nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

USA government in confusion over funding of MOX nuclear facility

Trump administration opposes House measure funding MOX nuclear facility http://www.janes.com/article/72606/trump-administration-opposes-house-measure-funding-mox-nuclear-facility,Daniel Wasserbly – IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, 26 July 2017

Key Points

  • The White House ‘strongly opposes’ a House effort to continue funding the MOX plutonium disposition programme
  • House and Senate appropriators are at odds over funding the controversial facility

The White House is backing a US Department of Energy (DoE) request, once again, for Congress to terminate a multi-billion-dollar project aimed at disposing weapon-grade plutonium, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF).

MFFF has suffered significant cost and schedule issues but is strongly supported by South Carolina’s congressional delegation and there are few easy options to replace the facility. It has survived repeated White House and DoE efforts during the Obama administration to curtail or terminate the programme, and last year even survived Russia’s suspension of the arms control agreement that underpins the project.

The Trump administration, in its fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018) budget request for the DoE, asked for USD270 million “to terminate the Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication Facility with an orderly and safe closure of the facility”. It also asked for USD9 million in FY 2018 to pursue a ‘dilute and dispose’ method as an alternative for plutonium disposition. The Obama administration asked for, but did not receive, the same thing last year.

So far, during a tumultuous FY 2018 budget process, Senate appropriators appear to back the White House’s request to end MOX but House appropriators want the programme to continue.

In a 24 July ‘statement of administration policy’, the White House said it “strongly objects to continued construction of the Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication Facility” as directed in the House appropriations bill. That legislation is still being finalised and must be reconciled with the Senate version before being enacted by the president. The White House did not indicate that it would consider a veto.

July 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, technology, USA | Leave a comment

If Trump were to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander would launch it

US admiral stands ready to obey a Trump nuclear strike order CANBERRA, Australia (AP) 28 July 17 — The U.S. Pacific Fleet commander said Thursday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Donald Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief.

Adm. Scott Swift was responding to a hypothetical question at an Australian National University security conference following a major joint U.S.- Australian military exercise off the Australian coast. The drills were monitored by a Chinese intelligence-gathering ship off northeast Australia.

Asked by an academic in the audience whether he would make a nuclear attack on China next week if Trump ordered it, Swift replied: “The answer would be: Yes.”

“Every member of the U.S. military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us,” Swift said.

He added: “This is core to the American democracy and any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem.”

Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. Charlie Brown later said Swift’s answer reaffirmed the principle of civilian control over the military.

“The admiral was not addressing the premise of the question, he was addressing the principle of civilian authority of the military,” Brown said. “The premise of the question was ridiculous.”

The biennial Talisman Saber exercise involved 36 warships including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, 220 aircraft and 33,000 military personnel……. https://apnews.com/e7a5db2a77b94ce78f6ef13b6562b8e2/US-admiral-stands-ready-to-obey-a-Trump-nuclear-strike-order

July 28, 2017 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hanford nuclear waste site – a national disaster they don’t want to talk about.

“Nobody in the world has waste like ours,” says one of my guides as we enter the site. No one has so much strontium 90, for instance, which behaves a lot like calcium and lodges inside the bones of any living creatures it penetrates, basically forever. Along with chromium and tritium and carbon tetrachloride and iodine 129 and the other waste products of a plutonium factory it is already present in Hanford’s groundwater. There are other nuclear-waste sites in the United States, but two-thirds of all the waste is here. Beneath Hanford a massive underground glacier of radioactive sludge is moving slowly, but relentlessly, toward the Columbia River.

The place is now an eerie deconstruction site, with ghost towns on top of ghost towns. Much of the old plutonium plant still stands: the husks of the original nine reactors, built in the 1940s, still line the Columbia River, like grain elevators. Their doors have been welded shut, and they have been left to decay—for another century.

 Only one stakeholder in the place wanted to know what was going on beneath its soil: the tribes. 

WHY THE SCARIEST NUCLEAR THREAT MAY BE COMING FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, Vanity Fair, BY  MICHAEL LEWISSeptember 2017  “………By the early 1940s the United States government understood that for democracy to survive it needed to beat Hitler to the atom bomb, and that the race had two paths—one required enriched uranium, the other plutonium. In early 1943, the United States Army was evicting everyone from an area in Eastern Washington nearly half the size of Rhode Island and setting out to create plutonium in order to build a nuclear bomb. The site of Hanford was chosen for its proximity to the Columbia River, which could supply the cooling water while its dams provided the electricity needed to make plutonium. Hanford was also chosen for its remoteness: the army was worried about both enemy attacks and an accidental nuclear explosion. Hanford was, finally, chosen for its poverty. It was convenient that what would become the world’s largest public-works project arose in a place from which people had to be paid so little to leave.

From 1943 until 1987, as the Cold War was ending and Hanford closed its reactors, the place created two-thirds of the plutonium in the United States’ arsenal—a total of 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945. You’d like to think that if anyone had known the environmental consequences of plutonium, or if anyone could have been certain that the uranium bomb would work, they’d never have done here what they did. “Plutonium is hard to produce,” said MacWilliams. “And hard to get rid of.” By the late 1980s the state of Washington had gained some clarity on just how hard and began to negotiate with the U.S. government. In the ensuing agreement the United States promised to return Hanford to a condition where, as MacWilliams put it, “kids can eat the dirt.” When I asked him to guess what it would cost to return Hanford to the standards now legally required, he said, “A century and a hundred billion dollars.” And that was a conservative estimate.

More or less overnight Hanford went from the business of making plutonium to the even more lucrative business of cleaning it up. In its last years of production the plutonium plant employed around 9,000 people. It still employs 9,000 people and pays them even more than it used to. “It’s a good thing that we live in a country that cares enough to take the time it will take, and spend the money it will spend, to clean up the legacy of the Cold War,” said MacWilliams. “In Russia they just drop concrete on the stuff and move on.”

The Department of Energy wires 10 percent of its annual budget, or $3 billion a year, into this tiny place and intends to do so until the radioactive mess is cleaned up. And even though what is now called the Tri-Cities area is well populated and amazingly prosperous—yachts on the river, $300 bottles of wine in the bistros—the absolute worst thing that could happen to it is probably not a nuclear accident. The worst thing that could happen is that the federal government loses interest in it and slashes the D.O.E.’s budget—as President Trump has proposed to do. And yet Trump won the county in which Hanford resides by 25 points. Continue reading

July 28, 2017 Posted by | Reference, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Lawsuit aims to stop construction of the problem-plagued Uranium Processing Facility (UPF)

Public Interest Organizations File Lawsuit Against New Nuclear Bomb Plant http://www.ladailypost.com/content/public-interest-organizations-file-lawsuit-against-new-nuclear-bomb-plant, by Carol A. Clark  July 26, 2017, OREPA News: WASHINGTON, D.C. ― The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA), Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a federal lawsuit July 20, to stop construction of the problem-plagued Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) until a legally required environmental review is completed.

 The UPF at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) Y-12 production plant near Oak Ridge, Tenn., is slated to produce new thermonuclear weapons components until the year 2080. The UPF is the tip of the spear for the U.S.’s planned one trillion dollar-plus make over of its nuclear weapons arsenal, delivery systems, and production plants.
“The story of this new bomb plant is a long tale of outrageous waste and mismanagement, false starts and re-dos, a federal agency that refuses to meet its legal obligation to engage the public, and a Senator that is bent on protecting this piece of prime nuclear pork for his home state,” said Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of OREPA. “But the short version is this: when the NNSA made dramatic changes to the UPF, and admitted that it intends to continue to operate dangerous, already contaminated facilities for another twenty or thirty years, they ran afoul of the National Environmental Policy Act. Our complaint demands that the NNSA complete a supplemental environmental impact statement on the latest iteration of its flawed plans.”
The NNSA first issued a formal “Record of Decision” to build the UPF in 2011. Within a year, the agency had to admit it had made a half-billion dollar mistake because the designed footprint of the bomb plant was not big enough to hold all of the required equipment and safety features. The American taxpayer had to eat that half billion dollars, as the NNSA held no contractor responsible for it. The agency’s parent organization, the Department of Energy, has been on the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk List for project mismanagement and chronic cost overruns for 26 consecutive years.
More recently, the House FY 2018 Energy and Water Development Appropriations report noted that the NNSA had to reprogram $403 million out of the UPF’s $1.4 billion contingency fund to address “unforeseen issues” before ground is even broken. Both the NNSA and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.-TN, chair of Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee) have repeatedly claimed that UPF construction will not exceed $6.5 billion. That declared budget cap seems increasingly uncertain, which could have serious negative political consequences for the troubled facility.
The UPF started with an original estimated price tag of between $600 million to $1 billion in 2006. In December 2013 an independent cost assessment by the Department of Defense pegged the UPF at more than $19 billion, which stopped the project dead in its tracks and compelled NNSA to develop a new approach. The agency commissioned a “Red Team” to perform a quick, secret study, whose recommendation was eventually adopted. In July 2016, the NNSA published an Amended Record of Decision in the Federal Register describing its new plan.
“It was a dramatic change,” commented Jay Coghlan, Executive Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. “Instead of consolidating all enriched uranium operations into one big, new UPF, NNSA decided to build multiple smaller but integrated buildings, only one of which would be designed to modern seismic standards. More importantly, the agency declared it would continue to indefinitely use deteriorating, already contaminated facilities for dangerous highly enriched uranium operations, while admitting that the buildings can not meet current environmental and seismic standards.”
The National Environmental Policy Act requires a federal agency to revisit any environmental analysis when its plan undergoes significant changes that might impact the environment, or when new information comes to light. It also requires public involvement throughout the process. “NEPA’s fundamental purposes are to ensure that agencies take a hard look at consequences before taking action and to ensure that the public has a voice in agency decisions,” said William Lawton, an attorney working on the case at Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks, LLP. “Here, the NNSA has chosen to save money by continuing to rely on outdated, deteriorating buildings that run a very real risk of collapsing and releasing nuclear contamination in the event of an earthquake. The agency is putting the public at risk, and the public has a right to make sure that the government has taken the legally required hard look at those serious risks.”
“Since 2011, despite our repeated efforts to get information, including filing Freedom of Information Act requests, visiting DOE offices, asking officials for information and writing hundreds of letters, we have been shut out of the process completely,” noted OREPA’s Hutchison. “When we saw the final document, admitting that they were going to continue to use dangerous risky facilities without bringing them up to code, we realized why the NNSA was so determined not to make its plan public.”
Coghlan noted that the NNSA faced a similar scenario several years ago at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico when plans for a huge new plutonium pit fabrication facility were substantially changed. “We told NNSA they had to complete more public review, and the agency wisely decided to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement,” he said. “The proposed changes to the UPF are even more dramatic, and we are invoking that precedent to demand that NNSA follow the law.”

July 28, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

American new sanctions against Iran – designed to kill off the nuclear agreement

New US sanctions aim to kill Iran nuclear deal – expert https://en.trend.az/iran/nuclearp/2781079.html26 July 2017 Baku, Azerbaijan,  By Farhad Daneshvar – Trend:

The US decision to impose fresh sanctions on Iran is a violation of a nuclear deal reached in 2015 between Tehran and the six major powers including the United States, a Norway-based Iranian financial analyst told Trend.

Elaborating on the recent decision by US House of Representatives to slap new sanctions on Iran, Mehrdad Seyed Asgari said that the new sanctions provide the US with a chance to covertly kill or avert the nuclear accord.

In this particular case aborting the deal means that the US will refuse to properly implement the articles of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA aka nuclear deal) aimed at placing the administration of President Hassan Rouhani under tremendous pressure.

Sanctions have been imposed on Iran with an aim to divide the country’s economic system in two parts of “white and black”, he mentioned.

Since the American lawmakers believe that sanctions work as a powerful tool, they appear to continue increasing pressure on Iran through introducing new sanctions.

The recent bill passed by the US House of Representatives on introducing new sanctions on Iran is very likely to become a law, he concluded.

The lawmakers voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to slap new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea.

The legislation in order to become a law still needs to be signed by President Donald Trump

July 28, 2017 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Thomas Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, callously disregarded nuclear workers’ health

Former Labor Secretary Perez Ignored Nuclear Plant Workers Pleas for Help  National Legal and Policy Center,  July 26, 2017As a multicultural radical, Thomas Perez is well-suited for his current job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As a government official, he is anything but that. Last week a lawyer for the Department of Labor went public with damning evidence that Perez, while heading DOL during the second Obama term, thwarted congressionally-mandated payouts to Cold War-era nuclear arsenal employees with job-related illnesses. The whistleblower, Stephen Silbiger, accused Perez of “open hostility” toward the workers, some of whom died waiting in futility for their claims to be processed. The story, which appeared in last Friday’s Washington Free Beacon, suggests the Democratic Party, like Perez, is not on the side of American workers, populist rhetoric notwithstanding……..
Before Thomas Perez can celebrate future victories, however, he now has to deal with an unexpected problem from his past. An article appearing in the July 21 Washington Free Beacon quoted Stephen Silbiger, a senior attorney at the Solicitor’s Office of the U.S. Department of Labor and now a whistleblower. Silbiger accused top DOL officials of withholding mandated compensation for former employees at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and other nuclear arsenals suffering from cancer and other job-related illnesses. Some of these people, he told Free Beacon senior writer Susan Crabtree, died waiting for money and/or services that the DOL did not approve or even necessarily consider. Secretary Perez and certain other agency officials, said Silbiger, not only ignored these workers, but displayed “open hostility” toward them.

Back in 2000, Congress passed a law known as the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). This legislation, which had broad bipartisan support, authorized the federal government to pay medical bills and lost wages of workers and supervisors who had assembled nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and who in the process had exposed themselves to high doses of toxins. The law, which established a $400,000 per household cap, was intended to speed up disbursements of funds. And there was much disbursement. By the end of last July, the program had paid out a cumulative $12.7 billion in compensation and medical benefits to 105,602 nuclear weapons workers and surviving family members. What those figures don’t reveal is that deserving workers now are getting shortchanged, a legacy of Tom Perez’s tenure at the Department of Labor.

During the latter months of the Obama era, the Labor Department revised program regulations to severely restrict the availability of compensation and medical services. Moreover, the department behaved unethically by: 1) refusing to disclose all application rules; 2) changing eligibility rules after they had been established; and 3) knowingly delaying compensation until the sick workers died. Silbiger, who previously had worked eight years at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said he raised these issues with Assistant Secretary of Labor Michael Kerr and DOL Solicitor Patricia Smith, but received no response. EEOICPA Ombudsman Malcolm Nelson did respond, and sympathetically, but told Silbiger that his office, unlike the Office of Inspector General, lacked the power to conduct investigations.

Silbiger’s accusations received a boost in credibility last August in a New Mexico federal court ruling on a complaint lodged almost two years earlier. In Lucero v. Department of Labor, U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez overturned a Labor Department denial of compensation to the widow of a deceased nuclear worker. The governing statute, wrote Judge Vazquez, “unambiguously entitled” survivors of a worker already qualifying for the compensation to a sum that the employee “would have received in accordance [with the law] if the employee’s death had not occurred before compensation was paid.” The department’s rejection of the application, being contrary to the “plain meaning” of the statute, was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore void. Silbiger believes the department’s denial of benefits demonstrates a larger problem within the agency. “There’s explicit hostility toward claimants,” he told the Free Beacon, “and this has become a game for bureaucrats to see how clever they can be in manipulating the statute and the regs to deny benefits to indigent claimants.”

A group representing program beneficiaries, the Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups (ANWAG), makes these points as well. In a July 12 letter to Labor Department Inspector General Scott Dahl, ANWAG charged that the rule change proposals are illegal because they were never adopted through official rulemaking procedures and were used to deny claims months and even years before. The group demanded an investigation of ethical and legal lapses during the revisions. The new rules require that a worker identify the “trigger month” in which he or she first became disabled, and that the worker must be employed during that month to be eligible for wage-loss compensation. ANWAG counters that the rule does not take into account symptoms that could have taken root well before a medical diagnosis. The group stated: “We believe government employees responsible for implementing EEOICPA have abused their power, ignored the laws of the land [and] failed to comply with executive orders requiring that agencies operate in a transparent manner.”

As labor secretary, Thomas Perez had a hand in this. Pursuant to congressional mandate, Perez on April 1, 2016 appointed 15 members representatives from the scientific, medical and legal communities to a panel that would develop recommendations to make the program more accountable. Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., had written a letter to Secretary Perez the previous day requesting that he delay rule the changes, which had been proposed the previous November, until the advisory board could offer input. They wrote:

The men and women who were exposed to radiation and toxic substances at our nation’s nuclear facilities deserved to have their claims evaluated in a fair and equitable manner. DOL’s proposed rule change may increase the burden on claimants with little or no explanation. While some changes memorialize existing practice, others have raised concerns, including modifying a claimant’s ability to change their treating physician which arguably provides DOL more discretion to exclude providers, but also takes away the right of a patient to be seen by a doctor of their choice. Under the proposed rule, qualified claimants also risk losing coverage if they are too sick to travel for second medical opinions or represent themselves at administrative hearings. Such a requirement increases the burden on those least able to care for themselves.

Were this not convincing enough for Perez to look before he leaped, the Government Accountability Office earlier in the month had released a report, based on a random sample of claimant experiences, concluding that while the DOL generally adhered to established procedures, there was a good deal of room for improvement. The GAO cautioned against finalizing the rule changes without taking into account the report’s findings. But the department went ahead and instituted the new rules anyway.

How, then, does one explain Thomas Perez’s aversion to sensible advice from a variety of sources? Why did he and other Labor Department officials circumvent standard procedures for rule changes in order to prevent ailing workers from receiving due benefits? One can speculate at length here, but the best explanation is that Perez is a racial grievance politician first and a public servant second. For him, expanding the “right” of Hispanics illegally in this country to remain permanently is a priority. Protecting the “right” of black revolutionaries to terrorize white voters in Philadelphia (and firing DOJ prosecutors who complained about it) is a priority. But assisting American workers who risked and often lost their lives handling hazardous materials at nuclear weapons facilities isn’t a priority. Perez’s elevation to the top of the Democratic Party hierarchy says many things about him and the party – none of them good. http://nlpc.org/2017/07/26/former-labor-secretary-perez-ignored-nuclear-plant-workers-pleas-help/

July 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Florida Power & Light nuclear plans contested by regulators and community and business groups

State regulators grapple with Florida Power & Light nuclear plans Orlando Weekly  By Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida on Thu, Jul 27, 2017 With Florida Power & Light saying it expects to “pause” the project, state regulators next month will wade into a dispute about how to handle the utility’s long-discussed plans to add two nuclear reactors in Miami-Dade County.

The dispute, detailed in documents filed last week at the Florida Public Service Commission, pits FPL against consumer representatives, the city of Miami and business and environmental groups.

At least in part, it involves an FPL strategy to continue pursuing a crucial license for the reactors and then pausing for what could be years before making decisions about whether to move forward with the project. The utility is asking the Public Service Commission to allow it to recoup costs from customers in the future for the licensing and other expenses.

But opponents of the request argue FPL has not submitted a needed study that would show whether the nuclear project is feasible. They say the utility should not be given approval to continue adding millions of dollars in costs and billing customers later……..

opponents question whether FPL will ever build the reactors and say customers should not face the prospect of added costs.

“FPL’ s position begs a basic policy question: If FPL cannot produce a feasibility analysis showing that pursuing the reactors makes economic sense for customers, why would the (Public Service) Commission saddle customers with more risk and costs?” said a document filed last week by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, one of the opposition groups.

The issue is rooted in a 2006 state law that was designed to encourage the development of nuclear power in Florida. That controversial law allowed utilities to incrementally collect money from customers for costly nuclear projects, rather than recouping project costs after reactors start operating……..
“FPL has not satisfied, and almost certainly cannot satisfy, the statutory requirement that it prove that it has committed sufficient resources to enable its Turkey Point project to be completed, and that its alleged intent to do so is realistic or practical,” the Florida Retail Federation said in a filing last week. “FPL has not filed a realistic feasibility study for its project for more than two years, and in those intervening years, significant developments have occurred that cast serious doubt on the viability value of pursuing the COL for (the Turkey Point reactors).” https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/07/27/state-regulators-grapple-with-florida-power-and-light-nuclear-plans

July 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

People’s health, and the environment are hit hard by uranium mining in Utah

Tucked inside the Trump administration’s proposed budget is $703 million in funding for nuclear weapons. Although that’s about 30 percent less than last year, you would hardly know it here in the heart of Utah’s canyon country, where the nation’s last operating conventional uranium mill—the White Mesa Mill—is forging ahead.

The mill sits on an arid mesa just a few miles east of the newly established Bears Ears National Monument, with Monument Valley to the south and Canyonlands National Park to the north, and is owned by a subsidiary of the Canadian energy giant Energy Fuels Resources, which also owns and operates uranium mines around the Grand Canyon. Today, despite a litany of risks, Energy Fuels Resources is asking Utah to renew the mill’s license, which expired in 2007 and has been in “timely renewal” ever since.

Energy Fuels has influential friends, including high-powered lobbyists Andrew Wheeler, who worked on the Trump campaign and was involved with transition planning, and Mary Bono, the former California congresswoman and widow of Sonny Bono. So far, Utah seems to be welcoming the permit renewal as an economic boon for rural San Juan County, though the mill is staunchly opposed by its nearest neighbors—the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and White Mesa residents who are mostly tribal members. Few have forgotten what happened to two towns and surrounding communities after uranium mills there were shuttered.

When the Monticello uranium mill closed, the environmental mess it left behind became two federal Superfund sites, one of which encompassed the entire community of Monticello. A $250 million taxpayer-funded cleanup effort ensued, even as cancers, respiratory problems, reproductive issues, allergies and birth defects plagued the residents of this small uranium town.

Decades earlier, child and adolescent leukemia clusters appeared in the community. Residents suspected these ailments were linked to long-term uranium exposure, and a 2007 Utah Department of Health study found the mill to be a “plausible” cause of elevated rates of certain cancers.

In both Moab and Monticello, uranium mills have permanently contaminated the groundwater and poisoned surface water—both scarce resources in the arid West. Adding insult to injury, the Moab mill owner declared bankruptcy and stuck taxpayers with the cleanup bill. The site still isn’t completely cleaned up, and with cuts to the Department of Energy’s budget, cleanup could be delayed indefinitely. Why, despite this history of mismanagement just up the road from White Mesa, do state regulators seem content to let history repeat itself?

Already the problems that have emerged at the White Mesa Mill look a lot like the problems plaguing Monticello and Moab. The shallow groundwater aquifer underneath the mill is contaminated with heavy metals, and the bond posted by the company to fund cleanup is laughably low—about $22 million, which is less than a fifth of professional cleanup-cost estimates.

If Utah regulators fail to stand up for the public interest now, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, southeastern Utahns and ultimately American taxpayers risk paying a high price. But nowhere are the risks higher than in White Mesa. The tribal community is immediately down-gradient and often downwind from the mill. Community members describe finding rainbow-colored meat when butchering animals hunted near the mill site. When the wind blew from the direction of the mill, people kept their children inside, reporting that they smelled strong chemical odors.

In both 2012 and 2013, the mill’s own reports show that it emitted more radon—a cancer-causing air pollutant—than the Clean Air Act allows. And in 2015, 2016 and 2017, radioactive spills occurred as materials were transported to the mill for processing. Numerous cases of cancer have been reported in White Mesa, although no epidemiological studies have begun.

Still, Utah regulators seem unconvinced that the risks are real, and now the state has opened the mill’s license renewal to public comment. With Energy Fuels lobbying in Utah and in Washington, D.C., Americans have only until July 31, 2017, to urge regulators to stop continued environmental injustice at White Mesa. At the very least, state regulators should require Energy Fuels to post a substantial bond to guarantee that the company pays for the mill’s cleanup. It’s time to stop asking taxpayers to pay for an industry’s toxic mess.

Stephanie Malin is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the op ed service of High Country News (hcn.org). She is the author of The Price of Nuclear Power: Uranium Communities and Environmental Justice and is an assistant professor at Colorado State University.

July 28, 2017 Posted by | environment, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Lawmakers are forcing taxpayers to go nuclear.

Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bail out the nuclear industry: David Williams Press Journal 27 July 17 Lawmakers are forcing taxpayers to go nuclear.

Now that nuclear energy is becoming less competitive nationwide, lawmakers are responding by using Americans’ hard-earned dollars to bail out floundering nuclear plants.

But government handouts are no way to protect consumers. Rather than favor certain energy sources over others, lawmakers should let consumers benefit from a competitive, level energy playing field.

Many nuclear companies are struggling to compete with other forms of energy. As a result, nuclear bailouts are becoming the norm.

Consider Illinois. Last year, Chicago-based Exelon — the owner of Three Mile Island — announced that without government intervention, its power plants in Clinton and the Quad Cities would be forced to shut down. So legislators cooked up the Future Energy Jobs Act, which will throw a $200 million a year lifeline to Exelon — allowing its plants to limp on.

And they’ll pay for that bailout with the largest tax-rate increase in U.S. history. The scheme would hit Illinois residents with an extra $16.4 billion in energy costs. All told, the plan would forgo $14.7 billion in economic activity and $429 million in local and state tax revenue, costing Illinois up to 44,000 jobs……

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo approved a similar plan to spend $7.6 billion to save struggling nuclear plants. Exelon is purchasing an additional plant in the Empire State on the condition that the state’s government help pick up the tab by raising utility rates.

That’ll cost New Yorkers big time. Indeed, experts estimate the plan will rob New Yorkers of $3.4 billion over the first five years — and more in the long term. New York and federal taxpayers will also feel the pinch when energy costs for state and federal buildings increase.

The bailouts don’t stop there. Now that nuclear companies have locked down funding models in Illinois and New York, they’re getting ready to turn to other states for more money.

In Ohio, for instance, another power company, FirstEnergy, is looking to sell its floundering plants near Cleveland and Toledo. Exelon is considering moving in — asking the state for a little help in taking over the facilities. Nuclear companies are also eyeing handouts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut.

These other states should look to New York and Illinois as cautionary tales. Throwing taxpayer-subsidized lifelines to nuclear energy will hurt energy markets across America, resulting in poorer service, less choice, and higher utility rates for customers.

Indeed, if all nuclear plants in the northeast and mid-Atlantic win similar subsidies, it could cost ratepayers an astounding $3.9 billion a year, according to a report by Bloomberg Intelligence…….

David Williams is president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the public on the government’s effects on the economy. http://www.pressandjournal.com/stories/taxpayers-shouldnt-have-to-bail-out-the-nuclear-industry-david-williams,16140

July 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

USA nuclear ship closed 45 years ago – but still no funds to decommission it

Aboard the NS Savannah, America’s first (and last) nuclear merchant ship, Years after shutdown, Savannah still waits for funding for its reactor decommissioning. Ars Technica, SEAN GALLAGHER – 7/26/2017  Constructed at a cost of $46.9 million ($386.8 million in 2016 dollars) and launched on July 21, 1959, the Savannah was the world’s first nuclear cargo ship and the second nuclear-powered civilian ship (coming just two years after the Soviet nuclear icebreaker Lenin). Owned by the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) and operated by commercial cargo companies, for nearly a decade she carried cargo and passengers around the world. She also acted as a floating herald for America’s seemingly inevitable, cool Atomic Age future. Savannah boasted all the latest conveniences, including one of the world’s first microwave ovens.

July 28, 2017 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

Citizens concerned about Palisades nuclear wastes

Citizens ask about spent nuclear fuel storage, closure of Palisades, Kalamazoo News 27 July 17 By Brad Devereaux  bdeverea@mlive.com SOUTH HAVEN, MI — Inspectors and experts on radioactive material and decommissioning nuclear power plants spoke with the public during an open house about Palisades Nuclear Plant.

While the plant is slated to be shut down in October 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will remain involved to oversee safety compliance as the reactor fuel is removed and the plant enters decommissioning.

During a July 26 meeting in South Haven, citizens asked NRC officials about the clean-up and expressed concerns about the process to shutter the facility.

Benton Harbor resident Bette Pierman said she wanted answers from the NRC about what the site would be like for future generations. She wanted to know if any radioactive materials would be transported off-site during decommissioning, and said she worries the infrastructure is not in place to transport radioactive materials…….

Corinne Carey of Grand Rapids sat in the front row during some of the presentations by NRC officials, recording on a video camera. She said the plant should have been closed “a long time ago,” and now she’s concerned about the details of the clean-up and wants to make sure it’s done right.

“Who knows what’s going to happen to it? Is the radioactive waste going to remain on site?” she said.

She worries that a plane could hit a site where spent nuclear fuel is to be stored.

“What is the world we’re turning over to (our grandchildren)?” she said.

Decommissioning experts spoke about the process that can take up to 60 years that involves removing radioactive material and cleaning materials at the site and putting spent fuel into safe storage……..

Security measures will remain in place as long as spent fuel is stored on the site, the NRC said. The spent fuel is in a different category than other radioactive materials found on site, and will not decay to a safe level in the near future.

“The contents inside is extremely radioactive,” Edwards said about spent fuel that is usually stored in a dry cask some time after a plant shutdown. It emits lethal doses if left unshielded……..http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2017/07/citizens_ask_about_radioactivi.html

July 28, 2017 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Out of site, out of mind – America’s foul military waste pollution in Louisiana

The U.S. military burns millions of pounds of munitions in a tiny, African-American corner of Louisiana. The town’s residents say they’re forgotten in the plume, by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, Photography by Ashley Gilbertson/VII Photo, special to ProPublica July 21, 2017 COLFAX, LOUISIANA Two years ago, the U.S. military had an embarrassment on its hands: A stockpile of aging explosives blew up at a former Army ammunition plant in Minden, Louisiana, sending a cloud of debris 7,000 feet into the sky

Local residents, alarmed by toxic contaminants from the accident, were nothing short of furious when they learned what the military intended to do with the 18 million of pounds of old explosives still remaining at the depot. The Army was set to dispose of the explosives through what are known as “open burns,” processes that would result in still more releases of pollutants.

Facing an uproar, the Army turned to a familiar partner to help placate the residents of Minden: A private facility in Colfax, 95 miles south, operated by Clean Harbors, a longtime Defense Department contractor and one of the largest hazardous waste handlers in North America.

The Colfax plant is the only commercial facility in the nation allowed to burn explosives and munitions waste with no environmental emissions controls, and it has been doing so for the military for decades. And so while the Army ultimately commissioned a special incinerator to dispose of most of the Minden explosives, more than 350,000 pounds of them were shipped here. Over the ensuing months, the munitions were burned on the grounds of the plant, fueling raging fires that spewed smoke into the air just hundreds of yards from a poor, largely black community.

Beyond the story of the Minden explosives, the Clean Harbors facility here has become an important clearinghouse for military-related waste as the Department of Defense and its contractors struggle to deal with hazardous byproducts from weapons manufacturing and huge stockpiles of aging munitions. For years, defense-related firms have burned this waste at their own facilities, stubbornly clinging to the practice even as it has been outlawed in parts of Europe and Canada. But the permits to do so have become harder to get, the terms less flexible, and, increasingly, the pollution unacceptable to surrounding communities. Clean Harbors offers a legal way to get rid of dangerous materials from a wide range of sites that can’t or don’t want to handle them on their own.

In 2015 alone, 700,000 pounds of military-related munitions and explosives were trucked to Colfax, where both Clean Harbors and the military have so far been able to outmaneuver a community with abundant concerns but little money, and even less political influence, to fight back.

The Department of Defense did not respond to questions regarding its use of the Clean Harbors burn facility in Colfax, or environmental concerns related to it.

That such material is being shipped anywhere appears to contradict the military’s longstanding claim that these wastes are too dangerous to move, so they must be burned in the open where they were made or used. Yet every year, military bases and defense contractors send munitions or other explosive material to Colfax, packing explosives into cardboard boxes, shuffling them onto 18-wheelers and driving them sometimes thousands of miles across the country. Delivery manifests filed with Louisiana regulators detail the variety of materials: rocket fuel from a missile factory near Los Angeles; hand grenades from a munitions factory in Arkansas; detonating fuses from Cincinnati; solid propellant from an Aerojet Rocketdyne factory in Virginia; explosive lead from a North Carolina military aircraft factory; warhead rockets from a Lockheed Martin facility in Alabama.

Once received, they are burned on a set of 20 metal-lined pans on a parking-lot-like patch of concrete with “no risk to human health or the environment,” according to Clean Harbor’s senior vice president for compliance and regulatory affairs, Phillip Retallick.

The burns take place several times each day, and when they do, they turn parts of Colfax into a virtual war zone.

“It’s like a bomb, shaking this trailer,” said Elouise Manatad, who lives in one of the dozen or so mobile homes speckling the hillside just a few hundred yards from the facility’s perimeter. The rat-tat-tat of bullets and fireworks crackles through the woods and blasts rattle windows 12 miles away. Thick, black smoke towers hundreds of feet into the air, dulling the bright slices of sky that show through the forest cover. Manatad’s nephew Frankie McCray — who served two tours at Camp Victory in Iraq — runs inside and locks the door, huddling in the dark behind windows covered in tinfoil.

Like most of the people who live there, Manatad and McCray find it difficult to believe the booms and clouds aren’t also exacting some sort of toxic price.

Colfax is a rough-hewn, mostly black town of 1,532 people that hugs a levee separating it from the surging mud and wild alligators of the Red River. Fleeing former slaves once camped under thatched tents in the bayou, and a historic marker serves as a reminder that more than 150 “negroes” were once massacred here. Another monument, in the graveyard a few steps away, praises the three white men who also died, as “heroes … fighting for white supremacy.”……

Last November, state environment officials parked an air monitoring van on Bush road a few doors down from Elouise Manatad’s trailer. Manatad says they never told her what they were doing or what they’d found, but lab samples obtained from the state show environmental regulators detected notable levels of acrolein, a highly toxic vapor commonly associated with open burns of munitions. A division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes acrolein as having a “suffocating odor” and causing severe respiratory problems and heart attacks — even at low doses and for as long as 18 months after exposure.

The lab reports also showed low levels of other volatile organic compounds, including benzene, known to cause cancer, and which the World Health Organization warns has “no safe level of exposure.”

Soil, groundwater and stream beds sampled on the Clean Harbors site over the past few months have also been found to contain an array of extremely harmful substances likely connected with the burning of munitions waste. Underground water supplies sampled this spring show perchlorate, a type of rocket fuel, at more than 18 times Louisiana’s trigger levels for additional screening and eight times greater than what California, which sets stringent regulatory limits on perchlorate in groundwater, permits. RDX and HMX, both military explosive compounds, were also detected. Soil tested near the fence line of the facility contained dioxin — a chemical that builds up in fish and affects the human immune, reproductive and nervous systems — at three times the limits that trigger a state safety review. Silt scraped from a stream bed that runs toward the plant’s fence line and a nearby farm contained lead at nearly four times the level that triggers additional state screening.

State inspections also found Clean Harbors in violation of a number of regulations, including handling hazardous waste in unpermitted ways, failing to make repairs to its burn pads, and discharging unauthorized pollutants in violation of its state water permit………

Neither the Louisiana Chemical Industry Alliance nor representatives from Southern Strategies, the lobbying firm hired by Clean Harbors, responded to requests for comment for this story.

In Colfax, the fight endures. The state is pressing for more water and air samples. It is threatening Clean Harbors with sanctions for some of its violations. Its health department has promised to continue watching the issue. But almost nobody — especially Manatad and others living pressed up against the Clean Harbors fence line — expects officials to force Clean Harbors to stop burning altogether.

“I’m pretty sure if they was living in an environment like this they wouldn’t be pleased either, because it’s not safe,” said Annie Tolbert, 80, resting from the heavy heat in her fenced-in porch. Tolbert takes a puff of steroids from an inhaler, prescribed for her severe asthma. “They are not going to listen to us because we are black.”

“But we are citizens, too.”


Abrahm Lustgarten is a senior environmental reporter, with a focus at the intersection of business, climate and energy.

Nina Hedevang, Razi Syed, Clare Victoria Church, students in the NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute graduate studies program, contributed reporting for this story. Other students in the program who also contributed were Alex Gonzalez, Lauren Gurley, Alessandra Freitas and Eli Kurland.

July 26, 2017 Posted by | environment, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

New Documentary Film on St. Louis Nuclear Waste Site and Landfill Fire

Fall Film Festival includes Documentary on St. Louis Nuclear Waste Site and Landfill Fire, Huntington NewsBY TONY RUTHERFORD , HNN ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR “……….The Fall International Film Festival includes a not yet shown HBO documentary, “Atomic Homefront,” which details the anguish of confronting state and federal agencies over nuclear waste dumping in St. Louis. The film is by Sarah Spurlock,  wife of Morgan Spurlock.

HBO documentary, “Atomic Homefront” at St. Louis Filmmakers Showcase

Left unsaid, both the NY Times , Wall Street  Journal, and HNN have revealed that Huntington , too, had a uranium and nickel carbonyl plant that processed and recycled fuels for three gaseous diffusion plants. When the process was found to not be cost effective, the structure — owned by the Atomic Energy Commission — was dismantled and the most contaminated portions buried in Piketon,Ohio. Workers from the Huntington Pilot Plant have received compensation from the Dept. of Labor for working in a facility covered under the Atomic Energy Commission definition that includes the St. Louis site, Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Piketon, Ohio.

According to IMDB, “Atomic Homefront” reveals :

“… St. Louis, Missouri’s atomic past as a uranium processing center for the Atomic bomb and the governmental and corporate negligence that lead to the illegal dumping of Manhattan Project radioactive waste throughout North County neighborhoods. Our film is a case study of how citizens are confronting state and federal agencies for the truth about the extent of the contamination and are fighting to keep their families safe. ”

Film International published the following review of Oscar winning director’s Rebecca Cammisa reviewed at the AFI film festival:

f you’re not screaming mad by the end of Atomic Homefront, you obviously believe the systemworks. As a study in government failure and corporate greed, this HBO-supported documentary from director Rebecca Cammisa shows that your trust is grievously and tragically misplaced if you expect the Environmental Protection Agency to serve a desperate public. Likewise, if you believe a large waste service company would provide honest guidance and responsibility in serving its customers, think again.

This passionate film, having its world premiere as one of the 11 Spotlight Screenings at AFI DOCS in Washington DC, is a heart breaker. Cammisa, an Oscar nominee for her 2009 documentary feature Which Way Home (dealing with child migrants) and her 2012 short God Is the Bigger Elvis (a lovely look at Dolores Hart, a Hollywood actress turned nun), spent several years following the problems of two St. Louis neighborhoods that have seen their residents ravaged by cancer and death. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/150485

http://filmint.nu/?p=21313

or more about the waste in St. Louis see:

http://www.waste360.com/nuisances/bridgeton-landfill-fire-explained-updated

July 26, 2017 Posted by | Resources -audiovicual, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

New York’s nuclear power subsidies upheld by judge

U.S. judge refuses to halt New York nuclear power plant subsidies, Reuters, JULY 26, 2017  Jonathan Stempel, NEW YORK   – A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by energy companies and trade groups to stop New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from providing billions of dollars in subsidies to prop up struggling nuclear power plants in the state.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni in Manhattan rejected claims that federal law preempted New York and its Public Service Commission from offering credits to promote clean energy and reduce reliance on fossil-fueled or gas plants.

The plaintiffs said the credits could boost electric bills for New York’s “captive ratepayers” by $7.6 billion over 12 years, and violate the “dormant” Commerce Clause by impeding Congress’ power to regulate commerce among states.

But the judge said New York’s “zero-emissions credits” program was “plainly related to a matter of legitimate state concern”: the production of clean energy, and reduction of emissions from other energy that could add to global warming……..

Audrey Zibelman, in her role as PSC chair, was the lead defendant. Nuclear generators receiving the credits and their owners, including Exelon Corp, also sided with the governor.

Cuomo endorsed the subsidies in connection with his “Clean Energy Standard” announced last August, which required that half of New York’s electricity come from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar by 2030.

The case is Coalition for Competitive Electricity et al v. Zibelman et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-08164.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Grant McCool  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1AA2VF

July 26, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

USA’s Land-Based Nuclear Missiles simply not financially or politically sustainable

Why The U.S. Must Get Rid Of Its Land-Based Nuclear Missiles, Foxtrot Alpha, Terrell Jermaine Starr, 7/18/17 The Cold War is over. And so is the need for America’s land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Not only are the costs of maintaining 450 Minuteman-III missiles unsustainable, keeping them in the nuclear arsenal is hardly practical. Maintaining hundreds of outdated, budget-draining Minuteman-IIIs when the Pentagon has the more accurate, multi-dimensional Trident II that can be shot from Ohio-class submarines that are virtually undetectable makes little sense.

It’s already estimated that modernizing America’s nuclear stockpile will cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over 30 years. The U.S. Air Force wants to replace the current land-based ICBM force with newer missiles that are estimated to cost more than $100 billion, which is 60 percent greater than the figure the Defense Department set last summer.

 But scrapping the Minuteman-III will not only save money, it will show Russia, and other emerging nuclear powers like India and Pakistan that America is serious about non-proliferation. From both a financial, tactical and leadership standpoint, America and the rest of the world will be better off if Washington puts aside its political posturing and kill the land-based leg of its nuclear triad—the land, air and sea-based platforms America uses to launch its nuclear weapons……..

Funding Land-based ICBMs Is Financially And Politically Unsustainable

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in 2015 that it will cost $26 billion to maintain the Minuteman-III stockpile over a 10-year period, which is $3 billion more than the 2013 estimate. The U.S. Navy is calling for the entire land-based ICBM force to be replaced with new Minuteman-IIIs.

 The service, which is fielding vendors, says the new generation of ICBMs will last well beyond 2070— at a cost of at least $100 billion. In 2014, RANDpublished a report stating that new Minuteman-IIIs will cost “almost two times—and perhaps even three times—more than incremental modernization of the current Minuteman III system.”

All of this for a leg of the triad that is tactically obsolete……. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-u-s-must-get-rid-of-its-land-based-nuclear-mis-1796677582

July 26, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment