Author Archive

27 JUNE 2011

Local Talk News Editor

In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japanese officials assured everyone that everything was alright; everything was under control, that the problem was limited and controllable. It took a few days for that lie to fall apart.

This time, it may be our turn. Something bad is happening in Nebraska. A state of emergency was declared for two counties where two nuclear plants are located – one at the Fort Calhoun nuclear facility and one at the Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownsville. Due to flooding from the Missouri River, some kind of emergency event is happening or about to happen there. The government is telling us not to worry, that there are just some precautionary measures going on to prevent a disaster from happening because of the flooding.

Makeshift barriers have been erected at the Fort Calhoun plant because the current river level is two feet above the ground level of the plant. At the Cooper facility, another three inches of water and the facility will be closed. There were two tornadoes in the area a few days ago with winds of 85 mph.

Without the barriers, the plants would be, as we call it, under water, which is part of what caused the problem at Fukushima. Water plus radioactivity creates radioactive water, or radioactive steam, which radiation can turn into hydrogen and oxygen which have a habit of, as we call it, exploding.

The government is telling us not to panic. All is under control, just like in Japan. But here are a few troubling inconsistencies. One, the Red Cross shelter next to the Fort Calhoun plant has been closed. They claim it was due to "decreased need." During a flood? Now there is a no-fly zone around the plant. Then there is the disturbing news that the spent fuel rod pool was so full that they store the surplus fuel rods in a dry storage area outside the safety of the pool. How long will that area stay dry and what happens if it gets wet? One reporter claims the dry storage bunker is now half-submerged. One of the intake structures is prone to flooding that could affect the water pumps. Non-functional water pumps? Does that sound familiar?

Keep in mind that some flooding was deliberately caused by the Army releasing water from reservoirs to protect them from failing. This has flooded levees. The Army has in the past dynamited levees to direct the water elsewhere – like where poor people live and work – to protect the areas where rich people live and work.

The Russians are concerned. They are reporting that on June 7, there was a nuclear accident at the plant due to the flooding and that the Obama administration has ordered a news blackout. They think there’s a Level Four emergency that is being concealed.

Fort Calhoun is probably not a lot like Fukushima – for one thing, the reactor itself is shut down, so the danger is mostly with spent fuel rods, rather than a meltdown of the reactor itself. Not that fuel rods can’t melt down too – they can. But if something happened, we should be told, right?

Some independent sources reported a fire in an electrical switch room at the plant on Tuesday that shut down the cooling pumps. The accident was corrected in about 90 minutes and there was no large increase in temperature at the pool. So no big deal, right?

Well, the weather report for Nebraska says rain Wednesday (when I wrote this) and a lot more on the weekend. Levees are being breached, dams are overflowing, there’s still a tornado threat, some residents are being evacuated, and the river is still rising. So maybe it is a big deal.

An Associated Press investigation concluded that radioactive tritium has escaped from about three-quarters of our commercial nuclear power plants. The weak spot in most nuclear plants are pipes, and pipes have a habit of leaking or bursting. They believe that when most plants fail to meet standards, the government just lowers the standards or chooses to not enforce them. Isn’t that a comforting thought?

We have a nuclear plant close to us at Indian Point, New York, which was erected near two earthquake fault lines. Whoops.

In Japan, the internet gave us more reliable news than the mainstream media, and a lot sooner too. The Hawaii News Daily was reporting on this accident since June 14, but regular media seem slow or unwilling to investigate. For example, early CNN reporting mentioned a flooding risk to their stadium but never mentioned the nuclear power plant. So, is this a National Enquirer style false panic story, or a real conspiracy theory full scale news event? I guess we’ll find out by next week. You can’t hide something like this forever. Japan tried, and failed. Until then, carry an umbrella, and maybe a Geiger counter.

Marvin Wolf is a Newark attorney and a regular contributor to Local Talk. This article provides legal information, news, satire, and individual opinion, but not legal advice. Mr. Wolf can be contacted through his office at (973) 735-2740 or his website www.wolfprotect.com

6/22/11

AP News via Yahoo News

U.S. nuclear power plant operators haven’t figured out how to quickly detect leaks of radioactive water from aging pipes that snake underneath the sites — and the leaks, often undetected for years, are not going to stop, according to a new report by congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office was released by two congressmen Tuesday in response to an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America’s 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater.

U.S. nuclear power plant operators haven’t figured out how to quickly detect leaks of radioactive water from aging pipes that snake underneath the sites — and the leaks, often undetected for years, are not going to stop, according to a new report by congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office was released by two congressmen Tuesday in response to an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America’s 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater.

Separately, two senators asked the GAO, the auditing and watchdog arm of Congress, to investigate the findings of the ongoing AP series Aging Nukes, which concludes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have worked closely to keep old reactors operating within safety standards by weakening them, or not enforcing the rules.

A third senator, independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said the AP series has raised disturbing allegations about safety at aging plants and reiterated his demand that the Vermont Yankee plant be shut.

In the report released Tuesday by Democratic Reps. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Peter Welch of Vermont, the GAO concluded that while a voluntary initiative that industry recently adopted is supposed to identify leaks, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t know how fast problems are detected.

"Absent such an assessment, we continue to believe that NRC has no assurance that the Groundwater Protection Initiative will lead to prompt detection of underground piping system leaks as nuclear power plants age," the report’s authors concluded.

No leak is known to have reached aquifers that hold the drinking water supplies of public utilities, though tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, has contaminated residential drinking wells near at least three nuclear power plants. The tritium in those wells did not surpass the federal health standard. Though mildly radioactive, tritium poses the greatest risk of causing cancer when it ends up in drinking water.

Markey’s spokeswoman said his office received the GAO report in early June after requesting it in 2009 following reports of a tritium leak at the Indian Point nuclear plant north of New York City. Typically congressional offices hold reports for 30 days, but Markey released it in response AP’s tritium story, part of an ongoing investigative series.

In a written statement, he compared the ongoing nuclear crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant to the kind of meltdown he said could happen in the U.S. if a pipe that is supposed to carry water to cool a reactor’s core fails.

"There would be no warning because no one ever checks the integrity of these underground pipes," Markey said.

The industry’s Nuclear Energy Institute cited its "underground piping integrity initiative policy," launched voluntarily in 2009, as proof that it takes tritium leaks seriously.

"The initiative commits the industry to a series of actions to establish more frequent inspection and enhance dependability of underground piping with a goal of protecting structural integrity and preventing leaks," the institute said in a statement.

The institute also criticized AP’s overall findings and "selective, misleading reporting in a series of new articles on U.S. nuclear power plant safety."

Previously, the AP reported that regulators and industry have weakened safety standards for decades to keep the nation’s commercial nuclear reactors operating. While NRC officials and plant operators argue that safety margins can be eased without compromising safety, critics say these accommodations are inching the reactors closer to an accident.

In response to those findings, New Jersey’s two Democratic senators asked the GAO for a new investigation based on "the serious allegations" documented by the AP.

"It would be of grave concern to us if, in fact, aging power stations have achieved compliance with operating rules because of weakened NRC rules, rather than demonstrated compliance with existing standards," Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez wrote.

In a Senate speech Tuesday, Sanders said the NRC and Vermont Yankee operator Entergy have ignored the will of Vermonters. The Vermont state Senate recently voted to close the plant once its license expires next year.

He also called for a GAO investigation into the safety issues raised in the AP series. "These allegations by the AP are incredibly disturbing," Sanders said. "Safety at our nuclear plants should be the top priority at the NRC, particularly after what we saw happen in Japan. They should not answer to the nuclear industry, the NRC must answer to the public."Sanders said the investigation should determine whether the NRC is systematically working with industry to undermine safety standards to keep aging plants operating.California Democrat Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, said she is supporting Sanders.Late Tuesday, the NRC said it disagreed with AP’s conclusions in the stories, but welcomed the attention to nuclear plant safety the stories have generated. The agency defended its standards and approach to safety."The NRC never wavers from its primary mission — ensuring that the public remains safe during the civilian use of radioactive materials in the United States," the statement said.Addressing the main issue of the AP series regarding weakening of standards, the NRC said it "only endorses changes when they maintain acceptable levels of public safety; this can include adding or strengthening requirements."

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate(at)ap.org

The UK Guardian

June 08, 2011

Fuel rods have probably breached containment vessels – a more serious scenario than core meltdown – according to report

Molten nuclear fuel in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant is likely to have burned through pressure vessels, not just the cores, Japan has said in a report in which it also acknowledges it was unprepared for an accident of the severity of Fukushima.

It is the first time Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel suffered “melt-through” – a more serious scenario than a core meltdown.

The report, which is to be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said fuel rods in reactors No 1, 2 and 3 had probably not only melted, but also breached their inner containment vessels and accumulated in the outer steel containment vessels.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), says it believes the molten fuel is being cooled by water that has built up in the bottom of the three reactor buildings.
The report includes an apology to the international community for the nuclear crisis – the world’s worst since Chernobyl in 1986 – and expresses “remorse that this accident has raised concerns around the world about the safety of nuclear power generation”.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, said: “Above all, it is most important to inform the international community with thorough transparency in order for us to regain its confidence in Japan.”

The report comes a day after Japan’s nuclear safety agency said the amount of radiation that leaked from Fukushima Daiichi in the first week of the accident may have been more than double that initially estimated by Tepco.

The 750-page report, compiled by Japan’s emergency nuclear task force, concedes that the country was wrongfooted by the severity of the accident, which occurred after the plant was struck by waves more than 14 metres high following the earthquake on 11 March.

“We are taking very seriously the fact that consistent preparation for severe accidents was insufficient,” the report said. “In light of the lessons learned from the accident, Japan has recognised that a fundamental revision of its nuclear safety preparedness and response is inevitable.”

The nuclear task force’s head, Goshi Hosono, said Tepco had failed to adequately protect plant workers early on in the crisis, and had provided inadequate information about radiation leaks.

About 7,800 workers had been involved in the battle to stabilise the plant as of late May, the report said. While their average exposure dose was well within safe limits, “a certain number” may have been exposed to more than 250 millisieverts per year, the maximum allowable dose under revised government guidelines for Fukushima workers.

The report acknowledged that bureaucratic red tape, and the division of responsibilities across several government agencies, had hampered the response to the accident.

It said the government would separate the country’s nuclear safety watchdog from the trade and industry ministry, a recommendation made earlier this month by a team of experts from the IAEA.

The trade and industry minister, Banri Kaieda, said Japan would share all available data and co-operate with the IAEA. “Our country bears a serious responsibility to provide data to the international community with maximum transparency, and to actively contribute to nuclear safety,” he said.

The most urgent problem facing workers at Fukushima Daiichi is how to deal with vast quantities of highly radioactive water that has accumulated in reactor buildings and basements and in ditches.

The estimated 100,000 tonnes of contaminated liquid – runoff from water used to douse overheating reactors – is hampering efforts to repair the plant’s cooling systems.

Tepco has said it hopes to have a system in place by the middle of the month to remove radioactive substances from the water, enabling it to be reused to cool reactors.

By Lanny Sinkin
Guest OpEd – San Antonio Express-News

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Proponents of nuclear and fossil fuels are claiming all energy sources, including solar, have risks. ("All forms of energy have risk," Business, March 26). When you delve into the true nature of those risks, there really is no comparison.

There is no solar accident that even begins to approach the destructiveness of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Solar relies on a reactor that is perfectly placed — 93 million miles from Earth.

A major solar spill is what we call a nice day, hardly comparable to the Deepwater Horizon killing 11 people and producing a massive release of oil.

Replacing fossil fuel-generated electricity with solar dramatically reduces green house gases and helps to mitigate the worst effects of climate instability — a benefit, not a risk.

To compare solar risks to the risks from continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels is not rational, let alone logical.

The solar risks identified in the article are that "solar is expensive" and "hard to deploy at the necessary scale."

Solar costs are already below the price of proposed new nuclear projects. The price of nuclear projects will almost certainly increase as a result of the Japan catastrophe. The real cost of the Japanese nuclear plants will now include the billions of dollars spent to contain the meltdowns and deal with the aftermath.

Southern California Edison chose a future based on solar, rather than natural gas, for economic reasons. Solar costs are also within the competitive range with coal when the cost of building a coal plant is included. If coal had to pay for its health, environmental and climate-change damage, coal would not compete with solar.

As to installing enough to meet demand, I asked an engineer involved in developing the San Diego solar plan to estimate the amount of solar we could put on rooftops in San Antonio. His back-of-the-envelope estimate was 4,000 megawatts. By way of comparison, the new Spruce 2 coal plant is 750 megawatts.

The sidebar to the article says the best locations for solar "are far from population areas, so they require costly transmission infrastructure." While solar potential to the west is higher, we don’t need to go there. San Antonio rooftops are highly productive and feed into the existing transmission infrastructure.

The sidebar says "solar can’t be stored (although solar heat can for a while)." There is a concentrated solar plant being built in Spain that heats up an oil that stores enough heat to generate electricity for 15 hours after the sun goes down. There is ice storage, compressed air, pumped water, flywheels and a host of other storage technologies rapidly maturing or already in use.

The sidebar then gets ridiculous by saying, "Turbines and panels pose a threat to birds." There are problems with wind turbines killing birds and bats. We know of no recorded instance of a solar panel harming a bird in any way.

San Antonio can believe the spin and reluctantly move forward on solar. Or we can follow the bold leadership coming from CPS Energy and make San Antonio the national leader in solar.

We can build as much solar as we have the will to build. The real risk would be a failure to fully embrace our solar potential.

Lanny Sinkin is executive director of Solar San Antonio.

May 22, 2011

Nick Lawton
KWES NewsWest 9

ANDREWS – More and more truck traffic coming to Andrews has sparked the now controversial proposed truck reliever route debate there.

The project planning was started back in 2007 and is now poised to take off this year if the funding comes through.

The 13-mile route circling the city will have two lanes going opposite directions for large trucks to travel with a narrow turn lane in the middle.

It’s meant to keep them off of the main city streets.

"We’ve had a 60-80% increase in truck traffic in Andrews in the last five years," Andrews City Manager, Glen Hackler, said. "That means about 1,000-1,200 trucks a day on Main St."

Andrews officials said that can be a safety hazard to other cars just making their errands around town.

The project will cost $6 million and the city will have an election in May to raise the sales tax by a quarter to help pay it off.

If it’s approved, the city will issue $6 million dollars in bonds for a period not exceeding 20 years in the Fall and construction on the route will begin in January 2012.

But there’s a stretch of homes on the North side of town on County Road 2500, about a quarter-of-a-mile long, where the route is cutting too close.

One Andrews family in that area has the route coming within 14 feet of their front lawn and said it’s too unsafe for them.

"You’re gonna have those trucks passing by every day within 40 feet of my son’s room where he’s gonna be asleep," 15-year Andrews resident, Justin Johnson, said.

For the Johnson’s, they don’t want their children to be in danger just by playing out in the front yard but Andrews officials said there will be measures in place on that stretch to protect those homes.

"Putting curb and gutter that would help slow and calm the traffic in that area, a masonry decorative fence with some sound baffling, reducing the speed limit to 35 along that quarter-of-a-mile section," Hackler said.

The Johnson’s said they’ve yet to hear from a city official. They fear there won’t be a safe alternative, and if the sales tax is approved and the route built, they might have to move.

But officials said there wasn’t a better place to put the new route and now the wait is on to see if the funding will be voted in.

"There’s no perfect route," Hackler said. "What we’ve done is three or four years of study, evaluation and work and brought it to this point. Now it’s up to the voters to decide."

"Take a minute to put themselves in my shoes," Johnson said. "And how would they like 600-800 trucks a day passing within 40 feet of their home where their children play out in their yard."