It has now been seven months since there was a release of radioactive particles from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. A drum containing waste generated by nuclear weapons production at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) burst in the underground facility. The air filtration system was not functioning correctly and the released radioactive materials including plutonium and americium escaped from the WIPP and were detected in Carlsbad over twenty miles away.

        The exact contents of the drum that exploded are not well documented. The scientists at LANL have conducted over three thousand experiments with chemicals that might have been in the drum but have failed to duplicate the event that ruptured the drum. A recent report from Reuters claimed that a source at WIPP told them that a second drum may have ruptured and released radioactive materials at WIPP. Just a few days ago, the Department of Energy denied that there was any evidence of a second drum exploding at the WIPP. Apparently LANL announced that there was a second drum of their waste at the WIPP that contained much the same type of wastes and additives in the drum that did explode.

        Six hundred and seventy eight other drums containing waste from LANL are now considered to be at high risk for heating and bursting. Of these drums, six hundred are stored at the WIPP, fifty seven drums are still at LANL and one hundred and thirteen drums are at a temporary storage in Texas.  

         LANL has been producing about ten plutonium pit triggers for nuclear warheads per year for the past few decades. With the call to renovate the U.S. nuclear arsenal, LANL will have to increase its pit trigger production to eighty a year. This will cause a huge increase in nuclear waste from LANL. With WIPP closed and no good estimation of when it may reopen, the question of what to do with all this new waste cannot be answered at this time. The pit triggers will be produced in the Plutonium Facility 4 (PF4) at LANL which is thirty six years old and located over an active seismic fault. Problems with the PF4 caused LANL to close it over a year ago.

         The U.S. Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a report on a three year review of emergency preparedness at U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. In the report, the DNFSB stated that the problems that it found with the response to the accident at WIPP are also relevant to other U.S. nuclear weapon facilities. The report concluded that the underlying causes of the problems included “ineffective implementation of existing requirements, inadequate revision of requirements to address lessons learned and needed improvements to site programs, and weaknesses in DOE verification and validation of readiness of its sites with defence nuclear facilities….” In light of these findings, the DNFSB report found that the “DOE has not comprehensively and consistently demonstrated its ability to adequately protect workers and the public in the event of an emergency.” Given that the U.S. is embarking on a major upgrade to its nuclear arsenal, the conclusion of the DNFSB report is cause for great concern and needs to be addressed by the U.S. Department of Defence.

The Japanese NHK television channel changed their scheduled TV program about Fukushima radioactive particles to a show about dinosaurs with no explanation. fukushima-diary.com

About 16,000 people took part in an anti-nuclear rally at Kameido Central Park in Tokyo’s Koto Ward on Sept. 23, demanding that plans to reactivate the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, be scrapped, its organizer said. mainichi.jp

An administrative building at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was evacuated Wednesday afternoon after employees received a bomb threat about a device that was allegedly outside of the secured perimeter, according to a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office spokesman. azcentral.com

The Navy has shut down almost all nuclear propulsion-related work at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard after two incidents involving potentially contaminated material. nuclearstreet.com

         My last post discussed the work being done in North Korea on the development of tactical nuclear weapons. While North Korea is a wild card in the international nuclear weapons arena, there are other more important players who are working on their arsenals.

        President Obama has been a strong advocate for global nuclear disarmament since before he was elected. In 2009, he signed an agreement with the then president of Russia to cut strategic nuclear arms. Unfortunately, when the current Russian president seized the Crimea in Ukraine this year, the momentum toward nuclear disarmament slowed. The Russian President recently mentioned nuclear weapons in discussing possible conflict in Eastern Europe. In the past month, Russian fighters and Russian nuclear bombers entered the identification zone off the West Coast of the U.S. and Canadian.

         Last month, the Kansas City National Security Campus was dedicated in Kansas by the U.S. government to assist in the revitalization the aging nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal. The plant is part of a nationwide program which includes creating a new generation of nuclear weapon delivery systems. The projected cost of these new programs is three trillion dollars over the next three decades. With new Russian and Chinese belligerence, it would be politically impossible for Obama to pursue significant cuts in U.S. nuclear weapons.

         Russia had announced recently intentions to renew its strategic nuclear forces by seventy percent by 2020. Now Russia has just announced that the renewal will be one hundred percent by 2020. The Defense Minister of Russia also said that thirty percent of the army and navy weapons would be switch to “cutting edge” technologies in 2015. He hinted that there were some secret weapons projects going on as well.

         Last month, China admitted the existence of the rumored Dongfeng-41A, a “next generation” intercontinental ballistic missile which can carry ten nuclear warheads and travel up to twelve thousand miles.  International treaties have forged that banned the creation of such multiple-warhead missiles between Russia and the U.S. Unfortunately, Russia backed out of the treaty.

         Pakistan recently announced that it would be creating a fleet of submarines to carry sea launched nuclear tipped missiles. This expansion of capability is obviously aimed at India which has a new right-wing government that has been ratcheting up belligerent rhetoric toward Pakistan since it was elected. The idea behind the new submarine fleet is to warn potential attackers (India) that even if Pakistan was decimated with an unexpected nuclear attack, the submarines would be able to launch a devastating retaliatory nuclear strike against the attacker. Unfortunately, if either Pakistan or India launched a nuclear strike on the other, within months, the prevailing winds would carry the nuclear fallout back over the attacker. It would be suicidal.

        With Russia, the U.S. and China announcing major nuclear upgrades, it appears that we are entering a new nuclear arms race that might return us to the instability of the Cold War period. As dangerous as the possibility of intentional nuclear war may be, the possibility of an accidental nuclear war breaking out is even more worrisome.

Architect’s model of the new National Security Campus in Kansas City:

Groundbreaking study reveals Fukushima that nuclear waste is poisoning wildlife in Japan.  enenews.com

The Japanese government has decided to lift an evacuation order on 1 October 2014 for part of a Fukushima Prefecture village within 20 kilometers of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear station. nucnet.org

Congress last week passed a spending bill funding government operations into early December including $13.7 million for cleanup activities at the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion facility in Ohio. nuclearstreet.com

Israel said on Wednesday that Iran has used its Parchin military base as the site for secret tests of technology that could be used only for detonating a nuclear weapon. uk.reuters.com

         I have written previous posts about the nuclear aspirations and efforts of North Korea. They have tested intermediate range rockets and have been working hard on miniaturizing nuclear warheads so that they can be carried by their missiles. Even though they have a huge army, it is poorly equipped and would not be effecting in conventional warfare against a well armed foe such as South Korea. N.K. is developing nuclear weapons because they would give N.K. an edge in a conflict with South Korea.

          The strategic nuclear missiles in the arsenals of nations with nuclear weapons are intended to carry big nuclear warheads on intercontinental flights. These warheads are designed to do major damage to large areas such as cities, factory complexes or military bases. N.K would not like to devastate huge areas of South Korea with strategic nuclear bombs because they want to invade and hold South Korea. There is also the probability that there would be major fallout in N.K. if they dropped big nuclear warheads on the South.

        In the last decade, N.K. developed their “transporter erector launchers” or mobile artillery rocket launchers with the assistance of the Chinese. These launchers can fire three hundred millimeter diameter artillery rockets that can carry about two hundred pounds of explosives.

        Since 2010, N.K has produced a new version of the three hundred millimeter mobile rocket launchers with the assistance of the Russians. The new launcher was made public in May of 2013. N.K. has also been working on the KN-10, a three hundred millimeter rocket based on the Russian SS-21 ground-to-ground missile. This rocket will be able to carry over a thousand pounds of explosives up to one hundred and twenty four miles. It was announced publicly in August of this year.

        It is believed that N.K. is also working on miniature tactical nuclear warheads for the KN-10 missile. Tactical nuclear warheads are much smaller than strategic nuclear warheads and are intended for use on battlefields against military targets. Their use in a conflict with South Korea would give the North Koreans an advantage on the battlefield and would leave most of South Korea undamaged.

          Even without tactical nuclear warheads, the new KN-10 missiles are much more powerful and would cause much more damage than the old generation of three hundred millimeter artillery missiles. The United States has troops on edge of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. They are there so that an attempt to invade South Korea by North Korea would encounter these U.S. troops and trigger war with the U.S. With tactical nuclear weapons in the mix, a war on the Korean peninsula would be more complex. South Korea does not have nuclear weapons and the U.S. would have to decide whether to answer North Korean aggression with U.S. tactical nuclear weapons.

Example of a North Korean missile and mobile launcher:

An extremely radioactive used car was almost to be imported from Japan to Russia.  fukushima-diary.com

Fallout in California thousands of times higher than we expected for several days after Fukushima explosions.  enenews.com

Russia expects that within two years it will receive a contract to construct Jordan’s first nuclear power plant following the signing of a project development agreement. world-nuclear-news.org

Statements by a European Commission spokesman indicate the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant project will be approved under state aid rules. world-nuclear-news.org

         This is Part 2 of my post about nuclear insurance issues. (see Part 1 posted on 9/19/14.) Part 1 discussed the current insurance situation and some of the related problems that were presented at the 2014 World Nuclear Association Symposium held in London. In this post, I am going to talk about some possible improvements in the global nuclear insurance industry.

         The European Commission recently discussed the fact that current compensation limits are not realistic in view of the probable cost of a major nuclear accident. They also talked about a new system for nuclear accident compensation that would draw up to twenty billion dollars from a variety of sources to create a compensation pool.

         The sources of money for the compensation pool would include the self insurance system currently in place in the United States. Additional funds would come from specialist insurance pools and mutual funds. And, finally, drawing funds from a whole new sector of the insurance market that is currently reluctant to get involved with nuclear accident compensation because of the problems with defining nuclear damage and prescription periods for payouts. One of the primary benefits of the proposed system would be to lower the burden the current system places on the taxpayer.

         Drawing on this compensation pool of funds would be based on simple triggers that would release payments only in the case of a very serious nuclear accident. One possible trigger would be an event that rated above a level 5 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Another possible trigger would be the detection of certain levels of radiation around the site of an accident. The purpose of the triggers would be to remove current ambiguity about the type of events and situations that should result in compensation of victims.

        The new system would not require that every operating nuclear reactor site have highest possible coverage. Individual insurance firms would be able to limit their exposure to only one or two triggering events. If fully implemented, the new insurance model should be obligatory to everyone in the nuclear industry. There has to be enough income from premiums in order to make it worthwhile for the insurance industry to make major financial commitments to the program.

         This system of “risk transfer insurance” steps in with “distress funding” when a major unexpected event threatens the financial stability of a company. With this system in place, a nuclear power plant owner could focus on dealing with getting a nuclear accident under control without having to simultaneously worry about paying out compensation claims or figuring out how to secure future funding in light of losses association with the accident.

         The bottom line is that a small premium of fractions of a penny per kilowatt hour could result in much greater financial security for the nuclear industry. As nuclear technology improves over time, the cost of the premium could be reduced. Given the virtual certainty of another major nuclear accident in the not too distant future, improving the system of insurance compensation for nuclear accidents victims would be a very good idea.