nuclear-news

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

Swedish PM open to hosting nuclear weapons on home soil in case of war

By Charles Szumski | Euractiv.com, 15 May 24,  https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/swedish-pm-open-to-hosting-nuclear-weapons-on-home-soil-in-case-of-war/

Sweden is open to the possibility of having nuclear weapons on its soil in the event of war, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Monday, calming the concerns of local communities by asserting that any action would be on “Swedish terms”.

As the Swedish parliament prepares to vote on the government’s proposal for a Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US, Kristersson, of the conservative Moderate Party, declared that in peacetime there should be no permanent US troops or nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. 

In wartime, however, the situation would be different, the Swedish prime minister told radio broadcaster P1 on Monday, ahead of a high-level meeting between the five Nordic prime ministers and the German chancellor in Stockholm. 

“If there is a war with us on our land, which Sweden is drawn into after an attack by others, then it is a completely different situation. Then the whole of NATO benefits from the nuclear umbrella that must exist in democracies as long as countries like Russia have nuclear weapons,” Kristersson told P1. 

The deal, which was announced a few months before Sweden joined NATO in late 2023, has already attracted criticism. 

Especially as it gives the US military the right to use 17 Swedish military bases across the country, the Left Party and others have criticised the agreement for giving too much power and influence to the US military and for failing to address the issue of nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, as there is no explicit prohibition in the agreement, as there is in similar agreements the US has with Denmark and Norway. 

The communities affected have also raised concerns, including that local people will not be allowed to stay in popular natural areas, that there will be more waste, and that there will be “social tensions between US troops and the local population.” 

However, Kristersson stressed that Sweden still rules over Swedish territory. 

“It is Sweden that decides over Swedish territory. That is crystal clear. Everything takes place on Swedish terms,” he simply added.

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Sweden, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran open to ‘serious dialogue’, says UN nuclear chief

Fraught relations with Tehran, which faces sanctions over its atomic programme, appear to be easing

Andrew England in London, Ft.com 15 May 24

Iran has shown a willingness to engage in “serious dialogue” with the UN’s nuclear watchdog for the first time in more than a year, according to the agency’s head, in a sign Tehran is seeking to ease tensions with the US. Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Financial Times that Tehran and the watchdog, which have endured fraught relations for months, could be entering a “different phase” after he held talks in Iran. Tehran appears willing to discuss “concrete” issues, he said. The apparent shift in tone was prompted by an invitation from Iran’s nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami for Grossi to attend talks in the Islamic republic. The call came in mid-April at a time of heightened tensions between Iran, Israel and the US.

Around that time, Iranian officials issued veiled threats that Tehran could change policy and seek to weaponise its expansive nuclear programme. But after meeting Eslami and other senior officials last week on his first trip to Iran since March 2023, Grossi said he sensed an opportunity to resolve some points of contention, including improving the IAEA’s ability to monitor the republic’s nuclear activities. “I see in them a recognition that it is better to have some engagement than to continue on a completely divergent course, leading to more escalation and perhaps even more danger, including war,” Grossi said. “It’s very important because we reconnected after many months of talking past each other.

He added that Washington and Tehran also continued to keep open a “bilateral channel”. The FT revealed that senior US and Iranian officials held secret indirect talks in Oman in January as both sides sought to prevent the Israel-Hamas war from exploding into a full-blown regional conflict………………………

Grossi said Iran had not altered the scale or pace of its nuclear activity since Hamas’s October 7 attack and Israel’s retaliatory offensive in Gaza sparked hostilities across the Middle East. He added that there was “no evidence to suggest that Iran has moved, or is moving, or is planning to move, to a weapons programme”. Iran has been enriching uranium up to 60 per cent purity, close to weapons grade, for more than two years. It is part of Tehran’s response to former US President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally abandon the 2015 nuclear accord Tehran signed with world powers………………………………………………. more https://www.ft.com/content/d5e07404-2fed-4f60-ba11-59e6734665c2

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

UK government planning nuclear site in Scotland – Jack

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9eze1dzy5no 15 May 24

The UK government is planning to build a new nuclear reactor in Scotland despite opposition from Holyrood, according to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack.

He told a House of Lords committee he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for such a site as part of a UK-wide strategy.

The Conservative minister also called for the Lords to be allowed to scrutinise Scottish laws.

The Scottish government has rejected calls to end an effective ban on new nuclear power stations.

The UK government has committed to developing larger-scale nuclear plants south of the border, as well as developing a new generation of smaller reactors.

Its ambitions for up to a quarter of all electricity to come from nuclear power by 2050 are being led by government-backed body Great British Nuclear body.

Mr Jack told the Lords committee: “On the small nuclear reactors, I have asked the energy minister to plan for one in Scotland.

“I believe that in 2026 we’ll see a unionist regime again in Holyrood and they will move forward with that.”

The Scottish secretary added that he did not “see any point in having a great fight over it” given the “timescales in front of us” – a likely reference to the upcoming general election.

Scotland’s last nuclear power plant – at Torness in East Lothian – is scheduled to be shut down by 2028.

Although energy policy is largely set at Westminster, the Scottish government is able to block projects it opposes as planning powers are devolved.

‘Patronising’

The Scottish Secretary went on to suggest a “grand committee” of the House of Lords should be allowed to scrutinise Holyrood legislation.

“Devolution is not a bad thing,” he told the committee. “Where it has failed is bad governance.”

Mr Jack said the Scottish Parliament’s committee structure was “not right” and that the “knowledge and wisdom” of the House of Lords could be used to help review Scottish laws.

SNP MP Tommy Sheppard said the Tory minister was “undermining and patronising our democratically-elected government”.

He added: “His comments and the decision to ignore the Scottish government on building new nuclear reactors in Scotland show exactly how this Westminster government sees Scotland and its people – a nation that should get in line and know its place.

“Scotland doesn’t need expensive nuclear power – we already have abundant natural energy resources, we just need full powers over energy so Scotland can take full advantage of the green energy gold rush.”

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

China urges US, UK and Australia to stop AUKUS nuclear submarine deal: FM spokesperson

By Global Times May 15, 2024  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202405/1312342.shtml

China will continue to utilize platforms such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), review process to thoroughly discuss the political, legal, and technical issues related to the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, a spokesperson from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Wednesday. Until the international community reaches a clear conclusion, the US, UK, and Australia should halt the advancement of the initiative, the spokesperson noted. 

The remarks were made by Wang Wenbin, spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, when asked to comment on a workshop titled  “AUKUS: A Case Study about the Development of IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards” organized by the Permanent Mission of China in Vienna recently. 

On May 10th, the Permanent Mission of China in Vienna hosted a seminar on AUKUS. Representatives from nearly 50 countries’ permanent missions in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat, and experts think tanks from both China and other countries attended the meeting, with over 100 participants in total, said Wang, noting that the participants engaged in lively discussions on the supervision and security of AUKUS, highlighting the widespread attention and concern of the international community on this issue.  

The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal undermines efforts to maintain regional peace and security. US, UK and Australia are forming a trilateral security partnership, advancing cooperation on nuclear submarines and other cutting-edge military technologies, stimulating an arms race, undermining the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, stirring up blocs, and opposing and disrupting regional peace and stability, Wang said.

The spokesperson said China and other relevant countries in the region have repeatedly expressed serious concerns and strong opposition.

Wang stated that AUKUS also triggered widespread concern about nuclear proliferation internationally. It involves the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology and a large volume of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, which the existing safeguards and supervision system of the IAEA cannot effectively implement.

There is a significant controversy in the international community over the interpretation and application of relevant safeguards and monitoring clauses. If the three countries insist on advancing cooperation on nuclear submarines, it will create a huge risk of nuclear proliferation and have far-reaching negative impacts on the resolution of nuclear hotspots in other regions, said Wang. 

Wang said China has called on the international community to take seriously the impact of AUKUS on the authority and effectiveness of NPT, as well as the deal’s negative effects on the institutional safeguards and oversight mechanisms. China will continue to utilize platforms such as the IAEA and the NPT review process to thoroughly discuss the political, legal, and technical issues related to the trilateral nuclear submarine cooperation. Until the international community reaches a clear conclusion, the US, UK, and Australia should halt the advancement of their nuclear submarine cooperation. 

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear power station risks hitting taxpayers with £20bn bill

Plans for a power station at Wylfa could be derailed by government rules

Telegraph, Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 13 May 2024 

Plans for a large nuclear power station on the Welsh island of Anglesey risk being derailed by government rules that will add an estimated £20bn to the national debt, insiders have warned. 

Efforts to develop a gigawatt-scale scheme at Wylfa are on the agenda this week as Andrew Bowie, the minister for energy security, meets representatives from the South Korean state nuclear company Kepco. 

The company is among several thought to be in the running to build a plant at Wylfa, with a consortium that includes US nuclear giant Westinghouse also putting forward proposals.

But one senior industry source warned there were concerns about the willingness of ministers to sign off on such a large project ahead of the general election, with the next government expected to be saddled with challenging budgetary constraints.

They blamed accounting rules which will force the British state to add the project’s full cost to the national debt, even if it only holds a minority stake in the scheme. 

This is owing to the Government’s position as the ultimate guarantor if the project goes wrong. 

There are fears it could put ministers off from backing a scheme at the Wylfa site, which has just been reacquired by the Government.

No decisions about the potential project have been taken yet but the scheme’s budget is widely expected to be in the region of £20bn. Britain’s debt pile is currently 98.3pc of GDP, or almost £2.7 trillion, as high interest rates push up the cost of Government borrowing.

The industry source said: “The main barrier right now is that if you build gigawatt-scale units, you have to put them on the Government balance sheet.

“Whoever is in power after the next election is going to have to grapple with that balance sheet – and are they really going to do this?

“It is something that is being looked at now.”………………….. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/13/anglesey-nuclear-plant-risks-saddling-taxpayers-with-bill/

May 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK nuclear lobby further infiltrates universities with government grants for nuclear fusion

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), the UK’s national
fusion energy research and development organisation, has awarded six
organisations with £9.6 million of contracts to advance their concepts to
support fusion energy development. The contracts were awarded to three
universities and three companies focusing on digital engineering and fusion
fuel cycle developments dedicated to addressing fusion energy challenges.
The contracts range between £460,000 and £1.9m, and are funded by
UKAEA’s Fusion Industry Programme, an initiative launched in 2021 to
develop the necessary technology and skills for the future global fusion
powerplant market.

 UKAEA 15th May 2024

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukaea-awards-96m-to-six-organisations-for-fusion-projects

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Australian Greens’ dissenting report on The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 

1.1The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 (the Bill or ANNPS) is deeply flawed legislation that is only being progressed because of the deeply flawed trilateral agreement that is AUKUS.

1.2The Bill proposes a seriously flawed regulatory model for the dangers of naval nuclear reactors and associated waste.

1.3 The proposed regulator lacks genuine independence, the process for dealing with nuclear waste is recklessly indifferent to community or First Nations interests and the level of secrecy is a threat to both the environment and the public interest.

1.4 Any amendments proposed to improve the many deficiencies of this legislation should not be interpreted as support for the Bill itself or for the AUKUS deal.


1.5 This Bill establishes a new defence naval nuclear regulator that will oversee all aspects of the nuclear production and waste cycle associated with Australian nuclear-powered submarines (and with regard to waste but not the operational activities of UK and US submarines) that operate, are constructed or decommissioned in Australia and Australian territorial waters.

1.6 This regulator will be entirely separate from the existing and long-standing nuclear regulation framework in Australia, which currently sits under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act).

Independence

1.7This Bill fails to meet the fundamental international principles of regulatory independence for safely addressing the inherent risks of nuclear power and nuclear waste.

1.8In this Bill, the proposed Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator reports directly to the Minister of Defence. The Defence Minister is also responsible, through the Australian Defence Force, for the operation of those same nuclear submarines.

1.9 This is widely out of step with international standards of legal and functional independence for nuclear safety and is contrary to current practice on civil nuclear regulation in Australia.

1.10This is also in direct opposition to the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Fundamental Safety Principles that state: An effective legal and governmental framework for safety, including an independent regulatory body, must be established and sustained.[1]

1.11It is also not in line with the current regulation of nuclear waste in Australia. The regulator, called the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) sits in the Ministry of Health whereas the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) (which operates the Lucas Heights reactor) sits in the Ministry of Industry and Science. This is to ensure the regulator is independent of the industry it oversees.

1.12As the majority report notes in some detail, the proposed model under this Bill is distinct from either the UK or US naval nuclear regulators.

1.13 In the UK, while the main naval nuclear regulator does report through the Ministry of Defence, there is a significant ongoing role for the independent civilian Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) in overseeing defence nuclear activities. This is formalised in the General Agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. This agreement clearly delineates the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the ONR in discharging their respective roles and responsibilities for the UK’s defence nuclear operations. There is no equivalent role for ARPANSA in this Bill.

In the US, the regulator is known as the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP). This is not run solely by Defense but rather is jointly managed and self-regulated by the civilian National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that reports to the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Navy. By contrast, under this Bill the regulator will be entirely within the Department of Defence and the Defence Minister will have sole ministerial responsibility.

1.15The importance of regulatory independence was outlined in a letter to the CEO of ARPANSA from the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council in October 2022 that stated:

Independence of the regulator is a critical part of its effectiveness. The regulator should be independent of the operators and departments overseeing any aspect of purchase, manufacture, maintenance, and operation of the program. It is noted that some of the more significant global nuclear and radiation incidents have arisen from inadequate separation of responsibilities from regulatory capture. More than functional separation, it is important that the independent regulator can operate without influence, and with a strong voice. If a regulatory body cannot provide information on safety and incidents at licensed facilities without the approval of another organisation, issues of independence and transparency will arise. Reporting arrangements should therefore enable the regulatory body to be able to provide safety related information to the Government and the public with the maximum amount of transparency.[2]

1.16During a committee hearing, these concerns were put to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), concerning the importance of independence in ‘social licence’:

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: We have good examples, though, of independence. ANSTO is an operator. The regulator of ANSTO reports to a different minister, and that is part of how ANSTO gets social licence. That’s a good example, isn’t it, of structural independence?……………………………………………………

ARPANSA also acknowledged that the key to their social licences was independence through reporting to a minister not associated with the industry they are regulating

1.18In further questioning concerning how this independence can be achieved with the Defence Minister having both the regulator and the body it’s regulating reporting to them, ARPANSA stated:

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Do you agree it’s a weakness in this bill to have the operator and the regulator both report to the same minister? Or if you don’t want to adopt my phrase, tell me how you would respond to the fact that the regulator and the operator both report to the same minister, given the fundamental importance of independence?

Dr Hirth: I think it’s important to go back to the IAEA, and I think the comments made by RINA in your questions to them this morning around undue influence. Establishing reporting arrangements in order that there isn’t undue influence of interested parties does present a challenge for the Minister for Defence…………………………….

1.19Furthermore, there were concerns raised about the development of a new regulatory body, with all the concerns of independence with the ANNPS Bill, which may also lack the expertise needed……………..

The ability of the Minister through proposed section 105 to issue directions to the regulator further blurs the independence of the new regulator. This was a concern for the Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions (ASFU),……………………………………………


1.21Another aspect of the lack of independence concerns the staffing and leadership of the new regulator. It is true that neither the Director-General nor Deputy Director-General can be an active member of the ADF (Australian Defence Force) as specified in proposed section 109.

1.22 However, there is nothing stopping someone from immediately stepping out of the ADF and the next day becoming the Director-General or Deputy Director-General, as this exchange with Defence made clear:……………………………………………………..

1.23 Furthermore, there are no such restrictions on the staff of the regulator, which may all be drawn from active ADF personnel.

1.24 This means the supposed independent regulator of Defence can be run by someone who, the day before was in the Defence, staffed by the Defence and report to the Minister of Defence.

Recommendation 1

1.25 It is recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure a genuinely independent regulator and that the regulator reports to the Minister of Health rather than the Minister of Defence.

1.26 Alternatively, that the regulator more closely reflects the arrangements in the United States and jointly reports to both the Minister of Health and the Minister for Defence, with these Ministers jointly holding Ministerial responsibility under the Bill.

Recommendation 2

1.27 It is recommended that for transparency any direction issued under section 105 be tabled in Parliament within three days where the direction may, or will, negatively impact public health or safety.

Recommendation 3

1.28 It is recommended that section 109 be amended to:

prohibit the Director General from being a current or former member of the ADF or Department of Defence, and;

that the Deputy Director General not be a current member of the ADF or Department of Defence or have been a member of the ADF or Department of Defence for at least two years prior to any appointment.

No public or First Nations consultation

1.29This Bill allows the Minister of Defence to establish ‘designated zones’ for the storage, management and disposal of low, medium and high-level nuclear waste in any part of Australia the Minister chooses by regulation.

1.30This Bill establishes an initial two zones, one at HMAS Stirling at Garden Island in Western Australia and another at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia. Both zones are close to major metropolitan centres.

1.31Concerning future nuclear waste dumps, the Minister for Defence has indicated that they will only be on Defence land, however, that includes large parcels of land within every major population centre in the country. The Minister also said this can include ‘future’ Defence land.[9]


1.32However, the Bill does not provide even this limitation on where nuclear waste can be located. In fact, the Bill says in bold terms the waste can be on defence land or ‘any other area in Australia’ identified in the regulations. This means, with the flick of the Minister’s pen, any location in Australia can be made into a high-level nuclear waste dump.

1.33This completely excludes any consultation with the local impacted community or with First Nations people whose land and water will be targeted by Defence. With this Bill, neighbours to large defence sites like Holsworthy in Sydney or Greenbank in Brisbane are right to be concerned that they may wake up one morning, with no notice, to find they back onto a high-level nuclear waste dump.

1.34 We have seen from decades of failed attempts to set up nuclear waste sites across the country, most recently at Kimba, that Federal governments have routinely sought to override First Nations people’s claims to the land on this issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) specifies the importance of free, prior and informed consent before any such action is taken. This Bill does not even pretend to engage with these principles.

1.35 As the submission from Friends of the Earth stated:

First Nations communities have repeatedly defeated thuggish, racist governments in relation to radioactive waste facilities but that has come at a huge cost in terms of physical and mental health.[10]

1.36The few protections that the law currently gives to First Nations people over their land are removed by this Bill. The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network raised this during a hearing, stating:

There doesn’t seem to have been any notice taken of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They should have the right to prior informed consent on this issue and have full consultation before any designations are made for nuclear waste.[11]

1.37Multiple submissions also raised the comments by Dr Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, in 2023 on this issue, saying:

It is instructive that all siting initiatives by the Government for a radioactive waste repository have failed, leaving a legacy of division and acrimony in the communities. The loss of lives and songlines resulting from exposure of Indigenous peoples to hazardous pesticides in the Kimberley region, from asbestos exposure in Wittenoom in Western Australia, and from the radioactive contamination following nuclear weapons testing in South Australia, are all open wounds. Alignment of regulations with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical step in the path towards healing open wounds of past environmental injustices.[12]

1.38Concerning the proposed nuclear ‘designated zone’ in Perth, Nuclear Free WA and Stop AUKUS WA noted the importance of the areas around HMAS Stirling, stating in their submission:

Cockburn Sound and Garden Island have significant cultural value for First Nations Peoples … The ecological values of Garden Island, the proximity to Cockburn Sound make radioactive waste disposal here incompatible.[13]

1.39 It is remarkable that on an issue so vital to communities, the potential location of a nuclear waste dump, there is zero public consultation required under this Bill. Compare this to existing laws such as the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, where a site must be voluntarily nominated, evaluated against technical, economic, social and environmental criteria, and offered for public consultation.

1.40 This, together with the express inclusion of the UNDRIP principles, is the minimum standard that should be expected under this Bill for public and First Nations consultation.

Recommendation 4

1.41 It is recommended that the Bill must ensure that there is free, prior and informed consent from First Nations people and the communities impacted before any designated zone is established for low, medium or high-level naval nuclear waste.

Recommendation 5

1.42 It is recommended that the Bill should expressly include reference to, and compliance with, Australia’s international obligations including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendation 6

1.43 It is recommended that the Bill should adopt the requirements for public consultation and site identification for designated nuclear zones found in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.

Transparency and collaboration

1.44 The ARPANS Act has key elements to ensure the management of nuclear waste is done in collaboration with other experts and bodies, as well as openly with the public. This Bill fails on both of these fronts……………………………………………………………………………………………

1.47 By creating a legally and functionally separate naval nuclear regulator this Bill ignores decades of experience in both the UK and the US where there is a co-regulatory civil and defence regime. This not only ignores international experience, it also ignores the decades of experience held in Australia’s civilian nuclear regulators and advisers. This is a reckless proposal that will leave Defence to be both the nuclear operator and the nuclear regulator without having ongoing advice from an independent body.

Recommendation 7

1.48 It is recommended that the Bill should require close co-operation and consultation between the proposed naval nuclear regulator and the civilian regulator ARPANSA.

Recommendation 8

1.49 It is recommended that the Bill should be amended to ensure that the Director General receives advice from the relevant nuclear safety advisory groups including the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee.

UK and US nuclear waste dumping ground

1.50 As noted above the Bill is drafted to allow the UK and US to dump nuclear waste, including high-level nuclear waste, from their existing and decommissioned nuclear submarines in Australia.

1.51 Despite Minister Marles rejecting this as ‘fear-mongering’ when first raised, this fact was admitted by multiple witnesses, including Defence officials and BAE Systems Australia. It also flows from any even moderately close reading of the Bill.[16]

1.52 It turned out to be significantly more than this with numerous organisations confirming that this Bill indeed does allow for the dumpling of nuclear waste in Australia from UK and US submarines.

1.53 Mr Peter Quinlivian, Senior Legal Counsel, BAE Systems Australia admitted the law would permit the dumping of nuclear waste from UK nuclear submarines in the following exchange:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.54 Mr Adam Beeson, General Counsel, Australian Conservation Foundation, further corroborated this information said:………………………………………………………………………….


1.55 Mr Kim Moy, Assistant Director-General of the Domestic Nuclear Policy Branch, Department of Defence also admitted that this Bill would allow for the dumping of foreign nuclear waste:……………………………………………………


1.56 Question on Notice 1 from Defence during this hearing also made clear that the current definition is not just limited to low-level nuclear waste, but high-level nuclear waste too.[20]

1.57 This is particularly disturbing given the UK currently has no plan to dispose of the nuclear waste from their nuclear submarines. In the UK there are now six decades of decommissioned rusting nuclear submarines that are filled with high and medium-level nuclear waste for which they have no solution.

1.58 To be clear, under this Bill, there is a real and present danger that either this government or a future government will allow UK nuclear waste to be brought to Australia. This is an extraordinary proposal and is so clearly not in Australia’s interests, let alone the interests of communities and First Nations peoples on whose land this toxic waste will be dumped.

1,59 Mr Dave Sweeny, Nuclear Policy Analyst, Australian Conservation Foundation addressed these concerns ………………………………………………………..

1.60If the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is to splutter on, then it must not be allowed to become a back door entry for the world’s most toxic nuclear waste.

Recommendation 9

1.61 The Bill must be amended to ensure that no UK or US nuclear waste can be stored or disposed of in Australia.

Overrides other laws

1.62 This Bill also seeks to override or disregard other laws and international obligations.

1.63 For example, the Bill allows for the Minister to override State and Territory laws that might limit where the Federal Government proposes nuclear waste will be stored through proposed section 135 which reads:

If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.

1.64 This issue has been noted by local communities and environmental groups including David J Noonan who stated in his submission:

The Bill is undemocratic and disrespectful to the people of SA in a proposed power under Section 135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to over-ride any SA Laws or provisions of our Laws effectively by decree, a fiat of unaccountable federal agents to annul our Laws by naming then in Regulations.[22]

Recommendation 10

1.68 It is recommended that section 135 of the Bill should be removed to retain existing State and Territory protections for the safe treatment of nuclear materials.

Recommendation 11

1.69 It is recommended, to ensure the Bill meets the existing requirements for Australia’s nuclear safety regime to be consistent with international standards, that section 136 be amended to require functions performed to be in accordance with, rather than simply to have regard to, prescribed international agreements.

1.70 Each of the above amendments are intended to strengthen a dangerously undercooked bill. Taken together they would significantly strengthen the proposed regulatory regime to make it more independent and to ensure the public interest, public consultation and First Nations’ rights are respected.

1 .71 However, even if all were adopted, the Bill’s express purpose is to facilitate Australia spending some $368 billion to obtain a handful of nuclear submarines. This entire project comes at an eye-watering cost that strips vital public resources from addressing the climate challenge, the housing crisis and rising economic inequality in our country.

1.72 For all these reasons the Bill should be rejected by the Parliament in its entirety.

Recommendation 12

1.73 It is recommended that the Bill be rejected in full.

Senator David Shoebridge, Substitute member, Greens Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ANNPSBills23/Report/Australian_Greens_dissenting_report?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR05CTHduGYDKKcA97g2CvxUE5GZijeBqCITeyjzP0E6YtRmwA_t1EDhwE0_aem_AfsyqQjkM1ez6NUjpa-gSqQ_S_XuhvR6d41rhpWq5VIanWmfHvNRjs3Fqrq_uzaOhVymvSX39Jdbj-LRRbQGamPl

May 16, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, weapons and war | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU rebuffs UK attempt to continue collaborating on nuclear fusion experiment.

 EU rebuffs UK attempt to continue collaborating on nuclear fusion
experiment. Bloc tells London it will be locked out of Iter project in
France within months unless it rejoins civil atomic programme. Brussels has
told London it will be locked out of the Iter project, based in France,
within months unless it affiliates to Euratom, which it quit when it left
the bloc, according to people familiar with the matter.

The UK has asked to continue with Iter as an outside partner, an arrangement granted to
Australia. But the EU has said it must also join a Euratom research scheme,
the people said. Australia has a co-operation agreement with Euratom.

London left Euratom because it did not believe the programme provided value
for money, and stayed out when it rejoined other EU research schemes last
year. Iter is an international project to build the world’s biggest
tokamak — the reaction vessel for nuclear fusion.

After four decades of experiments the technology is still years away from proving it can generate commercially viable power, but supporters hope it will prove a viable
source of plentiful low-carbon energy.

 FT 15th May 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/12cf843a-184d-4e50-8818-a57e12464276

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics international, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Biden Moves Forward Over $1 Billion in Weapons for Israel as Tanks Push Deeper Into Rafah

The weapons package includes tank ammunition, tactical vehicles, and mortar rounds

by Dave DeCamp May 14, 2024  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/05/14/biden-moves-forward-over-1-billion-in-weapons-for-israel-as-tanks-push-deeper-into-rafah/

The Biden administration has notified Congress that it intends to move forward with a weapons package for Israel worth over $1 billion as Israeli tanks are pushing further into the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

The arms package, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, includes $700 million in tank ammunition, $500 million in tactical vehicles, and $60 million in mortar rounds.

The arms could take years to deliver, but the deal demonstrates the US’s long-term commitment to arming Israel despite President Biden’s warning that he could stop supplying certain types of weapons if Israel launches a major attack on “population centers” in Rafah. It also shows Israel that any tank munitions it uses in Rafah will be replenished. Reuters reported on Tuesday that Israeli tanks had entered residential districts in eastern Rafah.

While the US says it put a hold on one shipment of 2,000-pound bombs, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Monday that the US was still committed to Israel and would make sure it received all of the $17 billion in new military aid that was recently approved by Congres. “We are continuing to send military assistance, and we will ensure that Israel receives the full amount provided in the supplemental. We have paused a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs because we do not believe they should be dropped in densely populated cities. We are talking to the Israeli government about this,” he said.

Initial reports about the delayed bomb shipment said a pause was also put on a shipment of 500-pound bombs, but US officials are now only mentioning the 2,000-pound bombs. When asked to clarify if there was a hold on both, the State Department pointed Antiwar.com to the above statement from Sullivan.

Sullivan also made clear that Israel’s push into Rafah still hasn’t crossed Biden’s red line, if one exists at all. “We still believe it would be a mistake to launch a major military operation into the heart of Rafah that would put huge numbers of civilians at risk without a clear strategic gain. The president was clear he would not supply certain offensive weapons for such an operation, were it to occur. It has not yet occurred,” he said.

Before Israel launched its US-approved operation to capture the Rafah border crossing last week, it was estimated that the city was packed with about 1.4 million civilians. The UN said on Tuesday that about 450,000 Palestinians have been driven out of the city so far and are warning that there’s nowhere safe for them to go. The Israeli operation has also cut off aid deliveries through the vital Rafah border crossing, adding to the starvation blockade on the Strip.

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Antony Blinken Dines at Nazi Restaurant in Ukraine

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Australia risks being ‘world’s nuclear waste dump’ unless Aukus laws changed, critics say

Labor-chaired inquiry calls for legislation to rule out accepting high-level nuclear waste from US and UK submarines among other recommendations

Daniel Hurst Foreign affairs and defence correspondent,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/13/australia-aukus-deal-submarines-critics-nuclear-waste

Australia risks becoming the “world’s nuclear waste dump” unless the Albanese government moves to rewrite its proposed Aukus laws, critics say.

A Labor-chaired inquiry has called for the legislative safeguard to specifically rule out accepting high-level nuclear waste from the US and the UK. One of the members of a Senate committee that reviewed the draft laws, independent senator Lidia Thorpe, said the legislation “should be setting off alarm bells” because “it could mean that Australia becomes the world’s nuclear waste dump”.

The government’s bill for regulating nuclear safety talks about “managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an Aukus submarine”, which it defines broadly as Australia, UK or US submarines.

In a report published on Monday, the Senate’s foreign affairs, defence and trade legislation committee said this wording did not reflect the government’s promise not to accept high-level nuclear waste.

It recommended that the government consider “amending the bill so that a distinction is made between Australia’s acceptance of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus partners, but non-acceptance of high-level nuclear waste”.

The government has left the door open to accepting low-level waste from US and UK nuclear-powered submarines when they conduct rotational visits to Western Australia in the first phase of the Aukus plan. Low-level waste contains small amounts of radioactivity and include items such as personal protective equipment, gloves and wipes.

“According to the Australian Submarine Agency, nuclear-powered submarines only generate around a ‘small skip bin’ of low-level naval nuclear waste per submarine per year and that intermediate- and high-level waste will not become a concern until the first naval nuclear reactor requires disposal in the mid-2050s,” the Senate committee report said.

The government has yet to decide on the location for the disposal of radioactive waste from the submarines.

But infrastructure works proposed for HMAS Stirling – the naval base in Western Australia – to support the increased rotational visits are expected to include an operational waste storage facility for low-level radioactive waste.

The Department of Defence has argued any changes to the definitions should not prevent “regulatory control of the management of low-level radioactive waste from UK or US submarines” as part of those rotational visits.

Thorpe, an independent senator, said the call to prohibit high-level nuclear waste from being stored in Australia was “backed by experts in the field and was one of the major concerns raised during the inquiry into the bill”.

“The government claims it has no intention to take Aukus nuclear waste beyond that of Australian submarines, so they should have no reason not to close this loophole,” Thorpe said.

“They also need to stop future governments from deciding otherwise. We can’t risk our future generations with this.”

The government’s proposed legislation would set up an Australian naval nuclear power safety regulator to oversee the safety of the nuclear-powered submarines.

The committee made eight recommendations, including setting “a suitable minimum period of separation” to prevent a revolving door from the Australian Defence Force or Department of Defence to the new regulator.

The main committee report acknowledged concerns in the community that Australia might become a “dumping ground” for the Aukus countries, but it said the term was “not helpful in discussing the very serious question of national responsibility for nuclear waste”.

It also said the bill should be amended to ensure the regulator was transparent about “any accidents or incidents” with the soon-to-be-established parliamentary oversight committee on defence.

The Labor chair of the committee, Raff Ciccone, said the recommendations would “further strengthen the bill” and help “ensure Australia maintains the highest standards of nuclear safety”.

In a dissenting report, the Greens senator David Shoebridge said the legislation was “deeply flawed”, including because the regulator would report to the defence minister.

“The proposed regulator lacks genuine independence, the process for dealing with nuclear waste is recklessly indifferent to community or First Nations interests and the level of secrecy is a threat to both the environment and the public interest,” Shoebridge said.

The defence minister, Richard Marles, was contacted for comment.

May 15, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international, wastes | Leave a comment

Constellation Energy looks to small nuclear reactors for the gross, ever-increasing energy needs of great steel data containers.

Constellation Energy eyes new nuclear for unprecedented data center power
demand.

Constellation Energy (CEG.O), opens new tab is considering building
next-generation nuclear plants on its existing sites to meet soaring demand
from data centers, executives with the Baltimore-based power company said
on Thursday. The largest operator of U.S. nuclear energy said it is looking
at adding new small modular reactors and other energy technologies to
deliver electricity to large load customers like data centers.

 Reuters 9th May 2024

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/constellation-energy-beats-q1-profit-estimates-higher-nuclear-power-generation-2024-05-09/

May 15, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Sam Altman-backed nuclear start-up crashes after Wall Street debut

NEW YORK,  https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2024/05/11/sam-altman-backed-nuclear-start-up-crashes-after-wall-street-debut/133694 ― The share price of nuclear energy start-up Oklo, chaired by OpenAI boss Sam Altman, fell sharply yesterday on its first day of trading on Wall Street.

At around 3.40pm (1940GMT), the stock was down 53.9 per cent to US$8.40 (RM39.80).

Founded in 2013 by graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Oklo went public by merging with AltC Acquisition Corp, a listed company.

The latter is a SPAC (special purpose acquisition company), a company whose sole purpose is to enable another firm to enter Wall Street through a merger.

Since the deal with Oklo was announced in July last year, AltC’s share price has soared, gaining over 72 per cent.

But transactions involving a SPAC are often highly volatile, partly because they are more exposed to speculation than traditional IPOs.

Altman is involved in several cutting-edge sectors and invested in Oklo in 2015, also becoming its chairman.

According to company documents, Altman directly controls around three per cent of the capital.

Oklo plans to build small modular reactors (SMRs), which are theoretically quicker to build than conventional power plants and less complicated to construct in remote areas. Oklo also wants to offer nuclear fuel recycling.

Conventional nuclear reactors are hugely expensive and take a long time to construct, with major projects having become notorious for their budget and schedule overruns.

The startup does not yet have a site of its own, and in January 2022 was refused a licence to build an SMR in Idaho by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC).

The NRC rejected the application on the grounds that there was a lack of information on the risks of accidents and the responses planned in such cases.

With the merger with AltC, Oklo raised US$306 million, which will be used to build the company’s first fission reactor, Aurora, in Ohio. ― AFP

May 15, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

“Nuclear comes last”

the tail-between-legs exit of the Nuclear Summit conferees declared in a headline: “Taxpayers are needed to foot the bill to achieve 2050 targets.”

Banks reject nuclear funding, stocks nosedive and the industry says it should, believe it or not, slow down

 By Linda Pentz Gunter     https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/31/nuclear-comes-last/

NuScale, the company whose small modular reactor project collapsed so spectacularly last November, is “burning cash at the rate of $185 million per year”. On March 22, the company’s CEO, John Hopkins, sold 59,768 of his shares in the company. This is the same CEO who declared NuScale’s SMR project, aptly named VOYGR, “a dead horse.” It’s clearly on a journey to nowhere.

Wells Fargo, with an eye on prudent investments, has declared, “We think investor enthusiasm for SMR is misguided”. As The Motley Fool reported, “NuScale’s VOYGR nuclear power product has ‘no secure customers’ and is ‘not cost competitive’ says the analyst.” 

The splashy cheerleading Nuclear Energy Summit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Brussels on March 21 proved to be just that. The participants arrived floating on the hot air of their misplaced enthusiasm but “left humbled by the tepid reaction of bankers assessing the price tag of their ambitions”.

European Investment Bank Vice President Thomas Ostros, told Summit attendees to their face that “The project risks, as we have seen in reality, seem to be very high”. Representatives from the European and Latin American banking worlds said that “their lending priorities lean toward renewables and transmission grids” and that “nuclear comes last”.

Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission couldn’t quite bring itself to slam down its rubber stamp on Oklo’s chalet-in-the-woods micro reactor, the Aurora, which remains about as real as its namesake fairy tale princess. 

In January 2022, the NRC denied Oklo’s license application outright because it “continues to contain significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components,” wrote the NRC. 

Oklo reapplied nine months later but according to the NRC docket there is “no further action”. 

Nevertheless, Oklo brags on its website that it “made history” simply by developing “the first advanced fission combined license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission”, which sums up the second nuclear “renaissance” perfectly: Make a drawing. Hit ‘send’.

Meanwhile, the US military canceled its contract for an Aurora reactor originally intended for the Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, Alaska.

And finally, an executive from the industry that has consistently delivered its latest new reactors decades late and billions over the original budget — in one case $20 billion over — suggested they should all just slow down. Said Ian Edwards, chief executive of Canadian reactor producer, Atkins Realis, “we all become too optimistic. We have this optimism bias towards being able to deliver faster. Really we should probably slow things down a little bit.”

But nuclear power is the answer to our current climate crisis! Ya think?

It’s tempting to ask whether things can get any worse for the nuclear power industry, but they almost certainly will. Unless we end up paying for it all. As the Bloomberg article that related the tail-between-legs exit of the Nuclear Summit conferees declared in a headline: “Taxpayers are needed to foot the bill to achieve 2050 targets.”

At the moment, a majority in the US Congress seem intent on making sure that is exactly what will happen. Because after all, why should multi-billionaire, Bill Gates, be forced to pay for his own nuclear toys when he can milk (read ‘bilk’) US taxpayers instead?

The US government has already pledged $2 billion of our money to Gates for his proliferation-friendly liquid sodium-cooled molten salt fast reactor produced by his company, TerraPower (more properly, TerrorPower). Gates can’t wait to export it the United Arab Emirates. Nuclear weapons anyone?

The strokey-white-beard-named ADVANCE Act, has been passed by the US House with 365 voting in favor and only 36 Democrats-with-a-conscience voting against it. By its own description, the ADVANCE ACT aims to “advance the benefits of nuclear energy by enabling efficient, timely, and predictable licensing, regulation, and deployment of nuclear energy technologies.” In other words, do away with burdensome — and expensive — safety regulations. 

Indeed, New Mexico Democrat, Senator Martin Heinrich, told E&E News in January that “These regulatory timelines do not lend themselves to fighting the climate crisis.” Oh those wascally wegulations!

Meanwhile, Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia doesn’t want to seat any new NRC commissioners who might be “too focused on safety.” 

The NRC’s motto is “protecting people and the environment,” a mandate it demonstrably endeavors to avoid already, but even some vestige of interest in safety is probably better than none. Not that safety oversight will be needed of course because, hey, SMRs are “walkaway safe” and “meltdown proof” and any new light water reactors are too “advanced” to be a safety risk.

This makes the insistence by SMR manufacturers that they must be covered by the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) all the more curious. Price-Anderson, due to expire in 2025, was culled out of the ADVANCE ACT, now moving out of Senate committee and working its way through the reconciliation process, and handled separately. The Senate adopted the House version of the PAA, giving it a 40-year extension to 2026, and expanded limited liability for a major accident to just over $16 billion per reactor.

President Biden duly signed it into law, marking another misstep on what is becoming an increasingly problematic presidency.

Ed Lyman, Nuclear Power Safety Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Nuclear Intelligence Weekly that “The nuclear industry’s push for a 40-year Price-Anderson Act extension is a sure sign that it doesn’t believe its own messaging about how safe the next generation of nuclear reactors is going to be.”

But in a joint statement, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) declared that “The extension of the Price-Anderson Act in the minibus sends a clear message that we are committed to the advancement of this safe and reliable power source.”

The “clear message” this actually sends is that, in the event of a major nuclear accident, US taxpayers will be thrown under that minibus. The $16 billion coverage will be chicken feed and we will all be stuck with the bill. Let’s remember that the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters are each racking up costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars and counting. We have been warned.

But a bi-partisan group of Representatives and Senators think it’s perfectly fine for all of us to pay for such an eventuality. Meanwhile, if you own a home and are forced to abandon it in the path of a nuclear accident, you cannot claim a dime off your homeowner’s insurance. It will just be a total loss. Think about that for a moment.

Are we outraged yet?

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear 

May 15, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Reference archives | Leave a comment

Indonesia civil society groups raise concerns over proposed Borneo nuclear reactor

by Irfan Maulana on 14 May 2024,  https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/indonesia-civil-society-groups-raise-concerns-over-proposed-borneo-nuclear-reactor/

  • Indonesia’s largest environmental advocacy group, Walhi, staged demonstrations in Jakarta and West Kalimantan province to raise awareness about a proposed nuclear power plant in West Kalimantan’s Bengkayang district.
  • In 2021, a U.S. agency signed a partnership agreement with Indonesia’s state-owned power utility to explore possibilities for a reactor in the province. Survey work is currently being conducted to determine the project’s viability and safety.
  • Some environmental groups have questioned the merit of the plan on safety grounds and the availability of alternative renewable sources.

JAKARTA — Civil society organizations in Indonesia staged protests in late April to raise awareness of a planned nuclear plant near Pontianak, capital of West Kalimantan province on the island of Borneo.

“We are advocating that West Kalimantan be kept away from the threat of a nuclear radiation disaster. Indonesia is not Chernobyl,” said Hendrikus Adam, executive director of the West Kalimantan chapter of the Indonesia Forum for the Environment, a national NGO known as Walhi, referring to the site of a notorious 1986 nuclear meltdown in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Indonesia’s first experimental nuclear reactor, the TRIGA Mark II, opened in the city of Bandung in February 1965. Since then, however, the world’s fourth-largest country has yet to open a full-fledged nuclear power station.

In March 2023, Indonesia and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) signed a partnership agreement to develop small modular reactor technology for the archipelago’s power network. The agreement included a $1 million grant to PLN, the state-owned power utility, to carry out feasibility studies on a nuclear reactor.

PLN has proposed a 462-megawatt facility in West Kalimantan, which would use technology supplied by NuScale Power OVS, a publicly traded company based in Oregon in the U.S.

In capacity terms, that represents almost one-tenth of the giant Paiton coal-fired complex in East Java province, a mainstay of the Java-Bali power grid.

NuScale says the modular design of its technology has additional resilience to earthquakes — a significant consideration for civil engineering projects in Indonesia, one of the most seismically active countries in the world.

However, the technology encountered controversy after John Ma, a senior structural engineer with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), questioned the commission’s approval of the design’s earthquake resistance. That “differing professional opinion” was subsequently dismissed on review.

In 2021, Indonesia’s national research agency, known as BRIN, carried out a seismic study on a prospective site in the West Kalimantan district of Bengkayang.

That early work is part of research under the internationally agreed Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, which is recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of its safety regimen.

Risk assessment

At Walhi’s demonstration on April 26 in Jakarta, volunteers with the environmental group unfurled banners stating “Indonesia is not Chernobyl.” Lessons from the Chernobyl incident, as well as the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant meltdown in Japan — the latter triggered by an earthquake — inform much of the civil society campaign in Indonesia.

“The number of human and environmental tragedies shows that human-created technology such as nuclear power plants cannot be completely controlled,” Adam said.

He also questioned the government’s choice of Indonesian Borneo, known locally as Kalimantan, on the basis that it isn’t as seismically active as islands like Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi.

“The assumption that Kalimantan is safe from this disaster is of course not true,” Adam said. “Kalimantan has earthquake sources, such as the Meratus Fault, Mangkabayar Fault, Tarakan Fault, Sampurna Fault and Paternoster Fault.”

Walhi also pointed to slow uptake of solar and other renewable energy sources in Indonesia, which haven’t received the kinds of subsidies seen in other countries transitioning to clean energy.

“We have so many choices for energy transition, why do we have to choose technology that is actually dangerous?” said Fanny Tri Jamboree Christianto, Walhi’s energy campaign lead.

May 15, 2024 Posted by | Indonesia, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »