THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS DOWNGRADING TOXIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS WASTE TO CUT DISPOSAL COSTS—SHOULD WE BE WORRIED? https://www.newsweek.com/trump-toxic-nuclear-weapons-waste-disposal-reclassify-1442573 BYSHANE CROUCHERON 6/6/19The Trump administration announced on Wednesday that it is moving forward with plans to reclassify toxic nuclear waste from Cold War weapons research, downgrading some of it from the highest level, in order to cut costs and quicken the disposal process.The waste under review is currently located at three DOE Defense Reprocessing Waste Inventories: the Hanford Site in Washington, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
Environmental campaigners hit back, accusing the Department of Energy (DOE) of risking the health and safety of Americans through what it characterized as a reckless and dangerous departure from decades-long convention in the country’s handling of its nuclear waste.
But an expert in nuclear waste management said DOE’s shifting approach is both reasonable and desirable—provided it is transparent with the American public in order to build confidence that it is disposing of the toxic material responsibly and safely.
Currently, DOE treats most of its radioactive waste as “high-level” (HLW) because of how it was made rather than classifying it by its characteristics, such as radioactivity. HLW must be buried deep underground when it is disposed of.
DOE said in a release that this “one size fits all” approach to waste management has caused delays to permanent disposal, leaving toxic waste stored in DOE facilities, which causes health risks to workers and costs the taxpayers billions of unnecessary dollars.
Now, DOE will seek to lower the classification of waste of lesser radioactivity, meaning it can be disposed of with greater ease because it does not need to be stored deep below ground—and both sooner and at a lower cost.
Professor Neil Hyatt, an expert in nuclear materials chemistry and waste management at the U.K.’s University of Sheffield, told Newsweek this is potentially a positive change by the DOE.
“DOE is proposing to manage waste on the basis of risk rather than how it was produced, which is quite reasonable—and desirable. We would want resources to be focused on dealing with the waste of highest risk,” Hyatt said.
“That said, it is important that this is achieved with regard to the risk to health and the environment over the full lifecycle of waste management—including the period of waste disposal, which is some 250,000 years.”
Hyatt added: “The new interpretation has the potential to radically change the location, inventory, and nature of waste disposed of, which will be of concern to local communities.”
For the new interpretation of HLW to succeed, Hyatt said, those communities will need to be engaged by authorities in a transparent way.
“The problem is that the action will be seen as moving the goalposts, for unfair means, whilst the game is in progress,” Hyatt told Newsweek.
“If you have agreed that waste is to be classified and managed in a certain way for decades, how do you now build confidence in a new approach?
“This cannot be taken for granted. Transparency, effective public engagement and independent expert scrutiny, in evaluating the risk, will be key. But with a new approach comes a new opportunity to get that right.”
Another expert concurred. Pete Bryant is a consultant in nuclear waste management and president of The Society for Radiological Protection in the U.K. He also teaches in the field at the University of Liverpool.
“By characterizing the waste and classifying it according to its radioactivity and ultimately the risk it poses to human health and the environment, it is possible to dispose of some of the less hazardous waste, reducing the burden of managing them all of HLW,” Bryant told Newsweek.
“As long as this is done under appropriate arrangements and checks this will not present a risk to members of the public and the environment,” he said, adding that this is all in line with global standards of toxic waste management.
After DOE’s announcement, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD), an environmental campaign group, hit out at the imminent reclassification of some HLW.
“The Trump administration is moving to fundamentally alter more than 50 years of national consensus on how the most toxic and radioactive waste in the world is managed and ultimately disposed of,” Geoff Fettus, a senior attorney at NRDC, said in a statement.
“No matter what they call it, this waste needs a permanent, well-protected disposal option to guard it for generations to come. Pretending this waste is not dangerous is irresponsible and outrageous.”
DOE said the change will bring its practices in line with international standards on nuclear waste disposal.
Radioactive waste big concern for now-closed Pilgrim plant, Cape Cod Times Christine Legere
Jun 3, 2019 PLYMOUTH — Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station may be permanently shut down, but hundreds of tons of radioactive spent fuel from its 46-year operation will remain indefinitely perched on the coast of one of America’s most historic towns.
What to do with nuclear waste remains a national problem with no solution, despite a promise by the federal government to have a facility ready to permanently store it ready by 1998.
About 80,000 tons of spent fuel is currently sitting on nuclear plant properties across the country. To give the number perspective, if existing radioactive fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, they would stand over two stories high and cover a football field.
And like those other communities that have hosted nuclear plants during the last 50 years, residents and officials in Plymouth are crying foul. “The Department of Energy has absolutely dropped the ball on this for our communities and all the others, which are becoming de facto nuclear waste repositories,” said Kevin O’Reilly, former executive director of the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce and current vice chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel. “The federal government needs to step up to the plate and fulfill their promise.”
“Spent fuel” is nuclear fuel that has been used and removed from the reactor core. The Government Accountability Office calls the hot and highly radioactive stuff one of the most hazardous substances created by humans. Some components stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
“If not properly contained or shielded, the intense radioactivity of spent fuel can cause immediate deaths and environmental contamination, and in lower doses can cause long-term health hazards such as cancer,” according to a GAO study done at the request of Congress in 2012……….
Holtec International and Waste Control Services have submitted applications to operate interim storage facilities in New Mexico and West Texas that are under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But the review process hasn’t been smooth, as both proposed locations have drawn opposition.
Meanwhile, a small startup group in California is working on yet another alternative, which the company says would provide permanent storage right on current plant sites or close by.
The proposal from Deep Isolation calls for drilling a vertical access channel up to a mile or more down, then gradually running the hole horizontally along the line of the rock formation, where company officials say the nuclear waste would remain unaffected by surface impacts such as sea level rise.
While the debate over where to put spent fuel continues, owners of commercial plants are suing the federal government to recoup money they’ve spent on storing fuel. To date, the Department of Energy has paid out $6.1 billion in damages.
All payouts so far have gone to nuclear power companies. Towns that store the spent fuel have lobbied to be paid for being de facto waste sites. While no such bill has been filed during the current session, legislators in states hosting spent fuel have filed legislation during the past three years called Nuclear Waste Accountability Act. Its provisions require the Department of Energy to provide payments to host communities equal to $15 per kilogram of spent fuel stored there.
FUEL DANGERS
After the reactor is defueled, just under 3,000 radioactive spent fuel assemblies will sit in a pool above the reactor and be slowly transferred to heavy steel and concrete dry casks over three years.
Spent fuel stored in pools has historically caused worry. A zirconium fire could release radiation over hundreds of miles if the water in them is drained away through a seismic event, operator error or act of malice.
Much of the fuel will still be in the pool when Plymouth celebrates its 400th anniversary in 2020, with events throughout the year that will attract crowds of tourists and dignitaries from around the world.
“Spent fuel is a misnomer,” said Mary Lampert, president of the citizens group Pilgrim Watch. “It will be highly toxic as far into the future as dinosaurs were in the past.”
Fuel pool storage is particularly dangerous, she said. “The pool is vulnerable to water loss resulting in a fire that could contaminate an area larger than Massachusetts and force the evacuation of millions.”
The casks, once loaded, will ultimately be situated on a spent fuel pad about 75 feet above sea level………
Holtec International, the company looking to buy Pilgrim and decommission it, has long been involved in the manufacture of dry casks. Entergy has used Holtec’s Hi-Storm 100 casks and plans to continue with that model.
Halting Holtec – A Challenge for Nuclear Safety Advocates, CounterPunch, byJAMES HEDDLE 7 June 19 “……….The California – Chernobyl Connection
Holtec and its client Edison would have the public believe that the San Onofre ISFSI is top of the line, up to date and state-of-the-art spent fuel handling. But that image seems to be contradicted by a recent Holtec press release and accompanying animated video that may seem to describe something like the kind of waste storage system many are advocating for at San Onofre.
On May 6, 2019, Holtec was “pleased to announce the start of final system-wide trials for Chernobyl’s dry store facility….” In the next two months, Holtec expects to complete “stem-to stern functional demonstrations of the [SF-2] spent fuel handling and storage processes before handing over the facility to Ukraine’s State owned enterprise Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP).”
The Holtec press release boasts, “Dismembering more than 21,000 RBMK spent fuel assemblies in a special purpose “hotcell,” packaging those fuel assemblies in double walled canisters(DWCs), and transferring them from (open) water-cooled pools into hermetically sealed rugged helium-filled storage systems inside ventilated modules will mark a huge safety milestone for Ukraine.” https://youtu.be/GYR3GmkRZV0
Holtec is also building a project called a Central Spent Fuel Storage Facility (CSFSF) for the Ukrainian company Energoatom. Holtec says the “CSFSF will employ double-confinement DWCs, the world’s first double-walled, double-lid multi-purpose canister system for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.”
Many may now be asking, “Why isn’t what’s good for Ukraine, also good for California?” But, Donna Gilmore points out that, “It’s a thin-wall canister system. Exterior wall is 3/8″ thick. Interior wall is 1/2″ thick. Both welded shut. Still must be stored in Holtec concrete cask with air vents. Still cannot be inspected, maintained, monitored or repaired inside or out.” …………https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/07/halting-holtec-a-challenge-for-nuclear-safety-advocates/
He vetoed a bill in which a radioactive waste provision was tacked on, at the last minute, to a domestic violence bill that had broad support in the Texas House and Senate. By Michael Marks.June 7, 2019
A bill to help survivors of domestic violence ended up passing in the Texas Legislature with an odd amendment: a provision that would temporarily waive fees for storing radioactive waste in West Texas. But Gov. Greg Abbott was displeased with the waiver, and vetoed the bill altogether.
Asher Price, energy and environment reporter for the Austin American-Statesman, says the two very different issues ended up being in the same bill because Rep. Poncho Nevárez, a Democrat from Eagle Pass, added an amendment at the last minute.
“The person at the dais, who was leading the House at the time said, ‘Is there any objection?’ Hearing none [they] gaveled in, and suddenly this amendment was attached to this bill,” Price says.
Listen to the rest of the story in the player above. [on original]
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — An attorney is asking the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the Tennessee Valley Authority’s new whistleblowing program before it’s implemented.
The Knoxville News Sentinel reports attorney Billie Garde filed a letter Tuesday saying TVA fired some of its nuclear employee whistleblowing program managers. Garde represents the managers. She says the move is designed to stop safety complaints and silence workers.
TVA’s Chief Nuclear Officer Tim Rausch says the whistleblower program is being improved after worker complaints and other criticism. He says the managers weren’t fired but don’t qualify for the new positions within the overhauled program. Rausch says they are being offered other positions within the utility.
TVA has three nuclear plants: Browns Ferry in Athens, Alabama; Sequoyah in Soddy-Daisy; and Watts Bar in Spring City
June 6th, 2019 Despite being exclusively funded by a Department of Energy (DOE) grant, the New Mexico Environment Department is exploring whether to move the Oversight Bureau at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) from Los Alamos to Santa Fe. A community meeting will held the week of June 24th to discuss the issues at a location to be determined. Your voice to support the Oversight Bureau remaining in Los Alamos is needed now.
For over 30 years, the Oversight Bureau has served as the eyes and ears of the Environment Department in Los Alamos. Their purview of day-to-day operations and emergencies, such as the 1996 Dome fire, the 2000 Cerro Grande
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/CerroGrandeindex.html, and the 2011 Las Conchas fires, has been essential for communities downwind and downstream of LANL. During the fires, the Oversight Bureau staffers remained on-site and monitored air emissions. CCNS, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and the public rely on the Oversight Bureau’s expertise, institutional knowledge of LANL operations, and their environmental sampling data and analyses.
The Environment Department says it is conducting a proper assessment to determine where the Oversight Bureau should be located. Nevertheless, DOE provides about $1.8 million annually to the LANL Oversight Bureau under what was called an agreement in principle between the two agencies. It covered oversight of both the environmental releases from nuclear weapons work and cleanup at LANL. It is now called a memorandum of understanding and is restricted to cleanup.
Scott Kovac, of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said, “If the Environment Department is concerned about funding the Oversight Bureau, it is time for them to initiate negotiations with DOE to revise, update, and possibly expand the memorandum of understanding and funding for it.” https://nukewatch.org/
Joni Arends, of CCNS, urged people to get involved to keep the Oversight Bureau in Los Alamos. She said, “The new Environment Department Secretary, James Kenney, needs to understand the importance of the Oversight Bureau staying in Los Alamos for those living downwind and downstream of LANL. Please contact Secretary Kenney and tell him your story about what the Oversight Bureau means to you. Explain why it needs to remain in Los Alamos. His phone number is 505 827-2855 and his email is James.Kenney@state.nm.us. Please copy your correspondence to your congressperson and your local media. Thank you.”
Here’s a sample public comment letter that you can use to submit your concerns to NM Environment Department Secretary James Kenney. Feel free to use the paragraphs that resonant with your concerns – edit them and add your own concerns. f OB sample public comment letter 6-6-19
Costs of FirstEnergy nuclear bailout bill could exceed out-of-pocket subsidies, An analysis by grid operator PJM considers losses if Ohio nuclear subsidies deter new generation. Energy News Network, Kathiann M. Kowalski 6 June 19,
A bill to subsidize FirstEnergy Solutions’ two Ohio nuclear plants could cost customers even more than the hundreds of millions of dollars in direct charges proposed to prop up those plus two older coal plants.
A new analysis from grid operator PJM concludes that keeping FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants open could also cost ratepayers as much as $16 million a year in lost savings by discouraging cheaper gas generation from coming online.
Asim Haque, PJM’s executive director for strategic policy and external affairs,testified about the new analysis before the Ohio Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee on Wednesday.
30 years ago, voters forced shutdown of Rancho Seco nuclear plant in Sacramento County, Sacramento Bee, Mila Jasper.June 6 is the 75th anniversary of D-Day, but in Sacramento, the date has another important meaning.Thursday is the 30th anniversary of the vote that permanently closed down the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in southern Sacramento County. With the defeat of Measure K, Sacramento became the first community in the world to close a nuclear plant by public vote.
Phil Angelides, the former state treasurer, was a local businessman in Sacramento at the time, and he was involved in the movement to close Rancho Seco.
“The plant was an enormous liability for Sacramento,” Angelides said. “It was first generation plant technology, it just didn’t function.”
Angelides said Rancho Seco was preventing Sacramento from developing a diversified, forward-looking energy portfolio capable of sustaining the region’s growth because of how costly and inefficient the plant was.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District opened the Rancho Seco power plant, about a 30-minute drive from downtown Sacramento, for commercial operation in 1975, but for years it was plagued by a series of outages.
In 1985, operators lost control of the plant during an “overcooling” event, which forced an automatic shutdown. The resulting 27-month outage cost SMUD $400 million, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
SMUD also paid $745,000 in federal fines for various violations related to the facility through 1989, The Sacramento Bee reported.
Outcry against Rancho Seco unfolded when the safety of nuclear energy was in question. In 1979, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. suffered a partial meltdown, and in 1986, the accident at Chernobyl became the worst nuclear disaster in human history……..
Just days after the Three Mile Island disaster, people climbed over the fence at Rancho Seco during a protest demonstration.
More than 100 other demonstrators cheered with cries of “shut down now, no meltdown later” as 13 protestors climbed the main gate of the plant. The 13 people were arrested for trespassing, and some demonstrators vowed to go on a hunger strike until the 13 were released from jail………
After the plant shut down, SMUD diversified its energy supply and increased investment in energy efficiency programs that have resulted in customer savings of more than $600 million, SMUD officials said.
While the plant was still running, SMUD built one of the first utility-scale solar plants at Rancho Seco, which was decommissioned and replaced in 2016. The solar array powers downtown buildings like the state Capitol and the Golden 1 Center.
SMUD is now constructing the Rancho Seco Solar 2 project, a second array of solar panels that will be the largest facility in the county when it comes online. Construction is scheduled to start in August……..
Still, the shutdown process for the plant was long and arduous. It took 20 years for the plant to be fully decommissioned by the federal government, costing ratepayers $500 million, The Bee reported.
Disposal of the radioactive waste at the plant hasn’t yet been settled, either. SMUD spends $5 million per year to provide security and oversee proper storage of spent uranium.
The materials have been in dry storage at Rancho Seco since decommission and will remain there until the federal government can come up with a solution, according to SMUD.
Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, on Thursday introduced a bill that would initiate a program for both decommissioned plants like Rancho Seco and active plants to store spent nuclear fuel in a consolidated program at the Department of Energy. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article231253743.html
AI technology improves critical crack detection in nuclear reactors, bridges, buildings, Phys Org, JUNE 7, 2019, by Purdue University A tiny crack in a nuclear reactor, skyscraper, bridge or dam can cause catastrophic consequences. The Minneapolis bridge collapse, which killed 13 people in 2007, is just one example of what can happen when structural integrity is compromised.
Unidentified or under-identified structural damage in nuclear reactors can be cataclysmic. Inspection of critical systems such as nuclear reactors is complicated and time-consuming.
Videos captured by an automatic crack detection system can easily misidentify small scratches or welds as cracks, so technicians must review videos frame by frame. It is a time-consuming process with opportunities for human errors.
Nuclear Energy Regulators Need to Bring on More Cyber Experts, Watchdog Says Defense One, 7 June 19, Cyberattacks on nuclear power stations on the rise, and an aging workforce may soon leave the government struggling to defend plants against the latest threats.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is facing a mass exodus of cybersecurity experts in the years ahead, which could limit its ability to ensure the nation’s nuclear power plants are safe from digital attacks, an internal watchdog found……….
As of March 31, NRC officials had inspected 24 of the 57 power plants under its jurisdiction. While assessments “generally provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant licensees adequately protect digital computers, communications systems and networks,” auditors said, the agency could be hindered if the NRC doesn’t ramp up its recruitment and training efforts. …….
The situation at NRC is a symptom of the government’s broader struggle to recruit tech and cyber talent amid an aging workforce.
The IG advised NRC to improve its process for addressing skill gaps and managing its workforce, leaning on practices laid out in its existing Strategic Workforce Planning initiative.
Someday the U.S. Will Have to Actually Deal With Its Nuclear Waste Problem, The Department of Energy has made a move in that direction. Slate, By JANE C. HU 7 June 19, “………… the Department of Energy announced Wednesday that they are reclassifying the definition of “high-level,” or highly radioactive, waste stored in underground tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state, the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls. The DOE hopes that the redefinition will expedite cleanup of the waste. Currently, the high-level waste stored at these sites is waiting for the government to open a secure waste repository (like Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which has been in limbo for decades). But if some of the less radioactive waste qualifies under the new definition, it might instead be shipped off to other sites, like one in Texas, where it could be
mixed with “concrete-like grout.” The cleanup at Hanford has already cost the country billions of dollars and is projected to cost billions more as we continue the search for the waste’s final home. (Adding some urgency to developing a new plan is the risk that containers could leak and contaminate the environment, especially if there’s an earthquake in Washington.)JUNE 07,
The DOE’s new plan could be cost-effective, sure, but the question is whether it’s safe. When the agency first announced reclassification plans in October 2018 and solicited public comment, the proposal received thousands of responses. And Washington state officials are not happy; Gov. Jay Inslee and Department of Ecology Director Maia Bellon have both sent letters of concern to the DOE. “I am gravely concerned with DOE forging ahead with a new interpretation of HLW that does not comport with federal law, despite objections from Washington state,” wrote Bellon.
In addition to the waste we already have sitting around at Hanford and other old nuclear weapons facilities (charmingly called “legacy waste”), nearly 100 commercial nuclear reactors at 60 facilities around the U.S. are creating new waste every day. The type of waste produced by those two types of facility contains different radioactive materials with varying half-lives, but the same storage issues remain: What will we eventually do with all this radioactive stuff?
The lack of solution is not from lack of discussion. There have been all sorts of wacky ideas floated about where to store nuclear waste. Some have proposed we shoot it all into space, maybe have it orbit Venus. But given how spacecraft are prone to explosions, which would effectively mean showering the world with bits of radioactive waste, that idea stalled. In the ’90s, the idea of burying waste in deep ocean seabeds seemed promising, but it never really got off the ground. And some countries tried storing barrels of waste in ice sheets, which turns out to be less than ideal given that ice both moves and melts. As the earth thaws out, old waste becomes uncovered.
Here in the U.S., we’re running out of space, and experts are concerned about the lack of long-term solutions. “Instead of a planned, coherent system, we have the confusion of an unplanned, less than optimal system,” nuclear experts wrote in a 2018 report on nuclear waste management strategy and policy, calling the U.S. program “an ever-tightening Gordian Knot” subject to technical, scientific, logistical, regulatory, legal, financial, social, and political challenges. “This is not a situation that builds public confidence.”……..https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/department-of-energy-nuclear-waste-reclassification-yucca.html
Feds offer to speed cleanup of SC’s deadly nuclear waste. But plan isn’t that simple, The State, BY SAMMY FRETWELL
JUNE 06, 2019
The U.S. Department of Energy is proposing to ship what has long been considered some of the world’s most deadly nuclear waste from South Carolina to burial grounds in the western United States under a plan to reclassify some of the atomic refuse as less dangerous.
According to plans, the energy department would classify some of the Savannah River Site’s high-level waste as low-level waste, a type of atomic refuse that is considered less toxic. That, in turn, would allow the material to be shipped to low-level nuclear waste disposal sites in the deserts of Utah and Texas.
“We want to look at taking the waste stream in South Carolina and reclassifying it and moving it out of state,’’ said Paul Dabbar, the energy department’s undersecretary for science.
The DOE’s plan for reclassifying and shipping waste from SRS is part of a larger proposal to change the definition of nuclear waste at weapons complexes in other parts of the country. The agency says it has historically considered much of the waste that resulted from Cold War weapons production to be high-level. Now, it will consider how radioactive the material is, the DOE said.
In addition to the Savannah River Site, nuclear weapons sites in Washington and Idaho that also have high level waste could benefit from the department’s plan to change the definition of nuclear waste, the agency said.
The SRS proposal and a companion plan for nuclear sites across the country, released Wednesday, drew immediate criticism from environmental groups, which said the plans are potentially dangerous.
But the Department of Energy says reclassifying some of the high level waste would occur only after a thorough analysis and environmental studies.
Federal records show the agency will look at whether 10,000 gallons of Savannah River Site wastewater should still should be classified as high level waste or downgraded to another category. For now, the DOE said it is only considering the 10,000 gallons for disposal at a licensed faciliity outside South Carolina, records show. The wastewater comes from the Defense Waste Processing Facility, an industrial plant that converts high-level waste into glass in an effort to neutralize its danger.
Reclassifying waste would speed cleanup at the Savannah River Site, the agency said. The 310-square-mile weapons complex has tons of atomic refuse left over from Cold War weapons production. Much of that waste is held in about four-dozen aging tanks, some of which have cracked. A handful of tanks have been emptied, but most still contain waste……..
Geoff Fettus, who tracks nuclear waste issues for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said reclassifying waste might also allow officials at SRS to avoid cleaning up some material altogether.
Fettus said that if some of the waste at SRS is no longer considered high level, the DOE could leave the material there and walk away. If that happens, it would not be the first time at SRS. In 2002, the energy department offered plans to reclassify waste so some residual material could remain in the tanks.
“That is the big thing,’’ Fettus said. “I think this is just as much about what stays in the tanks, as to what comes out.’’
Fettus said the environmental group has serious reservations about the plan being advanced by President Donald Trump.
“The Trump administration is moving to fundamentally alter more than 50 years of national consensus on how the most toxic, radioactive and dangerous waste in the world is managed and ultimately disposed of,’’ Fettus told The State newspaper. “No matter what they call it, this waste needs a permanent, well-protected disposal option to guard it for generations to come.’’
Tom Clements, who heads Savannah River Site Watch, also said the proposal is unwise and unsafe.
“DOE’s questionable rewriting of the regulations is simply a cost-cutting measure designed to get thousands of HLW (high level waste) containers dumped off site,’’ he said in an email.
Any waste that is reclassified would not be sent to South Carolina’s Barnwell County low-level nuclear waste site near SRS, but to commercial facilities near the Texas-New Mexico border and in Utah, energy officials said. The low-level Utah waste site is owned by the same company that runs the aging Barnwell County low-level waste dump, which has leaked.
“It allows us to dispose of this into facilities … in Texas or in Utah,’’ Dabbar said….. https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article231181298.html
US shared nuclear info with S Arabia after Khashoggi http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-shared-nuclear-info-with-s-arabia-after-khashoggi-143952– 5 June 19, WASHINGTON– Reuters The Trump administration granted two authorizations to U.S. companies to share sensitive nuclear power information with SaudiArabia shortly after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October, a U.S. senator who saw details of the approvals said on June 4.The timing of the approvals is likely to heap pressure on the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump from lawmakers who have become increasingly critical of U.S. support for SaudiArabia since Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October.
Khashoggi, a native of SaudiArabia, left in 2017 to became a resident of the United States where he published columns in the Washington Post critical of the kingdom’s leadership.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, where Khashoggi lived, called the timing of the approvals “shocking” and adds to a “disturbing pattern of behavior” of the administration’s policy on SaudiArabia. The Department of Energy granted the first part 810 authorization on Oct. 18, 16 days after Khashoggi was killed. The second occurred on Feb. 18.
U.S. authorities have concluded that responsibility for Khashoggi‘s death went to the highest levels of the Saudi government. Riyadh has denied that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved.
The authorizations were among seven granted to U.S. companies by Trump’s administration since 2017, as Washington and Riyadh negotiate a potential wider agreement to help SaudiArabia develop its first two nuclear power reactors.
The Energy Department has kept the companies involved in the sharing of nucleartechnology information with the kingdom confidential, citing the need to protect business interests. In the past, 810 approvals have been made available for the public to view at department headquarters. The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Kaine’s statement.
Lawmakers have been anxious to be kept updated about talks on nuclear power development between the administration and Riyadh to make sure any deal contains strict nuclear nonproliferation standards.
SaudiArabia and Washington had begun talks about nuclear power development before Trump’s presidency. But progress has been slow as the kingdom opposes measures that would prevent it from enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium, two potential pathways to making fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Last year the crown prince said the kingdom did not want to acquire a nuclear bomb, but if its archrival Iran did, “we will follow suit as soon as possible.”
Kaine, who had urged the administration to release the authorizations, said the approvals were “one of the many steps the administration is taking that is fueling a dangerous escalation of tension in the region.”
Late last month, Trump declared a national emergency because of tensions with Iran and swept aside objections from Congress to complete the sale of more than $8 billion worth of weapons to SaudiArabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.
Riyadh plans to issue a multibillion-dollar tender in 2020 to build its first two nuclearpower reactors, sources said in April. Originally expected last year, the tender has been delayed several times.
The United States, South Korea, Russia, China and France are competing for the business. Reactor builder Westinghouse, which has been hit by a downfall in the U.S. nuclear power industry, would likely sell components to SaudiArabia in any deal involving U.S. technology. Westinghouse is now owned by Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
XY Chelsea (2019) Official Trailer | Chelsea Manning SHOWTIME Documentary
In Showtime’s “XY Chelsea,” filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins aims to reframe the media’s narrative around the Army whistleblower, who identifies as transgender. HuffPost By Curtis M. Wong, 5 June 19 Filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins aims to relay former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning’s “sense of principles and sacrifice” in a new, sure-to-be-controversial documentary.
nuclear-news 