Hanford nuclear plant employees told to ‘take cover’ over incident, Rt.com : 26 Oct, 2018 Employees at the Hanford Vit Plant – one of the US’ largest nuclear waste processing facilities – have been told to “take cover.” The alert was issued as a precaution, the company operating the facility said.
The employees at the waste treatment plant were allegedly told to “go to the closest Take Cover facility” and avoid “eating or drinking until further notice,” according to the text message published by the people on social media.
The warning to the employees was issued because steam was coming out from one of the tunnels at the waste treatment plant construction site, Bechtel, the company in charge of the construction works said, adding that it was made out of “precaution.”
1:10 AM – Oct 27, 2018
“There is no indication of a release of hazardous material,” a Bechtel statement said. However, the workers were still said to stay in cover until further notice………https://www.rt.com/usa/442365-hanford-nuclear-plant-employees-cover/
October 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
incidents, USA |
Leave a comment
|
Money woes at SCANA? Utility releases latest financial report in wake of nuclear fiasco, The State BY SAMMY FRETWELL
sfretwell@thestate.com, October 25, 2018 , COLUMBIA SCANA, the struggling South Carolina-based utility staggered by the failure last year of its nuclear construction project, announced a better financial picture Thursday than it has in recent months.
……. SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G, has been criticized heavily since quitting the V.C. Summer nuclear construction project on July 31, 2017. The utility and its junior partner, the state-owned Santee Cooper utility, said last year they could no longer justify the project’s ever-increasing cost following the bankruptcy of chief contractor Westinghouse Electric. The two utilities spent $9 billion on two unfinished reactors.
Ratepayers and state policy makers were irate.
SCANA raised rates for its 728,000 electric customers to pay for the nuclear construction effort, charging those customers $2 billion. At one point, customers were paying an average of $27 a month for the nuclear project. However, the S.C. Legislature and Public Service Commission subsequently ordered the utility to lower its rates.
However, many issues related to the V.C. Summer collapse remain unresolved.
That has translated into bad financial news for the utility its shareholders…… https://www.thestate.com/news/business/article220579730.html
|
|
October 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
|
THE TICKING NUCLEAR BUDGET TIME BOMB, WAR ON THE ROCKS, KINGSTON REIF AND MACKENZIE EAGLEN OCTOBER 25, 2018
In a little-noticed comment before his controversial July summit meeting with Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump expressed a desire to talk to his Russian counterpart about their countries’ extensive nuclear modernization plans. Trump characterized his own government’s plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade the aging nuclear arsenal as “a very, very bad policy.” He seemed to express some hope that the two countries, which together possess over 90 percent of the planet’s nuclear warheads, could chart a different path and avert a new arms race.
Still, it’s not clear Trump is actually interested in a different path. He said on Monday, in the context of his decision to withdraw the United States from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, that “We have far more money than anybody else by far. We’ll build [the U.S. nuclear arsenal] up until” other nuclear-armed states such as Russia and China “come to their senses.”
Since the dawn of the nuclear age, there has been heated debate about the appropriate role and number of nuclear weapons in U.S. policy. What has largely been above debate, however, has been the need for a strong and credible arsenal so long as nuclear weapons exist — a top policy and budgetary priority of recent administrations of both parties.
But a reckoning is coming, the result of a massive disconnect between budgetary expectations and fiscal reality. Despite claims that nuclear weapons “don’t actually cost that much,” the simple fact is that unless the administration and its successors find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, spending to maintain the current arsenal — to say nothing of a buildup — will pose a significant affordability problem. Trying to recapitalize nearly the entire arsenal at roughly the same time means less money is likely to be spent on each individual modernization program, thereby increasing the time and cost required to complete each one. The absence of reasonable planning will also result in more suboptimal choices when hard decisions become inevitable. The current path is an irrational and costly recipe for sucking funding from other defense programs and/or buying fewer new nuclear delivery systems and reducing the size of the arsenal. The longer military and political leaders continue to deny this reality, the worse off America’s nuclear deterrent and armed forces will be.
The Third Wave of Nuclear Modernization Spending………. Sustaining the arsenal will require a third wave of major upgrades. The Obama administration committed to a major overhaul of the arsenal in 2010, part of its effort to win Republican support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last fall that the plans Trump inherited from his predecessor to maintain and upgrade the arsenal over the next 30 years would cost $1.2 trillion in today’s dollars. That CBO projection includes about $400 billion in modernization spending that falls largely in the mid-2020s to early 2030s, as well as relatively stable, though steadily increasing, operations and sustainment costs over the entire 30-year period.
……The CBO’s projection of $400 billion in nuclear modernization spending might be a best-case scenario. Because the Pentagon has not built intercontinental ballistic missiles or ballistic missile submarines in a long time, the department’s independent Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office has acknowledged that the confidence levels for nuclear upgrade cost estimates are relatively low. This means that, even if the programs are managed perfectly, they could end up costing a lot more than the estimates project. The land- and sea-based missile programs, as well as the plan to build over 100 B-21 long-range bombers, could, by our count, each cost as much as $150 billion after including inflation, easily putting them among the top ten most expensive Pentagon acquisition programs.
On top of all of this, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review proposes expanding U.S. nuclear capabilities by calling for new warheads and new missiles to counter Russia, more bomb production infrastructure, and a greater emphasis on nuclear command and control. These proposals would likely add additional tens of billions to the $1.2 trillion price tag. So too could a U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty and failure to extend New START, which is slated to expire in 2021. In particular, the verifiable New START caps on Russian deployed nuclear forces aid U.S. military planning by reducing the need to make worst-case assessments that could prompt additional costly nuclear force investments.
Third Wave of Nuclear Modernization: Unique Challenges.……..
Most importantly, the overall federal fiscal outlook is far direr. The most recent CBO estimates suggest that the United States will add somewhere between $12 to $13 trillion in new debt from spending over the next decade. …….
The growth of mandatory spending in all categories, coupled with the recent tax cuts, will balloon the national debt to the highest level relative to GDP in the nation’s history. This will increase pressure to slash discretionary expenditures, including defense.
While Congress approved a major increase to defense spending in fiscal year 2018, the Budget Control Act caps return in 2020 and 2021. Without amendment, these could result in a $171 billion national defense spending decline, or 13 percent of the total planned for those two years. Absent a “grand bargain” that eluded lawmakers in 2011 and led to the Budget Control Act’s spending caps, sustaining real growth in the defense budget will be almost impossible. This will make it difficult to afford both conventional and nuclear modernization in tandem.
Additionally, bipartisan political support for increasing nuclear weapons spending is fragile and far from assured in the future. ………
Disarmament by Default
Numerous Pentagon officials and outside experts have cautioned that the current nuclear upgrade plan cannot be sustained without significant and sustained increases to defense spending — which are unlikely to be forthcoming — or cuts to other military priorities……….
The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. Whether one believes America’s nuclear weapons spending plans are good or bad policy, pursuing them poses a massive fiscal challenge that America’s military and political leaders can no longer afford to ignore.https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/the-ticking-nuclear-budget-time-bomb/
|
|
October 27, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Vice President Pence Didn’t Rule Out the Possibility of Nuclear Weapons in Space http://fortune.com/2018/10/23/pence-nuclear-weapons-space/, By RENAE REINTS October 23, 2018
Vice President Mike Pence chose not rule out the possibility of nuclear weapons in space, telling The Washington Post on Tuesday that “peace comes through strength.”
“What we need to do is make sure that we provide for the common defense of the people of the United States of America, and that’s the president’s determination here,” Pence said, when asked if nuclear weapons should be banned from outer space. “What we want to do is continue to advance the principle that peace comes through strength.”
Weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear weapons, are currently banned from orbit through the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by both Russia and the United States during the Cold War. The treaty states that not only are nuclear weapons banned from outer space, but the moon and other celestial bodies are to be used for peaceful purposes only: this means no military bases, practices, or weapons testing.
President Donald Trump has already threatened to throw out one arms control treaty, however.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed with Russia in 1987, required the destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with certain ranges. Amid concerns that Russia may be developing a medium-range ballistic missile, Trump said Saturday that the United States will end the INF Treaty.
Pence made his comments Tuesday at the “Transformers: Space” policy summit, hosted by the Post. He also said the Trump administration hopes to establish Space Force, a sixth branch of the U.S. military focused on outer space, as soon as 2020.
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
US warns Britain against Chinese alliances on nuclear plants, Security official claims evidence of civilian nuclear technology being put to military use, Ft.com, David Sheppard in London , 25 Oct 18
The US has issued a stark warning to the UK about partnering with China’s largest state-backed nuclear company on a host of new power plants, saying it has evidence that it is engaged in taking civilian nuclear technology and transferring it to military uses. Christopher Ashley Ford, the US assistant secretary for international security and non-proliferation, said that China General Nuclear (CGN), which is a partner on the £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear project, among others, was at the forefront of Chinese efforts to militarise civilian nuclear technology.
“It’s quite clear now that essentially the entirety of the Chinese nuclear industry is lashed up with military-civil fusion,” Mr Ford said in a briefing with the Financial Times. “There is a growing pattern of information of which we have become aware over time related to technological theft issues.” Mr Ford said the US had shared evidence, both “open source” and from intelligence gathering, with the UK, showing CGN was involved in the transfer of technology that could be used for a range of military applications. That could include powering China’s new breed of nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carriers and “floating nuclear reactors for the ongoing militarisation of the South China Sea”, Mr Ford
“If CGN is engaged in helping the Chinese navy . . . with missiles that could presumably be pointed at western capitals, including London . . . It’s worth thinking about whether that’s a particularly good idea,” Mr Ford said. The bluntly delivered warning comes as UK prime minister Theresa May has tried to increase scrutiny of Chinese investment in key UK infrastructure compared to her predecessor David Cameron, including over involvement in nuclear power plants.
But the US intervention, given their status as the UK’s key military ally, is likely to increase pressure on Downing Street. The Trump administration is locked in a trade war with China, with tensions ramping up over tariffs and the balance of payments between the two countries. But the US this month also updated its own policies on civilian nuclear co-operation with China to say that there would be a “presumption of denial” for any US company seeking to transfer technology to CGN or its subsidiaries. …..
A contract between China and Westinghouse Electric Company, the US nuclear engineering group sold by Toshiba to Canadian asset manager Brookfield last year, is not, however, broadly affected by the US policy shift, although future deals could be. The second Westinghouse plant in China started up on Wednesday, 11 years after the deal to build four AP1000 reactors was first signed. …..
Last month, CGN told the Financial Times that political sensitivities could prompt it to give up the chance to operate a new atomic power plant at Bradwell in Essex, as the group also outlined ambitious plans for an industrial partnership with Britain. …..
CGN has invested more than £2bn in its British nuclear projects in the past two years, and has committed to spend £9.5bn in this area in total. https://www.ft.com/content/84ab26f6-d7a5-11e8-a854-33d6f82e62f
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics international, UK, USA |
Leave a comment
 Federal Uranium Contamination Rule Withdrawn, Wyoming Public Media By COOPER MCKIM • OCT 23, 2018 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn a proposed rule that would limit contamination of groundwater from uranium mining long-term. The regulation was proposed on former President Barack Obama’s last day in office.The form of mining is called in-situ recovery (ISR); it’s the only technique used in Wyoming. It retrieves uranium from aquifers by drilling an injection well and then using liquid to mobilize it and produce it. The problem is that same mobilization technique brings out other chemicals and heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury. Those contaminate the aquifer water and potentially seep into other groundwaters.
The proposed rule under Obama would have set standards requiring operators to do long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions while lowering how much of eachchemical is allowed. Both would be stricter than Wyoming’s current standards. The federal version would require quarterly monitoring over three years rather than one ensuring contaminant concentrations remained at pre-mine levels. ……
The National Resource Defense Council found no groundwater near ISR mines have been returned to pre-mine conditions.http://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/federal-uranium-contamination-rule-withdrawn#stream/0
|
|
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, Uranium, USA |
Leave a comment
HOW CLOSE DID THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY GET TO USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN VIETNAM IN 1968? WAR ON THE ROCKS
OCTOBER 24, 2018.”…….The publication of Michael Beschloss’ new book, Presidents of War, shined light on declassified documents describing the efforts that President Lyndon Johnson’s senior military officers undertook without presidential authorization in early 1968 to prepare for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam.How close did the United States actually get to deploying nuclear weapons in Vietnam in 1968? Who initiated this plan, codenamed “Fracture Jaw,” and when did the president become aware of it? What can today’s leaders learn from this incident, and what implications does this episode have for command and control of nuclear weapons during wartime and the so-called “nuclear taboo” that purportedly dissuades their use?
Drawing on declassified “eyes only” materials housed at the Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, I seek to situate the revelations in Beschloss’ book in the broader historical context to provide a more detailed account of the military’s planning for Fracture Jaw and just how far Pentagon and White House officials allowed these preparations to progress without the president’s full knowledge………….
The “Nuclear Taboo” and Command and Control Nuclear Weapons During Wartime
From the perspective of the so-called “nuclear taboo,” which dissuades the use of nuclear weapons because of their devastating destructive potential, the Fracture Jaw episode is something of a success story. Johnson consistently made clear to his advisors that he did not want to be put in a position where he would be asked for authority to launch tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Although he did not explicitly rule out the use of these weapons categorically, Johnson’s fury in discovering on Feb. 10 that planning had persisted in spite of his earlier directive only reinforces the notion that the president was committed to avoiding their use.
From the vantage point of command and control of the nuclear arsenal, however, this episode is more harrowing. Although the president’s regional and theater commanders expeditiously complied with the commander-in-chief’s directive to shut down Fracture Jaw, their planning had progressed with seemingly little presidential understanding of just how far along Pacific Command had advanced in preparing its tactical nuclear arsenal for possible use……….
In his role as commander-in-chief, the president retains ultimate (and effectively unchecked) authority over whether to deploy nuclear weapons, a choice Johnson described as “one of the most awesome and grave decisions any president could be called upon to make.” In this instance, Johnson did not hesitate to exercise this authority, but only after media speculation made him aware of how far preparations for their use in Vietnam had actually progressed. That the president and the White House staff was insufficiently aware of how far along this contingency planning had progressed rightfully raises important questions about the integrity of the country’s nuclear command and control infrastructure, particularly as the United States contemplates a greater reliance on tactical nuclear weapons in its deterrence posture. And it gives rise to speculation, however remote, about the decision Johnson would have had to confront in weighing a full-fledged nuclear option in Vietnam should Fracture Jaw have come to fruition. In his role as commander-in-chief, the president retains ultimate (and effectively unchecked) authority over whether to deploy nuclear weapons, a choice Johnson described as “one of the most awesome and grave decisions any president could be called upon to make.” In this instance, Johnson did not hesitate to exercise this authority, but only after media speculation made him aware of how far preparations for their use in Vietnam had actually progressed. That the president and the White House staff was insufficiently aware of how far along this contingency planning had progressed rightfully raises important questions about the integrity of the country’s nuclear command and control infrastructure, particularly as the United States contemplates a greater reliance on tactical nuclear weapons in its deterrence posture. And it gives rise to speculation, however remote, about the decision Johnson would have had to confront in weighing a full-fledged nuclear option in Vietnam should Fracture Jaw have come to fruition. ……
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
history, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Plan to complete Bellefonte Nuclear Plant takes another step backward Al Alabama, 24 Oct 18 By Paul Gattis | pgattis@al.com Developers of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant got their strongest public indication Tuesday that its much-needed potential customer in Memphis isn’t interested.
And that rebuke appears to make it more likely that the mothballed plant in northeast Alabama will continue to sit unfinished while again facing a bleak and uncertain future.
Memphis Gas, Light & Water signed a non-binding letter of intent in January to purchase power when Nuclear Development LLC completes the plant in about 2024. But now under new leadership, Memphis Light is pushing away from Bellefonte.
“Since (Memphis Light) has not completed its due diligence with respect to the Bellefonte proposal and has not yet received independent feedback on a multitude of concerns, management believes that it is premature to negotiate and commit to the terms of a (power purchase agreement),” the document said.
Without a customer, Nuclear Development has said it throws an $8.6 billion loan application with the U.S. Department of Energy into jeopardy. And given that jeopardy, Nuclear Development may decline to complete the purchase from TVA of the plant in Jackson County – which is scheduled to close by Nov. 14.
In short, the deal to purchase and complete Bellefonte appears to hinge on the agreement with Memphis. Nuclear Development said in July it had a customer but declined to identify the client.
Nuclear Development has not responded to a request for comment from AL.com concerning its talks with Memphis.
At the Memphis city council meeting Monday, Memphis Light released a four-page document outlining its concerns for going into business with an unfinished plant as its power source and made its case for why it should walk away from the proposed deal………
· The fact that Bellefonte would be about 50 years old by completion is cause for concern……..https://www.al.com/business/2018/10/plan-to-complete-bellefonte-nuclear-plant-takes-another-step-backward.html
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
|
The Pantex nuclear weapons facility in Texas was just locked down … it took a while for them to explain why https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/the-pantex-nuclear-weapons-facility-in-texas-was-just-locked-down-it-took-a-while-for-them-to-explain-why/news-story/a9d78aee41461ba3e1e10a723f962712 Jamie Seidel, News Corp Australia Network, October 24, 2018 NOTHING invokes such fear as the threat of a nuclear accident. So when a leading US manufacturer of nuclear weapons declares an ‘operations emergency’, the world sits up and pays attention. Problem is, they’re not telling us anything.
All we were told is what is contained in a simple tweet:
Pantex Plant@PantexPlan The Pantex Plant is experiencing an operational emergency. The Emergency Response Organization has been activated. 3:59 AM – Oct 24, 2018
Mollified much?
Not when it comes to the amount of explosive radioactive material held at the plant, near Carson County, Texas.
Pantex is where the US nuclear arsenal is both constructed and disassembled.
New devices are built.
Old devices are broken down for safe disposal.
Naturally, it’s a high security site. And safety precautions are well established.
Local media reported “an unexpected event at the plant”.
But not what that unexpected event was.
“At this time, there appears to be no offsite impact and no need for the public to take any action.”
Those are calming words. To a point.
“The Pantex onsite response effort is being conducted by the Emergency Response Organization, a highly-trained group of employees with detailed knowledge of plant operations and emergency response procedures. These employees represent plant functions such as security, logistics, safety, medical response, radiological assessment, firefighting, operations and public information.”
That’s not so calming.
Security? Medical response? Radiological assessment?
The local sheriff closed local roads close to the eastern edge of the extensive facility.
Then, out of nowhere, it was all over. Perhaps.
Pantex Plant@PantexPlant Replying to @PantexPlant
The security event at Pantex has ended without incident. Thanks to the Carson County Sheriff and @AmarilloPD for their quick response.
4:47 AM – Oct 24, 201
Only later was an official explanation given.
A ‘routine’ inspection had sparked a bomb scare.
Security guard dogs had ‘sniffed out’ something suspicious.
“Pantex identified a potential concern with a vehicle in the … administrative building parking lot,” a statement reads. “As a precaution, all employees were sheltered in place.”
Interestingly, while employees were told to seek safety, surrounding inhabitants — equally at risk from nuclear fallout — were not.
“The vehicle was inspected for any prohibited items. After searching the vehicle, it was determined there were no prohibited items or explosives, and the emergency event was resolved without incident.”
Lucky for the locals.
The Carson County, Texas, plant has a history of problems. In 2015, it was reported ‘hundreds’ of employees had fallen ill with radiation related sicknesses since it was established in the 1950s.
|
|
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
incidents, USA |
Leave a comment
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-trump-arsenal/trump-threatens-to-build-up-us-nuclear-arsenal-against-china-russia-idUSKCN1MW2N4
WASHINGTON (Reuters) OCTOBER 23, 2018, – President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the United States intended to build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons to pressure Russia and China. Speaking to reporters, Trump repeated his contention that Russia was not abiding by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which he has threatened to abandon.
October 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Euro News, By Alexander Smith with NBC News World News• 22/10/2018
A piece of reckless brinkmanship that could spark an arms race between NATO and Russia in Europe, or a hardball negotiating strategy that might push Moscow into keeping its longstanding promises on nuclear weapons?President Donald Trump was widely criticized this weekend when he announced his intention to scrap a landmark nuclear weapons agreement signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The deal was designed to keep ground-based nuclear missiles out of Europe.Trump said that Russia has for years been violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF.He’s not the first president to make this allegation. President Barack Obama said much the same.Many experts agree that Moscow continues to break the rules and flout the pact, but despite that some say ripping up the agreement is a bad idea.
These skeptics range from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to Gorbachev himself, with the Nobel laureate telling Russia’s Interfax news agency Sunday that Trump’s decision was “very strange” and not the work of “a great mind.”The White House’s decision to pull out, so this argument goes, will only allow Moscow to continue its current actions without having to maintain the pretense of compliance. Meanwhile, Russia, which also accuses the U.S. of violating the agreement, can point the finger at the U.S. as the one responsible for the INF’s failure.The 1987 agreement bans ground-based nuclear and conventional missiles that can strike between 300 miles to 3,400 miles.”One concern is that in the medium-term there may be the temptation to return intermediate-range missiles, potentially including nuclear weapons, to Europe,” said Karl Dewey, an analyst at Jane’s by IHS Markit, an open-source defense intelligence provider based in London…….. https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/22/will-trump-s-withdrawal-nuclear-treaty-spark-arms-race-or-n922731
October 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
US EPA withdraws Obama administration uranium safety regulation Mining Technology, By JP Casey, 23 Oct 18
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn a uranium safety proposal introduced in the last days of the Obama administration that would have introduced tighter regulation for uranium mill tailings to minimise the dangers of uranium extraction.
Uranium mill tailings are sandy materials produced as a by-product of uranium mining, which contain radioactive elements. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) states that only waste products produced by surface operations, such as in-situ recovery and ion exchanges, can be considered mill tailings, unlike waste materials left behind underground when ore bodies are depleted.
As a result, mill tailings can pose a threat to people, animals and the environment in the vicinity of a uranium mine, with water sources particularly vulnerable to surface waste.
Uranium operations in the US are governed by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, which places responsibility for the regulation and disposal of mining waste with individual states, rather than the NRC.
The Obama-era proposition sought to give the NRC greater authority over tailings regulation and removal, and would have addressed an imbalance in the number of states that regulate their own waste and those which rely on the NRC for guidance.
Currently, just 13 states defer to the NRC for tailing regulation……
October 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, health, Uranium, USA |
Leave a comment
|
Nuclear Plants Go Belly Up in Democratic Districts. Then What?, ROLL CALL, Jeremy Dillon, 22 Oct 18 Most declining plants are in blue areas, and Congress is taking notice In Vermont, the relationship between the town of Vernon and its nuclear power plant, known as the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, had always been contentious.From 1970s-era antinuclear protests to more recent legal battles over a proposal to extend the plant’s license, Vermont residents and their state legislature kept a skeptical eye on the power source, which at one point provided some 70 percent of the state’s electricity.
Still, when New Orleans-based Entergy announced in 2014 that it would close the plant by the end of the year and ahead of its intended closure in the 2030s, there wasn’t much celebration. Instead the community’s focus turned almost immediately to ensuring the plant was decommissioned as quickly and as safely as possible.
But as folks in Vernon and other communities across the country have learned as more nuclear plants reach the end of their operating lives, state and local governments have little legal or regulatory say over how companies approach the cleanup and radioactive legacy of their local nuclear power plants.
Adding to the tensions, federal regulators at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are perceived in some of these communities as overly deferential to plant operators, though those decisions are backed by risk analysis.
“You have no control,” said Chris Campany, executive director of the Windham Regional Commission in Brattleboro, Vermont. “There’s an illusion of engagement, but it’s really only between the operator and the NRC.”
In the case of Vermont, which passed a state law requiring a citizen’s advisory panel, Entergy and citizens engaged in a public dialogue that did introduce more transparency into the process but ultimately resulted in little say for the community, according to the former chairwoman of the panel, Brattleboro resident Kate O’Connor.
“It was really frustrating,” O’Connor said. “You come to the realization that there really are no rules for decommissioning.”
Those complaints have registered with Vermont’s congressional delegation. “The people of Vernon, Vermont, have been knocking on the NRC’s doors trying to make sure they have a seat at the table,” said Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat from the state. Communities should have a right to that input, he said. “Every community going through this is facing these concerns.”
The concerns — including how quickly plants are required to be torn down, how the owners pay for the cleanup and even enforcement of safety regulations — have lawmakers in Congress increasingly paying attention to the decommissioning process and the NRC’s role in it as the number of communities hosting shuttered or shuttering plants grows……..
The act of decommissioning a nuclear plant carries its own issues, such as the fact that almost every part of the plant has some level of radiological exposure that can harm humans. That means materials like cement and steel must be handled cautiously and go to landfills set aside for radioactive waste.
“Decommissioning is a gigantic industrial cleanup of huge industrial facilities that have a singular item, nuclear waste, that makes it more complicated and challenging than almost any other industrial cleanup,” said Geoffrey Fettus, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, at a congressional briefing this summer.
But radiation in concrete or worker clothing has a shorter half-life than the spent nuclear fuel sitting in pools on the site. For some of the isotopes in steel and concrete, the radioactivity decreases significantly after 50 years compared to the tens of thousands of years for the spent fuel……. https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/nuclear-plants-democratic-districts-then-what
|
|
October 23, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 