Pennsylvania nuclear reactors at higher risk of earthquakes
Nuclear reactor owners asked to reassess quake resistanceApril 21, 2014 By Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Due to higher earthquake risk in the region, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is requiring three Pennsylvania nuclear reactors to conduct in-depth reassessments of their ability to withstand larger earth tremors.
FirstEnergy’s Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, in Shippingport, Beaver County, and Exelon’s Three Mile Island Unit 1, south of Harrisburg in Dauphin County, are among nine commercial nuclear reactors in the eastern U.S. and two dozen nationwide that must conduct the re-evaluations and issue reports to the NRC by the end of the year.
“Based on the latest seismic data, the risk of earth movement is higher in the region, and more testing and analysis is warranted,” said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman……..
Mark Petersen, USGS project chief of the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps in Golden, Co., said new ground motion records and additional geological studies of the New Madrid fault show higher recurrence rates than previously thought.
“Because of what happened with the New Madrid in 1811-1812,” he said, “we’re more worried about big earthquakes in those areas in the future.” http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/04/22/Nuclear-reactor-owners-asked-to-reassess-quake-resistance/stories/201404220095#ixzz2zkRw3KQj
Greater earthquake risks recognised now for New England nuclear reactors
Quake risks at New England nuclear plants cited http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/18/markey-and-warren-urge-improved-earthquake-safety-measures-pilgrim-seabrook-nuclear-plants/1EgTQZCDmgeT2wRmxwDnkJ/story.html Warren, Markey urge upgrades at Pilgrim, Seabrook By Jennifer Smith GLOBE CORRESPONDENT APRIL 18, 2014 US Senators Edward J. Markey and Elizabeth Warren are calling for increased safety measures at two area nuclear power plants after a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report found potential vulnerabilities to earthquakes.
In a letter to NRC chairwoman Allison Macfarlane on Friday, Markey and Warren asked the commission to require that Pilgrim Power Station in Plymouth and Seabrook Station in Seabrook, N.H., “implement mitigation measures against seismic risks that were previously unknown.”
Markey and Warren were “alarmed” by the newly evaluated seismic risks at the two area facilities, which are greater than they were originally licensed to withstand, the senators said in the letter.
3 French nuclear plants fail safety test
French nuclear watchdog singles out 3 plants for safety shortfall By Michel Rose PARIS, April 16 (Reuters) – France’s nuclear watchdog singled out three of EDF’s 19 nuclear power stations for having a below-average safety performance in its annual safety report, which also asked for more enforcement powers such as the ability to impose fines….. There were 127 level-1 incidents on the 7-level International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) in France in 2013, ASN said, and two level-2 incidents.
Level-1 incidents are minor procedural infringements and level-2 incidents can refer to cases of minor exposure to radiation…….
The watchdog also mentioned shortfalls in terms of radiation protection at Cattenom near the German border and in terms of impact on the environment at Belleville in the Loire valley, Chooz near Belgium, and Chinon.
Chevet said the ASN needed a more graduated array of sanction powers on operators such as EDF.
The watchdog can at anytime stop operations at a nuclear plant if it considers it presents a danger for the public and can also issue public warnings, but Chevet said an ability to impose fines for each day of safety breaches would be useful.
“We clearly lack intermediary sanction tools, for when shortfalls last for one, two, three years, but don’t require a shutdown of the plant,” he said.
The presentation to parliament of a much-delayed energy transition bill planned in July could be the opportunity to introduce such powers, he added. (Reporting by Michel Rose. Editing by Jane Merriman) http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/france-nuclear-safety-idINL6N0N74K120140416
Fire on ship carrying uranium – news covered up
There is new information about what the Atlantic Cartier had on board when it caught fire in Hamburg last year. http://atlanticcartier.info/ April 10, 2014
A news report in the HAMBURG taz dated April 3rd states: –
‘The Atlantic Cartier that caught fire May 1st, close to the opening of the 34th EvangelicalChurch Day, which had attracted thousands of people. (The first report said ‘onethousand’.)
Only two weeks later was the true situation revealed. It contained 3.8 tonnes ofammunition, 180 tons of explosive ethanol, as well as 8.9 tons of uranium hexafloride andeleven tons of unused, fresh uranium fuel rods.’
This is the first report which we have seen which mentions that the ship was carrying fresh uranium fuel rods.
In the middle of March another Atlantic Container Line (ACL) ship, the Atlantic Companion, was involved in an ‘accident’ at the Halifax, Nova Scotia, north-end Ceres terminal. On this occasion four containers of uranium hexafluoride were dropped while being loaded aboard the ship.
Bibby Reply
In reply to our recent open letter to Bibby Ship Management we received the following from the company:-
‘ It is Bibby Ship Management’s policy not to discuss individual vessels or cargo detailshowever all of our vessels are managed and operated in line with the highest internationally agreed standards of vessel safety and pollution prevention.’
This is the full extent of the companies willingness to answer any of the many questionswhich we would like to put to them.
Anxiety over potential radiation risks in North Korea’s nuclear site
U.S. think tank says North Korea is having radiation issues at primary nuclear site Raw Story, By Agence France-Presse Monday, April 7, 2014 The United States and its allies warned North Korea against provocations as researchers reported potential radiation risks due to problems at the regime’s main nuclear complex…….
Safety requirements are making USA’s nuclear reactors even more expensive
Under Revised Quake Estimates, Dozens of Nuclear Reactors Face Costly Safety Analyses By MATTHEW L. WALD NYT, APRIL 5, 2014 WASHINGTON — Owners of at least two dozen nuclear reactors 
across the United States, including the operator of Indian Point 2, in Buchanan, N.Y., have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they cannot show that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that revised estimates say they might face, according to industry experts.
As a result, the reactors’ owners will be required to undertake extensive analyses of their structures and components. Those are generally sturdier than assumed in licensing documents, but owners of some plants may be forced to make physical changes, and are likely to spend about $5 million each just for the analysis…….
he Nuclear Regulatory Commission is presuming, for the time being at least, that plants built to the old standard do not present any immediate risk. But critics say that contradicts one of the recommendations made by a task force of commission senior staff members after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan three years ago, which caused three reactors to melt down at Fukushima Daiichi.
One recommendation was that the commission “re-evaluate and upgrade” the original design requirements.
Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, a longtime critic of the commission, said in a statement: “The N.R.C. should be demanding implementation of seismic safety upgrades it called for following the Fukushima meltdowns, not merely more study of nuclear reactors that it knows are clearly at higher risk than was previously believed. What is needed is action to secure at-risk nuclear reactors, not merely more reports.”……..
Two industry experts said that across the central and eastern United States, plants at 24 sites reported that the new earthquake threat was larger than what they were designed to face. The commission has not released a total yet.
But Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the commission, said many reactors fell into that category, so many that there were not enough engineers to analyze them all simultaneously. The commission will group them in priority, he said…….http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/nyregion/dozens-of-nuclear-reactors-must-prove-safety-under-revised-quake-estimates.html?hpw&rref=science&_r=0
Inadequate safeguards at New Mexico Nuclear Weapons Labs,
Audit Cites Deficiencies in New Mexico Labs, abc news, SANTA FE, N.M. April 7, 2014 (AP) A new federal audit has found Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories failed to monitor nuclear weapons designs as well as the reliability of parts being used to build them, the Albuquerque Journal reported Sunday.
The U.S. Department of Energy Inspector General’s report states both sites could not consistently locate drawings for nuclear weapons and components in official repositories, according to the Journal (http://bit.ly/1lJ0E1C).
In the March 26 report, officials said they were concerned about incorrect parts being used for nuclear weapons.
Without safeguard and proper information, the National Nuclear Security Administration “loses confidence in its nuclear weapons stockpile,” officials said…….. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/audit-cites-deficiencies-mexico-labs-23215616
Prepare for the next nuclear power plant accident
World Needs to Get Ready for Next Nuclear Power Plant Accident Bloomberg business Week, By Yuriy Humber April 03, 2014 Three major atomic accidents in 35 years are forcing the world’s nuclear industry to stop imagining it can prevent more catastrophes and to focus instead on how to contain them.
Of the 176 new reactors planned across the globe, half will be in nations that had no nuclear plants when disaster crippled the U.S. Three Mile Island reactor in 1979 and the Chernobyl reactor blew up in present day Ukraine in 1986.
As countries such as China and India embrace atomic power even after the Fukushima reactor meltdowns in 2011 caused mass evacuations because of radiation fallout, scientists warn the next nuclear accident is waiting to happen and could be in a country with little experience to deal with it.
“The cold truth is that, no matter what you do on the technological improvements side, accidents will occur — somewhere, someplace,” said Joonhong Ahn, a professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering of University of California, Berkeley. The consequences of radiation release, contamination and evacuation of people is “clear and obvious,” Ahn said. That means governments and citizens should be prepared, not just nuclear utilities, he said……..
Still, the association defends the global safety record of nuclear power, ……
The problem is that the causes of the three events followed no pattern, and the inability to immediately contain them escalated the episodes into global disasters with huge economic, environmental and political consequences. Even if no deaths have yet been officially linked to Fukushima radiation, for example, cleanup costs have soared to an estimated $196 billion and could take more than four decades to complete.
If nuclear is to remain a part of the world’s energy supply, the industry must come up with solutions to make sure contamination — and all other consequences — do not spread beyond station grounds, Gregory Jaczko, ex-chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in an interview in Tokyo.
“We have this accident and people will say, you know, it was caused by this and that,” Jaczko said. “But the next accident is going to be something different. Nobody can tell you where or when or what exactly it is going to be. You really need to do more on the consequence side.”……..
Real Consequences
The usefulness of the math after the world’s three major civilian accidents is academic, according to Jaczko.
“Once you have an accident, a low-probability and high consequence event, you can no longer call it a low probability event,” Jaczko said. “It is an event that’s happened and you cannot ignore the consequences simply because it was never supposed to happen. The consequences are real. Probabilities are always hypothetical.”
It was not until the late 1970s that analysis and large-scale testing began of what could happen in case of an atomic accident, according to the London-based WNA. The WNA says that testing — and the Fukushima disaster in March 2011 — show that “even the worst possible accident in a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuel would not likely cause dramatic public harm.” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-03/world-needs-to-get-ready-for-next-nuclear-power-plant-accident
Highly radioactive Hanford waste site at risk from earthquakes
America’s Most Contaminated Nuclear Site Is Vulnerable To Earthquakes http://io9.com/americas-most-contaminated-nuclear-site-is-vulnerable-1558490796 Mark Strauss 4 April 14 Nearly 2,000 capsules containing radioactive waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation need to be relocated. That’s because the site was built in an area that’s prone to earthquakes. How could this happen?
The 1,936 capsules contain radioactive cesium and strontium that was previously buried in underground tanks, and then later moved into “wet storage”—a 13-foot-deep pool of water that helps cool the corrosive-proof containers, which account for 32 percent of the radioactivity at Hanford.
And, now, according to this Inspector General report from the US Department of Energy, the capsules in the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) need to be moved yet again:
The March 2011 tsunami and subsequent events at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma and Futaba, Japan highlighted the vulnerabilities to nuclear facilities from possible seismic and natural disasters that are more severe than the facilities’ original design, or “beyond design threats.” One possible threat is a severe earthquake that may result in loss of power and/or loss of water in the WESF pool.
Making matters worse—yes, as usual, there’s a “worse”— the report notes that the storage facility has been in service for nine years beyond its design life. The age is beginning to show: the concrete in the WESF pool cells has begun to deteriorate due to years of radiation exposure.
So, it’s now incumbent upon the Energy Department to find a new temporary storage facility. I say “temporary” because we still don’t have a permanent nuclear waste repository. But, no worries, the government has set a goal to open such a facility…in 2048.
Is this a target for terrorists? Oh no, it’s just a nuclear waste ship
Nuclear waste ship in Tasman sea http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9896660/Nuclear-waste-ship-in-Tasman-sea TIM DONOGHUE 2 April 14 The nuclear waste carrier Pacific Grebe is currently making its way through the northern mid-Tasman sea bound for Japan with canisters of high level reprocessed nuclear waste from Britain on board.The 6,840 tonne British registered ship, owned by Warrington, UK based Pacific Nuclear Transport, sailed from Barrow-in-Furness, north of Liverpool, bound for Japan on 14 February 2014
The Japan Times reported in January, 2014 that 28 canisters of high-level radioactive waste, produced through the reprocessing of spent Japanese nuclear fuel in Britain, would be transported to the Aomori Prefecture on board Pacific Grebe.
The 28 canisters of vitrified radioactive waste included 14 for Kansai Electric Power Co and seven each for Chubu Electric Power Co. and Chugoku Electric Power Co.
The paper also reported in January that the shipment was the third involving vitrified radioactive waste to be brought to Japan from Britain.
Japan has received 104 canisters of such waste from Britain and plans to receive around 800 more. The 104 canisters have been stored at a facility in the village of Rokkasho, The Japan Times reported.
Japan’s Basic Energy Plan – a (bad) April Fools Day joke
Is the joke still on Fukushima this April Fools’? MAR 31, 2014 What’s wrong with this picture? Japan Times, Eric Johnson, Japan’s new Basic Energy Plan sees nuclear power as an important base load energy source. But whatever “base load” means politically, the public is lulled — fooled — into a sense that, despite Fukushima, nuclear will remain a logistically viable long-term option.
Yet the realities of Japan’s nuclear power industry show keeping nuclear are l
ikely to be far more problematic — and expensive — than the pro-nuclear lobby wants to admit. Here are the most obvious hurdles.
First, as of 2013, of the remaining 48 reactors, three were more than 40 years and 13 were over 30 years old. The reactors were supposed to be decommissioned after 40 years but can now apply for a maximum two-decade extension.
Want to keep those reactors, with their increased risk of technical problems and thus lower efficiency rates, running until they’re 60? Even if they meet new safety standards, local governments hosting the reactors are sure to demand funding for pork-barrel projects in exchange for agreeing to any extension. Guess whose tax money will be used to ensure a continued flow of “cheap” nuclear power. Hint: look in the mirror.
Even if restarted reactors run at pre-3/11 levels, estimates are their spent fuel pools will be overflowing like public toilets sooner rather than later. A Tokyo Shimbun calculation shows 33 reactors could see their pools full within six years. Government figures estimate the pools will be full within three to 16 years, with most filled to the brim within eight years.
What happens then? Tokyo is now pushing local governments to build interim storage facilities for the fuel before it’s sent to Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, for reprocessing. But despite promises of even more tax money for their coffers, no local government wants to host such a facility.
Finally, Japan’s population, about 127 million, will shrink to 107 million by 2040 while the working population, i.e. the large volume of electricity users, will decline by 30 percent. Furthermore, 21 percent of all Japanese will be 75 years or older, also by 2040. Who is going to need how much electricity?
So, the “nuclear will be an important base load” argument assumes: 1. Older plants can be run until they are 60 years without major problems and at a lower cost than other sources; 2. Within the next, say, 16 years, new storage facilities for spent fuel will be built somewhere; and 3. By 2040, a country with 16 percent less people than in 2010 and one-fifth the population over 75 will not use less energy than today.
What’s wrong with this picture?…….http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/issues/is-the-joke-still-on-fukushima-this-april-fools/
Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant an earthquake-prone timebomb
Olivier Guitta: Iran’s other nuclear timebomb http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/31/olivier-guitta-irans-other-nuclear-timebomb/ Olivier Guitta, National Post | March 31, 2014 While the international community has been focusing on a potential Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, another much larger issue looms, and should be tackled very urgently. But interestingly, except for a few concerned neighbours in the Gulf, nobody is really looking at the possible implications of a potential earthquake in Bushehr, where Iran’s oldest and main nuclear plant is located.
Bushehr, a city of over a million people in southeast Iran, sits in one of the most active seismic regions in the world, at the intersection of three tectonic plates. Building a nuclear plant in this area should have been a no-no, but construction started in 1975 with the help of Germany. It was stopped in 1979, right before the Revolution that unseated the Shah. It was resumed in 1996 with Russian assistance. The project took over 15 years to complete because of the very difficult technical issues of merging German and Russian technology. After Russia provided necessary nuclear fuel, the plant went operational in July 2013.
The safety issues concerning the plant are numerous: It is built with a 40-year-old design that has shown its limitations; the emergency coolant system is also 30 years old; it is running on two different technologies; according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the staff is not properly trained to face any kind of accident. In February, 2011, a broken water pump caused small metallic pieces to infiltrate the reactor cooling system, forcing the unloading of the fuel rods.
Air Force officers sacked after USA nuclear test cheating probe
U.S. Air Force fires nine officers following nuclear test cheating probe WP, By Ernesto Londoño , March 27,
The Air Force announced Thursday that it has relieved nine mid-level commanders assigned to safeguard the nation’s nuclear arsenal following a wide-ranging probe into a test cheating scandal that implicated scores of airmen.
The dismissed officers, most of whom were colonels and lieutenant colonels, were not found to have facilitated or condoned the cheating at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. But they were held accountable for creating a culture that enabled it, officials said……. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-air-force-fires-nine-officers-following-nuclear-test-cheating-probe/2014/03/27/9e5eaffa-b5e0-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
UK’s new nuclear plant may endanger Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway.
UN warning over planned British nuclear plant 240km from Irish coast http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/un-warning-over-planned-british-nuclear-plant-240km-from-irish-coast-30110525.html 21 Mar 14, THE United Nations has accused the UK Government of 
suspicious actions over plans to develop its first nuclear power station in a generation. Environmental inspectors have warned there are concerns about a lack of talks with neighbouring countries, including Ireland, over potential risks posed by the Hinkley Point C plant on the Bristol Channel.
The £16 billion nuclear facility could supply 5% of the UK’s energy needs and would be 150 miles from the Irish coast if built.
A special UN environmental committee has written to the Government warning that it failed to notify countries which could potentially be affected by fallout or pollution from Hinkley, regardless of how unlikely an accident is.
“The committee found that there was a profound suspicion of non-compliance,” the UN states.
Vesna Kolar Planinsic, chair of the implementation committee on the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, said UK representatives will be called before a hearing in December to explain their actions.
The committee said concerns have been raised over Hinkley by the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway. Continue reading
Mysterious plume over old New Mexico nuclear bomb test site
Weather experts baffled by mystery plume on New Mexico radar near 1945 nuclear bomb test site (EXCELLENT PICTURES) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584235/Weather-experts-baffled-mystery-plume-New-Mexico-radar-near-1945-nuclear-bomb-test-site.html
There is speculation that the cloud could be the result of a weapons test
But the U.S. has not done A-bomb tests since the Test Ban Treaty in 1992
Plume originated from White Sands Missile Range in Socorro county
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER, 19 March 2014 A mystery ‘storm cloud’ caught on weather radar after erupting off a U.S. military missile testing ground in New Mexico has left weather experts baffled.
Conspiracy theorists have speculated that the plume-like cloud, which seems to appear out of nowhere, could have been kicked up by the explosion from an unreported weapons test.
Deepening the mystery, U.S. National Weather Service offices in Albuquerque and El Paso have confirmed the reading, but say they have no idea where it could have come from. The plume first appeared at sunset on Monday evening over the part of the vast White Sands Missile Range in east Socorro county, close to the ‘Trinity Site’ where the first atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.
It was spotted in publicly accessible radar data by a blogger, who tracked its progress and has published his findings in two YouTube videos and a blog post.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 