USA’s nuclear insurance places the big responsibility on the tax-payer
|
The US government insurance scheme for nuclear power plant accidents no longer makes sense, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Victor Gilinsky, February 26, 2020 The Japan Center for Economic Research, a source sympathetic to nuclear power, recently put the long-term costs of the 2011 Fukushima accident as about $750 billion. Contrast that with the maximum of $13 billion that could be available after a catastrophic US nuclear accident under the plant owners’ self-insurance scheme defined by the Price-Anderson Act. The Act will have to be renewed before 2025; Congress should seize the opportunity not only to reflect on the lack of insurance in the event of a catastrophic accident, but also to reconsider our approach to nuclear power plant safety altogether.
The main public risk of nuclear power plants comes from rare but devastating nuclear accidents. Because data on such accidents is sparse, the probability of their occurrence has to be calculated on the basis of a model, rather than obtained from experience. Moreover, the extent of an accident and its monetary consequences are postulated on the basis of models that are limited by analysts’ imagination. Who would have imagined, for example, that the Fukushima accident would involve several reactors? Or that Japan would subsequently shut down all its other nuclear power plants?………. Curiously, from the chairman on down, the NRC misstates the legal standard for its safety decisions. The NRC and its staff claim their job is to provide “reasonable assurance of adequate protection,” whereas the standard in the Atomic Energy Act is “adequate protection.” Under the law, their job is to provide adequate protection, period. Do the commissioners think the extra cushion of “reasonable assurance” justifies weaker regulation? To return to the Price-Anderson Act: As we’ve seen, a catastrophic accident would render the US self-insurance scheme for nuclear power plants pretty much irrelevant. But the indemnification of all industry participants would remain highly relevant: The industry would be free of any liability for offsite death or damage, whereas the victims would have to go hat in hand to Congress for restitution. This is an enormous subsidy—consider, again, the $750 billion and counting tab for Fukushima—that the federal government provides the nuclear industry, one without which not a single US nuclear power plant would or could operate. Freedom from liability also has had a perverse effect on nuclear safety. Without the liability protection of Price-Anderson, industry incentives to develop nuclear designs safer than light water reactors would surely have been higher. Freedom from liability was put into law in the 1950s to get the US commercial nuclear power industry off the ground. It was meant to be temporary, until industry and insurers got some experience with the new technology. But even as time went on, industrial organizations like General Electric and Westinghouse would not participate in the civilian nuclear program if they risked responsibility for offsite damage from a nuclear plant accident……… What is clear is that the nuclear firms—the largest of which possess an understanding of nuclear safety far beyond that of the public—do not believe the NRC safety conclusions that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident is infinitesmal. Nor do they accept that probable risk—probability of an accident times the consequences, were one to occur—as the right measure of risk to their companies. They don’t want to risk their companies, period. If they don’t believe the NRC numbers, why should the rest of us accept them? Why shouldn’t we have the same protection from physical harm that the nuclear industry has from financial liability? And just as the nuclear vendors will not participate on terms that do not include indemnification from the overwhelming cost of a severe accident, so should the public have the analogous power to only accept future nuclear designs that can demonstrate that they preclude offsite harm. And the designs should demonstrate that level of safety in a clear way, based on physical principles, not on complicated probabilistic calculations put forward by interested parties. Such new designs would eliminate the current dilemma of a federal nuclear self-insurance scheme that cannot, as a practical matter, cover the financial consequences to the public of catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents. But how to get there? One of the disincentives is the Price-Anderson Act’s limitations on industry liability for offsite accident consequences. That should get phased out. https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/# |
|
Hanford’s radioactive underground structures likely to collapse
|
Otherwise, the U.S. Department of Energy has concluded the structures on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation could fail and release radioactive contamination, the Tri-City Herald reported Tuesday. “A number of structures are over-stressed and at risk of age-related failure, which could result in a release of contamination with impacts to human health and the environment,” DOE said in a letter last week to the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates nuclear waste at Hanford.
The Hanford site, located near Richland, Washington, for decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons. The sprawling site for the past 30 years has been engaged in cleaning up a massive amount of radioactive waste left over from making plutonium. Two of the underground structures, a trench and a tank, are estimated to be contaminated with a combined 170 to 255 pounds of plutonium.
DOE could award a contract for grouting as soon as March, according to the letter. After the partial collapse of a waste storage tunnel at Hanford’s PUREX plant in 2017, DOE and its contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. analyzed other old and contaminated structures to determine if they were at risk of collapsing. They determined that the three below-ground structures at the Plutonium Finishing Plant presented the highest risk. Hanford Challenge, a Seattle-based Hanford watchdog group, does not object to the grouting as a short-term solution, but it should not be a substitute for complete cleanup, said Tom Carpenter, executive director..
|
|
New Mexico’s elected leaders waver on Holtec’s nuclear waste plan
|
Congresswoman: Science Should Guide Nuclear Storage Decision, By The Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2020, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A member of New Mexico’s congressional delegation wants to ensure a “sound and robust” scientific review is done before federal regulators decide whether to sign off on plans for a multibillion-dollar temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. U.S. Rep. Xochitl Torres Small in an interview with The Associated Press acknowledged that the growing stockpile of used fuel at commercial reactors around the U.S. is a national problem and that elected leaders need to ensure New Mexico does not pay an unfair price as part of the solution. “My concern is making sure that we’re looking at the science and that we are doing our best to evaluate based on that, not based on economic considerations or based on fear or bias, but based on how do we solve a challenge that is a national challenge,” the Democrat said. While elected leaders in Eddy and Lea counties support the project, it has garnered fierce opposition from nuclear watchdog groups, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and other members of the state’s congressional delegation. They are concerned about the state becoming a permanent dump since the federal government is far from having any long-term plan for dealing with the tons of spent fuel building up at nuclear power plants around the nation……. New Jersey-based Holtec International is seeking a 40-year license from federal regulators to build what it has described as a state-of-the-art complex near Carlsbad. The site in southeastern New Mexico is remote and geologically stable, the company has said. Holtec executives also have said the four-layer casks that would hold the spent fuel would be made of thick steel and lead and transported on a designated train with guards and guns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the process of considering Holtec’s application. It could be next year before a decision is made. Torres Small said the clock is ticking for elected leaders to find a permanent solution as spent fuel is now stored at a variety of dangerous locations scattered across the U.S., including near important waterways. New Mexico already is home to the U.S. government’s only underground repository for Cold War-era waste generated over decades by nuclear research and bomb-making. Some watchdogs are concerned the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant could become the final destination for other types of waste as the government prepares to ramp up production of the plutonium cores that serve as triggers for weapons in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Torres Small couched her support for production of the plutonium coresby saying New Mexico has a long history of bearing a burden when it comes to nuclear development and waste. She said the focus should be on making sure the state and its residents are kept “whole and strong” as national security obligations are met. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/25/business/ap-us-nuclear-waste-new-mexico.html  |
|
U.S. Pentagon toys with a plan to win a “limited nuclear war” against Russia
US staged ‘limited’ nuclear battle against Russia in war game
The Pentagon has briefed about the simulated exchange in a move that could signal readiness to fight and win nuclear conflict, Guardian, Julian Borger in Washington, Tue 25 Feb 2020 The US conducted a military exercise last week which simulated a “limited” nuclear exchange with Russia, a senior Pentagon official has confirmed.The war game is notable because of the defence department’s highly unusual decision to brief journalists about the details and because it embodied the controversial notion that it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out world-ending conflict.
The exercise comes just weeks after the US deployed a new low-yield submarine-launched warhead commissioned by Donald Trump, as a counter to Russian tactical weapons and intended to deter their use.
According to a transcript of a background briefing by senior Pentagon officials, the defence secretary, Mark Esper, took part in what was described as a “mini-exercise” at US Strategic Command in Nebraska. Esper played himself in the simulated crisis, in which Russia launched an attack on a US target in Europe……
The official said that “in the course of [the] exercise, we simulated responding with a nuclear weapon”, but described it as a “limited response”.
The limited response could suggest the use of a small number of nuclear weapons, or an existing low-yield weapon, or the new W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched missile which was deployed in the Atlantic for the first time at the end of last year. The deployment only became public at the end of January……
The briefing was first reported by National Defense, a trade magazine of the National Defense Industrial Association.
Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, pointed out that it was extremely rare for the Pentagon to give such detailed briefings about nuclear exercises and suggested it could have been a marketing exercise for the new weapons being added to the US arsenal.
“Remember, it’s only a few weeks ago that we had the official confirmation that this new low-yield warhead had been deployed,” Kristensen said. “And we’re now moving into a new budget phase where they have to go to Congress and try to justify the next new nuclear weapon that has a low-yield capability which is a sea-launched cruise missile. So all of this has been played up to serve that process.”……
Arms control advocates are concerned that the leadership in both the US and Russia are developing a mindset in which their vast nuclear arsenals are not just the ultimate deterrent but weapons that could be used to win “limited” conflicts. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/limited-nuclear-war-game-us-russia
USA at G20 tried to stop any mention of climate change
US blocking mention of climate change in G20 statement, diplomats say Independent UK, ‘Oliver O’Connell, New York, 24 Feb 20,
1 day ago G20 diplomats say the US is against mentioning climate change in the communique of the world’s financial leaders.
A new draft of the joint statement shows the G20 considering including it as a risk factor to growth.
Finance ministers and central bankers from the world’s 20 largest economies are discussing the main challenges to the global economy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, this weekend.
G20 sources told Reuters that the US was reluctant to accept language on climate change as a risk to the economy.
The US is represented at the meeting by treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin…….. G20 diplomats say the US is against mentioning climate change in the communique of the world’s financial leaders.
A new draft of the joint statement shows the G20 considering including it as a risk factor to growth. Finance ministers and central bankers from the world’s 20 largest economies are discussing the main challenges to the global economy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, this weekend.
Question USA’s need for a New Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile
Does the US Need a New Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile?
The case for a new sea-launched cruise missile raises worrying questions.The Diplomat By Robert Farley, February 24, 2020 According to a new report from Defense News, the United States is moving forward on development of a dangerous new nuclear capability. Aaron Mehta of Defense News reported on February 21 that the Department of Defense intends to create a program of record for a submarine launched cruise missile (SLCM) equipped with a nuclear warhead. The request comes in response to Trump administration preferences set forth in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which also called for the deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine launched ballistic missiles.
The United States has not deployed a nuclear armed SLCM since the retirement of the TLAM-N in 2013. ……..
The deployment of a newer, more survivable SLCM would not exactly create a new problem so much as reintroduce an old one. Nuclear cruise missiles take up space on a ship and require different kinds of crew expertise. Their storage alongside conventional missiles creates an obvious potential for accidents. Discrimination would also become a problem. The United States has launched a great many cruise missiles from submarines as part of the War on Terror and associated conflicts. China, Russia, and other nuclear powers can credibly recognize such launches as carrying conventional munitions. If attack submarines reacquire the capability to launch nuclear weapons, then Beijing and Moscow need to worry about every missile launch within range of their territory.
This would become more, not less, problematic in context of a direct conflict between the United States and China. The U.S. has promised to hold targets within China at risk during a general conflict, presumably with cruise missiles. Heretofore China has not needed to account for the possibility that these missiles might carry nuclear warheads, but if the U.S. deployed nuclear SLCMs then any strike might be interpreted as a nuclear attack…….https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/does-the-us-need-a-new-nuclear-sea-launched-cruise-missile/
Poor quality nuclear spent fuel casks at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Push for better storage of spent Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station fuel, Cape Cod Times, Christine Legere Feb 23, 2020Citizen activists in Barnstable County communities will ask voters at spring town meetings, or via local election ballots, to support an advisory question that would direct Gov. Charlie Baker and state legislators to require that the radioactive waste is stored in “better quality” dry casks than those planned for use, and that the casks are protected by earthen berms or within enclosures with heightened security.,
The Cape Downwinders wrote the advisory question.
“Fifty percent of Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant,” Turco said. “Safety is a right. Our petition is to raise consciousness: educate the public about ongoing issues at Pilgrim.”
The selectmen in Orleans and Brewster voted to put the advisory question on their respective spring election ballots, Turco said. In Bourne, the question will go on the town meeting warrant.
Other Barnstable County communities will be presented with the advisory in the coming weeks.
Entergy Corp., Pilgrim’s longtime owner, sold the plant to Holtec International, a New Jersey-based company that will handle decommissioning, spent fuel management and site cleanup.
Turco and other Pilgrim critics have complained that Holtec has a conflict of interest since the company uses dry casks that it manufactures. The Holtec Hi-Storm 100s the company uses are concrete-encased stainless steel canisters that are a little over a half-inch thick.
“That’s just three-eighths of an inch thicker than a Yeti cup,” Turco said.
There is no way to monitor the steel canisters once they are sealed, critics say, and there is no aging management plan.
Concern also has been expressed over Holtec’s plan to store spent fuel on a concrete pad just a short distance from a well-traveled road. A vanity fence, rather than earth berms or enclosures, will block the view from the street.
“In this day and age, Pilgrim is an open door for any bad actors who want to cause serious damage to our country,” Turco said. “Nuclear waste is a predeployed nuclear weapon. Its safe storage is being ignored.”………
tate Attorney General Maura Healey filed a motion to intervene in the license transfer several months ago, but the motion remains under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frustrated by the lack of action, Healey sued the NRC last fall in U.S. District Court for approving the transfer of Pilgrim’s license from Entergy Corp. to Holtec International without first listening to what state officials and the public had to say about it. The case is pending.
Healey contends that Holtec is inexperienced in decommissioning and will likely run out of money before the job is done. Holtec will use the plant’s decommissioning trust fund, which contains $1.1 billion in ratepayer money.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel, which is made up of local officials, representatives from state agencies and members of the public, has been frustrated by Holtec’s lack of response during monthly meetings regarding decommissioning and spent fuel.
Holtec’s continuing refusal to answer the advisory panel and the public’s questions about the safety and expected longevity of the company’s dry cask storage technology is not only disturbing, it’s outrageous,” Sean Mullin, chairman of the advisory panel, wrote in an email. “The citizens of the Commonwealth have a right to know how, for example, Holtec can accurately monitor the sealed casks for problems and, if detected, how these can be repaired.”
The NRC director of the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, a senior health physicist, senior materials engineer and chief of the NRC’s Storage and Transportation Licensing Branch will attend an advisory panel meeting set for 6:30 p.m. Monday in Plymouth Town Hall to discuss the region’s concerns.
Follow Christine Legere on Twitter: @ChrisLegereCCT. https://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20200223/push-for-better-storage-of-spent-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station-fuel
President Trump, eyeing the election campaign contradicts his administration on Nevada nuclear waste dump
One Side of a Nuclear Waste Fight: Trump. The Other: His Administration.
The president, eyeing the battleground state of Nevada, has made clear he opposes a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, reversing a policy that was made in his name.
-
Mr. Trump, who in recent weeks seemed to end his administration’s support for moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, a proposal that had been embraced by his appointees for three years despite his own lack of interest
- “Why should you have nuclear waste in your backyard?” Mr. Trump asked the crowd at a rally in Las Vegas on Friday, to applause, noting that his recently released budget proposal did not include funding to license the site, as previous ones had. applause, noting that his recently released budget proposal did not include funding to license the site, as previous ones had.
|
The story of the muddled and shifting position on Yucca Mountain is partly one of an administration focused on Mr. Trump’s re-election chances in a battleground state that he lost to Hillary Clinton by two percentage points in 2016. But it is also emblematic of a White House where the president has strong impulses on only a narrow set of issues, and policy is sometimes made in his name regardless of whether he approves of it. ………..
The president made his latest move after a monthslong policy debate inside the White House over finally breaking with support for Yucca, officials said…….
Nationally, Republicans have long favored the proposal, which was developed in the late 1980s and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. But Nevada politicians of both parties have remained steadfastly opposed to the policy, which is deeply unpopular in the state…….
most Republican leaders outside of the state remained supportive. While the plans for Yucca remain law as set under Mr. Bush, Congress has never moved to fund it since…..
previous energy secretary, Rick Perry, supported the measure, and as the Office of Management and Budget listed $120 million in the president’s budget to restart the licensing process of the site. It was listed as one of the administration’s priorities. ……..
At a House energy subcommittee hearing two weeks ago, Mark W. Menezes, the president’s nominee for deputy energy secretary, prompted alarm at the White House when he said, “What we’re trying to do is to put together a process that will give us a path to permanent storage at Yucca.” After White House officials expressed concern, Mr. Menezes put out a statement saying that he fully supported Mr. Trump’s decision.
Whether that will be enough to reassure Nevadans about Mr. Trump’s intentions remains to be seen. “Nevadans aren’t going to just forget that Trump spent the first three years of his administration trying to treat the state as a dumping site,” said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, a former adviser to Mr. Reid. “Donald Trump had an opportunity to be on the right side of a major issue in a huge battleground state, and he bungled it.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/trump-yucca-mountain-nevada.html
AT THE BEGINNING Before the 2018 midterm elections, Senator Dean Heller stood with President Trump in the glittering Trump International Hotel near the Las Vegas Strip, looking out from the top floor, and pointed.
“I said, ‘See those railroad tracks?’” Mr. Heller, a Nevada Republican who lost his seat later that year, recalled in an interview. Nuclear waste to be carted to Yucca Mountain for permanent storage would have to travel along the tracks, within a half-mile of the hotel, Mr. Heller said.
I think he calculated pretty quickly what that meant,” Mr. Heller said. “I think it all made sense. There was a moment of reflection, of, ‘Oh, OK.’” Whether the waste would have traveled along those particular tracks is a subject of debate. But the conversation appears to have helped focus Mr. Trump, who in recent weeks seemed to end his administration’s support for moving nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, a proposal that had been embraced by his appointees for three years despite his own lack of interest. bungled it.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/trump-yucca-mountain-nevada.html
|
|
Safety check records falsified at SC nuclear plant,
|
Workers falsified fire inspection records at SC nuclear plant, feds say, The State, BY SAMMY FRETWELL, FEBRUARY 24, 2020 Two contract workers at the V.C. Summer atomic power plant falsified records last year to show that they were making fire safety checks, even though they had not done so, according to a federal nuclear oversight agency. In a Feb. 13 letter to plant owner Dominion Energy, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the utility violated federal rules by failing to ensure fire safety checks were done as required. Dominion did not respond to questions about whether the two contract employees still worked at the power plant near Columbia. But a federal official said they didn’t get the job done. “They provided inaccurate information,’’ NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said. An inspection report accompanying the agency’s Feb. 13 letter says federal inspectors found problems with records used to document that workers had made fire safety checks inside an auxiliary building at the Summer nuclear site in Fairfield County. Workers were supposed to conduct regular fire watch checks every 20 minutes while fire suppression systems in a section of the plant were shut down for repairs. “Inspectors reviewed the completed logs for Sept. 26, 2019, and discovered multiple discrepancies when compared to the observations that the inspectors made’’ in the auxiliary building, the inspection report said. “The fire watch log readings were recorded as being completed at times and locations when the NRC inspectors observed that fire watches had not been conducted.’’……… The agency’s Level 4 violation notice follows a radioactive water leak in 2019 that prompted Dominion to shut the plant down while repairs were made. The company said the water came in contact with reactor fuel, but never escaped the plant’s containment building. The leak occurred in piping that connects the nuclear reactor with steam generators, The State reported last year. ….. https://www.thestate.com/news/local/environment/article240486456.html |
|
No vote on high level nuclear waste storage in New Mexico, despite Memorial opposing the dump
New Mexico lawmakers unopposed to high-level nuclear waste storage as House kills memorial. Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus Feb. 24, 2020 A measure that would have called on the New Mexico Legislature to formally oppose the transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste, as a project was ongoing to do so the southeast corner of the state, died while in committee as the 2020 session closed without a vote.
House Memorial 21 did pass the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a 8-5 vote during a Feb. 1 hearing, but was never brought to a vote on the House floor and thus did not proceed to be signed into law.
HM 21, sponsored by Matthew McQueen (D-50) cited an “unacceptable risk” created by the storage of high-level waste from the eastern United States, which the memorial cited as holding “90 percent” of nuclear reactors.
The memorial also said the risk would be spread to “40 other state” through the transportation of spent nuclear fuel by rail.
The facility that the memorial blamed for creating such as risk was proposed by Holtec International, which applied for a license to build a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel rods in a remote location between Carlsbad and Hobbs.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard both voiced opposition to the project last year, with the Lujan Grisham calling it “economic malpractice” as it could disrupt nearby oil and gas agriculture industries.
“The creation of a high-level radioactive waste storage facility in New Mexico jeopardizes the state’s existing industrial, agricultural and ranching businesses, runs counter to the promotion of tourism and the diversification of New Mexico’s economy and threatens the health and safety of New Mexico residents,” read the memorial….
McQueen worried the facility, although it was proposed as a temporary or “interim” facility could become permanent as a permanent repository was unlikely to be opened during the 40-year term of Holtec’s license application.
“I also believe this is a temporary benefit for really long-term or permanent liability for Mew Mexico. The facility threatens our existing economic activity, not only in the area but statewide,” he said during the Committee hearing.
“It’s amazing how something that temporary pretty much becomes permanent. I believe New Mexico should not be the nation’s nuclear waste dumping ground.”
A New Mexico Senate bill aimed at expanding the State’s oversight to include privately-owned storage for high-level waste also died after it was voted down last week on the Senate floor…… . https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2020/02/24/new-mexico-lawmakers-unopposed-high-level-nuclear-waste-storage/4856468002/
Plans to remove Lewiston nuclear waste
Corps of Engineers seeks design planners for removal of Lewiston nuclear waste, https://buffalonews.com/2020/02/24/corps-of-engineers-seeks-design-planners-for-removal-of-lewiston-nuclear-waste/By Thomas J. ProhaskaFebruary 25, 2020 The Army Corps of Engineers announced Friday that it will compile a list of companies qualified to design the removal of 278,000 cubic yards of nuclear and chemical waste stored in Lewiston. The actual bidding for the design plan is anticipated later this year.
The Niagara Falls Storage Site at 1397 Pletcher Road features a 10-acre containment structure that holds waste from the World War II atomic bomb project and postwar nuclear work by Niagara Falls-area industries. The structure is 990 feet long, 450 feet wide and a maximum of 34 feet high.
The Corps of Engineers decided in 2018 that everything in it will be removed, treated and shipped elsewhere for disposal. The Corps’ notice to potential bidders said a decision is expected in 2023 on what remediation the rest of the 191-acre storage site may need after the waste is removed.
Engineering firms have until March 18 to submit their qualifications to join the bidding list.
Trump jumping into Nevada’s nuclear waste dilemma
|
President Donald Trump is seeking to woo Nevada voters by abandoning the GOP’s decades of support for storing the nation’s nuclear waste under a mountain northwest of Las Vegas — a move that could drag the White House into an unsolvable political stalemate. Trump, who is targeting a state that he narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016, announced the turnabout in a tweet this month, writing: “Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain and my Administration will RESPECT you!” He also pledged to find “innovative approaches” to find a new place to store the 90,000 metric tons of nuclear plant leftovers stranded at 120 temporary storage sites — an impasse that is on course to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. The statement surprised people involved in the debate because developing a permanent nuclear repository at Yucca has long been a priority of Republicans, and even Trump’s own budget proposals in previous years had sought money to keep it alive. Taxpayers spent $15 billion developing the nuclear site after Congress selected the location during the Reagan era, only to see the Obama administration freeze the plan amid opposition from the state’s political leaders. Trump’s Yucca reversal echoed his previous efforts to untangle a political food fight involving the federal ethanol mandate, an attempt that left both gasoline refiners and Iowa’s corn growers furious. Once again, Trump could face political risks by intervening in a politically charged, no-win energy quagmire.
Some lawmakers also fear that Trump is undermining their efforts to work out a compromise in which some states agree to host a small number of interim waste storage sites while the search for a long-term solution continues. “Not working on a permanent repository is going to make it harder to do consent-based interim storage, ’cause all of a sudden those communities are going to be going, ‘s—, we’re going to become permanent storage,’” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a senior House appropriator who has long-championed the Yucca project, told POLITICO. “It’s a no-win situation for anybody, that doesn’t seem to change,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is neutral on Yucca but supports building a repository somewhere. Further complicating the problem, he said, was a 1982 law that prohibits the Energy Department from spending money building interim nuclear storage unless it has a construction license for Yucca Mountain. Like Iowa, where Trump championed the ethanol program while running in the 2016 Republican caucus, Nevada is a key state on the electoral map. Hillary Clinton carried the state four years ago by just 27,000 votes. ……… https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/22/trump-nevada-nuclear-waste-yucca-mountain-116663 |
|
USA’s Energy Dept’s failure to monitor Hanford nuclear site, parts not inspected for 50 years
Parts of Hanford nuclear waste site have not been inspected in 50 years, government auditors say, The former defense site in Washington state has a troubled past. The latest lapse involves the Energy Department’s failure to analyze the cause of a tunnel collapse.WP, By Aaron Gregg Feb. 22, 2020
Companies responsible for cleaning up a decommissioned plutonium plant in rural Washington state failed to conduct comprehensive safety checks at facilities containing nuclear waste, even after a 2017 tunnel collapse put surrounding communities on lockdown, government auditors reported Thursday.
The report about the Hanford nuclear waste site raises new concerns about environmental and safety risks posed by one of the United States’ worst toxic waste sites.
The Government Accountability Office found that the Energy Department waived a “root cause analysis” of the tunnel collapse because it was asked to do so by the contractor handling inspections, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Jacobs Engineering. The department did conduct a separate review to determine weaknesses and risks related to contaminated facilities, but that evaluation “was based largely on old data” and “did not include any physical or non-physical inspection” to flag facilities for cleanup, the office reported.
Sitting in a rural area of southwestern Washington, the Hanford site was once the U.S. military’s primary source of enriched plutonium used in nuclear warheads, including one of the weapons dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. Hanford’s workforce once numbered more than 50,000 people. Plutonium production ended in 1987.
Parts of the site have not been entered or inspected in more than 50 years, the Government Accountability Office reported, suggesting there could be additional safety risks of which the Energy Department is not aware. And the inspections that were carried out found structural problems severe enough that they “could lead to the potential release of hazardous or nuclear materials” at five of 18 facilities there, the office reported……..
The project has been fraught with waste, with milestones continually pushed back as contractors experienced difficulties. Earlier reports found that the department spent more than $19 billion over 25 years on “treatment and disposition of 56 million gallons of hazardous waste” without actually treating any hazardous waste. The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 2011 at a cost of $4.3 billion.
Besides the cost overruns, the haphazard way in which some waste was stored has made cleanup a hazardous task for the thousands of workers…….
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) scolded the Energy Department for its handling of the nuclear waste cleanup effort in a letter to Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette. The letter notes that the department has accepted all of the office’s recommendations but says those changes are not sufficient to protect the lives of workers and citizens throughout the region.
Wyden blamed the 2017 tunnel collapse on the Energy Department’s failure to conduct comprehensive inspections.
The tunnel collapse “seems largely due to a failure of [the Energy Department] and its contractors to independently verify the tunnel’s physical condition ― a state of affairs replicated over many years across the site’s facilities,” Wyden wrote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/21/parts-hanford-nuclear-waste-site-have-not-been-inspected-50-years-government-auditors-say/
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explains Trump’s plan to kill off the Iran nuclear agreement
|
Pompeo Reveals Trump Admin’s Wide-Ranging Plan to Combat Iran, Deal Death Blow to Nuclear Deal, Washington Free Beacon,
In discussion with Free Beacon, secretary of state explains how he is galvanizing the globe against the Islamic Republic Republic, Adam Kredo – FEBRUARY 23, 2020, RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—The Trump administration is waging a multi-pronged effort to thwart Iran’s expansion across the Middle East, including efforts at the United Nations to ensure global sanctions come back into effect in what would mark a final death blow for the landmark nuclear deal, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Washington Free Beacon in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview. In a one-on-one talk with the Free Beacon on Friday following high-level meetings with the Saudi royal family in Riyadh, Pompeo pulled the curtain back on the Trump administration’s years-long effort to combat Iran militarily and diplomatically…….. In the coming months, Pompeo said, he and the president will make a major decision about whether to petition the U.N. to invoke what is known as “snapback” on a set of international sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the Obama administration’s nuclear accord. Iran hawks in Congress have been pressing Pompeo and the administration to pursue this course of action for months, a message the secretary says he has received and is digging into. Such a move would deal a deathblow to the nuclear deal. …….. In the coming months, Pompeo said, he and the president will make a major decision about whether to petition the U.N. to invoke what is known as “snapback” on a set of international sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the Obama administration’s nuclear accord. Iran hawks in Congress have been pressing Pompeo and the administration to pursue this course of action for months, a message the secretary says he has received and is digging into. Such a move would deal a deathblow to the nuclear deal……… When asked about that “special” relationship—a term typically applied to the U.S.-Israel alliance—Pompeo acknowledged that the two countries are on better footing than ever, particularly when it comes to Iran……… https://freebeacon.com/national-security/exclusive-pompeo-reveals-trump-admins-wide-ranging-plan-to-combat-iran-deal-death-blow-to-nuclear-deal/ |
|
Confusion and contradiction in Trump’s policy on nuclear waste and Yucca Mountain
The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site has always been a political football. Trump is the latest president to fumble, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Allison Macfarlane, February 21, 2020 As with much policy-setting in the Trump administration, a single tweet from the president on February 6 appeared to reverse a previous stance. The message about Yucca Mountain, the nation’s proposed geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste, set the media alight with speculation about new actions in US nuclear waste policy. But has anything changed, really?The new policy, if it is such a thing, is a little wobbly. It’s unclear whether the administration is or is not supporting Yucca Mountain as a waste repository. The Energy Department’s Undersecretary for Nuclear Energy and nominee for Deputy Secretary, Mark Menezes, stated six days later in a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that “what we’re trying to do is to put together a process that will give us a path to permanent storage at Yucca.” A White House official tried to square the circle of conflicting messages, stating: “There is zero daylight between the President and Undersecretary Menezes on the issue.”
At the same time, Trump’s fiscal year 2021 budget did not include funds for Yucca Mountain, unlike in previous years. In point of fact, though, Congress has not appropriated funding for Yucca Mountain in the past decade. The proposed repository site made it about halfway through the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and halted when the Obama administration’s Energy Department tried to pull the license application. The state of Nevada still strongly opposes Yucca Mountain and hasn’t changed its tune since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments in 1987 (colloquially known in Nevada as the Screw Nevada Bill), which designated Yucca Mountain as the proposed repository site.
Trump’s tweet acknowledges the fierce and long-standing opposition to Yucca Mountain in a swing state he lost by a slim margin in 2016. The Democratic presidential candidates are unanimously opposed to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
A permanent impasse. Yucca Mountain has spent much of its existence as a political football. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required detailed characterization of three potential repository sites for the disposal of the nation’s spent commercial nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the nuclear weapons complex. By 1986 it was clear that work on three sites would be very costly, and Congress balked at the price tag. Political wrangling ensued, and it was no accident that among the three states under consideration—Nevada, Texas, and Washington—the one with the most-junior congressional delegation, including a newly elected Senator Harry Reid, was selected as the only site to be characterized by the Energy Department for suitability as a repository. ………
At the moment, no one involved in the process has an incentive to make progress. An extremely partisan House and Senate are at a permanent impasse on an issue that bears little on re-election chances (except in Nevada). The nuclear industry has found they can build new reactors—the two Westinghouse AP1000 units under construction in Georgia—without a solution to their spent fuel problem. The Energy Department, originally tasked with solving the problem, has no legal authority (or appropriations) to move forward. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which passed a Continued Storage Rule in 2014, vacated its ability to force a solution. And many anti-nuclear interest groups that oppose waste transport and repositories have called for “hardened on-site storage.”…….. https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-site-has-always-been-a-political-football-trump-is-the-latest-president-to-fumble/#
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 (49)
- 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 