Lamarre, deputy head of EDF’s French nuclear fleet, said on a call with reporters that Greenpeace activists had broken through two barriers and reached the reactor’s nuclear zone to within a few tens of meters of the nuclear installations.
He said that as the activists had raised their hands in the air and unfurled a Greenpeace banner, police officials present on the site arrested them without violence within eight minutes……..
France’s nuclear spent-fuel pools major security risk: Greenpeace, Geert De Clercq, 10 Oct 17, PARIS (Reuters) – The spent-fuel pools of French utility EDF’s nuclear reactors are highly vulnerable to attacks, Greenpeace said in a report published on Tuesday.
Written by a group of nuclear experts and delivered to French authorities, the report says that spent-fuel pools, which typically contain the equivalent of one to three nuclear reactor cores, have not been designed to withstand external aggression.
An attack leading to a loss of cooling water could spark a spent-fuel fire that could contaminate areas as far as 250 kilometers away, Greenpeace’s Yannick Rousselet said. “EDF must address this issue and reinforce its spent-fuel pools,” he said.
EDF, which operates 58 reactors, denied its spent-fuel pools are at risk and said they have been designed to withstand earthquakes and flooding as well as terror attacks. “Our nuclear fleet is safe and EDF, in close cooperation with the authorities, permanently evaluates the risk of terror attacks,” and EDF spokeswoman said.
Once uranium fuel is burned, the waste – which remains radioactive and very hot for years – typically is cooled in pools 2-3 years before being shipped to processing plants.
Greenpeace experts estimate the cost of upgrading the pools’ safety at about one billion euros ($1.2 billion) per reactor.The group said that since France has built many nuclear plants right by its borders, citizens of Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Germany and Luxembourg are at risk.
“Nuclear facilities could be an attractive target for a terror organization,” said German nuclear expert Oda Becker.
Becker said the biggest risk is a complete loss of cooling water, which could happen if the building’s walls are hit by an airplane, a helicopter loaded with explosives or wall-penetrating rocket-propelled grenades.
nuclear-news 