nuclear-news

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

Flooding and nuclear wastes eat away at a tribe’s ancestral home

For decades, chronic flooding and nuclear waste have encroached on the
ancestral lands in southeastern Minnesota that the Prairie Island Indian
Community calls home, whittling them to about a third of their original
size.

Two years after the tribe received federal recognition in 1936, the
Army Corps of Engineers installed a lock-and-dam system just to the south
along the Mississippi River. It repeatedly flooded the tribe’s land,
including burial mounds, leaving members with only 300 livable acres.


Decades later, a stockpile of nuclear waste from a power plant next to the
reservation, which the federal government reneged on a promise to remove in
the 1990s, has tripled in size. It comes within 600 yards of some
residents’ homes. With no room to develop more housing on the
reservation, more than 150 tribal members who are eager to live in their
ancestral home are on a waiting list.

 New York Times 13th Nov 2021

November 15, 2021 Posted by | indigenous issues, USA | Leave a comment

President Biden is marginalised by the Pentagon

The nuclear bureaucracy is adamant about not upsetting the programs and
polices forged during the Cold War. “There’s no points of debate” in
the internal discussions, a former Pentagon official said recently. Rather
than working to implement President Joe Biden’s long-held views on
restraining the massive destructive power of the nuclear arsenal, the
Pentagon has rigged the system to marginalize the president.

 Responsible Statecraft 9th Nov 2021

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/11/09/how-the-nuclear-game-is-rigged-to-maintain-the-status-quo/

November 15, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Risks of Nuclear Modernization

The Risks of Nuclear Modernization  AntiWar.com, by Starté Butone November 12, 2021

The US military establishment seems set to start a new Cold War with China, Russia, and every other country it can paint as an enemy. As with the first Cold War, it will not be complete without an arms race. This is exactly what is happening right now with various programs being implemented by the US government. Currently, the US has not produced any new nuclear warheads since 1991, and the assembly lines at the Pantex plant (where almost all US nuclear weapons are assembled) have laid dormant for decades. This may soon change, however. Congress and the President have already approved research for the new B-21 bomber and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, as well as building new tactical nuclear warheads, the W93 and W76-2, a small number of which have already been created.

In addition, more components of nuclear modernization are included in this year’s National “Defense” Authorization Act (NDAA). These include the Columbia class of ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio class and the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) air-launch cruise missile (ALCM). The modernization plan also includes upgrading existing W87-0 warheads (yield of 300 Kilotons of TNT) to their W87-1 variant (yield 475 KT), among other things.

There are 6 designs of nuclear weapons currently deployed in the US nuclear arsenal. These include the W76 (SLBM warhead, mostly 76-1 variant, yield 90 KT), W78 (ICBM warhead, yield 475 KT), W80 (ALCM warhead, yield 5-150 KT), B83 (Strategic bomber weapon, yield 1.2 MT), W87 (ICBM warhead, yield 300 KT), and W88 (SLBM warhead, yield 475 KT). W93 (in development, unknown yield and type) and most W76-2 (SLBM warhead, yield 5-7 KT) have not yet been deployed to delivery devices. The W76-2 is also created by re-purposing other W76s, thus not requiring new warheads to be manufactured. W76s make up the majority of the 1750 deployed nuclear weapons currently in the US arsenal. Up to 12 of them (limited to 8 by treaty) can be placed on Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), of which there are 240 assigned to carry nuclear warheads………………………

  the human costs of such weapons being produced make any financial costs infinitesimal by comparison. ICBMs are a particularly high risk, as they are not equipped with self-destruct systems (unlike virtually every other weapons system in the US military), due to them increasing rocket weight, thus decreasing payloads. This causes an accidental launch of these weapons to be irreversible. However, nuclear planners in the early Cold War period saw hundreds of millions of unintentional deaths as an acceptable risk for increasing missile payloads. This has not changed in the last 65 years, as educational and media coverage have desensitized the public to such existential threats.  https://original.antiwar.com/butone/2021/11/11/the-risks-of-nuclear-modernization/

November 13, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby infiltrating Casper College Wyoming, or maybe not?

CASPER COLLEGE HOSTING PRESENTATION ON WYOMING’S PENDING NATRIUM NUCLEAR REACTOR https://oilcity.news/wyoming/education/2021/11/11/casper-college-hosting-presentation-on-wyomings-pending-natrium-nuclear-reactor/

By Brendan LaChance on November 11, 2021 CASPER, Wyo. — Casper College will be hosting a presentation titled “Perceptions of Nuclear Progress” in December that will focus on the Natrium nuclear reactor that is expected to be built in Wyoming.

Dr. Glen Hansen, an adjunct engineering instructor at Casper College, will discuss the Natrium reactor during the presentation and discuss the science behind nuclear reactors. Hansen will also discuss safety issues related to nuclear plants.

“Hansen’s presentation will be followed by a discussion on the pros and cons of having the country’s very first Natrium power plant in Wyoming,” Casper College says. “The evening will conclude with a Q&A session moderated by Erich Frankland, political science instructor.”

When Governor Mark Gordon announced this June that Wyoming had been selected for the construction of a new “advanced” nuclear reactor, he said it would be “game-changing and monumental” for Wyoming.

The Natrium system, expected to be built at one of four sites in Wyoming, was co-developed by TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

Proponents tout the Natrium reactor as “advanced” technology with TerraPower claiming it can offer “improved reactor economics, greater fuel efficiency, enhanced safety and lower volumes of waste.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists, on the other hand, has expressed some hesitation in regard to the rosy picture TerraPower and other players in the field of new nuclear technology have been painting.

In a March 2021 report titled “‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better: Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors” the Union of Concerned Scientists points to a number of potential problems in regard to claims about new “advanced” nuclear technology.

The issue of whether the Natrium reactor would actually be an improvement on existing nuclear technology is explored further in this article.

Hansen’s presentation at Casper College is scheduled to take place at 7 p.m. Tuesday, December 7 in the Durham Auditorium. The presentation is being hosted by the Zeta Alpha Chapter of Phi Theta Kappa at Casper College, of which Hansen is an adviser.

Hansen previously managed the Computational Multiphysics Department at Sandia National Laboratories. Casper College adds that he also led development of computational nuclear engineering software at Idaho National Laboratory and was a deputy group leader X-Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

“For more information, contact Bowden at jbowden@caspercollege.edu or 307-268-2064 or Teresa Stricklin, PTK adviser and mathematics instructor, at tstricklin@caspercollege.edu or 307-268-2615,” Casper College said.

November 13, 2021 Posted by | Education, USA | Leave a comment

Vogtle nuclear project: is nuclear energy really right for Georgia?

GREEN GEORGIA: Is nuclear energy right for Georgia?, The Red and Black Carson BarrettNov 12, 2021

As a native Augustan, I have always been much more fond of the nearby hydroelectric Clarks Hill Dam than the equally nearby nuclear power plant, Plant Vogtle. The tragedies of similar plants such as those in Fukushima and Chernobyl scar my mind, resulting in an almost automatic repugnant disfavor of this clean-ish energy.

While these disasters are extremely rare and safety procedures have evolved to protect against them, nearly half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of nuclear energy, according to Morning Consult. Should we simply cast off these doubts as visceral, knee-jerk responses to deadly accidents? Or should we take a deeper look into the fears about nuclear energy and reconsider our path on its dependence?

First, it is worth looking at the status of current nuclear energy projects. On Oct. 22, Georgia Power announced even more delays on Plant Vogtle’s expansion of two new reactors. These reactors, which were due to be in operation by 2016 and 2017, have faced four delays in just the past six months. These delays have racked up the total project cost to $11.1 billion, significantly higher than the projected cost of $6.1 billion.

This may just seem like a financial issue for the state’s largest energy firm, but customers might have to cover some of the burdens. The Georgia Public Service Commission agreed to an addition of $2.1 billion into Georgia Power’s rate base, possibly affecting typical customers with an increase of $3.78 a month in bills after the first reactor is finished.

Plant Vogtle is expected to produce 17 million megawatt-hours of energy, which is enough to power 1.6 million average households. This seems to make the case that the plant is worth the investment. But even with these tremendous increases in the power grid, the cost of nuclear power often outweighs the production amount. Across the country, 34 of the total 61 power plants are losing money, totaling $2.9 billion in losses a year.

However, this is not stunting the expansion of Plant Vogtle. In fact, Georgia Power has profited off of the delayed construction of the plant. Customers have already footed a $2.3 billion bill for the new units, half of which has been straight profit for the company. By being late and over budget, Georgia Power stands to make $5 billion in extra profit.

Furthermore, nuclear energy presents waste management issues. While nuclear energy does not emit a handful of common pollutants, including carbon dioxide, extraction of raw uranium gives rise to an abundance of other problems. Required for nuclear power plants, uranium needs energy-intensive mining and milling. Twenty-eight tons of uranium — which will keep an average reactor going for about a year — requires the extraction of half a million tons of waste rock and over 100,000 tons of toxic mill tailings.

Additionally, the plant generates 159 tons of solid radioactive waste and 47,000 cubic feet of liquid waste. Around 30 tons of such waste generated is known as high-level waste and has no way of being safely disposed of. Instead, the waste is stored near the plant facility, emitting dangerous radiation and awaiting the development of a permanent disposal method.

Nuclear energy is not the future for a sustainable Georgia. The source is too costly, too time-consuming and not nearly as green as proponents wish you would think. While nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions significantly, these other factors turn the tides against the energy source………….. https://www.redandblack.com/opinion/green-georgia-is-nuclear-energy-right-for-georgia/article_205e6716-436e-11ec-b25f-cbf1776c5f60.html

November 13, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

The small nuclear reactor salesmen have bamboozled government officials into funding X-Energy, Terra Power and NuScam’s untested projects.

“I’m frankly speechless at the success that the proponents of these plants have had in bamboozling … a lot of government officials,” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the Maine and New York utility commissions. “They should be shouldering a much heavier burden when it comes to the credibility of what they are saying.”

This Next-Generation Nuclear Power Plant Is Pitched for Washington State; Can It ‘Change the World’?  Hal Bernton / The Seattle Times, 8 Nov 21,

RICHLAND — Near the Columbia River, Clay Sell hopes to launch a new era of nuclear power with four small reactors, each stocked with billiard ball-sized “pebbles” packed full of uranium fuel.

Chief executive officer of Maryland-based X-energy, Sell aims to bring the project online by 2028 as part of a broader attempt to develop safer, more flexible reactors to redefine the nation’s energy future.

These efforts have gained support in the nation’s capital where many Democrats eager to make progress on climate change have joined with Republicans to funnel money into development. The federal Energy Department has received $160 million to help fund X-energy, and the infrastructure bill that cleared Congress on Friday ups that amount to cover almost half the projected $2.2 billion cost of the Washington reactor project.

“We believe what starts here in Washington is going to change the world,” Sell said to public-utility officials gathered Oct. 28 in Kennewick.

X-energy is one of three companies with ties to the Pacific Northwest that have received federal funds to help develop a new generation of small nuclear power plants,

…………………. TerraPower plans to build its project at the site of a Wyoming coal plant in a partnership with a subsidiary of PacifiCorp, a private utility. NuScale is proposing a project in Idaho and has considered eventually locating a unit in Washington state.The nuclear industry, in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in the nation, has a history of pitching, and sometimes starting, projects that fail to come to pass. Skeptics say these next-generation projects are being oversold and face big challenges in producing competitively priced power without compromising safety and security, and in a time frame soon enough to help reduce carbon emissions by midcentury.

“I’m frankly speechless at the success that the proponents of these plants have had in bamboozling … a lot of government officials,” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the Maine and New York utility commissions. “They should be shouldering a much heavier burden when it comes to the credibility of what they are saying.”

The NuScale project in southern Idaho involving small reactors cooled by water is furthest along in development, and has struggled with delays, design changes and escalating cost projections.

NuScale has partnered with a Utah-based utility consortium to develop what initially was proposed to be a power plant with 12 small reactors. The project, which is now forecast to cost $5.1 billion, has since been scaled back to six reactors expected to start coming online in 2029, according to LaVarr Webb, a spokesperson for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems.

Though Webb says sign-ups to take power are “going very well,” some utilities have had second thoughts and pulled out of participation in the project. As of early November, the consortium had secured contracts to take 22% of the project’s proposed 462 megawatts of power.

Central Washington site?

Sell has found fervent support for X-energy in the Tri-Cities area, the hub of Washington state’s nuclear industry that has long been buoyed by billions of taxpayer dollars flowing into the cleanup of the federal Hanford site, where plutonium produced for U.S. atomic bombs has left a toxic, radioactive legacy.

The Columbia Generating Station, Washington’s only commercial nuclear power plant, is located at the edge of Hanford. And its operator, Energy Northwest, would manage the X-energy reactors under an agreement announced last year.

A third partner is Eastern Washington’s Grant County Public Utility District, which would own the reactors and be responsible in raising about $1 billion in financing.

This utility boasts an abundance of low-cost hydroelectric power, which has attracted to the county Microsoft, Intuit and other companies that require lots of electricity for data centers and other operations.

……..  The costs of power produced by next-generation nuclear are a key concern and source of uncertainty.  Over the past decade, the cost of renewables has plummeted.

 Nordt said… a more in-depth financial review is needed, and Grant County might decide not to move forward with any of these projects.

“We may say, ‘You know, hey, the nuclear path was looking favorable, but it’s not for us right now…..

X-energy pushes ahead

X-energy was created by Kam Ghaffarian, an entrepreneurial Iranian immigrant who founded a major NASA contracting company and other ventures. In 2009, he turned his attention to nuclear power 

………….X-energy’s four reactors would be able to generate 320 megawatts of power, less than one-third the amount of the roughly 1,200 megawatt capacity of the Columbia Generating Station.

The project, with a reactor dubbed Xe-100, would be the state’s first new nuclear power development since the 1970s, when the Washington Public Power Supply System — the initial name for the Energy Northwest utility consortium — tried to build five large nuclear power plants but finished only one in a disastrous effort based on flawed forecasts of future power demand.

The unfinished plants left a bitter legacy — including the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history and, among some, a deep mistrust of the nuclear power industry.

One of the most visible reminders of the Washington Public Power Supply System, which detractors nicknamed “Whoops,” is a massive concrete-domed building that dominates a 100-acre tract close to the Columbia Generating Station. This was supposed to be WPPSS No. 1 but construction halted in 1982 when it was almost 65% complete.

X-energy’s proposal submitted to the Energy Department calls for installing the reactors on 22 acres of this site, which already includes water intakes from the Columbia River.

Next-generation tech

X-energy’s website promotes the helium-cooled reactor as safely producing electricity “in a process that’s as clean as wind and solar.”

The reactor operates at much higher temperatures than the water-cooled nuclear plants now in operation. It is stocked, like a gumball machine, with the pebbles, each of which holds thousands of fuel particles………

The claims of a meltdown-proof fuel are dismissed as “absurd” by Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists who has researched nuclear reactor safety for many years.

Lyman questions whether the X-energy reactor would be safe enough to justify a design that does away with costly leak-tight containment buildings standard for the current generation of water-cooled reactors.

He says the safety of TRISO fuel requires the ability to consistently manufacture it to exacting standards. So far, he said, that has not been demonstrated in the United States.

In a report he published this year, Lyman notes a 2019 test of the fuel at a national laboratory in southern Idaho “had to be terminated prematurely” when monitoring indicated “the fuel began to release fission products at a rate high enough to challenge offsite radiation dose limits.”

If the project moves forward, Lyman calls for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a more cautious licensing approach that would first approve the reactor as a prototype before moving into commercial production.

“A lot of the rationale for why you would embark on this journey is not supported by the evidence,” Lyman said……….

X-energy’s project in Washington also is receiving pushback in from a Northwest tribe.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation does not support placing small modular reactors such as those proposed by X-energy or any new nuclear missions at Hanford, according to an Aug. 6 letter to the Energy Department from the chair of the tribes’ board, N. Kathryn Brigham.

The federal Hanford reservation includes areas that rank as the most contaminated nuclear sites in North America. The massive task of treating 177 tanks storing a perilous brew of radioactive and chemical waste, some of which are leaking, represents a huge cleanup challenge.

The letter noted that 1855 treaties ceding millions of acres of land called for the preservation of important rights, including hunting, fishing and gathering. Hanford is partially within these treaty territories, and new reactor development could impact those rights and resources, said Brigham’s letter, which called for consultation to discuss the federal government’s trust responsibility under the treaty.

The tribes’ concerns are shared by the Columbia Riverkeeper, a Northwest environmental group that released a September report blasting small nuclear reactors as an “unacceptable solution to climate change.”

X-energy has yet to apply for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to operate the reactor, a complex process that includes an extensive safety review, according to Scott Burnell, a commission spokesperson.

“This has to be competitive”…….  https://www.chronline.com/stories/this-next-generation-nuclear-power-plant-is-pitched-for-washington-state-can-it-change-the,277542

November 9, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant – but a resistant commmunity won.


How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant,  https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/how-bodega-head-almost-ended-up-with-a-nuclear-power-plant/. TOM AUSTIN. November 8, 2021   Bodega Bay, and nearby Bodega, have deeper histories than most Sonoma County towns. Being a pristine, protected natural harbor will do that for you. Bodega Bay was nearly the landing spot for Sir Francis Drake, although recent finds have pretty conclusively held that Drake’s Bay in nearby Pt. Reyes is properly named. Bodega Bay was named after Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, an explorer for the Spanish Navy –except where HE landed was nearby Tomales Bay. And of course both seaside hamlets are famous for being the locale for the classic Hitchcock thriller “The Birds.”

However, the most significant happening in Bodega Bay is of much more modern vintage. In 1958, four full years before Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” ignited the modern environmental movement, PG&E was planning the world’s first commercially viable nuclear power plant. In an absolutely characteristic example of Big Power’s public instincts, they had chosen scenic Bodega Head as the location for this Atomic Age wonder. “What could go wrong?” they chirped. “Nuclear power is clean, safe and limitless!”

Of course, it wasn’t just scenic wonder at stake here. Bodega Head, as most people know, is within spitting distance of the San Andreas Fault (running along the shoreward side of the bay), and even closer to two smaller faults straddling Bodega Head itself.

The full story of the fight over the Bodega Head nuclear plant would be book-length, so please pardon my brevity here. The cast of characters are timeless: on the “pro” side: PG&E itself, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and nuclear advocates across political spectra (at the time, nuclear was considered by many environmentalists to be less damaging than, for example, hydroelectric power from dams). On the “con” side was the whole spectrum: The Sierra Club (or at least factions within it) was concerned about the loss of a wild and scenic place: the local ranchers and fishermen were concerned about the dangers to their livelihood; the nascent New Left that started gaining steam in the early ‘60s were concerned about the antidemocratic nature of the pro-business, pro-development organizations pushing for the plant.

The fight was long, protracted and dirty. From 1958 to 1962, as opposition was just coalescing, PG&E continued planning and started building, getting a series of approvals and permits from apparently compliant state and local governments. The building for the main reactor, located on the harbor side of the Head, included a 70-foot-deep circular pit. As construction continued, the opponents were educating far and wide about the dangers of nuclear power, the earthquake danger, the thermal effects on local fisheries and more. In 1962, “Silent Spring” was published, and the environmental movement grew ever faster: musicians were performing at benefits and writing anti-nuclear songs. However, it was the earthquake danger that eventually served as the deal-breaker: UC Berkeley Conservation Editor David Pesonen, one of the leaders of the opposition, hired Geologist Pierre Saint-Amand to consult on the suitability of the proposed plant site. Saint-Amand found a “spectacular” earthquake fault slicing directly through the deep pit. His testimony that “a worse foundation condition… would be difficult to envision.” His argument was the tipping point, as political supporters started peeling away from PG&E, who at length threw in the towel and suspended construction in October 1963.

What remains at the site today is a quiet spot favored by songbirds. Rainwater filled the pit and turned it into a pond. The rest, you know: when you spot whales at the Head, or walk the trails nearby. If you venture a little bit north, you find the Kortum trail, named after local environmentalist Bill Kortum (1927-2014), one of many citizen leaders of the fight. The reverberations are still being felt today.

November 9, 2021 Posted by | history, opposition to nuclear, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Time for American lawmakers to press for USA to sign up to the UN Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty

Local Opinion: U.S. should limit nuclear weapons, Raymond Graap, Special to the Arizona Daily Star, 8 Nov 21,

ED. The writer first outlines the near misses – almost nuclear war, that have occurred from the 1960sc onward 

”……………This story is told to show how close we came, and how one individual prevented nuclear catastrophe. There have been at least seven other instances when we came very close. Nearly all were terminated by the action of one person, utilizing human judgement instead of reliance on computer warning systems. Humans have made errors, too. The last was a false alarm in Hawaii on Jan. 13, 2018, when a technician sent out the following: “EMERGENCY ALERT. BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL”. Chaotic activity throughout the state followed until a second message 38 minutes later went out advising that the first was an error.

  • So, what have we learned about controlling these global terminating weapons? That we must have a different approach. Instead of restraint, the U.S. is on a frantic race to modernize and replace all our bombers, land-based missiles and submarines. So, what are other nuclear-armed countries doing? The same. All are spending huge amounts of money on weapons that no one can use without committing national and global suicide.
  • However, for the first time in our history, a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was passed by the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force in January of this year after the 50th nation ratified it. This represents our only hope as it outlaws the use, possession, manufacture, threat of use, and transfer of nuclear weapons. The goal is the global elimination of these sordid inventions of the human mind.

How many of the nuclear weapons-armed nations have signed on? None, the U.S. included. Our senators and representatives need to vigorously support this effort.

Graap is a retired physician and board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, , Arizona Chapter. Information about current efforts to abolish nuclear weapons is available at www.preventnuclearwar.org.  https://tucson.com/opinion/local/local-opinion-u-s-should-limit-nuclear-weapons/article_1b44011e-3e50-11ec-b9b4-c3cf4a446a5d.html

November 9, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Seismic danger: Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant – a geological saga

Lori Dengler | Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant: a geologic saga, Times Standard LORI DENGLER |November 6, 2021   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is about to accept PG&E’s application to terminate the license for Humboldt Bay Power Plant nuclear facility, Unit #3. It’s been a long time coming.

The nuclear facility ceased operations in 1976 for maintenance and refueling. It never produced power again and PG&E decided to permanently shut down the reactor in 1983. Dismantling began in 2009 and unused fuel rods, spent fuel, and contaminated parts of the facility were put into casks and buried on the site.

Here’s the Unit #3 bare-bones history: planning in the late 1950s, groundbreaking January 1961, commissioned August 1963, shut down July 1976, PG&E notice of permanent closure 1983, a license for storage of waste on site 1988, and active decommissioning and waste storage 2009- 2018. But between those points, there are many stories, and the geologic one traverses some of the biggest milestones in Earth Sciences.

Nuclear power was considered a solution to energy needs in the 1950s. PG&E was looking at three potential sites: Point Arena, Bodega Bay, and Humboldt. Proximity to the San Andreas fault and local activist outcry at the time took the first two off the list and they moved forward on the Humboldt Bay site.

How could they build a reactor in one of the most seismically active areas of the contiguous forty-eight states and only a few miles above the only U.S. fault outside of Alaska capable of producing a M9 earthquake? The simple answer is what they didn’t know; they had no clue that such a large earthquake could occur………………………………………..

Thus began the geologic scrutiny of the North Coast. For geologists, Unit #3 was an unexpected boon. The seismic network was only the first step. A few years later, PG&E brought on Woodward Clyde consultants (now URS) to study surface faulting potential and do the detailed analysis that an environmental impact study should routinely uncover today. Even after the decision was made to permanently close the reactor, studies continued on the storage site and the tsunami potential.

The saga of #3 reminds me of what Donald Rumsfeld (DOD Secretary) said in 2002 “… But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Ah yes, those unknown unknowns. So much that we didn’t know when the plant was designed and constructed, and, in hindsight, were important to know. I’m only just beginning to scratch the surface on the geologic story of nuclear power on the North Coast. More next week. https://www.times-standard.com/2021/11/06/lori-dengler-humboldt-bay-nuclear-power-plant-a-geologic-saga/

November 8, 2021 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Precious waters — Tribes file to stop pollution from uranium and other hard rock mines

“The Havasupai Tribe has fought for decades to protect our beautiful water and traditional cultural lands from the harmful effects of uranium mining,”

Tribes file to stop pollution from uranium and other hard rock mines

Precious waters — Beyond Nuclear International Tribes, Indigenous groups, conservation organizations file petition to strengthen federal mining rules, By Earthworks, 7 Nov 21, Tribes, Indigenous groups and conservation organizations filed a rulemaking petition on September 16 with the U.S. Department of the Interior to improve and modernize hardrock mining oversight on public lands. The proposed revisions aim to safeguard critically important lands across the West and Alaska, including sacred lands and their cultural resources, vital wildlife habitat, and invaluable water resources.

“It’s long past time to reform the nation’s hardrock mining rules, end generations of mining-inflicted injustice to Indigenous communities, and chart a new course for public lands stewardship toward a sustainable, clean energy economy,” the petition states. “For far too long, mining companies have had free rein to decimate lands of cultural importance to tribes and public lands at enormous cost to people, wildlife, and these beautiful wild places of historic and cultural significance. The harm is undeniable, severe, and irreparable. Reforming these rules will prevent more damage, help us transition to green infrastructure, and leave a livable planet to future generations.”

The petition seeks to significantly update hardrock mining regulations, a need the Biden administration has also identified, to avoid perpetuating the mining industry’s toxic legacy. Current regulations disproportionately burden Indigenous and other disenfranchised communities with pollution and threaten land, water, wildlife and climate. New mining rules would help protect these resources and minimize the damage from the mineral demands of transitioning to a cleaner energy economy……………

“It is unacceptable for mining companies to evade scrutiny and tribal consultation requirements using outdated regulatory loopholes,” said Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. “At this very moment, mining projects in Arizona are threatening the permanent destruction of dozens of sacred sites for the Tohono O’odham Nation and other tribes. That is why the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council has unanimously taken a position in support of righting this historic wrong. The time has come for the federal government to uphold its responsibility in ensuring that sacred lands and waters are properly protected.”

“The Havasupai Tribe has fought for decades to protect our beautiful water and traditional cultural lands from the harmful effects of uranium mining,” said Vice Chairman Matthew Putesoy, Sr. of the Havasupai Tribe. “Each day uranium mining threatens contamination of Havasu Creek, which is the sole water source that provides life to Supai Village, our tribal homeland located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.  Without this precious resource, our Tribe and our homeland will be destroyed. We know that uranium poses a serious and irreversible threat to our survival as a people. This petition is necessary to hold the Department of Interior accountable for meeting its federal trust responsibility and helping to protect our sacred traditional cultural homelands and waters from the harmful and often irreversible effects of mining.”……………….

“We face an existential climate crisis, and must move quickly to convert our infrastructure to support low-carbon energy — but we must do so without replacing dirty oil with dirty mining,” said Lauren Pagel of Earthworks. “The Biden administration has an historic opportunity to confront the legacy of injustice to Indigenous communities and damage to the public lands and waters held in trust for all Americans. Seizing that opportunity requires policies that prioritize metals recycling and reuse over new mining. Where new mining is acceptable, the mining industry must undertake the most responsible methods.”

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the metals mining industry is the single largest source of toxic waste in the United States, and hardrock mines have contaminated an estimated 40% of Western watersheds. Unlike the oil, gas, and coal industries, metal mining companies pay nothing to extract publicly owned minerals from public lands across the West and Alaska.

The Interior Department oversees the regulations governing compliance with federal mining law and other public lands laws. The petition proposes revisions to several mining regulations and includes legal and policy analysis for each proposed improvement.

Overhauling the rules is a critical step toward bringing mining regulations and policy into the 21st century to protect public health and Indigenous and public lands and resources in the West.

Proposed revisions include:
 – Clarifying that the BLM must use its authority to protect tribal and cultural resources and values, wildlife, and water quality and quantity; 
 – Requiring the BLM to verify mining rights;
 – Closing loopholes that allow the mining industry to escape public review and consultation with local tribes and governments

The Interior Department is required to respond to the petition within a reasonable amount of time and indicate whether it will revise the rules. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/11/07/precious-waters/

November 8, 2021 Posted by | indigenous issues, legal, USA, water | Leave a comment

Much pressure on President Biden to drop plans to limit nuclear weapons

Pentagon bearing down on Biden to shelve nuclear reforms

The president has pledged to narrow the role of atomic weapons. But others cite China to argue for the status quo. Politico, By BRYAN BENDER, ALEXANDER WARD and PAUL MCLEARY 11/05/2021,

President Joe Biden’s pledge to limit the role of nuclear weapons is facing growing resistance from Pentagon officials and their hawkish allies, who are arguing to keep the status quo in the face of Chinese and Russian arms buildups.

Biden’s top national security advisers will soon review the conditions under which the United States might resort to using nuclear weapons. Among the options are adopting a “no first use” policy, or declaring that the “sole purpose” of the arsenal is to deter a nuclear conflict and not use them in response to a conventional war or other strategic assault like a cyber attack.

Both would mark major departures from the current posture, which has been purposely ambiguous throughout the nuclear age about whether the United States might strike first, and holds that atomic weapons are for “deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack.”

Biden’s National Security Council plans to convene a high-level meeting on nuclear declaratory policy this month, according to a White House official who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

But China’s surprising nuclear expansion in recent months alongside Russia’s modernization of its arsenal has strengthened the hand of military leaders who oppose any policy changes or significant cuts to a new generation of missiles, bombers and other atomic weapons, according to a half a dozen current and former government officials privy to the discussions.

Lack of answers’

Biden’s allies in Congress are also beginning to complain about the lack of details from the administration on the nuclear review process, who is advising it, and what it might mean for the president’s goals.

“The Nuclear Posture Review must reflect the President’s guidance to ‘reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national strategy,’” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Nuclear Weapons Working Group, told POLITICO.

Markey penned a letter to Biden in September seeking further explanation on why the Pentagon removed Leonor Tomero from her position running the nuclear review. Tomero, a longtime nuclear policy official, previously worked for Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who has promised legislation to adopt a no first use policy………………..

The “Pentagon’s lack of answers to date about the Nuclear Posture Review leave me concerned the policy review will prioritize the old assumptions of the military industrial complex at the expense of diverse voices seeking to reduce nuclear risks,” Markey told POLITICO in a statement.

…………………..  leading arms control advocates don’t sound hopeful that Biden will get the full menu to choose from. “We want to make sure that the president is presented with a full range of options even those that particular agencies — NSC, the Pentagon — may not prefer or recommend,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “And it would be a disservice to the president’s Nuclear Posture Review if the nuclear weapons blob at the Pentagon were to give him a limited range of options.”  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05/pentagon-biden-nuclear-weapons-519738

November 8, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Other owners of Georgia Power’s Vogtle nuclear power project are balking at the billowing costs.

Nuclear plant price doubles to $28.5B as other owners balk. https://www.news4jax.com/business/2021/11/05/nuclear-plant-price-doubles-to-285b-as-other-owners-balk/   Jeff Amy, Associated Press.

ATLANTA – The cost of two nuclear reactors being built in Georgia is now $28.5 billion, more than twice the original price tag, and the other owners of Plant Vogtle argue Georgia Power Co. has triggered an agreement requiring Georgia Power to shoulder a larger share of the financial burden.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. announced in its quarterly earnings statement Thursday that Georgia Power’s share of the third and fourth nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle has risen to a total of $12.7 billion, an increase of $264 million. Along with what cooperatives and municipal utilities project, the total cost of Vogtle has now more than doubled the original projection of $14 billion.

Opponents have long warned that overruns would be sky-high. Liz Coyle, executive director of consumer advocacy group Georgia Watch, said the price tag is “outrageous” but predictable.

“We said you can’t build it for what you’re saying you can,” she said of Georgia Watch’s opposition to the project when the Georgia Public Service Commission originally authorized the new reactors.

Total costs are actually higher than $28.5 billion, because that doesn’t count the $3.68 billion that contractor Westinghouse paid back to owners after going bankrupt. When approved in 2012, the first electricity was supposed to be generated in 2016…..

Southern Co. also disclosed Thursday that the other owners of Vogtle are saying Georgia Power has tripped an agreement to pay a larger share of the ongoing overruns, a cost the company estimates at up to $350 million. Southern Co. said it disagrees that Georgia Power has crossed the cost threshold but has signed an agreement to extend talks with the other owners on the issue.

Georgia Power owns 45.7% of the new reactors, while cooperative-owned Oglethorpe Power Corp. owns 30%. The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia owns 22.7% and the city of Dalton’s municipal utility owns 1.6%. Florida’s Jacksonville Electric Authority is obligated to cover some of MEAG’s costs. Some cooperatives and municipal utilities in Alabama and northwest Florida have agreed to buy power as well.

The higher costs stem from more construction delays. Georgia Power announced last month that it doesn’t expect Unit 3 to start generating electricity until the third quarter of 2022. It was the third delay announced since May. Unit 4 is now projected to enter service sometime between April and June of 2023.

The company says it is redoing substandard construction work and contractors aren’t meeting deadlines. Experts hired by the Georgia Public Service Commission to monitor construction have long said Southern Co. has set an unrealistic schedule. In August, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found two sets of electrical cables meant to provide redundancy in Unit 3 weren’t properly separated. Earlier, Georgia Power had to repair a leak in Unit 3′s spent fuel pool.

Georgia Power shareholders have been paying the cost of recent overruns, but the company could ask regulators to require customers to pay some or all of those bills.

November 6, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

”Cocooning” Hanford nuclear reactors conveniently leaves the $600 billion clean-up to future generations

Future generations will decide the final disposition of the eight Hanford reactors.

The bigger question is whether future generations will be willing to pay the massive costs of Hanford cleanup, he said.

Carpenter said the estimated cost to completely clean up just the tank wastes at the Hanford site is around $660 billion.

“It’s rather grim. It’s multigenerational,” he said.

“This will cost more than anyone thought possible,” Carpenter said of the tank wastes and other wastes that were dumped into the ground at Hanford. “It’s a hidden cost of the (nuclear) buildup.

US government works to ‘cocoon’ old nuclear reactors  https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-government-works-cocoon-nuclear-reactors-80964651

Costs to clean up a massive nuclear weapons complex in Washington state are usually expressed in the hundreds of billions of dollars and involve decades of work, By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS Associated Press5 November 2021   SPOKANE, Wash. — Costs to clean up a massive nuclear weapons complex in Washington state are usually expressed in the hundreds of billions of dollars and involve decades of work.

 usually expressed in the hundreds of billions of dollars and involve decades of work.

But one project on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is progressing at a much lower price.

The federal government is moving forward with the “cocooning” of eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford that will place them in a state of long-term storage to allow radiation inside to dissipate over a period of decades, until they can be dismantled and buried.

“It’s relatively non-expensive,” Mark French, a manager for the U.S. Department of Energy, said of cocooning. “The cost of trying to dismantle the reactor and demolish the reactor core would be extremely expensive and put workers at risk.”

The federal government built nine nuclear reactors at Hanford to make plutonium for atomic bombs during World War II and the Cold War. The site along the Columbia River contains America’s largest quantity of radioactive waste.

The reactors are now shut down and sit like cement fortresses near the southeastern Washington city of Richland. Six have already been cocooned for long-term storage, and two more are headed in that direction. The ninth reactor was turned into a museum as part of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

While World War II ended in 1945 and the Cold War ended in 1989, the United States is still paying billions of dollars per year for the disposal of the nuclear waste produced by the atomic weapons that played a big role in ending those conflicts. The biggest expense is dealing with a massive volume of liquid wastes left over from the production of plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

While the liquid wastes stored in 177 underground tanks will take decades of work and hundreds of billions of dollars to clean, efforts to secure the nine plutonium reactors are much closer to completion.

The last two reactors, shut down in 1970 and 1971, are about to enter the cocooning stage, when they are covered with steel and cement to prevent radioactivity from escaping into the environment, French said.

The cocoons are expected to last about 75 years, by which time the radioactivity inside will have dramatically decreased and there presumably will be a plan for final disposition of the remaining parts, French said.

Every five years, workers enter the reactor building to make sure there are no leaks or rodent or bird infestations, he said.

Cleanup of Hanford, which has about 11,000 employees and is half the size of Rhode Island, started in the late 1980s, and now costs about $2.5 billion per year. The work has been slowed by technical issues, lack of funding, lawsuits from state regulators, worker exposure to radiation and turnover of contractors on the complex job.

But the handling of the old reactors is a bright spot.

The nine reactors — called B Reactor, C Reactor, D Reactor, DR Reactor, F Reactor, H Reactor, K-East Reactor, K-West Reactor, and N Reactor — were built from 1943 through 1965.

They were constructed next to the Columbia River because of the abundance of hydropower and cooling water needed by the reactors during operation.

All have been cocooned except K-East and K-West. Work on cocooning the K-East reactor has already started and should be finished by 2023, French said. Work on the K-West reactor is scheduled for completion in 2026.

The cocoon plan for K-East and K-West is to basically construct steel buildings around them. Each building is 158 feet (48.2 meters) long, 151 feet (46 meters) wide and 123 feet (37.5 meters) tall, French said. The two steel buildings will cost less than $10 million each.

The government also operated five plutonium production reactors at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina during the Cold War. All of those are also shut down, although three of the reactor buildings are being used to store radioactive materials Two of the reactors at Savannah River are closed but under a different procedure than the Hanford reactors, said Amy Boyette, a spokeswoman for Savannah River.

Future generations will decide the final disposition of the eight Hanford reactors, French said. They will likely be dismantled and buried in the central area of the Hanford site, away from the river.

Robots may be deployed in the future” for that work, French said.

Hanford watchdogs generally agree with this process, said Tom Carpenter, director of the Seattle-based watchdog group Hanford Challenge.

“Nobody is raising any concerns about cocooning,” Carpenter

said. “We’re all worried about the tank waste that needs immediate and urgent attention.”

The bigger question is whether future generations will be willing to pay the massive costs of Hanford cleanup, he said.

Carpenter said the estimated cost to completely clean up just the tank wastes at the Hanford site is around $660 billion.

“It’s rather grim. It’s multigenerational,” he said.

“This will cost more than anyone thought possible,” Carpenter said of the tank wastes and other wastes that were dumped into the ground at Hanford. “It’s a hidden cost of the (nuclear) buildup.

By then, there might be bigger budget concerns such as dealing with the effects of climate change, Carpenter said.

The most intriguing of the old reactors is the B Reactor, the first one built during World War II. It will not be cocooned, and can be visited by tourists at the national historical park. B Reactor, which shut down in 1968, was cleaned up enough to allow some 10,000 tourists to visit each year and learn the history of Hanford. It has been designated a National Historic Landmark.

Plutonium from Hanford’s B Reactor was used in the testing of the world’s first atomic bomb in July 1945. Called the Trinity Test, the bomb was blown up in the New Mexico desert. Hanford plutonium was also used for the bomb that was dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. 9, 1945. 

November 6, 2021 Posted by | Reference, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Why the Pentagon Is Equipping the F-35 With a Thermonuclear Bomb

Why the Pentagon Is Equipping the F-35 With a Thermonuclear Bomb, Popular Mechanics,  A man with a bomb can do things a missile with a bomb can’t. BY KYLE MIZOKAMINOV 5, 2021  

November 6, 2021 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Moving to peace and security – by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is the way to ensure peace  The Hill BY IVANA NIKOLIĆ HUGHES AND HART RAPAPORT, — 11/04/21  The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) — the international agreement governing use of nuclear weapons — turned 25 in September. The anniversary, ordinarily a time to celebrate the careful diplomacy that led to such an achievement, was tempered by the continued refusal of the U.S. government to accede to a document that it negotiated. The resulting void created by this lack of leadership threatens to overturn a decades-long period of relative nuclear peace. There is only one option to hem in the dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons that has led nations such as Iran and North Korea to the precipice of nuclear power: Ratify the CTBT and ensure it enters into force……………

 ratification would allow the newly-empowered CTBT and its accompanying oversight organization to benefit from the consent of the world’s most powerful government in creating an international norm against nuclear testing. Currently, nations such as Russia — which is party to the CTBT — face little substantial backlash for their detonations. After all, they can easily point to the United States’s refusal to accede to the treaty as proof of the validity of their own actions. These excuses would lose their power after ratification, with future actions against those nations’ international commitments subject to pushback through the full power of the nearly 200 CTBT signatories marshaled by the United States.

To fully enter force, the CTBT also must be signed by seven nations — China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan — aside from the United States. Achieving this would be a difficult diplomatic effort, but it is possible. These nations’ refusals to sign are largely based on a geopolitical rival’s — India with Pakistan, and vice versa, for example — failure to sign and ratify the document. This presents an opportunity for American foreign policy to work at its best by bringing these pairs of nations to the bargaining table concurrently to hash out any testing-related difficulties. It may be unreasonable to assume that all of the states are willing to do so, but the reduction in geopolitical tensions and chance of nuclear mishaps from even a single additional state pledging not to test nuclear weapons would be substantial. Of course, this can only happen after the United States ratifies the document and commits to support its tenets in the international arena.

During a time of increased partisan polarization in Congress, a domestic and international priority such as the CTBT provides a gateway for politicians from both parties to focus on what matters to the American people: ensuring that nuclear threats do not dominate the 21st century like they did in the latter half of the 20th century. It would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that our political elite can still collaborate to ensure that America remains a defining member of the international community after years of disengagement. If nothing else, it would ensure that time and money can be spent on today’s true priorities — among them, cybersecurity, climate change and infrastructure development — rather than those of the past.


Ivana Nikolić Hughes is a senior lecturer in chemistry at Columbia University and the director of Columbia’s Center for Nuclear Studies.

Hart Rapaport is a research assistant at Columbia’s Center for Nuclear Studies. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/579506-ratifying-the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-is-the-way-to

November 6, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »