‘New Nuclear” lobby working to weaken powers of USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, said the timing of the legislation is “premature.” Lyman told Congress to consider that the legislation might pose an unfair burden on taxpayers and put Americans at increased risk.
The legislation would also eliminate language that requires NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to hold a hearing on new applications.
“That’s inherently dangerous technology that needs tough questions to be asked about it,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “I don’t think the public is going to be happy if they’re told ‘no hearings’ on this dangerous technology.”
Advanced reactor bill raises ‘red flags‘ Hannah Hess, E&E reporter E&E Daily: Friday, April 22, 2016
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s head of operations yesterday tried to sell lawmakers on a strategy to license the latest nuclear technology.
But Victor McCree had to contend with lawmakers who have their own plan to lay the groundwork for advanced reactors, and it goes beyond the administration’s comfort zone……
Eight days ago, EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) teamed up with Whitehouse and Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to introduce legislation to reform the licensing process and restructure how NRC is funded.
But a hearing of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee revealed concerns about safety and security, including NRC’s own fears that the legislation could handcuff regulators (E&E Daily, April 14).
The bill would change NRC to develop “technology-inclusive regulatory framework” — defined as using methods of evaluation that are flexible and predictable, such as risk-informed and performance-based techniques.
Critics warn that lawmakers didn’t properly explain those terms, which could lead to less rigorous standards for the approval of novel nuclear power technologies.
The legislation would also eliminate language that requires NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to hold a hearing on new applications.
“That’s inherently dangerous technology that needs tough questions to be asked about it,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “I don’t think the public is going to be happy if they’re told ‘no hearings’ on this dangerous technology.”
NRC concerns
McCree, who assumed NRC’s top career post last fall, cautioned that the bipartisan legislation would require “significant time and resources” over several years in areas where the agency’s internal planning process was well underway.
Current performance metrics allow fluidity at NRC to “account for emerging safety or security issues, changes in licensee plans and the like,” McCree said. “As written, the proposed requirements would limit the NRC’s flexibility in this area.”
At the Obama administration’s request, NRC earmarked $5 million for work on advancing small modular reactor (SMR) licensing practices in its fiscal 2017 budget proposal. Both House and Senate proposed spending bills include language to address this issue.
McCree said NRC staff expect to complete the first draft of their own strategy for licensing non-light-water reactor technologies soon and will discuss it in a public meeting in June.
NRC is also in the process of a downsizing measure, popular on Capitol Hill, that aims to streamline the agency.
Testifying on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, where he now is chairman of a task force on advanced reactors, Merrifield encouraged the committee to press for further staffing cuts below NRC’s Project Aim 2020. ….NRC’s budget for fiscal 2017 would cut an equivalent of 90 full-time employees, surpassing the Project Aim goal, for a total reduction of roughly 280 full-time workers since fiscal 2014 …….
One thing senators and the nuclear industry agree on is that the commission’s current licensing process, with a design and certification that can cost billions of dollars and stretch for up to a decade, is one of the biggest obstacles for SMRs and advanced reactor designs that use coolants other than water.
“You have a situation in which it is very hard to get early investment in these new technologies,” Crapo said.
Ashley Finan, policy director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, one of four industry witnesses who testified in support of the Senate legislation, presented charts showing the big money and time hurdles the private sector sees with the current NRC process.
“The investors and innovators have made it very clear that their most immediate and pressing concern is regulatory uncertainty,” Finan said……
Because advanced nuclear reactor companies rely primarily on investors, the bill seeks to change the model……
The Nuclear Infrastructure Council wants language added that would provide early stage engagement with no or limited cost to the developer, with an “appropriate cost share,” perhaps 50-50, for later stages of the licensing process.
“Fewer resources are not good for the agency in protecting against a terrorist attack,” said an animated Markey, demanding any of the witnesses to refute his claim.
Bill ‘premature’
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, said the timing of the legislation is “premature.”
Lyman told Congress to consider that the legislation might pose an unfair burden on taxpayers and put Americans at increased risk.
The history of the failed Next Generation Nuclear Plant project, a prototype of a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, is an illustrative example, he said.
Mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the project was suspended after the Energy Department decided in 2011 not to proceed into the detailed design and license application phases. DOE’s decision cited the reluctance of vendors, owners and operators, and customers to commit to substantial upfront cost sharing.
“The main problem is the cost and difficulty of obtaining the necessary analyses and experimental data to satisfy regulatory requirements and ensure that new reactors can operate safely,” Lyman said. “This is a fundamental issue we think Congress needs to address through oversight of the budget for nuclear energy [research and development].”….. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060036081
USA Nuclear regulator allows big drop in Vermont Yankee insurance ( tax-payer will cover any disaster)
FEDS ALLOW BIG DROP IN VERMONT YANKEE INSURANCE, VT Digger, APR. 21, 2016, BY MIKE FAHER VERNON — It’s not cheap to maintain an insurance policy on a nuclear power plant.
But as of this month, Entergy Vermont Yankee is getting a big break on its premiums: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the company can cut its on-site property damage insurance coverage from $1.06 billion to $50 million……..
Since stopping power production at Vermont Yankee in December 2014, Entergy has sought a number of regulatory changes for the Vernon plant.
One example is an NRC-approvedreduction in the Vermont Yankee emergency planning zone, which took effect Tuesday. In making a successful case for cutting emergency planning and funding, Entergy argued that the potential for accidents and radiation releases is much lower now that the plant is no longer operational.
The company’s request to reduce its insurance coverage uses the same logic……
The main risks remaining in Vernon, officials say, are associated with radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Currently, that fuel is stored both in a cooling pool in the plant’s reactor building and in sealed dry casks on a pad nearby; Entergy has pledged that all fuel will be in casks by the end of 2020……..There is a possibility — though the NRC labels it “highly unlikely” — that, if water were drained from the cooling pool, zirconium cladding on the spent fuel could catch fire…..
The NRC notes that it has granted similar insurance exemptions to other decommissioning plants including Maine Yankee and the Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois…..
the NRC’s exemption announcement has immediate financial benefits for Vermont Yankee: When factoring in reductions in both on-site and off-site insurance policies, the company’s annual premiums will decrease from about $1.9 million to less than $500,000, Cohn said……https://vtdigger.org/2016/04/21/feds-allow-big-drop-in-vermont-yankee-insurance/
Radioactive rain within Indian Point 2 reactor cavity falls on workers
23 Years of Radioactive Rainfall at New York Nuclear Plant, Huffington Post, Roger Witherspoon, 18 Apr 16,
And after decades of ignoring the problem and having workers wear raincoats and rain hats to prevent radioactive contamination from the indoor precipitation, Entergy pledged in 2010 to try different methods in each of the next three refueling outages to see if they could stop the flow of water through the massive concrete and steel tub surrounding the reactor. That six-year plan was deemed acceptable by the NRC.
But Entergy’s efforts during the first two refueling outages failed. The plant is currently in the midst of the third refueling outage and NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said in an email exchange that the company has been unable to find or halt the leaks.
“Entergy is still working on a solution to the problem of leakage from the Unit 2 refueling cavity,” Sheehan wrote. “Thus far, the leakage has not yet been halted. But it’s important to note that leakage is captured in the containment building sump and then processed in the plant’s radioactive water cleanup system.
“We had a metallurgical specialist at the site this week to observe Unit 2 refueling activities. As part of his inspection, he reviewed the work on the refueling cavity. The results of that review will be documented in an upcoming inspection report.”
- The steady drip of about 10 gallons per minute comes through the specially designed, concrete, waterproof cavity which surrounds the reactor and is filled with water in order for refueling to take place. Exposure to the reactor core would kill anyone in the area, so the cavity extends more than 30 feet above the reactor itself. When filled, the reactor head can be removed remotely and the 12-foot long fuel rods lifted out and transported on an underwater train through a flooded canal to the spent fuel pool in an adjacent building………
- At this decades-long leak rate, more than 4.6 million gallons of radioactive rain has fallen through the reactor cavity and transfer canal onto the work area below………
Entergy has been seeking 20 year extensions on the licenses of the twin reactors, which are now more than 40 years old, since 2007. The license for Indian Point 2 expired in 2013, and the license for Indian Point 3 expired last year. They are currently allowed to operate by the NRC until the licensing process is complete. The NRC is actively seeking to relicense all of the nation’s 100 reactors, and has so far granted extensions to about 75. The license review process for all other reactors has taken an average of two years.
- The extensions for both Indian Point plants, however, are being challenged by the environmental groups Riverkeeper and Clearwater, and the State of New York on several grounds, including contentions that the ageing management process for the plants’ critical components is flawed and unreliable……….
An Old, Unsolved Problem
The indoor leaks at Indian Point stem from a grave miscalculation made when the nation’s nuclear plants were designed in the 50s and 60s. It was assumed, explained Lochbaum, that pipes and concrete conduits wouldn’t break down over time and that concrete, though porous, was certainly unlikely to leak in the two weeks to a month needed for refueling and reactor maintenance. http://linkis.com/huffingtonpost.com/jBTm9
Growing concern over Sendai Nuclear Plant as earthquakes continue in the region
Kyushu Earthquake Swarm Raises Concerns Over Nuclear Plant Safety IEEE Spectrum, By John Boyd 21 Apr 2016 The populous island of Kyushu in southwest Japan has been shaken by hundreds of earthquakes and aftershocks over the past eight days, and there is no immediate end in sight to Mother Nature’s upheavals.
The first major quake, 6.5 in magnitude, struck on April 14. A second more disastrous tremblor measuring 7.3 hit the area at 1:25 am on Thursday, April 16, injuring thousands of people, and killing dozens. Water, electricity and gas services have been disrupted. Buildings, roads, and bridges have been destroyed, complicating search, rescue and aid efforts for emergency workers and the Japan Self-Defense Force. The quakes are occurring inland, so there are no tsunami warnings.
As the quakes continue, fears are growing over the safety of two nuclear reactors in the Sendai Nuclear Plant operated by Kyushu Electric Power Co. (Kyuden). According to the Japan Times, citizens’ fears are rising, while mayors from more than 100 cities have called on the central government “to re-evaluate the way earthquake safety standards for nuclear power plants are calculated.”……http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/kyushu-earthquake-swarm-raises-concerns-over-nuclear-plant-safety
Belgian nuclear safety in question, after repeated reactor shutdowns
Renewed shutdowns cast doubt on Belgian nuclear safety, DW, 21.04.2016 Martin Kuebler, Brussels
Belgium’s nuclear authority has said its power plants are safe after calls by Germany to shut down two aging reactors. But critics say details are lacking – and point to a conflict of interest. Martin Kuebler reports.
With doubts about the safety of Belgium’s nuclear reactors rife among neighboring countries, and the threat of attacks on its nuclear sites still a valid concern, the news that one of the country’s disputed reactors had once again shut down unexpectedly on Thursday wasn’t encouraging.
Late in the afternoon, utilities operator Engie Electrabel announced that the 34-year-old Doel 3 reactor near the city of Antwerp, close to the border with the Netherlands, had automatically shut down following a standard test – “normal procedure if there is an anomaly,” according to a plant spokesperson. The Belga news agency said the outage was expected to last for 24 hours.
Earlier in the day, Engie also said the Doel 1 reactor – shut down since April 13 for maintenance work scheduled to last several days – would now remain offline until May 31 “for additional analyses” and “operational maintenance.” Doel 1 and 2, in operation since the mid-1970s, were set to be taken out of service in 2015 after 40 years, until parliament decided to extend their lifespans by another decade.
The shutdowns are just the latest for Belgium’s seven aging reactors, which in the last two years have gone offline around 10 times for various technical problems or minor emergencies like fires – four incidents this year alone.
On Wednesday, German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks called on the Belgian government to shut down Doel 3 and Tihange 2, located near the eastern city of Liège, for an indefinite period to guarantee safety “until further research can be undertaken.”
Her request came after a meeting between representatives of the German Environment Ministry, an independent German Reactor Safety Commission (RSK) and Belgium’s Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) in early April, in which Germany expressed its concern over tiny cracks in the pressure vessels of the two reactors discovered in 2012.
Hendricks pointed out that RSK had failed to confirm that the reactors were safe, and called for further tests to show that Belgium “takes the concerns of its German neighbors seriously.” The Tihange nuclear power station is located about 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the German border, and the decision to restart Tihange 2 in December sparked great concern in the nearby city of Aachen.
Belgium’s Energy and Environment Minister Marie-Christine Marghem was unavailable for comment on Thursday………. http://www.dw.com/en/renewed-shutdowns-cast-doubt-on-belgian-nuclear-safety/a-19206484
Nuclear Regulatory Commission orders Exelon to quickly fix Peach Bottom waste storage pools
NRC: Peach Bottom must fix nuclear fuel pools, YDR.com Brett Sholtis, bsholtis@ydr.com April 21, 2016
Panels in the nuclear power plant’s waste storage pools have degraded below acceptable levels, the NRC says. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission flagged Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, along with four other nuclear power plants, for a problem with its nuclear waste storage in an April 7 letter.
At issue are Peach Bottom’s “spent fuel pools,” two tanks of circulating water, about 40 feet deep, which are located in buildings near its two reactors. Used fuel rods, still lethally radioactive, are stored in the pools, where the water helps to cool the rods and keep radiation contained.
The walls of the above-ground tanks are lined with special panels that help to prevent unwanted nuclear reactions, said Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman.
Peach Bottom’s panels have degraded, making the nuclear waste more likely to threaten plant safety, Sheehan said.
“The pool could heat up, and it would be an event they’d have to respond to,” Sheehan said. “The idea is to prevent this from ever occurring.”
Peach Bottom has 210 days to tell the NRC what it has done to address the issue, Sheehan said. Though not an immediate safety concern, “degradation” of the panels has been “a longstanding issue,” Sheehan said.
In March 2012 the NRC issued a violation against Exelon, the company that owns the plant, for failing to keep the panels from degrading below required levels, Sheehan said……..http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2016/04/21/nrc-peach-bottom-must-fix-nuclear-fuel-pool/83344280/
NATO concerned at danger of ISIS nuclear attack on Britain or Europe
EU and Nato say there is ‘a justified concern’ of ISIS carrying out a chemical or nuclear attack in Britain or Europe
- ISIS ‘plans nuclear and chemical attacks on Britain and EU’, say NATO
- Terrorists are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, security chiefs warns
- ISIS is also ‘trying to implant bombs in humans and hack driver less cars’
- See more news on the ISIS threat at www.dailymail.co.uk/isis
By SARA MALM and ALLAN HALL FOR MAILONLINE, 20 April 2016 ISIS terrorists are planning nuclear and chemical attacks on Britain and Europe, international security chiefs have warned.
Both Nato and the EU say there are ‘justified concerns’ that ISIS jihadists are working on obtaining chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear materials to carry out attacks on the EU.
Speaking at the Security and Counter Terror Expo in London this week, senior counter terrorism officials warned of ISIS’s plans to carry out chemical attacks. ‘With CBRN [chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear materials], there is a justified concern.’ Jorge Berto Silva, deputy head of counter terrorism for the European Commission said according to The Telegraph.
Dr Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security threats at Nato, told the annual Security and Counter Terror Expo: ‘We know terrorists are trying to acquire these substances.’………http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547840/EU-Nato-say-justified-concern-ISIS-carrying-chemical-nuclear-attack-Britain-Europe.html
‘Catastrophic’ Nuclear leak at Washington’s infamous Hanford Site
Nuclear leak at Washington’s infamous Hanford Site is CATASTROPHIC, former worker claims, as eight inches of radioactive waste escapes core of ‘the world’s safest’ tank, Daily Mail , 20 Apr 16 [EXCELLENT PHOTOS]
- Tank has two shells; a crack was spotted in the inner one in 2011
- Now that crack has widened, spilling waste into the gap between the shells
- It happened after attempts to pump the waste out of the tank
- The Department of Energy says this was ‘anticipated’
- But workers at the plant said they weren’t told it was a possibility
- The double-shell tank can contain up to a million gallons of deadly waste
- It was supposed to be the safest possible container for radioactive liquid
- The Hanford Site provided plutonium for the first atomic bomb
By JAMES WILKINSON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM, 20 April 2016
A nuclear leak first spotted five years ago at Washington state’s Hanford Site has got dramatically worse with eight inches of radioactive liquid escaping a protective carbon steel shell.
The tank, named AY-102, has two shells, with the inner steel layer containing up to one million gallons of the deadly waste, and the outer concrete one providing a two-foot-wide gap to collect the waste if the inner shell broke.
Now a small leak in the inner shell first seen in 2011 has worsened, allowing eight inches of the dangerous goo to leak out in an event that one ex-worker is calling ‘catastrophic.’
Former Hanford worker Mike Geffre was the first to spot the leak in AY-102’s inner shell in 2011, but it took the government a year to actually announce what had happened.
Back then, the small leak only allowed a slow flow of radioactive waste into the gap between the shells, or ‘annulus’. That liquid which would quickly dry up into a white powder. But after five years, they discovered on Sunday that the crack had got worse.
‘This is catastrophic,’ he told KGW.com. ‘This is probably the biggest event to ever happen in tank farm history. The double-shell tanks were supposed to be the saviors of all saviors.’
The Hanford Site was a major Second World War and Cold War nuclear site; it provided plutonium for the first atomic bomb.
It now houses millions of gallons of nuclear waste – two-thirds of all high-level radioactive waste in America in 2007 – and cleanup on the site has been ongoing since 1989.
As well as AY-102, six single-shell tanks were noted to be leaking in 2013.
Ironically, the original cracks in AY-102 appear to have been further widened by government efforts to pump waste out of the tank, sources told KGW.
Pumping began three weeks ago, after Washington state spent three years petitioning the federal government, which owns the tanks, to deal with the damaged structure.
But the change in pressure appears to have ‘blown out’ the weakened wall, causing the increased leak and bringing the waste closer to the nearby Columbia River.
‘The primary tanks weren’t designed to stage waste like this for so many years,’ a current worker told KGW. ‘There’s always the question, “Are the outer shells compromised?”‘…………
workers at the plant told KGW that despite claims the breach was ‘anticipated,’ they had not been made aware that something like this could occur.
And Geffre said that he was frustrated that his warnings in 2011 hadn’t been acted on for an entire year. ‘It’s an example of a culture at Hanford of “We don’t have problems here. We’re doing just fine.” Which is a total lie,’ he said.
Construction on the Hanford site began in 1943, and it went on to house the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor, and to provide plutonium for the first atomic bomb.
After the Cold War ended, the site housed 53 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste and 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste.
There were 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater beneath the site. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547975/Five-year-long-nuclear-leak-Washington-state-s-infamous-Hanford-Site-CATASTROPHIC-former-worker-claims-eight-inches-radioactive-waste-escapes-world-s-safest-tank-one-night.html
Calls to shut down Japan’s Sendai nuclear plant, near to earthquake zone
Despite assurances, quakes prompt calls to switch off Japan’s nuclear reactors, Japan Times, BY ERIC JOHNSTON STAFF WRITER 19 Apr 16, OSAKA – Despite official assurances of no abnormalities at nuclear power plants in Kyushu and nearby areas after a series of earthquakes rocked the region, calls in and outside of Japan are growing to shut down the nation’s only two operating reactors at the Sendai plant in Kagoshima Prefecture.
Since Thursday, the Meteorological Agency has recorded nearly 530 quakes at level 1 or above on the Japanese intensity scale in Kumamoto and Oita Prefectures. This includes more than 80 registering a 4 or higher on the scale. The agency has warned that seismic activity in the region may continue over the next week, possibly prompting more deadly landslides.
But despite the frequency of the quakes, the Sendai plant, just over the border from Kumamoto in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, has continued to generate electricity since the initial magnitude-6.5 quake rocked Kumamoto on Thursday, followed by a magnitude-7.3 temblor early Saturday………
with continued quakes and aftershocks, fears are growing about what the constant shaking could mean in terms of cumulative damage that could result in a nuclear crisis.
An online Japanese- and English-language petition by a former Kumamoto resident to shut down the Sendai plant had drawn over 42,000 signatures worldwide as of Monday morning, while anti-nuclear activists in Fukui Prefecture have also criticized Kyushu Electric Power Co. and the NRA for continuing to operate the plant.
In Saga Prefecture on Sunday, about 100 mayors and town heads belonging to the Mayors for a Nuclear Power Free Japan added their voices, calling for the central government and the NRA to re-evaluate the way earthquake safety standards for nuclear power plants are calculated.
They also want the government to grant localities within 30 km of a nuclear power plant the legal authority to approve or reject reactor restarts.
The decision to keep the Sendai reactors running is also drawing criticism overseas……..http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/18/national/despite-assurances-quakes-prompt-calls-switch-off-japans-nuclear-reactors/#.VxaeG9R97Gh
Japan’s nuclear regulator to provide daily information on condition of 4 nuclear facilities near earthquake region
NRA to issue nuclear plant info every day amid quake concerns, Japan Times 19 Apr 16 KYODO The Nuclear Regulation Authority said Tuesday it will begin providing information every day on the safety of four nuclear plants located around the region hit by the series of earthquakes that started last week.
The nuclear watchdog will update information on the condition of the Sendai, Genkai, Ikata and Shimane nuclear plants and radiation levels around them at 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. every day to address public concerns………
The only two commercial reactors currently operating in Japan are at the Sendai complex in Kagoshima Prefecture. The facility is operated by Kyushu Electric Power Co.
Until now, the NRA has not provided such information to the public unless an earthquake measuring at least lower 5 on the Japanese intensity scale of 7 is registered in the location of a nuclear plant, even when a strong earthquake occurs in a neighboring area.
When the quake hit Kumamoto on Thursday night, the NRA did not provide any information about the safety of the four plants until Friday morning. The slow response prompted the government to instruct the NRA to improve its information disclosure.
Under the new rules, when an earthquake measuring lower 5 or higher is recorded in Kyushu, the NRA will also provide information immediately with data about the nuclear plants.
Kyushu Electric’s Genkai power station is located in Saga Prefecture, northwestern Kyushu, while Chugoku Electric Power Co.’s Shimane plant is in Honshu, northeast of Kumamoto. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/19/national/nra-issue-nuclear-plant-info-every-day-amid-quake-concerns/#.VxamldR97Gh
Ukraine – insecure, corrupt, – on Chernobyl anniversary – the nuclear danger
For security reasons, Australia has suspended uranium sales to Russia. It seems extraordinary that Australia should now enter into a deal with even more unsafe and unstable Ukraine, in its present war and political crisis.
Four big reasons not to sell uranium to Ukraine https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/fourbig-reasons-not-to-sell-uranium-to-ukraine,8895 Noel Wauchope 18 April 2016 As the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster approaches, Noel Wauchope outlines just a few compelling reasons why the Coalition Government’s uranium deal with Ukraine may have further disastrous consequences.
WHAT AMAZINGLY insensitive timing! As the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe approaches, Australia makes a deal (at the Nuclear Security Summit) to sell uranium to Ukraine.
This is such a bad idea for so many reasons — it’s hard to know which to pick first!
Economics: simply because uranium exporting is not really economically worthwhile.
Chernobyl’s plight: because Ukraine’s Chernobyl radioactive disaster is continuing. (We supplied uranium for that other catastrophe — Fukushima.)
Insecurity: Ukraine’s dangerous nuclear industry due to civil war, ageing reactors, risks of smuggling and terrorism.
Political crisis: Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt and unstable political regime.
Let’s check those four reasons.
Economics
The global uranium industry is in a declining state. Price reporting companies describe repeated low and falling uranium prices. Australia’s uranium industry now accounts for 0.2 per cent of national export revenue — and that’s not counting profits that go overseas, due to the high degree of foreign ownership of companies mining uranium in Australia.
Chernobyl’s plight
The 30th anniversary of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear accident is on 26 April 2016. Ukraine is still suffering from, and struggling with, the legacy of that radioactive catastrophe. The conservativeWorld Health Organisation (WHO) estimates the radiation caused deaths at 4,000 — based on itsreport ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes’. The 2016 TORCH (The Other Report on Chernobyl) Report amplifies this discussion (summary here) but all sources agree that no conclusive figure can be given.
The legacy of the accident includes the struggle to contain the radioactivity of the shattered reactor.
Insecurity
This issue of nuclear security is another irony in this uranium sales deal. Julie Bishop and Ukraine President used the meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit in New York to discuss the sale. The focus of the Summit was the need to protect radioactive materials from dangerous zones, and from the risk of terrorists obtaining them.
You couldn’t pick a more dangerous zone than Ukraine
Ukraine’s Zaporizhia nuclear facility is Europe’s largest and is only 200 kilometres from the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine. Already there have been sabotage events that affected its nuclear programme.
All of these events have led to an additional emergency shutdown of the electrical network of two units at thermal power plants – the Dnieper and Uglegorskaya – and the emergency unloading by 500 MW of nuclear power plants in Ukraine. This includes Zaporozhskaya NPP and the South Ukrainian NPP. I want to stress that such emergency unloading of a nuclear plant – it is very dangerous. ~ Senior Ukrainian energy official Yuriy Katich.
Some commentators have described nuclear plants in the region as pre-deployed nuclear targets and there have already been armed incursions during the recent conflict period.
Bankwatch recently listed 10 reasons why Ukraine’s nuclear power stations are a security danger for Europe. These include Ukraine’s ageing reactors – some already having exceeded their planned lifespan – and restrictions on the nuclear regulator’s ability to inspect reactors. Bankwatch regards Ukraine as a huge financial risk to Europe:
The European Commission, the European Parliament, and EU governments – particularly in neighouring countries that could be affected by the Ukrainian government’s reckless nuclear adventure – need to demand Ukraine complies with its international obligations, especially when EU public money is involved.
Petro Poroshenko’s Government is responding to Bankwatch’s criticism with a lawsuit against Bankwatch’s member group National Ecological Centre of Ukraine (NECU), in an attempt to silence criticism and avoid public scrutiny. Organisations in five European countries have joined in a campaign for transparency about Ukraine’s nuclear programme.
Even Ukraine’s own Progress Report to the Nuclear Security Summit admits some safety problems, listing over 1400 sources of ionising radiation that are not under regulatory control.
Ukraine now has a messy and competitive nuclear power system, in which Western companiesAREVA and Westinghouse compete in marketing and upgrading nuclear reactors and lobby to sell nuclear fuel. But Russia actually controls the fuel supply, providing nuclear fuel to 13 out of Ukraine’s 15 reactors.
Ukraine is just next door to Moldova, the heart of a 2014 nuclear smuggling gang. With Ukraine’s secretive nuclear arrangements, and inadequate regulatory system, the possibility of theft of radioactive materials is a real one in Ukraine.
Political crisis
Oligarchs are reported to control 70 per cent of the state’s economy. The country has been described as a “cleptocracy” —with so much intrigue amongst corrupt politicians and oligarchs that it’s called “Ukraine’s Deep State”.
President Petro Poroshenko himself is a very successful businessman, whose business assets have increased over the past year. Before the last election, Poroshenko pledged to sell his company Roshen but now refuses to do so. He also owns a major TV channel. His private assets are larger than those of any other European leader. Poroshenko is currently involved in a real estate scandal.
Along with lawmaker and business partner Ihor Kononenko, Poroshenko is co-owner of the International Investment Bank. Kononenko is accused of being involved in a laundering scheme that moves money from Ukrprominvest (a group founded by Kononenko and Poroshenko) to the British Virgin Islands through offshore companies Intraco Management Ltd and Ernion. Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius, who worked to expose political corruption, resigned in disgust on 3 February, saying:
“Neither me nor my team have any desire to serve as a cover-up for the covert corruption, or become puppets for those who, very much like the “old” government, are trying to exercise control over the flow of public funds”.
Aivaras claimed that Prime Minister Mr Yatsenyuk and Mr Poroshenko were blocking reforms aimed at tackling corruption. Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigned suddenly on 11 April, under pressure from Poroshenko, who has replaced him with close associate, Volodymyr Groysman. Several reformers from Ukraine’s previous government are departing after declining to serve under Mr Groysman.
The West is watching the Ukrainian regime carefully. The IMF has been providing a $17.5 billion support scheme to cash-strapped Ukraine but has put it on hold, due to the corruption and instability of the regime.
Early this month, the Netherlands held a referendum regarding a potential Ukraine-EU treaty on closer political and economic ties. A whopping 61 per cent (2.509 million people) voted against Ukraine’s association with the EU. European nations, as well as many Ukrainians share in loss of confidence in the government, following this referendum as well as revelations of scandals in the Prosecutor General’s Office.
All this concern came to a head with the revelations of the Panama Papers, in which President Poroshenko figures largely. Unlike Iceland’s President, Poroshenko has no intention of resigning. The West has been very quiet about the allegations against him — presumably they support anyone who is opposed to Russia’s Putin.
Poroshenko claims that his financial arrangements have all been legal. But not everyone agrees with that. Igor Lutsenko, a member of Verkhovna Rada, Supreme Council of Ukraine, outlines how Poroshenko violated Ukrainian law in setting up the British Virgin Islands firm.
For security reasons, Australia has suspended uranium sales to Russia. It seems extraordinary that Australia should now enter into a deal with even more unsafe and unstable Ukraine, in its present war and political crisis.
No doubt the federal parliament’s influential Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) will examine the planned deal, that Julie Bishop signed up to in New York with Ukrainian Energy and Coal Industry Minister Volodymyr Demchyshyn.
JSCOT recently warned against the agreement to sell uranium to India but its recommendations were ignored by the Coalition Government. Here’s hoping that there will be scrutiny on the Ukrainian agreement and that the government will pay attention.
Chernobyl’s nuclear nightmare – a timeline
Chernobyl: Timeline of a nuclear nightmare http://www.wtsp.com/news/nation-now/chernobyl-timeline-of-a-nuclear-nightmare/138536883 Kim Hjelmgaard and USA TODAY , April 17, 2016
Timeline of a disaster
February 1986:
Ukraine’s Minister of Power and Electrification Vitali Sklyarov tells Soviet Life magazine that the odds of a meltdown at Chernobyl’s nuclear power plant are “one in 10,000 years.”
April 25, 1986:
The plant’s operators prepare to conduct a special test to see how an emergency water cooling system would fare in the event of a complete loss of power.
April 26, 1986:
The test begins at 1:23.04 a.m.
Fifty-six seconds later, pressure builds in the reactor No. 4 in the form of steam. This causes an explosion that lifts a 1,000-ton lid that covers volatile fuel elements. Radiation is immediately released into the air.
As oxygen pours into the reactor, a graphite fire begins. A chemical reaction causes a second explosion, and burning debris lands on the roof of reactor No. 3.
Meanwhile, the engineer responsible for the night shift, Alexander Akinhov, does not yet think the reactor’s core is damaged. “The reactor is OK, we have no problems,” he says. Akinhov subsequently dies from radiation illness.
Thirty separate fires develop. An alarm goes off at a local fire station.
At 1.45 a.m. firefighters arrive. They know nothing about radiation and aren’t wearing any protective clothing. Driver Grigory Khmel later recalls: “We saw graphite lying everywhere. I kicked a bit of it. Another fireman picked up a piece and said ‘hot.’ Neither of us had any idea of radiation. My colleagues Kolya, Pravik and others all went up the ladder of the reactor. I never saw them again.”
At 3:12 a.m. an alarm goes off at an army base deep in the Soviet Union. The general in charge decides to send troops. They arrive in Ukraine’s capital of Kiev at 2 p.m.
At 5 a.m. reactor No. 3 is shut down. Reactors No. 1 and 2 are stopped about 24 hours later.
April 27, 1986:
As more emergency response teams arrive, evacuations begin in a radius of 6 miles around the plant. April 28, 1986:
The Soviet Union publicly admits for the first time that an accident happened but gives few details.
An alarm goes off at a Swedish nuclear plant after the soles of shoes worn by a nuclear safety engineer there test positive for radioactivity. The radiation is traced to Chernobyl.
May 1, 1986:
May Day parades to celebrate workers go ahead as planned in Kiev and Belarus’ capital Minsk despite huge amounts of radiation continuing to be released. Wind, and radioactive clouds, blow back toward Kiev after initially drifting northwest toward Europe. Authorities believe that by holding these celebrations they will prevent panic.
May 14, 1986:
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev talks about the accident live on television. He subsequently mobilizes hundreds of thousands of people, including military reservists from all parts of the Soviet Union, to help in the cleanup.
They become known as “liquidators.” Many will become ill and die from radiation-related diseases.
Gorbachev, in a 2006 memoir, says Chernobyl “was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.”
India ‘s nuclear programme reported as unsafe, by Harvard think tank
US think tank ranks Indian Nuclear programme as unsafe, http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/04/17/foreign/us-think-tank-ranks-indian-nuclear-programme-as-unsafe/PT, 17 Apr 16 An independent US report has declared the Indian nuclear programme not only unsafe but also called for a satisfactory international oversight.
The recently released report by the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School identified problems arising from the gaps in the commitments that India made after the nuclear deal, and focused on India’s separation plan, its Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.
The report observes that India is currently running three streams that include: civilian safeguarded, civilian un-safeguarded, and military.
The Separation Plan did not extend safeguards to a number of nuclear facilities that serve civilian functions, and consequently these facilities may also be used in India’s military programme.
The safeguards agreement also allows India to store, use, or process nuclear material subject to safeguards at a facility that is not under continuous safeguards. In addition, the agreement contains provisions for the substitution of unsafeguarded material for safeguarded material.
India negotiated with the IAEA a much more limited additional protocol: the reporting and access provisions of India’s additional protocol are effectively restricted to India’s export activities. Consequently, India’s safeguards agreement and its additional protocol do not have any practical application to its uranium and thorium mines, heavy water production facilities, nuclear fuel cycle-related research activities, or plants where it manufactures equipment for its nuclear facilities.
Not far from Sendai nuclear reactors, Japan gets second earthquake, mag 7.3
Japan’s Kumamoto rocked by magnitude 7.3 earthquake 24 hours after first shock, SMH April 16, 2016 Tokyo: A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck southern Japan early on Saturday, killing at least 11 people, injuring many more and bringing down buildings, media reported, just over a day after a quake killed nine people in the same region.
Authorities warned of damage over a wide area, as reports came in of scores of people trapped in collapsed buildings, fires and power outages.
Residents living near a dam were told to leave because of fears it might crumble, broadcaster NHK said…….
People still reeling from a magnitude 6.5 quake on Thursday poured onto the streets after the Saturday quake struck at 1.25 am……….
M7.0 earthquake in Japan – same area as yesterday’s foreshocks. https://t.co/eSYh0m7VMI. Hearts out to them pic.twitter.com/41M2BGRmRR……..
Japan is on the seismically active “ring of fire” around the Pacific Ocean and has building codes aimed at helping structures withstand earthquakes.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/japans-kumamoto-rocked-by-magnitude-74-earthquake-just-24-hours-after-first-shock-20160415-go7ucs.html#ixzz45xKID5Fc
Rt.com outlines the 8 most dangerous nuclear plants near earthquake fault lines
Disasters waiting to happen: 8 most dangerous nuclear plants near earthquake fault lines, Rt.com [excellent pictures] 5 Apr, 2016
“ ……….dozens of potential atomic bombs operate along seismic fault lines. Here are eight of the most deadly, including one that may never be built because of Fukushima.
Koeberg nuclear power plant, Capetown Koeberg is the only nuclear power plant on the continent of Africa and just 8km from the Milnerton fault, which crosses Table Bay. While the largest earthquake to hit the city came more than 200 years ago, the Milnerton fault has the potential to hit at least 6.5 on the Richter scale. Energy company Eskom have insisted the plant is built to “ensure that no radiation escapes under any conceivable circumstances, from an earthquake to a jumbo jet collision.”
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California Situated along by the shores of the Pacific Ocean – and four active fault lines, this plant has come under scrutiny since Fukushima. Diablo Canyon’s two reactors lie in an earthquake red zone with the Hosgri fault, the Los Osos fault, the San Luis Bay fault, and the Shoreline fault all nearby – and the major San Andreas fault 80km away…..
Indian Point, New York The Empire State’s Indian Point is considered by many to be the next Fukushima.Not only has the plant been plagued with operational problems, but it is situated almost on top of the Rampano fault line.A study by Columbia University in 2008 suggested the New York area was at greater risk of high-magnitude earthquakes than first thought, with the discovery of a new potential disaster area, the Stamfrod-Peekskill line. A spill of radioactive water at the plant in January led environmentalists to call for its closure, with the Riverkeeper group declaring that the site, which runs reactors from the 1970s, “isn’t safe anyone.”
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project, India The French company Areva NP are proposing to build one of the largest nuclear plants in the world in India, capable of producing 9900 MW of power. Greenpeace is among those opposing the six reactor plant, questioning the safety of its pressurized water cooling system and the shaky ground on which it might be built. Like Fukushima Daiichi, Jaitapur would be operate along by the sea. Critics say the 16 fault lines on the west coast pose a serious threat to safety. However, India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board are satisfied that there are no faults within5km.
Columbia Generating Station, Washington state The last nuclear power plant remaining in the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) could be a potential disaster because of its Fukushima-like boiling water reactor.It’s located near the Columbia river along the Cascadia subduction zone, acknowledged by the Washington State Department as capable of producing “some of the largest and most damaging earthquakes in the world.” A 2013 Seattle Times report quoted a geologist working with the Physicians for Social Responsibility as saying the plant had not undergone structural upgrades since its opening in 1984. A March 2015 risk assessment stated that seismic damage to the site “is low for CGS.”
Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas A study of the US Geological Survey hazard map suggests the Arkansas state nuclear plant could be at risk from the New Madrid zone, one of North America’s most active areas for earthquakes. A quake in 1811 was thought to be 8.0 on the Richter scale and reportedly rang bells over a thousand miles away in Boston. The US government warns the damage to the area is likely to be 20 times larger than a “big one” in California due to the “less fractured nature” of the rock.
Sendai Nuclear Power Station, Japan…….Sendai and other Japanese power plants need to withstand their precarious position near the tectonic plate zone called the Japan Trench. Because of plate movements in this area, the Pacific country is hit by an estimated 1,500 earthquakes per year.
Akkuyu Nuclear Plant, Turkey The US$20-billion Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey slated to go up along the Mediterranean coast is a joint project with Rosatom. Foundations for the four reactor facility were laid in April last year despite opposition to its location, which is approximately 25km from the Ecemis fault line. The Republic of Cyprus expressed its concern with the plans when Energy Minister Antonis Paschalides questioned the decision to construct it in “a seismically active area.” https://www.rt.com/news/339763-disaster-nuclear-earthquake-japan/
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 (74)
- 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
