U.S. sanctions Iran’s atomic power chief for nuclear violations
|
U.S. sanctions Iran’s atomic power chief for nuclear violations
By Don Jacobson Jan. 31 (UPI) — The U.S. Treasury has imposed fiscal sanctions against Iran’s nuclear energy chief and ordered his U.S.-linked assets frozen, amid ongoing tensions between the Washington, D.C., and Tehran.The Treasury on Thursday sanctioned Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, saying the agency has played a significant role in Tehran violating nuclear regulations……. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/01/31/US-sanctions-Irans-atomic-power-chief-for-nuclear-violations/3251580482287/
|
|
USA’s new low-yield nuclear warhead increases likelihood of nuclear war
|
U.S. MILITARY HAS DEPLOYED NEW NUCLEAR WEAPON THAT HAS EXPERTS WORRIED ABOUT WAR, REPORT SAYS, NewsWeek,
BY TOM O’CONNOR ON 1/31/20 THE UNITED STATES HAS DEPLOYED A NEW LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WARHEAD THAT EXPERTS WARNED COULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CONFLICT GOING NUCLEAR, ACCORDING TO A NEW REPORT.
The Federation of American Scientists reported Wednesday that the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead was supplied to Ohio-class USS Tennessee ballistic missile submarine, which deployed to the Atlantic Ocean from Kings Bay, Georgia, late last month. The report estimated that the new warhead was fitted on at least one or two of the vessel’s 20 Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, each of which could carry up to eight warheads. The report was authored by military analyst William M. Arkin and Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Information Project director Hans M. Kristensen. Earlier this month, Arkin authored a Newsweek article featuring quotes by Kristensen on how the recent introduction of the W76-2 was the result of Pentagon planning a potential first strike scenario against adversaries, especially Iran……. Non-proliferation activists say the W76-2 does little bring the world back from the brink. Tim Wright, treaty coordinator of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, called the new nuclear warhead deployment an “alarming development that heightens the risk of nuclear war.” “The United States’ new ‘low-yield’ nuclear warheads are still powerful enough to kill many tens of thousands of people,” he tweeted Wednesday…… https://www.newsweek.com/us-new-nuclear-weapon-experts-worried-1485150 |
|
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to cease accepting nuclear wastes from Feb. 14 to March 15
|
New Mexico nuclear waste facility to pause operations, https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/new-mexico-nuclear-waste-facility-to-pause-operations/5629204/ The Associated Press, January 30, 2020
CARLSBAD, N.M. (AP) – A New Mexico nuclear waste plant will temporarily stop its waste acceptance and other operations to complete multiple maintenance projects. The Carlsbad Current-Argus reported that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is expected to cease its primary operations of receiving and disposing nuclear waste from Feb. 14 to March 15. Federal energy officials say the maintenance projects are expected to take multiple days or be conducted in critical areas of the facility. Officials say waste shipments would also be put on hold until the projects are completed. |
|
A new serious problem with stainless steel canisters for nuclear wastes
|
By David Szondy January 28, 2020 A new study by researchers at Ohio State University suggests that stainless steel may not be the best choice for containing high-level nuclear waste. By simulating long-term storage conditions, the team found that the storage materials interact with each other more than previously thought, causing them to degrade faster.
The storage of nuclear waste is more than a perennial political football, it is an existential problem. Whatever one’s opinions about nuclear power or weapons, there are thousands of tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored around the world, meaning that a way must be found to store it all
safely in the long term.
The most important type of nuclear waste is the high-level waste left over from reprocessing nuclear fuel or from nuclear weapon production. Such waste is made up of a complex mixture of radioactive isotopes with half-lives ranging from years to millennia. Though reactors have been operating all over the world for over 75 years, only Finland has started to build a permanent storage facility for such very dangerous waste.
That may show a remarkable lack of political will or even courage, but perhaps this reluctance will turn out to be serendipitous. That’s because the favored way of storing high-level waste is to vitrify it. That is, to mix the isotopes with molten glass or ceramics to form a chemically inert mass that can be sealed in stainless steel canisters before being sealed in an underground storage facility.
That plan may now have to change if the Ohio study is correct. Led by Xiaolei Guo, the team took glasses and ceramics and put them in close contact with stainless steel in various wet solutions for 30 days in conditions similar to those that would be found in the proposed US Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters,” says Xiaolei. “Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy. It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials.”
They found that the steel interacted with the glass or ceramic to produce severe and localized corrosion that both damaged the steel and corroded and cracked the glass and ceramics. According to the team, this is because the iron in stainless steel has a chemical affinity with the silicon in glass, accelerating corrosion. This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored,” says Xiaolei. “And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste.” The research was published in Nature Materials. Source: Ohio State University |
|
The danger in deploying new US nuclear warhead on a submarine
|
Deployment of new US nuclear warhead on submarine a dangerous step, critics say
First submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead makes a nuclear launch more likely, arm control advocates warn, Guardian Julian Borger in WashingtonThu 30 Jan 2020 The US has deployed its first low-yield Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine that is currently patrolling the Atlantic Ocean, it has been reported, in what arms control advocates warn is a dangerous step towards making a nuclear launch more likely. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the USS Tennessee – which left port in Georgia at the end of last year – is the first submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead, commissioned by Donald Trump two years ago. It has an explosive yield of five kilotons, a third of the power of the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima and considerably lower than the 90- and 455-kiloton warheads on other US submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Advocates of W76-2 argued that the US had no effective deterrent against Russian tactical weapons because Moscow assumed Washington would not risk using the overwhelming power of its intercontinental ballistic missiles in response, for fear of escalating from a regional conflict to a civilian-destroying war. Critics of the warhead say it accelerates a drift towards thinking of nuclear weapons as a means to fight and win wars, rather than as purely a deterrent of last resort. And the fielding of a tactical nuclear weapon, they warn, gives US political and military leaders a dangerous new option in confronting adversaries other than Russia…… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/us-submarine-trident-nuclear-warhead-patrols-atlantic-ocean The Trump administration’s nuclear posture review (NPR) in February 2018, portrays this warhead as a counter to a perceived Russian threat to use its own “tactical” nuclear weapons to win a quick victory on the battlefield. |
|
Long Island Power Authority ratepayers will have to Subsidize Upstate Nuclear Power Plants
LIPA Customers To Subsidize Upstate Nuclear Power Plants.wshu, By JAY SHAH 29 Jan 2020 Long Island Power Authority ratepayers could spend more than $800 million over the next decade to help fund upstate nuclear power plants.
LIPA will have to buy zero-emission credits through a state agency, which subsidizes energy generators that don’t emit greenhouse gases, like [?] nuclear power plants. …….https://www.wshu.org/post/lipa-customers-subsidize-upstate-nuclear-power-plants#stream/0
Nuclear recycling is a bad idea
claiming that nuclear power is safe and finding a solution for its toxic waste is easy. If it’s so easy, why don’t they have a workable solution? Is it really just peoples’ unreasonable fears that obstruct the industry and the federal government from creating a final solution?Originally we were told that there was no waste problem because the waste would be reprocessed and used again in bombs and new “breeder” reactors. That idea failed! Miserably! The only reprocessing facility for commercial nuclear waste that ever existed was West Valley in upstate New York and it shuttered after only five years because it contaminated the land and water around it with radiation. It remains a Superfund site to this day. Without the technology to safely reprocess it, nuclear fuel waste remains in fuel pools and dry storage at reactor sites all over the country.
All this was codified under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Once established, investigations began to determine the best dump site/s. But every state that was identified as a potential site for a repository threatened to sue. Instituting the NWPA was in crisis. The NWPA was amended and Congress targeted Yucca Mountain because
failed to meet the necessary criteria for safe isolation of the deadly material. With the failure of the federal government and the nuclear industry to establish Yucca Mountain as the national repository for nuclear waste, nuclear corporations were forced to establish onsite storage at their operating and shuttered reactor sites. Six out of nine reactors in New England have shuttered due to significant public opposition and their inability to compete with gas and renewables. These six sites are in varying degrees of cleanup. Without a “solution” as to dealing with the nuclear waste, these sites have devolved into ad hoc nuclear waste dumps. All have created onsite storage for their high level waste. It costs a lot to store the waste onsite — at least $5 million out of pocket for each year. This waste could remain onsite for decades if not centuries. So costs could really add up for corporations without any revenue. Naivety, arrogance, and thoughtlessness add up to a lot of money!With waste piling up at shuttered reactor sites throughout the country, the industry has a perception problem. This is not a favorable image for an
industry trying to reinvent itself as the answer to global warming. So what’s the industry’s answer? It wants to create “interim storage” dump sites in west Texas and New Mexico in working poor, Hispanic communities to make this problem disappear. These sites don’t have to meet the strict environmental standards that sunk Yucca Mountain— i.e., isolation from the environment for 1,000 years and isolation from groundwater for 10,000 years.
This “interim storage” initiative is a statement of the failure of the nuclear industry and the federal government to address the most toxic waste we have ever created. We don’t need more nukes; we don’t need half baked “solutions”. We need a commitment to put our best minds to solve this thorny problem. What is needed is a scientifically sound and environmentally just solution, not more magic or wish fulfillment. A qualified “panel” must be established and funded to create the standards required to meet the health and safety of the public and the planet, not the profit-driven, short-sighted monetary bottom line of a moribund industry.
Deb Katz is the executive director of the Citizens Awareness Network, which was founded locally in 1991 and has offices in Shelburne Falls and Rowe. Here’s a link to our website www.nukebusters.org.
Democratic presidential candidates not well informed on nuclear weapons
2020 Dems Need To Get Up To Speed on Nuclear Weapons. Fast. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/01/democratic-presidential-candidates-need-get-speed-nuclear-weapons-fast/162577/ Last week, U.S. voters had two opportunities to inspect the leading Democratic presidential candidate’s national security credentials. In both the Democratic debate in Iowa and the New York Times editorial board’s interview series, candidates were asked to explain their views on key aspects of nuclear weapons policy. Unfortunately, all three of the leading candidates flubbed some of their responses. For the existential sake of the country, the candidates need to get up to speed on nuclear weapons policy. Fast.
- Despite being a leader on a number of nuclear weapons issues, including a promise to commit the United States to a No First Use doctrine, Sen. Elizabeth Warren seemed unaware of the controversial existence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey. Even though the issue made headlines as recently as October.
- Despite giving an answer that spoke eloquently of his long abhorrence of nuclear weapons, Sen. Bernie Sanders did not seem to know how many countries have nuclear weapons. The number is nine, not the eleven or twelve the senator claimed.
- Despite his compelling recent defense of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal he helped obtain, Vice President Joe Biden seemed to mischaracterize President Trump’s North Korea policy. Speaking of the North Koreans at the Democratic debate, he said the President “weakened the sanctions we have against them.” CNN’s fact-checkers soon rebuked the Vice President. As they put it, “Trump has not weakened the sanctions his administration has placed on North Korea to date, and has in fact ratcheted them up from the Obama administration.”No one is perfect, but these mistakes matter for several reasons. Nuclear weapons are the most acute national security threat we face. From Iran to North Korea, South Asia to Russia, they are still drivers of major international dangers. Any lack of clarity on such a grave topic should be alarming. But there are also more specific implications of each of the candidate’s misstatements. With tensions between the U.S. and Turkey increasing on a number of fronts, the question of whether to keep basing U.S. nuclear weapons at Incirlik is a serious one, especially when one considers that Turkey might attempt to steal them.
- With the 2020 Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference looming, the question of how many countries have nuclear weapons is a crucial barometer for judging the success of that agreement. And by criticizing nonexistent sanctions relief, Vice President Biden ignores the real failure of the Trump administration’s North Korea policy, which has been its inability to translate summitry into productive diplomacy.Clearly, the country should expect better on this important issue from the leading Democratic candidates. Moreover, it is also to the candidates’ electoral benefit to get up to speed on nuclear weapons policy.
- First, the candidates should remember that the emerging consensus within the Democratic Party on nuclear weapons issues is politically popular. All three aforementioned candidates support a No First Use policy, as do 57 percent of voters in Iowa and 73 percent of voters in New Hampshire. All three support extending key arms control agreements with Russia, like New START. They are in the company of eight in ten registered voters, including over 75 percent of Republicans. And all three prefer the diplomacy of the Iran nuclear deal to starting another endless war in the Middle East – as do the American people.
- Second, nuclear policy issues are frequently used as ‘gotcha’ questions by the media. The media will keep asking questions on nuclear policy and it’s important for candidates to be ready. For instance, during the 2016 primaries the media infamously tripped candidate Trump up with a ‘gotcha’ question on the nuclear triad. Trump took the hit but recovered in the general election, by which time he had learned his way to a more coherent responseThird, nuclear issues simply aren’t going away. With tensions high from South Asia to the Korean Peninsula and Iran, the candidates will likely need to address a nuclear-related foreign policy crisis soon. Such moments can be politically decisive – there’s no faster way to solidify support than by handling a crisis well; it was only in the heat of the financial collapse of 2008 that Sen. Obama’s lead over Sen. McCain solidified. Candidates should do their homework in advance of such a moment.The three front-runners have each made important contributions to preventing the use and spread of nuclear weapons, although voters could use more policy specifics. Unlike some of their competitors, they have also had the courage to answer pressing questions about nuclear weapons. But with the Iowa caucus just days away, they need to do more.
Akshai Vikram is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation. Before coming to Ploughshares, he worked as an opposition researcher for the Democratic National Committee and a campaign staffer for the Kentucky Democratic Party
Donald Trump tweets that US will not lift sanctions to secure nuclear deal with Iran
US will not lift sanctions to secure nuclear deal with Iran , https://www.sbs.com.au/news/us-will-not-lift-sanctions-to-secure-nuclear-deal-with-iran 26 Jan 2020, Donald Trump has tweeted that the US will not lift sanctions on Iran in order to negotiate a new nuclear deal.
The United States will not lift sanctions on Iran in order to negotiate, US President Donald Trump has tweeted, seemingly in response to a Der Spiegel interview with Iran’s foreign minister.
“Iranian Foreign Minister says Iran wants to negotiate with The United States, but wants sanctions removed. @FoxNews @OANN No Thanks!” Trump tweeted in English on Saturday and later in Farsi.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded on Sunday by tweeting an excerpt from the interview with Der Spiegel published on Friday, where he said Iran is still open to negotiations with America if sanctions are lifted.
“@realdonaldtrump is better advised to base his foreign policy comments & decisions on facts, rather than @FoxNews headlines or his Farsi translators,” Zarif said in the tweet with the interview excerpt.
Tensions between Iran and the United States have reached the highest levels in decades after the US killed top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad on January 3, prompting Iran to fire missiles days later at bases in Iraq where US troops are stationed.
Tensions between the two have been increasing steadily since Trump pulled the United States out of Iran’s nuclear pact with world powers in 2018 and reimposed sanctions that have driven down Iran’s oil exports and hammered its economy.
Ask presidential candidates about nuclear and climate issues, says former energy secretary Moniz
Former energy secretary urges voters to ask about nuclear issues
– 26 Jan 2020 Conversations at town halls around New Hampshire have been focused on domestic policy, like the job market and health insurance. At a forum Monday, Ernst Moniz, who served as energy secretary under former President Barack Obama and is now CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, will try to convince New Hampshire voters to look beyond those kitchen table issues, and ask presidential primary candidates about nuclear weapons “The bread-and-butter issues if you like—the economy, health care, education—are typically a major focus at this time of the political season, Moniz said Saturday. Voters are typically less worried about foreign policy and security issues like nuclear weapons. “Unfortunately, catastrophic risks for our society and future gens are very, very considerable.”
Moniz said he hoped Monday’s forum would spur voters to think about nuclear proliferation when they talk to candidates, as much as kitchen table issuse. New Hampshire voters can shape candidates, he said. With the history of the political tradition in New Hampshire, where I think priorities for candidates can be shaped, we are hoping to bring those issues to the attention of the New Hampshire voters. In an interview Saturday, Moniz spoke about what he saw as a growing potential for accidents and miscalculations to be made with nuclear weapons. “Especially in the context of the current international geopolitical situation,” Moniz said, citing tensions with Russia and uncertainty in the Middle East. International treaties have a strong role to play in arms control, Moniz said, and he hopes whoever wins the 2020 election will take those treaties seriously. A treaty with Russia known as New START is due to be renewed in the next president’s term, Moniz said. “If we do not, we will have upended the entire hierarchy of nuclear arms control,” he said. If New Hampshire voters want to ask about these issues, Moniz said, it could impact how much attention is paid to nuclear weapons during the 2020 election. He recalled the 2004 election, when Nuclear Threat Initiative activists raised the specter of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups. He said that issue became critical in the 2004 election.
Moniz said this year, he would ask candidates what they would you do to re-starting dialogue between the Russia and the United States nuclear weapons, what they would do to stabilize North Korea, how they would protect against cyber attacks that could affect the United States’ early warning systems “If the New Hampshire voters are asking these questions, if the media are putting these questions out in front and getting responses from the candidates, that raises those issues in the priorities of these candidates,” he said. “This is the right time in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where the people the voters are so much closer to the candidates. They do in fact have influence in how these issues can be talked about now and addressed over the next several years. Moniz will speak at 6:30 p.m. Monday at Southern New Hampshire University, in the Hospitality Center Salon Rooms. Register online at https://wacnh.org/event-3673124. |
|
Lawmakers seek safeguards on decommissioning of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Lawmakers seek safeguards on nuclear plant decommissioning, 22 WWLP.com by: Chris Lisinski: Jan 25, 2020 BOSTON (SHNS) – Lawmakers are seeking additional influence over the decommissioning of the recently shuttered Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, but a representative for the company conducting the work argued Wednesday that those attempts may be unconstitutional.
Tom Joyce, a lobbyist for Holtec Decommissioning International, said that bills imposing higher clean-up standards (H 2904 / S 1949) or reforming how decommissioning is funded (S 1948, S 1992) would exceed the state’s authority and infringe on the jurisdiction of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joyce told the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy that passage of the bills would likely prompt a lawsuit from Holtec, delaying the decommissioning process that the company has said will take seven years…….. Backers of the legislation, though, see the proposals as important steps to protect local stakeholders amid a process that has drawn criticism and a lawsuit from the attorney general. Plymouth Republican Rep. Mathew Muratore, who filed one of the bills that would require decommissioning to meet stricter environmental standards, said his goal is to ensure the land is clean enough to appeal to potential businesses and avoid remaining vacant…… The Pilgrim facility officially ended operations on May 31 after decades of generating power. In August, the NRC approved the transfer of Pilgrim’s license from Entergy to Holtec International to handle its decommissioning. Attorney General Maura Healey, with the backing of the Baker administration, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the transfer until the NRC holds a hearing on concerns about Holtec’s ability to decommission the plant safely, its financial stability and the company’s alleged involvement in a kickback scheme. Speakers at Wednesday’s committee hearing said the case, which also features the Pilgrim Watch group as a party, is still pending. Other bills before the committee (S 1948, S 1992) would charge the owners of any nuclear power station in the state $25 million per year and stash the money into a fund managed by the state treasurer only to be used for postclosure activities. Pilgrim Watch chair Mary Lampert said that money would serve as an “insurance policy” – if decommissioning concluded using the existing trust fund set aside for those purposes, the owners would get back the additional funding plus interest, she said. If not, the state would have a reserve ready to cover any shortfall. Without a safety net backing up the more than $1 billion trust fund, Lampert said taxpayers would be on the hook. “Who’s going to pay the difference? We’re going to pay the difference,” she told the committee. “Holtec cannot be required to do so. Why can it not be required to do so? Because it is a limited liability company and you cannot get blood out of this stone.” Rep. Sarah Peake, a cosponsor of the bill, said Connecticut found itself footing a $480 million bill to complete decommissioning of the former Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Like the legislation concerning cleanup standards, Joyce argued the funding proposals would unconstitutionally circumvent NRC authority…. Muratore and Lampert said they did not agree with that argument, with the latter arguing that the bills in question are all “money bills” and therefore grant the state authority to take additional action. “States have the authority to enact a more conservative (environmental) standard if it applies after NRC has released the site because once the NRC has released the site, it no longer has authority, so there is not a question of preemption,” Lampert said. In his fiscal year 2021 budget unveiled Wednesday, Gov. Charlie Baker proposed language that would allow the Department of Public Health to assess operators of nuclear reactors in the process of being decommissioned — such as Holtec — for the costs of radiation monitoring and emergency planning associated with the project. https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/lawmakers-seek-safeguards-on-nuclear-plant-decommissioning/ |
|
Republicans try to get nuclear power accepted as “renewable” in California
- California Republicans on Tuesday introduced legislation to temporarily halt the requirements of the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program and redirect funds to ensure utilities improve their infrastructure and vegetation management programs.
- The proposed bill would also, if and when the program is reinstated, include nuclear generation and all hydroelectric facilities operating as of January 1, 2021 in the program’s definition of an “eligible renewable energy resource.”
- The bill, along with a second piece of legislation introduced by state Assemblyman James Gallagher, R, and Sen. Jim Nielsen, R, “will help prevent future wildfires and utility power shutoff events,” according to a press release. But environmental advocates say that the move to extend RPS eligibility to hydro and nuclear facilities might not go far in California’s current political landscape.
Dive Insight:
California established its RPS program in 2002, requiring at the time that renewable resources make up 20% of electricity retail sales by 2017. However, the program’s targets have changed over the years; the state passed Senate Bill 100 in 2018, accelerating RPS requirements to 60% by 2030, as well as requiring that carbon-free resources supply all of the state’s electricity by 2045.
Large hydropower and nuclear generation don’t currently count toward the RPS standard requirements, but the state is still defining the zero-carbon requirement passed in SB 100, Alex Jackson, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Utility Dive.
In the last three years, California utilities have also been wrestling with the increased threat of wildfires posed by their infrastructure. Devastating fires in 2017, 2018 and 2019 have caused billions of dollars in damage across the state, pushing Pacific Gas & Electric to declare bankruptcy in early 2019.
To reduce this risk, the utility adopted a public safety power shut-off (PSPS) program, proactively de-energizing areas that are particularly prone to fires during windy or dry weather conditions. The shut-offs have drawn widespread criticism from regulators, lawmakers and customers in Northern California……..
Environmental advocates pushed back against the proposal to include both large hydropower and nuclear generation as eligible resources under the RPS program.
The RPS is part of a deliberate state move away from fossil fuels, and utilities already get a lot of their power from hydro, so counting it in the RPS requirements would discourage investments in wind, solar, and other renewables, Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California, told Utility Dive…..
On the nuclear energy front, “there’s no way you can call nuclear renewable,” she said. “It doesn’t emit carbon, but it has lots of other very intense environmental impacts.”
“Nuclear is being phased out not because of its ineligibility for RPS requirements, but because these large inflexible baseload plants are increasingly incompatible with a system that’s predominantly run on intermittent clean energy resources,” according to Jackson.
Flexibility is key going forward and the high operating costs of nuclear plants is what led PG&E to propose the retirement of the Diablo Canyon plant in the first place, he added. …….https://www.utilitydive.com/news/proposed-bill-include-large-hydro-nuclear-power-californias-rps/570919/
Class action lawsuit about failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant goes back to state court
|
Federal judge kicks Santee Cooper nuclear fiasco lawsuit back to state court, https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article239614263.html
BY JOHN MONK, JANUARY 26, 2020 A class action lawsuit resulting from the failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant and involving South Carolina-owned power company Santee Cooper is back in state court. That’s the latest turn of the legal screw in a lawsuit involving more than 2 million of Santee Cooper’s customers. A key issue is whether Santee Cooper’s customers will be stuck with paying several billion dollars that the power company is said to owe due to the nuclear project’s failure in mid-construction in July 2017. Another affected matter is whether the historic state-owned utility, which began as a rural electrification project in the 1930s, will eventually be sold to a big out-of-state energy company or remain under state control. Last year, Santee Cooper’s partner in the doomed V.C. Summer nuclear venture — SCANA, a publicly traded company suffering financial woes because of the project — was sold to Dominion Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies. The state’s 170 lawmakers will be mulling the possible sale of Santee Cooper in this legislative session. Last week, U.S. Judge Terry Wooten ordered that the Santee Cooper case — which had temporarily been transferred to federal court — be sent back to state court to be tried before special Judge Jean Toal, a former S.C. Supreme Court chief justice. It is unclear when a trial will begin. Toal had originally set Feb. 24 as the trial start date in the case. But Judge Wooten’s order could be appealed to the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, delaying the trial. The lawsuit was initially filed in August 2017 by Santee Cooper customers seeking to avoid having to pay for the failed nuclear plant. Costs for the project — estimated at $9 billion before it failed — had for years been added to their monthly bills and continue to be added, according to a complaint in the case. Over the next two years, the parties “vigorously litigated in state court, engaging in significant discovery — including dozens of depositions and the exchange of millions of pages of documents — and arguing numerous substantive motions,” according to a memorandum in the case. Defendants in the case included Santee Cooper, SCANA and various electric cooperatives to which Santee Cooper provides power to be sold to customers around the state. As joint partners in the nuclear venture, Santee Cooper contributed 45% of the cost, while SCANA took responsibility for project oversight and shouldered 55% of the cost. In November, SCANA suddenly moved to transfer the case from Toal’s court to federal court, where it wound up before Judge Wooten. In the month before the case was transferred, Toal had certified the case as a class action, rejected a move by SCANA to send the case to an arbitrator and set a three-week trial to begin on Feb. 24, according to records in the case. Although numerous lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court against SCANA, this lawsuit is the major legal action against Santee Cooper on behalf of ratepayers. According to plaintiffs in the case, Santee Cooper increased its electricity rates five times over the years to pay for construction and other costs associated with the doomed nuclear project. Santee Cooper spent some $4.7 billion on the failed project, and its customers continue to pay extra on their monthly bills for the failure, according to plaintiffs. Santee Cooper is a main defendant in the case, along with SCANA and SCE&G. Plaintiffs are asking the court to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in costs associated with the failed nuclear project they say they have already paid in increased monthly bills. Plaintiffs also also asking the court to rule that Santee Cooper cannot keep passing costs for the failed project on to them — a future amount estimated at more than $4 billion. After the case was transferred to Wooten, the Santee Cooper customers, along with Santee Cooper, urged Wooten to send the the case back to state court, arguing there was no need for federal courts to take up the case. “The central issues involve South Carolina actors, agreements made in South Carolina, governed by South Carolina law, affecting a South Carolina power project and costing South Carolina customers billions of dollars,” they argued. Wooten agreed. “The court finds it would not be appropriate to exercise federal jurisdiction here,” he wrote in his order last week. @ChristinaMac1
|
|
Despite years of negotiations, we came once again to the brink of conflict with Iran.
Reporting on the Iran nuclear deal: ‘nothing happens until everything happens’Our world affairs editor reflects on how, despite years of negotiations, we came once again to the brink of conflict. Guardian, Julian Borger Sun 26 Jan 2020, Countries tend to go to war when diplomacy fails. But Washington and Tehran are now facing off because it succeeded. It was because the 2015 nuclear deal was Barack Obama’s proudest foreign policy achievement that Donald Trump was so determined to destroy it.
The US and Iran are sliding back towards the brink of conflict. If a missile had landed a little bit differently in the course of the latest exchange of hostilities, they would probably be at war by now.
As the pendulum has swung one way and then the other, the Guardian has tried to cover the diplomacy with the same depth and emphasis as the military manoeuvres, even when it seems slow-moving and complex.
When formal talks began between the Obama administration and the new government of Hassan Rouhani in September 2013, our foreign editor, Jamie Wilson, decided we should cover the whole process in detail because of the potentially historic nature of success, and the very high price of failure.
. When formal talks began between the Obama administration and the new government of Hassan Rouhani in September 2013, our foreign editor, Jamie Wilson, decided we should cover the whole process in detail because of the potentially historic nature of success, and the very high price of failure.
……… For Rezaian – now a Washington columnist – and many of those who saw the worst side of the Islamic Republic, its cruelties are all the more reason to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, and bind it into an international agreement. For others, particularly on the American right, any deal that eased the pressure on Iran’s economy would make the west complicit in Iran’s oppression at home and aggression abroad.
In the end, all those years of diplomacy and all the delicate compromises of the JCPOA, by which the Iranians accepted nuclear limits for sanctions relief, came to naught. Tehran’s nuclear programme is expanding again, and the US and Iran are back on the brink of conflict.
It is a chilling thought that no one in the US chain of command has the authority to stop Trump if he were to pick up the verification codes on the small plastic card (for some reason called the nuclear “biscuit”) that a US president always has close by, and order up Armageddon.
With that other extinction-level threat, the climate emergency, there is so much happening that it is impossible to keep up. But the nuclear threat is different: nothing happens until everything happens. By the time there is something substantial to report on, it could be far too late.https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2020/jan/25/iran-nuclear-deal-us-reporting
USA’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) spurns environmental assessment for plutonium cores
|
In 2018, the current administration determined that the U.S. would increase pit production at LANL and begin production at the Savannah River Site, located in South Carolina. Savannah River has never produced plutonium pits, let alone the planned 50 per year. For Savannah River, NNSA has determined that it would follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and issue a full environmental impact statement for public review and comment. The federal agencies have refused to conduct a programmatic environmental impact statement for operations at both facilities, including the transportation of nuclear materials between them. For LANL, NNSA said it would produce a supplemental analysis to the 2008 environmental impact statement. A supplemental analysis may not address the impacts of the 2011 Las Conchas fire, increased hexavalent chromium in the regional aquifer, and increased seismic danger on the Pajarito Plateau, which LANL occupies. The 1997 decision to limit the number of pits to 20 is the result of citizen litigation. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), based in Washington, DC, represented 39 citizens groups from around the country against DOE. CCNS was one of the citizen plaintiffs, along with Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, or Tri-Valley CARES, located in Livermore, California, where the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LANL’s “sister” nuclear weapons laboratory, is located. Marylia Kelley, Executive Director of Tri-Valley CAREs, said, “NNSA’s refusal to complete programmatic environmental review before plunging ahead with plans to more than quadruple the production authorization for plutonium bomb cores flies in the face of our country’s foundational environmental law, the [NEPA], and a standing federal court order mandating that the government conduct such a review. The order was obtained in prior litigation by [NRDC] on behalf of itself, Tri-Valley CAREs, and additional plaintiffs. Today, I find myself shocked but not surprised that NNSA would so flagrantly flout the law. [] My group stands ready to uphold NEPA and the specific court order.” http://www.trivalleycares.org/ For more information, please see the following documents [links provided by Nuclear Watch New Mexico]: NNSA’s Federal Register Notice of Availability for the final Supplement Analysis is available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-01-08/pdf/2020-00102.pdf It provides succinct background. NNSA’s final Supplement Analysis is available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/01/f70/final-supplement-analysis-eis-0236-s4-sa-02-complex-transformation-12-2019.pdf The 1998 court order that requires DOE to prepare a supplemental PEIS when it plans to produce more than 80 pits per year is available as Natural Resources Defense Council v. Pena, 20 F.Supp.2d 45, 50 (D.D.C. 1998), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/20/45/2423390/ |
|
-
Archives
- September 2026 (305)
- 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












