U.S. Senator Harris and Rep Ocasio-Cortez introduce Bill on climate harm
Reuters 6th Aug 2020, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on
Thursday introduced legislation to beef up federal accountability for
pollution in minority communities disproportionately harmed by climate
change. Harris, a leading contender to be Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden’s running mate, was running in the Democratic primary last year
when she first floated the Climate Equity Act with Ocasio-Cortez.
Nothing is more expensive than nuclear power
Readers sound off on the costliness of nuclear power, By VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |AUG 15, 2020
Manhattan: Re “The inconvenient truth: We need nuclear” (op-ed, Aug. 10): Nothing is more expensive than nuclear power. Estimates for the cleanup of Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster range as high as $300 billion, albeit total removal of radioactivity from that land, and ocean, is impossible. In Japan, as everywhere, the costs of such disasters are born by the taxpayer, not the utility companies: There is no such thing as a $300 billion insurance policy.
US open to nuclear agreement with Russia before including China
Top arms envoy indicates shift in Washington’s position on trilateral talks, Nikkei Asian Review, RYO NAKAMURA, Nikkei staff writerAugust 16, 2020
WASHINGTON — The U.S. may move forward with a nuclear agreement with Russia first in a bid to apply pressure on Beijing to sign a weapons treaty, Washington’s top arms control negotiator said, despite characterizing China as an “urgent threat.”
Marshall Billingslea, the special presidential envoy for arms control, spoke with Nikkei days before traveling to Vienna to meet Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Monday and Tuesday for discussions on brokering an accord. Washington had been keen to strike a trilateral agreement with Moscow and Beijing, but is now open to a bilateral agreement with Russia first.
“That is, I think, a very prudent approach, particularly because we may be able to agree to something with Russia that would be the framework which we would want China to join,” Billingslea said in a phone interview on Friday.
The Vienna meeting, which Washington also invited China to, will focus on a successor to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. That accord, also known as New START, was signed in 2010 and expires in February. In addition to nuclear warheads, the treaty limits the deployment of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
The Trump administration has sought a new treaty with three conditions: it includes China, adds restrictions on all types of nuclear weapons and strengthens and verification.
The U.S. has been particularly adamant about Beijing’s participation, but China has so far refused…….. https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/US-open-to-nuclear-agreement-with-Russia-before-including-China
Trump Hints about Meeting With Putin to Discuss Nuclear Treaty
|
Trump Hints to Meeting With Putin to Discuss Nuclear Treaty, Hamodia, By Sara Marcus Sunday, August 16, 2020 WASHINGTON –
President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of holding a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin before the November 3 election. NBC News reported that aides have researched potential opportunities for the two men to meet, with one possibility as early as next month in New York. The summit would be to discuss mutual constraints on nuclear weapons. One possibility would be by extending New START, a nuclear arms treaty between the two countries that is set to expire in 202 ……… People familiar with the discussions in the administration said President Trump hopes to impress with a very public showing of his ability to make a deal…….The Helsinki summit brought President Trump plenty of attention, but much of it was negative and he was accused of being manipulated by Putin. https://hamodia.com/2020/08/16/trump-hints-meeting-putin-discuss-nuclear-treaty/
|
|
Even with $1.4 billion government subsidy, NuScam’s nuclear station is still a dodgy prospect
The NuScale SMR plant is designed to be built with up to a dozen 60-MW reactor modules.
UAMPS is seeking other utilities throughout the West to purchase hundreds of megawatts of the $6 billion project’s output, but no utility has agreed to such a purchase.
Utah Taxpayer Association Vice President Rusty Cannon said UAMPS members currently committed to the project should withdraw from it because of the risks.
“The development of untried new designs is no place for small utilities with no nuclear construction experience to risk their customers’ money,” former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford said during the briefing.
the first module is now expected to be operational in June 2029. Previously NuScale had targeted commercial operation of at least one reactor module in 2027.
|
Municipal power group awaits $1.4 billion from DOE for Idaho nuclear plant, https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081320-municipal-power-group-awaits-14-billion-from-doe-for-idaho-nuclear-plant Author, Michael McAuliffe , Editor Keiron Greenhalgh 14 Aug 20, HIGHLIGHTS Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) members face September decision on project Startup of first unit delayed to 2029 from 2027 Odds of members agreeing to go forward 50/50: muni Washington — A Utah municipal power association is expecting an influx of $1.4 billion in federal funds for the small modular reactor plant it is looking to build in Idaho, but association members are still deciding whether to go forward with the 720-MW project and the completion date has recently slipped, officials said. Continue reading |
Survey finds that U.S. Democrats and Republicans both want to phase out land-based nuclear missiles
|
Democrats And Republicans Agree: Phase Out Land-Based Nuclear Missiles https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/08/12/democrats-and-republicans-agree-phase-out-land-based-nuclear-missiles/#74441be7109d Matt Korda I write about the nexus between nuclear weapons, climate change, and injustice. Although Democrats and Republicans increasingly seem worlds apart, when it comes to nuclear weapons issues, they’re actually much closer than one might think.
According to a new report by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, 61 percent of Americans–including both Democratic and Republican majorities–are in favor of phasing out the United States’ aging fleet of 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. This finding is highly noteworthy, as it runs in direct contrast to the Pentagon’s current plan of spending approximately $100 billion to buy a brand-new generation of ICBMs by 2030. The survey, entitled “Common Ground of the American People,” is a compilation of studies conducted over the past five years, collecting data from nearly 86,000 individuals throughout the polling process. It specifically aimed to place the respondents into the shoes of a policymaker: respondents were first given an issue briefing, and were then asked to evaluate arguments for and against various policy proposals, before finally offering their recommendations.
The survey’s unique methodology is highly illuminating, because it allows readers of the report to see which arguments were deemed to be most or least convincing, and by whom. For example, Republicans preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs while maintaining the same number of deployed warheads, while Democrats preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs and reduce the arsenal to a lower number of deployed warheads.
The main takeaway though, is that–regardless of how the ICBM phase-out takes place–69 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans agree that the land-based leg of the nuclear triad should be eliminated entirely.
It makes sense that both Democrats and Republicans would agree on phasing out ICBMs: they are outdated, destabilizing, and very expensive. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are largely relics of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union alike feared a “bolt-from-the-blue” nuclear attack. At the time, it was believed that both countries having large land-based nuclear arsenals would prevent each other from launching a massive surprise attack. However, in today’s multipolar nuclear environment, the likelihood of such an attack is extremely slim, and so ICBMs no longer hold much strategic value. Given the abundance of more flexible options in the U.S. arsenal, U.S. Strategic Command would certainly turn to nuclear bombers or submarines–not ICBMs–in the event of a low-level nuclear crisis.
Additionally, the inherent vulnerability of the ICBM fleet actually creates a psychological pressure to launch them during a nuclear crisis, before an adversary’s missiles can wipe them out. This is why siloed ICBMs–like those deployed across the United States––are commonly referred to as “use ‘em or lose ‘em” weapons. In the event of a false alarm, accident, or miscalculation, this pressure to “use ‘em” could inadvertently trigger a nuclear war. No other nuclear weapon in the US nuclear arsenal comes with this kind of destabilizing psychological pressure. ……
Perhaps knowing this, the Pentagon argues that ICBMs are necessary as a “hedge” in case technological advances suddenly render the United States’ nuclear-armed submarines vulnerable. However, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review admits that “When on patrol, [ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)] are, at present, virtually undetectable, and there are no known, near-term credible threats to the survivability of the SSBN force.” This condition is likely to continue as US submarines get even quieter, thus making these fears seem relatively exaggerated. On top of this, replacing the ICBMs with brand-new missiles would be extremely expensive. The latest estimate for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, as the replacement program is called, totals approximately $100 billion. In reality, these costs are expected to rise, given that the contract will be sole-sourced to Northrop Grumman NOC -0.7% after Boeing BA -2.6% pulled out of the competition last year. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has called this development “very troubling,” and the sole-source contract has since triggered a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Boeing’s allegations that Northrop Grumman was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
Given these underlying programmatic and strategic concerns––in addition to the new survey demonstrating that both Democrats and Republicans want to phase out ICBMs entirely––why is this $100 billion project still moving forward? In the midst of an election, a recession, and a devastating pandemic, it seems like common sense to delay the program at the very least.
However, a robust lobbying effort by weapons contractors has impeded public scrutiny of the program. Northrop Grumman––the only bidder for the ICBM replacement contract––spent more than $162 million on lobbying between 2008 and 2018, with the bulk of the contributions going to members of the “ICBM Caucus”––a coalition of Senators from states where ICBMs are deployed. In 2018, this lobbying effort helped kill an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which called for a feasibility study on extending the life of the current ICBM force, rather than rebuilding it from scratch. This has had the effect of suppressing public debate over the future of the ICBMs; without studies like this one, the public is being asked to blindly swallow the pro-ICBM claims of those that would materially benefit from their replacement.
The University of Maryland’s report offers a new tool to push back against the “business” of nuclear policy. The survey suggests that corporate lobbying and “special interests” are alienating the public from their elected representatives, and dividing the two political parties even further. Therefore, treating its respondents as neutral “policymakers” clearly demonstrates that without the presence of moneyed interests, Democrats and Republicans agree on much more than one might think. And in this particular instance it is clear: majorities from both parties want to phase out intercontinental ballistic missiles.
|
|
Biden Condemns Trump’s Nuclear Plans, (but he himself supports nuclear power)
 Uranium Week: Biden Condemns Trump’s Nuclear Plans, Fn ArenaAug 11 2020
Presidential nominee Joe Biden has reiterated his objection to President Trump’s nuclear energy plan. FN Arena By Mark Woodruff
Presidential nominee Joe Biden used Twitter last week to declare he would create a clean energy economy that will generate “millions of well-paying union jobs ..….without jeopardising the places we hold dear.” Biden was responding to President Trump’s recent plan to mine uranium around the Grand Canyon. To achieve this, the President would need to lift the current 20-year ban on new mining in the area. In a further statement he also reiterated condemnation for President Trump’s nuclear energy plan, released in April this year, which outlined the creation of a US$150m uranium reserve in the coming decade. Last month, according to the Washington Post, Joe Biden unveiled a proposal to transform the nation’s energy industry and significantly reduce the United States’ reliance on fossil fuels and the 15-year timeline for 100% clean electricity standard.
However, unlike some of his Democratic primary opponents, Biden backs nuclear power, according to energyworld.com. https://www.fnarena.com/index.php/2020/08/11/uranium-week-biden-condemns-trumps-nuclear-plans/
|
|
Hazards in U.S, government’s plans for more locations for low level nuclear wastes
Feds Propose More Sites For Nuke Waste Storage (Not Disposal) Forbes , Ed Hirs 12 Aug 20,
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing that more locations around the country be used to dispose of very low level radioactive waste. This proposal has raised the ire of environmentalists and nuclear waste storage proponents alike…….
Bad actors can make a considerable profit at the expense of public health. As the United Steelworkers union noted in their public comment urging the NRC against the ruling: “[the ruling]…requires workers with little to no training to handle contaminated material leading to a greater probability of mishandling or improper disposal; and the proposed rule lack[s] requirements to monitor surrounding soil and ground water from any exempt waste location to ensure there is no increase of radiological contamination outside of the potential dumping sites.”
Safe disposal does not equal safety when materials remain active for generations. To improve safety landfills need to keep records for generations, and to deal with low-level contamination appropriately. Over time landfills become golf courses, sources of methane for electricity generation, and mines for reclaiming metal. These activities result in exposure to radiation that future generations must be prepared for. This means meticulous record keeping, which is unlikely to be present across multiple changes of ownership and decades of time.
What the NRC proposes is an expansion of opportunities for things to go wrong. In the past this approach has given us names that remain infamous today: think Love Canal. Brio Refinery. Savannah River and DuPont. It gave us the remains of leaded gasoline.
Water supplies are particularly vulnerable. Historically, the dictum of chemists has been “dilution is the solution.” That works for chemicals. It does not work for radiation, which is being generated continuously.
The current system is better than what is being proposed. Expanding the opportunities for things to go wrong is a step backwards. If the proposal is adopted, today’s laxity and profits will become tomorrow’s health problems and remediation expenses. If we care about coming generations we should leave well enough alone. https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2020/08/11/hazardous-nuclear-waste-storage-its-not-disposal/#2086a6624ad3
What about Vermont Yankee’s nuclear waste? Or dealing with it?
What about Vermont Yankee’s nuclear waste? Or dealing with it?
High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLNW) is a byproduct of nuclear power plants and is extremely dangerous for thousands of years. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, in Vernon, has been shut down since 2014 and the HLNW it produced over the years of operation has been transferred into stainless steel and concrete dry casks stored onsite. Currently, our federal government has not come up with a permanent site to store HLNW safely over time.
NorthStar, the corporation which now owns Vermont Yankee, wants to transport that waste to a Centralized “Interim” Storage (CIS) site that it owns in Texas. To transport this waste is a dangerous proposition since an accident would likely result in great damage to the environment and the life forms in the surrounding area. We should only move the material once to a permanent repository. Also, if Vermont Yankee’s HLNW is allowed to be transported across the country on our highways, railways and waterways to a temporary open-air storage site, such a precedent would likely result in thousands of shipments across the country as other nuclear plants are shut down during the coming four decades.
Communities in the Southwest are speaking out in opposition to accepting our toxic waste. As members of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance (VYDA), we support their concerns and are against the transportation and interim storage of Vermont Yankee’s waste at a CIS. We feel it is safer to keep our waste within our state in monitored, hardened, onsite storage in stainless steel and concrete dry casks while a scientifically-based permanent storage site is located.
For the above reasons, join us in contacting U.S. Rep. Peter Welch and urge him to vote against any bill that would authorize Centralized Interim Storage of High-Level Nuclear waste? https://www.timesargus.com/opinion/commentary/famette-rice-and-the-nuclear-waste/article_436e1a1b-deb3-5b6a-87a9-228cfb16afbc.html
Audrey Famette lives in Montpelier. Nancy Rice lives in Randolph Center.
Fort Worth doesn’t need dangerous nuclear waste rolling through on Tarrant rail line
|
Fort Worth doesn’t need dangerous nuclear waste rolling through on Tarrant rail lines https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article244891627.html BY PEGGY HENDON AND LINDA HANRATTY
AUGUST 12, 2020The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering licensing two different facilities to store the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. One would be at the existing low-level storage facility in Andrews County, Texas. The second, known as the Holtec site, would be between Carlsbad and Hobbs, New Mexico. Why should Tarrant County be concerned? Most of the uranium waste from nuclear power plants is located east of the Mississippi River. Union Pacific Railroad appears to be the most likely carrier of the high-level nuclear waste casks, although any commercial rail lines could be used. Union Pacific tracks run through the middle of the county, just south of downtown Fort Worth and just north of Arlington’s City Hall and library, traversing neighborhoods of all kinds. Fort Worth’s medical district and the TCU and UT-Arlington campuses are within 1.5 miles of the tracks. A second Union Pacific rail line runs north toward Denton from Tower 55, a major railroad intersection just southeast of downtown Fort Worth. A large Union Pacific railyard lies southwest of downtown Tower 55 holds vital national and international significance, connecting freight and passenger travel between the East and West coasts, Southeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast, Mexico, and Canada. More than 100 trains pass through Tower 55 each day. Interim Storage Partners, which operates the Andrews County site, has asked to have 45 days to move low-level waste from Vermont. The rail cars carrying the high-level radioactive waste would sit at the Fort Worth rail yard, across from Colonial Country Club. These nuclear waste cars are readily identifiable, given their huge dumbbell-like shape, size and weight, which makes them a potential target for terrorist attacks. High-level radioactive waste is one of the most dangerous substances on earth, consisting of irradiated fuel rods that have been inside nuclear reactors. Exposure to unshielded nuclear waste is lethal. One railcar would carry more plutonium than was in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves either or both licenses, thousands of rail shipments of deadly, high-level radioactive waste could move through Tarrant County for more than 20 years, risking accidents leaks, and terrorist actions. Transport of massive amounts of high-level waste in thousands of shipments across the country is unprecedented. A 2019 report of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board found that there is a substantial lack of data regarding potential damage of spent nuclear fuel during transport. Many rails are only designed to carry 143 tons per car. The loaded casks for this waste weigh 210 tons or more. It is unclear whether tracks in Tarrant County would handle such weight. And accidents can happen. A cask carrying low-level waste that was headed to Andrews caught fire in the Chicago area in June. A better alternative would be to leave high-level waste at existing nuclear plants until a permanent repository is found to bury cannisters underground. The repository should be owned by the federal government, not a private entity. One radioactive railway accident in Tarrant County could contaminate our region and harm thousands of lives, posing substantial health risks and seriously impacting future economic growth. Resolutions opposing consolidated interim storage of this waste and its transport through heavily populated communities have been passed by Bexar, Dallas, Nueces, El Paso and Midland Counties and the cities of San Antonio, Midland and Denton, as well as the Midland Chamber of Commerce. Tarrant County, along with the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington, should also oppose the transportation of high-level nuclear waste through our communities and advise our federal representatives and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of our serious concerns. Our lives and economic well-being may depend upon preventive action now. Peggy Hendon is president of the League of Women Voters of Tarrant County. Linda Hanratty is the group’s environmental chairwoman. |
|
Extreme weather causes emergency shutdown of nuclear plant in Iowa
|
‘Derecho’ storm causes Cargill plant closure, emergency shutdown of nuclear plant in Iowa
The storm caused crop damage and outages throughout the Midwest Star Tribune,
By Mike Hughlett Star Tribune, AUGUST 12, 2020 — A violent storm that tore through Iowa on Monday caused an emergency shutdown at a nuclear power plant near Cedar Rapids.
The storm packing hurricane-force winds tore across the Midwest, compounding troubles for a U.S. farm economy already battered by extreme weather, the U.S.-China trade war and most recently, the disruption caused to labor and consumption by the COVID-19 pandemic. Grain silos were ripped apart, and Minnetonka-based Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland closed crop-processing plants in Cedar Rapids. The Duane Arnold nuclear plant lost its connection to the electricity grid. At about 1 p.m., the plant in Palo, 11 miles northwest of Cedar Rapids, declared an “unusual event” — an indication of a safety threat, according to a report posted Tuesday by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An unusual event is the lowest of four levels of emergency conditions under NRC regulations. While the Duane Arnold plant is not now producing electricity, it does have power to run its emergency systems. The plant is stable and is using a backup power source at this time,” Duane Arnold’s majority owner and operator, Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources, said in a statement. The storms damaged the plant’s cooling towers, which are used in electricity production to cool steam after it exits the turbine, NextEra said. The cooling towers are not part of the safety systems used to cool the reactor and other critical components……. David Lochbaum, former director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ nuclear safety project, said that loss of off-site power at nuclear power plants — usually due to storms — happens about four to five times a year in the U.S. Iowa’s 45-year-old Duane Arnold plant, which is a little smaller than Xcel Energy’s nuclear plant in Monticello, is due to shut down later this year………. |
|
California’s Wildfires Are 500 Percent Larger Due to Climate Change
 California’s Wildfires Are 500 Percent Larger Due to Climate Change
“Each degree of warming causes way more fire than the previous degree of warming did. And that’s a really big deal.” The Atlantic, ROBINSON MEYERJULY 16, 2019 ” …….. Californians may feel like they’re enduring an epidemic of fire. The past decade has seen half of the state’s 10 largest wildfires and seven of its 10 most destructive fires, including last year’s Camp Fire, the state’s deadliest wildfire ever.A new study, published this week in the journal Earth’s Future, finds that the state’s fire outbreak is real—and that it’s being driven by climate change. Since 1972, California’s annual burned area has increased more than fivefold, a trend clearly attributable to the warming climate, according to the paper. The trend is dominated by fires like the Mendocino Complex Fire—huge blazes that start in the summer and feed mostly on timberland. Over the past five decades, these summertime forest fires have increased in size by roughly 800 percent. This effect is so large that it is driving the state’s overall increase in burned area. Why are summertime forest fires so much more likely? Because climate change has already redefined the seasons in Northern California. Since the early 1970s, summers in Northern California have warmed by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 degrees Celsius) on average. A few degrees may not sound like much, but heat has an exponential relationship with forest fire. “Each degree of warming causes way more fire than the previous degree of warming did. And that’s a really big deal,” Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an author of the paper, told me. Every additional increment in heat in the environment speeds up evaporation, dries out soil, and parches trees and vegetation, turning them into ready fuel for a blaze. For that reason, Williams said, hot summers essentially overpower anything else happening in Northern California. Even during a wet year, an intense heat wave can choke forests so that it is as though the rain never fell…….. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/ |
|
|
North Dakota shows how to deter any plan for nuclear waste dumping
The Legislature passed a bill into law in 2019 that prohibits the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in North Dakota. For the rules to even take effect, “the first thing you have to do is get that law overturned or thrown out,” State Geologist Ed Murphy said.
Regulators prep for an industry few want: nuclear waste disposal, Bismarck Tribune, 10 Aug, 20
The state Industrial Commission approved the regulations in late July, as well as new rules surrounding deep geothermal wells, another industry that does not exist in North Dakota but could emerge one day.
The waste disposal rules spell out all the steps an entity would have to go through if it were to propose storing “high-level radioactive waste” in North Dakota. Such waste is highly radioactive material generated from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, for example, and it requires permanent isolation……
The Legislature passed a bill into law in 2019 that prohibits the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in North Dakota. For the rules to even take effect, “the first thing you have to do is get that law overturned or thrown out,” State Geologist Ed Murphy said.
“We were writing rules for a program that, by law, is prohibited,” he said.
Roers said the thinking behind establishing the rules in light of the ban is that if the federal government were ever to try to trump North Dakota’s prohibition, it might still agree to follow the regulations established by the state.
If the entity wanted to move forward with a project, it would then need a “facility permit,” which would prompt a similar vetting process. Officials would have up to a year to decide whether to issue a permit.
Before granting a permit, the operator would need to deposit at least $100 million in a new state fund.
“The half-lives of some of the radioactive waste will be dangerous much longer than any sign, monument, or avoidance structures would remain unless they are maintained in perpetuity,” the regulations state. “This money is to be used to ensure the passive institutional controls are maintained for thousands of years.”
If a facility were to make it through the permitting process, it would have to pay an annual operating fee of at least $1 million to the state. It also would need to provide monthly reports on activities at the site and comply with reclamation rules when the site is no longer in use.
Documents regarding the location and depth of the site, as well as details about the half-life of the radioactive waste buried there, must be stored in local, state and national archives — an effort to ensure they last in perpetuity in case the information is needed hundreds or thousands of years down the road, Murphy said.
While counties cannot outright impose a ban on the disposal of the materials, any project would need to adhere to local zoning regulations as to the size, scope and location of the site.
Murphy said the state examined the regulations of 13 other states in developing its rules…………..
The new rules for high-level radioactive waste and deep geothermal energy have one final hurdle to clear before they become official — they will go to a legislative Administrative Rules Committee for approval. ….. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/regulators-prep-for-an-industry-few-want-nuclear-waste-disposal/article_5afd3c76-9ac1-556f-be69-50f6c9811642.html
Nuclear fuel canisters all stored at decommissioned San Onofre nuclear station in California
The latest milestone brings the spent fuel roads one step closer to relocation at an off-site facility. Currently, however, no such federally licensed facility exists…… https://www.power-eng.com/2020/08/10/nuclear-fuel-canister-all-stored-at-decommission-san-onofre-nuclear-station-in-california/
Army finally tearing down Fort Belvoir’s nuclear plant
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (269)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
