A U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) official said Wednesday that a nuclear waste treatment plant in eastern Idaho will probably start operating in early December. The treatment plant was designed to treat nine hundred thousand gallons of sodium-bearing, radioactive waste. It has had numerous problems and setbacks.
     Connie Flohr is manager of the Idaho Cleanup Project for the Department of Energy’s (DoE) Office of Environmental Management. She told Idaho officials that the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at the department’s 890-square-mile site has successfully completed test runs with a simulant material. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is also located on the DoE site.
     Flohr said, “We have every confidence that we will be operating in December.” She was addressing members of the Leadership in Nuclear Energy Commission during an online meeting.
     The commission makes recommendations to the governor regarding policies to support the viability and mission of the Idaho National Laboratory. The commission also deals with other nuclear industries in Idaho. Commission members are appointed by the governor. They include state lawmakers, local government elected officials, university officials and others.
     The INL is one of DoE national labs. It is the nation’s top advanced nuclear energy research laboratory. It is also one of Idaho’s largest employers with about five thousand workers. It is a huge economic driver in the state bringing in millions of federal research dollars.
     The lab has a legacy of nuclear waste that the DoE has spent decades cleaning up. That effort includes the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit which is a fifty-three thousand square foot facility that cost more than five hundred million dollars to construct.
     It has suffered numerous problems for years. Scientists have struggled with the highly complex problem of converting the liquid waste into a more easily managed granulated solid through the use of what is referred to as a  ‘steam-reforming technology’.
     The liquid waste at INL came from processing spent nuclear fuel to recover highly enriched uranium, The waste is in tanks above the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer that supplies water to cities and farms in the region. There is great concern in the area about possible radioactive contamination of the aquifer if the tanks lead.
      The EoD has been paying fines to Idaho for missing the deadline to convert the liquid waste into solid material as stipulated in a 1995 agreement that was the culmination of a series of federal lawsuits. Idaho is preventing the department for bringing in research quantities of spent nuclear fuel to be studied at the lab because of the missed deadline.
     A revamped schedule for the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit called for it to begin operations last September. However, Flohr said she asked the state for a six-month extension on that date. The DoE will make the next deadline if the treatment plant starts operating in December.
     If the treatment plant is successful, the granulated waste will be stored at the plant in stainless steel canisters placed in concrete vaults. The waste will eventually be disposed of at a national geological repository. Unfortunately, no such repository currently exists and the soonest that such a repository may be available is 2050.

North Korea says it tested two nuclear-capable cruise missiles Aljazeera.com

Kyushu applies for 20-year extensions for Sendai 1 and 2 world-nuclear-news.org

Holtec completes district heating system design world-nuclear-news.org

Cameco and Brookfield Renewable join forces to acquire Westinghouse world-nuclear-news.org

Ambient office = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 11 nanosieverts per hour

White onion from Central Market = 74 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

     India’s strategic Strike Nuclear Submarine INS Arihant carried out a successful launch of a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) last Friday. The Indian Ministry of Defense (Mod) said that the test is important for the SSBN program. The program is a crucial element of India’s nuclear deterrence capability.
      A press release from the MoD said that “The missile was tested to a predetermined range and impacted the target area in the Bay of Bengal with very high accuracy. All operational and technological parameters of the weapon system have been validated. The successful user training launch of the SLBM by INS Arihant is significant to prove crew competency and validate the SSBN program, a key element of India’s nuclear deterrence capability. A robust, survivable and assured retaliatory capability is in keeping with India’s policy to have ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ that underpins its ‘No First Use’ commitment.”
     The INS Arihant was commissioned in 2016. The vessel is India’s first nuclear-powered ballistic missile capable submarine. The SSBN is a hull classification symbol for nuclear-powered ballistic missile carrying submarines. Operations of the SLBMs from the SSBN are under the control of Strategic Forces Command which is part of India’s Nuclear Command Authority. Officials said that the capability of being able to launch nuclear weapons from submarines has great strategic importance in the context of achieving a nuclear triad. This is especially true in light of the ‘no first use’ policy of India with respect to the use of nuclear weapons.
     The capability to launch nuclear missiles from submarines is in line with the target of creating a nuclear triad. Such a triad includes the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, air and sea. The family of the indigenously developed Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles is sometimes referred to as K-family missiles are codenamed after Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam. He was the central figure in India’s missile and space program. He also served as the eleventh President of India. Under the SLBM family, missiles of various ranges have been developed. The K-15 (also called the Sagarika) missile has a range of at least four hundred and seventy miles.
     India has also developed and tested the K-4 missiles from the same family which have a range of two thousand one hundred and seventy-five miles. India is working on more members of the K-family with higher ranges in the cards.
      The INS Arihant was commissioned in 2016 and launched in 2016. The next in the class, the INS Arighat was reportedly launched in 2017 and has been undergoing sea trials. In December 2021, the U.K.-based Janes Defense Weekly report that India had launched its third Arighat class submarines sometime in November of this year. 
     Before 2016, India already possessed land-based ballistic missiles and aircraft that are nuclear-capable. India’s land-based arsenal includes the Agni family of missiles with ranges from four hundred miles to eight thousand miles.
     India currently has four types of bombers that are capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Land and air strike capabilities are under the control of Strategic Forces Command which is a part of Nuclear Command Authority. Their inventory of aircraft includes the Mirage 2000H, SEPECAT Jaguar and Rafale, which were purchased from France.

Ukraine nuclear chief: Zaporizhzhia plant does not need Russian fuel reuters.com

How iodine tablets block some nuclear radiation abcnews.go.com

Macron under fire for saying France wouldn’t respond in kind if Russia launched nuclear attack on Ukraine politico.eu.com

The Russian army will be ‘annihilated’ if it launches a nuclear attack, warns Josep Borrell  euronews.com

Ambient office = 75 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 104 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 88 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

     Seventy years ago, the British military conducted Australia’s first-ever nuclear weapons test on the Montebello Islands. Radiation is can still be detected on the Islands which occupy an archipelago of around 174 small islands (about 92 of which are named) lying 12 miles north of Barrow Island and 81 miles off the Pilbara coast of north-western Australia.  It is not clear if the islands are completely safe.
     Since 2019, an Edith Cowan University (ECU) study has been measuring exactly how much radioactivity still exists in the marine sediment on the islands. The team conducting the study has collected and tested more than 100 samples of marine sediments and marine life from the archipelago of islands.
        Madison Williams-Hoffman is a PhD student and is the lead researcher for the study. She said that researchers were still investigating the full extent of the radiation and the risk that it may pose.
     The scenic archipelago is among the most biodiverse marine environments in the world. It is a popular destination for tourists and fishers. Williams-Hoffman said that is was unrealistic to enact a blanket ban on visiting the area because the remote location of the islands would make it difficult to enforce.
     Williams-Hoffman hopes that the study will give people the power to make an informed decision as to whether they would be comfortable visiting the area. She said, “Even if you tell someone you can’t go there because [of] radiation risks, there’s always someone who’ll want to and you won’t entirely be able to stop them. But to give them the information so that they can make the decision for themselves, I think it’s a really important output from this project.” She added that the study’s first findings will be published next year.
      Jim Marlow is one of the many Australian servicemen who witnessed the test. They watched the historic moment from the deck of a small ship six miles away.  Marlow said, “We knew something was happening but there was little detail about it. We were just told to assemble on the deck, we were told to cover our heads and our eyes. It frightens the s**t out of you because you couldn’t say you expected it because you didn’t, you didn’t know it was coming. A loud bang followed by a rumble … and you see the smoke [and] sand starting to build up and it goes up and up and up and lines the sky.”
     Marlow is also part of the Australian Ex-Serviceman Survivors Association, and he has spent years lobbying for atomic veterans to receive recognition. He has said in interviews that he was worried that his exposure to radiation all those years ago could still pose a threat to his health. “In the case of the atomic veterans, the fallout from the detonation stays with you for a lifetime, so you don’t leave your war zone, it follows you everywhere you go. Fifty years later it’s still after you. I don’t know when it’s going to come and get me. I don’t know when it’s going to come to get my grandkids.”

Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 107 nanosieverts per hour

Roma tomato from Central Market = 46 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Russia to Use Own Nuclear Fuel at Zaporizhzhia Plan usnews.com

Russia to Support Morocco in Nuclear Energy Sector moroccoworldnews.com

Resolution decrying nuclear brinkmanship gains support from Holyoke mayor, city council masslive.com

Biden: I don’t think Putin will use nuclear weapons politico.com

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Alan Robock is a distinguished professor of climate science from Rutgers University’s Department of Environmental Sciences. He is also the co-author of the study in Nature Food. He claimed that World of Engineering’s estimate of two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years was “wrong”. The effects on the climate would depend completely on the amount of smoke injected into the atmosphere. He added that the duration of the possible impact does not rely on the volume of smoke to address the question of how long they would last. For each scenario addressed, the maximum effects would last for five years.
     Robock said that the effects of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people, and ecosystems are one aspect of atmospheric soot. The heating would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere. This would allow more UV radiation to reach the surface. However, the impacts would be felt instantly for even the tiniest amount of smoke. Before its effects could be felt at the surface of the Earth, the excess UV would be absorbed by the large amount of stratospheric smoke that has been accumulating for years.
      According to Robock, a nuclear war would result in lower temperatures because the soot would indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing the soot out. The soot would then absorb sunlight which would result in turning the Earth’s surface dark and chilly. The idea that a small nuclear war would stop global warming is simply not true.
      Irrespective of whether the theory is accurate or not, it is worth noting that the World of Engineering Twitter thread warned of serious consequences of such an event. They could instead have chosen to suggest that the projected sharp decline in global temperatures would be highly beneficial to humanity.
      Even a small nuclear war would worsen the situation by sparking a brand-new climate crisis when considered in the larger context of climate change. As an example, significant crop disparities in major exporters like the U.S. and Russia would result in export restrictions. This would have an impact on the food supply for nations that rely heavily on imports.
      According to the study in Nature Food, a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could result in more than five billion deaths around the world. A war between Pakistan an India could result in more than two billion deaths worldwide. Other studies have also highlighted potential indirect effects of this kind of conflict. These could include significant oceanic damage, which would be likely to have further negative and less predictable effects on the environment.
     Although a small nuclear war might indeed have a temporary global cooling effect, it is not correct to state that this would end the climate crisis. This is in part due to the fact that while cooling effects would only last a short time, a nuclear winter would itself cause a climate crisis leading to a global food crisis and perhaps billions of fatalities.