Slow progress of Michigan bill opposing high-level nuclear waste dump
Michigan bill opposing high-level nuclear waste dump languishes in Senate committee Iosco County News Herald, By Jim Bloch For MediaNews Group,Jul 16, 2020
-
- The Michigan House of Representative passed a concurrent resolution on Feb. 5 opposing the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump near the shores of Lake Huron in the municipality of South Bruce, Ontario, Canada.
The resolution was sponsored by Gary Howell, the republican representative of the 82nd District, which comprises Lapeer County.
It urges “the United States Congress to take every legal action possible to prevent the construction of any underground high-level nuclear waste repository in the Great Lakes basin,” and urges “the Canadian government to prohibit a high-level nuclear waste repository anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.”
One of the cosponsors of the resolution was Gary Eisen, the St. Clair Township Republican who represents the 81st District, which swoops around the southern half of St. Clair County and includes Marysville, St. Clair, Marine City and Algonac, as well as surrounding townships.
“It’s sitting in the Senate now in Dan Lauwers’s committee,” Eisen said in June, noting that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic put the brakes on a lot of the legislature’s work. “Everything’s ten times harder now.”
The resolution is in the Committee on Energy and Technology, which Lauwers chairs. His 25th Senate District includes St. Clair County………..
“Placing a deep geological repository near the Great Lakes is a high-risk venture with the potential of causing irreparable harm to millions of lives,” said the resolution. “Underground waste repositories have leaked in the past, costing billions of dollars to repair. Germany, for instance, is spending billions of dollars to dig up low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste that was stored in a salt mine due to leakage and other environmental concerns. In 2014, chemical reactions in a steel barrel full of radioactive waste caused an explosion and fire at a low- and intermediate-level underground waste site in Carlsbad, New Mexico causing a cloud of radioactivity to be released at the surface. Not only did this put the health and safety of the public at risk, it cost taxpayers $2 billion to clean up and repair. As demonstrated, low- and intermediate-level facilities have failed, and this high-level nuclear proposal provides no guarantee, whatsoever, to keep radioactive waste from our environment.”
If the Michigan Senate approves the resolution, it will be sent to Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Premier of Ontario, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Speaker of the U.S. House, the President of the U.S. Senate, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On Jan. 17, Michigan’s U.S. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, along with Congressman Dan Kildee and Congressman John Moolenaar, introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing Canada’s placement of a permanent nuclear waste storage in South Bruce.
If the Michigan Senate approves the resolution, it will be sent to Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Premier of Ontario, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Speaker of the U.S. House, the President of the U.S. Senate, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On Jan. 17, Michigan’s U.S. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, along with Congressman Dan Kildee and Congressman John Moolenaar, introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing Canada’s placement of a permanent nuclear waste storage in South Bruce. http://www.iosconews.com/news/state/article_c5a6ae58-996b-5665-b599-cfa8fde7c6ae.html
State of Texas allows reduction in price of importing nuclear waste
State allows reduction in price of importing nuclear waste to Texas https://news4sanantonio.com/news/trouble-shooters/state-allows-drastic-reduction-in-price-of-importing-nuclear-waste-to-texas by APRIL MOLINA, Friday, July 17th 2020 SAN ANTONIO — The state has agreed to allow a private company in West Texas to drop the price charged for incoming nuclear waste.
Waste Control Services (WCS) has been disposing of the nation’s low level nuclear waste in Andrews County at a cost of $100 dollars per cubic foot for Class A waste and $1000 dollars per cubic foot for Class B and C waste.
There is an additional surcharge of 40 cents per unit of radioactivity, but The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recently approved the request by WCS to drop the price to 5 cents per unit.
A spokesman for WCS explained the market is dynamic so when the price drops, they need to be able to continue to compete.
Public Citizen Texas Office Director, Adrian Shelley worries that by allowing WCS to import nuclear waste at a fraction of the cost, it could result in massive liability for the state.
“If WCS collects less money to import waste in Texas, then there will be less money available should an accident occur and ultimately we’re concerned Texas taxpayers will be on the hook should an accident occur,” Shelley said.
The company doesn’t expect less revenue, rather they anticipate more income as a result of the price drop.
WCS reports Andrews County gets 5% of their revenue and the state gets 25%.
WCS has also been working to get approval for years to temporarily store the nation’s high level nuclear waste that would include spent nuclear fuel rods.
The effects of radiation on the “downwinders” – guinea pigs for nuclear bomb research
Now I Am Become Death’: The Legacy of the First Nuclear Bomb Test, NYT, By Maria Cramer July 15, 2020
“………The effects of radiation were not well understood by most scientists on the project at the time, according to historians, and the preparations that were made to keep civilians safe reflected that ignorance.
They placed crude monitors around the small towns within 40 miles of the testing site. A scientist who was seven months pregnant and her husband, who was also a scientist, were sent to a motel in one of the towns with a Geiger counter, a device used to detect radioactive emissions, to measure the radiation. If the needle hit a certain mark, she was instructed to alert officials so that they could evacuate the town, Professor Wellerstein said.
Officials did not warn any of the residents — many of them ranchers, Navajos, Mexican settlers and their descendants who raised cattle and drank water from cisterns — about the test. Should anyone ask about the blast, officials had proposed several cover stories, including telling the public that a remote ammunitions depot had exploded, Professor Wellerstein said.
“It produced more light and heat than the sun,” said Tina Cordova, a founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, which has urged the government to conduct more research about the aftermath of the blast and to compensate the affected communities.
Ash fell for days afterward in the landscape and in every direction and in amazing quantities,” she said.
Warnings went unseen and ignored.
“Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale,” the petition cautioned.
The bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are believed to have killed up to about 200,000 people, with many of those victims succumbing to radiation poisoning in the weeks that followed.
The government never conducted a full investigation into the effects of the radiation, even after the communities downwind of the blast saw an unusual spike in infant deaths in the months after the explosion, said Joseph J. Shonka, a scientist and one of the authors of a 2010 study about the effects of nuclear testing for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The Trinity downwinders have not been treated in either a fair or a just manner,” he said.
Ms. Cordova, who grew up in Tularosa, N.M., said cancer had been pervasive in the towns near the Trinity test site, where everyone can name someone who died of the disease.
“We know that the government basically walked away and has taken no responsibility for the suffering and the dying,” said Ms. Cordova, who has survived thyroid cancer and has several relatives who died of various forms of cancer.
Members of Congress from New Mexico have introduced legislation that would expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which compensates uranium miners and people who lived downwind from nuclear testing sites, to include the residents who lived around Trinity.
In 2014, the National Cancer Institute began interviewing people who lived in the towns near the testing site to try and document the effects of the blast. The institute said it anticipated publishing the results “within the next few months.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/us/trinity-test-anniversary.html
Nuclear bomb testing – a form of racism and colonialism
Danielle Endres: Nuclear testing as a form of colonization, https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/15/danielle-endres-nuclear/ By Danielle Endres ·16 July 20
At 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945, scientists in the Manhattan Project detonated the world’s first nuclear weapon in the desert homelands of the Mescalero Apache, a place now known as Alamogordo, New Mexico. As the detonation cloud mushroomed into the sky, the Trinity test ushered in a new era, the atomic age.
July 16 1945 – the first nuclear bomb test – the start of many more
Now I Am Become Death’: The Legacy of the First Nuclear Bomb Test
The 75th anniversary of what’s known as the Trinity explosion, the world’s first nuclear weapon test, comes as tensions over nuclear devices intensify. NYT, By Maria Cramer July 15, 2020 It was 1 a.m. on July 16, 1945, when J. Robert Oppenheimer met with an Army lieutenant general, Leslie Groves, in the parched landscape of Jornada del Muerto — Dead Man’s Journey — a remote desert in New Mexico.
A group of engineers and physicists was about to detonate an atomic device packed with 13 pounds of plutonium, a nuclear weapon that the government hoped would bring an end to World War II……..At 5:29 a.m. local time, the device exploded with a power equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT and set off a flash of light that would have been visible from Mars, researchers said.
It was the first nuclear test in history.
Less than a month later, the United States would drop a nearly identical weapon on the city of Nagasaki in Japan. The bomb, named Fat Man, fell three days after Americans dropped a uranium bomb, called Little Boy, on Hiroshima. Both weapons immediately killed tens of thousands of Japanese people and forced Japan’s surrender on Aug. 14, bringing an abrupt end to the war.
Mr. Oppenheimer said a Hindu scripture ran through his mind at the sight of the explosion: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
The top secret test was heard and seen for miles.
The goal of the test was to see if the military could harness plutonium into a weapon that would destroy whole cities, said Alex Wellerstein, a science historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., who studies the history of nuclear weapons…… https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/us/trinity-test-anniversary.html
SCANA’s ex-top executive to plead guilty in a $9 billion nuclear fraud.
EXECUTIVE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO $9 BILLION NUCLEAR FRAUD, https://www.lexingtonchronicle.com/news/executive-plead-guilty-9-billion-nuclear-fraud Possible 5 years in prison and $1 million in fines, By Jerry Bellune, JerryBellune@yahoo.com, 13 July 20,
An ex-SCANA executive is to plead guilty tomorrow in a $9 billion nuclear fraud.
SCANA’s top nuclear executive, Steve Byrne, is accused of conspiracy in a failed nuclear project which cost investors – including his own employees – millions in stock losses.
The joint SCANA-Santee Cooper project:
1. Saddled more than 725,000 SC Electric & Gas ratepayers with $2 billion in costs.
2. Led to a near bankruptcy of Lexington County-based SCE&G and its sale to Dominion Energy.
3. Damaged the future of nuclear power in SC.
Byrne’s guilty plea will be entered Tuesday, July 14, at the federal courthouse in Columbia.
As Chief Operating Officer of SCANA, the owners of SCE&G, Byrne has admitted to knowingly engaging with others in fraud during construction of 2 Westinghouse AP100 reactors.
Byrne may face 5 years in prison and fines of not more than $1 million although the court could fine him more.
Federal officials are believed to have offered him a deal to testify against fellow executives and their lawyers who may have participated in the conspiracy.
To assure that Byrne, a former Irmo resident, follows the terms, sentencing will occur later.
Byrne has signed a plea agreement with federal agents which stipulate what he must do.
According to court postings, a bond hearing will immediately follow before Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges
The failed nuclear project and a state law that allowed SCE&G to bilk rqtepayers of $2 billion was formally opposed before the Public Service Commission by Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the SC Small Business Chamber and the Coalition to Stop the Blank Check.
Byrne agreed to be “fully truthful” about “criminal activities about which he has knowledge” and to provide documentation and testify at the trial of others.
Court documents reveal that the federal attorney believes other executives and lawyers:
1. Were involved in the conspiracy to cover-up problems at the failing nuclear project.
2. Made “false and misleading statements” about it to the PSC.
3. Took advantage of the Base Load Review Act in which SC lawmakers allowed SCE&G to pass all costs and risks to ratepayers.
State regulators inadequately reviewed the fraud due to a bias for SCE&G and against ratepayers, said Tom Clements, director Savannah River Site Watch.
“Byrne’s plea for his role in the reactor construction boondoggle will be historic as officials responsible for such failed projects rarely get caught and never confess to their crimes,” he said.
Clements was a main intervenor at the start and finish of the project.
“Byrne, who should serve prison time, must fully reveal the criminal role of others in the conspiracy that has been so disastrous for ratepayers, Clements said.
These include former CEO Kevin Marsh and former CFO Jimmy Addison,” he said.
Court documents imply that other individuals are being investigated,.
That means they and “lawyers who advised them” may face criminal charges, Clements said.
Blistering debate over San Onofre’s “nuclear waste dump by the sea,”
 Plan to inspect San Onofre’s aging nuclear waste expected to spark debate at Coastal Commission meeting
Although the analysis suggests doomsday scenarios may be more fantastical than factual, an engineering firm did suggest several improvements By TERI SFORZA | tsforza@scng.com | Orange County Register July 13, 2020 As debate continues to blister over San Onofre’s “nuclear waste dump by the sea,” an independent analysis concludes that the giant canisters housing that waste — and the program Southern California Edison has created to monitor and potentially repair them — will keep everything safe at least through 2035.Edison’s inspection and maintenance plan for its Holtec dry storage system — the “concrete monolith” now holding 69 of the 73 radioactive waste canisters it will hold by summer’s end, when all radioactive waste is finally removed from its spent fuel pools — is unveiled years earlier than the California Coastal Commission originally envisioned. It will be the subject of fiery debate at the Coastal Commission’s online meeting beginning 9 a.m. Thursday, July 16. Commission staff recommends approval of Edison’s plan, but critics are expected to vigorously oppose it………. How will it work?There are several layers to the inspection and maintenance program. Edison will keep tabs on the “concrete bunker” itself. Every day, workers will monitor temperatures and inspect air passageways and vent screens to make sure they remain free of blockage. Every month, air vent screens will be inspected for damage. Every year, there will be visual inspections of external surfaces for degradation. And every five years, there will be inspections of the structure for concrete settlement. How will it work?There are several layers to the inspection and maintenance program. Edison will keep tabs on the “concrete bunker” itself. Every day, workers will monitor temperatures and inspect air passageways and vent screens to make sure they remain free of blockage. Every month, air vent screens will be inspected for damage. Every year, there will be visual inspections of external surfaces for degradation. And every five years, there will be inspections of the structure for concrete settlement………. Bigger problemThe national paralysis over long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel is the elephant in the room. The federal government agreed to start collecting commercial nuclear waste for permanent disposal more than 20 years ago — but it hasn’t collected an ounce. That’s why it’s stuck at San Onofre, and dozens of commercial nuclear plants nationwide. There are hopes that temporary storage facilities in Texas and New Mexico might be licensed by the NRC while the federal government tries to find a permanent solution, but waste is likely to remain at San Onofre for many years. That’s why a maintenance and inspection program is required. While the Coastal Commission approved two dry storage systems at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, “it also has expressed concern regarding storing spent nuclear fuel at SONGS because of the facility’s location adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and Interstate-5, proximity to major population centers, and site topography and potential effects from coastal hazards,” the staff report says. “Because of the lack of a long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel, SONGS — like other nuclear power plants in the United States — has had to resort to interim storage of spent nuclear fuel on site.” Officials urge those who want spent fuel moved from San Onofre to focus on prodding the federal government toward a solution. Edison also is working on a strategic plan to explore the possibility of moving the waste off the bluff over the Pacific, and expects to finish by the end of the year. https://www.ocregister.com/2020/07/13/plan-to-inspect-san-onofres-aging-nuclear-waste-expected-to-spark-debate-at-coastal-commission-meeting/ |
|
USA National coalition against nuclear weapons
 Nuclear Threat Still Looms https://progressive.org/op-eds/nuclear-threat-still-looms-adams-200713/United by these tragedies, now most impacted communities have the same ultimate goals: ensuring these weapons are never used again, and that they are one day eliminated. by Lilly Adams, July 13, 2020 In July 16, 1945, at around 5:30 in the morning, 11-year-old Henry Herrera was outside his home in Tularosa, New Mexico, helping his father work on the radiator of their truck, when he saw a blinding flash of light. He thought he was witnessing the end of the world. In fact, he was witnessing the first ever use of a nuclear weapon — the Trinity nuclear test.
A few weeks later, on Aug. 6 and 9, the newly tested weapons were used on Japan, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing between 150,000 to 246,000 innocent people. In 1946, nuclear testing began in the Marshall Islands; it would continue there until 1958 , and in the United Statesuntil 1992
. The production of these weapons, with its own harmful consequences, continues today. Even worse, Congress recently voted to fund expansion of the nation’s nuclear weapons program. In a cruel twist of fate, July 16 is a double nuclear anniversary for New Mexico. On that day in 1979, a dam holding back radioactive waste at the Church Rock uranium mill broke, releasing 1,100 tons of uranium waste and 94 million gallons of radioactive water into the Rio Puerco, across three Navajo Nation chapters, and into Arizona. After both July 16 events, no health studies or medical resources were provided for residents, leaving those affected to battle the resulting illnesses and deaths alone.Last summer, after marking these anniversaries, my colleagues and I felt a sense of anti-climax. Something was missing. Perhaps after so long, we had become numb in the face of this history of death. As we approached the 75th anniversary of the fateful bombings of Japan, we decided we needed to do more. To begin, we reached out to our partners in Japan, and learned an important lesson. The survivors of the bombings, known as hibakusha, generally focus on messages of hope and resiliency, in pursuit of opportunities to build a peaceful world. They share their haunting memories of the bombings, but then they look forward and demand progress. We also looked to the survivors of nuclear weapons activities here at home. Estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and in the Marshall Islands that have been sickened and killed due to nuclear weapons testing, uranium mining and nuclear-weapons production. Despite the distances between them — in time, place and culture — the stories of many of these survivors are the same. A flash of blinding light, the feeling the world was ending. Falling dust and powder — like snow — that sickened people and would lead, eventually, to cancers. Secrecy and neglect shrouded their experiences for decades. United by these tragedies, now most impacted communities have the same ultimate goals: ensuring these weapons are never used again, and that they are one day eliminated. With these goals in mind, our national coalition is gathering virtually on Aug. 6 and 9, the anniversaries of the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The event will feature presentations from many of the 150 groups that have joined the effort so far. We hope readers will join us to learn more and hear from the people who have been impacted and are fighting for change. Seventy-five years after these bombings, nuclear weapons are still here, continuing to threaten every person on earth. But the survivors are still here, too. And in a time of separation and mourning, this is a chance to stand in solidarity with communities around the world that are calling for peace. This column was produced for the Progressive Media Project, which is run by The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service. |
|
New Mexico nuclear facility is bad news
|
New Mexico nuclear facility is bad news, https://lasvegassun.com/news/2020/jul/06/new-mexico-nuclear-facility-is-bad-news/ By Judy Treichel Monday, July 6, 2020 It may seem like good news in Nevada that an effort is underway in New Mexico to build a private storage facility for nuclear waste there.
But don’t be mistaken: This facility wouldn’t be an alternative to the disastrous Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. In fact, its existence depends on Yucca Mountain becoming an operating repository. That’s unacceptable, because the Nevada facility poses far too many risks for our state.
The license application for the New Mexico facility calls for it to operate over 40 years, after which the waste stored in it would go to Yucca Mountain. Twelve years ago, the Department of Energy submitted an application for a construction authorization and license to make Yucca Mountain the nation’s high-level nuclear waste repository. Two years later, in 2010, the department attempted to withdraw the application. It had determined that the plan was “unworkable” due to the opposition and unending resistance of the people of Nevada, but the court decided that the licensing process should proceed. It did, until funding ran out, and today those deliberations are on an indefinite hold. Now comes the New Mexico license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which in the opinion of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force the commission should not have accepted with the assumption that Yucca Mountain would be an operating repository. We have submitted comments to that effect to the commission. During all of the time that Nevada has been fighting the Yucca Mountain proposal, we were repeatedly assured that we could place our trust in the commission because before any license was granted for construction or operation, a thorough and unbiased process would fully play out. We were told there was no reason for questioning the fairness of the commission’s licensing process. Nevadans have been accused of having a NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude about nuclear waste — that we would be pleased if some other place were forced to host a repository instead of us. That is not true. We know that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable and should have been disqualified, and we have respected the democratic right of others to oppose dangers or threats where they live. Any siting of a facility that creates risk for the community should require informed consent, and the people of New Mexico do not consent. What we see happening with this so-called interim site is that it does not solve the nuclear waste problem. In fact it increases the risks by putting the waste on the roads and rails, and requiring it to be loaded and unloaded multiple times and transported more than once. Additionally, the only way a site can be considered “interim” is to know that the waste will leave, and the assumption here is that it will leave New Mexico and come to Nevada. The incentive for the company proposing to build the facility is purely financial — specifically, it’s to gain access to the $42 billion in the federal nuclear waste fund. An interim site does not increase or improve public safety, but rather does just the opposite. It creates one more nuclear waste site and provides more room at reactor sites for more waste. And it moves the waste closer to Nevada. A national high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is an overwhelmingly unsafe idea. Nevada residents, elected officials and people across the country living near transport routes know it. For 20 years, the Department of Energy studied the site and discovered — or were forced to admit — that there were conditions present that, according to their own guidelines, disqualified the site. If the licensing process ever restarts, how could we trust the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to fairly judge the science when it has previously assumed a licensed and operating repository at Yucca Mountain? Congress needs to reverse the action it took naming Yucca Mountain as the only site to be considered for a national repository, and take a fresh and fair look at nuclear waste disposal. Initiatives like the interim storage site in New Mexico are simply misguided and misleading diversions. Judy Treichel is executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. |
|
Democrats split on Trump plan to use development funds for nuclear projects
Democrats split on Trump plan to use development funds for nuclear projects, The Hill, BY REBECCA BEITSCH – 07/13/20 Democratic lawmakers are split over a Trump administration proposal that would allow international development funds to be used for overseas nuclear projects.
The U.S. International Development Finance Corp. (DFC), a fledgling government fund with an aim to alleviate poverty, has proposed lifting the longtime ban it inherited from its predecessor that bars funding for any nuclear projects.
Proponents say nixing the ban, originally conceived to limit the risks of nuclear proliferation, will allow the U.S. to help provide nuclear power to countries that will need more energy to grow their economies.
But opponents of removing the prohibition see a number of issues arising if the ban is lifted, including how to handle spent nuclear fuel, the potential for money to be funneled away from poorer nations and the challenge of dealing with risky and expensive projects.
“International nuclear power projects described by DFC are not a cost-competitive form of zero-carbon energy, remain unproven, will divert funds from higher-priority low-income countries, and are not supported by other development banks,” Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a letter to the DFC on Friday.
“DFC financing of overseas nuclear reactors may offshore the physical risks associated [with] nuclear power, but they would keep U.S. taxpayers on the hook for the steep financial ones,” the senators added. ………
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) along with seven other Democratic lawmakers, called the ban “outdated because of advances in nuclear technology.”…….
Lifting the DFC’s prohibition against financing nuclear power would likely direct more funding toward wealthier countries, instead of to the countries that the DFC was created to help,” Markey and Sanders wrote in their letter, pointing to Eastern Europe and the Middle East……… The DFC should not be dedicating its limited financing to unproven technologies that present both safety and security risks. Pushing experimental research and development is not part of the DFC’s mandate.”…… https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/507052-democrats-split-on-trump-plan-to-use-development-funds-for-nuclear
Problems and dangers face the dismantlement of damaged Three Mile Island nuclear reactor
“The smell was a combination of rotting eggs, diesel fuel and a smoldering fire pit,” he said.
The plant’s Unit 2 reactor had partially melted down about 4 a.m. March 28, 1979, and as Mohr remembers it, locals panicked, fearing for their safety. Some fled, others hid inside.
“I can remember this like it was yesterday,” said Mohr, who has been a longtime township supervisor. “There was definitely an air of uncertainty. People were confused.”
Four decades later, confusion and concern have returned near the now-inactive power plant as officials at Utah-based EnergySolutions plan to dismantle the historic reactor.
It’s a plan that has state environmental officials and local nuclear watchdogs ringing proverbial alarm bells, pointing to concerns that money set aside for the decommissioning could run out before the work is finished.
That’s in addition to fears about the potential for indefinite radioactive contamination on the island, which sits just upstream from Lancaster County on the Susquehanna River.
Old concerns resurface
To Arthur Morris, Lancaster city’s mayor from 1980 to 1990, some of those worries are familiar. They existed in the years after the 1979 accident, when Morris sat on a state advisory board that focused on radioactive decontamination of Unit 2.
Back then — and now — the Susquehanna River served as the primary source for several downstream Lancaster County drinking water systems, including in Lancaster city.
As mayor, Morris said one of his priorities on the panel was to make sure radiation wasn’t carried downstream and piped through Lancaster residents’ faucets — a priority that led to regular testing near the plant that persists today.
Last week, Morris said he isn’t surprised that some of those old concerns have resurfaced with Unit 2 coming back under scrutiny.
“Those things don’t go away until the island is cleaned up,” Morris said.
‘Worst-case scenario’
However, it’s a cleanup plan that has nuclear watchdog Eric Epstein speaking out on signs of pending danger.
“It’s the worst-case scenario,” said Epstein, a leader of the Harrisburg-based group Three Mile Island Alert.
Last fall, Unit 2’s owners at Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. announced that they planned to transfer all related licenses and assets to TMI-2 Solutions LLC, an EnergySolutions subsidiary.
The transfer would mean that EnergySolutions also would take over the responsibility of eventually dismantling the Unit 2 reactor.
And that eventuality had already been planned for by the time the proposed transfer was announced in October. Then, EnergySolutions revealed plans to contract decommissioning work out to New Jersey-based construction company Jingoli, which has had past success with nuclear projects in the United States and Canada.
Despite a track record, state Department of Environmental Protection officials warned that planning for and beginning decommissioning work too early could put the island and surrounding areas at risk.
After all, DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell noted, Unit 2 is the site of the worst commercial nuclear accident in United States history — an accident that released radioactive gases and grossly contaminated the reactor and its surrounding buildings.
“Because of this, we understand there are very high radiation areas within TMI Unit 2 that present a grave risk to personnel that enter,” a letter signed by McDonnell reads.
That high radiation has prevented all but minor exploration of the Unit 2 area, meaning the radiological conditions inside large portions of the plant remain a mystery, according to the letter.
“I firmly believe TMI Unit 2 is the most radiologically contaminated facility in our nation outside of the Department of Energy’s weapons complex,” it reads.
Postponing the cleanup for “several decades” could allow for a decrease in radioactive potency, possibly lessening the chance of further environmental contamination, McDonnell wrote.
All of that is in addition to raising questions about how radioactive waste will be disposed, transported and stored. That includes concerns about whether any of that waste will be stored on the island — a site that Epstein believes could remain indefinitely radioactive.
Both McDonnell’s writings and Epstein’s concerns were submitted this spring to officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must approve the FirstEnergy-to-EnergySolutions transfer request.
Commission officials have been reviewing the request since November, and similar reviews have been completed in a year or less, according to spokeswoman Diane Screnci.
Financial concerns
But it’s not only environmental issues that will be weighed as part of that review, with Epstein and state officials also raising serious financial concerns.
Specifically, they’ve drawn attention to a largely ratepayer-funded $901 million trust set aside to cover the cost of decommissioning, which has been estimated at upward of $1.2 billion.
Further complicating the issue, according to McDonnell’s letter, is the fact that trust fund dollars are tied to the stock market, which has seen large fluctuations due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
“Given the obvious uncertainties and complexities associated with cleaning up the remains … the demonstration of adequate funding to complete the decommissioning of TMI-2 and restoration of the site, is a significant concern of the department and the citizens of Pennsylvania,” McDonnell wrote.
Beyond sharing McDonnell’s letters, DEP officials said they could not further discuss the proposed decommissioning, citing litigation. Nondisclosure agreements stipulated by EnergySolutions also prevent DEP and Epstein from sharing some details.
EnergySolutions spokespeople did not respond to multiple requests for comment, though they indicated they are aware of concerns about their work.
Jennifer Young, a FirstEnergy spokeswoman, said company officials have faith the job will be completed on budget despite the existing disparity between the trust fund and estimated cost.
Cost estimates show there are sufficient funds given the project schedule for decommissioning,” she said. “Keep in mind that those funds will continue to accumulate value throughout the decommissioning process, which takes place over many years. Not all the money will be required or spent at one time.”
Epstein said it’s important to point out that the Unit 2 trust is full of ratepayer money, which will be under the full control of EnergySolutions’s TMI-2 Solutions LLC, a private company, with little public scrutiny.
Right company for the job
Despite those concerns, Young said FirstEnergy officials believe EnergySolutions is the right company to dismantle Unit 2. In fact, EnergySolutions decommissioning proposal was selected over offers from two other companies, she said. The unsolicited EnergySolutions proposal was made in 2018, Young said.
By Nuclear Regulatory Commission decree, the plant must be decommissioned within 60 years of halting operation, and Three Mile Island’s functioning Unit 1 was taken offline by its owner, Exelon, in 2019.
“We were faced with a decision to decommission the unit now or wait to start in the 2030s,” Young said.
“Waiting would not guarantee there would be companies available to start the dismantlement in time to comply with the 60-year requirement due to the large number of nuclear plant licenses that will expire in the 2030s,” he said.
Still, Epstein said he’d like a Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision on the transfer to remain delayed until his and DEP’s concerns can be worked through.
Like a big gravestone
Back in Conoy Township, Mohr said his full faith is in the commission to make the right decision — an opinion steeped in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 partial meltdown.
It was a commission official, Harold Denton, who shared the first details with locals, offering assurances that everything would be alright, he said.
“When he was done speaking, it was like the world calmed down,” Mohr said of the commission official. “He put it into a perspective that even we understood.”
For decades since, the plant has meant local jobs and local money, but since the 2019 shutdown, much of that has fallen by the wayside, he said. And it’s mostly for that reason that Mohr said he’s indifferent to the island’s fate.
“It’s almost to the point now that it was never there. If we drive north, we see it,” he said. “It reminds me of the biggest gravestone that I ever saw.”
75 years after the first nuclear bomb explosion, why aren’t we all worried about nuclear war?
Renewed nuclear danger https://independenttribune.com/news/local/column-renewed-nuclear-danger/article_d71499e9-187c-53c0-8b37-6b9b8f06e2f0.html, By Gerry Dionne, 12 July 20
- July 16 of this year marks the 75th anniversary of the first nuclear bomb detonation. I don’t foresee any dancing in the street to mark the occasion. In fact, I imagine your nightly newscast will ignore it entirely. Oh, we’ll probably hear something about Hiroshima three weeks later. That first use of the weapon in malice has more historic significance. The two bombs dropped on Japan resulted in 214,000 deaths by the end of 1945.
Frankly, I’m mystified that we hear so little about the threat of nuclear war today considering how consequential such an event would be. It’s a danger far more clear and present than an errant asteroid, or an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera. Currently, we’re all agog about the novel coronavirus. We’ve lived with a nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over our collective head for 75 years now, and we tend to think we experienced real danger of thermonuclear war for a period of only 13 days back in 1962. We survived that physically unscathed; that’s probably it for one lifetime, right?
The post-World War II arms race has seen 2,056 nuclear test detonations by at least eight nations; more than half of that total (1,030) were American. The United States has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992, when a bipartisan congressional majority mandated a nine-month testing moratorium. In 1996, the United States was the first to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which verifiably prohibits all nuclear test explosions of any yield. Today, the CTBT has 184 signatories and almost universal support. But it hasn’t formally entered into force due to the failure of the United States, China, Egypt, Iran and Israel to ratify the agreement; and by India, Pakistan and North Korea, which have neither signed nor ratified the measure.
This leaves the door to renewed testing open. According to a May 22 article in The Washington Post, senior national security officials discussed the option of a demonstration of nuclear air detonation at a May 15 interagency meeting. A senior official told the Post that a “rapid test” by the United States could prove useful from a negotiating standpoint as the Trump administration tries to pressure Russia and China to engage in talks on a new arms-control agreement.
The push to restart nuclear weapons testing is happening at a time when tensions between the United States and Russia have stepped up provocative moves in airborne “show of force” demonstrations that can turn hazardous when combat aircraft come nail-bitingly close to each other. The danger expands exponentially when the aircraft involved are nuclear-capable, and when the operations are staged in militarily sensitive areas, such as a first-time U.S. B-1B bomber flight May 21 over the Sea of Okhotsk; or a May 29 flight by two B-1B bombers across Ukrainian-controlled airspace for the first time, coming close to Russian-controlled airspace over Crimea.
Not wanting to be left out of the merriment, Russia conducted a March 12 flight of two nuclear-capable Tu-160 “Blackjack” bombers over Atlantic waters near Scotland, Ireland and France from its base on the Kola Peninsula in Russia’s far north, prompting France and the United Kingdom to scramble interceptor aircraft. In conducting these operations, U.S. and Russian military leaders appear to be delivering two messages to their counterparts. First, despite any perceived reductions in military readiness caused by the coronavirus pandemic, they are fully prepared to conduct all-out combat operations against the other. Second, any such engagements could include a nuclear component at an early stage of the fighting.
Although receiving precious little media attention in the U.S. and international press, these maneuvers represent a dangerous escalation of U.S.-Russian military interactions and could set the stage for a dangerous incident involving armed combat between aircraft of the opposing sides. This by itself could precipitate a major crisis and possible escalation. Just as worrisome are the strategic implications of these operations, suggesting a commitment to the early use of nuclear weapons in future major-power engagements.
The U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command has long since supplanted the Strategic Air Command in its function as our nuclear war delivery system. Its commander, Gen. Timothy Ray, has said, “We have the capability and capacity to provide long-range fires anywhere, anytime, and can bring overwhelming firepower, even during the pandemic.” It really doesn’t matter whether those words reassure or horrify you; the eventual outcome of merely holding weapons of nearly limitless lethality is written in stone.
Sources: Arms Control Association Newsletter, July/August 2020; The Washington Post, May 22, 2020; and JanesDefenseWeekly.com, July 5, 2020.
American-Israeli strategy developing for clandestine not-quite-war strikes on Iran?
 Long-Planned and Bigger Than Thought: Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Some officials say that a joint American-Israeli strategy is evolving — some might argue regressing — to a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes. NYT, By David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Ronen Bergman, 12 July 20 As Iran’s center for advanced nuclear centrifuges lies in charred ruins after an explosion, apparently engineered by Israel, the long-simmering conflict between the United States and Tehran appears to be escalating into a potentially dangerous phase likely to play out during the American presidential election campaign.
New satellite photographs over the stricken facility at Natanz show far more extensive damage than was clear last week. Two intelligence officials, updated with the damage assessment for the Natanz site recently compiled by the United States and Israel, said it could take the Iranians up to two years to return their nuclear program to the place it was just before the explosion. An authoritative public study estimates it will be a year or more until Iran’s centrifuge production capacity recovers.
Another major explosion hit the country early Friday morning, lighting up the sky in a wealthy area of Tehran. It was still unexplained — but appeared to come from the direction of a missile base. If it proves to have been another attack, it will further shake the Iranians by demonstrating, yet again, that even their best-guarded nuclear and missile facilities have been infiltrated.
Although Iran has said little of substance about the explosions, Western officials anticipate some type of retaliation, perhaps against American or allied forces in Iraq, perhaps a renewal of cyberattacks. In the past, those have been directed against American financial institutions, a major Las Vegas casino and a dam in the New York suburbs or, more recently, the water supply system in Israel, which its government considers “critical infrastructure.”
Officials familiar with the explosion at Natanz compared its complexity to the sophisticated Stuxnet cyberattack on Iranian nuclear facilities a decade ago, which had been planned for more than a year. In the case of last week’s episode, the primary theory is that an explosive device was planted in the heavily-guarded facility, perhaps near a gas line. But some experts have also floated the possibility that a cyberattack was used to trigger the gas supply.
Some officials said that a joint American-Israeli strategy was evolving — some might argue regressing — to a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and setting back Iran’s nuclear facilities…….. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-trump.html
|
|
|
Senators urge US Development Finance Corp not to fund ‘risky’ overseas nuclear projects
US senators urge agency not to allow funding of ‘risky’ nuclear projects, S and P Global Platts, Author Joniel Cha , Editor Keiron Greenhalgh 12 July 20
HIGHLIGHTS
DFC proposes to reverse prior policy
Lawmakers say nuclear not cost competitive
- Washington — Senators Edward Markey, Democrat-Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, Independent-Vermont, in a July 10 letter jointly urged US Development Finance Corp., not to “waste American tax dollars on risky international nuclear projects.”
DFC proposed June 10 to revise its policy so that the federal agency could provide financing for nuclear power projects, beginning a 30-day public comment period ending July 10.
The agency was created in 2019 through the consolidation of Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the US Agency for International Development’s Development Credit Authority.
OPIC and USAID both had bans in place prohibiting them from supporting nuclear reactor projects.
The senators said international nuclear power projects “are not a cost-competitive form of zero-carbon energy, remain unproven, will divert funds from higher-priority low-income countries, and are not supported by other development banks.” ……..
- The senators said: “DFC should not be dedicating its limited financing to unproven technologies that present both safety and security risks. Pushing experimental research and development is not part of the DFC’s mandate.”
DFC has a total investment limit of $60 billion……..
The senators requested a response from DFC by July 31.
The American Nuclear Society and advocacy group Clear Path, along with 40 other organizations and individuals, submitted comment letters to DFC July 2 and 9, respectively, supporting the removal of the ban.
DFC did not respond to requests for comment July 9.https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/071020-us-senators-urge-agency-not-to-allow-funding-of-risky-nuclear-projects
Book: Doom With A View: Historical and Cultural Contexts of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant.
The Grieving Landscape, LONGREADS, Heidi Hutner | Fulcrum Publishing | June 2020 | 16 minutes (4,305 words)
We’re delighted to bring you an excerpt by Heidi Hutner from the anthology Doom With A View: Historical and Cultural Contexts of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Edited by Kristen Iverson, with E. Warren Perry and Shannon Perry, the anthology arrives from Fulcrum Publishing in August, 2020.
At thirty-five, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. One year before my diagnosis, my mother died from complications after heart surgery. At the time of her death, my mother had cancer — lymphoma. Five years prior to Mom’s death, my father passed away from a brain tumor, a metastasis from the cancer melanoma.
Two years after I had completed my chemotherapy treatment for cancer, I gave birth to Olivia. My miracle baby.
At first, I was ecstatic about the pregnancy. I had always wanted children, and with my cancer, I feared this would never happen. My doctors said I was lucky to give birth to a biological child after chemotherapy (my treatment left me with a 50 percent chance of remaining fertile afterward). But now, a mother-to-be, I was also afraid. How could I protect my child from our family cancer blight?
My desire to protect my daughter from a future cancer diagnosis drove me into a rabbit hole of reading and learning about the reasons for my family’s affliction. I began with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and moved forward to more recent literature by Sandra Steingraber, Theo Colburn, and numerous others, including the President’s Cancer Panel Report. I learned that the cancer rates today are off the charts: one in two men and one in three women will get cancer in their lifetimes. Carson predicted this plague in 1963. She warned us of humankind’s “hubris” in carelessly polluting our earth with toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation. The epidemiologist Alice Stewart’s study on the grave danger of X-rays on babies in the womb in the 1950s, sounded the alarm about ionizing radiation as well. Today, our world swirls with pollutants — these carcinogens penetrate mothers’ wombs and breasts. Mother’s milk is a toxic cocktail. Newborns today are born with hundreds of synthetic chemicals in their umbilical cord blood. Synthetic chemicals and ionizing radiation change our makeup, harm our genes, and cause mutagenetic damage. More than 80,000 unregulated pollutants fill our environment.
We are guinea pigs.
Fast forward about eleven years: one summer day, in 2009, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, at lunch with a close friend (and cousin) of my deceased mother, Phyllis Resnick, I stumbled upon a story about my mom that I had never heard before. The tale Phyllis told would radically change my life. My then-preteen daughter, Olivia, was by my side. She listened rapt with me as we learned of our maternal nuclear legacy.
Phyllis described how in the early 1960s, my mother and she, along with their good friend Thalia Stern Broudy, had been a members of Women Strike for Peace (WSP), an antinuclear group led by Dagmar Wilson and the future congresswoman, Bella Abzug. During the Cold War 1950s and early 60s, the U.S. had detonated one hundred above-ground nuclear test bombs in the Nevada desert and one hundred and six atmospheric test bombs in the South Pacific. The government claimed these test bombs posed no harm and the fallout had not spread, but scientists and medical professionals were concerned. A team of experts in St. Louis, MO, directed by Dr. Louise Reiss, initiated a survey to determine the extent of the impact of the bomb testing. With a chemical makeup similar to calcium, strontium-90, a radioisotope found in fallout, is easily absorbed in teeth and bones. Thousands of baby teeth from across the U.S. were collected between 1958 and 1971 for the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. In 1961, preliminary results showed high levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth of children born after 1945 and these levels increased over the time period, as the test-bombing continued. When the mothers of Women Strike for Peace learned the results of the survey, they banded together to stop atmospheric bomb testing. 50,000 WSP members from across the U.S. wrote letters, gathered petitions, lobbied congressional representatives, initiated lawsuits, and protested through marches and street demonstrations. My mother and her cohort of 15,000 WSP members traveled to D.C. to protest, lobby, and meet with their legislators November, 1961. In 1963, the United States, the U.K., and the Soviet Union signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, an agreement to halt atmospheric, under water, and outer space bomb testing. The signing of this treaty has been attributed to the efforts of WSP.
The government claimed these test bombs posed no harm and the fallout had not spread, but scientists and medical professionals were concerned.
After discovering this remarkable story about WSP, I became obsessed with feminist nuclear history. I wondered: Why had I never been told this tale when my mother was alive? What other vital nuclear histories involving women had been buried? So began my journey of exploring women’s antinuclear tales, traveling to nuclear disaster sites, and meeting with members of impacted communities. On this path, I met Kristen Iversen, the author of Full Body Burden, an investigative memoir about growing up next door to Rocky Flats, the former nuclear weapons facility in Arvada, Colorado. Kristen invited me to visit her in Colorado. She would introduce me to experts, scientists, and community members there. I brought my then eighteen-year-old daughter, Olivia, with me. She was about to leave for college. I wanted to share our maternal antinuclear and activist legacy with her before she left home. ………….
Operating from 1952 to 1992, the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility was located approximately 15 miles northwest of Denver, a city built by an influx of miners during the gold rush in the nineteenth century. During the years of its operation, the plant constructed more than 70,000 triggers for nuclear bombs. Rocky Flats would be the site of two major secret plutonium fires, blowing radioactive poison into sections of Arvada and Denver in 1957 and 1969. Hundreds of smaller fires also took place, as well as regular leaks, spills, and atmospheric plutonium releases. Plutonium clouds blew over houses, swimming pools, schools, churches, farms, fields, and streams. Rocky Flats is known for powerful Chinook winds — winds that would blow plutonium dust into local neighborhoods. Locals did not know that Rocky Flats was a weapons factory for most of its years of operation. Workers employed there were forbidden to speak of their work and often didn’t comprehend the full extent of the factory’s activities.
By 1989, The FBI and EPA suspected criminal negligence at Rocky Flats, which led to a raid, led by FBI agent Jon Lipsky.
A federal grand jury began an investigation, a settlement was negotiated, the court documents were sealed, and the plant closed. The story of this federal grand jury is fraught and complex, and cover-ups are suspected in the sealing of the documents and lack of full prosecution. The Rocky Flats cleanup was officially completed in 2004; however, numerous scientists, nuclear experts, local citizens, and antinuclear activists argue the cleanup is far from finished. Unknown but large amounts of plutonium and other contaminants remain on the land in what has been turned into a Superfund site, a designation made under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The primary industrial site (the Superfund area — 485 acres) was never completely remediated. There is a buffer zone, also heavily contaminated, although the EPA claims this area is fully remediated. The surrounding area, now called a National Wildlife Refuge, was not remediated. Significant contamination has been detected there in the soil and groundwater. Many other toxic and radioactive contaminants have also been found at Rocky Flats in addition to plutonium: americium, uranium, cadmium, PCBs, beryllium, and more. A 2019 study found plutonium “hot particles” in the soil frighteningly close to the homes abutting the Flats………
Rocky Flats is “a national sacrifice zone,” says Robert Alvarez, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and former senior policy advisor to the secretary at the US Department of Energy. “That’s what it is, although no one will say so officially. How much remains buried there? A tremendous amount — plutonium doesn’t go away. No one has done this yet — it’s costly and complex — but someone needs to go into those houses nearby in Arvada and take samples. We don’t know how much plutonium is in them.”…….. https://longreads.com/2020/06/30/the-grieving-landscape/amp/
1 This Month
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (37)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 