nuclear-news

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

Feds spent 20 years warning Michigan dam was in danger before it failed

Feds spent 20 years warning Michigan dam was in danger before it failed, By Kyle Feldscher

May 21, 2020    Thousands in Michigan evacuate after two dams fail  (CNN)Federal regulators have warned for more than 20 years of inadequate spillways at a Michigan dam that was breached Tuesday, sending floodwaters raging into a city of more than 40,000.

Documents available on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website show federal regulators warned multiple companies that the Edenville Dam was not ready to handle a massive flood. The federal government threatened large fines against one private company that operated the dam until eventually revoking its license in 2018.
Although federal regulators repeatedly warned about the dam’s inability to handle a large flood, it took years for federal authorities to crack down on the dam’s operator after more than 13 years of cajoling them to abide by the terms of their license…….
The Edenville Dam, built in 1924, failed Tuesday evening, leading to the evacuation of thousands of people from Midland and the surrounding communities. The flood could have lasting environmental effects after waters from the Tittabawassee and Tobacco rivers mixed with a Dow Chemical containment pond and inundated a federal Superfund site downriver that was caused by Dow’s release of dioxins years ago. …… https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/ferc-edenville-dam-midland-michigan-flooding/index.html

May 21, 2020 Posted by | climate change, USA | Leave a comment

10 buildings to be demolished at Santa Susana Nuclear Field Laboratory

…The Trump administration said on Wednesday it would tear down 10 buildings at the U.S. government’s former Santa Susana Field Laboratory northwest of Los Angeles that was left contaminated by decades of nuclear, rocket fuel and liquid metal testing. The buildings set for demolition were part of a radioactive materials handling facility at the more than 2,800-acre Santa Susana site in the Ventura County foothills, which opened in the late 1940s ordered cleaned up under a court-ordered 2010 consent decree. … https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/international/1060091-reuters-us-domestic-news-summary

May 21, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Earthquake close to Yucca Mountain’s selected nuclear waste site

Nevada Earthquake Raises More Doubts about Yucca Mountain by John Freeland  https://blogs.agu.org/terracentral/2020/05/17/nevada-earthquake-raises-more-doubts-about-yucca-mountain/   17 May 20, On Friday, May 15, 2020, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake rocked Nevada and portions of California. With the epicenter located about 22 miles west of Tonopah, NV, no serious damage was recorded aside from cracked highway pavement in the mostly remote surroundings, far from population centers.

Reportedly, Nevada has not seen an earthquake of this size since 1954. Worth noting, the earthquake epicenter is about 100 miles away from the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as depicted on the above aerial image.

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository is, by authority of legislation passed in 1982 and 1987, currently the designated single facility for permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. A time-line of the related events briefly describes the story of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Locals see the project as a source of jobs but state-wide there is strong opposition. After all, there are no nuclear power generating facilities in Nevada. According to Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev), “if you generate nuclear waste, you should keep it in your own backyard. Don’t send it to our backyard.”

The safety of Yucca Mountain has been debated for nearly forty years. I’ve previously posted on the topic here and here. An interesting analysis of political and other factors swirling around the project is “How Safe is Yucca Mountain?”As the map to the right (USGS craton map) [on original] shows, the Yucca Mountain site is not in an ideal location in terms of tectonic activity.

Located near the boundary of the “accretionary belt” and the “deformed craton” the region has a history of volcanic activity within the past 2 million years and Nevada is ranked third in the nation for earthquakes. As Dr. Cochran points out in his paper cited above, Nevada was selected largely for political reasons. The federal government already owned the Nevada Test Site property, which had been used for years for weapons testing. It is remote, however, remote areas of the United States are often found out west where there is higher seismicity. Whether we want to or not, we as a nation will have to figure out a solution to permanent nuclear waste disposal with some 90,000 tons now in temporary storage.

So where should it go? North or South Dakota? Eastern Montana? Predicting the long-term future of seismic events appears to be dicey. As Nevada Seismological Laboratory Director Graham Kent puts it “We like to think everything’s the way it is and it doesn’t change that much,” he said. “I think the last few months we’ve learned with the pandemic that that’s not the case.”

May 21, 2020 Posted by | safety, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Over 100 public interest organisations call on Canadian govt to halt decision on nuclear waste disposal

Groups ask Ottawa to press ‘pause’ on nuclear  waste disposal  https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/groups-ask-ottawa-to-press-pause-on-nuclear-waste-disposal-2361184   ‘There’s no rules’ for evaluating an underground storage site, spokesperson says.   By: Gary Rinne  OTTAWA — More than 100 public interest organizations, environmental groups and others are calling on the federal government to suspend all decision-making regarding radioactive nuclear waste disposal.

In a letter to Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan, they describe Canada’s current nuclear waste policy as “deficient,” saying it must be improved in consultation with the public and Indigenous peoples.

Among the signatories are numerous groups in northern Ontario, including Thunder Bay-based Environment North and Keep Nuclear Waste Out of Northwestern Ontario.

The letter follows a February report from the International Atomic Energy Agency which recommended that the government “enhance” its existing radioactive waste management policy.

The IAEA said the policy framework “does not encompass all the needed policy elements nor a detailed strategy” required for long-term nuclear waste management.

The signatories say their request is urgent because the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is pressing ahead with licensing decisions on a number of radioactive waste projects.

“Fearing Canada’s deficient radioactive waste framework will imprint itself on decisions affecting the health and safety of future generations and the environment, signees urged Canada to provide leadership, and establish sufficient guidance and federal policy,” they said in a statement Tuesday.

The groups also want Ottawa to establish objectives and principles to underly a nuclear waste policy, and that the government identify “the problems and issues exposed by existing and accumulating radioactive waste.”

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is currently studying potential future underground nuclear waste storage sites in the Ignace area and South Bruce in southern Ontario.

Brennan Lloyd of North Bay-based Northwatch said NWMO’s search for a future repository is “part and parcel” of concerns about Canada’s overall approach to managing radioactive waste issues.

Nuclear waste disposal isn’t the only pressing matter, Lloyd said, but “we have lots of concerns about the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, their operation…going back to 2002 when the Nuclear Waste Fuels Act allowed the industry to create the NWMO.”

She added that “the lack of a solid set of rules around radioactive waste, we believe, does affect how the NWMO has conducted itself, but even more importantly it may affect the review process if the NWMO ever actually arrives at a site that they can in some way present as having the support of a host community.”

According to Lloyd, there are no rules as to how such a proposal would be evaluated.

She said that in 1996, the federal government presented a Radioactive Waste Policy Framework that’s less than a page long, and it’s problematic that “almost 25 years later, that’s still all we have in the way of real policy, strategy, rules around radioactive waste at the national level.”

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff have recently proposed regulatory documents, Lloyd said, “which are really very general descriptions of how they might go about issuing a licence for various activities. And they really lack rigour.”

She said two of the five regulatory documents the CNSC plans to bring forward next month deal directly with nuclear waste burial.

“One is around how you would assess the long-term performance of a deep geological repository, and one is about how you would characterize a site that was being considered. And both of them are just incredibly weak documents,” Lloyd maintained.

“The dividing line is between ‘shall’ and ‘should.’ The CNSC documents are all ‘should’ or ‘may.’ Which means there’s no rules.”

Lloyd and the other signatories to the letter ask Minister O’Regan to instruct the CNSC to stop developing radioactive waste management and nuclear decommissioning documents until new, overarching policies and strategies are in place.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Massive deregulation of America’s radioactive wastes

Environmentalists Fault Sending ‘Very Low Level’ Nuclear Waste to Landfills  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/environmentalists-fault-sending-very-low-level-nuclear-waste-to-landfills/2292805/  By Jaxon Van Derbeken,-20 May 20 The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a rule “reinterpretation” that would allow commercial landfills to start taking in low level radioactive waste, in lieu of the four currently licensed disposal facilities nationwide.

Environmentalists were quick to attack the proposed rule change by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, saying that under the plan, the public would not be automatically notified when a landfill qualifies for a waiver of the current regulations.

This is the most massive deregulation of radioactive waste in American history,” said Daniel Hirsch, head of an environmental watchdog group and former director of the Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy.  “And they are doing it under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, when everyone’s attention is rightly focused on other things.”

Under Proposed Rule No. 2020-0065, what the commission considers a “reinterpretation” of existing rules, hundreds of landfills nationwide could submit applications for an exemption of the current rules requiring that all low-level nuclear waste be sent to either Washington state, Utah, Texas or South Carolina.

Environmentalists were quick to attack the proposed rule change by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, saying that under the plan, the public would not be automatically notified when a landfill qualifies for a waiver of the current regulations.

“This is the most massive deregulation of radioactive waste in American history,” said Daniel Hirsch, head of an environmental watchdog group and former director of the Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy.  “And they are doing it under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, when everyone’s attention is rightly focused on other things.”

Under Proposed Rule No. 2020-0065, what the commission considers a “reinterpretation” of existing rules, hundreds of landfills nationwide could submit applications for an exemption of the current rules requiring that all low-level nuclear waste be sent to either Washington state, Utah, Texas or South Carolina.

To qualify for an exemption, a landfill would need to submit an analysis of the types of waste they would receive and that they could meet radiation exposure limits.

Hirsch said that under the proposed regulatory language, private landfills wouldn’t have to notify neighbors.

“You could be living next to a nuclear dump, and never even know it,” he said.

The NRC contends its plan is safe. In a statement, the commission said it intends to relax regulations for disposing of “very low level” waste, such as the concrete from decommissioned nuclear reactors. Such waste, the commission says, poses little risk to the public, while allowing for reduced costs and lower radiation exposure to drivers while they are transporting it.

Critics, like Jeff Ruch, West Coast head of PEER, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, say there aren’t nearly enough safeguards.

“If you get the exemption, you could put it in your backyard,” he said. “There’s no tracing process, there’s no monitoring — this, in essence exempts them from any form of regulatory or public health safeguard, and that’s the concern.”

The NRC told us that companies that are disposing of the radioactive materials, along with participating landfills, would share the responsibility of complying with the rules under the exemption system, adding:  “We would not allow such disposals if we felt public health and safety and the environment would not be protected.”

Disclosure aside, critics said they are concerned that the restrictions for landfills would not be as strict as the ones in place for the four licensed facilities. Under the proposed rules, residents near newly participating landfills could be exposed to as much as two and half times the level regulatorily allowed around the four licensed disposal sites, Hirsch said.

The commission said that the proposed permitted landfill exposure level would be the same as allowed around decommissioned nuclear plants.

The nuclear industry has yet to weigh in on the proposal, but the deadline for public comment has been extended to July. The five member commission is then expected to take up the matter.

If the plan is approved, it could mean dramatically reduced costs of disposing contaminated soil around San Francisco’s old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, which is slated for development. Clearing that site could involve hauling away as many as 100,000 truckloads of contaminated soil. Right now, the soil in the area is being retested following allegations of wrongdoing by the previous testing firm, Tetra Tech, that the company denies.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump wants USA to hugely increase its nuclear weaponry

Trump Says U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Must Be ‘Greatly’ Expanded, Bloomberg, By  Alex Wayne, December 23, 2016
  •  Russian president said his arsenal also should be strengthened
  •  Obama has sought to both modernize and reduce U.S. weapons

President-elect Donald Trump said Thursday the U.S. should increase its nuclear arsenal, an apparent reversal of a decades-long reduction of the nation’s atomic weaponry that came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated calls for his country’s arsenal to be reinforced.

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Trump said in a Twitter post…….(subscribers only) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/trump-says-u-s-nuclear-arsenal-must-be-greatly-expanded

May 19, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Over 120 local and national organizations urge U.S. Congress to help nuclear frontline communities.

May 19, 2020 Posted by | health, politics, USA | Leave a comment

USA wants thousands of Hypersonic Missiles, using artificial intelligence

May 19, 2020 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Coronavirus likely to put a dint in USA’s nuclear weapons spending

ORDER FROM CHAOS, How COVID-19 might affect US nuclear weapons and planning Brookings Institute, Steven Pifer, May 18, 2020   Editor’s Note:  As it examines the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2021 defense budget, Congress should carefully consider the trade-offs and press the Pentagon to articulate how it weighed the trade-offs between nuclear and conventional forces, writes Steven Pifer. This piece original appeared in the National Interest.

The Department of Defense has begun to ratchet up spending to recapitalize the U.S. strategic nuclear triad and its supporting infrastructure, as several programs move from research and development into the procurement phase.  The projected Pentagon expenditures are at least $167 billion from 2021-2025. This amount does not include the large nuclear warhead sustainment and modernization costs funded by the Department of Energy, projected to cost $81 billion over the next five years.
Nuclear forces require modernization, but that will entail opportunity costs. In a budget environment that offers little prospect of greater defense spending, especially in the COVID19 era, more money for nuclear forces will mean less funding for conventional capabilities. That has potentially negative consequences for the security of the United States and its allies. While nuclear forces provide day-to-day deterrence, the Pentagon leadership spends most of its time thinking about how to employ conventional forces to manage security challenges around the world. The renewed focus on great power competition further elevates the importance of conventional forces. It is important to get the balance between nuclear and conventional forces right, particularly as the most likely path to use of nuclear arms would be an escalation of a conventional conflict. Having robust conventional forces to prevail in or deter a conventional conflict in the first place could avert a nuclear crisis or worse.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BUDGETS

For the foreseeable future, the United States will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for its security and that of its allies (whether we should be comfortable with that prospect is another question). Many U.S. nuclear weapons systems are aging, and replacing them will cost money, lots of money. The Pentagon’s five-year plan for its nuclear weapons programs proposes $29 billion in fiscal year 2021, rising to $38 billion in fiscal year 2025, as programs move from research and development to procurement. The plan envisages a total of $167 billion over five years. And that total may be understated; weapons costs increase not just as they move to the procurement phase, but as cost overruns and other issues drive the costs up compared to earlier projections……….

Some look at these figures and the overall defense budget (the Pentagon wants a total of $740 billion for fiscal year 2021) and calculate that the cost of building and operating U.S. nuclear forces will amount to “only” 6-7 percent of the defense budget. That may be true, but how relevant is that figure?

By one estimate, the cost of building and operating the F-35 fighter program for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines over the program’s lifetime will be $1 trillion. Amortized over 50 years, that amounts to $20 billion per year or “only” 2.7 percent of the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2021 budget request. The problem is that these percentages and lots of other “small” percentages add up. When one includes all of the programs, plus personnel and readiness costs as well as everything else that the Pentagon wants, the percentages will total to more than 100 percent of the figure that Congress is prepared to appropriate for defense.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

The defense budget is unlikely to grow. Opportunity costs represent the things the Pentagon has to give up or forgo in order to fund its nuclear weapons programs. The military services gave an indication of these costs with their “unfunded priorities lists,” which this year total $18 billion. These show what the services would like to buy if they had additional funds, and that includes a lot of conventional weapons…………

These are the opportunity costs of more nuclear weapons: fewer dollars for aircraft, ships, attack submarines and ground combat equipment for conventional deterrence and defense…………..

If the United States and its allies have sufficiently robust conventional forces, they can prevail in a regional conflict at the conventional level and push any decision about first use of nuclear weapons onto the other side (Russia, or perhaps China or North Korea depending on the scenario).The other side would have to weigh carefully the likelihood that its first use of nuclear weapons would trigger a nuclear response, opening the decidedly grim prospect of further nuclear escalation and of things spinning out of control. The other side’s leader might calculate that he/she could control the escalation, but that gamble would come with no guarantee.  It would appear a poor bet given the enormous consequences if things go wrong. Happily, the test has never been run.

This is why the opportunity costs of nuclear weapons programs matter. If those programs strip too much funding from conventional forces, they weaken the ability of the United States and its allies to prevail in a conventional conflict—or to deter that conflict in the first place—and increase the possibility that the United States might have to employ nuclear weapons to avert defeat………

The United States and NATO still retain the option of first use of nuclear weapons. If the U.S. president and NATO leaders were to consider resorting to that option, they then would be the ones to have to consider the dicey bet that the other side would not respond with nuclear arms or that, if it did, nuclear escalation somehow could be controlled.

Assuring NATO allies that the United States was prepared to risk Chicago for Bonn consumed a huge amount of time and fair amount of resources during the Cold War…….

In modernizing, maintaining and operating a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent, the United States should avoid underfunding conventional forces in ways that increase the prospect of conventional defeat and/or that might tempt an adversary to launch a conventional attack. If Washington gets the balance wildly out of sync, it increases the possibility that the president might face the decision of whether to use nuclear weapons first—knowing that first use would open a Pandora’s box of incalculable and potentially catastrophic consequences.

GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT IN THE COVID19 ERA

This means that the Department of Defense and Congress should take a hard look at

May 19, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA’s F-35’s Nuclear Weapons Upgrade Delayed as Program Costs Top $1.6 Trillion

F-35’s Nuclear Weapons Upgrade Delayed as Program Costs Top $1.6 Trillion

   https://sputniknews.com/military/202005131079296398-f-35s-nuclear-weapons-upgrade-delayed-as-program-costs-top-16-trillion/  13.05.2020  The F-35 Lightning II’s Block 4 upgrade, which will allow the stealth aircraft to carry nuclear weapons, has been delayed by at least nine months. The F-35 is slated to become the primary nuclear strike aircraft for several US allies. Meanwhile, costs for the program have soared above $1.6 trillion.

According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, the F-35’s planned Block 4 upgrade has been delayed by nine months, pushing the plane’s full-rate production decision back to sometime between September 2020 and March 2021

While Block 4 will integrate a number of new weapons into the F-35’s repertoire, such as Naval Strike Missile, the Meteor and SPEAR missiles and several laser-guided bombs, by far the most consequential weapon is the B61 nuclear gravity bomb, which is small enough to fit inside the F-35’s internal weapons bay.

Via the F-35 Block 4, NATO partners who wield US nuclear weapons thanks to nuclear sharing agreements will be able to continue to carry out nuclear strikes. With the Panavia Tornado exiting service with most European partners, a delay in fielding the F-35 Block 4 could leave a gap in NATO’s nuclear capabilities, especially for the Italian, Dutch and Belgian air forces.

However, the GAO report also notes the enormity of the Block 4 upgrade has driven up costs in the already colossal lifetime budget for the F-35. Noting that in 2019 it projected a baseline increase of $8 billion because of Block 4, the GAO stated in its Tuesday report that the update’s development and procurement costs are now estimated to be $13.9 billion and “that the sustainment costs to operate and maintain the F-35 fleet for its planned 66-year life cycle are $1.2 trillion, bringing the total cost of the F-35 program to over $1.6 trillion.”

“The planned $13.9 billion Block 4 effort exceeds the statutory and regulatory thresholds for what constitutes a major defense acquisition program, and Block 4 is more expensive than many of the other major weapon acquisitions already in DOD’s portfolio,” the GAO further states.
To provide better oversight into Block 4 activities, in 2016, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense hold a milestone B review – a critical point in an acquisition program leading to the engineering and manufacturing development phase – and manage it as a separate major defense acquisition program. DOD did not concur with our recommendation, and it continues to manage Block 4 within the larger F-35 program. We maintain that DOD should manage the Block 4 activities as a separate program.”

The oversight office further advised the Pentagon to continue oversight reports on Block 4 upgrade progress through 2026, even though its budget only provides for updates through 2023.

May 19, 2020 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A mistaken idea, to put U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland

May 19, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Coalition pursues extra $7.25B for DOE nuclear cleanup, job creation

May 19, 2020 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Removal of Fort Belvoir’s SM-1 nuclear reactor to proceed after Army finalizes environmental assessment

 May 18, 2020 Fort Hunt Herald  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) remains on track to award a contract for the decommissioning and dismantlement of the deactivated SM-1 nuclear power plant at Fort Belvoir by September 2020.

That is according to USACE Project Manager Brenda Barber, who provided an update by email to SM-1 stakeholders on May 18, 2020.

Following a public comment period, Barber announced that the SM-1 project’s Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) have been finalized and published online:……..

“The team is now focused on completing the Decommissioning Planning in preparation for awarding a decommissioning contract,” Barber stated.

“The project team still anticipates awarding a decommissioning contract by September 2020 with mobilization work on site beginning in early 2021.”……….

Barber noted that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has not had any immediate significant impact on the project schedule, since most of the work at this administrative phase is being done virtually. The site remains secure and environmental and radiological monitoring and inspections continue.

For information about the project, visit: nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental/SM-1

Questions and comments can continue to be sent to the project’s corporate communications team by emailing Brenda.M.Barber@usace.army.mil or calling (410) 375-4565    https://forthuntherald.com/removal-of-fort-belvoirs-sm-1-nuclear-reactor-to-proceed-after-finalizing-environmental-assessment/

May 19, 2020 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

The leaning tower of Vogtle nuclear reactor: yes it’s literally sinking,-and also further into debt

Georgia Nuclear: Vogtle Unit 3 Is Sinking! [BREDL Petition]  https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/georgia-nuclear-vogtle-unit-3-is-sinking-bredl-petition  18 May 2020, You can find the Fairewinds Associates expert report and BREDL’s legal filing here and under the reports section of this Fairewinds site. You also may read BREDL’s legal filing and the other documents filed on BREDL’s home site, where you will also see the breadth and depth of the environmental work conducted by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its associated chapters in many states. What Does the Leaning Tower of Pisa Have In Common with the Vogtle Nuclear Reactor?

By The Fairewinds Crew

The famous tower in Pisa, Italy was designed to stand straight up, and like Vogtle, it began to lean during construction. During the ensuing years after construction, the Pisa tower continued to sink into the ground due to the inability of the failing foundation to sustain the tower’s heavy weight. It became known as the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Similarly, the Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear power plant was designed to be straight on its firm ‘basemat foundation’, which is designed with extra rebar and mathematical calculations to assure that the foundation can support an atomic reactor as heavy as the unique design of the AP1000 with 8-million-pounds of emergency cooling water sitting on top of the containment.

Last month, Vogtle’s  owner, Sothern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), tried to amend its operating license with information that had been kept secret from the public. When that now leaning wall was first built five years ago, SNC established a program to monitor the lack of stability in the foundation.

Honestly, truth is stranger than fiction – you can’t make this stuff up!  Now we learn that the  Vogtle Unit 3 atomic power reactor is sinking into the red Georgia clay causing an inner wall to tilt!  Yes, this is the same Vogtle Unit 3 that is already billions of dollars over budget and at least 5-years behind schedule.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League [BREDL] announced that part of the Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear power plant currently under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, is sinking. According to BREDL’s press release, “In a legal action filed Monday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the group called on regulators to revoke the plant’s license for false statements made by its owners, Southern Nuclear Operating Company. On May 11, BREDL filed a nineteen-page legal petition requesting a hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on a License Amendment for Plant Vogtle’s Unit 3. The petition is supported by detailed, specific expert opinion.  Under rules of procedure, Southern Company has 25 days to respond.”

Fairewinds Associates, Inc Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen wrote an expert witness report submitted by BREDL to the NRC in which he said that Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) chose not to disclose that the Vogtle Unit 3 foundation was sinking faster in the middle than at the edges, in the shape of a dish, causing internal walls to lean.   From our point of view, leaning walls may have created a tourist destination for the Tower in Pisa, however, a leaning tower and failing foundation at a nuke plant is a meltdown waiting to happen.

BREDL has informed the NRC that there must be an entire reevaluation of the seismic/structural integrity of the entire nuclear plant. This means that a completely new licensing review and full analysis of all new stress conditions placed on other components that are no longer level needs to be conducted and receive an independent engineering review as well, since SCE has not publicized this fact to the people of Georgia.  

Vogtle Units 3 & 4 are notoriously over budget, and their construction has been delayed for years. Now with the Covid-19 Pandemic, and these newly uncovered flaws, the construction will slow further as a complete safety review must be conducted to ascertain whether the ‘basemat foundation’ meets the foundation integrity demanded for a nuclear island (NI).  The Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear island underlies the strange heavy design of the AP1000 with its donut-shaped 8-million-pound water tank at the apex of the entire containment system that is meant to protect us from a meltdown.

Let’s look more closely at the history of Vogtle and the so-called nuclear renaissance that never happened. Complicit in this financial boondoggle is the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) whose members have greenlighted all these cost overruns in return for campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. That’s why we wrote The Night The Lights Went Out in Georgia. At Vogtle, all the extensive cost overruns have been shifted to Georgia taxpayers and ratepayers, and originally these plants were built with federal loan guarantees – that is our money folks, and a story for another time in the Vogtle saga.

During the past decade Fairewinds joined with other nuclear risk and environmental advocacy groups to raise awareness about the numerous safety flaws and operational issues associated with the AP1000 reactor design. You can read more about those problems and issues here.

In its legal brief, based on this Fairewinds Associates report,  BREDL asked for a formal investigation of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company for making “materially false statements” to the NRC by claiming that the leaning walls were caused by construction tolerance measurements when the real reason the walls have moved is that the ‘basemat  foundation’ of the Vogtle nuclear island (NI) is sinking.

You can find the Fairewinds Associates expert report and BREDL’s legal filing here and under the reports section of this Fairewinds site. You also may read BREDL’s legal filing and the other documents filed on BREDL’s home site, where you will also see the breadth and depth of the environmental work conducted by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its associated chapters in many states.

May 18, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, incidents, USA | Leave a comment

Fermi 2 nuclear station struggles with large COVID-19 outbreak among workers.

Beyond Nuclear 14th May 2020, Fermi 2 struggles with large COVID-19 outbreak among workers. The large numbers of coronavirus test positives at Fermi nuclear power plant (the article reports more than 200 cases, but May 13 Facebook postings by Fermi employees have put the number as already grown worse, now at more than 300) is likely among the worst known (yet unreported, in the Michigan or U.S. national news media) at any single institution or workplace in Michigan.
It also is perhaps the most known (yet unreported, in the Michigan or U.S. national news media) number of cases at any U.S. nuclear facility, whether nuclear power plant or weapons complex site (although the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia is also reporting more than 200 cases).

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2020/5/14/fermi-2-struggles-with-large-covid-19-outbreak-among-workers.html

May 18, 2020 Posted by | health, media, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »