One major concern about nuclear power plants is the danger of flooding. Nuclear power reactors require large amounts of water to cool them. This means that they need to be located near large bodies of water; rivers, lakes or oceans. This proximity to large bodies of water means that there is a possibility of flooding, especially during heavy rains, hurricanes or tsunamis. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March of 2011 was caused by inadequate preparations for a tsunami that flooded emergency power generators.

         Another danger is created by locating nuclear power reactors downstream from dams. In the U.S., twenty nuclear power plants are located downstream from dams that could pose a threat. Today I am going to go into detail about flooding dangers that were found at one of the U.S. nuclear power plants.

       The Oconee Nuclear Station is a nuclear power plant that is located on Lake Keowee near Seneca, South Carolina. It’s three reactors went operational in 1973 and 1974. Together they generate over 2,500 megawatts. The plant is owned by Duke Energy and operated by Duke Power.

        In August of 2005, inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission discovered a problem with flood control measures. A six by ten inch panel had been removed in the five foot high flood barrier around the Standby Shutdown Facility to allow access to cables during maintenance and the panel had not been replaced.

        Duke Energy claimed that there was no problem because the hole where the panel had been was near the top of the flood barrier and there was no danger of water reaching that level. The NRC ruled against Duke and issue a white warning. Duke appeal the ruling and the appeal was denied. They appealed again and were denied again. During the review for the second appeal, the NRC noted that that Duke had severely underestimated the possibility of the failure of a dam that was twenty miles upstream from the plant.

       The review for the second appeal also discovered something far more disturbing than the hole in the five foot flood barrier. A study that was done in the 1990s had concluded that a failure of the dam above the plant could send a sixteen foot wall of water downstream, flooding the plant and causing a meltdown of all three reactors.

       Duke’s response to the NRC during the this review process was that they could not be inadequately protected from a dam failure because the NRC did not have the authority to require them to protect the plant from flooding caused by a dam failure. The NRC did not agree.

       Ultimately, Duke and the NRC hammered out an agreement in 2010 that fifteen steps would be taken to reduce the possibility of a dam failure and to improve flood prevention at the plant. A diversion wall was to be built that would redirect flood waters and an embankment would be created to protect part of the plant.

      This one example of flood dangers at a nuclear power plant highlights multiple issues including poor management of existing flood prevention measures, ignorance of flood danger detailed by a study of a possible dam failure, and attempts to use legal maneuvering to avoid making important and necessary changes to the flood protection measures at the plant. Fortunately, the NRC was not impressed by the misbehavior of Duke Energy and properly fulfilled the NRC regulatory mandate. This is another illustration of why it is dangerous to have corporations running nuclear power plants where profits are more important than safety.

Oconee Nuclear Station:

Saudi Arabia will buy 16 nuclear power plants from Russia for $100 billion despite terrorism concerns, according to a Monday announcement from a government-controlled nuclear power company. dailycaller.com

Finland’s nuclear regulators are still waiting for documents from the Russian nuclear firm Rosatom that should have arrived at least six months ago. The papers relate to a plant Rosatom is slated to build for the Finnish company Fennovoima in Pyhäjoki, north Ostrobothnia. yle.fi

Newly published findings from a five-year international project to study conditions at the surface and below the Greenland Ice Sheet will be used in evaluations of the future safety of deep geological repositories over time frames of up to a million years. world-nuclear-news.org

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said staff will meet with officials from the Wolf Creek Operating Company to discuss a violation given a designation of a white or low to moderate level concern, an incident involving a backup diesel generator that failed to work properly during a test. nuclearstreet.com

 

       I have lived my whole life under the threat of nuclear war. First it was the Soviet Union and the Cold War, then the Russians and the Chinese and now the threat of rogue states such as North Korea. Fortunately, it has not happened yet but we came very close several times. It is estimated that the detonation of as few as one hundred nuclear warheads could cause a nuclear winter that would end human civilization. There are at least seven countries that have at least a hundred nuclear warheads.

       The world would be much better off without nuclear weapons but no country is going to unilaterally disarm. And even with serious disarmament treaties and enforcement methods, there is always the possibility that one or more countries would try to hide a couple of nukes “just in case.”

      The U.S. President has the sole authority to launch a nuclear attack on another country. With the presidential election coming up in the United States, both candidates of the major parties have accused the other of being unfit to have the codes that could launch a nuclear war. Today I am going to review just how a nuclear attack could be initiated by the U.S. President.

       If a U.S. President decided that it was necessary to launch nuclear weapons, the first step in the process would be for the President to call a conference of top military and civilian advisors. This meeting would necessarily include the Pentagon Deputy Operations Officer who is in charge of the National Military Command Center that operates around the clock and would be responsible for carrying out a launch order. Heads of U.S. strategic nuclear forces would also be present to offer advice on strike options.

      Regardless of what the advisors said, the President has the sole authority to order a launch of nuclear weapons. The meeting would last as long as the President deemed to be necessary but if there were enemy missiles inbound to the U.S., the meeting could be wrapped up in as little as thirty seconds.

       If the President decided to order a launch, the Pentagon Deputy Operations Officer would have to verify his identity if he was not present in person. The Officer would offer a two letter challenge code. The President carries a small card called the “biscuit” with him at all times. The response code for the challenge is on the biscuit.

       The National Military Command Center would prepare the formal launch order which would include codes for the attack plan, the time until launch, authentication codes and the codes that the launch officers need to unlock the missiles and bombs before they are deployed. This launch order is a short string about one hundred and fifty characters long. It would be transmitted to all the nuclear command centers and to the launch officers.

     The submarines, planes and ICBM silos would receive the launch order and then retrieve documents from their safes that are used to authenticate and decode the order. Submarine missiles call for three officers to authenticate the orders. The missiles require about fifteen minutes to be prepared for launch. Land based missile crews call for five officers to authenticate the orders. Land based missiles require about five minutes to prepare. Targeting information and unlock codes are fed into computers and special keys are turned simultaneously to fire the missiles when the attack time arrives.

      There is redundancy built into the system so that even if some missile officers refuse to authenticate, prepare or fire the missiles, the attack will still take place. ICBMs will fly within about ten minutes of a Presidential decision and submarine missiles will fly in about twenty minutes. Let us hope that this scenario is never played out because it might mean the end of the human race.

The nation’s nuclear watchdog decided Wednesday to require background checks for workers at nuclear power plants and other facilities as part of its anti-terrorism measures. japantimes.co.jp

While Japan’s once-charged anti-nuclear movement struggles to retain its momentum five years after the 2011 Fukushima catastrophe, former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi remains doggedly determined to attain his goal of ending the country’s reliance on atomic energy. japantimes.co.jp

Nuclear outages spiked between June and August, according to new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, averaging 4.3 GW, or about 51% more than in 2015. utilitydive.com

Governments that reject nuclear power are speeding up action on reducing carbon emissions and the adoption of renewable energy sources. eco-business.com

 

 

       Belarus is an eastern European country that is bordered by Russia to the northeast, Ukraine to the south, Poland to the west, and Lithuania and Latvia to the northwest. It was once a member of the Soviet Union. During the early 1980s, Belarus was working on the creation of a nuclear power plant but the1986 Chernobyl reactor accident in nearby Ukraine put those plans on hold. Problems with adequate power generation in 2007 reignited interest in build a nuclear power plant.

       Environmentalists in Belarus had come out strongly against nuclear power in 2005 even before the project to build the plant was even restarted. In 2006, Ecodom organized a formal anti-nuclear movement. There was a Belarusian Anti-Nuclear Campaign in 2008 that brought together many of the anti-nuclear groups and parties.

       In the meantime, plans were made and changed for the reactor project. A Russian loan of two billion dollars was secured in 2009.  Also in 2009,  legal disputes with Ukraine over treaty violations arose and various courts and agencies got involved. In 2011 a contract was signed with Rosatom, the Russian-owned nuclear company for the construction of two VVER-1200 Russian reactors which will generate two billion four hundred million watts. Construction began in 2013 at the Astravets (Ostrovets) site in Hrodna Voblast, on the Belarus border 28 miles from Vilnius, Lithuania. From the start, the government was reluctant to allow reporters to visit the construction site.

      In 2005, a survey of Belarusians found that only twenty eight percent supported nuclear power. The government worked hard to suppress the opposition to nuclear power. Among other tactics, they supported non-profit organizations that were pro-nuclear. The effort to bolster support within the Belarusian public was so successful that by 2016, with the construction of the plant well underway, a new survey revealed that over fifty percent of the Belarusians now supported nuclear power.

      In April of 1016, a supporting structure collapsed in a maintenance building on the construction site. Although a construction worker told reporters that the event had taken place, the project managers claimed that it had not happened. When the Ministry of Energy admitted the incident later, they said that it was not that significant.

       On July 10 this year, the reactor casing which weighs over three hundred tons, fell about to the ground from a height of about nine feet. This time, ten people who worked at the site passed information to the media but again the management claimed that it did not happen. Finally, the incident was officially admitted on July 25th. The management swore that safety was of the greatest importance on the project. Rosatom said that even though their tests showed no damage to the reactor casing, they would replace it to ” mitigate rumors and panic among the population.”

        On August 26th, an oxygen tank exploded and killed a worker. This string of accidents has caused the public and the media to question the honesty and competence of those in charge of the nuclear plant project. The Belarus media is asking the Ministry of Energy tough questions including whether they would have ever reported the accidents if whistleblowers had not informed the reporters. Rosatom was also accused of being more interested in making money than in the long term safety of the project.

       It appears that Belarus will have its nuclear power plant. Unfortunately for the citizens, it also appears that the government, contractor and management involved in the project are more interested in controlling and suppressing any information about accidents and problems than informing the public. This attitude could ultimately result in a serious nuclear accident at the plant.

Belarus nuclear power plant:

Kyushu Electric Power Company has rejected a request from the governor of Japan’s Kagoshima prefecture that operation of units 1 and 2 of the Sendai nuclear power plant be suspended immediately for safety checks. The company said it will continue operating the units until they enter routine scheduled outages later this year. world-nulcear-news.org

Argentina’s National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) has awarded a contract to a joint venture between Tecna and Siemens to supply the balance of plant (BOP) for the prototype CAREM-25, a domestically-designed and developed small integral reactor. world-nulcear-news.org

Chinese President Xi Jinping said he is willing to show “patience” over UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to delay the Hinkley Point nuclear power station project due to national security concerns about China’s involvement. rt.com

South African Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson has refused to supply the DA with a range of documents related to the government’s nuclear power procurement plans, saying they are privileged, sensitive state documents the release of which “could compromise the new build process”. bflive.co.za

       I have often written about North Korea and its nuclear program. North Korea is thought to have a few nuclear bombs and it often threatens to attack South Korea and the United States over perceived threats. South Korea does not have nuclear weapons and relies on the nuclear arsenal of the United States, the conventional forces of the US and other allied nations and the U.S. Patriot missile defense system in S.K. to protect it from hostiles nations including North Korea which has nuclear weapons. Recently, Donald Trump, the candidate for U.S. President has mentioned that it might be a good idea for South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons for its own defense.

       In the last year, N. K. has demonstrated a number of advancements in its military capabilities. N.K. has

·      Launched a satellite with its big Unha rocket.

·      Shown a second generation international continental ballistic missile.

·      Presented images of what it says is a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be fitted to a ballistic missile.

·      Tested a N.K. air defense missile that appears to be based on the design of the Russia S-300 missile.

·      Flight tested the Musudan intermediate range ballistic missile.

·      Tested an underwater solid propellant sea-launched ballistic missile which appears to be based on the design of the Soviet SSN 6.

In response to the growing threat of N.K. missile capability, the U.S. and S.K. have announced plans to build an additional THAAD missile defense system in 2018. The U.S. and S.K. are conducting a series of joint training exercises to demonstrate readiness to repel any N.K. attack. Two weeks ago, the U.S. flew three different types of USAF strategic bombers in what was called a “integrated bomber deterrent operation in the Indo-Asian-Pacific region. The B-1B Lancer, the B-2 Spirit and the B-52 Stratofortress all flew in the exercise.

N.K. got very upset with these U.S. and S.K. actions and threatened to preemptively start a nuclear war if they felt that there was any threat of an actual invasion of N.K. by the U.S. and S.K. The N.K. foreign minister said that the “U.S. never ending nuclear blackmail will make American pay a terrifying price.”

China also expressed disapproval of the U.S. and S.K. actions. China said that in addition to being able to deter N.K. missile attacks against S.K., the new THAAD missile defense system that was being planned could also be used against China in any conflict in the South China Sea. China even suggested that U.S. actions had been the cause of the recent N.K. missile tests. The Chinese U.N. Ambassador has requested that the U.S. “de-escalate the situation” by refraining from provoking N.K.

It would be unwise for the U.S. to withdraw its protection from S.K. A desperate N.K. might decide to invade S.K. at any time and could conceivably use nuclear weapons. U.S. military planner have concluded that N.K. is on the way to developing the capability to hit the U.S. mainland with nuclear weapons. It would be best for the U.S. to stay involved with S.K. in opposing the militarism of N.K. With U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula and U.S. missile defense systems located in S.K., any aggressive actions by N.K. could be quickly and decisively dealt with.

North (Green) and South Korea (Orange):