nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Russia’s state-owned energy company Rosatom is drumming up new nuclear business in Africa

 As the sabre-rattling over possible sanctions against Russia’s nuclear
industry intensifies, the country’s state-owned energy company Rosatom is
busily drumming up new business in Africa.

Last month, speaking at the
African Energy Indaba in Cape Town, Rosatom’s chief executive for central
and southern Africa, Ryan Collyer, urged the continent’s most
industrialised country, South Africa, to press go on its nuclear programme
to ensure “stable, affordable and environmentally friendly” power. It
was a message that resonated with South Africa’s energy minister Gwede
Mantashe, who said the country, which has been battling electricity
blackouts for the past 16 years, expects nuclear energy to be part of the
fix.

“The proposal to develop 2,500MW of nuclear power is not a dream —
there’s already an agreement, and the procurement capacity is being
worked on. We’re going to be investing in that capacity,” he told the
conference. While nuclear power provides about 10 per cent of electricity
generated globally, according to the Paris-based International Energy
Agency, the Koeberg plant in Cape Town is the only nuclear power station on
the African continent. Yet a number of African countries have announced
plans to build nuclear power plants in the past year — including Uganda,
Rwanda and Kenya.

 FT 2nd April 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/4f1d0d1d-3a98-4b03-8771-54d88ed0a023

April 4, 2024 Posted by | AFRICA, business and costs, politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

UKRAINIAN WAR PEACE TALKS: To Be or Not To Be?

Russian and Eurasian Politics by GORDONHAHN, April 2, 2024

Despite Western media reports over recent months and weeks regarding supposed secret talks between Westerners and Russians to settle or at least stop the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War, there are no such talks ongoing. But this does not mean that they cannot emerge.

First we heard of supposedly secret talks between Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff Chief Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhniy and Russian General Staff Chief Gen. Valerii Gerasimov. Then there were Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged ‘signals’ indicating that he seeks negotiations. In reality, there are no peace talks underway between Russia, on the one hand, and the West and/or Ukraine, on the other hand. There are no signals that Putin is seeking negotiations. Although he is willing to hold talks, he expects that any negotiations be requested first by the West and/or Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy. The New York Times piece about ‘Putin’s signals’ published just before Christmas was nothing more than another attempt to portray Russia and Putin as ‘losing the war’ and desperate for an exit ramp, and it was nothing less than a contribution in support of US President Joseph Biden’s desperate re-election prospects as the American presidential campaign is about to kickoff.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the tale of Russian desperation told since the war began. This is most evident now for anyone following the recent course of events on the front; a front that is collapsing on the Ukrainian side. In Zelenskiy’s eternal PR mode, the Ukrainian front’s collapse will be framed as an orderly retreat to new defense lines and part of a new defensive strategy replacing the offensive one that so ignominiously failed with this summer’s predictably disastrous counteroffensive. Nevertheless, the hard, cold realities of the summer campaign’s defeat following the fall of the strategic hub of Bakhmut (Artyomevsk) and preceding the fall of the heavily fortified town of Avdiivka (Avdeevka) are trumping Zelenskiy’s simulated reality productions both in the West and Ukraine ever so gradually.  

As Russian forces slowly but but surely advance westward across the entire front ranging from Zaporozhe (and perhaps soon Kherson) to Kharkov — an advance that is likely to accelerate in spring and summer, the Kremlin has no burning need to negotiate. To be sure, Moscow would prefer ending the war, but on its own terms. The longer Washington, Brussels, and Kiev refuse negotiations, the more fluid the situation becomes and the less likely Moscow will be easy to negotiate with before its forces reach the Dnieper River. Some Russian officials are trumpeting a hard line. For example, a month ago Russian ambassador to the UN Dmitri Polyanskiy said that Kiev’s chance for talks had passed and now only capitulation talks are possible (https://t.me/RusskajaIdea/5265 and https://t.me/Slavyangrad/79622).

But Putin appears open to talks. However, he certainly is not desperate for them and may prefer holding off until more Ukrainian military force and territory is attritted. He has indicated numerous times since the war began that he is open to talks…………………..

The lack of talks is best explained by the West’s and Ukraine’s unwillingness to negotiate. In fact, since December 2022 Ukrainian law forbids Ukrainians from conducting peace talks with Putin’s Russia. The U.S. has apparently held to its proclaimed policy of ‘no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine’ at least in terms of any peace negotiations, though the US’s CIA chief, William Burns, and his Russian counterpart, SVR chief Sergei Narynskii met a few months back for discussions on undisclosed issues.

Therefore, Zelenskiy consistently rejects talks until such time as Russia has withdrawn all of its troops beyond Ukraine’s 1991 borders—the core of his supposed ‘peace plan.’ Obviously, without defeat on the battlefield Russia will not give up Crimea and the four oblasts it now considers to be its sovereign territory. Recently, Zelenskiy rejected negotiations out of hand. Several weeks ago, visiting Turkey, Zelenskiy spurned Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan’s entreaties to start talks with Moscow under Ankara’s mediation………………………………………………………………………….  https://gordonhahn.com/2024/04/02/ukrainian-war-peace-talks-to-be-or-not-to-be/—

April 4, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

How much will extra decades of nuclear decommissioning work at Dounreay cost?

 By Gordon Calder gordon.calder@hnmedia.co.uk, 28 March 2024

The cost of extending the decommissioning work at Dounreay is expected to
be published in the summer, according to a spokeswoman at the site.

She was responding to questions from the John O’ Groat Journal, following last
week’s announcement that the clean up-operation at the nuclear plant will
continue until the 2070s – almost 40 years longer than the previous date of
2033. The cost of the programme was previously said to be about £2.9
billion.

Asked about the estimated cost of extending the decommissioning,
the spokeswoman said: ” The estimate for delivering the revised lifetime
plan to take the Dounreay site to its interim end point, will form part of
the Nuclear Provision, and be published in the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority) 2023/24 annual report in the summer. We are committed to
delivering the Dounreay mission as effectively and efficiently as
possible.”

John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/how-much-will-extra-decades-of-work-at-dounreay-cost-346451

April 3, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Sprawling Sellafield Nuclear Waste Site Prosecuted for Cybersecurity Failings

UK regulator said that one of the world’s most toxic sites accumulated cybersecurity “offenses” from 2019 to 2023

Dark Reading Staff, Dark Reading, April 2, 2024, https://www.darkreading.com/ics-ot-security/sellafield-nuclear-waste-site-prosecuted-cybersecurity-failings

Sellafield Ltd, the managing company of the Sellafield nuclear site, will be prosecuted by the UK’s independent nuclear safety regulator for alleged cybersecurity offenses.

According to the safety regulator, the infractions were garnered over a four-year period from 2019 to 2023. However, the regulator noted in its announcement that there is nothing to suggest that public safety has been compromised over these “information technology security offenses.” The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) provided little comment regarding what the specific issues are, or the legal proceedings, but noted that “details of the first court hearing will be announced when available.”

This is not the first time the company has been under scrutiny. Its cybersecurity issues were also addressed in the Chief Nuclear Inspector’s annual report on the country’s nuclear industry, released last September. And in December, the Guardian released a bombshell report that advanced persistent threats (APTs) backed by Russia and China have been breaching the Sellafield’s IT systems as far back as 2015 — attacks that the paper alleged have been consistently covered up by senior staff at the site, which holds a vast store of radioactive waste and the world’s largest store of plutonium

Though it’s not currently known whether any senior managers were involved in these security failings and, if so, whether they’ll face charges, if convicted, an individual can face a maximum of two years in prison. 

A nuclear reactor is located on the Sellafield grounds. Even though it was closed in 2003, it is still Europe’s largest nuclear site, and the ONR considers it to be “one of the most complex and hazardous nuclear sites in the world.” That’s likely a big part of the reason why the company’s cybersecurity failings are of notable concern. 

Though cyberattacks on power plants aren’t necessarily common, they have occurred on rare occasions, such as the 2017 spate of attacks using Triton malware, also known as Trisis and HatMan, that was used to target a Middle East petrochemical facility at the hands of the Russian Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (TsNIIkhM). The threat actor moved through IT and operational technology (OT) networks to gain entry to the safety system and targeted the Schneider Electric Triconex safety instrumented system, which allows initiation of a safe shutdown process in case of emergencies. With the system modified by malware, it could have led to damages to the facility, operational shutdown, and even fatalities.

That said, what kind of damage a cyberattack would cause Sellafield and whether it could have a similar catastrophic fallout is unknown, since the nuclear reactor is no longer operational.

April 3, 2024 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

UK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights

The WikiLeaks publisher could be extradited if the US gives “satisfactory assurances” of rights and no death penalty.

By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT 29 Mar 24,  https://truthout.org/articles/uk-gives-biden-opportunity-to-dodge-assange-appeal-by-assuring-his-rights/

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is closer than ever to being extradited to the United States for trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion over WikiLeaks’s 2010-2011 revelation of evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. He faces 175 years in prison.

“This is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and they will try to kill you,” said Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, of his prosecution.

On March 26, the United Kingdom Divisional Court denied Assange the opportunity to make most of his appellate arguments. But the two-judge panel of Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp left open the possibility that Assange could appeal on three grounds. They found that Assange “has a real prospect of success” on the following issues: If extradited to the U.S., he will be denied the right to freedom of expression, will suffer discrimination because he’s not a U.S. citizen and could be sentenced to death.

Rather than simply allowing Assange to argue the three issues on appeal, however, the panel gave the Biden administration an out. If the U.S. provides the court with “satisfactory assurances” that Assange won’t be denied any of these rights, his extradition to the U.S. can proceed without an appeals hearing.

Stella Assange called the decision “astounding,” adding, “The court’s recognized that Julian has been exposed to flagrant denial of his freedom of expression rights, that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and that he remains exposed to the death penalty.”

At an earlier stage in this case, the U.S. gave the U.K. High Court “assurances” that Assange would be treated humanely if extradited. That caused the court to reverse the magistrate judge’s denial of extradition (which was based on the likelihood of suicide if Assange is held in harsh conditions of confinement in the U.S.). The High Court accepted those assurances at face value in spite of the U.S.’s history of reneging on similar assurances.

The current ruling, however, requires U.S. assurances to be “satisfactory” and the defense will have an opportunity to challenge them at a hearing.

“Mr. Assange will not, therefore, be extradited immediately,” the panel wrote, implying that if they had denied his appeal outright, the U.K. authorities would put him on a plane to the U.S. forthwith. They gave the U.S. three weeks to come forward with satisfactory assurances.

If the U.S. fails to provide any assurances, Assange will be granted a hearing on the three grounds. If the U.S. does give assurances, a hearing to decide whether they are satisfactory will occur on May 20.

“The Biden administration should not offer assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought,” Stella Assange said.

These are the grounds the High Court will review if the U.S. fails to provide “satisfactory assurances”:

1. Extradition Would Violate Freedom of Expression Guaranteed by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights

Assange would argue at trial that his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence,” the panel concluded.

The First Amendment provides “strong protection” to freedom of expression, similar to that provided by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the panel noted. Article 10 (1) of the convention says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange’s trial would be held, said the prosecution might argue at trial that “foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment,” the panel noted. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that Assange “has no First Amendment freedoms” because “he is not a U.S. citizen.”

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2020 case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International that “it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside United States territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution.”

The panel wrote that if Assange “is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment, then it is arguable that his extradition would be incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.”

But even if the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors give “satisfactory assurances” that Assange’s First Amendment rights would be protected, that is no guarantee. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which cannot bind the judicial branch due to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

“The ruling reveals that the High Court does not understand the American system of government,” Stephen Rohde, who practiced First Amendment law for almost 50 years and writes extensively about the Assange case, told Truthout. “It only has before it the executive branch of the U.S. government. Whatever ‘satisfactory assurances’ the Department of Justice may give the High Court, they are not binding on the judicial branch.”

Moreover, Rohde said, “The High Court is obligated to uphold Assange’s rights to ‘freedom of expression’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects Assange even if the U.S. courts refuse to do so. The only way to do that is to deny extradition.”

2. The U.K. Extradition Act Forbids Discrimination Based on Nationality

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who would be tried in the U.S. if the Biden administration’s pursuit of extradition is successful.

Section 81(b) of the U.K. Extradition Act says that extradition is barred for an individual who “might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his … nationality.”

Due to the centrality of the First Amendment to Assange’s defense, the panel noted, “If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced (potentially very greatly prejudiced) by reason of his nationality.”

3. Extradition Is Barred by Inadequate Death Penalty Protection Required by the Extradition Act

Section 94 of the U.K. Extradition Act says, “The Secretary of State must not order a person’s extradition … if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence” in the receiving state. That limitation does not apply if a written “assurance” that is “adequate” says “that a sentence of death- (a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out (if imposed).”

None of the charges that Assange is currently facing carry the death penalty. But if extradited to the U.S., he could be charged with aiding and abetting treason or espionage, both of which are capital offenses.

Ben Watson KC, secretary of state for the Home Department, admitted that:

a.) The facts alleged against [Assange] could sustain a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

b.) If [Assange] is extradited, there is nothing to prevent a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or a charge of espionage, from being added to the indictment.

c.) The death penalty is available on conviction for aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.

d.) There are no arrangements in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.

e.) The existing assurance does not explicitly prevent the imposition of the death.
The panel noted that when former President Donald Trump was asked about WikiLeaks publishing the leaked documents, he said, “I think it was disgraceful…. I think there should be like a death penalty or something.” If Trump is reelected, he may seek to ensure that his Justice Department adds capital charges to the indictment.

In concluding that Assange could raise this issue on appeal subject to “satisfactory assurances,” the panel cited “the potential, on the facts, for capital charges to be laid; the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures; the fact that the Treaty does not preclude extradition for death penalty charges, and the fact that the existing assurance does not explicitly cover the death penalty.”

Appeal Grounds Denied by Panel

Remaining grounds for appeal that Assange requested were denied by the panel. They include prosecution for a political offense, prosecution based on political opinion; violation of right to a fair trial; violation of right to life; and violation of right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, since no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets, Assange could not have known it was a crime.

The panel also ruled that Assange could not introduce new evidence adduced after the magistrate judge’s ruling. This includes a Yahoo News report detailing the CIA’s plan to kidnap and kill Assange when he was living under a grant of asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

If the U.S. offers “satisfactory assurances” and extradition is ordered, Assange could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and raise these additional issues as well.

Meanwhile, there is a possibility that instead of filing “assurances,” the Biden administration will opt to avoid the political pitfalls of Assange’s extradition to the U.S. and offer a plea bargain to end the case.

MARJORIE COHN

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is founding dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.

April 2, 2024 Posted by | Legal, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

British nuclear site Sellafield to be prosecuted for cybersecurity failures

Alexander Martin, March 29th, 2024,  https://therecord.media/sellafield-site-prosecution-nuclear-facility-cybersecurity

The United Kingdom’s independent nuclear safety regulator has announced that it will be prosecuting the company managing the Sellafield nuclear site over “alleged information technology security offenses during a four year period between 2019 and early 2023.”

It is not clear whether senior managers at the state-owned Sellafield Ltd. will face charges. Under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003, individuals convicted of an offense can face up to two years imprisonment.

“There is no suggestion that public safety has been compromised as a result of these issues,” the regulator announced on Thursday, adding that the decision to begin legal proceedings followed an investigation.

“Details of the first court hearing will be announced when available,” stated the ONR.


Sellafield had previously been the focus of enhanced regulatory attention over its cybersecurity failings, as the U.K. chief nuclear inspector’s annual report revealed last year. At the same time, EDF, the company operating several nuclear power plants in Britain, was placed under similar measures.

As set out in the U.K.’s civil nuclear cybersecurity strategy, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) threat assessment warns that ransomware “almost certainly represents the most likely disruptive threat.”

A ransomware attack on the IT systems used by a nuclear power plant could disrupt its operations, although the industrial systems are designed with multiple failsafes to prevent a radiological accident.

Sellafield’s nuclear reactor was closed in 2003, but the sprawling complex remains the largest nuclear site in Europe, with the ONR describing it as “one of the most complex and hazardous nuclear sites in the world.”

It houses more plutonium — in particular the isotopes created as a byproduct of nuclear reactor operations — than any other location on the planet, alongside a range of facilities for nuclear decommissioning, and waste processing and storage.

It was the location of the country’s worst-ever nuclear accident in 1957, when a reactor caught fire leading to radioactive material spreading in the atmosphere across Britain and Europe.

Cyberattacks targeting the operational technology (OT) systems at power plants are rare, but not unheard of — with the Triton malware discovered in Saudi Arabia in 2017 among the best known and most concerning examples.

It is not known whether the suspected Russian actors behind that attack could have engineered a method to overcome the failsafe mechanisms preventing an explosion.

According to the British government’s National Risk Register, a cyberattack on the computer systems controlling a nuclear reactor could potentially require a controlled shutdown as a protective measure, although there is not a major concern about them causing any radiological discharge.

As Sellafield no longer has an operational nuclear reactor, it is not clear what damage a cyber incident at the facility could cause.

April 2, 2024 Posted by | Legal, safety, UK | 1 Comment

Ukrainian counteroffensive ‘biggest debacle in modern military history’ – David Sacks

 https://www.rt.com/news/595214-sacks-ukraine-counteroffensive-fail/ 1 Apr 24

The former PayPal chief says US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi should be held accountable for encouraging the doomed operation.

The failure of Ukraine’s 2023 summer counteroffensive against Russia was “easily predictable,” according to US tech entrepreneur and venture capitalist David Sacks, who has suggested that the Washington elite should be held accountable for talking up the doomed operation. 

Sacks’ comments came in response to a post on Saturday by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who condemned the unnecessary loss of life suffered by Kiev’s forces as they attempted to “attack a larger army” that had superior defenses.

The failed Ukrainian counteroffensive was “one of the biggest debacles in the history of modern warfare,” Sacks said in agreement, adding that Kiev’s soldiers and tanks had effectively run “headlong into minefields while Russian artillery rained down on them from heavily fortified positions.”  

“This should have been easily predictable,” the former PayPal COO and founder of the Yammer corporate social network stressed.  

According to estimates released in March by the Russian Defense Ministry, the Ukrainian military saw over 166,000 casualties during last year’s failed counteroffensive. Kiev’s overall casualties since the outbreak of the conflict with Russia stand at 444,000, the ministry has claimed.  

Sacks went on to suggest that US officials such as ex-CIA chief David Petraeus, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and current US Secretary of State Antony Blinken should all be held responsible for encouraging the doomed operation. 

“These people are fools who should have no credibility left. But of course the MSM never holds them accountable so we will get more of the same until Ukraine finally collapses,” Sacks surmised. 

Musk, meanwhile, has called the counteroffensive “a tragic waste of life for Ukraine,” suggesting that Kiev should not have attacked Russian forces – which had deployed vast minefields and had stronger artillery – while Ukrainian forces lacked armor or air superiority. 

“Any fool could have predicted that,” the billionaire said, recalling that one year ago he had recommended that Kiev’s forces entrench and apply all resources to defense. 

Musk stated that Kiev would continue to have difficulty holding on to territory, but suggested that Russia was unlikely try to take over the entire country, arguing that it would face “extreme” local resistance in western regions of Ukraine. 

He also warned that if the conflict “lasts long enough, Odessa will fall,” and advised Kiev to reach a negotiated settlement with Moscow as soon as possible, before Russia gains more territory and Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea. 

Moscow has stressed that it remains open to meaningful talks with Kiev, and has blamed the lack of a diplomatic breakthrough on the Ukrainian authorities, who refuse to accept the “reality on the ground.”

April 2, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK’s ever more expensive nuclear submarines will torpedo spending plans for years to come.

Jasper Jolly and Alex Lawson,  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/31/uks-ever-more-expensive-nuclear-submarines-will-torpedo-spending-plans-for-years-to-come

Whoever wins the next election, a reckoning is overdue on the costs of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

When Rishi Sunak visited Barrow-in-Furness on Monday he said the Cumbrian town was “mission critical for our country” because of its role building four new nuclear submarines to carry the UK’s nuclear weapons. If you believe Sunak’s erstwhile ally, Dominic Cummings, then that mission faces serious problems.

Cummings, once Boris Johnson’s most powerful adviser, said this month – in characteristically aggressive terms – that spiralling costs were making a mockery of the government’s budget plans. He wrote on X: “the nuclear enterprise is so fkd [sic] it’s further cannibalising the broken budgets and will for decades because it’s been highly classified to avoid MPs thinking about it.”

But the scale of the issue makes it hard to ignore. The government re­iterated last week that the four new Dreadnought class submarines would cost £31bn plus a £10bn “contingency”. But the Nuclear Information Service (NIS), a monitoring group, said in 2019 that the full cost of the nuclear weapons programme between 2019 and 2070 could be £172bn, when including new warheads and running costs.

Costs are also increasing rapidly, as the government has prioritised replacing the existing Vanguard submarines on time rather than on budget. (The Vanguard boats launch Trident nuclear missiles – like the one that crashed into the sea during a test last month.)

The Ministry of Defence puts the cost of the programme to replace the UK’s nuclear weapons at £118bn over the next decade. That is already £8bn more than the Treasury has forecast, suggesting something may have to give elsewhere.

The National Audit Office, a government watchdog, found in December that forecasts of costs of the MoD’s Defence Nuclear Organisation had risen by £38.2bn in the past year.

However it is counted, hugely costly delays and overruns, plus inflation, mean a reckoning is overdue on the costs of Britain’s nuclear submarines.

“They don’t have very many good options,” said David Cullen, director of the NIS. He said the problems appeared so intractable that it could affect the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrence – the longstanding policy of always having a nuclear-armed submarine gliding silently under the waves in case of attack.

“It would be much better for them to make a conscious decision to stop having constant patrols, rather than having it forced on them,” he said.

Nuclear submarines are among the most complicated machines ever built. They sustain 132 humans deep beneath the oceans,  needing to surface only when its crew runs out of food – or runs out of patience during months without daylight.

The Labour party, eyeing power in an imminent election, has a decision over whether to confront the problem head-on – and add billions to already constrained budgets – or to continue with the sticking-plaster approach.

One thing Labour has said it will not do – to the chagrin of campaigners particularly aligned with the left of the party – is accept the UK’s diminished role in world affairs by scrapping the nuclear deterrent. David Lammy and John Healey, shadow foreign secretary and defence secretary respectively, wrote in September that “with Keir Starmer, our commitment to Nato and the UK’s nuclear deterrent – maintained on behalf of Nato allies – is unshakeable”.

Some in the defence industry believe Labour could, if elected, choose to launch an inquiry into the entire nuclear defence enterprise – which might allow it to blame the current government and help ease the blow from a big hit to its budget. However, a Labour source said the lack of visibility into classified plans meant it was not yet able to work out a detailed strategy.

One way to help government finances might be to share costs. Under the new – and increasingly controversial – Aukus alliance, Australia will receive nuclear weapons technology from the UK (with the blessing of the US, which originally bestowed the city-destroying abilities on Britain).

The Aukus programme is split into two “pillars”. Pillar one is centred on helping Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The second part is more techy, focusing on speeding up cooperation of specific technologies – including artificial intelligence, cyber work, quantum computing and hypersonic weapons.)

In 2022, the second pillar of the pact was extended to allow the trilateral partners to develop hypersonic weapons in response to Russia’s use of the deadly high-speed missiles in airstrikes in Ukraine.

The French defence giant Thales, a supplier of sonar and light-sensing masts, is expected to pick up work as the “eyes and ears” of the submarines. Its UK boss, Alex Cresswell, told the Observer: “Pillar one of Aukus is a once-in-a-generation event that is extremely significant for the industry as a whole. I recruit graduates on the basis of it.”

Cresswell adds: “The rate of the submarine part is being driven by the design work on the submarine after Dreadnought … that early design work is being placed now and we’re involved in it.”


Yet it is unlikely that Aukus will help to fill the Dreadnought black hole. Immediate manufacturing problems appear to be the problem there, which will not be helped by the promise of future work for submarines built after Dreadnought, according to NIS’s Cullen.

Meg Hillier, a Labour MP who heads the public accounts committee, said that budgets have been blown because of the government’s “stop/start approach to defence procurement” and “a lot of optimism bias” in plans. She said the nuclear submarine budget is one of the “big nasties” lying in wait for a future government. It is an ominous threat lurking under the surface for the next prime minister.

April 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

TODAY. The nuclear lobby’s new “prime wheeze” – Community Interest Companies

The UK, famous for comedy, had a great character, Bertie Wooster, who kept thinking up wonderful (useless and silly) new ideas, that he called “Prime Wheezes”. In true Bertie Wooster tradition, the nuclear lobby does the same.

They usually go for “registered charities” – and there’s any number of these, that the industry creates, really nuclear front groups, that pose as genuinely working for the public good.

So why is the nuclear lobby now going for the non-profit Community Interest Companies (CICs)?

Some of the reasons:

  •  The nuclear industry can get approval and respectability,  “piggy-back” on a lot of genuinely positive and popular businesses in an existing CIC.
  •   The CIC business model can incorporate a wider range of social aims than are allowed for charities. This is because the definition of community interest within the test applied to a CIC is broader than the Public Benefit Test for charities. 
  • easier to set up than is a charity..   
  •  murkiness of funding – relatively easy from private donors, grants or community development finance  
  • can more easily buy and sell commercially.  
  •   It is a lightweight structure, it is unencumbered by bureaucracy. It can be set up in a couple of days
  • it  is  like a standard profit-making company then, but with social objectives supposedly built in.   
  • it avoids the accountability mechanisms that charities have, e.g a CIC can have just one director. It does have a (poorly funded) government regulator, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, but  there appears to be no pro-active monitoring of whether CICs are operating for community benefit.
  •  Directors and functioning can change overtime, not encumbered by  rules that ensure its social aims. The directors of a CIC can pay themselves whatever they can argue could reasonably be seen as necessary. 
  • any money in the organisation can very easily be siphoned out to profit-making enterprises. 
  • No legal requirement to have a democratic structure   

In Somerset UK, where there is community anxiety about the development of Hinkley Point C nuclear station, and its effect on the environment – what better prime wheeze for the nuclear lobby, than to join an existing reputable Community Interest Company?

Hinkley Point C, has teamed up with the CIC Passion for Somerset. as a principal partner.

April 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Christina's notes, spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

EDF Names New Head of Nuclear Plant Projects Amid Cost Overruns

Francois de Beaupuy, Bloomberg News, 29 Mar 24,  https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/edf-names-new-head-of-nuclear-plant-projects-amid-cost-overruns-1.2053220

Bloomberg) — Electricite de France SA appointed a new head of nuclear plant projects as the utility struggles with the construction of new reactors in the UK and prepares plans to build at least six new atomic units in France.

Thierry Le Mouroux, a member of EDF’s executive committee, will become senior executive vice president with responsibility for the group’s Projects and Construction Directorate from April 1, the company said in a statement on Friday.

Xavier Ursat, the executive in charge of new nuclear projects and engineering, will become senior executive vice president with responsibility for the Strategy, Technologies, Innovation and Development Directorate. This will “act as project owner for nuclear construction projects” and drive nuclear development abroad, EDF said.

The appointments, part of a broader reshuffle at the executive committee, come as Chief Executive Officer Luc Remont is under pressure to boost the debt-laden company’s performance to cope with the ballooning cost of its Hinkley Point C nuclear project in the UK and the prospect of soaring capital expenditure to build new atomic plants in France.

“We are currently seeing an unprecedented recovery in nuclear power, which brings considerable challenges for EDF,” Remont said in the statement. “Our organization and the way we work is evolving to deliver further improvements in performance and ensure that our nuclear projects are successful.”

Earlier this year, EDF raised the budget of the two reactors it’s building at Hinkley Point in the UK to as much as £47.9 billion ($60.4 billion), citing labor shortages, supply chain issues, and longer-than-expected cable and pipe-fitting works.

It’s also working to complete the basic design of six new reactors to be built in France, which could cost about €67.4 billion ($72 billion), and is seeking to develop a so-called small modular reactor by the start of the next decade.

April 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

 Dounreay decommissioning date ‘never achievable’ says Caithness councillor

CAITHNESS has been misled for the past 20 years over the
timescale for the decommissioning of Dounreay. The work was due to be
completed by 2033 but that target was “never technically practicable” and
“never achievable”, according to Struan Mackie, the chairman of the
Dounreay Stakeholder Group (DSG).

Mr Mackie, a Thurso and Northwest
Caithness Highland councillor, said: “We all know that the publicised
dates, the milestones communicated to our community, to our politicians and
to our supply chain for the last two decades have not been founded in
reality.

John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/dounreay-decommissioning-date-never-achievable-says-caithn-346428

April 1, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

 Famous UK seaside town ‘decimated’ by £46bn nuclear power station and huge Pontins change.

 Famous UK seaside town ‘decimated’ by £46bn nuclear power station and
huge Pontins change. This once-thriving seaside resort has seen its economy
dwindle following the arrival of 900 nuclear workers taking holiday
accommodation.

What was once a thriving seaside town is now a shell of its
former self. Brean Sands in Somerset used to be by-word for family fun but
following the take-over of the town’s Pontins resort by 900 nuclear
workers, the local economy has suffered significantly. EDF commandeered 900
rooms at the Pontins site for construction staff building Hinkley Point C.


The project will cost around £46billion, vastly more than the county’s
economic output. However, with the resort poised to re-open for the Easter
weekend, the BBC has spoken to local tradespeople who claim that far from
support the economy, the EDF project has savaged it.

 Express 29th March 2024

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1882931/famous-uk-seaside-town-pontins-brean-sands-hinkley-point-c

April 1, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

THE R.A.F’S NUCLEAR FLIGHTS OVER BRITAIN AND THE ATLANTIC

Although the chances of such an accident occurring may be low, the consequences would be high

emergency arrangements would be totally inadequate to protect members of the public.

Little-known to the public, the UK military regularly flies planes carrying highly radioactive material to the US in order to maintain its nuclear weapons system, Trident.

RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 27 MARCH 2024,  https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-r-a-fs-nuclear-flights-over-britain-and-the-atlantic/

  • These flights “pose a significant risk to communities across the UK should there be an accident, says Nukewatch
  • “How can we have an independent foreign policy if the cornerstone of Britain’s security relies so heavily on another state?”, asks CND

British military aircraft regularly carry highly radioactive material across the Atlantic to one of the RAF’s largest bases on flights vital to the Trident nuclear weapons system, according to new research, Declassified UK can reveal.

The little-known flights are a lifeline sustaining the ‘special relationship’ embodied in the secretive US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement due to be renewed later this year without the need for any parliamentary scrutiny or even approval.

At least ten of the special round trips between RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and US military bases, usually by large RAF C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, take place every year, according to Nukewatch, which monitors traffic in nuclear weapons and their components.

In a joint report with Nukewatch, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) told Declassified: “The UK cannot claim to have an independent nuclear weapons system when it is so reliant on the US for technical information and nuclear materials, including these special nuclear flights. 

“By having such a direct involvement in Britain’s nuclear weapons technology, the US exercises significant leverage over the UK’s foreign and defence policy”, it added.

The RAF planes fly from Brize Norton either over the Cotswolds and the Bristol and Cardiff areas before crossing the Atlantic, or over Gloucestershire and the South Wales valleys, heading out to sea over Swansea and the Gower peninsular.

Their destinations include Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, a convenient location for access to US nuclear laboratories and manufacturing plants in New Mexico and northern Texas, and McGhee Tyson Airport, Knoxville, close to nuclear sites in Tennessee.

Radioactive

Although the MoD does not reveal the exact nature of the cargoes, Nukewatch says it can conclude on the basis of its investigations that material in RAF aircraft returning to Britain includes tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which is used in nuclear warheads. 

Tritium has a relatively short half-life of twelve years, and thus requires constant replacement. Britain does not have facilities to produce tritium and needs to replenish supplies from the US.

The RAF cargo also includes highly enriched uranium (HEU) used for nuclear submarine reactor fuel and warhead components. Uranium fuel is burnt up in submarine reactors and cannot be reused. 

Britain does not have facilities to enrich uranium to the high levels used in submarine reactor fuel and so either HEU must be purchased from the US, or low enriched uranium must be sent to the US for further enrichment.

Plutonium for warhead components has been exchanged with the US in past decades, according to Nukewatch. The cargo is also likely to include security-classified non-nuclear warhead components such as arming, fusing and firing systems as well as radioactive materials and equipment used in nuclear security exercises.  

Refusing details

The US and Britain cooperate closely on security programmes and exercises designed to combat nuclear terrorism.

Some RAF cargoes are loaded on to convoys that transport radioactive and other nuclear weapon-related material loads to and from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, Berkshire, and other sites involved in Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.

Ministers have refused to give details of the types and quantities of radioactive materials transported in special flights on national security grounds.  

Read more: THE R.A.F’S NUCLEAR FLIGHTS OVER BRITAIN AND THE ATLANTIC

The MoD says the transport of DNM (defence nuclear materials) is carried out in accordance with stringent safety regulations. In more than 50 years transporting DNM in Britain, there has never been an incident that has posed a radiation hazard to the public or to the environment, says Nukewatch quoting the MoD.

The MoD adds that the RAF Immediate Response Force, equipped and trained to identify radiological hazards, are “at a state of readiness” when the aircraft enter British airspace. Brize Norton has a nuclear accident response team equipped to monitor radiation in the event of an aircraft accident.

However, Nukewatch and CND argue that an objective assessment of the level of risk to people living under the flight path cannot be made in the absence of official information on the type of radioactive material the flights are carrying and tests. 

Such tests would determine how to respond to the impact of a high altitude or high velocity crash and any subsequent fire that would be likely to scatter radioactivity over a wide area.

‘Astral Bend’

Although the chances of such an accident occurring may be low, the consequences would be high, the report says. Plutonium and uranium are flammable metals which burn easily if exposed to heat, creating a plume of radioactive smoke that is easily ingested.  

Tritium is a radioactive gas which is also flammable and can easily be incorporated in water and organic compounds, in which form it may be ingested. All three materials are carcinogenic.

The MoD undertakes annual exercises, code-named ‘Astral Bend’, to test the emergency response to an accident involving an RAF aircraft transporting special nuclear materials. Emergency responses would be tightly controlled by the MoD, with the police in charge of civilian emergency services.

Separate assessment reports of Astral Bend exercises have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. They show that despite their preparations, the authorities are not always able to respond well because of the complex and hazardous nature of any such accident.

Following a 2006 exercise, a temporary ban was imposed on highly enriched uranium flights at Brize Norton. Shortfalls in radiation field monitoring, radiation safety procedures, and medical treatment of casualties were identified by the MoD’s internal nuclear watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR), as areas requiring improvement.

Risk of contamination

An Astral Bend exercise in 2010 rehearsed the response to an accident involving a US Air Force plane which had crashed and caught fire, damaging nuclear weapons on board and spreading radioactive contamination around the crash site. 

Assessors concluded that, had there been a real emergency, civilian personnel would have been at risk from explosions and radioactive contamination. This was because the MoD nuclear accident response organisation team “did not emphasise the hazards adequately” and gave “insufficient priority” to liaison with emergency services. 

Difficulties experienced with two subsequent exercises, in 2011 and 2012, were so severe that the MoD was forced to carry out “an overarching, fundamental review” of arrangements for handling nuclear weapons accidents. 

During an exercise at the Caerwent military training area in South Wales mistakes made by emergency services would have led to “avoidable deaths” in a real-life situation, according to exercise assessments.  

The fire service was heavily criticised by the DNSR for refusing to allow ambulance teams to take away seriously injured people until they had been decontaminated. 

The confusion and delays observed during Astral Bend exercises raise questions about whether the MoD’s nuclear safety arrangements are capable of keeping the public, emergency responders, and MoD personnel safe, the report says. 

Experience suggests that emergency arrangements would be totally inadequate to protect members of the public.

Maintaining Trident

The MoD has told Nukewatch in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that releasing the report on the most recent Astral Bend exercise would allow potential adversaries to gain a greater operational understanding of air transport involving defence nuclear materials and emergency response measures.

The release of operational details would make future air transport operations “vulnerable to the potential interception by hostile actors”, which would endanger the safety of the wider public, the MoD argued.

Significantly, it added that providing the information would prejudice its ability to maintain the UK’s Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) – a reference to patrols by Britain’s Trident submarines. 

“There is no wider public interest in reducing the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent which is the ultimate guarantee of our national security”, the MoD told Nukewatch.

Nigel Day of Nukewatch said: “Ministry of Defence nuclear flights pose a significant risk to communities across the UK should there be an accident. Far from keeping us safe, as the government claims, nuclear weapons actually make things far more dangerous for all of us.” 

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), told Declassified: “Special nuclear flights are an underreported but critical aspect in maintaining Britain’s nuclear power status. How can we truly have an independent foreign and defence policy if what is vaunted as the cornerstone of our supposed security relies so heavily on another state? 

“It’s time to move away from the current wasteful and dangerous addiction to nuclear arms and to move towards a real defence policy which secures peace rather than deploying weapons of mass destruction.”

Hudson added: “We are also extremely concerned about the safety risks posed by these flights and the poor performance during exercises to prepare authorities for a nuclear accident. Of course, instead of acknowledging these risks and moving towards disarmament, the British government cuts down on transparency by blocking the release of reports on its most recent training exercises.”

March 31, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | 1 Comment

Nuclear waste clean-up company to be prosecuted over alleged cyber blunders

Sellafield Ltd accused of lax IT security at Europe’s largest nuclear facility

Jonathan Leake, 28 March 2024 ,  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/28/sellafield-nuclear-waste-prosecuted-cybersecurity/

A state-owned company responsible for cleaning up decades of nuclear waste at the Sellafield site in Cumbria is being prosecuted over alleged cybersecurity blunders.

It follows an investigation prompted by fears that the business’s digital defences were breached by hackers acting for hostile states such as Russia and China.

Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear facility, serving as a testing ground and waste dump since 1947. It houses a massive range of highly radioactive wastes, including 140 tonnes of plutonium – a key ingredient for nuclear weapons.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has told Sellafield Ltd, the business tasked with clean-up, that it will be prosecuted under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003.

The charges relate to alleged information technology security offences during a four-year period between 2019 and early 2023.

The announcement coincides with reports today that Richard Meal, who is chief information security officer at the Cumbrian site, is to leave later this year.

It follows the departure of Mark Neate, the director responsible for safety and security, who announced in January that he intended to quit in a move that had been planned for some time.

Sellafield has denied claims the site had suffered serious security breaches and the ONR has supported this. The new charges are thought to relate to alleged failures in compliance – meaning they are more about lax security than actual breaches.

An ONR spokesman said there was no suggestion that public safety had been compromised. Details of the first court hearing will be announced when available.

Sellafield Ltd is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a quango overseen by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is tasked with cleaning 17 decaying nuclear sites across the UK. Sellafield is the most expensive, costing taxpayers £2.5bn last year.

Some government estimates suggest the total cost of the clean-up will reach £263bn, with Sellafield accounting for the largest portion. The site employs 11,000 people and comprises more than 1,000 buildings, many not designed to house the radioactive material now stored in them.

Sellafield is so expensive that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which monitors threats to the UK Government’s finances, has warned that it and other legacy sites pose a “material source of fiscal risk” to the country.

The ONR investigation is in addition to another by the National Audit Office, Britain’s public spending watchdog, which is probing risks and costs at Sellafield and is due to report this autumn.

A Sellafield spokesman said: “The ONR’s Civil Nuclear Security and Safeguards (CNSS) has notified us of its intention to prosecute the company relating to alleged past nuclear industry security regulations compliance. As the issue is now the subject of active court proceedings, we are unable to comment further.”

It follows separate reports by Radioactive Waste Management Ltd (RWM), another government-owned company, that hackers unsuccessfully attempted to breach its defences using LinkedIn.

RWM, now part of Nuclear Waste Services, is the company tasked with designing the long-awaited Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) project,  a vast underground nuclear waste store which would become the final destination for toxic waste now stored at Sellafield.

Nuclear Waste Services is currently seeking a site that would be geologically stable for the millions of years the waste would need to become safe – and which would be acceptable to the local communities hosting it.

Two sites remain in the running, one off the coast of Cumbria and the other off the coast of Lincolnshire, with the choice of site still surrounded in secrecy.

The development is expected to cost taxpayers up to £53bn.

A report filed at Companies House by Nuclear Waste Services said the attempted hacks had failed.

March 31, 2024 Posted by | legal, safety, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

 The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) will prosecute Sellafield Ltd on charges of security offences

 The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has notified Sellafield Ltd that
it will be prosecuted under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations
2003. These charges relate to alleged information technology security
offences during a four year period between 2019 and early 2023. There is no
suggestion that public safety has been compromised as a result of these
issues. The decision to begin legal proceedings follows an investigation by
ONR, the UK’s independent nuclear regulator. Details of the first court
hearing will be announced when available. Given that some matters are now
subject to legal proceedings, we are unable to comment further.

 ONR 28th March 2024

https://onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2024/03/onr-notifies-sellafield-ltd-of-intention-to-prosecute

March 31, 2024 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »