The Trump administration is all about deregulation. Granted, there are some federal regulations that are not necessary but there are a lot of regulations that were created to protect human health and the environment. The EPA has been dumping regulations that are intended to protect air and water. They have even considered rejecting scientific findings that argue against their orgy of regulation cutting. In addition, they are halting some efforts to revise existing regulations. I am very concerned about this trend, especially when it involves the primary subject of this blog.
       On the day before Donald Trump was sworn in on  January 20 of 2018, proposals for revision of Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192) were submitted by the outgoing Obama administration. The proposed revisions were to standards used to regulate byproducts produced at uranium mines by in situ leaching (ISL). These changes are to standards for protecting groundwater and site restoration projects.
       ISL is a mining process used to recover minerals such as copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into a deposit, in situ. “In situ” is Latin and it means “in place.” ISL works by artificially dissolving minerals occurring naturally in a solid state. Acids or carbonates are used to dissolve the minerals. There are environmental concerns about the leaching solution getting into the groundwater.
        The EPA said that there were three reasons that it was withdrawing the proposed rule changes. The first reason given was that the agency was concerned that it did not have the proper authority under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act to make changes to the standards. These issues had been raised by involved parties including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The second reason is that they believe that current regulatory structures are able to protect public health and the environment at existing ISL facilities. The third reason that the proposals were withdrawn was that the projected higher volume of ISL license applications did not, if fact, arrive. The agency said “Therefore, there is less need for the rule, which was intended to provide a more workable and efficient approach for addressing these expected new applications, compared to existing mechanisms.”
A few days ago, the acting EPA administrator said, “In a rush to regulate during the waning hours of the previous administration, the Agency proposed a regulation that would have imposed significant burdens on uranium miners and the communities they support. Today’s action is an important step in rebalancing EPA’s role with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s with respect to protecting public health and the environment alongside supporting modern methods of uranium extraction.”
      The Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works said, “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission – our nation’s principal nuclear regulator – has said there is no health or safety justification for EPA’s midnight rule. The NRC has regulated in situ uranium recovery for nearly 40 years. The agency has never found an instance of ground water contamination that would be addressed by this rule. I’m glad the Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged this reality. I applaud it for withdrawing this punishing and unnecessary regulation on America’s uranium producers.”
       This Withdrawal of Proposed Rule will be effective on the day that it is published in the Federal Register.

Ambient office  = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 132 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 132 nanosieverts per hour

Beefsteak from Central Market = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 101 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office  = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 140 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 143 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 101 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 118 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 109 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office  = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 151 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 151 nanosieverts per hour

Crimini mushroom from Central Market = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 96 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole – Caught in USA = 110 nanosieverts per hour

       Construction began on the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Generating Station in Hollywood, Alabama in 1975. The site was owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Two reactors were originally planned for the site. Eighty eight percent of reactor 1 construction was accomplished, and fifty eight percent of reactor 2 construction was accomplished with the TVA investing over six billion dollars. But, in 1988, work on the project was halted. Following that, useable equipment was removed from the site and now only fifty five percent of reactor 1 and thirty five percent of reactor 2 remains.
       In 2005, the TVA announced that it had selected the Bellefonte site for the construction of two of the new AP1000 pressurized water reactors. The new reactors would be designated as reactor 3 and reactor 4. In 2006, construction permits for reactors 1 and 2 were cancelled. Subsequently, the TVA studied what would be required to finish the two reactors and concluded that reactor 1 could be completed by 2017 and reactor 2 could be completed by 2021. In late 2007, the TVA filed the necessary applications to begin design and construction of reactors 3 and 4. In 2008, the TVA request that the NRC reinstate the construction permits that had been cancelled two years before for reactors 1 and 2. The NRC did reactivate the permits for reactors 1 and 2 in 2009.  In the fall of 2009, the TVA encountered “falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee”. As a result, the TVA scaled back their plans to the construction of one reactor at the Bellefonte site.
       In early fall of 2010, the TVA allocated two hundred and forty-eight million dollars for the development of reactor 1 at Bellefonte. A year later, the Board of Directors at the TVA voted to begin the construction of reactor 1. A plan was approved in 2011 to make the restart of construction at Bellefonte contingent on the completion of the TVA Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee. In 2012, they projected that Watts Bar 2 reactor would be completed in 2015.  In the middle of 2013, staffing at Bellefonte was reduced from five hundred and forty to just one hundred and forty. In late 2013, it was announced that a proposal had been drafted to complete the Bellefonte plant with private funds and federal tax credits.
       In 2015, the TVA decided that, given power demand projections, it would be at least twenty years until they needed the power that could be provided by the Bellefonte plant. In 2016, the TVA decided that the Bellefonte site was surplus property and that they would put the site up for auction. Nuclear Development LLC (ND) bought the site at auction for one hundred and ten million dollars. They announced that they were going to complete the two reactors at the site with an investment of thirteen billion dollars. ND has paid TVA twenty-two million dollars in earnest money to date and they have applied for more than eight billion dollars in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy.
       In January of this year, Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW) signed a non-binding agreement to purchase electricity from the reactors to be constructed at the Bellefonte site. MLGW says that it wants to wait for a regional energy report that is due in December before deciding whether or not to provide a binding letter of intent to ND. ND responded that unless MLGW signs a binding agreement to buy electricity from Bellefonte in the near future, ND may walk away from the purchase deal with the TVA because the terms of the loans from the DoE require that there be a guaranteed market for the electricity generated at the Bellefonte plant.
      Alabama state officials are very concerned with the recent developments. They were counting on the income from workers at the plant and the purchase of goods and services by the plant from local businessmen to revitalize the struggling economy of the communies near the site. Supporters of completion of the Bellefonte site say that the price of electricity from the plant would be much cheaper than current sources.
      The tortured history of Bellefonte Nuclear Generation Station illustrates why it is so difficult to finance and build nuclear power reactors in the U.S.

Ambient office  = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 140 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 151 nanosieverts per hour

Crimini mushroom from Central Market = 128 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 72 nanosieverts per hour