Concern in both Democrats and Republicans about Hanford nuclear waste, as costs escalate, and Trump administration cuts back the budget
The Columbian 6th April 2019 The slow pace of cleaning up the nation’s largest cache of radioactive
waste left over from the production of nuclear weapons is frustrating state
officials from both major political parties, who blame the Trump
administration for not doing more.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently
proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts for cleaning up the
vast Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington, even though
the estimated cost of the cleanup has at least tripled and could reach more
than $600 billion.
“That’s a huge, huge cost increase,” said Tom
Carpenter, director of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge. At a hearing
in Washington, D.C., last week, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray questioned
Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s assertion that his agency can still meet a
legally-binding cleanup schedule despite the proposed budget cuts. Much of
the site’s aging infrastructure is deteriorating, including underground
waste storage tanks and tunnels.
Concern over Chalk River Nuclear Site’s radioactive wastes
How safe is the Ottawa River from nuclear waste? Canada’s National Observer April 8th 2019 “……..Canada’s first nuclear reactor began operating at Chalk River, about 160 kilometres northwest of Ottawa. Since 1944, the facility has served as Canada’s major nuclear science hub. Researchers at CRL have studied reactors, nuclear energy and weaponry and produced medical isotopes for patients around the world.
“It is crucial to protect the drinking water source of over two million people,” says Ottawa Riverkeeper, a full-time, non-profit organization that serves as a public advocate for the watershed and is a key intervenor in the environmental assessment of the waste proposal.
The Chalk River site resembles an old university campus. It’s cut out of a thick and isolating forest spanning about 10,000 acres, with neatly trimmed patches of grass, and a regimented mix of large brick and smaller white structures.
The facilities owned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) are about seven kilometres from the gate at the border of Chalk River, a community of fewer than 1,100 residents, some of whom work at the lab which has about 2,800 employees.
Signs on a chain link fence and tree trunks along the perimeter indicate the grounds are protected by armed officers. Surveillance cameras cast a visual blanket over the road to the security clearance booth and over much of the site.
Chalk River Laboratories has for decades faced questions over the way it deals with its radioactive waste. Environmentalists have decried the facility for discharging waste into the river and for leaks. CNL says its methods for treating waste are sound and the regular liquid effluent discharges into the river have no significant public health or environmental impact on drinking water. It reports a steady evolution of environmental stewardship.
Fresh concern erupted after CNL announced detailed plans to build a nuclear disposal facility to permanently house one million cubic metres of radioactive waste — about 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth.
In May 2016, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission launched the environmental assessment process for the disposal project with an initial call for public comment.
Environmentalists and concerned citizens questioned how nuclear waste can remain securely contained for hundreds of years, and how it might endanger water quality if any leaks.
The waste has accumulated over decades of Chalk River’s operations. It includes low-level material, such as equipment from operations that has been irradiated and buildings that housed the reactors, and intermediate-level waste, such as filters used to purify reactor water systems and reactor core components. The irradiated material sits anywhere from a few metres to a few kilometres from the Ottawa River. ……..
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) promotes itself as a global leader in developing applications for nuclear technology through research, engineering and waste management services.
It is a subsidiary of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a federal Crown corporation, and operated by the Canadian National Energy Alliance, a private consortium. Its operations are licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the nation’s nuclear regulator.
What do water quality tests near Chalk River say?
Some nearby residents and environmental groups have argued that, while CNL says it is committed to safeguarding the health of the Ottawa River during the decommissioning process, questions remain about the lab’s ability to safely dispose of radioactive waste.
The lab’s history is peppered with minor leaks and malfunctions – and a few major ones. Critics worry that the organization’s confidence in the safety of decommissioning efforts is misplaced.
For instance, critics claim the lab is not fully transparent about its water quality testing methods and has not properly informed the public on plans for permanent storage and disposal of the radioactive material.
Ottawa resident Ole Hendrickson is a member of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, an Ottawa-based environmental activist group whose volunteers have worked for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for more than 40 years. He’s also a member of CRL’s environmental stewardship council, which convenes company officials, community representatives and other stakeholders several times a year to discuss updates from the lab.
Hendrickson said in an interview that CNL is stingy about providing environmental monitoring data, and that many of the documents with information on testing he has received through access to information requests include significant redactions.
Yet authorities in nearby towns appear unconcerned.
Brenda Royce works at the Ontario Clean Water Agency in Petawawa, about 20 kilometres downstream from Chalk River. It is a provincial Crown agency that the town contracts to do its water quality testing and water system maintenance.
In addition, Royce said her office collects a water sample from the Ottawa River at Petawawa every day for CNL to conduct its own tests. But the office does not get the results of the tests back from the private lab.
Every year, Petawawa’s water agency publishes its own report on the town’s drinking water quality and treatment system. The agency’s report includes testing for many chemicals — including uranium — but not for the two main radionuclides that might be discharged from Chalk River Laboratories operations: tritium and strontium. “It’s just what we do,” Royce said, adding she has never been curious to see results on radioactive waste in the water system.
Petawawa’s director of public works said he has never met with Chalk River officials over potential water quality hazards in the area……..
In 2012, the site’s former Crown operator contracted Université Laval to conduct independent environmental tests of the water, air and vegetation around Chalk River Laboratories and the municipalities of Petawawa and Pembroke, just south of the facility, which would be most directly affected by any potential nuclear contamination in the river. The results for 2012, 2013 and 2015 have been posted on the nuclear industry regulator’s website, and results for 2018 will be published. As of yet, no tests returned results that were expected to cause adverse health effects.
Canada’s Nuclear Safety Commission did not provide data or respond to technical questions before publication and was not available for an interview.
Test results from 2015 show levels of radioactive isotopes present in the river, such as strontium and tritium, were far below the threshold that would affect human health.
Health Canada guidelines state the maximum concentrations of strontium and tritium in drinking water are seven milligrams per litre, and 7,000 becquerels per litre, respectively.
Independent tests for strontium and tritium in the Ottawa River at Rolphton, Petawawa, and Pembroke were conducted specifically for this story. The results found strontium and tritium were not at dangerous levels in the water, as of November 2018. All indicated waste levels in the river were similar to results found by researchers from Université Laval in 2015, and reported last year by the lab itself.
While some local opponents believe there is no safe dose of radiation or safe level of radioactive waste, CNL says it abides by the standards set by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.
Members of CNL’s team acknowledge there are differences in international standards when it comes to certain substances, including tritium and strontium………..
When it comes to its own environmental monitoring, CNL releases a monthly performance report that indicates routine groundwater sampling at 170 locations across the site. The report does not include detailed results for the specific radioactive substances tested.
The Ontario Ministry of Environment conducts water quality tests at Petawawa every year and has never shown any concern over potential nuclear material in the water. As part of its Nuclear Reactor Surveillance Program, the Ontario Ministry of Labour published reports in 2011 and 2012 that show very low tritium levels in Ottawa’s water. No further reports have been published since.
This publication contacted recently elected municipal and provincial representatives, and the local federal politician whose seat will be up for election in 2019.
None of the representatives for the Chalk River area commented on the proposed waste facility or its possible impact on water quality. Renfrew-Nippising-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski did not provide an interview. The area’s federal MP, Cheryl Gallant, was not available. Laurentian Hills mayor John Reinwald, the chief administrative officer and all council members did not respond to interview requests………..https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/08/features/how-safe-ottawa-river-nuclear-waste
Many obstacles to small modular nuclear reactors, but U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommends them, anyway
NRC recommends issuing early site permit for Clinch River Nuclear Site, OAK RIDGE TODAY, APRIL 8, 2019BY The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final environmental impact statement, and the staff has recommended, based upon the environmental review, issuing an early site permit for the Clinch River Nuclear Site in west Oak Ridge, where two or more small modular nuclear reactors could be built.The final environmental impact statement, or EIS, was issued by the NRC on April 3. A notice of the EIS and the staff’s recommendation were published in the Federal Register on Monday, April 8.
The 935-acre Clinch River Nuclear Site is located in Roane County along the Clinch River……….
An early site permit is the NRC’s approval of a site for one or more nuclear power facilities. It does not authorize the actual construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. That requires a construction permit and an operating license, or a combined license. ………
The Clinch River Nuclear Site could be used to demonstrate small modular reactors with a maximum total electrical output of 800 megawatts………
Now that the final EIS has been published, there will be a mandatory hearing with the NRC after a final safety evaluation report is issued. The NRC expects that report to be published in June. The five-member commission will make a decision after the hearing about whether to issue the early site permit.
A contested hearing could be held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel if a member of the public or an organization successfully files a petition that raises safety or environmental concerns about granting the site a permit, the NRC said.
The NRC said an authorization for the construction or operation of new nuclear units at the Clinch River site is not being sought at this time.
The potential timing of any reactors being built at the site is not clear. Among other things, TVA doesn’t control the reactor certification process.
“There are currently no certified small modular reactor designs available, but TVA will continue working to ensure we are ready to fully evaluate them when they are available,” Hopson said.
Financial considerations would have to be evaluated, and the TVA board of directors would have the final decision “based on what they believe will be in the best interest of the people of the Tennessee Valley,” Hopson said.
Since a design hasn’t been certified for a small modular reactor, TVA used what is known as a “plant parameter envelope” as a surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its facilities when applying for the early site permit. The “plant parameter envelope” estimated the potential environmental impacts of building and operating two or more small modular reactors at the site. TVA used information from four small modular reactor vendors to develop the “plant parameter envelope.”
A reader has asked why TVA might consider adding new generating capacity at the Clinch River site even as it plans to retire coal-fired units like the Bull Run Fossil Plant in Claxton, citing flat or declining demand………https://oakridgetoday.com/2019/04/08/nrc-recommends-issuing-early-site-permit-clinch-river-nuclear-site/
SCANA ends internal investigation into failed nuclear reactor project
SCANA ends internal investigation
https://www.counton2.com/news/south-carolina-news/scana-ends-internal-investigation-into-f
Jail for hospital manager who took $10 million bribe from SNC Lavalin.
Former hospital manager who took $10 million bribe to favour SNC Lavalin bid sentenced to 39 months in prison https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/ex-manager-sentenced-to-39-months-prison-in-hospital-corruption-fraud?fbclid=IwAR35AX1LrS6gLpVV1uHbnxVV1YmiImTnfFhjQHKAlpUe_n_4VInQAx9ksv4#comments-area 8 Apr 19, MONTREAL — A former hospital manager who pocketed a $10-million bribe in return for helping SNC-Lavalin win a Montreal hospital-building contract has been sentenced to 39 months in prison.
Quebec court Judge Claude Leblond sentenced Yanai Elbaz today in Montreal in a case that has been described as the greatest corruption fraud in Canadian history.
The judge rejected an argument from the McGill University Health Centre, which claimed it was entitled to compensation as a victim of the fraud. He ruled the question should be dealt with through civil proceedings.
In an agreed statement of facts tied to Elbaz’s plea, the former MUHC manager admitted to giving privileged information to engineering firm SNC-Lavalin to help its submission for the contract to build a massive hospital complex in west-end Montreal.
Elbaz, who has been detained since his Nov. 26 guilty plea, also admitted to denigrating SNC’s competitors in front of the hospital’s selection committee.
Elbaz and Arthur Porter, the ex-CEO of the MUHC who died a fugitive in Panamanian custody in 2015, received a total of $22.5 million to rig the bidding process to favour SNC-Lavalin, the statement of facts said.
The persecution of Julian Assange: what this has to do with psychology, and with the use of torture
John Pilger speaks out for Julian Assange
an example of the sensitive, clandestine, real-world CIA psychology deployed against ‘terrorists’ and enemies of the state, as Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been branded.
In this case, the adversary in the US crosshairs has been not only Julian Assange and Wikileaks, but the global populations that Wikileaks seeks to inform. It is our own vulnerabilities – the vulnerabilities in the information processing systems of all human beings – that have been leveraged and exploited in order to undermine and discredit Wikileaks.
The fundamental psychological task is to render truth suspicious and deceit reassuring, war criminals virtuous and their critics corrupt, pacifism threatening and violence comforting, abuse of power righteous and resistance reprobate, torture forgivable and whistleblowing a crime, censorship a bastion of democracy and free speech a menace to be overcome. Much as George Orwell foresaw.
In order to justify the psychological war on Wikileaks, US powerbrokers have branded Wikileaks and Assange “anti-American” “terrorists”, a “non-state hostile intelligence service” and “enemy combatants”. Bolstered by these factually indefensible slurs, Julian Assange now faces imminent extradition to the United States to face secret charges, most likely for 2010 scoops exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Peace is bad. War is good. Truth is dangerous. Censorship will set you free. These are the positions underpinning the war on Wikileaks.
The Psychology Of Getting Julian Assange, Part 1: What’s Torture Got To Do With It? https://newmatilda.com/2019/02/19/psychology-getting-julian-assange-part-1-whats-torture-got/ Dr Lissa Johnson on February 19, 2019
“…. Assange faces extradition to the United States and secret charges for his publishing activities should he step outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. This cross-border, extraterritorial persecution threatens not only Assange’s health, and possibly his life according to a recent UN statement, but poses grave legal risks both to journalism and dissent…..
The Australian rallies join a growing international chorus of organisations and individuals sounding increasingly urgent alarms over Julian Assange’s plight, and its implications for freedom of speech and democratic rights.
Late last year, as secret US charges against Julian Assange surfaced, and the threat of his imminent extradition to the US loomed, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) issued a strongly worded statement to the UK Government, having previously ruled twice that Assange is being arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
In its statement, the UNWGAD demanded that the UK abide by its “binding” legal obligations and “immediately” secure freedom for Julian Assange. The UN reminded the UK Government that “human rights treaty law is binding law, it is not discretionary law. It is not some passing fancy”.
The same fears prompted 33 EU parliamentarians to write a similarly strongly worded letter to the British Prime Minister, the Ecuadorian President and the UN Secretary General on December 10th, condemning the “very serious and egregious violations of human rights in the heart of Europe.” They called for Assange’s “immediate release, together with his safe passage to a safe country.”
Two German MPs followed with a visit to the Ecuadorian Embassy on December 20th, at which they denounced the violation of Assange’s “fundamental rights” and expressed their “demand that this case has to be solved: that no publisher, no editor, no journalist is detained because of publishing the truth”.
The politicians’ and UN statements added to previous condemnations of Assange’s persecution from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and a former senior lawyer for the UNHCR and UN Expert on the Promotion of International Order.
All of these leading legal and human rights authorities have been making essentially the same fundamental point: that Julian Assange is being persecuted for publishing truth in the public interest, placing public interest journalism itself at risk, along with freedom of speech and other democratic and human rights principles.
It is the same fundamental point made by several speakers at an earlier Australian rally to free Julian Assange, held in Sydney in June last year. John Pilger spoke at that rally also.
Pilger’s important 2018 speech, however, like the rally itself, was subject to a near total, if not total, mainstream media blackout. So if you missed it, that may be why. And if you haven’t followed the US war on Wikileaks from the outset, as I hadn’t when I attended last year’s rally, Pilger’s speech is a powerful way to bring yourself up to speed. Continue reading
Hanford nuclear mess; the clean-up is delayed by the Trump administration
The U.S. Department of Energy recently proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts for cleaning up the vast Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington, even though the estimated cost of the cleanup has at least tripled and could reach more than $600 billion.
“That’s a huge, huge cost increase,” said Tom Carpenter, director of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge.
At a hearing in Washington, D.C., last week, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray questioned Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s assertion that his agency can meet a legally binding cleanup schedule despite the proposed budget cuts. Much of the site’s aging infrastructure is deteriorating, including underground waste storage tanks and tunnels.
The Energy Department issued a report in January that raised the remaining cost of Hanford’s environmental cleanup to between $323 billion and $677 billion, with the work lasting until 2079 or 2102, depending on which estimate proves true. That is much higher than the previous estimate of $107 billion in costs to complete the cleanup by 2066.
That is “a pretty shocking number,” Perry told members of the House Appropriations Committee last month.
Shortly after the higher estimates were revealed, the Trump administration proposed a $416 million cut in its budget for Hanford that would reduce it from about $2.5 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to $2.1 billion for the next fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, whose district encompasses the site, said the administration’s “budget request numbers would fall short of fulfilling the federal government’s obligation to clean up the Hanford site.”
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, estimated it will take 300 years to clean up the site under the Trump administration’s proposed budget.
“Trump’s combination of bad math and shifty wordplay adds up to tragicomic incompetence,” said Wyden, a frequent critic of efforts to clean up the site.
Washington state officials have said the federal government has not provided enough funding to meet annual cleanup costs. They have suggested that least $3 billion annually is needed.
“We believe that the lack of adequate funding translates into a longer, more drawn-out cleanup, and that in turn is a significant factor in the increased cost of the total cleanup,” said Alex Smith, manager of nuclear waste programs for the Washington Department of Ecology.
Hanford was created by the Manhattan Project during World War II as the nation raced to build atomic bombs. The plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of the war was made at the site, which then produced about 70% of the plutonium for the U.S. Cold War arsenal.
Absolute stalemate in nuclear negotiations, but Trump says that his relationship with Kim Jong-un is“very good,”
Trump says his relationship with Kim remains ‘very good’ amid nuclear stalemate, US President Donald Trump made the statement during the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual meeting. Asia News Network, by The Korea Herald, pril 8, 2019 US President Donald Trump said on Saturday (US time) that his relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un remains “very good,” conveying his hopes of drawing Kim back to the negotiation table.His remarks come amid a stalemate between the two countries following the breakdown of the two leaders’ second summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in late February. The deal breakers concerned denuclearization and economic sanctions.
“We’re getting along with North Korea. We’ll see how it works out, but we have a good relationship. Don’t forget, I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un,” Trump said during a speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2019 spring leadership meeting in Las Vegas………..
After their summit ended without an agreement, media reports revealed that the US had delivered a draft of an agreement demanding that Pyongyang transfer all its nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to the US.
According to Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun on Sunday, the draft agreement consisted of five main points — two demands for the communist regime and three compensatory items.
In the document, the US defined denuclearization for the North as shipping out all its nuclear weapons and dismantling all related facilities, according to the Japanese daily, which cited as its sources officials from the US, South Korea and Japan.
The US draft sought to ban all future nuclear activities by Pyongyang and to conduct inspections to verify its nuclear disarmament process. There was also a plan to excavate the remains of US soldiers in North Korea.
In return, Washington reportedly offered to declare an official end to the 1950-53 Korean War — which came to a halt with only an armistice — and to establish joint liaison offices and provide economic support to the communist regime.
On Friday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he is “confident” that there will be a third summit between Trump and Kim, though he did not provide a clear date or a location.
n a televised interview with “CBS This Morning,” based in the US, Pompeo also said the Trump administration is “convinced” that Pyongyang is “determined as well” to achieve denuclearization.
Pompeo noted, however, that the administration remains “incredibly clear” that economic sanctions on the North “will not be lifted until our ultimate objective is achieved.”
Since the February summit, Pyongyang has expressed dissatisfaction toward Washington via its state news agency and its Foreign Ministry.
With Pyongyang’s Supreme People’s Assembly due to hold its first meeting on Thursday since a recent election, eyes are on whether the North Korean leader will mention denuclearization talks in his policy speech.
Pompeo said the US side will “closely watch” to see what Kim says, but that it does not expect any great surprises.
The North’s parliamentary session will coincide with the summit expected to take place in Washington between Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. https://asianews.network/2019/04/08/trump-says-his-relationship-with-kim-remains-very-good-amid-nuclear-stalemate/
Climate change is getting REALLY serious – could produce Financial Crisis
-
Regional Fed paper says carbon tax could address the threat
-
The Fed doesn’t have tools to confront the crisis, paper says
Climate change is becoming increasingly relevant to central bankers because losses from natural disasters that are magnified by higher temperatures and elevated sea levels could spark a financial crisis, a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco researcher found.
“Climate-related financial risks could affect the economy through elevated credit spreads, greater precautionary saving, and, in the extreme, a financial crisis,’’ Glenn Rudebusch, the San Francisco Fed’s executive vice president for research, wrote in a paper published Monday.
“There could also be direct effects in the form of larger and more frequent macroeconomic shocks associated with the infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, and commodity price spikes caused by the droughts, floods, and hurricanes amplified by climate change,’’ according to Rudebusch, who is also a senior policy adviser at the reserve bank.
While the Fed’s primary policy tools — short-term interest rates and large-scale asset purchases — aren’t designed to address phenomenon like global warming, policy makers may need to take climate-related damages into account when considering the long-term economic outlook, the researcher wrote. “Many central banks already include climate change in their assessments of future economic and financial risks when setting monetary and financial supervisory policy,” he wrote.
‘Fair Question’
Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told legislators in February it was a “fair question’’ to ask how the central bank would evaluate the economic impact of climate change and promised to look into it.
Rudebusch, whose bank operates as part of the Fed system but isn’t directed by Powell, suggested lawmakers could promote a transition to cleaner technologies by imposing a carbon tax, which is a fee on emissions. Former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker in January endorsed a plan to tax emissions and distribute the revenue to U.S. households.
Some pressure is mounting in Congress to take aim at climate change, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledging to take up climate legislation. That effort may not go far in the current political environment, as Republicans control the Senate and the White House. President Donald Trump said during the campaign he opposed taxing emissions and has expressed skepticism that humans contribute to global warming.
60 years and $1.2 billion to dismantle Three Mile Island nuclear reactor
Three Mile Island nuclear reactor dismantling could take six decades, more than $1 billion, The Inquirer, by Andrew Maykuth, Exelon Generation, which plans to shut down Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear reactor in September unless Pennsylvania lawmakers come to its rescue, says it would take nearly 60 years and $1.2 billion to completely decommission the Dauphin County site.
The company, in a report filed Friday with federal regulators, said it plans to remove Unit 1′s nuclear fuel from the reactor immediately after shutdown. The uranium fuel-rod assemblies would cool in spent fuel pools for three years until they are moved to above-ground sealed canisters in 2022.
But the reactor’s cooling towers and other large components would remain standing until 2074, according to Exelon’s Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, filed Friday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. All radioactive material would be safely stored or removed from the site by 2078.
Plant operators are required to submit a decommissioning plan within two years of shutdown, but the timing of the report provided Exelon with an opportunity to refocus public attention on pending Pennsylvania legislation that would provide ratepayer subsidies to nuclear power producers. Exelon says it is prematurely shutting down Unit 1 because it is losing money.
Exelon’s critics objected to the announcement, saying the choice to decommission the reactor site over the long term rather than pursue an accelerated decontamination schedule is an attempt to increase pressure on Pennsylvania policymakers to enact a proposed $500 million nuclear industry rescue and keep TMI open.
“This is a veiled extortion attempt,” said Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, a Harrisburg nuclear watchdog group.
Epstein feared that Exelon’s prolonged decommissioning schedule would delay the completion of cleanup of the damaged TMI Unit 2, which was permanently shut down in 1979 after America’s worst commercial nuclear accident. FirstEnergy Corp., which owns Unit 2, has said it plans to coordinate the final cleanup of its dormant reactor with Exelon’s decommissioning of Unit 1.
“Exelon is retreating from a timely cleanup of TMI-1, and this announcement means the damaged reactor — TMI-2 — will not be cleaned up until almost 100 years after the meltdown,” Epstein said.
Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesperson, said the timeline for the final cleanup of the damaged reactor needs to be sorted out in light of Exelon’s announcement……….
Under federal regulations, plant operators have 60 years to clean up a site after a plant closes. The long-term decommissioning method called SAFSTOR allows radioactive levels to decline for decades before workers have to dismantle contaminated components. It also allows time for underfinanced trust funds to accumulate more value, said Sheehan.
The advantage of the more rapid decontamination strategy is that it allows the owner to employ workers experienced with the plant. It also makes the site available for reuse sooner. “For the community, they get the site cleaned up much more quickly,” said Sheehan.
Exelon said that the 837-megawatt reactor, which employs nearly 700 people, would reduce the staffing level to 300 after shutdown. A skeleton workforce of 50 would remain in place after 2022 to secure the site and the 1,200 tons of spent fuel stored in special steel casks.
Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear energy producer, initially chose the long-term SAFSTOR method of decommissioning for its Oyster Creek Generating Station in New Jersey, which closed last year. But in July it announced it will transfer ownership to Holtec International, which plans to decommission the Ocean County site in eight years.
Exelon’s opponents in the contentious Pennsylvania legislative battle over a nuclear rescue on Friday complained that the company is profitable, but has successfully pressured Illinois, New York, and New Jersey to approve subsidies to keep unprofitable reactors afloat.
“Today’s announcement by Fortune 100 company Exelon is following the playbook they’ve used in other states to extract multimillion-dollar handouts that have led to skyrocketing electric bills for families, businesses, and school districts,” said the Pennsylvania Energy Consumer Alliance, a trade group of large industrial and commercial electric customers.
“As stated in Exelon’s own news release, decommissioning TMI will take years and require hundreds of jobs,” the organization said in a statement. “And the radioactive material they have generated will be stored on site through 2078 and beyond.” https://www.philly.com/business/energy/three-mile-island-nuclear-reactor-decommissioning-plan-exelon-years-20190405.html
New Ohio Bill to promote nuclear energy, exclude wind and solar
Ohio bill would create ‘clean air’ fund to benefit nuclear, excluding wind and solar, ENERGY NEWS NETWORK, April 5, 2019
The draft legislation would create a new surcharge, with proceeds distributed to power plants that “make a significant contribution toward minimizing emissions.”
Legislation to subsidize two FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power plants in Ohio is about to surface in the Ohio House.
Republican majority leaders have been circulating a proposal that would add up to $300 million annually to electric bills across the state, creating a state “clean air program” with grants administered by political appointees.
About $180 million would be earmarked for the FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power plants, say analysts who have looked at the legislation. The remaining $120 million could be used to prop up other companies — though it appears those companies would not be owners of wind and solar farms.
The draft legislation, obtained by the Energy News Network, would add a $2.50 per month surcharge to every residential customer’s bill, a $20 per month surcharge to every commercial customer’s bill and a $250 monthly charge to every industrial customer’s bill.
The legislation would also eliminate existing surcharges that commercial and residential customers pay to support energy efficiency and peak reduction programs created by the utilities. Industrial customers can already opt out of these programs.
Customers who want to continue supporting the efficiency programs — on top of the new “clean air” charges — would have to notify the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in writing.
The statewide aspect of the new proposal is a new twist to create a nuclear subsidy. Two previous legislative bailout efforts limited a nuclear surcharge to Ohio customers in FirstEnergy territory.
The draft legislation, now in its fifth revision according to its title page, doesn’t actually mention the word “nuclear” in its language.
Instead the bill would create the Ohio Clean Air Program, echoing the carbon-free argument that FirstEnergy Solutions lobbyists have been using to describe their nuclear power plants….
The funds generated by the new surcharge would not go directly to a utility or to the state’s general fund. Instead they would flow into a clean air fund to bankroll what the legislation calls the Ohio Clean Air Program.
The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, whose members are political appointees, would run the program and designate which power plants are a “clean air resource.”
Only power plants designated as a clean air resource would be eligible for grants. Wind and solar installations that receive state tax exemptions and production tax credits would not qualify under the terms of the new legislation………
The development of the bailout legislation parallels an effort by FirstEnergy Solutions to emerge from a federal bankruptcy court debt-free and prepared to reverse its planned shutdowns of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant just east of Toledo and the Perry nuclear power plant northeast of Cleveland — if it can win a subsidy from Ohio lawmakers. FirstEnergy Solutions is running a similar legislative effort in Pennsylvania, where it owns a twin reactor plant near Pittsburgh.
Bankruptcy Judge Alan Koschik of the Northern District of Ohio on Thursday dealt a significant blow to the company’s plans to quickly get out of bankruptcy. He rejected a provision that would have indemnified FirstEnergy Crop., parent of FirstEnergy Solutions, against future costs for environmental cleanup of its former power plant sites. FirstEnergy Solutions said it would revise its plan.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to clarify that existing surcharges for clean energy and efficiency would be eliminated, not just made optional.
https://energynews.us/2019/04/05/midwest/ohio-bill-would-create-clean-air-fund-to-benefit-nuclear-excluding-wind-and-solar/
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard slams decision to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons tech
‘How does this serve US interests?’ Gabbard slams decision to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons tech https://www.rt.com/usa/455279-gabbard-saudi-arabia-extremism-isis/ 2 Apr, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard has slammed the US for allowing firms to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear tech despite its history of exporting extremism which inspires Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda, which she says the Kingdom supports.
The Hawaiian congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate took aim at the Kingdom’s history of extremism in a Twitter video that criticized Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s secret authorizations, to six US companies, allowing for the sale of nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, as Reuters revealed last week. Gabbard said the move is “both mind-blowing and inexplicable.”
Saudi Arabia is the “primary exporter of jihadist ideology, Wahhabi Salafist ideology that is the motivation and inspiration for terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda – groups that the Saudis both directly and indirectly support,” Gabbard said.
The kingdom has been tied to Al-Qaeda and extremism in the past, with 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia, according to the CIA. In 2015, one of the alleged hijackers, Zacarias Moussaoui, claimed several members of the Saudi royal family had been listed as Al-Qaeda donors in the database he worked on under orders of Osama bin Laden, US media reported.
WikiLeaks cables from the US State Department from 2009 revealed“donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In a 2014 email, published by WikiLeaks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saudi Arabia was “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” It has also supplied weapons to IS in Syria.
Saudi Arabia is reportedly planning to create at least two nuclear power plants, but many are concerned that’s a precursor to developing nuclear weapons, which would further destabilize the region. It was also reported, last year, that Israel was selling Saudi Arabia nuclear secrets
Trump’s protecting of coal or nuclear plants with further subsidies will generate no public benefit.
Trump administration should forget subsidies for coal, nuclear energy, The Hill, BY JARED WHITLEY, 04/06/19 “……… Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently visited the Vogtle nuclear power plant in eastern Georgia, where he announced that the administration would provide an additional $3.7 billion in loan guarantees to support construction of two reactors. The move leaves the government guaranteeing a full $12 billion of the project’s financing.
The Trump administration appears unwilling to let the market determine the optimal energy mix in this country. In the past two years, it has attempted to prop up failing nuclear and coal-fired power plants several times, offering up various rationales for doing so. Last year it suggestedthese fuel sources were more resistant to cyber threats, an unsure claim. The administration also put forth the argument that subsidizing coal and nuclear plants is necessary for reasons of national security, but the majority of our nation’s natural gas supply is sourced from domestic producers.
Most recently, the administration introduced language in the Economic Report of the President outlining a potential vehicle for a federal bailout. The report discussed a “voluntary reserve program” that would serve to “promote the grid’s resilience.” While all sources would be eligible to be part of a reserve, unsurprisingly the report specifically mentions nuclear and coal plants as assets that could be shown preferentially treatment given they provide alleged “greater resilience benefits.” It is little more than a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
The best response from this, or any, administration to the changing mix of energy prices would be benign neglect. Protecting coal or nuclear plants with further subsidies will generate no public benefit.
Wind power restricted in Ohio, while nuclear plants could get subsidy
Nuclear bailout plan should fix wind-farm restrictions https://www.crainscleveland.com/letters-editor/letter-editor-nuclear-bailout-plan-should-fix-wind-farm-restrictions Paul Dvorak, Strongsville, 7 Apr 19, The March 25 article “Bailout chances may be good for FES plants” discussed how a bailout might fix the crumbling Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants. One proposal, the article tells, would add $5 per month to the bill of Ohio ratepayers for an unspecified period, or about $300 million per year.
By itself, this is not a good solution to the problem because, aside from being crony capitalism, it just rewards the mismanagement of plant owner FirstEnergy Solutions. Still, it just might get a green light from the Ohio Legislature because FirstEnergy has greased the skids for its passage with generous donations to the re-election of key legislative members. Verify that for yourself at www.votesmart.org.
The Union of Concerned Scientists also voiced objections to the bailout on five grounds: 1) Safety — Davis-Besse, says UCS, has one of the worst safety records in the United States. 2) Transparency — Demonstrate a need for economic support. 3) Flexibility — Financial support should be temporary and adjustable. 4) Strengthened renewable-energy and efficiency standards — FirstEnergy has worked for the opposite. 5) A commitment to impacted communities.
Wind power has the lowest production cost of any generation method, can lower electric bills and make Ohio look like a modern state looking to a bright future. We ignore this reality to our economic peril.
Another new nuclear gimmick going way over budget – the “Virtual Test Reactor”
US nuclear research programme potentially 40% over budget https://www.power-technology.com/news/us-department-
energy-nuclear-research/, By Jack Unwin, 5 Apr 19,The US Department of Energy estimates the nuclear versatile test reactor (VTR) research programme could cost between £3.9bn and $6bn, potentially 40% more than the original $3.5bn estimate given by Idaho National Laboratory head Kemal Pasamehmetoglu. The new estimate comes via a freedom of information request placed by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The VTR was originally announced by Energy Secretary Rick Perry in February 2018 as part of the Trump administration’s policy to revitalise the US nuclear industry. The facility is expected to be built by 2025 and would be the first nuclear test reactor built by the Department of Energy (DOE) for decades.
It would be the first of a number of fast reactors, which breed their own fuel and increase the amount of energy produced from uranium compared with light water reactors.
Research for the VTR will be led by Idaho National Laboratory, with General Electric (GE) and Hitachi forming a partnership called GE Hitachi Nuclear to provide support for design and safety of the plant.
UCS also estimate that the VTR would cost between $550-$850m per year for the next seven years compared to the $740m in the 2019 budget for the DOE’s entire nuclear technology development, $65m of which was allocated to VTR.
UCS senior scientist Ed Lyman said: “UCS received documents from a Freedom of Information Act request that contained the DOE’s current “rough order-of-magnitude” cost estimate for the Versatile Test Reactor project of US $3.9-6.0 billion.
“These values assume different cost escalation factors over a roughly seven-year period. I estimate the corresponding unescalated cost to be as much as $5 billion. The reactor isn’t really “over budget” yet, because there was no official cost estimate prior to this.
“UCS has many concerns about this project. First, we don’t generally support the development of fast reactors because of their proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks, so we question the rationale for building this facility. Second, we believe this reactor will not be a reliable test reactor because the design is experimental. Third, there are much cheaper options that the DOE has not adequately explored to provide a source of fast neutrons to reactor developers.
“Given the likelihood that any DOE first-of-a-kind nuclear construction project will experience major delays and cost overruns, the project may well end up costing $10 billion or more. That money could be far better spent on working to improve the safety and security of light-water reactors.”
The DOE has also been approached for comment.
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (119)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
