NNSA has yet to satisfy Government Accounting Office best practice guidelines for the SRS pit project.
LANL itself has experienced numerous and serious safety accidents, including a plutonium fire, flooding, glove box contamination and a plutonium “criticality” accident, in recent years.
Why does the production of new plutonium pits take priority over cleaning up the hazardous legacy of previous pit production?
Last week U.S. District Judge Mary Lewis Geiger, South Carolina, faulted the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Agency for ignoring the National Environmental Protection Act and rushing plans to fabricate plutonium pit bombs at Savannah River Site, near Aiken, South Carolina.
Newly designed plutonium pits will serve as “triggers” for the next generation of nuclear warheads mounted atop Sentinel, the next generation of intercontinental ballistic missile, and for new submarine-launched nuclear weapons. Combined, these projects comprise major components in the trillion-dollar “modernization” of the U.S. strategic deterrence force.
Plaintiffs including Savannah River Site Watch, South Carolina Environmental Law Project Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, Nuclear Watch New Mexico and Tri-Valley CAREs forced NNSA to halt construction on many phases of its plutonium pit facility near Aiken, SC, to hold public scoping meetings, solicit public comments, and produce a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement within thirty months.
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the plutonium pit modernization project was complex, involving diverse entities, was spread over wide geographical regions and therefore, by definition, required a “programmatic environmental impact statement, PEIS.
The proposed plutonium pit facility at Savannah River Site will reconstruct a massive 500-room partially completely abandoned building designed for the Mixed Oxide Plant. The spectacularly failed MOX plant would have processed old plutonium pits from de-commissioned US nuclear weapons per a nuclear weapons agreement with the Russians in 2000. Poor management and engineering revisions multiplied costs exceeding $7 billion when DOE finally terminated the MOX project in 2019. DOE recently paid the State of South Carolina an extra $600 million fine for failure to remove 10 tons of plutonium delivered to the MOX plant and stored at SRS. Ironically SRS is importing a different 10 tons of plutonium pits from the PANTEX pit storage site in Texas to manufacture new pits.
NNSA’s plan for plutonium pit production at Savannah River Site involves complex coordination between Los Alamos, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad NM, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in CA and the Kansas City National Security Campus, and therefor requires a NEPA “programmatic environmental impact statement”. NNSA refused repeated calls to perform the PEIS, which resulted in the successful lawsuit agreed last week.
NNSA has yet to satisfy Government Accounting Office best practice guidelines for the SRS pit project. GAO’s repeated calls for NNSA to create quality Integrated Master Schedules and Life Cycle Cost Estimates for its plutonium pit modernization program remain unfulfilled. These plans and guidelines establish best practices for building an efficient cost-effective project, something MOX consistently ignored, leading to its disastrous failure. Congress subsequently ordered NNSA meet these GAO parameters by July 2025.
Congress had mandated in 2019 that Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico manufacture 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030. Because LANL is a research facility, it has not produced any plutonium pits since 2011, and never at scale. It was unprepared to fulfill this Congressional mandate, authored by Senator John McCain. In response, NNSA then divided the plutonium pit project in two: Savannah River Site would produce 50 pits per year by 2030, and LANL 30 pits. SRS has never manufactured plutonium pits, though it did produce 10 tons of plutonium for pit fabrication at Rocky Flats, CO beginning in 1957. Thirty million gallons of highly radioactive wastes from that project, more than 200 million curies* of radiation, remain stored on- site at SRS, making it one of the most radioactive Superfund sites in the U.S.
Rocky Flats had produced one to two thousand plutonium pits per year for decades until it was closed in 1989. After whistleblower leaks, (see Jon Lipsky, James Stone) the FBI and EPA raided Rocky Flats discovering gross fraud and egregious violations of environmental regulations by contractor, Rockwell International. Rocky Flats was closed and will remain a superfund site into the far distant future.
Parts of Los Alamos National Lab, wedged on a tabletop mesa, comprises a superfund site with residual plutonium still found around the site and in surrounding canyons from operations and waste dumping begun in the 1940’s “Oppenheimer years”.DOE recently signed a consent decree with the State of New Mexico to assume greater responsibility for the clean-up of waste deposit wells and trenches that threaten nearby towns like White Rock, the San Ildefonso Pueblo and the Rio Grande River with radiological contamination. DOE paid New Mexico a $420,000 fine for mishandling hazardous wastes is 2024.
LANL itself has experienced numerous and serious safety accidents, including a plutonium fire, flooding, glove box contamination and a plutonium “criticality” accident, in recent years. The most recent 2023 safety report for LANL, operated by Triad LLC, showed improvement in its safety operations, though in that same year LANL was fined $420,000 by New Mexico for improper handling of hazardous materials.
Plutonium, Pu, is a man-made metallic element. It is highly toxic, highly radioactive, pyrophoric, (spontaneously ignites on contact with air) and fissionable. It is extremely challenging to produce, purify, mill, melt, mold, weld, control and store. All these processes have taken place at sites across the U.S. since the 1940’s and are now catalogued by DOE as “legacy hazardous waste sites”.
Because plutonium ignites on contact with air, it must be handled in “glove boxes”, self-contained hermetically sealed boxed filled with inert gases. Impervious rubber sleeves extend into the box, and workers slip their arms into these sleeves, then manipulate the plutonium through different phases of pit production. Any nicks or cracks in the rubber gloves can and have resulted in plutonium leaks, and serious illnesses.
Glove boxes and gloves for the plutonium pit project, in example, are already is short supply, demonstrating how integral and integrated every aspect of the plutonium pits program is, and how poor planning could disrupt the program; the basic tenant of the lawsuit against NNSA.
Training a skilled glove box worker at LANL can take four years. A shortage of skilled workers at LANL poses a regular challenge, one that will intensify as LANL workers will also train unskilled SRS workers. A shortage of workers at WIPP in Carlsbad NM has been a chronic problem despite significant wage increases from DOE.
Historically, sites involved with the production, refining, milling or fabrication of plutonium or plutonium pits for nuclear weapons have left a voluminous legacy of radionuclide pollution. Radioactive wastes generated in weapons production beginning with the 1940’s Manhattan Project, by statute, are destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Because plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years and remains lethal for much longer, plutonium waste products trucked over millions of highway miles to WIPP are stored in vaults excavated into salt domes 2000 feet underground. While WIPP is the sole repository for defense department transuranic wastes, the Government Accounting Office cautioned that WIPP may not have the capacity to accept all the plutonium pit wastes generated at LALN and SRS. Timely removal of plutonium waste from SRS and LANL is crucial for uninterrupted pit production.
A fire in WIPP’s salt dome closed the facility for 3 years in 2014. A fire at LANL closed its operation for 3 years in 2013.
Both SRS and LANL will recycle surplus plutonium pits from the strategic reserve at PANTEX near Amarillo, TX. Currently 4000 reserve pits and 10,000 surplus pits waiting disposal are stored at PANTEX. Re-engineered pits from SRS and LANL will be returned to PANTEX for final assembly into W87-1 and W 88 nuclear warheads.
The rate of deterioration of plutonium pits, 30 or more years old, has concerned and motivated lawmakers to legislate a complete replacement of all 3,600 deployed and reserve nuclear warheads. Independent scientific groups like JASON and the Livermore National Lab have estimated that plutonium pits maintain their viability for 100 or even 150 years. Hardware within the nuclear warhead corrodes much more quickly than the pits themselves, focusing doubt on the race to replace the pits themselves.
The programmatic environmental statement ordered by federal Judge Geiger may resolve many questions posed by the rush to produce new plutonium pits. The pits produced at SRS and LANL will trigger new W87-1 nuclear warheads. What need is there for a new warhead when the old W87-0 has the same safety features? Why are SRS and LANL adopting an aggressive production schedule when the new Sentinel ICBM deliver systems is way over budget and at least a decade away from deployment? Why does the production of new plutonium pits take priority over cleaning up the hazardous legacy of previous pit production? Has any plutonium production site ever not become a hazardous waste site? Will NNSA slow pit production to engineer safety improvements instead of placing workers in risky dangerous situations? Do we really want to spend a trillion dollars and start a new nuclear arms race?
Note.
* A curie, Ci, is a measure of radiation per second, named after Marie and Pierre Curie. Exposure to even a few curies can be fatal.
The United States is estimated to have spent more than $400 billion on the kinds of antimissile goals that the president now says will provide “for the common defense.”
Star Wars is back, with an executive order from President Trump that the White House said “directs the building of the Iron Dome missile defense shield for America.”
The order, issued on Monday night, didn’t quite do that. It was more a vaguely worded set of instructions to accelerate current programs or explore new approaches to defending the continental United States than a blueprint for arming the heavens with thousands of antimissile weapons, sensors and tracking devices.
But two blocks away, on the same evening, the Office of Management and Budget issued a 56-page spreadsheet that detailed the suspension of funding for thousands of programs. They included most of the major U.S. efforts to reduce the amount of nuclear fuel that terrorists might seize, to guard against biological weapon attacks and to manage initiatives around the globe to curb the spread of nuclear arms.
The two announcements seemed to encapsulate the administration’s conflicting instincts in its opening weeks. Mr. Trump wants to build big and take the Space Force he created to new heights, even at the risk of new arms races. That effort has been underway since Ronald Reagan’s day, with only mixed results.
But in its drive to shut down programs it believes could be creations of the so-called deep state, the administration wants to cut off funding for many programs that seek to reduce the chances of an attack on the United States — an attack that could very well come in forms other than a missile launched from North Korea, China or Russia.
A judge paused Mr. Trump’s spending freeze on Tuesday, but the president’s intentions are clear.
Though Mr. Trump calls his plan the Iron Dome, it has little if any resemblance to the Israeli system of the same name that has succeeded in destroying small missiles that move at a snail’s pace compared with the blinding speeds of intercontinental warheads………………………………………………………..
Missile defense has long been a favorite topic for Mr. Trump, who has envisioned the project as the next step for the Space Force, which he created in his first term.
But it could also trigger a new arms race, some experts fear. And unaddressed in Mr. Trump’s new initiative is the threat of nuclear terrorism and blackmail with an atomic bomb, which might be smuggled into the United States on a truck or a boat. Many experts see the terrorism threat as far bigger than an enemy firing a single missile or a swarm.
In 2001, after Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government scrambled to get wide-ranging advice on how outwit terrorists and better protect Americans from the threats of germ, computer, chemical and nuclear attacks.
“The combination of simultaneously deploying a missile defense system of questionable effectiveness against any real threat” while “suspending operative programs against nuclear or bioterrorists, sophisticated cyberattackers or others” is a “terrible trade-off,” said Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary under President Barack Obama who now heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
“The Iron Dome reference conjures up the success of the Israeli missile defense, but that’s misleading given the relatively short-range missiles that Israel defends against and the small territory it needs to defend,” said Mr. Moniz, a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with long experience in nuclear weapons ………………
Critics of the executive order say it is more a list than a program, and includes systems that have never panned out. In an interview, Theodore A. Postol, an emeritus professor of science and national security at M.I.T., called Mr. Trump’s missile plan “a compendium of flawed weapons systems that have been shown to be unworkable.”…………………………………………
However, Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said no UK-Hungarian strategic cooperation agreement on nuclear energy was signed by the two ministers, as a story published by TVP World on January 30, 2025, had suggested.
The nuclear watchdog has issued an improvement notice after two railway wagons carrying nuclear waste crashed.
It happened on the Sellafield site, in Cumbria, which manages more radioactive waste in one place than any other nuclear facility in the world.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said although no-one was injured and there were no radiation risks during the incident, which happened in November, it could have had “serious consequences”.
A Sellafield spokesman said: “An internal investigation was initiated to understand the root cause and to prevent this from happening again in future.”
The ONR said one of the wagons on the site’s railway had not been properly secured and it rolled about 200ft (60m), hitting a stationary wagon.
They added the wagons were left with minor damage and the nuclear containers were unaffected “due to their robust construction”, however health and safety improvements were needed to prevent future incidents.
Ian Bramwell, ONR’s head of regulation for Sellafield, said: “This will include improving how Sellafield plan, organise, monitor and review the measures in place to protect personnel directly and indirectly involved in rail activities on the site.”
The ONR will reinspect the site in the coming months and Sellafield has until 13 June to comply with the notice.
A Sellafield spokesman said it was working with the ONR to review its processes.
The owner of Hinkley Point C in Somerset has warned that the much-delayed construction of Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation could face further hold-ups because of a row over its impact on local fish.
The nuclear developer, EDF Energy, warned that the “lengthy process” to agree to a solution with local communities to protect fish in the River Severn had “the potential to delay the operation of the power station”.
As a result, the developer, which is owned by the French state, raised the threat of further delays to Hinkley Point – a project already running years late and billions of pounds over budget.
EDF said last year that Hinkley could be delayed to as late as 2031 and cost up to £35bn, in 2015 money. The actual cost including inflation would be far higher. EDF declined to say how long any new delay could be.
EDF last week welcomed the government’s new reforms to “stop blockers getting in the way” of new infrastructure projects, including nuclear power plants. It called for the government to establish a framework to manage environmental concerns “in a more proportionate” manner.
The developer has pressured the government to loosen environmental rules while at loggerheads with local communities over its complex plans to protect local fish populations which are at risk of being sucked up into the nuclear power plant’s cooling systems.
The company had planned to install an “acoustic fish deterrent” to keep fish away from the reactor’s water intake system, which is nearly two miles offshore.
The project, which was reportedly informally dubbed “the fish disco” among former ministers, would require almost 300 underwater speakers to boom noise louder than a jumbo jet 24 hours a day for 60 years.
But the plan was later scrapped by EDF over concerns for the safety of divers who would need to maintain the speakers in dangerous conditions. There are also questions over its effectiveness.
Without the deterrent an estimated 18 to 46 tonnes of fish could be killed every year, according to estimates provided by EDF.
After a growing outcry, it said earlier this month it would delay the formal consultation on its salt marsh plan, which it says would provide safe habitats for fish and animals, from the end of this month until later this year.
Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust, said any fish deterrent was vital. “The water intakes will suck in an Olympic swimming pool’s worth of water every 12 seconds, more than the normal flow of all the rivers flowing into the Severn estuary, and without a deterrent mechanism will cause a vast slaughter of millions of fish every year for the next 60 years. “This will cause the potential extinction of populations of rare and endangered species … As the Severn estuary is a vital fish nursery for the whole region, the strategic and economic impacts for marine fisheries throughout the Irish Sea will be devastating.”……………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/30/hinkley-point-c-owner-warns-fish-row-may-further-delay-nuclear-plant
Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek has sent shockwaves through the tech community, with the release of extremely efficient AI models that can compete with cutting-edge products from US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic.
Founded in 2023, DeepSeek has achieved its results with a fraction of the cash and computing power of its competitors.
DeepSeek’s “reasoning” R1 model, released last week, provoked excitement among researchers, shock among investors, and responses from AI heavyweights. The company followed up on January 28 with a model that can work with images as well as text.
What DeepSeek did
In December, DeepSeek released its V3 model. This is a very powerful “standard” large language model that performs at a similar level to OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5.
While these models are prone to errors and sometimes make up their own facts, they can carry out tasks such as answering questions, writing essays and generating computer code. On some tests of problem-solving and mathematical reasoning, they score better than the average human.
V3 was trained at a reported cost of about US$5.58 million. This is dramatically cheaper than GPT-4, for example, which cost more than US$100 million to develop.
DeepSeek also claims to have trained V3 using around 2,000 specialised computer chips, specifically H800 GPUs made by NVIDIA. This is again much fewer than other companies, which may have used up to 16,000 of the more powerful H100 chips.
On January 20, DeepSeek released another model, called R1. This is a so-called “reasoning” model, which tries to work through complex problems step by step. These models seem to be better at many tasks that require context and have multiple interrelated parts, such as reading comprehension and strategic planning.
The R1 model is a tweaked version of V3, modified with a technique called reinforcement learning. R1 appears to work at a similar level to OpenAI’s o1, released last year.
DeepSeek also used the same technique to make “reasoning” versions of small open-source models that can run on home computers.
This release has sparked a huge surge of interest in DeepSeek, driving up the popularity of its V3-powered chatbot app and triggering a massive price crash in tech stocks as investors re-evaluate the AI industry. At the time of writing, chipmaker NVIDIA has lost around US$600 billion in value.
How DeepSeek did it
DeepSeek’s breakthroughs have been in achieving greater efficiency: getting good results with fewer resources. In particular, DeepSeek’s developers have pioneered two techniques that may be adopted by AI researchers more broadly.
The first has to do with a mathematical idea called “sparsity”. AI models have a lot of parameters that determine their responses to inputs (V3 has around 671 billion), but only a small fraction of these parameters is used for any given input.
However, predicting which parameters will be needed isn’t easy. DeepSeek used a new technique to do this, and then trained only those parameters. As a result, its models needed far less training than a conventional approach.
The other trick has to do with how V3 stores information in computer memory. DeepSeek has found a clever way to compress the relevant data, so it is easier to store and access quickly.
What it means
DeepSeek’s models and techniques have been released under the free MIT License, which means anyone can download and modify them.
While this may be bad news for some AI companies – whose profits might be eroded by the existence of freely available, powerful models – it is great news for the broader AI research community.
At present, a lot of AI research requires access to enormous amounts of computing resources. Researchers like myself who are based at universities (or anywhere except large tech companies) have had limited ability to carry out tests and experiments.
More efficient models and techniques change the situation. Experimentation and development may now be significantly easier for us.
For consumers, access to AI may also become cheaper. More AI models may be run on users’ own devices, such as laptops or phones, rather than running “in the cloud” for a subscription fee.
For researchers who already have a lot of resources, more efficiency may have less of an effect. It is unclear whether DeepSeek’s approach will help to make models with better performance overall, or simply models that are more efficient.
The Iron Dome’s functionality depends on Israel’s comparatively miniscule size and proximity to enemies. This makes it particularly hard to imagine a similar setup in the US, which is over 400 times the geographical size of Israel. Such an apparatus, national security analyst Joseph Cirincione estimated, would cost about 2.5 trillion dollars. That’s over three times the country’s entire projected military budget for 2025.
A central campaign promise, the proposed $2 trillion-plus missile shield is, to experts, silly.
Donald Trump’s Republican Party platform, released in July, contains little in terms of tangible policy proposals.
But one of the few concrete ideas is a call to (apologies for the capitalization) “PREVENT WORLD WORLD III” by building “A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY”—a plan that experts say is nearly impossible to execute, unnecessary, and hard to even comprehend.
Trump has vowed to build this Iron Dome in multiple speeches. It is among his campaign’s 20 core promises. The former president has said that the missile shield would be “MADE IN AMERICA,” creating jobs, as well as stopping foreign attacks.
“It’s dramatically unclear to me what any of this means,” Lewis said of the Iron Dome idea, “other than just treating it like the insane ramblings of a senile old person.”
It may be more useful to consider an American Iron Dome as a bombastic businessman’s branding exercise, rather than a viable policy position, said Lewis: “The Iron Dome here has just become a kind of brand name, like Xerox or Kleenex for missile defense.”
The Iron Dome, a short-range missile defense system created by Israeli state-owned company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and American weapons manufacturer Raytheon, has been a prized part of the country’s military arsenal since it became operational in 2011. It is not, as the name suggests, an impenetrable shield. It’s more mobile: when a short-range missile reaches Israel’s airspace, “interceptor missiles” are launched to blow them up before they can touch the ground.
The Iron Dome’s functionality depends on Israel’s comparatively miniscule size and proximity to enemies. This makes it particularly hard to imagine a similar setup in the US, which is over 400 times the geographical size of Israel. Such an apparatus, national security analyst Joseph Cirincione estimated, would cost about 2.5 trillion dollars. That’s over three times the country’s entire projected military budget for 2025.
uch a system would also be unnecessary. As of now, there are no armed groups sending missiles toward the United States from within a theoretical Iron Dome’s 40-mile interception range. Such a system “couldn’t even protect Mar-a-Lago from missiles fired from the Bahamas, some 80 miles away,” Cirincione wrote in late July.
America’s pre-existent missile defense network, which has been in place since the Bush administration, is currently made up of 44 interceptors based in California and Alaska, geared towards longer-range missiles, such as those that could be fired from North Korea. But the system has performed abysmally in tests, despite Republicans generally claiming “it works,” said Lewis. (Groups like the right-wing Heritage Foundation have been calling for increased missile defense funding since at least the 1990s.)
“This is why it’s so hard to make heads or tails of what Trump is saying,” Lewis continued. “Is Trump saying the system in Alaska doesn’t work? Is Trump saying that Canada is going to develop artillery rockets to use against North Dakota?”
Sweden has started building the world’s second-ever long-term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The site is located in Forsmark, Sweden, approximately 90 miles north of Stockholm, Sweden.
The site is designed to securely contain highly radioactive waste for 100,000 years. Finland remains the only other country nearing completion of a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste.
Permanent storage for nuclear waste has been a longstanding challenge for the industry since the advent of commercial nuclear reactors in the 1950s.
Globally, around 300,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are awaiting disposal, according to the World Nuclear Association. Nuclear scientists currently store most of this waste in cooling ponds near the reactors that produce it.
The Forsmark repository will feature nearly 40 miles of tunnels buried over 1,600 feet deep in bedrock estimated to be 1.9 billion years old.
Engineers designed the site to hold 12,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. The fuel will be encased in corrosion-resistant copper capsules, packed in clay and buried.
Officials expect the site to begin receiving waste in the late 2030s, and final closure is projected for around 2080, when the site reaches capacity.
However, the project faces potential delays due to safety concerns. MKG, the Swedish nongovernmental organization Office for Nuclear Waste Review, filed an appeal with a Swedish court calling for additional reviews of the facility.
MKG highlighted research suggesting the copper capsules could corrode over time, potentially releasing radioactive elements into groundwater.
The estimated cost of developing the repository exceeds $1 billion, and will be funded by Sweden’s nuclear industry. It is intended to store waste from the country’s existing nuclear power plants, but will not accommodate waste from future reactors. Sweden already announced plans to construct 10 additional nuclear reactors by 2045.
Saskatoon – Canada’s federal nuclear regulator is holding a public meeting in Saskatoon today about uranium mines, including closed and decommissioned uranium mines in northeastern Ontario. In their overview presentation this morning Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) staff omitted any discussion of the closed mines in Elliot Lake or the Agnew Lake mine, which were issues of high concern to intervenors including the Township of Nairn and Hyman and the northeastern Ontario environmental group Northwatch.
The Township of Nairn and Hyman retained a technical expert and provide a written intervention outlining their community’s growing concerns regarding the environmental and public health risks associated with the Agnew Lake Tailings Management Area (TMA). The Township noted that the 2023 Annual Report prepared by the Ministry of Mines exposes critical deficiencies in the Agnew Lake TMA’s environmental monitoring and contamination levels. Groundwater, surface water, and soil samples collected during the monitoring period indicate widespread exceedances of contaminants and heavy metals.
“Nothing could be more important to Nairn & Hyman than our drinking water and natural resources. The Agnew Lake Tailings Management Area (ALTMA) needs to be adequately managed to safeguard our immediate neighbours, waterways, and the surrounding environment”, commented Mayor Amy Mazey.
“We have profound concerns for the lack of site-specific details contained in this report. For instance, the report fails to acknowledge contaminant exceedances in the surface water, ground water and sediment adjacent to the site that include uranium, radium, arsenic and cyanide. We are hopeful that the CNSC will take these concerns seriously and act appropriately by expertly managing ALTMA.”
Northwatch outlined similar concerns in their written intervention, including general comments on the CNSC regulatory report, which it found to be lacking detail and sufficient supporting information and rationale for conclusions, and noted that most concerns Northwatch and its technical experts had identified during previous reviews did not appear to have been resolved, and many concerns have continued or perhaps worsened during the current reporting period, particularly at the Agnew Lake site. Northwatch also commented on negative trends in the decommissioned mines in the Elliot Lake area, including rising concentrations of radium in water discharge and sediments and poor performance in meeting water quality benchmarks.
The Township of Nairn and Hyman and Northwatch both expressed strong concerns about a proposal to transfer large low-level radioactive wastes from just outside North Bay to deposit on the tailings management area at the Agnew Lake Mine.
During a 2015 inspection, CNSC staff found sections of the tailings were exposed where the tailings management area cover had degraded. The response proposed by the Ministry of Mines, who is licensed to manage the Agnew Lake Mine, was to transfer 20,000 m3 of niobium bearing material classified as naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) from the former Beaucage Mine near North Bay and place it on the Agnew Lake tailings. Northwatch objected in its 2018 written intervention on the grounds of there having been insufficient review of the potential for negative effects of adding the niobium wastes to the Agnew Lake tailings. At a public meeting in Nairn Centre on September 11th of this year, repairs to the tailings cover had still not been done and no information on the potential cumulative effects of adding the niobium waste to the uranium tailings was presented by staff from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the Ontario Ministry of Mines.
Neither the Township of Nairn and Hyman or Northwatch were permitted to present at the Commission meeting underway today in Saskatoon. CNSC staff presented the regulatory report in the morning session but included no mention of the closed mines in northeastern Ontario or the several significant concerns raised by the Township of Nairn and Hyman or Northwatch in their written interventions.
The public meeting is being streamed live at https://cnsc.isilive.ca/ and will continue throughout the day. The Commission has the option of asking questions of CNSC staff about the written interventions during the afternoon session.
The Township of Nairn and Hyman and the Township of Baldwin will be holding a Joint Public Meeting on February 18 at 7:00 p.m. in the community centre in Nairn Centre to provide updates to residents on the review undertaken by the Township of Nairn and Hyman and various meeting outcomes, including today’s public meeting of the CNSC.
In an article for Mail Online, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer lambasted efforts to block major infrastructure projects, singling out opposition to the acoustic fish deterrent which EDF had originally proposed for Hinkley Point C. These comments have drawn the ire of Councillor Martin Dimery, who warned Mr Starmer that his stance would lose him support across the south west.
Mr Starmer’s comments came as the government announced reforms to the judicial review system, restricting the grounds on which such reviews could be lodged to “stop blockers getting in the way” of infrastructure projects. He said in his article: “There are countless examples of nimbys and zealots gumming up the legal system often for their own ideological blind spots to stop the government building the infrastructure the country needs……………………………………
In an open letter to Mr Starmer, he said: “I wish I was joking when I point out that the sonar device due to be installed at Hinkley Point C was agreed from the outset to avoid the mass carnage of fish being sucked into the reactor’s mechanism, thus destroying huge quantities of the Bristol Channel’s fish stock. Fish remnants can also cause blockage and mechanical failure in nuclear power plants.
“Last year, EDF applied to Somerset Council to scrap the sonar device in an attempt to cut construction costs. As chairman of the climate and place scrutiny committee, I refused to sign off this appalling attempt to disregard the natural environment and the region’s fishing industry for the sake of EDF’s profits. Why should UK environmental protection be sacrificed for the profit of the French nationalised electricity industry?”
Mr Starmer denied using this phrase, telling BBC correspondent Laura Kuennsberg that his comments about green energy had been taken out of context.
Mr Dimery added, in direct reference to these claims: “‘Tree hugger’ I may be, prime minister, but if you’re so appalled at the prospect of individuals standing for the environment and against disreputable business practice, then you may find you lose a great deal of support from elected councillors of all political persuasions.”
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said he is growing increasingly concerned that the organisation’s efforts to prevent a major nuclear incident in war-torn Ukraine in under increasing threat.
It comes as Rafael Mariano Grossi (above) revealed the agency’s team based at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has heard frequent explosions from outside the site over the past week.
He added The team reported hearing multiple instances of such military activity in recent days, at varying distances from the ZNPP. There was no damage reported to the plant itself. Although the sound of nearby military action has been a common occurrence ever since the IAEA established a continued presence at the ZNPP in September 2022, it has happened virtually daily in recent weeks.
“For almost three years now, we have been doing everything we can to help prevent a nuclear accident at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and elsewhere in Ukraine,” Grossi explained. “An accident has not occurred, but the situation is not improving. It is still precarious. I remain seriously concerned about nuclear safety and security in Ukraine, including at the Zaporizhzhya site. Our work is far from over.”
He continued as part of the ongoing work to monitor developments relevant for nuclear safety and security, the IAEA team has continued to conduct walkdowns across the site – including but not limited to the main and emergency control rooms of four reactor units and one turbine hall – and observed and discussed various safety-related maintenance activities with the plant.
The IAEA team was also informed that the ZNPP is procuring three new mobile diesel generators, similar to those received late last year. They are in addition to the site’s 20 fixed emergency diesel generators that are designed to provide on-site power if there is a total loss of off-site power.
Separately, the ZNPP said that four diesel steam generators were put into operation for ten days to provide the steam needed to process liquid radioactive waste. These generators were commissioned a year ago.
Elsewhere in Ukraine, the IAEA said air raid alarms were heard on several occasions at Ukraine’s three operating nuclear power plants (NPPs) – Khmelnytskyy, Rivne and South Ukraine – as well as at the Chornobyl site. At the Khmelnytskyy NPP, the IAEA team members have taken shelter at their residence three times in recent days due to such alerts.
At the Khmelnytskyy and South Ukraine NPPs and the Chornobyl site, the IAEA teams were informed of instances of drones being detected at distances ranging from 2 to 30 km from the sites.
Despite such military activities, Ukraine’s nine operating nuclear power reactors have been operating at full capacity this week, safely generating much-needed electricity during the cold winter months.
Separately, the Agency continued with deliveries under its comprehensive programme of nuclear safety and security assistance to Ukraine. Last week, the Chornobyl site received equipment to enhance its nuclear security system. The delivery, the 104th organised by the IAEA since the start of the armed conflict, was supported with funds from the United Kingdom.
Russia and Ukraine continue to swap daily barrages, with the prospects of ceasefire talks appearing slim.
Aljazeera, 29 Jan 2025
A nuclear power plant was among targets during a massive Ukrainian drone attack, Russian officials have said.
Moscow said on Wednesday that the country’s energy infrastructure had come under attack by at least 100 drones overnight. Ukraine also reported strikes. The continuing barrages were accompanied by barbs from the two countries’ presidents, suggesting little prospect of peace talks.
The Russian Ministry of Defence said on Telegram that 104 drones were involved in raids across western Russia, many targeting power and oil facilities.
Local officials claimed that air defence systems had destroyed one drone that had attempted to strike the nuclear power plant in the western region of Smolensk.
“According to preliminary information, one of the drones was shot down during an attempt to attack a nuclear power facility,” Governor Vasily Anokhin said on the Telegram messaging app. “There were no casualties or damage.”
The Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant, the largest power generating plant in Russia’s northwest, was working normally on Wednesday morning, RIA state news agency reported, citing the plant’s press service.
Russia’s air defences reportedly destroyed drones over nine regions, including 11 over Smolensk, which sits on the border with Belarus. Nearly half were hit over Kursk, where Ukrainian troops have occupied several villages for months following an incursion.
Ukraine and Russia have been swapping drone and missile strikes on an almost daily basis, with energy infrastructure a particular target amid winter.
The order’s most contentious element directs the Department of Defense to pursue space-based interceptors — weapons positioned in orbit to destroy incoming missiles. While proponents argue these could provide global coverage and early intercept capabilities, critics warn they could trigger an arms race and undermine existing treaties.
The order sets a bold agenda to address emerging threats, including hypersonic missiles, through advanced technological solutions, including space-based interceptors.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Jan. 27 that calls for the development of a sweeping new missile defense system for the United States, including controversial space-based interceptors.
The Pentagon must submit within 60 days a proposed architecture for the system, including plans to accelerate the Missile Defense Agency’s ongoing Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor program and develop a “custody layer” within the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture — a planned constellation of military satellites currently being acquired by the U.S. Space Force’s Space Development Agency.
The executive order also emphasizes securing the defense industrial base, requiring “next-generation security features” for the supply chain as the U.S. races to build advanced interceptors and tracking systems.
The “Iron Dome for America” order, which invokes Israel’s successful rocket defense system, directs the Pentagon to accelerate development of defenses against hypersonic weapons and other advanced aerial threats that Trump’s order describes as “the most catastrophic threat facing the United States.”
While drawing inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome system, the U.S. initiative would need to be dramatically different in scale and capability to defend the continent-spanning American territory against sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles, rather than the short-range rockets that threaten Israel.
The U.S. has collaborated with Israel on missile defense technology since the 1980s, including support for the Iron Dome system, which has intercepted thousands of incoming rockets since its 2011 deployment. Unlike Israel’s system, which defends a territory roughly the size of New Jersey, a U.S. continental defense system would need to protect an area nearly 500 times larger against more sophisticated threats such as Chinese hypersonic glide vehicles.
Unlike traditional ground- or sea-based systems, the envisioned architecture leans on space-based solutions, which have long been controversial.
The order’s most contentious element directs the Department of Defense to pursue space-based interceptors — weapons positioned in orbit to destroy incoming missiles. While proponents argue these could provide global coverage and early intercept capabilities, critics warn they could trigger an arms race and undermine existing treaties.
The dramatic collision happened at 03.51 am on the night to January 26 but did not become known to the public before the press service of Rosatomflot confirmed the facts to several Russian media in the evening of January 28.
Murmansk-based Arctic Observer said in its Telegram channel that the collision happened as the powerful icebreaker was assisting a cargo ship sailing through the ice-covered waters.
According to Rosatomflot, the nuclear powered icebreaker continues to operate in normal mode along the Northern Sea Route, despite the damage to the hull.
Rosatomflot says in the press statement that “seaworthiness has not been lost” and “there were no casualties.”
The state owned operator of Russia’s icebreaker fleet underlines that the two onboard reactors were not harmed in the collision. The information has not been confirmed by independent sources.
Rosatomflot does not provide any information about what caused the navigation mistake leading to the huge icebreaker smashing into the smaller cargo ship.
The 50 Let Pobedy is the newest of the older Arktika-class nuclear-powered icebreakers. Construction of the vessel started in the late Soviet era (1989), but she was not commissioned before 2007.
The icebreaker has Murmansk as homeport, but can operate independently for months at a time during the icy navigation season along the Northern Sea Route.
The cargo vessel Yamal Krechet was according to MarineTraffic.com on her way from Arkhangelsk towards Sabetta, the port where Novatek’s Yamal LNG production facilitates are located.
There are no public reports about the possible damages to the cargo vessel. Several tens of containers can be seen on deck of the Yamal Krechet at the time of the collision, but it is not known immediately known what content the cargo includes.
Climate change was a major factor behind the hot, dry weather that gave rise to the devastating LA fires, a scientific study has confirmed. It made those weather conditions about 35% more likely, according to World Weather Attribution – globally recognised for their studies linking extreme weather to climate change. The authors noted that the LA wildfire season is getting longer while the rains that normally put out the blazes have reduced. The scientists highlight that these wildfires are highly complex with multiple factors playing a role, but they are confident that a warming climate is making LA more prone to intense fire events.
nuclear-news 